They gave them back a shitload of land in hopes of coming to some reasonable compromise.
Yet, they are still establishing colonies and have yet to comply with UN resolutions.
The Palestinians decided that launching rockets from their new land at the Israelis was a fine thing.
Obviously now the best idea I can think of. Even when only thinking in terms of Palestinians' good.
We (the U.S. and Europe) have poured billions of dollars into the hands of the Palestinians.
I would suggest you first compare the amount of money the US sent to the Palestinians to the amount of money it sent Israel (hint, at least an order of magnitude difference). An even more interesting thing to look at is the amount the US gives Israel (billions *per year*) vs Israel's military budget. Basically, the US is pretty much paying for all the military gear Israel uses to kill Palestinians.
I've always thought that if the US had been on the Palestinians' side, we'd see Palestinians bombing Israel with F-16s and Israelis blowing themselves up in Palestine while throwing home-made rockets. Hell, put any two nations in the same economic/political context and you'll see pretty much the same outcome.
Fuck the Palestinians. They don't want peace. They only wish to kill more Jews, no matter what the cost.
This is exactly why this conflict isn't going to be solved any time soon. You've got a majority of people on each side who *do* want peace, while at the same time there's a vocal minority that doesn't want peace and blames it on the other side.
For any Israeli killed by a rocket fired from Gaza they should annex 1 hectare (or some other suitable amount) of Gaza into Israel proper. Move the fences and all. Keep repeating it until the Palestinians figure it out and stop. Or until they drown, or until they end up in Egypt, depending on which fence you move.
Or maybe the solution is for Palestinians to kill Israeli civilians for every hectare taken until the Israelis figure it out and stop?...or maybe both solutions are totally idiotic and the conflict isn't going to be solved until both parties realise it?
You either hate Jews and love Palestinians or vice versa?
No, but your initial comment sounded like a lot like the "stay on topic, jews are good" comments I've seen a lot here. Sorry if that wasn't the case.
So if Sderot need to sue their government into action, so be it.
When people sue their govt, the only ones that win are generally the lawyers.
I don't see residents of Sderot lining up to fire rockets into Gaza. They're just families trying to get on with their life. Why should they be forced to suffer attack after attack, over actions of other people?
When you're country (in that case Israel, but it applies to the Palestinians and others as well) carries out attacks on another country/territory, you sort of need to expect getting attacked in return; even if your small community didn't do anything.
So the Palestinians are absolved of all responsibility? How convenient!
Not what I said. What I'm saying is that if today the Israeli govt were to decide "we will stop attacks on Palestine" (regardless of why, whether it's a good idea, or anything), it can be done. If today the Palestinian govt decides "no more attacks on Israel", nothing will change because Hammas (and other groups) won't listen. The Palestinian govt is effectively powerless, unlike the Israeli one. I think both sides would agree to that statement. My opinion is that Palestinians and Israelis are equally to blame for the weakness of the Palestinian govt. The Israelis for doing whatever they could to cripple it (until they saw Hammas take over) and the Palestinians for voting a terrorist organisation into office.
Now, from there, the only conclusion is that it would be very unlikely for the Palestinian side to unilaterally cease fire. And that is why my only (very slim) hope is for the Israeli population to realise that and insist on an Israeli cease-fire. That probably won't look like a good move in the short-term, but that's pretty much the only long-term solution.
Can we all please make an effort to keep the comments on track, and not diverge into a "Israelis/Jews are evil" fest?
Instead, we should stick to the track of "Palestinians/Muslims are evil", right?
over 7,000 rockets have fallen on the town, then suing the government seems a very reasonable action.
So New York citizens should also sue over the WTC attacks?
Sderot taking completely non-violent, legal action, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region.
should probably read "over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from its nation, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region, over...".
If only everyone in the region sought such a solution, instead of violence meets violence.
Agreed. It's a circle of violence that is not restricted to one side, and the only way to break it is for one side to just stop. Unfortunately, the Palestinian side is probably too disorganised to commonly decide on anything. That means the only hope is for Israel to stop it, but I'm not too hopeful that will happen.
More government control of the economy = more corruption.
Sorry, I have to disagree on that one. Some of the least corrupt governments in the world happen to be the scandinavian countries, which also happen to be very much on the socialist side. You can also find plenty of the opposite case, i.e. banana republics where the government doesn't control the economy and is very corrupt. I wouldn't go as far as saying that more govt control means less corruption, but I definitely disagree on your simple "more control = more corruption" statement.
This is why the scandals in the previous French government and the UN oil-for-food scandal dwarf anything that's ever gone on in America.
I disagree on that one to. All the oil-for-food scandals around the world (not just French, there was AU and probably others) are just dwarfed by the US corruption involved in the Iraq invasion. Starting from Halliburton's ex-CEO supporting the was a vice-president, making up false "evidence" (and screwing up the career of the wife of the guy who exposed that in the process), turning a blind eye on over-billing (Halliburton and others), and all the stuff we haven't heard of yet.
As Lord Acton noted, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
True, but there are ways to reduce the power of *individuals* while making sure the govt has control on the economy. Just because the US screwed up at that, doesn't mean you have to deregulate everything. What needs to be done is that the power must be distributed. That's the idea behind the US "checks and balance" principles. The only problem is that there's currently an individual who managed to mostly seize most of the powers. That's where the problem is.
Luckily, the gravity becomes smaller as you get higher up, but it only becomes negligible once you reach escape velocity.
First gravity does *not* become negligible if you reach the escape velocity. It just means that the gravity is not enough to make the object fall back. It can still slow down the object quite a bit. Also, the escape velocity is mostly a theoretical concept. The Earth's escape velocity is 11.2 km/s, but you don't actually need to reach that speed to escape the Earth's gravity. Doing so at low altitude would cause your rocket to disintegrate under the heat and aerodynamic stress. And once you reach a higher altitude, then the escape velocity from there is smaller anyway.
I'm only talking about the ship that has to get from Mars surface to Mars orbit. It would need to be much bigger (more fuel and all) than what was used for the moon. Not to mention that the lack of significant atmosphere on Mars means some fuel would likely have to be burned on the landing phase.
In fact, Mars has almost the same surface gravity on tiny Mercury (3.7 m/s/s for both), which is closer to the surface gravity on the moon (1.6 m/s/s/) than the surface gravity on Earth (9.8 m/s/s). You also need less than half the escape velocity to leave Mars' gravity well compared to Earth.
Of those, only the escape velocity is actually relevant. The gravity at the surface is pretty much irrelevant. The escape velocity on Mars is twice that of the moon, which means it would take 4 times as much energy to leave Mars as it takes to leave the moon. That's in theory. In practise, it's more than that because you actually need more fuel to lift the extra fuel.
at least the US university system is still damn good
I beg to differ. There are some very good universities, but on average I've never been impressed (when comparing to other developed western countries).
Yes, that's great for the Canadian economy, and a reason why Vancouver airport has attracted a lot more passengers recently. Haven't seen any numbers on that, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number of highly skilled people coming to Canada (instead of the US) had also increased recently.
Actually, there's a second explanation for that behaviour. I'm lucky that my kid mostly behaves in public places, but if he starts screaming and throwing a tantrum, ignoring him (or pretending to be) can be the best thing to do (as long as he doesn't cause any damage or anything). Giving a kid attention (i.e. what they want) when they misbehave is generally not a good strategy.
*you* have died and would like to collect your insurance money
Won't work. Unless you put yourself as the beneficiary for the policy:-) Though I agree that calling the insurance saying "please pay the insurance money to my widow" would probably get the problem solved fairly quickly. That or they'll sue you for insurance fraud, whichever is simpler for them.
1. All 'non'marked' works get an automatic copyleft, not an automatic copyright.
This would be really bad as well. Copyleft isn't something unique. There are many copyleft licenses, most of which incompatible with each other. So unless the law specifically refers to "GPL version X or later as defined by the FSF" (and you can't expect a government to write a blank check to RMS), it means that any 'non-marked' work would automatically be GPL-incompatible. What would be more fair is just stating that everything is copyrighted by default (like it is now), but after 10-20 years, you need to either register the copyright (for a small fee) or else you lose it.
The author seems to say that IP must be taxed because all property is taxed. This is BS. Most property isn't taxed. You don't pay a tax on everything you own. Generally the only thing you'll pay tax on is a house and that's mainly to pay for the services (road/water/...) you get to that house.
A scheme like that would be terrible for open-source. So you write your program and GPL it, don't pay the property tax. Someone takes it and modifies it, does pay the property tax. Now they've turned your GPL software into proprietary software.
I think that's what Sony does with the PS3 Cell processor. Chip comes out of the fab with 8 SPUs, Sony disables 2 that possibly don't work, so they can get good yields (hence good prices) for a 6-SPU Cell.
Well, that same government is still allowing people to carry guns isn't it? Why is it that your second amendment only stops at the airport gates? Seriously (I'd like to know the logic behind it).
Slashdot Mirror
They gave them back a shitload of land in hopes of coming to some reasonable compromise.
Yet, they are still establishing colonies and have yet to comply with UN resolutions.
The Palestinians decided that launching rockets from their new land at the Israelis was a fine thing.
Obviously now the best idea I can think of. Even when only thinking in terms of Palestinians' good.
We (the U.S. and Europe) have poured billions of dollars into the hands of the Palestinians.
I would suggest you first compare the amount of money the US sent to the Palestinians to the amount of money it sent Israel (hint, at least an order of magnitude difference). An even more interesting thing to look at is the amount the US gives Israel (billions *per year*) vs Israel's military budget. Basically, the US is pretty much paying for all the military gear Israel uses to kill Palestinians.
I've always thought that if the US had been on the Palestinians' side, we'd see Palestinians bombing Israel with F-16s and Israelis blowing themselves up in Palestine while throwing home-made rockets. Hell, put any two nations in the same economic/political context and you'll see pretty much the same outcome.
Fuck the Palestinians. They don't want peace. They only wish to kill more Jews, no matter what the cost.
This is exactly why this conflict isn't going to be solved any time soon. You've got a majority of people on each side who *do* want peace, while at the same time there's a vocal minority that doesn't want peace and blames it on the other side.
For any Israeli killed by a rocket fired from Gaza they should annex 1 hectare (or some other suitable amount) of Gaza into Israel proper. Move the fences and all. Keep repeating it until the Palestinians figure it out and stop. Or until they drown, or until they end up in Egypt, depending on which fence you move.
...or maybe both solutions are totally idiotic and the conflict isn't going to be solved until both parties realise it?
Or maybe the solution is for Palestinians to kill Israeli civilians for every hectare taken until the Israelis figure it out and stop?
You mean the holocaust is due to the Jews not attacking other nations? Do you have a source for that or something?
You either hate Jews and love Palestinians or vice versa?
No, but your initial comment sounded like a lot like the "stay on topic, jews are good" comments I've seen a lot here. Sorry if that wasn't the case.
So if Sderot need to sue their government into action, so be it.
When people sue their govt, the only ones that win are generally the lawyers.
I don't see residents of Sderot lining up to fire rockets into Gaza. They're just families trying to get on with their life. Why should they be forced to suffer attack after attack, over actions of other people?
When you're country (in that case Israel, but it applies to the Palestinians and others as well) carries out attacks on another country/territory, you sort of need to expect getting attacked in return; even if your small community didn't do anything.
So the Palestinians are absolved of all responsibility? How convenient!
Not what I said. What I'm saying is that if today the Israeli govt were to decide "we will stop attacks on Palestine" (regardless of why, whether it's a good idea, or anything), it can be done. If today the Palestinian govt decides "no more attacks on Israel", nothing will change because Hammas (and other groups) won't listen. The Palestinian govt is effectively powerless, unlike the Israeli one. I think both sides would agree to that statement. My opinion is that Palestinians and Israelis are equally to blame for the weakness of the Palestinian govt. The Israelis for doing whatever they could to cripple it (until they saw Hammas take over) and the Palestinians for voting a terrorist organisation into office.
Now, from there, the only conclusion is that it would be very unlikely for the Palestinian side to unilaterally cease fire. And that is why my only (very slim) hope is for the Israeli population to realise that and insist on an Israeli cease-fire. That probably won't look like a good move in the short-term, but that's pretty much the only long-term solution.
But the toxic chemicals needed to generate THEL's megawatts of power made the thing a logistical nightmare.
Who wants to bet the chemicals would kill more people than the rockets?
Can we all please make an effort to keep the comments on track, and not diverge into a "Israelis/Jews are evil" fest?
...".
Instead, we should stick to the track of "Palestinians/Muslims are evil", right?
over 7,000 rockets have fallen on the town, then suing the government seems a very reasonable action.
So New York citizens should also sue over the WTC attacks?
Sderot taking completely non-violent, legal action, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region.
should probably read "over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from its nation, over repeated aggressive and violent attacks from a neighbouring region, over
If only everyone in the region sought such a solution, instead of violence meets violence.
Agreed. It's a circle of violence that is not restricted to one side, and the only way to break it is for one side to just stop. Unfortunately, the Palestinian side is probably too disorganised to commonly decide on anything. That means the only hope is for Israel to stop it, but I'm not too hopeful that will happen.
More government control of the economy = more corruption.
Sorry, I have to disagree on that one. Some of the least corrupt governments in the world happen to be the scandinavian countries, which also happen to be very much on the socialist side. You can also find plenty of the opposite case, i.e. banana republics where the government doesn't control the economy and is very corrupt. I wouldn't go as far as saying that more govt control means less corruption, but I definitely disagree on your simple "more control = more corruption" statement.
This is why the scandals in the previous French government and the UN oil-for-food scandal dwarf anything that's ever gone on in America.
I disagree on that one to. All the oil-for-food scandals around the world (not just French, there was AU and probably others) are just dwarfed by the US corruption involved in the Iraq invasion. Starting from Halliburton's ex-CEO supporting the was a vice-president, making up false "evidence" (and screwing up the career of the wife of the guy who exposed that in the process), turning a blind eye on over-billing (Halliburton and others), and all the stuff we haven't heard of yet.
As Lord Acton noted, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
True, but there are ways to reduce the power of *individuals* while making sure the govt has control on the economy. Just because the US screwed up at that, doesn't mean you have to deregulate everything. What needs to be done is that the power must be distributed. That's the idea behind the US "checks and balance" principles. The only problem is that there's currently an individual who managed to mostly seize most of the powers. That's where the problem is.
Luckily, the gravity becomes smaller as you get higher up, but it only becomes negligible once you reach escape velocity.
First gravity does *not* become negligible if you reach the escape velocity. It just means that the gravity is not enough to make the object fall back. It can still slow down the object quite a bit. Also, the escape velocity is mostly a theoretical concept. The Earth's escape velocity is 11.2 km/s, but you don't actually need to reach that speed to escape the Earth's gravity. Doing so at low altitude would cause your rocket to disintegrate under the heat and aerodynamic stress. And once you reach a higher altitude, then the escape velocity from there is smaller anyway.
I'm only talking about the ship that has to get from Mars surface to Mars orbit. It would need to be much bigger (more fuel and all) than what was used for the moon. Not to mention that the lack of significant atmosphere on Mars means some fuel would likely have to be burned on the landing phase.
In fact, Mars has almost the same surface gravity on tiny Mercury (3.7 m/s/s for both), which is closer to the surface gravity on the moon (1.6 m/s/s/) than the surface gravity on Earth (9.8 m/s/s). You also need less than half the escape velocity to leave Mars' gravity well compared to Earth.
Of those, only the escape velocity is actually relevant. The gravity at the surface is pretty much irrelevant. The escape velocity on Mars is twice that of the moon, which means it would take 4 times as much energy to leave Mars as it takes to leave the moon. That's in theory. In practise, it's more than that because you actually need more fuel to lift the extra fuel.
at least the US university system is still damn good
I beg to differ. There are some very good universities, but on average I've never been impressed (when comparing to other developed western countries).
Yes, that's great for the Canadian economy, and a reason why Vancouver airport has attracted a lot more passengers recently. Haven't seen any numbers on that, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number of highly skilled people coming to Canada (instead of the US) had also increased recently.
So by this reasoning, Linus should be crying night and day because people and companies are making billions from using/selling Linux?
Actually, there's a second explanation for that behaviour. I'm lucky that my kid mostly behaves in public places, but if he starts screaming and throwing a tantrum, ignoring him (or pretending to be) can be the best thing to do (as long as he doesn't cause any damage or anything). Giving a kid attention (i.e. what they want) when they misbehave is generally not a good strategy.
just to top it off they only take infants because it's free
You've obviously never travelled with an infant. Nobody in their right mind would want to travel with their infant unless absolutely necessary.
I think "I am legally dead" would be both funny and legal :-)
Well, if you testify under oath that you are dead, I think you are still committing perjury, even if you have a document that says you're dead :-)
*you* have died and would like to collect your insurance money
:-) Though I agree that calling the insurance saying "please pay the insurance money to my widow" would probably get the problem solved fairly quickly. That or they'll sue you for insurance fraud, whichever is simpler for them.
Won't work. Unless you put yourself as the beneficiary for the policy
I agree.
Someone tell B.W. Bush he needs to invade the sun to get rid of its WMDs.
1. All 'non'marked' works get an automatic copyleft, not an automatic copyright.
This would be really bad as well. Copyleft isn't something unique. There are many copyleft licenses, most of which incompatible with each other. So unless the law specifically refers to "GPL version X or later as defined by the FSF" (and you can't expect a government to write a blank check to RMS), it means that any 'non-marked' work would automatically be GPL-incompatible. What would be more fair is just stating that everything is copyrighted by default (like it is now), but after 10-20 years, you need to either register the copyright (for a small fee) or else you lose it.
The author seems to say that IP must be taxed because all property is taxed. This is BS. Most property isn't taxed. You don't pay a tax on everything you own. Generally the only thing you'll pay tax on is a house and that's mainly to pay for the services (road/water/...) you get to that house.
A scheme like that would be terrible for open-source. So you write your program and GPL it, don't pay the property tax. Someone takes it and modifies it, does pay the property tax. Now they've turned your GPL software into proprietary software.
I think that's what Sony does with the PS3 Cell processor. Chip comes out of the fab with 8 SPUs, Sony disables 2 that possibly don't work, so they can get good yields (hence good prices) for a 6-SPU Cell.
Well, that same government is still allowing people to carry guns isn't it? Why is it that your second amendment only stops at the airport gates? Seriously (I'd like to know the logic behind it).