Congratulations on the +5 insightful for a frightfully ignorant comment.
In fact, in Islam just like in Christianity and Judaism, fundamentalism refers to a few specific modern schools of thought. In Islam this refers primarily to Salafism, in Christianity to Dispensationalism, and in Judaism to Charedism.
In each case the fundamentalists are a relatively small proportion of the total number. It's quite true that salafists (when confident of their strength) will denounce normal muslims and attack them - they are particularly narrow-minded and hate all sects but their own. They are still a small minority within the religion, however. There are approximately 1.57 Billion muslims in this world, with extremely generous estimates of the proportion holding salafist jihadi ideals at less than 1% of that total. Even within that group only a minority justifies and approves of terrorist attacks.
They certainly punch above their belt in terms of creating headlines, just as their christian and jewish counterparts do, but in no sense are they anywhere near 'normal' muslims. There are dozens of sects that outnumber them. The largest single sect is usually reckoned as the Sufis who are typical all the way from Morrocco through Turkey and east into China and pretty well diametrically opposed to Salafism in every way.
Oh dont get me wrong, I am not disputing that at all. But it sounds like there are plenty of witnesses to the fact that they were the ones that turned this physical. The police may justify their actions by his loss of control, perhaps even rightly so - but that does not compromise his case against those security guards, and their employers. It would only protect the police.
No. A mall is a public space, and you dont need any permission to take pictures in a public space. Being privately owned, they may be able to ask you to leave for any reason, and eventually if you refuse that can wind up with a trespassing complaint, nothing more.
Actually, they CAN (in BC and Ontario, at least) legally tell you to stop taking pictures and/or leave the property. Failing to do so "as soon as practicable" then becomes trespassing and they can have you arrested.
From TFA I got the impression the guards assaulted him themselves, then called the cops, so they would still appear to be completely on the wrong side of the law here.
From what I read, he only 'lost his cool' after these thugs laid their hands on him. His legal options should be in no way compromised by that. I hope he gets a good lawyer and throws the book at the mall.
Actually 'landing' on it would be a huge problem. An asteroid is not typically one large smooth rock, after all. And it will definitely be 'tumbling' in relation to you as well. So it would be a very difficult docking maneuver on an uncertain surface. And remember these things arent large enough to generate enough gravity to notice either. So it's basically all in zero-g.
Spraying a load of paint at it would be orders of magnitutude easier, and still wouldnt exactly be easy.
The existence of the Galician language, Galego, is most certainly not in doubt. It is quite similar to Portugese (particularly when written in the alternate orthography which makes it look more similar) but it is definitely not Portugese and I would love to see how long you would last saying that in Santiago del C. Galego has been distinct from both Castillian and Portugese for many centuries.
V1s didnt have very much accelleration, or a very high top speed, so the GP might well be correct that something of the same design could be controlled by cellphone. Travelling that slowly makes it easy to shoot down if spotted, but it also makes it a lot safer to travel at very low altitude without attracting too much attention, so the idea doesnt seem implausible.
Abstract reasoning is exactly what IQ is supposed to measure, so that part seems a bit confused. But beyond that, I think if you look more closely what is happening is moreso that the bottom end of the range is coming up (as a result of more widespread basic education) than that the top end is rising (smart people are actually smarter.) This probably has more to do with nutrition and medical care than anything else.
In my experience, games either will work in windowed mode and I play them in that mode, or they dont work (at least not very well) in windowed mode, and then and only then do I worry about full screen. So for me, any given game is only going to need to run in one mode or another. Apparently for others this is different, which is fine.
Yes, theoretically, but in reality resizing stuff on the fly, particularly to odd, one-off resolutions to fit in a window, is a big performance sink - fine for some games but there is a good chunk of the market where that isnt acceptable. Plus, for many games, moving the mouse to the edge of the screen actually has a specific meaning. It's not always straightforward to determine whether you mean to throw the mouse against the edge of the screen in-game or just mean to move the mouse out of the window to check your calendar. One way to make sure is just to force full screen.
On a lot of games I agree with you though, they *should* be playable in a window and it's annoying when there is no good reason for it.
"Let's not fix the underlaying problem and come up with client-side work arounds"
Not what I heard. Sounded more like "why the heck are you making the problem more complicated than it needs to be?
Ideally, I am not sure why the heck a game of the full-screen sort would need X11 to begin with. Perhaps for portability. Wouldnt want to try and run games over remote X either, so why?
Assuming there are nonetheless plenty of reasons in practice to want to make that work (starting with 'lots of existing games that do require it' of course) then why not just set them to start their own exclusive server instance, tuned for that purpose?
If it's a game that's supposed to be running full screen and not interacting with a desktop, why then force a desktop to be part of the environment at all? Keep it simple.
The first part is easy to verify, there are hundreds if not thousands of sources. This was the top one on my google search right now. Check out the spin, it's a very pro-us story, but if you actually read it you will find Bush quoted saying "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty" and the Taliban spokesman is still asking for evidence, and even offering to hold him over to a third party. They were desperately trying to get rid of him. That particular story is quite late, this went back many months earlier, even before the attack in 2011 in fact.
Yes, it was difficult for them to do so, because of the importance of hospitality and protecting guests in Pashtun society, and because Bin Laden originally came to Afghanistan back in the 80s, spent his personal fortune and millions more from the CIA arming, training, and organising the Afghans against the Soviets, making him a bona-fide Afghan war hero, even though he was a foreigner. Yet they were clearly not just willing but eager to do so - they offered to turn him over directly given some evidence, and even offered to turn him over to a third party just to get the hot potato off their laps. They wouldnt have been making such offers if they didnt want to get rid of him, and honestly their offers seem reasonable enough. The US administration was just determined not to dignify them with any sort of actual negotiation, they stuck to a blunt ultimatum followed by bombing and invasion. Thjs is a pretty thorough condensed version of the whole saga, which contains quite a few choice quotes with original sources listed. I will leave you with a single telling paragraph.
At least twice before 9/11 Bush repeated Clintonâ(TM)s warning to the Taliban that the US would hold Taliban responsible for an al Qaeda attack. (Washington Post 1/20/02) March 2001, a Taliban envoy offered to turn over bin Laden to a third country. A CIA official later said, âoeOurs was, âGive up bin Laden.â(TM) They were saying, âDo something to help us give him up.â(TM) I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him.â The envoy also proposed holding bin Laden long enough for the US to locate and destroy him. (Village Voice 6/6/01) Offers regarding bin Laden continued until 9/11. (Washington Post 10/29/01) Taliban offered to surrender bin laden after 9/11 âoeif proof was offered of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.â(The Guantanamo Files, Andy Worthington, Pluto Press, London, 2007)
It is a difficult mess indeed. It's a difficult mess many decades of interventionist US foreign policy has created. The idea that somehow doubling down on bad bets, more and more of the same thing that caused the problem in the first place, will somehow pull us back out is absurd fantasy, not realism.
When you find yourself in a hole the first thing you need to do is stop digging. Instead, the US government always decides to respond by buying bigger/faster/more powerful earth moving machines and increasing the rate of descent.
Actually you need to check your facts. The Taliban were so eager to hand him over they invented an extradition procedure on the spot . They just needed a little prima facie evidence but that request was never answered. There is also one apparently reputable source indicating that they secretly went well beyond that offer by offering to confine Bin Laden and his people to one base and then tell the US which one it was and stand out of the way. That offer, apparently, was also never answered.
But evolution really does not contradict teleology, he was wrong on that too. It's not hard at all to imagine a conscious direction behind evolution as we know it with no cognitive dissonance, and the theory of directed panspermia does exactly that.
Organised religion definitely tends to watch out for its own interests, it's continued existence and welfare, against all else, but it doesnt necessarily speak for the genuinely faithful. For example, my HS Biology teacher who first lead me to really grok evolution and get excited by the concept, was a devout southern baptist. True story. So please, try not to overgeneralise about religious people.
This debate is a perfect case for application of the golden rule.
Imagine that it was the Chinese sending drones over and firing missiles at terrorists hiding out here in the US. Sometimes they kill genuine terrorists, of course, they certainly wouldnt waste a missile if they didnt expect to hit one with it, but they are killing innocent US citizens that just happen to be in the area as well. I presume you area US citizen, how would you feel about this? Do you suppose you might develop some 'extremists' views against the Chinese, perhaps even start attacking them yourself, or at least turning a blind eye to those who do, after a few members of your family became 'collateral damage?'
Can you not see that no matter how many enemies you kill with a strike, if that strike makes you new enemies, it was a bad move?
And please, if you are going to say that the analogy is flawed, point out the flaw, specifically.
The whole "Video games make you violent" debate was squashed in the 90s.
Video games clearly cannot make one violent, agreed. However desensitization towards violence is still a real issue, not just with games, but also with 'news' reports and other things. When you see violence portrayed in such an unrealistic fashion, where no one really gets hurt (except those defined as 'bad guys' who dont count) and horrific violence is associated with 'heroism' that's clearly not going to be a good thing.
"bro" who is libertarian, holds slightly sexist views, and is pro military.
No one with truly libertarian views could condone drone strikes for a moment - unless they have a completely unrealistic view of them and assume that they only kill 'bad guys' as discussed above.
It's not an issue of the videogame making someone violent, it's an issue of the video game portraying violence in a completely unrealistic way that makes it attractive. Someone that isnt inclined towards violence may not be affected, but for those that could go either way, this sort of video game probably makes it easier for them to follow the path of least resistance without actually thinking about what is really happening.
As a signing member of OSCE, the US must comply to the treaty's terms. This is irrespective of what Texas' AG quacks, since the legalese in international treaties supersedes national laws where applicable -- or at least that's how it's supposed to work anyway.
Not saying you are wrong, but I did a quick search and was unable to confirm that the US Senate ever ratified any treaty to join the OSCE. It appears to be an 'ad hoc' organisation which the US Executive chose to work with (and obviously the US has been backing them around the world so this stinks of hypocrisy) but there may not, in fact, be any treaty obligation towards them. Under the US Constitution, treaties may only be properly ratified by the Senate. I have noticed a trend lately to skip that step and just pretend the Presidential say-so is fine instead, but it isnt.
The only way to truly tell is to build your own binaries from the supplied code and then diff the vendor-supplied firmware against your build.
Of course that's the first thing that would have to be done. Compile the binaries with the same compiler and scripts, see if the binaries match. If they do not, something is wrong.
Next step, do you trust the compiler? If not, recompile with a compiler you do trust, and use those binaries instead. Simple.
Either way, once you have verified the binaries and the source match, you can audit the source and be confident of the results.
It might well wind up making more sense to simply rewrite all the software from scratch using known good people, instead of trying to thoroughly audit the existing code. EVEN IN THAT CASE having the original source code available, from which to generate specifications, would still be a big positive.
You are right, simply having access guarantees nothing. It's necessary, but not sufficient. You verify that the source generated the binary by compiling it with the same compiler and settings and comparing the resulting binary to the one they shipped you. Hardware backdoors are not, of course, eliminated, but you can check for those in other ways (access to the hardware isnt a problem like access to source often is, obviously) and most hardware backdoors that would actually do something interesting would need a software component as well.
Yes, so what usually happens is that they just accept it and file it away. It doesnt matter at all unless someone sues, at which point you have somewhat protected yourself and your lawyer will be very happy.
And to echo the point made above by an AC and hence ignored, this is the crucially something you can never do with the 'terms' on digital 'eulas'.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations on the +5 insightful for a frightfully ignorant comment.
In fact, in Islam just like in Christianity and Judaism, fundamentalism refers to a few specific modern schools of thought. In Islam this refers primarily to Salafism, in Christianity to Dispensationalism, and in Judaism to Charedism.
In each case the fundamentalists are a relatively small proportion of the total number. It's quite true that salafists (when confident of their strength) will denounce normal muslims and attack them - they are particularly narrow-minded and hate all sects but their own. They are still a small minority within the religion, however. There are approximately 1.57 Billion muslims in this world, with extremely generous estimates of the proportion holding salafist jihadi ideals at less than 1% of that total. Even within that group only a minority justifies and approves of terrorist attacks.
They certainly punch above their belt in terms of creating headlines, just as their christian and jewish counterparts do, but in no sense are they anywhere near 'normal' muslims. There are dozens of sects that outnumber them. The largest single sect is usually reckoned as the Sufis who are typical all the way from Morrocco through Turkey and east into China and pretty well diametrically opposed to Salafism in every way.
Oh dont get me wrong, I am not disputing that at all. But it sounds like there are plenty of witnesses to the fact that they were the ones that turned this physical. The police may justify their actions by his loss of control, perhaps even rightly so - but that does not compromise his case against those security guards, and their employers. It would only protect the police.
No. A mall is a public space, and you dont need any permission to take pictures in a public space. Being privately owned, they may be able to ask you to leave for any reason, and eventually if you refuse that can wind up with a trespassing complaint, nothing more.
From TFA I got the impression the guards assaulted him themselves, then called the cops, so they would still appear to be completely on the wrong side of the law here.
From what I read, he only 'lost his cool' after these thugs laid their hands on him. His legal options should be in no way compromised by that. I hope he gets a good lawyer and throws the book at the mall.
Actually 'landing' on it would be a huge problem. An asteroid is not typically one large smooth rock, after all. And it will definitely be 'tumbling' in relation to you as well. So it would be a very difficult docking maneuver on an uncertain surface. And remember these things arent large enough to generate enough gravity to notice either. So it's basically all in zero-g.
Spraying a load of paint at it would be orders of magnitutude easier, and still wouldnt exactly be easy.
The existence of the Galician language, Galego, is most certainly not in doubt. It is quite similar to Portugese (particularly when written in the alternate orthography which makes it look more similar) but it is definitely not Portugese and I would love to see how long you would last saying that in Santiago del C. Galego has been distinct from both Castillian and Portugese for many centuries.
V1s didnt have very much accelleration, or a very high top speed, so the GP might well be correct that something of the same design could be controlled by cellphone. Travelling that slowly makes it easy to shoot down if spotted, but it also makes it a lot safer to travel at very low altitude without attracting too much attention, so the idea doesnt seem implausible.
What's this then?
Abstract reasoning is exactly what IQ is supposed to measure, so that part seems a bit confused. But beyond that, I think if you look more closely what is happening is moreso that the bottom end of the range is coming up (as a result of more widespread basic education) than that the top end is rising (smart people are actually smarter.) This probably has more to do with nutrition and medical care than anything else.
In my experience, games either will work in windowed mode and I play them in that mode, or they dont work (at least not very well) in windowed mode, and then and only then do I worry about full screen. So for me, any given game is only going to need to run in one mode or another. Apparently for others this is different, which is fine.
Simpler is still better.
Err, wow. You are truly a technical illiterate. Have a good day.
Yes, theoretically, but in reality resizing stuff on the fly, particularly to odd, one-off resolutions to fit in a window, is a big performance sink - fine for some games but there is a good chunk of the market where that isnt acceptable. Plus, for many games, moving the mouse to the edge of the screen actually has a specific meaning. It's not always straightforward to determine whether you mean to throw the mouse against the edge of the screen in-game or just mean to move the mouse out of the window to check your calendar. One way to make sure is just to force full screen.
On a lot of games I agree with you though, they *should* be playable in a window and it's annoying when there is no good reason for it.
Not what I heard. Sounded more like "why the heck are you making the problem more complicated than it needs to be?
Ideally, I am not sure why the heck a game of the full-screen sort would need X11 to begin with. Perhaps for portability. Wouldnt want to try and run games over remote X either, so why?
Assuming there are nonetheless plenty of reasons in practice to want to make that work (starting with 'lots of existing games that do require it' of course) then why not just set them to start their own exclusive server instance, tuned for that purpose?
If it's a game that's supposed to be running full screen and not interacting with a desktop, why then force a desktop to be part of the environment at all? Keep it simple.
The first part is easy to verify, there are hundreds if not thousands of sources. This was the top one on my google search right now. Check out the spin, it's a very pro-us story, but if you actually read it you will find Bush quoted saying "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty" and the Taliban spokesman is still asking for evidence, and even offering to hold him over to a third party. They were desperately trying to get rid of him. That particular story is quite late, this went back many months earlier, even before the attack in 2011 in fact.
Yes, it was difficult for them to do so, because of the importance of hospitality and protecting guests in Pashtun society, and because Bin Laden originally came to Afghanistan back in the 80s, spent his personal fortune and millions more from the CIA arming, training, and organising the Afghans against the Soviets, making him a bona-fide Afghan war hero, even though he was a foreigner. Yet they were clearly not just willing but eager to do so - they offered to turn him over directly given some evidence, and even offered to turn him over to a third party just to get the hot potato off their laps. They wouldnt have been making such offers if they didnt want to get rid of him, and honestly their offers seem reasonable enough. The US administration was just determined not to dignify them with any sort of actual negotiation, they stuck to a blunt ultimatum followed by bombing and invasion. Thjs is a pretty thorough condensed version of the whole saga, which contains quite a few choice quotes with original sources listed. I will leave you with a single telling paragraph.
It is a difficult mess indeed. It's a difficult mess many decades of interventionist US foreign policy has created. The idea that somehow doubling down on bad bets, more and more of the same thing that caused the problem in the first place, will somehow pull us back out is absurd fantasy, not realism.
When you find yourself in a hole the first thing you need to do is stop digging. Instead, the US government always decides to respond by buying bigger/faster/more powerful earth moving machines and increasing the rate of descent.
Actually you need to check your facts. The Taliban were so eager to hand him over they invented an extradition procedure on the spot . They just needed a little prima facie evidence but that request was never answered. There is also one apparently reputable source indicating that they secretly went well beyond that offer by offering to confine Bin Laden and his people to one base and then tell the US which one it was and stand out of the way. That offer, apparently, was also never answered.
But evolution really does not contradict teleology, he was wrong on that too. It's not hard at all to imagine a conscious direction behind evolution as we know it with no cognitive dissonance, and the theory of directed panspermia does exactly that.
Organised religion definitely tends to watch out for its own interests, it's continued existence and welfare, against all else, but it doesnt necessarily speak for the genuinely faithful. For example, my HS Biology teacher who first lead me to really grok evolution and get excited by the concept, was a devout southern baptist. True story. So please, try not to overgeneralise about religious people.
This debate is a perfect case for application of the golden rule.
Imagine that it was the Chinese sending drones over and firing missiles at terrorists hiding out here in the US. Sometimes they kill genuine terrorists, of course, they certainly wouldnt waste a missile if they didnt expect to hit one with it, but they are killing innocent US citizens that just happen to be in the area as well. I presume you area US citizen, how would you feel about this? Do you suppose you might develop some 'extremists' views against the Chinese, perhaps even start attacking them yourself, or at least turning a blind eye to those who do, after a few members of your family became 'collateral damage?'
Can you not see that no matter how many enemies you kill with a strike, if that strike makes you new enemies, it was a bad move?
And please, if you are going to say that the analogy is flawed, point out the flaw, specifically.
Video games clearly cannot make one violent, agreed. However desensitization towards violence is still a real issue, not just with games, but also with 'news' reports and other things. When you see violence portrayed in such an unrealistic fashion, where no one really gets hurt (except those defined as 'bad guys' who dont count) and horrific violence is associated with 'heroism' that's clearly not going to be a good thing.
No one with truly libertarian views could condone drone strikes for a moment - unless they have a completely unrealistic view of them and assume that they only kill 'bad guys' as discussed above.
It's not an issue of the videogame making someone violent, it's an issue of the video game portraying violence in a completely unrealistic way that makes it attractive. Someone that isnt inclined towards violence may not be affected, but for those that could go either way, this sort of video game probably makes it easier for them to follow the path of least resistance without actually thinking about what is really happening.
Not saying you are wrong, but I did a quick search and was unable to confirm that the US Senate ever ratified any treaty to join the OSCE. It appears to be an 'ad hoc' organisation which the US Executive chose to work with (and obviously the US has been backing them around the world so this stinks of hypocrisy) but there may not, in fact, be any treaty obligation towards them. Under the US Constitution, treaties may only be properly ratified by the Senate. I have noticed a trend lately to skip that step and just pretend the Presidential say-so is fine instead, but it isnt.
Of course that's the first thing that would have to be done. Compile the binaries with the same compiler and scripts, see if the binaries match. If they do not, something is wrong.
Next step, do you trust the compiler? If not, recompile with a compiler you do trust, and use those binaries instead. Simple.
Either way, once you have verified the binaries and the source match, you can audit the source and be confident of the results.
It might well wind up making more sense to simply rewrite all the software from scratch using known good people, instead of trying to thoroughly audit the existing code. EVEN IN THAT CASE having the original source code available, from which to generate specifications, would still be a big positive.
You are right, simply having access guarantees nothing. It's necessary, but not sufficient. You verify that the source generated the binary by compiling it with the same compiler and settings and comparing the resulting binary to the one they shipped you. Hardware backdoors are not, of course, eliminated, but you can check for those in other ways (access to the hardware isnt a problem like access to source often is, obviously) and most hardware backdoors that would actually do something interesting would need a software component as well.
Once you have the source, the binaries, and the compiler, you can verify or deny whether that source produced that binary.
Yes, so what usually happens is that they just accept it and file it away. It doesnt matter at all unless someone sues, at which point you have somewhat protected yourself and your lawyer will be very happy.
And to echo the point made above by an AC and hence ignored, this is the crucially something you can never do with the 'terms' on digital 'eulas'.