It strikes me that it's not coincidence that most of the questions posed to him were about security. My perception is that users are thinking more about security. Even the Microsoft coder who posted anonymously bashed him for their security (admittedly, posting anonymously means that we can't really speak to his veracity either).
I think Nash was for the most part playing the game of saying that they're making great strides in security so much that he hopes we'll all come to believe it.
It just reminds me too much of Charlie Brown kicking the football. I've spent too much time fighting the poor design and security of Windows to believe it just because he says it. They can hang whatever catchy name they want on their security initiatives, they haven't worked as yet. Color me skeptical.
is that you find that you cannot do anything in Congress by yourself. The old saying about no man being an island is especially true in the legislature. So, to get anything done, you have to make deals and compromises with others in your party. Want that reform bill passed? Ironically, you'll probably need to sign on to somebody's spending bill to get it done, whether or not that spending bill contains ridiculous and harmful earmarks or riders. Refuse to help your party leadership do whatever they want, and you'll find yourself out in the cold, ineffective and unsupported. And the next time elections come around, the party leadership will campaign for your opponent in the primary. Voting your conscience will eventually result in your breaking a party line; but doing so will spell disaster, especially for a freshman.
The only way to solve this is to impose term limits. In a system where legislators may serve for decades, there is less incentive to do what's right for your constituents than there is to do what's right for you and your party.
on television while she was in Baghdad. Behind her was a blue backdrop with the phrase "The Rule of Law" printed repeatedly against it. It strikes me that we lose credibility when we go around promoting, sometimes even forcing, the "Rule of Law" on other peoples, then turn around to our own and say that the President has Carte Blanche to break the law whenever the country is under "threat" and therefore isn't really breaking the law at all. What definition is there for threat? I have to be honest, I was born and grew up during the Cold War, and even after I never felt that we weren't under some "threat". You can certainly argue that the threat has increased in the last few years; but I still think you need some kind of clarification of what threats make this legal and which threats don't. Otherwise you lack credibility to people around the world, and to people at home.
Finally, even if we give GWB the benefit of the doubt and believe that he's a good man doing what he thinks is best to protect us, that doesn't excuse breaking the rules. After all, you don't make rules for good guys, you make them because you know that given time, there WILL be a bad guy who gets the office, and he needs to be restrained by law. If you say the good guy can trump the rule of law simply because he's the President and he's acting in the best interests of the country, then you have also said that the bad guy can do so for the same reasons. And let's face it, we as a populace have not done a very good job of actually assessing whether or not our President is acting in the best interests of the nation. We've been too busy watching Bill O'Reilly duke it out with Keith Olberman. That, after all, is easier and more entertaining.
Something I find surprising is that most of the people I talk to who are adamant 2nd ammendment supporters are also strong supporters of the Bush administration and the domestic spying program. Obviously the Republican party is the party that fights gun control; but it seems to me that some of the "from my cold dead hands" folks are really not very analytical about things.
I'm sure that's true of the other side also; but it's just odd that somebody who feels their gun is their last line of defense against a corrupt government would so easily and quickly give up rights for which their gun was their stated last line of defense. Apparently those rights aren't as important as they like to say they are, or they would be more inclined to defend them.
The truth, it seems, is that they will probably never use their guns until somebody comes to actually take them away. All other rights they'll happily give up when somebody whispers the word "terrorist."
For all of the certainty and equanimity NRA hardcore types display, they seem quite fearful of the bogeyman.
It's not hard now to say that Solaris/AIX/HPUX/Win are palatable only because they don't have the source, and therefore don't know what kernel problems there are in those platforms. That's probably a bit apocryphal; but not a LOT.
On the flip side, when they eventually do endorse Linux and use it on their servers, I think it's a real feather in Linux' and Linus' caps.
That's my glass-half-full take on the matter, anyhow.
To begin with, the Galileo system is reputed to have better accuracy. Positional accuracy is, after all, the point of the whole system. So why wouldn't they do it. Furthermore, your reaction to them merely setting up a separate system not controlled by your own government seems to me to be good evidence that were the shoe on the other foot, you'd likely be extolling the virtues of a system not controlled by a foreign country with even more fervor.
As for unleashing our nuclear arsenal, I know you must be kidding. Mutually assured destruction, despite my admitted characterization of it as lunacy during the Cold War, works. France, Germany, England, Russia, etc. have nukes too my friend. All of that is, of course, an argument beyond the simple absurdity of your statement.
As for invading Europe, we can't even control a country with less land area than Texas. What makes you think we could successfully invade Europe and prevail?
And how would the U.S. shut down the internet? Cripple, sure. But I don't imagine there's a big red button in the White House that simply shuts down the internet. We may have developed the core of the internet; but I think that saying we control it is a bit ridiculous.
Finally, you can shake your finger and say "shame on you" all you like. We just did invade a country without provocation or necessity. I'm all for our presence in Afghanistan; but Iraq is a lark. It was the personal agenda of the President, misrepresented and sold to the larger public as a defense of our national security and freedom in general.
Really, take a pill. The Europeans are launching a satellite positioning network. It doesn't rate talk of nuclear war and ground invasions.
The terrorists can't kill all of the Americans in the world, and they're not going to achieve some sort of capitulation from the U.S. government. So, how do they "destroy" America, as is their stated goal? They do so by trying to take away the things we most have in abundance: money and freedom.
Or to arrive at the same point, Bush would say "they hate us for our freedom."
The money thing is a no-brainer, as we're spending a lot more money frisking old ladies at the airport than Al Queda is having to spend to keep us in fear.
As for the freedom portion, what constitutes our freedom? What is our freedom but the rights we enjoy under the Constitution? Freedom, for U.S. citizens is the right to say whatever you want. It's the right to believe, or not believe, in whatever god you see fit. It is the right to keep and bear arms, the right to refuse the quartering of soldiers in your own home, the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects. You see where this is going.
These were no idle privileges tossed in on a lark. Indeed, some argument was made that to define rights might imply others weren't granted. So, the ones in the Bill of Rights are the special ones. The ones that need emphasizing. These things are our freedom; and Al Queda has convinced our government that they need to take some of them away. And through our government, Al Queda has convinced a great many of us of the same thing.
We're so afraid of the bogeyman that at the mere mention of the word "terrorist" we're ready to surrender the very things that make our society enviable.
The terrorists are winning, and not through strength of arms.
P.S. As far as stopping 9/11, when the National Security Advisor ignores a memo entitled "Bin Laden Planning to Attach United States" I believe we're past the point at which these other sorts of things would have been useful.
I do think that we're more ripe for a third party now than we have been for a very long time given the division within the GOP; but I don't think it's going to happen. The stigma that comes from starting a 3rd party in this country is one of being a crackpot. Also, the money and support machines that are our 2 popular parties make it too easy to get help with your campaign compared to the do-it-yourself approach that starting a successful third party would require.
While I agree in general that the Democratic party is just as guilty as the GOP regarding dirty tricks and corruption, etc., I think the current administration takes the all-out hands-down prize-winning cake for being corrupt and for abusing power. I would think so if they were Dems or libertarians or pastafarians. They have made such a mockery of our system of government that it is insulting to those of us who lead law-abiding lives.
As for 2008, unless things change I don't see a Democratic president. Their front-runner is Hillary, who is one of the most divisive and polarizing figures in American politics. Whether that's earned or not is rather irrelevant. She's going to have to do some serious image work between now and then to make a realistic show of it in the 2008 election. There are better, more presidential and electable people who could make a run for it who haven't announced, don't have any money or both. Bill Richardson(gov. NM) strikes me as one who could make a serious challenge if the party supported him.
On the GOP side they are only suffering from having too deep a bench. Rudy Guliani, John McCain, Bill Frist (though current legal troubles may end that), Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, Sam Brownback, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, and even Condi Rice are all being bantered about as being serious potential candidates. Personally, I think Condi would be more divisive than Hillary, and I think all the others are going to have a tough time competing with either Rudy or Sen. McCain.
But the Democrats are in a serious hurt as far as the '08 presidential race goes. They're in a better position for the mid-terms coming up; but even that could get jacked up if they don't start doing some serious strategy work and putting forth some real candidates.
The Republicans have put them in this spot by stealing their lines. The GOP is now the party of the God-fearing folk. They are now the party of the little man, protecting said peasant from the tyranny of the Ivy Leage Elitist, etc. There has been a lot of talk about how the Democrats need to come up with a message. The truth is, they need to take their message back from the people who stole it if they are to have any election successes in the near term.
Personally, I'd be okay with either Rudy or McCain. The rest in my earlier list turn my stomach; but so does Hillary. It's a tough time to be a centrist and to watch the GOP turning ultra-conservative, and the Dems put Hillary out as the answer. Fortunately, the two most moderate GOP frontrunners are still in fact running in front. I hope it stays that way.
Something getting repeated in comments and in the posted discussion is the idea that terrorists won't want to disrupt the communications network because they want everybody to see an hear their deeds and become terrified.
The reality is, however, that although the net might not be as redundant as we'd like to think, it is redundant enough that word would spread. Radio and television would also spread the news.
The benefit of disrupting communications (as long as it's not total disruption, which to be honest, I don't think is possible) is that it makes all of the other things failing seem more systemic. How many of us tried to contact a relative or co-worker in NYC on 9/11. There was the double-whammy of knowing that all of those people were dying, and your friend might be one of them but you can't find out because you can't reach them. Imagine that magnified by not being able to reach the city or the region.
The best method to inflict terror is to do something that scares people. And an effective attack on any of our infrastructures will do that. Certainly, collapsing buildings is more frightening to us than taking down the net; but don't kid yourself, people have a vague idea of how dependent we are on it now. Every segment of our critical infrastructure uses it in some important fashion. Perhaps they should not; but they do. It would be an effective attack vector for them.
As far as the arguments about "return on effort", etc. That's the sort of analysis a military or government would do. In a conflict in which terrorists will blow themselves up in hotel lobbies, I don't think it's a valid benchmark for what they will and won't do.
While I agree that they should make it more stable in the first place, I have to say that this little piece is going to be a welcome feature.
I have often felt honestly bad for my Windows counterparts when it comes to patch time and they have to go through the pain of arranging down times and outages with their customers, sometimes stretching their patch time frame out for weeks.
While it's a long way from curing all of their ills, this is a welcome step.
What we really need for the troops are not just language tanslators; but cultural translators. Some things are easy to teach (don't address a man's wife, don't reach out with the wrong hand); but others are more difficult.
Perhaps most difficult is how to defuse a situation after a cultural gaffe has been made.
Multiply this even more as the issues get larger. The notions we have about self-determination are different from theirs, for instance.
We need to understand these differences before we can pretend to give them the things they're "lacking".
Ironically, one of the reasons I've sent my daughter to a Catholic school here is that they teach evolution. They also mention that people who view the bible literally don't believe in evolution; but evolution is taught in the science class as science. Being a Catholic school gives them the freedom to make the simple statement about the literalists without there being a problem with the separation of church and state.
If, however, there had been no school in our area that taught evolution, I would have taught it to her myself. After all, that's what we're here for, isn't it? Any idiot can make sandwiches. It's times like these when you get a chance to actually parent.
There's an important point that the creationists miss in all of that. Kids will still be taught evolution regardless of whether or not they get their way with the standards. 99 percent of the parents in this state will tell their kids that evolution is fact. Some of the rest will find themselves explaining evolution simply to inform their kids about the debate. Still more kids will simply hear it from eachother or from media, the internet, etc.
Everybody will hear or learn about evolution, and the standards won't change which side of the debate people fall on. This whole thing about changing the standards is not only idealogically questionable, it's not practical or effective. They're achieving nothing but ridicule.
I for one hope that the board members continue to vocally extoll their positions and beliefs here; because the more they talk, the more unreasonable they sound. Like most of the ultra-conservative movement in this nation, the Kansas Creationists are running headlong for a backlash.
Senator John McCain and others were able to garner enough support to add an amendment to a military appropriations bill that made the Army Field Manual's policies on interrogation the standard by which the military would be judged. He wrote what I think is an amazing letter to Pres. Bush on the matter also.
Mr. President, war is an awful business. I know that. I don't think I'm naÃve about how severe re the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant the service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades, but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail.
I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.
What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we -- the American serviceman and woman and the great nation they defend at the risk of their lives - what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence - we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, our greatest strength - that we are different and better than our enemies; that we fight for an idea - not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion - but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.
The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we're better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others - even our enemies.
Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and by the sacrifices - the many terrible sacrifices -- that have been made in our defense - we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country's honor to prevail; that they are always, always - through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss - they are always, always America
Re:The show will need local humor appeal
on
Homer Becomes Omar
·
· Score: 1
In all fairness, you and I and I'm sure Salman Rushdie may feel that the fatwa was over the top and ridiculous; but Rushdie wrote his book knowing the culture he was insulting. And that's just what his book was, it wasn't a parody, it was a full on insult. I'm not sure I can bring myself to verbalize an example of a comparable Christian insult.
And he didn't just say "It's all a sham!" He wrote a 550 page book digging it in and in. He played that story line alongside of men turning into goats, dead women floating on magic carpets and abominable snowmen. In other words, he played his insult story among fantasies and fairy tales.
I certainly feel that the fatwa was ridiculous, and I think "The Satanic Verses" is one of the most incredible books I've ever read on a number of levels. But if he didn't see serious problems coming a mile away, he isn't nearly as intelligent as his writings would suggest; and somehow I doubt that.
He knew exactly how offended Muslims would be. He just thought he'd get away with it.
Well, as far as the Balkans go, ask the Croats what they think of the U.S. They'll tell you that without U.S. and NATO presence the fighting would start up all over again. So while some are not happy about what we did in the Balkans, most are supportive.
During the Reagan years most of Eastern Europe hated us because we were in the midst of a cold war with them. One that had lasted for 40 years. That could hardly be blamed on Reagan.
During the Carter years... well you have a point about Carter.
If you're going to recommend keeping a long and wide view of history, please do so yourself. It is true that there is nothing new under the sun; but there are times when things are worse than others. I would say that Bush has cocked it up good when it comes to our reputation abroad.
Now to be honest, I don't think we're in as much danger now as many people like to say were are. I mean, certainly, we're under threat; but I think it gets hyped a bit. Take, for instance, 3 raised threat levels in the months before the election and then... nothing until the weekend after a major speech meant to bolster support for the war in Iraq. Then we have "specific and credible" evidence about attacks planned for the New York subway. But oops, turns out an informant yanked out of some mud hut half a world away fibbed to his handlers. Imagine that.
Getting back to Reagan and the Cold War. I visited the Trinity site this year. Go sometime, stand at the obelisk and face North. A window was broken in Albuquerque 120 miles in front of you. Make the drive from there to Albuquerque to truly appreciate what that means. The Cold War was scary. We were worried about destroying the planet on any given day.
Not to say that the terror threat isn't real; but it's not like the threat of global destruction that once loomed over us. I wish we could keep our wits about us better through the whole thing. We're really looking a lot like the frightened children the terrorists believe us to be.
You are correct, of course, about Venezuela. It was a very poor mistake on my part. However, you're sort of missing my point. You and I may believe that Pat Robertson is just a private citizen with no authority; but the truth is that the religious right do indeed have authority, though it may not be codified in law. They had tremendous influence in politics and government over the last couple of years. Foreign leaders would be ill advised to ignore the public statements of leaders from any of our larger social/political groups. Mr. Robertson is obviously not the chosen representative of the Christian Conservatives; but he will be seen as a religious leader by others.
We can state how we ought to be viewed all day long; but that won't change how we are in fact seen.
Our (U.S.) government has become less predictable and some would argue less stable. We've been giving anybody who looks our direction the finger on nearly every issue we can. And we've been doing odd things at home, also. From the WMD/Iraq thing to erosion of Civil Liberties, to the ultra-right neo-conservatism to the President suggesting that he needs the power to use the military for law enforcement if he deems it necessary. It's no wonder that the other nations of the world are a little skittish about the U.S. controlling something so vital to their national interests.
It's really not that hard to imagine, for instance, that our government might force the root name servers to stop handing out answers for the.ir domain as a type of sanction against Iran. I use Iran as an example because they are currently one of our hot buttons. But who might we be angry at next? China, France? How about Brazil? One of our religious leaders has called for the assassination of that nation's elected President.
That all probably seems like hyperbole. It does to me, too. But if you're the leader of a foreign country, it would seem a lot less so. And if you're responsible for your nation's economy and the internet plays a significant role in that, I'd say you've got a responsibility to mitigate such risks. While I think the root DNS is safe with us, it doesn't surprise or anger me that the rest of the world doesn't agree. If anything, it surprises me that it hasn't happened sooner.
I don't see the administrative skills being off-topic as you do. I deal every day with programmers who don't know how the underlying systems and protocols work. Furthermore, they almost universally seem to be apathetic about the matter. Sure, I'm there to help them; but my primary responsibility is to keep the operating system and hardware in good shape, not to coach them on tcp/ip or how e-mail works or why permissions behave as they do.
I see administrative skills in much the same way as I see mathematics when it comes to programmers. They're basic skills that should to some minimum level be understood.
This is especially true of mainframers. They don't call them admins, they call them systems programmers.
The mainframe isn't going anywhere. They will be around for quite some time. Whether they're planning on it or not, some of the CS grads of today will be systems programmers because that's where they'll be needed. Those people should have more of an understanding of administrative skills than they're getting in college.
Our religious/political climate will have little effect on France, Germany, the Asian continent, etc. This research will be done. Medicines will be derived from it, and its promise will be at least to some degree fulfilled.
It just won't happen here, and it may or may not happen as fast.
The truth is that while your conversations with your priest, lawyer and/or doctor are privileged, conversations with a reporter are not.
So, if you're the anonymous source you need to take that into consideration before you go leaking information. Your reporter cannot truthfully promise that you won't be revealed.
If, on the other hand, you're the reporter, you need to make a decision early on based on the same lack of privilege. The only sure-fire way you have to protect the identity of a source is to go to jail. If you're not willing to do that, then don't promise anonymity.
Things work just about the way they should as it is. There will be times when an anonymous source is doing something beneficial for society (Deep Throat) and there will be times when they're not (Karl Rove, most likely). If the information is not worth going to jail over, then it's probably not worth promising anonymity for.
Slashdot Mirror
It strikes me that it's not coincidence that most of the questions posed to him were about security. My perception is that users are thinking more about security. Even the Microsoft coder who posted anonymously bashed him for their security (admittedly, posting anonymously means that we can't really speak to his veracity either).
I think Nash was for the most part playing the game of saying that they're making great strides in security so much that he hopes we'll all come to believe it.
It just reminds me too much of Charlie Brown kicking the football. I've spent too much time fighting the poor design and security of Windows to believe it just because he says it. They can hang whatever catchy name they want on their security initiatives, they haven't worked as yet. Color me skeptical.
is that you find that you cannot do anything in Congress by yourself. The old saying about no man being an island is especially true in the legislature. So, to get anything done, you have to make deals and compromises with others in your party. Want that reform bill passed? Ironically, you'll probably need to sign on to somebody's spending bill to get it done, whether or not that spending bill contains ridiculous and harmful earmarks or riders. Refuse to help your party leadership do whatever they want, and you'll find yourself out in the cold, ineffective and unsupported. And the next time elections come around, the party leadership will campaign for your opponent in the primary. Voting your conscience will eventually result in your breaking a party line; but doing so will spell disaster, especially for a freshman.
The only way to solve this is to impose term limits. In a system where legislators may serve for decades, there is less incentive to do what's right for your constituents than there is to do what's right for you and your party.
The point is that your audience is filled with people who are generally regarded as "above-average" in terms of intelligence.
You're new here, aren't you?
on television while she was in Baghdad. Behind her was a blue backdrop with the phrase "The Rule of Law" printed repeatedly against it. It strikes me that we lose credibility when we go around promoting, sometimes even forcing, the "Rule of Law" on other peoples, then turn around to our own and say that the President has Carte Blanche to break the law whenever the country is under "threat" and therefore isn't really breaking the law at all. What definition is there for threat? I have to be honest, I was born and grew up during the Cold War, and even after I never felt that we weren't under some "threat". You can certainly argue that the threat has increased in the last few years; but I still think you need some kind of clarification of what threats make this legal and which threats don't. Otherwise you lack credibility to people around the world, and to people at home.
Finally, even if we give GWB the benefit of the doubt and believe that he's a good man doing what he thinks is best to protect us, that doesn't excuse breaking the rules. After all, you don't make rules for good guys, you make them because you know that given time, there WILL be a bad guy who gets the office, and he needs to be restrained by law. If you say the good guy can trump the rule of law simply because he's the President and he's acting in the best interests of the country, then you have also said that the bad guy can do so for the same reasons. And let's face it, we as a populace have not done a very good job of actually assessing whether or not our President is acting in the best interests of the nation. We've been too busy watching Bill O'Reilly duke it out with Keith Olberman. That, after all, is easier and more entertaining.
Something I find surprising is that most of the people I talk to who are adamant 2nd ammendment supporters are also strong supporters of the Bush administration and the domestic spying program. Obviously the Republican party is the party that fights gun control; but it seems to me that some of the "from my cold dead hands" folks are really not very analytical about things.
I'm sure that's true of the other side also; but it's just odd that somebody who feels their gun is their last line of defense against a corrupt government would so easily and quickly give up rights for which their gun was their stated last line of defense. Apparently those rights aren't as important as they like to say they are, or they would be more inclined to defend them.
The truth, it seems, is that they will probably never use their guns until somebody comes to actually take them away. All other rights they'll happily give up when somebody whispers the word "terrorist."
For all of the certainty and equanimity NRA hardcore types display, they seem quite fearful of the bogeyman.
It's not hard now to say that Solaris/AIX/HPUX/Win are palatable only because they don't have the source, and therefore don't know what kernel problems there are in those platforms. That's probably a bit apocryphal; but not a LOT.
On the flip side, when they eventually do endorse Linux and use it on their servers, I think it's a real feather in Linux' and Linus' caps.
That's my glass-half-full take on the matter, anyhow.
I'm really not sure where to start...
To begin with, the Galileo system is reputed to have better accuracy. Positional accuracy is, after all, the point of the whole system. So why wouldn't they do it. Furthermore, your reaction to them merely setting up a separate system not controlled by your own government seems to me to be good evidence that were the shoe on the other foot, you'd likely be extolling the virtues of a system not controlled by a foreign country with even more fervor.
As for unleashing our nuclear arsenal, I know you must be kidding. Mutually assured destruction, despite my admitted characterization of it as lunacy during the Cold War, works. France, Germany, England, Russia, etc. have nukes too my friend. All of that is, of course, an argument beyond the simple absurdity of your statement.
As for invading Europe, we can't even control a country with less land area than Texas. What makes you think we could successfully invade Europe and prevail?
And how would the U.S. shut down the internet? Cripple, sure. But I don't imagine there's a big red button in the White House that simply shuts down the internet. We may have developed the core of the internet; but I think that saying we control it is a bit ridiculous.
Finally, you can shake your finger and say "shame on you" all you like. We just did invade a country without provocation or necessity. I'm all for our presence in Afghanistan; but Iraq is a lark. It was the personal agenda of the President, misrepresented and sold to the larger public as a defense of our national security and freedom in general.
Really, take a pill. The Europeans are launching a satellite positioning network. It doesn't rate talk of nuclear war and ground invasions.
The terrorists can't kill all of the Americans in the world, and they're not going to achieve some sort of capitulation from the U.S. government. So, how do they "destroy" America, as is their stated goal? They do so by trying to take away the things we most have in abundance: money and freedom.
Or to arrive at the same point, Bush would say "they hate us for our freedom."
The money thing is a no-brainer, as we're spending a lot more money frisking old ladies at the airport than Al Queda is having to spend to keep us in fear.
As for the freedom portion, what constitutes our freedom? What is our freedom but the rights we enjoy under the Constitution? Freedom, for U.S. citizens is the right to say whatever you want. It's the right to believe, or not believe, in whatever god you see fit. It is the right to keep and bear arms, the right to refuse the quartering of soldiers in your own home, the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects. You see where this is going.
These were no idle privileges tossed in on a lark. Indeed, some argument was made that to define rights might imply others weren't granted. So, the ones in the Bill of Rights are the special ones. The ones that need emphasizing. These things are our freedom; and Al Queda has convinced our government that they need to take some of them away. And through our government, Al Queda has convinced a great many of us of the same thing.
We're so afraid of the bogeyman that at the mere mention of the word "terrorist" we're ready to surrender the very things that make our society enviable.
The terrorists are winning, and not through strength of arms.
P.S. As far as stopping 9/11, when the National Security Advisor ignores a memo entitled "Bin Laden Planning to Attach United States" I believe we're past the point at which these other sorts of things would have been useful.
I do think that we're more ripe for a third party now than we have been for a very long time given the division within the GOP; but I don't think it's going to happen. The stigma that comes from starting a 3rd party in this country is one of being a crackpot. Also, the money and support machines that are our 2 popular parties make it too easy to get help with your campaign compared to the do-it-yourself approach that starting a successful third party would require.
While I agree in general that the Democratic party is just as guilty as the GOP regarding dirty tricks and corruption, etc., I think the current administration takes the all-out hands-down prize-winning cake for being corrupt and for abusing power. I would think so if they were Dems or libertarians or pastafarians. They have made such a mockery of our system of government that it is insulting to those of us who lead law-abiding lives.
As for 2008, unless things change I don't see a Democratic president. Their front-runner is Hillary, who is one of the most divisive and polarizing figures in American politics. Whether that's earned or not is rather irrelevant. She's going to have to do some serious image work between now and then to make a realistic show of it in the 2008 election. There are better, more presidential and electable people who could make a run for it who haven't announced, don't have any money or both. Bill Richardson(gov. NM) strikes me as one who could make a serious challenge if the party supported him.
On the GOP side they are only suffering from having too deep a bench. Rudy Guliani, John McCain, Bill Frist (though current legal troubles may end that), Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, Sam Brownback, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, and even Condi Rice are all being bantered about as being serious potential candidates. Personally, I think Condi would be more divisive than Hillary, and I think all the others are going to have a tough time competing with either Rudy or Sen. McCain.
But the Democrats are in a serious hurt as far as the '08 presidential race goes. They're in a better position for the mid-terms coming up; but even that could get jacked up if they don't start doing some serious strategy work and putting forth some real candidates.
The Republicans have put them in this spot by stealing their lines. The GOP is now the party of the God-fearing folk. They are now the party of the little man, protecting said peasant from the tyranny of the Ivy Leage Elitist, etc. There has been a lot of talk about how the Democrats need to come up with a message. The truth is, they need to take their message back from the people who stole it if they are to have any election successes in the near term.
Personally, I'd be okay with either Rudy or McCain. The rest in my earlier list turn my stomach; but so does Hillary. It's a tough time to be a centrist and to watch the GOP turning ultra-conservative, and the Dems put Hillary out as the answer. Fortunately, the two most moderate GOP frontrunners are still in fact running in front. I hope it stays that way.
Something getting repeated in comments and in the posted discussion is the idea that terrorists won't want to disrupt the communications network because they want everybody to see an hear their deeds and become terrified.
The reality is, however, that although the net might not be as redundant as we'd like to think, it is redundant enough that word would spread. Radio and television would also spread the news.
The benefit of disrupting communications (as long as it's not total disruption, which to be honest, I don't think is possible) is that it makes all of the other things failing seem more systemic. How many of us tried to contact a relative or co-worker in NYC on 9/11. There was the double-whammy of knowing that all of those people were dying, and your friend might be one of them but you can't find out because you can't reach them. Imagine that magnified by not being able to reach the city or the region.
The best method to inflict terror is to do something that scares people. And an effective attack on any of our infrastructures will do that. Certainly, collapsing buildings is more frightening to us than taking down the net; but don't kid yourself, people have a vague idea of how dependent we are on it now. Every segment of our critical infrastructure uses it in some important fashion. Perhaps they should not; but they do. It would be an effective attack vector for them.
As far as the arguments about "return on effort", etc. That's the sort of analysis a military or government would do. In a conflict in which terrorists will blow themselves up in hotel lobbies, I don't think it's a valid benchmark for what they will and won't do.
While I agree that they should make it more stable in the first place, I have to say that this little piece is going to be a welcome feature.
I have often felt honestly bad for my Windows counterparts when it comes to patch time and they have to go through the pain of arranging down times and outages with their customers, sometimes stretching their patch time frame out for weeks.
While it's a long way from curing all of their ills, this is a welcome step.
I got my dad's eyes; but I got my mom's cheeks!
What we really need for the troops are not just language tanslators; but cultural translators. Some things are easy to teach (don't address a man's wife, don't reach out with the wrong hand); but others are more difficult.
Perhaps most difficult is how to defuse a situation after a cultural gaffe has been made.
Multiply this even more as the issues get larger. The notions we have about self-determination are different from theirs, for instance.
We need to understand these differences before we can pretend to give them the things they're "lacking".
There is also the question of improvement.
Buying hybrids now promotes the technology. It's a fair bet that the technology will improve and become economically competitive if not advantageous.
The gasoline engine has benefitted from this for over 100 years. Imagine what lays ahead for the hybrid systems.
Don't worry. We'll get our chance in 2006. 4 of the 6 conservative board members who voted for this embarassement are up for re-election.
I'll do my part, and I'm sure my fellow Kansans will help me in trying to earn back a bit of the credibility we just lost.
Ironically, one of the reasons I've sent my daughter to a Catholic school here is that they teach evolution. They also mention that people who view the bible literally don't believe in evolution; but evolution is taught in the science class as science. Being a Catholic school gives them the freedom to make the simple statement about the literalists without there being a problem with the separation of church and state.
If, however, there had been no school in our area that taught evolution, I would have taught it to her myself. After all, that's what we're here for, isn't it? Any idiot can make sandwiches. It's times like these when you get a chance to actually parent.
There's an important point that the creationists miss in all of that. Kids will still be taught evolution regardless of whether or not they get their way with the standards. 99 percent of the parents in this state will tell their kids that evolution is fact. Some of the rest will find themselves explaining evolution simply to inform their kids about the debate. Still more kids will simply hear it from eachother or from media, the internet, etc.
Everybody will hear or learn about evolution, and the standards won't change which side of the debate people fall on. This whole thing about changing the standards is not only idealogically questionable, it's not practical or effective. They're achieving nothing but ridicule.
I for one hope that the board members continue to vocally extoll their positions and beliefs here; because the more they talk, the more unreasonable they sound. Like most of the ultra-conservative movement in this nation, the Kansas Creationists are running headlong for a backlash.
That's true.
Senator John McCain and others were able to garner enough support to add an amendment to a military appropriations bill that made the Army Field Manual's policies on interrogation the standard by which the military would be judged. He wrote what I think is an amazing letter to Pres. Bush on the matter also.
Mr. President, war is an awful business. I know that. I don't think I'm naÃve about how severe re the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant the service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades, but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail.
I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.
What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we -- the American serviceman and woman and the great nation they defend at the risk of their lives - what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence - we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, our greatest strength - that we are different and better than our enemies; that we fight for an idea - not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion - but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.
The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we're better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others - even our enemies.
Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and by the sacrifices - the many terrible sacrifices -- that have been made in our defense - we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country's honor to prevail; that they are always, always - through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss - they are always, always America
In all fairness, you and I and I'm sure Salman Rushdie may feel that the fatwa was over the top and ridiculous; but Rushdie wrote his book knowing the culture he was insulting. And that's just what his book was, it wasn't a parody, it was a full on insult. I'm not sure I can bring myself to verbalize an example of a comparable Christian insult.
And he didn't just say "It's all a sham!" He wrote a 550 page book digging it in and in. He played that story line alongside of men turning into goats, dead women floating on magic carpets and abominable snowmen. In other words, he played his insult story among fantasies and fairy tales.
I certainly feel that the fatwa was ridiculous, and I think "The Satanic Verses" is one of the most incredible books I've ever read on a number of levels. But if he didn't see serious problems coming a mile away, he isn't nearly as intelligent as his writings would suggest; and somehow I doubt that.
He knew exactly how offended Muslims would be. He just thought he'd get away with it.
Good for them. For once they truly seem fair and balanced.
Well, as far as the Balkans go, ask the Croats what they think of the U.S. They'll tell you that without U.S. and NATO presence the fighting would start up all over again. So while some are not happy about what we did in the Balkans, most are supportive.
During the Reagan years most of Eastern Europe hated us because we were in the midst of a cold war with them. One that had lasted for 40 years. That could hardly be blamed on Reagan.
During the Carter years... well you have a point about Carter.
If you're going to recommend keeping a long and wide view of history, please do so yourself. It is true that there is nothing new under the sun; but there are times when things are worse than others. I would say that Bush has cocked it up good when it comes to our reputation abroad.
Now to be honest, I don't think we're in as much danger now as many people like to say were are. I mean, certainly, we're under threat; but I think it gets hyped a bit. Take, for instance, 3 raised threat levels in the months before the election and then... nothing until the weekend after a major speech meant to bolster support for the war in Iraq. Then we have "specific and credible" evidence about attacks planned for the New York subway. But oops, turns out an informant yanked out of some mud hut half a world away fibbed to his handlers. Imagine that.
Getting back to Reagan and the Cold War. I visited the Trinity site this year. Go sometime, stand at the obelisk and face North. A window was broken in Albuquerque 120 miles in front of you. Make the drive from there to Albuquerque to truly appreciate what that means. The Cold War was scary. We were worried about destroying the planet on any given day.
Not to say that the terror threat isn't real; but it's not like the threat of global destruction that once loomed over us. I wish we could keep our wits about us better through the whole thing. We're really looking a lot like the frightened children the terrorists believe us to be.
You are correct, of course, about Venezuela. It was a very poor mistake on my part. However, you're sort of missing my point. You and I may believe that Pat Robertson is just a private citizen with no authority; but the truth is that the religious right do indeed have authority, though it may not be codified in law. They had tremendous influence in politics and government over the last couple of years. Foreign leaders would be ill advised to ignore the public statements of leaders from any of our larger social/political groups. Mr. Robertson is obviously not the chosen representative of the Christian Conservatives; but he will be seen as a religious leader by others.
We can state how we ought to be viewed all day long; but that won't change how we are in fact seen.
Our (U.S.) government has become less predictable and some would argue less stable. We've been giving anybody who looks our direction the finger on nearly every issue we can. And we've been doing odd things at home, also. From the WMD/Iraq thing to erosion of Civil Liberties, to the ultra-right neo-conservatism to the President suggesting that he needs the power to use the military for law enforcement if he deems it necessary. It's no wonder that the other nations of the world are a little skittish about the U.S. controlling something so vital to their national interests.
.ir domain as a type of sanction against Iran. I use Iran as an example because they are currently one of our hot buttons. But who might we be angry at next? China, France? How about Brazil? One of our religious leaders has called for the assassination of that nation's elected President.
It's really not that hard to imagine, for instance, that our government might force the root name servers to stop handing out answers for the
That all probably seems like hyperbole. It does to me, too. But if you're the leader of a foreign country, it would seem a lot less so. And if you're responsible for your nation's economy and the internet plays a significant role in that, I'd say you've got a responsibility to mitigate such risks. While I think the root DNS is safe with us, it doesn't surprise or anger me that the rest of the world doesn't agree. If anything, it surprises me that it hasn't happened sooner.
I agree with you to a point; but...
I don't see the administrative skills being off-topic as you do. I deal every day with programmers who don't know how the underlying systems and protocols work. Furthermore, they almost universally seem to be apathetic about the matter. Sure, I'm there to help them; but my primary responsibility is to keep the operating system and hardware in good shape, not to coach them on tcp/ip or how e-mail works or why permissions behave as they do.
I see administrative skills in much the same way as I see mathematics when it comes to programmers. They're basic skills that should to some minimum level be understood.
This is especially true of mainframers. They don't call them admins, they call them systems programmers.
The mainframe isn't going anywhere. They will be around for quite some time. Whether they're planning on it or not, some of the CS grads of today will be systems programmers because that's where they'll be needed. Those people should have more of an understanding of administrative skills than they're getting in college.
Our religious/political climate will have little effect on France, Germany, the Asian continent, etc. This research will be done. Medicines will be derived from it, and its promise will be at least to some degree fulfilled.
It just won't happen here, and it may or may not happen as fast.
The truth is that while your conversations with your priest, lawyer and/or doctor are privileged, conversations with a reporter are not.
So, if you're the anonymous source you need to take that into consideration before you go leaking information. Your reporter cannot truthfully promise that you won't be revealed.
If, on the other hand, you're the reporter, you need to make a decision early on based on the same lack of privilege. The only sure-fire way you have to protect the identity of a source is to go to jail. If you're not willing to do that, then don't promise anonymity.
Things work just about the way they should as it is. There will be times when an anonymous source is doing something beneficial for society (Deep Throat) and there will be times when they're not (Karl Rove, most likely). If the information is not worth going to jail over, then it's probably not worth promising anonymity for.