I wouldn't say that it's a problem, it's just outside of the scope of this essay, which focuses on Arab armies:
"Examining Arab warfare in this century leads to the conclusion that the Arabs remain more successful in insurgent, or political, warfare — what T. E. Lawrence termed 'winning wars without battles.'"
All Israeli citizens have equal rights. You can gain citizenship if you have a Jewish background, just like someone with an Irish background can gain an Irish citizenship.
The statement was that all races have equal rights under Israeli law not that all citizens have equal rights. Furthermore, Ireland has a naturalization process whereas the Israeli one is limited to Jews and spouses of existing citizens. Residents of the West Bank and Gaza are NOT classified as citizens of Israel. So either the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel or they are not. If they are not, then the residents there are under occupation. If they are, then why are they not granted citizenship.
I do not think that what Israel is doing is better or worse than what other countries have done or are currently doing and should not be treated any better or worse because of it. But it would be disingenuous to spin it as anything but what it is. To me, the strategy is to occupy and take over territory over time. It works. See the history of the United States versus native people, Australians versus aborigines, Chinese versus Tibetans. Might makes right. For Americans, we still benefit greatly from what happened in the past. Its not to say that the Palestinians are blameless, just that Israel has the 'bigger gun' in this fight.
Say what you will about history, but how people are treated right now is telling.
Israel doesn't bomb buildings in the West Bank right now. They do demolish them randomly in retaliation, or because they need the space to build more Jewish-only roads and settlements, or... (Note that I do genuinely mean Jewish-only rather than Israeli-only here; non-Israeli Jews are allowed but Israeli Arabs aren't.) That's not to mention the odd state-sanctioned and IDF-protected terrorist attack by settlers on Arabs in the West Bank.
Nitpick: 'Israeli Arabs' aren't necessary non-Jewish; there are a number of Arab Jews throughout the middle east, and some of them are in Israel.
(Your point still stands, but people are unaware of the above often enough that I feel it's worth pointing out, because it emphasizes that the region is not as black-and-white as poltiics sometimes seem.)
The term "Israeli Arabs" in particular is something of a term of art, meaning roughly: people with Israeli citizenship who primarily identify themselves as Arabs. Jews originating in the Arab countries (the Mizrahi Jews) tend not to consider themselves Israeli Arabs, or be counted as such in censuses. Since Israel identifies itself as "the Jewish state", they identify with the majority Jewish population instead.
Whether Mizrahi Jews are Arabs in a more general sense ("Arab Jews") is a more complex question with more disagreement. My sense is that most don't identify as Arabs, at least not anymore, though a minority do. But they definitely don't, in general, identify with the term "Israeli Arab", which denotes a distinct socio-cultural group.
(It's probably worth noting, though, that many people who are counted as Israeli Arabs in that sense don't identify with the term either: a substantial number prefer other terms that incorporate a specifically Palestinian identity, such as "Palestinian citizen of Israel".)
This is a terrible suggestion. The age of crippled, stripped down mobile sites is long gone, and smartphone users expect full functionality on their phones. If that functionality can be provided with a responsive design, that's great. If they have to use the regular website and do some zooming and panning, that's a nuisance, but one with which users are familiar. It's certainly better than not having the feature available at all, or having to hunt for a link to disable the mobile layout.
I'm really tired of everyone talking in absolutes (also the overuse of the word terrible). The right answer is (almost) always "it depends".
It depends how critical that functionality is to the core value the site provides. It depends how appropriate it is to a mobile platform experience.
As a contrived example I'd probably be perfectly happy if I could only browse, read, and maybe vote on HN if the mobile experience of reading was significantly improved. I never want to write a comment from my phone, I hate typing on it. Not a great example since a textarea isn't complex and it's easy to add to a mobile layout, I just want to get across the point that not all interaction is appropriate or important on every platform.
This is why responsive design is hard, because doing it well means far more than just changing the layout, size and visibility of elements. It is a different interaction paradigm and generally will need to be treated as such to maintain a quality experience.
>As a contrived example I'd probably be perfectly happy if I could only browse, read, and maybe vote on HN if the mobile experience of reading was significantly improved. I never want to write a comment from my phone, I hate typing on it. Not a great example since a textarea isn't complex and it's easy to add to a mobile layout, I just want to get across the point that not all interaction is appropriate or important on every platform.
But you didn't get across the point, because your example isn't true. I want to post on HN from my phone; heck, I've posted on HN from my kindle before. I wouldn't give that up for all the optimized mobile design in the world.
Grandparent is right, an absolute is appropriate here. Provide all the functionality of your desktop site, or I won't use your mobile site.
This doesn't belong on hacker news, nor is it remotely accurate.
The Israeli defense budget is $15 billion dollars, and the American aid is $2.5 billion. The article is attempting to classify the Iraq war as aid to Israel, which is absurd.
It also falsely claims that Israel receives more aid than any other country. Pakistan receives slightly more, and Afghanistan receives 4 times as much.
These are mostly good, but I disagree with two of them:
1. Unless you're working on your own app, the client's needs should come first, not the user's. Ideally, those needs would be similar, but this is not always the case.
2. Progressive enhancement and unobtrusive javascript are ideal, but your client may have more important priorities.
No interface, the nipple included, is intuitive to 100% of people. When we talk about an interface being intuitive, we mean that it is intuitive for someone.
Mac programs feel intuitive to Mac users. Windows programs feel intuitive to Windows users. Any kind of software is more intuitive to those who have experience with computers than to those who don't.
When designing an interface, you need to know your users and make your interface intuitive to them.
It's not as feature rich as jsFiddle or JS Bin (it only allows editing the javascript, not HTML or CSS), but is different in that it's geared towards canvas animations and games. You can edit an init function that gets called at the beginning of an animation, but the rest of the code gets executed inside a draw loop, allowing you to modify code as the program is executing.
Another difference is that you can modify magic numbers in the code using a GUI. Selecting a number brings up a slider that allows you to change it, and selecting a color brings up a color picker.
"Examining Arab warfare in this century leads to the conclusion that the Arabs remain more successful in insurgent, or political, warfare — what T. E. Lawrence termed 'winning wars without battles.'"