It is, generically (not necessarily in this particular context), because of historical context. It is the same reason "Nigger", "Faggot" and "Gook" are offensive.
In this case, apparently, Tottenham's fans took a derogatory term and injected new meaning into it (for which I say "good for them", BTW).
Does that mean that I can go running around calling people "filthy chocolate-loving whiteys" and if I do it with enough conviction, I can get arrested?
Two things. First, actually reading my comment would reveal that I am actually against criminalizing derogatory names. The other thing is that you, alone, would do it, it would probably not become derogatory. If, however, it became a common way to degrade whatever group it was you meant for it to refer to (as pure guesswork I'd say it was Caucasians), then, yes, it would become derogatory.
The beauty of not criminalizing name calling is that it saves us the trouble of developing an objective test for what is derogatory, and leave the decision to take or not take offense to each individual. That is also just one of the many many problems of criminalizing name calling.
You are confusing tactics and strategy, I'm afraid.
If you want to pursue this line, please do so to my email address (in the header of this, and any, comment). I think we are veering off topic enough for the public thread.
At the very least, humans ought not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property unjustly.
As generic principles, those are as noble as any (and nobler than most). I do wonder what you'd do when it come to the practice side of things.
For example. We all agree that sending a bomb to an area dense with civilian population is a bad idea. What do you do, however, if someone is sending rockets into your civilian population, using dense civilian population areas as their rocket launch area? The way I see it, you have two options:
1. Let them bomb your civilians with impunity
2. Do your best to target only military, but knowing you will, occasionally, fail
International law, BTW, completely accepts 2 as valid. International law forbids targeting civilians. It does not forbid accidentally hitting them. 2 is what Israel did in 2006, and is what earned it all the hatred and criticism you hear about it.
The Nazis never paid the people evicted from their homes fair market value for it. Israel does.
While I do agree that tearing down houses (and sometimes sealing rooms) is not a reasonable punishment, the comparison is waaay off base.
To say that Palestinians have been subjected to a form of genocide at the hands of the state of Israel is hardly 'antisemitism'.
You are right. It is ignorant, one sided and unfair, to the point of being completely, and usually willfully, wrong. It is not, however, inherently antisemitic.
I have to agree with you that the "antisemitic" card is pulled far too often, and far too early, by the pro-Israeli side. I am conducting these (pointless?) discussions (arguments?) for quite some time, and have only once seen a speaker I could say was arguing the anti-Israel side for whom I could say that racism was a major factor. Even then, it was Arab supremacy, rather than Jewish inferiority.
With that said, have you read the Hamas charter?
Here's the thing. Standing up for freedom of speech is meaningful especially when it is speech you disagree with. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." (another Voltaire quote). As someone living in France, I hope this means something to you.
It is impossible to form an informed opinion without knowing what they actually said. The article does not elaborate, but it does give some general guidelines. Even as a Jewish Israeli, I have to admit those guidelines are worrying:
Supporters of the club often chant "Yid Army" and "Yiddo" at matches, using a term deemed offensive by some in the Jewish community, but fan groups say the term is used as a badge of honor rather than a derogatory remark.
However, the governing Football Association and police have warned that using the word "Yid" could lead to prosecution and a ban on attending matches.
Okay, so the "badge of honor" claim is bull. These are offensive. They are not (or, at least, should not), however, be criminal.
In my book, it is okay to ban fans who use those terms from attending plays (which is what "more speech" and social consequences is all about), but not, in itself, proper cause to open a criminal investigation.
I think your memory is failing you. The Amiga took forever to boot from floppies
FTFY. From hard disk, it wasn't so bad. I even had a startup sequence that would test the current kickstart, if it was 1.3, load a 2.04 kickstart that was hacked to run from memory, reboot, and then load the 2.04 workbench. The entire process would not take more than a minute. I actually remember much much less, but it was many years ago, and my memory may be failing me here.
but then so did all computers back then sans the Atari ST.
I never did any serious amount of work with the Atari ST, so I wouldn't know about that. As for the others: the 8 bit machines took no time at all to load. An Apple ][ would finish loading DOS from floppies in under 5 seconds. Most other machines had all they intended to have in ROM anyways, so boot time was non existent. Situation with 16 (i.e. - IBM PC) and 32 bit machines was slightly different, I but don't recall any of them being as bad as an Amiga loading from floppies.
2000 is when I first saw a computer (it was a 200Mhz pentium, if my memory is serving me correctly) that ran, through UAE, and Amiga 500 emulation at around 100% speed. It might actually have been even earlier than that. I don't remember what precise program I tested this with, but I'm fairly certain it was a game that used the copper.
So, yeah, the current technology isn't particularly impressing, at least as far as raw emulation speed is concerned.
I also can't explain why it is taking it so #!@$&!@# long to load the workbench. On the original Amiga, disks were read one track at a time, causing horrible access speed. Even with assuming they did not replace the disk access routines, the Amiga's DMA architecture would mean you'd use the native CPU to just dump the data into the Amiga's memory, which should result in much much much faster boot times. The only explanation I have is that they are deliberately emulating the horrid access times the original Amiga had.
I have not analyzed this cypher, but generally speaking, the IV is not considered secret. In fact, under the common block cyphers, it is considered completely okay to actually publish it.
I was in 5th or 6th grade, and I woke up to a new computer in my room. The printer immediately broke and I noticed the desk was half up-side down. My dad had assembled it and the desk in the dark, during the night, while I was asleep (I'm a heavy sleeper). He was no technician, but I appreciated the effort. I traded c64 games with kids at school and stacks of 5.25 floppies via mail. Commodore games were fantastic; much better than NES. Junior year of High School, I finally had the initiative to figure out what my dad had done to the printer, and it turned out to be a simple problem that I fixed. I used 80 column mode to type and print essays for school for the next two years. Much praise to my old man. Granted, first year of college and he helped me acquire a 386 with Windows 3.0, which I had for three years, then built my own. I'll never forget my C=128. Thanks, dad!
I remember reading somewhere, and I do not remember where, that a study found out that Arabic was the language most difficult to read/write from all the languages that use consonants as a writing basis (i.e. - not Chinese). I vaguely remember that they connected this to the cursive nature of the writing, but as this is all from memory (and a while ago), I cannot tell you how.
OT, but I couldn't resist
Actually, non Arabic natives could gain from doing precisely that. The cursive nature of the writing, coupled with the amount of characters that are only differentiated by the number of dots they have, make it a relatively hard language to learn to read. The multiple forms each letter take depending on its position in the word don't help either. In fact, some elementary schools in Israel teach spoken Arabic by using Hebrew letters, not bothering with trying to teach reading or writing.
As someone who went through the motion of pretending to try to learn literary Arabic in school, I actually don't think that's a bad idea. Get some vocabulary and grammar going, and only then dump trying to decipher the text on students. After all, that's also the order in which native Arabic speakers do it.
As for Hebrew, there are some madmen who tried something very similar. See, for example, http://www.stav.org.il/karmeli/. Needless to say, it did not gain any significant traction.