Let's not knee-jerk in response to this either. It's one town, not the whole state, and it appears to be in response to a real problem they're having. They've put a time limit on the moratorium, with a mandate to revisit and re-evaluate the issue in 45 days. That gives them some time to come up with a more measured response.
Maybe increased police patrols in those areas to deal with the bad guys, so that the good guys can go on living life as normal, surfing their net, etc. Maybe something completely different.
If, after the 45 day trial period, they maintain the restrictions, then let's complain. But let's not deride them just because they reacted to a real problem in their community. After all, if the gangs have moved in and become violent in and around the net cafes, that means the geeks are probably being restricted already. I know I'd stick out like a sore thumb with a sign on it that said "beat me to a pulp and steal my lunch money."
First, Professor Felten WAS NOT PROSECUTED FOR BREAKING THE ENCRYPTION. He faced prosecution for publishing and presenting his work. That is a HUGE distinction. Obviously, it's something I still disagree with; but it's important to get the facts right.
Second, it may be feasible that a college student could be charged with something under the DMCA if the university got some bug up its arse over him/her; but it would require an idiot of a prosecutor. The university invited the act, and it would end up much as if they had hired the kid to break into their own office as a test of security. Weird things happen, so I'd never say never; but let's try to show a bit more reason.
To be fair, AOL gives as much access as you are knowledgeable enough to use. You can http and ftp. You can get to the game zone if you want, do video conferencing, etc. It does actually provide net access. Just because they offer much of their own content first, or along side of the net content, doesn't make them evil.
If the customers are getting what they want, who cares whether it's coming from AOL's servers, or servers on the net?
If you and I want something we can't get on AOL, so be it, let's go somewhere else. If our mothers like AOL, and get what they need, huzzah for AOL, and huzzah for our moms.
I'm still not sure how I feel about this whole merger rumor; but if we're going to bash AOL, let's do it for the right reasons.
I don't think it was technology that was overanalyzed, I think it was society. I don't think you have any hope of looking at the number of rather sweeping changes in society and picking one as a cause of sea change. I certainly believe that analysis is a good thing; but it should be understood as inadequate in such a fluid and vast environment.
As for my rancher, his land still only supports a certain number of cattle, so even an excel spreadsheet or an oracle database won't vastly improve his life. They'll just make some of the paperwork less of a nuisance.
As for the pr0n, well, who's to say? More power to him... and his horse.
The fact is, you can still learn a trade, work 40 hours, and provide for your family. We've just begun to see the world through the filtered lenses of our own subculture. Not everybody is (or wants to be) associated with the tech world. I know ranchers who still ride fences by horseback on land their great-grandfathers ranched. They're as bright and intelligent as any IT geek I've met; and have about as much use for a computer as a hole in the head. Tech isn't suited for everything. The fact is, they seem to be much happier than you and I are.
I know 3rd generation utility linemen whose job security has increased in linear fashion with the rise in the tech culture. That's still a trade in the old sense; and you can certainly provide for your family that way. There are myriad other examples.
The book, if Katz characterized it properly, is probably an example of overanalysis. The world is simply too complex to say that "tech is causing societal insecurity, and that's why we're losing our jobs right and left, and we all need to be able to do all things to survive. etc."
Just look at a few of the other things that have happened in the same time frame as the tech boom of the last 50 years. The Cold War ended. Many/. readers probably have no real appreciation for what that means. They've never in their lives worried about being killed by anything, much less by a missile launched half-way across the world by cajoling, angry dictator. It all may seem like so much idiocy now; but it was a constant and real threat back then. Read Michael Beschloss' "The Crisis Years" to understand just how close we came to doing it. It will give you nightmares.
The political landscape is about as different from 1952 as night and day. Eisenhower would be chewed to bits these days, as would Kennedy for that matter. We used to be interested in helping our presidents run the country. We used to accept that he couldn't solve every problem, or always agree with us.
The religious landscape is different as well, with some sects returning to more fundamentalist views, and other becoming more... well, I hate to use the word, but... liberal.
Again, there are myriad other examples. Tech is only one little piece of our society. It's not even the most important, necessarily.
We (meaning us tech workers) need to show a bit more humility in the world. If the farmers quit, and the coal miners give up, the truck drivers decide to pack it in, we'll be useless and meaningless.
The fact is that this isn't as simple as saying it should be considered a "wiretap" or a "search." What we need is for the law to catch up to technology and say "This is a keyboard sniffer, and you need X to implement it."
In lieu of that, all sides are proposing whatever will result in their victory. It's hard to blame either of them for the positions they've taken.
The irony of it is apparently lost on them. If the internet hadn't become such a phenomenon, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Look at the revenue and profit that has been generated by the net in ways completely ancillary to the web. In other words, pets.com may have failed; but how many more pc's have been sold because of the existence of the net? How many admins/techs have been hired to maintain connectivity, security, etc. Even burglar alarms/security systems that e-mail page alerts.
The net without public access just becomes a glorified AOL before they had net connectivity.
It seems these people have forgetten what the net has given back to them and the world. What a shame.
Well that makes it simple. Your advice boils down to "just do it right" where right means that it is perfectly secure from the start against anything that comes along.
That's naive. Not every admin can be the first person to find the new exploit, and get it patched before anybody else learns about it. You do everything you can; but you can't just pay a little up front and be secured against everything. That assumes that every break-in or defacement is the fault of lazy admins, which is just not true.
But hell, why actually contribute when you can just make a flippant comment and get some karma points?
I can't believe that somebody moderated the parent of this as flamebait. The analogy is perfect. If somebody breaks into my house because I used the stock wood door jamb rather than opting for the superstrength 1/4 inch steel, that doesn't make it my fault.
That flamebait mod just shows how screwed up our priorities are.
Here we go with another issue of "the man keeps putting me down."
What possible incentive do you think the cable company has to make you angry? What possible incentive do you think the cable company has to act as your censor/big brother? What possible motive could they have for providing service below the level you want?
The answer is that they are not in business to control the net, or your thoughts, or what you do. They are in business to make money, as is every other business on the planet. They have deemed that the vpns are costing them money in some manner, so they are asking that the vpn customers pay more. It may not be a solution to their problem; but it is a valid response from the people who are responsible for the profit margins in that company.
In short, it has nothing to do with "Big Brother." It's strictly a financial move, though it could be argued that it's a bad one. But don't turn it into some sort of issue of freedom or rights. You surrender those freedoms and rights when you agree to their terms of service. If you don't agree, then you are right, leave.
There are a few (2-3) reports each year of pilots being temporarily blinded by those laser light shows at amusement parks, or places like Las Vegas. Notices to airmen are posted warning pilots of the dangers at certain airports. For that matter, you don't really even need to damage their eyes, if you can sufficiently impact their night vision, you create essentially the same hazard. They may be flying on instruments until short final; but they will transition to a visual approach at some point and become vulnerable. It happens accidentally, so to do it deliberately does not at all seem that impossible.
The problem is that we're long on talk, and short on cash. How many "information wants to be free" geeks are gonna pay for a scrip to LWN when they can get other linux news for free?
The really difficult thing is that there is no measure of having succeeded. You can't proclaim victory because you captured Kabul, or Kandahar, they mean nothing beyond the Taliban. You can't claim victory because you destroyed some training camps, they are nomadic operations anyhow. You have to prepare yourself to say "I've done what I can." People are so fond of saying that the Soviet invasion failed; but that oversimplifies it. The invasion was a stunning success, it was the occupation that failed. Nationalism just isn't really a word that applies to Afghanistan, and if you take town X, you haven't really weakened Afghanistan, the only thing you've accomplished is the taking of town X. The Soviets took some towns and airports and thought the job was done.
We need to work very hard day and night to get the Taliban, and Bin Laden, then get out, declare it a success and wait for the next reason to go in.
Is anything in life that simple. I too finished my degree at an advanced age. As such, I came to appreciate a few other things about universities. It turns out that instructors and staff are proud of the work they do, and feel that performance in their class, and the level of learning they impart reflects on them. So if they let the class surf, and everybody flunks, it's not just a problem for the students; but for them. It also is a problem for the school. If they have a reputation for letting the students blow off work and spend their time surfing instead, they will suffer lowering enrollment and perhaps even problems with accreditation.
So it's not just all about you. Yes, you paid for a service, the learning, and you should get it. That doesn't necessarily mean you should also get porn delivered straight to your desk when you want it.
I agree; and don't try to expect too much from a job. Some people are lucky enough to do the very thing they love best (fighter pilots, race car drivers, pro football players); but most of us need to get over the illusion that we're going to "do what we really love" or love what we really do. It's one of those sad fact of life things that kind of got brushed over in the whole dot-com brain fart. Real life hasn't really changed that much. We still work most of the day to enable our relaxation on weekend and evenings.
As for diversions, I teach people to fly. I have 1 or 2 students at a time so that I never get overloaded. It's my sanity anchor. When work gets bad, I can escape a little more into the flying. It helps me keep my perspective so that work never spirals down into burnout.
But more important than the diversion is the acceptance of the fact that my job is not going to be my ultimate fulfillment in life.
You're right. Several Popes throughout history did say that, and other similar things. And it was wrong. Do we now criticize the current Pope for not doing that?
I really don't expect to make a convert of somebody who is obviously dedicated to their own beliefs; but I will ask you not to make light of my faith. You don't know me, you don't have any idea how mature/immature I am, what I "need" to feel secure, and whether or not my beliefs are "fantasies." And while I don't favor a strict interpretation of the bible, I don't believe it to be a "work of fiction."
Nobody in my parish ever killed somebody because they were protestant, or buddhist, or hindu, or muslim, or jewish, or for that matter athiest. The people who do such things are likely to have been bad people with or without religion, as they've already twisted their faith into something it's not. They weren't taught to do these things by their faith. All of the religions I mentioned above espouse peace, love, support, tolerance.
You've every right to your opinion; but is it necessary to criticize me for mine?
Finally, what do you expect from the Pope? Wouldn't you be a little disappointed if the Pope, the leader of Catholicism, the man we call the "Holy Father" said "Nuke 'em. Stomp 'em. Kill as many of them as you can?" I would. Even if I felt that way, I'd be disappointed to hear the Pope say that.
It's fine to disagree with Congress' decisions. And it's important to question government; but it's a bit ridiculous to equate George Bush and the current situation to Hitler and the Reichstag. It's unfair to Bush, and it's unfair to Hitler's victims.
Let's take Bush and congress to task for the things they do. Let's not play this childish game of name-calling. Make a real statement.
You've mischaracterized my statements. Your characterization of my remarks was no more accurate than if I were to summarize yours by saying that you thought Walmart was responsible for all of this. It seems your first instinct was not to think through my remarks, but to assume them shallow and retort. If you would like a little more depth in the discussion, then let's do it; but let's not pretend to do it, then fall short of the mark.
As for figuring out WITH CERTAINTY who is responsible, your definition of certainty will be the only thing that determines whether or not that happens. There is growing, credible evidence that the obvious was true. If you're not convinced, that's okay. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. And I don't mind mounting some more evidence before we start military action. I do, however, believe strongly enough to consider Osama Bin Laden the guilty party for this conversation. I believe this not only from the things being presented in the media; but from historical evidence as well.
As for finding out what we did to inspire such hatred, this too is not exactly hidden information.
During college, I studied Afghanistan in the context of the Soviet invasion and occupation with some detail. It's crucial to understand Osama's brand of Islam to understand what was done to us this last week.
When the Soviets invaded, it was a political action, for strategic real estate, and for some minor oil resources. The Mujaheddin, and in fact, most Afghans could care less about oil, or any other political issue. They did care that the Soviets espoused atheism. They did care that the Soviets intended to put down Islam. It then became a very justified Jihad for them.
We, of course, saw it all in a political context as well, and contributed arms and money through Pakistan. But the Mujaheddin were under no illusions about our involvement. They didn't see us in a very different light than the Soviets. Our aid was not appreciated, only convenient. The reason it was accepted, and the reason they didn't actively attack those people who represented us was that at the moment, the Soviets were there shooting and stomping on the Muslim population. The U.S. wasn't, though we were as much infidels as the Soviets.
So it should not be misunderstood. We gained no real favor by helping during the Soviet invasion. We don't really deserve any. We did it for us, not for them; and they know it.
As for what negative things we've done, most of it boils down to our support of their enemies. The decisions and philosophies that have led us to the current state of relations with Israel and the Palestinians is much more complex than you get from the evening news. The same is true regarding our relations with India and Pakistan. Each decision at each moment was made for some reason. And while I can't begin to know even a handful of details, I can tell you that they are all made in the context of what they mean to us, our allies, and our enemies. Read some memoirs to get a picture of how decisions at the presidential level are made. Regarding Afghanistan, try to read memoirs of somebody from Carter's administration, and I would suggest George Schultz' memoirs from the Reagan era. These people do not take their jobs lightly. They do not make their decisions without careful consideration. They obviously take the issues more seriously than you have, given your remarks above.
In any event, we have supported the Israelis more than we have supported the Palestinians. We supported the Hindu and Buddhist Indians more than the Muslim Pakistanis. While we see our support in different contexts than religion, the extremist Muslims do not. (Mainstream Muslims should not be misunderstood as being part of the same community as somebody like Bin Laden.) Osama sees everything in a religious context. He's seen us support people who killed his fellow Muslims. As such, and according to his version of Islamic law, he has made it his purpose in life to eradicate as many of us as possible.
See, in his brand of Islam, if you commit suicide, you have sinned and will go to hell. However, if you did it to take an infidel with you, you are guaranteed entry into heaven. Given that, if you were devout, why would you struggle through life, trying to live virtuously enough to reach heaven, when you could simply kill one or more infidels and immediately meet Allah? Why then, has Osama not done that? Because he believes that he can kill thousands (and he has), even hundreds of thousands, and thus please Allah even more.
So how would we appease him? This is real important. You can't, unless the entire country were to convert to HIS brand of Islam, repent for their sins, and begin fighting the Jews, the Hindus, the Christians, etc.
Even if we were to back off from our admittedly staunch support of Israel, it would not be sufficient. He has the taste of blood in his mouth. It cannot be quenched now. It was beyond that years ago. Do not make the same mistake of viewing his philosophies and actions in the wrong context. It's not a matter of society. It's not a matter of politics. For Osama, it's a matter of religion, and we have already sinned. We can't undo that. No treaty will appease Allah. Your patronizing analogy of the obnoxious neighbor falls so short of the mark as to be useless in this discussion.
Osama knows that he can't kill all of us. He also knows that we won't quit supporting our friends. He doesn't expect our government to apologize to him, or to concede anything.
He can't kill all of us; so he'll attempt to hurt all of us. It's not enough; but it's all he can do. He'll take away our lifestyle. He'll try to make us into the same fearful society that exists around him. It's not enough; but it's all he can do. Religiously, it's a best effort for him. Kill as many as you can, and hurt as many more as possible. Change them. Scare them. It's not enough; but it's all he can do.
I obviously disagree with him. As such, I refuse to surrender my lifestyle. I will travel about the country as I see fit. I will continue my normal life by shopping for the things I want (and I don't see any evil in buying a gas grill, even if I don't need it, or a play-station, or cute clothes for my little girl, or anything else.) I'll help in any way I can to rebuild, and get through the current tragedy. And I'll staunchly suggest that we do just that, get through. And I won't naively assume that I can do a little soul searching and come up with some way to prevent it from happening again; as if it were simply some minor misunderstanding that we can correct and move on with.
Your first instinct was to assume that I had given little or not thought to the issues. That I simply spoke mindlessly. It's ironic. That's exactly how the extremists see us. Let's try to show a little more depth. Let's try to show a little composure.
In fact, maybe that last sentence actually does sum up my initial statement.
Re:There will never again be a good day....
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
The tail section of an airplane is generally pretty stout; but it will disintegrate under the proper circumstances, just like any other part. We've seen this before in accidents involving airplanes of all size. The absence of the tail section among the wreckage does not in any way indicate that it was shot down. Please refrain from such nonsense. Even if it had been shot down, there would be no reason to hide that fact. It would have been a terrible but necessary decision that I think most of the country would have supported.
Try to focus your anger where it belongs.
Re:Interesting that he thought of Muslims first...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Why is that interesting? We do the same thing. It's human nature. I find his remarks comforting. Although intellectually, I know that it is only a minority of muslims who hate the U.S., it is good to hear such reasonable sentiments as he expressed.
Re:What we must do
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Aside from letting the military take care of military matters, I'll tell you what we should do.
We should mow our lawns. We should go out to eat. We should sit on the porch with a beer. We should travel across the country. When the planes are back in the air, we should fly somewhere.
The terrorists don't have any real hope of getting the U.S. to say "Sorry. We'll stop doing the things that make you angry." They have no defined goal toward which they are working. They have a vague goal of defeating us. Because of this, they know they won't gain anything substantial by performing these acts.
The one thing they can accomplish, is to get us to drastically change our way of life. They can frighten us into not travelling about our own country the way we used to. They can get us to hide in our homes, to quit going to our sporting events, movies, etc.
That's their one spoil of war: our lifestyle. And that's not a spoil the military can get back for us. We have to do that. We have to refuse to give it to them.
The perception, even among ourselves, is that American culture is sometimes shallow. Hopefully, we will prove through this time that it only appears so because we refuse to surrender it to such people as would try to take it from us.
We need to go to our baseball games. We need to go buy a bunch of things we don't need from Walmart. We need to take our SUV's out to the lake for a picnic, or to go camping. We need to be ourselves. If we become somebody else, anybody else, we surrender.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's not knee-jerk in response to this either. It's one town, not the whole state, and it appears to be in response to a real problem they're having. They've put a time limit on the moratorium, with a mandate to revisit and re-evaluate the issue in 45 days. That gives them some time to come up with a more measured response.
Maybe increased police patrols in those areas to deal with the bad guys, so that the good guys can go on living life as normal, surfing their net, etc. Maybe something completely different.
If, after the 45 day trial period, they maintain the restrictions, then let's complain. But let's not deride them just because they reacted to a real problem in their community. After all, if the gangs have moved in and become violent in and around the net cafes, that means the geeks are probably being restricted already. I know I'd stick out like a sore thumb with a sign on it that said "beat me to a pulp and steal my lunch money."
First, Professor Felten WAS NOT PROSECUTED FOR BREAKING THE ENCRYPTION. He faced prosecution for publishing and presenting his work. That is a HUGE distinction. Obviously, it's something I still disagree with; but it's important to get the facts right.
Second, it may be feasible that a college student could be charged with something under the DMCA if the university got some bug up its arse over him/her; but it would require an idiot of a prosecutor. The university invited the act, and it would end up much as if they had hired the kid to break into their own office as a test of security. Weird things happen, so I'd never say never; but let's try to show a bit more reason.
To be fair, AOL gives as much access as you are knowledgeable enough to use. You can http and ftp. You can get to the game zone if you want, do video conferencing, etc. It does actually provide net access. Just because they offer much of their own content first, or along side of the net content, doesn't make them evil.
If the customers are getting what they want, who cares whether it's coming from AOL's servers, or servers on the net?
If you and I want something we can't get on AOL, so be it, let's go somewhere else. If our mothers like AOL, and get what they need, huzzah for AOL, and huzzah for our moms.
I'm still not sure how I feel about this whole merger rumor; but if we're going to bash AOL, let's do it for the right reasons.
I thought the borkinator was the best part. I wish there were a way to mod up past 5. That was truly hilarious.
I don't think it was technology that was overanalyzed, I think it was society. I don't think you have any hope of looking at the number of rather sweeping changes in society and picking one as a cause of sea change. I certainly believe that analysis is a good thing; but it should be understood as inadequate in such a fluid and vast environment.
As for my rancher, his land still only supports a certain number of cattle, so even an excel spreadsheet or an oracle database won't vastly improve his life. They'll just make some of the paperwork less of a nuisance.
As for the pr0n, well, who's to say? More power to him... and his horse.
The fact is, you can still learn a trade, work 40 hours, and provide for your family. We've just begun to see the world through the filtered lenses of our own subculture. Not everybody is (or wants to be) associated with the tech world. I know ranchers who still ride fences by horseback on land their great-grandfathers ranched. They're as bright and intelligent as any IT geek I've met; and have about as much use for a computer as a hole in the head. Tech isn't suited for everything. The fact is, they seem to be much happier than you and I are.
/. readers probably have no real appreciation for what that means. They've never in their lives worried about being killed by anything, much less by a missile launched half-way across the world by cajoling, angry dictator. It all may seem like so much idiocy now; but it was a constant and real threat back then. Read Michael Beschloss' "The Crisis Years" to understand just how close we came to doing it. It will give you nightmares.
I know 3rd generation utility linemen whose job security has increased in linear fashion with the rise in the tech culture. That's still a trade in the old sense; and you can certainly provide for your family that way. There are myriad other examples.
The book, if Katz characterized it properly, is probably an example of overanalysis. The world is simply too complex to say that "tech is causing societal insecurity, and that's why we're losing our jobs right and left, and we all need to be able to do all things to survive. etc."
Just look at a few of the other things that have happened in the same time frame as the tech boom of the last 50 years. The Cold War ended. Many
The political landscape is about as different from 1952 as night and day. Eisenhower would be chewed to bits these days, as would Kennedy for that matter. We used to be interested in helping our presidents run the country. We used to accept that he couldn't solve every problem, or always agree with us.
The religious landscape is different as well, with some sects returning to more fundamentalist views, and other becoming more... well, I hate to use the word, but... liberal.
Again, there are myriad other examples. Tech is only one little piece of our society. It's not even the most important, necessarily.
We (meaning us tech workers) need to show a bit more humility in the world. If the farmers quit, and the coal miners give up, the truck drivers decide to pack it in, we'll be useless and meaningless.
The fact is that this isn't as simple as saying it should be considered a "wiretap" or a "search." What we need is for the law to catch up to technology and say "This is a keyboard sniffer, and you need X to implement it."
In lieu of that, all sides are proposing whatever will result in their victory. It's hard to blame either of them for the positions they've taken.
The irony of it is apparently lost on them. If the internet hadn't become such a phenomenon, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Look at the revenue and profit that has been generated by the net in ways completely ancillary to the web. In other words, pets.com may have failed; but how many more pc's have been sold because of the existence of the net? How many admins/techs have been hired to maintain connectivity, security, etc. Even burglar alarms/security systems that e-mail page alerts.
The net without public access just becomes a glorified AOL before they had net connectivity.
It seems these people have forgetten what the net has given back to them and the world. What a shame.
I'm thinking of this from the pilot's perspective.
Scenario 1: "Aw hell, I just missed the wire. Good thing I'm already throttled up and going."
Scenario 2: On the Radio - "The Magnet!! Somebody switch the magnet!! Please God, switch the magnet!!!
Well that makes it simple. Your advice boils down to "just do it right" where right means that it is perfectly secure from the start against anything that comes along.
That's naive. Not every admin can be the first person to find the new exploit, and get it patched before anybody else learns about it. You do everything you can; but you can't just pay a little up front and be secured against everything. That assumes that every break-in or defacement is the fault of lazy admins, which is just not true.
But hell, why actually contribute when you can just make a flippant comment and get some karma points?
I can't believe that somebody moderated the parent of this as flamebait. The analogy is perfect. If somebody breaks into my house because I used the stock wood door jamb rather than opting for the superstrength 1/4 inch steel, that doesn't make it my fault.
That flamebait mod just shows how screwed up our priorities are.
Here we go with another issue of "the man keeps putting me down."
What possible incentive do you think the cable company has to make you angry? What possible incentive do you think the cable company has to act as your censor/big brother? What possible motive could they have for providing service below the level you want?
The answer is that they are not in business to control the net, or your thoughts, or what you do. They are in business to make money, as is every other business on the planet. They have deemed that the vpns are costing them money in some manner, so they are asking that the vpn customers pay more. It may not be a solution to their problem; but it is a valid response from the people who are responsible for the profit margins in that company.
In short, it has nothing to do with "Big Brother." It's strictly a financial move, though it could be argued that it's a bad one. But don't turn it into some sort of issue of freedom or rights. You surrender those freedoms and rights when you agree to their terms of service. If you don't agree, then you are right, leave.
There are a few (2-3) reports each year of pilots being temporarily blinded by those laser light shows at amusement parks, or places like Las Vegas. Notices to airmen are posted warning pilots of the dangers at certain airports. For that matter, you don't really even need to damage their eyes, if you can sufficiently impact their night vision, you create essentially the same hazard. They may be flying on instruments until short final; but they will transition to a visual approach at some point and become vulnerable. It happens accidentally, so to do it deliberately does not at all seem that impossible.
Great. Now I have Annie Lennox stuck in my head.
The problem is that we're long on talk, and short on cash. How many "information wants to be free" geeks are gonna pay for a scrip to LWN when they can get other linux news for free?
The really difficult thing is that there is no measure of having succeeded. You can't proclaim victory because you captured Kabul, or Kandahar, they mean nothing beyond the Taliban. You can't claim victory because you destroyed some training camps, they are nomadic operations anyhow. You have to prepare yourself to say "I've done what I can." People are so fond of saying that the Soviet invasion failed; but that oversimplifies it. The invasion was a stunning success, it was the occupation that failed. Nationalism just isn't really a word that applies to Afghanistan, and if you take town X, you haven't really weakened Afghanistan, the only thing you've accomplished is the taking of town X. The Soviets took some towns and airports and thought the job was done.
We need to work very hard day and night to get the Taliban, and Bin Laden, then get out, declare it a success and wait for the next reason to go in.
Is anything in life that simple. I too finished my degree at an advanced age. As such, I came to appreciate a few other things about universities. It turns out that instructors and staff are proud of the work they do, and feel that performance in their class, and the level of learning they impart reflects on them. So if they let the class surf, and everybody flunks, it's not just a problem for the students; but for them. It also is a problem for the school. If they have a reputation for letting the students blow off work and spend their time surfing instead, they will suffer lowering enrollment and perhaps even problems with accreditation.
So it's not just all about you. Yes, you paid for a service, the learning, and you should get it. That doesn't necessarily mean you should also get porn delivered straight to your desk when you want it.
I agree; and don't try to expect too much from a job. Some people are lucky enough to do the very thing they love best (fighter pilots, race car drivers, pro football players); but most of us need to get over the illusion that we're going to "do what we really love" or love what we really do. It's one of those sad fact of life things that kind of got brushed over in the whole dot-com brain fart. Real life hasn't really changed that much. We still work most of the day to enable our relaxation on weekend and evenings.
As for diversions, I teach people to fly. I have 1 or 2 students at a time so that I never get overloaded. It's my sanity anchor. When work gets bad, I can escape a little more into the flying. It helps me keep my perspective so that work never spirals down into burnout.
But more important than the diversion is the acceptance of the fact that my job is not going to be my ultimate fulfillment in life.
You're right. Several Popes throughout history did say that, and other similar things. And it was wrong. Do we now criticize the current Pope for not doing that?
I really don't expect to make a convert of somebody who is obviously dedicated to their own beliefs; but I will ask you not to make light of my faith. You don't know me, you don't have any idea how mature/immature I am, what I "need" to feel secure, and whether or not my beliefs are "fantasies." And while I don't favor a strict interpretation of the bible, I don't believe it to be a "work of fiction."
Nobody in my parish ever killed somebody because they were protestant, or buddhist, or hindu, or muslim, or jewish, or for that matter athiest. The people who do such things are likely to have been bad people with or without religion, as they've already twisted their faith into something it's not. They weren't taught to do these things by their faith. All of the religions I mentioned above espouse peace, love, support, tolerance.
You've every right to your opinion; but is it necessary to criticize me for mine?
Finally, what do you expect from the Pope? Wouldn't you be a little disappointed if the Pope, the leader of Catholicism, the man we call the "Holy Father" said "Nuke 'em. Stomp 'em. Kill as many of them as you can?" I would. Even if I felt that way, I'd be disappointed to hear the Pope say that.
It's fine to disagree with Congress' decisions. And it's important to question government; but it's a bit ridiculous to equate George Bush and the current situation to Hitler and the Reichstag. It's unfair to Bush, and it's unfair to Hitler's victims.
Let's take Bush and congress to task for the things they do. Let's not play this childish game of name-calling. Make a real statement.
You've mischaracterized my statements. Your characterization of my remarks was no more accurate than if I were to summarize yours by saying that you thought Walmart was responsible for all of this. It seems your first instinct was not to think through my remarks, but to assume them shallow and retort. If you would like a little more depth in the discussion, then let's do it; but let's not pretend to do it, then fall short of the mark.
As for figuring out WITH CERTAINTY who is responsible, your definition of certainty will be the only thing that determines whether or not that happens. There is growing, credible evidence that the obvious was true. If you're not convinced, that's okay. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. And I don't mind mounting some more evidence before we start military action. I do, however, believe strongly enough to consider Osama Bin Laden the guilty party for this conversation. I believe this not only from the things being presented in the media; but from historical evidence as well.
As for finding out what we did to inspire such hatred, this too is not exactly hidden information.
During college, I studied Afghanistan in the context of the Soviet invasion and occupation with some detail. It's crucial to understand Osama's brand of Islam to understand what was done to us this last week.
When the Soviets invaded, it was a political action, for strategic real estate, and for some minor oil resources. The Mujaheddin, and in fact, most Afghans could care less about oil, or any other political issue. They did care that the Soviets espoused atheism. They did care that the Soviets intended to put down Islam. It then became a very justified Jihad for them.
We, of course, saw it all in a political context as well, and contributed arms and money through Pakistan. But the Mujaheddin were under no illusions about our involvement. They didn't see us in a very different light than the Soviets. Our aid was not appreciated, only convenient. The reason it was accepted, and the reason they didn't actively attack those people who represented us was that at the moment, the Soviets were there shooting and stomping on the Muslim population. The U.S. wasn't, though we were as much infidels as the Soviets.
So it should not be misunderstood. We gained no real favor by helping during the Soviet invasion. We don't really deserve any. We did it for us, not for them; and they know it.
As for what negative things we've done, most of it boils down to our support of their enemies. The decisions and philosophies that have led us to the current state of relations with Israel and the Palestinians is much more complex than you get from the evening news. The same is true regarding our relations with India and Pakistan. Each decision at each moment was made for some reason. And while I can't begin to know even a handful of details, I can tell you that they are all made in the context of what they mean to us, our allies, and our enemies. Read some memoirs to get a picture of how decisions at the presidential level are made. Regarding Afghanistan, try to read memoirs of somebody from Carter's administration, and I would suggest George Schultz' memoirs from the Reagan era. These people do not take their jobs lightly. They do not make their decisions without careful consideration. They obviously take the issues more seriously than you have, given your remarks above.
In any event, we have supported the Israelis more than we have supported the Palestinians. We supported the Hindu and Buddhist Indians more than the Muslim Pakistanis. While we see our support in different contexts than religion, the extremist Muslims do not. (Mainstream Muslims should not be misunderstood as being part of the same community as somebody like Bin Laden.) Osama sees everything in a religious context. He's seen us support people who killed his fellow Muslims. As such, and according to his version of Islamic law, he has made it his purpose in life to eradicate as many of us as possible.
See, in his brand of Islam, if you commit suicide, you have sinned and will go to hell. However, if you did it to take an infidel with you, you are guaranteed entry into heaven. Given that, if you were devout, why would you struggle through life, trying to live virtuously enough to reach heaven, when you could simply kill one or more infidels and immediately meet Allah? Why then, has Osama not done that? Because he believes that he can kill thousands (and he has), even hundreds of thousands, and thus please Allah even more.
So how would we appease him? This is real important. You can't, unless the entire country were to convert to HIS brand of Islam, repent for their sins, and begin fighting the Jews, the Hindus, the Christians, etc.
Even if we were to back off from our admittedly staunch support of Israel, it would not be sufficient. He has the taste of blood in his mouth. It cannot be quenched now. It was beyond that years ago. Do not make the same mistake of viewing his philosophies and actions in the wrong context. It's not a matter of society. It's not a matter of politics. For Osama, it's a matter of religion, and we have already sinned. We can't undo that. No treaty will appease Allah. Your patronizing analogy of the obnoxious neighbor falls so short of the mark as to be useless in this discussion.
Osama knows that he can't kill all of us. He also knows that we won't quit supporting our friends. He doesn't expect our government to apologize to him, or to concede anything.
He can't kill all of us; so he'll attempt to hurt all of us. It's not enough; but it's all he can do. He'll take away our lifestyle. He'll try to make us into the same fearful society that exists around him. It's not enough; but it's all he can do. Religiously, it's a best effort for him. Kill as many as you can, and hurt as many more as possible. Change them. Scare them. It's not enough; but it's all he can do.
I obviously disagree with him. As such, I refuse to surrender my lifestyle. I will travel about the country as I see fit. I will continue my normal life by shopping for the things I want (and I don't see any evil in buying a gas grill, even if I don't need it, or a play-station, or cute clothes for my little girl, or anything else.) I'll help in any way I can to rebuild, and get through the current tragedy. And I'll staunchly suggest that we do just that, get through. And I won't naively assume that I can do a little soul searching and come up with some way to prevent it from happening again; as if it were simply some minor misunderstanding that we can correct and move on with.
Your first instinct was to assume that I had given little or not thought to the issues. That I simply spoke mindlessly. It's ironic. That's exactly how the extremists see us. Let's try to show a little more depth. Let's try to show a little composure.
In fact, maybe that last sentence actually does sum up my initial statement.
The tail section of an airplane is generally pretty stout; but it will disintegrate under the proper circumstances, just like any other part. We've seen this before in accidents involving airplanes of all size. The absence of the tail section among the wreckage does not in any way indicate that it was shot down. Please refrain from such nonsense. Even if it had been shot down, there would be no reason to hide that fact. It would have been a terrible but necessary decision that I think most of the country would have supported.
Try to focus your anger where it belongs.
Why is that interesting? We do the same thing. It's human nature. I find his remarks comforting. Although intellectually, I know that it is only a minority of muslims who hate the U.S., it is good to hear such reasonable sentiments as he expressed.
Aside from letting the military take care of military matters, I'll tell you what we should do.
We should mow our lawns. We should go out to eat. We should sit on the porch with a beer. We should travel across the country. When the planes are back in the air, we should fly somewhere.
The terrorists don't have any real hope of getting the U.S. to say "Sorry. We'll stop doing the things that make you angry." They have no defined goal toward which they are working. They have a vague goal of defeating us. Because of this, they know they won't gain anything substantial by performing these acts.
The one thing they can accomplish, is to get us to drastically change our way of life. They can frighten us into not travelling about our own country the way we used to. They can get us to hide in our homes, to quit going to our sporting events, movies, etc.
That's their one spoil of war: our lifestyle. And that's not a spoil the military can get back for us. We have to do that. We have to refuse to give it to them.
The perception, even among ourselves, is that American culture is sometimes shallow. Hopefully, we will prove through this time that it only appears so because we refuse to surrender it to such people as would try to take it from us.
We need to go to our baseball games. We need to go buy a bunch of things we don't need from Walmart. We need to take our SUV's out to the lake for a picnic, or to go camping. We need to be ourselves. If we become somebody else, anybody else, we surrender.