Actually, I think that Miguel has the right idea. Unlike Wine Miguel is not trying to be binary compatible, he is simply trying to provide a mostly compatible API. In a few years, when it is time to re-up your Windows Licensing 6.0 contracts to Windows oldest-child licensing there are going to be a lot of shops contemplating a way out. Unfortunately, many of these shops will have a lot of time and effort rolled up into.NET applications.
Mono doesn't have to be 100% compatible to be a good option for these shops. Heck, chances are very good that no matter what Microsoft does a.NET to Mono migration will be less painful than a VB to VB.Net migration. Even a painful Mono migration will probably be better than the alternative. The fact that Mono runs on both Linux and Windows will be pure gravy.
Mono will also serve to keep Microsoft honest. If Mono is relatively compatible with.NET then it severely limits how much Microsoft can change the APIs. After all, if they change the APIs then they break people's applications. Microsoft can do that if their customers don't have a way to migrate away from Microsoft's API, but if they do have a migration path available (ie. Mono), then severely incompatible changes will be very likely to drive their customers into the waiting arms of the competition.
Just like IBM's Java VM makes it less likely that Sun will try any seriously deranged shenanigans with the Sun Java VM, Mono makes it less likely that Microsoft will be able to tighten their grip around.NET customers.
Not that I am interested in jumping into the.NET/Mono vise. I am perfectly happy with Python and Zope, but I can see why Miguel is building Mono. He sees that lots of customers are painting themselves into a corner with Microsoft's.NET, and he plans to make a living lending them a hand getting out of their predicament.
The big publishing houses will come around when they realize that ebooks are helping the "small" publishing houses become "big" publishing houses.
I am a bookworm, over the years I have spent thousands of dollars on books. Recently the bulk of the money I spend on books have been ebooks from Baen or the "multiformat" unencrypted section of Fictionwise.com. It blows me away that for $15 I can get 5 or 6 ebooks from Baen (and I even get access to the books before they are in stores). Sure, some of these books turn out to be mediocre, but I have paid a lot more for mediocre books in the past.
The real beauty is that even at this bargain basement price Baen is almost certainly making more from my ebook purchase than it would if I bought the paperbacks. Capitalism is all about exchanges that are good for everyone involved, and Baen's ebooks are the perfect example of this. I get a steady flow of good books, available in my favorite format (electronic), delivered straight to my house in an instant. Baen makes more money than if they had printed the book up and shipped it to a bookstore.
Not me, I have gotten to the point where I will not read anything by an author I am unfamiliar with unless an ebook available.
I can fit hundreds of books on the expansion module of my Visor Handspring. This means that I can carry around in my pocket a wide array of reading material. I can have all sorts of literature available to me 24 hours a day (I can read my Visor in the dark).
As to restrictions on the files, it's highly doubtful that the big publishers are going to release their stuff without some form of DRM. Plain txt files are a thing of Usenet.
If Eric Flint is to be believed then Baen's authors get significantly more than two orders of magnitude less ebook sales than paperback book sales. The difference, they don't encrypt their books and offer them in a wide variety of formats. In fact, they even give out full books as samples. Check out Baen's website if you haven't already. These guys have completely won me over with their ebook program.
It's also possible to get unencrypted ebooks from Fictionwise. They call it "Multiformat" books.
Ebook buyers don't want to be treated like thieves, and they don't want to purchase books that are less versatile than the paper edition (especially considering the fact that they are generally priced similarly.
The problem with having a huge cashpile is that everyone wants a piece. That's why Microsoft is pushing this through the courts instead of just settling. Microsoft knows that there are literally thousands of patents held by small companies like Eolas that Microsoft infringes. If Eolas scores a big hit then companies will pop up out of the woodwork with similar suits. Even companies without the necessary capital to pay for a lawsuit will file because it will be easy for them to find a lawyer who will work on contigency. After all, Microsoft is the juiciest of juicy targets.
Even worse, entrepreneurs will simply start trying to get patents in areas that Microsoft is likely to develop in the future. After all, you don't have to actually write the software to get a patent. You simply have to have "an idea." This will mean that Microsoft will not only have to worry about patents that they infringe now, but they will also have to worry about patents they might infringe with their new technologies.
Free Software is a different deal altogether, because we can always simply recompile our software with the features re-enabled or simply download from a portion of the world where they don't (yet) have software patents. In other words, this is very likely to work in Free Software's favor. Microsoft can be forced to comply, but Free Software users really can't. A perfect example is RedHat and MP3 players. RedHat doesn't ship an MP3 player (for legal reasons), but getting an MP3 player for RedHat Linux isn't difficult at all.
I also was curious to see what software they had used to write the paper. It looked like a LaTeX document to me. Sure enough a quick peek at the document info reveals:
Actually the point of the original article was that the writer wanted a text editor that stayed out of the way. He didn't want to worry about page layout, and he certainly didn't want an editor that corrected perceived mistakes.
The fact of the matter is that you don't have to be too much of an expert to edit text in any modern vi (heck, vim has drop down menus for crying out loud), and you don't have to be any sort of an expert to edit text in Emacs.
Exactly. Comparing build-it-yourself-from-scratch-from-CVS Linux installs to running the Windows installer is ridiculous. Linux has plenty of tools that allow you to easily add applications. The one I am most familiar with is Debian's apt system. Apt will happily sort out dependencies for you, and will even help you choose intelligent default settings. It will then faithfully keep the software up to date for you. Unlike Windows update apt will also happily do this for the OS itself and all of the software on the entire system (assuming you don't install anything manually:). What's more every other major distribution on the planet has something similar.
In short, this is one area where Linux quite literally blows the doors off of Windows. Yet every time the subject comes up a million wackydoos jump out of the woodwork and start talking about how compiling applications is harder than double-clicking on setup.exe.
Like this is some sort of a revelation.
Basically if you are new to Linux and you are reading some web page that talks mentions 'configure' or 'make' just surf away. Chances are good that either A) your distribution has a pre-compiled, pre-configured version of the software available at the click of a button (or two) or B) there is a more popular application that does the same thing that is available as a pre-compiled package for your distribution.
I disagree. Writers create text documents. When push comes to shove vi (and Emacs) both have a pile of tools that make creating text documents much easier. Sure, these tools have somewhat of a learning curve, but the learning curve pays off in spades once you become an expert.
The reason that Gates is preaching interoperability here is that he knows that the market is going to push him in that direction anyhow. People deploying web services want standards, and if Microsoft doesn't toe the line, then they will use someone else's software.
Microsoft would love to create a proprietary solution, but they know that very few people would be interested in buying. So instead they will implement 98% of the standard and add in a pile of "extensions" that only work with their software.
HP can say that the d220 is aimed at corporate users, but at that price point it is pretty clear that the market they are really aiming at is the same market that Wal-Mart.com is going after with their Linux and OS-less machines. Cheapskates with some software savvy.
However, there is a market for Linux hardware, just not a very big market. HP doesn't want to go through the hassle of supporting Linux, but they are more than happy to sell hardware that is Linux certified and comes with a warranty. After all, these boxes almost certainly have a higher profit margin than a similar box running Windows, and HP doesn't have to worry about software support.
I personally would buy one of these machines. The price is pretty decent, and I wouldn't want to a pre-installed Linux distro anyhow.
Nope, I am merely saying that my first born (a girl) is much better behaved than my second born (a boy). I also pointed out that my second born also happens to be my first born son (an important part of most cultures).
I am also am a boy, and I also was very well behaved (or at least that is what my parents tell me). However, feel free to be offended if that is what floats your boat.
Do you think they would settle for my second born child? My first born is very well behaved. I would miss her terribly. My second born is a monster. I am pretty sure that Microsoft would be begging to give him back after a month or two.
He is my first born *son*, if that makes a different.
Fry's is not trying to sell Linux. If they were they wouldn't be selling a Chinese-localized distribution. Fry's is trying to sell PCs without having to pay the Microsoft tax.
Fry's employees are actually doing customers a favor by steering them clear of these machines. Most folks don't want such a beast, and the people that do want such a beast aren't going to be asking the "help" at Fry's for advice.
My favorite business strategy is what the folks at Baen are up to. They sell unencrypted electronic versions of the book for less than the cost of the paperback. This allows them to slash their distribution costs to the bone, and cut out the bookstore middleman. Not only are they probably making a higher profit than they do when I buy the book in a bookstore, but I get my hands on their books, in my preferred format, at a discount price.
The fact that they throw in full-length "teaser" novels in for free in their Free Library is just a bonus.
Eventually everyone's going to be doing something similar. Just wait and see.
I don't have problems reading my Visor (or the B&W Sony Clie that my last job furnished), and I wouldn't even consider trading a battery life for a clearer screen.
In fact, one of the reasons that I went back to my Visor instead of buying a new Clie when I got my new job was the fact that my Visor doesn't need a charger. Don't get me wrong, I use rechargeable batteries, but I don't have to worry about needing to recharge my PDA right as I am getting to a good spot in my book.
Well, that and purchasing rechargeable batteries for my Visor was cheaper than the $129 that Staples wanted for a Clie SJ20.
It's pretty clear that you have never actually read a book on a PDA. You should try it.
Personally I have gotten to the point where I am not interested in reading books by authors I am unfamiliar with unless I can read the book on my PDA.
First of all, the tiny screen on a PDA is not a problem. Small pages would be a problem in a book because it takes two hands to turn the pages. With a PDA turning the pages is a one-handed affair, and it is as simple as pressing a button. Most readers will even autoscroll for you if you so desire. Even using the largest bold font on my Visor Handspring I am still able to blaze through books with ease. In fact, if you read up about page layout you would find that narrow text columns make it easy for your eyes to find the next line.
Secondly, the coarse DPI only matters if you are using a font that is designed for paper. I, for one, don't care if the font is jaggy as long as it is perfectly clear what the letter is. It's when you start anti-aliasing the fonts that they start to be problematic.
Thirdly, my Visor Handspring didn't cost $300, it cost $80. Combined with a $30 CF springboard attachment and a cheap CF card I can comfortably carry around hundreds of books. My Visor is lighter than a paperback, and I can read it in the dark. Heck, the gizmo even helps me make sure I don't miss any meetings. Batteries aren't a problem as the Visor I have takes AAA batteries. I currently use rechargeables, but I have used standard batteries in a pinch. Even reading 3 books a week I still usually get a couple weeks worth of juice out of standard AAA batteries.
The trick is to read a book on your PDA and not on your laptop. Sure, your PDA doesn't have nearly the resolution of a laptop, but it also doesn't try and use fonts designed for paper. I find that my old Visor Handspring is very comfortable to read, and it is smaller and lighter than most paperbacks. A PDA is almost much easier to read one handed. A simple click turns the page, and most readers will even autoscroll.
I was a firm believer in paper-based books until after I finished reading my first electronic book on my PDA.
I have gotten to the point where I will not read books by authors I am unfamiliar with unless I can read the book on my PDA. I actually find my PDA to be more comfortable for reading than a book. I can read my PDA in the dark, I can always find exactly where I left off, and I can carry hundreds of books around with me. My PDA is always with me, and I can read any time there is even the smallest opportunity. I can even read during those short periods at work when I a waiting for someone else. Pulling out a paperback for 5 minutes at work gets you funny looks. Pulling out your PDA, on the other hand, is a completely different story. I recently re-read several series by David Eddings, and I was surprised at how much reading a dead-tree book bothered me.
I have introduced several readers that I am acquainted with to electronic books, and they have all agreed that PDAs are the perfect way to read. In fact, I have introduced several folks that generally don't read novels and they too found it much easier to get into a book when they didn't have to "make time" for reading, but could instead simply use the time that they normall spent twiddling their thumbs.
The dead-tree book is an endangered species. It just doesn't know that it is dead yet.
First of all, Mike Hawash was not "just poking around." He was planning to commit treason. His goal was to travel to Afghanistan and then put American soldiers in his gun sights and pull the trigger. Not only does he admit to that himself in his plea bargain, but he will be actively testifying against his comrades that this was the case. Mr. Hawash was unsuccesful in his attempt (thankfully), but that doesn't change what he attempted to do.
So spare me the sob story.
As for your insinuation that I don't believe in treating all terrorists the same, well you couldn't be more wrong. I lost two of my friends to Sendero Luminoso in the small town of Huancayo, Peru back in 1990. I was fortunate enough to be in Lima at the time my friends were killed, or I would be dead in their place.
People that align themselves with terrorists deserve to die no matter where they live, and no matter what beliefs they profess.
A person "plea bargains" when the prosecution shows the person that they have enough evidence to charge them with a more serious crime. Basically it is a signal that the state is willing to be lenient in exchange for a sure fire conviction on a lesser charge (and possibly some help testifying against other criminals).
Mike Hawash gave up his right to a fair trial because he felt that such a trial would go badly for him. If the Feds had evidence that he was aiding and abetting the Taliban, then he was almost certainly right.
Believe it or not, the people that the Feds arrest usually are guilty.
Semantics. American citizens going out of their way to aid foreign terrorists are terrorists. I am all for due process, but I am also all for stringing up everyone involved with terrorists.
The fact that the Feds are willing to plea bargain with Mike means that he at least was involved enough with terrorists to implicate them in crimes. That's more than close enough to make him guilty in my book. Once again, the fact that he was dragged in as a "witness" almost certainly helped him get his plea bargain. If the Feds had waited until they had a case on Mr. Hawash then it is very likely that he would have received a far worse sentence than 7 years.
Mike should not have been taken into custody and held without being arrested, but the fact that he was guilty made it so that the situation worked in his favor. However, I don't want laws that allow Feds to be lenient with "witnesses." I want laws that protect the innocent, and this is a bad law.
Exactly. Just because this guy really was a terrorist doesn't mean that the Feds will have fingered the right guy when the come to get you. If the Federales can't bust a criminal without giving them the benefit of due process then I would rather have that criminal out on the street. I would rather have seen Mike walk than to have the government hold him for several weeks without arresting him. Due process is part of what makes the U.S. a good place to live.
That being the case, this will probably work out in Mike's favor as it gave him the opportunity to be a "witness" instead of a suspect. Seven years in prison is a pretty lenient sentence for conspiring with terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think that Miguel has the right idea. Unlike Wine Miguel is not trying to be binary compatible, he is simply trying to provide a mostly compatible API. In a few years, when it is time to re-up your Windows Licensing 6.0 contracts to Windows oldest-child licensing there are going to be a lot of shops contemplating a way out. Unfortunately, many of these shops will have a lot of time and effort rolled up into .NET applications.
Mono doesn't have to be 100% compatible to be a good option for these shops. Heck, chances are very good that no matter what Microsoft does a .NET to Mono migration will be less painful than a VB to VB.Net migration. Even a painful Mono migration will probably be better than the alternative. The fact that Mono runs on both Linux and Windows will be pure gravy.
Mono will also serve to keep Microsoft honest. If Mono is relatively compatible with .NET then it severely limits how much Microsoft can change the APIs. After all, if they change the APIs then they break people's applications. Microsoft can do that if their customers don't have a way to migrate away from Microsoft's API, but if they do have a migration path available (ie. Mono), then severely incompatible changes will be very likely to drive their customers into the waiting arms of the competition.
Just like IBM's Java VM makes it less likely that Sun will try any seriously deranged shenanigans with the Sun Java VM, Mono makes it less likely that Microsoft will be able to tighten their grip around .NET customers.
Not that I am interested in jumping into the .NET/Mono vise. I am perfectly happy with Python and Zope, but I can see why Miguel is building Mono. He sees that lots of customers are painting themselves into a corner with Microsoft's .NET, and he plans to make a living lending them a hand getting out of their predicament.
Pretty good plan, all things considered.
The big publishing houses will come around when they realize that ebooks are helping the "small" publishing houses become "big" publishing houses.
I am a bookworm, over the years I have spent thousands of dollars on books. Recently the bulk of the money I spend on books have been ebooks from Baen or the "multiformat" unencrypted section of Fictionwise.com. It blows me away that for $15 I can get 5 or 6 ebooks from Baen (and I even get access to the books before they are in stores). Sure, some of these books turn out to be mediocre, but I have paid a lot more for mediocre books in the past.
The real beauty is that even at this bargain basement price Baen is almost certainly making more from my ebook purchase than it would if I bought the paperbacks. Capitalism is all about exchanges that are good for everyone involved, and Baen's ebooks are the perfect example of this. I get a steady flow of good books, available in my favorite format (electronic), delivered straight to my house in an instant. Baen makes more money than if they had printed the book up and shipped it to a bookstore.
It almost makes me want to cry.
Not me, I have gotten to the point where I will not read anything by an author I am unfamiliar with unless an ebook available.
I can fit hundreds of books on the expansion module of my Visor Handspring. This means that I can carry around in my pocket a wide array of reading material. I can have all sorts of literature available to me 24 hours a day (I can read my Visor in the dark).
If Eric Flint is to be believed then Baen's authors get significantly more than two orders of magnitude less ebook sales than paperback book sales. The difference, they don't encrypt their books and offer them in a wide variety of formats. In fact, they even give out full books as samples. Check out Baen's website if you haven't already. These guys have completely won me over with their ebook program.
It's also possible to get unencrypted ebooks from Fictionwise. They call it "Multiformat" books.
Ebook buyers don't want to be treated like thieves, and they don't want to purchase books that are less versatile than the paper edition (especially considering the fact that they are generally priced similarly.
The problem with having a huge cashpile is that everyone wants a piece. That's why Microsoft is pushing this through the courts instead of just settling. Microsoft knows that there are literally thousands of patents held by small companies like Eolas that Microsoft infringes. If Eolas scores a big hit then companies will pop up out of the woodwork with similar suits. Even companies without the necessary capital to pay for a lawsuit will file because it will be easy for them to find a lawyer who will work on contigency. After all, Microsoft is the juiciest of juicy targets. Even worse, entrepreneurs will simply start trying to get patents in areas that Microsoft is likely to develop in the future. After all, you don't have to actually write the software to get a patent. You simply have to have "an idea." This will mean that Microsoft will not only have to worry about patents that they infringe now, but they will also have to worry about patents they might infringe with their new technologies. Free Software is a different deal altogether, because we can always simply recompile our software with the features re-enabled or simply download from a portion of the world where they don't (yet) have software patents. In other words, this is very likely to work in Free Software's favor. Microsoft can be forced to comply, but Free Software users really can't. A perfect example is RedHat and MP3 players. RedHat doesn't ship an MP3 player (for legal reasons), but getting an MP3 player for RedHat Linux isn't difficult at all.
I also was curious to see what software they had used to write the paper. It looked like a LaTeX document to me. Sure enough a quick peek at the document info reveals:
Title: paper.dvi
Application: dvips(k) 5.86 Copyright 1999 Radical Eye Software
Actually the point of the original article was that the writer wanted a text editor that stayed out of the way. He didn't want to worry about page layout, and he certainly didn't want an editor that corrected perceived mistakes.
The fact of the matter is that you don't have to be too much of an expert to edit text in any modern vi (heck, vim has drop down menus for crying out loud), and you don't have to be any sort of an expert to edit text in Emacs.
Exactly. Comparing build-it-yourself-from-scratch-from-CVS Linux installs to running the Windows installer is ridiculous. Linux has plenty of tools that allow you to easily add applications. The one I am most familiar with is Debian's apt system. Apt will happily sort out dependencies for you, and will even help you choose intelligent default settings. It will then faithfully keep the software up to date for you. Unlike Windows update apt will also happily do this for the OS itself and all of the software on the entire system (assuming you don't install anything manually :). What's more every other major distribution on the planet has something similar.
In short, this is one area where Linux quite literally blows the doors off of Windows. Yet every time the subject comes up a million wackydoos jump out of the woodwork and start talking about how compiling applications is harder than double-clicking on setup.exe.
Like this is some sort of a revelation.
Basically if you are new to Linux and you are reading some web page that talks mentions 'configure' or 'make' just surf away. Chances are good that either A) your distribution has a pre-compiled, pre-configured version of the software available at the click of a button (or two) or B) there is a more popular application that does the same thing that is available as a pre-compiled package for your distribution.
I disagree. Writers create text documents. When push comes to shove vi (and Emacs) both have a pile of tools that make creating text documents much easier. Sure, these tools have somewhat of a learning curve, but the learning curve pays off in spades once you become an expert.
There are 64 bit applications available for this chip. There just aren't 64 bit Windows applications available.
Personally, I want to see how PostgreSQL runs on this bad boy.
The reason that Gates is preaching interoperability here is that he knows that the market is going to push him in that direction anyhow. People deploying web services want standards, and if Microsoft doesn't toe the line, then they will use someone else's software.
Microsoft would love to create a proprietary solution, but they know that very few people would be interested in buying. So instead they will implement 98% of the standard and add in a pile of "extensions" that only work with their software.
HP can say that the d220 is aimed at corporate users, but at that price point it is pretty clear that the market they are really aiming at is the same market that Wal-Mart.com is going after with their Linux and OS-less machines. Cheapskates with some software savvy.
However, there is a market for Linux hardware, just not a very big market. HP doesn't want to go through the hassle of supporting Linux, but they are more than happy to sell hardware that is Linux certified and comes with a warranty. After all, these boxes almost certainly have a higher profit margin than a similar box running Windows, and HP doesn't have to worry about software support.
I personally would buy one of these machines. The price is pretty decent, and I wouldn't want to a pre-installed Linux distro anyhow.
Nope, I am merely saying that my first born (a girl) is much better behaved than my second born (a boy). I also pointed out that my second born also happens to be my first born son (an important part of most cultures).
I am also am a boy, and I also was very well behaved (or at least that is what my parents tell me). However, feel free to be offended if that is what floats your boat.
Do you think they would settle for my second born child? My first born is very well behaved. I would miss her terribly. My second born is a monster. I am pretty sure that Microsoft would be begging to give him back after a month or two.
He is my first born *son*, if that makes a different.
Fry's is not trying to sell Linux. If they were they wouldn't be selling a Chinese-localized distribution. Fry's is trying to sell PCs without having to pay the Microsoft tax.
Fry's employees are actually doing customers a favor by steering them clear of these machines. Most folks don't want such a beast, and the people that do want such a beast aren't going to be asking the "help" at Fry's for advice.
Run along, nothing to see here.
My favorite business strategy is what the folks at Baen are up to. They sell unencrypted electronic versions of the book for less than the cost of the paperback. This allows them to slash their distribution costs to the bone, and cut out the bookstore middleman. Not only are they probably making a higher profit than they do when I buy the book in a bookstore, but I get my hands on their books, in my preferred format, at a discount price.
The fact that they throw in full-length "teaser" novels in for free in their Free Library is just a bonus.
Eventually everyone's going to be doing something similar. Just wait and see.
I don't have problems reading my Visor (or the B&W Sony Clie that my last job furnished), and I wouldn't even consider trading a battery life for a clearer screen.
In fact, one of the reasons that I went back to my Visor instead of buying a new Clie when I got my new job was the fact that my Visor doesn't need a charger. Don't get me wrong, I use rechargeable batteries, but I don't have to worry about needing to recharge my PDA right as I am getting to a good spot in my book.
Well, that and purchasing rechargeable batteries for my Visor was cheaper than the $129 that Staples wanted for a Clie SJ20.
It's pretty clear that you have never actually read a book on a PDA. You should try it.
Personally I have gotten to the point where I am not interested in reading books by authors I am unfamiliar with unless I can read the book on my PDA.
First of all, the tiny screen on a PDA is not a problem. Small pages would be a problem in a book because it takes two hands to turn the pages. With a PDA turning the pages is a one-handed affair, and it is as simple as pressing a button. Most readers will even autoscroll for you if you so desire. Even using the largest bold font on my Visor Handspring I am still able to blaze through books with ease. In fact, if you read up about page layout you would find that narrow text columns make it easy for your eyes to find the next line.
Secondly, the coarse DPI only matters if you are using a font that is designed for paper. I, for one, don't care if the font is jaggy as long as it is perfectly clear what the letter is. It's when you start anti-aliasing the fonts that they start to be problematic.
Thirdly, my Visor Handspring didn't cost $300, it cost $80. Combined with a $30 CF springboard attachment and a cheap CF card I can comfortably carry around hundreds of books. My Visor is lighter than a paperback, and I can read it in the dark. Heck, the gizmo even helps me make sure I don't miss any meetings. Batteries aren't a problem as the Visor I have takes AAA batteries. I currently use rechargeables, but I have used standard batteries in a pinch. Even reading 3 books a week I still usually get a couple weeks worth of juice out of standard AAA batteries.
The trick is to read a book on your PDA and not on your laptop. Sure, your PDA doesn't have nearly the resolution of a laptop, but it also doesn't try and use fonts designed for paper. I find that my old Visor Handspring is very comfortable to read, and it is smaller and lighter than most paperbacks. A PDA is almost much easier to read one handed. A simple click turns the page, and most readers will even autoscroll.
I was a firm believer in paper-based books until after I finished reading my first electronic book on my PDA.
I have gotten to the point where I will not read books by authors I am unfamiliar with unless I can read the book on my PDA. I actually find my PDA to be more comfortable for reading than a book. I can read my PDA in the dark, I can always find exactly where I left off, and I can carry hundreds of books around with me. My PDA is always with me, and I can read any time there is even the smallest opportunity. I can even read during those short periods at work when I a waiting for someone else. Pulling out a paperback for 5 minutes at work gets you funny looks. Pulling out your PDA, on the other hand, is a completely different story. I recently re-read several series by David Eddings, and I was surprised at how much reading a dead-tree book bothered me.
I have introduced several readers that I am acquainted with to electronic books, and they have all agreed that PDAs are the perfect way to read. In fact, I have introduced several folks that generally don't read novels and they too found it much easier to get into a book when they didn't have to "make time" for reading, but could instead simply use the time that they normall spent twiddling their thumbs.
The dead-tree book is an endangered species. It just doesn't know that it is dead yet.
Perhaps you've heard of the term "attempted murder." Criminal intent is often punished in the United States.
Did you actually read the document?
First of all, Mike Hawash was not "just poking around." He was planning to commit treason. His goal was to travel to Afghanistan and then put American soldiers in his gun sights and pull the trigger. Not only does he admit to that himself in his plea bargain, but he will be actively testifying against his comrades that this was the case. Mr. Hawash was unsuccesful in his attempt (thankfully), but that doesn't change what he attempted to do.
So spare me the sob story.
As for your insinuation that I don't believe in treating all terrorists the same, well you couldn't be more wrong. I lost two of my friends to Sendero Luminoso in the small town of Huancayo, Peru back in 1990. I was fortunate enough to be in Lima at the time my friends were killed, or I would be dead in their place.
People that align themselves with terrorists deserve to die no matter where they live, and no matter what beliefs they profess.
A person "plea bargains" when the prosecution shows the person that they have enough evidence to charge them with a more serious crime. Basically it is a signal that the state is willing to be lenient in exchange for a sure fire conviction on a lesser charge (and possibly some help testifying against other criminals).
Mike Hawash gave up his right to a fair trial because he felt that such a trial would go badly for him. If the Feds had evidence that he was aiding and abetting the Taliban, then he was almost certainly right.
Believe it or not, the people that the Feds arrest usually are guilty.
Semantics. American citizens going out of their way to aid foreign terrorists are terrorists. I am all for due process, but I am also all for stringing up everyone involved with terrorists.
The fact that the Feds are willing to plea bargain with Mike means that he at least was involved enough with terrorists to implicate them in crimes. That's more than close enough to make him guilty in my book. Once again, the fact that he was dragged in as a "witness" almost certainly helped him get his plea bargain. If the Feds had waited until they had a case on Mr. Hawash then it is very likely that he would have received a far worse sentence than 7 years.
Mike should not have been taken into custody and held without being arrested, but the fact that he was guilty made it so that the situation worked in his favor. However, I don't want laws that allow Feds to be lenient with "witnesses." I want laws that protect the innocent, and this is a bad law.
Exactly. Just because this guy really was a terrorist doesn't mean that the Feds will have fingered the right guy when the come to get you. If the Federales can't bust a criminal without giving them the benefit of due process then I would rather have that criminal out on the street. I would rather have seen Mike walk than to have the government hold him for several weeks without arresting him. Due process is part of what makes the U.S. a good place to live.
That being the case, this will probably work out in Mike's favor as it gave him the opportunity to be a "witness" instead of a suspect. Seven years in prison is a pretty lenient sentence for conspiring with terrorists.