Handling the Loads

A request by rosewood · 2001-09-14 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

I know that a lot of shackers and other people on the net aren't christian or don't even beleive in God. Thats fine. Tomorrow (now today) you will hear a lot of people praying, asking you to pray, etc. This isn't the snickers comercial where they bring in a representative of every religion before the big game. It will feel weird. I feel that a week ago that if NBC was showing a service that someone would whine. Today, I ask ya just let it slide. When they say pray, interperate that as 'do what makes you feel comfortable. Please just be respectful like your mama would want you to be. But for today, just kinda chalk it up to all those people burned, crushed, flateneted, chocked, suffocated, etc. to death.

Thank you

--
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!

Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:11 · Score: 0

(doh..forgot my password and account info and being i'm at work and not home..well..you get the drift...)

i agree. :)

BTW, great work Slash crew!

~Valien
Re:A request by rosewood · 2001-09-14 05:12 · Score: 1

Yes - this was a bit OT and I suspect it will get moded as such - but I think it needed to be said

gg to the slash crew that was able to focus on something like bandwidth when I felt like the world stopped

--
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Re:A request by rosewood · 2001-09-14 05:14 · Score: 1

Come back to this when you lose someone dear to you

--
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Re:A request by Nicolas+MONNET · 2001-09-14 05:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Come back to this when you lose someone dear to you"

If it happened, odds are it would be due to some religious fanatics.
Re:A request by zpengo · 2001-09-14 05:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

On behalf of all the people saying that we should pray, I'd just like to say that Yeah, that's what we meant.
I almost wonder if this is a subconscious attempt from people to rally support for white Christian America. It's easy for those who fit comfortably into the majority to see this as an Us vs. Them battle.
Those people, however, are hideous hypocrites; They are "Christian" in the same way that those flying the suicide planes were "Muslim"; i.e., only in that they happen to use that term to describe themselves. Any white Christian who starts seeing those of other ethnicities or religions as "Them" is not only a poor excuse for a Christian, but ought to be considered as bad as the terrorists themselves.

--

Got Rhinos?
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:36 · Score: 0

How many people die in car wrecks, hurricanes, etc. each year.

How dare you
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:38 · Score: 0
just kinda chalk it up to all those people burned, crushed, flateneted, chocked, suffocated, etc. to death
So eloquently put. The horrible ways to die:
- Burning (up to 800 degrees celsius)
- Squashing (plane ramming into your BoA meeting)
- Crushing (Chunk of concrete falling onto you)
- Squeezing (Chunk of concrete settling onto your still living body)
- Suffocation (Smoke)
- Choking (Lots of smoke)
- Dismemberment (You can think of that one)
- Smashing (into concrete from the 103rd floor)
- Stabbed (on the planes)
I'm sure you can add to the list of ways to die in a disaster such as this.
Not to mention all those people still in agony in hospitals, the heartbreak of their relatives and friends.
The new twin-tower wind-powered 200 storey 100,000 person capacity WTCII will stand as a monument to those victims of horror. Hopefully, it will have wider staircases for people to evacuate as well. Considering the damage area (a huge area), about 3 to 5 of these tower complexes could be built, housing 300,000 to 500,000 people during the day. Not a good place to let a small tactical nuclear weapon off at 2 in the afternoon, but the subsequent 1m capabity WTC!!! will stand as a memorial to those victims as well.
Re:A request by Happy+Monkey · 2001-09-14 05:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

They are "Christian" in the same way that those flying the suicide planes were "Muslim"; i.e., only in that they happen to use that term to describe themselves.

Here are some such people.

--
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Re:A request by hansk · 2001-09-14 05:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

Speaking of religious fanatics, we have our own here in the US:

God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blaming the events on liberals, feminists, etc. etc. etc.
Sick.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:46 · Score: 0

Really, all that's been asked around here (Honeywell) is a moment of silence. I think, outside of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robinson and their type, not much is really going on.

And now they're pointing their fingers at us. I just hope that noone is listening.
Re:A request by 9sPhere · 2001-09-14 05:51 · Score: 0

I almost wonder if this is a subconscious attempt from people to rally support for white Christian America. It's easy for those who fit comfortably into the majority to see this as an Us vs. Them battle.

Yeah, I heard that on cnn.com~ Pray, but not if your black, jewish, etc.

WTF?? How exactly is a request to pray a denial of most of america's ethnicity?

--
It is pitch dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re:A request by Rimbo · 2001-09-14 05:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

Any white Christian who starts seeing those of other ethnicities or religions as "Them" is not only a poor excuse for a Christian, but ought to be considered as bad as the terrorists themselves.

Speaking as a white Christian...bingo. You just hit the nail on the head. In fact, it's that very attitude that allowed these terrorists to believe that what they were doing was somehow God's Will.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all filled with references to people who, though they weren't Official Churchgoing Believers, represented God's will better than the average Believer. And an ongoing theme in both the Talmud and the Bible (I can't speak for the Koran, although I've been told Mohammed's teachings are very tolerant of other religions) is the failure of church leaders.

It's ironic. All of these religions which these misguided fundamentalist-whacko "leaders" (such as Osama Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell) supposedly follow condemn the most the Bin Ladens and Falwells of the world, who use God's Name to mislead people, or cause people to commit terrible atrocities.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:51 · Score: 0

I agree with the person who said they've always taken "bow your head and pray" to mean "shut up and look serious". I also have respect for other people's beliefs and the solice they find in religion.

That being said, I find that in the wake of the recent tragedy, now is exactly the time to point out the problematic aspects of the declaration of today as a day of "national prayer and rememberance". With public leaders insisting that to "not let the terrorists win", we should embrace and bolster our American values, I choose to follow that advice, and exercise my First Amendment right to "whine" about a seeming "establishment of religion".

Okay, that was a bit extreme. In truth I understand the nation's need for grief and I do not begrudge the President's declaration of today. But I DO want to underscore the importance of scoping your religion outside of yourself and others with your same belief system... exactly what those who created this tradegy did not do.

Ironically, this is what the original post did, to some extent. Moreover, it is what I am doing in this reply post.
Re:A request by S.+E.+James · 2001-09-14 05:52 · Score: 1

I, as a non religious person, understand that religion and prayer helps people in times like these, but we must remember that these acts were from religious fanatics. Let's try to avoid making it seem as though we view this as an attack on Christian America by Islamic extremists. Bin Laden may have declared jihad on America but we have declared war on him because he's a terrorist.
Re:A request by linzeal · 2001-09-14 05:58 · Score: 1

What a bunch of reactionary scum. Trying to take advantage of every crisis in america to "brainwash" you into their fanatically wrong viewpoints.

--
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Re:A request by ChickenMaster · 2001-09-14 06:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' "
A statement like this is meant to strike fear in the hearts of those people he "fingered" or people who may associate with them. Isn't that the core definition of Terrorism...
Shame on you Falwell, for you are no better than those responsible for the thousands of deaths on Tuesday.

--
To conquer death, you only have to die
Re:A request by SirKron · 2001-09-14 06:15 · Score: 0, Redundant

It's ironic. All of these religions which these misguided fundamentalist-whacko "leaders" (such as Osama Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell) supposedly follow condemn the most the Bin Ladens and Falwells of the world, who use God's Name to mislead people, or cause people to commit terrible atrocities.
My beliefs are right with yours, however, we must know that bin Laden is not a Fundamentalist in the normal definition. He is not trying to run a society closer to the exact interpretation of the Muslim religion. Contraversially, he is funding the training of a new militant generation of soldiers who dispise any religion other than their grossly missinterpreted version.
Osama bin Laden must be dealt with my the US military, however, we can not become a martyr! As was said in the movie Gladiator, 'they must kill your name first.' Once his name has been reduced in popularity through his personal suffering, then we can truely erase his influence and destiny of USA disasters.
----------
#>rm -rf /bin/laden
Re:A request by edunbar93 · 2001-09-14 06:16 · Score: 1

Even though I'm an atheist myself, I know that railing against religion in general isn't a good idea. I would never force my own beliefs on someone else, since it is something that I find repulsive in certain sects of Christianity and as a result, against my own morality. I expect everyone to give me my rights to my own religion (or lack thereof) by demonstrating my own tolerance for other people's religion.

And like he says, prayer isn't restricted to any one religion -- it's common to most. Just becuase the only exposure you've had to prayer has been in a Christian setting doesn't mean that only Christians pray, or that when a Christian asks you to pray, he doesn't necessarily mean to their God.

--
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:16 · Score: 0

im sick of atheists bitching. shut up already. thank you. "waaaah how dare you talk about praying!"
Re:A request by SirKron · 2001-09-14 06:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's ironic. All of these religions which these misguided fundamentalist-whacko "leaders" (such as Osama Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell) supposedly follow condemn the most the Bin Ladens and Falwells of the world, who use God's Name to mislead people, or cause people to commit terrible atrocities.
My beliefs are right with yours, however, we must know that bin Laden is not a Fundamentalist in the normal definition. He is not trying to run a society closer to the exact interpretation of the Muslim religion. Contraversially, he is funding the training of a new militant generation of soldiers who dispise any religion other than their grossly missinterpreted version.
Osama bin Laden must be dealt with my the US military, however, we can not become a martyr! As was said in the movie Gladiator, 'they must kill your name first.' Once his name has been reduced in popularity through his personal suffering, then we can truely erase his influence and destiny of USA disasters.
From a Navy reservist waiting to assist...
----------
# rm -rf /bin/laden
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

(+1 Insightful) to the above. Give me a gun, show me Falwell, and the world shall be a better place...
Of course, even a hypocrite like Falwell is not in the same class as Bin Laden.
Re:A request by JWW · 2001-09-14 06:21 · Score: 1

As a Christian I have found my-self close to stepping across this line and have said things and thought things for which I have later asked for forgiveness.

On this note I am trying very hard to rember to not generalize about Muslims.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:24 · Score: 0

We had a moment of silence here at Lockheed, and that was nice.

The funny thing was that it was about a minute long, which led us to wonder what would happen if the intercom went dead during the moment, how long would it take for work to start again. ;)
Re:A request by Redline · 2001-09-14 06:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

WTF?? How exactly is a request to pray a denial of most of america's ethnicity?

I agree. Where I am from (Houston, Texas) the population is 70 percent hispanic. Almost ALL of the latin population here is Christian. And they *certainly* pray.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:25 · Score: 0

call me a reactionist to their words, but what I wouldn't give for a baseball bat and five minutes alone in a dark room with those two.

come to think of it ... I don't even need a bat. I'm testing for my fighting belt in Shaolin Kempo, just give me the room
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:27 · Score: 0

Actually Pat Robinson disgusted me - I heard him hours after the disaster explaining how to attack public buildings in DC in such detail it sounded like a terrorist training manual. Add to that his pronouncement claiming that the real reason it happened was because we have made god angry with such things as the Supreme Court banning payer in schools - he's decidedly off the rails.

I have no time for murderous religious kooks be they islamic terrorists or christian clinic bombers - thankfully the large majority of religious people islamic, christian, etc alike are peacefull people who don't support this crap
Re:A request by Fesh · 2001-09-14 06:30 · Score: 2

God, that's twisted. But what can you expect out of someone who calls a giant purple baby-alien-thing with a TV in its tummy and no sexual characteristics whatsoever a blatant homosexual?

--
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Re:A request by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 06:33 · Score: 3, Funny

Talk about irony.... I've been driving around with a huge flag on a pole duct taped to the rollbar on the back of my Jeep. It's amazing to see the reactions you get from people, from waves to peace signs to fists of solidarity, etc.

But I pulled up in front of a store, and an older gentleman was standing next to his car. He saw the flag and started to say something to me....

Then he looked me up and down. I have long hair, and a beard, and I wear sandals. HE scowled and got in his car with a Jesus fish on it.

Now, if he actually had a statue of Jesus on his dashboard, he would've then been staring at a long-haired man in sandals, which would have been the ultimate irony.

For some reason, it's mainly the Christians that have a problem with my appearance. I just don't get it.
Re:A request by jpmkm · 2001-09-14 06:37 · Score: 1

What I want to know is how people can pray to the same god that let this happen. If I had any belief in a kind, caring god before this happened, I think I'd start questioning it now because I don't want to believe in a god that lets thousands of people die like this.
Re:A request by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 06:38 · Score: 3, Informative

There's nothing quite as pagan as dressing up in robes, then chanting as a group to turn a wafer into the body of a man who died around 2000 years ago.

Here, drink some of his blood.

If God has reason to be angry with this country, it's because we continue to support people like Falwell and Robertson.
Re:A request by Yunzil · 2001-09-14 06:43 · Score: 1

Any white Christian who starts seeing those of other ethnicities or religions as "Them" is not only a poor excuse for a Christian, but ought to be considered as bad as the terrorists themselves.
Don't know if anyone saw it, but last night on CNN, the scrolling headlines at the bottom of the screen said that Jerry Falwell blamed "pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians" for the disaster. Jackass.
Re:A request by rgmoore · 2001-09-14 06:45 · Score: 1

That is extremely scary. It's frightening to see that people who think this way (if such mental processes deserve the dignity of being described as thought) are as well respected and listened to as these men. To take advantage of the disaster to demonize their enemies is simply disgusting.

--
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:48 · Score: 0

Yeah, kill whitie. Dont be lame, any person who starts seeing other ethnicities or religions as "them" is a poor excuse for a human. If we are going to spew trash out, lets atleast make it less hypocritical than usual, k?
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:55 · Score: 0

Maybe Bin Laden (and his ilk) should look at the behavior of the Moors at the height of their power. When they conquered most of Spain they basically left the churches alone and let people follow their chosen religious beliefs. Islamic power at the time was tempered with pluralism.

It wasn't until the Reconquista that Catholic fanatics destroyed the Jewish and Muslim communities in Spain.

The flaw isn't in any specific faith but in the abuse of faith.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:56 · Score: 0

While we are being OT, Why do you think that Linux is "freer" than FreeBSD? Last I checked, the BSD License afforded a great many signicant liberties to endusers than the GPL (that's not meant to dimish the GPL, BTW).

What gives?
Re:A request by bridnour · 2001-09-14 06:57 · Score: 1

Your post brings to mind a book I've been reading, "The Jesus I never Knew" by Phillip Yancy...

He points out the irony that many Christians would react to real Jesus much like that man reacted to you, and much like Jesus's own contempories treated Him.

But, anyway, my personal theory on the matter is that too many Christians filter the religion trough their own prejudices. This, of course, would have make them targets of Christ's often scathing rebukes had they lived in His time.
Re:A request by The_Unforgiven · 2001-09-14 06:58 · Score: 1

Indeed. I am not christan. I'm very much Atheist. I absolutely hate christanity, but at a time like this, I would gladly bow my head to those who died. Great Job, Slashdot. Without site like yours, I never could get the differant veiws and emotions that the comments from your site provided. Slashdot is a very important site, and you have proved yourself to be among the best. Be proud to run this site, you do it exeptionally.

--
http://wsulug.org
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:58 · Score: 0

I've been hearing about this and the attacks on Muslims and all, but I would like to shed maybe a little positive light on this.

I went to a Christian small group the day after this occurred and we prayed over an hour for people caught in this tragedy. In that prayer, we prayed for the safety of the Muslims in America and that God would soften the hearts of the people who were angry at them. It was a real central part of the prayer because the reports of violence against Muslims had just been released. I hope that other Christian groups did the same, and I think many did.
Re:A request by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 07:01 · Score: 2

That wasn't a troll, it was a valid response to Jerry Falwell referring to me as a pagan.

Pot, meet Kettle, Kettle, Pot.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:03 · Score: 0

Ok, then, how about this?

WAAAAAAHH, please stop with the damned holy wars. There are no gods. If there are, and they are hiding, they are immoral for allowing things like this to happen.

There, clear enough?
Re:A request by jjsoh · 2001-09-14 07:04 · Score: 1

Off-topic.. but reading your sig was the first thing I've ever read or seen since Tuesday to really put a smile on my face and actually make me laugh.

Who knew a simple sig could be so powerful! :) Thanks for brightening this guy's day. Much needed here in China-"ghost"-town, NY.
Re:A request by edibleplastic · 2001-09-14 07:04 · Score: 2

Speaking of fanatics, here is a response from Noam Chomsky, an "intellectual" who should have stopped at linguistics. Is "The terrorist attacks were major atrocities." the most he can say about the attack? I think he needs to leave academia and live in the real world for awhile.

Noam Chomsky on the Attacks Against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon

Sick.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:08 · Score: 0

Presumably it went something like this...

God: Oh, no! That man put his erection up that other man's ass! I'm going to kill thousands of innocent people because of this outrage!

Actually, reading the Bible, I wouldn't put it past that murderous thug Yaweh. Why people worship it as "good" is beyond me.
Re:A request by Lord_Byron · 2001-09-14 07:14 · Score: 1

I would like to point out that there is a difference between bigotry and mass murder. I don't condone either, but the former is hardly as "bad" as the other. At least within my moral framework.
Re:A request by fatboy · 2001-09-14 07:15 · Score: 1

God gave U.S. "What we deserve", say Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson

What can you say. They are ignorant fools. Kick those un-American jerks out of the Republican party. We don't want their kind.

You can tell they don't care about Liberty, because they despise anyone who exercises it.

--
--fatboy
Re:A request by davey23sol · 2001-09-14 07:16 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I looked up Falwell's web site. This story is apparently a hoax, at least according to Falwell. See Fallwell's site. I see nothing about Robertson's possible statements.

I don't like these guys. These people are not christian. They are not religious. These people are only businessmen, and worse they are almost a type of terrorist themselves. They would love to see every person that doesn't fit with their "righteous" beliefs to die. They don't want the "evil non-christian" to hold citizenship in this country. They would love the nuke the middle-east. These people are the American counterparts to religious Islam fanatics.

If you want to tell them your opinion of these possible statements, you can go to this CBN Feedback page. Falwell has a feedback address at jerry@falwell.com.

--

"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
Re:A request by orangesquid · 2001-09-14 07:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

AugstWest: Over the past few days, I've learned that no matter how important or interesting of a point you are making, people are bound to interpret it wrong, judge quickly, etc. Everybody's just anxious, nervous, and scared, for the most part; I think it's best not to worry about petty things like comment moderations :)

--
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
Re:A request by daeley · 2001-09-14 07:18 · Score: 2

I've seen suggestions online that as soon as they find those responsible for the attack planning and support, that they should be held until the WTC is rebuilt.... then dropped from the observation deck.

I would like to suggest adding Falwell and Robertson to the drop.

--
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:20 · Score: 0

Speaking as a Christian, let me request that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson not be held up as examples of what my faith is about.

Every good, decent Christian that I know considers these two lunatics to be just as offensive and dangerous as people here are saying they are.

Every group of any size, religious or not, will eventually develop a lunatic fringe. That's just a sad truth. Just as we cannot hold up a barbarian like Osama bin Laden as being representative of the Muslim faith, you cannot hold up the hateful and inappropriate words of Jerry Falwell as being representative of the Christian faith.
Re:A request by youreanidiot · 2001-09-14 07:24 · Score: 1

Even though I'm an atheist myself, I know that railing against religion in general isn't a good idea. I would never force my own beliefs on someone else, since it is something that I find repulsive in certain sects of Christianity and as a result, against my own morality. I expect everyone to give me my rights to my own religion (or lack thereof) by demonstrating my own tolerance for other people's religion.

And like he says, prayer isn't restricted to any one religion -- it's common to most. Just becuase the only exposure you've had to prayer has been in a Christian setting doesn't mean that only Christians pray, or that when a Christian asks you to pray, he doesn't necessarily mean to their God.

Normally people calling themselves athiest aren't so sompassionate towards other religions.. in my experience anyway. I'm not religious at all, but it's refreshing to see and I totally agree with you. I don't worship anything, or anyone but sometimes I just say a little prayer hoping that at least having good intentions or wishes towards something or someone will make some type of positive difference. I did that Monday for everyone in America, especially those directly effected by this, and I do that now for everyone else.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

Falwell has apparently backpedaled and apologized for some of his comments. I haven't read such myself, but I've been told that this is the case.

Regardless, I have always believed Jerry Falwell to be a massive hypocrite and his behavior since Tuesday only confirms that belief. I saw him on one of the networks on Tuesday night (I channel-surfed a lot that night, so I honestly don't remember which) essentially agreeing that the guilty parties need to be dealt with militarily.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I've always thought that true Christians believed that it's up to God to punish the wicked and that Christians should strive to find it in their hearts to forgive evil acts. I realize this is a nearly impossible goal for even the devout to achieve, but at least the prominent clergy shouldn't be espousing such blatantly violent rhetoric.

I've always admired Martin Luther King, Jr., who even after horrible violence such as church bombings killed innocent children, counciled peace and love as the only cure for violence. It may seem naive, but it's clear that violence begets violence.

Perhaps after the organizers of Tuesday's atrocities are captured and tried, the citizens of the US can find it in our hearts to extend kindness to people we currently view as enemies. After all, extremism in many middle-eastern countries is growing more because of wretched economic conditions than a fanatical belief that America is Satan.
Re:A request by Madmax987654 · 2001-09-14 07:32 · Score: 1

Boy did you miss the point of the movie, and besides Bin Laden does finance terrorists, but he justifies it in the name of religion, hence being a fundamentalist. Jerry Falwell was calling for the abolishment of all liberal groups in the washington post today. (See a few posts above) If he gave money and supported anti-liberal activists, does he not come dangerously close to being the same as Osama? Seriously, what happened to the preaching of tolerance?
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:34 · Score: 0

Shame on you Falwell, for you are no better than those responsible for the thousands of deaths on Tuesday.

I keep seeing this sentiment. What on earth are the purveyors of it thinking? "Jerry Falwell is as guilty as those who killed over 5,000 people." Do you really mean that?

Would you say, "Jerry Falwell killed 5,000 people. Send him to The Hague."? It sounds ridiculous, but you're not leaving any room for any other interpretation.

Hey, disagree with him, tell me he's rude, tell me he's a hypocrite, but don't put commentators on the same level as terrorists. To do that is to trivialize what the true terrorists did by comparing them with the pundits and the preachers.

Steve Freitas
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:36 · Score: 0

>> Any white Christian who starts seeing those
>> of other ethnicities or religions as "Them"
>> is notonly a poor excuse for a Christian, but
>> ought to be considered as bad as the terrorists
>> themselves.

> Speaking as a white Christian...bingo. You just
> hit the nail on the head. In fact, it's that
> very attitude that allowed these terrorists to
> believe that what they were doing was somehow
> God's Will.

Speaking as a white Christian I can only say
that you have be come a deluded fool who has
been brainwashed into thinking that only multi-
cultural societies are "Christian". My Bible
does not say *anything* about about going forth
a building multi-cultural societies; what is says
is go forth a preach the Gospel. Big difference,
please learn to understand to distinguish the two.

If you think all cultures and people are the same
then why don't take *your* family and move to
the Middle-East, or South Africa, or some other
non-White, non-Christian enclave. We'll be
anxiously awaiting your post-cards. As for us,
we're sick and tired of your multi-cultural CRAP.
Take it some where else like Israel. Oh sorry, I
forgot, they don't like "foreigners"
there,especially if they're not Jews.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:39 · Score: 0

So what's wrong with the alleged sentiment? The only thing odd about it is that more Orthodox Jews haven't said the same thing yet. After all, that's the lesson of the Bablyonian exile: turn away from God, lose your nation. Painfully.

You may or may not like it, but there's nothing particularly un-Christian about this statement. And I don't CARE whether you think it's inappropriate or ignorant--if you do, you're just part of the problem, that's all.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:44 · Score: 0

> I agree. Where I am from (Houston, Texas) the
> population is 70 percent hispanic. Almost ALL of
> the latin population here is Christian. And they
> *certainly* pray.

Pray to whom? Many of the Mexican invanders
bring with them a strange brand of Christianity.
It's something of a cross between Santaria and
Christianity. It's a kind of voodoo Christianity.
It isn't Biblical Christianity. But I suppose it
doesn't matter as it's all in the name of
diversity.
Re:A request by olympus_coder · 2001-09-14 07:44 · Score: 1

I'm an athiest. I agree. If praying, driving, punching a wall, whatever helps someone deal with this it should be encurages. I personaly will do my greiving with sword and sheild, tank and missle.

We will honor the dead by the way we continue to live our lives and together we will continue as a country and as a world.

Andrew

--
Spell check? Why bother. That is what grammer/spelling Nazi freaks who waiste band width posting "spell right" are for.
Re:A request by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 07:50 · Score: 1, Offtopic

yeah, but.... but.... i was down to 49 karma, how am I supposed to SLEEP tonight? :]
Re:A request by AppyPappy · 2001-09-14 07:51 · Score: 1

Comparing Bin Laden to Falwell is a bit like comparing Hitler to Clinton. It sounds pleasant and it tickles our brain stem but it is very insensitive to the people killed by the former.

Anyway, Falwell apologized.

--
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
Re:A request by Jburkholder · 2001-09-14 07:53 · Score: 1

Disclaimer: I grew up in a _very_ relireous christian home and spent my youth first absorbing the teachings of the church, then rebelling against it (and the perceived hipocracy of those who taught).

It never ceases to amaze me how those who claim to be most christian, often display the most contrary (to the actual teachings of christ) behaviour. This is what drove me away.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:54 · Score: 0

In the same way the USSR and China were/are "communist."
Or like the U.S. has a "free market."
Re:A request by Rudeboy777 · 2001-09-14 07:54 · Score: 1

I saw a variation the other day that I liked even better:

chmod a+x /bin/laden

--
From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc
Re:A request by elmegil · 2001-09-14 07:54 · Score: 1

You don't think Falwell's condemnations are going to help some misguided fool think he's justified in beating up some pagan faggot along with all those A-rabs he's gonna go pound downtown?
If not, you're kidding yourself.

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:54 · Score: 0

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are two complete assholes, who do not even realize that their comments go counter the love and compassion and mercy so prominent in the faith they are supposed to profess.

While not in the same equivalence class as the NYC and DC murderers, these two characters are pretty obnoxious themselves.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:56 · Score: 0

Yup, people that go around claiming the anti-christ is a jew child, alive today, sure aren't as bad as bin Laden. Not like that inspires hate and violence in knuckle-dragging bible-thumping rednecks.
Re:A request by artdodge · 2001-09-14 07:56 · Score: 2

If it's any consolation, I'm a devout Christian who is also a bearded, long-haired, sandal-wearing flag-waver. So it's far from a universal hang-up. :-)
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 08:02 · Score: 0

Spin.

Every redneck that hates and hurts from his words make him just as much a bin Laden as anyone else.
Re:A request by RedOregon · 2001-09-14 08:08 · Score: 1

Just sent that .sig to a buddy of mine; he replied with
#find /home/taliban -exec rm {} \;

--
Skivvy Niner? Email me!
HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 08:09 · Score: 0

Falwell has apologized regarding his remarks, in which he was trying to make a more subtle, though debatable, point. I doubt we will hear apologies of any sort from those cheering the terrorists. I also doubt that Falwell, whatever faults he may have, is of the "kill the infidel" variety that the Imans recruiting suicide bombers are. I expect his view is more of the "Go, and sin no more" camp. Of course, once those broad brushes get going, they can spill a lot of paint, eh?

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/i ndex.html/
Re:A request by Theodrake · 2001-09-14 08:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

This reminds why I told my wife I don't like organized religion. I told her "I doubt you'll ever hear a statement like: an extremist atheist bin-laden follower today killed himself and 100's of others". She just didn't get it. She doesn't see how the hatred of the so called christians like the Pat Robertson's of the world can take us down the same path as the Taliban and the Bin Laden's.

Remember it was the senior President Bush that said there is no place in America for atheists. I say, yes lets get the people behind the attacks, but don't destroy the very foundation of our democracy in the process.
Re:A request by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 08:10 · Score: 2

I can relate. My family is hardcore Irish-Catholic, and noone I've ever known has had as many problems with long hair as they have.

About 25 years ago, at thanksgiving, my oldest cousin was sitting at the "adults" table, when my grandmother and aunt just started harping and harping and harping on him about his long hair.

So he tied it back, grabbed a steak knife off the table, and cut it off. He got up, walked into the kitchen and dropped it into the garbage, sat back down and kept eating. Lots of silence, it was quite a moment.

Then, about 4 years ago, the same aunt was sitting down to the Easter dinner table, took a good look at me with my hair hanging down, and said "It's like having our Lord sitting right here at the table with us." So I asked her, "Then WHY do you have such a problem with the hair?"

She didn't have an answer then, and she hasn't bothered me about it since.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 08:11 · Score: 0

I'm a Christian, and I have never, EVER, advocated any type of holy war, or thought that the concept even made sense.

As a Christian, I feel obligated to try to spread my faith to those who feel empty and are seeking faith. To say "I have found comfort in these words. Perhaps you will, too."

I certainly do not use threats of violence in an attempt to force my beliefs on others, nor do I take any negative view at all toward those who choose to believe differently. Each of us must come to faith, or not, on our own and at our own time. My place is to assist those who are seeking, not to force those who are not.

I do not believe that we should wage a holy war against anyone, even the perpetrators of Tuesday's attacks.

However, I'm also a human being, and an American. I do believe that we should wage war on the people who committed this horrendous act against us, and remove them from our midst so that they cannot ever do this again.

And yes, my Christian conscience is completely at peace with that desire, but certainly not the basis of it.
Re:A request by Pig+Hogger · 2001-09-14 08:15 · Score: 2

Noam Chomsky on the Attacks Against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon
That article reads like a bad comic with every other word printed in bold with all those links all over the place...
Re:A request by ArticulateArne · 2001-09-14 08:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Yikes. I would agree with most of your post, but I have to say that comparing Jerry Falwell with Osama bin Laden is incredibly irresponsible. I too am a white Christian, and while I don't agree with everything Jerry Falwell says and does, he has never done anything even CLOSE to what Osama bin Laden has done, even if bin Laden wasn't responsible for the destruction of the WTC. To my knowledge, Falwell isn't even responsible for one person having died, ever. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard anything to that effect. (And no, calling homosexuality a sin != creating a climate of hate != responsibility for someone getting killed). Falwell participates within the realm of ideas, and while you may vehemently disagree with his ideas, he stays within that realm. Osama bin Laden moves out of the realm of the ideas and murders those with whom he disagrees. There's absolutely no comparison.
Well, there goes all my karma.
Re:A request by Pig+Hogger · 2001-09-14 08:21 · Score: 2

I've seen suggestions online that as soon as they find those responsible for the attack planning and support, that they should be held until the WTC is rebuilt.... then dropped from the observation deck.
But not without having them bring up a few hundred cubic yards of concrete.
By foot
And using the stairs only.
Re:A request by ArticulateArne · 2001-09-14 08:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

To my knowledge, only Catholics believe in the doctrine of Transsubstantiation, which states that during the Eucharist, the bread and wine become the physical body and blood of Jesus. I think Lutherans believe in some kind of consubstantiation, which is like a pseudo-transsubstatiation, IIRC. Most Evangelicals, which includes Falwell and Robertson, believe that the Eucharist (usually called Communion in Evanagelical circles) involves only a Symbolic representation of the Crucifixion. And yes, the Crucifixion was an extremely violent, inhumane, unthinkably cruel act. But what Christians celebrate isn't the morbid violence of the act, but the love that stood behind the act, and the restoration of relationship that it brought about. &lt/pulpit&gt
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 08:50 · Score: 0

I would like to point out that there is a difference between bigotry and mass murder.

The two are but different distances down the same path.
Re:A request by Rimbo · 2001-09-14 08:52 · Score: 2

He is not trying to run a society closer to the exact interpretation of the Muslim religion. Contraversially, he is funding the training of a new militant generation of soldiers who dispise any religion other than their grossly missinterpreted version.

And this is different from extreme fundamentalist Christians in this country how, exactly?
Re:A request by Rimbo · 2001-09-14 08:54 · Score: 2

When they conquered most of Spain they basically left the churches alone and let people follow their chosen religious beliefs.

That's becaue Islam is, at its core, a very tolerant religion. So I've been informed.

Bin Laden and his kind don't represent Islam any more than I (a middle-class white nerd from the suburbs) represent African-American gang members.
Re:A request by Delphis · 2001-09-14 08:59 · Score: 1

It never ceases to amaze me how those who claim to be most christian, often display the most contrary (to the actual teachings of christ) behaviour. This is what drove me away.

No kidding! I feel exactly the same way. It makes me sad when people who say they are Christian behave in such an unloving, intolerant, judgemental, hypocritcal way. If asked if I am religious, I say I am not. I do not subscribe to the way that 'religion' is portrayed. Many bad things happen in the name of religion. I believe in a God that gives guidance on how to live well with all others. Kindness. Consideration. Understanding. I don't think you have to brand it as any particular 'religion' .. just trying to live your life by good values is important.

It might sound naive.. but can people just GET ALONG?

--
Delphis
Re:A request by Rimbo · 2001-09-14 09:04 · Score: 2

It never ceases to amaze me how those who claim to be most christian, often display the most contrary (to the actual teachings of christ) behaviour. This is what drove me away.

You are not alone. Far from it, in fact.

You may be interested in this book: Why Christianity Must Change Or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile. It's been written just for people like you, my family, and most of my friends who are believers. I haven't read it yet, but my parents have, and I'm planning on doing so.

I remember a few years ago, when my mother was an Elder at her local Presbyterian church. This lasted until the more fundamentalist elements of the church organized and essentially staged a takeover of the church leadership, to ensure that their vision of the Bible was the one the church espoused, causing my family and others to be all but ostracized. And my hometown church wasn't alone; across the country, fundamentalist Christians have done the same thing in moderate and liberal churches, since no views are compatible with their mindsets but their own.

Anyhow... I tend to go on about this since it's pretty dear to my heart, but it's true. Modern Christian fundamentalists really are the new Pharisees.
Re:A request by netsharc · 2001-09-14 09:08 · Score: 0

Sounds like CNN wants to kick Falwell's ass.. what better way to get the stupid moron in more trouble by quoting him on CNN? Some posters here said he's apologized for his comment, I bet he has, big time.

"In other news", as CNN-people would say it, CNN (among with other cable networks) has an office on the 110th floor of 1 WTC.. I wonder if they've mentioned anything about their own employeees, and if not, why not? Professional journalism?

Speaking of being professional, I hate how Bush was fucking acting when he called up Guiliani, damn man, for once you could at least stop being a politician and be human, and actually show some feeling, talk like you would talk to your friend, and be sincerely concerned. Instead he used that whole thing as a stupid show. Moron. Hillary Clinton for President in 2004!

--
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Re:A request by flewp · 2001-09-14 09:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well said.
As someone who doesn't pray in the religious sense, (as I guess you could say I'm agnostic, though I never liked the term because it implies I'm not sure, when rather, I figure if there is something there, fine, if there isn't, fine - I'll keep living the way I always have) I've always taken "pray" to mean "think and hope for the best," rather than asking a diety for the best. Because praying varies among different religions, I feel that hoping for the best and thinking positive is similiar to praying for us non-religous types.

--
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Re:A request by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 09:12 · Score: 2

But what Christians celebrate isn't the morbid violence of the act, but the love that stood behind the act, and the restoration of relationship that it brought about.

It's still a weekly celebration (their word, not mine) of a human sacrifice.
Re:A request by Oztun · 2001-09-14 09:19 · Score: 2

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

We didn't help it happen. It's true the people who did it are against Americans, freedom, and liberty. I will also die defending it if thats what it comes down to.
Re:A request by DarkZero · 2001-09-14 09:22 · Score: 0

I almost wonder if this is a subconscious attempt from people to rally support for white Christian America. It's easy for those who fit comfortably into the majority to see this as an Us vs. Them battle.

Well, yeah, it is sort of insulting to hold a Christian prayer service in a multiethnic, multireligious country like America. In fact, I think it's sort of insulting to the entire idea of America as the infinitely diverse "melting pot". But really... tens of thousands of people have died, and more terrorists could be literally anywhere. Let's give these Christians some slack, man. I think a terrorist attack like this warrants just a few days to let up on others and let them do whatever the fuck they want to cope with it.

Love and peace.
Re:A request by Oztun · 2001-09-14 09:22 · Score: 2

By we I mean someone who is for the "American Way". I am not gay, I do support the ACLU. All the things you mentioned involve having liberty and exercising our freedom as Americans. Anyone who doesn't think so needs to go to a country other than America.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 09:31 · Score: 0

Considering the damage area (a huge area), about 3 to 5 of these tower complexes could be built, housing 300,000 to 500,000 people during the day.
And where would you find 300,000 to 500,000 people which volunteer to be living targets? Even if you can rebuild the towers, you can't resuscitate the dead.
Re:A request by mbond · 2001-09-14 09:32 · Score: 1

Nope, not a single solitary person has attacked and possibly even killed anyone at any of the abortion clinics across the country.

While Falwell and others have not committed as heinous an act as the horrors on Tuesday, they are no less fanatical. I once called myself Christian, but seeing the absurdities this man had to say and at the most innapropriate time I was yet again reminded why I no longer do so.
Re:A request by Stalky · 2001-09-14 09:48 · Score: 1

Oh, come on. Your best drinking buddy is mortally wounded pushing you out of the way of a bus. On his deathbed, he asks you to hoist a beer in his memory every now and then. Nope, can't do that. Can't celebrate anything about *his* life.

--
Jeff
Re:A request by roman_mir · 2001-09-14 09:50 · Score: 2

People in America think they can not understand the reasons that lead to the killings of innocent people in the events in New York, Washington and Pittsburgh. I am not American, (currently Canadian and lost one of my work colleagues in this incident) but I think that you would understand these reasons better if they were laid out to you in your own terms - in the manner you as a nation think (I am going to refer to the notion of American Dream - not the original one but the corrupted version).

An American radio listener said: "If only we could sit down and talk to these people (terrorists) rationally, then maybe we could reach agreement... etc."

Such wishfull thinking is flawed in its very root - what seems to be rational to an American does not mean anything to someone from Taliban for example.)

When asked how can someone kill innocent people for any cause what ever it might me - an Arab fundamentalist (who was at war 'Jihad' with USA for many years now, Americans are so late declaring a war, a war was declared to them almost fifteen years ago) would answer simply - if it was a good person, he/she would go to heaven, a bad person goes to hell. You can see that the answer is not even symantically correct and does not give an answer deemed reasonable by American or European standard for example.

The person who thinks in this manner was thinking in this manner his/her entire life, these people are taught that the best thing for them would be to kill as many bad people (non-believers, American terrorists who impose themselves on holly arab lands) as possible.

American version of this would be of-course - the US Dollar. This is the God created by Americans for Americans to believe in, this is the only moving power and holly bottom line that is worth doing anything for. By saying this, I do not mean every single American, only the preveiling general tendency. It would be impossible to convince a large number of people in America that their entire lives are not only given them to generate as much income as possible, there is a strong system of believe here embedded into young people's minds from the very beginning and it is a very powerfull incentive.

This is why I believe Americans should be able to understand what is really going on (as they get introduced to the real world, step at a time). In the global world, America is no longer separated from the entire world by its geographycal location, it is part of the world now. It is so difficult to see some one else's point of view, hopefully the metaphore provided above will help you out.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 09:55 · Score: 0

most of the people at my office are pagin.
Re:A request by ArticulateArne · 2001-09-14 10:07 · Score: 1

People get killed at abortion clinics by those on both sides. (Please, believe me, I'm not trying to be flamebait). The fact remains, Falwell is encouraging the murder of no one.

The question of fanaticism is not whether one has it, but what one does with it. Are not 90% of the /. readers fanatical about Linux/Open Source/Free software? Do many of us not trash M$ on a regular basis? Yet, in our fanaticism, we don't kill anybody; we simply advocate ideas. Some may think them absurd, still we press on. The same thing is true for Jerry Falwell. He has a lot of ideas that are unpopular, yet he presses on. He doesn't kill people, or encourage the killing of people, he simply speaks out. If you choose not to listen, that's your freedom. In some respects, I would say that he has even more responsibility to speak out for what he believes, since the matters he deals with are life and death, and possibly beyond, rather than just the ordering of bits, and who gets to do what with them.
As I said before, there goes my karma.
Re:A request by DunbarTheInept · 2001-09-14 10:11 · Score: 2

He only apologised because it was necessary from a PR standpoint to do so. I have no confidence whatsoever in the sincerity of that apology.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:A request by Micah · 2001-09-14 10:12 · Score: 2

re: "Why Christianity must Change or Die"

I haven't read it, but I've heard about it and its author. The guy basically throws out most or all of the divine nature of the Bible, says all prophesy has already been fulfilled (giving us no hope for the future), and tells us we can live however the heck we want.

That is well outside of orthodox Christianity. I'd really recommend avoiding it.
Re:A request by Micah · 2001-09-14 10:17 · Score: 2

> This is what drove me away.

Why would something so trivial with some "followers" drive you away?

Has your belief changed? Do you still believe Christ is who He said He is? If so why would you want to abandon Him?

People of all sorts do stupid things. I used to look down on people with tattoos, guys with long hair and earrings and all that (I was raised in a pretty sheltered Christian environment) but lately I've seen that there's no point at all in that, and it's just downright dumb. Jesus certainly would not have done that.

But my faith remains strong. I continue to see how God works and continue to be amazed. Why dump Him?
Re:A request by osgeek · 2001-09-14 10:20 · Score: 3

Oh my uh... God!

That article is absolutely infuriating!

Those sons of bitches are a huge reason for why we've spent so much money supporting the Israelies with their talk of "We must help the Jews retake the Holy Land because it is prophesied".

This terrorist attack was a direct result of our activities in the Middle East, activities that have been greatly motivated by religious concerns -- and they blame it on the secularization of America? These assholes were practically at the controls of the airplane, and they blame it on people like me who don't believe in their gods and wish for nothing more than for us to butt out of the Middle East's quagmire of endless religious battles?

Oh, man. I've been trying to avoid casting aspersions on Christians during this event, but speech like that forces me to respond. Blaming "us" is so intellectually dishonest and tragically unfair.

--
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Re:A request by weave · 2001-09-14 10:40 · Score: 2

You know, I sat and read that washington post article about falwell and robertson and couldn't believe it. It must have been taken out of context, not reported accurately, etc, etc...
So I went to the source.
It's pretty much true, that's how he really feels. :-(
Re:A request by Rakarra · 2001-09-14 10:42 · Score: 1

Anyway, Falwell apologized.

Ummm, not really. He basically said the actions were the responsibility of the terrorists, but that the reason we are struck now is because of gays, lesbians, pagans, etc. He has not admitted to saying anything wrong.
Re:A request by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 10:55 · Score: 2

Well, he certainly wouldn't (and Jesus didn't) request that we have a ceremony, get dressed up in robes, chant in Latin and eat his body and drink his blood.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 10:57 · Score: 0

Oh, come on. Your best drinking buddy is mortally wounded pushing you out of the way of a bus. On his deathbed, he asks you to hoist a beer in his memory every now and then. Nope, can't do that. Can't celebrate anything about *his* life.

Oh, you can hoist a beer in his memory. You just can't pretend it's his blood you're drinking, you fucking sicko.
Re:A request by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 11:04 · Score: 2

Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Troll=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=4.

Man, we can't agree on much lately, can we? :]
Re:A request by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 11:07 · Score: 1, Troll

OH MY GOD, down to FORTY-EIGHT...
Re:A request by DunbarTheInept · 2001-09-14 11:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Normally people calling themselves athiest aren't so sompassionate towards other religions.

As an atheist who hangs out with a lot of other atheists, let me say that this is a strongly filtered perception. It is filtered by the fact that most of the time, an atheist isn't going to really say or do anything that would clue you in to the fact that he's an atheist. It's not a religion - it's not a belief. It's a lack thereof. So it rarely comes up in conversation unless in response to something someone has said that is highly insulting to an atheist (for example the 700 club quote in this thread). So you never realize someone is an atheist until they've been riled up by such a statement and are (justifiably) argumentative about it. This gives the false impression that atheists aren't compassionate toward other religions. It's not that we aren't compassionate. It's just that we don't tend to say much about it when we are in that mood. Consider today's prayers across the country, and the "moment of silence" that is typically used for personal prayers. Think about whichever crowd you were in at the time, or were watching on TV. During that moment of silence, if everyone in the crowd was an atheist - would you have even noticed the difference? Not really. It was a moment to respect the dead, not to start arguments.

I suspect you are committing the statistical error of counting the hits and ignoring the misses. My compassion for a religious person dissapears when he tells me I am incapable of being a good person because I'm an atheist. But until then, I view him as a person just like any other.

Over the years I've noticed that religions are so varied and complex that they don't *really* dictate what morals people believe in, like they claim to do. Rather, what happens is the other way around: that the morals a person holds dear determines which religion, and which subsect of that religion he migrates toward, and this is mostly subconsious. You can twist a lot of religious teachings into whatever you like by selectively picking which parts to take literally vs which parts to take as "metaphor". Thus when someone tells me he's a Christian, or he's a Muslim, or he's a Jew - I try as hard as I can to *not* draw any predjudiced conclusions about what that really means. I wait to observe his actions and his words first. Or at least I *try* to. I will admit to not always succeeding at being gracious and polite as I should be - especially if I've just recently heard some hateful rhetoric such as that of today's 700 club (which has been floating around the net all day).

As a child I was brought up as a Ba'hii (Not sure where the apostrophe is supposed to go there - it's one of those Arabic words that just isn't easy to spell in English letters.) They are a modern offshoot from Islam, in much the same way that Christianity started as an offshoot of Judaism. (But the Ba'hii offshoot is much more recent - from the 1800's). Anyway, one of the core tenets of the Ba'hii faith is that one must spend time studying the other religions of the world as well as one's own, because they all came from the same god, and all have useful things to say. Given enough time studying, one is supposed to realize that the relgions all teach the same message, and that the similarities between them must be the "pure" message from God and the differences are supposed to be the minor points that don't matter as much, perhaps are even manglings of the original message a bit. It's a nice idea, and Ba'hiis tend to be *extremely* tolerant of other religions because of this. It is common to mix up different words from different relgions in a 'reading'. (The televised event today from the National Cathedral, with the list of different leaders from different faiths speaking is very reminiscent of what I remember from Ba'hii services I used to go to.) Anyway, where am I going with this? I don't really know.

I guess just one day I started toying idly with the idea that maybe the reason the religions overlap so much in what they say isn't because they all come from the same god, but because they don't come from a god at all, and instead come from people's own hearts and desires. Perhaps their similarities merely reflect the similarities cultures have because we're all human, and at some basic level we all think similarly when confronted with the taks of explaining the unknown. Over the years that little seed of doubt grew until finally I started thinking it the more plausable explanation to the one offered by the Bah'ii faith. When I turned 15 (the age at which one can officially make the declaration to become a Bahii for real), that doubt was so strong that I didn't feel comfortable doing it, and so I didn't. And I never have since, and what was once a small doubt is now what I see as the most plausable explanation. I called myself "agnostic" and decried atheists until much later when I realized they don't actually *have* a belief like I thought they did. I was applying the atheist label to a strawman that doesn't often exist. That's when I started calling myself one too.

But enough rambling. On this day, we shouldn't argue. Comfort yourself with the things you hold dear. I often think of religion as just a crutch, a teddy bear to make people feel better. But today is the last day to be taking people's teddy bears away. They need them now more than ever.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 11:12 · Score: 0

I'm not sure if you meant to say what you did, but if so: http://www.choice.org/7.clinicviolence.html
Re:A request by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 11:14 · Score: 2

I agree, and it amazes me that these men were allowed to take the podium with our nation and others watching.

How many people spoke? Couldn't we have found some Christians to preach that might actually be worth listening to?
Re:A request by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 11:16 · Score: 2

Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged indeed.
Re:A request by ArticulateArne · 2001-09-14 11:19 · Score: 1

Quite true.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 11:34 · Score: 0

Bin Laden and his kind don't represent Islam any more than I (a middle-class white nerd from the suburbs) represent African-American gang members.
What an idiotic statement. Why even bring race into the mix?
Re:A request by ckd · 2001-09-14 12:38 · Score: 2

Falwell has apparently backpedaled and apologized for some of his comments.

Yeah, he said that only the hijackers and terrorists were responsible for the attack, but that maybe all that bad stuff we've been doing "caused God to lift the veil of protection". (See the CNN article about this "apology").

Meanwhile, Mark Bingham, one of the passengers on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania (and apparently among those who fought to prevent its use as another aerial bomb) was an openly gay man.

If I had to pick one of the two to spend a day with, knowing only what I currently know about them both, I'd pick Mark any day. I've never met either Mark Bingham or Jerry Falwell, but Mark has a bunch of friends and family who miss him enough to put up a tribute web page and attend memorials; Jerry apparently has a bunch of people who give him money upon request.
Re:A request by speederaser · 2001-09-14 12:41 · Score: 1

Give me a gun, show me Falwell, and the world shall be a better place...

If you really mean that, that makes you the same as Falwell and the same as Bin Laden - self-righteously intolerant of another viewpoint to such a degree you're willing to destroy anyone holding that viewpoint.

Falwell and his ilk serve as a wonderful negative example. They should live forever. People hear discussions of the shortcomings of his thinking, and when they next hear his pontifications they think "Damn. He really IS an idiot!". Where before his faults weren't really in focus, suddenly everything becomes clear. That lesson would be lost if he weren't alive and spewing.

Tuesday was only the latest lesson that self-righteous intolerance is the greatest evil this world knows. Please don't let yourself fall victim to it.
Re:A request by S.+E.+James · 2001-09-14 13:03 · Score: 1

I agree. I'm not Christian, but now is not the time to accuse anyone of pushing religion. Although, thinking ahead, we should be prepared for a major relgious push after the dust settles. You know what I'm talking about if you watched the O'Reilly factor tonight. One minister said this was god's way of attempting to turn us back to him. This event is already tragic enough let's not make it worse by taking steps toward establishing a state religion.
I forgot to mention this earlier, but my thanks to Slashdot for their coverage. I got all my info from here and with the excellent postings /. became quite a bustling community.
S.E.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 13:17 · Score: 0

Matthew 26:26-28 (New King James translation):

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat, this is My body."

Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Re:A request by psamuels · 2001-09-14 15:30 · Score: 1

That's becaue Islam is, at its core, a very tolerant religion. So I've been informed.

I've heard exactly the opposite. You've heard of jihad, right? It amounts to conquering the infidel nations by force in order to transform them into Muslim societies. No, this is not a recent mutation or fanaticism - Muhammad himself promoted jihad.
The thing about Islam - and this is a crucial point - it is fundamentally opposed to the concept of "separation of church and state". In the ideal Islamic society, the church completely permeates society - the Qu'ran is basically the law of the land. I think it is fair to say, in modern parlance, that pure orthodox Islam is the epitome of religious intolerance.
(Note: many modern Muslim nations do not reach this ideal, having become secularized and westernized over the years. I'm talking about the type of society Muhammad promoted in the Qu'ran.)
My theory is that this is why the Arab nations hate us (the US) so much. It is not just about Israel. They hate our society for being so secular, because our government so strongly stands for the separation of church and state, for individual freedom of religion. This is a threat to the Muhammaden way of life.
If you don't believe me, go live in a country with an Islamic government. Stop people on the street and talk loudly with them about your non-Muslim beliefs. See how long it takes before you are confronted in one way or another. Obviously the exact consequences would depend on which government - in this dimplomatic and civilized day and age I bet most would merely deport you, but even so....

--
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 15:37 · Score: 0

Some of Falwells followers have tried to kill Larry Flint.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 15:37 · Score: 0

Many of the Mexican invanders
bring with them a strange brand of Christianity.
It's something of a cross between Santaria and
Christianity.

Huh? This is a racial slur. Most of the Latin-Americans in Texas are devoutly Catholic.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 15:41 · Score: 0

Some of us live in Australia where most immigrants left their religion at the border where it belongs. Australia is the most religous free country in the world and that seems like a very good thing.
Re:A request by thogard · 2001-09-14 15:45 · Score: 1

The body and blood of christ concepts came out of Egypt. Blood is quite impure according to old Jewish (and Islamic) rules.
Re:A request by blhath · 2001-09-14 15:58 · Score: 1

Christ never said anything about the catholic holy eucharist but if you're talking about communion Luke 22:19 tells us, "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.'" NIV.

I believe that he meant it as a representation of his body and not as his actual body, however he does ask his followers to do it. In the future don't lump the Eucharist and communion together for they are entirely different.

--
"So this is what it feels like ... when doves cry." -Milhouse Van Houten
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 17:38 · Score: 0

Actually, I'd say ignoring how we've suddenly become a Christian-only nation according to the media and the politicians would be a great injustice to everyone involved.

You shouldn't sacrifice what you believe is right for fear of looking insensitive. You aren't. People are already starting to take advantage of this disaster to push their views as they know no one dares oppose them for fear of seeming insensitive, this includes the anti-privacy movement that got the anti-encryption train rolling again in congress and just eliminated the need to get a warrant to wiretap internet, as well as the "America = Christianity" people. We've gotten past racism, sexism, now the last hurdle is religionism(?). Don't passively accept it.
Re:A request by msim · 2001-09-14 18:08 · Score: 1

I read that washington post artice, and i find that a truely arrogant and closeminded opinion. Not that i am fantastic at remembering this stuff, or highly religeous, but didnt it get said somewhere (i dont know where), but god loved all his children.

Sure there was the town that he blasted into oblivion by destroying it with flames from the heaven or whatever (he turned that woman into a pillar of salt in that bit), but that was a 'old testament', and religeous groups lead by people being scared shitless of being toasted for anything they did wrong.

Anyway, im rambling a bit, but my point is, how on earth could you blame the 'pro choice' and the gays, lesbians, or whoever for this, they are people trying to live a good life, sure its not one that some may approve of, but who cares, its their life, and for the vast majority, they are trying to live a GOOD life.

It's the people that have the arrogance and want to change others opinions, or use their views as a excuse to start something that help cause all this shit anyway. Any 'normal' terrorist, if there is such a thing, causes distruction to bring attention to their cause, if life must be lost, then so be it, but they would do the minimum needed to do so, maybe bomb somewhere, take out a few people, not the utter distruction and total blatant disregard for human life that the people that did this showed. This was brought about by people showing arrogance and a closed mind to everything else outside their view. and they fucked up a whole heap of innocent people in the process.

*note* i am not implying i support terorism, im just quoting from a article i read recently behind the tactics shown in this act.

--

Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
Re:A request by SuperLiquidSex · 2001-09-14 18:14 · Score: 0

After reading that I'm going to be sick.

--
Oops....you'll know what I'm talkin about in a bit.
Re:A request by Paul+Komarek · 2001-09-14 18:35 · Score: 2

Given what you've stated, why would you recommend avoiding it? You've made it sound interesting, and say nothing about it being a bad book. Do you have more to say about this book?

-Paul Komarek
Re:A request by evilviper · 2001-09-14 19:58 · Score: 1

Blaming organized religion for extremists is like blaming TV and video games for violence.

Put simply, these people are extremists, they will find something to believe in, and kill for. Hell, in Korea and Vietnam we were killing people for "The American Way of Life".

Atheists simply don't believe in any religion, you certainly don't represent the body of atheists, and in that, you are an extremeist in your own way.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:A request by Cato · 2001-09-14 20:08 · Score: 2

That's because of how everything2.com works. See www.zmag.org for the original article, and some other good analysis of the events of this week.
Re:A request by Uncle+Butthead · 2001-09-14 21:15 · Score: 1

"It's still a weekly celebration (their word, not mine) of a human sacrifice"

Don't you mean self sacrifice?

--
I'm not an idiot! I'm the village Halfwit
Re:A request by Uncle+Butthead · 2001-09-14 21:35 · Score: 1

(Dones NOMEX skivies)Look at Fallwells' statement from the extreamists Muslim Fundamentalist point of view.

--
I'm not an idiot! I'm the village Halfwit
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 21:40 · Score: 0

oh, come on... that was funny...

(and no I'm not AugstWest, just a newbie who likes his Karma too much)
Re:A request by issachar · 2001-09-14 21:44 · Score: 1

maybe I'm missing something by not being American, but how did Falwell refer to you as a pagan?

--
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
Re:A request by issachar · 2001-09-14 21:46 · Score: 1

you know I normally read the links, but the one time I don't....

dummie...

--
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-15 00:09 · Score: 0

The body and blood of christ concepts came out of Egypt. Blood is quite impure according to old Jewish (and Islamic) rules.

This is perhaps more accurate than you know. Most of the symbolism here comes from Passover, which honors the flight out of Egypt. To quote from a somewhat archaic English translation: (Exodus 12:1-14

And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt saying,
This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the
first month of the year to you.
Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth
day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the
house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his
neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls;
every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.
Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye
shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month:
and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the
evening.
And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts
and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.
And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and
unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire;
his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.
And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that
which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.
And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your
feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the
LORD's passover.
For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite
all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all
the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye
are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not
be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it
a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by
an ordinance for ever.

Christians believe that the "Last Supper" event took place on the first night of the feast of unleavened bread (Passover). The main symbolism being that Jesus is sacrificed like the lambs were sacrificed in Egypt, and that life is thereby brought through death.

I apologize if there are any inaccuracies in this post. The point is to show where the "body and blood" part comes from. (The Romans did not have this cultural background and were really freaked out by the reports they heard.)
Re:A request by reidand · 2001-09-15 01:43 · Score: 1

You've got to remember that the people who do these things in the name of God are quite deranged.

To interpret the Quran in the manner which Usama bin Laden apparently does is somewhat, er, interesting.

The actions of a few nutcase terrorists is by no means a good representative of the actions and beliefs of the majority of people that participate in organised religion.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-15 02:04 · Score: 0

if people really wanted to kill fallwell, then they would have done it a long time ago. Here in lynchburg, he doesn't have that much security. Personally i've seen him eating dinner at Applebees twice in the past year.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-15 03:24 · Score: 0

I couldn't find the part about lesbians, the ACLU, etc. on that page. Then again, it's his own website, so I'm sure he's able to edit the press release after the fact.
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-15 05:12 · Score: 0

You've heard of Crusades, right? It amounts to conquering the infidel nations by force in order to transform them into christian societies. In fact, Jihad and Crusade have very similar connotations. In the same way that a newspaper might report that a politician is on a crusade to repair Main street, a muslim student might describe himself as being on a jihad to improve his grades this semester.
Re:A request by Jburkholder · 2001-09-15 05:48 · Score: 1

>Why would something so trivial with some "followers" drive you away?

It drove me away from the 'church', not my beliefs.
Re:A request by Rimbo · 2001-09-15 09:11 · Score: 2

I think he's simply missed the point: That "orthodox" Christianity is no longer truly orthodox. That there's a lot of baggage with "orthodox" Christianity that, when held up to scrutiny and logical thought, doesn't really fit, or is far less important than it's been made out to be.

Take the Virgin Birth. If this were proven to be false, it wouldn't affect my belief that Jesus is the Christ one iota. I certainly believe that God is capable of making a virgin become pregnant. I also believe that God can make a bastard son the Christ. The former version sounds more impressive, but who really needs it?
Re:A request by Micah · 2001-09-15 10:28 · Score: 2

Ah, OK. :-)

Well there certainly are fairly good churches out there. I go to one. :-)
Re:A request by Micah · 2001-09-15 10:30 · Score: 2

Well, IIRC, the book even denies the Resurrection.

If you read 1 Corinthians 15, you'll see that the Resurrection is foundational. If it was proven false, everything we believe and do is in vain.
Re:A request by Rimbo · 2001-09-15 12:07 · Score: 2

Maybe (I don't see where Paul explains why the Resurrection is necessary for us to be saved, but I just skimmed the text -- he probably does, only elsewhere)...

But that's no excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because he's wrong on one point doesn't make the entirety of it false. More importantly, what's really missing is that people nowadays have accepted interpretations of scripture without taking the effort to think about them. We've been doing this for too long. And if nothing else, this is a book about thought, and about questioning whether what we believe is really necessary, the only way to read Scripture, or even in agreement with scripture.

If the only thing the Bishop does is cause us to question our beliefs and come back and say that he's wrong on every point after thinking and analyzing his points thoroughly and honestly (which is harder than it sounds), the book still has enormous value.
Re:A request by Micah · 2001-09-15 13:22 · Score: 2

Ok, points taken. Thinking about Scripture for yourself is definitely a good thing.

Regarding 1 Cor 15 and the Resurrection:

v3,4: Resurrection (along with death and burial) is of first importance

v6-8: People who the resurrected Christ appeared to. The people Paul was writing to could have checked this out personally.

v14: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

and keep reading from there. Clearly, if anyone rejects the Resurrection, they might as well live like a pagan. And given that that's exactly what Bishop Spong does, it's hard to give him much, if any, credibility as a "Christian".

But sure, read the book. Can I also encourage you to read through the whole Bible if you haven't already done so? That will give you a foundation with which to judge Mr. Spong's writings. I'm doing that for the first time this year and it's really bolstering my confidence in it. Also perhaps get into some Max Lucado books -- he really writes great stuff.

In Christ (hard to believe I'm saying that on Slashdot!),
Micah
Re:A request by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-16 13:09 · Score: 0

As a Christian, I feel obligated to try to spread my faith to those who feel empty and are seeking faith. To say "I have found comfort in these words. Perhaps you will, too."

[...]

...Each of us must come to faith, or not, on our own and at our own time. My place is to assist those who are seeking, not to force those who are not.

In other words, you prey on the weak and the people in need under the guise of helping them in order to promote your own belief....
Re:A request by thogard · 2001-09-17 03:43 · Score: 1

Egypt as we know it today was named by Napolian in the 1800's. The Egypt and Pharo stuff in the bible was based about stuff from an area in Iraq near Bablyon.
Re:A request by 9sPhere · 2001-09-17 08:28 · Score: 0

Many of the Mexican invanders bring with them a strange brand of Christianity Yeah- and the first bands of settlers in north america appeared due to persecution of their strange flavor of christianity. Remember this countries roots before you open yer yap.

--
It is pitch dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

I've been impressed overall by WinDoze · 2001-09-14 05:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not only with Slashdot (did that REALLY say 2-thousand-something comments on the front page?!?!), but with CNN, ABCNews, the NY Times, and just about every other major news source I can think of. Tuesday afternoon was tough. By Tuesday evening all these sites were responding as though I was the only connected user. The server power that must have been thrown at some of these sites is staggering.

Re:I've been impressed overall by part!cle · 2001-09-14 05:17 · Score: 1

/. was great. Expecially with the people keeping it online, but all of the intelligent conversations that transpired in the last few days as well. ./, along with abc and bbc for non techie stuff are now where I will get my news.

--
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
Re:I've been impressed overall by kootch · 2001-09-14 05:30 · Score: 1

don't forget the BBC! While other people were trying to get CNN to load and the coverage on the tv stations was still iffy, my entire office was watching a BBC streaming video (via Real Player) that was incredible.

CNN you couldn't get a page view, but the BBC you could watch a live video stream.

THAT is incredible. My only question for the BBC... how did you guys manage to find brits to interview in the area? Everyone they managed to interview while live in NYC had a british accent... or was it dubbed over?
Re:I've been impressed overall by spagma · 2001-09-14 05:36 · Score: 2, Funny

So, does that mean that slashdot survived the ultimate slashdot effect?

--
If it won't boot, Fsck it!
Re:I've been impressed overall by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:49 · Score: 0

Around 8% of the victims of the WTC were British/Irish. That is 300 - 500 people. I can't have been hard to find surviving British people.
This is why it wasn't an attack against America. It was an attack against civilisation, democracy and freedom. British people helped save American lives in the aftermath, and I am sure that Japanese, and French, and Germans, and Moslims were also amongst the dead and the rescuers.
America shouldn't face the enemy (terrorists and those that would destroy that which the first world holds dear) alone, but face them alongside their allies in NATO.
Hell, it is a British company (Lloyds) that is going to foot the insurance bill for the disaster. $1.5b for the buildings alone (only one was insured!).
Re:I've been impressed overall by WinDoze · 2001-09-14 06:09 · Score: 1

Everyone they managed to interview while live in NYC had a british accent... or was it dubbed over?

Dude, you just gave me the biggest laugh I've had since Tuesday morning. Thanks.

I haven't spend much time on here this week... Hoping nobody has any serious horror stories. Seems I've lost one cousin and seven friends so far.
Re:I've been impressed overall by kootch · 2001-09-14 06:16 · Score: 1

i'm glad i atleast brought someone a smile. i don't think anyone's in for a little bit of humor these days.
Re:I've been impressed overall by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:13 · Score: 0

Well, Slashdot is bragging about how they didn't get crushed, while sites like CNN and ABCNews did. Like a butterfly bragging it carried an ant all the while the nearby birds were trying to carry whales.

If # of posts is proportional to # of hits, then Slashdot got nailed by about 10x normal traffic. I'll bet CNN and ABCNews got a lot more than that.
Re:I've been impressed overall by Thatto · 2001-09-14 09:57 · Score: 1

Don't take away from Taco's accomplishment. I'm sure that ABC & CNN have more money and man power to throw at the increased traffic. /. managed this with 6 servers and one support team.

Couldn't get to CNN by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:05 · Score: 0, Funny

Have you heard of that wonderful new invention, television?

Re:Couldn't get to CNN by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:32 · Score: 1, Funny

Ever hear of going to work, asshole? Most of us don't have cable tv drops in our offices.
Re:Couldn't get to CNN by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:53 · Score: 0

But most of us don't "work" as slashdot editors/posterboys/etc. either.
Re:Couldn't get to CNN by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:02 · Score: 0

Ever heard of working at work, instead of surfing the web all day? Lazy American scum. It's a shame more of your type weren't on the top floors on Tuesday.
Re:Couldn't get to CNN by firewort · 2001-09-14 06:14 · Score: 2

Here at IBM, we have in-house TV served over Token Ring to monitors at the corners of the buildings.

The monitors were re-broadcasting live news feeds from the outside world (can't remember who they were showing, CNN or NBC, or someone else).

--

Kudos to Slashdot and the Slashteam by Whyte+Wolf · 2001-09-14 05:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

I've spent the last few days in something of a daze, waiting for the real ramifications of Tuesdays horror to sink in. Many of my collegues up here in Canada are not sure what to make of the events, and possible response, but we're sure it will be bad.

That said, in all my experiences on the net over the last couple of days, it was Slashdot I came back to for my info feed/dump. Who had their site up and running in the face of the massive demand? Slashdot.

CNN was there during the Gulf War. Slashdot was there for the start of this new era, and I'm sure will be there in the face of whatever is to come. You guys are just another indication of the strength the US can have in the face of adversisty.

Thank you.

--

Beware the Whyte Wolf.

With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...

Re:Kudos to Slashdot and the Slashteam by Chundra · 2001-09-14 05:39 · Score: 1

it was Slashdot I came back to for my info feed/dump
Mr. Wolf,
It has been said that what separates humans from "lower" life forms is that we don't shit where we eat, or rather: dump where we feed. Though, and I'm sure many will agree, there are many turds in the grain trough here on Slashdot. Then again, wolves are cleaner than many species in this respect, so I'm curious why one would engage in such unsanitary behavior.
;-)
Re:Kudos to Slashdot and the Slashteam by iacyclone · 2001-09-14 05:42 · Score: 1

I agree. You guys did a great job and are providing a great service to the community!

Keep it up!

Steve
Re:Kudos to Slashdot and the Slashteam by linuxlover · 2001-09-14 05:50 · Score: 1

absolutely. Tuesday (Sept 11) all major sites were down (CNN/MSNBC). BBC was holding up and serving some good stories with facts (not just the drama). I got most of the news from Slashdot and the comments. Great work.
The redcross site is down. May be heavy load. From netcraft is running IIS. I KNOW this is not the time for advocacy.........
linuxlover
Re:Kudos to Slashdot and the Slashteam by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:56 · Score: 0

Me too. Waaaaaaaa! Me too. Thanks for the input, schmeckleface.
Re:Kudos to Slashdot and the Slashteam by Nos. · 2001-09-14 06:05 · Score: 2

As another Canadian I know exactly what you mean. This still feels like a bad dream or something that didn't really happen, though obviously it did.

As a side note, today, Canada has declared a National Day of Mourning, the last one being over 30 years ago. Jean Chretien gave a speech to the American Ambassador to Canada, Paul Celucci. I can't find a link to his entire speech. However, CBC is quoting some of his words here. Probably the most touching part of Paul's speech was when he said (referring to Canada), "You truly are our closest friend".

Canada also observed 3 minutes of silence for those lost in Tuesday's attack. I'd just like to issue a quick note of thanks for all of us that observed those three minutes.
Re:Kudos to Slashdot and the Slashteam by Karn · 2001-09-14 06:43 · Score: 1

It's really touching, that the so many people are showing their support.

The gestures you all make are noticed, and they are much appreciated.

--

Why do I keep typing pythong?
Re:Kudos to Slashdot and the Slashteam by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:15 · Score: 0

> It has been said that what separates humans from
> "lower" life forms is that we don't shit where we
> eat,

It's clear you've never stepped very far into some of the more interesting pr0n sites...
Re:Kudos to Slashdot and the Slashteam by notaspy · 2001-09-14 07:17 · Score: 1

I can't agree more; Slashdot has suddenly expanded their realm of influence to providing current mainstream news stories.

I'm in an office without television or radio - Slashdot was the only internet site I was able to access any news from. When I passed on this information to my equally frustrated colleagues in the office, I was amazed that not one of them had heard of you guys!

It may be time for a new slogan: "Not just for techno-nerds anymore!"

--
hi!
Re:Kudos to Slashdot and the Slashteam by OSgod · 2001-09-14 12:53 · Score: 1

Actually to be completely fair -- yahoo and it's news sites (and custom sites like my.yahoo.com) did not take a significant hit -- i.e.: they just worked -- apparently without the intervention that was required at Slashdot and to a tune of many more hits/users.

Enemies of the USA by CmdrTaco+on · 2001-09-14 05:07 · Score: 0, Informative

The following list is of slashdot users who are terrorist sympathisers and enemies of freedom and democracy:

greenrd
abdousi
IntlHarvester
Angry White Guy
delmoi
Cederic

--

saru mo ki kara ochiru

Re:Enemies of the USA by IntlHarvester · 2001-09-14 05:13 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I knew I shouldn't have posted something about Lotus Notes!

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:Enemies of the USA by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:33 · Score: 0

Don't forget the late Stephen King. He's a communist too, who died this morning.

The Community Was Served. by pgrote · 2001-09-14 05:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

Slashdot did provide a very valuable service the day of the attack.

Take into consideration that during the day at some point all major media web sites died.

Many people found Slashdot as their only source of updated information that was staying up.

This sentiment was echoed in pieces by Salon and Wired writers that mentioned Slashdot specifically as a site that had what people were looking for.

You should be proud and satisfied that what you have created did provide a needed service. Thanks, again.

Re:The Community Was Served. by brain+damage · 2001-09-14 05:26 · Score: 1

I agree entirely.

I could watch TV and see what was happening, but after a few repetitions of the same horrifying videos of the crash and subsequent collapses I simply wanted to know what other people had to say.

It comforted me to know that there was a world out there just as outraged as me. Just as dismayed with humanity.

The stories of /. members who experienced the events first hand really brought everything home. It also allowed for a moment of thanks that some people were able to survive.

Thank you for struggling to keep this incredible resource up and running.
Re:The Community Was Served. by zpengo · 2001-09-14 05:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

A huge part of this wasn't the news itself (which was sparse), but the fact that the Slashdot user discussions were where information was being placed in real time. As soon as something happened, someone posted it here. I just set my comments to "Newest First" and refreshed every few minutes, and I knew what was going on the entire time.

--

Got Rhinos?
Re:The Community Was Served. by styopa · 2001-09-14 05:35 · Score: 2

I noticed that San Jose Mercury News linked the Jon Katz article on their site for more information.

Slashdot has been quoted by people before though. I have stopped being shocked when I see articles quoting comments from Slashdot. Whether one wants to accept it or not, Slashdot has gained a lot of respect over the past year and a half, and this is just one more feather in their cap.

Kudos to the Slashteam.

--
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Re:The Community Was Served. by Jburkholder · 2001-09-14 05:44 · Score: 1

Agreed. When I first heard about things Tuesday morning, it was from a phone call to my boss in the next cube. He called over the wall "Hey, did you hear there was a plane crash in New York? Cathy (one of our coworkers on the phone working from home) says it crashed into one of the buildings downtown!"

First I heard of it. I was taking my morning coffee and /. break and immediately hit reload and there was the first story posted with like already 500+ comments. I opened new browser windows and tried cnn, msnbc, etc and got nothing.

/. was virtually the only source of info we had for the first hour or so until someone found a radio and we started listening to Rather. Someone finally stole the TV from the video conference room and hooked it up in the kitchen so we could get CNN.

Funny thing was that the info and discussion on /. was so much better and spot-on that I kept leaving the cube where the radio was when major development happened (like the towers collapsing) and going back to my cube to reload /.

I think /. did indeed provide a very valuable service on that day and the days that followed. Thanks guys.
Re:The Community Was Served. by Jburkholder · 2001-09-14 06:10 · Score: 1

>Slashdot has gained a lot of respect over the past year and a half
Yeah, they've come a long way from when they were described as
Slashdot.org, a popular online hangout for hackers
Re:The Community Was Served. by BHS_Turf · 2001-09-14 07:06 · Score: 1

The only other thing that I would add to this comment is that the community also served the community well. There was little or no racial slurs or immediate calls for retaliation that were evident in all the mainstream news sources. Sensationalism, showing racist comments or violence-advocating comments prominently because there was a lack of real information to keep viewers tuned in (CNN infographics/editorials).

/. user comments and mirrors were far more useful for delivering information than TV, radio, or any other website.

Thank you all for your part,

BHS_Turf
Re:The Community Was Served. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:10 · Score: 0

Yeah, I'd give props too if it didn't start out
with the same Taco bullshit of "I don't usually
post crap like this, but..."
Re:The Community Was Served. by Wenjie · 2001-09-14 23:21 · Score: 1

I would like to put in my thanks too. Since I didn't have CNN on TV here in Singapore, the next place I turned to for news was the internet, and Slashdot was the only news site I could get to. Thanks a lot Slashdot, for not only providing news for nerds, stuff that matters but also a valuable service. - WJ (no .sig)

Congratulations. by chill · 2001-09-14 05:08 · Score: 1

and thanks for the information. If I couldn't load CNN due to traffic, I was able to get through to /. and at least get updates.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.

did you forward this ... by Rev.LoveJoy · 2001-09-14 05:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

to CNN or MSNBC?

:-)

This is a great writeup. It covers all the things you could have done on your end to make /. fly. I guess the only prerequisite that most of us have trouble with are the Phat Pipes you folks can afford.

Cheers,
- RLJ

Re:did you forward this ... by Chundra · 2001-09-14 05:46 · Score: 1

...most of us have trouble with are the Phat Pipes you folks can afford.
I hope you're referring to their "phat" net connection, and not the crack pipes that some of the editors and quite a few of the moderators toke.
$3 crack isn't that expensive, you see. But in either case I will agree, most of us have a problem with it.
Re:did you forward this ... by kettch · 2001-09-14 10:02 · Score: 1

Interesting, I wonder if Netscape Enterprise servers are as easily configurable on the fly as Apache?

MSNBC will never leave IIS5 on win2k but it will show them that there are better ways to fix problems than rebooting. Although, the information that Netcraft reports on MSNBC is interesting, specifically the two Akamai servers and their OS/web server combination.

--
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu

Very interesting stuff. by XretsiM · 2001-09-14 05:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

As a part owner of an internet developer/consultant, one of the more interesting things about Tuesday's tragedy was watching how various sites responded to the incredible load demands placed on them. Even watching the situation from the outside, it was clear that clear heads at Slashdot were doing something remarkable behind the scenes. Thanks for the insite into what was actually going on. I'll be passing this on to our staff, many of who came to rely on Slashdot's coverage on Tuesday morning.

--

--
Glenn Loos-Austin
glenn@clotho.com

Re:Very interesting stuff. by gnurd · 2001-09-14 06:18 · Score: 1

hey slavery was outlawed a long time ago.

--
"i was saying gnu-rd"

thank you very much. by garcia · 2001-09-14 05:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is not common for people to recieve thanks for the great service that they do for a community but I am going to go ahead and give you thanks for feeding us the information that I was not able to get through TV and the basically non-exitant other news-sites.

I am normally a critic of /. and the editors but this entire week I felt that they did an extraordinary job of keeping us informed. For once I am going to applaud you.

I got links to personal experiences on the tragedies, movies, images not seen on TV, and personal reflection on the entire ordeal by people that seem to have valid ideas (not the crap that you hear from most people about the attacks)

Thank you again /. for making sure we got the news we needed.

Re:thank you very much. by Amokscience · 2001-09-14 06:40 · Score: 2

I would also like to add my voice to this posting. When the times were worst, Slashdot and its team managed to do the right thing and do it well.

--
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
Re:thank you very much. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:48 · Score: 0

(not the crap that you hear from most people about the attacks
"I've never seen anything like it..."
Well no shit, Einstein.

other sites... by swright · 2001-09-14 05:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Part of my job is monitoring various web sites. They aren't news related and the average traffic levels fell by around 60% - rising to 50% under average after a day or so. They're only just returning to normal.

Thought y'all might be interested (the sites are generally eCommerce sites in Europe)

Re:other sites... by Roblimo · 2001-09-14 05:19 · Score: 2

This seems to have been a Net-wide pattern; news sites got hard-hit, but all other kinds saw big traffic drop-offs.

There will be a story up at Online Journalism Review before long talking about that -- and about how Slashdot served as an ad hoc news portal in a way no traditional news site could.

- Robin

Staying focused was tough by sphealey · 2001-09-14 05:09 · Score: 4, Redundant

I also congratulate you guys for staying focused on getting your jobs done under very difficult circumstances. I would estimate my own productivity was 25% of normal that day, along with most people I was working with.

sPh

My only source by nate1138 · 2001-09-14 05:09 · Score: 2

At least for me, slashdot was the ONLY news source I had, no TV or radio in my office, and all of the usual suspects collapsed under the load. Thanks also to google for providing Cached pages from CNN, Wash Post, MSNBC, Etc. a little later in the day. And thanks to all the /.'ers that had personal reports from the area, that really helped to put a perspective on things.

--
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.

Great Job, Cmdr Taco by Petrus · 2001-09-14 05:10 · Score: 2, Informative

I was getting all my early informatins and initial links to working news sites from slashdot. Everybody in the office was surprised, where do I get working connection, since they could not get through any major news channels.

Regards,

Petrus

Hopefully a dumb question... by cperciva · 2001-09-14 05:10 · Score: 2

But I'm still stuck on it. Why is /. running a per-Apache-process cache? Doesn't that mean that it would be keeping 50 copies of the same data in memory on each machine? I would have thought that having a single-process cache at the front-end (something like SQUID) which holds on to a much larger cache and then passes requests to non-caching Apache processes would have done much better.

--
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid

Re:Hopefully a dumb question... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:52 · Score: 0

Bingo. Caching front-end request servers behind a traffic director, (fewer) app servers running the slashcode, and a honking big db server. Separate images server would be cool too.

CNN and MSNBC take note. by AltGrendel · 2001-09-14 05:12 · Score: 2, Funny

This is how the REAL pros do it.

Slashteam, we salute you.

--
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

- Douglas Adams

Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:20 · Score: 0

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but if slashdot got hit with the same traffit that regular news sites did, I suspect it would not have handled it. They have an order of magnitude more visitors than /.
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by Alomex · 2001-09-14 05:35 · Score: 2

They have an order of magnitude more visitors than /.

Try three orders of magnitude. Estimates of hits at CNN were over 50,000 per second.
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by Lonath · 2001-09-14 05:49 · Score: 1

Why do I feel a beer commercial coming on...

We salute you "Mr. News-For-Nerds Website Emergency Response Team Administrator..."

--
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:59 · Score: 0

Consider this:

An average article on Slashdot creates the Slashdot effect within minutes. Let's say 1 out of 30 people who read the article post, so if we have 300 comments it means that 900 people were hitting the page, almost at once. Only 900 ppl? That doesn't seem like much.

Now, forget a small group of nerds and consider the entire US.

Everyone in the US who was at work or home with a computer was probably hitting CNN. That's hundreds of thousands, folks. Imagine the Slashdot effect, but instead of a couple hundred nerds hitting a site, it's hundreds of thousands of regular people. To compare Slashdot to CNN seems silly.
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by Morel · 2001-09-14 06:27 · Score: 1

Correct.
But the sudden increased load on every site, and how each site handled it, is what set /. apart.
Perhaps CNN had four or five times the load they usually have, while /. had "only" three. This does not diminish the achievement. The SlashTeam showed that when the shit hits the fan, they keep going.

I don't care if they did it through careful planning beforehand, quick reponses, steady nerves, raw talent or an interesting application of voodoo, Slashdot was the only place I could keep informed.

Morel
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by hattig · 2001-09-14 06:29 · Score: 2

Yeah, to compare slashdot to cnn is silly.

To compare 10 servers to 100 servers with content mirroring at all major ISPs is silly.

To compare dynamic real-time content to static content is silly.

Give up slashdot, you haven't got a hope! You only got 80 pages a second, CNN was dead at 50000. Now if Slashdot was scaled... (60*10 = 600(server advantage), 10*600(static advantage) = 6000, 100*6000=600000(mirroring advantage))
Now the only IDEA that I can give the Slashdot team is to have a network of Slashdot servers - sort of like newsgroups and IRC and whatnot. People connect to their local slashdot (uk.slashdot.org, etc), and their posts get sent over to the central slashdot for redistribution to the other nodes in the new global mirrored slashdot.
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by zulux · 2001-09-14 06:35 · Score: 2

I would wager that Slashdot serves larger pages - AND Slashdot lets you post and view the comments in almost real time. MSNBC serves static pages, to be views by "consumers". Sashdot provides a forum for citizens, and hence, is more complicated.

--
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by spectecjr · 2001-09-14 07:06 · Score: 2

Hmmm.. on an average day, Slashdot dishes out 20 pages per second.

MSNBC, on an average day, dishes out > 200 pages per second - and possibly higher.

Slashdot's traffic doubled. Well, whoopdidoo. It was still less than 1/5th that of MSNBC on a normal day. Congratulations to Slashdot for handling more load than they normally do. But is it really surprising when they don't even have to handle 1/5th the traffic?

Simon

--
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by WNight · 2001-09-14 07:33 · Score: 2

Does CNN have any 800K pages? That is generates specifically for each viewer?

CNN had a huge problem, but it's a less interesting problem. If you simply throw enough computers at it, or a big enough one, you can fill any pipe with mostly static pages.

They are both challenges, but they're very different challenges.
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you don't know what you're talking about, keep quiet.

During the 2000 elections, CNN set the world record for News (if not all sites) pages served, with peaks of 1.2 MILLION per minute. (~400 times slashdot's peak this week)

Tuesday, CNN eclipsed that, even with the downtime, at 164,200,000 page views. Wednesday was still larger yet, at more than 300,000,000 page views.

I heartily congratulate slashdot and thier team in doing an exceptional job. However, they are no where _near_ CNN's or MSNBC's league.
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by TheMidget · 2001-09-14 09:19 · Score: 1

Now the only IDEA that I can give the Slashdot team is to have a network of Slashdot servers - sort of like newsgroups and IRC and whatnot. People connect to their local slashdot (uk.slashdot.org, etc), and their posts get sent over to the central slashdot for redistribution to the other nodes in the new global mirrored slashdot.
Congratulations! You just re-invented Usenet.
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by hattig · 2001-09-14 09:26 · Score: 1

like I say - sort of like newsgroups.

WITHOUT the 3 - 12 hours delay that Usenet has propagating posts.
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by AshPattern · 2001-09-14 09:30 · Score: 1

CNN and MSNBC have a LOT of money, with personnel that work in shifts and get paid exorbantly high salaries.

Slashdot is run by a few truly elite guys, running on a relatively tiny budget and substandard equipment.

Kudos to the slashteam.
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 09:31 · Score: 0

Does CNN have any 800K pages? That is generates specifically for each viewer?

CNN doesn't have any 800K pages because CNN knows that you can't scale up that kind of data to the volumes they need to stay afloat. What CNN does have that's comparable is video.

CNN had a huge problem, but it's a less interesting problem. If you simply throw enough computers at it, or a big enough one, you can fill any pipe with mostly static pages.

Not less interesting, but interesting in different ways. Maintaining consistency across 100+ servers calls for very different techniques than it does for three.
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by WNight · 2001-09-14 10:50 · Score: 2

CNN has huge videos, but they're static. The same video served to you is served to me and hundreds of others.

CNN also doesn't have to maintain instantaneous consistency... As in, if I load the page from one server and see a certain page, and you at exactly the same instant see the older version, we're both still seeing consistent pages.

All they have to do is maintain transactional consistency.

If I loaded the new page, and got the old pictures, that'd be an issue, but as long as once the page changes to the new one, all the content is changed.

Just like a database, all or nothing, with rollbacks if it fails. And that's what they use, a remote database server.
Re:CNN and MSNBC take note. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 13:54 · Score: 0

You don't understand fractions and percentages, do you? How about concepts such as "bang for your buck" and "miles per gallon"?

There IS a point to be had here, and it is definitely NOT the one you tried to make. Bugger off.

Way to go Slashdot by Sentry21 · 2001-09-14 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

When I first heard about this, after being woken up to it, I checked CNN's homepage - which was down. I checked several other news sites, and the only working one was CTV News. Then I thought to check slashdot - lo and behold, it was the only other site I could get to. I posted in one of the discussions that ctvnews.ca was working, and by the time I had hit 'submit', it wasn't.

Kudos to the Slashdot team for having the only satisfactorally working news service on the net. Combined with the people that made their own websites and posted their own pictures, and the people that mirrored news reports they COULD get to, it was an amazing triumph of technology. It's just too bad that this great moment in Slashdot history had to come at such a horrid moment in world history.

--Dan

A request for future by tzanger · 2001-09-14 05:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Could you please cache the stories in NESTED mode instead of threaded? When the site is being hammered I would imagine it is far better to have guys grab a single large, cached page than a smaller cached page and then have to try to have teh system survive thosands of clicks for more information.

I really do thank you guys for this site and your decision to carry the news. I have a new respect for the amount of bandwidth you throw around with impunity on a daily basis.

one final request: get search back online so I can get to the old stories! Google doesn't have them (even now!)

Re:A request for future by sulli · 2001-09-14 05:20 · Score: 1

Not sure this would make sense as many readers just read the threaded stories and don't click thru...

--

sulli
RTFJ.
Re:A request for future by tzanger · 2001-09-14 06:04 · Score: 1

Not sure this would make sense as many readers just read the threaded stories and don't click thru...

Really? I would have thought that people would want to read the top-level comments and their responses.

I'm not saying you're wrong, it is just surprising.
Re:A request for future by tshak · 2001-09-14 06:39 · Score: 2

Could you please cache the stories in NESTED mode

I second this statement.

--

There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Re:A request for future by Evro · 2001-09-15 08:19 · Score: 1

I would imagine it is far better to have guys grab a single large, cached page than a smaller cached page and then have to try to have teh system survive thosands of clicks for more information.

Well, that may be better for the system, but a nested page with ~2000 comments would take quite a while to load on a 56k modem, I'm guessing. Only the Slashteam knows how many people read Slashdot on a 56k, but I bet it's not many. But that is still something to consider.

--
rooooar
Re:A request for future by tzanger · 2001-09-15 10:46 · Score: 2

Well, that may be better for the system, but a nested page with ~2000 comments would take quite a while to load on a 56k modem, I'm guessing.

All the more reason to load it once; Take a couple minutes, it's loaded and you can take hours to read it all instead of pull up an partial page and not be able to read comments you're interested in.

(BTW: I am one of those 56k readers. :-)

So why then is Slashdot always down ? by tmark · 2001-09-14 05:12 · Score: 1, Flamebait

So Slashdot held up well on Tuesday. I'm not really sure what that means since the hits you cited are small potatos compared to a news outlet like CNN or MSNBC. My question is, if the Slashcode is so good and your team rocks as you say, why then is your site so often down ? Today, especially ? Why are there so many problems where you click on a follow up article and get bounced to the front page ? Why are there so many follow-up articles that clearly appear underneath the *wrong* articles ? If the Slashteam and Slashcode are so great under fire, why are they so mediocre from day-to-day ?

Re:So why then is Slashdot always down ? by sgups · 2001-09-14 05:19 · Score: 1

You are right on. For some reasond espite constant attempts to login I keep getting the static page. I.E no comment whis reads 'This page was generated by so and so for sgups'. However at the rime of writing this reply, I do not see this line, but I see I am not posting as anonymus. SO I guess something is working.

--
Democratic USA - Government of the corporations, by the Corporations, for the corporations.
Re:So why then is Slashdot always down ? by part!cle · 2001-09-14 05:20 · Score: 1

oh shut up.

--
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
Re:So why then is Slashdot always down ? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:26 · Score: 0

You've confused Slashdot with Stileproject Forums. And you've confused Slashdot readers with people caring about your tripe.
Re:So why then is Slashdot always down ? by cowboy+junkie · 2001-09-14 05:35 · Score: 2

I think the major difference between /. and sites like CNN & MSNBC is the fact that it's completely dynamic - what makes /. what it is is the constant stream of viewer commentary. And everyone is viewing that content on gigantic-ass dynamic pages with different thresholds, sorts, etc. plus all of the other 'goodies' that add load to the server.
Re:So why then is Slashdot always down ? by Flakeloaf · 2001-09-14 05:47 · Score: 0

Let's not also forget that those static CNN and NBC serve up *huge* pics and streaming video. They may save some time by not personalizing everyone's web viewing experience, but can you picture what a thousand monkeys on a thousand AOL connections could do if they all decided to refresh the same 30-second clips over and over again?

Not to trivialize the admittedly great task the /. team has accomplished, but this site specializes in text, little icon pics and the occasional banner ad. Relatively speaking that's pretty light demand. You'd need a LOT of people requesting information for content like that to tire out the gerbils inside /.'s server.

--

Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?
Re:So why then is Slashdot always down ? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:08 · Score: 0

This might be one reason. There are only 100 people left at VALinux.

Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted
Re:So why then is Slashdot always down ? by CyberKnet · 2001-09-14 06:11 · Score: 2

But... Lets also not forget that streaming video and pics are static, and that at least the video is served up by completely separate machines. And while the serving up of that video may be no trivial task, its comparing apples and oranges; completely different tasks.

Lets also differentiate between content type, and content. Because doing expensive db ops to get that "light" demand text is a completely different ballpark to making several thousand GIF/HTML pages available for download.

I think you're under-estimating the work behind slash... make sure you differentiate between large-bandwidth and server-processor-intensive operations. Video streams use next to no processor time on a server. Database operations to retrieve an ordered page with dynamic content on the other hand are rather expensive on the processor, especially when x10,000 users. The end result is that it is easier to stream a LARGE video file than it is to send a SMALL html file.

Just FYI

--
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
Re:So why then is Slashdot always down ? by tmark · 2001-09-14 06:24 · Score: 2

I think we may also be underestimating how dynamic CNN etc's web pages may be. It is clear, for instance, that pages are customized to some extent by broad geographical region. They have seem to display random user's comments in several sections. There is probably other dynamism going on there, too.
Re:So why then is Slashdot always down ? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 11:47 · Score: 0

Indeed you are correct. Despite the fact that slashdot readers crow loudly whenever a fault in a program from MS is covered here, pointing out the glaring flaws in slash is a no-no. For some reason, nobody wants to acknowledge that slash is a piece of junk. Fucking hypocites.
Re:So why then is Slashdot always down ? by CyberKnet · 2001-09-14 16:12 · Score: 2

however, I believe that those regional pages are probably (on a country-wide basis at least) generated dynamically to a static page which is then served up to the masses. It is also entirely possible that close zip codes are grouped together also in a static page.

These pages may well be generated every ten minutes, to appear dynamic, but to say the least, this is far below slashdot's level of (normal level) 25 pages per second, let alone the peak of 60 pages per second.

Just my opinion, make what you will for your own.

--
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
Re:So why then is Slashdot always down ? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-15 00:40 · Score: 0

Just my opinion, make what you will for your own.

You're having a factual argument. We already know it's your opinion you are stating. Your opponent believes you to be wrong. If he didn't, there would be no argument. Nobody is getting offended that you have made a statement. You don't need to tell anybody that it is your opinion. Saying this does not alter the right of people to disagree and argue with you, if they choose to. You can choose to return their arguments, or not to.

Saying "it's just my opinion" in a factual argument just makes you look like you are unsure of the validity of that opinion.
Re:So why then is Slashdot always down ? by CyberKnet · 2001-09-16 09:46 · Score: 1

And posting as AC increases my own desire to take your argument as factual, right? Instead of just making you look like you are unsure of the validity of your opinion. Hmm.

--
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius

Good job. by standards · 2001-09-14 05:13 · Score: 2

Good job keeping things up.

I found Slashdot, BBC, and Boston.com to be the most available sites. ABCNews and CNN and Foxnews, etc, were all pretty much overwhelmed and unusable.

Fairly quickly, CNN went to a simple static page with 1 image, and that helped them out quite a bit.

Re:Good job. by beebware · 2001-09-14 05:33 · Score: 1

BBC was down for me and I'm UK based (admittedly our 14x2Mbps connection terminates states-side).
I found Slashdot.org and Sky News (UK 'arm' of Fox News) to be the two major sites to stay up - I also applaud Google and ODP for helping me find the few remining news sites that were up - I just wonder what sort of load Google was under compared to sites such as /. ...
Re:Good job. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:35 · Score: 0

Funny how all the sites discovered that reducing bandwidth can be useful afterall.

Funny where the news comes from by ellem · 2001-09-14 05:13 · Score: 3, Funny

I got a lot of my news from Howard Stern and from you guys when I locked my office door and shut the windows.

/. and Howard Stern had the best coverage -- I think that is just weird.

But true.

--
This .sig is fake but accurate.

Re:Funny where the news comes from by zpengo · 2001-09-14 05:24 · Score: 2

I have to agree. When the big news sources (CNN et al.) got smashed with traffic, an amazing amount of responsibility came down to the amateur journalists of the world, who did a wonderful job of reporting what they saw on their own websites.
Hats off to the webloggers and other people whose generally mundane daily updates suddenly became a source for an information-starved world.

--

Got Rhinos?
Re:Funny where the news comes from by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:24 · Score: 0

Howard Stern has proven that he is a fuckwad and a racist. His "towelhead" jokes were in bad taste, even for him, considering the millions of innocent americans who are now being attacked for the color of their skin and the fashion of their dress. Despite his history of doing stuff simply to push buttons, he has gone too far this time and should be truly ashamed of himself. I used to respect the guy for being politically incorrect, but now I see the truth behind it, and he is worse than any of his religious adversaries have made him out to be.
Re:Funny where the news comes from by Skyshadow · 2001-09-14 05:28 · Score: 3, Funny

This reminds me of John Stewart's reaction on hearing that many people consider the Daily Show thier prime news source:

"Don't do that!"

--
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Re:Funny where the news comes from by sulli · 2001-09-14 05:52 · Score: 2

I turned on Stern for about 20 min. on Wednesday and thought he was a total asshole. Fair enough that he wants to strike back, but his comments about Arabs et al. were completely uncalled for. Too bad, as he could have been a voice for reason (and may have been on the day of the attack).

--

sulli
RTFJ.
Re:Funny where the news comes from by Bob+Abooey · 2001-09-14 06:03 · Score: 1

Same for me, for the most part. I had Howard Stern on until he went off around 12:30 est., I thought he did an amazing job given that he was just a few miles away from the WTC. I was also able to run upstairs to an aparment in the building where I work to watch bits of stuff on CNN.

I'll never forget watching the first tower collapse. I just kept thinking "did what I think just happen just happen?" It was without a doubt the saddest moment of my life.

--
All the best,
--Bob
Re:Funny where the news comes from by JLyle · 2001-09-14 06:58 · Score: 1

I turned on Stern for about 20 min. on Wednesday and thought he was a total asshole.
Umm, what did you expect? When has Howard Stern ever been a "voice of reason"? I'm no more surprised at his response than those of Robertson and Falwell (cited elsewhere in this thread).
Re:Funny where the news comes from by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 11:25 · Score: 0

if you don't like him, don't listen. do you need a map to tell you how to not listen?

don't mean to piss in your cheerios, but guess what ... when we find out someone is pissing in ours, we want to kick their asses

shoot first, ask questions later. how dare anyone comes into my home and disrespects it.

besides, the shitbag terrorists aren't humans, they're below animals. who cares if they have kids? fuck them and their camel cock sucking jockey whore mothers.

tuesday was a horrible day, no questions asked. i did not like waking up to hearing my country, home of freedom, and the world's best experiment, was being attacked. what i do look forward to is being awakened early in the morning in the near future, hearing that my fellow americans and compatriots from around the world, have turned homes of terrorists into a place where single-cell organisms will be the top of the food chain.

guess what ... i'm an ardent stern fan. why? simple. i can relate to him. he doesn't hesitate to speak how he feels. so, fuck you for holding his opinions against him.

For my own personal edification. by thesolo · 2001-09-14 05:14 · Score: 1

Thanks for explaining what happened with the site on Tuesday. And much more importantly, thanks for staying up & running!

I didn't have a TV or radio here at work, and I live 60+ miles away, so I couldn't just drive home to watch the coverage. Slashdot was the only site that kept me informed of what was going on. My coworkers & I really appreciated having our favorite site covering these events.

Thanks again!

Re:For my own personal edification. by AndyChrist · 2001-09-15 03:29 · Score: 1

They weren't covering it, they were covering the coverage of it. Slashdot is META-news for nerds.

Thank you by sulli · 2001-09-14 05:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

I posted this elsewhere, but I'll say it again: this has been Slashdot's finest hour. The eyewitness accounts and individual stories have been so meaningful, and the readers have been great - almost zero harassment and trolling (a bit more in the last day) and very honest, heartfelt comments. Also great were the mirrors in the first day that many participants posted, to handle the excess load for the news sites; the many Red Cross donation links; the updates and corrections of the news; and more.

Slashdot itself did very, very well in my experience. I experienced far fewer delays and errors than on other sites. Thanks to everyone who worked so hard to keep it running. You've made a huge difference for thousands of people.

--

sulli
RTFJ.

Re:Thank you by bstadil · 2001-09-14 05:42 · Score: 1

I think not only was this /. 's finest hour, but it was the posters finest as well. The people close to everything from NYC to Boston to PA was a major source of information when everything was unknown.

--
Help fight continental drift.
Re:Thank you by Swaffs · 2001-09-14 09:48 · Score: 1

I would just like to echo these comments. I was really impressed with all the comments that were posted. The first hand accounts were incredible. They take the reader right to the devastation better than any other form of media I've seen. The pilots, engineers, security experts etc. that contributed information were very helpful in answering the hows and the whys. And all the different views from people of different countries and cultures around the world on what happened and what should be done were really thought-provoking.

To me, that's what's great about the Internet and Slashdot. The TV, the newspapers, the radio, they all basically tell you the same things, and its always the same people telling it to you. Slashdot has allowed us to get a lot of valuable information right from the source, with individuals and their stories being heard, and has allowed us as individuals to air our thoughts and opinions where others could hear them instead of being told how the world is reacting.

--
--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]

Well Said by Wyatt+Earp · 2001-09-14 05:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

That was really well said.

During my life I've always taken "bow your head and pray" as "shut up and look serious".

And I thought Slashdot did a very good job this week. I woulda emailed Taco that, but I figured there was enough traffic over the Internet.

Really good job guys. Between Slashdot and Drudge I felt as informed as a guy can be.

Re:Well Said by blitzkreig · 2001-09-14 07:30 · Score: 0

Just wanna say that Slasdot rocks! You guys kept the news flowing when nobody else could handle the load. Every other news site that I frequent throughout the day was either not responding or so sluggish that it made no sense to try.

ALSO: While most other news stations were reporting bad news, the news and information that Slashdot has been passing along was the most accurate. Once again! You guys ROCK!

-J.M.

You guys ruled!! by brindle · 2001-09-14 05:16 · Score: 1

I was very impressed with the information available from your site. However I was not surprised, you guys have always done a great job with this site.

Its amazing what you are able to do with apache/perl and whatever else you are using.

Again, congrats on a job well done.

-JL

To paraphrase a theme.... by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · 2001-09-14 05:16 · Score: 1

that I've been hearing over and over again

For what does not break us only makes us stronger...

Great job Slashdot, CNN couldn't handle their load and had to change the format of their site.... Maybe they should switch to Slash :)

--
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."

Re:To paraphrase a theme.... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:52 · Score: 0

Or, maybe if Slashdot had the same level of traffic of CNN they would have had similar problems.

I'm all for rooting for the "home team", but this "you /. guys did better than CNN" stuff is a bit excessive. I would venture a guess that CNN gets much more traffic than Slashdot.
Re:To paraphrase a theme.... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:28 · Score: 0

> I would venture a guess that CNN gets much more
> traffic than Slashdot.

Does Roseanne Barr eat more food than Kate Moss?

Now imagine a Beowulf Cluster of Roseannes.

enlighten me... by __soup_dragon__ · 2001-09-14 05:16 · Score: 1

first congrats to you all for the hard work, i wasnt hable to read slash at that time but i'm sure a lot of people relied on it as the only source of info. my question is, was the load you were under comparable to the load cnn was under? if yes... wow... :-D

--
soup, the dragon.
dna.h:include "std_disclaimer.h" /* god */

Re:enlighten me... by KmArT · 2001-09-14 06:34 · Score: 1

My guess would be that CNN was under a much higher load than slashdot, mainly because your average 'Net user would go to CNN for news and probably has never even heard of slashdot.org. Also, by CmdrTaco's account, slashdot's peak traffic was three times greater than normal (or their previous peak - I'm not sure which). I know I personally tried to load CNN's site far more than three times what I normally do (which is at most once a day). So yes, slashdot was able to scale but I'm guessing it was able to survive only because the increase in load wasn't as great as the load heaped on CNN and other news sites.

Just a conjecture. I'm not privvy to CNN load averages or request numbers.

Big thanks to Slash Team by Alien54 · 2001-09-14 05:17 · Score: 2

You guys have down a marvelous job.

Although, being on dial up, getting into any site was a struggle [smile]

as a secondary note, I have seen a few random reports of senseless actions. I trust that the Slash Crowd is wise and intelligent and educated enough to avoid this.

One should never accept the invitation to hate, especially in conditions like these. it becomes a slippery slope.

We all have exceptions that we make, for our favorite pet peeves and political causes. Even so, This is a big step to making things right. This does not mean that we do not take action to save ourselves and our friends. People may appoint us as their enemies, their opponents, even as their executioners. We should hate them for their lack of good sense, or for their own hatred.

- - -
Radio Free Nation
an alternate news site using Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
- - -

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"

Re:Big thanks to Slash Team by Alien54 · 2001-09-14 05:19 · Score: 2

We should hate them for their lack of good sense, or for their own hatred.
DUH!
should read:
We should NOT hate them for their lack of good sense, or for their own hatred.

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"

CNN's problems by crow · 2001-09-14 05:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

CNN's main problem was that they had canceled their contract with Akamai a month or two ago to save money. Akamai works by having servers at or near most major ISPs so that the majority of traffic is served locally.

While the load was heavy, it wasn't anything Akamai wasn't prepared to handle.

Unfortunately, Akamai's co-founder was one of the passengers flying out of Boston on a hijacked flight Tuesday. I have friends who work at Akamai for whom he was not just a boss, but a friend.

Re:CNN's problems by Alomex · 2001-09-14 05:46 · Score: 2

CNN's main problem was that they had canceled their contract with Akamai a month or two ago to save money.

Are you sure about this?

As we speak the CNN page serves Akamaized content. Try it: open cnn.com in your browser, then say view source, and bingo: Akamai pics all over.

Remember that even if the contract was cancelled usually it takes time for the disconnect to take place.
Re:CNN's problems by jaredcat · 2001-09-14 05:51 · Score: 1

I work at an online phone card company (NobelCom.com if anyone cares). Our website traffic (and order volume) nearly doubled on the 11th as people frantically trying to make long distance phone calls through an increasingly unavailable 1+ long distance service turned to phone cards to get through to their loved ones.
Thanks to Akamai, our site remained as fast as ever, and no one reported any kind of trouble getting through to us. Even without Akamai, I don't think that the site would have gone down like CNN-- but it sure would have made things worse, adding another problem to what was already a tense situation for us.
Re:CNN's problems by crow · 2001-09-14 05:59 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes, I am sure about this.

CNN re-akamaized Tuesday; that's why they were up again Tuesday afternoon. I read the internal email sent out to Akamai employees asking certain groups to stay on to help with the process if they could.
Re:CNN's problems by Alomex · 2001-09-14 06:04 · Score: 2

Thanks for the info. That clears the point.
If CNN had kept Akamai, it certainly would have helped sustained the load. However do you thnk it would have been enough, or was the traffic so taxing that nothing could have possibly done the job?
Re:CNN's problems by crow · 2001-09-14 06:06 · Score: 2

My source at Akamai described the load as "heavy, but nothing we couldn't handle."
Re:CNN's problems by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:38 · Score: 0

Very sorry to hear about your friends who work for Akamai, and anyone else you know who lost someone Tuesday.
I have a question regarding Akamai's contract with CNN, though. If you view source on any page at cnn.com, they are full of Akamai-served resources. Did they maybe only cancel part of the contract, like for streaming video and audio, or did you mean something else?
Thanks
Re:CNN's problems by Foochar · 2001-09-14 06:50 · Score: 1

I think akamai could have handled the load without any problem what so ever. My primary mainstream media source all day Tuesday was The Washington Post becuase it was the only page that would load reliably. It was very obvious as soon as you clicked into any of the links that this site was akamaized.

--
"You can't fight in here! This is the war room" --Dr. Stra
Re:CNN's problems by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:24 · Score: 0

Actually CNN is now using AOL for much of its static content, and also has its own static content servers separate from its main pool.
Re:CNN's problems by OSgod · 2001-09-14 13:06 · Score: 1

Yep, The Washington Post was and that explains the cache corruption that thousands hit up against (i.e.: reading the wrong story when they clicked on a front page link -- completely unrelated).

Bravo by kTag · 2001-09-14 05:17 · Score: 1

For everything you did and everything you said.

Why was this moderated down? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:18 · Score: 0

It's a very valid remark. Inbetween cheering themselves, the Slashdot guys should do something to make Slashdot more stable on normal days.

Re:Why was this moderated down? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:01 · Score: 0

I imagine that moving from MySQL to a real RDBMS, such as PostgreSQL, would fix a lot of problems.

Some Good News by bahtama · 2001-09-14 05:18 · Score: 5, Informative

A reminder and fyi, the current totals at Amazon.com [amazon.com] are:

Total Collected: $4,528,374.96
# of Payments: 124408

I think that is truly amazing and by the time you go there it will be even more. I donated my $100, did you? Even 10 dollars could help buy all these guys [time.com] a cup of coffee, what's a couple bucks compared to the cause.

--

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.

Re:Some Good News by wurp · 2001-09-14 05:31 · Score: 2, Informative

And this is but a fraction of the money donated to the Red Cross. I donated directly ($250 - so there!) as I'm sure many others did. Note that this link is to their Yahoo store; you can get there even when www.redcross.org is overloaded.

I'll repeat that more plainly...

EVEN IF THE RED CROSS WEB SITE IS DOWN, YOU CAN DONATE MONEY HERE (http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-wtc/).
Re:Some Good News by MadMorf · 2001-09-14 06:31 · Score: 1

I donated to Red Cross through PayPal...

Here's a great photo that a friend sent me Wednesday: Heroes

Donate to Red Cross via PayPal

--
Goofy, Geeky Gifts and More!

Thanks by arete · 2001-09-14 05:18 · Score: 2

I didn't email you a thank you - partially 'cause I figured your box would be fairly full. But thank you. I do appreciate you keeping me informed better than anyone else was doing on the web.

Wonderful.

--
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot

Primary source by Anixamander · 2001-09-14 05:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

It was interesting to see Slashdot move from a secondary source to a primary source. Throughout the day, I would check it for updates that folks had posted, and to all those individuals who constantly posted working links. I spoke with my wife several times throughout the day, and as she was only familiar with the standard sources (CNN, MSNBC, etc) I was able to give her URL's that worked. While those kept changing throughout the day, Slashdot remained available and useful.

Kudos to the slashdot team for their tireless efforts here...while work came to a halt everywhere, you guys managed to troubleshoot problems that would have given ordinary people fits on an average day. I am amazed at how quickly you adapted and improved, even though you no doubt would have preferred just to watch TV in saddened silence like the rest of us.

--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)

Instant news from the net... by bradasch · 2001-09-14 05:21 · Score: 1

I'm very impressed with slashdot: I live in Brazil, and I got word of the attacks as soon as you posted the first news: ten minutes later a friend called and told me what I already knew.
Now, think about it: I'm very far from NY (about 10-12 hours on a plane) and was reading news about it almost instantly. Most news sites on Brazil got overloaded too, so slashdot, for a while, was my only source of info...
Congratulations to the slashdot team... you did a very cool job for the whole world!

Thank you for giving us the news by Peter+Simpson · 2001-09-14 05:21 · Score: 1

I couldn't read CNN, I couldn't read Boston Globe,
I couldn't read BBC.
Slashdot kept me informed (so did Sydney Morning
Herald site). I couldn't believe what I was
reading, but at least I could read it.

If there's one thing that sickens me more than the
terrible events of Tuesday themselves, it's the
anti-Muslim attacks. Granted there have been only a few
of these, but there should be NONE! Anyone tempted
to lash out in this way should think about why
they feel that they deserve to call themselves an
American. Then they should ask themselves how
it must feel to be an Arab-American.

Peace,
Peter

Re:Thank you for giving us the news by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:52 · Score: 0

What he said was right, your just being as bad as the other lot.

So go stick it up your ass.

MODERATION: I don't think this is flamebait by MarkusQ · 2001-09-14 05:21 · Score: 2

To whoever modded this as flamebait:

While I don't claim to support all his points, the post is on topic he has a right to ask these sorts of questions.

-- MarkusQ

No need to reverselookup hostnames for geotarget by bodin · 2001-09-14 05:21 · Score: 5, Informative

There's no need to reverselookup just to be able to geotarget ads. Build up a reverse-database, and you are all set.

See http://www.ipindex.net/ for an updated index.

You just need country or so location anyway, right? I mean there are a lot of .com-domains in europe now, and that's when reverse-lookups does WRONG instead of looking at where the actual nets are allocated.

Good job to /., but forgive CNN and MSNBC by Jayde+Stargunner · 2001-09-14 05:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

First off kudos to Slashteam. You kept a valuable news source up and running while most people were too stunned to do anything other than watch, horrified, at the TV. Good work. You provided a valuable service to many people in this crisis.

Also, to those who are getting down on CNN and MSNBC... From what I've heard, those sites are already tuned--and regularly do--serve around 45 pages per second...even with loads of media.

Crashing them was likely no small feat, either. Likely every person with internet typed in the very familiar cnn.com or msnbc.com just on instinct. It probably didn't help MSNBC or CNN that the MSN and AOL/Netscape portals, respectivly, link to them directly.

I was actually pretty impressed with how they handled the load...it was a little slower than /.'s recovery, but it was rather impressive given the HUGE load they were experiencing. First, they stripped down the page content to low-bandwidth versions, then phased in their site. I'm not sure about CNN, but MSNBC added static mirrors to their pool, and got Akamai servers to serve all their media. By around noon, both sites were running their normal full-content versions, even though they were probably still getting hammered to high-heaven.

Personally, I give many thanks to all the techs for all the news sites who worked like mad to ensure that people were able to understand what was happening. It must not have been easy to work in conditions like that: especially considering the stress that was put on them.

-Jayde

--
What's a sig?

Re:Good job to /., but forgive CNN and MSNBC by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:13 · Score: 1, Informative

Finally someone with some sense. I do not work for CNN or MSNBC, however, I do work for a large news media company with many sites regularly linked to from slashdot. These sites (each) on a regular day receive about the same traffic as slashdot. What happened on Tuesday was by far the largest immediate spike in internet traffic ever. Things that you never expect to go wrong, like actually filling up all your (significant amount of) bandwidth, are things that are hard to anticipate.

30/40 pg/s are very good numbers, but you can be sure that CNN and MSNBC were (and still are if the load here is any indication) doing at least 4-5 times that amount of traffic and probaly more. For example, one site we have peaked at ~100,000 page views in 15 minutes with a sustained rate of ~90,000 for 6 hours straight! I can only imagine what a national, well known, news site like CNN was faced with.
Re:Good job to /., but forgive CNN and MSNBC by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:18 · Score: 1, Informative

I Work at CNN and while I give Kudos to Slashdot for "staying" up. Their traffic was not even close to ours.

It's pretty obvious from posts here why that is.

Statements like:
I tried CNN, MSNBC then to Slashdot or BBC, and you wonder why those sites could stay up? Imagine every single person with an internet connection at least in the United States hitting CNN to see what is going on.

I am not going to give numbers, but lets say we server 50 pages / sec on a regular "slow" news day at our lowest peak. Now times that by 1000 and you might get close to how many pages we served per second.
Re:Good job to /., but forgive CNN and MSNBC by jesser · 2001-09-14 09:44 · Score: 2

Did Slashdot switch to light mode globally at any point on Tuesday? That would have saved some bandwidth, and also would have allowed most graphical browsers to display the large threads more quickly. (IE/NS4/Opera won't display any text of a heavy-mode Slashdot page until the entire page is recieved. IE/NS4/Opera in light mode and Mozilla in heavy mode display the story as soon as it finishes coming in but won't display the comments until the entire page loads. Mozilla in light mode displays comments as they come in.)

I use light mode normally, so I wouldn't have noticed if Slashdot made everyone use light mode temporarily. Early on Tuesday I was getting static, non-light versions of the homepage no matter what slashdot URL I clicked on, but that problem went away quickly.

--
The shareholder is always right.

Other sites went to stripped down initial pages by tcyun · 2001-09-14 05:22 · Score: 2, Informative

One of the things that I noticed were that many of the major sites reduced the content size on their home pages to the smallest size possible. I know that the NYT, MS-NBC and other sites removed most all of their images and went to fairly small home pages with a few lines of text.

I think it is a credit to Slashcode, the Slash coders and great up-front planning that Slashdot was able to handle the load as well as it did. I know that Slashdot was one of the few sites where I could get a collection of information when many of the other sites were down.

Kudos to all of you.

thanks /. by Dr.+Awktagon · 2001-09-14 05:23 · Score: 2

Usually when something big happens, I instantly turn to the net and usually slashdot for the news links and especially for the reader comments, which usually give the best picture of whatever happened. I'm glad you guys were able to stay up.

I must admit though, the TV coverage, especially MSNBC, was excellent during the first day. Usually I avoid it.

After a while though, the ratings grabbing kicked in and they added the graphics and the special music and the "let's get them to cry on camera" bits and I remembered why I don't usually watch TV news, and have come back to the 'net and slashdot.

Anyway thanks Slashdot!

Re:thanks /. by Jburkholder · 2001-09-14 06:01 · Score: 1

You know, that's what _always_ gets me going about TV news outlets. They start out with really excellent coverage as the events unfold, but eventually the action dies down and they shift into "Emmy mode".
When the broadcast stops being an "as it happens" coverage event and turns into a production, complete with theme music, it is time to turn it off.
I have a mental image of what goes on in a planning room while the story is unfolding and the real "news" is being reported:
Someone is pitching ideas on the different angles they could go after and what they think the other outlets might be planning and how they might try to outdo the others to garner an Emmy nomination.
"How about this... 'Terror in the Towers'..."
"Oh, oh, I've got it... 'America under Attack'"
"Good! I like that. Let's call Sydney and see if he can come up with some serious sounding theme music like he did last time. ...and get the graphics department to come up with 4 or 5 designs for us to look at by 2:00.... And will someone _please_ get Blitzer to change his tie! That color is just all wrong!"
Re:thanks /. by ahaning · 2001-09-14 07:12 · Score: 1

You forgot:

Grunt1: "Sir! I've got a great idea. Let's show that one clip again of the plane coming in from the right and hitting the second tower!"

Mgr: "Hrm..."

Grunt2: "No, dimwit, we need to show the one from underneath where you can actually see the plane going into the building."

"Great ideas, you two, we can show both... After we show the person falling to their death."

Grunt1/Grunt2: "Wow, sir, what a great idea!"

I'm sorry, I just can't help but get terribly sarcastic when I see those shots anymore. Especially when the commentators (hardly reporters, anymore) say things like: "Crashing buildings and piles of rubble. Terrible images to have to see." (Me: "Then why the hell do you have to show them again!?")

--
Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
Re:thanks /. by BinxBolling · 2001-09-14 12:06 · Score: 2

You know, that's what _always_ gets me going about TV news outlets. They start out with really excellent coverage as the events unfold, but eventually the action dies down and they shift into "Emmy mode".

Somebody moderate this up. There was something vaguely sickening about the development of the "America Under Attack" logos. We don't need flashy graphics to bring home to us just what a major event this was.

Thank you /. by sho-gun · 2001-09-14 05:23 · Score: 1

Thank you. Your efforts and talents are GREATLY appreciated.

Surprising lack of contingency plans by warpSpeed · 2001-09-14 05:23 · Score: 1

I was somewhat surprised that I could not get to the main news sites during the aftermath (with the exception of www.WashingtonPost.com). You would think that CNN would have figured out that they will get hit first and furious during a crisis.

I'll bet that there will be quite a bit of retooling various web sites to handle this type of load soon. LEts just hope that this type of load is not seen for a long time.

~Sean

Great Job! by lavaboy · 2001-09-14 05:23 · Score: 1

Thanks for keeping the site up, and making the decision to focus on the Tuesday's only important news. I was also at work, unable to get to a TV or radio, and couldn't get to any of the more traditional news sites. Thanks to your work, and the constant influx of working links posted by other users, I was able to follow the situation as it happened.

Way to go guys!

--
Steve -- If you have to call it a system, you don't know what it is.

Slash team kicks butt... by srvivn21 · 2001-09-14 05:23 · Score: 2

* Slashteam kicks butt. Jamie, Pudge, Krow, Yazz, Cliff, Michael, Jamie, Timothy, CowboyNeal, you guys all rocked.

And Jamie rocks twice as much. ;o)

My thanks to the lot of you. The Slashteam, and the /. community.

Re:Slash team kicks butt... by jamie · 2001-09-14 05:46 · Score: 1

"And Jamie rocks twice as much."

Well, I'm glad someone appreciates it.
Seriously, thanks to all of you... it's great to see positive, supportive comments from readers. You're the reason we all do this. I'm glad we could help disseminate news, but the more important thing to me is keeping the discussions going. There's something heartening about online forums: IRC, Usenet, sites like Slashdot. If you haven't taken a moment to go read through the comments from Tuesday and Wednesday, you should. The only good thing that's come from these horrible events has been the outpouring of strength, compassion, and wisdom. Not just to react to the news or be overcome by images on TV, but to talk about it, think about it, deal with it, not just be jerked around by the midbrain. I feel like I'm serving coffee in the café with the most interesting and thought-provoking remarks being shared around the tables, and it's a privilege.
Re:Slash team kicks butt... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:15 · Score: 0

Seriously, thanks to all of you... it's great to see positive, supportive comments from readers. You're the reason we all do this. I'm glad we could help disseminate news, but the more important thing to me is keeping the discussions going. There's something heartening about online forums: IRC, Usenet, sites like Slashdot. If you haven't taken a moment to go read through the comments from Tuesday and Wednesday, you should. The only good thing that's come from these horrible events has been the outpouring of strength, compassion, and wisdom. Not just to react to the news or be overcome by images on TV, but to talk about it, think about it, deal with it, not just be jerked around by the midbrain. I feel like I'm serving coffee in the café with the most interesting and thought-provoking remarks being shared around the tables, and it's a privilege.

Dude. You forgot to use the tag.

Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:23 · Score: 0

thank you for providing such a great source of information. I too, when unable to reach nyt.com or cnn.com, headed here.

thank you.

DNS & mod_gzip by drwho · 2001-09-14 05:24 · Score: 4, Informative

Everyone knows that you should turn off hostname lookups. I was wondering why slashdot would often be some damned slow first thing in the morning -- well there's why. Because the PTR record had expired overnight. Another way we suffer for advertisers. Oh well.

static content can be stored and transmitted in gzip format, to be uncompressed by the browser (all modern browsers support this). HTML coompressed very well -- pages here end up averaging 28% of their original size! This not only saves slashdot bandwidth, but saves it for the end user as well. Some people out there are still using crufty old 28.8 modems, and need every bit of help they can get. Anyhow, do a search for apache mod_gzip and you'll find all you need to know.

Re:DNS & mod_gzip by syates21 · 2001-09-14 05:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Uh, gzip is all fine and good, except in this case it probably would have made the problem *worse*.

I don't recall them saying that bandwidth was ever a bottleneck. Causing the slash servers to do even *more* processing (ie compression) doesn't seem like it would have helped much.
Re:DNS & mod_gzip by drwho · 2001-09-14 06:12 · Score: 1

Uh, gzip is all fine and good, except in this case it probably would have made the problem *worse*.

I don't recall them saying that bandwidth was ever a bottleneck. Causing the slash servers to do even *more* processing (ie compression) doesn't seem like it would have helped much.

The idea is, for static content, compress once at the server. However, this could still work for dynamic content. Cache comment additions and add them once every 30 seconds, then gzip.

You should actually test out how much CPU power gzip uses, it's not much. It is well worth the cycles.

Usually, the bottleneck is bandwidth. CPU power has been getting really cheap, and in the case of multiple WWW servers, it isn't hard to scale (and of course the software is free!).
Re:DNS & mod_gzip by Genom · 2001-09-14 06:20 · Score: 2

Exactly right. mod_gzip is a bandwidth-saver not a load-saver. The problem (from what I've gathered) was the server load, with the larger page sizes chewing up more memory, along with a LOT more requests multiplying that number.

Of course, I *could* be wrong =)
Re:DNS & mod_gzip by IdleMindUI · 2001-09-14 06:22 · Score: 1

Another way we suffer for advertisers. Oh well.

Did anyone notice that the the major news sites took the web bugs off of their pages almost immediately? They've been coming back slowly, but I wonder what kind of hell this has been causing the web-buggers...
Re:DNS & mod_gzip by tshak · 2001-09-14 06:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

You don't "suffer" from advertisers. Rather, you benefit from the services they finance like "/.".

--

There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Re:DNS & mod_gzip by willamowius · 2001-09-14 07:31 · Score: 1

That is exactly my experience.

Using gzip reduces the amount of data and since sending the data is what takes up time, the server is free much earlier with gzip.

Having less concurrent Apache threads saves a lot of cycles.
Re:DNS & mod_gzip by Phroggy · 2001-09-14 07:56 · Score: 1

The changes you're talking about that would actually reduce server load have nothing to do with mod_gzip - for example, caching comment additions every 30 seconds, and serving them as static pages with a 30-second delay, instead of as dynamic pages.

Slashdot had the bandwidth to handle the traffic. It was the load on the servers - all the Apache threads, etc. - that killed them. mod_gzip would NOT have made this better.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:DNS & mod_gzip by edrugtrader · 2001-09-14 09:26 · Score: 1

you are *somewhat* wrong... i have a lot of experience with mod_gzip.

basically it auto-magically knows what pages it has compressed cached copies of on the server... sort of like how your browser caches pages.

on dynamic sites, you end up with TONS of compressed versions that are automatically created, sometimes to only be used once...

on slashdots main page however, it it was being viewed statically, mod_gzip would only be required to be run once per update, and believe me it is extremely fast.

so, for the cost of compressing once, you are saving 70% of bandwidth, and THUS 70% less time of apache processes being used. if a database connection was made, it would also result in 70% less time that the connection was active... that isn't really the bottleneck, but it just shows that you can save bandwidth and SOME CPU load, however minimal it is.

basically your goal is to minimize the page-load time overall, and mod_gzip does just that.

--
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Re:DNS & mod_gzip by Water+Paradox · 2001-09-14 16:49 · Score: 1

Advertisers do not finance services like /.

They have convinced you they do, but in fact, /. could operate on zero income.

Think about it. It is possible.

Truly, passion drives the services like /., and advertisers leech off them, convincing some of us that we should be grateful to them. And you let 'em?

As for me, I suffer, and am not grateful for people whose modus operandi is to convince you to sell out.

-WP

--
information is immaterial

Once again ... by Buck2 · 2001-09-14 05:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

I received my first indication that something was happening in the world through Slashdot.

I heard that the other sites weren't available, but I wouldn't have known this empirically since there were already so many quality posts, comments, and bits of information to sort through in the Slashdot forum.

Any long term Usenet denizen will know what I speak of when I refer to that rare, but addictive, experience that seems to be only able to be brought by these forums of such spatially disconnected people, joined only by common interests. When, seemingly all of a sudden, someone writes something so perfect, so funny, so outrageous, so wonderful, so _different_, or so incredibly informative, that you all of a sudden feel justified for all of the times that you wondered why you just kept coming back.

Slashdot did it again.

BTW, perhaps the moderators have been out in force, or maybe I'm just getting old and much more interested in politics than before, but it seems that the quality of posts in the last few days have been much more thoughtful and interesting.

Kudos to both the Slashteam and community.

--

As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....

Yes, your contribution is VERY important. by !Xabbu · 2001-09-14 05:25 · Score: 1

In this day and age sifting through the bullshit online has become increasingly harder and harder as every day passes. I hit Slashdot almost as much as I hit CNN for news in the past 4 days and while CNN had up to date information that was over all quite good, it as usual is filtered to fit their format only (you can gather much more from other sources). You guys had the links to mirrors, donation pages, real people stories, original thoughts on everything on how all this may have happened to why it was possible that the towers collapsed. All this before the mainstream media thought it important to report on. I swear I must have seen the crash from every angle possible about a hundred times without any new news.

Thank you.

--

- Jimbob

wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:25 · Score: 0

...mysql finally does locking?

Re:wow... by edrugtrader · 2001-09-14 09:35 · Score: 1

mysql does whatever you want!

it just depends on what table you use, and the table management driver that it uses...

innodb = row level locking
berkeley table = transactions, table locking... the works

mysql is getting outstandingly powerful

--
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E

Stuff that Mattters by gorilla · 2001-09-14 05:25 · Score: 2

I made the decision to cancel Slashdot's normal daily coverage of "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters,"

If this wasn't "Stuff that Matters" I don't know what is.

Of Slash and Slashdot by ajs · 2001-09-14 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

When I started reading this, I was disgusted. I was expecting something like CNN's ads after the Gulf war, touting the fact that they were the ones who got most of the scoops.

By the time I got half-way through the actuall content (not the front-page piece) I was in awe of how much went on. Usually when a massive load spike happens on my watch, I try to get everyone's fingers out of the pie so that we have a good chance of the machines just doing their jobs. The fact that these folks were able to make emergency changes in real-time to compensate for the load is just astounding.

CNN should be rolling out a Slash-based discussion forum for top stories. Heck, so should Whitehouse.gov!

Thanks guys, and good luck with your ongoing coverage of News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters!

Re:Of Slash and Slashdot by uchian · 2001-09-14 05:43 · Score: 1

CNN should be rolling out a Slash-based discussion forum for top stories. Heck, so should Whitehouse.gov!

If I was a mod at the moment I'd mod this up as insightful.

I love Slashdot, yet I yearn for a site of the same magnitude which covers the major news stories of every day, many of which are not computer based, and allows the same level of discussion by anyone who visits the site, and with the same level of moderation which helps keep the signal-to-noise ratio at a more acceptable level.
Re:Of Slash and Slashdot by sckeener · 2001-09-14 06:14 · Score: 1

--CNN should be rolling out a Slash-based discussion forum for top stories. Heck, so should Whitehouse.gov! --

I saw whitehouse.com. my first thoughts were only if they become free.

--
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
Re:Of Slash and Slashdot by Datafage · 2001-09-14 06:20 · Score: 2

The main problem with that is both simple and depressing. Do you really think CNN and the White House would be so tolerant of posters posting opposing information or even illegal comments? It's a nice thought, but it would lack the almost completely uninhibited free speech of /..

--
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Re:Of Slash and Slashdot by t · 2001-09-14 09:29 · Score: 1

almost completely uninhibited free speech of /..
And I thought double negatives were bad... But really, it is either free speech or it is not. There are no degrees.
t.

More Kudos by haus · 2001-09-14 05:26 · Score: 1

Thanks!

I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated the great work that the ./ crew has done this week. ./ Is where I found out about the tragedy on Tuesday morning, and through the links in the stories and by the fellow ./ posters, how I was able to get more detailed news on what ad actually happened.

You should feel proud of the job that you performed and the service that you provided.

Slashdot: Service to the community by Matey-O · 2001-09-14 05:26 · Score: 1

Stuck in the airport, all TVs in the councourses we were just evacuated out of, My Ipaq and Nokia 8290 were ONLY able to reach Slashdot. Don't kid yourselves, you provided a GREAT service...for free.

--
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."

Irony by Skyshadow · 2001-09-14 05:26 · Score: 5, Funny

Knock on wood, Taco -- saying stuff like this tends to be the perfect cue for your servers to crash an burn.

Other phrases to avoid:
- Boy, sendmail's been rock solid for months!
- Hey, I've been driving years without a ticket/accident.
- Wow, this economy is unstoppable!
- I don't have to run in to apply that patch; what are the odds some script-kiddie will notice before Monday?
- Alright! I'm worth millions in stock options!
- Pft, what are the odds she'll get pregnant from just that one time?

--
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.

Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:15 · Score: 0

I don't need to compile this code on EVERY platform before I check it in!

This building could widthstand a plane crash!
Re:Irony by Pope · 2001-09-14 07:07 · Score: 1

The *hour* before my 40G drive went down, I believe I said something along the lines of "Oh, I'll just upgrade to 9.2, and back up some of this stuff on the weekend if it works OK."

Doh!

Got 90% of my data back after a week of pulling my hair out, and a sad lesson in what can happen to really big drives. :)

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.

Wow. Thanks- That feels good. by Zzootnik · 2001-09-14 05:26 · Score: 1

To Quote:

Slashteam kicks butt. Jamie, Pudge, Krow, Yazz, Cliff, Michael, Jamie, Timothy, CowboyNeal, you guys all rocked.

Truly people, you do. If at ANY time, we could have expected the site to be "Slash-Dotted" itself, this was it.

This is good code, and you know how to use it.

One of the few marvels that's made me smile since Tuesday.

--
Sig currently under construction. Mind the gap....

thank you by insane4no1 · 2001-09-14 05:26 · Score: 1

i just wanted to add my thanks to everyone elses. thoughout the day i relied on slashdot to learn the newest information, and pointed several friends to it. thank you for all the hard work and great jobs you guys have done on such a constant basis. as one of many people who looked to you for the latest news i was never disappointed and always well pleased with the performance, and the content.

--
--holland

Good job, thanks! by ToasterTester · 2001-09-14 05:26 · Score: 1

What we saw on TV and things we read on sites like /. will remain with us the rest of our lives. Thanks for all the work you did to keep /. up Tuesday and thanks for summarizing what it took so we can all learn as well.

thanks Slashteam by caseydk · 2001-09-14 05:26 · Score: 1

Thanks Slashteam, you guys did a great job of keeping up under the load and keeping the information flowing...

I, for one, am in the dc area and phone lines were blocked and i was at work without a tv or radio... you guys managed to keep many of us in touch with the outside world and the breaking news (even if some of it was a bit wrong)

Thanks.

Just a thank you by Hangtime · 2001-09-14 05:28 · Score: 1

It doesn't seem like much but its what I feel right now. April 19th, 1995 I was a sophomore in high school living on the southwest corner of Oklahoma City watching wall-to-wall coverage of what happened to my city and trying to do anything to help. Tuesday brought back many bad memories that I never really wanted to resurface but did. Being able to get information and find out what was happening......I'm going to start rambling so Im going to stop and just say this. I wanna thank the Slashdot Team for being just about the only place where I could find information on Tuesday and to each one of the posters who were mirroring reports here that people couldn't get to. (A special thanks to the person who linked to Sky News Broadband; I couldn't get to a TV and they were using FoxNews coverage). God Bless each of you that contributed reports and God Bless America

HT

exactly. by zama · 2001-09-14 05:28 · Score: 1

That's all I can say. Whyte Wolf said it all. Thanks Slashdot - you pulled through beautifully when it was crunch time. And thanks to all the Slashdotters for the insights, commentary, diverstity, and community at this time.

YATAC by bsletten · 2001-09-14 05:29 · Score: 1

This is just yet another thanks and congrats.

I was impressed at how well /. held up on Tuesday
and I appreciate your taking the time to explain
how.

Kudos.

I was at work by einTier · 2001-09-14 05:29 · Score: 2

Since I was at work, I had no TV, and no radio -- everyone thought someone else would bring one (it's a small office). So, I was stuck with no way to get any real data. Slashdot was the only site working, and the only place to get my news updates. At the time, I didn't think much of it -- this WAS slashdot, after all. I even directed my friends to it, saying "Slashdot has news and they are up." I really took the hard work for granted, though I wondered how you stayed up when CNN, MSNBC, and all other major news sites were completely down.

CmdrTaco, thank you so much for the hard work that went into making slashdot the site it was Tuesday. I would have been lost without it.

--
-------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.

Its Been Said by Cylix · 2001-09-14 05:29 · Score: 2

Slashdot held under the tremendous load. Yeah, it was sluggish at times. It was sluggish when all the other sites were failing.

I stayed home a little earlier on tuesday to watch the news. I didn't want to leave for work, but it wasn't really an option to stay home. I was really hoping I could keep up on the events with most of the major news sources being online.

Slashdot served as a place of information. Many posters were pasting articles as they were able to retrieve them from sites as they opened up temporarily.

All of slashdot team's efforts and the posters deserve a good deal of thanks.

As always, keep up the good work.

--
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra

Enders Game by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:30 · Score: 0

In "Enders Game" there there is frequent reference to 'the nets' where people join in discussions and how important these are to the public opinion, basically the place where democracy is going to take place.
Especially over the last few days, I was under the impression that 'the nets' will be something very similar to Slashdot.
I haven't seen another place where such a lively and for the most part, reasonable discussion took place, and no other system that seemed to handle the rush apparantly without a glitch.

AC

Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:30 · Score: 0

But only the computer community reads slashdot. The rest of the world do not.

Yes it is a tragedy what happened. We will fight it. It is also a tragedy that 20 Palestinans were killed 2 days ago and even more Iraqi children died in the past week. This has to stop.

Just Another by grubby · 2001-09-14 05:30 · Score: 1

When I first heard of the tragedy I had users coming to me wondering why they couldn't get to the news sites. I checked myself and sure enough most were dead as could be. So I checked slashdot and sure enough got right in. I just want to say GREAT job and you guys deserve a pat on the back for this. I get so tired of hearing all the people complain about /. and ct and michael, etc... It sis really great that we were able to share the news all together. Thanks again /. !

Emergency Mode by datavortex · 2001-09-14 05:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Rob touched on this in what he said above, but I also wanted to bring to attention this story that is of similar subject matter posted Wednesday on the Slash site. It's an idea for a slash feature to automatically do several of the things that the Slashteam did manually on Tuesday to keep the site alive. Things such as serving static HTML, disabling or changing the functionality of the search and other dynamic functionality, etc.

I'd also like to throw in my public note of thanks to everyone who kept the site up on Tuesday. We thirsted for answers, and you were there to provide, as always. Your work and dedication are wholly appreciated.

--

He either comes off as a real interesting guy with encyclopedic knowledge,or a pathological liar with an ax to grind

Fantastic by rjamestaylor · 2001-09-14 05:31 · Score: 1

Thanks you for fighting to stay up and serving our need to be connected during this atrocity. Really.

Thank you also for posting this story on how you did it. Could I make a request (to be filled, perhaps, when things are calm and the great debates return to KDE vs GNOME, MS vs ... everybody, etc.) that someone post a more technical report on the technologies and configurations Slashdot used to server a 3x load? Something that the lesser admins and developers out here could use to buttress our sites (from, I guess, the threat of being linked on your front page!) against surges?

--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello

I used slashdot to gauge public opinion by uchian · 2001-09-14 05:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I first heard what was going on from Slashdot, and I had to turn the television on to believe it - it sounded too much for a prank story when I first read it.

For me, the television was more important than Slashdot for recieving information on what was going as and when it happened.

But for me, Slashdot has been much more important as a place where I could see what other people from all over the world were thinking about this tradegy. I hope that the different pesrpectives and posts which I have read have allowed me to more maturely handle how I feel about the situation than I otherwise would have been able to.

Re:I used slashdot to gauge public opinion by DoomHaven · 2001-09-14 06:22 · Score: 2

Yes, could you have imagined the initial uproar that would have happenned if this tragedy occured on April 1st? A lot of people would have been incredible angry...until they found out it *wasn't* a joke.

A big kudos to the Slashteam! You guys really pulled through!

--
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
Re:I used slashdot to gauge public opinion by baalzebuth · 2001-09-14 06:46 · Score: 1

I was really thinking that this was a prank so I did not even bother to turn the TV on... I taught someone hacked /. and had put this false news. Now, I would really prefer this thing was realy a joke...
Re:I used slashdot to gauge public opinion by jesser · 2001-09-14 10:03 · Score: 2

One problem with using Slashdot as a gauge of public opinion is that Slashdot is biased toward geekiness, toward protecting privacy even at great cost, and against large corporations and major religions. If you were aware of the kinds of biases that are common on Slashdot, you could ignore comments related to those topics -- but then you would be mislead if non-Slashdotters were focusing on those topics.

I thought Plastic did a slightly better job of being unbiased, but then again Plastic has a reputation for having a strong liberal bias, and I tend to be liberal.

--
The shareholder is always right.

Only place to get information... by tommyk · 2001-09-14 05:32 · Score: 2

While everything else was crumbling, this was the only place to get info in the office here. I guess I surf too much, because more than one person came over to me in the first few minutes because they literally could not get to anything... CNN, Boston.com, washington post... DOA... that made you wonder even scarier things when you had no idea what was next...

And I guess maybe I do surf to much cause I knew to go to slashdot and news.yahoo. News.yahoo held up for a very short time, and then it died too. I know it wasn't our proxy servers, cause I could get recipies and stuff. Slashdot was there, which is just amazing.

Everyone on the crew deserves kudos. I never sent a thank you... I feel bad, you shouldn't need your boss to fish for one. Thing is, you are tops and like everything else that seems so seamless, you sometimes forget that it's people doing this stuff...

So now I'm saying it. Thanks.

/.ers: Don't get too cocky... by Alomex · 2001-09-14 05:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

While my heartfell thanks go to /. for keeping this site up; others who are dissing the major news organizations must keep in mind that while
Slashdot was serving 50 pages per second, CNN was peaking at about an estimated 50,000 hits per second.

In light of this it was amazing that CNN was up at all, slow as it was.

Re:/.ers: Don't get too cocky... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:50 · Score: 0

Don't forget the difference between pages and hits. A hit is anything - one of any ten-twenty images on the main page, for example. Also, that doesn't count static requests in the same way, slashdot could have been getting as many as a thousand hits a second.
Re:/.ers: Don't get too cocky... by Alomex · 2001-09-14 06:00 · Score: 2

Don't forget the difference between pages and hits. A hit is anything - one of any ten-twenty images on the main page, for example.

Not in this case. CNN disabled all but one-two images per page.
Re:/.ers: Don't get too cocky... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:00 · Score: 0

Hope this hasn't been posted already.
Here's an latimes article about news' sites traffic.
9 million requests in one hour at cnn.com.
Jeff Bates and Slashdot are mentioned near the end, though in a different context from the main thrust of the article.
Re:/.ers: Don't get too cocky... by Blue23 · 2001-09-14 06:02 · Score: 1

What's the translation between hits and pages served? It's not 1:1, or anything close to that. Each graphic button is a separate hit, etc.

I give /. an amazing hand from a technical, a journalistic, and a community viewpoint.

=Blue(23)

--
LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
Re:/.ers: Don't get too cocky... by hattig · 2001-09-14 06:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

And CNN.com is served from a single PII 533MHz server! Totally amazing.
Honestly, CNN's website will be composed of more than 10 times the servers that house Slashdot, possibly 100 times. The web server software will be serving static content, which is a lot easier than serving non-static content, even if the static content is larger (images, video). So 100x the servers plus 1/10th the work of Slashdot sounds fair to me...
Re:/.ers: Don't get too cocky... by Kiaser+Zohsay · 2001-09-14 06:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Props to Taco and team, not only for their hard work keeping the site up, but for this behind-the-scenes look at what it took to do so.
CNN was peaking at about an estimated 50,000 hits per second.
I also noticed after CNN came back up that they seemed to be in a sort of stripped-down static-only "combat mode". A talk with the guys behind CNN's site during the height of Tuesdays events would make for a great slashdot interview.

--
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
Re:/.ers: Don't get too cocky... by Datafage · 2001-09-14 06:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

That says nothing about the quality of code/administration, CNN has incredibly more money than /. for boxes and bandwidth.

--
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Re:/.ers: Don't get too cocky... by MikeFM · 2001-09-14 06:30 · Score: 2

IMO it is quite impressive to crank out 3x the performance from any program on-the-fly when you had no idea you were about to need to do so. To handle all the stress of the day and do their jobs so well is amazing. CNN has more experience in having sudden runs on their site as people look for news in bursts of interest. Slashdot I'd imagine is more stable usually because well it's geek stuff and none of the content disappears anytime soon after it's posted. :)

--
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Re:/.ers: Don't get too cocky... by Slump · 2001-09-14 06:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

From what we've heard from CNN, they were serving over 9 million pages per hour, or about 2,500 pages per second. This seems to follow the 50K hits per second quoted above.
Our network of local news sites (http://www.ibsys.com) peaked at above 1.5M pages per hour - about 425 pages per second.
We got slow in the morning, but recovered by about noon - where we were serving pretty quickly.
Interestingly, our biggest problem is that we use Akamai extensively for image serving, and Akamai fell apart early in the day and took a while to recover.
Between pages and video, and our local bandwidth and Akamai/IBEAM video serving, we peaked at about 450Mb/s...
Re:/.ers: Don't get too cocky... by belgar · 2001-09-14 06:41 · Score: 1

While my heartfelt thanks go to /. for keeping this site up; others who are dissing the major news organizations must keep in mind that while
Slashdot was serving 50 pages per second, CNN was peaking at about an estimated 50,000 hits per second.

In light of this it was amazing that CNN was up at all, slow as it was.

I agree with you 100% Alomex...however, I'm continually frustrated by the interchangable use of 'hits' and 'pages' that goes on in digital publication data. I'm sure that most /.'ers know the diff, but let's keep something in mind here -- hits count *every* request from the server, not just pages.

For instance, the page located here on CNN has somewhere between 15-25 graphicky doodads (depending on whether you count the Netscape toolbar crap that comes up at the top). Those each count as a hit. A page counts as *one* hit. Factor in whatever scripting or DB requests are nested in there, as well. Take the "50,000" hits a second, and basically divide it by...maybe 30? (I'm not factoring in the BS factor of CNN exaggerating the number of hits per second, but I'm also not including that they converted their page delivery to simple HTML by noon). Now, you're looking at delivering more like 1700 pages a second. Still not a bad number.

But comparing CNN to Slashdot is really an apples/oranges comparison. CNN is short newsbytes, and lots of hopping page-to-page. /. viewers spend waaaay more time on each page than the average CNN reader. More time per page == fewer pages served.

Whichever. YMMV. Kudos to the /. crew for keeping things humming all day. I certainly appreciated it, and all the contributions that kept us current on the info.

--
What does it mean to wake out of a dream
and be wearing someone else's shorts?
BNL, Born on a Pirate Ship (1998)
Re:/.ers: Don't get too cocky... by Polo · 2001-09-14 07:16 · Score: 2

Well, cnn seems to use akamai for lots of it's content, so that should help distrubute the load quite well. (their website claims over 11,000 servers)

During high-load situations like these - many web objects come out of semi-local cache, probably at your ISP, and the response times are usually low.

I learned from last job, use of CDN's (content distribution networks) can drastically increase the load a site can take. At first I was not sold on them because they were essentially "very expensive bandwidth", but the bigwigs didr some negotiations, and they came out at closer to the same price as the ISP bandwidth costs (with our volumes). (of course, you can get charged double/extra for some requests, so ymmv)

One thing to mention though is that using CDN's increases the amount of DNS lookups necessary. Akamai has this wierd 3-level dns lookup scheme.

I wonder how the DNS heirarchy fared during all this...

Kudos by MouseR · 2001-09-14 05:33 · Score: 2

I'm based in Montréal.

Data routes to most US news site was either non-existent, or too painfull to use.

By the time I found a local news site that had goo info on what was going on, I had read most of the (shocking) first details of what was going on on Slashdot. I actually learned about it on Slashdot, which is when I checked-out washingtonpost.com, as posted by a read (by then, CNN, ABCNEWS, CBS and MSNBC we already down).

I followed most of the developments on slashdot until I could get a BBC QuickTime stream of their newscast.

As far as I'm concerned, as a end-user of SlashDot, I didn't notice the load from your servers.

Kudos for a job extremely well done.

Re:Kudos by Alomex · 2001-09-14 05:37 · Score: 2

I'm based in Montréal. Data routes to most US news site was either non-existent, or too painfull to use.

Montreal traffic is usually routed through a NY City peering point. This might have compounded your problems.

picture this: by Wakko+Warner · 2001-09-14 05:33 · Score: 2

Two tin cans, a thin piece of wet string, a couple of acoustic-coupled modems (BGP routing, see), a cisco 3600 (used as doorstop), two 486 DX/50s running RedHat 3.1, and a Mead 250-page spiral "database".

- A.P.

--
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"

Detailed Statistics ? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:34 · Score: 0

I'm searching for some _detailed_ usage statistics (Traffic at internet exchanges, Usage graphs of news/web-sites, ...). Please no "everything was soooo slow during the last days"-replys ;)

-z

Back to Basics by Ulysses · 2001-09-14 05:35 · Score: 1

First, I would like to thank the /. team for all there hard work and dedication during the events of this week.

I am a regular reader of /. and have, over the years, tended to take the internet for granted, as a source of entertainment.

Tuesdays disaster has reminded me of the gaol that drove the original design of the internet: communication in times of disaster. The US government first created the DARPANET as a means to maintain communication in times of war, anly later did it evolve into a means of global information exchange.

I am glad to the sites such as /. have not forgotten this. They remind us all of what an important and necessary communication tool the internet is.

Once again, thank you.

--
-- If it weren't for the voices in my head, I'd go insane from loneliness. -Me, Myself and I

"Use Squid?" Answered in the article by yerricde · 2001-09-14 05:35 · Score: 3

I would have thought that having a single-process cache at the front-end (something like SQUID) which holds on to a much larger cache and then passes requests to non-caching Apache processes would have done much better.

Taco mentioned this in his conclusion:

A layer of proxy is desirable so we could send static requests to a box tuned for static pages.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:"Use Squid?" Answered in the article by MikeFM · 2001-09-14 06:19 · Score: 2

I think this is a good example of why all users on the Net should consider using a proxy server to cut down on how we're hammering sites. Even my home LAN uses Squid and it makes it possible for several users to browse the web in comfort even over a 56K line. Any business or ISP absolutely should be using proxy servers. For those of you who are unfamiliar with proxy servers it basiclly acts a lot like your browsers cache but it in general is far more effecient and is shared aong many users. If you turn off your browser cache and use just the proxy server the browser tends to crash less often too. :)

--
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.

great job by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:36 · Score: 0

you did a friggen great job keeping me and thousands or millions of users informed. I would love to hear what CNN and MSNBC and others did to handle the load.

LEPP

Thank you by Nezer · 2001-09-14 05:36 · Score: 1

Nuff said.

What the Internet was designed to do... by Robber+Baron · 2001-09-14 05:36 · Score: 2

You guys did what the Internet was designed to do: Maintain communications in a time of crisis. Well done! Amazing that most of the other so-called "news" sites had their pants around their ankles for most of the day...at least where the net was concerned.

--

You're using her as bait, Master!

Text only? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:36 · Score: 0

I too got the first word from /. as cnn.com and other news sites wouldn't load. Thank you for all of your efforts on that terrible day to keep ppl informed.

Later in the day, some sites just threw up a text only (or a text mostly) page to allow more pages to be displayed. smh.com.au did this very well, and provided allot of info and one picture. Hopefully this won't happen again, but with the valuable information you learned with the servers, you may want to add the 'text only' ideal into it. I should help you server even more pages in times of *amazing* traffic.

P(~cb)C

Not looking for a db war by Samus · 2001-09-14 05:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

...but since slash has the db independence layer, has anybody done comparisons between postgres and the different mysqls(table handlers)? And also between the various other commercial dbs?

--
In Republican America phones tap you.

The irony by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:38 · Score: 0

There is more than a little irony in being asked to pray for the victims of religious kooks.

I know you all see yourselves as very different (we're not like evil, satan inspired cult X, we're with good, god inspired faith Y)...but from the outside you all look prety much the same. The mulsims call for peace here, and throw bombs there, just like the catholics in rome holding masses for the dead while the catholics in ireland blow up pubs. There are even militant bhudists!

So, rather than praying for the WTC dead, why not break the cycle? Why not use this as a wake up call, a chance to say no; no more jhads, no more crusades, no more inquisitions, no more of this bloody pointless god stuff. It just isn't worth it.

Re:The irony by edunbar93 · 2001-09-14 06:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, it's in no small part because religion isn't about crusades and blowing stuff up. That's not the way it's supposed to be.

"Supposed to be" and "are" are two different things of course. Religion sometimes becomes a justification for slaughter, but it's never really the root cause, just an excuse.

--
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Re:The irony by jsin · 2001-09-14 06:19 · Score: 1

amen ; )

--

second society
Re:The irony by ttyRazor · 2001-09-14 06:21 · Score: 2

If you think that the inevitable result of any sort of belief in a religion and practice of it is vengance and violence, you are sadly and pathetically mistaken. Did it ever occur to you that those muslims calling for peace and throwing bombs were entirely seperate groups of people? That there are those who say their beliefs fobid them from taking a life actually mean it and put it in practice? It isn't the talkng out of your ass hypocrisy that people on /. wallow in and condemn on a regular basis that you seem to confuse heartfelt religious sentiment with. I can only hope that any people who are as misguided and confused as you suggest will look back on tuesday and realize just how wrong and contrary justifying murder with their faith is.
Re:The irony by Zico · 2001-09-14 06:33 · Score: 1, Troll

What a bunch of bullshit that you wrote. Gee, since there are plane, car, and train crashes, we should just say no more of this bloody pointless transportation stuff, too. Sorry that your life is so empty, but well, life's what you make of it yourself, and after viewing your thoughts, I guess there's not much surprise why you're the way that you are.

Load balancing routers? by Midnight+Thunder · 2001-09-14 05:38 · Score: 1

Is there such a thing as load balancing router for choosing which server to connect to? That way you could have an array of proxies receiving load as the router decides.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.

thank you, guys by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:39 · Score: 0

I heard by /., waking on the west coast with first coffee, unable to process the large, detailed front page you had up.

cnn had gone to static page. bbc was struggling. cbc was down.

don't kid yourself for a second that you are not a primary news source.

Barlow was in the Whitehouse a few years back, invited with Mitch Kapor to advise on internet policy. While waiting, he though about who he was and where he was and turned to Mitch and said, "Where's Dad?" Mitch said, "We're Dad."

Yup. It's us. It's you.

Thank you, Slashdot by Legion303 · 2001-09-14 05:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't ordinarily turn on my TV in the morning, but even if I had on tuesday I would have seen nothing. The cable was out. If it weren't for Slashdot, I would not have heard about this incident until much later in the day. My thanks to the Slashdot team.

This next part is slightly offtopic; I'd like to not be modded down because of it, but by the same token I'd like to not be modded up either. Not that that will sway anyone. :)

The feds found evidence linked to the hijackers that strongly suggests they used MS Flight Simulator to practice dry runs on buildings. What I want to know is, where are all those hypocrites who were pointing fingers and suing game makers for games like Doom and Quake after the Columbine incident? They seem strangely silent on this point. Could it be because MS Flight Sim is (all together now) JUST A GAME?

I know it's offtopic, but I felt it had to be said.

-Legion

Re:Thank you, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:10 · Score: 0

I hate to be the one to break this to everybody, but some moron already has...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/628194.asp?0si

It never ceases to amaze me how people can blame video games for anything and everything.
Re:Thank you, Slashdot by charon_on_acheron · 2001-09-14 13:08 · Score: 1

From the article on MSNBC: "Commercial light simulators..."

Because you need the best light experience you can get.

Seriously, the guy has a very good point. The flight sims could be used to practice this type of attack. And how many people who use these flight sims have never targeted a building? (I don't use them, not my type of game.) But no one is going to call for a boycott of them. Most people wouldn't even understand the issues he brought up, like realistic 3-d maps of Manhattan.

faster and stronger by damien+champagne · 2001-09-14 05:40 · Score: 1

Every time slashdot takes a hit or crashes it comes back faster and stronger. It is noticeably quicker and more responsive than it was even a year ago.

We who are about to slash salute you!

Damien Champagne

A solution for the links bogging down by barnaclebarnes · 2001-09-14 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

We were discussing how well /. stayed up just last night and how other news servers seemed to melt. thanks.n you guys gave us people with no tv a valuable news source.

What also impressed me were the people who put up pics/videos/news stories on their own servers to help people get news, even if they only had a dsl connection. Of course these sites soon got /.'ed as well...

So that led me to a new feature idea for news sites like this:

- People 'donate' a section of their web site to be a mirror for overloaded news stories.
- Whenever a link is /.'ed these sites replicate the site and store the data on their server.
- Slashdot keeps track of what sites have replicated and changes the url each time it serves a page with that link in it. That way the orginal site is now spread across 100's of dsl connections instead of one.
- After a set time (say a week?) the mirrors then delete the site from there servers and deregister their site from the mirrors list.
- Of course all this could be scripted with no input from users. All the /. admin would need to do is add some form of switch to say 'mirror this link' and the process would be put in place to start the morroring process.

And then you have your own distributed news network that handles major news stories with out getting slashdotted as much.

\well it sounds like a good idea...any comments?\

--
[Please type your sig here.]

Re:A solution for the links bogging down by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:13 · Score: 0

I've got to say it sounds like a pretty good idea.
Re:A solution for the links bogging down by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:31 · Score: 0

Good idea, except I think that you'd have to limit how hits some mirrors get. A lot of servers' connections are paid for by the GB/month, and pushing those servers over the limit could get expensive for them. This probably wouldn't matter to the people with servers on unlimited DSLs, but for people on T1s and such it could be a problem.

My only gripe.. by shayne321 · 2001-09-14 05:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

I want to thank the slash team as well for doing a great job of keeping slashdot up and running! It was my primary news source all day long when I wasn't able to get news from the "major" media sites.

My only gripe is I think it was very out of place and a bit insensitive that right in the middle of this (around 12pm if IIRC) Jon Katz took this tragedy as an opportunity to post some rant about how technology led us to this evil situation we were in and how technology was changing the way people get news or some such. I'm normally not a Katz-basher, but I think this was WAAAY out of place and insensitive to the people that died that day. Not only that, but it was unnecessary noise while people were still scrambling to get to the FACTS of what was going on. We really didn't need some insensitive wanna-be journalist's opinion on technology, of all things, in the middle of all of this. Maybe it would have been more appropriate on Wednesday or Thursday, but (to me) it was out of line at 12pm on Tuesday. Not to mention the whole crux of his article was off base (people killed people Tuesday, not technology).

Okay, I'll stop bitching now. Thanks again Slashdot, for stepping up to the plate and knocking one out of the park!

Shayne

--
Today I didn't even have to use my AK; I got to say it was a good day -- Icecube

Re:My only gripe.. by Capt.+Beyond · 2001-09-14 06:22 · Score: 1

heh, I haven't seen a Katz post for years.
Glad I have removed his posts from my view, this just goes to reinforce my thoughts on him.

--
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
Re:My only gripe.. by jfunk · 2001-09-14 06:31 · Score: 2

Yeah, I was annoyed by Katz as well, even though I used to stick up for him.

His story would have been *perfect* if he left out that technology angle he applies to *everything*.

If I ignore the technology part, I see a very well written and clear story that hits you right where it matters.

To be fair, it seems that he started the whole technology-in-every-story thing due to the gripes of Slashdotters. ("This is not news for nerds! Go away!")

I think Katz should just leave out the technology angle where it doesn't fit (most of the time) and concentrate on the articles themselves. I'd probably start reading him again (I used to read and enjoy all of his articles) if he did that...
Re:My only gripe.. by Sagarian · 2001-09-14 07:07 · Score: 1

It's predictable that soulless people with an agenda to push will capitalize on tragedy in order to push it. The degree of their true callousness can be measured by how quickly they move to do so.

Use this as an opportunity to seek out information and learn about a part of the world most Americans don't know anything about. Gather facts. Draw your own conclusions. Don't allow sorrow and anger to drive you like a sheep into the arms of a waiting ideologue, ready to capitalize on our misfortune.

Shame on you, Jon Katz.
Re:My only gripe.. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 09:38 · Score: 0

Jon Katz is a jerk, an idiot, a troll, and he doesn't have too many fans, myself certainly not one of them. I await the day when he either resigns or is removed from the /. authors team. His movie reviews are always extremely critical and I don't think there have been more than 2 movies he has given a non-negative review of, and the story yesterday about technology killing people was absurd and out of line. Jon Katz, you need to ask yourself if you are really providing a service to /. readers or just trolling for your own personal motivations.
Re:My only gripe.. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 09:45 · Score: 0

Really? My problem with his movie reviews is that they always seem glowing, even when the movie is utter crap.
Re:My only gripe.. by ShoeHead · 2001-09-14 13:21 · Score: 1

I agree. I never understood the Katz-haters. This last story just incensed me. If there's anything I can't stand, it's people taking advantage of a situation like this. If I had to guess from that one article, I'd think Katz was a megalomaniac junior Journalism major. Seriously, if he's on your payroll, he doesn't deserve to be. As they say on Usenet,

*PLONK*

Tux? by ChaoticPup · 2001-09-14 05:41 · Score: 1

I was impressed with how Slashdot held up for the most part -- good job to all involved.

Have the /. folks ever considered using Tux for the static content -- or at least played with it? Tux rocks. And if /. is dedicating machines to static content, it'd probably be worth looking into.

- CP

"Substantially less than major news sites?" by Rayonic · 2001-09-14 05:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wired had an article about tech news sites picking up the slack, and mentioned that Slashdot was getting up to 60 hits per second. The next part confused me, though:

"That is substantially less than major news sites. The Lycos news network -- of which Wired News is a part -- receives about 115 page views per second each day."

I can see how the entire Lycos news network can get that much traffic, but did any one site get hit that much? I haven't heard any other news site statistics.

--
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation

Looks like... by asphyxiaa · 2001-09-14 05:43 · Score: 1

Looks like Slashdots choice to keep the site semi-old style and basic, and not adapt to the tons-of-images-with-flash-animation-etc-etc like all of the other big news sites, may have helped keep their site available Tuesday...

--

mod_gzip by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:44 · Score: 0

Wouldn't deflation increase cpu load at the server?

Ad servers seemed to be a problem by Morris+Schneiderman · 2001-09-14 05:45 · Score: 1

The Slashdot pages loaded quickly. You guys did a great job.

Where I saw problems was when sites were trying to load ads. There are lots of Internet sites, but most of the ads on the internet come from a comparatively few sites. So, while you guys felt it necessary to add another server, the folks serving ads needed an additional server or two for each of the high volume sites they deal with.

You might try to negotiate a contract clause permitting you to temporarily remove ads in future emergency situations, when the ad servers are significantly slowing down the site. I know they liked the hits, but sometimes...

hardware spec's? by bobm · 2001-09-14 05:45 · Score: 1

so what kind of hardware is all this running on?

Re:hardware spec's? by Scoria · 2001-09-14 09:34 · Score: 2

Since search is down, I cannot provide you with a link to the Slashdot story about their changeover to a new cluster...

However, I believe that Slashdot utilizes four machines: three webservers and one machine dedicated to database serving. As far as I know, the database machine has either dual processors or one that is rather fast (see: 1.2ghz +).

--
Do you like German cars?

Some say the Internet failed, I disagree. by NetJunkie · 2001-09-14 05:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've read a few reports about how the Internet failed during this disaster since almost all news sites were too busy to respond. I disagree with that. Slashdot was here, as well as things like IRC.

On the channel I've frequented for years I got more up to the minute information than anyone in the office. Everyone was wondering where my news was coming from, especially since it was so accurate. While some people were sitting around watching CNN we were discussing and talking about what was going on with people very close (too close) to the events.

This doesn't even take in to consideration email. With cell phones and land lines too congested people were sending emails back and forth to get word on loved ones or just to talk about the events.

I think the Internet did a great job.

Re:Some say the Internet failed, I disagree. by trelyle · 2001-09-14 09:42 · Score: 1

I agree, the Internet did not fail. What might have failed was users knowledge of where to look for info. Basically, user ignorance. One other thing: that user ignorance is curable.I personally appreciated having Slashdot in addition to CNN television coverage. Not sure I ever would have found ananova.com without it. Several other links led me to mirrored images and such, all info gleaned off Slashdot. Outstanding job guys, and thank you for the insight into how it was accomplished.

--
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither. " Ben Franklin

Thanks, Slashdot Crew by FFFish · 2001-09-14 05:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

While the television remained my primary news feed, Slashdot was my primary web feed. It provided the community side of the equation: a finger on the pulse of the world and, particularly, America.

Thanks to the Slashdot crew for scrambling to provide the best possible service during a time when many other people were in emotional and occupational shutdown.

And thank-you to the people who form this community. On the whole, the discussions have been remarkably insightful and rational.

I'm hopeful that this web community is representative of the American population, and that we will see your political and military leaders taking sane action. This tragedy could all too easily throw us into devastating war with continuing long-term consequences.

I'll also take this opportunity to apologise for the several postings where I lost my head. While most of what I've written has attempted to educate a broadly ill-informed public as to why this attack took place, and to preach sanity in dealing with the attack, I have also lost my head in responding to some of the more dreadfully ignorant folk. For that, I am sorry: I should have been more patient and tolerant.

In closing, I'd like to assure our American friends that this has been a global tragedy. The outpouring of support, and demonstrations of grief and sorrow, have encircled the globe. Every nation mourns with you, and every nation feels a sense of shock and loss.

You are not alone.

--

--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.

Re:Thanks, Slashdot Crew by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:29 · Score: 0
Translation:

Instead of going to world news sites (like CBC, BBC, and CNN) I go read my news from Slashdot, b/c 90% of Slashdotters say the things *I* like to hear, such as:
- Corporations are evil, the US is full of them, so the US is therefore Evil.
- The US is very Evil(tm).
- Did I mention the US is EVIL?
- The US is a bully who randomly selects countries who are run by dictators/non representive governments just b/c they are bullies, and they want to bully people around because it's fun.
- The US is Evil (except for their computers and the Internet.)
- The US is a bully, it's true.
  
  Seriously though, don't you want to expound on how you feel the US deserved this? Come on, you know you want to.
Re:Thanks, Slashdot Crew by FFFish · 2001-09-14 07:32 · Score: 1

If you'd recall, I posted a dozen international and alternative web news feeds, and soliticited links to others.

Further, you've made the unfortunate mistake of confusing "deserve" with "contributed to."

The Taliban, which has been harbouring bin Laden, came to power only through US influence; likewise the radicals in control of Pakistan and the rule of Saddam Hussein are attributable to US operations. Decades of US foreign policy have contributed to the development of an environment in which terrorist groups have identified America with Satan.

However, you'll undoubtedly wish to pretend that this problem developed in a vacuum. You do so at your peril.

Posted at no-score, and with no intention of continuing this discussion.

--

--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.

Howard Stern by wiredog · 2001-09-14 05:45 · Score: 2

I wonder. Was he professional, or his usual annoying self. When the Air Florida crash happened he was a DJ here in DC. The next day he called up the airline and asked for a one way ticket to the 14th Street bridge. He left town soon after.

I thought the "Elliot in the Morning" crew at DC101 did a wonderful job. I need to write a letter to thank them. Hope Clear Channel gives them all raises after this.

--

Best Slashdot Co

Re:Howard Stern by Lord_Byron · 2001-09-14 07:42 · Score: 1

I don't know if he was so much being professional as too stunned to make jokes. Either way, in the first few hours, his show was a great source of raw information - he was close to the WTC, and had people even closer, cut over to or described things happening on other news outlets, etc. The "raw" part also means that there were unsubstantiated rumors and other bad information, but he was pretty good about letting people know where the data came from, thus allowing people to decide how seriously to take it. Later in the day, as the first shock wore off and the stream of news slowed, they starting going off on how to take revenge, but I do remember Stern saying not to go beating up cab drivers. Overall, I was impressed.
Re:Howard Stern by RedOregon · 2001-09-14 07:57 · Score: 1

That wasn't Stern, it was the Greaseman.

--
Skivvy Niner? Email me!
HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
Re:Howard Stern by wiredog · 2001-09-15 07:28 · Score: 2

No.Greaseman said "no wonder they drag them behind trucks" when he was with 94.7 a couple of years ago. After Howie left, in 81, Grease came to town.

--

Best Slashdot Co

Sorry, folks, but I have to say it... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:45 · Score: 0, Interesting

I'm REALLY tired of people trying to throw in their own chunk of "ownership" in this horrible tragedy. Instead of just feeling bad for the victims, survivors, and people who are still struggling to retrieve victims from the rubble, everyone seems to be desperate to draw attention to themselves using any means possible.

Folks, I don't give a RATS ASS how the back-end of a web site stayed up and running during the crush of viewers. I don't give a RATS ASS if you know someone who got out and saw bodies on the ground outside of the WTC. I don't give a RATS ASS if you saw stage X of the WTC collapse from 10 miles away.

STOP TRYING TO STEAL ATTENTION FROM THE REAL THING! In a time of crisis, I can always count on folks on the Internet trying to steal some of the thunder by trying to highlight how they did X over the other people, or how they know more people who were affected than others, or how they saw X happen live on TV. I DON'T CARE. You are affected just like the rest of us, but YOU ARE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED AND I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR "HOW IT ALL WENT DOWN" STORY!!

All I care about are the following:

1) The victims in NY, D.C., and Pennsylvania
2) The survivors
3) The people who lost loved ones
4) Getting the bastards who did this
5) Moving on with life

If I see another CT diatribe about the high-action excitement of keeping a news site live on the Internet, or another Jon Katz "feel sorry for me; I saw it all from miles away" story, I'm going to fscking go off! You people are LOW for trying to focus the spotlight on yourselves when there are so many people who are suffering who actually WERE part of it all.

You're sad... Just go away and let people focus on real issues.

Re:Sorry, folks, but I have to say it... by gregor_b_dramkin · 2001-09-14 06:08 · Score: 1

So you don't care about how they managed the load? OK. Then don't read it.

However, I am interested. Slashdot's main focus is on technology. As far as technology subjects go, scalability of computer solutions is one of the more fascinating ones, IMO.

The overcoming of an interesting technological hurdle does not detract from the tragedy that occurred Tuesday. If you feel it does, then JUST DON'T READ IT.

--
You can never equivocate too much.
Re:Sorry, folks, but I have to say it... by Skyshadow · 2001-09-14 06:15 · Score: 2

This was more than just a localized tragedy; it effected all of us. In that vein, we all have a role to play in the recovery.

Slashdot can't dig anyone out of the rubble, but thanks to the efforts of its creators it managed to both keep us informed and (more importantly) allowed us to share our feelings and thoughts. For a lot of us, Slashdot allowed us to begin some sort of healing. In facilitating that, in allowing us to help each other cope in those first few hours, Slashdot performed a great service, and the people who kept it running did more than "their part" in all this.

I understand you're angry. Please don't let that anger consume you and blind you to the good that was done here.

--
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Re:Sorry, folks, but I have to say it... by binford2k · 2001-09-14 07:38 · Score: 1

Well, apparently you are unable to read. Let me quote a bit to refresh your memory.

Countless people have asked me questions about how Slashdot handled the gigantic load spike. I'm going to try to answer a few of these questions now. Keep reading if you're interested.

Re:No need to reverselookup hostnames for geotarge by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'm an AC who works for a large, well-known player in the computer industry. Your comments about what you all had to do to keep Slashdot going will help us and our customers to do a better job the next time, God forbid, that we will need this kind of capability.

I realize that you need the ad revenue to pay your bills. But, I do feel that when there is an emergency situation like this, perhaps it's better just to simply turn off the ads, or use a pre-selected static, omni-geographic, generic ad,
and explain to your customers later. If they don't understand, then they don't deserve our attention and support. I'm sure that all of the major news outlets in North America greatly reduced or eliminated commercials during their coverage.

Thanks for working so hard, and working so hard under such trying circumstances (FWIW, I agree with the comment about 25% productivity, BTW).

I think that after the weekend, when everyone has had time to sit at home with their families and friends to discuss Where We Go From Here, there will be a renewed vigor in the USA, and among peace-loving democracies around the world, and we will get the economy back on its feet and proceed to kick terrorist ass big-time. The outpouring of support from Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, and other countries, both here on Slashdot and elsewhere, is greatly appreciated by this Yank. Thank You !!

Light Mode by rho · 2001-09-14 05:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

In the future, you might consider making the "HTML Light" mode the default mode under heavy load.

Granted, it doesn't alleviate the DB problem, but it does limit the images sent down the pipe.

(more ideas pulled out of the ass) Perhaps another Apache instance or a Perl script (horrors!) to watch traffic and to ratchet the options down as traffic increases, based on a weighted system (level 1: no sigs, level 2: drop journals, level 3: no search, ... level N serve only static HTML)

This is an interesting problem, and I'm impressed with y'all ability to handle it.

--
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.

Automatic static page failover? by Ed+Avis · 2001-09-14 05:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Couldn't the switch to static pages happen _automatically_ if the database goes down? The only difference to most users would be inability to post comments.

Hmm, that is actually quite a problem (though still better than just having the site go down). Maybe a 'comment spool' where the comments can be saved as flat files, ready to be inserted when the DBMS comes back up?

Anyway, kudos to Taco and the gang for keeping Slashdot up. Three million pages in 24 hours... how does that compare with the really big sites like Yahoo, AOL and CNN?

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com

Re:Automatic static page failover? by uchian · 2001-09-14 06:03 · Score: 1

I would appreciate it also, if when the page goes static, there was a warning that you could not currently post, because clicking the "reply" button and getting sent back to the homepage is annoying.

Or, thinking about the problem a little more, perhaps under times of high stress, could you change to a system where one server is dedicated to posting comments and updating the database, whilst the other servers serve static pages which are updated every couple of minutes from the dynamic server?
Re:Automatic static page failover? by FreezerJam · 2001-09-14 07:01 · Score: 1

Maybe a 'comment spool' where the comments can be saved as flat files, ready to be inserted when the DBMS comes back up?

Some banks use this multi-stage processing. The overall system complexity goes up, but the complexity of each component goes down. The staging area allows you to bring down the database backends.

The key benefit is that you can continuously accept new transactions/posts.

With an auto-static cache and comment staging, /. could have taken down the DB at almost anytime, just as long as it wasn't out for long. You just have to be prepared for the sudden load hit on DB start as you catch up on the staged posts.
Re:Automatic static page failover? by FreezerJam · 2001-09-14 07:05 · Score: 1

...and now that I think about it, there is the opportunity to do intelligent inserts. If the staging area is more full than usual, perhaps the DB processes can try and benefit from more comment adds between commits, and feed the cache a little less often.

You're dropping back from "instant update", but you should be able to capture *all* posts, and still feed more pageviews.

Original 1-to-many technology by mattsouthworth · 2001-09-14 05:47 · Score: 1

It's an interesting question, how to deal with flash crowds like this, and some people don't have any choice other than using the Internet for information, however...

Broadcast TV and Radio doesn't degrade in performance the more viewers or listeners it gets.

Net traffic in general by Kallahar · 2001-09-14 05:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

On a similar note, network traffic over the backbones increased from the normal 40% utilization to an 80% utilization Tuesday. (Sorry, can't remember the source). The article also said that traffic to search sites such as Google did not increase.

What this means is that people already knew where to go for the information, people know to look to certain sites for information. When MSNBC, NPR, CNN, and all the other sites failed I came here, and from here found a link to shoutcast which in turn led me to people who put up audio feeds from CNN - my only way to get the information while at work.

Thanks guys,

Travis

One of the karma winners for that day was Slashdot by sg3000 · 2001-09-14 05:48 · Score: 2

along with the volunteers rescuing people, donating blood or money, and helping us make sense of this madness. It's important to realize that informing the public about what happened was a crucial part helping the country when we needed it.

Thanks for keeping Slashdot running. When I heard about the news, I couldn't get to CNN or any of the news sites, so on a whim, I checked Slashdot. It loaded fast, and it was a great source of information. Eventually, I just had to go out to my car and listen to NPR.

I was surprised at how many good, informative comments there were. Sure, there were a few trolls or flamebait, but on the whole, the coverage helped in a time when many of us were at a loss.

My thoughts go out to the people who were affected by this and their families. This isn't over yet, but it seems Slashdot was a microcosm of the kind of stuff America is made of.

--
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.

Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:49 · Score: 0

Why couldn't you just stop after saying that the Akamai co-founder died in one of the flights? You just HAD to mention that you know people who work for Akamai...

This is driving me NUTS. People just HAVE to draw attention to themselves in times like this. Can't you just let the attention stay with the people involved? Why draw attention to yourself?

Re:Here we go again... by Buck2 · 2001-09-14 06:01 · Score: 1

Perhaps he should have phrased it:

There are people who work at Akamai who
claim(ed) him as not only a boss but
also a friend.

??

Seems like a lot of work, and he loses credibility.

--

As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
Re:Here we go again... by crow · 2001-09-14 06:02 · Score: 1

Good point.

I should have explained that CNN had re-Akamaized on Tuesday. My point of mentioning friends at Akamai was to indicate that I had knowledge of what went on there; I should have been more clear on that point.
Re:Here we go again... by CokeBear · 2001-09-14 06:26 · Score: 2

I think he inadvertently made an excellent point.
Six Degrees Of Seperation
I think that everyone knows someone who knows someone (etc) who was involved in this tragedy. SDOS reminds us how close we are, as a human family, to each other.

--
Reality has a liberal bias

Stern racism by DJK · 2001-09-14 05:49 · Score: 1

>His [Stern's] "towelhead" jokes were in bad taste, even for him, considering the millions of innocent americans who are now being attacked for the color of their skin and the fashion of their dress.

Uh, not that I'm a huge Stern fan, but I did rely on his show for updates on Tuesday. I also distinctly remember him telling the audience to not be prejudiced and lash out by eg. "kicking the crap out of some poor taxi driver who just happens to look arabic".

Yes, Howard Stern says inflamitory things at inappropriate times. However, I don't think he would be so irresponsible as to suggest actions of revenge based on how someone looks.

Re:Stern racism by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 09:21 · Score: 0

ever hear of NPR?

bbc by tplayford · 2001-09-14 05:50 · Score: 1

As far as I'm aware, the BBC managed to keep their site up throughout tuesday as well. I think their tacktics were to reduce the graphics on pages. I guess /. couldent really reduce their graphics significantly!

Slashdot was there for us. by linjye · 2001-09-14 05:51 · Score: 1

Thank you!

Re:When will Slash go XML? by jswitte · 2001-09-14 05:51 · Score: 1

When will Slashcode go XML? I don't know much about XML, but it seems like it would be able to cut out a trememdous amount of the redundent elements on the dynamic pages and a lot of the HTML-formatting code. This might have a measurable impact on the performance of the severs, and I'd think it would certainly help for those of us using dial-up connections.. (Yes, we do exist - I use one when I'm not on campus, though I'm hoping that will soon change..)

Jim Witte

Thank you slashdot by o'bryon · 2001-09-14 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

I live in Manhattan on the Lower East Side. I watched the the events of Sept 11th from my roof top in stunned disbelief. My disbelief turned to tears when the second tower fell. Throughout that day and the days that have followed, I've turned to the TV and the internet for any information that I can get, but my patience for what is passing for news on TV is wearing thin. I almost feel as though I can't trust what they say on TV anymore given
that last night the reports were claiming that they had arrested 10
people at JFK and LGA with compelling evidence that they were potential
hijackers. This morning when I got up story had changed and now it turns
out that they hadn't arrested anybody nor was there any real evidence.
There are similar stories are floating around regarding people rescued
from the rubble. As far as I know, every story that I've heard so far
about survivors being dug out, has turned out to be false. Every
channel has a different number of survivors and sometimes they are
policemen and sometimes they are firemen. And then it turns out that
they were two rescue workers
who had been trapped in the course of the rescue efforts! Can someone
please confirm or deny if they have pulled anyone out who was trapped at
the time that the towers fell?

The part of it that makes me really mad is that I haven't heard very
much in the way of apologies for these mistakes, nor have I heard any of
the reporters comment on the sheer volume of misinformation that is
being reported as fact. I understand that the reporters are human and
there is a great deal of competition that drives them to report
information before they can do a throrough fact check, in order to scoop
their rivals. But they've begun to lose their credibility and are
unconsciously furthering the terrorists' agenda of fear and uncertainty.

My apologies for the rant. I guess I'm feeling the fear and anger that
is inescapable right now...

Thanks to the slash team for keeping slashdot up and running and thank you to all of the slashdot readers, who've provided both information and commentary that is sorely lacking on all of the major television networks.

eirik

New Poll by Gehenna_Gehenna · 2001-09-14 05:53 · Score: 1

Whom do we thank for real time usefull news during the biggest crises of the last 50 years?

-Taco
-Krow
-CowboyNeal
-Slash

My opinion. Everyone. Slashteam, you rule. A beacon of information in a trying time. Slash. readers, ditto. Real time, intelligent information. The whole community rocks.

I live in the tri state are, Stamford CT to be precise, and you could see the mess from the building in which I worked. there was so much rumer and panic and fear it was a quiet comfort to be able to counton a site and acommunity for what I needed to know.

Thanks. Everyone.

--

CmdrTaco is one of us by fobbman · 2001-09-14 05:54 · Score: 2

"Slashteam kicks butt. Jamie, Pudge, Krow, Yazz, Cliff, Michael, Jamie, Timothy, CowboyNeal, you guys all rocked. "

Looks like Taco has the KatzFilter on, too.

Why hasn't anyone thanked the KatzFilter for greatly reducing the server load by not sending his crap down the pipeline?

good job! by 9sPhere · 2001-09-14 05:54 · Score: 0

No this is not a troll, ya damn lameness filter!

--
It is pitch dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by cybrpnk · 2001-09-14 05:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Folks, I've got a very very bad feeling and if it's true then the worst is yet to come and President Bush is going to need all the support he can get. The other day when he got off the phone from the mayor and governor of New York (neither of which I can spell), President Bush started speaking off the cuff (undoubtably to the horror of his PR people) and after rambling a little he said, "...I'm a likable guy....but I've got a job to do...and I'm going to do it..." and he said this with tears in his eyes. Several people in my office including me think they've decided to use a nuke and Bush is getting shook up about how HE is the one who is going to go down in history for authorizing it. This is a terrible burden for him, no matter what. He deserves your thoughts and support....

Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by cybrpnk · 2001-09-14 06:38 · Score: 3, Funny

Let us know, please, just how long it takes the Secret Service to contact you about this post. Seriously, I'm curious.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by batboy78 · 2001-09-14 06:42 · Score: 1

I am quite concerned myself, with just going to inactive reserve from active military duty, what is Bush going to do, he has a lot of pressure from the American public to just rush in and start bombing people. The annoncement was made to call up some 200K reservist to active duty to perpare for an assault.... Now I'm just waiting for the phone to ring...
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by fatboy · 2001-09-14 06:52 · Score: 1

Several people in my office including me think they've decided to use a nuke and Bush is getting shook up about how HE is the one who is going to go down in history for authorizing it. This is a terrible burden for him, no matter what.

That has got to be the most ignorant post I have seen on /.

We will not use Nukes. It is the wrong tool. We will go to Afghanistan and take their land. We will put in place our own puppet government that does not like religous radicals.

This is WW3. It going to be long, hard and alot of people are going to die.

We will not allow these assholes to take out freedom and live in a police state.

--
--fatboy
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Your_Mom · 2001-09-14 06:52 · Score: 1

Several people in my office including me think they've decided to use a nuke and Bush is getting shook up about how HE is the one who is going to go down in history for authorizing it.

Or he could be going on his (probably) 26-27th hour without sleep and everything sort of caught up with him. I highly doubt the military would suggest a nuclear response for a conventional attack such as this. I /really/ doubt anyone, no matter how angry, would let this go that far, even SecDef Rumsfeld(sp) said that this would be a new kind of war and would not see such normal things as airstikes and troop landings.

--
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:53 · Score: 0

If that method is used then there is no doubt in my mind that there will be a full blown war. I fear this.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by pclminion · 2001-09-14 06:55 · Score: 1

You're paranoid. And I completely understand! I was coming up with all sorts of worst-case scenarios yesterday as well (although most of them were worst-case terrorist response, not worst-case US response).
The reason we won't use nukes: it is simply ineffective. Chances are, bin Laden is a very low-level player in the grand scheme of things, and chances are, the real masterminds here are probably up in Alaska, or right here in the continental US.
If all of us here are smart enough to figure these things out, then our government, messed up as it is, is also smart enough. Nuking the entire Middle East will not only destroy our only ally over there (Israel) but will seriously piss off the remaining Muslims in the world and turn them all against us.
Perhaps that is their true plan. By provoking the US in this way, they may have tricked us into initiating our own destruction. But we're smarter than that. I really hope so.
PS -- my most recent worst-case scenario was this: as we rush to respond to this crisis, and as soon as we begin to feel like we have it under control, they do it again. The result of this is such incredible anger in the US that we are blinded, and swarm Afghanistan. Afghanistan is rigged as a massive booby trap, and we will be destroyed there, or at least tied up long enough for the countries surrounding Israel (who have profferred their support, but may be lying) to storm it. Once they have Israel, they have Israel's nukes. End of the world is now inevitable. Is this paranoia? Of course it is! But it scares me deeply to even contemplate it.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by glitch_ · 2001-09-14 07:01 · Score: 2

Blockquoting Your_Mom (that sounds dirty):
Or he could be going on his (probably) 26-27th hour without sleep and everything sort of caught up with him.
On FoxNews this morning they mentioned that Bush has not changed his schedule at all. Meaning that he still is going to bed at his normal time and getting up and to work at 7:00. Just a little FYI that Bush propably wasn't half asleep when he said it.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by ari_j · 2001-09-14 07:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

It won't take long. Back during the election, some non-front-page article in the North Dakota State University student newspaper included the sentence "I advocate the killing of whoever wins the election.", justifying his statement by claiming that the vice presidential candidates were both better presidential candidates than either of the actual presidential candidates were. The next morning, the SS paid him a pretty nice visit. And only the three literate students at NDSU even read that paper; this is Slashdot.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by IvyMike · 2001-09-14 07:11 · Score: 1, Redundant

Report this fuckwad to the secret service.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Your_Mom · 2001-09-14 07:12 · Score: 1

Yes, that does sound dirty, doesn't it?

Just because he is going to bed, doesn't mean he is getting sleep, I know that if I was in his position, I would not be sleeping to well myself. Plus, I take everything I hear from the news outlets (especially Fox, *shudder*) with a large helping of NaCl. Also, even if he is keeping to his regular routine, he is dealing with a little more on his plate the usual, which is probably requiring more sleep then usual.

I believe Bush is tired and stressed, along with all the other emotions that the people of the US is feeling right now, and he is doing a better then average job of handling it.

--
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:14 · Score: 0

"That has got to be the most ignorant post I have seen on /." Then yours comes close. Sorry but I think I can say with assureance that if BBC agents are used we will use nukes. That has been a long standing US statement. Now let me ask you this. Do you honestly believe Bin Laudin won't use B/BC warfare?
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by youreanidiot · 2001-09-14 07:16 · Score: 1

If he decides to use a nuke, the only support he'll get from me will be full-metal jacketed, right between the eyes.

Yeah.. you know.. that was probably a bad thing to say. Especially here, especially now.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by youreanidiot · 2001-09-14 07:20 · Score: 1

Or he could be going on his (probably) 26-27th hour without sleep and everything sort of caught up with him. I highly doubt the military would suggest a nuclear response for a conventional attack such as this. I /really/ doubt anyone, no matter how angry, would let this go that far, even SecDef Rumsfeld(sp) said that this would be a new kind of war and would not see such normal things as airstikes and troop landings.

How do you fight a war without airstrikes or troops? Oh yeah.. nuclear missiles. People calling that poster ignorant seemed like the ignorant ones. I didn't think about it last night when I watched the address, but when he mentioned it, it seemed even more like that's where he was coming from. I genuinely hope that's not true, but going by history I would say it's definitely not out of the question.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Lish · 2001-09-14 07:25 · Score: 1

I really doubt they will use a nuclear warhead (and hope they won't use one, btw). It's simply not necessary when they can cause such massive destruction with non-nuclear weapons. They will probably turn a large area into a parking lot, I have no doubt. But nuclear weapons just aren't necessary at this point.

Also, I think if they did, they would lose much of the global support they have recently received in fighting terrorism. His reaction is rather normal, I would think, for someone who expected to have a rather uneventful first year and is suddenly in charge of dealing with a major military situation. Everyone please pray to the deity or figure of your choice that he and all our leaders make the right decisions.

--
"This message is composed of 100% recycled electrons."
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Your_Mom · 2001-09-14 07:28 · Score: 1
Three Ways (Among many):
- Police Work
- 'Special Operations' (Delta Force, HRT, Navy Seal, Rangers)
- Diplomacy
There is not going to be some major gulf-war-style invasion of $country. Its going to be small raids and police detective work tracking people down and arresting them. If we strike back at civilian populations en masse, we are very quickly going to go from good guy to bad guy. Even military people know that.
--
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:28 · Score: 0

Hey I thought you guys had free speech..

Its only when it suits you.. he made no threat.. hes simply expressing his hatred of weapons of
mass destruction... I hope aint in the US.. like to see the secret service come on get him then.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:30 · Score: 0

If the American leadership does anything of this kind it is going to lose all its support from its allies. Western Europe has given the US support in tracking down the terrorists and prosecuting them, but if the US uses this as excuse to start another war they will be on their own, perhaps with the exception for Great Britain.

I know the US likes to believe that it can do things on it's own without agreement from the rest of the people on this planet, but be aware that the world's view on the superpower mentality of the Bush administration was already strained before this extremely tragic incident occured. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western Europe no longer feels that it has to listen to American power talk, and they will NOT stand for any excessive aggression on Americas part.

And weather the American people realize this or not, they do NOT want to make enemies of the EU and the UN.

/Clayson (I forgot my password)
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by headkick · 2001-09-14 07:37 · Score: 1

Let it be known that you just committed a felony for implying a threat on the life of President Bush. Think before you submit.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by cybrpnk · 2001-09-14 07:37 · Score: 2

Or they will think the threshhold is lowered and use US actions as an excuse for their own nuclear antics now or later....
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-14 07:38 · Score: 2

Sure pissed people off, but that sort of was the idea.

Wake the sheep up and make them think. Hello, they're talking about supporting a mental deficient who's likely to start world war three.

We're talking about how the Afghanis, if they don't want to be bombed, have an obligation to overthrow their leaders and turn over Osama. So why don't we have that obligation?

I'm not actually from the US, so the chance of me going there to do that is kinda nil, but I'm NOT going to buy into the little sheep-act and support their retard of a president in his jihad.

Why does being upset about the trajedy suddenly make people willing to accept whatever someone in authority says without thinking about it?

The emperor had no clothing yesterday, now you're congragulating him on his wardrobe. Ugh.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:39 · Score: 0

You have been reported.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-14 07:43 · Score: 1, Troll

You're a sheep. Seriously.

Unable to comprehend that someone may not think it's a great idea to start lobbing nukes around over the actions of a few people.

I don't doubt they'll check me out, because thousands of sheep like you no doubt reported me, on the theory that someone who doesn't suck Bush-Dick must have helped the terrorists.

I'd laugh at you if you weren't pathetic.

Would you actually support the drooler in charge if he talked about lobbing nukes? I thought you whole government was based on the idea that the people had guns and could, as a last resort, overrule leaders who were insane?
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-14 07:46 · Score: 0, Troll

You are FUCKING PATHETIC.

If you think I deserve reporting, then get off your lazy, inbred, hill-billy, twinkie-eating ass and report me yourself.

Fuck, it's people like you I'm ranting about.

You're such a fucking knee-jerk apathetic retard, that you willing to advocate any and all responsibility, regardless of what is being done in your name. All to save yourself actually having to have an opinion and do something.

If you think someone from another country, ranting about the mental midget who bought an election in your country is such a threat to national security, then get up and fucking report me yourself.

Seriously, you are freaking pathetic.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by csbruce · 2001-09-14 07:48 · Score: 1

Several people in my office including me think they've decided to use a nuke and Bush is getting shook up about how HE is the one who is going to go down in history for authorizing it.

A nuke is not a practical weapon to use. The U.S. would instantly lose all support from NATO and the free world, and any mid-east country that has nukes would be sorely tempted to nuke something American, and Russia and its tens of thousands of nukes would become more than a little irritated as well.

Nukes are a lose-lose proposition, and are neither necessary nor militarily sensible to the situation. If the U.S. really wanted to, I don't think it would have any major military problem in seizing the entire middle east with conventional weapons. But the real target is much more light and elusive than the static infrastructures of nations or militaries.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-14 07:53 · Score: 2

I think you're the only one who got it...

I'm saying that I'd much rather fight back against "our" (western world) leaders leading us into WW3 than I'd like to abdicate responsibility and let them get us killed, all in our own little holy war.

It would suck if nobody was punished for killing the thousands of innocents in this disaster, but it will not ever be right to bomb another country full of innocents for it. If "we" attack, we need to surgically extract the guilty, try them, and then if they're guilty, punish them with all force.

If we bomb their cites and kill 5000 innocents, what's the real difference between them and us?

And yeah, the US has freedom of speech, except where it's inconvenient or unpopular. (Ditto most governments though, even though they usually don't make such a big deal of the rights that they pretend you have.)

And yes, if the SS does come and get me, they'll be dragging a foreign national into their country to stand trial for the hideous crime of not supporting a US foreign policy of nuking innocents. Hmmm, much like the Skylarov and Johansen (?) stuff. Maybe I should pack a travel bag.

(And, note that I said it as a conditional. If Dubya handles this well, then I'll support him. If he wants to nuke something, as the message I replied to suggested, then he's no better than a rabid dog and needs to be dealt with like one.)
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:57 · Score: 0

Hmm...

And I though that the Taliban *was* supposed to be the puppet government? The U.S. has certainly provided them with lots of weapons and money.

Of course, the sort of loyalty that can be bought is not worth the price paid.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 08:00 · Score: 0

you're a fucking idiot - about as much as a waste of skin as the biggot hypocrit fucks of the 700 Club mentioned in the above posts.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-14 08:04 · Score: 2

Actually, only the US has a blanket law against uttering any threats towards the president (of the US).

That's like only the British commonwealth has a law against "Alarming the Queen" (a rather broad law, I might add).

You're free to threaten the queen, as long as you stay in the US, and commonwealth citizens don't face commonwealth laws for threatening Bush.

(Though, I'm sure, if I was important enough to them, they'd buy whatever court outcome they wanted, much like the MPAA does.)

But, this is a bit irrelevant because I was saying this conditional with Bush wanting to drag us into a nuclear war. At that point, I think all right-thinking people would rather get rid of Bush than follow him in a jihad.
btw, great country you have where it's illegal to express that you'd support, to the death, your beliefs that you should nuke innocent people.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by IvyMike · 2001-09-14 08:06 · Score: 1

I didn't advocate that Bush uses nukes. I hope he does not.

But attempting to coerce this course of action by threatening his life is a crime in this country, and a crime we should take seriously in light of recent events.

If you want to speak against using nukes, do so. But to threaten (even "conditionally") the president's life, ESPECIALLY at this totally inappropriate time, is really, really idiotic. Even a mental midget like myself can see that.

I hope you enjoy the red tape the next time you try to come to the U.S.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by ChannelX · 2001-09-14 08:08 · Score: 1

I cant believe people are posting this fear-mongering crap. Out of all of the possibilities you instantly think he's going to use a nuke? Ever think that maybe...just maybe...hes upset about the fact that other Americans will probably get killed as well as innocent people in the country we choose to attack (if necessary)?

--
My blog: http://jkratz.dyndns.org/~jason/blog/
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by vanguard · 2001-09-14 08:08 · Score: 1

I don't want him to lob nukes. However, if you look back at what he said to you I think you'll find that he didn't do anything wrong.

I've sent a few emails to friends claiming that I would kill the president just so that I could test carnivore. I'm curious too. Let us know if they contact you.

--
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-14 08:09 · Score: 2

When should one threaten the presidents life, conditionally for using Nukes?

When nothing happened, when he's not likely to go off on a murderous rampage?

Silly me, I thought it'd be more appropriate at a time when he's likely to go off half-cocked and do something really really stupid.

If he uses nukes, the only red-tape I'll deal with to enter to US will be getting permission to lead an archeological team into the radioactive wastelands.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-14 08:15 · Score: 2

Thanks. The lackwits who replied to me mostly wanted too, but seemed incapable of figuring it out. I think they needed your help.

On a similar topic... way to go. Clog up the governmental works in this emergency, when they're supposed to find the people who did this, by reporting me for disliking the US president. Just so you're happy to know you did you part in helping terrorists get away.

Here's a tip junior, the number of people who think the US president is a fuck-nut is expressed by this litle formula

(PopulationOfWorld - PopulationOfUSA) = BushHaters

It's really unpleasant knowing that someone who likely needs help to solve basic math problems is able to launch enough nuclear weapons to destroy most life on Earth.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Quikah · 2001-09-14 09:11 · Score: 2

If "we" attack, we need to surgically extract the guilty, try them, and then if they're guilty, punish them with all force.

I am curiouse. I am assuming you are European (please correct me if I am wrong). The majority of Europe is against the death penalty, even to the extent of advocating that Timothy McVae not be executed. So my question to you and other Europeans:

If we do find the people who are responsible for this act would you support the death penalty in this case? If not what is your idea of punishing them with all force?

--
Q.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by fatboy · 2001-09-14 09:18 · Score: 1

That has got to be the most ignorant post I have seen on /." Then yours comes close. Sorry but I think I can say with assureance that if BBC agents are used we will use nukes. That has been a long standing US statement. Now let me ask you this. Do you honestly believe Bin Laudin won't use B/BC warfare?

There to no enemy to "nuke". Does not matter what they do to us.

With Iraq, this was not the case.

--
--fatboy
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by IvyMike · 2001-09-14 09:33 · Score: 1

I'm curious: what country are you from? Where is assassination EVER considered acceptable? Twinkie-eating hillbillies like myself are curious.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 09:43 · Score: 0

More great proof that this is a free country.

God Bless America
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-14 10:33 · Score: 2

I doubt they'll nab you in the night and take you for questioning... They'll simply label you (and me) as likely subversives, like communists in the 50s.

If you ever want to get security clearance, you'll be inspected a bit more, etc.

But it's likely fairly obvious that neither of us are likely going to pick up a gun and attempt to kill him, so it'll just go down as a political comment.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-14 10:39 · Score: 2

Why don't you believe assasination is valid?

Would you have shot Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Milosevic, Saddam, etc?

If not, why not? Do you think it's better to go to war against their armies of conscripts, killing waves of people who are only there because their families will be killed if they leave?

In any case where a leader is doing something seriously wrong by the standards of the people, I think the people have the responsibility to remove them, and few leaders would leave unless killed. Power corrupts, corrupt people don't want to leave power.

People on Slashdot are talking about how the Afghanis have a responsibility to hand over Osama, even if their leaders disagree, or they're just as good as him...

Well, if you happily pay your taxes, Dubya takes that money, and nukes someone with it, and you don't complain... YOU'RE GUILTY!

When is it ever NOT justified to kill one person to save thousands?
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-14 10:46 · Score: 2

Well, I'm Canadian, but I feel much more of a link to Europe sometimes, than to the USA...

I feel the death penalty is misguided. Not that it's wrong to kill someone who killed many, but because it's often hard to know with certainty if someone is guilty.

If someone like Jeffery Dahmer confesses and shows us evidence, it's pretty clear. But there are a lot of cases where everyone is sure someone's guilty, until someone later comes along and confesses, or is caught for the next murder and we find out they were guilty all along...

If we had a crystal ball and knew with certainty, I'd have no issue. But I've seen too many people in jail for years be released later when we found they were guilty. If we'd executed them, how would we justify it?

Canada, as a country is mostly against the death penalty, but individuals vary quite widely in opinion.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Khazunga · 2001-09-14 10:59 · Score: 1
Being Portugal the first country which abolished the death penalty, I think I can shed some light.
The Justice system, around here, is not meant for punishment. If you read the laws, nowhere is there the mention to any kind of punishment. People are encarcerated to fullfill two basic objectives:
- Protect the society from them.
- Rehabilitate them.
Encarceration is limited to 25 years -- you can kill 100 people, get sentenced to 2000 years, and the limit makes you go free after 25 -- because it is the established limit for rehabilitation. For someone to be removed from society longer than that, he would have to be considered insane, dangerous to other people, and then sent to a mental institution - not the prision system.
--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by donnz · 2001-09-14 10:59 · Score: 1

Why? Is he going to be at the receiving end of a Nuke? How much *more* indescriminate is that going to be? Where is the moral high ground in being *worse* than terrorists? Let's "Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever" for the dead and their families.

--
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by IvyMike · 2001-09-14 11:01 · Score: 1

Why the constantly insulting attitude?
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by cybrpnk · 2001-09-14 11:09 · Score: 2

Wow - a Slashdot post gone, poof, censored. I'm impressed. The Secret Service moves pretty fast...
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by CybrGuyRSB · 2001-09-14 11:33 · Score: 1

No, as far as I know the United States has no diplomatic relations with afganistan and has not even officially recognized the taliban government (only 3 countries have. Pakistan is one, i don't know the other 2.)
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 11:39 · Score: 0

I think that many suicide terrorists believe that, by dying in pursuit of their jihad, they will go to heaven. So the best possible punishment *specifically for them* may be to imprison them for the rest of their life.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-14 15:15 · Score: 2

"Report this fuckwad to the secret service."

How short their memories. Do you think you deserve anything better?

You and all of your spiritual brothers (everyone else who thinks I should be locked up for not liking Bush) were asses, I didn't think you were worth wasting politeness on. I try to save that for people who don't go out of their way to insult me in their first message.

Btw, great way to dodge the issue. You asked when assasination was acceptable, I provided an answer. Hell, I think I showed when it's not only acceptable, but morally required to assasinate your political leader.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by jrockway · 2001-09-14 15:19 · Score: 1

What's wrong with threatining the President? If that's your opinion, then by God, say it. The beauty of free speech is that the good ideas get taken up upon, the bad ideas go away. If it's a good idea to kill the President, then it will happen. If it's not, it won't.

--
My other car is first.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-09-14 15:40 · Score: 1

Just to remind Slashdotters that everyone in Afghanistan does not support the Taleban, I found this statement on the very disturbing website www.hazara.net while researching the Northern Alliance rebels in Afghanistan:

"Hazara.net condemns the terrorist attacks carried against the innocent civilians in the United States. Our hearts and prayers go out to all those who have been the victim of these tragic events, their families, and everyone in America.

We would like to thank our readers who have sent dozens of e-mails sharing their anger and frustration over the alleged involvement of the Bin Laden group in the attacks on the World Trade Center and other targets. Please note that is an anti-taliban site; for the past several years we have condemned their role in the massacre of Hazaras in Mazar Sharif, Bamyan, and Yakawlang, Afghanistan. We condemn any such act of terror that involves the loss of innocent civilians. Recently the leader of the Northern Alliance - an Alliance that is fighting against the Taliban and Bin Laden aggression, was seriously wounded in a suicide bomber attack. His close aids were killed along with the two Arab suicide bombers.

We condemn such terrorist actions, the Bin Laden group that advocates such action, the Taliban and their Arab masters - the Saudi Royal family that is funding these terrorists.

These groups are responsible for some of the heinous crimes against the Hazara minorities in Afghanistan, the killing of shiite leaders in Pakistan, and now possibly the Americans.

Here is the address of the Taleban mission in NEW YORK .
Afghan Taleban Mission
55-16 Main Street Suite #1d
Flushing, NY 11355
718-359-0457 "

I have no doubt what they hoped when they included the Taleban's address. I tried to look at the Taleban's website (www.taleban.com/) as well, but someone seems to have hacked it.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-14 15:44 · Score: 2

Well, that's my feeling, and yours...

And I don't even think Dubya should be assasinated, unless he reaches for the big red button.
Actually, the people on here are over-reacting, it's *not* illegal, even in the USA, to express an opinion that the president should be killed, it's only illegal to threaten him...

The problem is that it's easy for the SS and the courts to interpret a joke or an opinion as a threat, and they're likely to drag you off and break knuckles to question you.

Well, as long as you don't threaten the president with DeCSS, the MPAA won't be after you as well, and they're the ones who really trample of civil rights and intrude into other counties. Well, them and Scientologists.

Hell, my parent post was already modded to -1, so I'll go all the way and say that scientologists are parasites anyways and should be dealt with as such.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by thogard · 2001-09-14 15:57 · Score: 1

Police work...
like the security police at the Logan airport.
I guess that ones out (and the jerks aren't even being balmed?)

Special Operation... you didn't mention the CIA... but they have a very large specails ops force.
In fact they have trinaed most of the people we are now pointing figers at.

Diplomacy? Look at Cuba. The rest of the world sees that Castro has been trying to patch things up for over a decade. The US is waiting for him to die and their next civil war.

The Taliban seemed to have had bin Laden under a type of house arrest. He has caused them a great deal of grief but he is a hero to many of the people who faught the Russians. They took away his coms devices for a reason and that should be investigated. The question I've been looking at is how many of the bin Laden family are involved in that area. His father was very rich and may have had 50 wives. That family has disowned him but is there more going on. Its quite reasonable to think that he may have over 250 brothers and sisters in the area.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by IvyMike · 2001-09-14 16:24 · Score: 1

Of course I understand why you're insulting ME. But you've also managed to insult everybody who's disagreed with you in your call for assassination, the president, and everybody in this country who supports their president. You've also managed to misread a hell of a lot of what people said (most of us in this thread DO NOT support nuclear force) and even committed what would be a crime in this country. You've mocked our country for having no freedom of speech (because we prevent coercive statements of intended violence against our president) while posting from a country which doesn't seem to have freedom of speech itself.

You and all of your spiritual brothers (everyone else who thinks I should be locked up for not liking Bush) were asses

Not LIKING him? Hell, I don't like him. You threatened his life, which is totally a different level. (And your weasily "It was conditional" doesn't make it ok, it makes you weasily.)

Btw, great way to dodge the issue. You asked when assasination was acceptable, I provided an answer.

Your answer spoke for itself.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by bryan1945 · 2001-09-14 16:38 · Score: 1

At what point did all of the people responding to this parent comment decide that Bush was going to nuke whoever? Because somebody infers from some emotional comments that this is equivalent to a full-out nuclear strike, and suddenly Bush is running a jihad?

This is the problem I'm seeing on the 'net now- lots of people guessing about basic assumptions and then running with them to absurdity. Does anyone really think that we would use a nuke, or that even the US command structure would allow one to be deployed? Oh, and we have quite the jihad running right now, considering all the people we have mowed down. You all know damn well that the US will never knowingly and willingly go after civilian targets. Yes, they may get by accident, but the military would never target civilians.

Unfortunately, even in this fucked up time, people need to run around with their bullshit ideas and stupid theories, when mostly they have no idea what they are talking about. I must have missed the part where all these people got their doctorates in statesmenship and military theory. At least I got the military part down, and I admit I'm not a statesmen.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-14 17:02 · Score: 2

I insulted everyone who called for me to be reported to the secret service, as if my simply preferring Bush dead, to a bunch of innocent Afghanis dead, was some huge threat to national security. It's pathetic, "use some law to shut him up, he said something I didn't want to hear!"

"most of us in this thread DO NOT support nuclear force"

If you're not willing to stop it, then your statement against it is a little empty. You mean, you might vote against him next time if he uses nukes? Wow! What a strong political statement!

"You threatened his life"

No, you don't seem to grasp this. I said I'd prefer to kill him than let him use nukes. To threaten him would require me saying I WAS going to do something, which I did not.

Which leads into ...

"(And your weasily "It was conditional" doesn't make it ok, it makes you weasily.)"

Umm, no. Weasily would be if I said it, but then tried to say I didn't mean it. I do mean it.

If I say "I'd kill you if you broke into my house in the middle of the night" that's a conditional, but isn't actually a threat.

Trust me on this one, it's a statement of my willingness to defend myself in case of attack, not a desire to hunt you down and kill you. "You" is even implied as a generic.

Ditto with Bush. If he died tomorrow and Cheney replaced him, and decided to push the button, I'd want someone to shoot him before he did it.

I'm not backing down on my original statement. I'd prefer Bush gorily dead before I want him to attack innocent people, especially with a nuke which would kill many and introduce the likelihood of nuclear retaliation.

But, as long as he stays rational, then he's okay.

That is just like saying I'd shoot someone (Canadians are allowed guns, just not pistols, and Shotguns are the recommended home defense weapon anyways) for breaking into my house, but if they didn't break in, I wouldn't shoot them.

The conditional isn't a bad thing, it simply means that I'm capable of evaluating a situation and acting differently as it warrants. If you don't understand conditionals, you must react in the same way to everything that happens.

"Your answer spoke for itself."

Of course. That's why it was my answer.

Well, I'll assume you agree, because you are very willing to call me on things you don't agree with.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by the_wesman · 2001-09-14 17:35 · Score: 1

I agree, I don't think the US is going to nuke anybody ... after losing this many "innocent people" it would be so hyprocritical to do something like that that ever OUR government wouldn't do it ....

.... sometimes my sentences are compound in ways that worry me ....

--
calling all destroyers
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by jrockway · 2001-09-14 17:43 · Score: 1

I don't think now's the time to worry about hating our President. Just follow him, unless he does something stupid. What really makes me angry are the Palistinian children laughing about this event. Wtf? They like watching innocent people die? A nice nuke would wipe that smirk off their face... but I wouldn't cheer, killing people is bad. On another note, a prayer is a good idea, but true Christians would ask for the forgiveness of the terrorists. Oh well.

--
My other car is first.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by IvyMike · 2001-09-14 18:40 · Score: 1

Well, I'll assume you agree

I do not.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 19:47 · Score: 0

If he does this, it will be only out of rage and desire of revenge, to satisfy USA citizens' anger for blood. It would be totally injustified to do that, even more to a country wich is already in the "stone age" as Afghanistan, and killing a lot more innocent people (the oppressed population) than those who died in the WTC & pentagon attacks, in the process.

If you wanna pray for Bush, pray not to support him doing whatever he "needs to", but for him to act the right way, and let emotions out of the way. A heavily-armed emotioned response from the USA is no good. A clearly-thought future-thinking response can be good.

May the force be with you!
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by vanguard · 2001-09-14 20:19 · Score: 1

You had me concerned. Slashdot never censors people.

However, it's not gone, it's just moderated down. check it out here.

--
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by vanguard · 2001-09-14 20:25 · Score: 1

(PopulationOfWorld - PopulationOfUSA) = BushHaters

It's really unpleasant knowing that someone who likely needs help to solve basic math problems is able to launch enough nuclear weapons to destroy most life on Earth.

Hmm, I'm American and I know that you don't need those parens.

--
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by cybrpnk · 2001-09-14 20:53 · Score: 2

Wrong - What your link points to is a post by somebody else that quotes ***only the first sentence*** of the post I'm refering to...and THAT one is gone, poof, censored.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by cybrpnk · 2001-09-14 20:59 · Score: 2

And WTF are the two of us doing up at this ungodly hour of the morning on a Saturday no less? We have got to get lives...
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by cybrpnk · 2001-09-14 21:08 · Score: 2

D'OH!!! CORRECTION!!! You are right and I am wrong! That IS the original post! Slashdot Rocks! Free Speech Lives! Hooray!!! Something interesting, tho (and what threw me off) is that Taco or somebody on the Slash Team disconected this post from the ones under it so the original post about "full metal jacket" sank to -1 and all the ones under it stayed up here near the top of the thread. Or maybe that's an automatic feature of Slashcode?
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by cybrpnk · 2001-09-14 21:22 · Score: 2

DOUBLE D'OH...Well, the true situation is even more convoluted - and Slashdot HAS effectively censored the post after all. Your link DOES bring up the original post - but you can't find the original post IN THE THREAD. It's not just above the "Seriously, I'm curious" post where it should be, and it's not down in the -1 dreck either. Somehow it must be at -1 just above the "Seriously, I'm curious" post and INVISIBLE.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by cybrpnk · 2001-09-14 21:29 · Score: 2

TRIPLE D'OH - Now the original "full metal jacket" post IS visible again IN THE THREAD!!! Maybe they made it invisible only until this news item became non-current??? Somehow this post has become a hot potato behind the scenes at Slashdot and they have pulled it for a while and now it's back....an interesting real-time exercise in free speech...
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by cybrpnk · 2001-09-15 01:14 · Score: 2

QUADRUPLE D'OH - The PIQ (Post In Question) has vanished again...
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-15 05:29 · Score: 2

Do they change the meaning of the expression?

Actually, I tend to over-use parens because I program and you might want to toss a modifier on the end of that, such as /2, or something, and it's easier to not have to go back and add something at each end later.

But, that asside, I don't think Americans are stupid. I just think that some (most?) Americans now have the stupid idea of rallying behind Bush, regardless of what he does. I think now, more than ever, you need to examine what he's doing.

On Monday, people would have bitched like crazy about Carnivore, on Wednesday they rolled over and accepted it... What's next?

btw, are you a South American perhaps? From Brazil maybe? Or did you mean US-American?
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-15 05:39 · Score: 2

Obviously for no decent reason.

Just remember, if you sit passively by, or worse, actively support him, and he does something really stupid, you bear some of the responsibility for that.

Also the idea is that extreme actions justify extreme responses. If he threatens to kill millions, he should be removed in any way possible. If he simply wants to carpet bomb a few camps without seeing if they're full of the guilty people, maybe it only justifies a few political demonstrations, etc. All actions in the proper context.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by IvyMike · 2001-09-15 06:14 · Score: 1

Obviously for no decent reason.

No, I just realized there's no way I'm ever going to convince you otherwise. To continue is a waste of time. I keep this link handy to remind myself of that fact.

Also the idea is that extreme actions justify extreme responses.

Jeez, I'm against nukes, but if I was for them, that's EXACTLY the argument I'd use.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by vanguard · 2001-09-15 06:22 · Score: 1

So you're a programmer huh? If you're going to through that around as an excuse you should have written

i = a - b

instead of

(a -b) = i

But really I'm just being picky because of the American thing. I'm pretty sure that only citizens of the USA call themselves American.

--
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-15 09:12 · Score: 2

Heh, I'm not saying I'm always consistent, but honestly, the programming thing is why I use more parens than I need.

And yeah, usually only USians call themselves American, but it's sort of a shame because it's not terribly accurate.

I guess it's fairly clear why, I used USian, you used "citizen of the USA", neither sounds very clear or easy to say.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-15 09:22 · Score: 2

"No, I just realized there's no way I'm ever going to convince you otherwise."

Of course not, you never even said why you disagree. And the point of discussion (at least for most people) isn't to brow-beat someone into their point of view, but to explain why another viewpoint makes sense.

Your picture indicates though that you can't imagine anything other than a shouting match to determine who was right.

If you'll notice, I took time to explain something when asked, you on the other hand didn't. Likely because you haven't actually examined what you believe and why, probably because you were simply told what to believe and you've never questioned it.

Tis okay. Don't bother with any more cute pictures, or excuses.

"that's EXACTLY the argument I'd use."

Then you'd be clueless. There's no way the deaths of thousands warrant the deaths of hundreds of thousands, or than one innocent dying justifies killing other innocents.

Not that I'm saying you wouldn't use the argument, or even that you wouldn't sway a bunch of droolers with it, but it wouldn't be a rational argument.

Now it's pretty clear why you never explain your opinions. If you can't, don't. But don't waste time by making up excuses for it.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by IvyMike · 2001-09-15 10:38 · Score: 1

Obviously, I am a retard, but here goes anyway...

Your picture indicates though that you can't imagine anything other than a shouting match to determine who was right.

And then....

Likely because you haven't actually examined what you believe and why, probably because you were simply told what to believe and you've never questioned it.

And...

Not that I'm saying you wouldn't use the argument, or even that you wouldn't sway a bunch of droolers with it, but it wouldn't be a rational argument.

I cannot imagine where I ever got the idea that things might turn into a shouting match. Oh wait, it's the unceasing use of ad hominem attacks rather than actual debate! The fact that you keep attempting to cast me as supporting nukes is vexing, also.

Re-reading the previous posts, I suppose the "unexplained opinion" you're searching for is a response to your question, "Would I assassinate Hitler & friends?" Honestly, I don't know since I've never been in a situation nearly that important (and I also don't know if it would have saved lives), but I do know that as a country, we have gone out of our way to NOT assassinate leaders of other countries. Saddam, Milosovic, Noriega, and Qadaffi are some leaders which could probably have been taken out by a serious coordinated assassination program but were not. Of course, since Hitler was commander of the military of a declared enemy at which we were at war, I think it's not unreasonable that killing him isn't assassination, it's taking out a legitimate military target. So until Canada declares war on the US, your comments must be taken as threats of assassination.

Here's a question I have for you. (And remember, in your response, I do not support nukes in this situation, stop acting and arguing as if I do!) If using deadly force against innocents was likely to result in fewer total civilian casualties in the end, would you do it? Supplementary question: If using force against innocents in a different country which would result in 100,000 deaths would likely save 100,000 civilian casualities in your own country, would you do it? How about saving 50K in your own country? 10K?
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-15 13:06 · Score: 2

"I cannot imagine where I ever got the idea that things might turn into a shouting match. Oh wait, it's the unceasing use of ad hominem attacks rather than actual debate!"

When I attack you as an inbred, twinkie-eater, it's not debate. I know that. It's my way of having fun at your expense. Anyone who opens by calling me a fuckwad should expect nothing less.

The debate is where I explain what I believe and spell out my reasons. Note the lack of "fuckwad" when I do so.

"The fact that you keep attempting to cast me as supporting nukes is vexing, also."
"And remember, in your response, I do not support nukes in this situation, stop acting and arguing as if I do!"

The whole point of this is that if you support a politician in their (possible) use of nukes, or are unwilling to stand against them, then you might as well support nukes.

Any blanket statement that you support Bush is tantamount to supporting any actions he might take.

"but I do know that as a country, we have gone out of our way to NOT assassinate leaders of other countries."

I know. And you (as a country) have gone out of your way to destroy armies of conscripts, just to save the life of one leader who often only holds power through direct threat of violence.

"So until Canada declares war on the US, your comments must be taken as threats of assassination."

Now who's using the weasel words. Listen, if killing one nut-job would save them from nuking innocents, I don't care if you call it an act of war or an act of cabbage, it's still justified.

"If using deadly force against innocents was likely to result in fewer total civilian casualties in the end, would you do it?"

Depends. And honestly, it does.
"If using force against innocents in a different country which would result in 100,000 deaths would likely save 100,000 civilian casualities in your own country, would you do it?"

I have no special love for citizens of my country over those of another, but depending on circumstance, I might weigh the "innocence" of both sides.
Now, this assumes there's a war going on, or something like that. And for the hell of it, I'll use Afghanistan and the USA for an example.

If the citizens actively hate and are trying to get rid of their government, yet are unable, like those of Afghanistan, I might give them more weight.

If the citizens of the USA are backing a leader who was bent on genocide, I wouldn't give them as much weight.

Now, honestly, I don't think the average US citizen would support violent reprisals on a civilian population, and I hope the government isn't planning it. I hope that most people would fight their own country, if needed, to stop that kind of travesty.
So I probably wouldn't trade one group of people for another, unless the numbers were overwhelming, or one of those groups seemed less than innocent.

This comes back to my complete disregard for the sanctity of leaders. If one person could be killed, to stop their violence towards many, I think it would be justified.

If Osama had a button he was about to press to set off a nuke in an American city, I'd support having someone blow him away. But I can't very well hold that opinion without supporting the same consequences for the same crime, if someone else were the perpetrator.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by IvyMike · 2001-09-15 14:30 · Score: 1

The whole point of this is that if you support a politician in their (possible) use of nukes, or are unwilling to stand against them, then you might as well support nukes.

"Stand against them" and "assassinate" are very different things for those of us who don't think in black & white.

If the US used nukes, it would probably be wise for us to consult our closest allies, including Canada. If Jean Chrétien gave his approval that in some case nuclear force was approved, what actions would you take against him? Exclude nuclear force: it looks the upcoming NATO-approved activities are likely to kill thousands of civilian Afghanistani citizens. Canada is a NATO member, and will probably be actively participating in those deaths, and will at least be standing with countries responsible for deaths. What actions are you taking, right now, to prevent that? Are you unwilling to stand against your own country's activities?
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-17 05:20 · Score: 2

"'Stand against them' and 'assassinate' are very different things for those of us who don't think in black & white."

Nukes are a somewhat black & white thing, they deserve stronger reactions than economic sanctions do.

"What actions are you taking, right now, to prevent that? Are you unwilling to stand against your own country's activities?"

I don't think that if Canada totally opposed the US's use of nukes, that it would really change anything.

I try to make a difference, but there's not a lot I can do other than try to influence people's opinions and hope that it spreads to people who can stop Bush from making a big mistake.

I however am not blindly supportive of someone until the make a fatal mistake, I set limits and what I'm willing to have done in my name, and even if I'm powerless to stop it, I'll let it be known that I do not support it.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by IvyMike · 2001-09-17 08:21 · Score: 1

I don't think that if Canada totally opposed the US's use of nukes, that it would really change anything.

You essentially were saying before that I was a partner in crime with Bush if I supported him. Trust me, my current opposition as an individual to nukes REALLY won't change anything. It will change things much less than a strong statement (or strong actions) by Canada would. And forgetting the unlikely use of nuclear force, your country IS going to assist with actions which will kill uninvolved civilians. Why not think a little more locally and do everything you can to prevent ANY Canadian involvement, if you so strongly oppose those deaths?

I however am not blindly supportive of someone until the make a fatal mistake, I set limits and what I'm willing to have done in my name, and even if I'm powerless to stop it, I'll let it be known that I do not support it.

You certainly had a proposal on how to deal with Bush. Have you considered threatening your own government instead?
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-17 09:16 · Score: 2

My government has a slightly better track record at listening to citizens than yours, and I still don't see that the opinions of NATO countries matters much to Bush, he's not very bright, a jingoist war-monger, and prone to snap-decisions.

As long as my country doesn't prepare to use nukes, why would I take action against them?

"You certainly had a proposal on how to deal with Bush. Have you considered threatening your own government instead?"

That's like saying "You were prepared to fight the Nazis, why not kill some aid-workers?"

Bush is the one with the button, Bush should be the target of those who wish to stop the potential use of nukes.

"Trust me, my current opposition as an individual to nukes REALLY won't change anything."

That's why I think removing Bush is a valid solution, if he looks likely to do something really stupid.

As yet another protester, he'd ignore you. The guy basically cheated his way into office, your fellow countrymen don't mean anything to him unless you're rich. If you want to make a difference, it'll take something stronger than words.

I know you won't do anything, but it's funny hearing how you're so against nukes, yet you support Bush, and wouldn't do anything to him even if he announced a plan to use them.

There's a reason that much of the world associates US citizens with their government's foreign policy. It's really easy for you to speak again it, as long as that doesn't involve actually doing anything. As long as you accept that, you'll be a target for every two-bit religious nutcase with an axe to grind, and somewhat, rightly so.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by IvyMike · 2001-09-17 10:51 · Score: 1

I know you won't do anything, but it's funny hearing how you're so against nukes, yet you support Bush, and wouldn't do anything to him even if he announced a plan to use them.

You mean "IvyMike and Canada are against nukes, yet IvyMike and Canada support Bush, and wouldn't do anything to him even if he announced a plan to use them."

I find it funny that you hate me for my support of Bush (which has pretty much up to this point been "Coercive threats against him are bad") yet you don't find anything wrong with your own country not only supporting Bush, but in a way that means a whole lot more. Even if you were right, that Bush would ignore NATO opinions, isn't it the thought that counts? (And don't discount Canada's role in this; in spite of what you think, the US counts Canada as a strong ally, and would NOT lightly upset them.)

If you want to make a difference, it'll take something stronger than words.

Your country supports Bush in ways much more meaninful than I could ever do, and yet as far as I can tell, you've done NOTHING to affect change in your own country, for actions which are being taken on behalf of you! And on an issue which you feel so strongly about that you broke a law of a different country and threatened assassination! Please tell me you've done something to affect your own government's actions here. (And remember, if you want to make a difference, it'll take something stronger than words.)

I guess "Canada good, US bad" is a view which YOU have which you've never bothered to question. How often does Canada get to take advantage of US foreign policy (how much does gas cost you, for example?) and then get to disavow any responsibility for those policies? You get all the advantages of the policy, AND the ablility to act righteous and pissed off. And more specifically, what have you personally done to unhitch Canada from the US's bandwagon?
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by WNight · 2001-09-17 11:10 · Score: 2

Yeesh, and you tried to call me for weasel words.

So far your stated opinion has been practically nonexistant, yet you berate me for both taking no actions and taking a strong stand on the issue.

No matter what you want to say, the smallest of NATO countries and complete US-vassal isn't going to come into Bush's consideration on this issue. I doubt your legislators could find Canada on a map, much less care for our support.

When Canada has nukes and threatens to launch them, then I might consider us directly responsible. Until then, it's all in Bush's hands. Anything else you say is just trying to cover your collective asses.

"Your country supports Bush in ways much more meaninful than I could ever do"

If my country supports Bush, then at best (assuming he cares what we say) it still puts me twice as far from anyone noticing what I say, as you are. Quit berating me and do something yourself.

"And remember, if you want to make a difference, it'll take something stronger than words."

Yes, if I was to have a hope of changing Bush's mind, it would.

I'm pretty sure the only thing that'll get through to him is another attack like this. For which he'll doubtlessly retaliate and stir up even more anti-US sentiment, endlessly.

"You get all the advantages of the policy, AND the ablility to act righteous and pissed off."

Ahhh, gotcha. Your country rapes and pillages, then tosses us some scraps. For that, we're as guilty, moreso in fact, you seem to think.

"And on an issue which you feel so strongly about that you broke a law of a different country and threatened assassination!"

Oh, yawn. If I go to Amsterdam and smoke pot, are you going to say I broke the US's laws? Really, the point is moot, even if I did do something which might have violated your laws if I were in the US, I'm not.

Might have, I say, because no matter how you slice it, I didn't say I'd kill Bush. Technically, I just said the only support he'd get would be full-metal jacketed, which doesn't preclude him not getting any support at all. But, ignoring any technicalities, my support for his downfall is conditional on his acting like a rabid animal and using weapons of mass destruction.

Remember this, a conditional threat isn't a threat unless the conditional is met.

Bah, nevermind.

You'll never accept an iota of responsibility, while trying to blame me and everyone else except your president.

Go off to your pep rally now. I'm sure the president needs your support, after all, genocide is really tiring.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush by IvyMike · 2001-09-17 14:06 · Score: 1

You'll never accept an iota of responsibility, while trying to blame me and everyone else except your president.

There will be civilian deaths. I wish it were not so, it makes me sick, but there will be. And as a US citizen, I accept my portion of the responsability for those deaths.

If my country supports Bush, then at best (assuming he cares what we say) it still puts me twice as far from anyone noticing what I say, as you are. Quit berating me and do something yourself.

Do you care about the issue or not? Why should my inaction prevent you from taking your own actions? Be a good example for me. Affect change within your own government, get the government of Canada to at least speak out against the US (instead of with the US), and then maybe you can get away with claiming moral superiority. Until you at least try, you are simply the pot calling the kettle black. At least I don't fool myself into thinking I have no involvement in my government's actions, as terrible as they may be.

Remember this, a conditional threat isn't a threat unless the conditional is met.

You're arguing semantics here, and I disagree, but even if I didn't, your statement was still an attempt to coerce through violence.

Go off to your pep rally now. I'm sure the president needs your support, after all, genocide is really tiring.

I'm sure Bush is grateful for Canada's continued support of genocide. Go off to your hockey game now. I'm sure you need something to distract you from your conscience, to convince yourself that a lesser degree of guilt is the same as innocense.

Slashdot up by msheppard · 2001-09-14 05:57 · Score: 2

I read "Plane Hits World Trade Center" on Saloon probably a couple seconds after they posted it. No link or nothing. Then everything went down...Except Slashdot. Everyone in my office was trying to get some info, so I decided to just watch someone else's screen for a moment. But they couldn't bring anything up. I went to my machine, tried slashdot first, and got the news.

--
Krispy Cream is people

The Censorware Project by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 05:57 · Score: 0

Why don't you register censor-ware.org and start the project up again?

Double your donation power! by AnotherSteve · 2001-09-14 05:58 · Score: 1

I work for one of United Technology's subsidiaries. I just got some email announcing that UTC has opened a donation matching program for employees. Gifts to the Red Cross (to $100) will be matched by the company.

Your company might have a similar program, so go pester your HR people.

--
Information wants to be $1.98/lb.

Technical details... by dan_linder · 2001-09-14 05:59 · Score: 1

Cmdr Taco,

Can you give us some of the low-level details of the current Slashdot setup and daily running averages? I.e. the number and types of servers (100MB or GigEther, bonded networks, etc), load balancers, routers/switches, the bandwidth loads of your connection to the Internet (MRTG graph?), etc?

I remember the technical description from May 2000 but I haven't seen an update or other information. For those of us who like to make our network scream, these hints from the trenches could shed some light.

Dan

Great Job by Uttles · 2001-09-14 05:59 · Score: 2

I agree, you guys kick ass.

On the other hand, there is a congressman trying to use this moment for political gain by criticizing Bush and Guliani at every moment, so let him know that he's not doing the right thing: martin.meehan@mail.house.gov

--

~ now you know

A suggestion for the /. office by HongPong · 2001-09-14 06:01 · Score: 3

All things considered, it might not be a bad idea to get cable at slashdot headquarters. It might have been invaluable earlier this week, and who knows, when CT took the time to drive home he might have gotten distracted and hit in a car accident. Or not, but the chance was there.

Also, most local stations were simulcasting from CNN, FoxNews, CBS, ABC, etc. Twice through Tuesday I used paper clips as antennas to catch so-so signals from local stations.

Also, cable'd let you guys watch Toonami at work.

Oh, now I see why you don't have it. CT and Hemos watching anime all afternoon... :) (That and cable's 0wned by evil conglomerates, I guess)

--
--hongpong.com

Thanks. by trcooper · 2001-09-14 06:01 · Score: 2

You've all done great. I think everyone appreciates that /. dropped it's standard format for a bit to allow us to get the news, and provided us with a forum to vent our anger and disgust with this horrible act.

I think the forums were the most important thing /. provided us with. I was able to get the news, because I work for a company that provides satellite feeds, so we have AP and Reuters on all our desks. But I still came to /. to be able to tell people what I thought, and a lot of other folks did the same.

I've criticized /. before, hopefully constructively (but sometimes probably not :) because I've been a reader for a long time, and fear change. But I must say, this was one of the site's brightest moments, in some of the darkest times.

Thanks guys. You did great.

This nearly happened before by Tonytheloony · 2001-09-14 06:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

this is a little offtopic but It has something to do with the WTC towers event.

First I wish to say that I sympathize with all americans and families of those that died in the terrorist attack.

I'm a french citizen and wanted to say that this kind of event nearly took place in Paris in 1994. At the time a large airplane (can't remember if it was a boeing or airbus) was hijaacked by a group of algerian islamists.That plane had departed from Algeria. The terrorists requests on board the plane were very vague and unclear. The french air force was hesitating to shoot the plane down, which would have been a very difficult decision to take.

Luckily the plane which wasn't meant to fly to Paris didn't have enough fuel on board and had to land in Marseille (south of France) where the GIGN (~SWAT) took control of the plane. At the time the government didn't explain the reasons for this hijaacking and we never got any explanations from the terrorists themselves.

Later the interior minister Charles Pasqua admitted the plane was headed to Paris to crash on the Eiffel tower. Maybe he was wrong but this does seem suspiciously comparable to what has happened in New York 3 days ago.

--
The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.

Re:This nearly happened before by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:55 · Score: 0

I really don't mean to trivialize the france hijacking, but tens of thousands of people do not work in the Eiffel tower.

While it is a source of french pride, some people would have died, and it would be tragic if it happened, the comparison is a stretch.
Re:This nearly happened before by Tonytheloony · 2001-09-14 07:20 · Score: 1

I agree somewhat with what you say, but it is not that much of a stetch. Like the twin towers, the Eiffel tower is not situated in the middle of nowhere! we didn't park it in the countryside! Remember that Paris has one of the highest density of population, and the Eiffel tower is over 300m. You are really wrong to think that there is such a stretch, the casualty count could have been in the high 100's (I'm not an expert of course) since the "jardins du trocadero" beneath are sometimes filled up with 100's of people (I do take offense at the "some people would have died", have you ever been to Paris?). Let's not forget the plane might have been full (I'm not sure how many where in there).
Remember that the casualty count could have been much higher in New York then it has been (news spokesmen were talking more 25000 in the first few hours, now it seems it's around 5000).

Oh, and I was not talking out of pride, most people that visit the Eiffel tower are (you guessed it) americans and japanese.

just remember, other countries have had their share of terrorist attacks, probably from the same people the New York attack came from (eg: 1995 subway attack in France)
My sincerest sympathies to families of victims in NYC (my cousin also lives there).

--
The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
Re:This nearly happened before by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 08:13 · Score: 0

You forget that one American life is worth like a 100 other people's lives or about a 1000 African people's lives. Or at least that is what it looks like when some people post their opinions and in the media in general.

A different kind of problem... by marcus · 2001-09-14 06:02 · Score: 1

...My friend's site is now down. His servers are located on the south end of Manhattan and have been running on diesel since they cut off the power Tuesday. They ran out of "gas" yesterday. :-(

--
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO

Re:All of Islam must be punished for this! by Skyshadow · 2001-09-14 06:02 · Score: 1

Good luck with that, man. Personally, I find the idea of nuking every major American city to be a bit of an overreaction, but if that's what you want to advocate...

--
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.

Hey Slashdot Team.... by cybrpnk · 2001-09-14 06:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Great job on coverage, but how about starting a thread where all the slasdotters can vent on WTC without going offtopic? We need it...

Re:Hey Slashdot Team.... by ekrout · 2001-09-14 09:05 · Score: 2

Excellent idea.

--

If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538

3 million? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:02 · Score: 0

At the end of the day we had served nearly 3 million pages -- almost twice our previous record of 1.6M

CNN and MSNBC averaged over a million hits per minute.
All who geeks shouting "maybe they should use slashcode" should stop and think.
So ./ was up, good for them.

How far the Internet has come... by chinton · 2001-09-14 06:02 · Score: 1

Looking at what happened on the 'net the last few days, we can get a sense of how far it has come in the last few years. Sites, such as Slashdot, showed that a group of dedicated admins can keep a site up and running under incredible loads. Other sites did not fare as well.

I was stuck at work and was unable to get any real time information on what was going on -- every major news site I tried to access was overloaded and the minor news sites were not being updated as often. Most of the updates I got were from my boss, who got a live stream early from CNN and never let it go, and from my wife at home watching TV.

We are constantly hearing about how the Internet is going replace the traditional media, but as far as I can tell, my wife never got 404 or 503 errors when watching the coverage on TV. Until getting real time news from the internet becomes that reliable, it will never replace the traditional media.

All that being said, the Slashdot team kicks ass.

Get a TV ! by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:02 · Score: 0

I had seen a few grainy photos but I don't have a TV in my office and hadn't yet seen any of the footage ...

Gosh guys, get a TV in your office ... or, better, get some video card with TV capabilities on your workstations so that you can quickly capture what you need ..

M.

Re:Get a TV ! by Skyshadow · 2001-09-14 06:05 · Score: 1

The web has a big advantage over TV: it's a lot easier to hide from your boss.

--
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.

Slashdot was my ONLY news source by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

So I was at the airport in Seattle at 6:00am. on Tuesday Sept 11. 2001

I had just checked in and as usual logged on to the 802.11 network and started surfing for news.

I normally hit Yahoo first, but for some reason I could not get to yahoo.com. My first reaction was, "Oh maybe the nameserver on this WayPort thingy is messed up". So then I tried /. (I always read /. to start my day).

The top article was the first one to be posted about a jet crashing into the WTC. By reading the comments, I was able to find an active link to the picture of the smoke pouring out of the first building.

By this time they are starting to board the plane, and NOONE else knows what has just happened. (The CNN channel on the monitors was playing pre-recorded stuff). Since I was not able to find out much more, I just boarded the plane. However I can still get a good signal from the plane, so as soon as I got to my seat I started reading /. again.

That is when I saw the second plane had hit the second tower. At this point I call my wife on the cell phone and she is crying and I can't hear very well (her best friend worked in the Amex building and is safe).

So I feel VERY awkward that I am the only one on this plane that knows about this. So I lean over to the guy sitting next to me and show him the pictures. He kinda looks dazed, and then asks, "So how are you surfing the web on a PLANE?" It just didn't sink in, he was much more interested in learning about the wireless technology than the incidents that were happening in NY.

(Oh they had long ago told us to shut off all electronics, but I wan't about to). Then the captian comes in over the intercom and tells us that they are going to reopen the doors and unload us because all US flights across the country recieved groundstop orders. At this point people start asking questions and word quickly spreads through the plane about info that I was able to gather from /.

I just want to thank EVERYONE at /. for providing a service that I find invaluable everyday, but on Tuesday Sept 11, 2001 they were the first news source that many people on that flight had of the terrible tragedy.

BRAVO!

--Wayne

Kind of off topic... (sorry) by UnhandledException · 2001-09-14 06:03 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I keep hearing how this was an act of war. Bull. Wars have been waged against governments since governments existed. This was an attack on civilians. On innocents. This is worse. You know what kept going through my head while I watched the buildings collapse? Odds are pretty good that NONE of the 50,000 people who work in those building had ANYTHING to do with whatever the terrorist were mad at. The terrorists were mad, couldn't reach the people they were mad at, so they attacked some people with an arbitrary link, people that had nothing to do with what they're mad at, but people they could reach. Just because they needed to lash out. And now some rednecks are throwing rocks and bricks into mosques, students are writing anti-Palestine hate graffiti. Not on the same level as the WTC attack, but it's the same idea. So some Americans have elevated themselves to the intellectual level of a terrorist. As though we didn't have enough problems.

And I know this has already been said a million times, but /. did a great job on Tuesday. It was pretty much my only web news source. Pro job, guys.

Thanks by TeachingMachines · 2001-09-14 06:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

CmdrTaco,

Thanks for the site. Not only was it the only site that was up, but better coverage was provided. I think we're all a little traumatized, but if it wasn't for Slashdot, I don't know what I'd be doing right now. I have to admit, I was really proud of you guys for working so hard on this story. I think that we all are. Thanks again.

Steve

--

The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.

Hey Slashdot Team by cybrpnk · 2001-09-14 06:04 · Score: 2

Great job on coverage, but how about starting a thread where all the slashdotters can vent on WTC without going offtopic? We need it...

Breakdown? by swordboy · 2001-09-14 06:05 · Score: 1

Without straying too far from the topic at hand, I'd like to know if there is an article or site that has a breakdown of just how stressed the internet was during these events. We all know that most news sites were just not up at all.

What was the hardware/software that came through?

--

Life is the leading cause of death in America.

Only 6 boxes? I wonder how many it would take ... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:05 · Score: 0

to keep /. up serving 60 pages per second if Win2K webservers were used?

A dozen? Two dozen?

Thank you for having the most reliable new service by bstrahm · 2001-09-14 06:06 · Score: 1

Woke up Tuesday morning around 7 PST. My wife told me the computer was broken because she couldn't get stock quotes...

Well I went to fix the broken internet link, then she calls me back in the room to show me CNBC saying trading was stopped (the reason there weren't any quotes) and the WTC was on fire.

I went to all of the usual news haunts, CNN, ZDnet, New.com, etc. Finally in desperation, I hit slashdot.org... It was the only site up.

Thanks for the great service

From netcraft.com by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:07 · Score: 0

For those who are curious about certain news sites what they are running with uptime stats, you can use netcraft.com

A select few (of interest, only one is a MS solution, rest are UNIX like):

The site www.cnn.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/4.1 on Solaris.

The site www.abcnews.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4/Windows 98

The site www.cbsnews.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP3 on Linux.

The site www.foxnews.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/4.1 on Solaris.

The site www.slashdot.org is running Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.25 on Linux.

Kudos but... by gordzilla · 2001-09-14 06:08 · Score: 1

Me thinks you might want to add a couple of more machines to you're web-farm. When
this War finally gets rolling I think you're going to need 'em.

However, I agree KUDOS to the slash team for keeping slashdot available during this very emotional times. Being here in Toronto Canada, (I can tell you this whole business frightens the hell out of me) I certainly appreciate being able to read a lot interesting thoughts from other slashdotters world wide.

Re: hits or pages? by bracher · 2001-09-14 06:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

is that hits or pages for cnn? I count about 60 images on the cnn.com front page. still works out to an impressive ~850 _pages_ for 50k _hits_, but not as impressive as 50k pages would have been... that's the whole point of the comment earlier about cnn dropping their contract with akamai. with akamai, cnn would have been serving those 850 pages, but never would have seen the 50,000 images requests...

- mark

http://linux96.org/disservice/ by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:11 · Score: 0

Check out this google logo that never made it
onto the page.. :)
google logo

why not use a real DB by eadint · 2001-09-14 06:11 · Score: 0

From what ive seem MySql isnt that impressive and it dosent handle heavy loads that well. plus its not open source. im sure there would be a few problems with porting the Db but with efort they could be overcome. have you thought of using PPc or alpha systems. intel computers arent really that impresive. hey lets take up a donation for an os390/linux solution. while were at it how about a couple more t3 lines. or just run pure fibre. well why not just get rid of a peice of trash like MySql and go with PostGres or DB2

Have you read the Yahoo! Message Boards? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:12 · Score: 0

There aren't enough mod points in the world to put down all the trolls and flamebaiters. :(

Re:Have you read the Yahoo! Message Boards? by OSgod · 2001-09-14 13:18 · Score: 1

Not only that -- but don't they do significantly more volume than Slashdot?

Short and simple... by BeeShoo · 2001-09-14 06:12 · Score: 1

Just a short, simple, heartfelt, thank you.

Good ole TV by nick_burns · 2001-09-14 06:12 · Score: 0

Even though I get most of my news through the internet, I find that on Tuesday the easiest way was through Television. We had several TV's set up in our offices and watched the news unfold.

I'd like to congratulate Slashdot for keeping this site up and also to the news agencies for being able to handle the extreme number of hits. However, I think it showed that we aren't quite ready to move toward putting all of our television and phone networks on the internet. It seems that the servers, not the backbone or ISPs were the ones that were being choked.

Remember, pray for the victims and their families...

Posting anonymous to avoid being a karma whore. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:12 · Score: 0

A BIG contratulations is in order for the slashdot team. You guys did a GREAT job. Your job is often thankless and I am here now thanking you. I had no idea what was going Tuesday morning. I got up late(like 9:30am) and rolled into work around (10:00am). I didn't turn on the tv and I didn't listen to the radio because I drove my motorcycle to work. As soon as I got to work I noticed the commotion and blaring radios. I knew something was up. I loaded up slashdot to get the whole scoop. I tried surfing to other news sites with no avail. Slashdot was my only access to news all day. You helped a log of people stay informed.
THANKS

database duplication by stilwebm · 2001-09-14 06:13 · Score: 2

I'm curious, what method of duplication do you use to keep a duplicate of all tables ready as a backup? It is very useful to have backups that can easily serve as drop in replacements.

Re:database duplication by MikeBabcock · 2001-09-14 09:01 · Score: 2

Go to MySQL's Homepage and read up on their replication system.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)

Re: hits or pages? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:14 · Score: 0

See the comment below. The ratio of hits/pages was around 2:1 because of disabled images.

More religion is not the answer by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:14 · Score: 0

Your asking those who don't believe in _your_ god to pray, or to "shut up and accept it" however politely you phrase it.

I will not. I will point out the hypocrisy in asking me to accept your Christian/Jewish/Muslin/Olympian religious at the same time you reject those of other wackos - like OSB.

A man changing water into wine and flesh into bread is as absurd as using a plane to get your message across.

Religious fanaticism, by Christian, Mulsim and Hindu people has killed more people than the Nazi's, the Communists, and the Imperialists put together.

Religion calls for people to give up personal responsibility for their actions, and believe in what they are told. Killing is wrong... unless its your enemy. Your enemy is those who believe differently, religion would tell us. Religion tells them they can ignore the consequences of their actions, because whatever happens on this world, they will be eternally rewarded in the next.

Whatever good religion does, it does far more harm.

So please listen to my request, and keep your self serving prayers to yourself. Your god (if any) will still hear them, and mine won't have to call for retribution against your sacriledge against him.

Re:More religion is not the answer by jcknox · 2001-09-14 06:36 · Score: 1

Whether you wish to believe it or not, Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. You can not prove there is no God, you accept on faith that there isn't. Some accept on faith that there is.

You state: "religion calls for people to give up personal responsibility for their actions, and believe in what they are told"

Atheism also calls for people to give up responsibility to any power/moral code, etc. higher than himself or herself. If there is no God, why should we serve anyone other than ourselves?

As for believing what they're told, That's where evloution fits in to the atheist religion. I find the idea that humankind "evolved" from chaos to be more absurd than the idea of a man turning water into wine.

Point being: You have your beliefs -- I have mine. Stop being superior and condescending.
Re:More religion is not the answer by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:52 · Score: 0

> Whether you wish to believe it or not, Atheism is
> as much a religion as Christianity, Judaism,
> Islam, etc. You can not prove there is no God, you
> accept on faith that there isn't. Some accept on
> faith that there is.

I don't have to prove there is no God, just as I don't have to prove there are no unicorns or no Santa Clause. I know statements like this outrage believers (and I used to be VERY religions) but it's the truth.

If you claim something, the onus is on you to prove your claim, not me to disprove it.

And what the philosophically modern god is is basically a circular definition: God exists, is infinitely and all powerful, and chooses to hide from us (which, by definition, he can do infinitely well.)

Well, of course, that kind of god is bizarre indeed. I propose that such a god, even if it exists, is logically indistinguishable from one that doesn't.

It will not intervene in any way, lest it be detected statistically. We should be proud we are so powerful we can cause an infinitely powerful being to hide whenever we look.

Anyway, at this point, with such a god, one wonders why anyone feels it would be deserving of worship? Disbelieving is much easier if you conclude that such a god, if they exist, is immoral.
Re:More religion is not the answer by YouAreFatMan · 2001-09-14 07:07 · Score: 1

Whatever good religion does, it does far more harm.
I can feel your hatred. Sure, religion can be used as a weapon of hate. So can a plane, a gun, a knife, a rock, and even our language. So can a slashdot comment.
I am sorry that you have such an inaccurate understanding of religion. Christianity teaches "love your enemy", not, as you state, "hate those who don't believe as you do". I suppose this makes me evil in your mind. But which one of us has chosen to hate the other? I have read your comment and I do not hate you for it. Up to now, you have not heard from me yet you clearly state how you feel about everyone who believes in God. That illustrates true prejudice. Religious prejudice, racial prejudice, class prejudice, national prejudice, these are far more the cause of evil than faith itself.

--
Robotiq.com is heavily tested on animals
Re:More religion is not the answer by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:26 · Score: 0

Atheism also calls for people to give up responsibility to any power/moral code, etc. higher than himself or herself.
How? If one doesn't believe in a higher power, how can one give up responsibility to it?
If there is no God, why should we serve anyone other than ourselves?
Because we _like_ other people and can understand their POV? A much nicer basis for morality than "must follow rules! musn't go to hell!" IMHO.
As for believing what they're told, That's where evloution fits in to the atheist religion.
No, evolution is open for tests, debate and possibly replacement (if a better explanation is discovered). It is not "The Truth" as handed down by the "Profet" Darwin and has seen a lot of refinement since its original conception.
Point being: You have your beliefs -- I have mine.
Everyone has beliefs. Whats important is that some are based in reality, others in myth.
Stop being superior and condescending.
To feign respect where there is none would be hypocrisy :)
Re:More religion is not the answer by AndyChrist · 2001-09-15 03:02 · Score: 1

Do I have to have faith to believe that there is no santa claus? Do I have to have faith to believe that I do not have an 11 inch penis, half of which is invisible and which you cannot touch?

No, I do not. Non-acceptance of ridiculous ideas is not religious.

A little critique by bliss · 2001-09-14 06:15 · Score: 0

"I respect them by dancing on the street."

yeah whatever go ahead and do that. Personally any stupid middle easterner who does that is just being deluded. I guess they have to face the fact that they just don't have any real power to have any but a really shitty life, loser job, and a country that almost no one fears.

If that's all you have to celebrate then fine. But realize it will take something much larger and kill many more people before the US leaves your loser ass alone.

Ok done ranting now.

--
The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic --Joseph Stalin

http://static.slashdot.org/ by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:15 · Score: 0

In such a load emergency, in addition to switching some machines to static page views, would you please add their addresses to another domain name, e.g. static.slashdot.org? Then people who know they're fine with static pages can remove themselves from the line in front of the dynamic servers. It should help speed everyone up. Note: I am NOT saying to remove their addresses from the usual name.

down on Wednsday by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:16 · Score: 0

Just a reminder, slashdot was down on Wed morning.

Please pick more tasteful choice of words.... by L-Wave · 2001-09-14 06:16 · Score: 0, Troll

"..When many news sites collapsed under the load.."

next time please pick more tasteful choice of words please...

--
I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!

Re:Please pick more tasteful choice of words.... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:22 · Score: 0

Gimme a break, pal.
Re:Please pick more tasteful choice of words.... by WirelessFreak · 2001-09-14 06:52 · Score: 1

I think they did pick a "tasteful choice of words." Many news sites did collapse under the load. If anything, I think they were nice about what they said about the news sites. At least they didn't say "the news' sites were so fu*ked up, they couldn't fulfill site visitors' thirst and need for knowledge they had." How about that for a "tasteful choice of words"??? Geez...

Sorry, all...just a bit irritated. :-)

The slashdot effect in real life by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:19 · Score: 0

$4.5 mil? Since Tuesday? That has got to be right near the top of fundraisers....

New slash feature? by psychopenguin · 2001-09-14 06:19 · Score: 0

Maybe you've already thought about this, but I think it would be really nice if you added a feature to slash where you could do one simple action on the admin side that would do all or most of these optimizations for you. Then if you (or anyone else running slash) ever sees a situation that generates so much traffic again (hopefully in better circumstances) then it will be easier to deal with.

Damn good job by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:19 · Score: 0

I had the only web service (news) that was up throughout in my office, I was set on Slashdot. You guys should feel proud. I think I converted my tech lead during the crisis - as he was a die-hard m$ guy - yet he could only get news from the linux news service. :)

TS

Re:Religion caused this by 13013dobbs · 2001-09-14 06:20 · Score: 1

Nope, just plain old war. War is war, violence is violence. No matter if you are Jewish, christian, muslem, or athiest (or any other religion I haven't mentioned), it sucks.

--

No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.

Echo story over on Slashcode by MacRonin · 2001-09-14 06:21 · Score: 1

How about submiting a copy of your story over on slashcode? It would make a great resource for future users of the slashdot code in case they ever have to handle a sudden increase of workload. Many of them might look on slashcode for maint info but not think of coming over here. Remember while you might be running on big iron, which lets slashdot run full out. Many users are probably running on smaller boxes. Your experience/tips might give them the clues they need to survive that crush of readers that might kill their smaller box.

BTW thanks for keeping us all up to date with the story

Thats nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:21 · Score: 0

"Supposed to be" and "are" are two different things of course. Yes, one is a deluded dream, the other objective reality. Pick one...

Correction by tedd · 2001-09-14 06:21 · Score: 4, Informative

"I'm a loving guy. And I am also someone, however, who's got a job to do and I intend to do it. And this is a terrible moment," Bush said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34322,00.html

I hope you're wrong about the nuke.

Re:Correction by cybrpnk · 2001-09-14 06:52 · Score: 2

The actual quotes here are even more worrisome than I thought.....

Tears welling in his eyes, Bush spoke of a need to win the battle against terrorism.

"I'm a loving guy. And I am also someone, however, who's got a job to do and I intend to do it. And this is a terrible moment," Bush said.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said the administration's retaliation would be "sustained and broad and effective" and that the United States "will use all our resources."

"All our resources" includes nukes.....
Re:Correction by Heem · 2001-09-14 07:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd love to say that I hope we dont use a nuke. I'd love to be able to take that stance. I'm sure I'm going to be disagreed with, maybe even modded down, flamed. Probably rightfully so. But you know what, I hope we do nuke those fuckers. It certainaly worked on the Japenese

to quote Leonard Pitts, From the Miami Herald - 9/12/2001

"This is the lesson Japan was taught to its bitter sorrow the last time
anyone
hit us this hard, the last time anyone brought us such abrupt and monumental
pain. When roused, we are righteous in our outrage, terrible in our force.
When provoked by this level of barbarism, we will bear any suffering, pay
any
cost, go to any length, in the pursuit of justice."

All I hope is that we have a well planned attack.

--
Don't Tread on Me
Re:Correction by Tomcow2000 · 2001-09-14 09:31 · Score: 1

I understand your anger. I'm angry. But this is not the right stance to take. When dealing with the blood of innocents, we have to be very careful using force. I endorse military action. I don't endorse using nuclear weapons. With Afghanistan's limited support from some of the hardline Arab countries, this could turn into full-scale nuclear war. Full-scale nuclear war. Be very careful when endorsing something as destructive as a nuke, which is almost guaranteed to kill innocent people. I'm not going to get into the morals of dropping the nuke on the Japanese (I oppose it), but this is a timeto carefully consider every aciotn we take. I don't think you're a bad person, you're just thinking rashly. We're all outraged. Just keep it productive.

--

Sleep: A completely inadequate substitute for caffeine.
Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 09:40 · Score: 0

My only problem with this guy's quote is it makes the States sound angelic and innocent. We are neither.

I had a long comment detailing some of the nifty acts of terrorism we've perpetrated in recent years, but I looked at my masterpiece and decided "The truth isn't worth disappearing for" and scrapped it.

But trust me, we make bin Laden look like an angel. The way the gov't treats Americans is VERY different from the way it treats foreigners.
Re:Correction by DunbarTheInept · 2001-09-14 10:17 · Score: 2

My hope here is that "sustained" implies ground action as opposed to nukes. Nuking a country is not something I would describe as a "sustained" action. "sustained" implies something that's going to take a lot of time, a description which does not fit for a nuclear attack.
And I deeply hope that I'm right in this. If I'm wrong...I don't even want to think about what it means for the world if I'm wrong.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Correction by datacide · 2001-09-14 10:28 · Score: 1

Problem is, this time the U.S. isn't the only country that is capable of a nuclear attack. Would Truman have ordered those bombs dropped in 1945 if he'd thought anyone was capable of doing the same to a U.S. city? I'm not so sure he would have.
Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-15 08:48 · Score: 0

Heem wrote:

But you know what, I hope we do nuke those [fsckers]. It certainaly worked on the Japenese

Who exactly is it that you're planning to nuke? Are you planning to nuke Terrorism? I've heard a lot about that recently. America is declaring war on Terrorism, etc. Where exactly is it? I have a nice atlas, but I can't find it in the index. Do you have a latitude and longitude? I can try to find it on my globe. Maybe I can set up a flag in Xearth and put it up as my desktop background.

You know, your attitude makes me sick. You want to respond to this attack by killing even more innocent people. Tens of times more than were killed in this attack. There's no way for you to deny you said that. You suggested using a nuclear weapon. You don't even seem to care who the target is. Is it going to be in Afghanistan. Are you just going to blanket the whole country and hope that you get the guy who is suspected to have something to do with organizing this? Are you going to kill all the Taliban along with all the people who they oppress? Oh you great vengeful hero you. Com to save us from the cold iron jaws of mercy and temperence. Merci buckets

Oh, by the way, 150,000 people is the absolute bare minimum number killed by the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was already beaten militarily at that point and the Japanese people were already being slaughtered by bombing raid after bombing raid. But the leaders of the armed forces were still reluctant to surrender, even though the actual government and the emporer had already begun negotiating for peace. The use of the atomic bomb was meant to terrify and demoralize the Japanese. In other words, the use of military power by the US was a terrorist attack. It was based on the idea that the lives of enemy civilians were essentially worthless compared to the lives of the United States own soldiers.

Thanks! by moonboy · 2001-09-14 06:23 · Score: 2

I'd like to take this time to say thanks to the Slashteam. Great job!

Also, I'd like to take this opportunity (since Slashdot is read by people from many countries) to thank the rest of the world for all of the support. We are going to need it even more in the future as we plan and execute our next course of action and the many actions sure to be in our future.

We as citizens of the world need to send a message that this type of behavior will not be tolerated. Not only in the United States but in every country. We Americans take a lot for granted, but once something like this happens in our own backyard, it becomes personal and you can be certain we will bring all of our resources to bear in punishing those responsible.

Please continue to support us as we go forward. We will prevail and come out even stronger. Rather than tear us apart, this has only steeled us and made us more resolute in the course of action we all know we need to take.

Thank you!

--

Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com

MANY kudos to Slashdot, many barfs to network by jd · 2001-09-14 06:23 · Score: 2

Slashdot is proving to be a phenominal piece of software. Sure, it's not "perfect", but what's "perfect" anyway? I'd say that surviving Tuesday intact is as damn near "perfect" on the stress charts as you can get.

But software's no good without a team to back it. The quality of Slashdot, the ability to keep it going in the face of world-wide panic, and the fact that CmdrTaco hasn't throttled me for being an obnoxious SOB, is proof that the team is about as good as you get.

The network, however, is another matter. The actual wires, the routers, the DNS servers - the things which are ESSENTIAL in times of crisis - just couldn't cope. THAT is NOT ok.

The network, as-is, is designed for "typical" loads. Translated, that means it's as cheap and unstable as the designers could get away with & still make a buck. However, communication in times of crisis is the single-most important thing you can have. Many rescuers are relying on cell-phone calls to work their way through the rubble. Do you think they'd be happy if the local receivers were sporadically rebooting? Or if the phone system collapsed, half-way through?

The Internet is a vital resource, in a time of emergency, and it proved this week that commercial organizations CANNOT handle emergencies. WILL NOT handle emergencies. The extra capacity required to cope might impact their profits. (Awwww!)

People in that rubble are depending on an infrastructure that is barely there, to survive. Sooner or later, other people will depend on it again, whether it's a natural or man-made disaster. It's probable that the shoddy infrastructure has added unnecessarily to the very high death toll. That is SO easy to prevent in future. Even if one additional life is saved, from higher-quality networking, I'd say that was worth every cent.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

The moderation system made the difference by parabyte · 2001-09-14 06:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Slashdot was also my primary source of background and first hand information, and it seems to be the only system that can handle a large number of comments and display them them in a useful and readable format.

Among all the useful slashdot features the moderation system seems to be the most important feature, and even if it is not balanced to deal with 2000+ articles, it still behaved pretty well, minor glitches aside.

Overall, slashdot and it's moderastion system helped me a least threefold to sustain this disaster:

It provided a huge low noise discussion forum by encouraging people to think what other readers might like, and by discouraging people to dump garbage into the system

It is very rewarding to post a comment and see it beeing moderated up; it was especially helpful in this case to see other people reading what I wrote, reducing the feeling of fear and powerlessness in this situation

The slashdot community, often critized for beeing somewhat narrow minded, and especially the moderators have clearly shown that they cover a large political and social spektrum, and few extreme lunatics write here, compared to other places on the internet.

Thank you all, the slashdot team, and everybody else who contributed to make the last days a bit easier to endure.

p.

--
Without order, nothing can exist. Without chaos, nothing can be created.

Re:The moderation system made the difference by tb3 · 2001-09-14 07:22 · Score: 2

Thank you, i was just about to say the same thing. I think the moderators did a terrific job in dealing with the signal-to-noise ratio here, and I think everyone in the community deserves congratulations, along with the slash crew.

And my karma's maxxed out at 50, so I'm not whoring for karma here, gang :)

--
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

Disturbing development in US news stream. by Alsee · 2001-09-14 06:26 · Score: 0, Troll

Actually a doubly bad development.

Midday, Friday Sept. 14, USA. I channel surfed for TV news. I receive 84 channels on cable. As I surfed I counted 25 channels that carried news type streams. I was quite disturbed to find the variations of the SAME stream on ALL 25 channels without exception.
I believe this is a hint that US news may have gone beyond mere "cooperation" with the US government. In my opinion this may indicated The Govt. having EXCESSIVE influence. As an American I think that the independence of news sources is VITAL, even in cases of emergency where they need to cooperate for good reason.
Second - The data stream was RELIGION. An individual religious service was force-fed to everyone. This treads dangerously into the realm of STATE SPONSORED RELIGION.
If people need to grieve and turn to their preferred religion, fine. But that is the responsibility of religious leaders, NOT the government, and NOT as a united action of the news media!
I find this union of government, religion, and media into a single unit to be dangerous and a violation of American principles.

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Re:Disturbing development in US news stream. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:47 · Score: 0

I suggest watching CBC (Canadian Broadcast Company) or, even better, BBC. That's assuming of course that you can get these channels.
Re:Disturbing development in US news stream. by David+E.+Smith · 2001-09-14 07:00 · Score: 2

That was more likely to be your local cable system's
choice than that of the government. I've got about
150 channels (love that digital cable box), and
most of the ones that were off-air (i.e. their
transmitters dropped 1500 feet) were, at least here,
running simulcasts of CNN or MSNBC. (The religious
channels, oddly enough, are all local, and they
just kept right on with their preaching, not
breaking the network, presumably because they're
all run from a glorified TiVo box in someone's basement. :)

Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by tzanger · 2001-09-14 06:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blaming the events on liberals, feminists, etc. etc. etc.

While I wholly condemn the actions of the terrorists I do have to critically ask, "Did the government of the United States of America have this coming?

You'd have to be blind to see that the U.S. government has been supplying arms and training and money to factions around the world for over 50 years. You'd have to be blind to see the American government change its mind mid-stride -- first by supporting a group (again, with weapons and money), then by turning face, cutting off support or even condemning the actions of the group they supported.

You'd have to be insane to believe the 1973 crap propaganda article by Gordon Sinclair is a clear and frank view of the United States of America and its leaders and their policies.

The government of the United States of America has been bullying and harassing nations for a very long time, flaunting themselves as a superpower which is untouchable. They've stuck their noses in other nations' business too many times and someone had decided to cut it off.

I don't agree entirely with this Guardian article but it does rise a very strong and important point: The U.S. must change the way it carries itself in foreign affairs. The American people must stand up and take active interest in their nation's government. The American media must stop downplaying foreign affairs.

an aside: the Canadian people aren't much (any) better in this regard. Canadian readers: How much interest do you show in your government??

I do not believe that this is the act of one nation, or even of a nation. And I am frightened because I do not think this is the last.

The U.S. government and media is running around crying "Why me? Why us?" and you have the President standing frail and shaken, telling his nation that "He's gotta do what he's gotta do" instead of analyzing the situation properly and keeping cool.

I must give Bush credit -- he did not spout off about Arabs or "them guys" as Clinton did with OKC -- Bush remained calm and rational. I fear that this is quickly fizzling out because his anger is taking over and as President, he is not allowed to have those emotions. He is a man with the power of a very large, wealthy and military nation. He is not allowed to be angry. I think he is grappling with those emotions and his reserve is failing.

As a Canadian, I demand retribution for what happened in the United States this week. I am not saying "forgive and forget." Blood will be shed, and rightly so. Check out my /. userpage for views on what I personally feel is acceptable for retaliation. I also think the President should send a strong message that it is not acceptable to hate the middle eastern people -- Just as there was no witchhunt against all white people with OKC, there should be no anger towards the Arab, Muslim and other middle-eastern people within or outside the U.S. This is not an attack by the middle eastern people nor their religion; this is an attack by terrorists and cowards too cowardly to stand up and fight.

And I fear that we will be brought into a world war because of it.

Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:10 · Score: 0

> an aside: the Canadian people aren't much (any)
> better in this regard. Canadian readers: How much
> interest do you show in your government??

The Canadian government uses the US to generate outrage in the Canadian hoi polloi against an external evil, in the time honored tradition of politicians everywhere.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by NMerriam · 2001-09-14 07:24 · Score: 4, Informative

The government of the United States of America has been bullying and harassing nations for a very long time, flaunting themselves as a superpower which is untouchable. They've stuck their noses in other nations' business too many times and someone had decided to cut it off.

I barely know where to begin when I read crap like this. The simple truth is that people hate us because we're the biggest kid on the block.

yes, they care about individual policy decisions, but there isn't a nation on earth that doesn't make the exact same decisions every day. WE're criticized for butting our noses into foreign affairs, then criticized for being isolationist if we DON'T get involved in foreign affairs.

We're criticized for supporting side A against B, but if we switch sides, we're criticized for supporting B against A.

There is no policy we could possibly have that would make other nations happy with us. If we withdraw, we're "ignoring our responsibilities" but if we get involved we're "flaunting our power".

Well fuck you all very much, planet earth. We didn't ask to be the only superpower. We're not itching to feed your hungry or shelter your homeless or finance your economic devastations, but we're the ones you call on first when you need those things done.

You complain because american hegemony is destroying your cultures, then you go out and buy coca-cola and watch Friends on TV. You complain about our imperialism while ignoring the fact that Germany and Japan are our biggest competitors exactly BECAUSE we rebuilt them at OUR EXPENSE after we could have conquered them.

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, so don't give me any shit that we had it coming because of our policies. NO FUCKING POLICY WILL MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY!

We're like the prettiest girl at a party -- all the women want to be her, all the men want to fuck her. There is not a country on earth that wouldn't trade places with us in a second, and on days like today i'd almost be happy to do it.

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by EastCoastSurfer · 2001-09-14 07:32 · Score: 1

Well said.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by cs668 · 2001-09-14 07:34 · Score: 1

That is the problem isn't it. The USs involvement. I would like to point out though that lack of involvement is also involvement.

I totaly believe that because we are a( maybe the ) superpower that people have unrealistic expectations of us.

If we fail to be involved half of the parties will want to blow us up, if we are involved the other half will.

Total catch 22
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by cyclist1200 · 2001-09-14 07:35 · Score: 1

"the U.S. government has been supplying arms and training and money to factions around the world for over 50 years."

Well, DAMN YOU and the rest of the western hemisphere for asking for us to get involved when it's convenient for you, and DAMN US for agreeing to it!
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by namespan · 2001-09-14 07:44 · Score: 4, Informative

I barely know where to begin when I read crap like this. The simple truth is that people hate us because we're the biggest kid on the block.

yes, they care about individual policy decisions, but there isn't a nation on earth that doesn't make the exact same decisions every day. WE're criticized for butting our noses into foreign affairs, then criticized for being isolationist if we DON'T get involved in foreign affairs.

There's some degree of truth to your statement -- not all the reasons america is disliked are legitimate, and the prettiest girl at the party metaphor was great. We've done some great things in the world.

But indications are that we've been responsible for some pretty terrible things at times in our nations history. We've supported and trained regimes who've used terrorism and torture because it suited us. Israel is a prime example. Several central american governements are an example.

There's a book called "What Uncle Sam Really Wants" by Noam Chomsky with some details. I'm still trying to figure out how much of it to swallow, but he paints a grim picture, and if even a fraction of it is true, we have a lot to own up to here in the US.

That said, attacking such a large civilian target as the WTC in peacetime is unprecedented and completely wrong. The people who did/would do that need to be fought.

--
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 08:06 · Score: 0

I think that you have hit it right there. I do managed to keep on top of things that the US does overseas and some of it is rather silly. What are you going to do though? Do nothing? Your hated. Do something... your hated.... Do something... then do nothing and everyone hates you.

As for others, I find that the kind of people that would commit acts like this are very common. Right here in the US we have the right. They are just more of the same.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by tzanger · 2001-09-14 08:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

I barely know where to begin when I read crap like this. The simple truth is that people hate us because we're the biggest kid on the block.

That is not entirely true. I simply don't believe it's possible to convince people to die terrorizing a country because they're the "biggest kid on the block." The hatred runs far far deeper than this and it must be resolved if there is any hope of this not happenning in the future.

Did you read the Guardian article? Have you looked into your country's foreign policies over the past 50 years? There are people who have very legitimate reasons to be upset at the U.S. because of the way it handles itself in foreign lands.

Well fuck you all very much, planet earth. We didn't ask to be the only superpower. We're not itching to feed your hungry or shelter your homeless or finance your economic devastations, but we're the ones you call on first when you need those things done.

Please go do some research before you post so you don't come off so totally ignorant of the reality.

Actually yes the U.S. does strive to be the only superpower. What did America do to Russia? What is it doing with China? I can't believe you actually think that nations don't strive to be the biggest and best. I believe that the U.S. is the only nation not paying its UN membership fees. Or behaving poorly in UN. Or trying to be the police of the world. The U.S. government does flaunt its power; that is what I believe got the United States into this mess in the first place!

You complain because american hegemony is destroying your cultures, then you go out and buy coca-cola and watch Friends on TV. You complain about our imperialism while ignoring the fact that Germany and Japan are our biggest competitors exactly BECAUSE we rebuilt them at OUR EXPENSE after we could have conquered them.

Actually I don't drink Coke and dislike Friends, but thanks for generalizing.

Your comments on WW2 are laughable at best. The American government sold arms (to both sides? I don't remember) when WW2 broke out. America didn't come to the aid of the other nations; it waited until it was hit before getting involved, instead profiting from the war. Whether this reserved attitude is good or bad I reserve judgement -- but don't think that for a second that America saved the world; if you read through your history you'll see that the Soviets and British played key roles in ending the war, as did America. It was a group effort.

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, so don't give me any shit that we had it coming because of our policies. NO FUCKING POLICY WILL MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY!

You're right, America can't make everyone happy. Instead of meddling in the affairs of foreign nations by selling arms and supporting conflict, it should do more peacekeeping and put its own military into action. The "hands off" kind of "support" that the U.S. has done in the near past reminds me of a parent shouting at fighting kids to stop instead of getting their hands dirty and stopping the conflict themselves.

Or, better yet, let the nations battle amongst themselves without making profit from it! Maybe even by providing relief to the civilians!

As a citizen, you can stand up, take notice and get involved in your government and the politics of your government! What was voter turnout this past election, something like 46%? While Canada isn't much better in this regard, we don't have the problems that America has and our foreign policies seem to be less convoluted and more focussed on peace than profit.

I hope you realize that I did not say the American citizens had it coming. Killing thousands of civilians is horrible and will be met with vengeance. Terrorist attacks like this are beyond words. No war was declared, no "plain-to-see" warnings... this is terrorism of the worst sort.

But to think for a second that America is right and innocent and that they didn't have an attack coming is just plain stupid, ignorant and totally unbelievable. I am sorry it happened and I do mourn the loss of civilian life but I am also not blinded by my patriotism like I believe you are.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by lazarus · 2001-09-14 08:14 · Score: 1
First let me compliment you on your excellent post. There is one point I completely disagree on however. You said:
The government of the United States of America has been bullying and harassing nations for a very long time, flaunting themselves as a superpower which is untouchable. They've stuck their noses in other nations' business too many times and someone had decided to cut it off.
Maybe, but I think you're wrong to suggest that they stop this practice. While they may sometimes pick their involvements for reasons of self-interest, I believe it is important that they do so for two reasons:
- It is the responsibilty of the strong to protect the weak. Period.
- America is nationalistic enough without becoming absolutely introverted besides.
Imagine a U.S. that thinks only of itself and takes no interest in outside affairs. You as a Canadian should understand just how terrible that would be. When nations stop taking an interest in foreign affairs, they end up with ideas like those of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Every nation needs a global perspective. I don't think you can have that perspective without also getting involved.
Today, the most travelled people in the world (to their credit) are the Japanese, followed closely by the Germans. That was definately NOT the case before WWII. Think about it.
And, of course, I wouldn't be a good Canadian if I didn't take a shot at my own country. Perhaps Canadians would understand the French culture in their own country better if they did a little travelling of their own...
--
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by tzanger · 2001-09-14 08:48 · Score: 2

Well, DAMN YOU and the rest of the western hemisphere for asking for us to get involved when it's convenient for you, and DAMN US for agreeing to it!

I'm not sure if I am following your mode of thought... What is wrong with saying that profiting from war is bad and is to be deplored?

I feel I have to keep repeating this, if for no other reason than to make sure that people don't paint me with the "anti-american" brush that's always ready: America has done some beautiful, impressive and extraordinarily commendable things. American citizens are no better, nor are they any worse than citizens of any other country. Christians are no better nor are they any worse than any other religous group. What happened on Tuesday is deplorable and goulish and will be avenged. I hope it will be avenged properly and not with the redneck "nuke the fuckers off the planet" rederick I keep hearing. At the same time, America is not innocent and it is very likely that the its own government brought this down upon itself. America the Beautiful and America the Barbaric are not entirely contradictory.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by NMerriam · 2001-09-14 09:02 · Score: 2

...Or trying to be the police of the world. The U.S. government does flaunt its power; that is what I believe got the United States into this mess in the first place!
...
it should do more peacekeeping and put its own military into action. The "hands off" kind of "support" that the U.S. has done in the near past reminds me of a parent shouting at fighting kids to stop instead of getting their hands dirty and stopping the conflict themselves.

So you want us to stop flaunting our power and being police of the world by "getting our hands dirty" with our military and stopping all the fighting everywhere else on earth.

I hope that it is now crystal clear to you why we cannot make other nations happy.

If even Canada wants us to stop throwing our weight around, while at the same time demanding we step in to enforce world peace, what hope do we have to make friends with the actual combatants?

I've found that Americans understand the world better than others seem to think. we understand that anything less than perfection is unacceptable. I'm sorry, we cannot be everywhere at every moment and stop all conflict while also remining quietly on the sidelines...

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by DoubleD · 2001-09-14 09:12 · Score: 1

This is one of several posts that I have seen commenting on the horrible possiblity of a world war. How exactly would this happen? A world war, at least in the context of 1 and 2 involved most of the major nations in the world in a protracted and heated conflict. Ok granted we got one side set up the USA and every other country in the world (except IRAQ and possibly a couple others) who have denouced this attack as a BAD thing. Where are we going to find enough people to say this was a good thing and have the power to fight?

Most governments will at the very least condemn an attack like this because terrorism destabilizes. Their leadership depends on at least some stability.

DD

--
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by tzanger · 2001-09-14 09:13 · Score: 2
Wow a civil response; I was hoping I would get some of these. :-)

Maybe, but I think you're wrong to suggest that they stop this practice. While they may sometimes pick their involvements for reasons of self-interest, I believe it is important that they do so for two reasons:
- It is the responsibilty of the strong to protect the weak. Period.
- America is nationalistic enough without becoming absolutely introverted besides.
Yes, the strong have a moral obligation to protect the weak. However I do not think that Iran-Contra was protective. I don't believe that building up Saddam Hussein was protective. These were self-interest and for-profit international issues. I'm not sure if training Bin Laden and helping the Taliban was such a good idea, even back when the Reds were Evil. Israel is different, and it is very complex. I do not pretend to grasp the entire conflict.

My point is not that the U.S. should withdraw completely but rather that they rethink what the hell it is they were/are doing. I really don't think that hand-delivering (i.e. military personnel in the area) foreign aid (medical, food, personnel) can be construed as aggression or self-interest. I seriously doubt that the blind hatred for the U.S. would continue in the next generations if their meddling stopped. The world does not want to be America. People are different.

Imagine a U.S. that thinks only of itself and takes no interest in outside affairs.

That really isn't too difficult. The Americans do perform humanitarian runs and quite honestly, I really do like the majority of the American citizens. They're friendly, helpful and supportive. Honest. But it's hard to keep that good side showing when the other hand is making shady deals and going after self-interest causes, all the while pretending that nothing is going on.

And, of course, I wouldn't be a good Canadian if I didn't take a shot at my own country. Perhaps Canadians would understand the French culture in their own country better if they did a little travelling of their own...

This is where I must disagree with you. I have no problem with official bilingualism. Hell I even think that that would be a good thing. What I very much dislike is the "sans anglais" practise that Quebec enforces while out of the other side of their mouth comes "bilinguisme partout". It's hipocritical and offensive and makes me see red. All or none; they can't have both as far as I'm concerned. If they want a bilingual nation, then they themselves must be bilingual. However if they want to "protect their language" then don't expect Federal support.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by tzanger · 2001-09-14 09:21 · Score: 2

I am sorry I didn't make this clear. Please allow me to try again:

So you want us to stop flaunting our power and being police of the world by "getting our hands dirty" with our military and stopping all the fighting everywhere else on earth.

No.

Instead of selling arms and having them defend themselves, send troops to defend. Now you know your weapons won't be re-sold or used against you. That is what I mean by getting your hands dirty.

Throwing money at the nation saying "Here ya go, hope this helps" is a hands-off approach; Sending foreign aid (medical, food, personnel) with military protection is hands-on and ensures that the aid gets to the people who need it, and not the armies battling the war. This approach also doesn't have you fighting (or defending) the troubled nation's causes; you are just helping those stuck in the middle.

If even Canada wants us to stop throwing our weight around, while at the same time demanding we step in to enforce world peace, what hope do we have to make friends with the actual combatants?

That's just it -- when they're in the midst of battle you don't try to make friends. You support the people caught in the middle. At least that is my view.

I've found that Americans understand the world better than others seem to think. we understand that anything less than perfection is unacceptable. I'm sorry, we cannot be everywhere at every moment and stop all conflict while also remining quietly on the sidelines...

I hope that this post has cleared up what it is I was trying to say. I'm not blaming the United States for the problems of the world. I'm not calling Americans evil or contemptable. I'm saying that, as a superpower, I really really think you could have done a whole lot better. American foreign policies have caused a lot of grief; I would almost say more grief than they have cured.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by dszd0g · 2001-09-14 09:22 · Score: 2, Informative

I find it humorous that some people actually believe our foreign policy is based on helping others.

I am not saying that the US does not help other countries. We quite often come to the support of our allies and troubled nations.

However, one can not ignore the horrors we commit. The 150,000 deaths we are responsible for in Guatemala. Supporting De Beers and the diamond cartel and the slavery and thousands of deaths involved there. The whole cold war and how the USSR and the US used entire other nations as pawns in the war against each other. Our intelligence leaking information to US companies and helping to eliminate foreign competition.

There are a number of books on these subjects. A couple good reads are "The Good Citizen" and "Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy."

A lot of Americans seem to believe that others get pissed off at us just because we are doing well. What people are pissed off at us for are the horrid things we do that aren't covered by American media.

--
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by tzanger · 2001-09-14 09:28 · Score: 2
That is the problem isn't it. The USs involvement. I would like to point out though that lack of involvement is also involvement.

Are you American? I hope so; because this question is directed at Americans:
- Would you rather your government sell arms and make profit from other's wars, or would you rather your government sit out altogether?
- Also, Would you rather your government sell arms and give money / aid, all of which could be misappropriated
- very easily, or would you rather send military personnel to either a) defend and/or b) chaperone and administer foreign aid to those directly in need of it?
You are entirely correct: no involvement is also involvement. However the kind of involvement, especially in the middle east, in the past has been questionable or even double-edged at best.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by denshi · 2001-09-14 09:31 · Score: 2

You'd have to be blind to see the American government change its mind mid-stride -- first by supporting a group (again, with weapons and money), then by turning face, cutting off support or even condemning the actions of the group they supported.
We have had a poor track record of withdrawing support for groups we provided for. The ideal situation entails choosing the right group, funding it with enough arms to win their local cause and no more, and tapering down arms to nothing in the case of withdrawing support after the cause is completed. If it ends too soon, you should try to get back some percentage of the weapons, such as the standing offer of 300 million US dollars for the stockpile of Stinger missiles still in Afghanistan. It doesn't help much that Afghanis are fetishists for guns, or that other Arab states are outbidding us for the missiles.
In the case of the Afghanis, there were really no good choices, except for Massoud, who didn't really want foreign support in his country - he is/was the pro-democrary guy in the mujahedin. We focused on Hetmakyar and bin Laden, who schmoozed better with the West. Hetmakyar, by the way, basically avoided fighting and stockpiled everything we sent to him; he knew that the war would end, then he would conquer the nation. So the war ended, and chaos continued as Hetmakyar, Dostum, and Massoud shook it up amongst themselves. Later, the Talibs, primarily religious students from the south and funded by merchants with Pakistani ties, grew sick of the corruption of the warlords and started raising hell. They eventually captured all Hetmakyar's territory, who then fled to Pakistan, then diplomacy & assassination delivered them Dostum's territory, who fled to Turkey. When the Taliban captured Hetmakyar's weapon's cache, they proclaimed that they "now have enough weapons for 25 years of war". I'm inclined to believe them.
I wrote this little rant to point something out: Afghanistan is probably the wierdest place we have ever intervened in. The forces in control have shifted numerous times the culture in place has changed radically, and its not easy to just say 'we supported this guy and now he is out to get us' when everything over there changes radically every 5 years. Finally, it just goes to show that if you give a man a gun, you never know who will eventually hold it, and who it will be used on...
Interested parties might want to read up on Afghanistan at dangerfinder, as well as at more conventional news sources.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by tzanger · 2001-09-14 09:31 · Score: 2

This is one of several posts that I have seen commenting on the horrible possiblity of a world war. How exactly would this happen?

If President Bush's own anger gets the best of him and he goes off half-cocked that would be one very easy way for war, and eventually world war, to start.

Where are we going to find enough people to say this was a good thing and have the power to fight?

Again, it depends almost entirely on how President Bush responds. If he retaliates incorrectly he could lose a lot of support from the world's nations. I am particulary concerned about how China would see a misdirected retaliation. China has the power and more importantly, the people, to cause a very long and bloody war.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by tzanger · 2001-09-14 09:45 · Score: 2

If it ends too soon, you should try to get back some percentage of the weapons, such as the standing offer of 300 million US dollars for the stockpile of Stinger missiles still in Afghanistan. It doesn't help much that Afghanis are fetishists for guns, or that other Arab states are outbidding us for the missiles.

That's exactly the problem with selling arms to nations: it's hard to control them once they're sold.

<sarcasm>Hey! Maybe the U.S. should License arms to the nations! It works for corporations, don't it?</sarcasm>

I wrote this little rant to point something out: Afghanistan is probably the wierdest place we have ever intervened in. The forces in control have shifted numerous times the culture in place has changed radically, and its not easy to just say 'we supported this guy and now he is out to get us' when everything over there changes radically every 5 years. Finally, it just goes to show that if you give a man a gun, you never know who will eventually hold it, and who it will be used on...

Thank you for proving my point wrt selling arms. I really did appreciate the history lesson on Afghanistan too; I did not know much of this before today and will be doing more research tonight.

As I said in other posts, America isn't all roses and perfume, but they sure as hell aren't anywhere near the "giant devil" that the extremist organizations make them out to be. It's horrible what has happened and I want retribution to be total. I wish the attacks would have been a proper military strike with all of the rules and tradition that goes along with them, but how do you attack the United States Military through traditional means?
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by NMerriam · 2001-09-14 09:50 · Score: 2

But you're still saying we should get MORE involved in other people's conflicts in order to solve the problem of uss being percieved as a "global policeman".

Whether its a "hands-off" or "hands-on" approach as you describe, or leaving people to fight it out amongst themselves, people still turn to US for some reason to solve THEIR problems, and then complain no matter the outcome.

So what should we do in the middle east? Stop selling weapons to Israel (because that's hands-off) but defend them with our troops? Then we'll be even more likely to be attacked by palestinians. Should we attack Israel and force them to give up their country? Should we stand by as Israel gets annihilated by surrounding nations? Then we'll get bombed by jewish extremists.

For all the wisdom everyone in every OTHER country has, why isn't Canada or the UK solving all the problems on earth? Are we stopping the canadian troops from landing in the middle east to solve everything?

Is it easier to sit back on the sidelines and monday morning quarterback? Is it easier to pass resolutions in the UN and then never actually do anything?

I'm not saying we're wholly virtuous, simply that there is no way the US gets even remotely treated fairly. We're expected to step in early, but not TOO early, and strike with force, precision, and strength, but not TOO much force or strength, and we better be 100% precise.

I'm not blinded by patriotism, as was suggested in the first message -- I'm blinded by the growing futility of us doing anything because of the paradox that every other nation has set before us. Inaction is punished, action is punished, delay is punished, immediate response is punished.

Everyone else has a lot to say about what we should do with OUR lives and OUR troops, until they actually show up, at which point everyone says what a blunder we've made and how we should just get out of the middle. everyone else seems to have all the answers, so why do they keep calling us?

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by glwillia · 2001-09-14 09:56 · Score: 1

The government of the United States of America has been bullying and harassing nations for a very long time, flaunting themselves as a superpower which is untouchable. They've stuck their noses in other nations' business too many times and someone had decided to cut it off.

I barely know where to begin when I read crap like this. The simple truth is that people hate us because we're the biggest kid on the block.

yes, they care about individual policy decisions, but there isn't a nation on earth that doesn't make the exact same decisions every day. WE're criticized for butting our noses into foreign affairs, then criticized for being isolationist if we DON'T get involved in foreign affairs.

US involvement in world affairs can be good and bad. It's good when we rush to help out another country after some disaster (like the earthquakes in Asia), it's bad when we overthrow democratically elected governments in favour of brutal dictators who are friendlier to US interests (see Iran, 1954 or Vietnam, 1954-1963). Americans can't seem to distinguish between the two--they're both "foreign involvement".

We're criticized for supporting side A against B, but if we switch sides, we're criticized for supporting B against A.

No, we're criticised for supporting people and institutions whose ideals are antithetic to the freedom and democracy we claim to espouse so vigorously, then changing our tune when these same entities turn around and bite us in the ass (Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden).

There is no policy we could possibly have that would make other nations happy with us. If we withdraw, we're "ignoring our responsibilities" but if we get involved we're "flaunting our power".

Funny, nobody seems to bitch about Germany or Japan these days (and the few terrorist attacks are internal--weird cults in Japan, and anti-immigrant groups in Germany), despite the fact that they are the second and third-largest economies. Why not? Because they try to be good global citizens, cooperating with other nations instead of trying to subvert them. They didn't come up with wonderful things like Echelon, and then use them to give US businesses an advantage.

Well fuck you all very much, planet earth. We didn't ask to be the only superpower. We're not itching to feed your hungry or shelter your homeless or finance your economic devastations, but we're the ones you call on first when you need those things done.

For not asking to be the only superpower, we certainly did our best to destroy the USSR (and were left with a world far less dangerous because of its collapse). As for bailing out others' financial disasters (such as Asia in 1997), that also is done to benefit US interests--if Japan goes into a depression, we lose one of our largest trading partners.

You complain because american hegemony is destroying your cultures, then you go out and buy coca-cola and watch Friends on TV. You complain about our imperialism while ignoring the fact that Germany and Japan are our biggest competitors exactly BECAUSE we rebuilt them at OUR EXPENSE after we could have conquered them.

Ummm.. Germany was given LOANS during the Marshall Plan, to be PAID BACK with INTEREST. It was only later that the US decided to drop the requirements for the repayment of the principal and interest. Germany paid back a large portion of it anyway.

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, so don't give me any shit that we had it coming because of our policies. NO FUCKING POLICY WILL MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY!

We're like the prettiest girl at a party -- all the women want to be her, all the men want to fuck her. There is not a country on earth that wouldn't trade places with us in a second, and on days like today i'd almost be happy to do it.

No, we're like the guy at the party who gives everyone cocaine, but nobody likes him. Several countries have tried to achieve absolute supremacy. They all failed, and fell hard from their former positions of glory. They are quite a bit more humble now.

Don't get me wrong, I think the US has a lot of good qualities (our heavyhanded government notwithstanding), I certainly do NOT condone terrorist action against our citizens, but the attitude that we're the "shining city on a hill", the be-all and end-all of civilization, is annoying and arrogant, and has a lot to do with why so many non-USians don't like us.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by NMerriam · 2001-09-14 10:09 · Score: 2

However, one can not ignore the horrors we commit

But we haven't committed horrors any more atrocious than those committed by other large nations. We haven't come close to the international atrocities that came out of french colonialism. The british were somewhat better, because at least they brought education and public works where they went, but there is no shortage of 20th century bogeymen, and yet we get singled out.

we get singled out because we're the biggest, the most successful, and ultimately the "representative" of all the western nations. Individual policy decisions are the excuses upon which people can hang their hatred and jealousy.

If afghanistan or the UK or japan or any other nation had our influence they would have an equally long list of individual decisions to complain about because its impossible for us to function without making decisions that affect people.

Frequently we have to choose the lesser of two evils (as with most of our mid-east CIA trainees gone bad). The other option is to stay out of it until it reaches our shores. Well, it's reached our shores and I have a feeling we'll be sticking our fingers in a lot more pies, and people who have a problem with our foreign policy will have even more to hate us for in the future...

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by DoubleD · 2001-09-14 10:43 · Score: 1

Hmm interesting thoughts. Reading through comments on other sites about the "war" that would result from this would be in the form of the ongoing conflict in the middle east and ireland rather than a conventional war between nations.

Bush, I hope and pray does the right thing and has good people around him(no one is perfect after all :)) to respond to this situation in the best possible way.

China may have lots of people and the largest military but in this situation I dont see that they would be interested or capable of doing anything to start a world war with the united states if memory serves me correctly they dont currently have a navy to invade taiwan. The possiblity of war exists but I believe a World War is not the type we would face more like a korea or the aformentioned guerilla terrorist war.

DD

I hope everyone in the USA and abroad encourages and supports Bush in making the correct decision. And conversly comes down on him like a load of bricks if he makes the incorrect decision. One positive result of this disaster is an increased desire on my part to be informed about my country's (USA) foreign policy.

--
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by cs668 · 2001-09-14 11:16 · Score: 1

I was born in Germany and lived there until I was 12 then I moved here. Half of my family lives in Germany and I go back as often as I can.

I would like a government that is perfect, but since it is people who govern that will be imposible.

I really don't think that we sold arms to todays problem countries to make a profit. I think we did it on the theory that our enemies enemy is our friend and if they are busy at war with each other they will not bother us.

This may be good or bad, but not selling arms has its own problems.

As for your point b)

If we defend someone then the people we have defended them from are pissed at us. If we give aid in any type of situation other than a natural disaster then the other party is pissed at us. We will always be praised by some and despised by others.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by pantaz · 2001-09-14 12:34 · Score: 1

Thanks NMerriam. I've been feeling much the same sentiment, but couldn't quite put it all together so succinctly. While I don't necessarily agree with your exact words, it's really just semantics. It is really a classic case of "damned if we do, damned if we don't".
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 13:02 · Score: 0

Your country Canada also made shitloads
of money from war!!
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by tzanger · 2001-09-14 13:03 · Score: 1

I would like a government that is perfect, but since it is people who govern that will be imposible.

I agree. No government is perfect.

I really don't think that we sold arms to todays problem countries to make a profit. I think we did it on the theory that our enemies enemy is our friend and if they are busy at war with each other they will not bother us.

Personally I do not think that this is a good stance for a superpower. My opinion isn't new; I've been saying this to various strengths for years now.

If we defend someone then the people we have defended them from are pissed at us. If we give aid in any type of situation other than a natural disaster then the other party is pissed at us. We will always be praised by some and despised by others.

This is why I support the use of military for foreign aid purposes and not for actual military augmentation. If you are helping civilians on both sides (or even civilians on one side I would think) -- this cannot be construed as a military preference; it is a peace mission. The Canadian government has had extreme success with this type of mission. You're not fighting (or defending) their war, nor are you supporting their cause. You're helping the innocents caught in the middle, and your physical presence is both to ensure that the aid goes to the civilians and also to present an "in your face" disapproval of what is going on.

I appreciate your time to answer; I feel that these ideas need to be discussed and brought out "in the air". Thank you. :-)
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by tzanger · 2001-09-14 13:08 · Score: 1

I hope everyone in the USA and abroad encourages and supports Bush in making the correct decision. And conversly comes down on him like a load of bricks if he makes the incorrect decision. One positive result of this disaster is an increased desire on my part to be informed about my country's (USA) foreign policy.

I too hope that Bush makes the right decisions and I personally am taking more of an interest in my country's politics and policies.

I agree; China has a poor navy right now -- Look back on the 2nd world war -- Canada designed the corvette ships in order to enable safe atlantic journeys in a matter of months. It's not difficult to do things quickly when you're sufficiently motivated.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by denshi · 2001-09-14 13:25 · Score: 2

I think we *do* license some weapon designs. I'd have to check, which would entail caring a bit more than I do now.
I wish the attacks would have been a proper military strike with all of the rules and tradition that goes along with them, but how do you attack the United States Military through traditional means?
You, um, don't. Afghanistan is a land-locked country with no airforce save some helicopters. Actually attacking another country means ships, because planes simply can't carry enough cargo efficiently. Getting ships across to US soil demands, first, a sea port that they don't have, second, mastery of the seas, third, air command of the seas to attack subs. Then you can actually start planning an invasion. With all that as a *requirement*, you can see why a big war won't be seen again for a long, long time. A civil attack from Afghanistan would look more like "The Mouse That Roared" rather than D-Day. You might like to read Dunningham's "How to Make War" -- it's very informative on necessary logistics.
I compiled some of my rantings about difficulties of attacking the Talib in my latest journal entry.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by tzanger · 2001-09-14 13:54 · Score: 1

But you're still saying we should get MORE involved in other people's conflicts in order to solve the problem of uss being percieved as a "global policeman".

I didn't say to move in to every conflict; I didn't say to increase anything -- I was saying I think the policies should be changed.

Instead of sending money and weapons, send troops. Instead of sending packages of medical supplies, send doctors to administer the medicine. What's the difference between arming the armies and actually helping them defend? I bet the other side wouldn't make much distinction. Something President Bush said comes to mind: "We make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbour them."

Whether its a "hands-off" or "hands-on" approach as you describe, or leaving people to fight it out amongst themselves, people still turn to US for some reason to solve THEIR problems, and then complain no matter the outcome.

So you're telling me that you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. I'm asking you about gradients between the extremes. Somehow I don't think that people would be as pissed about helping civilians as they would about the one-sided arming, financial and technical backing of one side of a faction, do you?

I'm not blinded by patriotism, as was suggested in the first message -- I'm blinded by the growing futility of us doing anything because of the paradox that every other nation has set before us. Inaction is punished, action is punished, delay is punished, immediate response is punished.

Perhaps it is because the United States government makes their nation out to be the end-all, be-all of nations. Capable of anything, impenetrable and wealthy beyond all comparison. I'm not saying the U.S. is not great; indeed it is and in many ways. But no nation is an island, to butcher a famous quotation.

Everyone else has a lot to say about what we should do with OUR lives and OUR troops, until they actually show up, at which point everyone says what a blunder we've made and how we should just get out of the middle. everyone else seems to have all the answers, so why do they keep calling us?

Yes, it is easy being a monday morning quarterback; yes it is easy to sit back, out of the spotlight and point out the flaws of the team. We're not talking about a game here, we're not talking about a couple of hours. We're talking about over fifty fucking years and multiple administrations consistently doing things that are not in what I would consider the best interests of the American people. So no, I do not consider myself a "monday morning quarterback".

My guess is that they're asking for help from bigger, more advanced nations (not just the United States) hoping that these nations are smarter than they are. It's not easy being a superpower; I never allued that it was. But the track record your government shows indicates that they tend to be more interested in serving their own interests than genuinely helping others. That, as a foreign policy, will get you into trouble. Do you not agree?
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by tzanger · 2001-09-14 14:00 · Score: 1
- but how do you attack the United States Military through traditional means?
You, um, don't.

My point exactly.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by cs668 · 2001-09-14 15:59 · Score: 1

I think that US history with these issues also goes back to a time where the powers tried to build their "sphere of influence". If we were not there building our stake the USSR would be.

We look at the world now and wonder why we are so entrenched in all of these sticky situations, but at the time not being involved was not an option.

We have "won" the cold war only to inherit a world screwed up by years of influence peddling, manipulation, and power broking.

I also appreciate your answer. Having a forum to talk about these issues helps me get control of my aggressive side and think about things a little more rationally. The thing that is unusual is that my rational brain is agreeing with my aggressive side, which is unusual.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by NMerriam · 2001-09-14 17:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

So you're telling me that you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. I'm asking you about gradients between the extremes. Somehow I don't think that people would be as pissed about helping civilians as they would about the one-sided arming, financial and technical backing of one side of a faction, do you?

So you're suggesting a repeat of Somalia -- where we sent food with troops to protect it, but stayed out of the actual conflict? We simply went to provide support for civilians. The thanks we got was a lot of dead US soldiers. It seems combatants don't like for others to help civilians when THEY want to control the civilians.

So now we're back to the question of helping civilians and having both sides hate us, picking a side and having the other side hate us, or staying out and having the rest of the world hate us for "doing nothing".

Perhaps it is because the United States government makes their nation out to be the end-all, be-all of nations. Capable of anything, impenetrable and wealthy beyond all comparison.

Maybe it goes both ways. We certainly aren't lacking for suitors (to butcher my "prettiest girl at the party" metaphor). Maybe we're just a plain-looking girl but everyone else is desperate? Or wearing beer goggles? :)

But the track record your government shows indicates that they tend to be more interested in serving their own interests than genuinely helping others. That, as a foreign policy, will get you into trouble. Do you not agree?

I'm not sure -- will we be doing people a favor to be driven by 100% benevolent intentions? These nations were all very capable of playing the US off of the USSR, getting money and goods from both while avoiding any real commitments for 50 years. They are no strangers to capitalism or self-interest. Now that only the US is left, they seem shocked that we're not willing to keep sending them money just for being nice people.

We HAVE had mutually beneficial relationships with small nations who are willing to genuinely "grow" -- look at Turkey, for example, which is STILL shunned by the EU but has consistently been a close friend of the US. We have military bases there, but what we have REALLY gained is a stable nation in that part of the world, truly dedicated to democracy and ready to join the first world.

I understand what you're saying, and yes it would be great if we could all be friends, but ultimately I think Washington was right when he warned us to beware of foreign entanglements. We would love to go back to isolationism if it was possible, which of course it isn't.

BTW, sorry for all the cursing earlier -- I've been going through mood swings all week, from angry to despondent and everything in-between. There was actually a shouting match with three people in the office on thursday, over a video tape! Irritability is at an all-time high, that's for sure. Right now I'm at the "why bother?" stage of foreign policy. Its a good thing I'm not president, thats for sure...

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by ccmay · 2001-09-14 17:44 · Score: 1

The government of the United States of America has been bullying and harassing nations for a very long time, flaunting themselves as a superpower which is untouchable. They've stuck their noses in other nations' business too many times and someone had decided to cut it off.

I don't buy into this shit. We are hated because hundreds of millions of Muslims want to wipe Israel off the map and kill every Jew in the world, and the US won't allow it to happen.

-ccm

--
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 19:15 · Score: 0

> Blood will be shed, and rightly so.

Wanna shed blood? Go donate.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by bendude · 2001-09-14 21:42 · Score: 1

No, America, and her allies have divided the world's population into 2. There are the people who are born with the right to a secure roof over their heads, fair employment, not having to sleep in their shit, etc. And then there's the other people.

Well, the other people are sick of having to wonder if they'll still be alive tonite, EVERY MORNING, and want to share some of the life style about.

There's no pathalogical hate of America or the west, there is simply a normal human tendancy to fight tyrany.

--

Get the Hell off my planet, you slimy mobster Bush!
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by projecto2501 · 2001-09-14 23:53 · Score: 1

I think the issue between the "we deserve it" and the "they're just jealous" groups is that some see international relations from an idealistic perspective and some from a pragmatic perspective. Both views have their strengths and weaknesses.

The idealistic perspective believes in fair play and morally just wars, an olive branch in one hand and a sword in the other. Surely there is some truth to this perspective, as actions, ideas, and policies do have consequences, the chickens come back to roost. Unfortunately, the idealistic perspective often fails to deal with the complexities of human motivation, and it is easily exploited.

The pragmatic perspective believes only in might, where it be military, economic, diplomatic, or any other leverage that can be used to control the behavior of others(including ideals as they suit the situation). America has, by heritage, a pragmatic culture. This approach has the benefit of avoiding rigidity when novel problems are encountered. The pragmatic perspective is weak from the perspective of international relations since the the response to any given situation will be unpredictable. This makes us come acrosed as arbitrary, irresolute and, yes, as a bully.

Does any one have any ideas on how these two perspectives can be harmonized?
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by NMerriam · 2001-09-15 07:19 · Score: 2

that was a really insightful message -- and a good point, I think.

I tend to think america is more idealistic than most nations domestically, but internationally we're pragnmatic 100%.

The interesting cases are like the soviet union where idealism and pragmatism wound up being incompatible -- communism just didn't work in any pragmatic way, so you had this tension that built and built over the century.

But the US, we've been reasonably successful at recognizing that idealism only goes so far outside our borders -- but our desire for "fair play" has always been a limiting factor in our national psyche (note that I think this is a good thing, but a limit nonetheless).

--
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion... by Listen+Up · 2001-09-16 19:07 · Score: 1

We're like the prettiest girl at a party -- all the women want to be her, all the men want to fuck her.
That is the most asinine, fucked up, piece of shit commment about woman and your lack of respect for them. Your analogy was a total piece of shit and your are a fucking piece of shit for saying it. Not all men in the world want to fuck every chick they see. The ones who truly think shit like that are the moralless, unethical, disrespectful pieces of shit like you. I happen to date one of the most beautiful girls in the world. When I bring her to a party no man thinks about fucking her. Only the little, sick fucks of men who can't get laid if they tried. Only the absolute fucking dirtballs in the world think such things. You are one of those pieces of shit. Learn some respect for woman. Fuck your own girlfriend or wife (if you even have one). And stop making piece of shit *broad generalizations* about all men in the world. All men don't think this way at all. Most men, including all of the men I know, respect women and respect themselves. Woman are not there just for you to fuck. Grow up you fucking faggot piece of shit.
You ever stare at my girlfriend and I will rip your faggot fucking balls off and shove them down your asshole throat. Fuck off. All men are not like you.
I hope you never stare at anyone I *know* either. I am sick just thinking you truly believe that about everyone else's girlfriends or wives. Die asshole. You overgeneralize and someday it is going to get you hurt.

Re:Religion caused this by Eagle7 · 2001-09-14 06:27 · Score: 1

Speaking as an Agnostic, that is true.

Athiests do, however, engage in Philosophical wars, which are just as dangerous. Case in point: any Communist revolution. Religion is only bad when it clouds the judgement of an entire group of people, but it is not the only thing that can cause this.

--
_sig_ is away

Good job guys by magicsloth · 2001-09-14 06:29 · Score: 1

When a lot of America was just sitting on the couch watching CNN you guys were working hard to keep information flowing to people like me who were away from a tv. I appreciate your work and knowledge (I know I certainly coulnd't do what you guys did). Nice work.

If it wasn't for groups like you and the different news programs, the people who are able to help out in the rescue efforts wouldn't even know there was a need.

Thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:32 · Score: 0

When I got into the office at 9 everyone was speaking about the event, and bitching because they couldn't hit CNN or MSNBC. I hit Slashdot and everyone crowded into my office...

Thanks for being there, and being online.

And I think Slashdot is a great example of how America will rally together either physically or electronically and stand tall together.

Take a moment today...

LA Times figures are bogus by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:39 · Score: 0

The LA Times figures are in all likelihood wrong.

As you indicate your local web site alone got 1.5 million page requests, yet known-the-world-over CNN supposedly got "9 million pages per hour".

Yeah right.

Re:LA Times figures are bogus by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 11:04 · Score: 0

On the other hand, local server dude could be counting hits... I think that cnn.com would have had far more than 9m per hour, myself, though.

Re:Religion caused this by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:39 · Score: 0

no war has ever been fought to spread the atheist creed.

Furthermore: Atheism cannot be used to control people. If the Pope says that Condoms are bad, millions of Catholics won't use them. If a great Imam says that America is Evil, dozens of terrorists will attack it. If a renovned Atheist (if there even is such a thing) tried to tell people what to do, they would ask "Why?" and "because I say so" wouldn't suffice.

Religious people are trained not to demand rational support for everything... otherwise they wouldn't be able to believe such absudities.

Dancin_Santa by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:40 · Score: 0

I hate that guy... add him to the list of lamerz.

Thank You Slashdot by mbrod · 2001-09-14 06:40 · Score: 1

The /. staff stood up to this task so amazingly well.

Thank you for doing such a great job in getting information out to people when they needed it so badly.

Does anyone know of some kind of award or congressional recognition we could submit these guys for? I would sure sign a petition for that.

Re:All of Islam must be punished for this! by SlippyToad · 2001-09-14 06:42 · Score: 2

That can't be anything but a deliberate troll. Or a complete mindless idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Then again, there's so little difference between the two that I just couldn't tell.

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on

Uh... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

Lenin. 1917. Do you know the figures on the
number of Christians killed by atheists for
religious reasons? Look it up, it's quite
enlightening.

Re:Uh... by DunbarTheInept · 2001-09-14 11:22 · Score: 2

The deaths occured because Communism itself was treated like a relgion of state worship. They killed the religious because the religious were their competition. They killed them because of how alike they were, not how different.
Now, the day you can convince me that all atheists must necesarilly be communists, you might have a point.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

So why then is Slashdot always down ? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:44 · Score: 0

Maybe its your little M$ monkey point-and-click desktop?

Has Slashdot's own search been removed for good? by kjj · 2001-09-14 06:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

I was wondering if Slashdot was going to stick with "google search" indefinitely or is Slashdot going to bring back there own search engine. I really hope the regular Slashdot search comes back. Google just doesn't cut it when searching for something specific. I wanted to go back to a story about a benchmark and review of DDR motherboards used with Linux. So I tried the following search: linux ddr motherboards
and this is what I got:

Slashdot | Pentium 4 Under Linux
... Under Linux, I would not buy a P4 ... Re:Why didn't they use DDR RAM on the AMD? by Splork ... someone
out there selling G4 motherboards with standard form factors and ...
www.slashdot.org/articles/01/07/15/209215.shtml - 69k - Cached - Similar pages

Slashdot | Linux Intel Chipset Comparison
... it in march, and i run linux on it, and it performs ... Re:Athlon Motherboards... (Score:1)
by Diabolus (troy ... until we start seeing DDR mobos hit the shelves (any ...
www.slashdot.org/articles/00/12/18/056248.shtml - 46k - Cached - Similar pages

Slashdot | AMD Athlon Multi-Processor Under Linux
... on several single-CPU motherboards; check your favourite vendor's ... Quake3 demo benchmarks
under linux on the following boards ... with 256 meg ddr sdram running at ...
www.slashdot.org/articles/01/07/12/1838238.shtml - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

Slashdot | Intel To Drop Rambus Exclusivity, Support SDRAM
... problems with the newest linux kernels - but widespread - well ... the cost of producing
motherboards and chipsets, but ... need two seperate 400MHz DDR channels to get ...
www.slashdot.org/articles/01/07/26/1153225.shtml - 89k - Cached - Similar pages

That is just the first few but I looked through a number of them and I couldn't find the story I was looking for.

Y'all did great!! by WirelessFreak · 2001-09-14 06:45 · Score: 1

I'm probably going to add the same thing that has been already said many times over but I'm extremely thankful for /.'s efforts at keeping the news up-to-the-minute. I've tried hitting CNN's site several times throughout Tuesday and it was basically non-responsive. / came up everytime I hit it. Since I didn't have access to a TV, the only news source I had was the 'Net and / ensured we were all kept up to date with the latest information.

This story was certainly fascinating and provided us all an excellent overview of your infrastructure and, more importantly, the sincere dedication the /team maintains.

Thank you all for keeping many "in the know."

Regards,
Kory

Re:Religion caused this by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:46 · Score: 0

Case in point: any Communist revolution

The "Philosophical war" in that case is pro-communism rather than pro-atheism.

Religion is only bad when it clouds the judgement of an entire group of people,

I.e: every religion people really believe in rather than just going through the motions because "it's traditional".

Re:Religion caused this by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:47 · Score: 0

Not all athiests are communists.

Many of us are more libertarian-minded, and see belief in communism (and socialism, too) as if it were a religion. I heartily agree with that aspect.

Pages/hits - the math doesn't seem right by mgkimsal2 · 2001-09-14 06:47 · Score: 2

The article stated 50 pages/second were being served. 50 pages/second on ONE machine would be 86400*50=4320000. 4 million page views. From *one* machine. The article indicated 6 web servers, IIRC. 6 * 4 = 24 million page views. I realize there are spikes in usage - there's not an even distribution. And I also realize that the DB was working overtime (as were the people) trying to serve up info. But at the end of the day they recorded 3 million page views. Something doesn't seem to add up.

--
creation science book

Re:Pages/hits - the math doesn't seem right by Doppleganger · 2001-09-14 07:13 · Score: 1

I don't see it saying anything about 50 pages/second from *one* machine.. it just says Slashdot, in general. If you assume that it means across all machines, and take into account that the pageviews ramped up from around 9:30, the calculation seems pretty much right on target.
Re:Pages/hits - the math doesn't seem right by mgkimsal2 · 2001-09-14 08:07 · Score: 2

Aha - I guess that was my bad assumption. If that's the case - 25 pages/second average, across 6 machines, that's fine. But I also don't think that's anything to get all that excited about. Yes, I understand there's a lot of large db calls going on, but medium sized hardware handling 4 pages per second (with images from another server it seems) just doesn't sound that impressive.

--
creation science book

Atheism != communism by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:48 · Score: 0

...

Re:Atheism != communism by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

But, Lenin was athiest. He used his hatred of religion to get people to exterminate religious people.
Re:Atheism != communism by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:36 · Score: 0

He used his hatred of religion to get people to exterminate religious people.

Er, no. He used his dictatorial power to exterminate people he didn't like. He did not get this power by saying "atheists of the world Unite!" or retain it by saying "you must do this because I am the supreme head of atheists!".
Re:Atheism != communism by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:50 · Score: 0

Lenin was a revolutionary. He used his hatred of Czarist government to get people to exterminate the members of institutions which supported that government (such as the Russian Orthodox church).
Re:Atheism != communism by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:59 · Score: 0

People give examples of Christians going to war because of their beliefs (which are held only by extremist individuals). So the response is to show Atheists who go to war because of their beliefs (which are held only by extremist individuals).

Painting all religion as evil is just as bigoted as painting one kind of religion as evil. Atheism has just as much of an "Us" vs. "Them" mentality as any religion out there. Atheists think that their beliefs are "better" and more "enlightened" than people who do believe in religion. How does that make atheists any different than a religion that believes that they are "better" or more "enlightened" than the other guy? Just because a group doesn't have a holy book or believe in a central deity doesn't make them immune to holier-then-thou attitudes with respect to other people's beliefs. Also by contrast, just because a religion believes it is "better" or more "enlightened" does not mean that they promote violence in order to spread their faith.

Take violence and extremism for what it is: crazy people wanting power. They would use any set of beliefs to their own ends--not just religious ones.
Re:Atheism != communism by Theodrake · 2001-09-14 09:36 · Score: 1

Please show me the Atheist creed that states you have a right to kill non-atheists. I can show you Christian creeds that in the past said it was good to kill witches, heretics, etc. I can show you Church documents that said it was good to kill Muslims. I can show you statements by religious and political leaders that say the USofA is a Christian nation and non-christians aren't welcome. I have not heard any politicians or major religious leaders condem these statements.

I have yet to see a major group whose central identification is atheism and has advocated the killing or explosion of Christians from a country.

It seems to me that to be an atheist is to state I don't believe I have some god given right or obligation to do something.

Gratitude (Redundant) by igbrown · 2001-09-14 06:48 · Score: 1

Yes, excellent job. I do not own a TV, and while NPR was very useful, they were not as current with breaking news as one would like. As we are all aware, due the enormous loads of traffic on the internet, the usual news sources were inaccessible, and Slashdot became my primary newsfeed for most of Tuesday. Once again, thanks a lot guys and thanks to all the readers who posted or mirrored important information.

I'd just like to say, by BombTechnician · 2001-09-14 06:52 · Score: 0

like everyone else, thanks

on tuesday, i was only able to pull up slashdot and the bbc, and i only knew that the bbc was up because someone posted it on /.

after a while, i pulled up surfernetwork and got live news feeds from different stations

you guys did an extraordinarily great job in a time when you were needed most.
my productivity on tuesday went to nill, as i was reading all the posts from the highly intelligent people here, and digging for more information on the mirrors and other sites posted.

again, i say thanks and kudos

Justin Hart

--

If you see me running, try and keep up
There's a good chance I don't know what the hell I'm talking about

Slashdot, you rock. by The+Bugman+gad · 2001-09-14 06:55 · Score: 1

I first heard about the tragedy on the Howard Stern show on the way to work. Where I work we can recieve no TV or radio signals - so naturally the first thing I did when I go in was hit the news sites. All I kept getting was 500 errors.

Then I hit Slash.

Not only did your site stay up but it provided the freshest views regarding the occuring tragedy. Once I could get through to those other news sites -- I realized that the quality of the content that was being served on Slashdot was better any way. You guys truly serve "Stuff that matters"

Thank you very very much Slashdot and the Slash team. You guys are great.

The BugMan

Three Questions.... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 06:57 · Score: 0

What was the last country to attack the soil of the United States with conventional explosives? What did we do to them? Is anybody going to nuke us if we do it again this time?

Re:Three Questions.... by Your_Mom · 2001-09-14 07:05 · Score: 1

What was the last country to attack...

Ah yes grasshopper, but you are neglecting to see that this is not a country attacking us, else they would have been bombed back into the stone age by now. /No one/ in the world community would support a nuclear response to this incident, Britain and NATO included, if we lose the support of our allies, we are fscked. Plus, a nuclear response would get /way/ out of hand /very/ quickly. One missle launched, no matter where is was headed, would instantly trigger everyone else to launch back at us. No questions asked.

--
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Re:Three Questions.... by Ratteau · 2001-09-14 07:39 · Score: 1

One missle launched, no matter where is was headed, would instantly trigger everyone else to launch back at us. No questions asked.

What? You have no idea what you are talking about here. Im not going to pretend I do either by speculating.

What you should have pointed out is that we did not drop the atomic bombs on Japan immediately after Pearl Harbor. After 3 1/2 years of watching both our marines and their soldiers get slaughtered over every 10 square mile piss-ant island in the south pacific, it was time to put an end to things quickly. Dropping the bomb did 2 things: demoralized Japan instantly into believing they would be annihilated if they keep fighting (they had no idea we only had 2 bombs at the time). 2) Showed the rest of the world that we held the trump card.

Bush HAS to consider using nukes. I dont want him to, but I think they have to consider it. I understand the biological and chemical arguments, but in my mind, this is just as bad. If we dont seriously consider it, it is just going to send the message that we would never consider it.

--
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
Re:Three Questions.... by Your_Mom · 2001-09-14 07:46 · Score: 1

True, but we did drop them, almost immediately after production, IIRC (Feel free to correct me, its been a long time since I read 'Enola Gay')

If we launch a nuke, everybody who has ever pissed us off in the past (and maybe those who haven't) are going to shit themselves, and when people do that, I am quite sure someone is going to fire back. We see it, we launch at them (assuming it someone different), someone else sees that the baloon has gone up and might take that opportunity to fire at their worst enemy. Eventually, everyone fires and everyone dies. Watch the ending of WarGames, thats how wevery simulation ended, and I am quite sure thats how a nuclear strike will always end.

--
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
Re:Three Questions.... by thogard · 2001-09-14 16:05 · Score: 1

The only way the US would consider nukes now is if they are used aginst a large stockpile of very dangerous bio weapons and the nuke is the only way to take it out and be sure.

If the US nukes an area where the fall out will drift to Europe, a number of countires will have an immediate halt of trading with the US. This includes Sweeden and Germany, most Baltic states, followed quickly by New Zealand and maybe Australia. The British support for the US actions would drop to the point where the goverment would get worried. The rest of the world will not allow the US to used its big bombs.
Re:Three Questions.... by ppanon · 2001-09-14 17:19 · Score: 1

Well, if you're going to use a movie, WarGames, as the basis for your argument, I'll respond that in the game Alpha Centauri, when one faction uses a nuke, all the other factions turn against it. Sounds to me as valid a basis for argument as your reference.

The point being, that using Hollywood as a basis for serious speculation is silly. Now, if you had used a Heinlein novel... :-)

--
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire

First-Time Poster. Thank you, Slashdot. by jjlevel33 · 2001-09-14 06:57 · Score: 1

I am a New Yorker transplanted in Los Angeles. The last 4 days have been painfully trying as I first tried to get in touch with loved ones to ensure their safety, and then tried to feel their first-person pain and suffering from 2500 miles away. Throughout it all, Slashdot has, far and away, been my most reliable, most emotional and most trusted source of information and personal accounts. I rarely, if ever, post to messageboards. I felt compelled to thank you today, Slashdot.

Piggy-backing on Terrorism by rjamestaylor · 2001-09-14 06:57 · Score: 2

A statement like this is meant to strike fear in the hearts of those people he "fingered" or people who may associate with them. Isn't that the core definition of Terrorism...

You're right, Fawell, while not part of the atrocities on Tuesday, is piggy-backing on the tragedies to promote his ideological viewpoints. Not much different than the rejoicing Palestinians.

Yes, I'm a Christian. Yes, I wept when Rev. Billy Graham spoke today annoucing, unashamedly, the Gospel of Jesus Christ at the National Cathedral. And, yes, I rejoiced to hear the Muslim cleric standing with OTHER Americans on this day of prayer. But, I cannot stomach the transcript I have read in that Washington Post article. May the author of those words be shamed at the Lord's appearing.

--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello

Re:Piggy-backing on Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 10:36 · Score: 0

Ah... there's the rub. I cannot. Even though in the past 2 years I have ignored Him, I cannot deny Him.
Re:Piggy-backing on Terrorism by JonKatzIsAnIdiot · 2001-09-14 12:22 · Score: 1

All I can say is a heartfelt 'AMEN' to that.

Americans Abroad by rbeattie · 2001-09-14 06:59 · Score: 1

I just wanted to add my thanks. I'm an American living in Spain and /. was my connection to what was going on back home. (And in English!) Your efforts to keep the site up kept many of us in distant parts of the world up to date.

And thanks to everyone who posted links to alternate audio/video streams and those who were broadcasting the news. This sort of cooperation really showed the internet community at its best.

-Russ

--
Me

Time to do more than sit silently for 3 minutes by kaladorn · 2001-09-14 07:00 · Score: 1

Condolences matter. Sympathy matters. Silence is a symbol.

But as a Canuck, how about:
- fixing a leaky border that let some of these evil dirtbags into Canada?
- fixing a military that would be hard pressed to help itself let alone our nearest and most important neighbour?
- fixing a political system that encourages a complacent and laggardly response to tragedy?

How about every Canadian gets off his or her respective ass (note: some already have, and them I salute) to givesblood at Canadian Blood Services, to give money to the American Red Cross through PayPal and Amazon, and to support the upcoming military action when NATO and the USA go after those responsible? We (both the USA and Canada) will probably have to endure casualties both Military and Civilian to win the coming War on Terrorism. The bad guys won't play fair, they won't warn us who or where they hit. And they won't identify themselves. So we (in Canada and the USA and other civilized countries) need to band together and prepare.

And of course, to prevent hate against our honest, innocent, and equally shocked and horrified citizens of Arabic descent or of the Muslim faith? 99.9999% of these folks are 'just people' very much like the Christian majority. Imagine the horror they must feel at having their religion or ethnicity associated with something this repulsive? Sure, some jackasses in the occupied territories were dancing, but that isn't the same as Canadian and American citizens of Islamic faith or Arabic descent. If you are one of these folks, be open with your disavowal of the villains responsible, and use this as an opportunity to take control of your Faith and the perception that it is dominated by madmen. Moderates must assert their forces!

Silence is nice. Condolence is nice. Action, donation, and vocal lobbying of our respective governments to let them know we support the efforts to hunt these animals down and to see that they cannot repeat this process - these are the real keys.

Thomas
Angry in Ottawa

--
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."

Ontology by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:02 · Score: 0

One cannot prove there is no Easter Bunny or Santa Claus either.

If there _were_ an Easter Bunny, however, it would be easy to prove that it existed (probably with some kind of trap?).

Thus, the burden of proof fall upon the "there is a god"-faction. If they fail, the belief in god is equivalent with belief in the Easter Bunny; at best childish.

The Noam Chomsky Perspective by vivamexico · 2001-09-14 07:04 · Score: 1

He took the words out of my mouth:

"The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia - paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally - hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead."
Noam Chomsky - written 9/12

Thanks Slashdot by ecarlson · 2001-09-14 07:05 · Score: 1

I'm very thankful to you for keeping the site up and running. At work we had the radio and Slashdot for our news. I also let my friends and family know that Slashdot was alive.

It was great to be able to see comments and information from real people during the crisis. And thanks to all the real people who posted the thousands of messages. It really helped.

- Eric, http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/

--
- Eric, InvisibleRobot.com

CNN has re-akamaized by crow · 2001-09-14 07:07 · Score: 1

You may have missed my response to a similar comment--I ment to point out in my original post that CNN and Akamai reinstated their contract on Tuesday.

You are going to be scared.... by Betcour · 2001-09-14 07:07 · Score: 1

...because if Middle East countries had decided do nuke US, they wouldn't need to do such a complicated scheme to get nukes. Pakistan already has nukes. No need to take over the ones in Israel...

Re:You are going to be scared.... by pclminion · 2001-09-14 07:13 · Score: 1

Pakistan's nukes cannot reach us. Israel has several that can. And they are much higher-yield. And they would love to kill the Israelis anyway. And as I said, I'm being paranoid.
Re:You are going to be scared.... by Betcour · 2001-09-14 07:39 · Score: 1

Missiles are nice but not very efficient. Expensive, easely detected. It is much more effective to have a nuke moved around to the target (preferably in a high place like the top of a building) and have it detonated from there. You can detect a flying ICBM, but it is much harder to detect a nuke into a big crate going around in your average truck (briefcase, as it is said the critical mass can fit into a plain briefcase).
Re:You are going to be scared.... by Moonshadow · 2001-09-14 11:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Clancey is getting to me.
In Executive Orders, terrorists flew a plane into the White House, killing most of the major gov't officials that were there for a ceremony. Sound famaliar?
Don't remember which book it is (Never finished it), but there's one about a small terrorist group gathering materials and machining a nuclear bomb to set off in a football stadium in Colorado. The possibility of it seemed to be almost zero...but so did the possibility of a hijacked plane being flown into the Pentagon. What's scary is that it's not as hard as it seems. With bin Laden's resources, he could have procured the materials and gotten people to carry a nuke-in-a-briefcase into the WTC, and taken out all of Manhattan. Not that I'm saying what happened isn't terrible - it is - but the possibilities for terrorists these days are WAY past frightening.
Terrorists don't care about diplomacy, they don't care about the politics, they care about causing pain, terror, death, and destruction. How are we supposed to fight an enemy that is free to use weaspons many times more destructive than our government will dare to use? How can you guarantee safty?
Look at me...I'm turning into a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
Re:You are going to be scared.... by cybrpnk · 2001-09-14 11:52 · Score: 2

Actually, the crash of a plane occurred at the end of Debt of Honor and was also referred to at the beginning of Executive Orders. The Colorado nuke scene is the climax of The Sum Of All Fears. Ole Tom will have trouble topping what's happening these past few days and in the weeks to come....
Re:You are going to be scared.... by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-09-14 15:25 · Score: 1

Then you aren't going to like this...

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I D= 22611
Re:You are going to be scared.... by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-09-14 15:28 · Score: 1

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=19747

Discusses the claim by some that bin Laden has such "suitcase nukes."
Re:You are going to be scared.... by Chris+Y+Taylor · 2001-09-14 15:43 · Score: 1

Sorry, try

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I D= 19747

50-60 hits per second by dmelomed · 2001-09-14 07:09 · Score: 1

Seems like piss poor performance for a a web farm like this. Especially if they're serving just the static HTML pages. They probably would have benefited significantly from a more scalable web server like AOL server or the next version of Apache with the state-threaded module and faster disk arrays (write-back battery backed cache and plenty of it) for Apache and MySQL.

What's the big deal by mikeroman · 2001-09-14 07:10 · Score: 1

All these statistics don't seem that impressive to me. If you know your bottleneck is a relational database, use flat files or b-trees. 40-60 hits per second just doesn't seem that impressive. Neither does the amound of messages and stories per day. A single server should easily be able to handle this load, given the right software.

Terrorism as Abstract Art by DumbSwede · 2001-09-14 07:10 · Score: 1

Everyone seems sure that the recent terrorist events in New York and Washington D.C. are designed to send a message to the West, and yet no explicit message has been received from those who have perpetrated these outrages. We are left to infer what that message is. We are criticized for giving the impression that some of us hold all Islamic culture as implicate in recent events. It may be a very small radical portion of Islam directly involved in these events, it is not so small a portion that look to the radicals as heros, else they would be able to reign these dogs in. And so while all of Islam is not to blame, it is not necessarily the case that it is small minority of the Islamic world that also bares blame, if such blame is extended to support and encouragement. Do not read into this statement a call for retaliation on all of Islam, for while many are implicate, most are powerless, misled, and it would be cravenly to take out our frustrations out on them.

If our enemys would paint all Americans as implicated in America's actions and therefor legitimate targets, why should they howl if America exercised the same logic on their people? And yet this is exactly what we will not do, and this is why we are better than they, and this is why when we call to account, we will call only those most accountable, and with as little harm to the powerless as possible, as long as they do not put themselves in harms way to keep us from achieving our just objectives.

By failure to identify themselves and their motives and aims, those who commit these acts put all around them in peril. They seem not the least concerned that the innocent Islamic or oppressed Arabic people they claim to fight for, may in some way suffer greatly and unvoluntarily as side effect. How can the causes of those responsible be noble, if no one will take credit and pride in them? Shouldn't those responsible for sending operatives on suicide missions be equally ready to lay down their lives by taking credit for their actions? If their causes are just and noble, they will go on without them, strengthed in fact by their martyrdom, but perhaps they are not so sure of the continuation of their cause or of its nobility.

No one claims to be responsible, but many approve. And what is it they approve of? They themselves infer what the motives of the terrorists are, or assume they are the same grudges with America that they have.

Let's be realists here. Those radical elements that approve of September 11's terrorist actions, are most likely in league with the perpetrators to some degree (no wonder they can so clearly see the motives and aims, and lecture us in the West on what they are). They hide behind denial and share an inside joke with their evil brethren. Their silence and denial serves only one cynical purpose. When retaliation comes -- and it will -- they will moan and complain that the West has once again punished the innocent. Their brain washed idolizers will see some vast Zionist plot, and believe against all reason that those involved were not.

How can a cause be noble if its objects and aims are furthered, by its followers being led to believe in a lie? The incredible lie here being "nope, not us, huh-huh, must be some other rabid extremist groups that hate America and Americans just as much as us and for the same reasons"

When one studies a piece of abstract art, by necessity one creates ones own interpretation of what the composition means. In most cases the artist has deliberately created an ambiguity that allows the viewer to pour his own soul an meaning into the piece. In these sad recent events we are presented with an abstract piece of terrorism, because its practitioners, its artists, refuse to tell us what it means. They should not be surprised that our interpretation will not be what they intended.

--
Letter To Iran

not that anyone cares.. by insta · 2001-09-14 07:12 · Score: 1

I had a car accident last night. Worst night of my life.. sigh.

Re:not that anyone cares.. by Snaller · 2001-09-14 11:09 · Score: 1

Hope you are all right.

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Re:not that anyone cares.. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 16:17 · Score: 0

Not a good week, this, huh? Maybe you should take some time off and stay home, drink some tea, relax. Turn off tv (if you have one) and radio for awhile, and spend the weekend away from the internet. (i know that seems unthinkable). this is not a good time for the country. think things over for awhile. like your post's first child, i hope you and yours are all all right.
Re:not that anyone cares.. by Corrado · 2001-09-14 22:38 · Score: 1

Well, he posted to /. :)

--
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!

Slashdot Rocks! / Flags by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:18 · Score: 0

I agree with everyone here. Slashdot was the ONLY site I could get my news updates from on Tuesday. I am very impressed! Kudos all around! On another note, I don't know about your neck of the woods, but it's simply impossible to buy a U.S. Flag anywhere where I live. Most of the places I go to say that they sold out completely on Tuesday. Sooo, I decided to take matters into my own hands and print myself one with the help of the trusty Tektronix plotter we have here at work. Here's some PostScript code I found last night after searching for a while you can use to roll your own flag until they get them back on the shelves: /polygon { 1.5 setlinewidth newpath { true 4 index 2 mul 5 add copy pop } if setrgbcolor -1 %loop decrement 1 %loop end /x2 5 index def /y2 4 index def x2 y2 moveto { /dummy exch def /y exch def /x exch def x y lineto } for closepath fill stroke { 1.5 setlinewidth pop pop pop 0 0 0 setrgbcolor -1 %loop decrement 1 %loop end /x3 5 index def /y3 4 index def x3 y3 moveto { /dummy2 exch def /y4 exch def /x4 exch def x4 y4 lineto } for closepath stroke }if } def /star { 1 1 1 setrgbcolor 0 setlinewidth /y exch def /x exch def x y moveto newpath x 8 y add moveto -1.9 x add 1.7 y add lineto -7.608 x add 2.47 y add lineto -1.7 x add -.8 y add lineto -4.7 x add -6.47 y add lineto 0 x add -3.24 y add lineto 4.7 x add -6.47 y add lineto 1.7 x add -.8 y add lineto 7.608 x add 2.47 y add lineto 1.9 x add 1.7 y add lineto %x add y add lineto closepath fill stroke } def /star6 { 1 1 1 setrgbcolor dup dup dup dup dup 60 exch star 102 exch star 152 exch star 202 exch star 252 exch star 292 exch star stroke } def /star5 { 1.5 setlinewidth 1 1 1 setrgbcolor dup dup dup dup 81 exch star 127 exch star 177 exch star 227 exch star 272 exch star stroke } def /flag { 50 100 600 100 600 438 50 438 4 1 0 0 true polygon %overall red 50 438 300 438 300 252 50 252 4 0 0 1 true polygon %blue square 50 152 600 152 600 126 50 126 4 1 1 1 true polygon %lowest white 50 204 600 204 600 178 50 178 4 1 1 1 true polygon %second lowest white 50 256 600 256 600 230 50 230 4 1 1 1 true polygon %third white 300 308 600 308 600 282 300 282 4 1 1 1 true polygon %fourth white 300 360 600 360 600 334 300 334 4 1 1 1 true polygon %fifth white 300 412 600 412 600 386 300 386 4 1 1 1 true polygon %sixth white 428 star6 410 star5 390 star6 370 star5 350 star6 330 star5 310 star6 290 star5 270 star6 stroke showpage } def flag

Christianity is at its worst... by FreeUser · 2001-09-14 07:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

... with reactions such as you describe. Christianity is (even more than Islam) an evangelical religion, in which there are strong pressures built into the belief system to convert others to one's own way of thinking, generally under the guise of "saving their soul." I have personally experienced this sort of pyschological assault from Christian sects ranging from Catholic to Mormonism (yes, they do qualify as Christian in that they worship Christ, even if the other sects won't claim them).

I won't go into a long diatribe at the offensiveness of this mindset or this behavior, but rather reference it in order to point out that, as a genre of religion which is bent on conversion, i.e. selling their viewpoint to others, Christian sects tend to be obsessed with appearance as much as substance. Whether it is cloaked as "setting a good example to others," "representing your faith/church to others," or "demonstrating through actions what it is to be a good Christian," none of which are as blatent as the Mormon adage of "avoid the appearance of evil," the underlying message is clear: appearances are at least as important as substance. With a mindset like that, reinforced every sunday from one's spiritual leaders, is it any suprise that people who look even a little non-mainstream garner the reactions like you describe?

We should kick ass and eradicate our enemies. Not in the name of God, not in the name of some religion, but in the name our our country and our people, which have been attacked and shall be avenged. Keep church and state where they belong, separate, and obliterate the bastards who committed these atrocities last Tuesday in the name of our secular, democratic instutions, leaving each of us to pray, and to grieve, in our own fashion, according to our own beliefs. And never make the mistake that just because someone doesn't share your beliefs, ethnic background, or skin color that they are in any respect less capable of grieving than you.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Re:Christianity is at its worst... by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 08:00 · Score: 2

I totally agree with you, pulling religion into this ordeal is really not in anyone's best interest, but because we are America, it is inevitable.

To tell you the truth, I'm somewhat amazed at how well this country deals with non-Christian religions when you consider how deeply rooted Christianity is in out culture.

All of our songs of nationalism mention God, from "God Bless America" to the Star Spangled Banner -- which has the line "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'" in the final, and rarely if ever sung verse.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with /.'s load-handling capabilities, which I am genuinely interested in.
Re:Christianity is at its worst... by Pig+Hogger · 2001-09-14 08:07 · Score: 2

I won't go into a long diatribe at the offensiveness of this mindset or this behavior, but rather reference it in order to point out that, as a genre of religion which is bent on conversion, i.e. selling their viewpoint to others, Christian sects tend to be obsessed with appearance as much as substance
Odd. Last night, I saw Contact and I was very surprised at the almost hippyish appearance of Josh Palmer...
Re:Christianity is at its worst... by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 08:12 · Score: 2

ah, he was just beefcake. they ruined his character and created a love story where it wasn't necessary.
Re:Christianity is at its worst... by BroadbandBradley · 2001-09-14 08:13 · Score: 2

this is why I WON'T cut my hair, I'm promoting being different and good.

--
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Re:Christianity is at its worst... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-15 04:44 · Score: 0

Is this final, rarely sung lin in the "Star Spangled Banner" anything like the missing lines of "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer"? You know the ones I'm talking about:
Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, Had a very shiny nose.
Like a Lightbulb!!!
All of the other reindeer, Used to laugh and call him names
Like Pinnochio!!!
etc...

That's what happened to the pledge of allegiance, which originally did not include the words "under god". The pledge was originally published in 1892 by a socialist christian, Francis Bellamy who understood the concept of separation of church and state. In 1954, the Knights of Columbus campaigned to have congress add "under god" to the pledge and congress, in an obviously unconstitutional act, did so. There's information on the history of the pledge here

Heh. Ok, I'm wrong. The "In God is Our Trust" bit is apparantly part of the original Francis Scott Key lyrics, right under the line "and conquer we must, when our cause is just". I guess it always pays to research this stuff. Sorry.

Still, "The Star Spangled Banner" hasn't exactly been immune to modifications over the years by people pushing their own political agendas. It wasn't even adopted in any official capacity until 1931, 117 years after it was first published. As a motto for US currency, except for a few specific coins before that point, "In God we Trust" was made mandatory for all US currency by congress in 1955. Hmmm, the mid fifties seem to have been a great time for integration of church and state. Hah, it's actually pretty appropriate that the United State's de facto national motto was written by a lawyer.

Moral Of the story.... by Lumpy · 2001-09-14 07:18 · Score: 2

It looks like CNN and CNBC need to fire their web guys and hire the caliber of people that slashdot has. It's funny how a backwater news site has better technology and higer reliability and scaleability than the largest news sites on the web.... It really makes you think.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Moral Of the story.... by athakur999 · 2001-09-14 08:11 · Score: 1

How many people know about Slashdot?

How many people know about CNN?

I don't think comparing CNN availability to Slashdot availability isn't fair. Slashdot didn't get nearly the amount of traffic CNN/MSNBC/etc. got, simply because the general public doesn't know about it.

Anyone know the number of hits CNN/etc. got?

--
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999

Correction by pclminion · 2001-09-14 07:18 · Score: 1

I must stand corrected. All sources I can find indicate Israel's nukes have a maximum range of 4,500 kilometers.

Probably won't be the last time I snap to an incorrect conclusion in the next few weeks, however. Same goes for many others I would imagine.

Re:A request Send feedback by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:19 · Score: 0

http://web.cbn.org/cc/contact/feedback.asp Please feel free to tell the Christian (?) Broadcasting Network what you think.

Woe be the "CNN effect" by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:22 · Score: 0

> Kudos to the Slashdot team for having the only
> satisfactorally working news service on the net.

If CNN, instead of a simple mini-page, made a micro page with a link go here to learn info about the tragedy, Slashdot would have died instantaneously.

Re:Woe be the "CNN effect" by unitron · 2001-09-14 09:05 · Score: 2

If CNN had linked to Slashdot...
"What happened to Slashdot?"
"It got Turnered, dude."

--
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

Thank you, Slashdot _community_! by snake_dad · 2001-09-14 07:23 · Score: 2

Obviously, the Slashdot team deserves all the thank yous and kudos that they get here. But I would like to thank some other people as well.

Thank you Slashdot community, every one of you who posted insightful and informative comments and links, and everyone who took the time to moderate while they probably wanted to hunt for more info.

Slashdot was one of the few sites that kept us informed at work, and some co-workers actually first heard from the disaster here on slashdot. All the opinions and feelings expressed in the posts also helped us Europeans to understand even better the impact of this disaster on your society. (Please don't get me wrong, everyone here is probably as shocked and horrified as you are).

Once again, thank you, both Slashdot team and community!

--
karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.

I agree - not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:23 · Score: 0

Guys, I'm not trying to slam /. in any way but I have to agree with some other posters that the performance mterics you quote are not very impressive. I work in the area of performance/scalability tuning for large firms (AllState Ins., Compaq, Merrill-Lynch) and I can tell you that even a typical Windows 2000 cluster running IIS 5.0 and SQL Server can VASTLY outstrip the numbers you quote. And SQL Server, (or Oracle, DB/2, etc.) generally do not crash under the light loads you mention. I've seen single Xeon servers handle 25 times the database load you mention without breaking a sweat.

This really makes me think twice about open-source databases. I've recently had clients request that I look into MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc. I'll certainly be very careful before recommending them at this point.

You guys should find somebody who knows LoadRunner (or similar) and do some serious load testing/tuning. Your content is fantastic but I'm really surprised that your infrastructure is so weak.

BTW, not surprising CNN would be down considering they were probably getting about 100,000 times the number of hits that you were.

Steve M.

You were one of the only news sources... by jbarr · 2001-09-14 07:23 · Score: 1

I was in a training class all day Tuesday and our only contact to the outside world news was through the 'net (/. and a local newspaper site were about the only thing we could hit that had any reliable news.)

Don't sell yourselves short. The dedication of you guys, and the /. community in general, greatly helped keep many of us informed.

--
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!

You're about to understand a lot more than that by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:28 · Score: 0

Like what happens when a little bit of Pu239 is scrunched up into an even smaller ball by a symmetrical shaped charge.

Duck and cover, motherfucker.

Thanks by Biker+Jim · 2001-09-14 07:29 · Score: 1

Just logged on,I'm in between a tune up and painting a toyota fender. Amazing job folks in keeping the lines of communication open. I live on a canadian island off the west coast of British Columbia, a very remote community. With your help I was able to stay in touch with am huge community of concerned intelligent people. The speed, veracity, and detail of information distributed was very important to me. I was amazed by how little the mainline talking heads passed on to their audiences. I don't think TV is enough anymore.
Really appreciate your efforts. Jim Sofra, Queen Charlotte islands, BC

CNN page serving load by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:29 · Score: 0

Lest think that CNN.com are a bunch of slackers. The site was serving web pages at the rate of 1.1 million hits/minute (just HTML pages, images and video are not included in that) when it came back up. That works out to around 183,333 hits/second. The load that brought CNN.com to its knees would have undoubtedly been much higher than that.

Turns Blue When You Pee in Swimming Pool by Uggy · 2001-09-14 07:30 · Score: 1

It's unbelievable. There should be an inert substance that is spread throughout our atmosphere that whenever someone makes a hypocritical statement a big blue cloud appears around them. Holy shit, it boogles the mind.

I had a football coach that used to tell us, God doesn't win football games. It also follows that he doesn't make people lose them either. When will christian wackos pull their little blue aura heads outa their asses? The God in which I believe has only one thing to say... please take care of each other down there.

--
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.

Schedule a load spike for testing? by mrflip · 2001-09-14 07:32 · Score: 1

To the slashteam -- great job handling the massive server load.

Have you guys considered sceduling your own crapstorm? That is, letting all slashdot users know that on October xx between 12 and 1 eastern time they should reload, search, and generally abuse the server as much as possible. Set up a testing thread and see how many comments it will rack up.

It might allow you to feel that much more confident about future occasions when Slashdot is, well, slashdotted...

flip

What fucking idiots. by sulli · 2001-09-14 07:36 · Score: 1

Shame on you, Falwell and Robertson.

--

sulli
RTFJ.

Offloading server tasks to different servers by jalewis · 2001-09-14 07:38 · Score: 1

How are you breaking off the images?

Alteon has a feature that allows you to separate servers by differen jobs. You can have all you images on little boxes and all your cgi's on big honking workhorses. That allows you to reduce the load of serving up images on the big servers.

Just wondering what you guys use. I thought it was Arrowpoints, but I am not sure. If I had to choose it would be alteon, the arrowpoints do things backwards.

I appreciated having a website that was accessible and had news and a place to post feelings. rock on.

--
http://packetnexus.com

Re:Moderate me down by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:41 · Score: 0

Shouldn't you be getting back to class? I thought I heard the Jr. High bell going off...

God by kel-tor · 2001-09-14 07:44 · Score: 1

I was communing with god the other day, lazing in the grass and watching the children play. I saw shapes in the clouds in the sky, and I worked up the courage to ask him why?

What are we here for?

What is it all about?

Coyote laughed and said, it's a practical joke, you just don't get it.

--

---

Kudos to slashdot team by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:48 · Score: 0

Your coverage far surpased conventional news sources. I would like to thank you guys for being there.

Future History by drwho · 2001-09-14 07:50 · Score: 1

Some day in the future, we can look back at http://slashdot.org/article.pl&sid=01/09/11/124520 9 , and read the comments, as the first rumors and news came in, people posted off-topic OH MY GOD type of stories, etc. And the last message on the article was "Last Post" - particularly ominous.

Hypocrites! by aongus · 2001-09-14 07:51 · Score: 1

I do not have words to express my outrage at this behavior.

This makes Falwell and Robertson, in my eyes, worse than the terrorists.

Or rather... by Stoutlimb · 2001-09-14 07:55 · Score: 1

Americans will bomb Afghanistan into submission. Then, the Russians will move in, take over, and wash their boots in the Indian Ocean. After that, Russian-American relations will be at an all time high. :-)

Bork!

kudos to the slash team by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 07:56 · Score: 0

Kudos. Slashdot was the only site I could get to regularly on the day of the disaster. It was what I referred friends to when they asked me what I knew. It's amazing to see what a really talented tech team can do, and it's amazing to see what a difference it makes. Communication is key, and when it was falling apart everywhere else, slashdot held up. Plus it's good to have something familiar to hold on to. Way to go.

Mike

no one will probably read this, but.... by poil11 · 2001-09-14 07:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

no one will probably read this, but this is a great story and i would have loved to read more about what was done. and in depth. i hope that someone reading my comment will put it in wired or shift or create or web techniques.

Re:ALLAH WAKBAR! by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 08:01 · Score: 0

Allah wanks what?

You got my vote this time, Commander. by AtariDatacenter · 2001-09-14 08:05 · Score: 2

I'm normally one of the first to rant against Slashdot when it is hosed. (Kind of like upgrading to the new version of Slash when I said it really wasn't ready for prime time?) I mainly get bent out of shape because I expect this to be treated like a production site.

You did great this time. Much better than I would ever have expected. Grats, and thanks for the level of service.

Page assembly on the client side? by seanadams.com · 2001-09-14 08:05 · Score: 1

CmdrTaco,

I'm sure you've considered doing page assembly on the client, and I'm curious as to why /. doesn't do this.

EG for each dynamic page, you just serve a skeleton containing javascript references to each of the posts. Such as

<script language="javascript" src="posts/12345.js">

Then 12345.js would contain a document.write() with the contents of that post. Or are there other ways to do this?

What this gets you is client-side caching of most of the dynamically generated stuff. When you descend a thread or change the display mode, the browser has already cached a separate object for each post, so it only has to fetch new stuff from the server. This would reduce bandwidth, web server, and database load.

The downside to this is that on the first page load, you incur a whole bunch of individual HTTP requests. But I guess you already have a way to serve static pages for the first couple of levels. I think /. readers would be okay with a longer initial page load, if it meant that subsequent pages would come up much faster.

Re:Page assembly on the client side? by Tazzy531 · 2001-09-14 20:29 · Score: 1

This is totally not even plausible. First of all, this would require that the client download all the contents on initial load. Even if the client views only one article, he would have to download everything. Thereby putting a great strain on the system, and slowing down client side.

--

_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."

Is Falwell any worse than... by TheMidget · 2001-09-14 08:07 · Score: 1

...those politicians who use the same tragedy as an excuse to introduce more stringent anti-crypto laws? They're playing on the same fears of terrorism, and are just as irrational. Shame on them!

IIS remote exploit by _typo · 2001-09-14 08:08 · Score: 1

When code red hit, my box got about 30 attempts to break in.

In the last few days I got about 700. Are we going to see massive ddos attacks in the near future?

Will slashdot hold then?

--

Pedro Côrte-Real.

"Unique IP" business rules; my.*.com by yerricde · 2001-09-14 08:10 · Score: 2

Any business or ISP absolutely should be using proxy servers.

Proxies are good for static content, but many sites use dynamic content, assuming each human user has a unique IP address. For example, discussion sites such as Kuro5hin and Slashdot often limit the number of comments a given unique IP address can post; running all comments.pl posts through the proxy makes it look as though one user is flooding Slashdot with AC comments. Proxies can also have bugs: I've used a Novell BorderManager proxy that didn't even let me set persistent cookies.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with proxy servers it basiclly acts a lot like your browsers cache but it in general is far more effecient and is shared aong many users.

How can a browser or proxy cache dynamic content personalized for each user?

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:"Unique IP" business rules; my.*.com by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 13:39 · Score: 0

It doesn't need to. As Taco said 60%-70% of slashdot hits are not users and just the same static pages over and over again and you can cache that.

Slashdot 4 Eva!!! by Kaypro · 2001-09-14 08:10 · Score: 1

First of: Condolences to all effected by this sensless tragedy. Our thoughts are with you all...

Second of: Thank you Slashdot for keeping us all informed. It means a lot to me and I know others as well.

Third of: Can we somehow create a Beuwolf Cluster to catch the bastards who did this ?

You must find humor in tragedy. Only then can we laugh in the face of the enemy.

Peace

--

Eddy.WriteLinux.Com

Chomsky, and *you*, are mistaken by Pinball+Wizard · 2001-09-14 08:11 · Score: 2

Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind.

They don't come to mind, because there are none. Funny how much you left out, such as the fact the pharmacy in question was owned by Osama Bin Laden.

This attack further justifies the promotion of missile defense, not the other way around. This is the first battle in the first real war of the 21st century, in which we won't have the luxury of fighting organized militaries, only nutcase terrorists. The terrorists will gain access to weapons of imaginable destruction. We have to root them out, and we have to defend ourselves against them.

Chomskys arguments make me sick. This incident proved who is on the side of good and who is on the side of evil. When we (justifiably) bombed Iraq, there were not parties in the street celebrating the deaths of Iraqis. We simply don't act like they do; respect for life is built into our culture.

Since the event, I have a much greater appreciation of the Israelis plight. They looked bad to us when we were comfortably enjoying life, but now that this tragedy has hit home its clear why the Israelis act so harshly toward the Palestinians. The extremist militant Islam factions WANT US DEAD. Their goal is not to establish peace with Israel, but to drive them into the sea. We can add America to that list.

I don't see how we can establish peace with or negotiate with those who want to destroy our way of life and replace it with a much more oppressive one. How can you have respect for societies that cut off the hands of theives or stone women to death for exposing their ankles? They hate us. They want us dead. I say, kill them first. Establish peace and democracy throughout the world.

Its pretty clear to me that this is now a battle between good and evil, and who is who in this world.

--

No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

Speaking of "loads" by thejake316 · 2001-09-14 08:52 · Score: 1

You slashdot editors put out some of the biggest "loads" of anything resembling media. It would have been better if you chose to leave reporting to real reporters, instead of trying to scoop the real media with some of these bullshit editorial comments like the fifth plane in Colorado and "there was a van filled with explosives on the george washington bridge" you added to your usual links to real news sites, and your "heard it on NPR" is the biggest copout I've run across since "Anne Tomlinson is just a troll" when on another occasion you folks screwed up and didn't have the balls to admit it (and it's sad that some /. readers are so stupid that they bought when /. "you only feed trolls by replying" editors tried to convince us that the female "netop" issue was a troll by REPLYING to a "troll." and furthermore, how often do you see actual /. editors (not their lackies like Kurt the Pope) replying to something to defend themselves? Hm. I rest my case, your honor, because as Mr. Holmes might have said circumstantial evidence is occasionally very convincing, especially when you find a trout in the milk, to quote Thoreau's example.") You posted sensationalistic bullshit, you're a disgrace to real reporters and media outlets, and it would have been better if this site had gone down so people would have gotten better news. Just because cnn.com is saturated doesn't mean there aren't other websites where you can get hard news, instead of editorial bullshit from places like here.

Or, for you pinheads who say "I got most of my news from /.", I understand there are entities known as "radio" and "television" that also had coverage of events in addition to Slashdot. You may find fascinating devices that enable you to hear "radio" and see and hear "television" if you get the hell away from your computer for 10 minutes. Fancy!

But here you slashdot "editors" are, risking serious injury slapping each other on the back so hard. Rough day for you guys, had to watch TV for hours! You should be ashamed of yourselves, too, for letting Katz pepper some sensationalism at us from across the river in Weehawken. We're supposed to be prepared for real terrorism by watching plane crashes and terrorists in movies? But we're not supposed to become mass murderers when we play Quake, and we don't learn kung-fu playing Mortal Kombat? Compare your "hellmouth" crap with your latest editorial drivel on the towers, the logical inconsistancies between your bullshit in one and bullshit in the other and then next time you're inspired to type something smash your fingers with a mallet first so it's more difficult for you to type "Techno-Armageddon." Way to trivialize deaths, videogame style. Black trenchcoats, anyone? I bet it wouldn't be so surreal, and you wouldn't be thinking about the complex interrelationship of technology, politics and information if you were on the top floor of one of those towers, you vultures.

Google deserves credit and accolades, by mirroring news sites they got real information out to people having trouble accessing the mainstream sites. You guys could have done that, but you decided instead to fire out stupid editorial comments, because we're all just playing on your computers and your opinions are SO much more important and valid than other peoples', and worse, to post sensational bullshit and rumors and then just update them out rather than retract.

Please, take some pride in your work, lose some of your delusions, and don't do everything half-assed, especially when people have DIED.

--
AC's cheerfully ignored

Status Indicators? by nettdata · 2001-09-14 08:57 · Score: 1

Just a quick question/request...

I'm assuming that most of us are somewhat technically literate. Personally, I architect HA, FT, geographically distributed Oracle systems. I'm always interested in how a system is architected, and how well it is performing.

What are the chances that you could include a little "SlashStatus" information in either a SlashBox or the header or something. It'd be neat to see some basic performance metrics of the different components of your site... bandwidth usage, cpu%, mem usage, etc. It wouldn't have to be real time or anything, but a 5-15 minute update would be quite interesting.

Just a thought.

--

$0.02 (CDN)

Re:Status Indicators? by nettdata · 2001-09-14 09:00 · Score: 1

And another thought I just had... you could scrap your monitoring software! What better than to have the actual Slashdot viewers let you know when something is going wrong! And you'd get such excellent, qualified advice on how to fix any problems that came up.

Just a small way that we can help in giving back to Slashdot and all it's done for us.

;)

--

$0.02 (CDN)

job well done by bwhalen · 2001-09-14 09:01 · Score: 1

Looks like a fantastic job of spotting and reacting to problems as they appeared..

--
Where do you want to be, What are you doing to get there.

Voicestream Wireless NYC Load by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 09:08 · Score: 0

Voicestream Wireless handled in excess of 250,000 call hours on Tuesday in NYC.

In addition to shattering the NY market record, most of the other metro area markets also set new high loads.

What I'm Thinking by virg_mattes · 2001-09-14 09:08 · Score: 2

> I keep seeing this sentiment. What on earth are the purveyors of it thinking?

What I'm thinking is that he's doing exactly the same things, for exactly the same reasons, as those who started the chain of events that ended those peoples' lives. See below.

> Would you say, "Jerry Falwell killed 5,000 people. Send him
> to The Hague."? It sounds ridiculous, but you're not leaving any
> room for any other interpretation.

Well, if bin Laden is responsible for this tragedy, you can't officially say, "bin Laden killed 5,000 people" either, because it's not literally accurate. Few, however, would have difficulty placing responsibility if he was the mastermind. By the same token, Falwell doesn't directly commit crimes, but his inflammatory rhetoric inspires those who do.

> Hey, disagree with him, tell me he's rude, tell me he's a hypocrite,
> but don't put commentators on the same level as terrorists.

I don't think of Jerry as a commentator, I think of him as a hatemonger. He demonizes those with whom he disagrees and seeks to lay blame for all of the world's woes on those who are different from him. He hates others merely because of religious belief, and that makes him no better than the terrorists that committed these atrocities. The perpetrators of Tuesday's attacks killed thousands in one act, and Falwell's followers are trying to do it one clinic, one student, one religion at a time. But, it's only the scale that differs. It's still terrorism, and it's still evil.

Virg

Re:What I'm Thinking by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 14:08 · Score: 0

"The perpetrators of Tuesday's attacks killed thousands in one act, and Falwell's followers are trying to do it one clinic, one student, one religion at a time."

Killing people? You're stupid, open your eyes and look at what you're saying.

No get out of hell free card for you, no passing Go and no $200!

Playing with fire... by TheMidget · 2001-09-14 09:11 · Score: 1

I've sent a few emails to friends claiming that I would kill the president just so that I could test carnivore.

Threats against the prez can carry serious consequences, even if idle. I remember a case a couple of years back where a student wanted to get one of his buddies into trouble, and forged an e-mail in that buddy's name, which threatened the president. Unluckily for him the forgery was not so well done, and the SS found him (the real sender) real quickly... Sorry, no link, but I believe it was even on Slashdot...

Re:Playing with fire... by jrockway · 2001-09-14 15:13 · Score: 1

It's sad that we don't have truly free speech anymore. What has this world come to? If I want to joke about bombs, killing, and presidents, then by God, let me! It's killing the President that should be illegal, not talking about it.

To quote my roommate: "They're not the god damn thought police." My setiments exactly.

--
My other car is first.

Re:Chomsky, and *you*, are mistaken by ti-gars · 2001-09-14 09:13 · Score: 1

This is the first battle in the first real war of the 21st

There is thousands of people that died since the beginning of this century. Forgot the Balkans? Forgot the Afganistan? There IS "real" wars even if there is no USA, no marines and no destroyers.

It's your arguments that make me sick. You want them dead as they want you dead, so you are as evil as them.

For me, it's pretty clear that there is a battle between evil and evil, and who is who in this world.

US/NATO nuke policy by MikeLRoy · 2001-09-14 09:13 · Score: 1

As a gernal rule for this day and age (since the cold-war nuclear possibility no longer exists), US/NATO nuclear policy is very simple and clear:

Only the use of weapons of mass destruction (ie, nukes, bio, or chem weapons) against members of NATO will result in a nuclear response. Since there is no risk of NATO losing a conventional war against anyone in the world, that is the only time nuke's would be used.

-Michael Roy roy@videon.wave.ca

--
-Michael Roy Some people are like Slinkies. Not really useful, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down

Re:US/NATO nuke policy by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 10:47 · Score: 0

I have read that the investigators are asking questions like, "How many kilotons were the explosions". They seem to be considering this as an attack with "weapons of mass destruction".

I can't find the link, though, so perhaps it's just a rumor.

Thanks! by krmt · 2001-09-14 09:18 · Score: 2

I just wanted to throw out another note of appreciation to you guys. /. was my primary source for news on Tuesday, since I don't have a TV at home. You guys did a fantastic job and we all are indebted to you for the great work you've done. Thanks again!

--

"I may not have morals, but I have standards."

Bush alone can't nuke 'em by MikeLRoy · 2001-09-14 09:21 · Score: 1

I'm not certain on the specifics, but for an American commander-in-cheif to launch nuclear weapons, even a counterstrike, they need two people to agree. For a pre-emptive strike, you need more. There is a rule called the two-man rule, which (i believe) states that the remaining command authority (bush or whichever subordinate is in command if he dies), and one other senior command authority (SDef, General, etc), must both agree to do it. There are very strict rules. Bush can't just flip a coin and go boom.

--
-Michael Roy Some people are like Slinkies. Not really useful, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down

Thanks for the report... by bteeter · 2001-09-14 09:23 · Score: 1

It was interesting reading the story of how Slashdot remained up. I must have been one of the folks who tried to hit it at the time it died because for a while I couldn't get in on Tuesday. After that though, it was pretty smooth sailing the rest of the day. CNN.com was probably the only other site which remained live for most of the day. I couldn't get to WashingtonPost.com, ABCNews.com or many others until later in the evening.

It is really a testament to open source software that a system built (almost?) entirely from free, open software was able to stand up to an amazing user and processing load as well as or better than many other news sites.

Congrats on a job well done!

Brian
--
AssortedInteret.com
Featuring 100% Linux Based Web Hosting
Try us risk free with our 30-Day Money Back Guarantee
http://www.assortedinternet.com/hosting/

psycological equivalent of nuclear material by Hooya · 2001-09-14 09:25 · Score: 1

i know i'm going to be modded down but i had to get this out...

what we saw on 9/11 was a *very* misguided act in the name of religion. i know that bin ladin deep down knows exactly what he's doing: manipulating people's vaulnrability towards religion. i know bin ladin knows that that's no way to heaven. but he's got others convinced it is. all thanks to 'religion'.

religion allows our minds to be ok with not raision questions. trust god. trust allah. or trust whoever... once you can convince a person to cross into this 'trust' phase, as we saw, you can get him to do anything. .. just trust god.

granted that a lot of people find comfort in religion among other things. it seems to me that religion also has a very dark side. the side we saw on 9/11. i have concluded that religion is the psylogical equivalent of nuclear material. can be used for good. but can be put to devastating use.

we need to regulate the 'religion' nuts regardless of faith. they have the psycological equivalent of uranium on their hands. just because it's got good use don't mean it's not supposed to be regulated. when's the last time you bought uranium at your local convenience store? after we power our cities/towns with it don't we?

Load comparison Slashdot vs CNN by lorax · 2001-09-14 09:26 · Score: 1

Slashdot:
Normal: 1.4 million pages/day
Tuesday: 3 million pages
approx 2x normal load

CNN:
Normal 14 million pages/day
Tuesday: 164 million pages
Wednesday: 300 million pages
approx 10x normal load

Scaling up to more than 10 times your normal
load is very hard. I don't think slashdot
would have done any better than CNN if that
had happened to slash.

I didn't hit CNN on tuesday, but I did
on Wednesday, and they were easily accessible
(no streaming video though) at 20x normal load!
that is a pretty impressive recovery.

I believe /. shows the Power of GNU by Delifisek · 2001-09-14 09:28 · Score: 1

On tuesday /. is only source to get latest news.
Most sites doesnt work. Also their content always static.

I got lots of information about WTC, Pentagon attack.

Thank you guyz. /. Team, Slash code and GNU tools show the power of our Community.

--
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]

Postgresql? by lateefj · 2001-09-14 09:41 · Score: 1

First ofcourse great job to all the Slashdot admins for Tuesday and everyday!
A thought I had for a site that I am working on that Postgresql seems to scale better. Now I use persistant connections and I have to have transactions. The other site I work on I use MySQL and it is fast but Postgresql seems to scale better. Plus in the future as we grow we are looking at using Postgresql Replication (pgreplicator) or the other Replication options on Postgresql. I would think that this would increase performance by using this server.
As a disclamer I do not know much about how the Slashdot system works but I am wondering for others have feedback?
thanks lateef

--
Pedro For President!

Re:Has Slashdot's own search been removed for good by FattMattP · 2001-09-14 09:41 · Score: 2

It doesn't help that Slashdot doesn't show the year of the stories either.

--
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y

Re:Some Good News (Via) by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 09:43 · Score: 0

Also, Via, the chipset manufacturer, is offering the US $100m in support. That, in my opinion, is freakin' beautiful.

Good job mano by prophecyvi · 2001-09-14 09:52 · Score: 0

You all did a killer job, and I made sure I told people about it, coworkers, friends, LiveJournalers, etc.

Slashdot and Ananova were the only real sources of news on the net available all day Tuesday. Great job, and props on a good decision to cover the story.

Apache::SizeLimit by consumer · 2001-09-14 09:58 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm the maintainer of Apache::SizeLimit. I suggest you use the MAX_UNSHARED_SIZE setting. It's the most effective for heavilly loaded sites. If you have suggestions or questions about usage, send them to the mod_perl mailing list. I monitor it and will see them and respond.

Slashdot user comments and prayer by Micah · 2001-09-14 09:58 · Score: 2

I agree Slashdot did a gre job on Tuesday.

I actually searched through the user comments for "prayer", expecting to see a flood of "how DARE you tell me to pray! What a crock!" but didn't find ANY.

I know that attitude runs among some people, but I'm pleased you could restrain yourselves this time. There really is a time for prayer, and this is certainly one of those times.

Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by kilgore_47 · 2001-09-14 13:40 · Score: 2

Someone had to take the bait, so here goes:

Quiet respect for other religions is fine if the religion is harmless. However foreign policy, written mostly by White Old Christian Men, has made our country so hated that groups of people will spend years of their life training for a suicide mission to kill American citizens. As much as we hate these terrorists, I don't think any one of us here would spend years living in their country training for a suicide mission to kill civilians. Their hate runs deeper than ours, and, proportionally, they are a more religious people.

Religion is the opium of the masses.
It was religion, both Christian and muslim, that brought us this tragedy. So no, I won't shutup and be respectfull when you want to go on praying.

Also:
As firm beleiver in the seperation of church and state, I find the President declaring a "national day of prayer" downright un-American. The point is to remove religious interference or endorsement from the government. As an atheist I find it wrong to have the President thrust prayer in my face.

--
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 13:48 · Score: 0

Shutup you stupid Nazi, go sleep with O'Hare...

"Religion is the opium of the masses." You're a self-proclaimed Athiest, that's a religion. Pull your head out of your arse and smell some fresh air for once...

AC
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by kilgore_47 · 2001-09-14 15:16 · Score: 1

Shutup you stupid Nazi, go sleep with O'Hare...

"Religion is the opium of the masses." You're a self-proclaimed Athiest, that's a religion. Pull your head out of your arse and smell some fresh air for once...

Atheism, by definition, is the opposite of religion. Check the dictionary:

atheist n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

god n. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

religion n.
a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Also, Nazi's were not atheists. The name you probably meant to call me was communist.
I know that simple-minded god-fearing types like to group all the baddies together for easy condemnation, but it's really not nice.

--
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by Micah · 2001-09-14 15:26 · Score: 2

> It was religion, both Christian and muslim, that brought us this tragedy.

Uh, no.

This tragedy was caused by a radical, militant, fanatical misinterpretation of Islam.

Similarly, the actions of the current IRA and the past Crusades are the result of a similar misinterpretation of Christianity.

Neither religion teaches violence or hate.

> As firm beleiver in the seperation of church and state, I find the President declaring a "national day of prayer" downright un-American.

Well, for the record I also believe in the separation of church and state. Uniting them only screws up religion and the state both!

But remember that America was founded on principles relating to God and religion. Nearly all our founding fathers acknowledged God, if not Jesus. Therefore I think DIScouraging prayer is un-American. Note that nearly all religions (except atheism) involve prayer. No one is saying you have to pray to Jesus.

But Jesus is the only diety that is actually alive to HEAR the prayers. :-)
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 15:40 · Score: 0

So, Einstein was simple-minded?
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by Zardus · 2001-09-14 16:08 · Score: 1

If not with religion, how else would you suggest venting all the feeling that the poeple of America have about this? Can you think of anything more calming than a religious service of the types that have been going on these past few days after the Attack On America?

It might not be exactly constitutional to thrust prayer into your face, but it sure does help a whole lot of people out there. No matter who you are (from my experience at least), religious services are very comforting, and alot of people need comfort right now.

--
You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 16:10 · Score: 0

or maybe he was a public figure who would've been ridiculed if he said he was non-religious?
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by Wyatt+Earp · 2001-09-14 16:30 · Score: 2

As a firm believer in the seperation of church and state as held in the Constitution of the United States, I feel that it's fine to declare a "National Day of Prayer and Remeberance." See if you don't pray or ain't the praying type, you can remeber. And praying is pretty damned non-denominational...

In the Constitution it says...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The President's asking for a day of prayer and remeberance does not violate the 1st Amendment. As for removing religious interferance or endorsement, look at a Dollar bill, it says "In God We Trust."and it has Masonic symbolism.
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by issachar · 2001-09-14 21:37 · Score: 1

simpler definition.
religion:
belief that requires an act of faith rather than a simple evaluation of evidence.
Atheism is therefore a religion. Agnosticism is not a religion, but Atheism most definately is. It says that God does NOT exist. Since disproving the existence of God is scientifically impossible, it requires a leap of faith, the sameo sort of leap is required to believe that God does exist.
Agnosticism on the other hand takes 2 forms. One simply says "I don't know if God exists" (perfectly defensible fence sitting) and the other says "it is impossible to know for sure whether or not God exists without making a leap of faith". (Course that would make many Christians into Agnostics).

--
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by GeekOfSpades · 2001-09-14 21:52 · Score: 1

A bad thing happened. People are trying to deal with it. Praying is harmless, and, gosh, it helps some people cope.

Don't like it? Fine. Go ahead and be an asshole about it. But it'd be nice of you to be respectful when people are trying to get a handle on the whole issue.

Sure you don't have to. Free Speech. But just cause you can, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Just because you're callous, doesn't mean you have to go out of you're way to hurt other people.

--
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn Pro." - HST
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by ConsumedByTV · 2001-09-14 22:05 · Score: 2

Sure you don't have to. Free Speech. But just cause you can, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Just because you're callous, doesn't mean you have to go out of you're way to hurt other people.

Your statement says it all, and I agree with it. Just because you can, doesnt mean you should.

It hurts everyone when the nation is under attack by suspected non christians and the leader prays for the souls of the lost in a christian manner (I find this fucking sicking). GWB didnt even quote the bible correctly. He is not a christian anymore than I am.

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by ConsumedByTV · 2001-09-14 22:09 · Score: 2

Nazi huh? Do do you even know what Nazi stands for? Funny its a socialist movement. Just because you are part of something doesnt mean that you are what it is for. Muslim, Satanist, Christian, communist, jew, american. Every group has its good and bad. Almost all have god in them, so its your call. Even the nazis simply had followers that did it because it was popular. Lots of people seem to think that they would be against nazis if it happeded to them in their own country. Well its AMERICAS FOREIGN POLICY that killed all of these people you fucking baffon! We trained the terrorists! Fight the US goverment that allows fucking insane people to kill innocent people. Replace those in power and the US wont be a target for this in the same way it is today!

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by ConsumedByTV · 2001-09-14 22:11 · Score: 2

Or perhaps that one does not believe in god. After all its a personal choice, these terrorists might think that its a good thing in one book to die for a cause. Others will disagree. Allmost all religion has DOGMA, I havent met a single Atheist that had a strict inherent dogma relating to anything other than simple social orders that were nesscary.

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by ConsumedByTV · 2001-09-14 22:13 · Score: 2

He was vegan, so perhaps he realised it was good to remove the bad from your life. God was in the mind of said terrorists right? Perhaps it was a skewed version of god in your mind but looks what this great god has created. You, and the terrorist both. And you arent equal to me, your not strong enough to stand up to others for your beliefes.

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by ConsumedByTV · 2001-09-14 22:21 · Score: 2

This tragedy was caused by a radical, militant, fanatical misinterpretation of Islam.

Perhaps, or this is your take on it and the islamic faith.

Neither religion teaches violence or hate.
But both leave enough up to you to let you choose interpretations that fit your end.

But remember that America was founded on principles relating to God and religion
And the freedom there of.

Therefore I think DIScouraging prayer is un-American

And thats great, I am glad that I fight for your rights to say that. Now try real hard to think that if you didnt have that right where we would be.

Nearly all our founding fathers acknowledged God, if not Jesus.

Not all, but those that did certianly did not like the fact that they were being told what version of the bible to read. So when bush didnt read the king james version, but the "bible for dummys" and mis quoted the other version I find that offensive. He represents america as the shape of an image for all americans. That we are all stupid enough to eat up his two word speechs. We went from speechs that had the words "Better angels of our nature" to "apparent terrorist act"

But Jesus is the only diety that is actually alive to HEAR the prayers. > :-)

Then pray by voting for a change in foregn policy, thats whats going to save lives.

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by ConsumedByTV · 2001-09-14 22:25 · Score: 2

The President's asking for a day of prayer and remeberance does not violate the 1st Amendment.

He doesnt represent me, and harm may come to me as a result of his statement.

As for removing religious interferance or endorsement, look at a Dollar bill, it says "In God We Trust."and it has Masonic symbolism.

Just because it has, doesnt mean it should. Get a pen and change it. I do.

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by ConsumedByTV · 2001-09-14 22:29 · Score: 2

If not with religion, how else would you suggest venting all the feeling that the poeple of America have about this?

Well I guess you should let others off the hook for their crimes because they couldnt think of a better way to deal with their pain.

Can you think of anything more calming than a religious service of the types that have been going on these past few days after the Attack On America?

Yes I can. .Thought.

It might not be exactly constitutional to thrust prayer into your face, but it sure does help a whole lot of people out there.

Then dont do it, or change the laws.

No matter who you are (from my experience at least), religious services are very comforting, and alot of people need comfort right now. Tell that to the alter boys raped when they were looking for comfot. I guess if you think that all people get comfort out of that type of thing, by all means availible to you should get out more.

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by ConsumedByTV · 2001-09-14 22:38 · Score: 2

I agree. Stop praying for the dead, no where in the bible does it say that it will help the souls of the dead. This is purely selfish. Stop the others from dying. Dont pray out loud, vote to change the policys that helped kill these people.

Religion is the opium of the masses.
Its also the cynide.

It was religion, both Christian and muslim, that brought us this tragedy. So no, I won't shutup and be respectfull when you want to go on praying

Correction it was a beliefe so strong (in god) that people forgot that respecting someone elses right to live was more important than a quick trip to heaven.

As firm beleiver in the seperation of church and state, I find the President declaring a "national day of prayer" downright un-American. The point is to remove religious interference or endorsement from the government. As an atheist I find it wrong to have the President thrust prayer in my face

Well as a Satanist, it makes no difference to me if its the president or the people pulling the puppets strings. Its a sign of the comming of war and the best way to touch a heart is to reach out to a feable mind.

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by jgerman · 2001-09-14 23:35 · Score: 2

Bullshit, it was moronic fanatics that were so in-capable of thinking for themselves that they would sacrifice themselves for evil that killed those people. The blame cannot be placed on this country's policies in any way shape or form. Terrorist attacks have been going on for decades under various U.S. leaders and changing foreign policy. No matter what we do there will always be smaller countries (and people) who are envious of our prosperity and feel that they need to strike out. It's unfortunate that a tragedy like this becomes the vehichle for people like you to get on their political soap boxes.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by AndyChrist · 2001-09-15 02:37 · Score: 1

All religions teach hate and violence. And love and peace. Just depends who you ask.

One way you CAN say that religion (or at least, religious differences, which wouldn't exist if no one cared about religion) caused this is that half of the reason the US has any involvement in the middle east (and the other half is oil of course) is that Israel is holy to christians, AND, the fundy christians like having a state called Israel, because they see it as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. If the state of Israel failed, that would put doomsday off schedule. Therefore the US has to keep the apocalypse on track by helping to prop up and perpetuate a really slow genocide.

Even if not one Jew lived in the States, it would probably be the same.

I wanna see Pat Robertson fight Osama Bin Laden to the death. The victor wins a QUICK death.
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by AndyChrist · 2001-09-15 02:54 · Score: 1

That changing foreign policy always leaves someone armed and angry at the US. Always.
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by ConsumedByTV · 2001-09-15 03:23 · Score: 2

Bullshit, it was moronic fanatics that were so in-capable of thinking for themselves that they would sacrifice themselves for evil that killed those people.

And do you think they could have done this, if we didnt train them first?

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by jgerman · 2001-09-15 10:25 · Score: 2

Ok don't train anybody, close our borders to everyone. No more immigration no more visas. Wait there may be some still here, ok all Muslims will be exiled. Oh wait, what if soemone converts. Damn, I guess we'll have to ship out anyone who doesn't pass a test for approved religions. Ok, problem solved, oh no I just had a thought, what if South America decides to start trouble. That's it all hispanics, get out. Oops we forgot about Africa, all you guys get out too, sorry, we just can't take any chances.

We can't help if the people we train and help turn on us. That's a fact of human nature, and has nothing to do with the situation at hand. But yes, I do believe that this event or one similar would have occured even if we had not trained bin Laden. We didn't train those that actually performed this deed though. And I'm really not sure what your question has to do with the quoted sentence.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by Micah · 2001-09-15 10:53 · Score: 2

> Neither religion teaches violence or hate.

> But both leave enough up to you to let you choose interpretations that fit your end.

RE: Islam -- I just saw a Koran expert on the Fox News Channel who basically said Bin Laden is a sinner in his own religion by encouraging people to commit suicide.

RE: Christianity -- It's quite clear that Jesus teaches peace, not violence. He was the recipient of the most horrible kind of violence immaginable, yet he prayed for their forgiveness. There are acts of violence mentioned in the Bible, but nowhere does Jesus say that is how we are to live today. The main act of violence and destruction will come "in the day of the Lord" when everything will be pretty much annihilated by Jesus Himself and POSSIBLY with the help of His people. That has clearly not arrived yet, and it will be obvious to everyone when it does.
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by ConsumedByTV · 2001-09-15 19:50 · Score: 2

I will take the bait and bite this bullshit.
We can't help if the people we train and help turn on us. That's a fact of human nature, and has nothing to do with the situation at hand. But yes, I do believe that this event or one similar would have occured even if we had not trained bin Laden. We didn't train those that actually performed this deed though. And I'm really not sure what your question has to do with the quoted sentence.

We trained them because we wanted to use them for our objective at the time (to fight russia for us). This event might have happened as a result of something else, however IT DID NOT. Just because your going to die one day from *something* doesnt give me the right to KILL you.

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by c_g_hills · 2001-09-16 03:43 · Score: 0

Moderators, try -1, off-topic.

Fucking hypocrites.
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-16 12:40 · Score: 0

... Did you just redefine religion so that you could say atheism was a religion?

Ah, yes, that's what I thought too.
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by jgerman · 2001-09-17 23:51 · Score: 2

Bullshit my ass. Try reading the entire thread. The question was would this have happened had we not trained them. And my answer was yes. I know exactly why we trained them and that has nothing to do with it. You're analogy about death is meaningless, seriously try a little harder next time, it makes no sense.

--
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Re:Slashdot user comments and prayer by ConsumedByTV · 2001-09-18 11:23 · Score: 2

Well i suppose that it could have happened if someone else trained them, but I was also implying that they might not have ATTACKED us if we hadnt turned on them. Are they bombing germany? Or any other isreal supporters? Or are they attacking us first as a sign that turning your back on them is less than a good idea.

--

"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M

use a nuke, go to hell. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 09:58 · Score: 0

'nuff said.

Re:No need to reverselookup hostnames for geotarge by Kurt+Gray · 2001-09-14 10:05 · Score: 2

It's bascially just top-level domain targeting, loosely referred to "geotargeting". Using HostnameLookups in Apache is not the optimal solution, I've tried other approaches and it ends up causing big problems and headaches. True geotargeting requires a large database (which some compnaies sell) that maps subnet address to city/country, and then you're talking about hitting another database in realtime for every page loaded and I don't want to do that Slashdot.

Wow. You hate a lot don't you. by El+Camino+SS · 2001-09-14 10:08 · Score: 1

Let's point out a couple of things. First, don't make fun of someone's religion. It just shows the world how superior you think you are. This is the ultimate hypocrisy for a group of people on /. that want ALL their freedoms protected, don't you think?

Second, Falwell and Swaggart want your money, they're massive hypocrites, but the truth is that they have never come out to advocate the killing of innocents. So in that one TINY, LITTLE, INEFFECTIVE, MASSIVELY INCONSEQUENTIAL DETAIL they are not the same people as the terrorists that you claim they are. It is an insult to claim that they are, whether you like them or not. More important, the percepts of freedom that we find are so imporant to defend, are basically Jesus's (or technically every major religion's leaders, depending on how you look at it) teachings in law, with a little wisdom of the founding fathers to keep religious control out of it.

P0rN? by tcc · 2001-09-14 10:13 · Score: 2, Offtopic

>about how Slashdot handled the gigantic load

Taco, if you ever want to make a XXX movie for nerds (with 'stuff' that matters :) ) You've just found an attractive title without even knowing it :)

--
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.

Netscaler by Nobelium · 2001-09-14 10:17 · Score: 1

I hate to give marketing hype, but you (Rob) asked for a layer proxy to send static content to static sites and dynamic content to dynamic sites. Take a look at Netscaler (www.netscaler.com) and their load balancer. I'm fairly sure they do all that and without doing a redirect like other companies. Netscaler considers themselves like a Layer 7 (application layer) load balancer. I've read a ton about them. Also regardless of if you use them as a load balancer, they still have many features that completment other load balancers.

--
-Nicholas Blasgen

It's about terror, not Friends by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 10:18 · Score: 0

It's not about the coke and the TV shows. It's about bombing innocent civilians and supporting terrorism. Yes, the US has a long history of both those thing it has now commited itself to root out.

While I'm absolutely not supporting terror from anyone, it has a certain ironic charm that the US has now finally got to taste it's own medicin. But I doubt it will learn from this. That may take much more.

Re:about numbering conventions? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 10:31 · Score: 0

It's a unique comment ID seperate of the story. It's useful because the unique identifier for a story doesn't need to be two keys.

My news source by gwgwgw · 2001-09-14 10:33 · Score: 1

Normally I seek /. because it leaves out natural disasters, political mishmash and foreign wars.

I forgive you.

I take a daily paper and listen to NPR, so I do keep up on "worldly and local" topics.

With slashdot I feel a community that is not imparted by the 2 traditional news funnels cited above.

--
That was Zen, this is Tao

why God let it happen by Micah · 2001-09-14 10:36 · Score: 2

Well, God "lets" lots of things happen. There is a lot of evil and hate in the world, and God has given us free will. Hard to accept, but true.
As for specifically why God let it happen, I think there are a few possibilities. He wants to get our attention. Badly. Now you're saying "then why doesn't he just show himself!" Well, to some, He does - either directly or indirectly.

But God showing himself often doesn't do too much good. The Old Testament is full of stories about God physically manifesting Himself to His people. And guess what -- they kept getting farther and farther away from Him. it finally took their exile to Babylon to really get their attention, and there was a joyous celebration upon the people's return to isreal.

In a similar way, I really believe that God will use this to draw many, many people to Himself. He works in all things for good for those that love Him. What Satan has meant for evil, God has meant for good.

I'm not God of course, so I'm just spouting of speculation, but I am fairly convinced there's some truth in this.

Re:why God let it happen by bendude · 2001-09-14 18:49 · Score: 1

>> God has given us free will. Hard to accept, but true.
Not too hard to accept when you realise 'wow, when I try to do anything, nothing stops me' and 'gee, my actions seem to always cause reactions. Mayby I should consider my every action.". That's when you realise that any control you have experienced before was imposed by the will of another human. The next step is taking responsibility for your own thoughts and actions - we'll welcome you into the world of the conscious when you do, you know.

>> Now you're saying "then why doesn't he just show himself!" Well, to some, He does...

1) Call me paranoid, but I noticed that the only refernce to God with no capital was in you quoting (me?) Do you perhaps feel that since you give your will to God, you are somehow worthy of better understanding man's relationship with a deity?
2) You have hit the nail on the head, though. If you don't believe what the church says, then quite often you wouldn't comprehand God as a figure who can reveal himself. This question, I have found perculiar to young christians trying to come to terms with handing over their will.

>> In a similar way, I really believe that God will use this to draw many, many people to Himself. He works in all things for good for those that love Him. What Satan has meant for evil, God has meant for good.
(Bare with me, this may draw out) I do not go to church. When I ask churchgoing people about their experiences, they clam up. I do not know what you church people talk about amongst yourselves.
I do know that the American govt. has been pushing the US=God's_people and Satan's_People>>Middle_East ideas for years now. Particularly the Bush Family (Anyone see that speach Bush Snr made to the Oil companies the other day? Praising his son, calling for internet crackdowns, and peddling his 'Hussain is Satan' shit asgain?) You may be right about God drawing his people to him and then making a giant strike against Satan. (In the biblical/figuarative sense.) It sounds more plausable than anything else you've said in your last 24 comments. (I was going to remove this bit because it sounded a bit like an attack. It's not (cough*any more*cough), and I apologise for trying to one up myself on you here.
I left it there though. There is an irony that, neively, your most hardcore christian predictions may prove hideously true.)(Of course, in the interests of fair play, here's my last 24 comments.)

--

Get the Hell off my planet, you slimy mobster Bush!
Re:why God let it happen by Micah · 2001-09-14 19:24 · Score: 2

> The next step is taking responsibility for your own thoughts and actions - we'll welcome you into the world of the conscious when you do, you know.

I have, believe me. Are you suggesting that just because my thoughts lead me to believe in God I'm not in the world of the conscious? That seems a tad short sighted. (Correct me if that's not what you're saying, but it sounds like it...)

> Do you perhaps feel that since you give your will to God, you are somehow worthy of better understanding man's relationship with a deity?

Maybe not more worthy. And no I can't understand it all. Better than others who don't accept God -- well, sure. My understanding of man's relationship with God is based on what the Bible says and on experiences.

> If you don't believe what the church says, then quite often you wouldn't comprehand God as a figure who can reveal himself.

I'm not sure if it's a matter of comprehending a God who can reveal Himself. He is just so different than anyone who doesn't know Him or believe in Him can possibly immagine. Either you are open to Him or you aren't. And He Himself makes it easier for some to open up to Him than others. No, i don't understand why that is, but it does appear to be true. I believe anyone can be saved, but some will have to make more sacrifices than others.
Re:why God let it happen by bendude · 2001-09-14 21:21 · Score: 1

I may be a little confused. Is one of the church's key teachings not that you must give your heart, mind , desire, 10% of your income, etc to the Lord?

Would that not constitute giving up your sovereignty to God through the church?

Can you comprehend the story of children brought up devout christians, who reached adolescence, started to test their environments, had the waggling finger of doom pointed at them from the pulpit, thought "shit, I better smarten up and fly straight until this threat goes away", and then actually spend time proving one way or the other if it is a real threat?

Many of the 'heathens' you fail to consider the position of actually came from this background. You find many people intollerant of you because of your closed mindedness to the motivations of non church going folk.

I personally find it insulting that when this time is looked back on from some distant future we will each be tarred with the character of the average 21st century person. All this intollerance and closed mindedness suggests that my lifetime wont be credited with including the day the world gave up war/struggle/oppression forever.

Don't get too offended by me, I am just an idiot. Just like every other idiot trying to keep it together out there and neither God nor the government have made any decrees declaring my word to be gospel.

--

Get the Hell off my planet, you slimy mobster Bush!
Re:why God let it happen by Micah · 2001-09-15 10:09 · Score: 2

> Is one of the church's key teachings not that you must give your heart, mind , desire, 10% of your income, etc to the Lord?

Heart, soul, mind, strength -- yes. That's what Jesus said is the greatest commandment. And love your neighbor as yourself is right after that. Tithing is a Very Good Idea(TM) but is not a foundational teaching.

> Would that not constitute giving up your sovereignty to God through the church?

Yes, God is sovereign and therefore deserves our full being. The church is just the body of believers.

> Many of the 'heathens' you fail to consider the position of actually came from this background.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

For what it's worth, I don't think I'm "intolerant" and I don't want to push God on anyone who doesn't want Him. I recognize that religion is everyone's choice, and if they want to reject it they can. My job is only to stand up for Jesus to the best of my ability and do what Jesus commanded -- that is love my neighbor, forgive others, do justice, and of course preach the Gospel. Whether any particular person believes is really up to them and the Holy Spirit.

I fully see why people such as yourself find it hard to believe in the message. It *does* sound ridiculous if you look at it from a worldly perspective. Everything about God is totally opposite of what people expect. The last shall be first; the first last. He reveals Himself to the oppressed, not the powerful. Even the Jews expected a Messiah to come who would be politically powerful. They had no idea, even though it was prophesied, that He had to come from a normal family, suffer, and die.

In spite of how ridiculous it seems, I have no doubt about its truth. Everything about the human body and how and why we're here screams we have a Creator. We have intelligence, minds, consciences. Humans in general have a longing to know God (although some people have managed to quench that hole through their own desires).

But why Jesus? Well, the Bible is probably the most consistent book ever written, at least over the span of millennia, and on all the issues that are important. (I won't say it has NO contradictions, because there are a few minor ones, but they can generally be explained by the memorization practices of the Jews.) But about the character of God, the nature of Man, our need to be reconciled to God, and all that, is 100% consistent from Genesis to Revelation. I'm reading the Bible straight through for the first time this year -- I'm almost done and it has only bolstered my confidence in its consistency.

Then there's what I've seen. God does comfort people. He does heal people. He does miracles.

Then there's fulfilled prophesies. Israel returning as a nation is probably the biggest that we can see today. All other ancient cultures are totally destroyed, but not the Jews, God's "chosen" people.

Then there's evil. I really think the nature of evil today matches precisely how the Bible describes Satan. Satan is a liar, a theif, a murderor. His only goal is to destroy the knowledge of God and replace it with counterfeit crap. Take astrology and the occult for example. Those things have real drawing power, but they're not of God.

So I hope this gives you a better idea of where I'm coming from. If you chose to ignore or reject the message, I'll respect you for that. I just hope and pray that you'll give it serious thought before doing that!
Re:why God let it happen by bendude · 2001-09-15 16:15 · Score: 1

I think I'm going to find this argument easier if I drop into your mindset to respond directly and then pan out to show you my thinking. You see, christian dogma creates these arguments within itself so as to completely preclude rational discussion with a broader perspective.

>> Yes, God is sovereign and therefore deserves our full being.
Yes God is a sovereign being, but so are you. God does not drive your body, God does not protect your path from evil. (Don't argue, did any passenger jets crash into civilian workplaces killing thousands, this week?)
From all descriptions of God, it seems that God might in fact be an average member of a higher dimension. The creative powers he displayed in creating this universe are beyond comparison within this universe and have never been repeated within this universe. Whether he shares his domain with anyone else or not is irrelevant, seeing as how he created this universe, It seems pretty likely that he is not from it. That being said I personally believe that God is a being either unaware of our conscience existance, or simply too complex an entity to be capable of our limited conscious thought.- sort of like the way I create computer programs. I create the program that creates a desired result. I use the processing power of the computer to acheive that result. During the design time and then in the following development period, I deal with the sub bits of the program in a non tangible area called cyber space. Since I created this particular instance of cyber space, I am it's God being, I do not think about personalities within this universe, I concentrate on it's producing the right output into our shared universe.

>> The church is just the body of believers.

Exactly! The church is not God, yet it claims to be. God would not want people to spend their entire lives working to give half of it (sorry if you don't, but I do) to a non representative (democratic (?) but not representative of anyone I've met, here in Australia) government and the another 10% to an organisation who spend it on amongst others things:
pushing legislation to keep a scientifically recognised physical gender condition (homsexuality) out of lawful status.
Move suspected sexual deviants within it's network, rather than confront the abuse they are left free to perpetuate in the christian community.
Hide most of the stored knowledge of mankind in vaults in a city free from outside government intervention.
Lobbying for represive laws around the world to slant political directions in their favour.
Sells and bases it's faith on a book which clearly puts women in as second class citizens, and labels them 'unclean' for one quarter of their post adolescent-pre menopausal lives (You read Exodus all the way through, didn't you?)
need I go on?
I also find it impossible to imagine these organisations could also be spreading the pure word of God.

From the outside: the church is a corrupt organisation preying on people's weakness and interfearing way too much in our 'heathen' lives.

>> I don't want to push God on anyone who doesn't want Him. ..... My job is only to ..... do what Jesus commanded -- that is love my neighbor, forgive others, do justice, and of course preach the Gospel.
1) Reconcile "dont want to push yadda yadda yadda" with "My job is......of course preach the gospel"? Are you aware of these discrepancies in your value system? Are you crying out for help because you're being forced to something you "don't want to"?
2) Jesus commanded "Love thy neighbor as you would yourself." this put's it right into our own hands. Whatever each person feels is a reasonable amount of love for themselves should be taken as the measure to hand about as well. Seems like a fair equation, this Jesus guy wasn't dumb, you know.
3) To err is human, to forgive, Divine. We have the right to see our own shortcomings reflected in other people and to try and acheive peacefull understanding. God has the right to forgive.
3) Do Justice is an idiotic paraphrasing of Superman's holy message, do not confuse him with God.
4) That's your preist talking. Jesus may have told his disciples to go out and preach (did he, I can't remember?), but they were there. They wouldn't be breaking that old 'false witness' commandment.

Your job is to be the best human you can, and to encourage everyone else to do the same. For if there were a conscious God being, I'm sure he would want for all of his creation to be the best possible thing it could be. That means helping people to find the God within themselves without taking any of their soveriegnty away from them. Oppressed people rise up against their oppressors you know.

>> I fully see why people such as yourself find it hard to believe in the message. It *does* sound ridiculous if you look at it from a worldly perspective.
I do not know how to answer that. It's like it's coming from a whole different language to me. The only thing I can think of is my amazement that a group of people who have no problem beleiving the stories about Jesus, ie: virgin birth, walking on water, loaves/fishes, wine/blood(every f*cking week since, in some cases), healing leppers, damning trees, raising Lazarus, dying and getting up again three days later, etc, completely reject out of hand, spirituality, esp, numerology (based on actual observed patterns over millenia), astrology (likewise), tarot reading, divination of any type, natural healing, etc.

Everything about God is totally opposite of what people expect. The last shall be first; the first last. He reveals Himself to the oppressed, not the powerful.
No, expectation of justice is not a christian thing. Leaving it up to God, however, ensures that no man will see it is done. Where are all these oppressed people saying "Well, when the Lord showed up, you know, you kind of forgot your diseases, dead family, decimated homeland, and all that and just layed about drinking in his 'vibe'". Oh, and why the hell were they hanging out with the lord rather than trying to snatch back some scrap of security for themselves and their families?

Even the Jews expected a Messiah to come who would be politically powerful. They had no idea, even though it was prophesied, that He had to come from a normal family, suffer, and die.
I'm sorry, which Jews? If the prophecies spoke of God coming to the world as a humble poor person, then what idiot would be looking in the society papers for announcements of his birth. Don't fall for that false witness thing, dude.

>> Everything about the human body and how and why we're here screams we have a Creator.Absolutely true. (although creator should not have had the cap "C") We have clearly evolved from the primate family of species on this planet. So something, someone, or some force caused us to split and begin taking on our own unique characteristics. That thing, indeed was our creator. Unfortunately, if God is 'above' conscious though, then that means the only deliberate action to create us could have been made by another superior (at the time) species. You know we are on the verge of creating some kind of consciousness in machines that are in fact better equipped for some aspects of this universe than us.

Humans in general have a longing to know God (although some people have managed to quench that hole through their own desires).
Humans have a longing for water. Someone told them it was actually a longing for coke. Look at how many people truly believe that (i.e.: get most of their liquid refreshment from coke) despite consciously knowing it's wrong. Now, who told you to generalise and say humans have a longing for God? And how do I know that guy isn't to the church what coca cola marketing is to coca cola?

Well, the Bible is probably the most consistent book ever written
Now you're being infantile. This book has changed so much from generation to generation, language to language, spin artist to spin artist that if there are any books that have lasted so long, this is by far the least consistant. When I was 12 we got to read Scrooge for English literature studies. I went with my mum to pick up the textbooks at the start of the year and was flipping through them on the way home. I read the first paragraph of Scrooge, and it was exactly as I remembered it from looking at it many years earlier. I was amazed, here was this book, clearly a brand new edition, which still had the same wording as the much older versions I'd seen. I mentioned it to my mum and she said that was natural, why would it change? You see, the only book I had read a couple of different editions of, was the Bible, and until that day, I just presumed that a different edition meant a completely different wording in any book. It wasn't until later that I realised the importance of each and every little word in an account.

I won't say it has NO contradictions, because there are a few minor ones, but they can generally
be explained by the memorization practices of the Jews.If you can say there are definately bits that are wrong, then you'll need to identify all of those bits, and explain how they came to be there without the rest of the content being corrupted, otherwise the most prudent move would tbe to scrap all data that can't be verified from this database as it may be corrupting any factual data.

>> ...about the character of God, the nature of Man, our need to be reconciled to God, and all that, is 100% consistent from Genesis to Revelation. I'm reading the Bible straight through for the first time this year -- I'm almost done and it has only bolstered my confidence in its consistency.

The remainder of your post degraded into speculation, and you, claiming to be a man of logic. I know you will not give anything I say fair speculation for that would mean putting aside your faith in God. All I can say is that if people put half the energy you put into defending you religious choices into taking action to see that no one on this planet is in fear or need, then we wouldn't need a heaven because we'd already be there (thanx to the great prophet Homer for that one.).

--

Get the Hell off my planet, you slimy mobster Bush!
Re:why God let it happen by Micah · 2001-09-15 17:56 · Score: 2

> ...so as to completely preclude rational discussion with a broader perspective.

Well, there's a place for rational discussion and endless philisophical arguments. Both sides (atheists and theologins) can do that quite well. But when one knows of God's existence (and I mean KNOWS), what point does all that play? When one has experienced a real God, arguments against His existence (or presence in our lives) have a way of becoming moot. I know you won't like that answer, but like I said, everything about God is different than people expect.

> Yes God is a sovereign being, but so are you

Cool, maybe I should go try to create a solar system or two...

> That being said I personally believe that God is a being either unaware of our conscience existance, or simply too complex an entity to be capable of our limited conscious thought

OK, so you do believe in some kind of God?

Anyway, that statement is a bit absurd. Why wouldn't a God that created us and the universe be able to understand us and our thoughts?

> The church is not God, yet it claims to be.

Well, mine doesn't. Some claim the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church as pretty infallable. I do not.

> and the another 10% to an organisation who spend it on amongst others things:

Yikes, I dunno where you got your ideas of how churches spend tithe money. Mine uses it to pay the pastors, keep up the buildings, send missionaries, and give help to community members who need it (benevolence fund).

As for attitudes towards women, the church (as in body of believers) is fairly progressive in that area. My church allows women to do anything but be senior pastor. I do fully agree with Biblical princiles such as the husband is the head of the house, but he should make all decisions in love for the wife and kids. Beyond that, I think that the Bible's description of the role of women is mostly tied to their early culture. There certainly were strong women in the Bible -- Ruth and Esther to name a couple.

> 1) Reconcile "dont want to push yadda yadda yadda" with "My job is....

What I mean is that I should speak to those who want to hear it, but don't interfere with those that wish to reject it. Christians have tried that in the past, it doesn't work, nor should it.

> Jesus may have told his disciples to go out and preach (did he, I can't remember?)

Yes, the Great Commission -- go preach the Gospel in all the world and make disciples and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit... and that is for us as well, not just the disciples.

> ...my amazement that a group of people who have no problem beleiving the stories about Jesus, ie: virgin birth...

well what can I say... you believe the Bible or you don't. If Jesus was God incarnate, and the Gospel accounts are real accounts of His life, as I believe is the case, why should I not believe all that?

> eject out of hand, spirituality, esp, numerology (based on actual observed patterns over millenia), astrology (likewise), tarot reading, divination of any type, natural healing, etc.

That's what I mean by Satan's counterfeit miracles. God can also impart wisdom to people -- it has happened to me and many others I know. Why would you want to ask Satan with all those things when you can ask God?

> Leaving it up to God, however, ensures that no man will see it is done

Justice shouldn't be "left to God" -- He commanded us to see that it is done! (And yeah, I need to really see how I can improve in that area, for one)

> We have clearly evolved from the primate family of species on this planet.

I won't get into that. I think God could have used either 6-day creationism or evolution to put us here. While I tend to believe in the former, proof of evolution is definitely NOT proof against God

> Now, who told you to generalise and say humans have a longing for God?

That has pretty much been the case since ancient times. What culture has never had a religion?

> This book has changed so much from generation to generation, language to language, spin artist to spin artist that if there are any books that have lasted so long, this is by far the least consistant.

Whoa. Sure there have been translations, some more accurate than others, but I mean what the book SAYS -- from Genesis to Revelation. We do have fairly good ancient manuscripts for most if not all of it. And it all agrees on the character of God: He is holy, powerful, loving, disciplining, but also seeks vengeance for sin. His anger is quickly extinguished when one repents.

> you can say there are definately bits that are wrong, then you'll need to identify all of those bits

Perhaps so... I'm talking things like:
1) one account says Judas gave the blood money of Jesus back to the religious leaders, who bought the field in which he hung himself, another says he bought the field himself
2) One account says Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem, another says a colt.
Big deal? Not really in the grand scheme of things. So we need to look at what the Bible is consistent about, and it definitely is about the character of God and how we are to be saved (by faith in Jesus).

> The remainder of your post degraded into speculation

Huh? It's what I've seen and experienced and how I belive in God, and I think it's logical.

slashdot has performed... by freaq · 2001-09-14 10:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

...admirably.

thank you, rob & crew.

upon hearing rumour of what happened, and not being able to access any of my bookmarked news sites, take a wild guess what url i typed in.
up it came, immediately, with usable information.

good? yes. you've done well. if you still need to break down, go ahead. i find no fault in tears.

tragedy is not a strong enough word for the recent calamity. i (a canadian, if it matters) cried also.

peter

(i sin ø)
e

--
united states nuclear device terrorist bioweapon encryption cocaine korea syria iran iraq columbia cuba

Topic? by blkros · 2001-09-14 10:49 · Score: 1

I notice that everyone went off topic here. So is the topic changed? Anyways, hurray for Slashdot! Good job guys! You kept good tabs on the news, and kept your servers up. Thank you. That's all. Peace out.

--
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!

Re:Wow. You hate a lot don't you. by AugstWest · 2001-09-14 10:53 · Score: 2

Make fun? Was I cracking jokes? Did I claim superiority? Where did I even REMOTELY compare them to the terrorists?

I was raised Catholic, and was an altar boy for years. I've had my share of religion and religious education. I am still a Christian, and see no reason not to admit that.

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are a blight on the Christian faith. Statements like the ones they made that started this thread can turn millions off from the faith, especially women (FEMINISTS brought this on our country?).

I never compared them to the terrorists, I simply stated that God can't be too pleased with them. I used hyperbole, admittedly, but it fit into the context. I think you may have misread my statement.

Also, I don't hate.

Video Game Sabotage by dmaxwell · 2001-09-14 10:54 · Score: 2

Long ago in my wasted youth 3 or 4 of us would play lots and lots of "Atari". You know back when playing video games at home meant "playing Atari". I could look out the window and see velociraptors on the hunt.

Anyhoo, sometimes one of us would be on a really long streak that the rest of us wanted to end. When someone has racked up 60,000 points at River Raid then he needs to DIE because I wanna play damn it! The rest of us would exchange knowing glances then I would say, "Wow Chris! You're awesome today! I've never seen anybody go this far on one plane......" Blam! Works every time.

Watchin CNN by mcdade · 2001-09-14 10:55 · Score: 1

You should have posted that you needed a Live feed of CNN so you could watch it in the office. I was streaming it live in 80k/s Real media. I had a friend in Germany (American) who called me up and said "Turn on CNN right now!!". This was shortly after 9am (I was still sleeping).

I streamed it for him so he could watch the coverage live in Germany.. I would have posted the link so others who were stuck in an office could watch too.

Re:Pray [etc] For President Bush by !coward · 2001-09-14 10:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let me just start by stating 2 things:

- I'm portuguese (as in Europe) which means that I might not take things as personal as some of you.

- I don't like the guy (G. W. Bush). I honestly believe you chose an underqualified person for President (although the voting majority didn't actually vote for him, your system made him the winner -- which is ok, it _is_ the same system you've used for years.. if it's wrong, change it and it won't happen again).

First of all, IMHO, there is no excuse, no cause, no ideal, nothing that can justify the killing of people. We define certain circumstances in the law in which this is tolerable: self-defense, etc.. Terrorism, whatever form it may take, isn't one of them. It is intolerable. We all live on the same planet, depend on basically the same things to survive and, most of all, belong to the same species. We all have to accept and live by a certain number of rules in order to make it possible for _everyone_ to have as good of a life as possible. To think that one is superior to any other because you or him/her think/act/feel different is not only stupid, it's a waste of the cognitive faculties we've enhanced, as a species, over thousands of generations.

But the truth is, things don't work. The "system" doesn't work for most people. People die every day of hunger, dehidration, or lack of medicine as common as rain in most industrialized countries. I'm not saying we should try to understand the people who commit acts of terror. At least, not to look for excuses for there are none. But it does seem a terrible waste (not to say an insult to all the deceased) when we fail to realize that any 'normal' human being would never do something as hideous as this Tuesday's attack if things were ok.

The Al-Koran is, unlike 'popular' opinion, a very 'open-minded' text. The message is not about hate, or pain, or punishment, but rather of self-enlightenment, respect and tolerance, much like the "New Testament" for christians or catholics. So why do we see this kind of fanatic behaviour (suicide attacks, I mean) repeatedly associated with arabic people? Could it be that they feel, somehow, _we_ are to blame for a lot of their problems? Could it be that, to some extent, they're actually right?

When you see priests or vicars, like Falwell, feeding intolerance into people do you imediately generalize it to the whole population of priests and vicars? Or their believers? Why don't we extend the same curtesy to arabic people? Why don't we accept the likely possibility that these people have been mis-lead by other people who should know best, but don't? If you feel down, feel that the whole world is against you, wouldn't you be a little more willing to embrace such extremist views?

Should the people involved in the terrorist attacks of the 11th be brought to justice? Damn right! But notice I said 'justice'. We can't fight terrorism with some new form of terrorism (state or country-sponsored assassinations/attacks ARE forms of terrorism). There has been no declaration of war. No state or country or protectorate has declared war against any NATO country. The point I'm trying to make is: you either consider every person in Afghanistan (sorry, can't spell it) a terrorist or otherwise guilty of the attacks on the planes, WTC and Pentagon -- which would justify the envolvement of armies (it _would_ be the same as a declaration of war), or you stipulate that there _are_ people in Afghanistan who have _nothing_ to do with what happened last Tuesday. In this later case, there is nothing that justifies treating those people the same way you/me/we all want to treat terrorists.

What am I trying to say? Generically speaking: I find it already troubling that my country can go to war for reasons I totally disagree with and, I, along with every other citizen of my country (regardless of their views towards that conflict) would pay the price. But it troubles me more to know that, if NATO really gets involved and we end up bombing the hell out of Afghanistan, we will be opening up a precedent whereas any criminal actions by a citizen or group of citizens of any country, or living in any country, can lead to that country becoming extinct. I shudder to think that anyone can be killed because of someone else's actions. In a way, however inexcusable the reasons might have been, the people on the airplanes, Pentagon, WTC towers and those who came to help, who died last Tuesday, died just because of that. They payed the price _someone_ stipulated for things they did not do.

This is the only oportunity we have to really do things right. To show that we DO believe in democracy, in tolerance, and in the principle 'innocent until _proven_ guilty'. And to prove that, no matter how much our hearts call for blood, from sheer shock and pain, we _can_ act as we all say we all should.

I'm not worried if G W Bush is sad because he doesn't want to be the 1st person to use a nuke in a non-war scenario. I'm worried about the thousands, maybe millions of people who will suffer, directly or indirectly should that come to pass.

I sympathise with you all. I may not agree with a lot of the USA's foreign policy, but I do not confuse it with the american people. Please don't do the same with the afghans. If their regime, government, whatever, is somehow responsible (aiding and abeding, for example), then there _are_ solutions out there better than massive destruction. Economic sanctions (Iraq, Germany after WWII), blocking that country out. International Courts to judge all the people suspected of involvement, instead of summary executions (P.R. of China, anyone?). Isn't that how things are supposed to work?

These people have shown they do not know what democracy, freedom and tolerance mean. Let's try to show everyone that we, at least, do.

A misquote... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 11:01 · Score: 0

"...none of which are as blatent as the Mormon adage of "avoid the appearance of evil," the underlying message is clear: appearances are at least as important as substance..."

Actually, the Mormon adage is "avoid even the appearance of evil", meaning to not only avoid 'evil' actions, but also things that are associated with or could be construed as 'evil'. I think most other religions have a similar belief.

Re:Christianity is at its worst... and its best by Achronos · 2001-09-14 11:02 · Score: 1

I am Catholic myself, and I'd have to agree with you here. I hate it when people try and evangelize. I'll answer questions to those who are curious and want to know more, but faith in something greater than yourself must be an individual choice. If you are simply following something a parent or a charismatic leader feeds you, you don't really have true faith. I go to church now because of a choice of something I believe in, not because I've done it before.

And, just to make a side point about people like Falwell and Robertson, and their ilk, since they do more to harm the "right" then help it:

What many people must realize (especially when they look at the "leaders" of their own religion) is that organized religion is fundamentally a human construction. The issue of the faith is much more personal, between God (or whatever you call Him/Her) and yourself. The construct exists in most cases to assist individuals in keeping their faith within the secular world. At least, that usually is the original intent when it is created. But like any human construct, they are subject to the same imperfections as human beings: we can be very selfish, violent, greedy, sexist, racist, etc. This leads to the corruption we see in greedy televangelists, the evils of extremists such as those who murder doctors to protect unborn children, the religious wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, and those responsible for Tuesday. Remember however, that these religions can also produce ultimate charity: witness the work of many religious charities to help the poor. Organized religion can be a lot like a gun: source of strength that can be used for commiting evil act, as well as defending the innocent against evil itself.

Finally, U.S. citizens might do well to remember something quoted from a person whom I wish I could remember their name:

"... This will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave."

so you mention getting a larger db, by linuxmanvan · 2001-09-14 11:23 · Score: 1

So you mention getting a larger db, do you only run one? How large is it? What type of mem/proc do you use and drives? Do you know if the bottleneck is drive access or the MySql program itself? And, have you ever tried postgresql? I am just a curious network/web guy working on a site. Brgds

Slashdot kicks ass: by A_Non_Moose · 2001-09-14 11:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

Like Taco, one of the major sites I hit was cnn and msnbc ...after, mind you... loading up /.

Well, everyone where I work (well, now used to work as of today) was feeling so out of it because there is literally no cable access in the entire building(s).

People wanted *information* and the tradegy also opened a few eyes with us being asked (the techs).

My response was "slashdot.org is the best place to go...and don't forget to read the comments section which will have more valuable information by support from other techs and people out there".

Heck, even today one of the Directors asked where to go for even more info...and once again, I recommended slashdot.org with the "down and dirty" explanation 'this is a community of "nerds/techs" that kept the information flowing by giving up their time and resources to keep the rest of the world up to date.'

Some of my coworkers asked why, to which I would smile and say "what does the "I" in IT stand for, but "Information".

Moose.

Oh, and over at arstechnica.com's "lounge" section there was a comment that deserves to be on /., as it was very insightful and correct in a backhanded way:
"We seem to project to the rest of the world that we are 'fat, lazy, and kind of goofy', but what most of those that dislike us forget is: when you piss us off we tend to fight like cornered badgers (Tooth and Nail or the movie "tombstone" the "I'm coming and I'm bringing hell with me for those that don't get the badger reference).

I *am* Interesting and I *am* Insightful and IF ppl would read my FSCKing comments they'd see that. (me ranting after several post, esp after losing a +4 to database corruption...now..who the hell cares? It ain't that important in the grand scheme of things.
Amazing what happens when you actually get on board the "cluetrain".

Heh, I've babbled enuf, thanks to everyone + world.

--
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)

Will you please..... by NDPTAL85 · 2001-09-14 11:44 · Score: 1

Save it for someone who gives a fuck. This is a time of national crisis. Your cries of "a violation of American principles" couldn't be less important than it is right now. Learn discretion and tact or continue to be a fucking asshole. THIS IS NEITHER THE TIME OR PLACE FOR THIS BULLSHIT YOU STUPID FUCK!

Flame on!

--
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.

Re:Will you please..... by Alsee · 2001-09-14 12:36 · Score: 0

As Benjamin Franklin once wrote, those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security.

While the issues are not directly liberty, they are equally important principles. This is on par with concerns voiced here on /. regarding laws banning strong crypto (requiring back-doors), and privacy issues. One half of congress just unanimously passed a law stipping away almost all 4th amendment gaurentees online. There's no doubt the other half of congress will also pass this law.

"THIS IS NEITHER THE TIME OR PLACE FOR THIS BULLSHIT YOU STUPID FUCK!" is very shortsighted. We WILL get through this crisis, but we will forever live with the consequences if we are not eternaly vigilant.

We must not allow this crisis to errode the principle this country is founded upon.

The agressors here are driven by religion. Mixing religion and government is very dangerous violation of the seperation of church and state.

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Will you please..... by NDPTAL85 · 2001-09-14 15:07 · Score: 1

A temporary violation of the separation of church and state is fine with me. Its not like anyone will tolerate it remaining for any long period of time. Got anything left to bitch about?

--
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.

Re:The Rainbow Warrior by jonsim · 2001-09-14 11:53 · Score: 1

This brings up an interesting point (Although only by association). For those who aren't aware of this, the Rainbow Warrior was the flagship of Greenpeace. In 1985 France was testing nuclear weapons at Muroroa Atoll, and the Rainbow Warrior was waiting in Auckland, New Zealand (where I live), in preperation to leave for Mururoa to protest.

On the night of 10 July 1985 two limpit mines attached to the side of the boat were detonated, blowing and 8 foot hole in the side of the ship. Fernando Pereira, a photographer with Greenpeace, died in the blast. Within days two french security officers, Major Alain Mafart and Captain Dominique Prieur, were arrested and duly charged with murder, arson etc, and eventually convicted of manslaughter and arson.

Four other French agents were also implicated in the attack. They presented themselves to the French police, and the French government refused extradition. They are still wanted by the New Zealand Police.

The French press was not satisfied with this, and in the end, in the face of overwhelming evidence French Prime Minister Laurent Fabiu admitted that the French Secret Service ordered the attack. The French Defense Minister duly resigned.

This is the only terrorist attack that has ever occurred on New Zealand soil (or water), and although it clearly pales beside the events of the previous days, but for me it puts some perspective on the American comments about bombing those countries which help terrorists.

Because France is clearly one such country. The people of France had nothing to do with this attack - they did not approve of it, and may never have known it happened if not for luck. But the French government nevertheless not only sponsered terrorism, but actually carried it out with their own people. The French government is a democracy, but Americans now seem to be talking about attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc, holding their people responsible for the acts of their dictators?

Would they also attack France?

For more information on the Rainbow Warrior Bombing
http://www.aucklandcitypolice.govt.nz/History/wa rr ior.htm

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! postersubj. compression by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 11:53 · Score: 0

And here I was willing to give slashdot two years before the hammer comes down! Six months max, now. Slashbots better start looking for a new place to behave like short-sighted, narrow-minded zealots.

News for nerds, by larien · 2001-09-14 11:56 · Score: 2

...Stuff that matters. What happened on Tuesday was news for everyone, nerd or not, and it most certainly mattered.

Thanks to the team for keeping the site up (just, but better than most news sites), even if I did have trouble getting logged in that afternoon. However, I put that down to the load you must have had and shrugged. I guess I must have been hitting the static servers.

Finally, the obligatory sympathies to all involved, in whatever way. Personally, I'm surprised it was only 5,000 missing given that the WTC could hold 50,000. 5,000 deaths is still a tragedy, but it could have been much, much more, so we have to thank the small mercies.

Does MySQL Scale? by fm6 · 2001-09-14 12:05 · Score: 2

I'm no DBMS expert, but I can't help but think that Slashdot has outgrown MySQL. The DBMS is already unable to keep up even with normal usage. Making static copies of the most heavily-used queries strikes me as a really kludgy workaround.

Real DBMS people will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't MySQL's problem with multi-field keys a symptom of bad query optimization? As I understand it, MySQL is just a simple SQL interpreter running on top of a simple ISAM engine. What's missing? A query optimizer, which expedites data access in much the same way that a optimizing compiler expedites execution of native code.

Of course, you'll want to stick to open-source engines. But that still gives you plenty of choices. Have a look at Interbase, its Firebird variant (see IBPhoenix.com for Open Source efforts for both engines), and, of course, Postgres.

Re:Does MySQL Scale? by VB · 2001-09-14 16:21 · Score: 2

So, you're suggesting Oracle could do better on the same hardware? Perhaps you could provide a more compelling argument if you showed similar stats to what these 6 little servers produced over the past couple days running on an Oracle setup.

MySQL is the fastest database on the planet. It lacks features: not speed. If you outgrow this database, you switch to which one?...

--
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic

A paperclip for reception! by chuck · 2001-09-14 12:15 · Score: 2

Ha! I used a staple and an RCA cable!

Man, I thought I was the only one with such ghetto-style equipment! :)

--
My Freakin Blog

Re:Your sig about liberty and security by charon_on_acheron · 2001-09-14 12:38 · Score: 1

We've seen that quote from Franklin a lot lately, with about four different wordings. But I think that this week, there are a lot of people who are doing the first half without a care to the second half.

If the FBI/CIA/FAA/ETC walked into the AOL or MSN datacenters, and asked to review usage or email from accounts 'suspected' of being involved in this attack, I think they would be handed the passwords without a moments hesitation. And I wouldn't blame AOL or MSN for giving up the info.

I think that the FBI messed up with Ruby Ridge and Waco, and the CIA messed up other situations, and normally I wouldn't give them anything without a warrant. But this makes the niceties of personal freedom a little less important.

Remember in WWII, there were rations for food, gas, and supplies. Who says I can't buy 2 dozen eggs this week? The government says. At times of emergencies, liberty isn't a given. It's still a right, it just isn't allowed for the common good.

Re:Chomsky, and *you*, are mistaken by Pinball+Wizard · 2001-09-14 12:44 · Score: 1

No, I don't wan't people to die. I want people to live, in a world of political and religious freedom. I want people to have the right to speak their mind. I want justice for all. I want equal rights for women and minorities.

However, there are those *evil* people - I will say it the evil people here are the extremist militant Muslims - that do not want equality, do not want fairness, do not want freedom - they want to wipe us off the face of the earth.

That is the battle I am prepared to fight my friend, and if you think that is evil, well I'm sorry. I welcome you into my world of freedom and prosperity, but I will kill you in a heartbeat if you threaten my way of life. Yes, I think my way of life is *better* than that of an extremist militant Muslim. Sorry if you don't agree with the truth.

--

No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

Impressive stats by pantaz · 2001-09-14 12:44 · Score: 1

I would be very interested in seeing a comparison to other sites statistics.

Re:Has Slashdot's own search been removed for good by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 12:51 · Score: 0

That's annoying, but it's in the URL.

Read the Old Testament by ksheff · 2001-09-14 13:08 · Score: 1

If you have ever read the Old Testament or went to Sunday school and paid any attention, you would recognize what he's talking about. The OT has several cause and effect patterns that are basically:

The Tribes of Israel are obedient to God and follow the Laws and Commandments.
God is pleased with this and blesses them with prosperity, victory over enemies, etc.
Over time the people become arrogant, more secular, believe their wealth & power have nothing to do with God, worship false religions, become disobedient, etc. They either intentionally disregard their terms of the covenant or forget them. Prophets warn the populace they are risking destruction unless they repent, but are dismissed as nut cases.
God is displeased with this and restricts his blessings.
Without God's blessings, the Tribes encounter severe tribulations or damage from internal and/or external forces.

Falwell and Robertson are pointing out what they believe are the behaviors/actions in our society that is a part of step 3 and which have lead to steps 4 and 5. As preachers, they want the populace to repent and stay in steps 1 and 2.

--
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs

Re:Read the Old Testament by Paul+Komarek · 2001-09-14 18:28 · Score: 2

Almost correct, but you messed up the conclusion. Falwell and Robertson want the populace to pay them money.

I don't believe they much care about love, or else they wouldn't hate so often. Since God==Love (according to *their* *own* sources), they must not care about God. I doubt they care at all about the populace repenting or doing anything regarding God at all. Even if you switch to God~=Love or God iff Love, I don't think this argument changes in any substantial manner. If they want to prove me wrong, they should quit hating.

Of course, I doubt *they'd* agree with my analysis...

-Paul Komarek
Re:Read the Old Testament by ksheff · 2001-09-15 07:10 · Score: 2

No, I think they really want people to repent and change their ways. They want to be paid at some point along the way too, which is one reason I don't like many evangelists, esp. television ones. Many appear to be more concerned with building up their own little empires than teaching God's Word.

The "Hate the sin, love the sinner" concept is a bit tricky when a person defines themselves by the sin and revel in it. Some people take this too far and give up on trying to distinguish between the person and the actions. On the other end of the spectrum, people take the warm & fuzzy "God is love" concept and twist it into tolerating anything on the basis of "we are supposed to love everyone and if we tell someone they're doing something wrong, we're being judgemental not loving" which pulls in "judge not, lest ye be judged also" into the fray too. IMHO, the latter has more to do with trying to stop people from being judge, jury and executioner than those who want to warn others of errors.

--
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs

Re:then why are you here, rat-ass? by charon_on_acheron · 2001-09-14 13:12 · Score: 1

The subject says I have to say on this idiot. but when i his the submit button this message came back.

Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)

so this is just to get my subject line out, but please don't read the body above.

This isn't a war of bloodshed, nukes not needed. by JeremyYoung · 2001-09-14 13:12 · Score: 1

This is a psychological war, not a war of bloodshed. These islamic-fundamentalist-terrorists don't desire bloodshed as much as they desire destroying the world image of Americans. They don't fear us, they hate us, and everything about us. They hate all of our habits, everything about our lifestyle. They hate it all, from the simple and inconceivable things like letting our women reveal as much of their skin as they like, to the mundane and life-dedicating work of acquiring wealth. This is not a war of bloodshed, though I'm sure the terrorists would like us to think that. This is a psychological war. They want us to stop living the way we live, or die off the planet. We are an aberration to their understanding and living proof that their fundamentalist views don't mean jack shit.

That being said, it may come to nukes, thought I doubt it since we have weapons of mass destruction that do the same damage as a nuke with no nuclear fallout. Yes, this "war" as people call it could heat up into some previously inconceivable Protestant-versus-muslim war where it's all about who has the better imaginary friend. (to quote an IRC friend of mine)

But, and I repeat this again, this is not a war of bloodshed, it is not a war to end the lives of others. This is about the simple shit, like should you be allowed to shave your beard (which the fundamentalist-islamics in Afghan forbid), should you be allowed to pursue your own destiny, SHOULD YOU BE FREE. To complicate matters further, the enemy is elusive. One is tempted to blame all muslims, but this is wrong. The FUNDAMENTALIST muslims are responsible for this. In practice, the fundamentalist muslims are not much different from the fundamentalist protestants we have in our own country. They are both groups of people who seek to restrict freedom because they believe only one view is possible, and that view is the only way to live life.

Fundamentalism is the true "new evil" as Prime Minister Blair tried to explain, even though it's an evil that's existed for centuries. The belief that your beliefs are superior to others, that your way of life is how everone should live, has existed probably since the original homo sapiens. But make no mistake, it is the antithesis to freedom. When you consider the foreign ways of another to be inferior or wrong, you are by definition creating intolerance.

This is a psychological war. Who will win? Will freedom win? Will fundamentalism win? Freedom exists in muslim states just as fundamentalism exists in protestant America. I just hope people recognize where the real evil is coming from before too many innocent lives are lost.

The article that changed my thinking on this.

Peace.

--

Go Lakers!

They aren't going to use any nukes by Weasel+Boy · 2001-09-14 13:23 · Score: 1

Think about it. What is the one thing nukes are good for? Killing tens upon tens of thousands of innocent civilians. What do we deplore most? We aren't going to stoop to their level.

On Islam by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 15:30 · Score: 0

There seems here to be an attempt to suggest that Islam is not a co-conspiritor in the attack on the US - or useful in generaliing the enemy.

I suppose it is not any more useful than Japanese was useful in WWII - for only a minority of Japanese actually flew planes into Pearl Harbor.

But it would be Naive to ignore that every name in the list of WTC Terrorists is distinctly Islamic without deviation or exception.

It would be equally ignorant to overlook the fact that the supporters of terrorist camps are without exception Muslim countries.

And it appears that Moderate Muslim countries (Saudi, Jordan, Egypt) support less moderate Arabic countries (Pakistan etc) which in turn tolerate and support the really nasty Arabic countries (Afganistan, Libya, Iraq etc.) Providing them with trade, comfort, solidarity, etc.

Like an onion ring, the center is Bin Laden and his group, and the support structure is an endless ring or Arabic muslims providing shelter and money - knowingly and directly in the case of Taliban, then by degrees less specifically in terms of the Pakistan who support the Taliban, and the rest of the muslim world which support each other above general principles of freedom and peace.

As an American, and having travelled in Arabic countries, I would expect the US to be safe until it had levyed such a huge toll on the arabic supply chain that what few arabs remain would understand the danger of thinking in these terms again. I'm afraid anything much short of a deep real change in the lifestyle of arabic life in muslim countries would provide a deterent.

It is important to understand the value of deterence. For without it you cannot have freedom - Why - because Prevention is contrary to freedom, an FBI in every garage, a policeman in every pot is not the stuff of freedom.

Freedom will rise again from the ruble of the COMPLETE arabic / muslim system of anti-west terrorism.

Re:On Islam by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-15 01:45 · Score: 0

You've not really read most of this thread, have you?

This is Great! by RedWolves2 · 2001-09-14 15:30 · Score: 1

This just supports my proposed solution to our web site (to remain name-less) to increase performance. I have proposed a static solution and this just backs it up.

Thanks!!!

Internet: Yes. Websites: No. by Shin+Elendale · 2001-09-14 16:21 · Score: 1

Yeah, i think the subject says it all...
The web was pretty darn slow... on the other hand, sites like /. will have useful discussion- sites like CNN will only have TV-like coverage

-Elendale

--

IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)

Two Words: Web Accelerator by cgleba · 2001-09-14 17:08 · Score: 1

Kudos to the slashdot team for keeping the website up under such an extreme load. I got my first messages about the WTC from here and the BBC when all other sites were down.

Reading over your explanation and seeing things in the past, I wonder why web accelerators aren't used more often. . .there are many positive benefits for extreme-load situations with only a small delay penalty for cache misses. . .

1) You can define dynamically in the
web-accelerator what you would like for
static and dynamic content (aka the
web-accelerator serves "static" pages from the cache).
2) The web accelerator takes a lot of load off of your web servers
3) web accelerators ease administration
4) web accelerators can take the place of your
"Local Director" or whatever you use for load-
balancing.
5) web accelerators can be set up in tandem or
accross the web to load-balance locally
or accross networks.

I've never served as many pages as ./ does,
however under a lighter load "squid" performs
beautifully and I've seen no evidence that it
would not work as well under ./ loads (of course,
with a lot of tweaking :)).

Your fine work during the 911 disaster by khaladan · 2001-09-14 17:30 · Score: 2

Thank you. You were my main on-line information source. CNN got evened-out later in the day, but from my point of view Slashdot never faltered. I was deeply affected by the events and stayed home all day and I *needed* information. Even now I'm deeply shaken, but I appreciate you guys almost as much as the rescue workers.

Khaladan's dad

Re:The Rainbow Warrior by cgleba · 2001-09-14 17:47 · Score: 1

We're unfortunately all guilty in the terrorist game which makes this 100x more complex then it looks on the surface.

Ironically, most of the recent people that the US has had problems with are their own monsters that they helped create:

1) When the US had a beef with Iran and the Iatola (sp?), they supported Sadaam Husseien -- which after Iran settled down he became an issue for the US.

2) Milosovec was seen as the strongest leader in the Balkans and the US supported him because they felt that he could possibly bring stability to the area (even if it wasn't perfect). That backfired when he decided to kill off all the Serbs.

3) When the USSR was waging war in Afghanistan, the US supported 'miltant' groups there to help fight the Soviets. After the Soviets left, Bin Laden gained much popularity as being a key player in them leaving. Once again, this back-fired on the US because undoubtedly some of those miltant groups are under Bin Laden now.

This is such a mess and it's going to get worse and worse. Who are the terrorists? That's subjective depending upon the side that you're on.
When the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan, those militant groups were not viewed as terrorists to the US, however I'm sure they were by the Soviets.

By today's standards the "Boston Tea Party" was a terrorist attack upon the English Empire -- from the other side it was a liberation from an oppressive government.

The stuff that happened in NYC is horrible and needs to be 'fixed'; however holding governments responsible for terrorist groups is so subjective it makes my head spin :(.

Re:No need to reverselookup hostnames for geotarge by bodin · 2001-09-14 18:12 · Score: 2, Informative

But hey. They ARE ALREADY hitting another database today as they do the DNS-reverselookup. Making that lookup more simple by reducing and grouping nets into a small .cdb or other LOCAL FIXED DATABASE, will speed up that process indeed. It's just a matter of interpreting the ipindex in an intelligent way in respect to what the result is used for. Not name-mapping but actual geotargeting.

"Nukes" aren't as easy as that... by voodoohaus · 2001-09-14 18:26 · Score: 1

If they were, Manhattan wouldn't be there. Slamming an airliner into a skyscraper is analgous to setting off a crude nuke. If they had'em, they'd use'em. In spite of what you all may have read, building a functioning nuke isn't so easy. Building one requires more than millions of dollars and know-how. Construction a working atomic/h-bomb requires a massive infrastructure. Tom Clancy is fiction, arguably science fiction. Nuclear weapons by nature decay. They decay their surroundings - specifically the working of themselves. They are heavy & relatively easy to detect. In the next 10 years a mushroom cloud may rise over America (lord save us all) but biological attacks are a much more threatening presence...

--
Hey, what's your name?

Possible project? by harmonica · 2001-09-14 19:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

True geotargeting requires a large database (which some compnaies sell) that maps subnet address to city/country, and then you're talking about hitting another database in realtime for every page loaded and I don't want to do that Slashdot.

Wouldn't that be a nice open content project for the open source software community? Everybody contributes, many can profit from this, everybody's happy (except for the guys selling this).

Any comments on how one could set this up?

NNTP by harmonica · 2001-09-14 20:02 · Score: 2

Yeah, whatever happened to the planned NNTP access to /. comments? Read-only would be great, as a start.

What amazes me the most by Saib0t · 2001-09-14 20:06 · Score: 1

Is that all those so called "christians" in the USA are shouting for revenge.

The ancient testament says "You shall not murder" and that applies to everyone, it does say "you shall not murder people who didn't kill other people". No, it simply says "you shall not murder".

Jesus said "if you are slapped on the right cheek, present the left one" (sorry, don't know the exact english words). But what it comes down to is that for a christian who believes in Jesus (definition of a christian), retaliation is NOT a right thing to do....

That's what amazes me the most....

--

One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence

Akamaized site by Cato · 2001-09-14 20:16 · Score: 2

One of the few sites that was accessible on Tuesday was washingtonpost.com - they Akamaized every page on the site (not just the graphics).

Re:Has Slashdot's own search been removed for good by Cato · 2001-09-14 20:23 · Score: 2

Exactly... Slashdot should start showing the year - now that it has been going for more than a year :)

explosions... oh my, look... the database! by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-14 23:05 · Score: 0

woo! a domestic catastrophe just made a software product better! (and it's not even a preventative piece of code!). woo!

Not himself, no... (& scarey quote) by leonbrooks · 2001-09-14 23:41 · Score: 2

I doubt you'll ever hear a statement like: an extremist atheist bin-laden follower today killed himself and 100's of others

OK, how about this: ``an extreme Atheist, Joseph Stalin, and his followers some time ago killed not himself but millions of others, especially Orthodox Christians.'' I am neither an Orthodox Christian nor an Atheist, extreme or otherwise, just calling the shots where they hit.

Stalin is far from being alone. The only difference between an extreme Atheist and an extreme InsertReligionHere is that the extreme Atheist generally won't kill ``themselves and'' - they'll just kill the other people. In principle, the Muslim kamikaze is better than the Atheist murderer because (s)he is not asking others to die when (s)he refuses to.

it was the senior President Bush that said there is no place in America for atheists

That's quite frightening. America is most definitely a place for Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jainist, whatever, according to its key founding principles. If Dubya is saying otherwise, it's time to pack and move somewhere that really does grant you freedom on conscience. Australia's Constitution is pathetically weak on the topic when compared to the US Constitution, but our politicians have also done less work to undermine what protection it contains.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Re:Not himself, no... (& scarey quote) by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-16 12:56 · Score: 0

Fallacy of false analogy and fallacy of complex cause.

You mean "an extreme Communist, Joseph Stalin..."

While it's true that he was an atheist, he didn't kill people in the name of atheism nor was USSR founded on atheistic principles. It was in the name of communism.

Atheism does not encompass anything else than the disbelief in the existance of gods, while communism has many similarities with religions, such as dogma.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/

In times of stress and tragedy ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2001-09-14 23:41 · Score: 2

It's predictable that soulless people with an agenda to push will capitalize on tragedy in order to push it. The degree of their true callousness can be measured by how quickly they move to do so.

In times of stress and tragedy - like the death of a loved one or kilodeaths from a terrorist attack - people will respond to the pain by episodes of "displacement behavior" - frantically doing more of whatever it is that they do normally as their specialty.

(For instance: I recall a lawyer who, in the first quarter-hour after being informed of his grandfather's death, thought of at least four possible suits that could result.)

This is generally a GOOD reaction to have.

Those whose specialty is particularly useful to the community in times of trouble (such as the slashteam or the fire/police departments) put on an exceptional burst of productive effort.

Those whose specialty might get in the way usually figure this out in a short time and shift to doing something else.

Those whose specialty is not particularly useful in the situation are kept busy and can be ignored until they get over the shock and find something more useful to do - and even if their specialty is not useful to the particular situation it may be useful to the general health of the community in the long run.

Those whose specialty is totally irrelivant to both the immediate problem and the general health of the community continue to be totally irrelivant.

Of course different members of the Slashdot community will have different opioions of where Katz falls in this list. B-)

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

what about the radio ? by clarkie.mg · 2001-09-15 00:05 · Score: 1

I drove the 10 minutes to get home so I could watch CNN and keep up better with what was happening.

Why is everyone complaining about the difficulty to get to news when there is a 100 year old rock solid media designed exactly for that : the radio. Besides the desire to see the towers burning, I don't get the point of wanting to go on the internet news sites for such a matter. Of course, email and IM are great tools, no doubt but the web ... seems inadequate.

In poor countries like Afghanistan where TV and internet are prohibited by the talibans, the population was hearing the news on the bbc.

The radio is cheap, ubiquitous, solid and so someone HAS to explain me why you all rushed on the web.

--
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel

The Community Was Served - and by another, too. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2001-09-15 00:10 · Score: 2

Slashdot did provide a very valuable service the day of the attack.

Absolutely!

Take into consideration that during the day at some point all major media web sites died.

I noticed that one other survived: The Drudge Report

Matt's site stayed up when the rest went down. (It also has taken a lot of load in the past, and as a static, hand-edited, HTML page it doesn't have as much potential for database trouble when the going gets rough.) He did a fine job of finding and linking relevant major-media news items as they showed up - and you could often figure out what was up from his summary when the media outlet went down shortly after. He also found stories the US media won't cover - such as the outrage among many Moslems at the attack and a hint at the enormous charitable contributions in Moslem countries for the victims in the US.

But Matt's largely one-man show and dependence on the regular media put him at a disadvantage to Slashdot's fine team and enormous user base - many of whom were on-scene for the events or had expert info to contribute.

Fortunately, comparasons are not necessary. The two outlets complemented each other very well. With Matt to find virtually everything of interest in the old media (and to provide a pipe to keep politically-incorrect stories from being hidden), Slashdot to bring in info the old media miss (and provide ANOTHER pipe for the non-PC), and both sites up throughout (whether through simplicity or heroic effort), internet users who surfed both were some of the best informed people on the planet.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Clarificiation: organised religion by leonbrooks · 2001-09-15 00:25 · Score: 2

I don't like organized religion

Actually, if you look very closely at the problem, you'll find that the issue is generally the organisation, not the religion.

Here in Australia, we have unions, which may be somewhat different to American unions. Most unions here have gone from being a vital lever for employees to use against expliotative employers, to being exploitative self-serving bullies in their own right. Unions should serve freedom of choice, but they've actually reduced freedom of choice. This becomes clear when you see building sites covered with ``NO TICKET, NO START'' stickers. It's not as if the building companies have any choice left, and regardless of what the law says, the reality is that if you want to work on a large site, you must join a union and you must continue to obey the union.

It's almost the same in Science. In many disciplines, you must believe in ``natural history'' (ie a theory of origins which supports Atheism in particular) in order to hold a job. If you don't do this, even if you hold no particular religion, it becomes effectively impossible to publish in mainstream journals, regardless of the value [detailed] of your work.

This is a problem to do with people, and with the nature of mankind - about which religion has much to say, some of it true - not with the particular area of dispute.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

I noticed the static pages by GC · 2001-09-15 00:42 · Score: 2

I noticed on Tuesday that Slashdot was serving me static pages, unfortunately that just kept making me try to login time and time again and trying to refresh the page to get my personalised one up.

The fact is - unless I can "browse at 2" Slashdot becomes pretty much unnewsworthy - especially as I was relying on user comments for information.

My boss eventually got a 14" TV set up in our area.

Sky TV in the UK kept their website up for the entire day, which is good as they run my company's software - and from the links in the original story at Slashdot I would imagine that they would have been /.'d a few times over.

Baud Rate vs. Lost Souls... by T. · 2001-09-15 00:46 · Score: 1

Can you not, just this once, stop from patting yourselves on the back for your so-called technical brilliance? Please...

I enjoy slashdot.org, but c'mon.

Please?

Good idea, but gzip takes grunt/cacheing by leonbrooks · 2001-09-15 00:48 · Score: 2

static content can be stored and transmitted in gzip format, [...] pages here end up averaging 28% of their original size

Excellent idea, but gzip sucks up compute, and the alternative to bogging the webserver's CPU is to cache a second, gzipped version of each fresh page as it takes its first hit - which of course soaks up RAM and maybe causes (slow) swapping. You need two copies because some browsers don't do gzip, and some browsers will be coming through firewalls which strip all headers except those in a short list which often doesn't include the I-understand-compression header (thwack forehead).

Things like video streams, sound and images are generally already compressed to the gills anyway (and anyone who uses BMP instead of, say, PNG is too incompetent to be running a real website anyway). As I understand ./'s position, actual bandwidth was never an issue for them.

In short, it would not be a clear-cut decision for them.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing

Do unto tohers... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-15 00:56 · Score: 0

What ever happened to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".?????

Re:All of Islam must be punished for this! by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-15 04:14 · Score: 0

To hell with the troll.
What is amazing is that you are stupid enough to even respond to one.

Knee. Jerk. by fm6 · 2001-09-15 05:28 · Score: 2

The term "kneejerk reaction" is overused, but this is clearly an example of such. Not only did I not mention Oracle (probably my least favorite DBMS!), I specifically limited my comparisons to other Open Source engines.

Any statement of the form "X is the Yest Z on the planet" is simply ignorant, at least in the context of software. The variables that affect performance are endless. Any claim that a product performs better than anybody else in all situations has to be viewed with extreme skepticism.

In any case, assertions about the qualities of any software product needs to be backed by specifics. Such as explanations of the technology and the theory behind it, why X is better than Y, and in what circumstances etc. Even benchmarks can be helpful, provided you avoid the self-serving kind that are little better than the bigoted ignorant crap you're feeding us.

Re:Knee. Jerk. by VB · 2001-09-15 12:08 · Score: 2

The use of Oracle as an example was arbitrary. Had I used MSSQL, I'm sure you're rather harsh response would have been even more so.

I don't expect you'll respond any more rationally to this post, so just don't bother.

This was not a "knee-jerk" response. It's verbiage was compiled specifically for your original post with the tone of that post in mind. I did my best to stay objective and not get personal. Perhaps you're capable of the same.

--
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
Re:Knee. Jerk. by fm6 · 2001-09-15 13:56 · Score: 2

I'll work on my rationality if you'll work on your reading skills. And you still haven't backed up your claim that MySQL is faster than any other DBMS.

loads on tuesday. by mhuth · 2001-09-15 06:09 · Score: 1

Rob,

With all due respect, I'm dubious that the load you handled approached the loads that cnn.com or any of the major news sources were expected to handle. What you did was impressive, but unless we know the loads cnn was expected to handle comparison is impossible.

--
I'd really like to get into space someday

Additional Quotes by cybrpnk · 2001-09-16 09:57 · Score: 2

I really believe we are going to use a nuke before this is all over to show everybody thet they mess with the USA on our own soil at their peril. Check out this from today's "talking heads" on TV (from www.drudgereport.com):

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this morning refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in America's coming battle with terrorists.

Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Rumsfeld was asked if a possible tactical nuclear strike would be used.

"Can we rule out the use of nuclear weapons?" questioned ABC's Sam Donaldson.

RUMSFELD: You know, that subject--we have an amazing accomplishment that's been achieved on the part of human beings. We've had this unbelievably powerful weapon, nuclear weapons, since what 55 years now plus, and it's not been fired in anger since 1945. That's an amazing accomplishment. I think it reflects a sensitivity on the part of successive presidents that they ought to find as many other ways to deal with problems as is possible.

DONALDSON: I'll have to think about your answer. I don't think the answer was no.

RUMSFELD: The answer was that that we ought to be very proud of the record of humanity that we have not used those weapons for 55 years. And we have to find as many ways possible to deal with this serious problem of terrorism.

And if, Sam, you think of the loss of human life on Tuesday and then put in your head the reality that a number of countries today have other so-called asymmetrical threat capabilities--ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, cyber warfare--these are the kinds of things that are used in this era the 21st century. And a germ warfare attack anywhere in the world would bring about losses of lives not in the thousands but in the millions.

Huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-18 10:10 · Score: 0

And, since Northern Ireland has Christian terrorists, we should bomb Christian countries?

890 comments