You seem to have missed the point that the Jews accepted the 1948 partition because it gave them a huge amount of land that they would have otherwise not owned. The Muslim Palestinians were understandably upset.

No, you seem to have missed the point. The Jewish Palestinians were fighting a civil war with the Arab Palestinians, and BOTH sides were fighting dirty and doing horrible things as one might expect in a war. Importantly, they were also BOTH domestic Palestinians, not foreign imperial invaders as is suggested! Yes, the Arab's were understandably upset that they lost so much land in the civil war to a minority. The Jewish minority of 1948 had a few reasons of their own to be upset with what had been done to them too. The Arab majority was making many moves to restrict the rights of Jewish Palestinians and they had just witnessed how well standing idly by worked out for their families in Europe. Civil wars are so ugly because both sides generally have some very valid concerns.

I think the fact that the Zionists decided to appropriate that land and set up a Jewish state is pretty much everything you really need to know.

I think not. Your statement gives the impression that the sizable Jewish minority in Palestine never had any legitimate claim to any land at all. Surely that's not your intent? It's also important to be clear in the difference between saying they appropriated the land, and that they had gained most of it as part of a civil war. A civil war they were willing to accept an end to then and there, but where instead greeted with not only a war from their larger Arab Palestinian rivals, but by all the surrounding Arab nations as well. Surely you don't consider them to still be the aggressor at that point, do you?

You seem to have missed the point that the Jews accepted the 1948 partition because it gave them a huge amount of land that they would have otherwise not owned. The Muslim Palestinians were understandably upset.

As for the population statistics, yeah, those need sources.

I think the fact that the Zionists decided to appropriate that land and set up a Jewish state is pretty much everything you really need to know. There are other places in the world where there is a similar struggle brewing because the Muslims are setting up Sharia law over the protests over the native population. It's just not right for anybody to do such a thing.

>> ^MaxWilder:

This actually shed a lot of light on a lot of questions I had. I have not at all made up my mind on the subject, and I welcome anyone who would like to argue against the points made in this video.


If you have a lot of questions, history books are a better starting place than a blatantly biased video like this. I made it to minute 6 before the outright lies and falsehoods were more than I needed to know this video was not worth more of my time.

The very opening claim of the video declares Israel has always, since before it's inception seen no legitimate claim for any other people in Palestine except their fellow Jewish people. Historical fact is that in 1948, when the fledgling UN recommended a partition of Palestine into two states, Israel accepted the borders and declared independence. This could have been the end of the civil war in Palestine between Jews and Arabs. It wasn't the Zionists that where aggressive at this point. The entirety of the Arab world declared a united war against the new state of Israel, trumpeting that they would drive them into the sea. My description here is not in question either within the Arab world, Al-Jazeera has an article covering all these points in even more detail.

Now the video decides around the 6 minute mark to contradict itself:
At the end of the 19th century, there were hardly any Jews living in Palestine.
And yet, the video just finished telling us in the introduction that historically Jews and Arabs had been getting along famously. We might wonder how that is imagined to have happened if there were hardly any Jews there to get along with?

Historians largely say the best guess at populations in 1900 Palestine are not possible, and largely inaccurate. The closest commitment they make is to sate there was a significant Arab majority, but also that the Jewish population was by far the most significant minority in the region. Enough so that it is well agreed, even by anti-Zionist pro-Arab sources that the city of Jerusalem itself has had a Jewish majority since the very late 1800's.

So, the video has started by lying about the basic facts of how many Jews where in Palestine when the conflicts started, and about their willingness to accept a rather reasonable partition of the country. Useful answers and insights aren't likely forthcoming from a source like that.

The Kinect apparently works by projecting an array of points into the room with the IR emitter, which is then captured by two cameras with a known spatial separation, and this data is used to estimate the 3d space. adding more cameras will not do much, since the IR projection casts shadows. Apparently the Kinect is already quite sensitive to environmental disruptions (sunlight being the most obvious example), so trying to narrow down the wavelengths used would probably just make things worse. A better idea might be to double the framerate of the cameras and sync up two emitters so only one is projecting at a time. I don't know if the hardware is capable of that, depends on the sensitivity of the cameras and the strength of the IR emitter.

>> ^grinter:

>> ^Croccydile:
>> ^grinter:
Multiple cameras, and you have something pretty cool.
..somehow, I have the feeling that the porn industry will be quick to jump on this.

I think it was stated by one of these guys that multiple cameras is not possible yet because of the IR beam it projects. Adding in a second or third Kinect would disrupt the first one.
Either way, this is a fascinating piece of hardware despite the $150 price tag being a bit steep. However, to hardware hackers this is an insane bargain and a dream.

This video is the only information I have about Kinect or the 3D video scheme this guy has setup; so, take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I don't see how multiple cameras would interfere at all with the 3D mapping. As for multiple Kinects, it seems like you would just need to partition the IR bandwidth between the various devices -- that is if IR light sources with high enough chroma and IR sensors with narrow enough specificity for that exist.

>> ^Croccydile:

>> ^grinter:
Multiple cameras, and you have something pretty cool.
..somehow, I have the feeling that the porn industry will be quick to jump on this.

I think it was stated by one of these guys that multiple cameras is not possible yet because of the IR beam it projects. Adding in a second or third Kinect would disrupt the first one.
Either way, this is a fascinating piece of hardware despite the $150 price tag being a bit steep. However, to hardware hackers this is an insane bargain and a dream.

This video is the only information I have about Kinect or the 3D video scheme this guy has setup; so, take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I don't see how multiple cameras would interfere at all with the 3D mapping. As for multiple Kinects, it seems like you would just need to partition the IR bandwidth between the various devices -- that is if IR light sources with high enough chroma and IR sensors with narrow enough specificity for that exist.

Have you tried the password reset utility on the UBCD? Another/better option if you have access to a WinXP Pro OEM CD is to just do a fresh install from that rather than from the recovery partition because you'll get a clean install without all of the crapware that comes with it from the factory.

I never use "my documents", I prefer to put my files in directories on a partition besides windows, then I can easily format my windows partition without losing anything.

There's a longer documentary of the partition here: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Day-India-Burned-The-India-Pakistan-Partition

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^Yogi:
I never understood how Holocaust Denial hurts anyone.

Whether he believes the holocaust actually happened or not, many in the middle east see it as an excuse to create a arbitrary nation with "stolen" land. They do not see it as a good enough reason to partition the land for the surviving victims of genocide. The actual creation of Israel is a bit more complex, but attitudes do not always share the subtleties of the issues involved.
People care what Ahmadinejad thinks because he controls very real military and political power, so his view of the legitimacy of Israel is a big issue. He sees the Jews as foreign occupiers operating under the guise of victimization, so he and many others would love to remove them by force. If he publicly claims that the holocaust never happened, without anyone contradicting him, then more people in that region may believe it and feel even more animosity towards Israel.
The goal, at least for the western powers, is to defuse the tensions between Israel and Arabs so they can coexist without war. Having a leader from one of the Arab countries going around claiming the Jews were never victimized only inflames the situation and makes conflict more likely.


So the short version of that answer is No Holocaust Denial hurts nobody.

Also the goal of Western Powers (US, Britain) has never been to defuse tensions or create an enduring peace between Israel and Arabs. It's been to block any sort of peace for the past 35 years. That's why it's called a Peace Process, because it's what we're engaged in, and it's never ending.

>> ^Yogi:
I never understood how Holocaust Denial hurts anyone.


Whether he believes the holocaust actually happened or not, many in the middle east see it as an excuse to create a arbitrary nation with "stolen" land. They do not see it as a good enough reason to partition the land for the surviving victims of genocide. The actual creation of Israel is a bit more complex, but attitudes do not always share the subtleties of the issues involved.

People care what Ahmadinejad thinks because he controls very real military and political power, so his view of the legitimacy of Israel is a big issue. He sees the Jews as foreign occupiers operating under the guise of victimization, so he and many others would love to remove them by force. If he publicly claims that the holocaust never happened, without anyone contradicting him, then more people in that region may believe it and feel even more animosity towards Israel.

The goal, at least for the western powers, is to defuse the tensions between Israel and Arabs so they can coexist without war. Having a leader from one of the Arab countries going around claiming the Jews were never victimized only inflames the situation and makes conflict more likely.

EDD is right on with the vaccines; there is no debate.

well maybe there is some controversy amongst people who must partition their time evenly defending claims such as "Man never stepped on the Moon", "9-11 WAS an Inside Job", "The CIA let UFOs mutilate cows and abduct rednecks in exchange for cellphones, microchips and Playstation 3s" and other non-sense.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

James Madison,
President of the United States

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

The boundless scope of the general welfare clause was never the intentionality of it. It was confined to the powers granted by the other articles. There would be no limit to the power of this clause otherwise, you could justify anything. Seeking to empower government with inscrutable power will lead to disaster and oppression.

he must have had something like a prefrontal lobe disruption, an effect of this is that you think you feel a presence of somebody/thing nearby.
but more striking is that it can end up making you see greater meanings in seemingly insignificant things, sometimes all the way to hallucinations.
many of the most bizarre religious leaders/speakers have had this too.

he appears quite normal otherwise, but some slight malfunction/hemorraging back in the late 1980s seems to have had this mild but lasting effect.
i'm wondering if alex jones has something similar, but then there's some obvious differences..

what's surprising though is that they're very articulate and seemingly intelligent in other ways
(similar to how some scientists might happen to believe some contradictory religious babble).
partitioning of the so-called mind, from reason and logic.

My MBP is pretty awesome, though. It works like a charm. My MacBook Air can have the occasional minor hiccup here and there, but it, too, works to be expected: as an overpriced tiny laptop that surfs the web adequately.

On my MBP, I do most of my work as a programmer on the XP partition. I'm sorry, but there are a number of things you can do on a PC operating system you simply cannot do easily on the Mac OS. Even basic shit like... for instance, on a PC open a txt document and past in a YouTube embed code. Now save that txt document as an html file. Now open it in a browser. Alas, the video appears!

Now do the same thing on Mac. WTF!

>> ^longde:
The zionists/israelis have had nearly 100 years to get it right. They started in strife, maintain in strife, and this will likely end in strife. Only, we can now see the end of the road.
How do they end? Will they take the two-state option? Fade into the true demographics of the region (that they tried to social engineer)? Or use their nukes and take the german option?

When the UN passed the Partition Plan in 1947, the Jewish settlement in the soon-to-be-former British mandate had several reservations, but accepted the plan as a whole. The Palestinian leadership at the time opposed it. I fail to see how that made the Jews "start in strife".

Right after the British pulled out, Israel declared it's independence and was promptly invaded by all the surrounding nations in what we refer to today as the War of Independence.

As I already replied to geo321, all we want is to live in peace. Give us a plan that lets us stop fearing terrorists blowing up restaurants and buses, rockets fired from our neighbor and random militants kidnapping soldiers, and we'll take it without hesitation.

Anything that leaves any chance of one of those things happening is simply unacceptable.