Perhaps the drives themselves don't, but the servers or DASD boxes they're sitting in are very susceptible to dust. I realize the article says the hard drives failed, but further down they talk about needing to replace the servers. I'm asserting that it was more likely the dirt and debris that ultimately caused the problem, not the sound.
Thank you. Moreover, I would bet that it wasn't the sound, but the particulates that did it. Whether this was Halon, or FM-200, or some other "clean agent", if you've ever seen a Data Center after one of those goes off, it's covered in powder and dust. The idea that they're truly "clean" is complete crap. Sure, they won't soak your gear in water, but it's not this lovely, clean, unobtrusive gas like the sales folks tell you it is.
No, you're misunderstand me. The reducing their footprint comes from the "collaborative office" transformation (or whatever they're calling it nowadays). You know, take a floor that has about 20 cubicles and 6 offices and "transform" it into an open plan with corrals with seats for 45. You pack them in like goddamn sardines but tell them it's so that you'll "spark creativity" or whatever.
That part reduces your footprint significantly.....even including the folks who come in from home. Typically it's a two phased approach. First you take the office and squeeze it down and wait for the first wave of folks to quit. Next, you bring in the poor folks who've worked from home for 10 years and see how long they can endure a commute and being in a bull pen all day....which typically doesn't last long.
It's evil, but it's effective. HP did this while I was with them.
From what I've observed (and been part of) is that the main reason companies get into the cancelling of remote positions is for money. They want to save money anywhere they can. Usually this is folded in with a transformation to an "open, collaborative work environment" where offices and cubicles are removed so everybody can be fun and vibrant and bubbling with ideas and cross pollination.
Except it's not about that. At all.
The reason companies cancel their Work From Home jobs and remove the cubes and offices is to a) reduce their real estate footprint which reduces their rent and b) piss off enough people that they'll quit. That way, the company doesn't have to pay severance. It's a veiled way of performing layoffs and it works like a charm.
Unfortunately, the companies who started this trend (GE for example) have abandoned it because they learned that once you let that play out, all of your best folks leave, taking all the tribal knowledge with you. The companies still doing this shit now are the dumbasses who are so far behind the times they can't see straight.
No. The problem is that there are no more Democrats left. They all turned into social democrats leaving those of us who aren't communists without a liberal party to vote for.
What an absurd statement. You're throwing the word "communist" around and expect to be taken seriously?
But what's strange is they're saying that condensation caused a flash event in a TRANSFORMER, not switchgear. That sounds off to me. A transformer provides plenty of heat, and I can't see how a transformer inside the building would suddenly succumb to "condensation" resulting from extended rains. If that's the case, why hasn't this happened during extended rain events prior to this?
I don't think we're getting the whole story here. Of course, I realize this is a preliminary report.
I've seen this happen at HP, then again at Xerox. Many large companies starting doing this, particularly once Yahoo started doing it. It's usually combined with revamping the workspace into a "collborative" work environment (you know, the ones where they don't allow any offices or cube walls....one big open space so that everyone can collaborate.....what a load of shit that is).
The REAL reason they force folks back into the new office is: A) they know people have come to love working from home, and many will not be able to handle a long commute after working from home for years, so they'll quit....which is much cheaper than laying them off (and paying severance) or even firing them (and potentially paying unemployment)
B) those folks who stay can now be squeezed into a smaller footprint because they've removed all the bulky cubes and offices, thus less real estate costs because they've reduced the amount of square footage they're occupying.
Listen, dipshit, yes, fuel efficiency is science and engineering......that was fucking PUSHED by regulation. You think those companies like Ford and Chrysler just decided to do something nice for the planet because it was the right thing to do? Hell no. They did it because regulations tightened on emissions and efficiency, so they were forced to adapt. And I love your anecdotal horse shit "hybrid vehicles have failed to make any substantial improvement" trip. What the hell are you even talking about here?? Where do you live that you don't see any substantial use of hybrid vehicles?
And yes, initially hybrids were cost prohibitive, but that has evolved due to regulation and subsidization. The problem with you curmudgeonly fucks is that you can't see past your own nose, and you cannot imagine the steps necessary to initiate a true sea change. Guys like you who love to believe that they're financial analysts try to boil things down to back of the napkin comparisons, when the reality is so much more complex.
But, go ahead and be an asshole, I don't care. We smart folks will happily leave you behind.
Alternate energy sources is the answer and that can only be accomplished with science not regulation.
I do not agree. I think that regulation in some form MUST be a component because as we've all seen, massive corporations are reluctant to make expensive investments unless prodded to do so. Do you honestly believe we'd have had the increases in fuel efficiency or the proliferation of hybrid vehicles without some of the regulations that have been imposed?
No one's talking about banning the internal combustion energy, dude. Just like we didn't just ban CFCs, we phased out the CFC based refrigerants over 20 years, and you know what? It worked.
So, why don't you get that enormous cock off your chest and quit accusing people of being "hippie idealists" who are essentially saying the same thing you are? Any idiot with half a brain recognizes that our planets reliance on fossil fuels is a dead end street, and everyone agrees renewables is the way to go (well.....except those die hard Trumpies.....they just want their coal jobs back...).
I've seriously struggled to understand this. How are you actually trying to point to some DNC "conspiracy". To be clear, I was a Bernie Supporter, I voted for him, I wanted him to win. Thus, I should be filled with angst and bile for the violation here.
But, I'm not. Know why?
Because I understand that politics is a game. Bernie was awesome because he went against the grain. Why then is it so hard to believe that the DNC was nervous and threatened by him? Why is it surprising to anyone that they might have a preference for Hillary given her husband's popularity as a president? And most importantly, Bernie lost the primary fair and square.
This talk of "conspiracy" is just garbage and noise. You're trying to move the argument to that storyline so we move away from the hacking aspect. That's a sad diversion attempt.
1. Why are these infrastructure computers reachable from the Internet?
2. Why this system doesn't fail safe if the controller is taken down?
Yet another cautionary tale of IoT woe, but also some seemingly bad design...
Exactly. I've been working in Facilities Management for 16 years. I have a LOT of experience with Building Automation systems and Building Monitoring systems. If these dummies were stupid enough to put their Building Automation System on the Internet and didn't bother to put the infrastructure in place to provide adequate security and/or failsafe modes for controller or communications failures, then they deserve what they got.
This is not the way the pros do it. I've never heard of this management company, and it's clear why.....they suck. There is no reason this should have happened. I'd be willing to bet that someone took a shortcut so he/she wouldn't have to come in after hours to respond to issues, so they grabbed an old copy of PC Anywhere and installed in on a client machine or something stupid like that. Too often, I see cases like this where human laziness ends up being the culprit.
Sure, I'd rather pay $300 up front and get it for free.
That's part of the problem, they've cancelled the "free" option. And they've raised their prices in most markets. They're just getting ready to roll out here in Charlotte, NC, and I was initially excited, but I'm not anymore. Sure, they're offering gigabit speeds, and while you can get that through the others, it's more expensive with them. That said, if they really wanted mass adoption, they should've kept the cheaper plans and lower (but competitive) speeds in place. Why should I switch to them when I'm getting 30 Mbps and 300 digital channels for about $100/month?
Totally agree that no DR process is absurd.....especially for an airline. While I was at EDS, we supported Continental and US Air, and those guys regularly tested their DR schemes. And my point was that the Generators weren't affected directly, I'm theorizing that the ATS that connects the generators to the Data Center failed. It's very common to have several generators connect to a common bus (usually a paralleling piece of switchgear) and then have that bus tie to the Data Center via an ATS. In this case, both the Utility and the Generator power go through the ATS, thus making it a single point of failure. This is a very common design in spite of the single point of failure due to cost and historical performance of ATSs.
Well, to be clear, I'm just speculating here, but I'm not implying that the GENERATORS blew up, I'm speculating that the ATS blew up. It is a very common topology to have multiple Generators connect to one main bus, and then have that bus connect to the Data Center via an ATS. In other words, yes, there is/are redundant Generator(s), but they all connect to one central bus, which then connects to the UPS Systems via the ATS and other switchgear.
The failure rate of ATSs is pretty low (when they're maintained), so it often becomes a value engineering decision during design. Yes, you could have each Generator connect via its own ATS, thus distributing the risk, but in so doing you increase your constructions costs, increase your maintenance costs, etc. The bean counters don't like that, and it becomes hard to convince them that it's worth it when you can't come up with statistical proof that a failure of the ATS is likely.
Interesting. I manage Enterprise Data Centers for a living. My expertise is the Facility Infrastructure (generators, UPS, switchgear, etc). What's being described in that post you linked to sounds very possible. I'd just about lay money down that this was a failure in an Automatic Transfer Switch. And as others have said, I pretty much guarantee that due to the corporate attitude of "facilities is just an expense center on a spreadsheet", there's been pressure to trim costs........including decreasing frequency of predictive maintenance like Infrared Thermography.
A well maintained ATS should be able to function flawlessly for many, many years (like 20 years). To have faulted so badly that it took out the whole switch (which would definitely make the primary and generator feeds inaccessible) sure sounds like deferred or non-existent maintenance to me.
I could not agree more. Like you, I also voted for Bernie, and while some of his ideas were a little extreme for me, I was generally on board with what he was trying to accomplish. Similarly, I have many friends who are evidently the "Bernie or Bust" types, and they all seem to have the same non-sequitur criticisms of her (i.e. "she's just like the rest of them", "she hates women because she defended a rapist", "she is the reason we're stuck with NAFTA", etc).
It's ridiculous the crap that people try to come up with as factual evidence as to why she'd be bad as a president, going so far as to say she'd be as bad or worse than Trump.....which is simply the most laughable thing I think I've ever heard. If anyone believes for a moment that a woman with her experience and capability is remotely close to the shit show that is Donald Trump, then you're simply not dealing in reality, and I highly suggest an appointment with a psychiatrist....like TODAY.....time is of the essence.
Of course she's not perfect. No one is saying she is. But look at the shit that gets brought up most often about her. Benghazi? Absolutely NO ONE has been able to determine that that was "her fault". Hell, a Republican congress hired a Republican military analyst to look over the facts of that case, so you can say with certainty that they all were working together to TRY to find something wrong. Guess what? He found nothing. Sorry it happened, kids, but you can't lay that on her. Oh, and while we're on it, let's keep in mind that she was not the president at the time of NAFTA. Just because her husband signed it into law does not mean that you can lay all of the issues with NAFTA at her feet.
The "Hillary defended a child molester" bit is ridiculous too. Guys, it WAS HER JOB! She was a defense attorney, and was the molester's court appointed attorney. If you're going to demonize her for doing her job, then you better do that for every single solitary defense attorney in the world.....and there's a shit ton of them.
Trump is an imbecile with absolutely no government ability, and if you look carefully, no real business acumen. His bankruptcies are well documented. He will not win, but some folks like to think he will. There's just no way we're going to throw our country into the toilet by electing a clown to thumb our nose at "the system".
In 2012, for instance, only 2.8 percent of the terrorist attacks in Europe were religiously-motivated, but nearly half of the people murdered in these attacks were killed by religiously-inspired terrorists.
But you must be a complete idiot to not see that there is a strong correlation between Islam and terrorism.
I don't follow. I don't see how that contradicts my point. In fact, I see how that clearly SUPPORTS my point. You're asserting that there is some "strong correlation" between terrorism and Islam, and I'm saying that there is NOT a significant correlation there. I'm highlighting this by illustrating the various other correlations that exist relating to acts of violence like this.
Now I definitely agree with you on not being clear on what constitutes a "terror attack" or even sometimes a "hate crime" vs people just doing evil stuff.
Listen, little tough guy, you're not impressing (or schooling) anybody. Before you get all impressed with yourself at bursting my bubble, I'm a fucking atheist, you twit. I know full well there is no invisible man that lives in the sky, and have no illusions about that, m'kay?
Now as for your "two types of people" thing, you're right, you are in the second group.....they're called imbeciles. If you honestly believe that these texts have nothing to do with either religion, when you obviously have absolutely no understanding of either and are just pontificating from whatever you're dreaming up in that head of yours.
But I digress, that isn't really the point here, is it? The point of this whole thread was the folks who are trying to link this type of terrorist violence to a religion (thus all the talk about religion and texts). I'm illustrating that the religions have nothing to do with it, and I'm countering arguments by other morons who like to cite the "violent" passages in the Koran by showing them that the Bible is no better. They don't seem to like that. And you don't seem to like the fact that I can prove my point. So let me get your position straight here. So if the KKK had more press lately, and had committed more mass atrocities more recently, then the argument works, but since they haven't been getting a lot of air time lately, it's not the same thing. Is that it? The Westboro assholes aren't big enough, and they haven't detonated any bombs yet, so they're good, even though they specifically exist to incite hatred and bigotry, it's not a big deal, and not at all proof that Christians do bad shit, is that it?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you probably have a reason in mind that I can't point to Hitler (also a Christian)....probably too long ago, huh? Never mind the 6,000,000 dead.....that's old news, huh? How about this guy , or maybe these folks ? No? Are we allowed to count these guys ?
Probably not. I'm sure you have a reason that you've dreamed up that they're totally different and therefore, they don't count.
I love how guys like you believe you're super informed and intelligent, but it never occurs to you that when you spend 16 years raining fucking bombs down on a country, eventually, the poor, uneducated, starving people in that country might rise up and right back, in whatever rag-tag militia that they can cobble together.....nah, you just focus on the fact that they're called Muslims, and therefore, Muslims=bad. The reality is, your a fucking hack, dude. You know squat, and talk all the shit you want, but you KNOW I'm right here. You're off base, I tried to be nice, but you wanted to be a condescending prick about it.
Seriously, read a little bit sometimes. Stop dreaming up your own delusions, and for goodness sake, stop listening to Rush and Drumpf.
Well, enjoy wasting your vote. Trump doesn't have a chance in the general election, and it would be impossible to do what he is proposing to do anyway.
Enjoy your life hating others based on silly misconceptions. When you're older, you'll probably realize how dopey you've been.
Meh. I'm just going to go with statistics. Even among radical Christians the number of terrorist acts stands at a tiny percentage compared to the number of terrorist attacks among radical Islamists.
Not sure what statistics you're looking at, but if you were to take your own advice, you'd see I'm right
Man, you're obtuse. It must be difficult not understanding things. You talked about the KKK as a comparison, obviously an American organization. So, I pointed out plainly how your argument is flawed because you're comparing the riches country in the world with the strongest military in the world with these small, disorganized (and now destroyed) Middle Eastern countries.
But just to humor you, because you seem to like arguing, don't you think that those same war-torn people, starving to death, living in constant fear might be able to be manipulated to believe that since the US and the EU are allies, that perhaps they might exhibit some violence on Brussels? Is it really such a stretch to believe that these same downtrodden, manipulated kids are led to believe that they really are doing "god's work" by these ISIS lunatics, and therefore they had to avenge the capture of one of their great assassins?
Seriously, dude, this isn't that hard to figure out. You rain down bombs on poor countries for 16 years, and eventually people in that country get tired of it and act out in irrational (if not desperate) ways.
Well, if at the same time, some country whose military was about 1,000 times more powerful than our own had destroyed most of the country and toppled our government, and therefore there was no definitive police or army to keep the peace.....I'd bet the KKK could do exactly the same thing. You have to compare apples to apples here. People are making it out like it's a Muslim issue, forgetting the fact that we've spent the last 16 years bombing the fucking shit out of these countries. That tends to piss people off, a lot. You get a lot of pissed off people who are poorly educated and put them in touch with some enterprising asshole who tells them some fairytale about how they can achieve greatness and escape the misery of everyday life by joining in some "holy war", and you've got a recipe for some major shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the drives themselves don't, but the servers or DASD boxes they're sitting in are very susceptible to dust. I realize the article says the hard drives failed, but further down they talk about needing to replace the servers. I'm asserting that it was more likely the dirt and debris that ultimately caused the problem, not the sound.
Thank you. Moreover, I would bet that it wasn't the sound, but the particulates that did it. Whether this was Halon, or FM-200, or some other "clean agent", if you've ever seen a Data Center after one of those goes off, it's covered in powder and dust. The idea that they're truly "clean" is complete crap. Sure, they won't soak your gear in water, but it's not this lovely, clean, unobtrusive gas like the sales folks tell you it is.
I should know better than to feed a "false flag" theorist, but um, you're full of shit:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43740626
No, you're misunderstand me. The reducing their footprint comes from the "collaborative office" transformation (or whatever they're calling it nowadays). You know, take a floor that has about 20 cubicles and 6 offices and "transform" it into an open plan with corrals with seats for 45. You pack them in like goddamn sardines but tell them it's so that you'll "spark creativity" or whatever.
That part reduces your footprint significantly.....even including the folks who come in from home. Typically it's a two phased approach. First you take the office and squeeze it down and wait for the first wave of folks to quit. Next, you bring in the poor folks who've worked from home for 10 years and see how long they can endure a commute and being in a bull pen all day....which typically doesn't last long.
It's evil, but it's effective. HP did this while I was with them.
From what I've observed (and been part of) is that the main reason companies get into the cancelling of remote positions is for money. They want to save money anywhere they can. Usually this is folded in with a transformation to an "open, collaborative work environment" where offices and cubicles are removed so everybody can be fun and vibrant and bubbling with ideas and cross pollination.
Except it's not about that. At all.
The reason companies cancel their Work From Home jobs and remove the cubes and offices is to a) reduce their real estate footprint which reduces their rent and b) piss off enough people that they'll quit. That way, the company doesn't have to pay severance. It's a veiled way of performing layoffs and it works like a charm.
Unfortunately, the companies who started this trend (GE for example) have abandoned it because they learned that once you let that play out, all of your best folks leave, taking all the tribal knowledge with you. The companies still doing this shit now are the dumbasses who are so far behind the times they can't see straight.
Nail on the head
No. The problem is that there are no more Democrats left. They all turned into social democrats leaving those of us who aren't communists without a liberal party to vote for.
What an absurd statement. You're throwing the word "communist" around and expect to be taken seriously?
But what's strange is they're saying that condensation caused a flash event in a TRANSFORMER, not switchgear. That sounds off to me. A transformer provides plenty of heat, and I can't see how a transformer inside the building would suddenly succumb to "condensation" resulting from extended rains. If that's the case, why hasn't this happened during extended rain events prior to this?
I don't think we're getting the whole story here. Of course, I realize this is a preliminary report.
I've seen this happen at HP, then again at Xerox. Many large companies starting doing this, particularly once Yahoo started doing it. It's usually combined with revamping the workspace into a "collborative" work environment (you know, the ones where they don't allow any offices or cube walls....one big open space so that everyone can collaborate.....what a load of shit that is).
The REAL reason they force folks back into the new office is:
A) they know people have come to love working from home, and many will not be able to handle a long commute after working from home for years, so they'll quit....which is much cheaper than laying them off (and paying severance) or even firing them (and potentially paying unemployment)
B) those folks who stay can now be squeezed into a smaller footprint because they've removed all the bulky cubes and offices, thus less real estate costs because they've reduced the amount of square footage they're occupying.
This is a finance exercise pure and simple.
Hey hey hey, now wait a minute.....
Everyone knows in Soviet Russia, the commerce controls YOU.
Man, you really like to be obtuse don't you?
Listen, dipshit, yes, fuel efficiency is science and engineering......that was fucking PUSHED by regulation. You think those companies like Ford and Chrysler just decided to do something nice for the planet because it was the right thing to do? Hell no. They did it because regulations tightened on emissions and efficiency, so they were forced to adapt. And I love your anecdotal horse shit "hybrid vehicles have failed to make any substantial improvement" trip. What the hell are you even talking about here?? Where do you live that you don't see any substantial use of hybrid vehicles?
And yes, initially hybrids were cost prohibitive, but that has evolved due to regulation and subsidization. The problem with you curmudgeonly fucks is that you can't see past your own nose, and you cannot imagine the steps necessary to initiate a true sea change. Guys like you who love to believe that they're financial analysts try to boil things down to back of the napkin comparisons, when the reality is so much more complex.
But, go ahead and be an asshole, I don't care. We smart folks will happily leave you behind.
Alternate energy sources is the answer and that can only be accomplished with science not regulation.
I do not agree. I think that regulation in some form MUST be a component because as we've all seen, massive corporations are reluctant to make expensive investments unless prodded to do so. Do you honestly believe we'd have had the increases in fuel efficiency or the proliferation of hybrid vehicles without some of the regulations that have been imposed?
No one's talking about banning the internal combustion energy, dude. Just like we didn't just ban CFCs, we phased out the CFC based refrigerants over 20 years, and you know what? It worked.
So, why don't you get that enormous cock off your chest and quit accusing people of being "hippie idealists" who are essentially saying the same thing you are? Any idiot with half a brain recognizes that our planets reliance on fossil fuels is a dead end street, and everyone agrees renewables is the way to go (well.....except those die hard Trumpies.....they just want their coal jobs back...).
I've seriously struggled to understand this. How are you actually trying to point to some DNC "conspiracy". To be clear, I was a Bernie Supporter, I voted for him, I wanted him to win. Thus, I should be filled with angst and bile for the violation here.
But, I'm not. Know why?
Because I understand that politics is a game. Bernie was awesome because he went against the grain. Why then is it so hard to believe that the DNC was nervous and threatened by him? Why is it surprising to anyone that they might have a preference for Hillary given her husband's popularity as a president? And most importantly, Bernie lost the primary fair and square.
This talk of "conspiracy" is just garbage and noise. You're trying to move the argument to that storyline so we move away from the hacking aspect. That's a sad diversion attempt.
1. Why are these infrastructure computers reachable from the Internet? 2. Why this system doesn't fail safe if the controller is taken down? Yet another cautionary tale of IoT woe, but also some seemingly bad design...
Exactly. I've been working in Facilities Management for 16 years. I have a LOT of experience with Building Automation systems and Building Monitoring systems. If these dummies were stupid enough to put their Building Automation System on the Internet and didn't bother to put the infrastructure in place to provide adequate security and/or failsafe modes for controller or communications failures, then they deserve what they got.
This is not the way the pros do it. I've never heard of this management company, and it's clear why.....they suck. There is no reason this should have happened. I'd be willing to bet that someone took a shortcut so he/she wouldn't have to come in after hours to respond to issues, so they grabbed an old copy of PC Anywhere and installed in on a client machine or something stupid like that. Too often, I see cases like this where human laziness ends up being the culprit.
Sure, I'd rather pay $300 up front and get it for free.
That's part of the problem, they've cancelled the "free" option. And they've raised their prices in most markets. They're just getting ready to roll out here in Charlotte, NC, and I was initially excited, but I'm not anymore. Sure, they're offering gigabit speeds, and while you can get that through the others, it's more expensive with them. That said, if they really wanted mass adoption, they should've kept the cheaper plans and lower (but competitive) speeds in place. Why should I switch to them when I'm getting 30 Mbps and 300 digital channels for about $100/month?
Totally agree that no DR process is absurd.....especially for an airline. While I was at EDS, we supported Continental and US Air, and those guys regularly tested their DR schemes. And my point was that the Generators weren't affected directly, I'm theorizing that the ATS that connects the generators to the Data Center failed. It's very common to have several generators connect to a common bus (usually a paralleling piece of switchgear) and then have that bus tie to the Data Center via an ATS. In this case, both the Utility and the Generator power go through the ATS, thus making it a single point of failure. This is a very common design in spite of the single point of failure due to cost and historical performance of ATSs.
Well, to be clear, I'm just speculating here, but I'm not implying that the GENERATORS blew up, I'm speculating that the ATS blew up. It is a very common topology to have multiple Generators connect to one main bus, and then have that bus connect to the Data Center via an ATS. In other words, yes, there is/are redundant Generator(s), but they all connect to one central bus, which then connects to the UPS Systems via the ATS and other switchgear.
The failure rate of ATSs is pretty low (when they're maintained), so it often becomes a value engineering decision during design. Yes, you could have each Generator connect via its own ATS, thus distributing the risk, but in so doing you increase your constructions costs, increase your maintenance costs, etc. The bean counters don't like that, and it becomes hard to convince them that it's worth it when you can't come up with statistical proof that a failure of the ATS is likely.
Interesting. I manage Enterprise Data Centers for a living. My expertise is the Facility Infrastructure (generators, UPS, switchgear, etc). What's being described in that post you linked to sounds very possible. I'd just about lay money down that this was a failure in an Automatic Transfer Switch. And as others have said, I pretty much guarantee that due to the corporate attitude of "facilities is just an expense center on a spreadsheet", there's been pressure to trim costs........including decreasing frequency of predictive maintenance like Infrared Thermography.
A well maintained ATS should be able to function flawlessly for many, many years (like 20 years). To have faulted so badly that it took out the whole switch (which would definitely make the primary and generator feeds inaccessible) sure sounds like deferred or non-existent maintenance to me.
I could not agree more. Like you, I also voted for Bernie, and while some of his ideas were a little extreme for me, I was generally on board with what he was trying to accomplish. Similarly, I have many friends who are evidently the "Bernie or Bust" types, and they all seem to have the same non-sequitur criticisms of her (i.e. "she's just like the rest of them", "she hates women because she defended a rapist", "she is the reason we're stuck with NAFTA", etc).
It's ridiculous the crap that people try to come up with as factual evidence as to why she'd be bad as a president, going so far as to say she'd be as bad or worse than Trump.....which is simply the most laughable thing I think I've ever heard. If anyone believes for a moment that a woman with her experience and capability is remotely close to the shit show that is Donald Trump, then you're simply not dealing in reality, and I highly suggest an appointment with a psychiatrist....like TODAY.....time is of the essence.
Of course she's not perfect. No one is saying she is. But look at the shit that gets brought up most often about her. Benghazi? Absolutely NO ONE has been able to determine that that was "her fault". Hell, a Republican congress hired a Republican military analyst to look over the facts of that case, so you can say with certainty that they all were working together to TRY to find something wrong. Guess what? He found nothing. Sorry it happened, kids, but you can't lay that on her. Oh, and while we're on it, let's keep in mind that she was not the president at the time of NAFTA. Just because her husband signed it into law does not mean that you can lay all of the issues with NAFTA at her feet.
The "Hillary defended a child molester" bit is ridiculous too. Guys, it WAS HER JOB! She was a defense attorney, and was the molester's court appointed attorney. If you're going to demonize her for doing her job, then you better do that for every single solitary defense attorney in the world.....and there's a shit ton of them.
Trump is an imbecile with absolutely no government ability, and if you look carefully, no real business acumen. His bankruptcies are well documented. He will not win, but some folks like to think he will. There's just no way we're going to throw our country into the toilet by electing a clown to thumb our nose at "the system".
Your own source contradicts you:
In 2012, for instance, only 2.8 percent of the terrorist attacks in Europe were religiously-motivated, but nearly half of the people murdered in these attacks were killed by religiously-inspired terrorists.
But you must be a complete idiot to not see that there is a strong correlation between Islam and terrorism.
I don't follow. I don't see how that contradicts my point. In fact, I see how that clearly SUPPORTS my point. You're asserting that there is some "strong correlation" between terrorism and Islam, and I'm saying that there is NOT a significant correlation there. I'm highlighting this by illustrating the various other correlations that exist relating to acts of violence like this.
Now I definitely agree with you on not being clear on what constitutes a "terror attack" or even sometimes a "hate crime" vs people just doing evil stuff.
Listen, little tough guy, you're not impressing (or schooling) anybody. Before you get all impressed with yourself at bursting my bubble, I'm a fucking atheist, you twit. I know full well there is no invisible man that lives in the sky, and have no illusions about that, m'kay?
Now as for your "two types of people" thing, you're right, you are in the second group.....they're called imbeciles. If you honestly believe that these texts have nothing to do with either religion, when you obviously have absolutely no understanding of either and are just pontificating from whatever you're dreaming up in that head of yours.
But I digress, that isn't really the point here, is it? The point of this whole thread was the folks who are trying to link this type of terrorist violence to a religion (thus all the talk about religion and texts). I'm illustrating that the religions have nothing to do with it, and I'm countering arguments by other morons who like to cite the "violent" passages in the Koran by showing them that the Bible is no better. They don't seem to like that. And you don't seem to like the fact that I can prove my point. So let me get your position straight here. So if the KKK had more press lately, and had committed more mass atrocities more recently, then the argument works, but since they haven't been getting a lot of air time lately, it's not the same thing. Is that it? The Westboro assholes aren't big enough, and they haven't detonated any bombs yet, so they're good, even though they specifically exist to incite hatred and bigotry, it's not a big deal, and not at all proof that Christians do bad shit, is that it?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you probably have a reason in mind that I can't point to Hitler (also a Christian)....probably too long ago, huh? Never mind the 6,000,000 dead.....that's old news, huh? How about this guy , or maybe these folks ? No? Are we allowed to count these guys ?
Probably not. I'm sure you have a reason that you've dreamed up that they're totally different and therefore, they don't count.
I love how guys like you believe you're super informed and intelligent, but it never occurs to you that when you spend 16 years raining fucking bombs down on a country, eventually, the poor, uneducated, starving people in that country might rise up and right back, in whatever rag-tag militia that they can cobble together.....nah, you just focus on the fact that they're called Muslims, and therefore, Muslims=bad. The reality is, your a fucking hack, dude. You know squat, and talk all the shit you want, but you KNOW I'm right here. You're off base, I tried to be nice, but you wanted to be a condescending prick about it.
Seriously, read a little bit sometimes. Stop dreaming up your own delusions, and for goodness sake, stop listening to Rush and Drumpf.
Wow. The ignorance astounds.
Well, enjoy wasting your vote. Trump doesn't have a chance in the general election, and it would be impossible to do what he is proposing to do anyway.
Enjoy your life hating others based on silly misconceptions. When you're older, you'll probably realize how dopey you've been.
Meh. I'm just going to go with statistics. Even among radical Christians the number of terrorist acts stands at a tiny percentage compared to the number of terrorist attacks among radical Islamists.
Not sure what statistics you're looking at, but if you were to take your own advice, you'd see I'm right
Man, you're obtuse. It must be difficult not understanding things. You talked about the KKK as a comparison, obviously an American organization. So, I pointed out plainly how your argument is flawed because you're comparing the riches country in the world with the strongest military in the world with these small, disorganized (and now destroyed) Middle Eastern countries.
But just to humor you, because you seem to like arguing, don't you think that those same war-torn people, starving to death, living in constant fear might be able to be manipulated to believe that since the US and the EU are allies, that perhaps they might exhibit some violence on Brussels? Is it really such a stretch to believe that these same downtrodden, manipulated kids are led to believe that they really are doing "god's work" by these ISIS lunatics, and therefore they had to avenge the capture of one of their great assassins?
Seriously, dude, this isn't that hard to figure out. You rain down bombs on poor countries for 16 years, and eventually people in that country get tired of it and act out in irrational (if not desperate) ways.
Well, if at the same time, some country whose military was about 1,000 times more powerful than our own had destroyed most of the country and toppled our government, and therefore there was no definitive police or army to keep the peace.....I'd bet the KKK could do exactly the same thing. You have to compare apples to apples here. People are making it out like it's a Muslim issue, forgetting the fact that we've spent the last 16 years bombing the fucking shit out of these countries. That tends to piss people off, a lot. You get a lot of pissed off people who are poorly educated and put them in touch with some enterprising asshole who tells them some fairytale about how they can achieve greatness and escape the misery of everyday life by joining in some "holy war", and you've got a recipe for some major shit.