Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re: Litigious Much (Score 1) 769

Entrapment is when you solicit someone to break the law, and then arrest them for it.

There was no solicitation here. There was a certain behavior that violated the "norm", and, arguably, socially accepted standards, but not the law and not the spirit of the law. Even if it was done on purpose, there is no justification for handcuffing someone, let alone a kid.

And we do allow the police to pose temptations in order to apprehend criminals. We send undercover police women dressed in min-skirts to catch rapists and people soliciting for sex for money. That is far more "entrapment" than what this kid did.

The bottom line is this. This kid did nothing wrong, and was harassed, handcuffed and arrested. This means the police, for sure, and the school, probably, fucked up. If he was an activist fighting for his right to bring weird shaped electronics to school, and not an innocent kid (which, again, I am yet to see evidence of), the police and school still fucked up.


Comment Re: Litigious Much (Score 1) 769

While I agree 15M is overboard, I still wouldn't call what they're doing "terrorizing". Both the school and the police fucked up royally. There is no other way to look at it. Furthermore, they refused to acknowledge their fuckup. This is true even if he was coached to behave as he did (for which I'd love to see evidence). In the end, the way he behaved did not warrant the response he got.


Comment Re: Litigious Much (Score 4, Insightful) 769

That's because people are ignorant.

The learning process starts where he did. Take something apart, try to put it together. Hailing him as a genius was being carried away, but labelling him a terrorist was even worse. This is how children learn. It's how we want children to learn.

Anyone who expects a child that has never learned proper electronics to build an electronic clock from scratch on first attempt is simply ignorant.


Comment Re:Why (Score 1) 965

Actually, it just circles back to giving excuses to justify terrorism.

There are no reasons. Terrorism isn't an effective tool to achieve goals. No one converted their religion because of it (the general kind. I'm not talking about gun to head conversion).

Repeated terrorism does put economic pressure on countries suffering from it, but I am hard pressed to think of a single case where that produced any effect that was productive to terrorism.

Clearly aim directed terrorism might have some effect (Irish underground attacks on Britain comes to mind), but those are not the kind of terrorism we typically see today.

So asking "why" is claiming there is a rational reason. That is flawed to its core. Assuming this is an Islamic terrorist attack (we don't know yet, but it seems like a reasonable assumption), this is more likely a clash of cultures than an aim directed campaign.


Comment Re:BackupPC (Score 1) 118

This has an additional problem, the Windows backups aren't encrypted. Not good if you have sensitive information.

<plug>Throw rsyncrypto into the mix</plug>

This has the downside of being a preprocessing step (i.e. - you need local storage for the encrypted form of the files), but solves the encryption problem better than your suggestion (which encrypts the transit, but not the actual backup).


Comment Re:This was not a screw-up (Score 1) 410

I'll leave the hospital incident out of it, because I know absolutely nothing about it.

2) If someone bombed a civilian/military airport in Israel with that very justification, would the United States describe that as a terrorist attack?

So far, nobody ever did. Not really.

In the mean while, Hamas is targeting completely civilian settlements (which are on land that was Israel's since before 1948, so not even that lame excuse exists), without the need to provide any excuse at all, of any kind. In fact, the only ones providing this lame excuse are people like you, who will search for any excuse whatsoever to justify acts of terror, or to try and make two completely distinct and obviously different situation seem the same due to some marginal, often made up, point of similarity.

International law is phrased around intent. Not body count (which is what everyone seem to point out repeatedly, and often mindlessly). Intent. If you don't like it, feel free to try and get it changed. You will find that anyone who actually understands war will tell you that the definition of war crime you idealize is something that no country in the world can afford to live up to.

You might say this sucks, and I'll wholeheartedly agree with you. You can claim this is horrible, and I'll point out that there is a reason we don't like war. If you try to claim that war should be conducted a different way, the burden of proof to show it is possible is on you.


Comment Re:This was not a screw-up (Score 2) 410

yet puts their own military headquarters smack in the middle of Tel Aviv.

And yet, you know exactly where it is. It is not used for civilian purposes.

I realize you are trying to make the two sound the same, but they really are nothing alike. Placing a distinctly military base in some proximity to civilians is not the same as using some poor shmoe's house as a weapon storage, and then instructing him and his family at gun point not to leave, even when the IDF is phoning in telling them they are about to bomb it.


Comment Re:Israel hasn't vowed to "wipe Iran off the map" (Score 1) 441

I'd ask you to tone down the ad hominem in order to further a constructive discussion, but I get the feeling you are not interested in a constructive discussion.

Can you explain what an operation designed to prevent a ship filled with refugees from leaving, but ended up killing them by mistake has to do with terrorism?

Are you serious? It's not supposed to instill terror in deportees or the British authorities that deportee ships were active bombing targets? LOL!

No. It was supposed to prevent the British from deporting Jews that Haganah wanted to stay in Palestine by disabling the ship's motor. It was miscalculated, however, and sunk the ship.

Now, you either disagree with that statement, or agree with it but still see it as an act of terror. If the former, please cite your sources. If the later, well, I'd have to agree with you that there is intellectual dishonesty in this thread and leave it at that.

Yes, you're clearly intellectual dishonest.

Ad hominem.

Just a few of Palmach's terrorist activities, the Night of Bridges, the Night of Trains, Numerous ambushes against British and Arab personnel, numerous bombings (especially radar installations,)

I see it as one army fighting another

Of course you do, that's how you lie to yourself that it wasn't terrorism.

Ad hominem again. Also, you did not point to any criteria by which you distinguish between what I said and what you said.

If that isn't terrorism, then there is no such things as terrorism.

Terrorism is targeting civilians. Terrorism is targeting individuals unrelated to your "cause", whatever it is. What's your definition?

Really, Arabs shooting at a bus with Jews on it. That's the foundations of modern terrorism - LOL. Not bombing hotels. If that's the case then "modern terrorism" was invented in the 18th century in America.

Targeting a civilian bus is terrorism. Targeting the British army headquarters, which, yes, resided in a Hotel, is a legitimate military act. I cannot be more clear on what marks one as terrorism and the other as not. You, however, seem to sling insults as a way to settle the discussion. Oh, and write "LOL".

If you're looking for a discussion on the points, please feel free to reply.


Comment Re:Israel hasn't vowed to "wipe Iran off the map" (Score 1) 441

Can you cite any terror acts carried out by Haganah?

What a very carefully phrased question. Something the Iranian government would likely ask "Can you cite any terror acts that we have carried out?"

You mentioned Haganah specifically, citing its foundation of the IDF as the reason for continuity. So I asked about Haganah. For the record, I fully consider Palmach part of Haganah, and would love to hear terror acts done by it in this reference, too.

If you didn't want to be asked this specifically, you shouldn't have phrased your accusation in this way.

Fortunately, it's easy to point out where the Haganah actively and directly used terrorism to achieve its goals - try learning about the SS Patria.

From Merriam Webster:

Terrorism(n): the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Can you explain what an operation designed to prevent a ship filled with refugees from leaving, but ended up killing them by mistake has to do with terrorism?

Read up on their Palmach unit.

I know about Palmach. Again, I'd like you to be specific, because it seems our understanding of what constitute proof is vastly different.

Learn what happened after Ben Gurion's famous October 1st (1945) decision.

I see it as one army fighting another. I understand you don't. Personally, I think you'd be hard pressed to convince people that military actions, directed solely against military targets, and attempting to avoid hurting civilians where possible are "terrorism". If you do not agree with that, you will find that every single army in the world that has ever participated in any armed conflict is a terrorist. I doubt that's where you're heading.

By the way, were you aware that the Haganah explicitly approved the bombing of the Hotel David? Explicit as in "carry out the operation" explicit.

Are you aware that the hotel was the British army's headquarters (thus, a legitimate military target)? Are you aware that an advance warning was given (though not properly passed through and acted upon) in order to minimize casualties? Again, it's a hard press to call attacking a military target "terrorism".

The bombing of ships known to be carrying deportees, and the bombing of civilian facilities (e.g. King David Hotel) is the foundation of modern terrorism - ironically adopted by the very people the State of Israel displaced and marginalized.

Aside from the flaws I already mentioned in this argument, it is simply false. The foundations of modern terrorism is targeting civilians, striking targets based on affiliation rather than military relevance, indoctrinating populations that death is a high cause, and that achieving it for both yourself and your enemy is worth more than preserving and cultivating life.

You are correct that these foundations are found in actions carried out in Palestine as far back as the early 20th century. You are, however, missing the culprit. Firing at civilian buses merely because its occupants are Jews and accidentally killing an innocent, unrelated Arab with a bomb, and then declaring him Shahid are actions that Arab radicals in Palestine were doing well before the 1930's. These are the foundations of modern terrorism.


In other words, perhaps you should learn a little bit more about what happened before.

That's what my previous reply was meant to be. You were specifying actions I was not aware of, and I asked for citations. Turns out, I disagree with your analysis (or, possibly, you were more ignorant on those matters than you thought you were). There is no reason to sound smug about your answer. This is how discussion is supposed to go.


I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.