Don't condemn the group, condemn the atrocities, the actual violation of human rights, and those who do the violating.
You're forgetting to condemn the millions of people amongst who the live, and who allow them to continue to operate, be funded, preach hate and recruit. The militant jihadis could never operate without the tacit approval of many millions of their less violent but none the less supportive co-religionists.
deperate nobodies who are doing pointless insignificant attacks because they know they have already LOST
Do you have any idea how many people ISIS has killed as they've expanded their territory? Feel free to round down to the nearest 100,000. You can include a few hundred Russians tourists or not, as you see fit.
No the best hope for is that through education, and caring you can limit the numbers who support it.
So you're likely in support of the use of force to stop the systemic destruction of schools and murdering of school teachers, right? No? Because the people that you think need to be educated out of their medieval world view and violence are very happy to use force in order to prevent that education from happening. And they operate in the middle of large numbers of more "moderate" fellow Islamists who don't lift a finger to stop them, because that would be rude.
Do you want to go over the number of mass shootings in the US that also were not prevented by armed citizens?
Except armed people stop killings and other violence all the time. Are you really unable to understand the difference between and event not having been stopped and event not allowed to be stopped?
I'm saying you can't look at how people were 500 years ago and extrapolate that to assume they are the same today.
Well that's your mistake. The Catholics certainly aren't acting like they were 500 years ago. But groups like ISIS are in fact happily taking up the mantle of medieval Islam, and using all of the techniques, for all of the same reasons, that they did centuries ago. And look: it's working. Just like it did before.
Islam initially spread because it was very liberal (in the original meaning of the word). It is also why there were huge advances in science and culture. Eventually like most systems with riches it became corrupt and collapsed.
I wonder if all of the people who were killed at the birth and initial expansion of Islam would consider their deaths to have been appropriately "liberal."
How much more complicated are militant Islamists than they come right out and SAY they are? Your desperate search for nuance in a movement that's entirely about (and making headway in) re-establishing a sprawling retrograde, medieval theocratic thugocracy is the perspective that's lacking historical relevance. Wake up. It IS that simple. "Let's go kill a bunch of young French people to show how much we hate exactly what those young be do, are, and want the world to be." Done. That simple. And that will provoke the necessary response, which the extremists will cite as proof that their cause is just, and, and they'll ramp it up even more.
Terrorism isn't an effective tool to achieve goals.
What? It's right out of the Big Muslim Playbook. That's exactly how Islam spread across large parts of the world once upon a time - through sheer, terroristic violence. You know that neighbor of Frances'... Spain? Yeah, once upon a time Islamic terrorists overran that next door neighbor and set up shop there for quite a while. Islam doesn't take over and become the ruling force in a country by offering nice health plans and a school for everyone. It happens at the point of the sword, and always has. They lost their mojo a long time ago, and have been culturally butt-hurt about it ever since. That seething anger is all about getting it back.
Unfortunately for them, they're now up against modernity. Fortunately for them, they're up against politically correct pussies in most cases, which means they can take advantage of things like massive movements of immigrants over-running Europe to place thousands of hardcore fighters right where they want them, complete with free housing and food while they gear up. It was never that easy the last time they rolled in - I'm sure they're laughing their asses off, this time. It's so much easier when the culture you want to crush holds the door open for you.
Still having real trouble reading the actual words formed by the characters on the screen in front of you, aren't you. I allowed for the equal possibilities of the temperature delta (from pre-industrial days through today) to be either significantly greater (or lesser) than the exactly 1 degree claimed. I know, it's no fun when someone who's complaining doesn't fit your cartoon villain template, and instead focuses on the fact that you're latching onto inherently subjective modeling to fabricate information making up for data not in the record. I don't give a crap if the imaginary single "global temperature" claimed from a past mostly lacking in global samples is high or low. What I do care about is people like you glomming onto such dart-throwing output and pretending it's actually an apples/apples comparison with contemporary data. Never mind the means by which anyone would pretend to have a single (useful, actually representative) "global temperature" even with today's huge amount data.
Zero hard numbers and not a single fucking citation. Whoever modded this up shouldn't have mod points.
What? That's exactly what we're talking about: the lack of hard numbers. The HUGE lack of hard numbers, so much so that huge swaths of areas now being accurately measured are being pointlessly compared to pre-industrial circumstances completely lacking hard data from those same places. Why are you looking for a citation? OF COURSE THERE'S NO CITATION. This is all about the lack of such, which is why proclaiming down-to-the-degree comparisons is so ridiculous.
You really know nothing about the procedures and methodologies we're discussing here.
Yes, I do. The procedures and methodologies that were recording temperatures in a handful of specific pre-industrial spots on the planet cannot be used to extrapolate a precise single "global temperature" within 1 degree C. There isn't enough data. There's no there there, there is only subjective modeling, at best. Suggesting that such a model is hostorically accurate to within a fraction of 1 degree is silly. You know it, I know it, and every scientist worth their salt knows it. The only people who hold that laughable position are those who need the hype. The situation could be WAY worse than a 1 degree change, or nowhere near that bad. It doesn't matter which position you embrace, the point is that talking about "a" global temperature is nonsense in that context.
I can see you're still struggling with this. The point is that both understanding of larger concepts and specific tools and techniques in science change over time. Our ability to rely on the comparatively small number of working (and hobby) scientists from the pre-industrial period to establish a global temperature from that time, and making the absurd assertion that such a number is globally accurate to within a single degree is preposterous. Science, at the time, didn't have the global scope or systematic technical precision and record keeping to make such a simultaneously sweepingly world-wide and detailed minute conclusion, especially not to standards that we could use to make apples-to-apples comparisons to temperatures in the centuries before and since that point in time.
No, I prefer medicine as it's practiced now, not medicine as scientists from the pre-industrial period practiced it. Are you having some reading comprehension issues? I wonder how a scientist from the pre-industrial period would evaluate your intelligence, and on what they would blame your tendency to get what you read exactly backwards.
The same ones who, in pre-industrial society, were also quite sure that they could measure someone's criminality by feeling the lumps on their skulls? Those sorts of pre-industrial scientists?
Umm, you DO know, don't you, that the Russians lost two capsules full of men in ~120 flights, right?
Umm, you DO know what 40 years is, don't you?
Who cares how many years it spans - it's the number of flights that matters. If they sit there for six months NOT flying, then having zero flight deaths during those six months isn't exactly a point of pride. Deaths per astronaut flight is a lot more meaningful, statistically, and as a measure of competence. Regardless, we're splitting hairs. The point is that nothing about their survived hours in flight paints a picture of the Russians being wildly more successful in that regard. They do, though, have an administration that's actually keeping their people in the business of putting people in space - though they're doing a fair bit of that with other people's money.
You're right. They should dig ditches while working for their own landscaping business instead of taking advantage of the offer to make six figures helping to do something they couldn't possibly do without a large company's infrastructure and finances. Good plan.
You know, you all are some lazy-ass motherfuckers.
Or the exact opposite. So NOT lazy that they're busy working at what they specialize all day, that it makes more sense to use their time that way while someone else who specializes in delivering food or office supplies spends their time sparing the busy people from having to stop what they're doing.
Why are you burning electricity to power the computer you're typing on when you could be out pounding wood pulp to make paper on which you can write a letter that you can walk to town to give to the Pony Express guy? Don't bother answering.
Are you talking about the already highly regulated drones, as used by the military and in very limited cases by some domestic government operators and a very few commercial operators who have pursued legal waivers and are forced to use military-grade equipment? Or are you talking about remote control model planes and copters, which people have been flying for decades?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't condemn the group, condemn the atrocities, the actual violation of human rights, and those who do the violating.
You're forgetting to condemn the millions of people amongst who the live, and who allow them to continue to operate, be funded, preach hate and recruit. The militant jihadis could never operate without the tacit approval of many millions of their less violent but none the less supportive co-religionists.
deperate nobodies who are doing pointless insignificant attacks because they know they have already LOST
Do you have any idea how many people ISIS has killed as they've expanded their territory? Feel free to round down to the nearest 100,000. You can include a few hundred Russians tourists or not, as you see fit.
Many people in Syria used to learn French as a second language. Far more learned French in Lebanon. Now? who knows.
Soon enough, Russian.
No the best hope for is that through education, and caring you can limit the numbers who support it.
So you're likely in support of the use of force to stop the systemic destruction of schools and murdering of school teachers, right? No? Because the people that you think need to be educated out of their medieval world view and violence are very happy to use force in order to prevent that education from happening. And they operate in the middle of large numbers of more "moderate" fellow Islamists who don't lift a finger to stop them, because that would be rude.
Do you want to go over the number of mass shootings in the US that also were not prevented by armed citizens?
Except armed people stop killings and other violence all the time. Are you really unable to understand the difference between and event not having been stopped and event not allowed to be stopped?
I'm saying you can't look at how people were 500 years ago and extrapolate that to assume they are the same today.
Well that's your mistake. The Catholics certainly aren't acting like they were 500 years ago. But groups like ISIS are in fact happily taking up the mantle of medieval Islam, and using all of the techniques, for all of the same reasons, that they did centuries ago. And look: it's working. Just like it did before.
Are you really saying that because the crazy Catholics also sucked that the crazy Muslims weren't really so bad?
Islam initially spread because it was very liberal (in the original meaning of the word). It is also why there were huge advances in science and culture. Eventually like most systems with riches it became corrupt and collapsed.
I wonder if all of the people who were killed at the birth and initial expansion of Islam would consider their deaths to have been appropriately "liberal."
It's never that simple. NEVER.
How much more complicated are militant Islamists than they come right out and SAY they are? Your desperate search for nuance in a movement that's entirely about (and making headway in) re-establishing a sprawling retrograde, medieval theocratic thugocracy is the perspective that's lacking historical relevance. Wake up. It IS that simple. "Let's go kill a bunch of young French people to show how much we hate exactly what those young be do, are, and want the world to be." Done. That simple. And that will provoke the necessary response, which the extremists will cite as proof that their cause is just, and, and they'll ramp it up even more.
Terrorism isn't an effective tool to achieve goals.
What? It's right out of the Big Muslim Playbook. That's exactly how Islam spread across large parts of the world once upon a time - through sheer, terroristic violence. You know that neighbor of Frances' ... Spain? Yeah, once upon a time Islamic terrorists overran that next door neighbor and set up shop there for quite a while. Islam doesn't take over and become the ruling force in a country by offering nice health plans and a school for everyone. It happens at the point of the sword, and always has. They lost their mojo a long time ago, and have been culturally butt-hurt about it ever since. That seething anger is all about getting it back.
Unfortunately for them, they're now up against modernity. Fortunately for them, they're up against politically correct pussies in most cases, which means they can take advantage of things like massive movements of immigrants over-running Europe to place thousands of hardcore fighters right where they want them, complete with free housing and food while they gear up. It was never that easy the last time they rolled in - I'm sure they're laughing their asses off, this time. It's so much easier when the culture you want to crush holds the door open for you.
you stupid ignorant denialist shill
Still having real trouble reading the actual words formed by the characters on the screen in front of you, aren't you. I allowed for the equal possibilities of the temperature delta (from pre-industrial days through today) to be either significantly greater (or lesser) than the exactly 1 degree claimed. I know, it's no fun when someone who's complaining doesn't fit your cartoon villain template, and instead focuses on the fact that you're latching onto inherently subjective modeling to fabricate information making up for data not in the record. I don't give a crap if the imaginary single "global temperature" claimed from a past mostly lacking in global samples is high or low. What I do care about is people like you glomming onto such dart-throwing output and pretending it's actually an apples/apples comparison with contemporary data. Never mind the means by which anyone would pretend to have a single (useful, actually representative) "global temperature" even with today's huge amount data.
Zero hard numbers and not a single fucking citation. Whoever modded this up shouldn't have mod points.
What? That's exactly what we're talking about: the lack of hard numbers. The HUGE lack of hard numbers, so much so that huge swaths of areas now being accurately measured are being pointlessly compared to pre-industrial circumstances completely lacking hard data from those same places. Why are you looking for a citation? OF COURSE THERE'S NO CITATION. This is all about the lack of such, which is why proclaiming down-to-the-degree comparisons is so ridiculous.
You really know nothing about the procedures and methodologies we're discussing here.
Yes, I do. The procedures and methodologies that were recording temperatures in a handful of specific pre-industrial spots on the planet cannot be used to extrapolate a precise single "global temperature" within 1 degree C. There isn't enough data. There's no there there, there is only subjective modeling, at best. Suggesting that such a model is hostorically accurate to within a fraction of 1 degree is silly. You know it, I know it, and every scientist worth their salt knows it. The only people who hold that laughable position are those who need the hype. The situation could be WAY worse than a 1 degree change, or nowhere near that bad. It doesn't matter which position you embrace, the point is that talking about "a" global temperature is nonsense in that context.
I can see you're still struggling with this. The point is that both understanding of larger concepts and specific tools and techniques in science change over time. Our ability to rely on the comparatively small number of working (and hobby) scientists from the pre-industrial period to establish a global temperature from that time, and making the absurd assertion that such a number is globally accurate to within a single degree is preposterous. Science, at the time, didn't have the global scope or systematic technical precision and record keeping to make such a simultaneously sweepingly world-wide and detailed minute conclusion, especially not to standards that we could use to make apples-to-apples comparisons to temperatures in the centuries before and since that point in time.
So you refuse modern medicine too, right?
No, I prefer medicine as it's practiced now, not medicine as scientists from the pre-industrial period practiced it. Are you having some reading comprehension issues? I wonder how a scientist from the pre-industrial period would evaluate your intelligence, and on what they would blame your tendency to get what you read exactly backwards.
Scientists.
The same ones who, in pre-industrial society, were also quite sure that they could measure someone's criminality by feeling the lumps on their skulls? Those sorts of pre-industrial scientists?
Umm, you DO know, don't you, that the Russians lost two capsules full of men in ~120 flights, right?
Umm, you DO know what 40 years is, don't you?
Who cares how many years it spans - it's the number of flights that matters. If they sit there for six months NOT flying, then having zero flight deaths during those six months isn't exactly a point of pride. Deaths per astronaut flight is a lot more meaningful, statistically, and as a measure of competence. Regardless, we're splitting hairs. The point is that nothing about their survived hours in flight paints a picture of the Russians being wildly more successful in that regard. They do, though, have an administration that's actually keeping their people in the business of putting people in space - though they're doing a fair bit of that with other people's money.
Does it run analog Linux?
Ubuntu still supports it, but only on Steampunk Stoat.
You're right. They should dig ditches while working for their own landscaping business instead of taking advantage of the offer to make six figures helping to do something they couldn't possibly do without a large company's infrastructure and finances. Good plan.
You know, you all are some lazy-ass motherfuckers.
Or the exact opposite. So NOT lazy that they're busy working at what they specialize all day, that it makes more sense to use their time that way while someone else who specializes in delivering food or office supplies spends their time sparing the busy people from having to stop what they're doing.
And an 'e'
No, you're dim because you can't actually spot obvious sarcasm.
You're really dim, aren't you?
Why are you burning electricity to power the computer you're typing on when you could be out pounding wood pulp to make paper on which you can write a letter that you can walk to town to give to the Pony Express guy? Don't bother answering.
Are you talking about the already highly regulated drones, as used by the military and in very limited cases by some domestic government operators and a very few commercial operators who have pursued legal waivers and are forced to use military-grade equipment? Or are you talking about remote control model planes and copters, which people have been flying for decades?