A standard is a technical scheme which is wide-spread. Some people call it "quasi-standard", but I think that's prescriptivism...iPods (maybe not the Shuffle) are a standard in the market of personal stereos.
I wouldn't consider an iPod standard, because of your description. It's not wide-spread from a vendor perspective. Apple is the ONLY company that produces iPods. As far as an automounter for an iPod, I'm sure there's something available.
Creativity in the user interface isn't neccessarily good. In the most cases, it's very very bad for the user.
That is absolutely true. Problem I see is once restrictions are put in place it stifles overall creativity. Who decides which restrictions are beneficial and which are superfluous? How much time will be spent arguing if verbose should be -v --v --verbose -verbose or something else?
The problem is the general picture, and I think GNU/Linux is catching up there. But it's not quite there yet.
Absolutely. We could spend all day pointing out specific bugs in app X and OS Y and not get anywhere. I won't disagree that there is a need for improvement and consistency in interfaces - I just have no idea how these changes could be enforced, much less encouraged. Linux will find it's own path, apps will evolve and be modified until they fit some kind of standardized mode.
Almost... which mean some don't. Apple is and always has been a controlling entity. I'm sure they have some significant incentives for development companies to adhere to their standards. By it's very nature Linux is the opposite. There is no guiding voice to impose restrictions on developers. I can definitely see your point about having some consistency, and I agree it could be helpful. I also think it could stifle creativity. Maybe the right answer here is for users that want consistency to move to a Mac.
iPod Shuffle is hardly a standard hardware interface. Was there an RFC written up for it that I missed? It's proprietary hardware designed for a custom usage. Not standardized at all. It is a popular item at the moment, but not what I would call a standard hardware interface at all. The hardware interface is USB which works as it is supposed to. As for Dell, they are hardly a "standard" either. They are popular, which is NOT the same thing. As a consumer driven company they provide an interface to a common consumer driven product. Nothing standardized about that. Heck, they don't even use standard hardware in their machines. Their power supplies and motherboards are customized so you have to buy parts from Dell when they break.
Yes, but most of us want the item to work for more than two weeks. If I buy an iPod from Apple I know that it's a well supported, good product. If I buy MP3 player X from brand Y that I never heard of I have no idea how long it's going to work. Buying a DVD player for $30 is one thing. I wouldn't be concerned about the brand. Buying a new MP3 player for $200 or new TV for $600 is completely different. I want to know that the item I purchased is going to have a reasonable lifespan.
OK, granted, more installation standardization could be useful. I have some sources for installation packages for my distro that do a good job and I rarely have a problem, but I know others that have significant problems.
Applications adhere to UI standards (which they don't on GNU/Linux, and which they often do on Windows).
I read this and thought about it. I've never heard of a generally accepted UI Standards document. So I googled UI standards and GUI standards. It appears to me there are many individual companies that either create "UI Standards" for their app or have a "UI Standards" document you can purchase from them. Seems that UI standards is a total internal thing for any given app. Most Linux apps must follow some kind of UI standard since everything works pretty much the same in their application. Part of the problem with standards in software is that many areas don't have any accepted documentation covering a particular area provided by a independent organization. The average independent developer is not going to fall in line behind some document that Microsoft or Apple generated.
Various hardware standards and emerging standards aren't well supported on Linux
What hardware standards are you referring to? The only areas I know of that Linux hardware support is seriously lacking is where the hardware is proprietary and requires Microsoft code to work. Things like winmodems and AC97 have had some issues. Linux support has been good for SATA, PCI Express and other newer standards. Where I've seen the most problems is in non-standard hardware, proprietary cameras, scanners, multifunction machines or whatever the latest widget is. Typically support is much worse if some developer has to try to reverse engineer a device to support it. If the device adheres to a published standard it is much easier to write software for.
I had an LJII and it worked fine under Linux, but had other problems. Ditched it and bought a brand new samsung laser. It works like a champ. I will grant you that printer config could use some serious work. Never had a problem with DVDs, don't know about scanners, winmodems suck, I would use a real modem even under Windows. I have had several ATI card and not had a problem.
As far as performance, I'm not sure judging by tracing when wiggling a window around is a very good test. Your example is X11 redrawing issues, probably limited more by a video card than anything. Linux has better memory management, better TCP/IP performance and much better disk IO than windows does. A windows machine is pretty much useless while copying a large file, in Linux I hardly notice.
Ultimately it's a moot point. I'm sure performance of specific apps and tasks may be faster on one platform than the other. Linux has an advantage in the fact that ther is more opportunity to optimize the system if you have the time and expertise, but an average user isn't going to do that. Even a little lag on window redraws is hardly a stumbling block to actual usability.
1) Software. By far the biggest reason not to use Linux on the desktop.
True enough, although I anticipate this is going to be less of an issue. As more apps move to web based offerings this will go away for most users. Unfortunately there currently are often apps that users want to use that aren't available for Linux - this makes it difficult for the average user to convert. This is one of the biggest reasons, if not the biggest.
2) Hardware...With windows, hardware is not an issue, the OS is typically pre-installed, and any PC hardware comes with windows drivers.
Not true. Linux has very good hardware support for PC hardware. Most of the hardware I've ever tried to use works fine under Linux. I have had at LEAST as much hardware/driver difficulty with my Windows machines as I have with my Linux machines. The biggest difference is that there are people actively working on fixing Linux hardware issues. Many times the hardware vendor is the only entity providing hardware support under Windows and if the hardware is no longer being sold they can drop/minimize their support.
3) Cost
When it can be downloaded and installed for free I fail to see how Linux is an additional expense.
4) Performance... once you run KDE or GNOME, Linux performance is much worse than windows
Not sure what Linux distro you have been using, but mine under KDE will kick Windows ASS.
5) Lack of standards.
Oh yeah, Windows is all about standards. What did I hear today? SIX versions of VISTA. A typical office could easily have three different versions of windows (98, 2000, XP) and God knows how many versions of Office running on their network. Standards don't mean jack and the freedom Linux enjoys are one of it's biggest strengths.
6) Support.
Again, I will agree with this one, but it's actually part of an underlying problem. Lack of adoption. If more people were using Linux, more people would support it eliminating it from the list.
7) Convenience.
This goes with item 6 on your list. As long as Linux is not widely used by the consumer there won't be consumer outlets that provide software/hardware and support geared specifically to Linux.
8) Relative reliability.
While Microsoft has made GREAT strides in reliability since Windows 98 it's still no where near the level of Linux. I have machines that have been up well over a year. My current workstation has been up, as of now, 19 days - which I find is generally a stretch for XP. Only this weekend I was working on a flash project on my Windows machine. Accidently hit the 'sleep' button (that I hadn't disabled yet). When XP tried to recover from sleep mode it blue screened. I wasn't impressed with the reliability at that point.
9) Available free software....there is tons of free software for Windows, including a lot of the same free applications that Linux advocates are so happy about, like OpenOffice.
This is a good point. The difference is pretty much everything is free for Linux and all the applications come with the distribution. No major manufacturer that I know of is shipping Windows computers with Firefox, Open Office, Gimp and any of the other 100s of FOSS apps that are available for Windows. This takes us back to your items 3 and 7. If I want a free windows app I have to go find it, download it and install it. If I buy the MS Office that's already on my machine it's much more convenient.
10) Ease of use and installation. Linux is getting better, but still lags MS.
Use? Maybe. Installation? Absolutely not. Windows is a PITA to install. I don't know which one is 'Easier' but I know that most consumers I'm in contact with couldn't succesfully install either OS.
Seems to me the whole argument can be boiled down to a couple major points. The Linux user base is too small. If Linux was a major
I heard about some people that order cigarettes from Russia because they are so much cheaper than here in the US.
I seriously hope that people do avoid these taxes this way. Perhaps it will give our governments a clue about collecting taxes. All these sales/use/luxury/sin taxes are a PITA for businesses to collect and annoying for consumers to pay. If our governments would consolidate and simplify the tax collection procedures to make it easier on businesses and limit the beauracracy it would be better for everyone.
Your point? If the US is doing it that makes it OK for Israel?
My point? It all depends on your prespective. We had one terrorist attack and we invaded two countries. Invasions that the majority of this country supported at the time. What gives us the right to determine if it's OK for the Israelis to respond to terrorist attacks in their country. I will GUARANTEE you if there were bus bombings in the US it would not be a safe country for anyone of Arab descent. It's probably only to placate us that the Israelis show the restraint that they do.
OPEC has us by the balls in the same way that the USSR "had us by the balls" when they had all those ICMBS pointed at us.
Similar, although I would say OPEC's ability to actually carry out a threat is much greater - which equates to more power. I don't remember the issue with the Russias being a problem of 'having friends' with powerful nations. Your point is well taken, but it's not like the Middle east doesn't have the money and population to create a formidable military force if they wanted to.
But it's just a matter of fact that to a great degree the radical elements of Islam have been strengthened by American foriegn policy blunders.
There is no doubt that things in the Middle East have not worked out in our favor. I'm sure the decisions that were made in the 50s seemed reasonable at the time. As with most things in life, it's difficult to predict outcomes accurately. I'm sure in 40 years people will be looking back at our current activities and either applauding or denouncing the decisions that are being made.
Ultimately this discussion was about if we should be allied with Israel. They have the strongest economy, strongest military and a strategic position in the middle east. These reasons alone are adequate for a continued alliance with them.
I don't really feel like arguing, but I can't let this slide
if I were seizing land illegally I probably wouldn't give a damn about the current occupants either
There seems to be a prevelant thought with Americans and Western Europeans that everything is either legal or illegal. How is the Israeli occupation illegal? By who's law? Is there some universal law that I don't know about? God's Law? The law of Islam? Maybe the Palestinians should have just asked the nice policeman to get their land back. Maybe they should have asked for it back when they were annexed by Jordan.
The world is a harsh ugly place. Not everything is always nice and tied up in a bow like we think it should be. Not everything is black and white, cut and dried. The Israelis were given a place to create a country by the winners of World War II, all nice and legal like. Their neighbors attacked them twice and they took some of the territory. Were they wrong? Who's right is it to decide? Yours? National boundaries are pretty well set these days, but it wasn't that long ago that nations fought for every scrap of ground.
Jews are a minority. Even if they all vote at once it's not enough to swing votes towards Isreal.
Yes the Jewish population in the US is a minority, but they are a significant minority in some key areas. Ever do business with New Yorkers? Try calling a law firm or accounting firm in New York on Yom Kippur. It's like a national holiday. There are a significant number of influental and wealthy people in this country that are ethnically and religiously Jewish.
It's the propaganda that suckers us Americans. And it's not Jews that engage in this - it's Zionists. There's a difference.
You do somewhat of a point there. Undoubtably, back in the 40s the Zionists were the one that supported a Jewish state in Israel. These days I wouldn't characterize anyone that supports Israel as a Zionist. I'm sure many Jewish families have family members that have emmigrated. I have no idea what percentage of the Jewish community would support the US alliance with the Israelis. If there are Jewish people reading this ridiculous debate, feel free to chime in.
I know of at least one Jewish campus leader who was removed from her position as head of a student group at the request of the Isreali embassy for her criticism of Isreali actions in the middle east.
Unfortunately people aren't drones. You can find anamolies in any environment, especially a college campus. An isolated incident does not create a majority.
The Muslims hate us BECAUSE of our unwavering support of Isreal at their expense.
And because we draw cartoons and because we have troops in Saudi Arabia and and because our women walk around without their faces (and other parts of their anatomy) covered any number of other reasons. Read the Koran, Muslims hate infidels. It's part of their religion. Not all sects believe this, but many do.
If the USSR had supported a Canadian land-grab of New York we'd probably be pissed off at the USSR too.
Your analogy is WAY off. For starters, Israel was a HOLE prior to 1948. Nobody wanted to live there. I would be like Canada invading Idaho, wouldn't be that big of a deal. Second, the rest is history that happened almost 40 years ago, hardly seems like justification for blowing up the WTC.
But being the victim of terrorism doesn't give you defacto rights to do whatever the Hell you want to do.
Really? Seems like that's EXACTLY what the US is doing. Maybe you should write a letter to your congressman. The Israelis are not using terrorist accounts to do whatever they want. I will guarantee you, if they thought they could get away with whatever they wanted they would load every Arab inside their borders and truck them right out of the country.
Islam was a force for enlightenment and stability through much of its history. I'm not discounting radical Islam now - but I'd say the muslims have a better track record than the Christians if you include the last 1,000 years.
Back that one up. Do you know how the Crusades started? In response to Muslim atacks on the Byzantine Empire. Who exactly were the enlightened ones? The Ottomans? The Moors? Maybe the Nigerians that are fighting right now, or the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, or the Taliban that wouldn't let girls go to school. Sounds like they are really enlightened.
That's not to say that all Muslims are bad or evil any more than all Nazis were bad or all members of the Soviet Communist party were bad, but the organization does not have a good track record as a whole.
Or the withdrawal was just another well-calculated way to make people like you THINK that while Isreal continues on its merry way grabbing exactly the territory that it wants while the rest of the world blames Palestine for the failure of the peace plan.
Yeah, the whole country is in on the conspiracy, they are just hiding it from the rest of us. Nonsense. The Labor party and Sharon's Kadima party have
Your average high-school dropout Republican just plain hates the French and French's yellow mustard. Do you expect him to go for French fuel reprocessing?
Do you expect the average high-school dropout, democrat or republican, to get to make that decision? I would say most of our elected officials are not average, even if they did drop out of high school.
And why do we care about Israel again? Remind me why they matter in the slightest?
I can think of three good reasons:
Popular vote. We have many Jewish people this country, especially in the 'blue states'. Many Jewish people are going to support a Jewish state.
They are our only ally in the Middle East. Muslim countries hate us first and foremost because we are non-Muslim. Sure Saudi Arabia is our 'ally' as long as we buy all of their oil, but the people and religious leaders hate us.
It's the right thing to do. Israel is a country under siege. They measure their terrorist attacks in days and weeks, not years and decades like we do.
It has been the biggest destabilizing factor in the Middle East since its inception.
Wrong. Islam has been the destabilizing factor in the Middle East since it's inception. The only reason Isreal has caused problem is Muslim hatred.
They are currently conducting a forced occupation that is nearing 60 years in length--that's THREE generations.
The majority of Israeli citizens would have no problem with a Palestinian state and withdrawing from all of the occupied areas if they could do so peacefully. This has been proven by recent elections and recent activities of the government. Problem is, the Palestinians don't want to live peacefully. They get a free election and what do they do? Elect a terrorist organization to lead their new country.
The ratio of dead Israelis to dead Palestinians is HEAVILY skewed towards dead Palestinians.
Maybe because the Palestinians blow themselves up.
I would not blindly defend the actions of the Israeli government and Israeli military any more than I would blindly defend the activities of any other government - especially the US. The Israelis have made mistakes and don't always do everything correctly, but if you don't understand why the US is allied with Israel and why we pump money into their economy you have a very twisted world view.
Pretty much everybody hates the French - worldwide. The British change words so they don't have to use the French pronunciation - that's hatred. Their former colonies aren't fans, the Muslims aren't fans (you did see the news about the riots). The French are just not a very likeable people, really never have been. Don't blame the Republicans - nobody likes the French.
The law is a living changing thing. Just because something is 'law' today doesn't mean it will be on the books tomorrow. The law is definitely subject to popular opinion.
Most of us who have images on our sites would LOVE for Google to index them. For those that don't want their images, videos or pages indexed there is a simple workaround called robots.txt. Perfect 10 isn't looking for protection from the law. They aren't upset about Google infringing on their copyright, they just want to cash in.
There's an exception to every rule...
Child molestation is not EVER good publicity, Abu Grahib and Olympic scandals aren't either.
OTOH,
Lewinsky got her 15 minutes of fame, TV gigs, sponsors, etc... It's doubtful she would have been memorable otherwise.
Kate Moss is going to be on the cover of Vogue and is EVERYWHERE in the news.
Dan Quayle would be even less memorable if it wasn't for his goofiness.
Someone should use Google to see what professions/fates are the highest percentages for each name. It would be interesting to find out if a high percentage of 'Joe's are actors or a high percentage of 'Buffy's are neurosurgeons.
Slashdot Mirror
Me too.
Unfortunately, we still have the old Fascists, the democrats who want to tag and follow everyone...
A standard is a technical scheme which is wide-spread. Some people call it "quasi-standard", but I think that's prescriptivism...iPods (maybe not the Shuffle) are a standard in the market of personal stereos.
I wouldn't consider an iPod standard, because of your description. It's not wide-spread from a vendor perspective. Apple is the ONLY company that produces iPods. As far as an automounter for an iPod, I'm sure there's something available.
Creativity in the user interface isn't neccessarily good. In the most cases, it's very very bad for the user.
That is absolutely true. Problem I see is once restrictions are put in place it stifles overall creativity. Who decides which restrictions are beneficial and which are superfluous? How much time will be spent arguing if verbose should be -v --v --verbose -verbose or something else?
The problem is the general picture, and I think GNU/Linux is catching up there. But it's not quite there yet.
Absolutely. We could spend all day pointing out specific bugs in app X and OS Y and not get anywhere. I won't disagree that there is a need for improvement and consistency in interfaces - I just have no idea how these changes could be enforced, much less encouraged. Linux will find it's own path, apps will evolve and be modified until they fit some kind of standardized mode.
On my Mac, almost all apps stick to guidelines.
Almost... which mean some don't. Apple is and always has been a controlling entity. I'm sure they have some significant incentives for development companies to adhere to their standards. By it's very nature Linux is the opposite. There is no guiding voice to impose restrictions on developers. I can definitely see your point about having some consistency, and I agree it could be helpful. I also think it could stifle creativity. Maybe the right answer here is for users that want consistency to move to a Mac.
iPod Shuffle is hardly a standard hardware interface. Was there an RFC written up for it that I missed? It's proprietary hardware designed for a custom usage. Not standardized at all. It is a popular item at the moment, but not what I would call a standard hardware interface at all. The hardware interface is USB which works as it is supposed to. As for Dell, they are hardly a "standard" either. They are popular, which is NOT the same thing. As a consumer driven company they provide an interface to a common consumer driven product. Nothing standardized about that. Heck, they don't even use standard hardware in their machines. Their power supplies and motherboards are customized so you have to buy parts from Dell when they break.
Yes, but most of us want the item to work for more than two weeks. If I buy an iPod from Apple I know that it's a well supported, good product. If I buy MP3 player X from brand Y that I never heard of I have no idea how long it's going to work. Buying a DVD player for $30 is one thing. I wouldn't be concerned about the brand. Buying a new MP3 player for $200 or new TV for $600 is completely different. I want to know that the item I purchased is going to have a reasonable lifespan.
OK, granted, more installation standardization could be useful. I have some sources for installation packages for my distro that do a good job and I rarely have a problem, but I know others that have significant problems.
Applications adhere to UI standards (which they don't on GNU/Linux, and which they often do on Windows).
I read this and thought about it. I've never heard of a generally accepted UI Standards document. So I googled UI standards and GUI standards. It appears to me there are many individual companies that either create "UI Standards" for their app or have a "UI Standards" document you can purchase from them. Seems that UI standards is a total internal thing for any given app. Most Linux apps must follow some kind of UI standard since everything works pretty much the same in their application. Part of the problem with standards in software is that many areas don't have any accepted documentation covering a particular area provided by a independent organization. The average independent developer is not going to fall in line behind some document that Microsoft or Apple generated.
Various hardware standards and emerging standards aren't well supported on Linux
What hardware standards are you referring to? The only areas I know of that Linux hardware support is seriously lacking is where the hardware is proprietary and requires Microsoft code to work. Things like winmodems and AC97 have had some issues. Linux support has been good for SATA, PCI Express and other newer standards. Where I've seen the most problems is in non-standard hardware, proprietary cameras, scanners, multifunction machines or whatever the latest widget is. Typically support is much worse if some developer has to try to reverse engineer a device to support it. If the device adheres to a published standard it is much easier to write software for.
I had an LJII and it worked fine under Linux, but had other problems. Ditched it and bought a brand new samsung laser. It works like a champ. I will grant you that printer config could use some serious work. Never had a problem with DVDs, don't know about scanners, winmodems suck, I would use a real modem even under Windows. I have had several ATI card and not had a problem.
As far as performance, I'm not sure judging by tracing when wiggling a window around is a very good test. Your example is X11 redrawing issues, probably limited more by a video card than anything. Linux has better memory management, better TCP/IP performance and much better disk IO than windows does. A windows machine is pretty much useless while copying a large file, in Linux I hardly notice.
Ultimately it's a moot point. I'm sure performance of specific apps and tasks may be faster on one platform than the other. Linux has an advantage in the fact that ther is more opportunity to optimize the system if you have the time and expertise, but an average user isn't going to do that. Even a little lag on window redraws is hardly a stumbling block to actual usability.
Not a big solitare player, so I have little experience with KPatience. Just opened it and it runs fine on my system.
Open Office OTOH is just a problem with the app. It runs extremely slow under Windows too.
1) Software. By far the biggest reason not to use Linux on the desktop.
...there is tons of free software for Windows, including a lot of the same free applications that Linux advocates are so happy about, like OpenOffice.
True enough, although I anticipate this is going to be less of an issue. As more apps move to web based offerings this will go away for most users. Unfortunately there currently are often apps that users want to use that aren't available for Linux - this makes it difficult for the average user to convert. This is one of the biggest reasons, if not the biggest.
2) Hardware...With windows, hardware is not an issue, the OS is typically pre-installed, and any PC hardware comes with windows drivers.
Not true. Linux has very good hardware support for PC hardware. Most of the hardware I've ever tried to use works fine under Linux. I have had at LEAST as much hardware/driver difficulty with my Windows machines as I have with my Linux machines. The biggest difference is that there are people actively working on fixing Linux hardware issues. Many times the hardware vendor is the only entity providing hardware support under Windows and if the hardware is no longer being sold they can drop/minimize their support.
3) Cost
When it can be downloaded and installed for free I fail to see how Linux is an additional expense.
4) Performance... once you run KDE or GNOME, Linux performance is much worse than windows
Not sure what Linux distro you have been using, but mine under KDE will kick Windows ASS.
5) Lack of standards.
Oh yeah, Windows is all about standards. What did I hear today? SIX versions of VISTA. A typical office could easily have three different versions of windows (98, 2000, XP) and God knows how many versions of Office running on their network. Standards don't mean jack and the freedom Linux enjoys are one of it's biggest strengths.
6) Support.
Again, I will agree with this one, but it's actually part of an underlying problem. Lack of adoption. If more people were using Linux, more people would support it eliminating it from the list.
7) Convenience.
This goes with item 6 on your list. As long as Linux is not widely used by the consumer there won't be consumer outlets that provide software/hardware and support geared specifically to Linux.
8) Relative reliability.
While Microsoft has made GREAT strides in reliability since Windows 98 it's still no where near the level of Linux. I have machines that have been up well over a year. My current workstation has been up, as of now, 19 days - which I find is generally a stretch for XP. Only this weekend I was working on a flash project on my Windows machine. Accidently hit the 'sleep' button (that I hadn't disabled yet). When XP tried to recover from sleep mode it blue screened. I wasn't impressed with the reliability at that point.
9) Available free software.
This is a good point. The difference is pretty much everything is free for Linux and all the applications come with the distribution. No major manufacturer that I know of is shipping Windows computers with Firefox, Open Office, Gimp and any of the other 100s of FOSS apps that are available for Windows. This takes us back to your items 3 and 7. If I want a free windows app I have to go find it, download it and install it. If I buy the MS Office that's already on my machine it's much more convenient.
10) Ease of use and installation. Linux is getting better, but still lags MS.
Use? Maybe. Installation? Absolutely not. Windows is a PITA to install. I don't know which one is 'Easier' but I know that most consumers I'm in contact with couldn't succesfully install either OS.
Seems to me the whole argument can be boiled down to a couple major points. The Linux user base is too small. If Linux was a major
I heard about some people that order cigarettes from Russia because they are so much cheaper than here in the US.
I seriously hope that people do avoid these taxes this way. Perhaps it will give our governments a clue about collecting taxes. All these sales/use/luxury/sin taxes are a PITA for businesses to collect and annoying for consumers to pay. If our governments would consolidate and simplify the tax collection procedures to make it easier on businesses and limit the beauracracy it would be better for everyone.
Typing a big word, like "Mohammed", into Google is the current society's definition of 'hunt real hard'.
Or maybe "Sony installs rootkit with audio CDs"? Would that be bad?
That's the difference between us and them. In our society, we can protest all we want, but in the end we're still civilized about it.
Yep, we only riot about important things. Super Bowl champs, Stanley Cup winners, black guys getting beat up by cops....
Here's something worth noting: the largest Muslim country in the world (by population) is Indonesia.
Only about three days ago.
Your point? If the US is doing it that makes it OK for Israel?
My point? It all depends on your prespective. We had one terrorist attack and we invaded two countries. Invasions that the majority of this country supported at the time. What gives us the right to determine if it's OK for the Israelis to respond to terrorist attacks in their country. I will GUARANTEE you if there were bus bombings in the US it would not be a safe country for anyone of Arab descent. It's probably only to placate us that the Israelis show the restraint that they do.
OPEC has us by the balls in the same way that the USSR "had us by the balls" when they had all those ICMBS pointed at us.
Similar, although I would say OPEC's ability to actually carry out a threat is much greater - which equates to more power. I don't remember the issue with the Russias being a problem of 'having friends' with powerful nations. Your point is well taken, but it's not like the Middle east doesn't have the money and population to create a formidable military force if they wanted to.
But it's just a matter of fact that to a great degree the radical elements of Islam have been strengthened by American foriegn policy blunders.
There is no doubt that things in the Middle East have not worked out in our favor. I'm sure the decisions that were made in the 50s seemed reasonable at the time. As with most things in life, it's difficult to predict outcomes accurately. I'm sure in 40 years people will be looking back at our current activities and either applauding or denouncing the decisions that are being made.
Ultimately this discussion was about if we should be allied with Israel. They have the strongest economy, strongest military and a strategic position in the middle east. These reasons alone are adequate for a continued alliance with them.
I don't really feel like arguing, but I can't let this slide
if I were seizing land illegally I probably wouldn't give a damn about the current occupants either
There seems to be a prevelant thought with Americans and Western Europeans that everything is either legal or illegal. How is the Israeli occupation illegal? By who's law? Is there some universal law that I don't know about? God's Law? The law of Islam? Maybe the Palestinians should have just asked the nice policeman to get their land back. Maybe they should have asked for it back when they were annexed by Jordan.
The world is a harsh ugly place. Not everything is always nice and tied up in a bow like we think it should be. Not everything is black and white, cut and dried. The Israelis were given a place to create a country by the winners of World War II, all nice and legal like. Their neighbors attacked them twice and they took some of the territory. Were they wrong? Who's right is it to decide? Yours? National boundaries are pretty well set these days, but it wasn't that long ago that nations fought for every scrap of ground.
Jews are a minority. Even if they all vote at once it's not enough to swing votes towards Isreal.
Yes the Jewish population in the US is a minority, but they are a significant minority in some key areas. Ever do business with New Yorkers? Try calling a law firm or accounting firm in New York on Yom Kippur. It's like a national holiday. There are a significant number of influental and wealthy people in this country that are ethnically and religiously Jewish.
It's the propaganda that suckers us Americans. And it's not Jews that engage in this - it's Zionists. There's a difference.
You do somewhat of a point there. Undoubtably, back in the 40s the Zionists were the one that supported a Jewish state in Israel. These days I wouldn't characterize anyone that supports Israel as a Zionist. I'm sure many Jewish families have family members that have emmigrated. I have no idea what percentage of the Jewish community would support the US alliance with the Israelis. If there are Jewish people reading this ridiculous debate, feel free to chime in.
I know of at least one Jewish campus leader who was removed from her position as head of a student group at the request of the Isreali embassy for her criticism of Isreali actions in the middle east.
Unfortunately people aren't drones. You can find anamolies in any environment, especially a college campus. An isolated incident does not create a majority.
The Muslims hate us BECAUSE of our unwavering support of Isreal at their expense.
And because we draw cartoons and because we have troops in Saudi Arabia and and because our women walk around without their faces (and other parts of their anatomy) covered any number of other reasons. Read the Koran, Muslims hate infidels. It's part of their religion. Not all sects believe this, but many do.
If the USSR had supported a Canadian land-grab of New York we'd probably be pissed off at the USSR too.
Your analogy is WAY off. For starters, Israel was a HOLE prior to 1948. Nobody wanted to live there. I would be like Canada invading Idaho, wouldn't be that big of a deal. Second, the rest is history that happened almost 40 years ago, hardly seems like justification for blowing up the WTC.
But being the victim of terrorism doesn't give you defacto rights to do whatever the Hell you want to do.
Really? Seems like that's EXACTLY what the US is doing. Maybe you should write a letter to your congressman. The Israelis are not using terrorist accounts to do whatever they want. I will guarantee you, if they thought they could get away with whatever they wanted they would load every Arab inside their borders and truck them right out of the country.
Islam was a force for enlightenment and stability through much of its history. I'm not discounting radical Islam now - but I'd say the muslims have a better track record than the Christians if you include the last 1,000 years.
Back that one up. Do you know how the Crusades started? In response to Muslim atacks on the Byzantine Empire. Who exactly were the enlightened ones? The Ottomans? The Moors? Maybe the Nigerians that are fighting right now, or the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, or the Taliban that wouldn't let girls go to school. Sounds like they are really enlightened.
That's not to say that all Muslims are bad or evil any more than all Nazis were bad or all members of the Soviet Communist party were bad, but the organization does not have a good track record as a whole.
Or the withdrawal was just another well-calculated way to make people like you THINK that while Isreal continues on its merry way grabbing exactly the territory that it wants while the rest of the world blames Palestine for the failure of the peace plan.
Yeah, the whole country is in on the conspiracy, they are just hiding it from the rest of us. Nonsense. The Labor party and Sharon's Kadima party have
They are only available to people who can spell/proofread.
Your average high-school dropout Republican just plain hates the French and French's yellow mustard. Do you expect him to go for French fuel reprocessing?
Do you expect the average high-school dropout, democrat or republican, to get to make that decision? I would say most of our elected officials are not average, even if they did drop out of high school.
I can think of three good reasons:
It has been the biggest destabilizing factor in the Middle East since its inception.
Wrong. Islam has been the destabilizing factor in the Middle East since it's inception. The only reason Isreal has caused problem is Muslim hatred.
They are currently conducting a forced occupation that is nearing 60 years in length--that's THREE generations.
The majority of Israeli citizens would have no problem with a Palestinian state and withdrawing from all of the occupied areas if they could do so peacefully. This has been proven by recent elections and recent activities of the government. Problem is, the Palestinians don't want to live peacefully. They get a free election and what do they do? Elect a terrorist organization to lead their new country.
The ratio of dead Israelis to dead Palestinians is HEAVILY skewed towards dead Palestinians.
Maybe because the Palestinians blow themselves up.
I would not blindly defend the actions of the Israeli government and Israeli military any more than I would blindly defend the activities of any other government - especially the US. The Israelis have made mistakes and don't always do everything correctly, but if you don't understand why the US is allied with Israel and why we pump money into their economy you have a very twisted world view.
Pretty much everybody hates the French - worldwide. The British change words so they don't have to use the French pronunciation - that's hatred. Their former colonies aren't fans, the Muslims aren't fans (you did see the news about the riots). The French are just not a very likeable people, really never have been. Don't blame the Republicans - nobody likes the French.
You may be able to. The items can't be resold 'in Japan'. That means we will probably see a ton of stuff on ebay getting shipped to the good ol US.
Yes, it is. Since he is a private citizen different laws apply than the laws that apply to the US Government.
The law is a living changing thing. Just because something is 'law' today doesn't mean it will be on the books tomorrow. The law is definitely subject to popular opinion.
Most of us who have images on our sites would LOVE for Google to index them. For those that don't want their images, videos or pages indexed there is a simple workaround called robots.txt. Perfect 10 isn't looking for protection from the law. They aren't upset about Google infringing on their copyright, they just want to cash in.
There's an exception to every rule... Child molestation is not EVER good publicity, Abu Grahib and Olympic scandals aren't either. OTOH, Lewinsky got her 15 minutes of fame, TV gigs, sponsors, etc... It's doubtful she would have been memorable otherwise. Kate Moss is going to be on the cover of Vogue and is EVERYWHERE in the news. Dan Quayle would be even less memorable if it wasn't for his goofiness.
Someone should use Google to see what professions/fates are the highest percentages for each name. It would be interesting to find out if a high percentage of 'Joe's are actors or a high percentage of 'Buffy's are neurosurgeons.