> There is no professional graphics application available that uses Direct3D for rendering.
I guess it depends on what you mean by professional. I was also refering to Max which uses both OpenGL and Direct3D, although it also includes its own custom Heidi driver. And last time I checked (which was quite a long time ago) Martin Hashs 3d applications had switched to Direct3D, but again I dont know if you consider it professional either. Maya, Softimage, Lightwave, Houdini of course are OpenGL based. There are also a lot of smaller applications I wouldnt label consumer (they are expensive and not usefull for consumers) but more professional that use Direct3D, but they are almost not worth mentioning.
> And they don't much care about OpenGL 2.0, because they have little use for pixel and vertex shaders.
Actually, I'm seeing more game developers moving to Maya, and if that is the case, you will see a lot more interest in using a lot of the 2.0 features for developing game content. Its not so important for feature film kind of work but for game developement it is important. Newtek may be interested in it, they were demonstrating in some of their newer versions of Lightwave (6.x and up) using a lot more OpenGL features and doing tricks that game developers use in their editors, more so then I have seen from other packages, its nice to see lens flares and fog when your animating a scene, instead of having to render a few frames to see what it looks like.
> They really just want high performance fixed-function transformation (no, your new Geforce 4 can't compete well here), fast gourad shaded triangles and blazingly quick antialiased lines.
Last I heard the wildcat line of cards were pretty dominant in this area. But at the same time it depends on what you are doing, game developement, tv, or film. For Film they usually want the best quality and will want something to really push the detail levels really high. TV and game cinematics it's a little lower, althought there is some that push as hard as some of the low end films. With real time aspects of games, your dealing with 800 poly for low end and 80k for high end characters (Depending on the platform and/or hardware), and just about any consumer card can be used to handle that.
> No, that's got nothing to do with relativity. I take it you have never taken Modern Physics.
I never said the theory of special relativity by Einstein. I'm speaking more generaly then that.
> That's solipsism, which is a pointless conjecture, as it isn't provable (the technical term is that it isn't falsifiable, as you cannot test if it is NOT true).
I'd say you are correct, but in reality nothing is absolutely provable, its a matter of acuracy, current mathematics may change as did physics when Einstein theorized about relativity. From the other side of this, if we say did create a powerful computer, that was capable of simulating a universe, and if we could recreate life that evolved to intelegent life in that computer generated universe, it would make us wonder if we exist in much the same way, it would not be undying proof, but it would be enough to theorize about it.
> Trust me, this teacher was just an idiot.
I'll take your word for it, as I have had little information about them.
> In 1999, Israel offered to give the Palestinians their own country, with all of Gaza, 90-something percent of the West Bank, with land taken from Israel to make up the remaining percent. Jerusalem would be shared.
From the material I have read, they wanted pre-67 borders which is I believe agreed upon or accepted in the UN as fair, but that Israel having more military might thought it should have more.
> The simple problem is that the Palestinians and their supporters don't recognize the right of Jews to self-determination.
That sounds over generalized to me, and is probably why you were ready to call me a Jew hater. And actually it seems when people from Palistine and Israel are interviewed on TV, it is the Israelis who seem more ready to label groups of people, in over generalized statements, the Palistinians interviewed usually point to the Israeli government and dont say anything about Jews or even use that word.
> The Palestinians keep on turning down their rights. They'd rather send their children to die than live in freedom alongside Jews.
Again over generalized, what makes you think all Palistinians are the same? What makes you think there is no Palistinians what so ever who would be willing to live side by side with a Jews?
> No, terrorism has an exact definition.
Yes, but again so does imperialism. But again one mans terrorists is another mans freedom fighters. There has been many cases where the US has supported terrorists, but they were documented as freedom fighters and terrorism was their method of combat. Even in some past articles I have posted here it is documented that the US has looked at terrorism as a legitimate weapon (so much for the idea of terrorism being the weapon of the weak). Again this mirrors what you said about imperialism.
> He will support anything he views as anti-American, yet he lives in Boston.
Doubtful, there is several articles he has written which refute this. In one article he said something down the lines that he has always thought Osama Bin Laden to have been a lunatic, even when the US was supporting him. In a lot of cases he is more honest then the major media, the major media will always tend to not make the US look bad to what it does to other countries.
> Heck, he was even in favor of the Khmer Rouge, who killed over a million Cambodians for being too "Western". Some things which would qualify you as being "western" were wearing eyeglasses or being able to speak English. Chomsky loved these guys.
I'd have to read up more on that. But again, this one thing does not prove he supports *anything* anti-American, as I said there is several articles to the contrary.
> He parades around the world, saying the US media is complicit in covering up mass crimes by the government.
Actually, in a number of articles he has also shown that they dont always cover it up but at times even gloss over the facts as if they were meaningless. For example they will mention deaths and that foreign aid will cease, but they dont go step farther and say what that means, which is even more deaths from starvation.
> Funny thing is, his rantings are able to get out, and he's got no proof of any of these crimes.
Actually I dont hold him as my sole source of information, there are times I read some of his stuff and all it takes is a few web searchs to find more information which describes things in more detail. To the point of finding government documents saying some of the same things.
> He just makes it up because he hates the US.
I think hate is a strong word and you were more then willing to call me a Jew hater, maybe you should rethink your use of this word. First off why do you think he hates the US? I mean I have never met a situation where hate could not be explained in one way or another. Even labeling someone as a maniac doesnt explain much either, such as WHY they are a maniac. But then again, religious institutions tend to teach people to be closed minded and not question things, to except something as truth when it is merely a perception.
I am not saying physics is entirely wrong, if you know anything about physics, you know that it is only based upon on our limited view of the universe. Just as Einstien had proven, things are not always as they appear, while Newtonian laws seemed to be right from our limited perspective back then, new devices allow us to see things that we could not see before, and discover things about the universe that we had previously not known, these discovers cause major changes in science and the view of the universe, just as Einstien was to Newton.
I said to go from point A to point B, you have to go half way before you go to B... to go half way to B, you have to go a quarter of the way... before you go a quarter of the way, you have to go 1/8th of the way... You CAN'T skip those steps and magicly appear at point B... if everything is infinitely subdividable, then nothing would move (you would keep going from 1/8th, 1/16th, and on and on), if everything were descreet then moving would not be a problem. And BTW this is not something I came up with...
http://turnbull.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathem at icians/Zeno_of_Elea.html
> theoretically you'd never reach the destination, you'd only get half-way there.
Theoretically you wouldnt even move (again to go half way you would first have to make it 1/4th, before that 1/8th and on and on to 1/infinity).
> Because of my size, i'm am limited to only being able to travel in discrete units, not because motion isn't an analog concept.
Your not thinking it through. Size is not relevant, that is like saying a football stadium can not move a nanometer, that because of its size it can only move in meters. There is no such limitation that I am aware of, and a football stadium and a foot ball are capable of moving in small units. I dont think we can see objects moving in descreet units, the resolution may be to small for us to measure, most of these things may be to small for us to measure properly and even in the quantum level things are described as popping in and out and jumping around.
> your arguments are all about sampling. yes, you can sample an analog signal, and explain pretty much all of the properties of the signal with those samples, but it doesn't mean that the signal wasn't analog in the first place. that argument makes no sense.
It doesnt make sense because you dont understand it. I know about DACs (Digital to Analog Conversion), think of it as converting from a really high resolution signal to a really low resolution signal. Both are descreet, but one is simply higher resolution, so high in fact that it may be impossible for a DAC to capture it all accurately.
> your claim about losing precision pretty much refutes your own argument.
No, you simply didnt understand what I meant. A floating point number loses its lower precisions when dealing with very large numbers. So if an rocket were moving almost the speed of light, it is Einsteins theory of relativity which says that someone in that rocket will appear to move in slow motion (thus preventing speeds greater then the speed of light). What I was saying is that this could be the result of the loss of precision, if a computer is unable to get that kind of precision for example a solution would be to cause them to move slower.
> if I'm accelerating from 0 to 60 kilometers per hour in my car, I am not moving from 0 to 0.1 to 0.2 to 0.3 etc... it's an analog process.
You dont even know what an "analog process" is, all that really means is "I dont really know what is happening, becaue things are to complex to track". I'm not claiming that it is an digital process, I'm just saying its possible that it could be a digital processes. It could be at such a high resolution that it allows for more complex sequencies then something as linear as you suggest.
> There's no way that you could tell me precisely how fast I'm moving, because it's analog.
Again the word "analog" is just being used to replace the word "uncertain" or "unknown". Analog could turn out to mean really high resolution.
> . you should think before you post...
I've thought about this for a long time (this isnt a spur of the moment comment), only posted it because it was close to the topic. What I am not sure about though is why your such an asshole.
Even if Carmack dropped OpenGL, there is still the matter of professional applications. There are several of them that still use OpenGL as their main graphics API, and it would be detrimental to Windows if they lost OpenGL, most professionals would have to move to other OSs(which could possibly include Linux), or not upgrade their OS all together.
> A lit professor I once had stated that physics taught people that "the observer interacts with the observed," which is almost true on the quantum level, but is nonsense in general (watching a baseball roll off a table doesn't affect it one way or the other). This is not my idea of an educated person.
Having a diffrent perspective on the same thing can be helpful in a lot of circumstances and it also doesnt hurt to be wrong or to test ideas or information. The way he makes it sound is more of relativity. Watching a baseball roll off a table may appear as though you have done nothing, but you have done something to it, you have recorded it in your mind and incorporated it into your experience as a being. There is also an issue of whether the ball really exists or if it only exists when you are there to observe it. It sounds kind of funny and even self centered but that doesnt make it any less possible, for example if we are in a computer generated world sort of like the movies the matrix or 13th floor, nothing really exists although since they can die in it, it makes you think about what reality really is, if I exist in a computer generated environment and I can really die or be altered in that environment does that make it a reality? I would say it does.
> Sheesh. No citations. No evidence. That's not exactly a reputable historical research web site, just a bunch of cranks posting without sources.
Sometimes there is good snippets of information on that site, but I agree with what you say. The only evidence that it might be true is that no one responded with counter information.
> What about the "Zionist invasion?" It was an "invasion" of farmers and factory owners, not soldiers.
I'm not familiar with the "zionist invasion".
> You don't believe that Jews have a right to self-determination in their homeland.
I dont see it as a matter of self-determination for the Jews, because they have a stable government (and as far as I know) economy and they have land. Although I do see that the palistinians are losing their right to self-determination, at least it appears as though Israel wants to root out the PA and replace it with Israels own government. Maybe you have a diffrent perspective on that?
> are fixated on the actions of Jews, yet are willing to write off other "imperialist" actions as bygones. Why is that?
Because they are already gone, there is not much to do in prevention because they already happened, the only thing that would be left over is reperation for those. But what is happening in Israel is happening now, its not in the past, there is still time to prevent the palistinians from losing their rights.
> What is it that bugs you about Israeli "crimes" that doesn't bug you about the far worse actions of other peoples?
Like what other peoples? Where do I support far worse actions of other peoples? As far as I know I don't. And just because I focus on Israel in our conversations doesnt mean I am not against the less worse or more worse actions of others.
> What makes it even more amazing is that you feel this outrage without knowing much of anything about the issues surrounding the conflict.
I may not know everything there is to know about the conflict, but there is so much to know, that I doubt that even you know it all and can be wrong from time to time, that is why it is good to have discussions or at least for real intellectuals.
> Not to be glib, but imperialism is in the eye of the beholder.
True, but so is the word terrorism.
> Well, yeah, I would think that agreeing with socialist theory would make you a socialist.
I dont agree with everything socialist. I think for example that if there is welfare it should be more localised, same with the likes of affirmative action. If you globalize something like affirmative action, then that is like assuming everyone is racist (to cynical), and put the burden on everyone, including those who are not racist. The same with welfare. Socialism and communism are considered to be closely related, and Marx studied tribal communities to come up with communism (which communism was then perverted by the USSR), so he took localized ideas and tried to expand them more globally. With social servers being local there is less room for corruption as well, its easier for a community to get together where as its harder for a nation to get together to fight corruption. This makes sense to me. So I feel that globaly things should be more conservative, and locally more liberal. And by local I dont mean on a national level necesarily but on a city level or state level. There might not be necesarily zero socialism in more-global/federal governments, but that socialism is more on the national/state level, and the taxes to pay for this is in shipping from state to state, rather then yanking it out of your paychecks. And this has several benefits, it influences these local entities into being more self suffient (less shipping less taxes). But these are just concepts and ideas, I dont hold them to be the answer to problems in our dynamic ever changing world, but I dont hold other peoples ideas any diffrently.
As for Noam Chomsky, it seems normal that I read from him about problems most of what he has to say is not about solutions. I got trapped once in a debate after reading some of his material where someone said "well then what do you suggest as a solution" and Noam Chomsky left me with nothing to respond with.
We call the universe analog because we dont know its limits, but at the same time we give the universe limits.
If the universe was analog then motion would be hard to explain. Like for example, if you wanted to go from point A to point B you would first have to move half way, and if you wanted to go half way you would have to go a quarter of the way, and if you wanted to go a quarter of the way you would have to go 1/8th of the way, and on and on. If the universe were descreet you could simply increment to the next position there wouldnt be infinite subdivisions. The same could be applied to speed and acceleration, acceleration can be viewed as a vector which alters speed, and acceleration itself changes so it itself can have a change vector, so you get acceleration of acceleration of acceleration and on and on. But its possible for this to be represented in a mathmatical analog, such as in fractals, fractals are sort of like feedback (when you place a camera in front of a TV displaying whats on the camera, you see feedback), feedback can go on to infinite. But that still does not dispute a digital universe because fractals of course can be sculted in digital forms to fit our perceptions and fool us into believing an infinite universe, just as we had for along time been fooled into believing in infinite speed, when the universe really has a speed limit of light, which is similar to the concepts of digital floating point numbers, where larger numbers lose their lower/minor precision, but keep their higher/major precision.
IMO, the only licensing issues that need exist should be more about compliance to a standard rather then IP. That is whether an implementation complies with the standard or breaks it. That is more important for a standard, then having to license several diffrent IPs just to implement a standard.
> I think I've figured you out: you're a high school kid, aren't you?
You know whats funny, you've acted like you have knew me from the start, but even now when you confess to not, you fail. Why do you even try to stereotype and figure out who I am, you only are doing it to insult me (or at least that is what it appears you are doing, because being young is not enough, have to be rich and white, because that is really bad?
> You know nothing about the world, and your piss-poor education has taught you absolutely nothing about the world, least of all how to think or research topics you know nothing about.
Well I work for a living (dont know about you), and my work is not as a college professor, I dont have the time to keep up with a lot of current events, or to get a lot of information on a certain things.
> Yet you live in a society that is "imperialistic" and take advantage of the fruits of that society. Why not go back where you came from?
I came from Texas. If you are talking about race, I'm half spanish and half indian, I guess half of me should go back to spain and the other half is suppose to stay here?? Right. And being Imperialistic is not a property of a society, its the property of a government, after all you never hear about a society invading another land, thats military.
> If you were at least partially well-versed in origins of Christianity, you'd know that very FEW Romans converted to Judaism, because of two very important Jewish customs (circumcision and dietary laws).
Well I may be mistaken on the details, but I read most of this here...
"Also, there were periods in which Judaism accepted converts in large numbers in the Roman Empire. At one time there were more (converted) Jews in Roman Gaul than converted Christians. Thus, modern Jews may also be, in part, descended from Romanized Celtic Gauls."
> Secondly, it doesn't matter whether someone is "genetically" Jewish or not. Judaism is a tribal religion; converting to Judaism means joining the tribe, in effect being adopted. Do you think adopted children can't inherit?
No, again I said it was a triffle issue (geez). But who is to say there is no corruption in inheritance. There are several Arabs whos children will not inherit land because of Israel. And Inheritance produces favoritism, its the thing that makes Kings Queens Princes and Princessess in our modern time of Capitalism.
> And a number I know don't. What does that prove?
That MLK words back then dont necesarily correspond to modern african americans.
> So what EXACTLY is the statute of limitations for how long the Palestinians have claim to their land? 100 years? You are aware that the Indians were kicked out of the Seattle area about 100 years ago. Is Bill Gates a settler, deserving of rocket attacks and suicide bombs?
It happened to a generation. Their descendants have not experienced the same sort of problems that they did. My mom has experienced racism in her childhood but I have not, I have only witnessed it of others. The indians didnt have a property system (most tribal people do not, and I would not be surprised if the Israel tribes were the same way).
> They can do what they want with it, just as every other country does with its own land.
Yes, like kill people.
> That's because trying to implement reparations is a fucking nightmare.
I don't disagree. My only response is, that the history of Jews living in Israel before the Arabs is just as irrelevent, and that is why I brought up who is the original Jews from Israel and who is a convert from europe ancestory.
> I don't know about you, but I don't know anything about my anscestors from 140 years ago.
Not to mention thousands of years age.
> BTW, your "free speech" comrades on college campuses have been destroying newspapers containing ads placed by David Horowitz.
Agreeing with some things (but not everything) makes them my "comrades"?
> Why are you OK with living out your life as a settler, but condemn Israelis for returning to the land of their anscestors?
I'm not a "settler", the land has already been "settled" and I am not a time traveler so I can not go back and change things. Plus it would be rediculous because there is probably some cave men I am descendant from that were killing other cave man unjustly but they were primitive and unenlightened. BUT at the same time by 'living with myself' I am not justifying what they did, and I am certainly not going to say what they did is right simply because I am living in the US. Aparently that escapes you, and you seem to even think what the US did was right. Are you suggesting that imperialism is a good thing?
> Maybe you can learn something besides this socialist drivel that you've been spoon-fed.
What makes you think I am socialist, because I agree with some of their material?
> People aren't rational;
Well demonstrations are not necesary.
> only fools make up systems that expect people to be angels for the rules to work. Deal with the world the way it is, not the way you wish it to be.
If I was a fool and thought people were angles, then I would think there should be no rules or even a system for that matter, a system is designed to keep devils at bay. All systems, both capitalism and socialism are both cynical about human nature. Even the US judicial system is designed with checks and balances, with the concept that no matter what justice is blind (that is why a judge and jury is better then vigilante killing people).
> The fact is, you continue to deny Jews the right to their homeland. You deny Jews the right to settle in land they captured in war, just as you do.
How am I denying them? Am I sitting on a document to sign that will some how ALLOW them to the land? No so I am not denying them anything. But let me guess, the people currently LIVING there have no say?
> Sounds like a bias against Jews to me. Makes you a Jew Hater in my book, and in MLK's book.
Well you certainly have not proven to know me at all, several times over, and this is just another shining example.
If you ask me whether a Jewish American has the right to own a store I'd say they have as equal right to do so as any one else in America. If you ask me whether a Jewish American has the right to kill another person, and I will say NO, not because he is a Jew but because I know its wrong.
To call me a Jew hater, is just you making excuses for the reason someone would disagree with you about Israels actions. No one can disagree with you about Israel and not be a Jew hater, right? No one can be wrong or mistaken, they HAVE to be a Jew hater.
> You're against Zionism? Then you hate Jews. Plain and simple. See below.
I'm against imperialism and so far Zionism is proving itself to be imperialistic. There are anti-Zionist Jews, and I suppose you would call them "self hating Jews". Being against a political movement that wishs to take land away from others on the claim that it was theres thousands of years ago, is not the same as hating Jews, when was it that a political movement became the representation of all JEWS? Again you seem to suffer from this problem of speaking for others with out their permission and with out their knowledge. Putz.
> It is a political movement that claims that Jews, like every other ethnic group in the world, are entitled to the right of self-determiniation in their homeland. The Jewish homeland is what you keep calling Palestine. Just because the majority of Jews were forced into exile from their homeland, doesn't take it away from them.
Yes at the cost of the Arabs who migrated and lived there for the thousands of years that the Jews were gone, with Jerusalem as their capital.
> Another Zionist you might have heard of is Martin Luther King.
Not being anti-zionist is not the same as being a zionist. You dont have to be either or, this is not black and white. I've heard descriptions of a beatiful concept of Zionism, that is a peoples struggle for what was there's, but I have also seen the reality of what it really means, the ugly truth, and so far this "struggle" appears to be happening more with the Palistinians then with the Israelis. Face it, as a zionist, you dont want piece, you want Palestine. Even so most of the modern Jews are european Jews, I would not be surprised if many have roman ancestory, a large portion of Rome had even converted to that religion. So a lot of these people did not even originally come from that land, but that I consider a triffle issue, as a matter of a fact most of what happened back then IS history. Actually the reperations of what has happened is an interesting topic as well, as it appears Horowitz (the guy you mentioned early) is ironicly against reperations for African American even though their suffering was more recent history and the statistics show they still are playing catch up to other races (and another interesting parallel here is the use of what Martin Luther King had to say).
http://www.zmag.org/RaceWatch/wisehoro.htm
The interesting thing here is though, are Jews/Israelis still suffering? They may not be living in piece but it looks to me they are doing fine in comparison to their neighboring Palestinians.
> You want to know what MLK thought Zionism was? "All men of good will exult in the fulfillment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land. This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less."
If MLK saw what was happing to the Palestinians by these Zionist I doubt he would look at it the same way. As a matter of a fact a number of African Americans that I know of personaly, see the Palestinians as being opressed.
> So yeah, you hate Jews and non-Jews are Zionists.
Right, so if I dont like Zionist (I have never said I hate them, by calling them imperialist and speaking of its wrongs, is not saying I hate them), and there are non-Jew zionist, that makes me a a Jew hater???? Sounds like another lame assertion to me, I would think I would know if I hated Jews. If I tell a child not to hit the other children, I guess I hate that child?!?!?!?! Putz!
> Israel is "occupying" because Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria invaded in 1967, with weapons far larger than those Hamas rockets. Why is this so hard for you to understand? And why is what Israel doing "occupation" and what the US did OK?
Right, and placing settlments, demolition buildings, killing innocent people is all part of them "defending" themselves, has nothing to do with expansion. Oh and of course this doesnt matter because Palestine belongs to Israel anyway so they are just occupying their own land, right????
I never said the US going in afganistan is OK, again I've made it clear that I didnt think it was okay... I have even stated that its hypocracy at its best, as Nicaragua was under sponsored terrorism from the US, but couldnt just invade the US. Not only Nicaragua, but also Haiti, which was being terrorized by an Emmanuel Constant, who is under the protection by the US even though he has been extradicted. Following the same logic of the US, Haiti should be able to invade the US and dismantle the government and hunt for Emmanuel Constant.
> Whether or not you think conquering is a good way to establish your rule, it's the ONLY way that has ever worked.
Thats not entirely correct, not when you have rational nations that is. When the nations of the world are irrational, power mad, and relatively untamed, then all it takes is abuse by a few nation to whip up the nations. No matter what things are progressing, the rules of war didnt come about because one country conquered the rest of them, they came about because if one guys kicks the other in the balls then it becomes a ball kicking match and most rational people who have balls will not want to go there. You cant go about solving your problem by taking on the world (as the US and Israel like to do), because you will not only lose friends and allies but you will gain more enemies then you can take on. Rules are an agreement.
Look, I dont consider myself anti-Zionist or anti-Israel or anti-US (I am from the US) or anti-anything for that matter and I am even insulted about being called a Jew hater, but at the same time I dont want to ignore the fact that there is corruption, and that even the greatest good can perverted into the greatest evil. At every point you have tried to justify what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people, even to the point of accusing me of being a Jew hater and trying to mock my ideas of better world order. And yes you have done some of these things to be malicious, that would not matter either way with Israel, but you still sought to insult. Think about what you are doing.
> No, but people who deny the right of Israel to exist are Jew Haters. Plain and simple.
Right and when did I do this?
> There sure are Arab Zionists. For example, Joseph Farah, who has gotten death threats for his very public statements in favor of Israel. Read www.worldnetdaily.com for his daily columns and look through the archives for his columns on Israel.
Does he call himself an Zionist or is he labeled a Zionist, is he Jewish (religion not race)? As I understood it, Zionism was a part of the jewish religion, is that right?
> If you want to keep track of body counts, they're roughly even since the Palestinians stopped their policy of using children as cover for snipers.
Not from what I have read, I have read somewhere in the range of 665 Israelis have been killed (since 1993 to present), 860 Palestinians have been killed (before december last year) in and even shorter period of time.
Children being used for cover... that is not accurate at all...
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1200 /0 012011.html
"Many of the children who were killed were not involved in clashes. For example, 13-year-old Muayyad Usma Jawarish was shot and killed by Israeli sniper fire in Bethlehem. He was on his way home from school and was not within a danger zone. Similarly, 18-month-old Sara Abdul Azeem was shot in the head by a settler. She was returning home with her father and was not near a clash site. A six-month-old infant was also killed."
> As soon as the Palestinians stop bombing and killing Jews, attacks against Palestinians by the Israeli army will stop. Plain and simple.
Any time piece is expected before justice, then there is no interest in piece or justice.
> Funny, Hamas and Hizbollah would care to differ. You might want to read http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/02/16/qassam.f acts/index.html or http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/hizballah.htm (this is a pro-Hizballah site, BTW).
Think about this, is Israel occupying Palestine because of these quassams or is it the opposite?
> Who exactly should start the conquering of the rest of the world in order to establish the New World Order you so desire?
It shouldnt be the US or Israel. But anyway that was lame, who said anything about conquering, who said anything about forcing other countries to act as one entity. If you want to refer to it as optimization of the UN, there needs to be more stern international laws in the apprehension of terrorists, and compliance. If you think the USs and Israels actions are appropriate, then the same could be done by the UN!!! Rather then have the US bombing Afganistan, it should be the UN going in and trying to apprehend terrorist, it should be UN that steps up and investigates and prosecutes terrorists, it should not be the responsibility of each individual country because then you get crap where the US can cause terror against other countries and since those countries dont have a military to stand against the US they cant do anything about it, but the US is practicly free to just jump into another country because of terrorism. That is lawlessness.
> Why don't you kill yourself in shame?
Right and also I should kill everyone including your dumb ass... Dont think so, but just because they did it along time ago and got away with it doesnt make it right either, and doesnt justify it in the present time. But you justify it now because you want Israel to expand to include Palestine.
> There is no separation between the various parts of Jerusalem.
Not now.
> And Jews weren't just "banned" from Jerusalem by Arabs.
No duh, and palestine is not just under occupation.
Label me before you know me, thats to be expected. There are a lot of people who think Israel is wrong in their actions including Israeli Jews living in Israel, and that doesnt make them Jew Haters!!!! But again that is the typical reaction to be expected, any one who is thought to be not jewish, is quickly labeled anti-semetic, jew hating, holocaust denying neo-nazi if they dont agree with Israels actions.
> First of all, arresting protesters is done in EVERY democracy, usually for some petty crime like disturbing the peace.
No, doubt, and its not always done justifiably and with obvious intent to demonstraight the power of the government to these people. There are several people who don't want to join the military, their way of protesting it (they dont want to be a part of what they think is wrong). Since they are required by law they are arrested, but one case in particular, is a guy who is not even qualified to be in the military, he was disqualified but he was still held for not going in, this was done in spite, not in justice.
Another example of freedom in Israel, is Jerusalem, it is often touted how jews were banned from the east part when the arabs controled it, and they say now Israel lets arabs go there, but that is not accurate at all, it takes a long time before they are allowed to travel there, when they do go there they must be strip searched, and this is so humiliating to them that they dont ever want to go there again.
> He went to Syria, a country which has sworn to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, and gave a speech supporting those goals.
Thats new to me.
> The federal government isn't what keeps Texas from attacking Louisiana. As the Constitution says, the goal of the federal government is "to ensure a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
And what part of "to ensure a more perfect union", doesnt sink in?
> Heck, considering there was this little thing called the Civil War, it sure didn't stop states from attacking each other.
Well gee, neither does the UN, but again the US makes sure that the states dont have reason to attack each other and invade each other, isnt that why we dont have any more civil wars between states, or is that to much to acknowledge?
> These terrorists would launch rockets at Dallas and Houston and Galveston, blow up shopping malls and restaurants and children on Halloween, and the Mexican government would shrug its shoulders and blame the US government for the terrorist attacks.
Launching rockets, is not even close to what happening in Israel. Its more like a group of mexican terrorist with those ideas, who live in mexico and america, strap bombs to their chest and run in a crowd and blow themselves up. And US using this as a reason to invade mexico and occupy its land, destroying their houses schools and buildings and replacing them with settlements. But that wasnt even my point, my point is that a global government is needed to take care of terrorism, terrorism is international. If you dont believe a global government should take care of terrorism, then you are also saying that police should be allowed to cross state lines in order to catch a criminal, and if a criminal escapes out of Texas into Lousiana, then Texas should be allowed to send a police squad after the criminal. Or better yet, going further with your line of thinking, lets get rid of police all together and if I suspect my neighbor has been killing my goats, I should be allowed to invade his house and occupy some of his rooms, while trying to solve who is killing my goats.
> Would Americans (a) As the UN to properly condemn Mexico or (b) invade Mexico?
I have not been talking about the UN, the UN is to weak. We need better a world government then what the UN has been offering. Right now the UN is to easily pushed around by US interests, and can't do much about it.
> I know, the argument is that this all happened long ago, so it OK.
BS, that is what conservatives say. That is why they are primarily against reperations.
> Ah, the "Jew Zionist." The surest sign of a Jew Hater is one who uses the word "Jew" as a pejorative.
Oh yeah, I'm sorry, I forget there are Arab Zionist. Lame.
> Sometimes you Jew Haters are harder to smoke out.
Dont know what you've been smoking.
/////
Wow you have a nice little history lessen, but fact of the matter is, right now, Israel has invaded Palistine, Israel is destroying their homes and buildings, Israel is killing more Palistinian civilians then Palistinian terrorist are killing Israeli civilians, Israel is placing settlements in palistine. The only one really supporting Israel in doing this is the US, but it comes as no surprise because Israel and the US have been supporting each other over several things, including the US escaping responsibility for supporting terror against Nicaragua.
> Israel is a democracy which is the homeland of the Jews. You can be a citizen of Israel and observe any religion you want, or none at all.
Democracy, maybe, but that doesnt change the fact that they are arresting people for protesting their war, and arresting arab politicians who agree that the occupation is wrong.
> The difference is that Israel is the homeland of Jews (only Jew haters seem to forget this tidbit), and any Jew gets automatic citizenship.
Right, and how easy it is for people to ignore that many Jew Zionist believe that even Palistine belongs to the Jews, and Jordan is the true Arab state. They claim stake to the land because it says so in their religion and because they lived their thousands of years prior to the arabs who "occupy" their land.
> How is Israel acting "unilaterally" a bad thing?
How would it sound if Texas was invading and occupying Lousiana? Isnt this why we have a federal government? There is no justice in acting unilaterally, that is the same as Iraq acting unilaterally against Kuwait because they think Kuwait is stealing oil.
Again you should read some Noam Chomsky, and you should understand what you are really saying... Should Nicaragua be allowed to invade and occupy the US because our government was supporting terrorist attacks against it?
https://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm
> Finally, explain how US support of Israel helps the US obtain more oil.
With Israel it isnt about oil, its about "holy" land, religion, and race.
> By the way, Chomsky is a well-documented liar. He has made up quotes from other people to support his own highly wacky positions. You should read some David Horowitz and Andrew Sullivan.
I've read David Horowitz, and he calls Noam Chomsky a Neo-Nazi, and there has been several analysis of him that shows that Horowitz is exagerating his own claims. Horowitz nit picks the little things Noam Chomsky has said and turns them into what he thinks is anti-jew.
> That's a highly scary thought. I bet under your world government, we're just going to solve all these problems that breed terrorism by forcing people to, say, give medical care for free, or build housing for free, or provide food for free. Sounds like slavery to me, personally. If you want to run around and take care of the poor and downtrodden, go do it yourself and leave me alone.
Thats lame, assuming world government would be liberal instead of conservative. Your objection also applies to federal government and yet we have federal government. And besides your exageration of a liberal point of view, there is also the exageration of the conservative point of view, which is, that they would allow the rich to exploit the poor and middle class, and increase the police force, so that the police can hold back the down trodden masses from taking back from the rich, that is the police state vision. Not that I believe any of that crap, life has a way of fitting somewhere in between, my extremist friend.
Why do you 2 idiots try to talk for all americans. I know people who are mad and stupid about the whole thing acting out on pride rather then reason, but I also know many people who are not so reactionary.
Not every one in american hates arabs because of what happens in the middle east. There are probably many closet racist who used 911 as a reason to express thier racism. You may have heard in a local news paper (forget big media news) about some arab americans being harrased for simply being arab, or even some people who simply look arab but are not arab.
Just as you dont represent America in any way shape or form, neither do any of those arabs respresent all arabs. There are some arabs who do hate america, and many of them have good reason, for example we support some of their represive and corrupt governments like Saudi Arabia (A monarchy for crying out loud), we even were ready to give money to the Taliban before 911 happened. We support Israel (a government based upon a religion), even when most of the international community in the UN has shown and documented that Israel is wrong in acting unilaterally. The US government, does things in the interest of money and resources like oil.
What you need to do is loosen up, if you cant handle the truth then shut up, if you think you can handle more of the truth, then do some real reading, read some zmag.org, and some Noam Chomsky. While media outlets like CNN, and Fox News, they only cover over generalized aspects of the news, they rarely ever delve into the history of a situation and rarely ever give more then their opinions/spin.
What the French prime minister had to say was important, and Bush should have listened. The problem with the world is not terrorism, terrorism is a symptom of a greater problem. Only going after terrorism, is like putting on a mask to cover the ugly truth. America should not act unilaterally against terrorism, as it appears it plans to do as it looses support. Acting unilaterally is like vigilantism, which itself is wrong because justice cant prevail under those circumstances, and that is the reason vigilantism has mostly been replaced by government organized police judges and juries. Even to the point of democracy itself is a way of defeating vigilantism, when the government does things wrong a vigilante will want to take over the government, but democracy is supposed to reduce the need for such harsh action. To defeat terrorism would require a better more authorative world government, the same with criminals who cross state lines require the help of federal government.
"No. I've been inside one of those companies, and the GPL is in fact the biggest obstacle, not the biggest advantage."
"one of these companies" != SGI
"They don't like the viral properties of the GPL. They are much more worried about being forced to release existing trade secrets than they are about competitors adopting their code."
Yes but he is talking about using this as an business advantage. They started creating Linux based servers because linux is less expensive, they wanted to incorporate their file system into linux, if they release the code under BSD, Sun can take their code and incorporate it into Solaris with hardly any work, if they release it under GPL, Sun would have to hire programmers and a legal team to make sure they are not violating their copyright, if they screw up Sun would have to release the source code to their entire operating system under a GPL compatible license, compromising Sun to its competitors. So they use this fear of the viral aspects of GPL as an business advantage.
You can say their use of Open Source and Linux is just buzz, but that is not the same thing as saying their use of GPL is just buzz.
True but his point is, that Sun is not likely to GPL their whole operating system in order to incorperate XFS in it. So GPLing XFS in linux does prevent it from being used by their commerical competitors who do not want to GPL their products.
Government influences cause market dominance more then government not influencing markets. For example, Intelectual Property law allows corporations to grow huge, like microsoft. It allows corporations to create information monopolies, with the government backing these monopolies through law. So I'd agree, if the government is going to have IP laws, they should also make sure the IP laws dont result in market dominance, and anti-competitive monopolization of a market. But I would also like to toy with the idea that the market self regulate itself, that is little to no IP laws.
Coincidently I got a passport account while signing up for a discussion forumn, and lost my password and there is no convenient way to get the password which is sort of good, but I have had no reason or urgency to contact them about my password. Although when I signed up for my account I never gave them a lot of information about me and my email address has changed so I am not as concerned as you.
Your ideas apply to copyrights (and patents) in general as well, not just to the specific licenses. Do you want the right to force others to credit you? Think about also how BSD originally required that you credit the authors in advertisement, and how the author list became so huge that no one would want to ever advertise BSD software. Copyrights, basicly chop up structures/combinations of information as property. If you view the world of information and ideas as a world map, you can see the GPL nation (blue), the MS EULA nation (red), the BSD nation (green), etc etc etc, each dividing the land amongst themselves and you can see them as warring with each other over land and property.
I dont know what the perception is, but from my own experience as a gamer on the PC, hardware drivers are probably the biggest cause of crashes then software, at least from my own experience. Linux has less crashes in my experience because a lot of the drivers are simple, and dont fully take advantage of hardware, or at least my video card gets lower performance in Linux (although I havent had a chance to do any testing recently), so my thinking is that the drivers havent quite caught up to those in windows and the crashes happen significantly less because of it. On the other hand, there is software crashes in windows that can be annoying, or bugs that cause things to go screwy, NT/XP is noticably more stable then the 9x/Me versions of windows, in the software side but also suffers from driver level crashes.
What annoys me about crashes are the ones that lock you out of your system (no recovery, a hard reboot is necesary). That happens a lot in games in windows 98, I heard it happens less in XP.
For the love of God, please dont talk about "slashdot" readers/writers as being single minded. Why do people do this crap? Do all black people think alike, do all white people think alike, do all men think alike, do all women think alike? No they dont, and neither do people at slashdot.
I dont like windows because microsoft sucks at security (they have demonstraighted their incompetence in this time and time again), but other then that I like windows because it gets my software to work with my hardware, which happens to be more then just engineering, and more with marketing and getting hardware and software engineers to use their platform. Getting cooperation.
Please dont assume slashdot readers and writers feel that way, especially if you want to make some point. I doubt the previous poster you replied to got that feeling just from being on slashdot, I've seen several other websites and even media on TV, like TechTV and even strangely enough MSNBC, bash Microsoft and/or Windows, on one thing or another. There is other places and media that can get someone to think the public has a "general dislike of windows" besides slashdot, so dont dump it on slashdot.
That would have been a good plan, and from the sounds of it Loki knew what they were doing. From a gamers perspective I dont think the hardware drivers are there quite yet for gaming, some games I have played in Linux were stuck in some software mode, or the drivers were not using hardware or something was going on that was out of my reach to fix. I think given time hardware driver developement would progress much better under linux and linux and X windows programmers/hackers, could work to improve this.
Actually this sucks, and is probably typical in california (where I live), there were several arcades I used to visit in shopping malls and shopping areas, and they were shut down because "they attracked gangs". Out of those arcades I only seen one that attracked gang violence, and that was in the shopping mall, but that one was shut down on its own. There was another one that I used to play at that I never seen gangs or heard about gang violence, but it was shut down just like the one in the mall. And this was probably at the peak of arcade games. Now there is only 2 places to play arcade games, at UCLA (or was that USC) and some obscure bowling allies.
Slashdot Mirror
> There is no professional graphics application available that uses Direct3D for rendering.
I guess it depends on what you mean by professional. I was also refering to Max which uses both OpenGL and Direct3D, although it also includes its own custom Heidi driver. And last time I checked (which was quite a long time ago) Martin Hashs 3d applications had switched to Direct3D, but again I dont know if you consider it professional either. Maya, Softimage, Lightwave, Houdini of course are OpenGL based. There are also a lot of smaller applications I wouldnt label consumer (they are expensive and not usefull for consumers) but more professional that use Direct3D, but they are almost not worth mentioning.
> And they don't much care about OpenGL 2.0, because they have little use for pixel and vertex shaders.
Actually, I'm seeing more game developers moving to Maya, and if that is the case, you will see a lot more interest in using a lot of the 2.0 features for developing game content. Its not so important for feature film kind of work but for game developement it is important. Newtek may be interested in it, they were demonstrating in some of their newer versions of Lightwave (6.x and up) using a lot more OpenGL features and doing tricks that game developers use in their editors, more so then I have seen from other packages, its nice to see lens flares and fog when your animating a scene, instead of having to render a few frames to see what it looks like.
> They really just want high performance fixed-function transformation (no, your new Geforce 4 can't compete well here), fast gourad shaded triangles and blazingly quick antialiased lines.
Last I heard the wildcat line of cards were pretty dominant in this area. But at the same time it depends on what you are doing, game developement, tv, or film. For Film they usually want the best quality and will want something to really push the detail levels really high. TV and game cinematics it's a little lower, althought there is some that push as hard as some of the low end films. With real time aspects of games, your dealing with 800 poly for low end and 80k for high end characters (Depending on the platform and/or hardware), and just about any consumer card can be used to handle that.
> No, that's got nothing to do with relativity. I take it you have never taken Modern Physics.
I never said the theory of special relativity by Einstein. I'm speaking more generaly then that.
> That's solipsism, which is a pointless conjecture, as it isn't provable (the technical term is that it isn't falsifiable, as you cannot test if it is NOT true).
I'd say you are correct, but in reality nothing is absolutely provable, its a matter of acuracy, current mathematics may change as did physics when Einstein theorized about relativity. From the other side of this, if we say did create a powerful computer, that was capable of simulating a universe, and if we could recreate life that evolved to intelegent life in that computer generated universe, it would make us wonder if we exist in much the same way, it would not be undying proof, but it would be enough to theorize about it.
> Trust me, this teacher was just an idiot.
I'll take your word for it, as I have had little information about them.
> In 1999, Israel offered to give the Palestinians their own country, with all of Gaza, 90-something percent of the West Bank, with land taken from Israel to make up the remaining percent. Jerusalem would be shared.
From the material I have read, they wanted pre-67 borders which is I believe agreed upon or accepted in the UN as fair, but that Israel having more military might thought it should have more.
> The simple problem is that the Palestinians and their supporters don't recognize the right of Jews to self-determination.
That sounds over generalized to me, and is probably why you were ready to call me a Jew hater. And actually it seems when people from Palistine and Israel are interviewed on TV, it is the Israelis who seem more ready to label groups of people, in over generalized statements, the Palistinians interviewed usually point to the Israeli government and dont say anything about Jews or even use that word.
> The Palestinians keep on turning down their rights. They'd rather send their children to die than live in freedom alongside Jews.
Again over generalized, what makes you think all Palistinians are the same? What makes you think there is no Palistinians what so ever who would be willing to live side by side with a Jews?
> No, terrorism has an exact definition.
Yes, but again so does imperialism. But again one mans terrorists is another mans freedom fighters. There has been many cases where the US has supported terrorists, but they were documented as freedom fighters and terrorism was their method of combat. Even in some past articles I have posted here it is documented that the US has looked at terrorism as a legitimate weapon (so much for the idea of terrorism being the weapon of the weak). Again this mirrors what you said about imperialism.
> He will support anything he views as anti-American, yet he lives in Boston.
Doubtful, there is several articles he has written which refute this. In one article he said something down the lines that he has always thought Osama Bin Laden to have been a lunatic, even when the US was supporting him. In a lot of cases he is more honest then the major media, the major media will always tend to not make the US look bad to what it does to other countries.
> Heck, he was even in favor of the Khmer Rouge, who killed over a million Cambodians for being too "Western". Some things which would qualify you as being "western" were wearing eyeglasses or being able to speak English. Chomsky loved these guys.
I'd have to read up more on that. But again, this one thing does not prove he supports *anything* anti-American, as I said there is several articles to the contrary.
> He parades around the world, saying the US media is complicit in covering up mass crimes by the government.
Actually, in a number of articles he has also shown that they dont always cover it up but at times even gloss over the facts as if they were meaningless. For example they will mention deaths and that foreign aid will cease, but they dont go step farther and say what that means, which is even more deaths from starvation.
> Funny thing is, his rantings are able to get out, and he's got no proof of any of these crimes.
Actually I dont hold him as my sole source of information, there are times I read some of his stuff and all it takes is a few web searchs to find more information which describes things in more detail. To the point of finding government documents saying some of the same things.
> He just makes it up because he hates the US.
I think hate is a strong word and you were more then willing to call me a Jew hater, maybe you should rethink your use of this word. First off why do you think he hates the US? I mean I have never met a situation where hate could not be explained in one way or another. Even labeling someone as a maniac doesnt explain much either, such as WHY they are a maniac. But then again, religious institutions tend to teach people to be closed minded and not question things, to except something as truth when it is merely a perception.
I am not saying physics is entirely wrong, if you know anything about physics, you know that it is only based upon on our limited view of the universe. Just as Einstien had proven, things are not always as they appear, while Newtonian laws seemed to be right from our limited perspective back then, new devices allow us to see things that we could not see before, and discover things about the universe that we had previously not known, these discovers cause major changes in science and the view of the universe, just as Einstien was to Newton.
m at icians/Zeno_of_Elea.html
I said to go from point A to point B, you have to go half way before you go to B... to go half way to B, you have to go a quarter of the way... before you go a quarter of the way, you have to go 1/8th of the way... You CAN'T skip those steps and magicly appear at point B... if everything is infinitely subdividable, then nothing would move (you would keep going from 1/8th, 1/16th, and on and on), if everything were descreet then moving would not be a problem. And BTW this is not something I came up with...
http://turnbull.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathe
> theoretically you'd never reach the destination, you'd only get half-way there.
Theoretically you wouldnt even move (again to go half way you would first have to make it 1/4th, before that 1/8th and on and on to 1/infinity).
> Because of my size, i'm am limited to only being able to travel in discrete units, not because motion isn't an analog concept.
Your not thinking it through. Size is not relevant, that is like saying a football stadium can not move a nanometer, that because of its size it can only move in meters. There is no such limitation that I am aware of, and a football stadium and a foot ball are capable of moving in small units. I dont think we can see objects moving in descreet units, the resolution may be to small for us to measure, most of these things may be to small for us to measure properly and even in the quantum level things are described as popping in and out and jumping around.
> your arguments are all about sampling. yes, you can sample an analog signal, and explain pretty much all of the properties of the signal with those samples, but it doesn't mean that the signal wasn't analog in the first place. that argument makes no sense.
It doesnt make sense because you dont understand it. I know about DACs (Digital to Analog Conversion), think of it as converting from a really high resolution signal to a really low resolution signal. Both are descreet, but one is simply higher resolution, so high in fact that it may be impossible for a DAC to capture it all accurately.
> your claim about losing precision pretty much refutes your own argument.
No, you simply didnt understand what I meant. A floating point number loses its lower precisions when dealing with very large numbers. So if an rocket were moving almost the speed of light, it is Einsteins theory of relativity which says that someone in that rocket will appear to move in slow motion (thus preventing speeds greater then the speed of light). What I was saying is that this could be the result of the loss of precision, if a computer is unable to get that kind of precision for example a solution would be to cause them to move slower.
> if I'm accelerating from 0 to 60 kilometers per hour in my car, I am not moving from 0 to 0.1 to 0.2 to 0.3 etc... it's an analog process.
You dont even know what an "analog process" is, all that really means is "I dont really know what is happening, becaue things are to complex to track". I'm not claiming that it is an digital process, I'm just saying its possible that it could be a digital processes. It could be at such a high resolution that it allows for more complex sequencies then something as linear as you suggest.
> There's no way that you could tell me precisely how fast I'm moving, because it's analog.
Again the word "analog" is just being used to replace the word "uncertain" or "unknown". Analog could turn out to mean really high resolution.
> . you should think before you post...
I've thought about this for a long time (this isnt a spur of the moment comment), only posted it because it was close to the topic. What I am not sure about though is why your such an asshole.
Even if Carmack dropped OpenGL, there is still the matter of professional applications. There are several of them that still use OpenGL as their main graphics API, and it would be detrimental to Windows if they lost OpenGL, most professionals would have to move to other OSs(which could possibly include Linux), or not upgrade their OS all together.
> A lit professor I once had stated that physics taught people that "the observer interacts with the observed," which is almost true on the quantum level, but is nonsense in general (watching a baseball roll off a table doesn't affect it one way or the other). This is not my idea of an educated person.
Having a diffrent perspective on the same thing can be helpful in a lot of circumstances and it also doesnt hurt to be wrong or to test ideas or information. The way he makes it sound is more of relativity. Watching a baseball roll off a table may appear as though you have done nothing, but you have done something to it, you have recorded it in your mind and incorporated it into your experience as a being. There is also an issue of whether the ball really exists or if it only exists when you are there to observe it. It sounds kind of funny and even self centered but that doesnt make it any less possible, for example if we are in a computer generated world sort of like the movies the matrix or 13th floor, nothing really exists although since they can die in it, it makes you think about what reality really is, if I exist in a computer generated environment and I can really die or be altered in that environment does that make it a reality? I would say it does.
> Sheesh. No citations. No evidence. That's not exactly a reputable historical research web site, just a bunch of cranks posting without sources.
Sometimes there is good snippets of information on that site, but I agree with what you say. The only evidence that it might be true is that no one responded with counter information.
> What about the "Zionist invasion?" It was an "invasion" of farmers and factory owners, not soldiers.
I'm not familiar with the "zionist invasion".
> You don't believe that Jews have a right to self-determination in their homeland.
I dont see it as a matter of self-determination for the Jews, because they have a stable government (and as far as I know) economy and they have land. Although I do see that the palistinians are losing their right to self-determination, at least it appears as though Israel wants to root out the PA and replace it with Israels own government. Maybe you have a diffrent perspective on that?
> are fixated on the actions of Jews, yet are willing to write off other "imperialist" actions as bygones. Why is that?
Because they are already gone, there is not much to do in prevention because they already happened, the only thing that would be left over is reperation for those. But what is happening in Israel is happening now, its not in the past, there is still time to prevent the palistinians from losing their rights.
> What is it that bugs you about Israeli "crimes" that doesn't bug you about the far worse actions of other peoples?
Like what other peoples? Where do I support far worse actions of other peoples? As far as I know I don't. And just because I focus on Israel in our conversations doesnt mean I am not against the less worse or more worse actions of others.
> What makes it even more amazing is that you feel this outrage without knowing much of anything about the issues surrounding the conflict.
I may not know everything there is to know about the conflict, but there is so much to know, that I doubt that even you know it all and can be wrong from time to time, that is why it is good to have discussions or at least for real intellectuals.
> Not to be glib, but imperialism is in the eye of the beholder.
True, but so is the word terrorism.
> Well, yeah, I would think that agreeing with socialist theory would make you a socialist.
I dont agree with everything socialist. I think for example that if there is welfare it should be more localised, same with the likes of affirmative action. If you globalize something like affirmative action, then that is like assuming everyone is racist (to cynical), and put the burden on everyone, including those who are not racist. The same with welfare. Socialism and communism are considered to be closely related, and Marx studied tribal communities to come up with communism (which communism was then perverted by the USSR), so he took localized ideas and tried to expand them more globally. With social servers being local there is less room for corruption as well, its easier for a community to get together where as its harder for a nation to get together to fight corruption. This makes sense to me. So I feel that globaly things should be more conservative, and locally more liberal. And by local I dont mean on a national level necesarily but on a city level or state level. There might not be necesarily zero socialism in more-global/federal governments, but that socialism is more on the national/state level, and the taxes to pay for this is in shipping from state to state, rather then yanking it out of your paychecks. And this has several benefits, it influences these local entities into being more self suffient (less shipping less taxes). But these are just concepts and ideas, I dont hold them to be the answer to problems in our dynamic ever changing world, but I dont hold other peoples ideas any diffrently.
As for Noam Chomsky, it seems normal that I read from him about problems most of what he has to say is not about solutions. I got trapped once in a debate after reading some of his material where someone said "well then what do you suggest as a solution" and Noam Chomsky left me with nothing to respond with.
BTW sorry for the late response.
Clinton wasnt much of a democrat either, he was a Moderate.
We call the universe analog because we dont know its limits, but at the same time we give the universe limits.
If the universe was analog then motion would be hard to explain. Like for example, if you wanted to go from point A to point B you would first have to move half way, and if you wanted to go half way you would have to go a quarter of the way, and if you wanted to go a quarter of the way you would have to go 1/8th of the way, and on and on. If the universe were descreet you could simply increment to the next position there wouldnt be infinite subdivisions. The same could be applied to speed and acceleration, acceleration can be viewed as a vector which alters speed, and acceleration itself changes so it itself can have a change vector, so you get acceleration of acceleration of acceleration and on and on. But its possible for this to be represented in a mathmatical analog, such as in fractals, fractals are sort of like feedback (when you place a camera in front of a TV displaying whats on the camera, you see feedback), feedback can go on to infinite. But that still does not dispute a digital universe because fractals of course can be sculted in digital forms to fit our perceptions and fool us into believing an infinite universe, just as we had for along time been fooled into believing in infinite speed, when the universe really has a speed limit of light, which is similar to the concepts of digital floating point numbers, where larger numbers lose their lower/minor precision, but keep their higher/major precision.
IMO, the only licensing issues that need exist should be more about compliance to a standard rather then IP. That is whether an implementation complies with the standard or breaks it. That is more important for a standard, then having to license several diffrent IPs just to implement a standard.
> I think I've figured you out: you're a high school kid, aren't you?
4 78 8.html
You know whats funny, you've acted like you have knew me from the start, but even now when you confess to not, you fail. Why do you even try to stereotype and figure out who I am, you only are doing it to insult me (or at least that is what it appears you are doing, because being young is not enough, have to be rich and white, because that is really bad?
> You know nothing about the world, and your piss-poor education has taught you absolutely nothing about the world, least of all how to think or research topics you know nothing about.
Well I work for a living (dont know about you), and my work is not as a college professor, I dont have the time to keep up with a lot of current events, or to get a lot of information on a certain things.
> Yet you live in a society that is "imperialistic" and take advantage of the fruits of that society. Why not go back where you came from?
I came from Texas. If you are talking about race, I'm half spanish and half indian, I guess half of me should go back to spain and the other half is suppose to stay here?? Right. And being Imperialistic is not a property of a society, its the property of a government, after all you never hear about a society invading another land, thats military.
> If you were at least partially well-versed in origins of Christianity, you'd know that very FEW Romans converted to Judaism, because of two very important Jewish customs (circumcision and dietary laws).
Well I may be mistaken on the details, but I read most of this here...
http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/israel/webcast/
"Also, there were periods in which Judaism accepted converts in large numbers in the Roman Empire. At one time there were more (converted) Jews in Roman Gaul than converted Christians. Thus, modern Jews may also be, in part, descended from Romanized Celtic Gauls."
> Secondly, it doesn't matter whether someone is "genetically" Jewish or not. Judaism is a tribal religion; converting to Judaism means joining the tribe, in effect being adopted. Do you think adopted children can't inherit?
No, again I said it was a triffle issue (geez). But who is to say there is no corruption in inheritance. There are several Arabs whos children will not inherit land because of Israel. And Inheritance produces favoritism, its the thing that makes Kings Queens Princes and Princessess in our modern time of Capitalism.
> And a number I know don't. What does that prove?
That MLK words back then dont necesarily correspond to modern african americans.
> So what EXACTLY is the statute of limitations for how long the Palestinians have claim to their land? 100 years? You are aware that the Indians were kicked out of the Seattle area about 100 years ago. Is Bill Gates a settler, deserving of rocket attacks and suicide bombs?
It happened to a generation. Their descendants have not experienced the same sort of problems that they did. My mom has experienced racism in her childhood but I have not, I have only witnessed it of others. The indians didnt have a property system (most tribal people do not, and I would not be surprised if the Israel tribes were the same way).
> They can do what they want with it, just as every other country does with its own land.
Yes, like kill people.
> That's because trying to implement reparations is a fucking nightmare.
I don't disagree. My only response is, that the history of Jews living in Israel before the Arabs is just as irrelevent, and that is why I brought up who is the original Jews from Israel and who is a convert from europe ancestory.
> I don't know about you, but I don't know anything about my anscestors from 140 years ago.
Not to mention thousands of years age.
> BTW, your "free speech" comrades on college campuses have been destroying newspapers containing ads placed by David Horowitz.
Agreeing with some things (but not everything) makes them my "comrades"?
> Why are you OK with living out your life as a settler, but condemn Israelis for returning to the land of their anscestors?
I'm not a "settler", the land has already been "settled" and I am not a time traveler so I can not go back and change things. Plus it would be rediculous because there is probably some cave men I am descendant from that were killing other cave man unjustly but they were primitive and unenlightened. BUT at the same time by 'living with myself' I am not justifying what they did, and I am certainly not going to say what they did is right simply because I am living in the US. Aparently that escapes you, and you seem to even think what the US did was right. Are you suggesting that imperialism is a good thing?
> Maybe you can learn something besides this socialist drivel that you've been spoon-fed.
What makes you think I am socialist, because I agree with some of their material?
> People aren't rational;
Well demonstrations are not necesary.
> only fools make up systems that expect people to be angels for the rules to work. Deal with the world the way it is, not the way you wish it to be.
If I was a fool and thought people were angles, then I would think there should be no rules or even a system for that matter, a system is designed to keep devils at bay. All systems, both capitalism and socialism are both cynical about human nature. Even the US judicial system is designed with checks and balances, with the concept that no matter what justice is blind (that is why a judge and jury is better then vigilante killing people).
> The fact is, you continue to deny Jews the right to their homeland. You deny Jews the right to settle in land they captured in war, just as you do.
How am I denying them? Am I sitting on a document to sign that will some how ALLOW them to the land? No so I am not denying them anything. But let me guess, the people currently LIVING there have no say?
> Sounds like a bias against Jews to me. Makes you a Jew Hater in my book, and in MLK's book.
Well you certainly have not proven to know me at all, several times over, and this is just another shining example.
If you ask me whether a Jewish American has the right to own a store I'd say they have as equal right to do so as any one else in America. If you ask me whether a Jewish American has the right to kill another person, and I will say NO, not because he is a Jew but because I know its wrong.
To call me a Jew hater, is just you making excuses for the reason someone would disagree with you about Israels actions. No one can disagree with you about Israel and not be a Jew hater, right? No one can be wrong or mistaken, they HAVE to be a Jew hater.
> You're against Zionism? Then you hate Jews. Plain and simple. See below.
I'm against imperialism and so far Zionism is proving itself to be imperialistic. There are anti-Zionist Jews, and I suppose you would call them "self hating Jews". Being against a political movement that wishs to take land away from others on the claim that it was theres thousands of years ago, is not the same as hating Jews, when was it that a political movement became the representation of all JEWS? Again you seem to suffer from this problem of speaking for others with out their permission and with out their knowledge. Putz.
> It is a political movement that claims that Jews, like every other ethnic group in the world, are entitled to the right of self-determiniation in their homeland. The Jewish homeland is what you keep calling Palestine. Just because the majority of Jews were forced into exile from their homeland, doesn't take it away from them.
Yes at the cost of the Arabs who migrated and lived there for the thousands of years that the Jews were gone, with Jerusalem as their capital.
> Another Zionist you might have heard of is Martin Luther King.
Not being anti-zionist is not the same as being a zionist. You dont have to be either or, this is not black and white. I've heard descriptions of a beatiful concept of Zionism, that is a peoples struggle for what was there's, but I have also seen the reality of what it really means, the ugly truth, and so far this "struggle" appears to be happening more with the Palistinians then with the Israelis. Face it, as a zionist, you dont want piece, you want Palestine. Even so most of the modern Jews are european Jews, I would not be surprised if many have roman ancestory, a large portion of Rome had even converted to that religion. So a lot of these people did not even originally come from that land, but that I consider a triffle issue, as a matter of a fact most of what happened back then IS history. Actually the reperations of what has happened is an interesting topic as well, as it appears Horowitz (the guy you mentioned early) is ironicly against reperations for African American even though their suffering was more recent history and the statistics show they still are playing catch up to other races (and another interesting parallel here is the use of what Martin Luther King had to say).
http://www.zmag.org/RaceWatch/wisehoro.htm
The interesting thing here is though, are Jews/Israelis still suffering? They may not be living in piece but it looks to me they are doing fine in comparison to their neighboring Palestinians.
> You want to know what MLK thought Zionism was? "All men of good will exult in the fulfillment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land. This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less."
If MLK saw what was happing to the Palestinians by these Zionist I doubt he would look at it the same way. As a matter of a fact a number of African Americans that I know of personaly, see the Palestinians as being opressed.
> So yeah, you hate Jews and non-Jews are Zionists.
Right, so if I dont like Zionist (I have never said I hate them, by calling them imperialist and speaking of its wrongs, is not saying I hate them), and there are non-Jew zionist, that makes me a a Jew hater???? Sounds like another lame assertion to me, I would think I would know if I hated Jews. If I tell a child not to hit the other children, I guess I hate that child?!?!?!?! Putz!
> Israel is "occupying" because Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria invaded in 1967, with weapons far larger than those Hamas rockets. Why is this so hard for you to understand? And why is what Israel doing "occupation" and what the US did OK?
Right, and placing settlments, demolition buildings, killing innocent people is all part of them "defending" themselves, has nothing to do with expansion. Oh and of course this doesnt matter because Palestine belongs to Israel anyway so they are just occupying their own land, right????
I never said the US going in afganistan is OK, again I've made it clear that I didnt think it was okay... I have even stated that its hypocracy at its best, as Nicaragua was under sponsored terrorism from the US, but couldnt just invade the US. Not only Nicaragua, but also Haiti, which was being terrorized by an Emmanuel Constant, who is under the protection by the US even though he has been extradicted. Following the same logic of the US, Haiti should be able to invade the US and dismantle the government and hunt for Emmanuel Constant.
> Whether or not you think conquering is a good way to establish your rule, it's the ONLY way that has ever worked.
Thats not entirely correct, not when you have rational nations that is. When the nations of the world are irrational, power mad, and relatively untamed, then all it takes is abuse by a few nation to whip up the nations. No matter what things are progressing, the rules of war didnt come about because one country conquered the rest of them, they came about because if one guys kicks the other in the balls then it becomes a ball kicking match and most rational people who have balls will not want to go there. You cant go about solving your problem by taking on the world (as the US and Israel like to do), because you will not only lose friends and allies but you will gain more enemies then you can take on. Rules are an agreement.
Look, I dont consider myself anti-Zionist or anti-Israel or anti-US (I am from the US) or anti-anything for that matter and I am even insulted about being called a Jew hater, but at the same time I dont want to ignore the fact that there is corruption, and that even the greatest good can perverted into the greatest evil. At every point you have tried to justify what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people, even to the point of accusing me of being a Jew hater and trying to mock my ideas of better world order. And yes you have done some of these things to be malicious, that would not matter either way with Israel, but you still sought to insult. Think about what you are doing.
> No, but people who deny the right of Israel to exist are Jew Haters. Plain and simple.
0 /0 012011.html
f acts/index.html or http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/hizballah.htm (this is a pro-Hizballah site, BTW).
Right and when did I do this?
> There sure are Arab Zionists. For example, Joseph Farah, who has gotten death threats for his very public statements in favor of Israel. Read www.worldnetdaily.com for his daily columns and look through the archives for his columns on Israel.
Does he call himself an Zionist or is he labeled a Zionist, is he Jewish (religion not race)? As I understood it, Zionism was a part of the jewish religion, is that right?
> If you want to keep track of body counts, they're roughly even since the Palestinians stopped their policy of using children as cover for snipers.
Not from what I have read, I have read somewhere in the range of 665 Israelis have been killed (since 1993 to present), 860 Palestinians have been killed (before december last year) in and even shorter period of time.
Children being used for cover... that is not accurate at all...
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/120
"Many of the children who were killed were not involved in clashes. For example, 13-year-old Muayyad Usma Jawarish was shot and killed by Israeli sniper fire in Bethlehem. He was on his way home from school and was not within a danger zone. Similarly, 18-month-old Sara Abdul Azeem was shot in the head by a settler. She was returning home with her father and was not near a clash site. A six-month-old infant was also killed."
> As soon as the Palestinians stop bombing and killing Jews, attacks against Palestinians by the Israeli army will stop. Plain and simple.
Any time piece is expected before justice, then there is no interest in piece or justice.
> Funny, Hamas and Hizbollah would care to differ. You might want to read http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/02/16/qassam.
Think about this, is Israel occupying Palestine because of these quassams or is it the opposite?
> Who exactly should start the conquering of the rest of the world in order to establish the New World Order you so desire?
It shouldnt be the US or Israel. But anyway that was lame, who said anything about conquering, who said anything about forcing other countries to act as one entity. If you want to refer to it as optimization of the UN, there needs to be more stern international laws in the apprehension of terrorists, and compliance. If you think the USs and Israels actions are appropriate, then the same could be done by the UN!!! Rather then have the US bombing Afganistan, it should be the UN going in and trying to apprehend terrorist, it should be UN that steps up and investigates and prosecutes terrorists, it should not be the responsibility of each individual country because then you get crap where the US can cause terror against other countries and since those countries dont have a military to stand against the US they cant do anything about it, but the US is practicly free to just jump into another country because of terrorism. That is lawlessness.
> Why don't you kill yourself in shame?
Right and also I should kill everyone including your dumb ass... Dont think so, but just because they did it along time ago and got away with it doesnt make it right either, and doesnt justify it in the present time. But you justify it now because you want Israel to expand to include Palestine.
> There is no separation between the various parts of Jerusalem.
Not now.
> And Jews weren't just "banned" from Jerusalem by Arabs.
No duh, and palestine is not just under occupation.
> It's the sign of a good Jew Hater.
Label me before you know me, thats to be expected. There are a lot of people who think Israel is wrong in their actions including Israeli Jews living in Israel, and that doesnt make them Jew Haters!!!! But again that is the typical reaction to be expected, any one who is thought to be not jewish, is quickly labeled anti-semetic, jew hating, holocaust denying neo-nazi if they dont agree with Israels actions.
> First of all, arresting protesters is done in EVERY democracy, usually for some petty crime like disturbing the peace.
No, doubt, and its not always done justifiably and with obvious intent to demonstraight the power of the government to these people. There are several people who don't want to join the military, their way of protesting it (they dont want to be a part of what they think is wrong). Since they are required by law they are arrested, but one case in particular, is a guy who is not even qualified to be in the military, he was disqualified but he was still held for not going in, this was done in spite, not in justice.
Another example of freedom in Israel, is Jerusalem, it is often touted how jews were banned from the east part when the arabs controled it, and they say now Israel lets arabs go there, but that is not accurate at all, it takes a long time before they are allowed to travel there, when they do go there they must be strip searched, and this is so humiliating to them that they dont ever want to go there again.
> He went to Syria, a country which has sworn to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, and gave a speech supporting those goals.
Thats new to me.
> The federal government isn't what keeps Texas from attacking Louisiana. As the Constitution says, the goal of the federal government is "to ensure a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
And what part of "to ensure a more perfect union", doesnt sink in?
> Heck, considering there was this little thing called the Civil War, it sure didn't stop states from attacking each other.
Well gee, neither does the UN, but again the US makes sure that the states dont have reason to attack each other and invade each other, isnt that why we dont have any more civil wars between states, or is that to much to acknowledge?
> These terrorists would launch rockets at Dallas and Houston and Galveston, blow up shopping malls and restaurants and children on Halloween, and the Mexican government would shrug its shoulders and blame the US government for the terrorist attacks.
Launching rockets, is not even close to what happening in Israel. Its more like a group of mexican terrorist with those ideas, who live in mexico and america, strap bombs to their chest and run in a crowd and blow themselves up. And US using this as a reason to invade mexico and occupy its land, destroying their houses schools and buildings and replacing them with settlements. But that wasnt even my point, my point is that a global government is needed to take care of terrorism, terrorism is international. If you dont believe a global government should take care of terrorism, then you are also saying that police should be allowed to cross state lines in order to catch a criminal, and if a criminal escapes out of Texas into Lousiana, then Texas should be allowed to send a police squad after the criminal. Or better yet, going further with your line of thinking, lets get rid of police all together and if I suspect my neighbor has been killing my goats, I should be allowed to invade his house and occupy some of his rooms, while trying to solve who is killing my goats.
> Would Americans (a) As the UN to properly condemn Mexico or (b) invade Mexico?
I have not been talking about the UN, the UN is to weak. We need better a world government then what the UN has been offering. Right now the UN is to easily pushed around by US interests, and can't do much about it.
> I know, the argument is that this all happened long ago, so it OK.
BS, that is what conservatives say. That is why they are primarily against reperations.
> Ah, the "Jew Zionist." The surest sign of a Jew Hater is one who uses the word "Jew" as a pejorative.
Oh yeah, I'm sorry, I forget there are Arab Zionist. Lame.
> Sometimes you Jew Haters are harder to smoke out.
Dont know what you've been smoking.
/////
Wow you have a nice little history lessen, but fact of the matter is, right now, Israel has invaded Palistine, Israel is destroying their homes and buildings, Israel is killing more Palistinian civilians then Palistinian terrorist are killing Israeli civilians, Israel is placing settlements in palistine. The only one really supporting Israel in doing this is the US, but it comes as no surprise because Israel and the US have been supporting each other over several things, including the US escaping responsibility for supporting terror against Nicaragua.
> Israel is a democracy which is the homeland of the Jews. You can be a citizen of Israel and observe any religion you want, or none at all.
Democracy, maybe, but that doesnt change the fact that they are arresting people for protesting their war, and arresting arab politicians who agree that the occupation is wrong.
> The difference is that Israel is the homeland of Jews (only Jew haters seem to forget this tidbit), and any Jew gets automatic citizenship.
Right, and how easy it is for people to ignore that many Jew Zionist believe that even Palistine belongs to the Jews, and Jordan is the true Arab state. They claim stake to the land because it says so in their religion and because they lived their thousands of years prior to the arabs who "occupy" their land.
> How is Israel acting "unilaterally" a bad thing?
How would it sound if Texas was invading and occupying Lousiana? Isnt this why we have a federal government? There is no justice in acting unilaterally, that is the same as Iraq acting unilaterally against Kuwait because they think Kuwait is stealing oil.
Again you should read some Noam Chomsky, and you should understand what you are really saying... Should Nicaragua be allowed to invade and occupy the US because our government was supporting terrorist attacks against it?
https://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm
> Finally, explain how US support of Israel helps the US obtain more oil.
With Israel it isnt about oil, its about "holy" land, religion, and race.
> By the way, Chomsky is a well-documented liar. He has made up quotes from other people to support his own highly wacky positions. You should read some David Horowitz and Andrew Sullivan.
I've read David Horowitz, and he calls Noam Chomsky a Neo-Nazi, and there has been several analysis of him that shows that Horowitz is exagerating his own claims. Horowitz nit picks the little things Noam Chomsky has said and turns them into what he thinks is anti-jew.
> That's a highly scary thought. I bet under your world government, we're just going to solve all these problems that breed terrorism by forcing people to, say, give medical care for free, or build housing for free, or provide food for free. Sounds like slavery to me, personally. If you want to run around and take care of the poor and downtrodden, go do it yourself and leave me alone.
Thats lame, assuming world government would be liberal instead of conservative. Your objection also applies to federal government and yet we have federal government. And besides your exageration of a liberal point of view, there is also the exageration of the conservative point of view, which is, that they would allow the rich to exploit the poor and middle class, and increase the police force, so that the police can hold back the down trodden masses from taking back from the rich, that is the police state vision. Not that I believe any of that crap, life has a way of fitting somewhere in between, my extremist friend.
America should not police the world, period.
Why do you 2 idiots try to talk for all americans. I know people who are mad and stupid about the whole thing acting out on pride rather then reason, but I also know many people who are not so reactionary.
Not every one in american hates arabs because of what happens in the middle east. There are probably many closet racist who used 911 as a reason to express thier racism. You may have heard in a local news paper (forget big media news) about some arab americans being harrased for simply being arab, or even some people who simply look arab but are not arab.
Just as you dont represent America in any way shape or form, neither do any of those arabs respresent all arabs. There are some arabs who do hate america, and many of them have good reason, for example we support some of their represive and corrupt governments like Saudi Arabia (A monarchy for crying out loud), we even were ready to give money to the Taliban before 911 happened. We support Israel (a government based upon a religion), even when most of the international community in the UN has shown and documented that Israel is wrong in acting unilaterally. The US government, does things in the interest of money and resources like oil.
What you need to do is loosen up, if you cant handle the truth then shut up, if you think you can handle more of the truth, then do some real reading, read some zmag.org, and some Noam Chomsky. While media outlets like CNN, and Fox News, they only cover over generalized aspects of the news, they rarely ever delve into the history of a situation and rarely ever give more then their opinions/spin.
What the French prime minister had to say was important, and Bush should have listened. The problem with the world is not terrorism, terrorism is a symptom of a greater problem. Only going after terrorism, is like putting on a mask to cover the ugly truth. America should not act unilaterally against terrorism, as it appears it plans to do as it looses support. Acting unilaterally is like vigilantism, which itself is wrong because justice cant prevail under those circumstances, and that is the reason vigilantism has mostly been replaced by government organized police judges and juries. Even to the point of democracy itself is a way of defeating vigilantism, when the government does things wrong a vigilante will want to take over the government, but democracy is supposed to reduce the need for such harsh action. To defeat terrorism would require a better more authorative world government, the same with criminals who cross state lines require the help of federal government.
Right, and what company in their right mind has risked doing this?
"No. I've been inside one of those companies, and the GPL is in fact the biggest obstacle, not the biggest advantage."
"one of these companies" != SGI
"They don't like the viral properties of the GPL. They are much more worried about being forced to release existing trade secrets than they are about competitors adopting their code."
Yes but he is talking about using this as an business advantage. They started creating Linux based servers because linux is less expensive, they wanted to incorporate their file system into linux, if they release the code under BSD, Sun can take their code and incorporate it into Solaris with hardly any work, if they release it under GPL, Sun would have to hire programmers and a legal team to make sure they are not violating their copyright, if they screw up Sun would have to release the source code to their entire operating system under a GPL compatible license, compromising Sun to its competitors. So they use this fear of the viral aspects of GPL as an business advantage.
You can say their use of Open Source and Linux is just buzz, but that is not the same thing as saying their use of GPL is just buzz.
True but his point is, that Sun is not likely to GPL their whole operating system in order to incorperate XFS in it. So GPLing XFS in linux does prevent it from being used by their commerical competitors who do not want to GPL their products.
Government influences cause market dominance more then government not influencing markets. For example, Intelectual Property law allows corporations to grow huge, like microsoft. It allows corporations to create information monopolies, with the government backing these monopolies through law. So I'd agree, if the government is going to have IP laws, they should also make sure the IP laws dont result in market dominance, and anti-competitive monopolization of a market. But I would also like to toy with the idea that the market self regulate itself, that is little to no IP laws.
Coincidently I got a passport account while signing up for a discussion forumn, and lost my password and there is no convenient way to get the password which is sort of good, but I have had no reason or urgency to contact them about my password. Although when I signed up for my account I never gave them a lot of information about me and my email address has changed so I am not as concerned as you.
Your ideas apply to copyrights (and patents) in general as well, not just to the specific licenses. Do you want the right to force others to credit you? Think about also how BSD originally required that you credit the authors in advertisement, and how the author list became so huge that no one would want to ever advertise BSD software. Copyrights, basicly chop up structures/combinations of information as property. If you view the world of information and ideas as a world map, you can see the GPL nation (blue), the MS EULA nation (red), the BSD nation (green), etc etc etc, each dividing the land amongst themselves and you can see them as warring with each other over land and property.
I dont know what the perception is, but from my own experience as a gamer on the PC, hardware drivers are probably the biggest cause of crashes then software, at least from my own experience. Linux has less crashes in my experience because a lot of the drivers are simple, and dont fully take advantage of hardware, or at least my video card gets lower performance in Linux (although I havent had a chance to do any testing recently), so my thinking is that the drivers havent quite caught up to those in windows and the crashes happen significantly less because of it. On the other hand, there is software crashes in windows that can be annoying, or bugs that cause things to go screwy, NT/XP is noticably more stable then the 9x/Me versions of windows, in the software side but also suffers from driver level crashes.
What annoys me about crashes are the ones that lock you out of your system (no recovery, a hard reboot is necesary). That happens a lot in games in windows 98, I heard it happens less in XP.
For the love of God, please dont talk about "slashdot" readers/writers as being single minded. Why do people do this crap? Do all black people think alike, do all white people think alike, do all men think alike, do all women think alike? No they dont, and neither do people at slashdot.
I dont like windows because microsoft sucks at security (they have demonstraighted their incompetence in this time and time again), but other then that I like windows because it gets my software to work with my hardware, which happens to be more then just engineering, and more with marketing and getting hardware and software engineers to use their platform. Getting cooperation.
Please dont assume slashdot readers and writers feel that way, especially if you want to make some point. I doubt the previous poster you replied to got that feeling just from being on slashdot, I've seen several other websites and even media on TV, like TechTV and even strangely enough MSNBC, bash Microsoft and/or Windows, on one thing or another. There is other places and media that can get someone to think the public has a "general dislike of windows" besides slashdot, so dont dump it on slashdot.
I dont know about some dot coms but I know Amazon was saying that, and as I heard in the news they are doing much better.
That would have been a good plan, and from the sounds of it Loki knew what they were doing. From a gamers perspective I dont think the hardware drivers are there quite yet for gaming, some games I have played in Linux were stuck in some software mode, or the drivers were not using hardware or something was going on that was out of my reach to fix. I think given time hardware driver developement would progress much better under linux and linux and X windows programmers/hackers, could work to improve this.
Actually this sucks, and is probably typical in california (where I live), there were several arcades I used to visit in shopping malls and shopping areas, and they were shut down because "they attracked gangs". Out of those arcades I only seen one that attracked gang violence, and that was in the shopping mall, but that one was shut down on its own. There was another one that I used to play at that I never seen gangs or heard about gang violence, but it was shut down just like the one in the mall. And this was probably at the peak of arcade games. Now there is only 2 places to play arcade games, at UCLA (or was that USC) and some obscure bowling allies.