Content Deddy - HWzone Forums
Skip to content
  • Create an account


registered user
  • Number of messages

  • Join

  • Recently visited

Posts opened by Deddy

  1. I am now keen on the Hotbox and TP-LINK TL-WR841N, but I moved in a few months ago and have had annoying disconnections every so long.

    I decided to try to move to Bezeq *, from what I understood from their sales, they sell a modem + router if I want, but if not I have to buy a modem myself, because they do not supply a modem alone. I don't believe in the equipment of these companies, so what kind of router should you buy that can also be used as a modem for Bezeq?


    The house is pretty small, so you don't need mesh or ripples or anything special, a regular router should cover the whole apartment, just need to support Bezeq connection


    * Unlimited for some reason come to my whole street, and even to the same building number of mine at entrance A but not at entrance B where I am ... so for now I have no choice, and I did not find out what is needed for them, but it would be great if I did not have to buy more A modem for them if they ever stretch their line another ten feet to me.


    And budget? I do not know, if 200 shekels will be enough to buy something good, then great, if you need 500, also round, but more than that only if there really is a significant reason to upgrade.



  2. Does anyone have a greasemonkey plugin / script that will make YouTube not start auto-play? I currently use the tubestop but in many videos it beats the video, the audio starts working alone and the video can not be started.


    It's amazing that even when they imagine that they are enlisting, they can not simply enlist, they must enlist and start imposing their religion on everyone around them, and that's when they still imagine it?

    They can not simply live, coercion just seems so natural to them ... as if there is no other way in the world, as if it is impossible for a person to live and not be preoccupied with what the person sitting next to him does.

    I would not have believed if I had not seen it myself.

  4. Roni, I do not know which rabbi stuck you in the head Reforms are eating non-kosher The Rebbe eats shrimp in the middle of Yom Kippur while ordering pizza with pepperoni for Passover (why does he order pizza half a year in advance? : Lol: ) But that's just not true.

    Of course, there are those who consider themselves Reform Jews and do not eat kosher, but it is no different from the fact that I consider myself a Jew and I do not eat kosher. In general, the Reforms certainly did not "erase" Judaism.

  5. With your permission, I will skip the quotes altogether and just briefly address the three main issues you raised:

    Happy, but it's more convenient to keep quoting, if you don't mind.

    Forced recruitment of ultra-Orthodox soldiers - do you volunteer to be their commander? I did not, and I set out to command soldiers. It is not enough to recruit them and call them soldiers - they must also function as required. Remember, this is a population whose people prefer to go to jail than stop racial segregation in school. Stronger sanctions are needed.

    If the army is difficult to command these soldiers have two options - one is to use the penalties that already exist in military jurisdiction - and just to judge any soldier who violates an order, the second is that the army will give up the ultra-orthodox / Arabs and release them - both are possible options, but if the army decides to go He has no reason to complain about the second option for the ultra-Orthodox and the Arabs. They do not evade - the army gave them a completely legal solution, if the army wants to recruit them is welcome, if he prefers not, he is also welcome, but will not complain afterwards, who will not act like an 4 boy who cries that he is hungry but refuses to eat everything there is At home.

    The state that supposedly does not want them to serve - the story is very simple: the state chose not to charge populations that do not feel the state should belong to the force, but "on a voluntary basis". All that the proposed law says is that those who do not feel belong to the state, do not belong to its leadership either.

    To do this, there is another way - to oblige any citizen in military service or to give up his or her citizenship in favor of abolishing military service. Too extreme for my liking, but possible, a person who decides to declare that he is not part of the state will not be able to contribute his service to the state, because if he does not belong to the state then the state cannot ask him for three years for her, and "in return" he will give up his rights to be a citizen - Like the right to be elected. That way no one will be obliged to belong to power.

    Punishment without offense - I used the word "punishment" in the discussion with Yoav for a common language, but I don't even think that is the correct terminology. This can only be considered a "punishment" if one assumes as an axiom that the right to run for elections is a "natural" right granted automatically to every citizen, and then its denial is indeed a punishment. Although automatic granting is indeed the case today, who said it was a necessity? are you? Yoav? Who invented the word "democracy"?

    In the world of terms I speak of, punishment is any sanction imposed on a person. Even if the right to be elected is not a natural right, its still a sanction that you apply to the person for doing (or not doing). You are actually telling him - because you did not do X and although you do not have to do it at all, you must not Y, no matter what Y is, whether it is a natural right or not.

    And although I said I would only refer to three points, I would refer to another matter you mentioned, simply as the framework for all your thinking: The story of the Norwegian rapist (who, by the way, is not entirely fictional - was recently a case of a Muslim immigrant, though in Australia and not Norway, who was tried for rape and mitigated his punishment for exactly the reasons (I mentioned) deliberately demonstrates the absurd outcome of your way of thinking about a conflict of interest - the public's interest in avoiding a situation where free-spirited rapists are required and the "presumption of innocence" where (among other things) a person should not be arrested without having a law against his actions. This is exactly the problem in your way of thinking - you would rather "keep the law" than protect the public, and completely forget that the purpose of the law (any law) in the first place is to protect the public and nothing else. You have come to the point where maintaining a certain abstract concept is more important to you than providing the public with what that concept is supposed to achieve.

    There is a very basic principle in democracy (which you may not agree with? Because that's what I happen between your lines, correct me if I was wrong) that says "anything is not allowed -" this principle is reflected in the penal code that his first paragraph says " There is no offense and no punishment for it unless prescribed by law. " As long as the law has not been transgressed - you are entitled in every respect.

    This is one of the biggest fabrications between democracy and dictatorship - in democracy one can do Everything These are if he has violated a certain law, dictatorship going from an assumed point of view - these are then allowed. And beautifully - this is the opposite of the state - to a public body the rule works exactly the opposite - "Whatever is not allowed - prohibited" If the state authority does not have a law that allows it to take any action - it is not allowed.

    If the public is harmed by an act a person does - there is a gap in the law that must be closed immediately, until then - all that is not allowed - is allowed.

  6. You have to learn to break the quotes .. uncomfortable reading like that and less comfortable responding ..

    You didn't say otherwise, but you seem to be against any method designed to bring about this situation.

    Why not? Here's a great way to get everyone in a position to enlist - to get everyone enlisted.

    After you do that, I can even get you a method to make it no more "dodgy" - the method is very simple, the military has to do it to recruit everyone - and lo, you have solved the "evasion" problem.

    Of course this will not happen, because there is no such thing as dodging. Any "dodger" actually got a completely legal exemption from military service, if the military wants to stop this problem it should simply stop distributing these exemptions.

    But who said the punishment must be in the form of imprisonment?

    Not a must, but to punish you must first establish that the act is illegal, only then the punishment comes, and then it can be discussed what the punishment is worth.

    Ultra-Orthodox do indeed choose to be ultra-Orthodox (at least from the moment they can make decisions on their own), and in any case they both choose not to perform national service - unless you intend to claim that someone born to an Arab / ultra-Orthodox family does such a service by birth to an Arab / ultra-orthodox family. . If you think that reinforces your argument, then you have a difficult problem with logic.

    But both did not choose the state to tell them that they did not want them to serve (the ultra-Orthodox is less prominent because he had to come and declare he was a student), and both grew up in an environment where the natural route does not include military service, if you think this is a problem, then I agree with you, the solution To this problem? Recruit them.

    If so, then a man growing up in a women's rag should not be forced to treat a woman with dignity ... And if I came to Norway from a country where non-Muslims are allowed to rape, I shouldn't be forced not to rape them, right? For some reason, I actually hold that the public, through its elected officials, has the right to impose certain social and moral norms on the individual, even if it comes from a different culture.

    right. So the solution to the problem is to enact a law that requires everyone in military service. If a person grows up in a culture where it's socially acceptable to rape, and comes to Norway and Norway is such an advanced country that they didn't even think possible rape so they just never enacted a rape law, you can't punish that person even though he did an unorthodox act In Norway. (Of course, Norway has an anti-rape law so there shouldn't be such a problem).

    There is no civic or moral obligation to submit homework. Besides, suppose the law does not apply retroactively, but only to those who are currently recruiting and below - so will the law be OK for you? In addition, remember that there were acts that were retroactively defined as crimes, or that the punishment for them was retroactively exacerbated. If the lecturer said at the beginning of the course that the lessons are worth 5 points and at the end announces that they are worth 20, I am sure the students who did not submit will be resentful - but I doubt you will get an excuse from a criminal whose offense entitles him to a penalty of 20 a year, .

    For the law to be OK for me, the law must state that every citizen in the state Must be recruited, and punished? Well, there is no need for punishment, because every citizen that the IDF recruits will enlist, and a citizen whose IDF decides he does not want to recruit for any reason - the citizen should not be punished for not wanting to recruit him.

    Or in a suspected trial like anyone asked, even though I have said this sentence here already - to punish a citizen of a democratic state on the state to prove that the sentenced citizen has violated some law, not passed any law? There is no excuse in the world that will convince me that it is permissible to punish him with no penalty - not even a shekel fine. Has the state been able to prove that it has passed a certain law? Tafadal, in violation of the law, deserves to be punished according to the law. Right now what this law is proposing is to punish those who have not broken the law - which is at least not my BIG NO NO values.

  7. Who will decide the justified cause? And in order to decide whether the cause is justified or not, there is a need to disclose the medical or mental file of a particular person. A woman who was raped during the army and released on mental illness (a real case) will definitely not agree that her medical file will be revealed to the public just because she wants to be elected to the Knesset.

    There is no such thing as an unjustified reason, it is a fiction. The whole idea behind this law is that people think that Yisrael Beiteinu does a lot, just like the law to prevent noise from mosques - another fiction. It's a shame that a party in the Knesset is so preoccupied with the work of legislation in a fictional manner, instead of working to really deal with problems in the country. But that's what brings them the sounds that work like this.

    Again, the question is completely ignored: Why is it permissible to rob the right to freedom (and put a person in prison), but not the right to be elected?

    Then a law will be enacted obligating all citizens to serve in the army, until then you can not punish those who are not criminals.

  8. To say it's not a noise until tomorrow, should I care? I'm supposed to be excited because he said it's not noise?

    And if they act like little kids then they act like little kids .. What do I care? As long as the police do not treat them like little children and start enforcing the law the way they should behave as little children as they should - but they will be punished like big children.

  9. And more about how there are restrictions on the right to be elected. Can a prisoner be elected?

    After he ends his imprisonment, yes.

    Can a person fleeing the law be elected?

    After he wants his sentence, yes.

    Can a person convicted of certain offenses be selected (at least for a certain period after his conviction)?

    If it is not determined that there is a disgrace in the offense he has committed he can be elected, if it is determined that there is no disgrace.

    Does the way of movement continue so can it be chosen?

    What does it mean to continue this movement? Someone who was like that? Yes. Anyone who says we are the new movement so its goals are our goals? No.

    Is a member of a hostile organization or auxiliary able to choose?

    If that can be proven then no, at least not until after he has finished serving his sentence, regardless of whether he is upset or not.

    And another small thing: I do not know the opinion of all elected officials on democracy, my own opinion, yes ... It is enough to rape democracy. There are three main groups that are unwilling to do military or national service:

    A. The Arabs (for the most part), even if it is a national service in their communities and for their own benefit, since in their view it is a collaboration with the "Zionist entity".

    B. The ultra-Orthodox (for the most part), for a reason similar to the Arabs or unwilling to expose their young people to a world outside of religion.

    third. The extreme left, who does not believe in the concept of "state" in the common sense, probably does not "state of Israel".

    Unsurprisingly, the three groups mentioned above despise democracy equally (they want Muslim dictatorship, they want Jewish dictatorship, and the latter want European dictatorship or there is no central government at all).

    What you are actually suggesting is to punish a person who has never been tried and never violated any law. And not just a punishment, you state that he does not deserve basic civil rights.

  10. 28 medical profile for example.

    There are many justifiable medical reasons that a person cannot serve, in this case a lot of volunteers or do national service, but let's just say I wouldn't go small if a person for some medical reason is not recruited.

    And I'm not talking about those who spend 21 mentally because they don't deserve to .

    And what is an unjustified reason?
  11. So I can give you laws whose motives were supposedly pure (such as affirmative discrimination) but led to the opposite result (increasing discrimination, etc.) - do you judge a law by its motives or by its actual results? You will be very surprised at the many differences you will find between the two test methods.

    You didn't ask me, but I hope you don't mind me answering.

    A law should judge by a few things and the motive behind it is one of them, in addition, a law should be judged by whether this law solves the problem that it came to solve and whether the problem can be solved in less extreme ways.

    The law failed in all of the above.

    I've said a few times here, There is already a law prohibiting the making of unreasonable noise. There is no need for another law, another law will not solve the problem, the only thing he can do is create a provocation.

    Besides, almost all the Western countries (Europe and the US) limit the volume or prohibit the use of public address systems at certain hours!

    Almost all Arab countries have synchronized reading and restricting volume.

    Even in Mecca, Saudi Arabia there is a limit on the volume that mosques are allowed to produce! In Mecca !!! The Holy of Holies of Islam - a restrictive name.

    Not only in Mecca and the US!

    Even without this law, the mosque must not make a noise !!!

    But in Israel it is a violation of religion, the persecution of a fascist rightist woman and a provocation.

    Yes, when trying to do provocation it is provocation, when working to solve a problem solves it, for example with the help of the noise regulation amendment. In provocations you will never be able to solve the problem.

    A wonderful example of circular reasoning: The laws proposed by "Israel our home" are racist (and not, God forbid, matter) because they are racist, while those who are racist because here, they propose racist laws.

    Soaking Our house is racist because they take a problem and instead solve it in press releases about how the Arabs like this and come and enact a law that would prohibit them from doing so and so, without noticing that the law that solves the problem has been around for years and somehow managed to legislate it without making a mess on mosques.

  12. It's not persecution or racism, it's a provocateur who knows it's good for her to win a fight with Arabs.

    The existing law already prohibits excessive noise, she knows it, but if she does not send a press release about some of these terrible mosques and with her beautiful picture against the backdrop of a mosque she will not get a newspaper headline.

    There is already a law against noise in the country, the police should begin to exercise its authority. This is nothing more than that. All she does is a small, miserable provocation that begins to do her job instead of worrying about the headline that will make her small and disgusting (but give her points with her voters because she went against these Arabs).

    Oh, and by the way, I do not know if you were in Tel Aviv, but every Friday the Bratslavs arrive with their loudspeaker equipped with loudspeakers for events to every hole in the city and play their horrific music, every time the car stops they also unload to dance on the road, Dear Jews, It's funny the first time you see it (especially the part they unload at the stop - jumping out faster than I would have been unloaded from a storm on the line), but it's both noise and delaying movement. And of course there are also sirens in some cities in Israel, so yes - even non-innocent Jews on the issue of noise.

    What is the solution? Let the police begin to work. Because if they do not stop the mosque, which makes more noise than is permitted by law, they will not arrest him afterwards either, and certainly not stop the Bratslav who makes a noise, because his is not a place of prayer, so he only violates the existing laws, Provocation wants to move so at all there is no situation that something will change.

  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site