> I read of a project that was training weasels, or maybe ferrets, something in that family for the same type of thing. They're naturally curious, able to squeeze through unimaginable spots, etc.
That would be gerbils.
Re: and in self-referential news...
on
Star Wars Minutiae
·
· Score: 5, Funny
> it's 'minutiae' not 'minutae'
That's where we stole the extra 'i' for use in "virii".
> They used the phrases "tens of centimeters" and "tens of degrees celsius". I really hate these terms, especially in what should be a scientific article. This could mean anywhere from 20-100 (or more) which is a pretty broad range. Would it be so difficult to say 20-50 (or whatever the measurements are) which would give a much more accurate picture?
How 'bout "tins of dogfood". Then we could use the same units for mass, volume, chemical energy content, and ickyness.
> This short article mentions an increase in linux viruses, but fails to mention the obvious fact about a virus that attacks any open source operating system: Any exploit that is found by someone malicious will be quickly fixed by the overwhelming majority that belongs to the benevolent OSS community.
Haven't some of the most destructive viruses done their work over the course of a weekend? Even if the virus is noticed, trapped, and analyzed, and the vulnerability is fixed, all within a day, will people get their systems upgraded fast enough to defuse such a virus?
> No I wouldn't reasonably blame Kerry [...] Americans don't like hearing about hard to understand concepts such as "political inertia" we like hearing things like patriot, axis of evil, terrorist, nukular, security, etc etc.
Curiously, a Republican Fundamentalist I used to work with once exclaimed with dismay, "See what Clinton got us in to in Somalia!"
> It didn't really matter, though, that Carter ws stubborn and held to various sanctions that Reagan gave away -- the perception was that Carter was weak and Reagan strong [...]
That's... odd. The guy that played hardball was weak?
> They have absolutely no democratic legacy, not even a failed one, that anyone can remember there.
Actually, someone did set them up the democracy once before. Of course, it fell to a military coup, which somehow led to control by the Baath Party, which then led to personal control by the party's security chief, Saddam.
Admittedly, not the sort of history that inspires confidence in gunpoint democracy.
> While the US does not value and Iraqi life as much as one of their soldiers lives, they do put some value on an Iraqi life.
IMO, primarily to minimize outcry from the American public.
> The problem with Iraq is that the US has only really seen one effective model for an invasion that pacify the population and turns them into democratic allies by using overwhelmingly destructive tactics. The people of Japan were not wooed into liking the US by offering a Democracy. They were thoroughly beaten. Their armies were destroyed, their cities were burned to the ground, and countless civilians died. The end of both Germany and Japan came through complete and total defeat of not just their militaries, but of their people. When it was all said and done, the war had been so bloody and so horrific, normally very spirited people no longer had the will to fight.
Also, there must have been great demoralization from watching a few years of "magnificent" conquests stall out, reverse, and inexorably shrink to nothing. And the benefits of winning a war "over there" turn into shoveling the rubble out of your own city streets.
The extended duration of the wars may have actually helped settle matters afterward.
> In fact, the [Iraqi] military was not even crushed in the traditional sense of the word. Generally an army either fights to the death or surrenders. The Iraq army simply deserted under US firepower.
Also notable is that in Germany and Japan, two very "lawful" societies (in the D&D sense), an appropriate authority figure ordered the soldiers to lay down their arms.
> The point is that Iraq is a new way of fighting for the US. To put it bluntly, the US doesn't know what it is doing.
As far as 'new' goes, I don't think it's all that different from Vietnam or Somalia, where the "we're here to help you" didn't play too well to some substantial portion of the locals.
I agree that the USA doesn't know what it's doing, though. (Not to imply that I do. I don't even know whether the situation is winnable in principle.)
> Personally, I think it is a shitty situation no matter how you look at it. The US fucked up the place and they have an obligation to set thing right. On the other hand, they don't know how to set things right.
It's certainly a tiger-by-the-tail situation. And even if the US public doesn't accept any moral obligation for setting things right, there's still the possibility (or probability, IMO) that abandoning Iraq now will leave a situation exactly like the one we tried to destroy in Afghanistan.
> I have a feeling that the US will slog it out until January when Iraq holds elections. At that point, I think you can expect the new government to ask the US to leave, and the US to get the fuck out, stopping just long enough to buy souvenirs on the way to the airport.
Except that the rules change immediately after the US election is over.
On the Sunday morning talk shows I saw someone ask John McCain whether it was feasible to wait until the end of the year to try to master Fallujah. If he had put the question to me, my answer would have been "Surely you don't expect them to start it before the elections!" But after the elections, a president sufficiently determined to "win" can escalate all he wants to, knowing that he's got four years to patch things up so his party won't lose the next election.
> In the end, the Iraq doesn't want the Americans there, and the Americans don't want to be in Iraq.
In both cases, that only applies to some of the parties. For example, I think the neocons want Iraq for permanent US bases in Iraq, to claim the Gulf region as our "zone of influence". They also need to save face for their "imperialism is cheap" ideology, that drove and continues to drive so many bad decisions in this war.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll send some lucky volunteer in 2008, if you all send me enough money to pack a tube full of dynamite.
> I clicked the little checkbox that is supposed to prevent me from seeing all this Star Wars trivia. Why am I still seeing these stories?
This is not the trivia you are looking for.
> I read of a project that was training weasels, or maybe ferrets, something in that family for the same type of thing. They're naturally curious, able to squeeze through unimaginable spots, etc.
That would be gerbils.
> it's 'minutiae' not 'minutae'
That's where we stole the extra 'i' for use in "virii".
> The main task of a writer of fantasy is to construct a new and different world
E.g., one where supermodels chase after Slashdotters in hopes of learning Linux and having their babies.
> As I write this, there's no mention of this on Sun's website -- neither confirmation nor denial. What's going on?
Slashdot is reporting that Groklaw is reporting that the ZD FUD machine is reporting that...
OK, maybe it's true, but I wouldn't take it to the bank yet.
> I don't think I'd trust buying a $150,000+ item from someone who only has 10 feedback, One of them being a $24 battery.
But he has letters of authenticity from Dan Rather!
> having that hooked up in your kitchen? "HAL, microwave the popcorn."
> "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that.
"Would you like to spend another weekend in the toilet bowl?"
"The popcorn will be up in three minutes, Dave!"
...against being murdered by your washing machine?
> Little farty green men!
Fartians?
> They used the phrases "tens of centimeters" and "tens of degrees celsius". I really hate these terms, especially in what should be a scientific article. This could mean anywhere from 20-100 (or more) which is a pretty broad range. Would it be so difficult to say 20-50 (or whatever the measurements are) which would give a much more accurate picture?
How 'bout "tins of dogfood". Then we could use the same units for mass, volume, chemical energy content, and ickyness.
> This short article mentions an increase in linux viruses, but fails to mention the obvious fact about a virus that attacks any open source operating system: Any exploit that is found by someone malicious will be quickly fixed by the overwhelming majority that belongs to the benevolent OSS community.
Haven't some of the most destructive viruses done their work over the course of a weekend? Even if the virus is noticed, trapped, and analyzed, and the vulnerability is fixed, all within a day, will people get their systems upgraded fast enough to defuse such a virus?
> The martians have your rover in a containment unit that makes you humans think that you're exploring their world!
And the funny part is that the containment unit is in Arizona!
> Is life on Mars possible? Sure. Probable? Not really.
Could you show us those probability calculations?
> Little farty green men! We should capture them as use them as fuel
Ah, so that's how the Matrix produced power!
Is that what they're wearing in Paris this year?
> Allawi knows that his continued power is absolutely dependent on his ability to hold elections on time.
He may also benefit if certain provinces aren't able to vote.
> No I wouldn't reasonably blame Kerry [...] Americans don't like hearing about hard to understand concepts such as "political inertia" we like hearing things like patriot, axis of evil, terrorist, nukular, security, etc etc.
Curiously, a Republican Fundamentalist I used to work with once exclaimed with dismay, "See what Clinton got us in to in Somalia!"
> It didn't really matter, though, that Carter ws stubborn and held to various sanctions that Reagan gave away -- the perception was that Carter was weak and Reagan strong [...]
That's... odd. The guy that played hardball was weak?
Maybe it was just an October Surprise kind of thing.
> I'm sure there will be some kind of election in Iraq in January - there's too much at stake politically for Blair and Bush for it not to happen.
Bush only has to insist "stay the course!" for another six weeks. If he's re-elected, he can do whatever the heck he wants after that.
> They have absolutely no democratic legacy, not even a failed one, that anyone can remember there.
Actually, someone did set them up the democracy once before. Of course, it fell to a military coup, which somehow led to control by the Baath Party, which then led to personal control by the party's security chief, Saddam.
Admittedly, not the sort of history that inspires confidence in gunpoint democracy.
> And, if Kerry wins because people voted against Bush, would he really have a mandate?
Yes: don't do what Bush was doing.
> and goes around executing people after holding secret trials
That one cuts a bit close to the knuckle.
> Just be thankful they're not your photos.
Fortunately he didn't find the card with pix of his wife.
> While the US does not value and Iraqi life as much as one of their soldiers lives, they do put some value on an Iraqi life.
IMO, primarily to minimize outcry from the American public.
> The problem with Iraq is that the US has only really seen one effective model for an invasion that pacify the population and turns them into democratic allies by using overwhelmingly destructive tactics. The people of Japan were not wooed into liking the US by offering a Democracy. They were thoroughly beaten. Their armies were destroyed, their cities were burned to the ground, and countless civilians died. The end of both Germany and Japan came through complete and total defeat of not just their militaries, but of their people. When it was all said and done, the war had been so bloody and so horrific, normally very spirited people no longer had the will to fight.
Also, there must have been great demoralization from watching a few years of "magnificent" conquests stall out, reverse, and inexorably shrink to nothing. And the benefits of winning a war "over there" turn into shoveling the rubble out of your own city streets.
The extended duration of the wars may have actually helped settle matters afterward.
> In fact, the [Iraqi] military was not even crushed in the traditional sense of the word. Generally an army either fights to the death or surrenders. The Iraq army simply deserted under US firepower.
Also notable is that in Germany and Japan, two very "lawful" societies (in the D&D sense), an appropriate authority figure ordered the soldiers to lay down their arms.
> The point is that Iraq is a new way of fighting for the US. To put it bluntly, the US doesn't know what it is doing.
As far as 'new' goes, I don't think it's all that different from Vietnam or Somalia, where the "we're here to help you" didn't play too well to some substantial portion of the locals.
I agree that the USA doesn't know what it's doing, though. (Not to imply that I do. I don't even know whether the situation is winnable in principle.)
> Personally, I think it is a shitty situation no matter how you look at it. The US fucked up the place and they have an obligation to set thing right. On the other hand, they don't know how to set things right.
It's certainly a tiger-by-the-tail situation. And even if the US public doesn't accept any moral obligation for setting things right, there's still the possibility (or probability, IMO) that abandoning Iraq now will leave a situation exactly like the one we tried to destroy in Afghanistan.
> I have a feeling that the US will slog it out until January when Iraq holds elections. At that point, I think you can expect the new government to ask the US to leave, and the US to get the fuck out, stopping just long enough to buy souvenirs on the way to the airport.
Except that the rules change immediately after the US election is over.
On the Sunday morning talk shows I saw someone ask John McCain whether it was feasible to wait until the end of the year to try to master Fallujah. If he had put the question to me, my answer would have been "Surely you don't expect them to start it before the elections!" But after the elections, a president sufficiently determined to "win" can escalate all he wants to, knowing that he's got four years to patch things up so his party won't lose the next election.
> In the end, the Iraq doesn't want the Americans there, and the Americans don't want to be in Iraq.
In both cases, that only applies to some of the parties. For example, I think the neocons want Iraq for permanent US bases in Iraq, to claim the Gulf region as our "zone of influence". They also need to save face for their "imperialism is cheap" ideology, that drove and continues to drive so many bad decisions in this war.