Amusingly the story I heard from a number of Japanese directors and producers late one night around a denny's table in the states was that Anno apparently was accosted a few weeks later by a group of schoolgirls who demanded to know what the ending meant...
Anno admited that it really dind't make sense and escaped.
One of the more controversial things about Eva is some of the scarier linkups that (thankfully for ADV) havn't been widely reported. A few years back I was on staff with a large anime con, and talked with ADV staff about Eva. One of the things they mentioned was that they got heat from the police because both the Columbine Killers and Hale Bopp Crowd apparently were big fans of Eva, and the police stopped by to have a word with ADV.
One of the more interesting connections was also with Aum Shinrikyo. Apparently at least one of the assistant directors on Eva was a member of Aum Shinrikyo. Anno himself mentions this, and also mentions that he started writing eva right around when the Aum Shinrikyo attack occured. Aum Shinrikyo apparently also used Eva tapes for recuriting afterwords, but apparently stopped after GAINAX started complaining.
Beyond your knee jerk reaction (which is just as wrong as their knee jerk reaction),
The entire purpose of keeping logs is to go after the consumer, and exploiters out on the network. In one of the examples in the CSPAN testimony there were thousands of members of a site that hosted illegal content. But the site was located in mexico, outside of ISP requirements (and if you don't think your isp is already looking for this material...). When the time came to roll back the network, they could trace some of the participants by looking at credit cards. But they were not able to isolate other sites that these individuals had gone too simply because the records were not there.
I don't think that what the Government is asking for is feasable in this case, but the attitude that this isn't a problem on the net is just as wrong.
Child sexual abuse has little to nothing to do with the internet, and the fact that they use something so serious as an excuse to restrict privacy makes me extremely angry.
And frankly, that's where you are wrong. The class of crimes being committed now are explictly enabled by the Interenet. While sexual abuse occured before, it was not sold, was not transmitted live, and companies did not profit from airing it on the interenet.
Go read the testimony. A position taken out of ignorance is not a hill I would want to die on.
That'salso a gross simplification. It was a change of government, and it wasn't just the stamp act. American culture had split from British culture over the last 100 years in general, and it really was the denial of the ohio valley for settlers that was the straw the broke the camel's back.
The one thing I would suggest is that people should go hit c-span and watch the briefings and testimony that lead to Degette to push this law. This solution to the problem won't work, and I think we as a technical community can come up with a better fix to the darker side of the internet, but the testimony is the most horrific thing I have seen on CSPAN this year (with the exception of the budget negotiations).
It's not quite that simple, any more then invoking the 5th admendment implies guilt. The reality is that there are good and sane reasons for some government wiretaps. The government could also be invoking the state secrets priviledge simply to keep details on how the current system works (legaly) out of the press and the court.
If you don't think this matters, take the recent article about the Madrid bombings. The Bombers knew that their email would be read if they sent it from Hotmail or from Yahoo mail. So they shared a email account between them, shared the password, and hence never hit any of Europe's security flags.
Please don't treat this stuff as if it were all one dimensional and simple. This is a complex issue, and a knee jerk reaction just proved how incapable people are of thinking through the issues.
As we watch competition help the Linux landscape considerably, is LSB a good thing? Gnome and KDE push each other to become better, Java and Mono compete for developers and even Rails and J2EE go after the web market.
Here is a standard that specifes how to package APIs and which APIs to use if you want to have a a LSB complient desktop and application. Isn't that a bit restrictive?
obviously I meant, how do you solve this problem. Return them to their country of origin? That's a no-no according to many on slashdot because Islamist countries have lousy human rights laws. Keep them indefinitly? Also a no-no under a criminal justice center. Insit on a chain of evidence and other civilian matters? Won't work on a battlefield.
I don't ask you to agree with cuba, but I think it's a bit obvious once you start thinking about it that this problem is non-trivial.
I have read them, and I still point out, that the Geneva convention is designed to deal with a different problem then we are dealing with right now. Namely the convention is mainly targeted at wars between two nations, wars between two factions in a civil war.
When a war ends, you can send P.O.W's home. Anything they do is targeted at a enemy army. Terrorist by definition attack civilians, not armies.
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de
- or -
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
How is that hard to understand? The people in Cuba are all accused of taking part of "combat." Because the United States, and foreign states are involved it doesn't qualify for the civil war clause.
How? Just to shoot this meme down, how do you apply the Geneva convention (with it's rules about all participants being in uniform, which these guys were not) especially it's clause that you have to let everyone go when the war is over (when there isn't even a basic political structure to capitulate on Al Qaeda's part?) in this circumstance.
I am as much of a fan as Geneva as anyone else, yet I have yet to see an admission from anyone who doesn't like the current approach how to make Geneva work.
As for the rest, it's just his lawyer waving the "US is evil" flag. There is no chance this guy would go to cuba, if you read up on it, they already have a note from the US embassy saying as much.
This is a pretty good tactic by the US government. The effort here is not to appeal to slashdotters (most of whom couldn't form a cohesive view of politics or history, but are expert at mintue logical problems) but rather at this Historical community. These documents are the "Enigma" and "Magic" decryptions that led our intellegence agencies to firmly believe that Saddam had WMD. (By our, I mean most western intellegence organs -- even the french were convienced that he had WMD).
These documents will form the core of the arguments that historians will fight over for the next fifty years. Who know what, what did they think that meand Saddam had WMD. What did they do in response.
Some of these documents are real smoking guns... Unfortuntily the US picked the wrong gunman.
Bullshit and you know it. You also know that the PDB talked about plans to attack the US, not fly planes into US buildings. You ignore that (as usual) in a effort to make a cheap political point.
I suppose if you repeat a lie unchallanged enough, it might eventually be written in history that way, but the key there is unchallanged. This is intellectually dishonest. If you want to debate, stick to the facts.
As a slightly tangential point (but one that I think is interesting). Christians claim that Jesus was the Messiah. Many Jews rejected this claim because a) He also claimed that he was the Son of God and b) He wasn't a political or religous leader.
I think that if Jesus had bit a bit more like Muhammad (ie, a millitary and political leader) he might have gotten a better reception when he claimed to be the Messiah.
Try again, there are plenty of documented evidence that the people in Jerusalem were treated horribly (as were the others who were captured early on during the periods of expansion). At a minimum Jews, Christians and anyone else who lived in Muslim lands were second class citizines (just as Jews were in Europe). There were many incidents, because one was a oppressor, one was oppressed.
a) Usama is a transliteration issue. His name at birth was (from Wikipedia). The choice of "Usama Bin Ladin" has nothing to do with the USA.
b) Bin Ladin, like most in his generation in the arabic world, was profoundly affected by the failure of the war of 1967. Bin Ladin refused to even be educated in the west, prefering to be educated in Saudi Arabia. His story is not one of someone who turned against the United States (to whom he had always been hostile, even in Afghanistan) but rather turning against the Kingdom of Saud. Many people have claimed that Bin Ladin visited the west several times, but only one trip with his older brother (who eventually started to run BinLadin Saudi group) has clear documentation. No trip in the United States is ever recorded, despite the fact that his mentor Abdullah Azam made many trips to the US to raise money for Jihad.
c) He actually changed his name from Bin Ladin while he was in Afghanistan, not to Bin Ladin (IIRC, it was Abdullah Abba)
d) He was clearly radicalized before Afghanistan. Even Abdullah Azzam was too moderate for him.
It's just plain old wrong. For sources before the war I recommend "Jihad" and "Taleban" (one of them was actually published after the war, but was mostly written before), as well as the endless stream of articles from the New York Times (including some by the same Mr. Bergan).
It is not unusual to go by other names in Arabic culture. Bin Ladin went by at least three according to the most recent scholarship. However, his family name has stayed consistant. As for the meanings of the name, anyone in America who calls himself "Joshua" is the same as taking on the name of Jesus. We just don't look at the symbolism in the same way.
You throw around phrases like "accepted facts by many media" like the following:
"It is seen as an accepted fact by many news sources that bin laden recieved training from a US agency to use the supplied US equipment."
Actually, no, it really isn't. If you look at almost all of the serious scholarship (as in people really acutallly studying this for history's sake rather then webloggers trying to make a political point) this charge is completly unfounded. Yes, it was at the end of the day the combination of the Mujahadeen and the United States Stinger missles that drove the soviets out of Afghanistan, but again, Bin Ladin did not have any link, direct or otherwise to the United States. In fact he split with his mentor at the relief office because of the aforementioned link with the United States and other moderate entities. Bin Ladin was dedicated to fighting a different type of war. He practically opened a base in the backyard of one of the soviet bases just so that they would "take more fire." He cared about inflicting as many casulties as possible on the Russians with Ak-47's, not by shooting down their helicopters.
As a symbol UBL is very potent, as a military leader he is particularly tragic.
So far everything you have posted is nothing but conspiricy theories that no factual evidence backs up. If you have real information to add, that isn't 5 year old bogus theories let me know.
Right, so if I tell you I am going to hurt you at some point, you are going to know that I mean to take a small cesna plane and fly it into your barn silo? Give me a break.
As for your other cheap shot, have you ever worked from home?
As much as I would like to believe this, and that somehow the CIA wasn't wrong, the facts at the end of the day are that Saddam fooled everyone. He fooled the Europeans, he fooled the Americans, he fooled the Shiites and the Kurds.....
Not that it helped him at all. Poor Saddam siting their in a Shiite court... Payback's a b*tch
In case I haven't made this explicit enough, The first three letters of his name (Usa versus Osa) are pure transliteration issues. He has gone through several names, but that has actually been other other names (ie, no Binladin) not to Usama. He was known as Usama growing up.
Slashdot Mirror
Amusingly the story I heard from a number of Japanese directors and producers late one night around a denny's table in the states was that Anno apparently was accosted a few weeks later by a group of schoolgirls who demanded to know what the ending meant...
Anno admited that it really dind't make sense and escaped.
Are you kidding? Some of us bought EVA when it first came out at 29.99 per two episodes on VHS. (It was only 19.99 if you got it subbed...)
One of the more controversial things about Eva is some of the scarier linkups that (thankfully for ADV) havn't been widely reported. A few years back I was on staff with a large anime con, and talked with ADV staff about Eva. One of the things they mentioned was that they got heat from the police because both the Columbine Killers and Hale Bopp Crowd apparently were big fans of Eva, and the police stopped by to have a word with ADV.
One of the more interesting connections was also with Aum Shinrikyo. Apparently at least one of the assistant directors on Eva was a member of Aum Shinrikyo. Anno himself mentions this, and also mentions that he started writing eva right around when the Aum Shinrikyo attack occured. Aum Shinrikyo apparently also used Eva tapes for recuriting afterwords, but apparently stopped after GAINAX started complaining.
Beyond your knee jerk reaction (which is just as wrong as their knee jerk reaction),
The entire purpose of keeping logs is to go after the consumer, and exploiters out on the network. In one of the examples in the CSPAN testimony there were thousands of members of a site that hosted illegal content. But the site was located in mexico, outside of ISP requirements (and if you don't think your isp is already looking for this material...). When the time came to roll back the network, they could trace some of the participants by looking at credit cards. But they were not able to isolate other sites that these individuals had gone too simply because the records were not there.
I don't think that what the Government is asking for is feasable in this case, but the attitude that this isn't a problem on the net is just as wrong.
Child sexual abuse has little to nothing to do with the internet, and the fact that they use something so serious as an excuse to restrict privacy makes me extremely angry.
And frankly, that's where you are wrong. The class of crimes being committed now are explictly enabled by the Interenet. While sexual abuse occured before, it was not sold, was not transmitted live, and companies did not profit from airing it on the interenet.
Go read the testimony. A position taken out of ignorance is not a hill I would want to die on.
That'salso a gross simplification. It was a change of government, and it wasn't just the stamp act. American culture had split from British culture over the last 100 years in general, and it really was the denial of the ohio valley for settlers that was the straw the broke the camel's back.
The one thing I would suggest is that people should go hit c-span and watch the briefings and testimony that lead to Degette to push this law. This solution to the problem won't work, and I think we as a technical community can come up with a better fix to the darker side of the internet, but the testimony is the most horrific thing I have seen on CSPAN this year (with the exception of the budget negotiations).
It's not quite that simple, any more then invoking the 5th admendment implies guilt. The reality is that there are good and sane reasons for some government wiretaps. The government could also be invoking the state secrets priviledge simply to keep details on how the current system works (legaly) out of the press and the court.
If you don't think this matters, take the recent article about the Madrid bombings. The Bombers knew that their email would be read if they sent it from Hotmail or from Yahoo mail. So they shared a email account between them, shared the password, and hence never hit any of Europe's security flags.
Please don't treat this stuff as if it were all one dimensional and simple. This is a complex issue, and a knee jerk reaction just proved how incapable people are of thinking through the issues.
As we watch competition help the Linux landscape considerably, is LSB a good thing? Gnome and KDE push each other to become better, Java and Mono compete for developers and even Rails and J2EE go after the web market.
Here is a standard that specifes how to package APIs and which APIs to use if you want to have a a LSB complient desktop and application. Isn't that a bit restrictive?
obviously I meant, how do you solve this problem. Return them to their country of origin? That's a no-no according to many on slashdot because Islamist countries have lousy human rights laws. Keep them indefinitly? Also a no-no under a criminal justice center. Insit on a chain of evidence and other civilian matters? Won't work on a battlefield.
I don't ask you to agree with cuba, but I think it's a bit obvious once you start thinking about it that this problem is non-trivial.
I have read them, and I still point out, that the Geneva convention is designed to deal with a different problem then we are dealing with right now. Namely the convention is mainly targeted at wars between two nations, wars between two factions in a civil war.
When a war ends, you can send P.O.W's home. Anything they do is targeted at a enemy army. Terrorist by definition attack civilians, not armies.
Again, how do you solve this solution.
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de
- or -
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
How is that hard to understand? The people in Cuba are all accused of taking part of "combat." Because the United States, and foreign states are involved it doesn't qualify for the civil war clause.
You do realize that under geneva, a civilian (which someone grabbed in Afghanistan or Iraq on field of battle without a uniform) has no protections?
You do realize that a civilian on field of battle without uniform with alligence to one side can by killed as a spy under geneva?
No one believes that, not even his lawyers who are just trying to play this up to keep his client from facing the music
How? Just to shoot this meme down, how do you apply the Geneva convention (with it's rules about all participants being in uniform, which these guys were not) especially it's clause that you have to let everyone go when the war is over (when there isn't even a basic political structure to capitulate on Al Qaeda's part?) in this circumstance.
I am as much of a fan as Geneva as anyone else, yet I have yet to see an admission from anyone who doesn't like the current approach how to make Geneva work.
As for the rest, it's just his lawyer waving the "US is evil" flag. There is no chance this guy would go to cuba, if you read up on it, they already have a note from the US embassy saying as much.
This is a pretty good tactic by the US government. The effort here is not to appeal to slashdotters (most of whom couldn't form a cohesive view of politics or history, but are expert at mintue logical problems) but rather at this Historical community. These documents are the "Enigma" and "Magic" decryptions that led our intellegence agencies to firmly believe that Saddam had WMD. (By our, I mean most western intellegence organs -- even the french were convienced that he had WMD).
These documents will form the core of the arguments that historians will fight over for the next fifty years. Who know what, what did they think that meand Saddam had WMD. What did they do in response.
Some of these documents are real smoking guns... Unfortuntily the US picked the wrong gunman.
Bullshit and you know it. You also know that the PDB talked about plans to attack the US, not fly planes into US buildings. You ignore that (as usual) in a effort to make a cheap political point.
I suppose if you repeat a lie unchallanged enough, it might eventually be written in history that way, but the key there is unchallanged. This is intellectually dishonest. If you want to debate, stick to the facts.
As a slightly tangential point (but one that I think is interesting). Christians claim that Jesus was the Messiah. Many Jews rejected this claim because a) He also claimed that he was the Son of God and b) He wasn't a political or religous leader.
I think that if Jesus had bit a bit more like Muhammad (ie, a millitary and political leader) he might have gotten a better reception when he claimed to be the Messiah.
Try again, there are plenty of documented evidence that the people in Jerusalem were treated horribly (as were the others who were captured early on during the periods of expansion). At a minimum Jews, Christians and anyone else who lived in Muslim lands were second class citizines (just as Jews were in Europe). There were many incidents, because one was a oppressor, one was oppressed.
Here are the details once again:
a) Usama is a transliteration issue. His name at birth was (from Wikipedia). The choice of "Usama Bin Ladin" has nothing to do with the USA.
b) Bin Ladin, like most in his generation in the arabic world, was profoundly affected by the failure of the war of 1967. Bin Ladin refused to even be educated in the west, prefering to be educated in Saudi Arabia. His story is not one of someone who turned against the United States (to whom he had always been hostile, even in Afghanistan) but rather turning against the Kingdom of Saud. Many people have claimed that Bin Ladin visited the west several times, but only one trip with his older brother (who eventually started to run BinLadin Saudi group) has clear documentation. No trip in the United States is ever recorded, despite the fact that his mentor Abdullah Azam made many trips to the US to raise money for Jihad.
c) He actually changed his name from Bin Ladin while he was in Afghanistan, not to Bin Ladin (IIRC, it was Abdullah Abba)
d) He was clearly radicalized before Afghanistan. Even Abdullah Azzam was too moderate for him.
It's just plain old wrong. For sources before the war I recommend "Jihad" and "Taleban" (one of them was actually published after the war, but was mostly written before), as well as the endless stream of articles from the New York Times (including some by the same Mr. Bergan).
It is not unusual to go by other names in Arabic culture. Bin Ladin went by at least three according to the most recent scholarship. However, his family name has stayed consistant. As for the meanings of the name, anyone in America who calls himself "Joshua" is the same as taking on the name of Jesus. We just don't look at the symbolism in the same way.
You throw around phrases like "accepted facts by many media" like the following:
"It is seen as an accepted fact by many news sources that bin laden recieved training from a US agency to use the supplied US equipment."
Actually, no, it really isn't. If you look at almost all of the serious scholarship (as in people really acutallly studying this for history's sake rather then webloggers trying to make a political point) this charge is completly unfounded. Yes, it was at the end of the day the combination of the Mujahadeen and the United States Stinger missles that drove the soviets out of Afghanistan, but again, Bin Ladin did not have any link, direct or otherwise to the United States. In fact he split with his mentor at the relief office because of the aforementioned link with the United States and other moderate entities. Bin Ladin was dedicated to fighting a different type of war. He practically opened a base in the backyard of one of the soviet bases just so that they would "take more fire." He cared about inflicting as many casulties as possible on the Russians with Ak-47's, not by shooting down their helicopters.
As a symbol UBL is very potent, as a military leader he is particularly tragic.
So far everything you have posted is nothing but conspiricy theories that no factual evidence backs up. If you have real information to add, that isn't 5 year old bogus theories let me know.
Right, so if I tell you I am going to hurt you at some point, you are going to know that I mean to take a small cesna plane and fly it into your barn silo? Give me a break.
As for your other cheap shot, have you ever worked from home?
As much as I would like to believe this, and that somehow the CIA wasn't wrong, the facts at the end of the day are that Saddam fooled everyone. He fooled the Europeans, he fooled the Americans, he fooled the Shiites and the Kurds.....
Not that it helped him at all. Poor Saddam siting their in a Shiite court... Payback's a b*tch
In case I haven't made this explicit enough, The first three letters of his name (Usa versus Osa) are pure transliteration issues. He has gone through several names, but that has actually been other other names (ie, no Binladin) not to Usama. He was known as Usama growing up.
Another urban myth should hopefully die here.