Even if the scaremongering has been overdone (this from the perspective of an American spectator), TFS is piling on: "...there will be no local banks."
That is just silly, unless Scotland intends to outlaw banks. I don't think they do.
I think it would take too long. Even if the explosion was relativistic it would still be days in the unfolding, wouldn't it? An explosion worth looking at would be weeks? Months in the unfolding? I guess I'm asking as mush as saying.
But no matter, I have a method to see the whole thing in a couple of hours. You.. just.. fly towards it at relativistic speeds, compressing the 'video stream' into a fast forward. You can run it as fast as you can go. You'll need a fancy screen to downsample the view, as what should be visible light, are x-rays to you, or at least UV; again, depending on your speed.
And don't forget to turn off quickly and go back home, right before the show appears to be over...
Yeah I clicked through to the article. No idea why I did that but:
It's red supergiant with too much lithium, molybdenum and other metals. There's 'something' in there.
Gravity keeps one star inside the other, as in, the neutron star fell into the supergiant. It sank to the center.
Around the surface of the neutron star is now where the 'core' of the red supergiant is, still burning hydrogen (or was it helium?) as a red supergiant should.
Sounded like some subtle measurements to distinguish this one from all the other red supergiants they looked at.
"a business should not be classed as a person for legal purposes and that no taxation should be levied on industry or business at all"
You nailed it. And no, I'm not for letting the rich off easy.
By taxing corporations, that helps make them into people. Taxation without representation. We used to think that was a big deal.
I think corporations have way too much representation now. And yet they can't vote. Corporations are all owned by people, who can vote, and are legitimate tax targets.
Another thing; income is not income until a person gets it. Tax the people, not pieces of paper...
I'll give you that it does take a bit of talent to take something fairly pure and wholesome, and twist it like you did into something dark and oppressive. A tip though: substituting 'your' for 'you're' blows you out of the water as a 12 year old. Just letting you know.
I'll tell you, that to me, It wasn't so much a problem in the past. Almost everything the spies, spooks, informants do is illegal in some way.
HP just got nailed for corruption. When a secret agent gives us intel in exchange for money, in other words, our CIA at work; how is that any different? It it was obviously an illegal act in the agent's country to leak state secrets. We paid him to break his own law.
The difference used to be, that they operated outside the law. And that was our protection; none of it could be used against you. Well, unless you were some real deal foreign agent.
That's the line that has moved. They have always spied on everything, and the day they catch a jihadist with a nuke backpack right before he enters Manhattan, we will both be glad they were spying on whoever it took. It's the rest of it, with the FISA courts and the regular courts and the sharing with local law enforcement and everything else that makes it so scary.
The problem is, the DOOM thing happens to my office printers far less often than me needing to quickly get into the thing and fix it or figure out what the user's issue is.
The account/password thing not helping me out there. It wasn't broken before, Canon. It will make no difference to office security, but will eventually cost you sales. (Well, you sucked already at printers, so maybe not a lot of sales.)
"I think a Carbon Tax is the wrong approach because it does not explicitly limit emissions in any way"
It does limit it, dollar for dollar. As opposed to Cap and Trade, where you are buying and selling pollution.
"; as long as its still profitable, "
Let's assume no activity will have happened in the first place without profit...
"emissions will occur."
when carbon is burned, whether they've bought the right to pollute or not.
" Cap and Trade, on the other hand, explicitly limits industry-wide emissions and requires individual companies to set a value on their limited emissions in the free market."
Not a free market. A made up government created market in name only.
A real carbon tax would not only be good for saving the planet, it would actually be good for the economy. Well, assuming that some existing tax was backed off; obviously piling new taxes on top of existing would not be good for the economy.
I'll say that I doubt Snowden raised holy hell on an ongoing basis within the halls of the NSA. For one thing, he's tech support; it wasn't his job.
But he already said he didn't believe there was a viable whistle blower process, a fact corroborated by recent history. I wouldn't expect there to be some emial trail of disaffection.
Also, why email? I think you might be an idiot to put these concerns into email in the first place. My first instinct would be to go to some boss, and tell him to his face. Unless Nixon was there, there's unlikely to be a record of that meeting.
Please don't diffuse complete nonsense. The pH of the body is regulated within very strict limits, generally 7.35-7.45, and a therapeutic window ie a dose of drug X, in occurrence any alkaline agent, that does not kill the patient while killing the disease does not exist. You either don't kill any cancer cells or die with them by taking too much soda.
I'm going to take you at your word that you're an expert, but as a listener you suck. He never said anything about anything 'killing' anything.
He said (to paraphrase): "It seems to make it harder to grow", and, "I'm not a researcher", and "I've seen more than one person go into remission, ostensibly as a result".
It would be extremely easy for any individual researcher to publish this research and become instantly famous. Hell, I could do it tomorrow since I am an oncologist and treat patients with cancer for a living. The problem is that it doesn't work.
Two weeks ago I saw a poor lady who was "treated" with soda infusions. Of course the disease spread and, in addition, she suffered a stroke because of the way the treatment was delivered (via intra-arterial catheter!). It's such a pity that patients, in their considerable emotional distress, actually believe that kind of stuff.
PS: Posting anonymously because the incident with the intra-arterial soda infusions got some legal attention.
Now see I don't think he said that either. Intravenous 'Soda Infusions' sounds like crazy nutter shit to me; I believe his people were eating the baking soda.
He said another thing: If it appeared to cure one person, then it's worth looking into. That's the one thing he said that I am sure is true; there's no such thing as magic, *something* cured them. Of course they are flying blind without scientific training, and only doing it because they feel they have nothing to lose.
What I don't like, is not so much the out-of-hand dismissal, you're entitled to that if you're an expert in the field; but the idea that to even talk about it, is somehow doing a disservice to cancer victims and is a bad thing. Right here in the comments on an article about thinking outside the box in cancer treatment.
"When you "burn" a chip from a FPGA, what it means is that you take the VHDL (etc) code and compile it into a format which you can use to produce specialized chips, instead of a format for programming an FPGA."
Yes, and the problem now, and certainly in the future, is data overwhelming the computational resources. And as an above poster noted, the big cost in a custom ASIC is laying it out.
I had assumed that the gate layout (and thus the logic programming) in any FPGA was still far simpler than last decade's CPU. An FPGA can be far faster than a CPU executing some complied machine language, but can't be faster than custom silicon. (I botched the initial question).
They give away Athlons for 10 bucks nowadays. If you could burn your custom asic into that, even if you wasted most of what used to be the Athlon; it would be fast as shit running your FPGA program natively. One you paid to lay it out, seems to me it might be cheap as shit to run a few thousand of them, and saturate the area with these detectors. Which feed already vastly condensed data that we would be capable of capturing.
If the next next particle is a million times harder to detect than the Higgs, it would be nice to process all the data from the sensors. I was trying to think of a way to do it, but more within my realm of expertise, I should have asked: How much would it cost?
"The image sensors (CCD or CMOS or whatever) is doing no such thing."
What if you mounted the FPGA right on the back of the CCD? Say they power up together as one unit. It outputs direction, velocity and charge, instead of video screens. I think that might count as an artificial retina.
Then, when I consider that they just have longer wires, and are very bad mounters, then the line blurs, and maybe this does count...
"This algorithm is special in that it can be implemented on an FPGA"
Question: Are current FPGAs faster than 10-15 year old CPUs?
I'm thinking G4s or Athlons or something that's old enough to be easy and cheap to make today at any old fab, yet new enough that the dies and equipment are still around, and it can be ordered.
Take your final FPGA and burn chips from it (I know they do that). Run a hundred, and CERN might pay 20 grand a chip if they're good enough. I made that number up'; I don't have a clue, but that's where I'm going with my question.
A few are working at CERN, the best place in the world to analyze particle collisions.:p
You know, CERN? That ultra cool science experiment that is truly a collaboration of a good many nations? The one that has no interest in who the current superpower is, because it's devoted to pure science?
"...but it does precious little to prevent a government from manipulating its own populace into putting up with their corruption."
That is a true statement that I agree with, but the fact that it doesn't help that particular case, doesn't then make it a con.
Your argument was true in the day of George Washington; in that he could bring more force to bear than any citizen could resist.
An armed populace practically can't be subjugated by any outright oppressor, be it foreign of domestic. If you have to have a gunfight with, and kill most of the populace, then you didn't really 'win' as an oppressor. You can't kill them all.
I do realize, and to your point, that for that to work in practice, a sizable portion of the populace must actually be armed, and the potential oppressor can't have the address of each and every armed citizen.
As long as the vote is a secret, legit ballot; then it doesn't matter what the corporations spend. You can see through it; why do you think I can't? You do vote in the primaries, don't you?
It may help to remember how this current trend got it's legs.
Reagan is newly in office, and the country's mood is: we're tired of being ripped off and taken advantage of.
Pablo Escobar is bringing in tons of cocaine in broad daylight, and seemingly, no one can stop him. The Coast Guard has destroyer-sized ships and helicopters. The helicopters can catch Mr. Columbia's cigar boat, but are unarmed, and not allowed to shoot anyway. They can, and do, often wave at each other.
The Sheriff and even State police don't have boats to catch them, don't have helicopters available to just patrol, and if they do catch them; they have revolvers and shotguns against Uzis and AKs. In the face of all that, they catch a few anyway. But it turns out that it doesn't hurt the cartels at all to imprison their mules. Hell, it's their retirement plan, and keeps wages & seniority under control. Heh.
So the state auctions off the confiscated speedboat, and guess who's there to bid on it? Guess who cannot bid on it under any circumstances? The Sheriff himself. Not that I'd want him to, using my tax money that I'd rather go to schools or whatever. Pablo buys it back for a quarter of the new price. But sometimes he has to buy a new one. How much do you think that hurt his business? He can outspend the sheriff ten to one, and worse than that, it would be a stupid strategy to try and outspend the drug lord on guns and boats. The exact same strategy we were about to begin using on the Soviets, and it works.
In 1976, cocaine was a rich person's drug, or at least a big-city drug. in 1981, everybody and their 15 year old cousin in Mississippi could get it. Cocaine is suddenly everywhere, and it's profitable as shit; $100 1980 dollars a gram. (Of course that's not even pure cocaine; that's street cut).
What was pitched to us, and what we agreed to, was that yes; the Dade Sheriff could keep the cigar boat if he painted law enforcement colors on it, and used it to interdict the guys that used to own it. And while he's not allowed to sell the captured cocaine himself, he was allowed to keep the cocaine money, since it was bound for Columbia anyway, forever to disappear from our economy.
At that time, that was what was meant by the phrase, the "War on Drugs". They begged for the authority to take possession and shoot back with a quickness, just like real soldiers do in a real war. And hell, these were foreigners bringing AKs in, and didn't care who they shot. Of course, shoot them and take their stuff. What the hell are you thinking; waving? Sounds like Carter. We're done with that.
Things have come a long way since we had that mindset. I'll leave you with this thought: All government always grows, always; and sooner or later, it morphs into something you didn't expect.
What do you mean, lapdog? The US supports democracies that value liberty and freedom as best we can. Not perfectly of course, but we try. Threatened with destruction constantly, (hell, it's in the Palestinian's charter) we do sell them weapons at close to cost. That's a lot of our 'aid' to them; the discount. They got money, and they pay (not as much as the Saudis..). We have yet to fight directly alongside of Israel, although I assume we would if it really came to that.
Bitter over the UN mandate and British administration at the end of the wars? Then maybe the Ottoman Empire shouldn't have been on the wrong side of it. But the British weren't that bad in any case. Have you seen the 1947 partition map? The Arabs could have lived with that. If they had, then it wouldn't have mattered much anyway, Because Jews would have been free to live on the Arab land, and Arabs would have been free to live on Jewish controlled land.
Oh wait, that last part is still true; plenty of Arabs live and work in present day Israel, with more rights and freedoms than anywhere else in the Middle East.
One last thing; I don't know what European country you are in, but what if one of your neighboring countries, say, Poland maybe; started lobbing rockets over the border, blowing up neighborhoods and houses or whatever. How many warheads would it take for your country to put s stop to that with a quickness?
"and what I care about is that she slept with those people for publicity she did not deserve"
So they owed her? She's not allowed to have sex? Or just not with reviewers?
Don't get me wrong, I think the OMG internet bullies thing is being way overplayed. But the only thing here to care about is the journalistic integrity thing, and she didn't do that; the journalist did.
AC is good for inside NSA info, your mom jokes; even devil's advocate in a one-sided discussion.
When you do it just so you can say something mean and not lose karma, well; you really are a coward. (the AC, not you)
The only thing this errant (yes it's somewhat OT for/.) article actually cost AC, was that the Researchers Say Neanderthals Created Cave Art story went to the second page quicker, causing him to have to click the 'Older' button to get to it's 81 comments what, an hour sooner?.
If that's the beef, well he could have said that, but he could still make the case for how awful that is, and I might apologize. Otherwise - Go away, AC.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the scaremongering has been overdone (this from the perspective of an American spectator), TFS is piling on: "...there will be no local banks."
That is just silly, unless Scotland intends to outlaw banks. I don't think they do.
It's white guilt man. I'm not sure what we do about it, but I think the first step is recognizing what it is.
All that shit really ain't your fault. You want to pay for your existence? Give something to charity.
After that, try to have it all. Mostly love. But Civics are nice too. And rockets. :)
I think it would take too long. Even if the explosion was relativistic it would still be days in the unfolding, wouldn't it? An explosion worth looking at would be weeks? Months in the unfolding? I guess I'm asking as mush as saying.
But no matter, I have a method to see the whole thing in a couple of hours. You.. just.. fly towards it at relativistic speeds, compressing the 'video stream' into a fast forward. You can run it as fast as you can go. You'll need a fancy screen to downsample the view, as what should be visible light, are x-rays to you, or at least UV; again, depending on your speed.
And don't forget to turn off quickly and go back home, right before the show appears to be over...
That would be a bummer man. Let's go with the star in a star thing. Almost as cool as guns that shoot guns.
Yeah I clicked through to the article. No idea why I did that but:
It's red supergiant with too much lithium, molybdenum and other metals. There's 'something' in there.
Gravity keeps one star inside the other, as in, the neutron star fell into the supergiant. It sank to the center.
Around the surface of the neutron star is now where the 'core' of the red supergiant is, still burning hydrogen (or was it helium?) as a red supergiant should.
Sounded like some subtle measurements to distinguish this one from all the other red supergiants they looked at.
I should get karma for this. Just sayin'.
"a business should not be classed as a person for legal purposes and that no taxation should be levied on industry or business at all"
You nailed it. And no, I'm not for letting the rich off easy.
By taxing corporations, that helps make them into people. Taxation without representation. We used to think that was a big deal.
I think corporations have way too much representation now. And yet they can't vote. Corporations are all owned by people, who can vote, and are legitimate tax targets.
Another thing; income is not income until a person gets it. Tax the people, not pieces of paper...
Wow, you kids with your high uids.
I'll give you that it does take a bit of talent to take something fairly pure and wholesome, and twist it like you did into something dark and oppressive. A tip though: substituting 'your' for 'you're' blows you out of the water as a 12 year old. Just letting you know.
I'll tell you, that to me, It wasn't so much a problem in the past. Almost everything the spies, spooks, informants do is illegal in some way.
HP just got nailed for corruption. When a secret agent gives us intel in exchange for money, in other words, our CIA at work; how is that any different? It it was obviously an illegal act in the agent's country to leak state secrets. We paid him to break his own law.
The difference used to be, that they operated outside the law. And that was our protection; none of it could be used against you. Well, unless you were some real deal foreign agent.
That's the line that has moved. They have always spied on everything, and the day they catch a jihadist with a nuke backpack right before he enters Manhattan, we will both be glad they were spying on whoever it took. It's the rest of it, with the FISA courts and the regular courts and the sharing with local law enforcement and everything else that makes it so scary.
The problem is, the DOOM thing happens to my office printers far less often than me needing to quickly get into the thing and fix it or figure out what the user's issue is.
The account/password thing not helping me out there. It wasn't broken before, Canon. It will make no difference to office security, but will eventually cost you sales. (Well, you sucked already at printers, so maybe not a lot of sales.)
"I think a Carbon Tax is the wrong approach because it does not explicitly limit emissions in any way"
It does limit it, dollar for dollar. As opposed to Cap and Trade, where you are buying and selling pollution.
"; as long as its still profitable, "
Let's assume no activity will have happened in the first place without profit...
"emissions will occur."
when carbon is burned, whether they've bought the right to pollute or not.
" Cap and Trade, on the other hand, explicitly limits industry-wide emissions and requires individual companies to set a value on their limited emissions in the free market."
Not a free market. A made up government created market in name only.
A real carbon tax would not only be good for saving the planet, it would actually be good for the economy. Well, assuming that some existing tax was backed off; obviously piling new taxes on top of existing would not be good for the economy.
I'll say that I doubt Snowden raised holy hell on an ongoing basis within the halls of the NSA. For one thing, he's tech support; it wasn't his job.
But he already said he didn't believe there was a viable whistle blower process, a fact corroborated by recent history. I wouldn't expect there to be some emial trail of disaffection.
Also, why email? I think you might be an idiot to put these concerns into email in the first place. My first instinct would be to go to some boss, and tell him to his face. Unless Nixon was there, there's unlikely to be a record of that meeting.
So far, the NSA has lied (at first) about each and every little thing Snowden has leaked.
I guess on this one though, we are supposed to take them at their word.
Please don't diffuse complete nonsense. The pH of the body is regulated within very strict limits, generally 7.35-7.45, and a therapeutic window ie a dose of drug X, in occurrence any alkaline agent, that does not kill the patient while killing the disease does not exist. You either don't kill any cancer cells or die with them by taking too much soda.
I'm going to take you at your word that you're an expert, but as a listener you suck. He never said anything about anything 'killing' anything.
He said (to paraphrase): "It seems to make it harder to grow", and, "I'm not a researcher", and "I've seen more than one person go into remission, ostensibly as a result".
It would be extremely easy for any individual researcher to publish this research and become instantly famous. Hell, I could do it tomorrow since I am an oncologist and treat patients with cancer for a living. The problem is that it doesn't work.
Two weeks ago I saw a poor lady who was "treated" with soda infusions. Of course the disease spread and, in addition, she suffered a stroke because of the way the treatment was delivered (via intra-arterial catheter!). It's such a pity that patients, in their considerable emotional distress, actually believe that kind of stuff.
PS: Posting anonymously because the incident with the intra-arterial soda infusions got some legal attention.
Now see I don't think he said that either. Intravenous 'Soda Infusions' sounds like crazy nutter shit to me; I believe his people were eating the baking soda.
He said another thing: If it appeared to cure one person, then it's worth looking into. That's the one thing he said that I am sure is true; there's no such thing as magic, *something* cured them. Of course they are flying blind without scientific training, and only doing it because they feel they have nothing to lose.
What I don't like, is not so much the out-of-hand dismissal, you're entitled to that if you're an expert in the field; but the idea that to even talk about it, is somehow doing a disservice to cancer victims and is a bad thing. Right here in the comments on an article about thinking outside the box in cancer treatment.
"When you "burn" a chip from a FPGA, what it means is that you take the VHDL (etc) code and compile it into a format which you can use to produce specialized chips, instead of a format for programming an FPGA."
Yes, and the problem now, and certainly in the future, is data overwhelming the computational resources. And as an above poster noted, the big cost in a custom ASIC is laying it out.
I had assumed that the gate layout (and thus the logic programming) in any FPGA was still far simpler than last decade's CPU. An FPGA can be far faster than a CPU executing some complied machine language, but can't be faster than custom silicon. (I botched the initial question).
They give away Athlons for 10 bucks nowadays. If you could burn your custom asic into that, even if you wasted most of what used to be the Athlon; it would be fast as shit running your FPGA program natively. One you paid to lay it out, seems to me it might be cheap as shit to run a few thousand of them, and saturate the area with these detectors. Which feed already vastly condensed data that we would be capable of capturing.
If the next next particle is a million times harder to detect than the Higgs, it would be nice to process all the data from the sensors. I was trying to think of a way to do it, but more within my realm of expertise, I should have asked: How much would it cost?
"The image sensors (CCD or CMOS or whatever) is doing no such thing."
What if you mounted the FPGA right on the back of the CCD? Say they power up together as one unit. It outputs direction, velocity and charge, instead of video screens. I think that might count as an artificial retina.
Then, when I consider that they just have longer wires, and are very bad mounters, then the line blurs, and maybe this does count...
"This algorithm is special in that it can be implemented on an FPGA"
Question: Are current FPGAs faster than 10-15 year old CPUs?
I'm thinking G4s or Athlons or something that's old enough to be easy and cheap to make today at any old fab, yet new enough that the dies and equipment are still around, and it can be ordered.
Take your final FPGA and burn chips from it (I know they do that). Run a hundred, and CERN might pay 20 grand a chip if they're good enough. I made that number up'; I don't have a clue, but that's where I'm going with my question.
Heh.
I don't often mod ACs, but when I do, I mod them funny.
A few are working at CERN, the best place in the world to analyze particle collisions. :p
You know, CERN? That ultra cool science experiment that is truly a collaboration of a good many nations? The one that has no interest in who the current superpower is, because it's devoted to pure science?
Yeah, that one.
"...but it does precious little to prevent a government from manipulating its own populace into putting up with their corruption."
That is a true statement that I agree with, but the fact that it doesn't help that particular case, doesn't then make it a con.
Your argument was true in the day of George Washington; in that he could bring more force to bear than any citizen could resist.
An armed populace practically can't be subjugated by any outright oppressor, be it foreign of domestic. If you have to have a gunfight with, and kill most of the populace, then you didn't really 'win' as an oppressor. You can't kill them all.
I do realize, and to your point, that for that to work in practice, a sizable portion of the populace must actually be armed, and the potential oppressor can't have the address of each and every armed citizen.
As long as the vote is a secret, legit ballot; then it doesn't matter what the corporations spend. You can see through it; why do you think I can't? You do vote in the primaries, don't you?
Well, we ignorant voters didn't expect it.
I don't disagree with a thing you said. Of course there were people warning of the consequences. But Dan Rather didn't mention that part very much.
It may help to remember how this current trend got it's legs.
Reagan is newly in office, and the country's mood is: we're tired of being ripped off and taken advantage of.
Pablo Escobar is bringing in tons of cocaine in broad daylight, and seemingly, no one can stop him. The Coast Guard has destroyer-sized ships and helicopters. The helicopters can catch Mr. Columbia's cigar boat, but are unarmed, and not allowed to shoot anyway. They can, and do, often wave at each other.
The Sheriff and even State police don't have boats to catch them, don't have helicopters available to just patrol, and if they do catch them; they have revolvers and shotguns against Uzis and AKs. In the face of all that, they catch a few anyway. But it turns out that it doesn't hurt the cartels at all to imprison their mules. Hell, it's their retirement plan, and keeps wages & seniority under control. Heh.
So the state auctions off the confiscated speedboat, and guess who's there to bid on it? Guess who cannot bid on it under any circumstances? The Sheriff himself. Not that I'd want him to, using my tax money that I'd rather go to schools or whatever. Pablo buys it back for a quarter of the new price. But sometimes he has to buy a new one. How much do you think that hurt his business? He can outspend the sheriff ten to one, and worse than that, it would be a stupid strategy to try and outspend the drug lord on guns and boats. The exact same strategy we were about to begin using on the Soviets, and it works.
In 1976, cocaine was a rich person's drug, or at least a big-city drug. in 1981, everybody and their 15 year old cousin in Mississippi could get it. Cocaine is suddenly everywhere, and it's profitable as shit; $100 1980 dollars a gram. (Of course that's not even pure cocaine; that's street cut).
What was pitched to us, and what we agreed to, was that yes; the Dade Sheriff could keep the cigar boat if he painted law enforcement colors on it, and used it to interdict the guys that used to own it. And while he's not allowed to sell the captured cocaine himself, he was allowed to keep the cocaine money, since it was bound for Columbia anyway, forever to disappear from our economy.
At that time, that was what was meant by the phrase, the "War on Drugs". They begged for the authority to take possession and shoot back with a quickness, just like real soldiers do in a real war. And hell, these were foreigners bringing AKs in, and didn't care who they shot. Of course, shoot them and take their stuff. What the hell are you thinking; waving? Sounds like Carter. We're done with that.
Things have come a long way since we had that mindset. I'll leave you with this thought: All government always grows, always; and sooner or later, it morphs into something you didn't expect.
What do you mean, lapdog? The US supports democracies that value liberty and freedom as best we can. Not perfectly of course, but we try. Threatened with destruction constantly, (hell, it's in the Palestinian's charter) we do sell them weapons at close to cost. That's a lot of our 'aid' to them; the discount. They got money, and they pay (not as much as the Saudis..). We have yet to fight directly alongside of Israel, although I assume we would if it really came to that.
Bitter over the UN mandate and British administration at the end of the wars? Then maybe the Ottoman Empire shouldn't have been on the wrong side of it. But the British weren't that bad in any case. Have you seen the 1947 partition map? The Arabs could have lived with that. If they had, then it wouldn't have mattered much anyway, Because Jews would have been free to live on the Arab land, and Arabs would have been free to live on Jewish controlled land.
Oh wait, that last part is still true; plenty of Arabs live and work in present day Israel, with more rights and freedoms than anywhere else in the Middle East.
One last thing; I don't know what European country you are in, but what if one of your neighboring countries, say, Poland maybe; started lobbing rockets over the border, blowing up neighborhoods and houses or whatever. How many warheads would it take for your country to put s stop to that with a quickness?
I'm thinking, about one.
"and what I care about is that she slept with those people for publicity she did not deserve"
So they owed her? She's not allowed to have sex? Or just not with reviewers?
Don't get me wrong, I think the OMG internet bullies thing is being way overplayed. But the only thing here to care about is the journalistic integrity thing, and she didn't do that; the journalist did.
That's a Chinese curse, isn't it? 'May you live in interesting times.'
Pisses me off that he posts as AC to criticize /.
AC is good for inside NSA info, your mom jokes; even devil's advocate in a one-sided discussion.
When you do it just so you can say something mean and not lose karma, well; you really are a coward. (the AC, not you)
The only thing this errant (yes it's somewhat OT for /.) article actually cost AC, was that the Researchers Say Neanderthals Created Cave Art story went to the second page quicker, causing him to have to click the 'Older' button to get to it's 81 comments what, an hour sooner?.
If that's the beef, well he could have said that, but he could still make the case for how awful that is, and I might apologize. Otherwise - Go away, AC.