Comment Re:comment (Score 2, Insightful) 206
Is it OK with you if the French at least inconvenience the people trying to massacre them?
"False flag"? Don't be an ass.
Is it OK with you if the French at least inconvenience the people trying to massacre them?
"False flag"? Don't be an ass.
There are several forms of [Resistive RAM], but they all store data by changing the resistance of a memory site, instead of placing electrons in a quantum trap, as flash does. RRAM promises better scaling, fast byte-addressable writes, much greater power efficiency, and thousands of times flash’s endurance.
RRAM's properties should enable significant architectural leverage, even if it is more costly per bit than flash is today. For example, a fast and high endurance RRAM cache would simplify metadata management while reducing write latency.
...and plenty more, of course.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
This is anti-First Amendment, is it not? Free Speech *requires* the ability to 'slander' the superstitions of any group - Mohammed being no exception. The Supreme Court has ruled on this again and again and again. Obama is not only wrong, he is a danger to Free Speech (which is probably why he let Hillary Clinton push the disgustingly pro-Sharia UN HRC 16/18 criminalizing criticism of Islam for the citizens of all UN signatory states - unbelievable that a sitting US Secretary of State would do this - but hey, she is a disciple of the Marxist Saul Alinsky so not unexpected).
Are you one of those who believe Charlie Hebdo "deserved what they got" because they "had it coming" ? this is Obama's position in the speech you give. Do you think that is moral? or serves the causes of Free Speech and Liberty?
“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.” -- George Orwell
Which side do you think President Obama and his administration are on? which side are you on?
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
This is anti-First Amendment, is it not? Free Speech *requires* the ability to 'slander' the superstitions of any group - Mohammed being no exception. The Supreme Court has ruled on this again and again and again. Obama is not only wrong, he is a danger to Free Speech (which is probably why he let Hillary Clinton push the disgustingly pro-Sharia UN HRC 16/18 criminalizing criticism of Islam for the citizens of all UN signatory states - unbelievable that a sitting US Secretary of State would do this - but hey, she is a disciple of Saul Alinskly so not unexpected).
In Sharia "terrorism" is unlawful warfare. Jihad is lawful warfare, and any counter-terror operations against Muslims are considered unlawful warfare, aka "terrorism".
In Sharia "innocents" are Muslims (only). Non-Muslims cannot be innocent, ever - our very existence is "oppression of Muslims" and affront to Allah. This is why the last non-abrogated commandment in the Koran is Sura 9:29 which commands Islams to take over the World and convert or kill all disbelievers (I don't make up the rules of abrogation, I'm just reporting them for you).
The problem is that people who demand Muslims condemn violence actually don't care what Muslims have to say. It's just posturing.
No. The problem is Islam (which is a totalitarian ideology). Stop blaming the victims of jihad, you are enabling evil.
Do you understand the "kitman" deception? Please let m explain:
When a Muslim leader condemns "terrorism" against "innocents" we lap it up, right? We praise them for not wanting to kill us - because we know about 50% of Muslims agree with parts of the Sharia (Islamic law) - at least according to a 2012 Pew Survey. What most don't understand (even Slashdotters) is that the definition of "terrorism" and "innocence" comes from Sharia (Islamic Law).
In Sharia "terrorism" is "unlawful warfare". Jihad is lawful warfare and combating jihad is unlawful warfare. Condemning "terrorism" means condemning the countrer-terror forces of the West, who are trying to save our lives. They understand how you will misinterpret this, and this is permitted for them to deceive because it advances the cause of Islam (after all, the Koran states many times that "Allah is the Greatest of Deceivers").
In Sharia "innocents" are Muslims. All Muslims are always innocent and all kafir (non-Muslims) cannot ever be innocent. Our act of disbelief is a crime under Sharia. Our act of existence is an affront to their Allah (who, if you do the research cannot be YHWH the God of Abraham as they claim, but must be the Nabatean God Dushara based on Koran 53:19-20 - of course none of these ghosts in the sky exist, but it is worth knowing the details so you can defeat their superstition).
So, lets put that back together. A Muslim cleric condemning "terrorism" and the harming of "innocents" is actually saying, "I condemn Western counter-terror forces who are harming Muslims".
Islam is very specific in is wording (it is a totalitarian, theocratic poltiical system with some badly plagiarised superstition on top - it is NOT a personal faith as we understand religion to be).
The only acceptable phrase a Muslim can use is:
"I condemn jihad and the murder of any civilians"
but they NEVER do this. Ever. They are relying on a deception to advance their agenda - which is your submission to Islam and you living under Sharia.
More details about kitman and the other *obligatory* forms of lying in Islam:
http://www.islam-watch.org/aut...
(currently offline as it is under DDoS by pro-Sharia groups)
The political ideology called "Islam" is truly evil and deceptive and verifyably false (based on historical evidence). Slashdotters need to educate themselves about it so we can fight for Liberty by discrediting it. Are YOU prepared to fight for Liberty? we have to attack and discredit that ideology, and we can only do that if you understand the enemy.
Pro-Sharia folks always mod be down when I point things like this up. They mistake telling the truth about Islam for some form of "racism". This is crazy. Stop censoring those to tell the truth about Islamic ideology (and who are not condemning the slaves trapped in the evil system, called "Muslims"). Please mod me up so my karma recovers and I can share more and more about the ideology of Islam and its deceptions - there is a whole lot more to tell you guys so you are armed for the ideological battle against Islam (which is an existential struggle between 21st Century Enlightenment Civilization and 7th Century Sharia barbarism).
What hath Bob wrought?