"I find it odd that you are so quick to condemn violence by some of the Palestinians, but not the aggression of the Israeli government."
I don't doubt that you find it odd, you seem to be pretending to know more about this than you actually do.
If you find it odd, it's because you don't understand the situation, and are drawing equivalency where none exists.
Israel is a state actor. It's response to attacks on its citizens are limited to primarily those available to police and armed forces. A non-violent response to someone who is actively seeking to wipe you off the earth is a bit difficult to coordinate, eh?
The Palestinians are not restricted in the same way.
"Well actually the latest bout of fighting was begun when the Israeli government attempted to topple the elected government of the Palestinians."
Actually, you're wrong.
"The recent "first place" that you refer to was simply the end of a short, agreed ceasefire to encourage negotiation".
Thanks for actually admitting the truth. You equivocated, because you're biased, I get that.
Now, two things.
1) A non-violent response can begin at any time. The recent ceasefire was a perfect example, but instead The Plaestinians broke said ceasefire WITH VIOLENCE.
2) Unless people such as yourself stop pretending violence is somehow justified for your side but not for the other, the only thing you'll get is more violence.
"So the occupation, colonization, and annexation aren't violent?"
Uh, yeah they are. Where did I make the argument that they weren't?
Which is why a non-violent response would be so effective, just like it has been in the past. Violence (from the Israelis) would be FAR less tolerated if they were using it against peaceful protesters.
Which was my point.
You seem to have trouble reading for comprehension, try actually reading what you're responding to please.
"You got to admit though, it's a lot easier to play the victim when you're starving, walled into a tiny area and can only defend themselves with scraps of old military hardware and bits of rubble against a rich country armed with the latest in US air power that assassinates their democratically elected leaders."
What are they "defending themselves" from? Oh right, retaliation from their rocket attacks.
It's a lot harder to play the victim when you chose the path of violence in the first place.
Imagine how this conflict would go if the Palestinian's weren't so cowardly and instead used non-violent protests. You know, like Gandhi.
"So basically you've decided how much money people should be allowed to make, after which you intend to offshore jobs until they agree to untenable wages?"
That's not the exact counter argument, that's nonsense.
In the previous example, a person sticks a gun in your face and hauls your ass off to jail if you don't agree with their money allocation policies.
In your attempt at an equivalent, there is nothing comparable.
"Now, where that is nonapplicable, is in the fact that a lot of dollars are spent in "investment", and those dollars are evaporating at an amazing rate. In other words, if you leave the dollars with the rich, then they will disappear with no net benefit at all."
This is only true if "the rich" (true colors there bud) are investing in losing investments.
GUess what, there are many investments that aren't losing.
Your assumption, and therefore your point, fails totally.
And so do the mods who agreed with you without bothering to read a post that outs itself as ignorant immediately.
Have you ever noticed that the state of restorative dentistry is progressing rapidly every day, but the state of the art in preventive dentistry is still brush and floss?
I'm no tin-foil hat guy, but this is one area I genuinely believe is being overlooked solely for the monetary benefit.
"It could be a problem if the 8000 leechers are all missing the same parts of the file(s) that the 4 seeders have. This doesn't seem very likely, but it is technically possible."
Unlike most here, I don't consider "vastly, highly unlikely instances" in an effort to display my intellectual ability at the loss of my use of reason.
You seem to, but you'll forgive me if I ignore your specificty and pedantry in my own effort to avoid having conversations with people who think pedantry and specificty makes them anything other than a specific pedant.
In other words, your example is so rare and so unlikely that I consider anyone who forwards it and those like it a fucking loser.
"Microblogging (or XMPP status messages) can be completely unnecessary for this too. If I set my status message to 'Gone for coffee. Will be in [wherever] for the next hour' then people can see that and come and join me. Once there, they can talk to me."
Or they can just use one of the many methods that already existed before people decided to spray their itinerary everywhere, which also work better. I have yet to run into a situation where spraying my itinerary is appropriate. Your example isn't one.
The reality is, people fall in love with a technology and pretend that tech has some reason for existing because of their love, not its utility.
In short, nothing you said there requires Twitter, and no part of Twitter makes it superior to the current solutions.
No I didn't, your "point" was that "PC users don't understand what it is like to have a computer that is actually nice to use."
I HAVE a computer that is nice to use. How it got there is irrelevant to your point, you're just wrong.
" Clearly it is more than "just a fucking computer" to you if you are willing to spend "a ton of time" customizing it."
No. These two points have nothing to do with each other, it can be both "just a fucking computer" and be customizable to my tastes. Your point makes no sense.
"You mentioned something about stupid hyperbolic assertions? "
Yes I did, and you've proven me 100% accurate so far with yours, which I have demonstrated.
SO far, all you've done is prove me totally correct.
"PC users mock Mac users for their "fanboy" stuff"
No, stop lying to yourself. They get mocked because of stupid hyperbolic assertions that never hold up in reality, and a total unwillingness to admit problems are actually problems.
"but it is because PC users don't understand what it is like to have a computer that is actually nice to use. "
NO, they understand that it's A FUCKING COMPUTER. My roommate has 2 macs. They're nice. They're by no means "nicer" than my set-up, which I've spent a ton of time customizing. Your assumption that people are downing are Mac users for "not using a nice PC" is ridiculous and kind of stupid.
YOU are the EXACT person I'm talking about, blindly dismissing issues as "PC users frame of reference" because you're totally incapable of registering a real problem because you're so deluded.
"So it's not in TW's best interests to encourage people to see the Internet as a great alternative to cable TV."
However, if they can see the writing on the wall (which is something most Slashdotters don't give businesses enough credit for) then perhaps they realize cable is a dead end and want to get in on the transition.
And could you clarify your "counter argument"? I see you saying most people only have one cable provider, but I fail to see how that's a counterargument here. That other ISP's exist doesn't really have anything to do with cable internet service.
I guess I just don't see why a gaggle of ISP's providing services over Time Warner's lines, which would still be paid for by the subscriber and be a revenue stream for TWC, is a counterargument.
"your download will complete in 1 day, 17 hours, 49 minutes."
That part has nothing to do with the first part.
Do you not understand how torrents work, or are you just throwing in the "8,000 leechers, 4 seeders" even though it has nothing to do with your download being slow?
"It's perhaps a sign of the evolution of language, or at least of this volunteer linguistic watchdog group, that a symbol compounded of two characters, neither of them a letter, is considered not only a word, but a particularly egregious one."
No guy, it's a sign they don't have a list for "emoticons to be banned", nothing more.
"The real question is why Time Warner would fight back by so clearly showing how increasingly obsolete they are becoming and that cable providers are losing their monopolistic grip on media delivery"
This is simple, and the wording clearly displays the submitter's bias.
Time Warner cable ALSO provides internet access. If they are being charged for programming that their internet subscribers can recieve online, then they are paying for something they don't need to. I have no doubt they would like to use the funds Viacom currently recieves for programming on other things, yet still be able to provide the content if necessary.
I suppose if the person asking the question weren't themselves behoden to the idea that cable is the Great Satan, then they could see that.
"The person who threw the notebook had just had their job taken from them whist those less deserving kept theirs, for the not sharing his employer's religious beliefs. I would consider on the balance of wrongs done to each other, that outweighs throwing a notebook and spouting off by several orders of magnitude. One might even consider throwing a notebook (not generally the most dangerous of objects) and some verbal abuse a pretty mild response to an action that probably caused significant life upheaval and financial loss. I wasn't there, the poster I was replying to wasn't there. But a pretty bold statement was made by that poster nonetheless."
Nothing you posted shows she wasn't a BITCH.
So, your entire post was a waste, you're still wrong, and now you look pathetic for making stupid arguments that don't even address the point in question.
Nice try though, and by nice try I mean, you're incredibly fucking stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
"I find it odd that you are so quick to condemn violence by some of the Palestinians, but not the aggression of the Israeli government."
I don't doubt that you find it odd, you seem to be pretending to know more about this than you actually do.
If you find it odd, it's because you don't understand the situation, and are drawing equivalency where none exists.
Israel is a state actor. It's response to attacks on its citizens are limited to primarily those available to police and armed forces. A non-violent response to someone who is actively seeking to wipe you off the earth is a bit difficult to coordinate, eh?
The Palestinians are not restricted in the same way.
Don't worry, you'll get this eventually.
"Didn't someone get nailed to a cross for suggesting that a couple of thousand years ago in that area?. Not got any better since"
Gandhi. MLK. The Egyptian revolution of 1919.
You fail AC.
"Well actually the latest bout of fighting was begun when the Israeli government attempted to topple the elected government of the Palestinians."
Actually, you're wrong.
"The recent "first place" that you refer to was simply the end of a short, agreed ceasefire to encourage negotiation".
Thanks for actually admitting the truth. You equivocated, because you're biased, I get that.
Now, two things.
1) A non-violent response can begin at any time. The recent ceasefire was a perfect example, but instead The Plaestinians broke said ceasefire WITH VIOLENCE.
2) Unless people such as yourself stop pretending violence is somehow justified for your side but not for the other, the only thing you'll get is more violence.
"So the occupation, colonization, and annexation aren't violent?"
Uh, yeah they are. Where did I make the argument that they weren't?
Which is why a non-violent response would be so effective, just like it has been in the past. Violence (from the Israelis) would be FAR less tolerated if they were using it against peaceful protesters.
Which was my point.
You seem to have trouble reading for comprehension, try actually reading what you're responding to please.
When was the last time the Palestinians tried non-violent protests?
It would be very hard for Israel to justify a military response against people who openly acknowledge they have no desire for violence.
They would probably do it anyway, but world opinion would be decidedly different I suspect.
Instead you get geniuses who bring a knife to a machine gun fight, and complain that they're getting shot at for firing rockets into civilian areas.
"You got to admit though, it's a lot easier to play the victim when you're starving, walled into a tiny area and can only defend themselves with scraps of old military hardware and bits of rubble against a rich country armed with the latest in US air power that assassinates their democratically elected leaders."
What are they "defending themselves" from? Oh right, retaliation from their rocket attacks.
It's a lot harder to play the victim when you chose the path of violence in the first place.
Imagine how this conflict would go if the Palestinian's weren't so cowardly and instead used non-violent protests. You know, like Gandhi.
Nah, that kind of stuff never works.
That's not the exact counter argument, that's nonsense.
In the previous example, a person sticks a gun in your face and hauls your ass off to jail if you don't agree with their money allocation policies.
In your attempt at an equivalent, there is nothing comparable.
"Now, where that is nonapplicable, is in the fact that a lot of dollars are spent in "investment", and those dollars are evaporating at an amazing rate. In other words, if you leave the dollars with the rich, then they will disappear with no net benefit at all."
This is only true if "the rich" (true colors there bud) are investing in losing investments.
GUess what, there are many investments that aren't losing.
Your assumption, and therefore your point, fails totally.
And so do the mods who agreed with you without bothering to read a post that outs itself as ignorant immediately.
Have you ever noticed that the state of restorative dentistry is progressing rapidly every day, but the state of the art in preventive dentistry is still brush and floss?
I'm no tin-foil hat guy, but this is one area I genuinely believe is being overlooked solely for the monetary benefit.
"It could be a problem if the 8000 leechers are all missing the same parts of the file(s) that the 4 seeders have. This doesn't seem very likely, but it is technically possible."
Unlike most here, I don't consider "vastly, highly unlikely instances" in an effort to display my intellectual ability at the loss of my use of reason.
You seem to, but you'll forgive me if I ignore your specificty and pedantry in my own effort to avoid having conversations with people who think pedantry and specificty makes them anything other than a specific pedant.
In other words, your example is so rare and so unlikely that I consider anyone who forwards it and those like it a fucking loser.
"The idea that five years means cancer is "cured" is ridiculous"
NO, the idea that you think that's what I said is ridiculous.
Not only what I said "CONSIDERED CURED" but the line following it "THAT SAID IT IS CANCER..." make it clear that the term "cured" is tenuous.
"Yes, that's when you actually get to use the word"
Which WAS MY POINT WHEN I SAID "CONSIDERED" and "THAT SAID IT'S CANCER."
Perhaps if you had actually read what I said you'd realize where you went wrong.
"It's not always practical to physically hang out with people"
You're right. You're also making a point that is irrelevant.
MY point was that Twitter is inferior to both face to face communication AND current methods of maintaining contact.
Nothing you said there refutes that point in any way.
"Microblogging (or XMPP status messages) can be completely unnecessary for this too. If I set my status message to 'Gone for coffee. Will be in [wherever] for the next hour' then people can see that and come and join me. Once there, they can talk to me."
Or they can just use one of the many methods that already existed before people decided to spray their itinerary everywhere, which also work better. I have yet to run into a situation where spraying my itinerary is appropriate. Your example isn't one.
The reality is, people fall in love with a technology and pretend that tech has some reason for existing because of their love, not its utility.
In short, nothing you said there requires Twitter, and no part of Twitter makes it superior to the current solutions.
"You kinda proved my point there."
No I didn't, your "point" was that "PC users don't understand what it is like to have a computer that is actually nice to use."
I HAVE a computer that is nice to use. How it got there is irrelevant to your point, you're just wrong.
" Clearly it is more than "just a fucking computer" to you if you are willing to spend "a ton of time" customizing it."
No. These two points have nothing to do with each other, it can be both "just a fucking computer" and be customizable to my tastes. Your point makes no sense.
"You mentioned something about stupid hyperbolic assertions? "
Yes I did, and you've proven me 100% accurate so far with yours, which I have demonstrated.
SO far, all you've done is prove me totally correct.
Well, we have a slightly different protocol, rather than send each other mindless little blips of info, we HANG OUT WITH EACH OTHER.
Then we TALK TO EACH OTHER, sometimes while DRINKING A BEER AND HAVING FUN.
But hey, a few characters on a screen are clearly better...
"PC users mock Mac users for their "fanboy" stuff"
No, stop lying to yourself. They get mocked because of stupid hyperbolic assertions that never hold up in reality, and a total unwillingness to admit problems are actually problems.
"but it is because PC users don't understand what it is like to have a computer that is actually nice to use. "
NO, they understand that it's A FUCKING COMPUTER. My roommate has 2 macs. They're nice. They're by no means "nicer" than my set-up, which I've spent a ton of time customizing. Your assumption that people are downing are Mac users for "not using a nice PC" is ridiculous and kind of stupid.
YOU are the EXACT person I'm talking about, blindly dismissing issues as "PC users frame of reference" because you're totally incapable of registering a real problem because you're so deluded.
"Now you have."
So he's been cancer free for five years? Because that's generally what is considered "cured".
"Jobs has been (apparently) cancer-free since his surgery in July 2004."
Ok, pretty close. That being said, it's cancer...
"So it's not in TW's best interests to encourage people to see the Internet as a great alternative to cable TV."
However, if they can see the writing on the wall (which is something most Slashdotters don't give businesses enough credit for) then perhaps they realize cable is a dead end and want to get in on the transition.
And could you clarify your "counter argument"? I see you saying most people only have one cable provider, but I fail to see how that's a counterargument here. That other ISP's exist doesn't really have anything to do with cable internet service.
I guess I just don't see why a gaggle of ISP's providing services over Time Warner's lines, which would still be paid for by the subscriber and be a revenue stream for TWC, is a counterargument.
"The justification for the gas tax is that your tax is proportional to your usage of the infrastructure"
No, it's that your tax is proportional to your usage of GAS.
Everything else is your assumption, not fact.
"8,000 leechers, 4 seeders"
No problem there.
"your download will complete in 1 day, 17 hours, 49 minutes."
That part has nothing to do with the first part.
Do you not understand how torrents work, or are you just throwing in the "8,000 leechers, 4 seeders" even though it has nothing to do with your download being slow?
And no mods, his post wasn't insightful.
"It's perhaps a sign of the evolution of language, or at least of this volunteer linguistic watchdog group, that a symbol compounded of two characters, neither of them a letter, is considered not only a word, but a particularly egregious one."
No guy, it's a sign they don't have a list for "emoticons to be banned", nothing more.
Stop trying so hard.
"The real question is why Time Warner would fight back by so clearly showing how increasingly obsolete they are becoming and that cable providers are losing their monopolistic grip on media delivery"
This is simple, and the wording clearly displays the submitter's bias.
Time Warner cable ALSO provides internet access. If they are being charged for programming that their internet subscribers can recieve online, then they are paying for something they don't need to. I have no doubt they would like to use the funds Viacom currently recieves for programming on other things, yet still be able to provide the content if necessary.
I suppose if the person asking the question weren't themselves behoden to the idea that cable is the Great Satan, then they could see that.
"Well, there's two problems with the gas tax."
Ok, let's hear em.
"1. As a road usage tax"
It's not a road useage tax, so you have a problem with something not being something it's not supposed to be?
"2. It doesn't take into consideration driving done on private roads or roads not maintained by the government."
It's not supposed to.
So what you're saying here is that there are NO problems with a gas tax, and you just don't know WTF it is or what it's used for.
"That clearly provides for a collective right and doesn't apply to the states..."
Seriously though, isn't it wonderful anti-gun nuts can't even make that weak argument anymore.
Nothing you posted shows she wasn't a BITCH.
So, your entire post was a waste, you're still wrong, and now you look pathetic for making stupid arguments that don't even address the point in question.
Nice try though, and by nice try I mean, you're incredibly fucking stupid.