Well, filing fees are supposed to cover that to a degree
Don't think it even comes close, the law is expensive because lawyers like it that way.
and it's very much a public good to make our judicial process accessible to anyone with a beef, no matter how unlikely.
As far as I have read, nobody has said that neither he nor anyone else should not have the right to make an ass of himself. But that doesn't mean we have to be happy or supportive of his actions. He's got a right to be an ass, and we have the right to call him an ass for doing it.
Without commenting on the likelihood of blue pill actually circumventing the shipping version of Vista, I just wanted to say that Blue Pill does not require a reboot, it is able to slip in a virtual machine and move the host OS to that VM without doing much,if anthing, that would be noticed by a regular user.
Well, they are divorced and if she has a boyfriend then its very likely that she has moved on. We can't really tell anything about their post-divorce relationship other than they shuttle the kids back and forth, for all we can tell from the website the custody thing might as well be a court ordered result of a bitter divorce.
So, it is quite easy to imagine a situation where their current relationship status means Hans just doesn't merit mentioning.
You know, its comments like this (even in the semi-anonymous and lame-black-humor-filled world of Slashdot) that keeps our image down. No wonder most people don't care about our opinions and treat us with lack of respect.
What a load of sanctimonius bullshit.
Tell that to Leno next time he cracks a 9/11 joke. Or Letterman next time he cracks an Iraqi occupation joke. Or the SNL writers next time they do an Abu Graib skit.
People here are on slashdot are no different from people everywhere else.
Someone around here has a sig that says something like, "letting a programmer name your product is like making a marketer program it." Never before has it been demonstrated so clearly.
I don't think you get it. They deliberately chose an obnoxious name. The same way that Apple renamed their internal project "Carl Sagan" to "BHA" for 'Butt-Head Astronomer' after he tried to sue them.
4) Other minorities have been equally or perhaps even moreso discriminated against, but the jews just have better PR.
To pick probably the largest example in recent years, the genocide in Rwanda was on the order of 1 million mostly tutsi and hutu deaths, but has received orders of magnitude less coverage than the holocaust.
"Of course wanting to slaughter your enemies because they have been beating the ever living shit out of you for decades now has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all."
Can you back up your emphatic claim with support from an unbiased source?
Here is a short list of documentation that the palestinians have been getting the ever living shit beat out of them. You might also try watching the evening news on a regular basis.
You're confused. The fact that Christians were violently anti-Semitic throughtout much of their history does not show that Muslims were not. The question here is not whether Christians or Muslims have a better record: both have long and sordid histories of intolerance of other religions. The question at hand is whether Muslims were anti-Semitic prior to 1948. Even the rather sparse list of examples in that Wikipedia article provides evidence that they were.
I'm sorry but you are not citing useful resources. I can only go by the information you have provided to me and that wikipedia article is very light on evidence for "rabid hatred of Jewish people goes back to before Israel." The point of my comparison of muslim to christian reports in the same document was to make it clear that if ~20 reported events do not make christians rabid anti-semites, then 3 relatively low-key reports do not make muslims rabid anti-semites either.
The Jimena site may be an advocacy site, but it not only quotes the personal testimony of Jewish refugees from the Arab world but, if you actually read the articles, you'll see that there is much quotation from other sources.
The point of an advocacy site is to promote a point of view, it is not to give equal treatment to the facts. Perhaps you do not understand that a respectable citation is one which does not promote a point of view, one that has "no dog in the fight." For example, a site like Jimena would certainly ignore and leave out any mitigating quotes from other jews who have a different perspective from the one the site is advocating. Thus it is not a respectable source of information.
It is your assumption that the Muslim bigot whom I cited is unrepresentative.
Please provide a respectable citation that a large proprotion of the muslim population is bigoted. Pointing at anecdotal evidence is neither a citation nor at all respectable for the very same reason that pointing at anecdotal evidence to the contrary is just as poor evidence.
The Qur'an is quite explicit in its anti-Semitism - its not as if he is stretching to interpret it that way.
If the quran is explicitly anti-semitic, then you do not need to cite a bigotted website, it should be plain to see to any reasonable researcher. Thus I ask you to produce a citation to a respectable source documenting the explicit anti-semitism in the quran.
You might start with the Wikipedia history of anti-semitism.
On that page I see three or four references to muslim rulers imposing special sanctions on jews. I see about 10x that number of references to christians persecuting jews and often in far worse ways. If you belive that is sufficient proof that muslim's have "rabid hatred of Jewish people goes back to before Israel" then you must see christain society as 10x worse. I do not see christain society as expectionally anti-semitic. The linked wikipedia article titled "Islam and Anti-semitism" is disputed and thus not even a respectable source even by wikipedia standards, so I didn't see the point in reading something biased enough to trip over even wikipedia's low standards.
You might then check out the website of Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and Africa.
On inspection this site seems to be an advocacy site and thus clearly not a respectable source.
Here is piece by a contemorary Muslim bigot that cites the Qur'an and the attitude of Mohammed himself.
I think you understand that a bigot's viewpoints on history are going to be self-serving and not particularly representative. That's the equivalent of citing Matthew Hale's intrepretaion of the christain bible as proof that christains have a rabid hatred of jewish people.
Surely you must have some rational and unbiased sources for the facts about the muslim religion. Why are you trying to distract me with irrational and slanted sources?
Its called being incorporated. Except in the most extreme cases, the owners and operators of a corporation are shielded from criminal and civil liability for actions of the corporation. That's why shareholders don't get sued when the company they own shares in does something illegal. Similarly, the owners of youtube were never at risk in the first place, only the corporation itself and that risk was transferred to google along with all the other assets of the youtube corporation.
Does google still have "IPO money" any more? At this point, I think they're just in to plain old regular money.
Yes. Unlike most IPO's where the majority of the dollars go to the underwriters and their clients, google did a kind of auction that resulted in almost the entire take going into their pockets, not wallstreet's. So they've got billions of "IPO money" in the bank and will have for the forseeable future unless they get let someone screw them like mp3.com was screwed.
Have you ever heard of Google, or a history book? Why should we spoon-feed you basic knowledge of the history of the Middle-East?
Yes you should. The history books I studied in college claim otherwise. I see plenty of websites that claim otherwise too. When I search on "dhimmi" and "Grand Mufti Haj Amin" I find many websites of extremely dubious veractiy.
Someone who is willing to state something so emphatically must have good reason to believe it. All I ask is that they support their claims with respectable citations because I believe the person making the claims to be a rational and intelligent person with strong critical thinking ability and thus they must have respectable sources for the information that has shaped their beliefs.
I suggest you look into events going back to the Muslim Empire conquest of the area, the "Islamic laws" to punish people from being Jewish which were imposed on the occupied people for all those centuries, the caliphs destroying synagogues, all the way up the Ottomans continuing the punishment by taxing Jews just for being Jews, and into the 20th century with such incidences as the Hebron pogrom.
Again, I ask you to please provide an actual, verifiable citation from a respectable source. Surely you have some concrete evidence that brought you to your conclusions. Please share it with us so that we can come to the same rational conclusions as you have.
The bubble will burst on this purchase. There's too much copyright infringement going on @ Youtube.
And more importantly, now there is someone to sue. Someone with lots and lots of money, so all those $200K per infringement civil awards actually have a chance of being paid out. Watch for Hollywood to their absolute damndest to take Google's IPO money the same way the RIAA took mp3.com's $200M of IPO cash.
Thanks, Dr. Godwin. The last one brings us back on topic, to a nation where a majority of the people insist as an important goal the extermination of another nation. By coincidence, the reason for the wanted extermination is because the targettted people happen to be Jewish.
Of course wanting to slaughter your enemies because they have been beating the ever living shit out of you for decades now has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.
Sooo.... your trying to say that he has people in his military setting off experimental nuclear weapons without his consent? Somehow I doubt that, especially considering his "mercy" when it comes to punishment.
I am saying that a lot of political power within the DPRK rests with the military and that Kim essentially has the choice of either gracefully agreeing to some of their plans or face a military coup. It is not a simple matter to just execute high-ranking officers in the military, for one their troops are loyal to their commanders, not necessarily to Kim.
Try, for example, the reports of the UN inspection team. (Here's a clue for you since you seem to live in a world without them; not one nation doubted the likely existence of Iraqi WMD in the ramp up to war. If you think all nations got their facts from 'sources with a vested interest in supporting the invasion' (whoever these imaginary people are), then you are disconnected from reality.)
Instead of insulting me for asking a neutral question, please provide an actual citation, preferrably a URL. Just saying "the reports of the UN inspection team" is hugely broad and suggests that you yourself have not actually read them either. I just want to see the same facts you have seen that made you come to these conclusions. No need for 'clues' or 'hints' or any other snide attacks, just your facts man.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder why that is..?
Haliburton is now the official state-sanctioned construction company of Libya.
Hate to break it to you, but user-mode programs in solaris get raw access to the disk too. It's called /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s2.
Is the glass half empty or half full? Some would say it's half empty. Some would say it's half full.
No. There is only one correct answer:
The glass is too big.
Here: http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-06/BH -US-06-Rutkowska.pdf
Dunno, maybe I need to read up on the virtualization facilities,
Yep. The info is out there, seek and ye shall find.
AMD's got full docs on their website, they call it SVM and/or Pacifica.
Well, filing fees are supposed to cover that to a degree
Don't think it even comes close, the law is expensive because lawyers like it that way.
and it's very much a public good to make our judicial process accessible to anyone with a beef, no matter how unlikely.
As far as I have read, nobody has said that neither he nor anyone else should not have the right to make an ass of himself. But that doesn't mean we have to be happy or supportive of his actions. He's got a right to be an ass, and we have the right to call him an ass for doing it.
Without commenting on the likelihood of blue pill actually circumventing the shipping version of Vista, I just wanted to say that Blue Pill does not require a reboot, it is able to slip in a virtual machine and move the host OS to that VM without doing much,if anthing, that would be noticed by a regular user.
Did anyone else scan that headline and think "what the hell?" because they read it as "Fedora Based on Thunderbird?"
Well, they are divorced and if she has a boyfriend then its very likely that she has moved on. We can't really tell anything about their post-divorce relationship other than they shuttle the kids back and forth, for all we can tell from the website the custody thing might as well be a court ordered result of a bitter divorce.
So, it is quite easy to imagine a situation where their current relationship status means Hans just doesn't merit mentioning.
You know, its comments like this (even in the semi-anonymous and lame-black-humor-filled world of Slashdot) that keeps our image down. No wonder most people don't care about our opinions and treat us with lack of respect.
What a load of sanctimonius bullshit.
Tell that to Leno next time he cracks a 9/11 joke.
Or Letterman next time he cracks an Iraqi occupation joke.
Or the SNL writers next time they do an Abu Graib skit.
People here are on slashdot are no different from people everywhere else.
Someone around here has a sig that says something like, "letting a programmer name your product is like making a marketer program it." Never before has it been demonstrated so clearly.
I don't think you get it. They deliberately chose an obnoxious name.
The same way that Apple renamed their internal project "Carl Sagan" to "BHA"
for 'Butt-Head Astronomer' after he tried to sue them.
You left out:
4) Other minorities have been equally or perhaps even moreso discriminated against, but the jews just have better PR.
To pick probably the largest example in recent years, the genocide in Rwanda was on the order of 1 million mostly tutsi and hutu deaths, but has received orders of magnitude less coverage than the holocaust.
Here is a short list of documentation that the palestinians have been getting the ever living shit beat out of them. You might also try watching the evening news on a regular basis.
Ninety-eight Percent Of Gaza's Children Experience Or Witness War Trauma
Israeli Siege Leaves Gaza Isolated and Desperate
Israel/Occupied Territories Human Rights Practices, 1993
Israel and The Occupied Territorioes Human Rights Practices, 1994
Occupied Territories Human Rights Practices, 1995
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Occupied Territories - 1996
The Occupied Territories Report on Human Rights Practices for 1997
The Occupied Territories Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Occupied Territories - 1999
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Israel and the Occupied Territories - 2000
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Israel and the Occupied Territories - 2001
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Occupied Territories - 2002
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Occupied Territories - 2003
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Israel and the Occupied Territories - 2004
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Occupied Territories - 2005
You're confused. The fact that Christians were violently anti-Semitic throughtout much of their history does not show that Muslims were not. The question here is not whether Christians or Muslims have a better record: both have long and sordid histories of intolerance of other religions. The question at hand is whether Muslims were anti-Semitic prior to 1948. Even the rather sparse list of examples in that Wikipedia article provides evidence that they were.
I'm sorry but you are not citing useful resources. I can only go by the information you have provided to me and that wikipedia article is very light on evidence for "rabid hatred of Jewish people goes back to before Israel." The point of my comparison of muslim to christian reports in the same document was to make it clear that if ~20 reported events do not make christians rabid anti-semites, then 3 relatively low-key reports do not make muslims rabid anti-semites either.
The Jimena site may be an advocacy site, but it not only quotes the personal testimony of Jewish refugees from the Arab world but, if you actually read the articles, you'll see that there is much quotation from other sources.
The point of an advocacy site is to promote a point of view, it is not to give equal treatment to the facts. Perhaps you do not understand that a respectable citation is one which does not promote a point of view, one that has "no dog in the fight." For example, a site like Jimena would certainly ignore and leave out any mitigating quotes from other jews who have a different perspective from the one the site is advocating. Thus it is not a respectable source of information.
It is your assumption that the Muslim bigot whom I cited is unrepresentative.
Please provide a respectable citation that a large proprotion of the muslim population is bigoted. Pointing at anecdotal evidence is neither a citation nor at all respectable for the very same reason that pointing at anecdotal evidence to the contrary is just as poor evidence.
The Qur'an is quite explicit in its anti-Semitism - its not as if he is stretching to interpret it that way.
If the quran is explicitly anti-semitic, then you do not need to cite a bigotted website, it should be plain to see to any reasonable researcher. Thus I ask you to produce a citation to a respectable source documenting the explicit anti-semitism in the quran.
You might start with the Wikipedia history of anti-semitism.
On that page I see three or four references to muslim rulers imposing special sanctions on jews. I see about 10x that number of references to christians persecuting jews and often in far worse ways. If you belive that is sufficient proof that muslim's have "rabid hatred of Jewish people goes back to before Israel" then you must see christain society as 10x worse. I do not see christain society as expectionally anti-semitic. The linked wikipedia article titled "Islam and Anti-semitism" is disputed and thus not even a respectable source even by wikipedia standards, so I didn't see the point in reading something biased enough to trip over even wikipedia's low standards.
You might then check out the website of Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and Africa.
On inspection this site seems to be an advocacy site and thus clearly not a respectable source.
Here is piece by a contemorary Muslim bigot that cites the Qur'an and the attitude of Mohammed himself.
I think you understand that a bigot's viewpoints on history are going to be self-serving and not particularly representative. That's the equivalent of citing Matthew Hale's intrepretaion of the christain bible as proof that christains have a rabid hatred of jewish people.
Surely you must have some rational and unbiased sources for the facts about the muslim religion. Why are you trying to distract me with irrational and slanted sources?
Its called being incorporated. Except in the most extreme cases, the owners and operators of a corporation are shielded from criminal and civil liability for actions of the corporation. That's why shareholders don't get sued when the company they own shares in does something illegal. Similarly, the owners of youtube were never at risk in the first place, only the corporation itself and that risk was transferred to google along with all the other assets of the youtube corporation.
Does google still have "IPO money" any more? At this point, I think they're just in to plain old regular money.
Yes. Unlike most IPO's where the majority of the dollars go to the underwriters and their clients, google did a kind of auction that resulted in almost the entire take going into their pockets, not wallstreet's. So they've got billions of "IPO money" in the bank and will have for the forseeable future unless they get let someone screw them like mp3.com was screwed.
Have you ever heard of Google, or a history book? Why should we spoon-feed you basic knowledge of the history of the Middle-East?
Yes you should. The history books I studied in college claim otherwise. I see plenty of websites that claim otherwise too. When I search on "dhimmi" and "Grand Mufti Haj Amin" I find many websites of extremely dubious veractiy.
Someone who is willing to state something so emphatically must have good reason to believe it. All I ask is that they support their claims with respectable citations because I believe the person making the claims to be a rational and intelligent person with strong critical thinking ability and thus they must have respectable sources for the information that has shaped their beliefs.
Again, I ask you to please provide an actual, verifiable citation from a respectable source. Surely you have some concrete evidence that brought you to your conclusions. Please share it with us so that we can come to the same rational conclusions as you have.
The bubble will burst on this purchase. There's too much copyright infringement going on @ Youtube.
And more importantly, now there is someone to sue. Someone with lots and lots of money, so all those $200K per infringement civil awards actually have a chance of being paid out. Watch for Hollywood to their absolute damndest to take Google's IPO money the same way the RIAA took mp3.com's $200M of IPO cash.
You forget the fact that this mostly one-way rabid hatred of Jewish people goes back to before Israel, before the Zionist movement.
Please provide a respectable citation for your claim that, "mostly one-way rabid hatred of Jewish people goes back to before Israel."
Please provide a citation supporting your claim that Kasmiya or a representative of his company, Afkar Media, have denied that Holocaust occured.
Thanks, Dr. Godwin. The last one brings us back on topic, to a nation where a majority of the people insist as an important goal the extermination of another nation. By coincidence, the reason for the wanted extermination is because the targettted people happen to be Jewish.
Of course wanting to slaughter your enemies because they have been beating the ever living shit out of you for decades now has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.
Sooo.... your trying to say that he has people in his military setting off experimental nuclear weapons without his consent? Somehow I doubt that, especially considering his "mercy" when it comes to punishment.
I am saying that a lot of political power within the DPRK rests with the military and that Kim essentially has the choice of either gracefully agreeing to some of their plans or face a military coup. It is not a simple matter to just execute high-ranking officers in the military, for one their troops are loyal to their commanders, not necessarily to Kim.
Try, for example, the reports of the UN inspection team. (Here's a clue for you since you seem to live in a world without them; not one nation doubted the likely existence of Iraqi WMD in the ramp up to war. If you think all nations got their facts from 'sources with a vested interest in supporting the invasion' (whoever these imaginary people are), then you are disconnected from reality.)
Instead of insulting me for asking a neutral question, please provide an actual citation, preferrably a URL. Just saying "the reports of the UN inspection team" is hugely broad and suggests that you yourself have not actually read them either. I just want to see the same facts you have seen that made you come to these conclusions. No need for 'clues' or 'hints' or any other snide attacks, just your facts man.