Unless if they can blame the starvation on the Israelis, which they eminently can. PR victory!

Wow, that's got to me one of the most arrogant and dismissive posts I've ever seen on Slashdot. "Sorry, but I know better about your homeland than you do."

No, we're blaming it on 69.45% of the population because that further 25% you mentioned either didn't care enough or was too intimidated to vote.

Shooting rockets that kill 2 or 3 people...over and over and over...for years...with no sign of stopping.

But yes, Israel should just be patient and sit out what seems to be a neverending ~war.

There are people in the Middle East Israel hasn't already pissed off?

You rephrasing the problem to cast the best light on your viewpoint does not eliminate all the people in this very comments section who are arguing the exact opposite viewpoint; ergo it is not "quite clear" at all.

It's trying to fix a social problem with a technological solution instead of a social one. Maybe people need to learn the definition of ACCUSED vs. CONVICTED. And for a lot of cases, stop and examine why cheating on your wife suddenly makes you incapable of exercising judgment in any other possible area of your life.

Also if you're a frequent Slashdot reader, you should know damn well that "what this law is intended for" and "what they use it for" are hardly ever the same. This is not new news.

Or you can post on Slashdot about how everyone are sheeple and offer no constructive dialog otherwise.

Those looking for damning information should therefore look for news that the person in question was CONVICTED of X, not CHARGED WITH X.

Or we can just be incompetent twats and force Google to do our homework for us. Obviously that's the better choice.

I wait hopefully for the Pirate Bay-type website that will inevitably pop up where you can find lists of all the blocked terms.

*acquitted

I thought we were talking about how supposedly every war throughout human history has involved rampant civilian slaughter.

Or option 3, your analogy sucked.

What exactly is keeping you from enacting your plan exactly as advertised? I'm genuinely curious.

Maybe you'd need some special kind of strip club zoning or something? Because it's legal for people to take their clothes off there, for money even. And I guess there's some requirement for that kind of thing to not be visible from the street, so you'd have to cover the windows, too.

That you might enact the changes and immediately lose most of your revenue is beside the point. If city hall gave you the necessary permits 'n whatnot, it would be your prerogative as a business owner.

To address your original argument, the legality of contracts has been a field for a very long time so apparently somebody somewhere is watching the system and wants it the way it is. Phone companies can put all the shit they want up on the screen in fine print. Not calling them on it is implied consent on the part of the regulatory agencies.

So I guess my point is that when you said, "I can't just put up anything I want and have it be legal," yes...yes you can, if you're a telecom company and nobody calls you on it. That's the pragmatic truth.

Maybe it would be less confusing if you didn't reply to people you agree with with, "No, ..."

If they don't want to abide by your crazy rules but still want to eat there, you can always deny them service/ask them to leave your property.

The difference is that one specifically targets civilian infrastructure for destruction while the other only incidentally targets civilians, and not even the infrastructure at all. Saying the two are the same is gross misrepresentation.

I'm kind of curious why splitting it in half is unworkable. Both sides want the fertile land, or what? So divide the fertile land in half already.

If you look at my recent posting history from last Friday you'd see more of how I see the conversation but if I post it again I'm sure I'll get in another lengthy shouting match :-/