Slashdot Mirror

Gee, I was just reading and watching on the boob PBS's detailed look at Osama here. If you really read between the lines at things that the people who are bin Laden's supporters and the US gov't's, I really get the idea that the US gov't is full of shit. I definately get the impression that in general the long term goals of the US are to drain the worlds oil reserves, sit on our own supply until that time, and in the meantime deprive it's citizens of these little favored ammendment rights. Basically to control our freedoms. Let the cows continue to work and allow Big business to rule. Keep the poor poorer and the rich get richer. Look at this way, in a very longview: The US has immediate oil needs (ala 1920's) to become a major world power. The middle east is in a state of flux after finally throwing off the shackles of British colonialism. Look at Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Salon review) by Ahmed Rashid in the first couple of chapters for that. This benefits the aims of the US to become a major super power. So cold war comes, advances the US as the average Joe needs something to fear (other than his gov't) and is more productive, as evidence by WWI & II. So the cold war ends and one of the major collapses of the enemy is the Soviet Union puts its big foot in the wrong place (Afghanistan) & the Muslim community kick the shit out of em. See the book & the site for more about that. So the 90's comes along & this whole oil thing is basically the big stupid US gov't wanting oil and pissing arabs off. Sadam was a retard. Muslim groups believed they could wipe the ground with Saddam. But we step in with our interests in oil (and in oil only.) And squash Saddam, but don't kill him. Why you ask? Look at a map. Iraq separates some of the major Muslim nations from each other. By keeping him in power we control the area indirectly. If we controlled it directly (we squashed Saddam and setup a puppet gov't) the Muslims would of been pissed and probably would of kicked us out. But instead we leave him in power. Keep a base of operations in Kuwait and there's your oil. Safe and secure. So we fast forward Muslims get pissed because we walk all over them, fund their corrupt leaders which makes it unfeasible for them to be overthrown. And basically they continue to get pissed off at Americans. They make threats, we don't respond. So they blow shit up. (Only the really pissed people.) This makes one guy who wants to be a leader, a leader. Because the most powerful nation in the world's president just mentioned his name 3 times on television. Now he does more and more to get attention. Meanwhile the US gov't just corrupt's what he does and says. Doesn't tell the truth. And basically Osama becomes the next boogeyman. "You can't use encryption because Osama will get you." "We have to have cameras with face recognition everywhere cause Osa will get you if we don't." It just continues and continues. Well the US finally declares war on old Osama and you know what? Much like most of the experts on CNN tell you, there's another Osama waiting to take his place. Well the next guy is Muhammed and the next is Ackmed and you know what? We live in safe society. Because the gov't tells us what to think, what to eat, where to go, what to do. And if we don't, they'll know. And then they'll send Osama to come get you.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't keep it at home, so it's probably in some bank account.

I read this frontline piece on the internet about Osama Bin Laden. It's really good, and it's the number one hit on google when you search for the name. It explains that he doesn't like to keep his money in banks. I believe the information on the bank thing is on one of the bio portions of the main site, but the interview story is the best. The last line is his quote from after the cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan: "The war has just started. The Americans should wait for the answer." It's chilling. I think that this guy did do this thing.

PBS Frontline nterview story with bin Laden

Main site for PBS Frontline piece on bin Laden

My personal thinking on this is that the Taliban may end up handing him over shortly. However, I'm not sure that's going to settle this debt.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't keep it at home, so it's probably in some bank account.

I read this frontline piece on the internet about Osama Bin Laden. It's really good, and it's the number one hit on google when you search for the name. It explains that he doesn't like to keep his money in banks. I believe the information on the bank thing is on one of the bio portions of the main site, but the interview story is the best. The last line is his quote from after the cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan: "The war has just started. The Americans should wait for the answer." It's chilling. I think that this guy did do this thing.

PBS Frontline nterview story with bin Laden

Main site for PBS Frontline piece on bin Laden

My personal thinking on this is that the Taliban may end up handing him over shortly. However, I'm not sure that's going to settle this debt.

the discussions on these pages has been eye opening. i hope that if anything i have learned to trust even less the american media and the actions of our government. from responses of anonymous cowards (no disrespect intended) to my own searches for information, i compiled this short list of links detailing some of the things our government does which gets VERY little attention by our media.

the effects of the iraqi embargo

two page bio of bin Laden from pbs.org

one discussion thread on this page discussing increasing American globalization

another thread on this page discussing US export of arms

please note i in no way whatsoever condone these attacks or terrorist acts of any kind. i just hope americans can wake up to the wool over their eyes when in comes to our foreign policies.

-sam

i found a MUCH more detailed and probably more impartial bio on pbs.org.

in short, he forewarned Saudi of Saddam's invasions and offered the forces he had lead in Afghanistan to repel them, but instead found that the United States was coming to his country. with a degree in economics he could plainly see that the US was there to stay.

-sam

Here's a Frontline interview with Bin Laden (from May 1998).

Everyone,

As is often the case, the Economist seems to have the best story: America under Attack

Also see The Economist front page

Stratfor provides interesting and more complete analysis.

Lax Security One of the important points made in the article is that security in U.S. airports and on U.S. airplanes before the bombing was lax compared to the security in Europe.

George Bush had Increased Support for Israel. The Economist article does not mention that the Bush Administration in the U.S. had recently increased its support for the Israeli government and therefore also Israeli violence. The Clinton administration, in contrast, was more careful not to do things which could be interpreted as an incitement to violence.

Once again, intelligence agencies were useless. It is amazing to me that "intelligence" authorities claim that they did not have any idea that there would be an attack like this. Below is a link to an album cover from a band called "The Coup". It is black American "Party Music". The album was sold long before today's bombing. The album cover shows both towers of the World Trade Center in New York in flames:

The Coup -- Party Music, album cover shows the World Trade Center towers burning.

If black rap artists can have this idea, why didn't the intelligence agencies have it? The idea was not particularly innovative, since the World Trade Center had already been bombed once. Did the intelligence agencies think that those who did it would just stop trying?

From one of the Stratfor articles: "Reuters is reporting that Arabic satellite television channel MBC warned Sept. 8 that followers of suspected Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden were planning a major attack on U.S. and Israeli interests in the next two weeks."

Violence is Assumed. Commentators on three of the largest U.S. TV networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC, have made comments that assume without debate that the U.S. will engage in military action in retaliation. One U.S. senator said on TV that the U.S. response should be comparable to the U.S. response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. One of the U.S. responses at the time of Pearl Harbor was to be the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons. Is the senator suggesting that?

This is my reply to the many people who are recommending violence as an answer to violence:

Do you have any thought that violence in retaliation might be a mistake, and might just invite further violence? Those who say no may change their minds after they consider the following issues:

The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer. The U.S. government killed 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and maybe 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed were in any way directly threatening the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, friends and families and wives.

Most of the citizens of the U.S. had, and have, no idea of the beliefs of the people that their government killed. Most people in the U.S. cannot even locate the countries the U.S. government bombed on a map of the world. People cannot be thought to have chosen violence when they do not come close to understanding the issues. It is often the government that chooses violence, not the people.

No matter how violent a country is, or how many people a violent country kills, there is still an inexhaustible supply of people in other countries who also want to engage in violence. Violence can be unending. Do you want that?

No matter how angry you are, there are thousands of people who are more angry than you. Do you want them to attack you?

As was mentioned above, the Bush administration recently increased U.S. support for the violence of the Israelis. This was sure to make the people being killed by the Israelis unhappy. Do you find it surprising that some of them are motivated to violence also?

There are many countries where people are severely distressed by Israeli violence. Recently there was a TV news story about street violence in which Israelis were killed. The Israeli counter-attack was shown on TV: A helicopter fired rockets at a building, causing huge explosions. It is not important in this instance whether the Israelis are the aggressors. What is important is that a significant number of people in the world think they are the aggressors.

The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for 3,300 years. The Jews say that they are the "chosen people" of God. The Jews say that Arabs are descended from an illegitimate child of their tribal founder, Abraham, and a slave girl.

It is not difficult to understand the thoughts of the Arabs. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live next to a group of people who claim that they are superior, and that Arabs are inferior. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live near people who claim that you are a descendent of a bastard and that God doesn't like you as much.

It is also not difficult to understand that the constant claims of the Jews of superiority over everyone else (including people of European descent like me) are mentally de-centering to Arabs who happen to be psychologically conflicted.

Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people. Mentally de-centered people engage in violence. It's that simple. Being violent toward them makes mentally de-centered people even more mentally de-centered. That's why violence is not a good answer to violence.

The U.S., and all those who hate violence, should take very strong action. But the action must be designed to cure the problem of highly-conflicted, mentally de-centered people. Whatever that response is, it must be more sophisticated than violence.

The terrorists are extreme examples of mentally disturbed people. Remember that those who crashed airplanes into the buildings cannot possibly benefit from their own actions. They are dead. Someone who is willing to commit suicide is about as mentally de-centered as it is possible to be.

Does the U.S. really have a place in a dispute that began 3,100 years before the founding of the country? How many people here really understand this dispute? What percentage of the citizens of the U.S. can even find Israel on a map of the world? I think the percentage is low.

I find the arrogance of my Jewish friends annoying, too. However, there are many differences between myself and the terrorists. I am less conflicted. I am better educated. It doesn't matter to me what other people have been saying for thousands of years; I don't believe Jews actually are superior. I don't live in an area where I am at risk of being killed by Israelis. I am not Arab, so I am not the target of the strongest claims of Jews that they are superior.

I can also understand why Jews would find Arabs annoying. There is an element of the Arab culture that allows Arabs to think that lies are sometimes acceptable. My Arab friends have sometimes lied to me over trivial issues. To someone who values careful thought, lies are extremely repugnant.

Should we be giving Israel money when that will be seen as us a choosing to enter a 3,300 year-old conflict? The U.S. government gives billions of dollars every year to Israel. If anything, this money seems to have made Israel weaker. The Israelis have spent money they didn't earn; this is always a corrupting influence; they have had problems with inflation. It can hardly be said that the people of the U.S. give the money; most have no idea that money is going to Israel. So, the people pay the money, but the government gives it away. Rightly or wrongly, sensibly or crazily, the Arabs see this money as encouragement of Israel's violence toward them.

On this particular issue both cultures are crazy! They've been killing each other since the time of the Pharaohs! What does this have to do with the U.S.? Do we walk into bars and take part in any fight that is happening there?

The U.S. has a history of secret interference with the governments of other countries. We often hear about secret activities of the U.S. government after it is too late to object. The U.S. supported the killing of president Mossadegh of Iran, and then supported an extremely weak man, the Shah of Iran. (See Iran 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings) [thirdworldtraveler.com], for example.) This provoked a revolution in Iran that was hostile to the United States. Citizens of the U.S. were kept hostage.

The U.S. secret agencies' secret answer to the anti-U.S. sentiment was to support Saddam Hussein of Iraq against Iran. We supported Saddam Hussein's violent war against Iran. However, when Saddam Hussein became violent toward another country in the region, we spent billions of dollars to kill an estimated 150,000 Iraqis and destroy their property.

When executives do things openly they make lots of mistakes, and are sometimes held accountable, usually in a very peaceful way, and usually by their own staffs. When executives do things in secret, there is little accountability, and the mistakes can become huge.

Anyone interested in the activities of secret U.S. agencies may have been interested in a segment of the CBS show "60 Minutes" about the secret involvement of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the killing of Chilean General Rene Schneider. The show aired on Sunday, September 9, 2001. General Schneider was a strong supporter of democracy. Here are links to information about U.S. interference with democracy in Chile:

National Security Archive Chile Documentation Project [gwu.edu]

PBS News Hour: "... evidence of a policy to undermine democracy in Chile and to support dictatorship there" [pbs.org]

Hinchey Report, CIA Activities in Chile [state.gov]

Iran, Iraq, and Chile are just three of the countries that have suffered from secret U.S. involvement. There is some discussion of U.S. government interference in Saudi Arabia below. Also, don't forget Nicaragua. I asked someone who went to Nicaragua during U.S. involvement there whether it was possible to see the wealth that the U.S. government was pouring into that small country. The amount was said to be about $1,000,000 per day. I was told, no, there was no evidence of the money that was spent.

There is a cycle: 1) The U.S. government influences other governments in hidden ways, including arranging the killing of foreign leaders. 2) Some members of the countries with whom the U.S. has interfered want to retaliate violently to the violence of the U.S. 3) The U.S. uses the violent retaliation as a justification for more hidden activity.

Invading countries and killing the residents and destroying their property is not a way of relating I consider socially skilled. Why do the citizens of one country think they can kill the citizens of another? If killing is the answer, can't the U.S. ask a better question?

The interference in the affairs of other countries by the secret U.S. agencies has prompted some people to retaliate. These people who retaliate are called "terrorists" in the U.S. The terrorists make everyone in the U.S. less safe. So, U.S. citizens have, in some ways, gotten less security for the money they spent on secret activities.

The violent attitude toward people outside the U.S. has, predictably, spread to the internal police forces in the U.S. When some religious fanatics decided to do stupid things in Waco, Texas, the U.S. government responded by bringing in very violent-minded people. The result was that people were killed.

There were people who didn't like the activities of the U.S. police forces in Waco. There were people who were psychologically de-centered by these activities. One of them, Timothy McVeigh, bombed a U.S. government building in Oklahoma. So then the U.S. government killed him.

Secrecy encourages people not to trust. Violence encourages violence.

We tend to hear about the activities of secret U.S. government agencies about 30 years after they occur. What are they doing now?

It is 10:00 o'clock. Do you know what the U.S. government is doing? No, it is a fact that you don't. You don't know any other time, either. You cannot even know how much of your money is spent on secret activities, because the budget for secret U.S. government agencies is hidden in other appropriations.

Definition of a terrorist: The other country's CIA.

There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures. Arab friends of mine have described situations in Saudi Arabia that are extremely volatile. Apparently Osama bin Laden, and many average Saudis who live in the U.S., feel very unhappy with U.S. influence in Saudi Arabia. They think that there should be political parties and democracy in Saudi Arabia. However, the U.S. government strongly supports the dictatorial regime of the house of Al Saud. Residents of Saudi Arabia, for example, are not allowed to leave the country without an exit visa. They are potentially prisoners of their own country.

Why not ask ourselves why Osama bin Laden is willing to go to so much trouble to promote terrorism? Maybe we would learn something. I am NOT saying Osama bin Laden is right about anything, and definitely his violence is reprehensible. Nevertheless it may help to understand him. According to Arabs to whom I've talked, there is considerable good reason to be dissatisfied with the secret actions of the U.S. government.

As other people have said in the past, the U.S. government has a history of supporting corrupt dictatorships. The U.S. government supported Pakistan against India! India is the world's most populous democracy. It has been suggested that the preference for supporting dictatorships is due to U.S. government corruption. A dictator is almost certain to be willing to support embezzlement of U.S. government money, and to keep it secret. Trying to arrange embezzlement would be very dangerous in a democracy because of the danger of being discovered.

Under the stress of conflict, people show how they truly think. It has always annoyed me that people who call themselves Christian often reveal that they don't really believe in the important messages of Christianity, and that they don't even understand those messages.

Basically, Jesus Christ's idea of not returning violence with violence means that we can vigorously protect ourselves, but that any response must be the true minimum necessary to achieve security. This is a theory that can be recommended even to the majority of people in the world who are not Christian. The theory seems to fit the facts. The facts seem to be that violence always has severely negative side-effects that overwhelm any effect that might be seen as positive.

Answers? Prevention is an answer. Better understanding is an answer. Being charitable long before any problems begin occurring is a good answer. And maybe there are times when we just don't know the answer.

There is often considerable misunderstanding about non-violent methods. One reason to suggest non-violent methods is that they can be extremely powerful. For example, suppose that representatives from the U.S. knew Osama bin Laden's family. Or suppose that you understood how money is transferred to bin Laden. Or suppose the U.S. was so well-liked in the region that bin Laden had difficulty finding supporters. One of the values of non-violent methods is that literally hundreds of them are available, and many of them are far, far cheaper than violence.

The desire for non-violence is a desire to be extremely powerful. Those who are really powerful can have a strong influence just by voicing disapproval.

There are many people who support violence because they want to act out their own personal anger, while at the same time hiding their internal conflict from themselves. It is a fact that such people would be FAR more comfortable if they could be helped to understand and take responsibility for their anger. Acting out anger is like a drug. It provides only temporary relief, and it makes the person who does it more angry. Having un-recognized anger is like carrying a 100-pound sack of cement on your back wherever you go. Un-recognized anger drags you down 24 hours per day.

Violence is not a good answer to violence.

Regards,

Michael Jennings

Michael Jennings
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
U.S.A.

E-Mail: M_Jennings@USA.com

This letter maybe sent to anyone by email without permission from the author, provided that no changes are made. If you print this article with no changes, you may give it to anyone you know. Other use requires permission. Copyright 2001.

Please mention errors and shortcomings to the author.

Y'know, I love people like you, who don't bother to read, or understand, the data. Douglas MacArther was never a "great" general. He was a f*cking caesar, without the tactical/operational/strategic vision to match. He f*cked up in Washington DC in 1932 (look at what he did to the Bonus Marchers, vs. what he was ordered to do [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleeven ts/pandeAMEX89.html), he f*cked up in the Phillipines in 1941-42, he f*cked up in New Guinea in 1942-44, he f*cked up _again_ in the Phillipines in 1944-45, he f*cked up in Korea in 1950, and finally, he picked a Constitutional-level fight with the President of the US, and got himself forcibly, permanently retired.

On the flip side, the US has done reasonably well in battles since 1950. The Battle of 73 Easting is probably an excellent example. A US Armored Cavalry _company_, with support from 2 more companies, routed and destroyed an _intact_ Iraqi Republic Guard Armored Brigade. 1:4 odds, against the attack, and they won. The only comparable performance of armor was the Israeli defensive stand on the Golan Heights at the beginning of the 1973 War - 2 Armored Bdes (in prepared defensive positions) against 3 Syrian divisions.

Or do you prefer to look at Infantry engagements? Look at the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley (http://www.lzxray.com/overview.htm), where a 450 man battalion held out against 2000 NVA regulars.

Or do you want "well-executed" battles? What's your criteria? Combat performance? Victory on the field? Something else? Or is it just that _you don't know_, and are looking for a criteria that'll make the US military look stupid.

Besides the gulf "war" the US has not won a single major engagement since WW2.

Really? Panama doesn't count? Nothing that happened in Vietnam counts? None of the _three_ major "engagement" victories in Korea?

The polica action against Iraq was one by overwhelming force of arms -- a WW3 sized international army against a single nation that was already in retreat.

Ummm, in case you haven't figured it out, the objective of the exercise is to win, not to fight fair. If you check out the order of battle, it started as a relatively fair fight, forcewise. For example, VII Corps + attached units roughly matched the IRG in force size. The allied forces lined up along the border (1 Syrian division, 1 Eyptian division, 1.5 Saudi division-equivalents, the GCC Bde, 2 Marine divisions) were _outnumbered_ by the Iraqi forces in the Kuwaiti border defenses.

The fact that the Iraqis threw away almost every single advantage they had (and they had a number) is their own fault. They had large, fixed divisions, with no mobility - something the US military has been exploiting on the attack for 60 years (look at how many troops the US sent against Germany in France - the Germans outnumbered the Allied forces, but the US forces had greatly superior mobility). The US played the battlefield intelligence game with great abandon - 2 Iraqi divisions were tied down in beach defenses looking at a SEAL team diversion and a Marine Bde assault that never occured - the Marines were brought ashore to reinforce 1MEF's regular ground assault.

Exploiting stupidity is a great way to win wars - ask Guderian whether he thought it would have been fairer to attack the Maginot line in 1940, vs. going through the Ardennes forest.

As for intervening, the US record of intervening for purposes of peacekeeping is positively lamentable, from their aborted attempt to assassinate that warlord in Somalia (acting, I add, outside the UN task forces command), to their attempt to resolve the Bosnia situation using aerial bombardment. The US army is incapbable of winning wars.

Really? Ask Kuwait/Iraq about that. Ask the guys who're guarding Slobodan Milosevic in the Hague about that. Yeah, we lose 'em, too - we weren't fighting the same war the other side did in Vietnam, and went home because of it. But "incapable"? You should recheck your math.

May I ask which of the serbs and croats you bombed wanted you there?

Ok - ask Croats if they wanted US/allied assistance. You'll find a sea of hands. Or you can ask the same question of Bosnians. Or Ablanian Kosovars, whose oppression was what got Milosevic started, years before he became well-known in the west. (PS - dumbass - learn the players before you start spouting off).

The US created the global arms industry.

{snicker} So, nobody sold/etc. weapons on a large scale before the US, eh? Would you, oh enlightened one, care to explain why the most common military long-arm in WW1 was the German Mauser or variation thereof? Why _even the US Army_ used a Mauser variant - the Springfield '03, and that in fact the Mauser and its variants were still the most popular longarm until WW2? Or shall we go back further, say 100 years, and ask why damn near everyone who used a flintlock in 1800 used either a British one (India-pattern Brown Bess, generally), or a French one, or copies thereof? Including the US Army, btw.

Every nation the US imposes sanctions on is forced to develop it's own arms industry,

Like Libya, whose military consists of Soviet/Russian equipment? Or Syrian, whose military consists of Soviet/Russian equipment? Or Iran, whose air force consists of a mix of modern French/German equipment, reconditioned US equipment, and modern Russian equipment? How about North Korea, whose military consists of a mix of Soviet/Russian/Chinese equipment? South Africa is about the only good case you've got - and they did it because _everyone_ imposed sanctions on them. Notice that as soon as the sanctions were lifted, they started shopping around - their domestically-produced/rebuilt Cheetahs are going to be retired, apparently in favor of new Swedish birds. Or their navy, which is buying German. Their Army is still driving rebuilt British tanks from the 1950s, btw. A lot of their other equipment was co-developed with the Israelis, btw - the R5 and the Galil are essentially identical rifles, with minor modifications for different environments.

and we have another player in the game, selling knock-off AK-47s and other things. SCUDs for instance.

Doesn't take sanctions, or US-as-enemy to get that. Belgium (Fabrique Nationale), Singapore (Singapore Arms), and a host of other "allied" countries sell license-produced knockoff weapons all over the world. The AK-47 is simple enough to produce that any country with a small industrial base can - and generally does. Scuds are almost as simple - since they're basically a V-2 derivative, the basic design is a fundamental first step to a long-range rocket. Look at how many countries produce battlefield MRLs - US, Germany, Britain, France, Russia, China, Egypt, Chile, Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Japan, Korea, and Singapore all come to mind immediately. How many of those are "enemy" states?

The last quarter of this century has had the failure of US foreign and economic policy stamped all over it. Nixon
and Reagan set in motion the events that brought about the WTC disaster. This is not over. Worse is to come.

US and NATO attacked Yugoslavia without declaration of war. Reason for attack was that Yugoslavia didn't sign treaty dictated by NATO. In everyday life such a behavior is called extortion.

Terror does not taste sweet. How do you think did it taste for those people who died when the US bombed that
Belgrade Hospital?

Anyone interested in the activities of secret U.S. agencies may have been interested in a segment on the CBS show "60 Minutes" about the involvement of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the killing of Chilean General Rene Schneider. The show aired this Sunday, September 9, 2001. General Schneider was a strong supporter of democracy.

We tend to hear about the activities of secret U.S. government agencies about 30 years after they occur. What are they doing now?

Here are links to information about U.S. interference with democracy in Chile:

National Security Archive Chile Documentation Project

PBS News Hour: "... evidence of a policy to undermine democracy in Chile and to support dictatorship there"

Hinchey Report, CIA Activities in Chile

The iPaq and Journada fight in the marketplace.
The iPaq trounces the Journada.
HP buys Compaq.
HP has to struggle with reconciling their own product lines and bring them into one company.

This is the first example. HP has bought Compaq, but the iPaq is cooler. They can't call it the iHP or anything, can they? Bob Cringely made some remarks about just this sort of thing in his latest column. This merger makes no sense at all. HP and Compaq have already bought out companies that helped their bottom line, and now they're doing it again. Unless HP does some seriously insane reorganization, their chances of doing anything signifigant are pretty small.

Be sure to see Robert X. Cringely's column Resetting the Shot Clock: Why Hewlett Packard Buying Compaq is a Very Bad Idea, But Will Happen Anyway

Cringely's theory (and mine) is that HP CEO Carly Fiorina (Carleton S. Fiorina) realizes she is near to being fired, and she is using a merger to buy time.

Both HP and Compaq have made some monumentally stupid decisions. For example, Compaq bought Tandem, bud didn't use Tandem's sales force, even though the Tandem product required a huge amount of special service.

The biggest problem in technology is managers who don't understand what they are managing. There is a theory that a manager of a technology company does not need to have a thorough technical understanding. Decisions made based on that theory have destroyed many companies. But the problem is very poorly reported, because the reporters don't have technical understanding either.

My understanding is that Carly Fiorina is responsible for the terrible financial state of Lucent Technologies, her former company.

See the info here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/trebuchet /

Yeah, they didn't mess around with pumpkins, they destroyed a wall with a 200 lb ball. ;)

While every peace activist in the world will cry foul, peace is so worth it that we spend umpteen billion dollars a year on defense because it is a deterrent.

So, you're like the romans "if you want peace, prepare for war".

Well, you know what Joseph Rotblat had to say about why it was wrong of him to develop the bomb? There is no such thing as a deterrent for a sick mind! Do you really think Hitler would have cared if Germany was erased from the face of the earth, if he could make sure England was erased too...?

No, it's not acceptable anymore. If you want peace, prepare for peace.

For example, if there were no nuclear weapons, we would have had WWIII and IV already. Millions of people (including civilians) would have died.

No. Why don't you read what General Lee Butler has to say about that.

If an insane leader had risen to power any of the nuclear powers, it would have been the final world war. Billions would have died.

It strikes me that the cable companies will have a great opportunity o take over @Home's infrastructure for cents on the dollar.

After seeing this info about how to lay your own DSL line, and noticing this (clearly inflammatory but still interesting) piece about wireless grids, it's becoming obvious to me that we are going to end up building some of the network ourselves. Maybe it'll just be the last mile, or maybe we'll be building a nice, humble network to replace the original internet -- a net on which we are not beholden to corporate and government evil.

Position on Board of Directors for Eleven Engineering he fails to mention anywhere in article

Conflict of interest? Nah...

See reference:

Making Lemonade

Though I found the article interesting, the fact that it's all about protecting intellectual property in a manner that allows the creator more control to determine their income, I do wonder how much financial pressure is being caused by world economy decline.

Or is this DMCA and such contributing to the decline in consumer interest in this technology (I know it's rather distasteful to me)?

World Economy - "China is a lone global bright spot,..."
Hmmmm, and what is China's reason for this? China wasn't a part of the trillion dollar bet.
But where does China stand on DMCA and such like matters? And is China a hint as to what to expect?

In other words: Will China being a bright spot in the world economy (due to not playing the trillion bollar gamble) lead the experts (with blinders on of course) to promote whatever China does, regarding DMCA like issues?

Not sure where I first saw this article mentioned, I think it may have been /. Anyways, has a few more methods to sharing your broadband using dry copper lines. It's an interesting and very provoking read, as is this article on Infoworld.

here is a artical on doing your own DSL maybe it will help you out
dyi DSL

I've been thinking about this for a while, and this is a good time to bring it up.

I've been reading articles about the incredibly low cost of fiber lines relative to T*'s; with common prices for a 1.5 Mb/s T1 being about $850/month and a 12Mb/s fiber line being approximately $1500/month. Also, with the fiber line you can get bandwidth upgrades without any physical modifications; you just call the provider, they flip a switch, and boom, more bandwidth.

Why not create a non-profit or not-for-profit a la Spindl3top that goes out, leases a fiber line, and then provides instructions to roll your own DSL. People could also use 802.11b with directional and omnidirectional antennae. You could, say, provide the wireless access for free (maybe with a bandwidth cap) and charge a small fee for the DSL access or no-bandwidth-cap wireless access. People would be able to split a mega-fat pipe at cost. Hmm, maybe if I run into some money I'll... ::goes to find some money::

http://www.isp-planet.com/technology/homebrew_dsl. html

or

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010823. html

Nope, that was a made-for-TV-movie , whereas I believe the original poster was referring to the made-for-TV-documentary

I heard something about microsoft disabling all plug-ins in IE 5.5 SP2, including QuickTime and you-name-it. However im not sure if it would apply to password manager plug-ins and such.
Anyhow its a great article.

Cringely and Petrely are reporting similarly.

Do you really think we should not consider this until Microsoft makes the official announcement?

Please remember, yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Troll community when last month the FBI confirmed that Trolls account for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all netizens. Coming on top of of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that Trolls have lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Trolls are collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent ZDNet comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be Bob Cringely to predict a Trolls future. The hand writing is on the wall: Trolls face a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Trolls because Trolls are dying. Things are looking very bad for Trolls. As many of us are already aware, Trolls continue to lose market share. Green ink flows like a river of blood. Anonymous Trolls are the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

Troll leader AC states that there are 7000 Anonymous Trolls. How many Trolls with names are there? Let's see. The number of Anonymous versus Named posts on /. is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Trolls with names. Fake Troll posts on /. are about half of the volume of Named Troll posts. Therefore there are about 700 Trolls with fake names. A recent article put /. Editorial Trolls at about 80 percent of the Troll market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Editorial Trolls. This is consistent with the number of Editorial Troll /. posts.

Due to the troubles of Trolling, abysmal sales and so on, CompuServ went out of business and was taken over by AOL who sells another troubled product to goatsex Trolls. Now AOL is also dead, its corpse turned over to another Troll-Lover.

All major surveys show that Trolling has steadily declined in market share. Trolling is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Trolling is to survive at all it will be among Anonymous hobbyist dabblers. Trolling continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Trolls are dead.

Some links for further information...

ZDNet's article "Will open source get snagged in .Net? " talks of Microsoft's method of using licensing to undermine both Samba and Open Source competition to ".net".

PBS/Cringley's "Triumph of the Nerds" (search for "compaq" in the transcript) talks of the hardware revolution started by Compaq's reverse engineering IBM's PC bios. The "Purple Book" may have taught folks how to build on top of IBM's platform, but IBM controlled the platform through their control of the bios. They were the only ones who could make systems. Intel's proprietary control of the processor and Microsoft's proprietary control of the OS were necessary to get the box out on time. Little did IBM realize the flaw in this strategy, and that they'd cough-up their golden ring to these partners.

And, of course, mentioning Uncle Fester (Ballmer) is incomplete without his recent ape-dance (I apologize in advance for TheRegister's router problems -- try here too). Play it in slow motion and watch the look on his face; it would be less scary if it were dripping blood.

The Hindenerg didn't crash because of the hydrogen ignited, but because he outer covering was extremely flamible which was ignited by an electostatic discharge. PBS had an excellent documentary on it and here is a link to Q&A with the researcher who determined this.

Did you folks see this article in a similar vein? -cybear, who is too tired to remember his password

As Robert Cringley pointed out: M$ would say: I will save your day! I will eliminate anonymous surfing and all things in the net will be completely identifiable. All your info are belong to me! Har har har

However, here is the rebuttal:

1. Myth #1: The Internet Is Too International to Be Controlled.

He says everything is sniffable through tracerouter and sniffer.

Rebuttal: That's true. What about if you are connected through firewall that will translate your address. I doubt that tracerouter or sniffer would be able to do their job properly.
He says the privacy international law will sooner or later be ratified in every country.

That's true. However, for software sharing: Not all country accept the idea of software patents. See how Europe rejects it. Even more, countries in Asia or other developing country saw this as a tool to hinder them to acquire technology. See how pirated softwares are floating down there (>90%). Thus, those government will half-heartedly fight sofware piracy.

For music/video sharing: Especially in poor countries, they have no broadband connection. Thus, it is rather pointless downloading megs of movies/songs meanwhile there are lots of pirated CDs/videos sold freely in cheap price (mostly about $3). Anyone who have visited Indonesia, Hongkong and Malaysia know that. So, the government effort to curbing the piracy on the net would be pretty much futile.

Myth #2: The Net Is Too Interconnected to Control

He says: the claims for peer-to-peer's uncontrollability don't take into consideration how computers interact in the real world; a network that is absolutely decentralized is also absolutely dysfunctional.

Hmm... that's true, especially for the Net, we have some DNS "authority". However this authoritarian approach does not restrict the few "access provider" as you said in Gnutella case. Let's say you shut down the "prominent ones" in the so called hierarchy. You still cannot stop anyone to build another "service provider". Right? See the Verisign and ICANN case. Moreover, if the top level node in the hierarchy is shut down, it doesn't mean that there is no other way to reconnect the "lost node" since the nodes are redundantly interconnected.

Your argument in slow request is not an issue. Eventhough the broadband speed is not helping (your claim), I am sure that the speed of these lies on how speedily the routing algorithm performs. AFAIK, those file sharing programs just employs flooding technique, which is simple to implement, but very slow. IF some people come up with a smarter version, it would be the "doomsday" for "censorarian". Even more if the routing algorithm is designed to be "self healing"

Myth #3: The Net Is Too Filled with Hackers to Control

You said: Identification System will cure this.

It's true. But: Nobody can stop anyone from spoofing their identification. Even the identification scheme itself can be broken. Anyone have heard how hackers cracked WinXP WPA? That's a preliminary effort _before_ the product was shipped.

Hardware identification method? You mean NIC address is used for identification? Wahahah... even those 15-year-old hacker can do MAC address spoofing.

Moreover, it needs the whole world to cooperate to do non-anonymous internet access to be able to block those "libertarians". It's hard, if not impossible. Not all countries will comply. Then, the non-compliant countries will be blocked from the rest of the internet? Simply infeasible... unless the TCP/MS scheme by Cringley really worked as described...

#include<This rebuttal is not perfect.h>

#include<IANAL.h>

#include<Just my 2c.h>

Katz-bashing is so de rigueur on Slashdot that I find myself increasingly less interested in participating in it.

I do have to say, however, that I agree with your general assertion. I would only disagree with your statement that Katz emphasizes "the stuff cultural theorists care about".

With respect to cultural theorists, media ecologists and sociologists, their concerns are considerably more weighty and substantive than the techpop-culture musings that pass for thoughtful commentary here (most often prompted by a Katz article).

I would say, then, that Katz emphasizes "the stuff that tech/pop-culture columnists care about". Small distinct, but I think necessary to show respect for the complex (if soft) sciences of media/cultural theory.

From a page on PBS : 'On August 16, 1960, Joe Kittinger stood at the edge of his balloon's gondola, 19 and a half miles above the Earth's surface, and leapt out into the near vacuum of the stratosphere. Almost 14 minutes later he landed on solid ground. To say that Kittinger's jump was a daring and courageous feat would be a vast understatement...but there was a purpose to his gallantry. His team's findings would hopefully benefit those unfortunate high-flying pilots needing to eject at high altitudes.'

So when I open up this article, the fortune at the bottom of the page reads:

Eat shit -- billions of flies can't be wrong.

On a more serious note, a lot of research seems to be moving in the direction of supressed co-existence with pathogens, rather than outright destruction. A recent PBS show explored how a mild form of syphilis was quite common, and provided immunity against the nasty variety we know today. The nasty variety was only able to take over when people started living in a more modern manner, and the weaker variety was no longer transmitted.

The Microsoft protocol will be a new and improved TCP/IP, and all this code red is a part of thier plans.
Read more at:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010802. html

Press CDs. Put them everywhere. CompUSA, Circuit City, Target, Wal-Mart...

If AOL can do it, why can't someone like Microsoft? Issuing a patch CD is feasible, especially if it means tightening your grip on the Internet.

Why haven't they done it before? Cost vs. return. If you issue free update CDs every (month|quarter|year) then you're removing a major reason behind upgrading - the inconvenience of downloading service packs and hotfixes. That'd cut into their revenue stream. Converting everyone to MS/TCP? Financially, it'd have a huge positive effect on Microsoft's bottom line.

Lastly, go read Cringely's article, where the idea came about last week.

The Death of TCP/IP

and since you think you were joking about MS replacing TCP/IP, read someone else's thoughts on the subject: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010802. html

Those of you in the UK can look forward to a new season soon, and most of us in the US can catch reruns of the first 8 seasons on our local PBS station.

step two. no longer looks as far fetched anymore

according to this page TCP/MS might be the new protocol

... for the fire: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010802. html

Businesses need profit to continue. They thought they could get some from the Internet, but it is not being as cooperative as they thought. This is bad, because all the money being pored into buiding the internet (all those millions going into the fiber, routers, name servers, bandwidth) isn't just free beer. Someone payed for it, and that someone wants something back for it. They are not paying for a playgound, they are paying for a market.

If all businesses suddenly decide that they gave up on the internet and went somewhere else, the fiber would go dark, the routers would shut down and nameservers would stop.

That's not likely to happen; Too much investment. More likely, some variation of Cringely's comments (but not likely MS) will happen, with more control on users, logins, tracing, routine and whatever. It will either be tamed or it will evaporate. It will not survive without good investment, and good investment will only come from somebodies profits.

If businesses think the internet is just a bunch of pirates and thieves, they will either remove the pirates or remove the internet. So they remove the pirates (DMCA. et al). Further control to come.

Say good buy to the wild west, and keep all the good stories around for your kids.

Isn't this voice just the kind of thing that Microsoft is drooling for?

If Cringely is right, then Micro$oft is *just* the company to step up to the plate and make a new internet (TCP/MS) and save us all.

heh..heh..heh... MicroSoft... "reliability"..."responsibility"... heh...

So, now MS is being put into a position where it will have to beat a possible injunction by pushing XP out the door even faster. Never mind all of the anti-competitive reasons, my bigger concern is the open access to the raw TCP/IP stack, as discussed by Robert Cringely.

Now, not only are these machines going to have an easily compromised stack, they are going to be even more buggy and vulnerable. The US most likely would not act fast enough to prevent this.

IMHO, anti-competitive reasons will not prevent the release of XP. However, preventing its release on the grounds that it is of danger to the consumer sounds a lot more feasible.

While we're talking conspiracy theories, take a look at Cringely's latest column, where he believes that MS will be leveraging these types of holes to create their own proprietary TCP/IP-like protocol that will be forced down our throats and will receive backing from the government. Sounds a bit far-fetched, but I wouldn't put anything past MS when it comes to them controlling markets that they have their fingers in.

Cringely is the guy who took his three week's pay from Woz and Jobs and then left the garage, rather than take a percentage of Apple Computer instead. It was a colossal lack of vision and now his only claim to fame is as a journalist that knew most of the influential people in the Valley.

He did do a couple of well-done specials for PBS (Nerds 2.0.1 - A brief History of the Internet, and Triumph of the Nerds) that even my dad could understand. While this was good work, it doesn't make up for his histroical lack of insight. Browse his stuff over at PBS in the archive to see his track record.

Internet Winter - Why Internet Security is an Oxymoron

There is this interesting factoid:

Still, did you know that 41 percent of images attached to British business e-mail messages are pornographic? Does that say more about business or the British?

He seems to have bought the Steve Gibson line to some degree although he is more reasonable. The problem is that the scenario Cringely paints is likely to be painted as unlikely because it is so unbelievable. Sadly, this does not make it any less likely in fact. As he says:

At this point, I'm supposed to write, "Ah, but here's what we do about it," only I can't. Our vulnerability is too great and our lack of defensive talent too profound. There are ways to protect systems and networks against these kinds of attacks, but no depth of will to really fight them. The Internet is already such an ingrained and incompetently managed part of our lives that it is already too late."

Dead on about resources. Also demonstrated during a NOVA special on just this topic was how simple application of basic physical principles (that would have been known to the Egyptians), would have allowed them to use a 'sand removal' technique to pivot the obelisks into place with fair ease. There were two attempts with this method in the show, the first was small scale and so-so, the second large scale and great success. Wish the link above had more info about the show itself, but at least you can see when it might be playing next...

LEXX

I thought they used a sand box to lower the structure into position. I saw it on TLC after all. ;-)

Actually it was on NOVA. While I think the kite idea is a fun and interesting idea, it really is a stretch to think kites were a likely or very reasonable solution. People powered the egyptian golden age and the only solutions proper;y using the available mass of people are the sand pit or wench theories.

NOVA had a show on raising obelisks awhile back.

As usual for NOVA, it was a great show.
My favorite was when one of the volunteers
attempted a method noone on the site had tried yet.

He filled a large box w/ sand and set the obelisk
in it. Then slowly removed the sand from holes
in the bottom of the box. It was a simple method,
accurate, and used existing tools the Egyptians had in plenty.