I want to see heavy sanctions placed on Afghanistan for their lack of serious cooperation but I do NOT feel that endangering the lives of many military personell is in any way better than what these assholes did to our civilians...
Well, I guess it's a good thing that others are willing to fight for your peace, freedom and liberty.
You can't sanction away terrorism when the terrorists are flying jumbo jets into skyscrapers. I thought Colin Powell said something interesting this morning: (paraphrase): "The terrorists don't care how many people they kill. The scale of their attacks is limited only by the technology they have available." After this week, you aren't convinced this is true? Will it take a nuke going off before you're convinced that it just might be time to take care of this problem once and for all?
We did declare war. Congress passed a War Powers Act: "...the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks...".
I had a response to this all written, but I'm going to erase it, because clearly there is nothing to say that hasn't been said by others.
Instead, I have a question for you. It is 1939 or 1942 or pick your date. Hitler is invading neighbors, and for whatever reason is seething with hate. What is your solution for stopping him? Is it: "Bottom line: Any violent attack which kills innocent people will bring about exactly same feelings of hate that the attack last tuesday brought"?
The great flaw in your thinking is that you think these are reasonable people that are just fighting a war. If we would just give them what they want, then they would stop. That's simply not true, unless the destruction of the western world is what we give them.
Osama bin Laden is not a freedom fighter. He is a man that hungers for power, and uses the religion of his followers to manipulate them. He is a mass murderer on the scale of Hitler. The only difference is that Hitler had a country, and bin Laden does not.
If we attack Afghanistan, we have to be prepared to get our hands much dirtier than we did in the Persian Gulf.
With all due respect, that's what they said about Iraq, too. "Hundreds of thousands of battle-hardened warriors willing to die for their country". Didn't turn out that way, did it?
Now, I understand there are differences here, but let's not assume every country is a Vietnam backed by a cold-war soviet union.
If we started carpet bombing like in Iraq, it is very likely we would see the same kind of retreat and surrender. Even "experienced and fanatical guerilla warriors" can only take so much fear and sleep deprivation without any sort of military support.
And another thing I forgot to add: Anyone who thinks that we are "just creating more of them" is a racist, point-blank. All muslims are NOT psychopathic mass murderers, like some people seem to think. There simply aren't that many people like this.
We can win this war, and further, I think the middle east (the silent, fearful majority) will thank us for winning it.
With all due respect, and I do respect your regard for life, you are naive.
We are at the crossroads of a great opportunity. The opportunity to end terrorism as we know it. People think that we can't win, but we can.
The roots of terrorism are in the countries that support and harbor terrorism. If the terrorists have no bases, then we have solved 90% of the problem. Can we get every suicide bomber? Probably not, but we can certainly eliminate a lot of what's there now.
Think of the opportunity! Almost every country in the world is standing with us, saying "enough is enough". How many times in history can you say that? Yes, some innocent civilians are going to pay the price, but the price is imposed by their own government, not by ours. Innocent Germans paid the price of being ruled by Hitler, but Hitler had to be stopped. It is exactly the same situation today.
When you have multiple jumbo jets flying into skyscrapers, that is a pretty clear indication that terrorism is out of control, and worst, they have accumulated too much power and organization.
I hope that we have the guts to see this through. I can't stress this enough: We have the opportunity to end terrorism as we know it. How many more jumbo jets have to fly into skyscrapers before people realize that sometimes war is the only answer to solve this problem?
Forth clearly revolutionizes software as most know it. It could lead to efficient, reliable applications. But that won't happen. A mainstay of our economy is the employment of programmers. A winnowing by factor 100 is in no one's interest. Not the programmers, the companies, the government. To keep those programmers busy requires clumsy languages and bugs to chase.
To be honest, to me this invalidates everything else he said. If you have to depend on a conspiracy to figure out why your pet language is not universally adopted, then you are not living in reality.
I used Forth a long time ago. In fact, I advocated using Forth for the game company I worked at because I liked its simplicity and compactness. But I realize now that the practical measure of a language is how easy it is to maintain it... and Forth is not that language.
It kind of reminds me of APL zealots (yes, there used to be those, and there probably still around in hiding). They claimed much of the same things... that APL should be the language that everyone uses (I remember someone trying to convince me that APL would be a great language for an accounting system). They would NEVER admit that APL was hard to maintain.
I think this guy needs to pull his head out of the clouds and realize that there just might be reasons other than conspiracy that Forth is not more widely used. Forth had its time in the sun, and it was eventually rejected.
Afghanistan is a country. It is not "responsible" like a human being would.
When one talks about "Afghanistan is responsible", one is referring to the current leadership controlling the country.
In your rush to punish a country you will kill thousands of actual real live people who had nothing to do with bin laden, WTC, or America.
Yes, and we punished thousands of innocent Germans who didn't necessarily support Hitler, but who got caught up in the war. Does that mean we should have just let Hitler take over the world? Read my sig below. It's time to take a stand against tyrants (the original word Jefferson used), and the Taliban is a pretty damn good definition of a tyrant. I believe that freedom and liberty are worth fighting for.
We have the world you want. We have been tolerating terrorism for decades, and not punishing the countries that support and allow it. Where has it got us? I'll tell you where: Jumbo jets flying into towers, killing thousands, if not tens of thousands of people.
I'm sorry that innocents are going to get caught up in this, but sacrifice for a greater good is necessary. As a wise man once said, to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs.
By the way, just for your education, read this article. I quote: "He says the Taliban have isolated bin Laden and have taken away his fax machine, satellite phone, cell phone, computers, and his Internet access.
Really sounds like people who don't know where he is and have nothing to do with him, doesn't it? But the US government probably made it up and told CNN what to write.
You think Afghanistan is innocent here? Even if we grant that they don't have the resources, they can allow others to go in and get them. But up until now, they have not allowed it. The US has time and time again told them they will be held responsible for any terrorist attacks.
They are not "people who had nothing to do with anything". They are conspirators.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time
to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."
Unfortunately, too many people think this is figurative, and not literal. Yes, we can't bomb the ones hiding in civilian cities, but we can bomb their training camps. We can bomb the military of countries that harbor them. We can make countries root them out using their own police forces and hand them over.
The root of the problem lies in the countries that sponsor and allow terrorists to hide within them. If you eliminate that problem, then you've eliminated a lot of the problem.
Yes, many people will be killed. And I really believe that someday none of this will be necessary, because all the countries of the world will finally be stable democracies. But we're not there yet, and the tree of liberty is looking a little dry.
In fact, I think I might use T.J. as my sig, as much as I like my "sheriff" sig.
Indeed, and well said. It is amazing how many people will get up in arms when the US government wants to be able to monitor criminal e-mail communications (with the permission of a judge), yet will roll over and cower in fear when a REAL LIVE BAD GUYS come along who do far worse than read your e-mail.
It's as if people don't believe that there really are bad people in the world, who really do want to take away your freedom, and not just in a theoretical, "free speech" sense.
Exactly what does your post have to do with anything he said? Unless you simply don't understand what the word "harboring" means. The Germans arrested prisoners, they are not harboring them. When you "harbor" someone, you are giving them "safe harbor", in other words, protecting them.
But the idea that we could possibly hit them so hard that no one would ever again DARE to do something like this is absurd.
That's why you hit the countries that harbor them. No base of operations means no large scale attacks.
I honestly don't see why people are so pessimistic about getting these people. There aren't that many of them. If you think "they're all like that", then you are thinking in a racist manner. If we got serious about it, we could eliminate most of the problem. And quite frankly, I don't care whether they are afraid to die or not, as long as they die (or get locked up forever).
Are we going to eliminate them all? Probably not. But we can definitely prevent these large scale attacks. It's only our tolerance up until now that has allowed it to happen.
Where did I say I didn't have any sympathy for the victims? Obviously, I would rather it didn't happen at all. I'm just commenting on the choice of targets.
Every day Iraqi babies die because of the sanctions. Every month the death toll of Iraqi children surpasses 5,000. And George Jr. has taken over the job of bombarding Iraqis by air to make sure that their misery continues.
What a bunch of, ahem, silly rhetoric. First of all, Iraq gets tons of food and medical supplies, which are often intercepted by the military away from their own people. Second of all, maybe they forgot that Iraq invaded a sovereign nation in order to steal their oil. And maybe they forgot that Saudi Arabia was next. Yeah, it would be a great world with Saddam Hussein in charge of a great majority of the world's oil.
One thing I was thinking today is that if I had to choose, I would rather they had taken out the World Trade Center rather then the Empire State Building. The latter just seems to be have so much more history (King Kong) and emotion tied up into it. That seems to me a much bigger symbol of New York. Modern glass building have never done it for me. The engineering is certainly impressive, but they all tend to look the same.
Fortunately, the terrorists picked just the biggest target, not the most symbolic.
Re:space imaging nyc image 09/12/2001
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
If you're talking about countries other than the USA, then it's a different story.
In any case, I notice that you can't or won't answer my questions. Tell me, Mr. Anonymous Coward, why do we have poor people? How, exactly, do rich people keep them down?
Re:space imaging nyc image 09/12/2001
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Bottom line, poor people are lazy and it's their own fault. [...] You're a fucking idiot - and, in fact, you are worse than the original poster.
There's two points to make about this.
2. What difference does it make whose "fault" it is? What I said was that "escape from poverty is found through the mirror". Notice that's a positive statement of escape, not a negative statement of blame.
2. Even if we're going to talk about blame, if it's not ultimately their own fault, whose fault is it? (of course, we're talking about the average, able-bodied, mentally stable person). Tell me who has made it impossible for a particular person to become educated, and pulled out of poverty.
Finally, let me congratulate you on perpetuating the stereotype that poor people can't make it, that the odds are too great, and they might as well not even try. It's people like you that keep people in poverty.
Two things to say about this. First of all, the "unix model" of streams of data is absurd when talking about interactive applications. Do I need to set up a filter to insert a table into my document? Now, I know that that there are those of you who use LaTeX with a stream model to spell-check, etc, but I'm sorry -- you are living a crude, stone-age world. I like having my mispelled words underlined. The green-screen luddites need to get a clue.
Second of all, apparently this guy has no clue how Office works. Office is not a monolithic application. It's a big collection of COM components. That's why you can embed a spreadsheet into Word, or the Equation editor anywhere, or a Visio sheet into Powerpoint.
I'm fundamentally a command-line guy. I use Unix streams all day long, and hardly ever use debuggers. But this is just stupid.
Re:space imaging nyc image 09/12/2001
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Do tell Oh great and wise Master Of Reality. Why are people in the U.S poor?
There is no simple answer to that question, although a lot of people want you to think that the answers are simple ("we need to spend more money -- through me"). The biggest problem is that people think of "the poor" as one homogenous mass, as if they aren't individuals.
The Truth of the matter is that the reason a particular individual lives in poverty is specific to that individual. There is no "grand answer". I will tell you what I think the biggest problem is, however.
Frankly, it's people like the original poster dragging them down on a small scale, and people like the "Black Leadership" constantly spouting BS that people will never make it, "The Man" is keeping them down, they have no chance. The negativity is the biggest problem that keeps people in poverty.
Education is practically free in this country. Why don't people take advantage of it? Answer that question, and you will find the answer to why we have poverty. Cynics like to deride the fact that everyone has the opportunity to make it in the USA. Every day the cynics are proven wrong, yet the keep drumming their negative drums, trying to drag people back down.
The cynics will answer with, "sure, how often does someone go from rags to riches??". Of course, they miss the point. We don't need people going from rags to riches to prove the point, we need people going from rags to middle class, and it happens all the time.
I wish there was a simple answer, and of course there isn't. But I do know what the answer isn't: envying the rich, assuming that anyone who's successful must have "stolen" it from the poor, or any of the other lame excuses.
Bottom line, escape from poverty is found through the mirror.
I don't recommend that if you have high-speed access like a Cable modem. I run Linux on a P/II 266 using NAT, and I get 300 KBytes/second on the Linux box, and about 180 KBytes on the rest of my network. This is one of the major reasons I'm planning on upgrading my Linux box.
Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure alot of the Japanese Americans who were "inconvenienced" (internment/inconvencience, what's the difference, right RM?) during WWII would see things differently.
What's your point? Because we interred the Japanese Americans, all restrictions during WW/II were wrong? Most people don't think that was a good decision.
I don't think beating the paranoia drum is appropriate right now. When we start interring Arab Americans, feel free to speak up. But I don't see any unreasonable measures being suggested.
Re:space imaging nyc image 09/12/2001
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
The ignorance of people like you is incredible. Poor people (in the US, at least) are not poor because of rich people. The pie is not limited.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to see heavy sanctions placed on Afghanistan for their lack of serious cooperation but I do NOT feel that endangering the lives of many military personell is in any way better than what these assholes did to our civilians...
Well, I guess it's a good thing that others are willing to fight for your peace, freedom and liberty.
You can't sanction away terrorism when the terrorists are flying jumbo jets into skyscrapers. I thought Colin Powell said something interesting this morning: (paraphrase): "The terrorists don't care how many people they kill. The scale of their attacks is limited only by the technology they have available." After this week, you aren't convinced this is true? Will it take a nuke going off before you're convinced that it just might be time to take care of this problem once and for all?
We did declare war. Congress passed a War Powers Act: "...the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks...".
I had a response to this all written, but I'm going to erase it, because clearly there is nothing to say that hasn't been said by others.
Instead, I have a question for you. It is 1939 or 1942 or pick your date. Hitler is invading neighbors, and for whatever reason is seething with hate. What is your solution for stopping him? Is it: "Bottom line: Any violent attack which kills innocent people will bring about exactly same feelings of hate that the attack last tuesday brought"?
The great flaw in your thinking is that you think these are reasonable people that are just fighting a war. If we would just give them what they want, then they would stop. That's simply not true, unless the destruction of the western world is what we give them.
Osama bin Laden is not a freedom fighter. He is a man that hungers for power, and uses the religion of his followers to manipulate them. He is a mass murderer on the scale of Hitler. The only difference is that Hitler had a country, and bin Laden does not.
If we attack Afghanistan, we have to be prepared to get our hands much dirtier than we did in the Persian Gulf.
With all due respect, that's what they said about Iraq, too. "Hundreds of thousands of battle-hardened warriors willing to die for their country". Didn't turn out that way, did it?
Now, I understand there are differences here, but let's not assume every country is a Vietnam backed by a cold-war soviet union.
If we started carpet bombing like in Iraq, it is very likely we would see the same kind of retreat and surrender. Even "experienced and fanatical guerilla warriors" can only take so much fear and sleep deprivation without any sort of military support.
And another thing I forgot to add: Anyone who thinks that we are "just creating more of them" is a racist, point-blank. All muslims are NOT psychopathic mass murderers, like some people seem to think. There simply aren't that many people like this.
We can win this war, and further, I think the middle east (the silent, fearful majority) will thank us for winning it.
With all due respect, and I do respect your regard for life, you are naive.
We are at the crossroads of a great opportunity. The opportunity to end terrorism as we know it. People think that we can't win, but we can.
The roots of terrorism are in the countries that support and harbor terrorism. If the terrorists have no bases, then we have solved 90% of the problem. Can we get every suicide bomber? Probably not, but we can certainly eliminate a lot of what's there now.
Think of the opportunity! Almost every country in the world is standing with us, saying "enough is enough". How many times in history can you say that? Yes, some innocent civilians are going to pay the price, but the price is imposed by their own government, not by ours. Innocent Germans paid the price of being ruled by Hitler, but Hitler had to be stopped. It is exactly the same situation today.
When you have multiple jumbo jets flying into skyscrapers, that is a pretty clear indication that terrorism is out of control, and worst, they have accumulated too much power and organization.
I hope that we have the guts to see this through. I can't stress this enough: We have the opportunity to end terrorism as we know it. How many more jumbo jets have to fly into skyscrapers before people realize that sometimes war is the only answer to solve this problem?
I agree with you to an extent, but Forth hasn't been rejected at all!
I should have said that it's been rejected as a "general purpose language". I think Forth has a lot of value in embedded applications.
Forth clearly revolutionizes software as most know it. It could lead to efficient, reliable applications. But that won't happen. A mainstay of our economy is the employment of programmers. A winnowing by factor 100 is in no one's interest. Not the programmers, the companies, the government. To keep those programmers busy requires clumsy languages and bugs to chase.
To be honest, to me this invalidates everything else he said. If you have to depend on a conspiracy to figure out why your pet language is not universally adopted, then you are not living in reality.
I used Forth a long time ago. In fact, I advocated using Forth for the game company I worked at because I liked its simplicity and compactness. But I realize now that the practical measure of a language is how easy it is to maintain it... and Forth is not that language.
It kind of reminds me of APL zealots (yes, there used to be those, and there probably still around in hiding). They claimed much of the same things... that APL should be the language that everyone uses (I remember someone trying to convince me that APL would be a great language for an accounting system). They would NEVER admit that APL was hard to maintain.
I think this guy needs to pull his head out of the clouds and realize that there just might be reasons other than conspiracy that Forth is not more widely used. Forth had its time in the sun, and it was eventually rejected.
Afghanistan is a country. It is not "responsible" like a human being would.
When one talks about "Afghanistan is responsible", one is referring to the current leadership controlling the country.
In your rush to punish a country you will kill thousands of actual real live people who had nothing to do with bin laden, WTC, or America.
Yes, and we punished thousands of innocent Germans who didn't necessarily support Hitler, but who got caught up in the war. Does that mean we should have just let Hitler take over the world? Read my sig below. It's time to take a stand against tyrants (the original word Jefferson used), and the Taliban is a pretty damn good definition of a tyrant. I believe that freedom and liberty are worth fighting for.
We have the world you want. We have been tolerating terrorism for decades, and not punishing the countries that support and allow it. Where has it got us? I'll tell you where: Jumbo jets flying into towers, killing thousands, if not tens of thousands of people.
I'm sorry that innocents are going to get caught up in this, but sacrifice for a greater good is necessary. As a wise man once said, to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs.
By the way, just for your education, read this article. I quote: "He says the Taliban have isolated bin Laden and have taken away his fax machine, satellite phone, cell phone, computers, and his Internet access.
Really sounds like people who don't know where he is and have nothing to do with him, doesn't it? But the US government probably made it up and told CNN what to write.
You're ignorance is, quite frankly, shocking.
You think Afghanistan is innocent here? Even if we grant that they don't have the resources, they can allow others to go in and get them. But up until now, they have not allowed it. The US has time and time again told them they will be held responsible for any terrorist attacks.
They are not "people who had nothing to do with anything". They are conspirators.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."
Unfortunately, too many people think this is figurative, and not literal. Yes, we can't bomb the ones hiding in civilian cities, but we can bomb their training camps. We can bomb the military of countries that harbor them. We can make countries root them out using their own police forces and hand them over.
The root of the problem lies in the countries that sponsor and allow terrorists to hide within them. If you eliminate that problem, then you've eliminated a lot of the problem.
Yes, many people will be killed. And I really believe that someday none of this will be necessary, because all the countries of the world will finally be stable democracies. But we're not there yet, and the tree of liberty is looking a little dry.
In fact, I think I might use T.J. as my sig, as much as I like my "sheriff" sig.
Indeed, and well said. It is amazing how many people will get up in arms when the US government wants to be able to monitor criminal e-mail communications (with the permission of a judge), yet will roll over and cower in fear when a REAL LIVE BAD GUYS come along who do far worse than read your e-mail.
It's as if people don't believe that there really are bad people in the world, who really do want to take away your freedom, and not just in a theoretical, "free speech" sense.
Exactly what does your post have to do with anything he said? Unless you simply don't understand what the word "harboring" means. The Germans arrested prisoners, they are not harboring them. When you "harbor" someone, you are giving them "safe harbor", in other words, protecting them.
But the idea that we could possibly hit them so hard that no one would ever again DARE to do something like this is absurd.
That's why you hit the countries that harbor them. No base of operations means no large scale attacks.
I honestly don't see why people are so pessimistic about getting these people. There aren't that many of them. If you think "they're all like that", then you are thinking in a racist manner. If we got serious about it, we could eliminate most of the problem. And quite frankly, I don't care whether they are afraid to die or not, as long as they die (or get locked up forever).
Are we going to eliminate them all? Probably not. But we can definitely prevent these large scale attacks. It's only our tolerance up until now that has allowed it to happen.
Where did I say I didn't have any sympathy for the victims? Obviously, I would rather it didn't happen at all. I'm just commenting on the choice of targets.
Every day Iraqi babies die because of the sanctions. Every month the death toll of Iraqi children surpasses 5,000. And George Jr. has taken over the job of bombarding Iraqis by air to make sure that their misery continues.
What a bunch of, ahem, silly rhetoric. First of all, Iraq gets tons of food and medical supplies, which are often intercepted by the military away from their own people. Second of all, maybe they forgot that Iraq invaded a sovereign nation in order to steal their oil. And maybe they forgot that Saudi Arabia was next. Yeah, it would be a great world with Saddam Hussein in charge of a great majority of the world's oil.
One thing I was thinking today is that if I had to choose, I would rather they had taken out the World Trade Center rather then the Empire State Building. The latter just seems to be have so much more history (King Kong) and emotion tied up into it. That seems to me a much bigger symbol of New York. Modern glass building have never done it for me. The engineering is certainly impressive, but they all tend to look the same.
Fortunately, the terrorists picked just the biggest target, not the most symbolic.
If you're talking about countries other than the USA, then it's a different story.
In any case, I notice that you can't or won't answer my questions. Tell me, Mr. Anonymous Coward, why do we have poor people? How, exactly, do rich people keep them down?
Bottom line, poor people are lazy and it's their own fault. [...] You're a fucking idiot - and, in fact, you are worse than the original poster.
There's two points to make about this.
2. What difference does it make whose "fault" it is? What I said was that "escape from poverty is found through the mirror". Notice that's a positive statement of escape, not a negative statement of blame.
2. Even if we're going to talk about blame, if it's not ultimately their own fault, whose fault is it? (of course, we're talking about the average, able-bodied, mentally stable person). Tell me who has made it impossible for a particular person to become educated, and pulled out of poverty.
Finally, let me congratulate you on perpetuating the stereotype that poor people can't make it, that the odds are too great, and they might as well not even try. It's people like you that keep people in poverty.
Two things to say about this. First of all, the "unix model" of streams of data is absurd when talking about interactive applications. Do I need to set up a filter to insert a table into my document? Now, I know that that there are those of you who use LaTeX with a stream model to spell-check, etc, but I'm sorry -- you are living a crude, stone-age world. I like having my mispelled words underlined. The green-screen luddites need to get a clue.
Second of all, apparently this guy has no clue how Office works. Office is not a monolithic application. It's a big collection of COM components. That's why you can embed a spreadsheet into Word, or the Equation editor anywhere, or a Visio sheet into Powerpoint.
I'm fundamentally a command-line guy. I use Unix streams all day long, and hardly ever use debuggers. But this is just stupid.
Do tell Oh great and wise Master Of Reality. Why are people in the U.S poor?
There is no simple answer to that question, although a lot of people want you to think that the answers are simple ("we need to spend more money -- through me"). The biggest problem is that people think of "the poor" as one homogenous mass, as if they aren't individuals.
The Truth of the matter is that the reason a particular individual lives in poverty is specific to that individual. There is no "grand answer". I will tell you what I think the biggest problem is, however.
Frankly, it's people like the original poster dragging them down on a small scale, and people like the "Black Leadership" constantly spouting BS that people will never make it, "The Man" is keeping them down, they have no chance. The negativity is the biggest problem that keeps people in poverty.
Education is practically free in this country. Why don't people take advantage of it? Answer that question, and you will find the answer to why we have poverty. Cynics like to deride the fact that everyone has the opportunity to make it in the USA. Every day the cynics are proven wrong, yet the keep drumming their negative drums, trying to drag people back down.
The cynics will answer with, "sure, how often does someone go from rags to riches??". Of course, they miss the point. We don't need people going from rags to riches to prove the point, we need people going from rags to middle class, and it happens all the time.
I wish there was a simple answer, and of course there isn't. But I do know what the answer isn't: envying the rich, assuming that anyone who's successful must have "stolen" it from the poor, or any of the other lame excuses.
Bottom line, escape from poverty is found through the mirror.
I don't recommend that if you have high-speed access like a Cable modem. I run Linux on a P/II 266 using NAT, and I get 300 KBytes/second on the Linux box, and about 180 KBytes on the rest of my network. This is one of the major reasons I'm planning on upgrading my Linux box.
I'm sure alot of the Japanese Americans who were "inconvenienced" (internment/inconvencience, what's the difference, right RM?) during WWII would see things differently.
What's your point? Because we interred the Japanese Americans, all restrictions during WW/II were wrong? Most people don't think that was a good decision.
I don't think beating the paranoia drum is appropriate right now. When we start interring Arab Americans, feel free to speak up. But I don't see any unreasonable measures being suggested.
The ignorance of people like you is incredible. Poor people (in the US, at least) are not poor because of rich people. The pie is not limited.