Yes, that should work. The TVs need to be large enough to read the text, and you can probably guess at the resolution of the browser, but it's feasible. Also note that development has stopped on the browsers, though the latest release is fairly capable. It's fine now, but won't be sufficient in the future as standards change. You also need to know if your third world location has the access to, and funds for, ISP service. Definitely an interesting idea though. I think, however, that computer donations from companies could be a better solution. More upgradeable for one, and companies tend to dig that sort of thing as it's an easy tax write-off (*ahem* see Microsoft 'settlement' *ahem*)
Hehe, my family went for the pinball purchase (and Star Wars pinball to boot, the old one - not the shoddy new pinball2000 variety). Luckily I racked up my lofty goal of 1 billion points before it decided to lose its edge. You see, with me off to college my family has lost a majority of its geeky TLC as you put it.
Having read his unfinished / requested incinerated novel The Trial and a whole slew of short stories, I'd have to disagree entirely. Within the "established literary tradition" or not, these are wonderful works with all sorts of meaning. I loved The Trial and it was almost better that it was unfinished. I sat around for days wondering about the various forms that the work could've took in a finished state. At least with the novel I read, I've found that Kafka's unfinished work is easily equal in quality, meaning, et al to his short story work which is undeniably brilliant. If you reply saying that The Judgement, A Country Doctor, Josephine and the Mouse Folk, and Metamorphosis are all likewise horrible I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Besides, Kafka wasn't spot on in his evaluation of anything - just read up on his history and then read his work and see how twisted his evaluation of women was. He was one paranoid fellow.
A device that lets schools show even more watered down versions of Hollywood films is a good thing? I'm sorry, but few of the films I watched during my high school life were at all valuable to my education and those that were would most likely not be the first targeted for this type of technology. Of the few valid showings I've heard of in my school you had Pi for the Philosophy class, Grave of the Fireflies for the nonwestern history class (which was then never shown again because it disturbed people with its animated view of the horrors our country caused), and really that's about it. Occasionally we'd watch screen versions of literary works, but since these were mostly direct translations I really don't see the point in watering down the visual version - most high school boys have more vivid imaginations sexually than Hollywood could put together to match the novel/play's content, so they've already seen it in their minds anyway (assuming they read the damn work at all). As for history, there are a few other worthwhile movies we watched: Ghandi, The Last Emporer, maybe something I forgot. Still, I think the 3 hours spent watching each of those movies could've been spent more effectively with our teacher teaching us, knowing our educational needs, rather than having Hollywood preach to us.
As an aside, we also watched The Little Buddha in the same class - please tell your wife never to show this movie as it will undoubtedly lead to her students mocking Keanu Reeves portrayal of Sadartha Buddhartha (sorry for my spelling and or mangling of this name) by saying, in Bill and Ted fashion, "Woah, I'm, like, totally enlightened dude!"
It's that no federal agency will ever be able to sensibly prosecute the Bonsai Kitten in the near future. PETA be damned.
...
Scratch that, somehow I don't think that the government would be restrained by mere hypocracy. If anything that seems to be an insentive in its actions.
You want a real palpable example of how this could be a problem (or how it is)? Today on CNN or some other propaganda spewing network (may as well get my bias out of the way) they relayed the FBI's claim that they had 1000 people in custody as a result of the terrorist investigation. That's 1000 people in the United States, now in jail. Now, perhaps a few of them have expired visas, but I have serious doubts that these are 1000 terrorists. These arrests and the investigations leading to them were made without this new USA act. Think about it, the FBI has managed to scrounge up 1000 people in just a month and claims to need more power. How many people can they actually arrest?
The measures put into place by this law put far too much power in the hands of law enforcement. In times like these, many expect the law to act in an uncorrupted fashion, and indeed it may in this case. These laws, however, will remain on the books. I don't think I'm a conspiracy theorist to assume that they'll be exploited in the future. The sunset provision was a great idea and the fact that Ashcroft flat-out blasted it shows just how the FBI plans to use its new power.
As for an example explicitly using these laws. Just wait for the next domestic G7/WTO/whatever conference. I can guarantee that the anti-terrorist laws will be used to curb anti-globalism/economic disruption protest. Just as the government used the drug war to stop progressive groups in the past, it will use the war against terrorism to do the same today.
Taco, 192, 160, none of that. Go to r3mix.net to learn more. Using lame --r3mix, you get quality virtually indistinguishable from the CD, at a size usually lower than 192kbps. 360 is always an option, but the quality of this will equal that. Be careful though, not all VBR encoders are created equal. There's a reason they picked Lame. There are also programs like Exact Audio Copy for Windows (and some Linux equivilent though the name eludes me at the moment) that will double-check your audio extraction to confirm its correctness. Yes, this means I only rip at 1x or so on my slow cd-rom drive and duron 650 box, but it's killer quality. I output straight from my sound blaster live to the stereo on my desk, so I should know (well, it isn't a great stereo, but better than most any computer setup).
Of course, that whole policy is due to the rampant buy/copy/return scheme of a few unsavory souls, which, as we all know, is gloriously defeated by the copy protection scheme on the media you purchase. You could always bring that argument up when trying to return your uncopyable item.
"I'm sorry sir, we don't accept returns on opened digital media."
"Why is that?"
"You could have copied the media and then returned it."
"But," as the customer takes out his microscope, "it says right here that this CD is uncopyable."
"And your point is?"
"So not only do you presume me to be a criminal, but you're an idiot. Thanks a lot. Have a spectacular day."
At least that's how I envision my conversation will go when I go to return my new N*Sync CD.
Re:Not funny to everyone
on
Review: Zoolander
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Ebert has been known to be overly PC and severely miss the point of movies. See his review of Fight Club. Now, I'm not nearly the fan of Fight Club that some people are, but I at least realize that there are three distinct levels of meaning to that and not simply the base "fighting is cool" message that Ebert focuses on. I imagine Ebert must've gotten a few slick beatings in his day to carry such a grudge. I do see his point on this issue, but really, he even admits that beyond this glaring error (in his eyes), the movie does score some points. His rating is seemingly solely based on the un-PC-ness of the flick and not its value otherwise. Making movies about fake assasination plots are great fun I think - perhaps picking Malaysia was a mistake, but to censor something created before the September 11th events because of the September 11th events is a huge mistake. Censorship is a greater crime against humanity than anything that happened September 11th. That might sound insensitive, but I mean it.
Re:Shameless Plug - Moderate if you wish
on
Review: Zoolander
·
· Score: 2
Hehe, that movie could be the catalyst to bring back the drive-in movie theater. I just think it would be funny to see the MPAA honcho's reactions when they had to rate that preview.
Which begs the question, why not power the ion engine by sticking a couple of used watches in there and instantly generating the requested velocity rather than slowly gaining speed with an expensive ion engine setup.
What's disappointing to me is not so much that people were laid off - the airlines and AMD were respectively both in dire financial straits before the WTC disaster. The real issue is that rather than making sensible decisions, companies time their layoffs to make it have the least impact on their stock valuation. The airlines reacted now, because, hell, their stock is going to bomb anyway. AMD announces it's going to post a loss and knows it may as well pile on the layoffs, not much more damage. Not only that, but it makes them look like they are "restructuring" which makes investors happy. I worked at a company that was consistently doing poorly, and it was evident from inside the company, but they posted cheery quarterly reports. Then one quarter they lump all of their losses together, lay off a few people, and take it all on the chin. This financial maneuvering is pretty ridiculous and cheats the public and the company's investors.
I think I digressed more than enough there - essentially it's disgusting that companies exploit the WTC disaster to raise their stock valuation. The same way that it's dispicable that the next day senators were tacking missile defense amendments onto critical relief packages (luckily failing) and that Israel attacked a city it had been besieging. A big news item like the WTC disaster essentially blacks out all other news, and the exploitation of that factor was pathetic.
Indeed, mistakes have been made in the past. That's why it's so disturbing that our politicians have decide to act so quickly, with little regard for the consequences of their decisions, in the heat of the emotional fervor of this incident. Putting complete control of this situation in the hands of one, unproven man this early in the game is beyond dangerous.
Cuba and the rest were examples of how our embargoing is futile - in response to your comment on emposing sactions to break a country - one of the justifications of our presence in the Middle East. One of the main reasons the dictators maintain their power is BECAUSE of the very embargoes designed to dethrone them. They can turn the public attention towards a common enemy - the United States.
As for intentions almost always being good, I have severe doubt as to the intentions following this incident. When you see Senators the day after the tragedy grandstanding on the issue and claiming that this proves we need missile defense, you really have to question the ethics of our government. I won't even go into how Bush implied that he was somehow empowered by God to fight terrorists on Friday. Ridiculous.
Regardless, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this I suppose. You do have very valid points, so do I I suppose. Nice to have a debate though unlike the one-sided propaganda in the media and in Congress.
Yeah, say that to the people who died while smart bombs rained on the bunkers they were taking shelter in.
"We impose sanctions (occasionaly blockades) in order to break a country."
We break the civillians, but rarely is this tactic successful in breaking the hold of their leader of the country. Look at Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
"We had the choice of supporting these smaller dictatorships or letting the Soviet Union run them over."
Guess what, the Afghanistan defense, including Bin-Laden's involvement, was US funded and CIA trained. Your entire argument works against itself. Everyone looks at the dictator-support we provided during the cold war with disgust. We ruined far more countries than the Soviet Union.
"And finally, we do not support terrorism. You are out of your fscking mind if you believe that, Mr. Coward. We do not massacre innocent civilians nor support such acts. Period."
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, the entirety of Vietnam. Can you possibly claim that this war will be any different? We will only kill more innocents and make martyrs of the few terrorists that we do manage to snub off the earth. In the process, we could offend a portion of the world with our arrogance and lead to an even greater conflict. Especially if countries like India, Pakistan, China, etc get involved with their nuclear capability.
In summary, what the hell were YOU thinking? Every sane person has seen this coming. I know I've said it (though not on this forum) countless times. You can only break so many treaties, kill so many people, ruin so many lives, before someone decides that it's your turn to suffer. Nothing justifies this act, but to listen to Bush's propagandic remark that "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world" is ridiculous. There are very, very valid reasons for hatred of America and the fact that our leaders are ignoring this in their rash decision making following the attack is frightening.
Indeed, the policy of slaughtering innocent people is one that we should not back down from, especially if it makes us look like anything less than the infallible Gods of the world.
Attacking Afghanistan will strengthen the Islamic Fundamentalist rule more than not doing so. Afghanistan has been attacked time and time again, and look at who rules now. Do you think the almost unavoidable deaths of thousands of innocent people will somehow lower future levels of terrorism? Will killing Osama Bin Laden somehow rid the world of the scourge of terrorism? Go read the essays at TomPaine.com for more background on this. The only way to stop terrorism is to stop the acts that cause its proponents to act so rashly.
Maybe, in the short term, a show of leniency would make it seem that the terrorists "won," but it is the only path to show tha twe truly are a nation seeking peace - and that's the way to present ourselves if we really expect other nations to emulate us rather than despise us.
Millitary action, especially today, is done with the majority of the public's consent - either that, or it's kept out of their knowledge. The government doesn't want another unpopular war. This is why the government has been spewing so much propaganda recently - there isn't a single voice in Washington opposing this, and even those that do merely abstain from voting in Congress rather than opposing (see the 98 and 96 to nothing votes in the Senate). Bush needs this 9-1 popular consent to establish his legitimacy.
Anyway, here's my thoughts. We should not bomb anyone. No war against terrorism will ever when. It will only create martyrs. The only way to prevent terrorism is to stop the very legitimate concerns that fuel its soldiers. Bin Ladin may be beyond help, but those that enlist in his armies feel, very legitimately, that they've been wronged by the United States, non-muslims, and the world. This could have all been prevented if the United States had realized that, and cooler heads will tell you that an attack like this was innevitable. I know I've thought that for a long time, I only thought that it would hopefully lead to an understanding of our previous ignorance. Unfortunately, it has led to an increased nationalism - not a bad thing in itself mind you - but when our nationalism makes us blind to the plight of others, when we think we're so perfect, so infallible, we will strike out in ignorance. I'm scared beyond belief of the next decade now - and I'm willing to fight any government that tries to take away my liberties, or anyone else's just to stop criticism.
Well, if the government can make most encrypted traffic suceptible to the backdoor, it can filter it out and find suspicious activity, which can be traced and or given a greater share of decryption computing power (though I doubt even the NSA could do this - the tracking and manual check method would be better). Not that I'm for this. Quite the opposite actually, just clearing up the other side of the issue.
Re:Why the towers collapsed
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
So are you telling me that the Leaning Tower of Pisa is structuraly sound because it hasn't fallen over YET. Serious damage was done to all areas of the WTC when the plane hit, not just the localized area. The force put on the foundation was immense (think torque here). Even without the fire, the buildings would've collapsed eventually. The fire undoubtedly hastened the process, but no building could be expected to have a fire-extinguishing system capable of stopping tons of jet fuel from burning.
Looking at the latest video of the second impact, you see that the plane took a pretty steep curve swooping down into the WTC. This was at least a moderately well-trained pilot as can be seen in the more recent evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that should work. The TVs need to be large enough to read the text, and you can probably guess at the resolution of the browser, but it's feasible. Also note that development has stopped on the browsers, though the latest release is fairly capable. It's fine now, but won't be sufficient in the future as standards change. You also need to know if your third world location has the access to, and funds for, ISP service. Definitely an interesting idea though. I think, however, that computer donations from companies could be a better solution. More upgradeable for one, and companies tend to dig that sort of thing as it's an easy tax write-off (*ahem* see Microsoft 'settlement' *ahem*)
Hehe, my family went for the pinball purchase (and Star Wars pinball to boot, the old one - not the shoddy new pinball2000 variety). Luckily I racked up my lofty goal of 1 billion points before it decided to lose its edge. You see, with me off to college my family has lost a majority of its geeky TLC as you put it.
Ah, but he stuck quotation marks at the beginning and end of his post making it just fine :)
Having read his unfinished / requested incinerated novel The Trial and a whole slew of short stories, I'd have to disagree entirely. Within the "established literary tradition" or not, these are wonderful works with all sorts of meaning. I loved The Trial and it was almost better that it was unfinished. I sat around for days wondering about the various forms that the work could've took in a finished state. At least with the novel I read, I've found that Kafka's unfinished work is easily equal in quality, meaning, et al to his short story work which is undeniably brilliant. If you reply saying that The Judgement, A Country Doctor, Josephine and the Mouse Folk, and Metamorphosis are all likewise horrible I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Besides, Kafka wasn't spot on in his evaluation of anything - just read up on his history and then read his work and see how twisted his evaluation of women was. He was one paranoid fellow.
A device that lets schools show even more watered down versions of Hollywood films is a good thing? I'm sorry, but few of the films I watched during my high school life were at all valuable to my education and those that were would most likely not be the first targeted for this type of technology. Of the few valid showings I've heard of in my school you had Pi for the Philosophy class, Grave of the Fireflies for the nonwestern history class (which was then never shown again because it disturbed people with its animated view of the horrors our country caused), and really that's about it. Occasionally we'd watch screen versions of literary works, but since these were mostly direct translations I really don't see the point in watering down the visual version - most high school boys have more vivid imaginations sexually than Hollywood could put together to match the novel/play's content, so they've already seen it in their minds anyway (assuming they read the damn work at all). As for history, there are a few other worthwhile movies we watched: Ghandi, The Last Emporer, maybe something I forgot. Still, I think the 3 hours spent watching each of those movies could've been spent more effectively with our teacher teaching us, knowing our educational needs, rather than having Hollywood preach to us.
As an aside, we also watched The Little Buddha in the same class - please tell your wife never to show this movie as it will undoubtedly lead to her students mocking Keanu Reeves portrayal of Sadartha Buddhartha (sorry for my spelling and or mangling of this name) by saying, in Bill and Ted fashion, "Woah, I'm, like, totally enlightened dude!"
It's that no federal agency will ever be able to sensibly prosecute the Bonsai Kitten in the near future. PETA be damned.
...
Scratch that, somehow I don't think that the government would be restrained by mere hypocracy. If anything that seems to be an insentive in its actions.
Huh? What are you talking about? Fox News is the straight truth. They report, I decide!
You want a real palpable example of how this could be a problem (or how it is)? Today on CNN or some other propaganda spewing network (may as well get my bias out of the way) they relayed the FBI's claim that they had 1000 people in custody as a result of the terrorist investigation. That's 1000 people in the United States, now in jail. Now, perhaps a few of them have expired visas, but I have serious doubts that these are 1000 terrorists. These arrests and the investigations leading to them were made without this new USA act. Think about it, the FBI has managed to scrounge up 1000 people in just a month and claims to need more power. How many people can they actually arrest?
The measures put into place by this law put far too much power in the hands of law enforcement. In times like these, many expect the law to act in an uncorrupted fashion, and indeed it may in this case. These laws, however, will remain on the books. I don't think I'm a conspiracy theorist to assume that they'll be exploited in the future. The sunset provision was a great idea and the fact that Ashcroft flat-out blasted it shows just how the FBI plans to use its new power.
As for an example explicitly using these laws. Just wait for the next domestic G7/WTO/whatever conference. I can guarantee that the anti-terrorist laws will be used to curb anti-globalism/economic disruption protest. Just as the government used the drug war to stop progressive groups in the past, it will use the war against terrorism to do the same today.
Taco, 192, 160, none of that. Go to r3mix.net to learn more. Using lame --r3mix, you get quality virtually indistinguishable from the CD, at a size usually lower than 192kbps. 360 is always an option, but the quality of this will equal that. Be careful though, not all VBR encoders are created equal. There's a reason they picked Lame. There are also programs like Exact Audio Copy for Windows (and some Linux equivilent though the name eludes me at the moment) that will double-check your audio extraction to confirm its correctness. Yes, this means I only rip at 1x or so on my slow cd-rom drive and duron 650 box, but it's killer quality. I output straight from my sound blaster live to the stereo on my desk, so I should know (well, it isn't a great stereo, but better than most any computer setup).
Don't forget his extensive collection of WMA files - he's often ranted on his dual-booting ways!
Of course, that whole policy is due to the rampant buy/copy/return scheme of a few unsavory souls, which, as we all know, is gloriously defeated by the copy protection scheme on the media you purchase. You could always bring that argument up when trying to return your uncopyable item.
"I'm sorry sir, we don't accept returns on opened digital media."
"Why is that?"
"You could have copied the media and then returned it."
"But," as the customer takes out his microscope, "it says right here that this CD is uncopyable."
"And your point is?"
"So not only do you presume me to be a criminal, but you're an idiot. Thanks a lot. Have a spectacular day."
At least that's how I envision my conversation will go when I go to return my new N*Sync CD.
Ebert has been known to be overly PC and severely miss the point of movies. See his review of Fight Club. Now, I'm not nearly the fan of Fight Club that some people are, but I at least realize that there are three distinct levels of meaning to that and not simply the base "fighting is cool" message that Ebert focuses on. I imagine Ebert must've gotten a few slick beatings in his day to carry such a grudge. I do see his point on this issue, but really, he even admits that beyond this glaring error (in his eyes), the movie does score some points. His rating is seemingly solely based on the un-PC-ness of the flick and not its value otherwise. Making movies about fake assasination plots are great fun I think - perhaps picking Malaysia was a mistake, but to censor something created before the September 11th events because of the September 11th events is a huge mistake. Censorship is a greater crime against humanity than anything that happened September 11th. That might sound insensitive, but I mean it.
Hehe, that movie could be the catalyst to bring back the drive-in movie theater. I just think it would be funny to see the MPAA honcho's reactions when they had to rate that preview.
Which begs the question, why not power the ion engine by sticking a couple of used watches in there and instantly generating the requested velocity rather than slowly gaining speed with an expensive ion engine setup.
Hmmm... the crash in PC buying and the fact that this announcment coincided with AMD announcing a probable loss this quarter.
What's disappointing to me is not so much that people were laid off - the airlines and AMD were respectively both in dire financial straits before the WTC disaster. The real issue is that rather than making sensible decisions, companies time their layoffs to make it have the least impact on their stock valuation. The airlines reacted now, because, hell, their stock is going to bomb anyway. AMD announces it's going to post a loss and knows it may as well pile on the layoffs, not much more damage. Not only that, but it makes them look like they are "restructuring" which makes investors happy. I worked at a company that was consistently doing poorly, and it was evident from inside the company, but they posted cheery quarterly reports. Then one quarter they lump all of their losses together, lay off a few people, and take it all on the chin. This financial maneuvering is pretty ridiculous and cheats the public and the company's investors.
I think I digressed more than enough there - essentially it's disgusting that companies exploit the WTC disaster to raise their stock valuation. The same way that it's dispicable that the next day senators were tacking missile defense amendments onto critical relief packages (luckily failing) and that Israel attacked a city it had been besieging. A big news item like the WTC disaster essentially blacks out all other news, and the exploitation of that factor was pathetic.
Your forgetting that it's mid-september and this kid just aced his first econ 101 test. Let the flurrish of economic knowledge continue.
The US PS2 came with no such CD. I think that was a Europe-only deal. I vaguely remember a story about it. So, no YaBasic for us.
Indeed, mistakes have been made in the past. That's why it's so disturbing that our politicians have decide to act so quickly, with little regard for the consequences of their decisions, in the heat of the emotional fervor of this incident. Putting complete control of this situation in the hands of one, unproven man this early in the game is beyond dangerous.
Cuba and the rest were examples of how our embargoing is futile - in response to your comment on emposing sactions to break a country - one of the justifications of our presence in the Middle East. One of the main reasons the dictators maintain their power is BECAUSE of the very embargoes designed to dethrone them. They can turn the public attention towards a common enemy - the United States.
As for intentions almost always being good, I have severe doubt as to the intentions following this incident. When you see Senators the day after the tragedy grandstanding on the issue and claiming that this proves we need missile defense, you really have to question the ethics of our government. I won't even go into how Bush implied that he was somehow empowered by God to fight terrorists on Friday. Ridiculous.
Regardless, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this I suppose. You do have very valid points, so do I I suppose. Nice to have a debate though unlike the one-sided propaganda in the media and in Congress.
"We did not massacre civilians in Desert Storm."
Yeah, say that to the people who died while smart bombs rained on the bunkers they were taking shelter in.
"We impose sanctions (occasionaly blockades) in order to break a country."
We break the civillians, but rarely is this tactic successful in breaking the hold of their leader of the country. Look at Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan.
"We had the choice of supporting these smaller dictatorships or letting the Soviet Union run them over."
Guess what, the Afghanistan defense, including Bin-Laden's involvement, was US funded and CIA trained. Your entire argument works against itself. Everyone looks at the dictator-support we provided during the cold war with disgust. We ruined far more countries than the Soviet Union.
"And finally, we do not support terrorism. You are out of your fscking mind if you believe that, Mr. Coward. We do not massacre innocent civilians nor support such acts. Period."
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, the entirety of Vietnam. Can you possibly claim that this war will be any different? We will only kill more innocents and make martyrs of the few terrorists that we do manage to snub off the earth. In the process, we could offend a portion of the world with our arrogance and lead to an even greater conflict. Especially if countries like India, Pakistan, China, etc get involved with their nuclear capability.
In summary, what the hell were YOU thinking? Every sane person has seen this coming. I know I've said it (though not on this forum) countless times. You can only break so many treaties, kill so many people, ruin so many lives, before someone decides that it's your turn to suffer. Nothing justifies this act, but to listen to Bush's propagandic remark that "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world" is ridiculous. There are very, very valid reasons for hatred of America and the fact that our leaders are ignoring this in their rash decision making following the attack is frightening.
Indeed, the policy of slaughtering innocent people is one that we should not back down from, especially if it makes us look like anything less than the infallible Gods of the world.
Attacking Afghanistan will strengthen the Islamic Fundamentalist rule more than not doing so. Afghanistan has been attacked time and time again, and look at who rules now. Do you think the almost unavoidable deaths of thousands of innocent people will somehow lower future levels of terrorism? Will killing Osama Bin Laden somehow rid the world of the scourge of terrorism? Go read the essays at TomPaine.com for more background on this. The only way to stop terrorism is to stop the acts that cause its proponents to act so rashly.
Maybe, in the short term, a show of leniency would make it seem that the terrorists "won," but it is the only path to show tha twe truly are a nation seeking peace - and that's the way to present ourselves if we really expect other nations to emulate us rather than despise us.
Millitary action, especially today, is done with the majority of the public's consent - either that, or it's kept out of their knowledge. The government doesn't want another unpopular war. This is why the government has been spewing so much propaganda recently - there isn't a single voice in Washington opposing this, and even those that do merely abstain from voting in Congress rather than opposing (see the 98 and 96 to nothing votes in the Senate). Bush needs this 9-1 popular consent to establish his legitimacy.
Anyway, here's my thoughts. We should not bomb anyone. No war against terrorism will ever when. It will only create martyrs. The only way to prevent terrorism is to stop the very legitimate concerns that fuel its soldiers. Bin Ladin may be beyond help, but those that enlist in his armies feel, very legitimately, that they've been wronged by the United States, non-muslims, and the world. This could have all been prevented if the United States had realized that, and cooler heads will tell you that an attack like this was innevitable. I know I've thought that for a long time, I only thought that it would hopefully lead to an understanding of our previous ignorance. Unfortunately, it has led to an increased nationalism - not a bad thing in itself mind you - but when our nationalism makes us blind to the plight of others, when we think we're so perfect, so infallible, we will strike out in ignorance. I'm scared beyond belief of the next decade now - and I'm willing to fight any government that tries to take away my liberties, or anyone else's just to stop criticism.
Well, if the government can make most encrypted traffic suceptible to the backdoor, it can filter it out and find suspicious activity, which can be traced and or given a greater share of decryption computing power (though I doubt even the NSA could do this - the tracking and manual check method would be better). Not that I'm for this. Quite the opposite actually, just clearing up the other side of the issue.
So are you telling me that the Leaning Tower of Pisa is structuraly sound because it hasn't fallen over YET. Serious damage was done to all areas of the WTC when the plane hit, not just the localized area. The force put on the foundation was immense (think torque here). Even without the fire, the buildings would've collapsed eventually. The fire undoubtedly hastened the process, but no building could be expected to have a fire-extinguishing system capable of stopping tons of jet fuel from burning.
Looking at the latest video of the second impact, you see that the plane took a pretty steep curve swooping down into the WTC. This was at least a moderately well-trained pilot as can be seen in the more recent evidence.