Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Here we go... (Score 1) 449

Wow, that's so utterly and totally not what I'm saying it's comical.

So all the Jews should have just got back on their boats and left? This was during WWII. They should have just gone back to Germany (while we're on the topic of ovens), right? The whole conversation reads like a joke.

Jews: Can we stay here? We're kind of being exterminated* at home.
Arabs: No.
Jews: Umm...okay. We'll stay anyway.
British: We don't want any trouble. Be cool with this, Arabs.
Jews: So...maybe we could both have a say in government? That way nobody gets stomped on.
Arabs: No. We refuse to participate in any government that has even one Jew in it.
Jews: Hmm. Okay then. So...a two-state solution?
Arabs: No, we want it all.
Jews: So you're basically saying, "Fuck off, back into the water with you."
Arabs: Yup.
British: Sooooo...we're tired of dealing with you guys' shit. We're leaving now. Best of luck.
Jews: OH SHI-
[promptly gets attacked by the militaries of pretty much all neighboring Arab countries in addition to the Palestinians]

The Israelis are always a bit out of control, but I see why when I look at the history. Any time they let their guard down for a second, they get curb-stomped. And their enemies have frequently demonstrated that showing them any leniency will just come back to bite them in the ass. So we're reduced to "can I hit this guy hard enough that he won't come back at me." The answer seems to be no.

But I've come to the realization that most of the world's problems can't actually be solved. If they could, they would have been already, in all the biggest cases.

Bombing schools and hospitals, sometimes more than once, and killing over 500 people.

I assume that the reason said hospitals are bombed is, like Bosnia, that people are hiding military equipment in them. If you want hospitals to be safe, don't fucking do that. But to avoid getting bombed, they hide their stuff in hospitals in order to take advantage of the other side's proper conduct in war. If they DON'T bomb the hospital then, they're never going to stop putting anything they don't want destroyed in it. And they then complain about the hospital getting bombed. This whole argument is so massively retarded I can't even find words to say what's wrong about it. The only thing more bloody than a war is a war where the sides won't even follow the baseline rules.

*ACTUAL genocide

Comment: Re:Here we go... (Score 1) 449

Reading about the Mandate now. You probably have a lot of fair points. But I find it interesting that when the Brits initially set up the post-Ottoman government, even then the Arabs were doing their best to screw over the immigrants.

Samuel tried to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine, as required by the mandate, but was frustrated by the refusal of the Arab leadership to co-operate with any institution which included Jewish participation.

I won't argue that they should have welcomed them with open arms and put them in charge or anything but a little effort to get along before the endless cycle of killing starts would be nice instead of "we refuse to work with anyone who's a Jew."

Then they try to make a legislature:

The 1922 Palestine Order in Council[14] established a Legislative Council, which was to consist of 23 members; 12 elected, 10 appointed and the High Commissioner.[15] Of the 12 elected members, eight were to be Muslim Arabs, two Christian Arabs and two Jews.[16] Arabs protested against the distribution of the seats, arguing that as they constituted 88% of the population, having only 43% of the seats was unfair.[16] Elections were held in February and March 1923, but due to an Arab boycott, the results were annulled and a 12-member Advisory Council was established.

They give Arabs 11 of the 12 elected positions and they still pitch a fit. Presumably the Arabs expected the Brits to appoint 10 Jews for the latter part of the council...which may have been accurate, I suppose. But saying "we only get 43% of the seats" seems blatantly misleading unless somebody can actually show that all 10 of those appointed were Jewish.

In 1930, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam arrived in Palestine from Syria and organised and established the Black Hand, an anti-Zionist and anti-British militant organisation. He recruited and arranged military training for peasants and by 1935 he had enlisted between 200 and 800 men. The cells were equipped with bombs and firearms, which they used to kill Zionist settlers in the area, as well as engaging in a campaign of vandalism of the settlers-planted trees and British constructed rail-lines.[18] In November 1935, two of his men engaged in a firefight with a Palestine police patrol hunting fruit thieves and a policeman was killed. Following the incident, British police launched a manhunt and surrounded al-Qassam in a cave near Ya'bad. In the ensuing battle, al-Qassam was killed.[18]

Oh, and the first mention of armed violence is some Arab guy bringing the ruckus. Although I strongly suspect that this is because we're talking Wikipedia so the pro-Israeli crowd is probably on the scene.

The death of al-Qassam in 1936 generated widespread outrage in the Arab community. Huge crowds accompanied Qassam's body to his grave in Haifa. A few months later, in April 1936, the Arab national general strike broke out. The strike lasted until October 1936, instigated by the Arab Higher Committee, headed by Amin al-Husseini. During the summer of that year, thousands of Jewish-farmed acres and orchards were destroyed, Jewish civilians were attacked and killed, and some Jewish communities, such as those in Beisan and Acre, fled to safer areas.(Gilbert 1998, p. 80) The violence abated for about a year while the British sent the Peel Commission to investigate.(Khalidi 2006, pp. 87–90)

So this al-Qassam guy is out there murderin' it up and when they catch him, the Arabs promptly revolt and start burning whatever Jewish land they can get at. Naturally.

Following the Arab rejection of the Peel Commission recommendation, the revolt resumed in autumn of 1937. Over the next 18 months, the British lost control of Nablus and Hebron. British forces, supported by 6,000 armed Jewish auxiliary police,[20] suppressed the widespread riots with overwhelming force. The British officer Charles Orde Wingate (who supported a Zionist revival for religious reasons[citation needed]) organised Special Night Squads composed of British soldiers and Jewish volunteers such as Yigal Alon, which “scored significant successes against the Arab rebels in the lower Galilee and in the Jezreel valley”(Black 1991, p. 14) by conducting raids on Arab villages. (Shapira 1992, pp. 247, 249, 350) The Jewish militia Irgun used violence also against Arab civilians as "retaliatory acts",[21] attacking marketplaces and buses.

And *now* they mention the Jews fighting back.

The attacks on the Jewish population by Arabs had three lasting effects: First, they led to the formation and development of Jewish underground militias, primarily the Haganah, which were to prove decisive in 1948. Secondly, it became clear that the two communities could not be reconciled, and the idea of partition was born.

In general I have a hard time not rolling my eyes whenever somebody says "the Israelis refuse to negotiate" when their opponents have shown over and over that they will stop at nothing to destroy them. So both sides become intractable.

Comment: Re:We should add our own encryption??? (Score 1) 167

by TangoMargarine (#47531269) Attached to: Dropbox Head Responds To Snowden Claims About Privacy

It wouldn't provide much in the way of plausible deniability, but please tell me about how easy it is for them to mount it without the keys. There definitely wasn't a federal case with some guy from South America where the FBI admitted after a year that they couldn't crack his encryption.

enumerate the mount points to see what was in it.

Not quite sure what you mean by a dynamic file, it's only going to have one "mount point," and while encrypted at rest it's more or less (less) indistinguishable from entropy except for the headers.

Comment: Re:We should add our own encryption??? (Score 1) 167

by TangoMargarine (#47530943) Attached to: Dropbox Head Responds To Snowden Claims About Privacy

Personally, trusting the closed-source Dropbox desktop client to do your encryption for you and not ever transmit your keys back to the mothership for the inevitable NSA demands is more trust than I'm willing to give. And you remember the hullabaloo where it turned out that their desktop client auth was horribly, horribly insecure?

Just make a dynamic TrueCrypt volume.

Comment: Re:Server 2012 already looks like Windows 8. (Score 1) 318

by TangoMargarine (#47522927) Attached to: Microsoft's CEO Says He Wants to Unify Windows

Bash is less flexible (uses strings instead of objects),

Why would you want to use a scripting language for OOP? Use an "actual" language. For scripting uses, use a scripting language.

I get that you want to harp on about how great linux is..but if *ix supporters fail to be objective in their assessments of these things

How about a more direct comparison--bash vs. batch scripting. They were both around 20 years ago.

Comment: Re:Best Wishes ! (Score 1) 318

by TangoMargarine (#47522903) Attached to: Microsoft's CEO Says He Wants to Unify Windows

No, Multics was the predecessor of Unix. The guys who worked on Multics had the philosophy of "do the exact opposite of Multics where possible" when they worked on Unix. Look it up.

Then after awhile everybody started branching mainline Unix and while they were fighting about restandardizing them all together, Microsoft came in and ate their lunch.

Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that shuts down the system for days.