Re:Time for some highly unpopular opinion...
on
Handling the Loads
·
· 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...
on
Handling the Loads
·
· 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...
on
Handling the Loads
·
· 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...
on
Handling the Loads
·
· 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...
on
Handling the Loads
·
· 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...
on
Handling the Loads
·
· 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...
on
Handling the Loads
·
· 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...
on
Handling the Loads
·
· 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.
Time for some highly unpopular opinion...
on
Handling the Loads
·
· 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.
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!)
I'd love to talk to you more about this but I can't get in contact with you. Could you email me?
Re:What can be done? Nothing.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
If you get stung by a bee, do you just let it sit there, no you slap the hell out of it. If you get stung by 10 bee's, you get to a safe place, and then come back and destroy all the bee's and the nests in the area.
Or, do you stay the fuck away from areas you don't belong in?
I am NOT saying the American people deserved this. I do believe that the United States government and the US Military organizations have been meddling with world affairs for far too long. They support dictatorships and arm one side (sometimes both!) whenever it will support their goals.
Isolationist my ass. The US has been doing this since WW2, if not longer.
Again, The American civilians did not deserve this and I do not, repeat do not condone this at all. Terrorism is never good.
I dunno about that. Listening to O&A yesterday afternoon and the Stern show this morning, just about every caller was calling for blood. Those that didn't were ridiculed and not allowed to explain their side of it.
I listened to Stern this morning on my way to a job (I'm in Canada, BTW) -- now I know that Howard Stern is actually quite intelligent; he knows how to work the crowd and how to stay on the air this long. A stupid man would not have the success he is having.
But hearing him call for nukes and wiping out all Muslims... that sent chills down my spine. Not so much because he said it but because I know there are countless morons who believe he is right and help "spread his word" without thinking. While he may have been doing it for ratings and calls, there are too many people who'd take him seriously.
Listen up, people: the Muslims are not to blame. Nor the Iraqi's, nor the Afghanistans. This is not an attack by a race or religion: this is an attack by a bunch of crazed psychopaths and extremists, and indirectly by the governments who support and/or harbour them. The Muslims are scared shitless and it's disgusting that even here in Canada, death threats have been called in to Mosques and Muslim high schools. I've heard that tens of thousands of callers are reporting their mid-eastern neighbours as suspects because they're different.
Make no mistake: the people terrorizing the Muslim and other middle-eastern population are no better than the shit-eating scum who are terrorizing the United States.
The solution is not to wipe Afghanistan off the earth, and it certainly is not a nuclear solution. Many people living in Afghanistan cannot afford to move or evacuate, and I am uncertain as to whether the Afganistan goverment can afford to evacuate them. Regardless, the majority of Afghans are innocent civilians and retailiating against them is barbaric and useless. Bombing innocent people is wrong no matter where they are, and a nation as wealthy and powerful as the United States should know that!
What's the solution? I don't know. I would far prefer surgical strike(s) and occupation of the regions which are known to support these extremists. Cut them off at the source, but minimize the civilian casualties. That is honourable. That is noble. That is a civilized response. Not "Nuke the sand niggers off the face of the planet" as I have heard and read.
Another solution (additional solution) would be to put a eight or even nine digit USD price tag on known terrorist's heads. Obviously this idea needs more fleshing out but I wonder how loyal their followers would be?
Get it straight: Not all white people are card-carrying members of Aryan Nation or the KKK. Not all Americans are stupid white trash who can't see the world beyond their borders. Not all Muslims are terrorists and extremists. How would you like to be terrorized because of how you look or where you're from?
-- tzanger, a 25-year-old white father in Canada, totally disgusted by the racism and knee-jerk reactions going on around him.
Wow. Here amidst the racks, with servers humming, it's easy to forget that radio exists when all you can get is static.
How about you properly shield and ground your servers? I have a dozen servers here and six workstations in my office (yeah, it's great in this office... not) but the radio comes in just fine.
Promise me one thing, in the USA, please:
For the whole world's sake don't counter-strike until you know exactly who's responsible, and only counter-strike exactly those people.
Amen. President Bush has already shown more reserve with this than Clinton did with OKC. I'm no big fan of either, but I'm hoping he continues to play this slow and steady until they can find who's responsible.
I fear World War III is following. I'm willing to help. I'm willing.
You scare me.
War is not good, no matter when, no matter who the enemy. Do not be so willing to pull the planet into war.
I pray that if the US does declare war, that it be kept to the US and its enemy. I do not want a third world war. So far this is an internal US matter. Keep my country out of it.
I thought that I could go to your user info page and leave you a message since you didn't have an email addy supplied... silly me.
I was going to ask you some more questions regarding OpenLDAP and how you're using it (I'm trying to do the same types of things you described) but alas and alack, I must ask through the general messageboard.:-(
Is it just our local telco, or is HDSL2 (one pair) garbage?
Good question; I've only every worked with HDSL. I'm not sure what HDSL2's benefit is over SDSL -- We've used Pairgain's Megabit Modem 300s for quite a while now. They're good for 2.048Mbps full duplex and while I don't think they can use repeaters like HDSL, if you have that much distance to go I don't think you'd bugger with HDSL2 anyway.
I suspect the reason ADSL works at all is they can have a very expensive piece of equipment to hear a tiny signal sent from your ADSL modem, and can send a very strong signal that your modem can understand. This lowers the cost of the modem, which now only has to listen to a nice strong signal, and send a relatively weak signal.
There isn't really much difference in the "loudness" (amplitude) of the CO end or your end. If the CO end is "loud" then it will crosstalk like crazy.. it's just the way your upstream and downstream "pipes" are encoded. More bandwidth is given to the downstream pipe so you can get more bits per second. And to go the other way, less bandwdith is given within that pipe.
I guess a good analogy would be to think of your phone line as a sewer pipe. Within that sewer pipe you have your graywater pipe. Now the bigger the graywater pipe, the less the sewer pipe can move in the other direction, and vice-versa.
ADSL can't be easily reversed because the DSL chipsets aren't designed to reallocate bandwdith arbitrarily. The DSLAM is designed to use so much to send to you and your DSL modem is designed similarly.
Can't be done because the entire DSLAM has to be reversed... and that just ain't gonna happen.
Dammit I hit submit instead of preview.
What I was trying to say is that the head end is a DSLAM and the remote ends are just access devices. The remote ends are not capable of encoding the fast downstream and even if it were capable of doing so, it would likely interfere with everyone else.
ADSL in general is meant for consumers, not producers. Get yourself SDSL, HDSL (1.5 Meg bidirectional on two pair), HDSL2 (1.5 Meg biderectional on one pair) or something larger. But be prepared to pay through the nose.
Can't be done because the entire DSLAM has to be reversed... and that just ain't gonna happen.
On a side note, I have a SpeedStream 5250 *S*DSL modem. I have been trying to get these to work back-to-back but without too much success. Technically it should work (SDSL can work both ways and the DSL chipset (a brooktree part which does HDSL, weird eh?) can work in slave or master mode. I'm planning on buffering the 5250's processor's datastream and injecting my own configuration commands to see if I can't get the DSL to sync. Getting the ATM channel to sync may be another matter altogether but they were cheap and I have some time to play.:-)
One thing I would love to ask the/. community for is the 5250dnld.exe program that used to come with a special disk with these modems. SpeedStream has removed all traces of the program and there are too many black gnutella clients which try to send you a "Fun Loving Criminal" win32 virus whenever you request an.exe. Any help or technical data (any rogue efficent networks employees out there?) would be much appreciated! Hell I havent even been able to find a console port, something I would have betted on there being. The flash upgrade program and (I'm assuming) the 5250dnld.exe program work by sending specially crafted 802.3 SNAP packets to the bridge.
Re:Eash pixel must be separately connected.
on
E-Paper Moves Closer
·
· Score: 2
All true, but each pixel must be separately connected. Those connections must be cheap, durable, and flexible. When I have tried to design something like that, I have thought that it was a very difficult problem.
I think you're still missing the point. LVDS takes care of this problem very easily and in a very proven method: it drives every TFT screen on the planet without a problem.
Basically you have a serializer which converts your Row/Column accesses to one or more data streams and a clock stream. Each stream is two physical lines. Then you can have the deserializer within the e-paper. So now you provide power and your serial data and clock. Far fewer lines.
but the second you want to do anything the least bit interesting the tool fights you every step of the way.
I refuse to stop doing interesting things in my programs, so until these tools stop fighting me I won't use them.
Can you give some specific examples? I'm no app programmer but last year I was called in to turn around a wholly-mismanaged software project. It's there I learned about Borland C++ Builder.
Now, I generally dislike app programming -- I am an embedded systems designer by trade -- but I can learn very quickly and seem to have a sense of how a user interface should work, hence my involvement in this project.
Anyway, I learned the basics of C++ (I'm a fluent C/asm [many platforms] programmer), DCOM and Borland's VCL in a few weeks and managed to get this project turned around and at least releasing stable, usable releases. But when learning to use C++ Builder I occassionally butted heads with it with respect to form design and so on but it was because of my lack of experience with the software, not the software itself, which was the cause.
Examples: tabbed forms. You actually use the tabs in the form designer to switch to another "pane" and put objects on it. That seemed weird to me -- You literally stacked form elements on top of the correct pane, swapped panes and continued stacking. Neat trick, but in my mind it wasn't "right". Raised panes worked the same way. I would have done it with some kind of selector but the end result is that C++B wasn't restricting what I wanted to do; it just wanted me to do it differently. I could have hit F12 and typed out the information and have it appear that way if I wanted as well.
Generally speaking, if you are trying to do "cool" stuff in your UI or your GUI forms designer is making your life rough, you are probably breaking the UI rules for the platform you're working for. Palm has some very strict rules but after working with it for a while you learn how it should be done to work and play "nice" with the user.
Slashdot Mirror
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. :-)
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!)
I'd love to talk to you more about this but I can't get in contact with you. Could you email me?
If you get stung by a bee, do you just let it sit there, no you slap the hell out of it. If you get stung by 10 bee's, you get to a safe place, and then come back and destroy all the bee's and the nests in the area.
Or, do you stay the fuck away from areas you don't belong in?
I am NOT saying the American people deserved this. I do believe that the United States government and the US Military organizations have been meddling with world affairs for far too long. They support dictatorships and arm one side (sometimes both!) whenever it will support their goals.
Isolationist my ass. The US has been doing this since WW2, if not longer.
Again, The American civilians did not deserve this and I do not, repeat do not condone this at all. Terrorism is never good.
I dunno about that. Listening to O&A yesterday afternoon and the Stern show this morning, just about every caller was calling for blood. Those that didn't were ridiculed and not allowed to explain their side of it.
I listened to Stern this morning on my way to a job (I'm in Canada, BTW) -- now I know that Howard Stern is actually quite intelligent; he knows how to work the crowd and how to stay on the air this long. A stupid man would not have the success he is having.
But hearing him call for nukes and wiping out all Muslims... that sent chills down my spine. Not so much because he said it but because I know there are countless morons who believe he is right and help "spread his word" without thinking. While he may have been doing it for ratings and calls, there are too many people who'd take him seriously.
Listen up, people: the Muslims are not to blame. Nor the Iraqi's, nor the Afghanistans. This is not an attack by a race or religion: this is an attack by a bunch of crazed psychopaths and extremists, and indirectly by the governments who support and/or harbour them. The Muslims are scared shitless and it's disgusting that even here in Canada, death threats have been called in to Mosques and Muslim high schools. I've heard that tens of thousands of callers are reporting their mid-eastern neighbours as suspects because they're different.
Make no mistake: the people terrorizing the Muslim and other middle-eastern population are no better than the shit-eating scum who are terrorizing the United States.
The solution is not to wipe Afghanistan off the earth, and it certainly is not a nuclear solution. Many people living in Afghanistan cannot afford to move or evacuate, and I am uncertain as to whether the Afganistan goverment can afford to evacuate them. Regardless, the majority of Afghans are innocent civilians and retailiating against them is barbaric and useless. Bombing innocent people is wrong no matter where they are, and a nation as wealthy and powerful as the United States should know that!
What's the solution? I don't know. I would far prefer surgical strike(s) and occupation of the regions which are known to support these extremists. Cut them off at the source, but minimize the civilian casualties. That is honourable. That is noble. That is a civilized response. Not "Nuke the sand niggers off the face of the planet" as I have heard and read.
Another solution (additional solution) would be to put a eight or even nine digit USD price tag on known terrorist's heads. Obviously this idea needs more fleshing out but I wonder how loyal their followers would be?
Get it straight: Not all white people are card-carrying members of Aryan Nation or the KKK. Not all Americans are stupid white trash who can't see the world beyond their borders. Not all Muslims are terrorists and extremists. How would you like to be terrorized because of how you look or where you're from?
-- tzanger, a 25-year-old white father in Canada, totally disgusted by the racism and knee-jerk reactions going on around him.
Wow. Here amidst the racks, with servers humming, it's easy to forget that radio exists when all you can get is static.
How about you properly shield and ground your servers? I have a dozen servers here and six workstations in my office (yeah, it's great in this office... not) but the radio comes in just fine.
Promise me one thing, in the USA, please: For the whole world's sake don't counter-strike until you know exactly who's responsible, and only counter-strike exactly those people.
Amen. President Bush has already shown more reserve with this than Clinton did with OKC. I'm no big fan of either, but I'm hoping he continues to play this slow and steady until they can find who's responsible.
The scrambled fighters probably had shoot to kill orders. That's terrible.
No it's not, it's commendable. What would you prefer, that the terrorists have control over the plane and kill hundreds if not thousands?
It's one hell of a tough decision but I commend it.
I fear World War III is following. I'm willing to help. I'm willing.
You scare me.
War is not good, no matter when, no matter who the enemy. Do not be so willing to pull the planet into war.
I pray that if the US does declare war, that it be kept to the US and its enemy. I do not want a third world war. So far this is an internal US matter. Keep my country out of it.
I thought that I could go to your user info page and leave you a message since you didn't have an email addy supplied... silly me.
I was going to ask you some more questions regarding OpenLDAP and how you're using it (I'm trying to do the same types of things you described) but alas and alack, I must ask through the general messageboard. :-(
Is it just our local telco, or is HDSL2 (one pair) garbage?
Good question; I've only every worked with HDSL. I'm not sure what HDSL2's benefit is over SDSL -- We've used Pairgain's Megabit Modem 300s for quite a while now. They're good for 2.048Mbps full duplex and while I don't think they can use repeaters like HDSL, if you have that much distance to go I don't think you'd bugger with HDSL2 anyway.
I suspect the reason ADSL works at all is they can have a very expensive piece of equipment to hear a tiny signal sent from your ADSL modem, and can send a very strong signal that your modem can understand. This lowers the cost of the modem, which now only has to listen to a nice strong signal, and send a relatively weak signal.
There isn't really much difference in the "loudness" (amplitude) of the CO end or your end. If the CO end is "loud" then it will crosstalk like crazy.. it's just the way your upstream and downstream "pipes" are encoded. More bandwidth is given to the downstream pipe so you can get more bits per second. And to go the other way, less bandwdith is given within that pipe.
I guess a good analogy would be to think of your phone line as a sewer pipe. Within that sewer pipe you have your graywater pipe. Now the bigger the graywater pipe, the less the sewer pipe can move in the other direction, and vice-versa.
ADSL can't be easily reversed because the DSL chipsets aren't designed to reallocate bandwdith arbitrarily. The DSLAM is designed to use so much to send to you and your DSL modem is designed similarly.
Can't be done because the entire DSLAM has to be reversed... and that just ain't gonna happen.
Dammit I hit submit instead of preview.
What I was trying to say is that the head end is a DSLAM and the remote ends are just access devices. The remote ends are not capable of encoding the fast downstream and even if it were capable of doing so, it would likely interfere with everyone else.
ADSL in general is meant for consumers, not producers. Get yourself SDSL, HDSL (1.5 Meg bidirectional on two pair), HDSL2 (1.5 Meg biderectional on one pair) or something larger. But be prepared to pay through the nose.
Can't be done because the entire DSLAM has to be reversed... and that just ain't gonna happen.
On a side note, I have a SpeedStream 5250 *S*DSL modem. I have been trying to get these to work back-to-back but without too much success. Technically it should work (SDSL can work both ways and the DSL chipset (a brooktree part which does HDSL, weird eh?) can work in slave or master mode. I'm planning on buffering the 5250's processor's datastream and injecting my own configuration commands to see if I can't get the DSL to sync. Getting the ATM channel to sync may be another matter altogether but they were cheap and I have some time to play. :-)
One thing I would love to ask the /. community for is the 5250dnld.exe program that used to come with a special disk with these modems. SpeedStream has removed all traces of the program and there are too many black gnutella clients which try to send you a "Fun Loving Criminal" win32 virus whenever you request an .exe. Any help or technical data (any rogue efficent networks employees out there?) would be much appreciated! Hell I havent even been able to find a console port, something I would have betted on there being. The flash upgrade program and (I'm assuming) the 5250dnld.exe program work by sending specially crafted 802.3 SNAP packets to the bridge.
All true, but each pixel must be separately connected. Those connections must be cheap, durable, and flexible. When I have tried to design something like that, I have thought that it was a very difficult problem.
I think you're still missing the point. LVDS takes care of this problem very easily and in a very proven method: it drives every TFT screen on the planet without a problem.
Basically you have a serializer which converts your Row/Column accesses to one or more data streams and a clock stream. Each stream is two physical lines. Then you can have the deserializer within the e-paper. So now you provide power and your serial data and clock. Far fewer lines.
but the second you want to do anything the least bit interesting the tool fights you every step of the way.
I refuse to stop doing interesting things in my programs, so until these tools stop fighting me I won't use them.
Can you give some specific examples? I'm no app programmer but last year I was called in to turn around a wholly-mismanaged software project. It's there I learned about Borland C++ Builder.
Now, I generally dislike app programming -- I am an embedded systems designer by trade -- but I can learn very quickly and seem to have a sense of how a user interface should work, hence my involvement in this project.
Anyway, I learned the basics of C++ (I'm a fluent C/asm [many platforms] programmer), DCOM and Borland's VCL in a few weeks and managed to get this project turned around and at least releasing stable, usable releases. But when learning to use C++ Builder I occassionally butted heads with it with respect to form design and so on but it was because of my lack of experience with the software, not the software itself, which was the cause.
Examples: tabbed forms. You actually use the tabs in the form designer to switch to another "pane" and put objects on it. That seemed weird to me -- You literally stacked form elements on top of the correct pane, swapped panes and continued stacking. Neat trick, but in my mind it wasn't "right". Raised panes worked the same way. I would have done it with some kind of selector but the end result is that C++B wasn't restricting what I wanted to do; it just wanted me to do it differently. I could have hit F12 and typed out the information and have it appear that way if I wanted as well.
Generally speaking, if you are trying to do "cool" stuff in your UI or your GUI forms designer is making your life rough, you are probably breaking the UI rules for the platform you're working for. Palm has some very strict rules but after working with it for a while you learn how it should be done to work and play "nice" with the user.