|
Richard Deeming wrote: Well, one would be an unacceptably large number.
Not really, no. You are always going to get variation in a population and there are always going to be a proportion of "bad actors", that is unavoidable. There will always be Christians that support paedophilia, Irish that support paramilitary action, no-one is saying the number of bad actors should be zero, that's just another straw-man argument the left cling to, Muslim terrorist apologisers constantly harping on about paedophiles, Irish terrorists and the Crusades as if the fact that 1% of the population are paedophiles means that 25-50% of Muslims supporting terror is no big deal.
It's not the fact that there *are* Muslim sympathisers, it's the fact that there are *so many*. Why are Muslims so disproportionately sympathetic toward violence in the name of religion? Why are they so disproportionately against homosexuals? Why are they so disproportionately in favour of violence, subjugation, intolerance and hatred? There is surely only one answer? What is the common denominator amongst this group? The religion they follow, a religion that preaches hatred and intolerance. Do the maths, it's not that hard.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: as if the fact that 1% of the population are paedophiles means that 25-50% of Muslims supporting terror is no big deal.
You're missing the point.
A small number of Christians are paedophiles.
Whenever a "paedophile priest" story comes out, nobody jumps on their soapbox to denounce all Christians as child-molesting scumbags.
You don't get Christians being stopped in the street and asked, "how many of you people support paedophillia?"
You don't get people suggesting we round up all the Christians and deport them to Vatican City, where they can get on with their choir-boy-bum-fest without bothering decent people like us.
You just get straight condemnation of the criminals, and those involved in covering up the crime.
Compare and contrast:
A small number of Muslims are terrorists.
When a Muslim commits a terrorist attack, lots of people start loudly claiming that all Muslims, or at least the majority of them, are terrorists, or supporters of terrorism.
Reporters and pollsters randomly stop anyone who looks a bit Muslim-y to ask them whether they support terrorism.
Any poll of Muslims that shows less than 100% condemnation of terrorism is taken as "proof" that they're all out to get you.
Xenophobic idiots start suggesting we "send them all back", even when the attacker was born in the country where the attack took place.
Reminding people that Muslims are human beings too, that the majority are not terrorists, and the majority do not support terrorism, is unfortunately still necessary.
That doesn't mean that the "apologists" are any less appalled by the crime than you are, or are trying to come up with excuses for the terrorists' behaviour.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Whenever a "paedophile priest" story comes out, nobody jumps on their soapbox to denounce all Christians as child-molesting scumbags.
They don't have to because everyone denounces that behaviour and everyone speaks out against it. It is made abundantly clear that such behaviour is not acceptable and won't be tolerated. Contrast that with the current threat of Islam where there is never any real condemnation, coupled with the fact that sane people accept that many of these Muslims actually support these attacks. That's why Muslims get more grief. There is always going to be "lone wolf" nutters, you can't stop them, but when a priest or teacher turns out to be a paedophile it is probably because they always were one and that drew them to careers that brought them in contact with vulnerable children. Here we have an ideology who is all about hate and it is teaching that hate, spreading it. That's the difference. As much as we have to simply tolerate your Jimmy Savils, your Breviks etc as there will also be evil people in the world, here we have a religion actively spreading hate to people who probably wouldn't otherwise be hateful and intolerant. Why do 5% of Western people think homosexuality is wrong yet 50% of Muslims do? Because the Muslims are taught it actively and aggressively, and they will continue to do so when people like yourself turn a blind eye for fear of offending or appearing Islamophobic.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: They don't have to because everyone denounces that behaviour and everyone speaks out against it.
That's not the point.
Everyone agrees the behaviour is unacceptable in both cases. But only in the "Muslim terrorist" case do people try to tar the entire group with the same brush.
People are able to condemn the priest who is a paedophile without claiming that all Christians/Catholics/priests are paedophiles.
So why do they find it impossible to condemn the Muslim who is a terrorist without claiming that all Muslims must be terrorists?
F-ES Sitecore wrote: Why do 5% of Western people think homosexuality is wrong yet 50% of Muslims do?
Because almost every religion teaches that.
How many Christians think homosexuality is wrong? I'm betting it's much higher than 5%.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Everyone agrees the behaviour is unacceptable in both cases.
I say again, a large percentage of Muslims agree with terrorism so it's not unacceptable in both cases, that's the whole point.
Richard Deeming wrote: Because almost every religion teaches that.
The Bible doesn't really preach against Homosexuality at all expect Leviticus which isn't instruction for the people. The Church now accepts gay priests, gay marriage etc (obviously not everyone in Christianity, no).
Richard Deeming wrote: How many Christians think homosexuality is wrong? I'm betting it's much higher than 5%.
Not that homosexuality is *wrong*, but that it should be *illegal*, that you should be punished for it. How many Christian think homosexuals should be tied to chairs and thrown to their death? 0%? Somewhere around there? Thinking something is wrong is fine, it takes all sorts, but thinking others should be punished because they do things you don't agree with is when it crosses the line and *that* is exactly what Islam preaches.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: despite many recent polls showing that many Muslims (all Muslims) sympathise with terrorist attacks and actually support them
Do you have any links to these recent polls?
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
I do but if I posted them people wouldn't simply try to discredit the poll rather than admit that it might be accurate, so I'll leave you to do your own googling.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that's me convinced.
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
You've already made up your mind and nothing will convince you so I'm just saving myself a lot of wasted time 
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to base my opinions on information and you're yet to share any.
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd quit while you're ahead - you appear to have found one of 'the crowd' who's prepared to believe what the Daily Mail tells him over what is fact and common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't want to diminish what those affected by this is going through but this was fairly minor.
The response this event got is blown out of proportion. Mostly I mean social media. My facebook feed was quite annoying as well as what was published on my favourite meme app.
That the news focus on this I can accept but the way a lot of people reacted? I mean not even 24 hours earlier US-led coalition jet bombs school and killed at least 33 civilians? Shouldn't that be considered terror?
I'm crossing the line of politics here so I'll quit. My little rant is mostly about social medias reaction. For people close or affected this is a horrific event.
But overall for UK citizens their potential fear should be way lower than when IRA was active.
Sometimes I really dislike our connected world. I need a bubble.
|
|
|
|
|
Sad! No one is safe anywhere.
Knife control, we need knife control!
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
In the hands of a Ninja everything becomes a deadly weapon.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
You are very wise grasshopper.
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
Well exactly.
If the guy had access to guns, the death toll would have been a lot higher.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh here we go again... [^Sending Prayers] .. that's what they need after a crime caused by religion.
|
|
|
|
|
Garth J Lancaster wrote: lone knifeman
Well, he had a car, too.
|
|
|
|
|
And apparently up to 8 people assisting him..
Birmingham flat police raid linked to Westminster attack - BBC News
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, at least the last known bug. I have been refactoring the baseclasses of my UI so that less code needs to be written and adapted both the demo for the article and my game client. Of course some bugs emerged and some of them were not easy to find.
Here is a screenshot from the game client[^]. Transparency did not work correctly in the game client while the demo had no problems at all. It turned out that drawing onto the 3D scene in the background required to clear the background buffer. Why? No idea. The 3D scene fills the entire background, so clearing should not be required, but transparent UI elements will fill with artifacts if the buffer is not cleared each frame.
And the remaining bug? That's another strange one. Text is used everywhere and rendered correctly - except in the caption bar of the form. It's actually the same code that does the drawing, so it's another mystery why only a few letters appear and the rest remains invisible. And again the demo program has no such problems.
Eventually I'm going to find the reason for this one too, so I leave it to interested readers to come up with unit tests that work for this kind of bugs. 
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
THE LAST BUG
(unknown)
"But you're out of your mind,"
They said with a shrug.
"The customer's happy;
What's one little bug?"
But he was determined.
The others went home.
He spread out the program,
Deserted, alone.
The cleaning men came,
The whole room was cluttered
With memory-dumps, punch cards.
"I'm close," he muttered.
The mumbling got louder,
Simple deduction,
"I've got it, it's right,
Just change one instruction."
It still wasn't perfect,
As year followed year,
And strangers would comment,
"Is that guy still here?"
He died at the console,
Of hunger and thirst.
Next day he was buried,
Face down, nine-edge first.
And the last bug in sight,
An ant passing by,
Saluted his tombstone,
And whispered, "Nice try."
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: transparent UI elements will fill with artifacts if the buffer is not cleared each frame
Does the "clearing" by chance does not affect the alpha channel ?
|
|
|
|
|
The 3D scene is rendered in the background before the UI is rendered. The pixels (RGBA) in the buffer should be overwritten. The depth buffer may have something to do with it, but the 3D stuff and controls were rendered normally. Only transparent controls had this problem. The last candidate may be the stencil buffer, which I don't really use, but I do clip child controls to the bounds of the parent control. That could indirectly set a mask in the stencil buffer.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: That could indirectly set a mask in the stencil buffer.
If this was it, then a simple 0 SetMask would have solved it... is probably more tricky ! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
