Except that the last time North Korea was behind a terror act was in 1983, w/ the assassination attempt on South Korean president Chun Doo-Hwan. So the Bush Administration, and the Obama Administration can be forgiven for putting North Korea behind the likes of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan et al
Iraq was no more democratic than North Korea before the war. Unless you consider the elections that gave Saddam 96% of the vote as democratic.
As far as secular, there is an important thing to know about the Baathists in both Iraq and Syria. Essentially, they constitute minority Muslim sects - be it the Sunnis in Iraq or the Alawites in Syria, in coalition w/ other groups, including Christians and Druze, which give them the appearance of being secular. Saddam was by no means secular in an absolute sense. During the first Gulf war, he added the phrase 'Allahu Akbar' to Iraq's flag - something that this regime has not reversed, and had a Qur'an printed in his blood. His first war against Iran was an attempt to grab Arab areas like Khuzestan, and when that failed, he tried to annex Kuwait so that the Shia-Sunni balance in Iraq would get altered.
The thing to understand about any country that's an Islamic state - it is defined by the majority Islamic state in a country. The reason Saddam was not a supporter of an Islamic state was that in Iraq, that would mean making it a Shia state, which would put him at a disadvantage, since a leader there is expected to share the faith of the people. That doesn't imply that he wouldn't have been supportive of it had Sunnis been the majority, which is something he tried to do both by the genocide of Shias, as well as trying to annex Kuwait to add more Sunnis to the population.
Syria's case is a bit similar, although the fact that Alawite rites include things like the deification of Virgin Mary makes Christianity more compatible w/ them, and which is why Syria is the only Arab (or even Muslim) country where not only is Christmas a holiday, but Easter is as well. There, president Hafez al Assad removed a clause from the Syrian constitution that the president must be a Muslim - which enabled him to be president, since Alawites are considered heretical by not just Sunnis, but Shia as well. However, Iran was more than happy to make common cause w/ him and one Iranian seminary recognized Alawites as Shias, and Syria in turn was happy to be a conduit b/w Iran and Hizbullah. While Syria does a better job than any of the US 'allies' in the region - Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar - in protecting religious freedom, its alliance w/ Hizbullah and opposition to Israel puts limits on how useful it is in the fight against the Jihad, even if the Russians think otherwise
As far as the unleashing democracy goes, putting in a government just based on the numbers in Iraq did make them more democratic, but it was a stupid experiment from two aspects. One - it made Iraq a client state of Iran, since any democratic regime in Baghdad would necessarily be Shia. The next - all Arab countries (aside from Bahrein) which are Sunni, were not gonna follow Iraq's example. They did follow Tunisia's example in the Arab Spring, and that's a part of what started the current war in Syria
Actually, that's the only people in the region that I'm sympathetic to, and who I'd let emigrate to the West - or anywhere else they like. The non-Muslims. Except that most Jihadist organizations in the region, like ISIS, are open to infiltrating them and trying to get them across, although it's easier to vet those. One way would be to give the Kurds an independent Kurdistan carved out of all the 4 countries they live in - Syria, Iraq, Iran and yeah, even Turkey, on the condition that they take in all non-Muslims of the region - Assyrians, Chaldeans, Yazidis, Zoroastrians (of Iran), Copts (of Egypt) and any non-Muslim minority of the region outside Israel, and declare that freedom of conscience would apply to all citizens of this new state, including the right of Kurdish Muslims to apostatize out of Islam w/o fear of retribution.
I didn't exactly get your last statement. How would extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeem vetting make accidents of birth less telling?
I'm assuming that the drones are remotely controlled, in which case, they can break away. Of course, all this ignores the fact that Amazon is not gonna ship anything to Eastern Syria or al Anbar province in Iraq
The Israelis assassinated Hamas leaders who were plotting terror attacks on them, like Yassin and Rantisi. If the Palis just wanted to exist, they wouldn't have lobbed rockets at Israel from Gaza after getting Israel to completely vacate Gaza. Their goal is to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state, and make the entire place another Arab Muslim shithole like Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Egypt
ISIS doesn't make any of these. They capture them from their enemies, like the Iraqi army cowards who fled when they advanced, leaving millions of $$$ of US military hardware. There are no manufacturing facilities of planes or tanks. Not too sure about drones, since making those things is relatively easier
Good point. This is precisely the point about the Sharansky Doctrine that everybody missed. President Bush and others around him naively believed that if they unleased democracy in the Middle East, everything would be hunky dory. The factor they missed out completely: Islam. Which is NOT a democratic or pluralistic religion, and which specifically is opposed to democracy in the Quran itself (18:26).
Becoming democratic worked in Latin America and helped those countries like Chile and Argentina become civil societies b'cos there were no other forces undercutting any such pluralistic culture. It's not the same in any Islamic group, as pointed out above. There is no separation b/w mosque and state: Mohammed was both a religious and political leader. The Caliphate was the succession of this dual-role leadership after his death: every Caliph, be it in Damascus, Raqqa, Baghdad, Cairo or Istanbul, was considered both a religious and political leader of all Muslims. It ended in 1924, and the current internecine war b/w Muslims is whether a new one is needed, and who'd lead it.
The other thing about Muslims is that they are not live and let live people. We've seen it in Iraq, where the long persecuted Shias started persecuting Christians, Sunnis and anyone else once the US handed over power to a democrat i.e. Shia government (since they are the majority in that country). Similarly, when Aleppo first fell to the 'rebels' - the Free Syrian Army, they made it a point to either murder or drive the local Christians out of the city. It's not that the persecuted groups anywhere - be it Sunnis in Syria, Kurds in Syria or Iraq, Shias in Iraq, Houthis in Yemen or anyone else - would simply like to be left alone: they want to replace the oppressors and switch roles altogether, so that their respective brand of Islam is recognized as the 'true Islam'. Incidentally, that's what it means in every country: in Iran, it would be the Islam as laid out by the Ayatollahs, in Iraq, it's Shia Islam, since Shias are 60%, in Saudi Arabia, it's the Wahabis, in Oman, it's the Ibadis, and so on. Which is why you have these wars of domination in most of these countries.
This is why you are right: not only is it none of our business, but also, it is something we cannot solve. As infidels, we have nothing to gain in which Islam ends up on top. In fact, given that all of Islam is about hatred of everything 'un-Islamic', the best thing to do is to get out of there and let them fight each other like the 2 cats of Kilkinney. Just bar the doors so that their refugees can't flee to non-Muslim lands spreading their mayhem there, like they've done in Germany and Austria. As long as that happens, just let them go at it. Any of their beauties wants to upload their carnage on Facebook or Twitter, let them, but as a policy, make it clear that it's their war, not ours. Any US journalist is stupid enough to go there, leave them there, and let them be converted to Islam or beheaded or both.
Another positive side-effect of this: the more they fight each other, the less they have in fighting against us, and causing terror out here. This civil war may be a blight on humanity, but it's a good thing for the non-Muslim world that instead of fighting the rest of us, they are busy on each other.
May all sides in this conflict win. And lose. Or whatever
Particularly from China, where everything is made. Just buy them from there via brokers in Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey or any other country w/ close ties to China, and rig them for attacks against all their rivals
So which CPU will Microsoft use in this - will it be an i5, like in Surfaces, or a Qualcomm CPU, which will then have the phone emulating x86? From the above description, it looks a bit like a phablet, where people can talk over it, or use it as a normal mini Surface book. Hopefully, this time, it's well supported by all carriers, including Verizon and Sprint, and not just the GSM guys
Yeah, Microsoft should build images of Windows - maybe 7 or XP - to some common VMs like KVM, Bhyve, Virtualbox and VMware, so that users of these OSs can run them. Obviously, Microsoft can regulate how they are licensed: one solution is to allow them to use the original license that came on their PCs before they were replaced
Is it possible to use the Windows license that came preinstalled on the computer that now has Linux running on it? I'd imagine any PC would come w/ that, unless it's been bought from someone like System76
Visual Studio beats anything on Linux. If that's your main use for a computer then run whatever system it takes.
I think AC was questioning dundelfalke's practice of developing software for Linux, but not having a Linux bed to actually test it on. You'd think that a Linux developer would have computers w/ the various base distros, like Debian, Fedora, Gentoo and Slackware, which would enable him to ensure that his stuff would work on the bulk of distros out there.
What's so awesome about getting all of the disadvantages of Windows with none of the benefits of Linux in order to run less user-friendly applications from Linux? Using Wine on Linux is much better for development and there are hardly any other use-cases.
Not just that, what Linux application is there that is not available under Windows? That Windows needs a way to run it?
Also, there are some hundreds of Linux distros out there, so why pick any? It would have made more sense for Microsoft to do what FreeBSD does - have specific Linux jails - like Debian, Fedora, Gentoo and Slack, and then let people run their applications on them. Also provide the user the option of using anything w/ or w/o systemd
That's an interesting assumption to make. Would Cuba do something like what the Norks have done, right from having their own distro of Linux to making their entire internet an intranet? Whereas the Chinese and North Koreans gradually developed that over the last 2 decades, in Cuba's case, it would have to be put together overnight to be a uniquely Cuban solution, as opposed to a Chinese solution overlaid on a Cuban marketplace
I do think that Cuba will reform, not just b'cos Fidel is dead, but also b'cos Obama is out in a week, and Trump could pretty much give the US based Cubans what they want. The trick for Raul would be how to transfer power peacefully while still securing his future prosperity and not getting tried for human rights abuses like a Pinochet or a Che
I have all the toys in question - 2 laptops, 2 tablets and 3 cellphones. Here is how each of them is used:
1. This laptop I'm working on (w/ TrueOS) is where I do the bulk of my stuff - my shopping, banking, slashdot and a few other sites I participate in
2. My Wintel laptop, which is what I use for work, as well as anything where I need something that's only available on Windows
3. My iPad, which I use to listen to Sirius XM when I am at home and not driving, as well as some games
4. My Ellipsis, which I use to check stuff in my various accounts. While I use the laptop to do things like money transfers and stuff, I use the tablet to make payments, or check the status of a transaction. I also use it when I'm travelling - to carry my e-ticket and so on
5. My iPhone, which I use to FaceTime and WhatsApp w/ family members, and also play games while I'm waiting for something at a restaurant, or in a clinic, or at the movies
6. My Moto X, which I use as a work phone, and separate from my personal phone. If any employer were to ask for a BYOD, that would be it
7. My Lumia, which I use as a travel phone whenever I'm out of the US and in exclusively GSM territory
Of the things I listed above, granted - a lot of them can be consolidated to 2 or 3 devices. But while I have a wireless keyboard for my iOS and Android tablets, I've found that a lot less convenient than a laptop. OTOH, I can't use my laptop if I need to call Lyft for any reason, like if my car is in service.
The reason everybody has sold production to China is that previously, everything was merely outsourced to the likes of Gigabyte, Asustech, Acer, Compal, Quanta, et al, and slowly, everybody realized that they were only paying extra for the brand, but otherwise getting the same shit from an HP or a Dell. Which is why it makes more sense to buy from a Lenovo or an Acer. But end result is that the only thing the IBMs or Dells are now making are the high end boxes. As far as Apple goes, it does make more sense for them to switch to A10s and beyond for their laptops: OS X is already iOS-ized, and that would also save them from Hackintosh undercutting their Mac sales, to the extent it happens at all. There ain't a strong reason for Apple to base its computing infrastructure on x64. Even for Mac Pro, Apple can introduce multiple A8 cores or something to match the throughput, since the underlying OS is perfectly SMP capable
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the last time North Korea was behind a terror act was in 1983, w/ the assassination attempt on South Korean president Chun Doo-Hwan. So the Bush Administration, and the Obama Administration can be forgiven for putting North Korea behind the likes of Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan et al
You might have noticed that AC's writing style is different from mine
Iraq was no more democratic than North Korea before the war. Unless you consider the elections that gave Saddam 96% of the vote as democratic.
As far as secular, there is an important thing to know about the Baathists in both Iraq and Syria. Essentially, they constitute minority Muslim sects - be it the Sunnis in Iraq or the Alawites in Syria, in coalition w/ other groups, including Christians and Druze, which give them the appearance of being secular. Saddam was by no means secular in an absolute sense. During the first Gulf war, he added the phrase 'Allahu Akbar' to Iraq's flag - something that this regime has not reversed, and had a Qur'an printed in his blood. His first war against Iran was an attempt to grab Arab areas like Khuzestan, and when that failed, he tried to annex Kuwait so that the Shia-Sunni balance in Iraq would get altered.
The thing to understand about any country that's an Islamic state - it is defined by the majority Islamic state in a country. The reason Saddam was not a supporter of an Islamic state was that in Iraq, that would mean making it a Shia state, which would put him at a disadvantage, since a leader there is expected to share the faith of the people. That doesn't imply that he wouldn't have been supportive of it had Sunnis been the majority, which is something he tried to do both by the genocide of Shias, as well as trying to annex Kuwait to add more Sunnis to the population.
Syria's case is a bit similar, although the fact that Alawite rites include things like the deification of Virgin Mary makes Christianity more compatible w/ them, and which is why Syria is the only Arab (or even Muslim) country where not only is Christmas a holiday, but Easter is as well. There, president Hafez al Assad removed a clause from the Syrian constitution that the president must be a Muslim - which enabled him to be president, since Alawites are considered heretical by not just Sunnis, but Shia as well. However, Iran was more than happy to make common cause w/ him and one Iranian seminary recognized Alawites as Shias, and Syria in turn was happy to be a conduit b/w Iran and Hizbullah. While Syria does a better job than any of the US 'allies' in the region - Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar - in protecting religious freedom, its alliance w/ Hizbullah and opposition to Israel puts limits on how useful it is in the fight against the Jihad, even if the Russians think otherwise
As far as the unleashing democracy goes, putting in a government just based on the numbers in Iraq did make them more democratic, but it was a stupid experiment from two aspects. One - it made Iraq a client state of Iran, since any democratic regime in Baghdad would necessarily be Shia. The next - all Arab countries (aside from Bahrein) which are Sunni, were not gonna follow Iraq's example. They did follow Tunisia's example in the Arab Spring, and that's a part of what started the current war in Syria
Also, Black people can be racist against Brown. And vice versa. In fact, very often, they are - from either end
Actually, that's the only people in the region that I'm sympathetic to, and who I'd let emigrate to the West - or anywhere else they like. The non-Muslims. Except that most Jihadist organizations in the region, like ISIS, are open to infiltrating them and trying to get them across, although it's easier to vet those. One way would be to give the Kurds an independent Kurdistan carved out of all the 4 countries they live in - Syria, Iraq, Iran and yeah, even Turkey, on the condition that they take in all non-Muslims of the region - Assyrians, Chaldeans, Yazidis, Zoroastrians (of Iran), Copts (of Egypt) and any non-Muslim minority of the region outside Israel, and declare that freedom of conscience would apply to all citizens of this new state, including the right of Kurdish Muslims to apostatize out of Islam w/o fear of retribution.
I didn't exactly get your last statement. How would extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeem vetting make accidents of birth less telling?
This is actually a good tact, but it involves teaching them that Islam is little more than the self-aggrandizement of its founder Mohammed
I'm assuming that the drones are remotely controlled, in which case, they can break away. Of course, all this ignores the fact that Amazon is not gonna ship anything to Eastern Syria or al Anbar province in Iraq
You can use the name John Kerry and Barack Obama use - ISIL. It leaves your Egyptian goddess unscathed
The Israelis assassinated Hamas leaders who were plotting terror attacks on them, like Yassin and Rantisi. If the Palis just wanted to exist, they wouldn't have lobbed rockets at Israel from Gaza after getting Israel to completely vacate Gaza. Their goal is to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state, and make the entire place another Arab Muslim shithole like Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Egypt
The drones in this case are used to deliver whatever you ordered: you don't get to keep them as well
ISIS doesn't make any of these. They capture them from their enemies, like the Iraqi army cowards who fled when they advanced, leaving millions of $$$ of US military hardware. There are no manufacturing facilities of planes or tanks. Not too sure about drones, since making those things is relatively easier
Good point. This is precisely the point about the Sharansky Doctrine that everybody missed. President Bush and others around him naively believed that if they unleased democracy in the Middle East, everything would be hunky dory. The factor they missed out completely: Islam. Which is NOT a democratic or pluralistic religion, and which specifically is opposed to democracy in the Quran itself (18:26).
Becoming democratic worked in Latin America and helped those countries like Chile and Argentina become civil societies b'cos there were no other forces undercutting any such pluralistic culture. It's not the same in any Islamic group, as pointed out above. There is no separation b/w mosque and state: Mohammed was both a religious and political leader. The Caliphate was the succession of this dual-role leadership after his death: every Caliph, be it in Damascus, Raqqa, Baghdad, Cairo or Istanbul, was considered both a religious and political leader of all Muslims. It ended in 1924, and the current internecine war b/w Muslims is whether a new one is needed, and who'd lead it.
The other thing about Muslims is that they are not live and let live people. We've seen it in Iraq, where the long persecuted Shias started persecuting Christians, Sunnis and anyone else once the US handed over power to a democrat i.e. Shia government (since they are the majority in that country). Similarly, when Aleppo first fell to the 'rebels' - the Free Syrian Army, they made it a point to either murder or drive the local Christians out of the city. It's not that the persecuted groups anywhere - be it Sunnis in Syria, Kurds in Syria or Iraq, Shias in Iraq, Houthis in Yemen or anyone else - would simply like to be left alone: they want to replace the oppressors and switch roles altogether, so that their respective brand of Islam is recognized as the 'true Islam'. Incidentally, that's what it means in every country: in Iran, it would be the Islam as laid out by the Ayatollahs, in Iraq, it's Shia Islam, since Shias are 60%, in Saudi Arabia, it's the Wahabis, in Oman, it's the Ibadis, and so on. Which is why you have these wars of domination in most of these countries.
This is why you are right: not only is it none of our business, but also, it is something we cannot solve. As infidels, we have nothing to gain in which Islam ends up on top. In fact, given that all of Islam is about hatred of everything 'un-Islamic', the best thing to do is to get out of there and let them fight each other like the 2 cats of Kilkinney. Just bar the doors so that their refugees can't flee to non-Muslim lands spreading their mayhem there, like they've done in Germany and Austria. As long as that happens, just let them go at it. Any of their beauties wants to upload their carnage on Facebook or Twitter, let them, but as a policy, make it clear that it's their war, not ours. Any US journalist is stupid enough to go there, leave them there, and let them be converted to Islam or beheaded or both.
Another positive side-effect of this: the more they fight each other, the less they have in fighting against us, and causing terror out here. This civil war may be a blight on humanity, but it's a good thing for the non-Muslim world that instead of fighting the rest of us, they are busy on each other.
May all sides in this conflict win. And lose. Or whatever
Particularly from China, where everything is made. Just buy them from there via brokers in Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey or any other country w/ close ties to China, and rig them for attacks against all their rivals
So which CPU will Microsoft use in this - will it be an i5, like in Surfaces, or a Qualcomm CPU, which will then have the phone emulating x86? From the above description, it looks a bit like a phablet, where people can talk over it, or use it as a normal mini Surface book. Hopefully, this time, it's well supported by all carriers, including Verizon and Sprint, and not just the GSM guys
Somewhat, but I have yet to see a Bluetooth keyboard that has a separate numeric keypad on the right
Yeah, Microsoft should build images of Windows - maybe 7 or XP - to some common VMs like KVM, Bhyve, Virtualbox and VMware, so that users of these OSs can run them. Obviously, Microsoft can regulate how they are licensed: one solution is to allow them to use the original license that came on their PCs before they were replaced
Is it possible to use the Windows license that came preinstalled on the computer that now has Linux running on it? I'd imagine any PC would come w/ that, unless it's been bought from someone like System76
Something tells me that he's trolling RMS
Well, uh...
"sensible" is the word you're looking for.
Visual Studio beats anything on Linux. If that's your main use for a computer then run whatever system it takes.
I think AC was questioning dundelfalke's practice of developing software for Linux, but not having a Linux bed to actually test it on. You'd think that a Linux developer would have computers w/ the various base distros, like Debian, Fedora, Gentoo and Slackware, which would enable him to ensure that his stuff would work on the bulk of distros out there.
What's so awesome about getting all of the disadvantages of Windows with none of the benefits of Linux in order to run less user-friendly applications from Linux? Using Wine on Linux is much better for development and there are hardly any other use-cases.
Not just that, what Linux application is there that is not available under Windows? That Windows needs a way to run it?
Also, there are some hundreds of Linux distros out there, so why pick any? It would have made more sense for Microsoft to do what FreeBSD does - have specific Linux jails - like Debian, Fedora, Gentoo and Slack, and then let people run their applications on them. Also provide the user the option of using anything w/ or w/o systemd
Notepad is a bad tool. You need to use emacs
The snowflake suffered a meltdown, and now, it's just water
In which case, come to *BSD
That's an interesting assumption to make. Would Cuba do something like what the Norks have done, right from having their own distro of Linux to making their entire internet an intranet? Whereas the Chinese and North Koreans gradually developed that over the last 2 decades, in Cuba's case, it would have to be put together overnight to be a uniquely Cuban solution, as opposed to a Chinese solution overlaid on a Cuban marketplace
I do think that Cuba will reform, not just b'cos Fidel is dead, but also b'cos Obama is out in a week, and Trump could pretty much give the US based Cubans what they want. The trick for Raul would be how to transfer power peacefully while still securing his future prosperity and not getting tried for human rights abuses like a Pinochet or a Che
I have all the toys in question - 2 laptops, 2 tablets and 3 cellphones. Here is how each of them is used:
1. This laptop I'm working on (w/ TrueOS) is where I do the bulk of my stuff - my shopping, banking, slashdot and a few other sites I participate in
2. My Wintel laptop, which is what I use for work, as well as anything where I need something that's only available on Windows
3. My iPad, which I use to listen to Sirius XM when I am at home and not driving, as well as some games
4. My Ellipsis, which I use to check stuff in my various accounts. While I use the laptop to do things like money transfers and stuff, I use the tablet to make payments, or check the status of a transaction. I also use it when I'm travelling - to carry my e-ticket and so on
5. My iPhone, which I use to FaceTime and WhatsApp w/ family members, and also play games while I'm waiting for something at a restaurant, or in a clinic, or at the movies
6. My Moto X, which I use as a work phone, and separate from my personal phone. If any employer were to ask for a BYOD, that would be it
7. My Lumia, which I use as a travel phone whenever I'm out of the US and in exclusively GSM territory
Of the things I listed above, granted - a lot of them can be consolidated to 2 or 3 devices. But while I have a wireless keyboard for my iOS and Android tablets, I've found that a lot less convenient than a laptop. OTOH, I can't use my laptop if I need to call Lyft for any reason, like if my car is in service.
The reason everybody has sold production to China is that previously, everything was merely outsourced to the likes of Gigabyte, Asustech, Acer, Compal, Quanta, et al, and slowly, everybody realized that they were only paying extra for the brand, but otherwise getting the same shit from an HP or a Dell. Which is why it makes more sense to buy from a Lenovo or an Acer. But end result is that the only thing the IBMs or Dells are now making are the high end boxes. As far as Apple goes, it does make more sense for them to switch to A10s and beyond for their laptops: OS X is already iOS-ized, and that would also save them from Hackintosh undercutting their Mac sales, to the extent it happens at all. There ain't a strong reason for Apple to base its computing infrastructure on x64. Even for Mac Pro, Apple can introduce multiple A8 cores or something to match the throughput, since the underlying OS is perfectly SMP capable