I apologize for misunderstanding the full screen text thing about pdf--it seemed to fill the screen on me, but I use 1024x768.
Look, I think you don't totally understand my point about art of making books. This isn't just a pretty for pretty's sake issue. It's *primarily* about readability. Just because to you, word placement, word spacing etc doesn't matter doesn't mean it's not important--again, all things considered MOST people find this enormously important. You can trivialize this aspect of making a book, but be aware that you're part of a minority of people.
publisher is more interested in "the art of book making" than in getting the content to them
And as a final comment, this really does show your lack of understanding of publishing and the purpose of book making. ~shrug~ I can't really convince you otherwise, but if you're really interested in this stuff, there are always jobs at publishing companies, and I've found it a really fun job to have. You might find an experience in publishing enlightening (and like I said, the work is fun).
I do agree with you that ebooks are the future. But I think they won't be anything like they are today (tablet pcs are starting to get close--but as long as they get hot, are slow, have annoying glow always, hard to read, etc), their popularity is still a long way off.
Other than that, I can't argue with you--I can only tell you what my first hand experience in the industry is wrt ebooks. Believe me--a small press is not a mega and inflexible corporation. Anything we can do to get happier authors and happier customers we would do. Ebooks simply is not something that has come up on the radar. (we don't publishing engineering/math/etc textbooks--possibly these fields will switch sooner).
Incidentally, I also disagree with your assessment of pdf. Just as one thing, with the official Acrobat reader, it's had fullscreen since at least version 5.0, I don't have any previous versions on had to check if it was there earlier. Also, there are a large number of accessibility software packages for pdf, and as a format it comes closest to representing a real book in electronic format (with indexes, table of contents, etc). Making a book is a LOT more than just typing up a file in microsoft word and then sending it to the publisher, and pdf can reflect the art of book making.
No, the point is that I don't profit. I don't really care about the publisher, and the author, in the case of books I download, is dead.
WTF? You're saying that because it cost you money to break the law, you're not really breaking the law?! And you know what? Nobody gives a fuck if you care about the publisher or not. Fortunately "caring" (what does that even mean?! You choose to break the law because you "care?!") is completely irrelevant to breaking the law.
Please note that if the copyright is expired, I'm all for stuff like project Gutenberg. But if it's not... You're a thief. plain and simple.
And yes, I understand that libraries buys and receives donated books. But then an entire town of people LEECHES off of the 1 or few books a library buys or has been donated. Holy shit we're all pirates! Libraries don't photocopy them no, but they do give them out to anyone who wants one.
Which is perfectly legal! You can lend a copy of a book to anyone you want to. Publishers and authors alike are ECSTATIC to sell books to anyone. Libraries LEND books out--they don't copy them and give them away. This is extremely simple copyright matter, and if you don't understand this (which your continually irrelevant arguments and offtopic tacks prove) you breally need to get a grounding in what is copyright.
Well, nothing is free. It costs me money and effort to download things. I can determine whether I profit for receiving something for minimal cost and effort, I have that much sense.
But the point is that the legal ownders of the book, the authors and in most cases a publisher DON'T profit from your piracy of a book. Just because it costs you money doesn't mean that money somehow magically goes to its rightful place.
And as it relates to infringing on copyright. Legally, I obviously am. Morally, I am not. There is negligible difference in downloading a book, or getting it from the library. Both come at a very small cost, and allow me to use the book in the manner in which it is intended.
Wow, what a terrible argument. Since I've seen this specious argument several times now, I will lay it out very simply:
1) Libraries don't photocopy books and give them out to anyone who wants them.
2) Libraries BUY books.
3) Were libraries to photocopy books, only one library would need to buy a book and the rest could just leech off that. Likewise, popular books which could sell multiple copies to a library would no longer be needed. FURTHERMORE, since there would be no limit to how many people could use the book at once, the library would be breaking copyright (remember that "All rights reserved" ?) and there would be no need for ANYONE to buy a book ever as they could just get a copy from their library.
Does this make sense to you? The library system is not a very hard one to comprehend, but I can see how if you've never thought about it you make draw such a fallacious analogy.
Actually let me address your last point "and all me to use the book in the manner in which it is intended" -- what's that? To be read. NOT to be copied. NOT to be freely available on the web. All rights reserved means that the AUTHOR keeps the copyright. You don't have permission to make copies and share them with your friends.
So as long as I don't resell these books then I'm not a pirate.
Wow, you really weren't kidding about this ignorance thing--you really DON'T know how to read a dictionary definition? Take a look at what follows. A semicolon. And then read what is after the semicolon. This is a "dictionary" -- you may want to freshen up on how they work:)
Not to mention, I guess you don't realize that by getting something that you would normally pay for, for free, you profit?
You know actually, your post reassures me. I thought that people here advocating piracy were like new world order type people--radicals. But now, if you're representative, they're just ignorant.
Book piracy is nothing new. In fact the last hundred years have probably seen LESS piracy than the preceeding several hundred. Please see my earlier posts about the origin of the word piracy.
but you could similarly get it for free from the library
Do you not see the distinction? It's not just free from the library. Libraries have to buy books! Just imagine if you write a popular novel. Let's say every library around the country wants to buy one copy. That's a lot of slaes for you! Equating online piracy (and if you have trouble with the meanings of the word piracy, check my other posts to clear up your misunderstandings) with a library is ludicrous.
In addition it's not like the library photocopies a book and gives out copies to anyone who wants it.
The use of piracy to describe literary theft is NOT a new thing, in fact it is probably at least 300 years old. But of course you didn't bother to research your topic before blabbing your zealotry, did you? You are very clearly the one who is incorrect to not understand the definition of piracy.
Quote from Oxford English Dictionary:
". fig. The appropriation and reproduction of an invention or work of another for one's own profit, without authority; infringement of the rights conferred by a patent or copyright.
1771 LUCKOMBE Hist. Print. 76 They..would suffer by this act of piracy, since it was likely to prove a very bad edition. 1808 Med. Jrnl. XIX. 520 He is charged with 'Literary Piracy', and an 'unprincipled suppression of the source from whence he drew his information'. 1855 BREWSTER Newton I. iv. 71 With the view of securing his invention of the telescope from foreign piracy"
The use of piracy to describe literary theft is NOT a new thing, in fact it is probably at least 300 years old. But of course you didn't bother to research your topic before blabbing your zealotry, did you? You are very clearly the one who is incorrect to not know the definition of the word piracy.
Quote from Oxford English Dictionary:
". fig. The appropriation and reproduction of an invention or work of another for one's own profit, without authority; infringement of the rights conferred by a patent or copyright.
1771 LUCKOMBE Hist. Print. 76 They..would suffer by this act of piracy, since it was likely to prove a very bad edition. 1808 Med. Jrnl. XIX. 520 He is charged with 'Literary Piracy', and an 'unprincipled suppression of the source from whence he drew his information'. 1855 BREWSTER Newton I. iv. 71 With the view of securing his invention of the telescope from foreign piracy"
The book industry doesn't make every book available in an ebook format. Whyever not? It's not like they don't have the work in a computer? They can sell it for a bit less than a paper book, but he savings must be astronomical - no distrobution chain to run, no bookshops to pay... If they don't see the advantages they'll be left behind just like the music an video industries.
As someone who works at a small publishing company... We don't regularly release e-books. The reason for this is that it takes a fairly large amount of additional work to make a good quality e-book, and the simple fact is we have virtually NO DEMAND for such projects.
We do at times release pdf's of chapters, table of contents, supplementary materials that are freely available on our website (as an academic publishing companies, a professor will occasionally want students to be able to download a particular chapter before they get the book). All our reports show that in these cases, the vast majority of people print out the pdf rather than read on screen.
Now, one really exciting thing about e-books is the accessibility component. We have blind students or other disabled students request e-books many times, and in these cases we are usually able to provide an e-book which they would then use with some kind of text->speech software.
But the simple reality is beyond the disabled and pre-release type of electronic publishing, we encounter virtually zero demand for books in electronic formats. Then again, as I mentioned we are an academic publisher, and where reading a tiny scrolling screen for a novel might be ok (a trade paper back sized book for instance), it's much harder and more awkward for scholarly works and textbooks and the like.
No, I do not agree. The US did NOT fund al-Qaeda during the 80's or 90's or ever. al-Qaeda wasn't even around then. Nor did the US fund the Taleban movement (see my other posts on this topic). The organizations that the US DID fund during the 80's were mujahideen freedom fighters.
There IS a difference. For instance, Hezbollah, commonly called a terrorist organization in the West does not suicide bomb against civilian targets. I'm not entirely sure I would call them a terrorist organization.
If the US has come CLOSE to supporting terrorist organizations, the only argument you could even begin to make would be wrt South america, though I honestly don't know enough to about South American history to say anything definitive. From what I do know, even that comparison would be ludicrous.
My basic opinion is that warlordism has always been in Afghanistan, and it's not going away any time soon.
If you're asking my opinion of the US involvement me in the 1980's it is this. We shouldn't have done anything. The Afghans would have kicked the Russians out anyway. Look at the British in the 19th century--one of the best armies ever created, organized, and completely willing to kill. They got their butts kicked out of Kabul with TERRIBLE losses, civilian and otherwise. The poem I think it's "Go to your God like a solider" by Kipling shows a little bit about what Afghanistan was like.
Anyway though, I also think that it was a mistake to not attempt to rebuild Afghanistan after our involvement. But look at the situation now. It's an uphill battle. It would have been no better then (if not impossible due to Russian control of Central Asia), and let's face it, it's not terribly in the US interest to rebuild a country that's probably never going to be worth shit. (miserable climate, landlocked, few resources, tribalism and warlordism, etc).
Also, I do agree that Afghanistan was never important--this was just a proxy battle between the US and Russia. Well actually, Afghanistan WAS important to Russia. Oh good, I'm glad I remembered to talk about this. What's the reason Russia invaded Afghanistan? No one seems to ask this (thinking it obvious?) myself included, and the reasons that I have found are that Afghanistan even then was such an unstable country and radical that it was creating problems for Russia in the relatively docile Central Asia states (those would be the "Stans"--turkmenistan,uzbekistan,kyrgyzstan,tajiki stan, khazakhstan...and if you want some more etymology, in Farsi (Persian) the "blank of blank" construction is called an Idafa and goes "Blank-i Blank". 'Uzbek-i Stan' is Land of the Uzbeks. "Afghan-i Stan" is land of the Afghans.
Back to the Russians, the Russians felt it was in their best interest to invade Afghanistan (like I mentioned earlier, a country with basically NOTHING worth invading for--other than the bountiful poppy fields;)). The US sees this as perhaps a restart of Soviet aggression. Who comes next? Iran?
tough questions, and of course now we have hindsight..
First of all, could you send me a link where it says that Mike hawash was held for "5 weeks with no means of communication to anyone for reasons not told by anyone" ? I can't fine this anywhere...I checked the Hawash site last night and didn't see this claim either, are you sure you're not just making it up?
Secondly, have you ever been arrested or investigated? Because you seem to know a hell of a lot about the way the "corrupt" police force works here, given that my guess is the closest you've come to revolution is this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-07 -22
(Sorry, couldn't resist, I love that cartoon, and Slashdot reminds me of it so often)
You could very well be right about the origins, but if I had to guess I would guess that the Islamic emphasis on beards goes back not to Leviticus, but simply to Muhammad. In Arabian society, the beard was, and still is one of the premier symbols of manhood.
Islam is a religion that is incredibly concerned with tradition--specifically the traditions of Muhammad. There are many categories for things that are forbidden, disliked, ok, recommend, required, etc (I'm paraphrasing). So for instance if Muhammad brushed his teeth every morning but never said it was REQUIRED to brush your teeth, then that would be a "recommended" action.
My guess is the beard issue falls under something like this. (Though I honestly don't remember for sure).
established country, with universally recognised borders and a government (no matter how oppressive) cannot be a "terrorist" state.
Not to ignore the rest of your post, but you kinda defeat your own argument here. The Taliban govt in Afghanistan was NOT a universally recognized govt. It did NOT have well defined borders. In fact most other govts around the world specifically did not recognize it as a legitimate govt. IIRC, only two or three countries recognized the Taliban govt--Qatar, Pakistan...I think that's it. (not 100% sure that those are the only too).
This is a nihilist bullshit argument. I suppose Hitler was a great man for having the cobbles to kill all those pesky jews? I suppose Stalin should be commended for being willing to kill the millions of Soviet citizens that stood between him and greatness. By your nihilist destructionist argument, we should be honoring them on a daily basis.
The Taliban were oppressive. They didn't like foreigners. Sure, but what makes them TERRORISTS? So what if I decide to join the Taliban and decide that I want to die for them?
Very simply actually, I'm glad you asked! What makes them terrorists is the support (in terms of government condolence, material supplies, and training camps) that the Afghan govt operated in conjunction with al-Qaeda. Secondly what makes them terrorist supporters is giving home to bin Laden. Thirdly what makes them terrorists is their refusal to hand over bin Laden and other KNOWN al-Qaeda terrorists, and giving them sanctuary, refuge, and generally hiding them.
Let's face it--no one likes the Taleban. But the US wasn't going to attack the Taleban either, UNTIL it became clear that they were a terrorist state.
Actually you know, aside from the charges of INTERNATIONAL terrorism, a very strong argument can be made that they waged a campaign of terror against their own people.
To clarify, this is a little right, but, imho, mostly wrong.
It is true that the CIA supported the Afghani mujahideen in the 80's. If you're interested, the word "mujahideen" is of an Arabic base and comes from the three letter radical j-h-d, with a rough meaning of struggle (one meaning of jihad is, literally, to struggle). A mujahid is someone who struggles/practices jihad. Mujahideen is the plural.
Anyway, off that tangent. Yes, the CIA funded Afghan mujahideen/freedom fighters in the 1980's. There was an Afghan govt later formed of those same mujahideen. It was not however, until 1996 that the Taleban seized Kabul and ousted the former Mujahideen govt.
Incidentally, Taleban comes from the Arabic radical t-l-b. A Talib is a student. Taliban, in pashto means students. The Taleban are the products of radical (and backwards!) madrasahs, religious schools, many of them in Pakistan. The allegation that the CIA funded the Taleban is totally incorrect. There were no doubt American arms under Taleban control, but you must remember that warlordism in Afghanistan is nothing new. You can go back thousands of years and little in Afghanistan has changed. Alexander the Great encountered very fierce resistance on his way to Central Asia. Warlordism and yet another meltdown of Afghan society in the 90's brought about the Taleban, NOT American support.
Look, he was held as a material witness. Do you know what that means?
For one thing, it DOESN'T mean that the police or FBI can just pick up any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the street and claim them as a material witness.
It DOES mean that warrants must be obtained demonstrating evidence of material witness status.
Someone being held as a material witness DOES have the right to counsel. I've not seen allegations that he was denied this.
The point of the matter is, the rules were followed, a guilty man was found, and his material witness position was proved 100% right--he DOES have knowledge. So I don't see what there is to complain about?
Sure. One point that you miss is that the Taleban (Taleban, comes from t-l-b in Arabic for pl. "students" in Pashto) WASN'T just a government in Afghanistan, they actively sponsored international terrorism. They didn't "merely" harbor al-Qaeda, but they actively supported it. This is no secret, they made no bones about this fact.
If you honestly believe that "those guys don't care about the US, the [sic] just want to make sure they don't alow [sic] their kids to eat pork, etc etc etc" you're very wrong. The creation of the Talebani state was not only about Afghanistan, but was about the entire world. They made this very clear.
Just FWIW, it's pretty much required for Muslim men to grow beards. Actually, the four legal schools disagree on specifics, but I think the agreed upon length of beard is one fist away from the face. It's more than tradition.
IE beat netscape for one reason and one reason only - it was packaged with windows
Did you ever even use Netscape and Internet Explorer? Netscape after 3.0 sucked. And Internet Explorer IS a great browser. No doubt bundling had a big effect, but I remember the night, I believe IE3.0 was released and there were over 70,000 downloads in 2 hours (that was HUGE for back then). If netscape was as good as you say, nobody would have cared
I don't live in the UK so I can't comment, but in my town (in North Carolina, USA) the local chain store (about 5 store) will gladly sell you a non-windows computer, there are stores that sells Apple computers, Circuit City, Best Buy etc all sell Linux (though they don't preload Linux)
Slashdot Mirror
Look, I think you don't totally understand my point about art of making books. This isn't just a pretty for pretty's sake issue. It's *primarily* about readability. Just because to you, word placement, word spacing etc doesn't matter doesn't mean it's not important--again, all things considered MOST people find this enormously important. You can trivialize this aspect of making a book, but be aware that you're part of a minority of people.
publisher is more interested in "the art of book making" than in getting the content to them
And as a final comment, this really does show your lack of understanding of publishing and the purpose of book making. ~shrug~ I can't really convince you otherwise, but if you're really interested in this stuff, there are always jobs at publishing companies, and I've found it a really fun job to have. You might find an experience in publishing enlightening (and like I said, the work is fun).
Is there a point you're trying to make? If so I missed it. How do YOU equate libraries with online piracy?
I do agree with you that ebooks are the future. But I think they won't be anything like they are today (tablet pcs are starting to get close--but as long as they get hot, are slow, have annoying glow always, hard to read, etc), their popularity is still a long way off.
Other than that, I can't argue with you--I can only tell you what my first hand experience in the industry is wrt ebooks. Believe me--a small press is not a mega and inflexible corporation. Anything we can do to get happier authors and happier customers we would do. Ebooks simply is not something that has come up on the radar. (we don't publishing engineering/math/etc textbooks--possibly these fields will switch sooner).
Incidentally, I also disagree with your assessment of pdf. Just as one thing, with the official Acrobat reader, it's had fullscreen since at least version 5.0, I don't have any previous versions on had to check if it was there earlier. Also, there are a large number of accessibility software packages for pdf, and as a format it comes closest to representing a real book in electronic format (with indexes, table of contents, etc). Making a book is a LOT more than just typing up a file in microsoft word and then sending it to the publisher, and pdf can reflect the art of book making.
thanks
No, the point is that I don't profit. I don't really care about the publisher, and the author, in the case of books I download, is dead.
WTF? You're saying that because it cost you money to break the law, you're not really breaking the law?! And you know what? Nobody gives a fuck if you care about the publisher or not. Fortunately "caring" (what does that even mean?! You choose to break the law because you "care?!") is completely irrelevant to breaking the law.
Please note that if the copyright is expired, I'm all for stuff like project Gutenberg. But if it's not... You're a thief. plain and simple.
And yes, I understand that libraries buys and receives donated books. But then an entire town of people LEECHES off of the 1 or few books a library buys or has been donated. Holy shit we're all pirates! Libraries don't photocopy them no, but they do give them out to anyone who wants one.
Which is perfectly legal! You can lend a copy of a book to anyone you want to. Publishers and authors alike are ECSTATIC to sell books to anyone. Libraries LEND books out--they don't copy them and give them away. This is extremely simple copyright matter, and if you don't understand this (which your continually irrelevant arguments and offtopic tacks prove) you breally need to get a grounding in what is copyright.
Well, nothing is free. It costs me money and effort to download things. I can determine whether I profit for receiving something for minimal cost and effort, I have that much sense.
But the point is that the legal ownders of the book, the authors and in most cases a publisher DON'T profit from your piracy of a book. Just because it costs you money doesn't mean that money somehow magically goes to its rightful place.
And as it relates to infringing on copyright. Legally, I obviously am. Morally, I am not. There is negligible difference in downloading a book, or getting it from the library. Both come at a very small cost, and allow me to use the book in the manner in which it is intended.
Wow, what a terrible argument. Since I've seen this specious argument several times now, I will lay it out very simply:
1) Libraries don't photocopy books and give them out to anyone who wants them.
2) Libraries BUY books.
3) Were libraries to photocopy books, only one library would need to buy a book and the rest could just leech off that. Likewise, popular books which could sell multiple copies to a library would no longer be needed. FURTHERMORE, since there would be no limit to how many people could use the book at once, the library would be breaking copyright (remember that "All rights reserved" ?) and there would be no need for ANYONE to buy a book ever as they could just get a copy from their library.
Does this make sense to you? The library system is not a very hard one to comprehend, but I can see how if you've never thought about it you make draw such a fallacious analogy.
Actually let me address your last point "and all me to use the book in the manner in which it is intended" -- what's that? To be read. NOT to be copied. NOT to be freely available on the web. All rights reserved means that the AUTHOR keeps the copyright. You don't have permission to make copies and share them with your friends.
So as long as I don't resell these books then I'm not a pirate.
Wow, you really weren't kidding about this ignorance thing--you really DON'T know how to read a dictionary definition? Take a look at what follows. A semicolon. And then read what is after the semicolon. This is a "dictionary" -- you may want to freshen up on how they work :)
Not to mention, I guess you don't realize that by getting something that you would normally pay for, for free, you profit?
You know actually, your post reassures me. I thought that people here advocating piracy were like new world order type people--radicals. But now, if you're representative, they're just ignorant.
Thanks!
Book piracy is nothing new. In fact the last hundred years have probably seen LESS piracy than the preceeding several hundred. Please see my earlier posts about the origin of the word piracy.
but you could similarly get it for free from the library
Do you not see the distinction? It's not just free from the library. Libraries have to buy books! Just imagine if you write a popular novel. Let's say every library around the country wants to buy one copy. That's a lot of slaes for you! Equating online piracy (and if you have trouble with the meanings of the word piracy, check my other posts to clear up your misunderstandings) with a library is ludicrous.
In addition it's not like the library photocopies a book and gives out copies to anyone who wants it.
Quote from Oxford English Dictionary:
". fig. The appropriation and reproduction of an invention or work of another for one's own profit, without authority; infringement of the rights conferred by a patent or copyright.
1771 LUCKOMBE Hist. Print. 76 They..would suffer by this act of piracy, since it was likely to prove a very bad edition. 1808 Med. Jrnl. XIX. 520 He is charged with 'Literary Piracy', and an 'unprincipled suppression of the source from whence he drew his information'. 1855 BREWSTER Newton I. iv. 71 With the view of securing his invention of the telescope from foreign piracy"
Quote from Oxford English Dictionary:
". fig. The appropriation and reproduction of an invention or work of another for one's own profit, without authority; infringement of the rights conferred by a patent or copyright.
1771 LUCKOMBE Hist. Print. 76 They..would suffer by this act of piracy, since it was likely to prove a very bad edition. 1808 Med. Jrnl. XIX. 520 He is charged with 'Literary Piracy', and an 'unprincipled suppression of the source from whence he drew his information'. 1855 BREWSTER Newton I. iv. 71 With the view of securing his invention of the telescope from foreign piracy"
The book industry doesn't make every book available in an ebook format. Whyever not? It's not like they don't have the work in a computer? They can sell it for a bit less than a paper book, but he savings must be astronomical - no distrobution chain to run, no bookshops to pay... If they don't see the advantages they'll be left behind just like the music an video industries.
As someone who works at a small publishing company... We don't regularly release e-books. The reason for this is that it takes a fairly large amount of additional work to make a good quality e-book, and the simple fact is we have virtually NO DEMAND for such projects.
We do at times release pdf's of chapters, table of contents, supplementary materials that are freely available on our website (as an academic publishing companies, a professor will occasionally want students to be able to download a particular chapter before they get the book). All our reports show that in these cases, the vast majority of people print out the pdf rather than read on screen.
Now, one really exciting thing about e-books is the accessibility component. We have blind students or other disabled students request e-books many times, and in these cases we are usually able to provide an e-book which they would then use with some kind of text->speech software.
But the simple reality is beyond the disabled and pre-release type of electronic publishing, we encounter virtually zero demand for books in electronic formats. Then again, as I mentioned we are an academic publisher, and where reading a tiny scrolling screen for a novel might be ok (a trade paper back sized book for instance), it's much harder and more awkward for scholarly works and textbooks and the like.
And there is the piracy issue...
No, I do not agree. The US did NOT fund al-Qaeda during the 80's or 90's or ever. al-Qaeda wasn't even around then. Nor did the US fund the Taleban movement (see my other posts on this topic). The organizations that the US DID fund during the 80's were mujahideen freedom fighters.
There IS a difference. For instance, Hezbollah, commonly called a terrorist organization in the West does not suicide bomb against civilian targets. I'm not entirely sure I would call them a terrorist organization.
If the US has come CLOSE to supporting terrorist organizations, the only argument you could even begin to make would be wrt South america, though I honestly don't know enough to about South American history to say anything definitive. From what I do know, even that comparison would be ludicrous.
My basic opinion is that warlordism has always been in Afghanistan, and it's not going away any time soon.
i stan, khazakhstan...and if you want some more etymology, in Farsi (Persian) the "blank of blank" construction is called an Idafa and goes "Blank-i Blank". 'Uzbek-i Stan' is Land of the Uzbeks. "Afghan-i Stan" is land of the Afghans.
;)). The US sees this as perhaps a restart of Soviet aggression. Who comes next? Iran?
If you're asking my opinion of the US involvement me in the 1980's it is this. We shouldn't have done anything. The Afghans would have kicked the Russians out anyway. Look at the British in the 19th century--one of the best armies ever created, organized, and completely willing to kill. They got their butts kicked out of Kabul with TERRIBLE losses, civilian and otherwise. The poem I think it's "Go to your God like a solider" by Kipling shows a little bit about what Afghanistan was like.
Anyway though, I also think that it was a mistake to not attempt to rebuild Afghanistan after our involvement. But look at the situation now. It's an uphill battle. It would have been no better then (if not impossible due to Russian control of Central Asia), and let's face it, it's not terribly in the US interest to rebuild a country that's probably never going to be worth shit. (miserable climate, landlocked, few resources, tribalism and warlordism, etc).
Also, I do agree that Afghanistan was never important--this was just a proxy battle between the US and Russia. Well actually, Afghanistan WAS important to Russia. Oh good, I'm glad I remembered to talk about this. What's the reason Russia invaded Afghanistan? No one seems to ask this (thinking it obvious?) myself included, and the reasons that I have found are that Afghanistan even then was such an unstable country and radical that it was creating problems for Russia in the relatively docile Central Asia states (those would be the "Stans"--turkmenistan,uzbekistan,kyrgyzstan,tajik
Back to the Russians, the Russians felt it was in their best interest to invade Afghanistan (like I mentioned earlier, a country with basically NOTHING worth invading for--other than the bountiful poppy fields
tough questions, and of course now we have hindsight..
First of all, could you send me a link where it says that Mike hawash was held for "5 weeks with no means of communication to anyone for reasons not told by anyone" ? I can't fine this anywhere...I checked the Hawash site last night and didn't see this claim either, are you sure you're not just making it up?
7 -22
:-)
Secondly, have you ever been arrested or investigated? Because you seem to know a hell of a lot about the way the "corrupt" police force works here, given that my guess is the closest you've come to revolution is this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-0
(Sorry, couldn't resist, I love that cartoon, and Slashdot reminds me of it so often)
then again it was a myth to begin with
Just keep telling yourself that
You could very well be right about the origins, but if I had to guess I would guess that the Islamic emphasis on beards goes back not to Leviticus, but simply to Muhammad. In Arabian society, the beard was, and still is one of the premier symbols of manhood.
Islam is a religion that is incredibly concerned with tradition--specifically the traditions of Muhammad. There are many categories for things that are forbidden, disliked, ok, recommend, required, etc (I'm paraphrasing). So for instance if Muhammad brushed his teeth every morning but never said it was REQUIRED to brush your teeth, then that would be a "recommended" action.
My guess is the beard issue falls under something like this. (Though I honestly don't remember for sure).
established country, with universally recognised borders and a government (no matter how oppressive) cannot be a "terrorist" state.
Not to ignore the rest of your post, but you kinda defeat your own argument here. The Taliban govt in Afghanistan was NOT a universally recognized govt. It did NOT have well defined borders. In fact most other govts around the world specifically did not recognize it as a legitimate govt. IIRC, only two or three countries recognized the Taliban govt--Qatar, Pakistan...I think that's it. (not 100% sure that those are the only too).
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=73841&cid=6631 945
Please see my other post above. I hope it answers some of your questions, I'd be glad to answer any more if you have any.
This is a nihilist bullshit argument. I suppose Hitler was a great man for having the cobbles to kill all those pesky jews? I suppose Stalin should be commended for being willing to kill the millions of Soviet citizens that stood between him and greatness. By your nihilist destructionist argument, we should be honoring them on a daily basis.
The Taliban were oppressive. They didn't like foreigners. Sure, but what makes them TERRORISTS? So what if I decide to join the Taliban and decide that I want to die for them?
Very simply actually, I'm glad you asked! What makes them terrorists is the support (in terms of government condolence, material supplies, and training camps) that the Afghan govt operated in conjunction with al-Qaeda. Secondly what makes them terrorist supporters is giving home to bin Laden. Thirdly what makes them terrorists is their refusal to hand over bin Laden and other KNOWN al-Qaeda terrorists, and giving them sanctuary, refuge, and generally hiding them.
Let's face it--no one likes the Taleban. But the US wasn't going to attack the Taleban either, UNTIL it became clear that they were a terrorist state.
Actually you know, aside from the charges of INTERNATIONAL terrorism, a very strong argument can be made that they waged a campaign of terror against their own people.
To clarify, this is a little right, but, imho, mostly wrong.
It is true that the CIA supported the Afghani mujahideen in the 80's. If you're interested, the word "mujahideen" is of an Arabic base and comes from the three letter radical j-h-d, with a rough meaning of struggle (one meaning of jihad is, literally, to struggle). A mujahid is someone who struggles/practices jihad. Mujahideen is the plural.
Anyway, off that tangent. Yes, the CIA funded Afghan mujahideen/freedom fighters in the 1980's. There was an Afghan govt later formed of those same mujahideen. It was not however, until 1996 that the Taleban seized Kabul and ousted the former Mujahideen govt.
Incidentally, Taleban comes from the Arabic radical t-l-b. A Talib is a student. Taliban, in pashto means students. The Taleban are the products of radical (and backwards!) madrasahs, religious schools, many of them in Pakistan. The allegation that the CIA funded the Taleban is totally incorrect. There were no doubt American arms under Taleban control, but you must remember that warlordism in Afghanistan is nothing new. You can go back thousands of years and little in Afghanistan has changed. Alexander the Great encountered very fierce resistance on his way to Central Asia. Warlordism and yet another meltdown of Afghan society in the 90's brought about the Taleban, NOT American support.
Look, he was held as a material witness. Do you know what that means?
For one thing, it DOESN'T mean that the police or FBI can just pick up any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the street and claim them as a material witness.
It DOES mean that warrants must be obtained demonstrating evidence of material witness status.
Someone being held as a material witness DOES have the right to counsel. I've not seen allegations that he was denied this.
The point of the matter is, the rules were followed, a guilty man was found, and his material witness position was proved 100% right--he DOES have knowledge. So I don't see what there is to complain about?
If you honestly believe that "those guys don't care about the US, the [sic] just want to make sure they don't alow [sic] their kids to eat pork, etc etc etc" you're very wrong. The creation of the Talebani state was not only about Afghanistan, but was about the entire world. They made this very clear.
Just FWIW, it's pretty much required for Muslim men to grow beards. Actually, the four legal schools disagree on specifics, but I think the agreed upon length of beard is one fist away from the face. It's more than tradition.
IE beat netscape for one reason and one reason only - it was packaged with windows
Did you ever even use Netscape and Internet Explorer? Netscape after 3.0 sucked. And Internet Explorer IS a great browser. No doubt bundling had a big effect, but I remember the night, I believe IE3.0 was released and there were over 70,000 downloads in 2 hours (that was HUGE for back then). If netscape was as good as you say, nobody would have cared
I don't live in the UK so I can't comment, but in my town (in North Carolina, USA) the local chain store (about 5 store) will gladly sell you a non-windows computer, there are stores that sells Apple computers, Circuit City, Best Buy etc all sell Linux (though they don't preload Linux)