I've found slackware tends to be nice to slower hardware. Slack 3.0, for example, is running quite briskly on my 386 now that I upgraded from 3 to 7 Megs of RAM. Plus, I could fit lots of development tools and a minimalist X in 80 megs of HD and 17 megs of swap.
Slackware still runs on relatively modest hardware, but it's not exactly set up for kids. It's the most unixy of the major Linux distros, aimed more towards experienced unix users.
On one hand, there are several distros that aim towards users new to Linux, but they generally use KDE or Gnome, requiring a relatively new computer with lots of hard-drive space and RAM. On the other hand, there are also several mini-distros for use on rescue floppies, older computers, or embedded systems. Unfortunately, many of them have the same problem as Slackware--they're for experts--or they have no GUI at all.
The ideal solution would be to build a distro customized for the program in question. Since it's being run by a university CS department, I assume they're more than capable of this. They could use one of the mini-distros as a starting point, then set-up a window manager and software kids would be likely to use. There's a good list of educational software at SchoolForge.
Of course, thanks to glibc, such things are now very tough. But, don't forget, slack used to use BSD libc (which is small and fast!), and guess what still uses it? that's right, *BSD. So if you'll consider more than just linux, don't be afraid to look at NetBSD (which is a little smaller and lighter than FreeBSD.... not sure how OpenBSD compares).
Fortunately there's an easy solution to libc bloat. Clibc is a glibc replacement, implementing most of the features. According to the website they haven't found anything yet that won't compile against it.
There are suitable replacements for most other system software too (except for the kernel). BusyBox replaces most essential utilities. Ash is a Bourne compatible shell at a fraction of the size of Bash.
You might also want to test-run Knoppix, since it doesn't even need to be installed (so it can't hurt!).
Running Knoppix with less than 128 MB of RAM is painful enough. It would be even slower on a P100.
For window managers, OpenLook VWM, FVWM, Blackbox (probably the best), or mwm. Please don't force them to use twm... they'll never want to look at a computer again!
There's definitely no shortage of window managers, even ones that are easy on resources. Personally, I like IceWM.
we lobbed a few missiles into the middle of nowhere in the hopes that Saddam's troops will surrender en masse because they think we nailed him
Most of his troops will surrender en masse anyways. It's only the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard forces that have any semblance of real military training and equipment.
So with that in mind, I nominate the Great Wall of China, still standing after all these years. I think it qualifies whereas things like the Pyramids don't, in that they never served any real function. I bet the wall would still work pretty well today, if there was a war. Not perfect, but good.
But there isn't a single Great Wall of China. It's really a series of several walls, built over the course of 12 centuries, in various states of disrepair. In some places, it's been maintained, mostly as a tourist attraction, but many of the walls don't look like the pictures in most books. Some of the walls are crumbling beyond repair, and the earliest walls still existing are merely piles of dirt.
National Geographic had a great article about this in the Jan 2003 issue. Part of it's online in their archives.
Or, perhaps you're thinking of Qatar. You remember Qatar, right? Another brutal little monarchy with a state run news agency Al-Jazeera that that routinely give Osama bin Laden a pulpit from which to taunt the world.
The Council to Protect Journalists rates Al Jazeera as fairly balanced. Besides showing Bin Laden, they regularly televise press briefings from the US government. In fact, Al Jazeera is illegal in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but many people still watch it on satellite TV. There are many people who suspect Al Jazeera is partially CIA or US funded. It's about the only Middle Eastern news source that criticizes the governments over there. Qatar has been pressured many times by the Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc. to shut the station down, but the Emir of Qatar always says he must maintain the freedom of the press.
Maybe I'm being too subtle. I'll be direct. If you think that Saddam is responsible for September 11th, you're a damned moron. If you think that the American government really has any intention to bring justice on those countries that continue to be the biggest direct supporters of the terror cells that created September 11th, you're damned moron.
Why do you think Iraq was our next target, and not Iran or Syria? First, Syria is being relatively cooperative, and the people of Iran are staging protests and on the verge of a democratic revolution. Second, Iraq is most definitely a major threat to our national security, and the whole region over there. Finally, Iraq has a long history of a secular, Westernized government and an educated, cosmopolitan populace. Before Saddam took power in 1979, Iraq was wealthier than Malaysia or Portugal. With him out of power, the Iraqi people will be free to form a democratic, representative government that includes Shiite and Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds, and Assyrian Christians. It has a better chance of working in Iraq than just about anywhere else in the Middle East. With that example of tolerance and freedom, the despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia will have no choice but to reform or eventually be thrown out of power in popular uprisings.
Slavery may not be the best analogy, but it makes the point... that just because something works, doesnt mean there is no reason to change it.
No, slavery is not at all analogue to this situation. Change for the sake of change is never good, and many times very bad. Only change for the better is good.
Your attitude is very widespread among americans, the "we own the world" attitude, when in reality you dont even rightfully own the land your standing on.
I don't hold any thoughts that we own the world, and neither do most Americans. When you get right down to it, there isn't a single location in the world where any people rightfully own the land they're currently occupying. If you go far enough back into history, you'll find a period when it changed hands in less than ideal conditions. I don't know where you're from, but I'm sure there are plenty of examples from there also.
Do you advocate the taking of land by force? or are only americans and their friends allowed to do this...
No, and I don't think it should be allowed to anyone. Most of America wasn't taken by force, but by treaty. I agree many of the treaties were in bad faith, but they're over 100 years old. Since then we haven't really acquired more territory. Europe can't say the same thing (although they've given most of it up by now).
and when "inferior" races such as the iraqi`s decide to invade countries such as kuwait, it should be blocked.
Maybe you're a racist, but I believe there is only one race: the human race. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and raped, murdered, pillaged, and burned the country, we rightfully perceived a threat to our national security and ejected them from Kuwait. Unfortunately we left the job unfinished.
It is this attitude that fosters such hatred for the usa in nations around the world, not just afghanistan and iraq.. but many more who keep silent out of fear more than anything else.
That's funny, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq don't hate the US. Many places have a love-hate relationship with us, they want what we have: freedom and opportunity, but think we're decadent and immoral.
It is the american government that is among the most corrupt in the world, for different reasons than countries such as iraq, but just as corrupt. The usa just has a larger number of dictators, working together to line their own pockets, Iraq is an oil rich country...
I'll be the first to admit I don't trust most of our elected officials, but that's the whole point. If we don't like them, we can remove them in the next election. Many people in the world have little or no choice in who governs their country. Here in the US, we are sure to let the politicians know who they work for, the people. But America isn't even close to being the most corrupt. Most of our government's operation is open and public.
it wouldn`t surprise me to learn that the war against iraq is designed to install a more business-friendly government that will allow american business to profit from the oil reserves of iraq, businesses such as those george bush is tied to.
Right, spending $100 billion on a war and $40 billion on rebuilding the country for a few barrels of oil makes a lot of economic sense. We import a much larger share of our oil from Venezuela, but we're not getting involved with their current problems. If this were really about oil, we'd be going after Venezuela first.
Back to the subject at hand tho, even tho the internet started life in the US, other countries have invested large amounts of money in the infrastructure since, ESPECIALLY in the EU, in some places of the EU internet access is more widespread than in the usa nowadays, and i read somewhere about european users outnumbering american users.
So? They're perfectly able to start their own, competing DNS. Internet connectivity may be rising in Europe, but not anywhere nearly as fast as in Asia. South Korea is the most connected country in the world, with over half the population online, and the largest percentage with broadband access too.
I`m sure many technologies which americans take for granted nowadays were invented in other countries, Just look at the popularity of various technological items from japan. I bet the computer your using right now has many components produced in asian countries, would it be fair if cutting edge technology was sold only to asians, and americans got last years leftovers?
There isn't much current technology invented completely outside the US. However, some foresighted people in Asia realized they could produce semi-conductors and other computer parts more cheaply than the US or elsewhere. That's one of the benefits of globalization. Their countries don't have much in the way of natural resources, but they're as capable as any other, and have proved more capable than most, to manufacture and assemble finished products.
Japanese and european cars are also very popular in america, and often regarded as being superior to american cars, Would you be happy if they said "We made these cars, you should be gratefull we let you drive our 20yr old skoda`s atall"
Yes, Asian cars are popular for their value and European cars are considered prestigious. However, many of these cars are manufactured and assembled right here in the US. They may be superior in some aspects, but that's a very subjective, personal opinion. Different people like different cars better.
Sure it is. The status quo works fine in this case, so there needs to be a very compelling reason to change it.
Go back far enough, and the USA is British. Should UK government be in there too?
The USA was never British. There were 13 British colonies here at one time, but they fought a war against the British, declared their independence, then formed the USA.
He asked "why should the US get TLDs to itself?". You haven't answered it, and everyone I ever hear try to respond has said the same you have.
Anyone can create as many TLDs as they want, if they create their own DNS. Some people have done precisely that, see the links under this same article for OpenNIC. However, if they want to use TLDs under the original, US started & funded DNS, they'll have to play by our rules.
The present system may work, but it is unfair. Using black people as slaves worked too, and it too was not fair, just because something works doesnt mean it cant be done in a better way. We, non americans, should be greatfull we get a third of the number of TLD`s you do? Maybe the black slaves should have been greatfull to get a third of the priveleges their white masters enjoyed, but I dont think any black man would agree to that.
That is a terrible analogy! Any way you look at it, slavery is immoral.
DNS is simply a system for making it easier to address computers, so people don't have to remember a bunch of numbers.
Comparing the two is absolutely ludicrous.
As someone else has already pointed out, the US government only exists because of european, mostly british, colonization/invasion (depending which way you look at it)
That's not telling the whole story though. The US government was formed not because of, but as a reaction to, the tyrannical (at that time) British government.
As i understand it, the original RFC stated that gov/mil/com/net/org were global TLD`s for use by all countries (.int came later)
I don't know, I haven't looked into it. But, I know how the present system works in practice.
Also, the URL http://www.nic.gov/help_rfc2146.html - a paper published by the US government suggests that government domains should be migrated under.fed.us (federal government of the us - makes sense no?) To quote: "This document anticipates the migration of the.GOV domain into the FED.US domain, in keeping with common practice on the Internet today."
What it anticipated wasn't very widespread. Besides, if you finish reading the RFC, it nowhere suggests the.gov TLD would be opened to non-US governments.
You will also find that ARPANET predates dns by some years, and i`m pretty sure non american countries were linked in long before dns became widespread.
That's my whole point. It was a US network to begin with, and others linked to it. Since they're linking to our network, and not the other way around, they'll have to follow our rules.
You also can`t say the usa created a global network, they created an american network which other countries linked to, i severely doubt the us government setup any of the network infrastructure in other countries.
Actually, much of the infrastructure was developed by the US. Most of the undersea telecommunications cables were laid by the US. Also, our overseas military bases were probably linked before their host countries were in many cases.
Take.GOV and.MIL domains for example, why should the usa keep these for themselves?
Because the.mil TLD is the reason the Internet exists in the first place. ARPANET was a project under the DOD, a US government department (hence the.gov TLD).
if they want domains for exclusive use by their own government, they should use gov.us and mil.us, just like every other country is.
They should just be thankful they're allowed their own namespace.
The.gov and.mil domains should be either available to legitimate governmental bodies in any country, or split into subdomains according to country (eg.us.gov.de.gov etc)
Why change now? The present system is working fine.
Why should the usa get 3 top level domains for it`s exclusive use? dont other countries deserve identical treatment?
No. If they expend the resources to invent a separate global computer network, then they can administer the domains any way they please.
Yeah another guy had mentioned that among large, presitigous universities the numbers tend to be much higher. Among public universities they are much lower, closer to what I mentioned. And when you consider that the vast majority of people go to public rather than private schools... shrug.
You're right. My university (U of MN) has a 6 yr graduation rate of 52%.
Personally, I don't see what's wrong with that, people should be allowed all the time they need to graduate. Unfortunately, since it's the lowest rate in the Big 10, the administration here wants to raise it. They increased the minimum credit loads for new students last fall (thankfully I was grandfathered in), even after a 13% and 16% tuition increase over the last 2 yrs. Students who are working their way thru college will have to work more to pay for school now, but they can't reduce the credits they're taking!
Interesting that Yale's retention rate is so high though. That shows either that the student body is extremely smart or that the school is doing everything they can to prevent students from graduating.
When a school can be selective as Yale or Harvard, they get an extraordinarily intelligent student body.
In other words, if you need a curve it is because you have a BS teacher who either cannot teach the material, or the test does not reflect the material taught.
Exactly! I had a physics class with ~300 students where the class test average for the entire semester was 38%. On one test the average was only 28%! The professor was 75 yrs old, bad at teaching, and his tests were ridiculously hard. Of course, my university uses physics I & II to weed students out of technical majors.
I'm sorry, but I find it really hard to believe you'd still think that way if you'd read a little more on the subject. For light reading, there's the old Engines of Creation and Unbounding the Future, by Eric Drexler. Or you could learn about the hard science which would lead you to your own similar real world implications.
I'm familiar with Engines of Creation. From the parts I've read, it's more science fiction than science. Until someone builds nanotechnology that's actually useful, instead of just cool research toys, I'll save my unbridled optimism.
Sure, we currently have warlords pinching off the food supply in the 3rd world when there's more than enough to go around, but these poor people certainly wouldn't have any trouble smuggling in just one nanoassembler (able to make copies of itself for other villagers). This nanoassembler can then extract all the energy it needs from the sun (stored in fuelcells), and all the infinitely recyclable molecules it needs from the surrounding environment, and can manufacture any desired object bottom-up.
How are people in the 3rd world going to know about nanotechnology in the first place? Those warlords will be just as interested in controlling technology as any other resource. It keeps them in power.
So how is literally dirt-cheap food, clothes, and shelter not revolutionary for starters? I don't think I'm being overly optimistic either; I think I'M being the realist for a technology is only a couple decades out.
If it ever happens, it may be revolutionary, but that's a big if. Realists don't base their predictions on unproven, untested, as yet impractical technology.
Moleculary nanotechnology is not some "fantasy technology" that "might bring some benefit to mankind" -- molecular manufacturing is an inevitable evolution of technology with huge implications for world economic, political, and social systems. And no, it's no Utopia, because solutions cause new problems, but that doesn't mean that the overall change is neutral, or negative.
Nanotechnology will be just a tool, with potential for good or evil. A relevant example, from a terrible movie, is in "Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever." The object everyone's after is a nanotechnology device designed to lay dormant in a victim's bloodstream, that causes internal damage when activated, so it looks like the person had a heart attack or something.
Imagine an effectively post-scarcity world where you don't HAVE to work for a living. That's just the tip of the iceburg.
There will always be scarcity, with the scarce resources changing over time. Also, people will always have to work.
Anyway, just don't be so quick to dimiss MNT, and its effect on excessive capitalism/individualism.
I'm not dismissing it, just being a realist. It won't solve world hunger or peace. I personally believe it won't have an impact even close to that of computers and the information revolution.
(Open source software is a collectivist community phenomena, and MNT will allow for the same in open source hardware.)
I would definitely dispute that all free/open source software (F/OSS) is collectivist. If RMS had his way, it would be, but that'll never happen, thank God. RMS has done a great service to mankind, mostly as being a vocal extremist who polarizes debates and keeps us on our toes.
Software development ranges the entire spectrum from collectivist to individualist, and everywhere in between. I use F/OSS because I, personally, get the most benefit with the least (monetary) cost. I contribute (code, support, evangelism, and some money) to F/OSS because I will indirectly derive some benefit. But, I still use some proprietary software (mostly games) and would never advocate a mandate to open all code, since that is inherently a limit to freedom.
Yeah, Individualism and free markets win because "incentives matter!" (I repeat that phrase in my head all the time). There's not much incentive to be productive for no reward, just as there's not much of a disincentive for everyone not to shit in the river.
"Incentives matter," I like it, but where in the world did the river example come from? It's not a very good one (off-topic), and a disincentive is not the same as an incentive. Positive and negative reinforcement have different effects from a psychological perspective.
However, individual greed can get excessive, to the overall detriment of everyone, and the gap between the haves and have-nots widens... no thanks to a government like the U.S. which is tilting its wealth redistribution (tax) in favor of the rich with obscene corporate welfare and by eliminating fair progressive taxes like the estate tax (not a "death tax"), dividend tax, etc.
I never said anything about greed, just acting in your own interest.
Besides, governments shouldn't be in the business of wealth redistribution at all. Taxes should be used only to fund the necessary services the government provides (mostly defense and justice). Much of what the federal government now performs and spends money on is clearly beyond the scope outlined in the Constitution; which was supposed to be left to the states and the people. I'm against subsidies in general: corporate, farm, or otherwise.
Also, progressive income tax is anything but fair. The only true, fair income tax would be a flat percentage tax with no exemptions. The tax burden on people with higher incomes has grown much greater, while the share of benefits goes mostly to the lower end. There's a great article in the latest Newsweek about this.
Greed is good, but socially responsible greed is better. So yeah, I'm one of those whackos who thinks that maybe billions of dollars in concentrated personal wealth is just a *tad* much, and that to redistribute the extra gravy at high rates isn't much of a disinsentive at all. "Oh no, I can't make 2 billion as fast as 1 billion. Guess I'll go eat some worms instead."
Actually, I think any greed is bad. I believe one can act in their self interest without being greedy. Not everyone is motivated solely by monetary gain. Personally, I could care less about making a lot of money. I just one day want a nice house and comfortable life for my (future) family.
But, when you put a limit on the amount of accumulated wealth, the whole system breaks down. First, the truly greedy will find a way around the limit; hiding their real net worth, putting their business and bank accounts in the name of their spouse, children, or dogs, or moving their money offshore, to banks in Switzerland or somewhere else. Second, what do you think the people with a billion $ do with their money? Hide it under a rock? No, they invest it in stocks, bonds, etc. so more entrepeneurs are given a chance to generate wealth and employ more people. Finally, limiting wealth is fundamentally against the principle of individual freedom. If you limit freedom in one area, more are sure to follow. As long as they aren't harming others, people should be allowed to be as wealthy as they want to be.
Not that any of this will matter as much in a few more decades when the means of production (and destruction) is democratized with molecular nanotechnology, just as digital production was democratized. The poorest of the poor will have the cheap and easy means to live like the old robber barrons without any of the robbing, not to mention the means to "print opensource food" from freely available component molecules and sunlight.
I was following you up to this point, but now you've gone off the deep end. Putting your faith in fantasy technology is naive and unrealistic. I think nanotechnology might bring some benefit to mankind, but it's no panacea that will solve every world problem.
And what's the incentive to produce in a world of material abundance? Social brownie points I'd guess... tradable for things which are still scarce like celebrity time and beachfront property. Somehow I don't think the new social contract will allow for disproportionate wealth though. (Hmm... I seem to have rambled offtopic. Oh well.)
What new social contract? I expect (and hope and pray) the US Constitution is still the law of the land here.
Personally, I don't like the labels capitalism or communism. Capitalism because it's usually meant in a pejorative sense nowadays, and communism because it's never truly been tried on a national level.
I prefer the terms individualism and collectivism instead, most eloquently explained in F. A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom. The basic gist of the book is that socialism inevitably leads to totalitarianism, demonstrated in the Soviet Union and Third Reich Germany.
Individualism (aka capitalism) allows each person to make their own decisions how they will spend their time, money, and resources. People may own property and benefit from its use. This encourages them to work hard and be productive.
Collectivism (aka socialism, fascism, or communism) controls prices, trade, and consumption, based on the group's goals and values. Unfortunately, for any sufficiently large group, it's impossible to define these to each member's satisfaction. Whoever makes decisions must ultimately impose on the group what they perceive as its goals and values.
Here's a good quote from playwright and current Czech President, Vaclav Havel:
Though my heart may be left of center, I have always known that the only economic system that works is a market economy....This is the only natural economy, the only kind that makes sense, the only one that can lead to prosperity, because it is the only one that reflects the nature of life itself.
And another on the benefits of ownership from Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury and current Harvard President, Lawrence Summers:
In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car.
Ah, I see that you are only interested in being argumentative, not in sharing ideas.
Sure I'm being argumentative, by sharing my ideas.
Neo as a prefix has a well understood meaning when applied to a historical movement or social system, as I am certain you must know.
Yes, as a prefix it means new (and somewhat different). But new imperialism is still imperialism, which America cannot reasonably be accused of.
Besides, terms with neo- as a prefix are usually either defined by their writer, or already in common usage. If I use the term neo-platonism, people would understand I'm referring to a specific, commonly known school of philosophical thought. Likewise, if I use the term neo-conservative, people would understand I'm referring to a specific, commonly known school of political thought. If you more clearly define what you mean by neo-imperialism, I'll be able to debate you on the issues, in a civil manner.
Your demonstrated unwillingness to even attempt to understand anything but your own narrow viewpoint makes it unlikely in my opinion that you have any substantive ideas to offer. I might be wrong in this of course, you might be a very well read and well thought individual who never the less has no ability to communicate your ideas with even minimal grace, but my experience is that engaging in discussions with people who are determined to be argumentative is only very rarely worthwhile.
I'll try to understand any ideas you bring up. Please do same for mine.
On the campaign trail, Bush has consistently asked people to vote for him based on their own self-interest -- read "money".
That's ludicrous! Show me one example of Bush actually asking for votes for money.
To extrapolate that he does things for his own self-interest is elementary.
Does any politician not act in their self-interest? Unfortunately, most elections are deciding between the lesser of 2 (or more) evils.
As for that old lie about Clinton, I believe he was going after al-Queda when he launched that attack. The "wag the doggers" like Trent Lott said explicitly that they would support the troops, but not the President, during that fight. Today, Bush/Rove/Ashcroft/Cheny would call such an attitude treason.
It's not a lie. All the cruise missiles hit were empty training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. If it was so vital to attack at that time, because they were acting on fresh intelligence, why were the camps empty? The timing of the attacks only served to relieve the pressure off Clinton in congress.
By constantly mocking Clinton's attempt to rein in al Queda, Lott -- all the rightwing "Wag the Doggers" -- were hindering our leader's attempt to stop a threat which he and his advisors saw clearly, with superior abilty and prescience.
By not taking any substantial measures to actually retaliate against al Qaeda for the 1993 WTC bombing, 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, 1998 embassy bombings, and 2000 USS Cole bombing, Clinton led bin Laden to believe we were cowards and kept escalating the attacks on America, culminating in 9/11.
Bush, whom you take offense for, didn't care about the al Queda threat, dissed and ignored the men from Clinton's admin who begged him to pay attention to our most threatening enemy, and paved the way for the attack on the WTC.
The man you're talking about, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, tried to get Clinton to pay attention to al Qaeda for 2 years.
Bush has "wagged the dog" expertly for over 15 months now. He has marketed a war against Iraq which will net his familly and friends hundreds of billions in contracts, and HAS NOT CAPTURED BIN LADEN OR ANY OF THE DAMNED PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY ATTACKED US.
How could we capture the people who attacked us, since they died in the attack? We already have captured hundreds of the Al Qaeda rank and file, and a few high level members.
I am offended and FURIOUS that you and the other... traitors? constantly excoriate Clinton for actually trying to attack al Queda, while he whom you defend has manipulated the situation to make money for his buds, steal trillions in oil, and failed to even capture one stinking man who actually killed over 3,000 Americans.
Are you kidding? Clinton is the traitor. If not for his inept handling of terrorism, then for giving China all our nuclear secrets, pardoning fugitives, and committing felonies in office and getting away with it.
Clinton saw the future and tried to stop it. Bush failed to heed Clinton's warnings, based on pure political hatred, and killed 3,000.
That's pure, unadulterated BS! Clinton was warned he should do something substantial about al Qaeda, but he never did.
Where is bin Laden?
If only we knew.
What the hell is Bush doing attacking Iraq when his friends in Saudi Arabia are shielding the real money and connections?
OIL. OIL. OIL.
If you haven't noticed, we've been slowly distancing ourselves from Saudi Arabia. Iraq's had a secular government since their creation, and before the Baath party (& Saddam) took over, Iraq was a moderately successful, cosmopolitan, multi-ethnic society. Once they're liberated, it won't be that hard to help them create a representative government (at least compared to say, Afghanistan). Then, Iraq can be an example to the rest of the Arab world (& Muslim world) how a modern, liberal democracy can be prosperous, respect Islam and human rights, and give the average Ali and Mohammed a say in their government's affairs.
Clinton was a brilliant man who almost saved us. Bush is a fool who didn't heed urgent advice and got our people killed.
Again, that is a bold faced lie!
I am offended that people like you keep propogating hate and lies about a president who gave usa surplus, kept us at peace, and actually spared us from attack. And fought bin Laden while Bush was bankrupting Texas.
The things you're crediting to Clinton have very little to do with a President's policies. The surplus was because the economy was good, which has almost nothing to do with government, despite general public perception. What do you consider at peace? Clinton deployed four times more troops overseas than were at the height of the cold war, despite being 40% less manned. And spared from attack? What do you call the first WTC bombing and the subsequent bombings? Also, it's specifically because Clinton didn't deal with al Qaeda sufficiently that 9/11 happened.
surely you jest? If having military garrisons stationed all over the world isn't imperialism (never mind the NATO pax americana or the cultural imperialism) then what the fuck is?
Our military garrisons are there at the request of the host nations, or the UN. If they asked us to leave, we would. When France withdrew from NATO and asked us to leave, we did. When the Philipines asked us to leave in 1992, we did.
This Pax Americna is surely better than Pax Romana or Pax Mongolica. Unlike the latter two, we'd be content to stay at home if the peace (pax) weren't threatened by terrorists or madmen with weapons of mass destruction.
As far as so-called cultural imperialism is concerned, nobody has a gun to their head, being forced to eat McDonald's or drink Coca-Cola. We export our culture because the rest of the world keeps buying it.
Feel free to substitute neo-imperialism for imperialism if that makes you feel better. Quibbling over semantics is boring, so I won't stand on the word.
Neo-imperialism? WTF? That's a new one, did you just make that up?
Conceptually the US holds most of the world's nations in thrall. US law supercedes the laws of Guam and the US Virgin Islands even though those nations have no vote in the US.
The laws of Guam and the USVIare US law, because they are US territories. You're correct they don't vote for President, but their inhabitants are US citizens, and they pay no federal income taxes. If they wanted their independence, they could. The Philipines, the Federated States of Micronesia, and others used to be US territories, but they voted to become independent, so we let them. The issue comes up in Puerto Rico regularly, but they vote to remain a US territory.
US law reaches into most of the world's countries -- from countries that would fail without being propped up by US military support,
What does foreign aid, military or otherwise, have to do with US laws?
to indictment of foreign citizens who have no business interactions with the US over violations of US law,
If you're talking about Dmitry Sklyarov, I agree that was incredibly ridiculous on the part of the US, but I think that was a rare case.
to coercion through fear and threats of force to stances on foreign policy,
Besides terrorists and Saddam Hussein, nobody else in the world is afraid we'll use force against them. America has been very reluctant to use force throughout our history.
the US interferes with other countries sovereignty.
Give me one good example.
In the sense that empires remove from their occupied countries the right to self determination, there are very few countries in the world that aren't subjugated to US neo-imperialism.
Name just one country that's subjugated to our control.
If I call that imperialism, rather than neo-imperialism, then it is only because the latter is more difficult to write.
It may be more difficult to write, but it'll be that much harder to persuade anyone if you keep making baseless accusations, then back-pedal and say you meant something else, i.e. a term you invented.
Hmmm. I still think I'd take odd-even days and stag-flation over imperialism.
What imperialism? You surely don't mean the US, I hope. We do not have an empire, or even imperialistic ambitions. In fact, throughout our history, we've been instrumental in the downfall and destruction of every remaining empire.
Before you reply, please read this argument, which is much more well written and cogent than I could ever write.
Anyone wonder why the heck the Minnesota FBI office went to Washington for a piddly search warrant, instead of their friendly local court? Because this was not an ordinary warrant, but a national security warrant designed to investigate suspected terrorists who might not have committed any crime to provide probable cause for a regular warrant.
I think you answered your own question pretty well. I live in Minneapolis, and I doubt the local district court has the facilities for classified proceedings involving national security issues. Just the fact they had to check with French intelligence agencies was probably enough to warrant (no pun intended) going to Washington with the case.
Slashdot Mirror
On one hand, there are several distros that aim towards users new to Linux, but they generally use KDE or Gnome, requiring a relatively new computer with lots of hard-drive space and RAM. On the other hand, there are also several mini-distros for use on rescue floppies, older computers, or embedded systems. Unfortunately, many of them have the same problem as Slackware--they're for experts--or they have no GUI at all.
The ideal solution would be to build a distro customized for the program in question. Since it's being run by a university CS department, I assume they're more than capable of this. They could use one of the mini-distros as a starting point, then set-up a window manager and software kids would be likely to use. There's a good list of educational software at SchoolForge.
Fortunately there's an easy solution to libc bloat. Clibc is a glibc replacement, implementing most of the features. According to the website they haven't found anything yet that won't compile against it.
There are suitable replacements for most other system software too (except for the kernel). BusyBox replaces most essential utilities. Ash is a Bourne compatible shell at a fraction of the size of Bash.
Running Knoppix with less than 128 MB of RAM is painful enough. It would be even slower on a P100.
There's definitely no shortage of window managers, even ones that are easy on resources. Personally, I like IceWM.
National Geographic had a great article about this in the Jan 2003 issue. Part of it's online in their archives.
No, that's the M82A1.
The Council to Protect Journalists rates Al Jazeera as fairly balanced. Besides showing Bin Laden, they regularly televise press briefings from the US government. In fact, Al Jazeera is illegal in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but many people still watch it on satellite TV. There are many people who suspect Al Jazeera is partially CIA or US funded. It's about the only Middle Eastern news source that criticizes the governments over there. Qatar has been pressured many times by the Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc. to shut the station down, but the Emir of Qatar always says he must maintain the freedom of the press.
Why do you think Iraq was our next target, and not Iran or Syria? First, Syria is being relatively cooperative, and the people of Iran are staging protests and on the verge of a democratic revolution. Second, Iraq is most definitely a major threat to our national security, and the whole region over there. Finally, Iraq has a long history of a secular, Westernized government and an educated, cosmopolitan populace. Before Saddam took power in 1979, Iraq was wealthier than Malaysia or Portugal. With him out of power, the Iraqi people will be free to form a democratic, representative government that includes Shiite and Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds, and Assyrian Christians. It has a better chance of working in Iraq than just about anywhere else in the Middle East. With that example of tolerance and freedom, the despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia will have no choice but to reform or eventually be thrown out of power in popular uprisings.
I don't hold any thoughts that we own the world, and neither do most Americans. When you get right down to it, there isn't a single location in the world where any people rightfully own the land they're currently occupying. If you go far enough back into history, you'll find a period when it changed hands in less than ideal conditions. I don't know where you're from, but I'm sure there are plenty of examples from there also.
No, and I don't think it should be allowed to anyone. Most of America wasn't taken by force, but by treaty. I agree many of the treaties were in bad faith, but they're over 100 years old. Since then we haven't really acquired more territory. Europe can't say the same thing (although they've given most of it up by now).
Maybe you're a racist, but I believe there is only one race: the human race. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and raped, murdered, pillaged, and burned the country, we rightfully perceived a threat to our national security and ejected them from Kuwait. Unfortunately we left the job unfinished.
That's funny, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq don't hate the US. Many places have a love-hate relationship with us, they want what we have: freedom and opportunity, but think we're decadent and immoral.
I'll be the first to admit I don't trust most of our elected officials, but that's the whole point. If we don't like them, we can remove them in the next election. Many people in the world have little or no choice in who governs their country. Here in the US, we are sure to let the politicians know who they work for, the people. But America isn't even close to being the most corrupt. Most of our government's operation is open and public.
Right, spending $100 billion on a war and $40 billion on rebuilding the country for a few barrels of oil makes a lot of economic sense. We import a much larger share of our oil from Venezuela, but we're not getting involved with their current problems. If this were really about oil, we'd be going after Venezuela first.
So? They're perfectly able to start their own, competing DNS. Internet connectivity may be rising in Europe, but not anywhere nearly as fast as in Asia. South Korea is the most connected country in the world, with over half the population online, and the largest percentage with broadband access too.
There isn't much current technology invented completely outside the US. However, some foresighted people in Asia realized they could produce semi-conductors and other computer parts more cheaply than the US or elsewhere. That's one of the benefits of globalization. Their countries don't have much in the way of natural resources, but they're as capable as any other, and have proved more capable than most, to manufacture and assemble finished products.
Yes, Asian cars are popular for their value and European cars are considered prestigious. However, many of these cars are manufactured and assembled right here in the US. They may be superior in some aspects, but that's a very subjective, personal opinion. Different people like different cars better.
The USA was never British. There were 13 British colonies here at one time, but they fought a war against the British, declared their independence, then formed the USA.
Anyone can create as many TLDs as they want, if they create their own DNS. Some people have done precisely that, see the links under this same article for OpenNIC. However, if they want to use TLDs under the original, US started & funded DNS, they'll have to play by our rules.
DNS is simply a system for making it easier to address computers, so people don't have to remember a bunch of numbers.
Comparing the two is absolutely ludicrous.
That's not telling the whole story though. The US government was formed not because of, but as a reaction to, the tyrannical (at that time) British government.
I don't know, I haven't looked into it. But, I know how the present system works in practice.
What it anticipated wasn't very widespread. Besides, if you finish reading the RFC, it nowhere suggests the
That's my whole point. It was a US network to begin with, and others linked to it. Since they're linking to our network, and not the other way around, they'll have to follow our rules.
Actually, much of the infrastructure was developed by the US. Most of the undersea telecommunications cables were laid by the US. Also, our overseas military bases were probably linked before their host countries were in many cases.
They should just be thankful they're allowed their own namespace.
Why change now? The present system is working fine.
No. If they expend the resources to invent a separate global computer network, then they can administer the domains any way they please.
Personally, I don't see what's wrong with that, people should be allowed all the time they need to graduate. Unfortunately, since it's the lowest rate in the Big 10, the administration here wants to raise it. They increased the minimum credit loads for new students last fall (thankfully I was grandfathered in), even after a 13% and 16% tuition increase over the last 2 yrs. Students who are working their way thru college will have to work more to pay for school now, but they can't reduce the credits they're taking!
When a school can be selective as Yale or Harvard, they get an extraordinarily intelligent student body.
How are people in the 3rd world going to know about nanotechnology in the first place? Those warlords will be just as interested in controlling technology as any other resource. It keeps them in power.
If it ever happens, it may be revolutionary, but that's a big if. Realists don't base their predictions on unproven, untested, as yet impractical technology.
There will always be scarcity, with the scarce resources changing over time. Also, people will always have to work.
I'm not dismissing it, just being a realist. It won't solve world hunger or peace. I personally believe it won't have an impact even close to that of computers and the information revolution.
I would definitely dispute that all free/open source software (F/OSS) is collectivist. If RMS had his way, it would be, but that'll never happen, thank God. RMS has done a great service to mankind, mostly as being a vocal extremist who polarizes debates and keeps us on our toes.
Software development ranges the entire spectrum from collectivist to individualist, and everywhere in between. I use F/OSS because I, personally, get the most benefit with the least (monetary) cost. I contribute (code, support, evangelism, and some money) to F/OSS because I will indirectly derive some benefit. But, I still use some proprietary software (mostly games) and would never advocate a mandate to open all code, since that is inherently a limit to freedom.
I never said anything about greed, just acting in your own interest.
Besides, governments shouldn't be in the business of wealth redistribution at all. Taxes should be used only to fund the necessary services the government provides (mostly defense and justice). Much of what the federal government now performs and spends money on is clearly beyond the scope outlined in the Constitution; which was supposed to be left to the states and the people. I'm against subsidies in general: corporate, farm, or otherwise.
Also, progressive income tax is anything but fair. The only true, fair income tax would be a flat percentage tax with no exemptions. The tax burden on people with higher incomes has grown much greater, while the share of benefits goes mostly to the lower end. There's a great article in the latest Newsweek about this.
Actually, I think any greed is bad. I believe one can act in their self interest without being greedy. Not everyone is motivated solely by monetary gain. Personally, I could care less about making a lot of money. I just one day want a nice house and comfortable life for my (future) family.
But, when you put a limit on the amount of accumulated wealth, the whole system breaks down. First, the truly greedy will find a way around the limit; hiding their real net worth, putting their business and bank accounts in the name of their spouse, children, or dogs, or moving their money offshore, to banks in Switzerland or somewhere else. Second, what do you think the people with a billion $ do with their money? Hide it under a rock? No, they invest it in stocks, bonds, etc. so more entrepeneurs are given a chance to generate wealth and employ more people. Finally, limiting wealth is fundamentally against the principle of individual freedom. If you limit freedom in one area, more are sure to follow. As long as they aren't harming others, people should be allowed to be as wealthy as they want to be.
I was following you up to this point, but now you've gone off the deep end. Putting your faith in fantasy technology is naive and unrealistic. I think nanotechnology might bring some benefit to mankind, but it's no panacea that will solve every world problem.
What new social contract? I expect (and hope and pray) the US Constitution is still the law of the land here.
I prefer the terms individualism and collectivism instead, most eloquently explained in F. A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom. The basic gist of the book is that socialism inevitably leads to totalitarianism, demonstrated in the Soviet Union and Third Reich Germany.
Individualism (aka capitalism) allows each person to make their own decisions how they will spend their time, money, and resources. People may own property and benefit from its use. This encourages them to work hard and be productive.
Collectivism (aka socialism, fascism, or communism) controls prices, trade, and consumption, based on the group's goals and values. Unfortunately, for any sufficiently large group, it's impossible to define these to each member's satisfaction. Whoever makes decisions must ultimately impose on the group what they perceive as its goals and values.
Here's a good quote from playwright and current Czech President, Vaclav Havel:And another on the benefits of ownership from Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury and current Harvard President, Lawrence Summers:
Yes, as a prefix it means new (and somewhat different). But new imperialism is still imperialism, which America cannot reasonably be accused of.
Besides, terms with neo- as a prefix are usually either defined by their writer, or already in common usage. If I use the term neo-platonism, people would understand I'm referring to a specific, commonly known school of philosophical thought. Likewise, if I use the term neo-conservative, people would understand I'm referring to a specific, commonly known school of political thought. If you more clearly define what you mean by neo-imperialism, I'll be able to debate you on the issues, in a civil manner.
I'll try to understand any ideas you bring up. Please do same for mine.
Does any politician not act in their self-interest? Unfortunately, most elections are deciding between the lesser of 2 (or more) evils.
It's not a lie. All the cruise missiles hit were empty training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. If it was so vital to attack at that time, because they were acting on fresh intelligence, why were the camps empty? The timing of the attacks only served to relieve the pressure off Clinton in congress.
By not taking any substantial measures to actually retaliate against al Qaeda for the 1993 WTC bombing, 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, 1998 embassy bombings, and 2000 USS Cole bombing, Clinton led bin Laden to believe we were cowards and kept escalating the attacks on America, culminating in 9/11.
The man you're talking about, Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, tried to get Clinton to pay attention to al Qaeda for 2 years.
How could we capture the people who attacked us, since they died in the attack? We already have captured hundreds of the Al Qaeda rank and file, and a few high level members.
Are you kidding? Clinton is the traitor. If not for his inept handling of terrorism, then for giving China all our nuclear secrets, pardoning fugitives, and committing felonies in office and getting away with it.
That's pure, unadulterated BS! Clinton was warned he should do something substantial about al Qaeda, but he never did.
If only we knew.
If you haven't noticed, we've been slowly distancing ourselves from Saudi Arabia. Iraq's had a secular government since their creation, and before the Baath party (& Saddam) took over, Iraq was a moderately successful, cosmopolitan, multi-ethnic society. Once they're liberated, it won't be that hard to help them create a representative government (at least compared to say, Afghanistan). Then, Iraq can be an example to the rest of the Arab world (& Muslim world) how a modern, liberal democracy can be prosperous, respect Islam and human rights, and give the average Ali and Mohammed a say in their government's affairs.
Again, that is a bold faced lie!
The things you're crediting to Clinton have very little to do with a President's policies. The surplus was because the economy was good, which has almost nothing to do with government, despite general public perception. What do you consider at peace? Clinton deployed four times more troops overseas than were at the height of the cold war, despite being 40% less manned. And spared from attack? What do you call the first WTC bombing and the subsequent bombings? Also, it's specifically because Clinton didn't deal with al Qaeda sufficiently that 9/11 happened.
This Pax Americna is surely better than Pax Romana or Pax Mongolica. Unlike the latter two, we'd be content to stay at home if the peace (pax) weren't threatened by terrorists or madmen with weapons of mass destruction.
As far as so-called cultural imperialism is concerned, nobody has a gun to their head, being forced to eat McDonald's or drink Coca-Cola. We export our culture because the rest of the world keeps buying it.
The laws of Guam and the USVI are US law, because they are US territories. You're correct they don't vote for President, but their inhabitants are US citizens, and they pay no federal income taxes. If they wanted their independence, they could. The Philipines, the Federated States of Micronesia, and others used to be US territories, but they voted to become independent, so we let them. The issue comes up in Puerto Rico regularly, but they vote to remain a US territory.
What does foreign aid, military or otherwise, have to do with US laws?
If you're talking about Dmitry Sklyarov, I agree that was incredibly ridiculous on the part of the US, but I think that was a rare case.
Besides terrorists and Saddam Hussein, nobody else in the world is afraid we'll use force against them. America has been very reluctant to use force throughout our history.
Give me one good example.
Name just one country that's subjugated to our control.
It may be more difficult to write, but it'll be that much harder to persuade anyone if you keep making baseless accusations, then back-pedal and say you meant something else, i.e. a term you invented.
Before you reply, please read this argument, which is much more well written and cogent than I could ever write.