Whether electronic warfare is seen as feasible or not is moot - future adversaries will force the realm of conflict and you have no choice but to prepare a defense.
Technology today gives individuals the power once reserved for entire nation states, and it is appropriate that these powers be judiciously monitered.
In any case, you had zero privacy before any of this started - its virtually impossible for you to have less than you already do.
If open source leads to forks, where are the forked perls? Forked Pythons? The fork issue is a bogeyman. All the major Java players (Sun, BEA, IBM) have a vested interest in keeping Java versions compatible.
Sun refuses to open Java. No, the JCP is not open. Why at this stage Sun does not open up Java is beyond me. With Microsoft out of the Java community, I don't see ravenous, hostile competitors chomping at the bit to deform Java and destabilize Sun.
They're only hurting themselves and developers with their idiotically stubborn unwillingness to get with the program.
I remember VA used to have a page filled with developer profiles. Its not on the site any more, and I presume most of the Uber Geeks are gone too.
I must say I snickered a bit as I watched their ranks diminish - there is nothing as nausiating as the self-aggrandizing bios people put up for themselves. I remember going to the Pyra.com site a couple of years back and had a good chuckle at how they described themselves as minor-deities. I can code XML! I read Kant! I' m unemployable!
As far as I know, VA never surpassed either of these companies in any linux market segment while the stats were being collected.
VA never had the capabilities to ramp up to economies of scale that Compaq, and moreso, Dell have been able to exploit. No matter what kind of box VA pushed out, Dell could always sell comparable hardware for lower cost.
VA Linux got caught up in conflaguration of linux / day trading / tech stock hype. It is unlikely that this company should have ever have gone public, and it is unlikely they will continue to meet NASDAQ regulations for staying public.
You can bemoan the intrusion of carnivor all you want, but lets put it bluntly: right now mainstream America is not concerned with linux hackers having their internet traffic observed. In fact, this has probably increased society's paranoia about "hackers/crackers", the internet, and electronic commerce.
That said, work on the assumption that you are being observed. If you want to encrypt data, do so - you may have reason to. If you want to use gpg for email, you probably have good reason to do that as well.
Its going to be at least a year until society really and actually starts thinking about civil liberties again - right now you can forget about it.
No one claimed or should believe that the US is morally innocent. Yes we arm the Israelis, who kill Palestinians. Do you know why? Not because it is right or wrong but because the Palestinians are on the other side of a conflict with us. The PLO has been training terrorists for years. Arafat is a consummate liar who again and again has yet to own up to even the appearance of impropriety.
Only the naive apply right and wrong to international affairs - think instead of your interests and who is for and against them.
The governments of Iran, Sudna, Yemen and Iraq have been, and will continue to be deeply ionvolved in the support of Islamic terrorism. This is well known and well documented.
Yes, but I'll make an exception for airports.
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
I think most sane people are willing to concede most of their personal liberties at the airport from this time forward - their own lives might be at stake.
I would like to see Israeli levels of pre-flight security, and the total elimination of carry-on baggage that is non-essential (medicine, an asthma inhaler, etc.). There is simply no need at all for each passenger to be allowed to bring on two pieces of mid-size luggage. Not only does it represent a security threat, it makes getting on and off planes a complete hassle. One of the reasons air travel has become so painful is the ridiculous amount of luggage people are trying to cram in to their overhead bins.
Thanks for making a call to arms that is needed. You are correct in mentioning the smuggling of fissionable material as a prime danger to American cities. Unfortunately I see nuclear terror on US soil before this is through.
I have been saying now for years that nuclear proliferation and Islamic fundamentalism were the two biggest threats to the Western powers. I still believe this.
Ultimately the Western powers will simply have to concede that they cannot coexist with the Islamic fundamentalist states. I suspect that in the next few years this will flare into a larger conflict with very high casualties, and it is probably the beginning of the end of entrenched Islamic fundamentalist governments, whose citizens for better or for worse are going to bear the brunt of any military response.
Well said. Strength is virtue.
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Its amazing how so many posters can't even bring themselves to identify an enemy who has already identified them.
You cannot use diplomacy or negotiation with the forces allied against us because they have never used or responded to these mechanisms before. These forces understand what they implement - targetted destruction.
Its amazing how insipid most of the postings have been, but in the long run we are simply going to have to relearn that our safety and way of life is paid for and protected by blood, although there is probably no hope for the incessant mental masturbators posting their anthems of weakness on/.
I have no idea why the international community gives one iota of legitimacy to Yassir Arafat. This man is without a doubt the biggest bold face liar to emerge on the international scene in years. The West Bank is a breeding ground for terrorists, with Arafat's support and consent.
By the way in case any of you get caught up in "Senator" Clinton's rhetoric condemming the terrorists, I'll replay some commentary for you in which she gushes nearly ceaslessly for Arafat.
Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Why so certain? The president isn't sure, why are you?
You don't think they tell everything they know to Fox News, do you?
Islam logged off from the Koran long ago
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Every faith has its extremist bigots
You mean like the ones that rule every Middle Eastern Islamic regime? Name for me one, ONE moderate leader of an Islamic regime. Name for me one who allows women to dress and act in a way THEY want. Name for me one who does not support a violence in their justice system that makes Texas look like Norway. Name for me one who was elected in a fair and open process.
Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
When they say freedom they mean freedom from America's influence, not the personal freedom that Americans talk about.
Precisely. Although now it is too late to withdraw - we are committed.
It is important to note that the Islamic fundamentalists hold the US responsible not only for (rightly) backing Israel, but for propping up the corrupt monarchies in the oil rich arab nations (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.). While Islam is the state religion in the monarchist states, they are not full-on theocracies and are more or less US lapdogs.
Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
What evidence is there that without US support of Saddam, he wouldn't still be a ruthless dictator (or someone else just like him)?
Well, Saddam would have never have been able to hold on to power without the ruthless enforcement of his own private guard (the Republican Guard), who eventually came to dominate the military. I hold it to be self-evident that he is in control largely due to US support back in the 70s.
As for who would be in control if he wasn't on the scene, most likely another autocratic nut or a fundamentalist Islamic regime - both equally odious.
The US created Saddam and created the Taliban
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
The US bankrolled the Hussein regime extensively during the Iran/Iraq war. They made him but they couldn't (and still can't) break him.
Oh, by the way, the US also bankrolled the Muhajudin rebels that became the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
None of these examples show how the United States prevented stood in the way of the Freedom of the Arabic people.
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. He was supported and bankrolled by the US during the Iran/Iraq war (back when Iran was enemy #1). Saddam Hussein would not be in power if it were not for US support. The US made Saddam and then couldn't break him.
When a country is at war with one of our enemies, we may help to fund those wars... It's in our own self interst to do this.. This is in no way a restriction of the freedom of the people of those countries.
Well, when the US bankrolls inept dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, or when it bankrolls extreme Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan (during the Soviet invasion), it isn't exactly helping the cause of freedom. People need to get over the notion that the US acts to preserve freedom or democracy overseas. In fact, looking at Chile and other South American nations, the US has from time to time undermined the democratically elected leader in favor of a dictator - Pinochet for example.
Support for Israel is the right thing to do
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
As you pointed out, Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that is not an effective dictatorship. That includes Kuwait, which is an oppresive monarchist dictatorship, Saudi Arabia, another monarchist dictatorship, and other states that the US has propped up and supported from time to time.
Make no mistake about the politics of the Middle East - if they weren't fighting Israel they would be fighting each other. The theocracies (Afghanistan) despise the monarchies. The autocracies (Iraq) despise the theocracies. None of these states has any respect for individual rights. Afghanistan recently forbid education for women.
Sure this sounds like race baiting, but it isn't. Arabs can live peacefully and respectfully, but it isn't going to happen while Islam is part of the ruling regime's rulebook.
At some point in the future the West is simply going to have to come to grips with a fact that many foreign policy thinkers have known for decades - democracies and Islamic regimes cannot coexist.
Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
usually, when you wipe out nations because of crimes committed by a group of extremists, you don't have peace, you have more war.
The states are sponsoring this activity. Drop your simplistic notions that five guys in the backroom planned this. These guys didn't seek flight training by accident.
Its amazing, Some Amaericans have become so weak they can't even bring themselves to admit that they have enemies and identify these enemies, even in the face of violent attacks.
Maybe it is a good thing that there is some jarhead out there who just follows orders...otherwise he would probably sit around engaging in the same sort of posturing mental masturbation that precludes you doing anything about your own safety and way of life.
Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Terrorists attack the US. You hear from somewhere that they're probably arabic. Now you brilliantly arrive at the conclusion that "the Islamic regimes and Western democracies cannot coexist." This is truly amazing, it is also very sad.
No, I have been saying this for a decade. I would hold this opinion even if we found out the real terrorists were from Kentucky or Scotland.
Why not just drop the naive pretenses and admit that you have enemies? Your enemies know who their enemies are (you), so wise up and get with the program.
Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
It was impossible then to avoid such blunt and broad attacks. It is possible now to avoid such blunt and broad attacks.
Ah yes, the myth of stealth fighters and laser bombs. Sorry! Any soldier knows the real work of securing the battle field has to be done on the ground - using hard, bloody, imprecise tactics.
As a counterexample, look at the conflicts where America refuses to get into a ground conflict - the Balkans and Iraq - both forces requipped themselves shortly after the US pullout and continue to impose their will in their respective regions.
Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
If you believe that violence is the only (or even the best) solution to ANYTHING, you are an insignificant moron.
How absurd. Violence has been the number one most effective way of getting one's point across.
Ask the Nazis about their policies for taking over Europe and liquidating the Jews - stopped by violence.
Ask the Soviets about Afghanistan and their desire to subject the people to Soviet rule - stopped by violence.
Ask the Confederate Army about their desire to prolong slavery - stopped by violence.
Of course your attitude is the utter naive claptrap that western culture has imposed on its citizens, while its leaders and armies have effectively used violence to achieve their means.
Re:Change the rules, be realistic about conflict
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
When you have to decide whether to kill people or not, it always has to do with right and wrong.
Then American voters should have educated themselves about how American foreign policy moved in the Middle East and voted in a government that could formulate a policy to preclude this amoral disaster. That was when it was about right and wrong. The wrongs on both sides were done long ago, now its simply about retribution and survival.
This is an act of terrorism, not war.
What is the difference? "Terrorists" are just what the big army calls the little army.
This is a war. You are a target. Your enemies have decreed this whether you like it or not. Act accordingly.
I think I can see a tiny difference between killing civilians because there is total war in all of Europe, and where more than 15 million people have died, than when some random extremists bomb a couple of buildings and where casualties MAY count in the thousands (that is not yet for sure - may as well be hundreds).
Oh how rich, and naive. This is the first volley in the war between the Islamic regimes and the Western democracies. These two groups cannot coexist. Let me repeat that for you so it sinks in and you can refer to it later: the Islamic regimes and Western democracies cannot coexist.
Twenty years from now when this is viewed as the first attack in what will constitute a long and bloody war between states (yes, this will escalate), and millions have died (horrible, but this is going to happen now, no way to avoid it), and nuclear weapons have been used on American soil (this will happen, I can assure it), you can remember I told you so.
If every country replied to terrorist acts the way you think they should be replied to, we would have total war, everywhere, all the time.
No, you would have peace because one side would win and life would go on. This is how the second world war was approached - drop the pretense of diplomacy, treaties, and other stopgap measures, and let someone win. The Middle East is a powder keg that should have been allowed to burn off years ago. The conflicts there have needed resolution, but the US has prolonged the stalemate for its own purposes. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I've got a bright idea.. don't try to take over another country and we won't come in a shoot at you.. Iraq clearly started that fight.
Agreed. And the US was right to drive them back. But you did not protect freedom or democracy. Kuwait is a monarchist dictatorship. It is legal to hold foreig slaves in Kuwait. There Philipinos servants held in virtual bondage by their employers, with the consent of the Kuwaiti government.
The woman who went to the UN to talk to the Assembly about her rape at the hands of Iraqi soldiers was in fact an ambassador's daughter who was not in Kuwait during the invasion.
Note that the US has also, at other times in history, bankrolled and supported Iraq. And Iran. And Afghanistan. Every time it suited a justifiable foreign policy decision.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG.
How are we making anyone in the Middle East 'not free'?
A good, if not somewhat naive, question. The US has interfered in Middle East politics for decades.
The US supported the corrupt regime of the Shah in Iran (so did the Brits).
The US supported the Afghan militias during the Soviet invasion. Osama bin Laden was trained under this support. The same people the US equipped, now rule Afghanistan.
The US has alternately supported and destabilized Iran and Iraq at various times.
The US has propped up the corrupt monarchies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
...and more
I am not claiming that any of these acts were "wrong" - people need to get over the notion that nations act for "right" or "wrong" - these are simplistic notions for children. Nations act in their own interests, as the US did.
Slashdot Mirror
Technology today gives individuals the power once reserved for entire nation states, and it is appropriate that these powers be judiciously monitered.
In any case, you had zero privacy before any of this started - its virtually impossible for you to have less than you already do.
If open source leads to forks, where are the forked perls? Forked Pythons? The fork issue is a bogeyman. All the major Java players (Sun, BEA, IBM) have a vested interest in keeping Java versions compatible.
They're only hurting themselves and developers with their idiotically stubborn unwillingness to get with the program.
I must say I snickered a bit as I watched their ranks diminish - there is nothing as nausiating as the self-aggrandizing bios people put up for themselves. I remember going to the Pyra.com site a couple of years back and had a good chuckle at how they described themselves as minor-deities. I can code XML! I read Kant! I' m unemployable!
VA never had the capabilities to ramp up to economies of scale that Compaq, and moreso, Dell have been able to exploit. No matter what kind of box VA pushed out, Dell could always sell comparable hardware for lower cost.
VA Linux got caught up in conflaguration of linux / day trading / tech stock hype. It is unlikely that this company should have ever have gone public, and it is unlikely they will continue to meet NASDAQ regulations for staying public.
That said, work on the assumption that you are being observed. If you want to encrypt data, do so - you may have reason to. If you want to use gpg for email, you probably have good reason to do that as well.
Its going to be at least a year until society really and actually starts thinking about civil liberties again - right now you can forget about it.
Only the naive apply right and wrong to international affairs - think instead of your interests and who is for and against them.
The governments of Iran, Sudna, Yemen and Iraq have been, and will continue to be deeply ionvolved in the support of Islamic terrorism. This is well known and well documented.
I would like to see Israeli levels of pre-flight security, and the total elimination of carry-on baggage that is non-essential (medicine, an asthma inhaler, etc.). There is simply no need at all for each passenger to be allowed to bring on two pieces of mid-size luggage. Not only does it represent a security threat, it makes getting on and off planes a complete hassle. One of the reasons air travel has become so painful is the ridiculous amount of luggage people are trying to cram in to their overhead bins.
I have been saying now for years that nuclear proliferation and Islamic fundamentalism were the two biggest threats to the Western powers. I still believe this.
Ultimately the Western powers will simply have to concede that they cannot coexist with the Islamic fundamentalist states. I suspect that in the next few years this will flare into a larger conflict with very high casualties, and it is probably the beginning of the end of entrenched Islamic fundamentalist governments, whose citizens for better or for worse are going to bear the brunt of any military response.
You cannot use diplomacy or negotiation with the forces allied against us because they have never used or responded to these mechanisms before. These forces understand what they implement - targetted destruction.
Its amazing how insipid most of the postings have been, but in the long run we are simply going to have to relearn that our safety and way of life is paid for and protected by blood, although there is probably no hope for the incessant mental masturbators posting their anthems of weakness on /.
By the way in case any of you get caught up in "Senator" Clinton's rhetoric condemming the terrorists, I'll replay some commentary for you in which she gushes nearly ceaslessly for Arafat.
You don't think they tell everything they know to Fox News, do you?
You mean like the ones that rule every Middle Eastern Islamic regime? Name for me one, ONE moderate leader of an Islamic regime. Name for me one who allows women to dress and act in a way THEY want. Name for me one who does not support a violence in their justice system that makes Texas look like Norway. Name for me one who was elected in a fair and open process.
Precisely. Although now it is too late to withdraw - we are committed.
It is important to note that the Islamic fundamentalists hold the US responsible not only for (rightly) backing Israel, but for propping up the corrupt monarchies in the oil rich arab nations (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.). While Islam is the state religion in the monarchist states, they are not full-on theocracies and are more or less US lapdogs.
Well, Saddam would have never have been able to hold on to power without the ruthless enforcement of his own private guard (the Republican Guard), who eventually came to dominate the military. I hold it to be self-evident that he is in control largely due to US support back in the 70s.
As for who would be in control if he wasn't on the scene, most likely another autocratic nut or a fundamentalist Islamic regime - both equally odious.
Oh, by the way, the US also bankrolled the Muhajudin rebels that became the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. He was supported and bankrolled by the US during the Iran/Iraq war (back when Iran was enemy #1). Saddam Hussein would not be in power if it were not for US support. The US made Saddam and then couldn't break him.
When a country is at war with one of our enemies, we may help to fund those wars... It's in our own self interst to do this.. This is in no way a restriction of the freedom of the people of those countries.
Well, when the US bankrolls inept dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, or when it bankrolls extreme Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan (during the Soviet invasion), it isn't exactly helping the cause of freedom. People need to get over the notion that the US acts to preserve freedom or democracy overseas. In fact, looking at Chile and other South American nations, the US has from time to time undermined the democratically elected leader in favor of a dictator - Pinochet for example.
Make no mistake about the politics of the Middle East - if they weren't fighting Israel they would be fighting each other. The theocracies (Afghanistan) despise the monarchies. The autocracies (Iraq) despise the theocracies. None of these states has any respect for individual rights. Afghanistan recently forbid education for women.
Sure this sounds like race baiting, but it isn't. Arabs can live peacefully and respectfully, but it isn't going to happen while Islam is part of the ruling regime's rulebook.
At some point in the future the West is simply going to have to come to grips with a fact that many foreign policy thinkers have known for decades - democracies and Islamic regimes cannot coexist.
The states are sponsoring this activity. Drop your simplistic notions that five guys in the backroom planned this. These guys didn't seek flight training by accident.
Its amazing, Some Amaericans have become so weak they can't even bring themselves to admit that they have enemies and identify these enemies, even in the face of violent attacks.
Maybe it is a good thing that there is some jarhead out there who just follows orders...otherwise he would probably sit around engaging in the same sort of posturing mental masturbation that precludes you doing anything about your own safety and way of life.
No, I have been saying this for a decade. I would hold this opinion even if we found out the real terrorists were from Kentucky or Scotland.
Why not just drop the naive pretenses and admit that you have enemies? Your enemies know who their enemies are (you), so wise up and get with the program.
Ah yes, the myth of stealth fighters and laser bombs. Sorry! Any soldier knows the real work of securing the battle field has to be done on the ground - using hard, bloody, imprecise tactics.
As a counterexample, look at the conflicts where America refuses to get into a ground conflict - the Balkans and Iraq - both forces requipped themselves shortly after the US pullout and continue to impose their will in their respective regions.
How absurd. Violence has been the number one most effective way of getting one's point across.
Ask the Nazis about their policies for taking over Europe and liquidating the Jews - stopped by violence.
Ask the Soviets about Afghanistan and their desire to subject the people to Soviet rule - stopped by violence.
Ask the Confederate Army about their desire to prolong slavery - stopped by violence.
Of course your attitude is the utter naive claptrap that western culture has imposed on its citizens, while its leaders and armies have effectively used violence to achieve their means.
Then American voters should have educated themselves about how American foreign policy moved in the Middle East and voted in a government that could formulate a policy to preclude this amoral disaster. That was when it was about right and wrong. The wrongs on both sides were done long ago, now its simply about retribution and survival.
This is an act of terrorism, not war.
What is the difference? "Terrorists" are just what the big army calls the little army.
This is a war. You are a target. Your enemies have decreed this whether you like it or not. Act accordingly.
I think I can see a tiny difference between killing civilians because there is total war in all of Europe, and where more than 15 million people have died, than when some random extremists bomb a couple of buildings and where casualties MAY count in the thousands (that is not yet for sure - may as well be hundreds).
Oh how rich, and naive. This is the first volley in the war between the Islamic regimes and the Western democracies. These two groups cannot coexist. Let me repeat that for you so it sinks in and you can refer to it later: the Islamic regimes and Western democracies cannot coexist.
Twenty years from now when this is viewed as the first attack in what will constitute a long and bloody war between states (yes, this will escalate), and millions have died (horrible, but this is going to happen now, no way to avoid it), and nuclear weapons have been used on American soil (this will happen, I can assure it), you can remember I told you so.
If every country replied to terrorist acts the way you think they should be replied to, we would have total war, everywhere, all the time.
No, you would have peace because one side would win and life would go on. This is how the second world war was approached - drop the pretense of diplomacy, treaties, and other stopgap measures, and let someone win. The Middle East is a powder keg that should have been allowed to burn off years ago. The conflicts there have needed resolution, but the US has prolonged the stalemate for its own purposes. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Agreed. And the US was right to drive them back. But you did not protect freedom or democracy. Kuwait is a monarchist dictatorship. It is legal to hold foreig slaves in Kuwait. There Philipinos servants held in virtual bondage by their employers, with the consent of the Kuwaiti government.
The woman who went to the UN to talk to the Assembly about her rape at the hands of Iraqi soldiers was in fact an ambassador's daughter who was not in Kuwait during the invasion.
Note that the US has also, at other times in history, bankrolled and supported Iraq. And Iran. And Afghanistan. Every time it suited a justifiable foreign policy decision.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG.
How are we making anyone in the Middle East 'not free'?
A good, if not somewhat naive, question. The US has interfered in Middle East politics for decades.
I am not claiming that any of these acts were "wrong" - people need to get over the notion that nations act for "right" or "wrong" - these are simplistic notions for children. Nations act in their own interests, as the US did.