Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:YHWH: the name above all [other] names (Score 0) 127

This is how it is, Islam "claims" that Allah is the same as the God of Abraham (YHWH). However, close examination of the scriptures of Islam and the Torah&Bible show that Allah *cannot* be the same as YHWH. For example, Allah is described numerous times as the "greatest of deceivers", while the Torah describes the the God of Abraham as being unable to lie. There are numerous contradictions between Allah and YHWH according to the scriptures. So if YHWH has attributes that are opposite to that those of Allah it means that YHWH and Allah are not the same - and the claim made by Islam is false (just as the claim that Mohammed was a prophet in the Judaic are claimed but also false: the prophets in Abrahamic faiths are descendents of a particular bloodline, and can usually perform miracles - Mohammed does none of these. Mohammed also sets by personal example and teaches many things against Mosaic Law [The Ten Commandments] and the example of Jesus - in fact, you can consider Mohammed to be an 'anti-christ' since the things the hadiths say he did are completely against the example set by Judaism and Christianity [banditry, torture, burning people alive, having a breastfeeding woman pulled limb from limb, ordering assinations, marrying his son's wife, child sex with 9 year old Aisha, keeping slaves and having sex with them, deceptive treaties, worshiping the moon god of his tribe "Il illah", bowing down before the black stone of mecca, etc etc])

So, please understand what is "claimed" by Islam is not the same as what is true about Islam. If you god is the "greatest of deceivers" does that suprise you that so many are misled? The ideology called Islam is simply deceptive and evil. The more you learn about its underpinnings the worse it gets. To bad many simply accept its claims (eg. the wikipedia editors) without investigating whether the claims are true or not. With Islam so many claimed things are lies.

Comment Re:Metro should be able to run in a window on the (Score 1) 800

> Metro should have been put inside of Explorer, as an optional component

Actually, I think Metro on the Desktop would have been better received if implemented as a thing you can bring up in front of the rest of your UI, when you want it, sort of like the Dashboard in OS X.

As it stands, it was received even less enthusiastically than the horribly mishandled Vista Gadget Sidebar. Seven moved the non-resizable Gadgets to the desktop and eliminated the sidebar; I don't know if Eight even supports the gadgets at all. If you want to see how the sidebar *should* have been implemented, look at Gnome's panel applets.

Comment Re:Preserve Cultural Heritage (Score 1) 155

> Dubbed dialog is invariably out of lip sync.

Well, yes, but *all* movie dialog is out of sync these days. It has been ever since the demise of VHS. Have you *ever* watched a DVD and had the sound track be fully in sync with the video?

> worse, it is low budget, performed by low quality
> actors under the direction of a low quality director
> without any supervision from the original direction

That's not inherent to dubbing. Insofar as it's true (which, admittedly, is frequently the case), it's a consequence of the fact that the market for the dubbed version is generally much smaller than the original market for which the piece was filmed.

Comment Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj (Score 1) 252

> ReactOS is a project to build a free,
> open-source clone of Windows,

I think you just answered your own question.

> Why on earth hasn't this received more
> support from the OSS community?

Most of us in the open-source community don't *like* Windows all that much. We aren't particularly interested in a clone of it, no matter how it's licensed. I find myself vaguely curious about whether ReactOS will ever reach a point of actually being a meaningful competitor for Windows, but this is the same kind of purely theoretical curiosity that leads me to wonder whether stovepipe hats might someday make a fashion comeback. It's a purely abstract curiosity. I don't actually *care*.

> Linux is fine for servers, portable devices, and
> embedded systems, but trying to stick it on the
> desktop is a foolish dream that has failed for
> over 10 years.

Whatever, dude.

Linux was *designed* for the desktop. The fact that it's good on servers and embedded systems is just a nice bonus. I've been using Linux on the desktop since the late nineties. My computer does what I want it to do, and the OS stays out of my way and lets me do whatever I'm doing, and I don't have to jump through a bunch of stupid hoops all the time. This is partly because I have my desktop significantly customized -- it wouldn't be so good on an out-of-the-box install; but said customization is *possible* because I'm using an inherently customizable system. Windows allows you to customize the color scheme and mouse pointers and stuff, but anything that would actually have a major impact on how the software operates, forget it.

Now, granted, a lot of people prefer Windows. But most of those people aren't open-source developers. This is not a coincidence. Windows was *designed* to appeal to people who are NOT computer geeks. That was kind of the whole point, actually: regular people wanted to type up papers and stuff but didn't want to learn technical stuff (e.g., the command line -- which is significantly simpler than programming but still overwhelmingly more technical than anything most Windows users will touch with a ten-foot pole). Windows was made for regular people.

But most programmers, it turns out, don't really think that way, and Windows tends not to appeal so much to most of them.

There are, of course, exceptions.

Comment Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (Score -1, Offtopic) 351

The Government has no business telling you what you can or cannot do with regard to soda. In theory at least, the US Government has no powers other than those granted in the Constitution. So either the Government must discard the Constitution and can then dictate in minute detail what you can eat, drink and think - or the Constitution holds and the Government can GTFO of your life. Only closest totalitarians want the former.

Comment Re:YHWH: the name above all [other] names (Score 1) 127

Loki, you are confusing "claims" they have the same prophets and same god as being the same as "actually" having the same message and god. I've already posted a link that thoroughly debunks the Muslims claim that they worship the God of Abraham - and this debunking is done using Muslims sources. I'll repeat it here for your convenience:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm

Comment Re:robots can't kill people (Score 1) 215

The OIC has 57 member states from a total of around 193 total UN member states, which works out to around 30%

Let's do the math shall we? People from countries with proportional representation will understand how being the largest voting bloc can be powerful, even if not an absolute majority. Let's say that the UN General Assembly is voting on a resolution. The OIC can command 57 on any issue. That leaves 136 votes. To get a simple majority they need a total of 97 votes in favor. So that means that they have to get 40 votes (29%) out of 136 to get a simple majority. That's a pretty low bar, yeah? In any situation where the non-OIC UN is split 50-50 it means the OIC can always weigh in and tip the scales in their direction. No, the OIC does not always get its way (thank goodness), but on things they care about it does. The HRC is affected the same way by the same calculations. When people see that the HRC condemned some member state for this or that they never understand the political machinations behind it. In fact, the HRC was so discredited that the US refused to legitimize it by being a member. Only under the (pro-Islamist) Obama Administration has the US rejoined the HRC to give it some legitimacy.

I hope that little exposition clears up the maths for you. Does it make sense now? can you now see how "one country, one vote" has been used since 1975 to demonise the US and Israel (as the video I posted shows) achieve the Islamists aims? Can you see why I might like to alert Slashdotters to the issue (although clearly my bad for assuming everyone could do the simple calculations for voting).

Also, the UN makes laws, but they do not go over national laws. It's up to nation states to adopt treaties. States have sovereignty.

I think you are thinking about "non-binding resolutions". Check out "substantive resolutions" that become International Law that UN member states are supposed to uphold.

Comment Re:robots can't kill people (Score -1, Troll) 215

Thanks for your analysis. However, the "human rights" that Major Stephen Coughlin (Pentagon analysis whose job was to analyse these for over a decade) is talking about is the (Sharia Compliant) Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which is at opposition to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think you missed that distinction - which is why your analysis is all borked. When you think of "human rights" you are thinking of the UN ones, rather than the OIC's Sharia Cairo ones. That's why your analysis is a fail. Perhaps if you had managed to make it to the end of the video you might of learned more - instead of assuming you already had all the answers. Furthermore, Stephen Coughlin's method of operation is *only* to use sources that Muslims write for Muslims - as these are the only true documents. Documents written by Westerners apologising for Islam or documents written by Muslims for Western consumption are not reliable source documents. This is a lesson Coughlin learned when dealing with the Soviet Union - which he talks about in the video series. Too bad you stopped listening when the discussion contradicted your preconceptions. You would never make a good scientist or military intelligence analyst with such a poor methodology. I hope other Slashdotters watch (to the end!) and make up their own mind. But thanks for at least taking a look at the beginning.

that people are genuinely appalled at Israel's mishandling of Palestine.

Yawn. That's right, the fault always lies with Westerners and Israelis. The Palestinians could never, ever be responsible for their own mess in your own eyes. This is "soft bigotry" at its worst - and another analysis failing of yours. Quick question, in 1948 how many Arab armies attacked Israel simultaneously and what was their publicly stated goal (hint: it begins with 'g' and ends with 'enocide' - all in accordance with hadith Sahih Muslim 6985) ? Do you know any of the history at all?

Nice try aiming to distract the conversation about Israel. My claim is that the OIC not only exists but also also forms the largest single voting bloc in the UN. You have not addressed this. Probably because you can't. It is a fact. And because of this fact we have insane resolutions coming from the UN - like the anti-drone stuff being mulled (which is condemned, because it works too well at killing jihadis). Why did you not even address these points? they were the ones I was making.

Comment Re:robots can't kill people (Score 1, Interesting) 215

So you believe that the ONLY alternative to drone attacks is to convert to Sharia law?

False. I never said that. I said that failing to use drone attacks will result in conversion to Sharia.

Who, exactly, is going to impose Sharia law on the US? And I don't mean who would LIKE to. Who, exactly, has that capability?

Sharia is creeping in the West already as part of the 'cultural jihad'. Who is doing this? well, the UN for one, with the OIC setting the agenda in the HRC and other agencies. The Holy Land Foundation trial stated that the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood (who have influence in the OIC) is to sabotage the "miserable West by their own hand". And if you know what to look for they have been very successful so far. Do the research yourself and you will see. Sharia is already in the West. Instead of treating women and men equally the West now kowtows to Muslim demands for separate areas for men and women. Harvard gym excludes men at certain times so Muslim women can exercise. Newspapers now self-censor anything critical to Islam because the editors do not consider it worth their life to publish satirical cartoons. The whole of society is indoctrinated that to "cause offense" is a grave crime that should be a criminal offense - when in a multicultural society it is inevitable that some part of society will be offended by the views of some other part of society. After clear jihad attacks the President of the United States is afraid to use the words Islamic Terrorism and his government departments are *banned* from using that term and many others due to political correctness. In Britain jihadi protestors can threaten to behead westerners for telling the truth yet the police will arrest an 85 year old grandmother for cursing Islam. In at least 23 court cases in the US the Constitution has been pitted against Sharia and the Constitution has yielded thanks to activist judges. It has gotten so bad that Florida and Oklahoma had to pass the ALAC "American Laws for American Courts" bill to stamp the setting of precedents where Sharia trumped native law. Note also that the Obama Regime fought Oklahoma on this - which shows how subverted that Administration is. Sharia is already here, man. It is not total, but creeping. Slowly, slowly the world is being changed around you. You still think you have free speech? well if you are in Sweden or the US or Britain go to your town center and remonstrate against Islam. See how long it is until the police arrest you (hence unwittingly enforcing Sharia). Sharia is imposed in stages (doctrinally it is called the "Milestones " process). We've just got a little bit at the moment. Don't worry, the UN is slowly introducing more. As I attempted to explain for you (google the cases I presented, please).

How about you look up who has veto power at the UN. Here's a hint, the US is one of them. If we don't like it, we can veto it.

I suggest you learn how the UN works. The US veto is for Security Council Resolutions. All sorts of madness passes in the General Assembly, and even more madness in the HRC (now infested by human-rights enemies like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, North Korea). Sorry dude, with your statement you show you have a terrible understanding of the UN and what is going on in the world. No wonder you don't like my post, you simply have too little information to understand what I'm trying to say. If you have an open mind and follow my posts it would be my pleasure to expand your understanding of the political ideology called Islam, and how the political body called the OIC is using the UN to bypass the democratic safeguards in Free societies.

Exactly HOW is ANYONE going to replace any part of the US legal system or Constitution with Sharia law?

It's called "Case Law". By setting a precedent that trumps the Constitution with a Sharia-compatible ruling. This has been used by activists and the US Government for a long time, which allows legal status to be set without having to get democratic representatives to debate bills to do it. This is not a theoretical thing, it has happened at least 23 times in the US. I understand this is all news to you, because the mainstream media will never tell you this (it turns out, the editors mostly agree with the Red-Green Alliance's deconstruction of traditional America). If you listen I will tell you things that will surprise you.

Finally, you like the principles of the US Constitution? well, so do I (despite being a non-US citizen). I like individual liberty and freedom of conscience and free speech and equal rights between men, women and ethnicities. I'm sure we mostly agree on these things. The reason I'm posting about the OIC on Slashdot is that most people don't understand how the OIC is using the UN to destroy these liberties by creating resolutions that are against every human right we hold dear. Yes, this is against the original purpose of the UN. Yes, this is a great shame. What matters is not what the UN *was* (which is how most people still see the UN) but how it is *now*. I'm trying to explain to you that the UN is now under "mob rule" and the biggest mob in the General Assembly and HRC does not share our love for individual liberty, equality of peoples and faiths, and the UN'S founding principles. If you are prepared to listen then my posts attempt to explain the global geopolitical system as best I can. At the moment the UN is "two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner". Note: free people are the "sheep". If we don't educate each other then our liberties will disappear - slowly, slowly so that if you aren't paying attention they'll be gone before you notice (too busy agonizing over the results of your local "X-Factor" competition, or indulging in flame wars over software products, etc). This Slashdot thread about the UN restricting drones is part of a larger picture, I'm trying to paint that picture for my fellow Slashdotters.

Comment Re:robots can't kill people (Score 1) 215

I was providing the reason *why* the UN raised this resolution. I was supporting my position with other things that the OIC has induced the UN to do. This is not a "rant". I wish the OIC and UN wasn't doing these things. They are, and it all fits with the OIC's published agenda. I hope some readers appreciate me weaving the related threads together for them. For those that don't like the facts and historical context I present then please skip my posts - but do not censor them (unless you are a hater of facts and Free Speech). Those with open minds will follow my references and decide for themselves whether my posts have factual merit or not.

Comment Re:robots can't kill people (Score -1, Offtopic) 215

The reason they are modded up is because I post citations. The citations happen to be links to statistics and facts. You may not like the statistics and facts but it turns out that the scientifically-minded Slashdotters do. I'm not sorry if statistics and facts upset your cosy (but incorrect) worldview. If you disagree with me, then all you have to do is present countering statistics and facts. I will listen, I promise. This is how the Scientific Method works.

Note, while you may consider my post to be "off topic" simply because you have different political views, my post was explaining *why* the UN raised this resolution about drones by providing background. I'm trying to fill in background for those who are interested in how multiple aspects of our modern world are related. Does this explain why the same stuff keeps coming up in my posts - because it *is* all related. The UN HRC 16/18 is related to the OIC is related to 9/11 is related to the Boston Bombing is related to Afghanistan is related to Osama is related to Syria today is related to Israel is related to the United Nations is related to the London murder of Lee Rigby is related to last week's six nights of burning Stockholm is related to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood is related to Iran is related to the political goals of the far Left is related to modern history. If this bores you then please simply ignore my posts. But allow the right of me to write facts as I know them and the *even more important* right of Slashdotters to read the citations and reference I provide (and paraphrase for their convenience). Views that are unpopular (like mine) are not necessary incorrect. Please respect that - it is how science gets done.

Comment Re:robots can't kill people (Score -1, Troll) 215

It's also "against the rules" to deliberately target civilians - yet who takes notice?

Whenever I hear "United Nations" these days I pretty much assume it is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that are driving the agenda. They have the largest (57-country) voting bloc, you see, so they can do things like:

  • Take control of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC): this means barbaric Sharia can kill thousands each year and degrade women and homosexuals in ways against the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (refer to: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks). Slavery is going on *today* in Sudan. Not a peep is said. Yet, a member state is condemned by HRC Resolutions dozens of times for defending its own citizens against terror attacks involving rockets and suicide attacks.
  • Take control of the UN Refugee Agency: this means that countries are forced to accept waves of Muslims that do not assimilate (this has happened in my country), yet Copts and Assyrians who are under daily attack rarely if ever get refugee status these days
  • The HRC was able to pass a non-binding resolution (HRC 16/18) that wanted member states to make statements "offensive" to religions (where the religion decides what is "offensive" or not - truth is not protected and may be considered offensive too). This is a fundamental attack against Free Speech (which was why it was amazing that even the thoroughly incompetent Hilliary Clinton co-sponsored it, and as Secretary of State promised to prosecute/"name-and-shame" Americans practicing their First Amendment Free Speech Rights on US soil). Even worse, the HRC 16/18 was just the "thin end of the wedge" and not it has passed an even worse successor is planned.

The OIC realised it can't get its agenda through sovereign national parliaments - so what it is doing is manipulating the UN and then the resulting treaties will then be applied. Don't think it can happen? it already has. The Free World must dismantle supranational law-making bodies like the UN (and the EU - go UKIP!).

This move is clearly a move by the OIC to prevent Free People from defending themselves with drones against jihadis. The drones have been *very* successful at disrupting the networks so far, which is why the OIC is practicing "lawfare" to get them taken out of the sky. Yes, the drones do occasionally kill the wives and children of jihadis in their compounds. This is bad. However, for those that think the drones should be removed, just what do you propose to replace them with? or are you ok submitting to the Islamic political order under Sharia (which is the stated and published goal of the OIC, if you care to listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc).

Drones are good for the defense of Free Peoples against jihadis. Just not in my backyard thanks :)

Here's a little video explaining how the OIC came to grab effective control of the UN with the help of the pro-Communist "Non-Aligned Movement", Yes, anti-Semites, it is produced in Jerusalem, - it just so happens that the Israelis are acutely aware of the UN bias against them (thanks to the OIC, which is faithfully following hadith Sahih Muslim 6985). I assure you this is historically factual, so put away your bias for the four minutes it takes to understand the point I'm trying to make about the United Nations. Thank you :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8

Dudes, this stuff matters much much more than the Windows vs Linux or Java vs C# or Apple vs Android wars. To quote, "You may not be interested in the war, but the war is interested in you". There is a shadow war for freedom that is going on right now. If you don't stand up and argue for your liberties then the OIC (through the UN) *will* progressively take them away - it may take decades, but they are determined to reach their goal (Sharia) because it is a matter of faith for them. It is easier to stand up now for your rights and stop them, then delay until it is really really oppressive before doing anything. Peace.

Comment Re: Re:Texas leads the way, again (Score 1) 262

I see Qatar regime as progressive by local standards and generally considered their Wahabist affiliations more to appease the public than of actual conviction.

It is Qatar that are paying Hamas to continue their jihad (since many former donors now realise Hamas' genocidal ambitions, a bit late considering it is all laid out in the Hamas' Charter, but better late than never. It is Hamas that is paying for much of the supplies of the Al Nusra Front in Syria (ya know, the local Al Qaeda branch). So I think you are again romantacising Qatar, looking only at what you would like to see rather than what it does. The side effect of a pharmaceutical can be more significant than its intended effect - don't ignore the downsides of drugs nor ideologies.

I hardly consider Obama administration to have fulfilled its promises. While it failed dismally in many areas for its actions to match its rhetoric, I still consider it a minor improvement over the failings of the previous administration.

In terms of supporting liberty the previous Administration had a spotty record, but was actually miles ahead of Obama if you do the research. In terms of geopolitics the Bush Administration was miles better. Bush defeated Saddam (who would have had nuclear weapons by now, and would have killed even more of his Shia and Kurdish minorities through violence or starvation - eg the draining of the southern marshes). It was Bush who destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and allow the use of waterboarding on (only!) three individuals that led to the elimination of Osama. It was Bush who liberated both Iraq and Afghanistan - but instead of cementing a hard won piece (as was done for Germany, Japan and Korea) Obama performed insanely hasty withdrawals simply for his own political benefit. Obama, like Bill Clinton, also used the power of the US to assist Islamicist takeovers (Libya, Egypt and now Syria; Bill C's was in Kosovo). Bush supported allies, while Obama sold them out (which is why Obama has *zero* credibility anymore with its allies). The damage Obama has done to geopolitica stability will take decades to repair. So I don't agree with your statement there. The worst crime Obama committed was siding with the Iranian theocracy in the Green Revolution. The World would be a much much better place today if he had stated the US promotes liberty for everyone everywhere - but he never ever stands up for Enlightenment values in actions (he just talks, his acts are usually supporting the Islamist and international Leftist agenda).

However, the current Islamic world is in disarray. Some may have grand ambitions to make the whole world Islamic, but they are in no shape to execute such ideas.

The Islamic world is indeed rotting within. However, there is enough force of will from the OIC to be a strategic civilizational-level threat. The country that your statement misses is Turkey. Turkey is getting stronger and with Erdogan at the helm is very very dangerous. Look at how they recently banned alcohol. They are regressing - just like second-generation Muslim immigrants are often more regressive and dangerous than the original immigrants (because the later ones never realise how horrible Islam is in practice when it controls society). Also in this paragraph you talk about the crimes of the European imperialists/Christianity. We agree. However you must realise that that was then. Making "moral equivalence" between acts of the past that Europe does not intend to repeat and the acts of Islam that are being repeated daily around the globe is bad - and provides cover for Islam to continue with its same bad actions. Please don't do it.

Yes, just like Infowars.

We agree. I think Infowars is junk and the signal-to-noise ratio is vastly lower than Breitbart/Newsmax (with the fantastic Thomas Sowell)/Frontpage. It is hard to discriminate whether Alex Jones' is simply a loon or it is a false flag disinformation programme, either way, infowars is not generally a good source.

Yes, I won't charge you to not having read enough. I have my reservations on the quality of some of the references though, just as you feel about mine. I prefer academic sources which are biased from your stand point. I accept that limitations exist but am not willing to throw the baby with the bathwater.

Fair point. Academic sources are superior - but they have to be evaluated critically for contamination by Cultural Marxism (which is destroying free discourse globally in universities).

I will listen to them (and all the other stuff you linked) to see if he has anything new to say, perhaps over the weekend. Likewise, I suggest you do take time to read about Islamic history from a non-culture war stand point, such as about their philosophers, not just power struggles and standard scholarship without political messaging, as it will temper your reaction to the topic. Never mind, if you have already done that.

The philosopher I'm most familiar with is Al Ghazali - and as a (former) scientist I consider him to be one of the worst forces for ignorance, superstition and evil in the World. Since Al Ghazali invalidated most of the earlier Islamic philosophers I have a passing historical interest in the earlier guys - but to be truthful I'm more concerned with Islamic doctrine as is stands today (which is why I recommend Stephen Coughlin to you). Everything else is abstract.

You think Islamic immigrants have not well assimilated in European countries and should stop immigration until they feel they can? Fine by me. West has every right to do that and should. You think US should prefer immigration from Europe, India and China, whose citizens are filtered by skill at consulates, assimilate well and should close immigration from problematic regions? Also OK from me. Nothing to argue over here. And there isn't much to do beyond that than wait.

I'm not really for freezing immigration. I don't see the fundamental problem with the Islamists per-se. I see the problem with the Cultural Marxists (academics and leftists politicians) that are using the Islamicists to change culture in a massive social experiment. I wouldn't even mind that if it was a force for good - but the reality is that the common totalitarian impulses of the Islamicists and Left are removing liberties (eg. it is clear the Obama regime simply sees the US Constitution as an outdated impediment to their 'progressive' goals - and are very happy to remove the protections it has for the US populace against tyranny - and if the US falls to tyranny it is bad for all of us [nb: I'm from New Zealand]).

And there isn't much to do beyond that than wait.

I disagree. Our moral obligation as people who have done the research to to inform others. If we don't stand for Enligtenment values who will? It will not get easier as time goes on and the Muslim flood and high birthrate into Europe continues (and they do not need to be a majority to impose their values). I can understand why you try and balance the debate with your statements. That works for other people with similar knowledge. However, for those that know a little I think it is very dangerous - because it can easily be misused by those making apologetics. I believe that if we defend Enlightenment laws, principles and values with no compromise and no exceptions that Islam will implode - just as the Soviet Union did. However, for every inch that we concede it makes it a harder and longer struggle to prevail in the end. Education of Muslim women is part of the solution, but it is not enough. It has to be a combination of education, uncompromising defence of Universal Human Rights (not the awful Sharia-compliant Cario 'Human Rights' nonsense), and robust and unapologetic kinetic action where needed. Then we will win and everyone will benefit (the West will have peace, Muslims will be free to practice what is left of their superstition, Israel will get the security it craves, etc).

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Working...