Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re: CoffeE and Nicotine (Score -1, Offtopic) 257

I call Bullshit. Breaking the law does NOT require intent before you can be charged.

IANAL. Also, I'm answering based on where I am from (not America). Here, "criminal intent" (loosely, the local term translates as "intentional frame of mind") is not the same as what people understand when the word "intent" is used.

"Honestly, officer, I didn't MEAN to speed. I just wasn't paying attention."

"Not paying attention" is a frame of mind, which is which is sufficient to establish intent. Saying "The sign that limits the speed is hidden behind a bush", on the other hand, will get you acquitted.

"But I didn't MEAN to kill that other hunter. I just shot at the sound and didn't know what was in the bushes."

I am not familiar enough with hunting laws and practices. This is either negligent (which is enough to establish criminal intent), or you will get off the hook. I do know that people do actually die in hunting accidents, and that people don't always go to jail afterward. In fact, the whole trial will likely revolve around the fact finding question of whether it was reasonable of you to act like you did, i.e., whether you showed intent.

"I didn't MEAN to run that stop sign. I didn't see it because I was busy playing with my cell phone."

I think that is obvious. You intentionally were not paying attention to the road.

Having said that, not all law violations require intent. A non-working tail light might happen even though you were as careful as you could possibly be, and you'll still get a ticket. "But I checked it and it was working right before I started driving, and there was no way for me to know it stopped working mid-drive" will not get you off the hook.

Then again, for other cases, it's all about intent. If you set up a trap door over spiked pit to open when you lift a button, wait for someone to pass over the trap door, and press that button, you will be convicted of 1st degree murder. If you have a good reason why such a setup was constructed, and can prove you did not know someone was over the trap door at the specific time you pressed the button, you will be convicted of manslaughter. If you just leave the setup there, label the button "A/C on", and I am the one pressing the button and killing someone, I will be acquitted.

If intent was part of the prosecution then there wouldn't be a need for the saying "Ignorance of the law is no defense." You can still be charged and prosecuted for breaking a law even if you didn't KNOW it was illegal.

Again, speaking for my local case, if you show it was not feasible of you to know the law, that is a proper defense. If a law failed to be published, even if no one in their right mind reads those publications, that has lead to acquittals.

Disclosing classified material, which she should have known was classified, is breaking the law. If I did that when I was in charge of classified information it would have gotten me arrested, my security clearance revoked, and my job changed. I would never be allowed to handle classified material again.

Let me go on record that I believe that the FBI's refusal to indict Clinton was bullshit. Having said that, she was not disclosing classified material. She was "just" not careful enough with it, and for a reason that was self serving and dishonest. Still, a world of difference than intentionally disclosing classified material.


Comment Re:Times of Israel is ludicrous (Score 1) 328

It's a pretty straight forward question. Is Israel and Zionism mentioned in the Fatwa? If so, it is completely reasonable for different sources to highlight different aspects of the Fatwa. If not, then the Times of Israel has made up facts, which is a serious problem.

Which is it? I don't know. I couldn't find the original Fatwa, and I doubt I'd be able to read it if I did.


Comment Re:Likely won't eventuate (Score -1) 298

The past couple (maybe even three) years saw a massive increase (percentage wise) in number of both aircraft crashes and fatalities. This gives rise to such posts as this one.

This is, of course, quite irrelevant. The increase in number of crashes is not due to a deterioration in aircraft reliability. It is due to the fact that airlines and countries that did not used to be target to terrorist and military actions suddenly became so. If memory serves me right, about 50% of commercial airline crashes were either terror attacks, Russian military shooting down aircrafts, or a pilot losing it and crashing the plane. This is without taking MH370, location and circumstances unknown, into account.

In other words, this is just your regular panic related ideas. Nothing to take too seriously.


Comment Re: Israel abuses human rights (Score 1) 278

I'm really sorry, it is late here, and I only skimmed what you wrote. Partly it was the length, but partly because I think you think we disagree where I think we don't.

Sorry about that last sentence. Like I said, it is late here.

Out of curiosity:

So apparently you can become a nation in 6 years if you are white... even if your assertion is correct, why couldn't Palestinians be one in 80 years ?

I am really curious what made you think I disagree with that statement. Part of the problem on /. is that people don't read through the thread they participate in. Here is what I wrote, right at the start of my :

My side (the pro-Israel side) has started pushing the "Palestinians are a made up nation" narrative. I hate that narrative. Not because it is factually false, but because it is irrelevant. Whether manufactured or organically grown, whether ancient or 60 years old, the Palestinians are a nation today, and as such, their quest (such that there is) for self determination is a legitimate one.

I trust you agree?

My point was that the religious/historical claim of Jews to the land of Israel is no stronger than that of the Palestinians since they clearly have equally ancient roots in the area. What they called themselves or whether they saw themselves as distinct for all that time really doesn't even come into the discussion - it just doesn't affect anything.

There is no one saying otherwise (well, obviously, there are fanatic nutheads that do, but they are very far from being mainstream in Israel). The right to the land is not, in my eyes, due to 2000 years old divine mandate. I won't go into the entire argument (did I mention it is late?), but suffice it to say that the "the Jews stole the land" narrative has about 2% truth, and the rest is just ugly, baseless propaganda. Most of the land, at least inside the green line, where Jews live was bought from its previous owners. As usual, when you go over the green line, things become much murkier, but even there they are not as clear cut as the Palestinians would have you believe.

The same goes for the actual occupation. Very few in Israel want this situation to continue. At the moment, sadly, shifting things in any direction beside "worse" is unlikely to happen. Some of it is because Jewish fundamentalists (and a government that sits idle while they act), but some of it is definitely because of Abu Mazen and the Palestinian society.


Comment Re: Israel abuses human rights (Score 1) 278

Here you go, now that I'm not at work and have time, it took me all of 5 seconds on google to find and article that references pretty much all the research on the topic and confirms my conclusion

I found no mention there of any Tel-Aviv university research. Did I miss something, or did you try to send me on a wild goose chase?

: Palestinians are descended from the same group as Jewish people.

More like "shared genes", but the distinction is not that important. Either way, that point I acknowledged three comments ago. It does not, however, get you anywhere you want to go. Your original point, however, contained an additional statement, crucial to proving your point:

They are not Arabs ethnically


I'll also point out that, generally speaking, origin and birth (i.e. - what genealogy tests) are somewhat secondary to the question of nationality. Criteria more important is language, sense of belonging, and a common culture and goals. As such, had the Palestinians been a distinct nationality before the 20th century, you'd expect to find references to that point.

Instead, all signs point to the Palestinian nationality forming as a counter force to the Zionist movement.

Comment Re: Israel abuses human rights (Score 1) 278

I am assuming you meant Israel as well under that criticism, which, as I wrote in a comment to another story, I believe is unfounded. Without trying to open out that discussion, however:

Secularize the middle east?

I'm eagerly awaiting your insightful opinion as to how to do that.

Comment Re: Israel abuses human rights (Score 1) 278

Here's the thing. If you, who knows what you're looking for, cannot find it with a couple of seconds of Googling, then it is quite unfair of you to send me searching.

Like I said above, what I did find while searching was not supporting your core claim. It said some of what you claimed it said (thus my belief that I found the ones you were referring to), but not the important part to support your claim. As such, you will excuse me for not trusting your memory of research neither of us can currently find.


Comment Re: Israel abuses human rights (Score 1) 278

I did. I found a few that claimed that the Jews in Europe share genetic markers, and share them with indigent residents of the middle east. I did not find anything that supports your claim that the Palestinians share genetic markers distinct from the Arabs. As such, all that proves is that the Jews do, in fact, have a historic connection to the land.

I also did not find the Tel Aviv University research you refer to.

In general, the person making the claim should also be the one providing the proof.

Comment Re: Israel abuses human rights (Score 1) 278

For a start - they are a different race. They are not Arabs ethnically. They are semmites. The exact same race as the Jews. Numerous genetic studies have proven over and over again: the Palestinians ARE Jews, they just changed religion. They are the jews that stayed behind when the diaspora was happening.

Care to give reference to any such study?

Comment Re: Israel abuses human rights (Score 1) 278

WOW! 229 words and not a single true fact.

Trying to keep the discussion from going too much astray, let's focus on the nationality claim:

Nationality: a group of people who share the same history, traditions, and language, and who usually live together in a particular country

Care to cite any evidence for your claims? There are several nationality markers, the things that make a group of people a nation. Care to show that the Arabs who lived in pre-Israel Palestine had those distinctly from other Arabs, and in common with Jews?


Comment Re: Israel abuses human rights (Score 1, Informative) 278

The discussion so far: A couple of Israeli ministers spew complete nonsense. A bunch of Slashdot readers respond with complete and utter baseless bullshit. Pro-Israeli readers respond with rehashed lines. Everybody feel so much better for "sticking it" to the other side. Great...

My side (the pro-Israel side) has started pushing the "Palestinians are a made up nation" narrative. I hate that narrative. Not because it is factually false, but because it is irrelevant. Whether manufactured or organically grown, whether ancient or 60 years old, the Palestinians are a nation today, and as such, their quest (such that there is) for self determination is a legitimate one.

With that said, what you replied is factually false. Pre-WW2 there is was no Palestinian nation. The people you refer to who lived in mandatory Palestine did not call themselves Palestinian. They called themselves Arab. They had none of the markers that made them a distinct nation than the Arabs who lived in any other territories in the area.

The Palestinian nation developed as a result of the Israeli-Arab conflict. After Israel was founded, those specific Arabs were treated distinctly from the rest of the Arab population, both by Israel and by other surrounding countries. It should not surprise anyone that when a group of people is treated distinctly, it starts to think of itself as distinct.

As for the rest of your suggestion for the Jews, my family came from Iraq. The family left there after the Iraqi government pushed the Jews out by confiscating their property. What exactly is your helpful suggestion to me?

Slashdot Top Deals

There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson