What do you think its for? So you can collect money when you get older? Don't make me laugh. The government already has plenty of unique ID numbers without the crap that Ellison is spewing.
You guys are a bunch of pansies! Grow some balls and fight your enemies instead of practicing even more isolationist ideas (which won't work, btw).
For real, you guys are talking about some serious end-of-time, mark-of-the-beast type shit. I'm going to canada, because there sure as hell won't be another revolution here in the U.S.A. anytime soon. Give up your freedom to a bunch of politicians? You guys should be shot.
I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree on the IRA vs Brits thing. I haven't heard jack about the IRA in over 2 years, and details before that were widely dispersed and very sketchy. The truth is, the Brits didn't really fight for 30 years against the IRA. They just mucked around like the U.S. did against terrorism for the past 20 years. Also, the IRA wasn't in any economical disaster, which is the reason that you are touting for why the Afghanis are lashing out (which I disagree with anyway, but it discounts your point).
In fact, the mainstream american media is doing a wonderful job of making sure that the American public is swayed from a war of attrition on Afghanistan. They've practically described the Afghan people as lovable teddy-bears or orphans that you'd just LOVE to take home and adopt. Don't worry about the Afghanis, they'll be better off without the Taliban's Islamic beliefs and strict standards.
And do please notice, that I specified the Taliban's version of Islam, and not the entire religion.
Judging by the time of day, and the general attitude of your post, I'm going to have to go out on a limb and guess that you're a resident of the U.K. I would hope that you can remember the painful memories of London's buildings burning from Nazi Germany's attacks. Before you tell us not to pick a gun to succeed, lets take a sharp look at what everybody did in your country and our country when that was going on.
Guns. Lots of them. When Bin Laden is dead/convicted/extradited, it will weaken the organization. Nobody wants to kill Muslims because they're Muslim. They want to kill the fundamentalists who believe in suicide, death, holy wars, and oppression. It just so happens, that in this specific case, they practice a very non-traditional form of Islam, which is very violent and does not teach the Koran as it was meant to be taught. It teaches the portions that it wants to hear, and focuses on those portions as an EXCUSE for its actions.
They will not listen to other Muslims, political leaders, or direct threats. In the rest of the world, this is referred to as "thick-headed" and "idiotic", but for these people, you try to call them "misunderstood" and "in need of help".
Maybe you should ask yourself, to which standards should the Taliban and Al-Qaeda be held? Their standards, or "Western" standards? Does it really matter if they're killing innocent people because some U.S. soldiers were in Saudi Arabia for a year?
That's wonderful. But as much as you'd like to demonize Drunk Driving, at least 80% of those deaths are accidental. Not premeditated murder.
Oh, you can argue about "accountability for their actions" and their utter lack of responsibility in driving while under the influence, but when it all comes down to it, they are all very sorrowful and remorseful and usually wish that they had never earned their license. Did the terrorists (or those who are defending their actions) feel that type of remorse?
Talk about perspective all you want, but don't forget meditation in your analysis.
The Germans weren't religious zealots who WANTED to die. The Muslim Afghanis are exactly that. They might like westernization AFTER the fact, but they'll kill you while you're trying to build the "necessities" because they realize that they aren't really all that necessary.
Anyway when we talked about the sanctions, he said that Iraq started building up its infrastructure and along with that started doing all kinds of research, both good and bad. The bad research was of course research into biological weapons of mass destruction. That "bad research" and the invasion of Kuwait are the causes of the sanctions according to him. This is also my view.
Actually though he came out with a lot of conspiracy theories, he said that maybe the CIA was behind the terrorist activity in the states and other stuff like that. I find that a very far-fetched and unreasonable idea. I told him that in my opinion that's not possible. He also said that he suspected CIA manipulation with the Kuwait invasion. I told him that I had heard the same rumors, but that in the end Saddam was responsible for his decisions (and that anyway I don't know that he wasn't manipulated, but I don't believe he was).
This guy doesn't represent the average Iraqi. He doesn't hate Americans either, although I don't think he in general likes our government very much. If we would have had more time to talk about the sanctions and why the Iraqi people were suffering (i.e. is it Saddam's fault or our fault), then I would have had something more interesting to write about.
__________________________________________
You told us neither one, and also wove your opinion and assumptions into what he said, and never used a direct quote or paraphrase.
Anyway I can't remember any exact words he said, therefore you get no nice quotes. Are you trying to say I don't tell a good story? Gee I'm really sorry.
That part I bolded is exactly what I was looking for in the original post. I agree with your opinion 100% in that context. And I wish there was a way to get rid of the "Israel did it to get us to fight with them" "The CIA is so shadowy, they kill their own citizens to start wars" "USA == DEVIL DEVIL DEVIL!" crap that floats around, but you really can't stop people's thoughts. And in the case of the Iraqi public, you can't really tell them "our side" because Saddam won't let us.
Well, you definitely did your part for education and humanitarianism. Too bad most of them and most of us never see each other. Too bad most of them forsake and/or are withheld from technology due to their fanatical beliefs (in both cases, forsaking and being withheld).
I believe communication is the key to understanding, but I can't very easily fly over to Iraq unless I'm willing to be called Satan incarnate. You see, besides "communication = understanding" I also believe that individuals are exceptionally smart, and mobs are incredibly stupid.
The most racist person in the world will learn to love the people they hate in a 1 on 1 debate/discussion/chat, but put 2 racists there, and your chances are much worse. Put 2 "minorities" there, and your chances are equally worse. It gets worse as you add more people.
Anyway, you have to remember 6000 innocent civilians were killed, and compare apples to apples. When we kill civilians, we aim for military installations and military support and governemnt intelligence. They say, "Stop killing our civilians" and we reply, "Stop using your civilians as human shields to fight a political battle in the U.N."
Now explain to me, what military target were they aiming for 2 weeks ago? Answer: There aren't any good military targets in NYC. They weren't worried about hitting military targets though. Ask all the arabs who will tell people, "Maybe now the U.S. will see how bad it is for their people to die." Well no shit, we already knew that. But that is the mind-set that the terrorists had. "We will show them how it hurts when civilians are killed. They will change their foreign policies. We will lift the opporessors away from [iraq/syria/PLO/taliban] and our people will stop dying!"
Sorry, that won't cut it in the U.S. We won't stand for it. They ignore everything we say they need to do for us to leave and/or stop interfering with their business. The especially violated the number 1 rule, which states: "Don't even THINK of attacking our home soil, or there will be hell to pay." All political maneuvering aside, it comes down to that, and anything less than "hell to pay" will be unacceptable for the states and organizations that sponsored this attack.
Wrong answer. American law and due process and "guilty" or "not guilty" only applies to internal government. We're not stupid enough to keep trying that crap with the world forever... that idea is what screwed us in Viet Nam.
Besides the fact that you don't have a clue as to what the U.S. is going to do in this case, and the clue that your morals don't count in the part of the world that we are going, and the clue that none of that crap you mentioned (Nam/Laos/Korea/Iraq) had anything to do with an attack on U.S. soil, I'd say you're pretty much in need of a clue.
If you want terrorists to count as your "peers", then go on over there, preach about all the benefits of democracy and western ideas, give them all the human aid that red cross will let you carry, show them that "gosh darnit, you're better than that!" Just make sure you're dealing with the refugees (and the docile refugees, at that), and not the Taliban/Fundamentalists.
Btw, "the afghanis" are not being attacked. "The Terrorists and those who harbor them" are being attacked. This translates to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in this specific case. Save your "stop fighting before I end up dead, too!" speech until we actually start shooting.
Do yourself a favor... Count from 1 to 6000. Don't go too fast, that's one human life you're counting there! See how long it takes you to count from 1 to 6000. With each number you count, imagine an innocent civilian dying an incredibly violent death. CIVILIAN, not somebody who's job is to die fighting for the government, but somebody who had no control over that action, and paid the price for somebody's hatred.
Why didn't anybody get up-in-arms about the U.S.S. Cole? Well, those 17 sailors are soldiers, for one thing. As tragic as 17 deaths is on a humanitarian scale, its what they get paid for doing. Not to mention, I can count to 17 in about 20 seconds, not 2 HOURS! And that's counting pretty damn fast. If you want each number to represent a human life, and the implications that it entails, it will probably take you closer to 8 hours.
Now imagine your children/spouse/parents/friends/relatives taking the spot of those who died, and put yourself in the place of the grieving families right now. You really CAN'T, but you can try anyway. Now try to put yourself in the place of those families 1 year from now, and figure out how many of them want justice for their loved ones' deaths.
I don't believe in "sins of the father" being passed down, and that type of nonsense, but take a real wide view of the people who live in Afghanistan. You can't beat them by educating them like the Greeks did to beat their enemies. You can't conquer them with an iron-fist and religious ethics like the Roman Catholic Empire used. You can't beat them with a war of attrition like the World Wars. We're certainly giving anybody who wants to leave the country a fair chance, and they're eating it up. The ones who stay WANT to live dirt-poor in the middle of a war, and they think that if they're LUCKY, they will become a martyr, thus gaining eternal life and peace and riches in the next life.
You can't convince somebody with that mindset to "give democracy a chance". It will only re-affirm that you are one of Satan's conspirators, and that they really SHOULD be fighting you to stand up for their beliefs. Foreign aid goes above what those fundamentalists accept, and that's a very major part of why they hate America, regardless of what the American Muslim leaders say. Its a different religion over there, because its all that they've got. American Muslims are like American Jews or American Protestants or American Catholics or American Taoists... the vast majority of them, including the leaders, are American first, and [religion of choice] second. The Afghani are all Muslim first, Afghani second.
That's something that "Bubba" will never understand, because, to be completely blunt, his religion is "USA".
Learn more about religion if you want to learn more about Afghanistan.
We had more casualties due to "friendly fire" than Iraqi weapons. This might sound bad, until you consider that we also had more casualties due to "normal civilian-styled accidental deaths and Acts of God" than "friendly fire".
For what it's worth, we didn't beat Iraq with a war of attrition either. We used techniques that devastate a large ground army, and weaken them, and desupply them, and cut off their air-support, and then just go sweep up the remains.
We'll do the same thing in Afghanistan. Not the same tactics, but the same strategy. First we'll take away their money supply. Then we'll intercept any high-tech and low-tech signals and analyze the hell out of them. Then we'll use satellites, spy-planes, and robots to map the "hot spots" of the area. Then we'll start bombing the hot spots for a month or three. Then we'll insert Special Ops forces into their main support routes, and cut off their food and physical supplies. (don't kid yourself, this won't be Viet Nam in their opinion. "innocent people" don't show up at temporary camoflage tents in the asscrack of nowhere and ask for food and shelter.)
By the time we're through with Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban... we'll be all warmed up and ready for the next guilty state who sponsored terrorism in the recent past. No, I won't make those kind of guesses... I'm not THAT stupid. =)
"Wow, you talked to real live Iraqi citizen? Ya hear that, Bubba? David here done talked to one of them Iraqi people, and they even done KNOWN he was from the U.S.A., God bless its soul. And he didn't get blown up, neither!"
All satire aside, you failed to mention anything that this Iraqi told you about "their side" that most of the educated Americans already understand. We understand why Iraqi's blame us, and quite frankly, we live with it. The problem is that Saddam controls the entire country, including all media, and just sits up there in his comfy palace and preaches about the American pigs and places all the blame at our feet.
Something that would have been much more educational and inspiring would have been an account of you trying to explain the U.S. perspective to the Iraqi, and hearing his response. If he responded that he understood our side, as you seem to understand his, then that gives hope to Americans and Iraqis that peace will come. Of course, if he responded by nodding thoughtfully while you talked, and then dismissed everything that you said and reiterated the Iraqi people's beliefs... well, that would sorta be what I expect.
You told us neither one, and also wove your opinion and assumptions into what he said, and never used a direct quote or paraphrase. At least now we know you're a pacifist and don't understand that the Secretary of State can do nothing in a war except influence the top-level decisions. There's no such thing as "be[ing] allowed to take the lead..." in a reaction. That would be Rumsfeld's job. Powell can influence Bush, who is supposedly leading this, but is really only directing Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld really only directs the lower levels, and THEY execute actions according to their best plans, which all the higher guys will be signing off on pretty damn fast this time.
Agreed. And its not like other people don't understand this concept. Afghan Refugees, anybody? Why are they leaving? Because they understand "collateral damage" just as much as the U.S. Military. The primary difference is that there will be less civilian deaths in Afghanistan than there were in Iraq, because at least the Taliban doesn't control the entire country, and so they can't put down the same level of "iron fist" government that Saddam did back in Iraq. This allows the civilians to do whatever they want, and contrary to what the Soviet says, they're all leaving.
Re:Drone's defence capabilities
on
Robots Go To War
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but that's why they specifically use "low tech", which can be lost to the enemy. If they need to place "high tech" parts on the plane that they do not wish to lose to the enemy, they will surely use auto-destruct techniques over any defensive capabilities, since there is no human life at stake, and auto-destruct is significantly cheaper.
Re:Difference between Soviet and US attacks
on
Robots Go To War
·
· Score: 1
Expensive? yes. As expensive as the cost of a single mission for a single warplane (tactical or spy)? no. These things are VERY low-tech compared to standard warplanes, but they do their specific job very well. Certainly much better than manned chopper crews trying to do visual recon.
Re:Drone's defence capabilities
on
Robots Go To War
·
· Score: 1
Nope. The two primary abilities of the drones are these: 1) Unmanned air reconnaisance. 2) Cheap, low-tech, "losable" technology.
Due to the combination of 1) and especially 2), there is no reason for defensive capabilities. The army could really care less if they get shot down, since losing tons of the things is cheaper than losing 1 or 2 manned warplanes.
Funny that you mention that, because the truth is, you ARE paying them, indirectly. They're spending money that YOU earned the company to buy pool tables, ping-pong tables, conference TVs (which get used for movies than conferences), etc etc etc.
People who worry about "fun" don't have to worry about the necessities (food, rent, bills, gas for the car). This doesn't mean that their company is at fault for their boredom... it just means that they don't have the social skills to get a life outside of work (and that's no flamebait, its the truth).
I'd rather go to D&B on my own time, with my own money, and the freedom to take whoever I want with me, instead of limiting my choice of games (because I'm not paying, you are), and being forced to play with people who I might like or might not like or might despise (are you really going to try to figure out the entire office's behavior?).
I'd rather buy my own lunch, instead of being "compensated" with food. That money that you just spent on me to buy 4 chicken fingers for $10? I'd prefer it be in the bank, making the company more money, or in my pocket. I can eat healthier, cheaper, and just as tasty with a sack-lunch. Unless you're courting me as a customer, "free lunch" is coming out of my pocket anyway, in the form of your over-paid salary or extraneous company budget.
"Happy people" are people who have the freedom to go out to D&B when they want, or go out to lunch when they want, and this is most easily accomplished by paying them adequately for these extracurricular activities, and then letting them choose when and what they want to do.
I used to agree with you. Then I stopped working for business people and worked for a technically minded person instead. It was great for about a year, but then he ran out of gas. He simply had no long-term planning skills, and he couldn't run a business worth crap. He had a family who was more important (I agree, but I don't claim to be a CEO/CIO), and slacked off at his job by going and playing golf under the guise of "interviewing potential clients".
In retrospect, I understand why business people run businesses. They don't have the skills that you have, and they don't understand the technology that the business runs on, but they know more about the core business models and money and economic limitations than you or I will probably ever know.
So you hate Windows? Big deal, you probably don't know crap about Windows, either. You don't want to learn anything about Windows? Ok, you don't have to learn anything about Windows. In fact, stop bitching about your job and go get another one. Take a good look at all the *nix jobs that are available for admins and devs. There's a TON of them, and they're all desparate for people who know their stuff... like you, supposedly.
Stop expending all your effort on whining, and either learn Windows or go get a *nix job. Personally, if I were you, I would do both.
I don't quite think you understand how big the government is. Although 40-100 billion isn't chicken-feed, its not exactly anything that can't be made up in less than 10 years of budget, and will actually be earned in less than 6 months in a raw format.
Also, your tax rate of 60% only applies to people who buy MANY luxury items, and then turn around and whine about their taxes, even though they have basically told the government, "Yah, we can afford to be taxed to death because we bought all this unnecessary crap this year."
If you live a slightly less exhorbitant life, you pay a lot less money to the feds. Of course, explaining this to the filthy rich is like trying to explain democracy to the Chinese.
engineer (nj-nîr)
n.
One who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering.
One who operates an engine.
One who skillfully or shrewdly manages an enterprise.
If you build stuff, you can label yourself as an engineer. Therefore, if you build software, you get labeled as a Software Engineer, surprise surprise.
Have you looked at the job market lately? Tell all the people hiring "Software Engineers" that they're wrong and that they really want a programmer. They MIGHT take the time to laugh at you before they walk away without saying a word. They don't give a flying fuck what you call it, they're the ones with a job so they'll call it whatever they damn well please.
Wait a second, do I have to drive a choo-choo to be an engineer? Was that your massive brain-fart that went just WAYYYY over my head? Here's an idea... when you say, "And if you don't understand why", and refuse to explain why, I assume that you don't have a clue just like all those HR people who laughed at you when you tried to "correct" them about a title.
If you had half a clue, you'd realize that the majority of people are using descriptive terminology in their job titles to try and whittle out all the people who fall under general terms like "programmer" or "DBA" or "Sysadmin". That crap doesn't work anymore since the industry is far more mature than those 10+ year old labels.
What do I think writing code makes you? Somebody who writes code, that's what. "Programmer" is just another label that you use, just like "Software Engineer" is for other people. They imply a major difference, and when you become a Software Engineer, you will realize that. (I'm not a Software Engineer, but I have enough pudding in my head to understand the concept... and I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night)
Wow, way to sell the guy on a reason to confront his boss! Of course, you leave out any mention that he might have a family to support, which would be an excellent reason to keep his piehole shut and keep collecting his paycheck.
I really don't know what the deal is with this slashdot attitude that "work = self-respect". That's total hogwash. Self-respect comes from yourself, and work is an EXTERNAL part of your life. Letting work anywhere CLOSE to your self-respect means that you don't have any.
Work should be a challenge. If its a challenge, keep on going. That will make you feel great at the end of the day. But nothing about a challenge was mentioned in the post; only quality. If you don't have time to do your own QA, then you're probably already being challenged, even if its only "code monkey" work.
If I were in your shoes, I'd start looking for another job as a Software Engineer, but wouldn't even THINK about leaving your present job until you've got another offer... the current job market is INCREDIBLY thin right now, even for programmers (compared to what it was a year ago).
Agreed. Everybody who did their research and has a vested interest in ICANN's outcome seems to be a board member of ICANN. At-large members get squat for information, and the board chair makes fun of them for not getting involved and coming to the "local" events that could possibly be over 1000 miles away?
Bah! I smell political horse shit from a bunch of really really really smart engineers. They say that technical people make horrible leaders (business or national). So far, ICANN seems to be proving them all right.
Of course, the dude from South Africa and his buddy from Asia seemed like they weren't power-hungry control freaks, so maybe there is still hope.
At ICANN meetings around the globe, Bildt said, "we're seeing the same people from the same countries turning up at different places. That's not quite global involvement. That's global presence, perhaps."
Bzzt! Wrong answer, Mr. Bildt. That's vested interest and a lot of $$$$$. If you make the events less public, then you will limit attendance to the rich. That's what the other two dudes were trying to get across to you, but you were too thick-headed to consider that you might actually be wrong, so you spouted off like a 2nd grader and hoped your leverage and experience would make the other board members nod solemnly and agree with your (off-base) opinion.
Of course, you didn't contemplate that your quote would be posted all over the internet, where your raving emotions have no effect on a semi-intelligent individual. So while your board members might have been swayed for the moment, the rest of us are not.
Additionally, we don't appreciate your elitist attitude, and would prefer that you start marketing your presence to the general public through traditional channels such as TV advertising, Internet sites, and industry-specific written materials before you write-off the interest of the general public in your affairs. Thank you, and good day, sir.
> It also installs a backdoor in the infected host,
> listening on UDP port 5503 or higher.
>
> An attacker could connect to this port via TCP and...
I'm pretty sure he meant to say "...connect to this port via the TCP/IP protocol...", which is still kinda iffy, but sounds better than "...connect to that new fangled internet thingie..."
Come on, you've got at least a TINY bit of nerd in you if ya read/. You understand how your brain can think one thing and your fingers type another. And as a bug alert, it makes sense that you wouldn't proofread it because you want to get the thing out. Yeah, its a lame excuse, but more valied than any other proofreading excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
oooh! ooooh! I wanna change my name to "Hacking Exposed" when I find the Book People! =P
Social Security Number
What do you think its for? So you can collect money when you get older? Don't make me laugh. The government already has plenty of unique ID numbers without the crap that Ellison is spewing.
You guys are a bunch of pansies! Grow some balls and fight your enemies instead of practicing even more isolationist ideas (which won't work, btw).
For real, you guys are talking about some serious end-of-time, mark-of-the-beast type shit. I'm going to canada, because there sure as hell won't be another revolution here in the U.S.A. anytime soon. Give up your freedom to a bunch of politicians? You guys should be shot.
Something about being careful what you wish for comes to mind... Oh yes, it ends with something along the lines of "or you might just get it."
I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree on the IRA vs Brits thing. I haven't heard jack about the IRA in over 2 years, and details before that were widely dispersed and very sketchy. The truth is, the Brits didn't really fight for 30 years against the IRA. They just mucked around like the U.S. did against terrorism for the past 20 years. Also, the IRA wasn't in any economical disaster, which is the reason that you are touting for why the Afghanis are lashing out (which I disagree with anyway, but it discounts your point).
In fact, the mainstream american media is doing a wonderful job of making sure that the American public is swayed from a war of attrition on Afghanistan. They've practically described the Afghan people as lovable teddy-bears or orphans that you'd just LOVE to take home and adopt. Don't worry about the Afghanis, they'll be better off without the Taliban's Islamic beliefs and strict standards.
And do please notice, that I specified the Taliban's version of Islam, and not the entire religion.
Judging by the time of day, and the general attitude of your post, I'm going to have to go out on a limb and guess that you're a resident of the U.K. I would hope that you can remember the painful memories of London's buildings burning from Nazi Germany's attacks. Before you tell us not to pick a gun to succeed, lets take a sharp look at what everybody did in your country and our country when that was going on.
Guns. Lots of them. When Bin Laden is dead/convicted/extradited, it will weaken the organization. Nobody wants to kill Muslims because they're Muslim. They want to kill the fundamentalists who believe in suicide, death, holy wars, and oppression. It just so happens, that in this specific case, they practice a very non-traditional form of Islam, which is very violent and does not teach the Koran as it was meant to be taught. It teaches the portions that it wants to hear, and focuses on those portions as an EXCUSE for its actions.
They will not listen to other Muslims, political leaders, or direct threats. In the rest of the world, this is referred to as "thick-headed" and "idiotic", but for these people, you try to call them "misunderstood" and "in need of help".
Maybe you should ask yourself, to which standards should the Taliban and Al-Qaeda be held? Their standards, or "Western" standards? Does it really matter if they're killing innocent people because some U.S. soldiers were in Saudi Arabia for a year?
That's wonderful. But as much as you'd like to demonize Drunk Driving, at least 80% of those deaths are accidental. Not premeditated murder.
Oh, you can argue about "accountability for their actions" and their utter lack of responsibility in driving while under the influence, but when it all comes down to it, they are all very sorrowful and remorseful and usually wish that they had never earned their license. Did the terrorists (or those who are defending their actions) feel that type of remorse?
Talk about perspective all you want, but don't forget meditation in your analysis.
The Germans weren't religious zealots who WANTED to die. The Muslim Afghanis are exactly that. They might like westernization AFTER the fact, but they'll kill you while you're trying to build the "necessities" because they realize that they aren't really all that necessary.
Anyway when we talked about the sanctions, he said that Iraq started building up its infrastructure and along with that started doing all kinds of research, both good and bad. The bad research was of course research into biological weapons of mass destruction. That "bad research" and the invasion of Kuwait are the causes of the sanctions according to him. This is also my view.
Actually though he came out with a lot of conspiracy theories, he said that maybe the CIA was behind the terrorist activity in the states and other stuff like that. I find that a very far-fetched and unreasonable idea. I told him that in my opinion that's not possible. He also said that he suspected CIA manipulation with the Kuwait invasion. I told him that I had heard the same rumors, but that in the end Saddam was responsible for his decisions (and that anyway I don't know that he wasn't manipulated, but I don't believe he was).
This guy doesn't represent the average Iraqi. He doesn't hate Americans either, although I don't think he in general likes our government very much. If we would have had more time to talk about the sanctions and why the Iraqi people were suffering (i.e. is it Saddam's fault or our fault), then I would have had something more interesting to write about.
__________________________________________
You told us neither one, and also wove your opinion and assumptions into what he said, and never used a direct quote or paraphrase.
Anyway I can't remember any exact words he said, therefore you get no nice quotes. Are you trying to say I don't tell a good story? Gee I'm really sorry.
That part I bolded is exactly what I was looking for in the original post. I agree with your opinion 100% in that context. And I wish there was a way to get rid of the "Israel did it to get us to fight with them" "The CIA is so shadowy, they kill their own citizens to start wars" "USA == DEVIL DEVIL DEVIL!" crap that floats around, but you really can't stop people's thoughts. And in the case of the Iraqi public, you can't really tell them "our side" because Saddam won't let us.
Well, you definitely did your part for education and humanitarianism. Too bad most of them and most of us never see each other. Too bad most of them forsake and/or are withheld from technology due to their fanatical beliefs (in both cases, forsaking and being withheld).
I believe communication is the key to understanding, but I can't very easily fly over to Iraq unless I'm willing to be called Satan incarnate. You see, besides "communication = understanding" I also believe that individuals are exceptionally smart, and mobs are incredibly stupid.
The most racist person in the world will learn to love the people they hate in a 1 on 1 debate/discussion/chat, but put 2 racists there, and your chances are much worse. Put 2 "minorities" there, and your chances are equally worse. It gets worse as you add more people.
Anyway, you have to remember 6000 innocent civilians were killed, and compare apples to apples. When we kill civilians, we aim for military installations and military support and governemnt intelligence. They say, "Stop killing our civilians" and we reply, "Stop using your civilians as human shields to fight a political battle in the U.N."
Now explain to me, what military target were they aiming for 2 weeks ago? Answer: There aren't any good military targets in NYC. They weren't worried about hitting military targets though. Ask all the arabs who will tell people, "Maybe now the U.S. will see how bad it is for their people to die." Well no shit, we already knew that. But that is the mind-set that the terrorists had. "We will show them how it hurts when civilians are killed. They will change their foreign policies. We will lift the opporessors away from [iraq/syria/PLO/taliban] and our people will stop dying!"
Sorry, that won't cut it in the U.S. We won't stand for it. They ignore everything we say they need to do for us to leave and/or stop interfering with their business. The especially violated the number 1 rule, which states: "Don't even THINK of attacking our home soil, or there will be hell to pay." All political maneuvering aside, it comes down to that, and anything less than "hell to pay" will be unacceptable for the states and organizations that sponsored this attack.
Wrong answer. American law and due process and "guilty" or "not guilty" only applies to internal government. We're not stupid enough to keep trying that crap with the world forever... that idea is what screwed us in Viet Nam.
Besides the fact that you don't have a clue as to what the U.S. is going to do in this case, and the clue that your morals don't count in the part of the world that we are going, and the clue that none of that crap you mentioned (Nam/Laos/Korea/Iraq) had anything to do with an attack on U.S. soil, I'd say you're pretty much in need of a clue.
If you want terrorists to count as your "peers", then go on over there, preach about all the benefits of democracy and western ideas, give them all the human aid that red cross will let you carry, show them that "gosh darnit, you're better than that!" Just make sure you're dealing with the refugees (and the docile refugees, at that), and not the Taliban/Fundamentalists.
Btw, "the afghanis" are not being attacked. "The Terrorists and those who harbor them" are being attacked. This translates to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in this specific case. Save your "stop fighting before I end up dead, too!" speech until we actually start shooting.
Do yourself a favor... Count from 1 to 6000. Don't go too fast, that's one human life you're counting there! See how long it takes you to count from 1 to 6000. With each number you count, imagine an innocent civilian dying an incredibly violent death. CIVILIAN, not somebody who's job is to die fighting for the government, but somebody who had no control over that action, and paid the price for somebody's hatred.
Why didn't anybody get up-in-arms about the U.S.S. Cole? Well, those 17 sailors are soldiers, for one thing. As tragic as 17 deaths is on a humanitarian scale, its what they get paid for doing. Not to mention, I can count to 17 in about 20 seconds, not 2 HOURS! And that's counting pretty damn fast. If you want each number to represent a human life, and the implications that it entails, it will probably take you closer to 8 hours.
Now imagine your children/spouse/parents/friends/relatives taking the spot of those who died, and put yourself in the place of the grieving families right now. You really CAN'T, but you can try anyway. Now try to put yourself in the place of those families 1 year from now, and figure out how many of them want justice for their loved ones' deaths.
I don't believe in "sins of the father" being passed down, and that type of nonsense, but take a real wide view of the people who live in Afghanistan. You can't beat them by educating them like the Greeks did to beat their enemies. You can't conquer them with an iron-fist and religious ethics like the Roman Catholic Empire used. You can't beat them with a war of attrition like the World Wars. We're certainly giving anybody who wants to leave the country a fair chance, and they're eating it up. The ones who stay WANT to live dirt-poor in the middle of a war, and they think that if they're LUCKY, they will become a martyr, thus gaining eternal life and peace and riches in the next life.
You can't convince somebody with that mindset to "give democracy a chance". It will only re-affirm that you are one of Satan's conspirators, and that they really SHOULD be fighting you to stand up for their beliefs. Foreign aid goes above what those fundamentalists accept, and that's a very major part of why they hate America, regardless of what the American Muslim leaders say. Its a different religion over there, because its all that they've got. American Muslims are like American Jews or American Protestants or American Catholics or American Taoists... the vast majority of them, including the leaders, are American first, and [religion of choice] second. The Afghani are all Muslim first, Afghani second.
That's something that "Bubba" will never understand, because, to be completely blunt, his religion is "USA".
Learn more about religion if you want to learn more about Afghanistan.
The Gulf War? "4th largest land army"
We had more casualties due to "friendly fire" than Iraqi weapons. This might sound bad, until you consider that we also had more casualties due to "normal civilian-styled accidental deaths and Acts of God" than "friendly fire".
For what it's worth, we didn't beat Iraq with a war of attrition either. We used techniques that devastate a large ground army, and weaken them, and desupply them, and cut off their air-support, and then just go sweep up the remains.
We'll do the same thing in Afghanistan. Not the same tactics, but the same strategy. First we'll take away their money supply. Then we'll intercept any high-tech and low-tech signals and analyze the hell out of them. Then we'll use satellites, spy-planes, and robots to map the "hot spots" of the area. Then we'll start bombing the hot spots for a month or three. Then we'll insert Special Ops forces into their main support routes, and cut off their food and physical supplies. (don't kid yourself, this won't be Viet Nam in their opinion. "innocent people" don't show up at temporary camoflage tents in the asscrack of nowhere and ask for food and shelter.)
By the time we're through with Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban... we'll be all warmed up and ready for the next guilty state who sponsored terrorism in the recent past. No, I won't make those kind of guesses... I'm not THAT stupid. =)
"Wow, you talked to real live Iraqi citizen? Ya hear that, Bubba? David here done talked to one of them Iraqi people, and they even done KNOWN he was from the U.S.A., God bless its soul. And he didn't get blown up, neither!"
All satire aside, you failed to mention anything that this Iraqi told you about "their side" that most of the educated Americans already understand. We understand why Iraqi's blame us, and quite frankly, we live with it. The problem is that Saddam controls the entire country, including all media, and just sits up there in his comfy palace and preaches about the American pigs and places all the blame at our feet.
Something that would have been much more educational and inspiring would have been an account of you trying to explain the U.S. perspective to the Iraqi, and hearing his response. If he responded that he understood our side, as you seem to understand his, then that gives hope to Americans and Iraqis that peace will come. Of course, if he responded by nodding thoughtfully while you talked, and then dismissed everything that you said and reiterated the Iraqi people's beliefs... well, that would sorta be what I expect.
You told us neither one, and also wove your opinion and assumptions into what he said, and never used a direct quote or paraphrase. At least now we know you're a pacifist and don't understand that the Secretary of State can do nothing in a war except influence the top-level decisions. There's no such thing as "be[ing] allowed to take the lead..." in a reaction. That would be Rumsfeld's job. Powell can influence Bush, who is supposedly leading this, but is really only directing Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld really only directs the lower levels, and THEY execute actions according to their best plans, which all the higher guys will be signing off on pretty damn fast this time.
Agreed. And its not like other people don't understand this concept. Afghan Refugees, anybody? Why are they leaving? Because they understand "collateral damage" just as much as the U.S. Military. The primary difference is that there will be less civilian deaths in Afghanistan than there were in Iraq, because at least the Taliban doesn't control the entire country, and so they can't put down the same level of "iron fist" government that Saddam did back in Iraq. This allows the civilians to do whatever they want, and contrary to what the Soviet says, they're all leaving.
Yes, but that's why they specifically use "low tech", which can be lost to the enemy. If they need to place "high tech" parts on the plane that they do not wish to lose to the enemy, they will surely use auto-destruct techniques over any defensive capabilities, since there is no human life at stake, and auto-destruct is significantly cheaper.
Expensive? yes. As expensive as the cost of a single mission for a single warplane (tactical or spy)? no. These things are VERY low-tech compared to standard warplanes, but they do their specific job very well. Certainly much better than manned chopper crews trying to do visual recon.
Nope. The two primary abilities of the drones are these: 1) Unmanned air reconnaisance. 2) Cheap, low-tech, "losable" technology.
Due to the combination of 1) and especially 2), there is no reason for defensive capabilities. The army could really care less if they get shot down, since losing tons of the things is cheaper than losing 1 or 2 manned warplanes.
Funny that you mention that, because the truth is, you ARE paying them, indirectly. They're spending money that YOU earned the company to buy pool tables, ping-pong tables, conference TVs (which get used for movies than conferences), etc etc etc.
People who worry about "fun" don't have to worry about the necessities (food, rent, bills, gas for the car). This doesn't mean that their company is at fault for their boredom... it just means that they don't have the social skills to get a life outside of work (and that's no flamebait, its the truth).
I'd rather go to D&B on my own time, with my own money, and the freedom to take whoever I want with me, instead of limiting my choice of games (because I'm not paying, you are), and being forced to play with people who I might like or might not like or might despise (are you really going to try to figure out the entire office's behavior?).
I'd rather buy my own lunch, instead of being "compensated" with food. That money that you just spent on me to buy 4 chicken fingers for $10? I'd prefer it be in the bank, making the company more money, or in my pocket. I can eat healthier, cheaper, and just as tasty with a sack-lunch. Unless you're courting me as a customer, "free lunch" is coming out of my pocket anyway, in the form of your over-paid salary or extraneous company budget.
"Happy people" are people who have the freedom to go out to D&B when they want, or go out to lunch when they want, and this is most easily accomplished by paying them adequately for these extracurricular activities, and then letting them choose when and what they want to do.
I used to agree with you. Then I stopped working for business people and worked for a technically minded person instead. It was great for about a year, but then he ran out of gas. He simply had no long-term planning skills, and he couldn't run a business worth crap. He had a family who was more important (I agree, but I don't claim to be a CEO/CIO), and slacked off at his job by going and playing golf under the guise of "interviewing potential clients".
In retrospect, I understand why business people run businesses. They don't have the skills that you have, and they don't understand the technology that the business runs on, but they know more about the core business models and money and economic limitations than you or I will probably ever know.
So you hate Windows? Big deal, you probably don't know crap about Windows, either. You don't want to learn anything about Windows? Ok, you don't have to learn anything about Windows. In fact, stop bitching about your job and go get another one. Take a good look at all the *nix jobs that are available for admins and devs. There's a TON of them, and they're all desparate for people who know their stuff... like you, supposedly.
Stop expending all your effort on whining, and either learn Windows or go get a *nix job. Personally, if I were you, I would do both.
I don't quite think you understand how big the government is. Although 40-100 billion isn't chicken-feed, its not exactly anything that can't be made up in less than 10 years of budget, and will actually be earned in less than 6 months in a raw format.
Also, your tax rate of 60% only applies to people who buy MANY luxury items, and then turn around and whine about their taxes, even though they have basically told the government, "Yah, we can afford to be taxed to death because we bought all this unnecessary crap this year."
If you live a slightly less exhorbitant life, you pay a lot less money to the feds. Of course, explaining this to the filthy rich is like trying to explain democracy to the Chinese.
engineer (nj-nîr)
n.
One who is trained or professionally engaged in a branch of engineering.
One who operates an engine.
One who skillfully or shrewdly manages an enterprise.
If you build stuff, you can label yourself as an engineer. Therefore, if you build software, you get labeled as a Software Engineer, surprise surprise.
Have you looked at the job market lately? Tell all the people hiring "Software Engineers" that they're wrong and that they really want a programmer. They MIGHT take the time to laugh at you before they walk away without saying a word. They don't give a flying fuck what you call it, they're the ones with a job so they'll call it whatever they damn well please.
Wait a second, do I have to drive a choo-choo to be an engineer? Was that your massive brain-fart that went just WAYYYY over my head? Here's an idea... when you say, "And if you don't understand why", and refuse to explain why, I assume that you don't have a clue just like all those HR people who laughed at you when you tried to "correct" them about a title.
If you had half a clue, you'd realize that the majority of people are using descriptive terminology in their job titles to try and whittle out all the people who fall under general terms like "programmer" or "DBA" or "Sysadmin". That crap doesn't work anymore since the industry is far more mature than those 10+ year old labels.
What do I think writing code makes you? Somebody who writes code, that's what. "Programmer" is just another label that you use, just like "Software Engineer" is for other people. They imply a major difference, and when you become a Software Engineer, you will realize that. (I'm not a Software Engineer, but I have enough pudding in my head to understand the concept... and I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night)
Wow, way to sell the guy on a reason to confront his boss! Of course, you leave out any mention that he might have a family to support, which would be an excellent reason to keep his piehole shut and keep collecting his paycheck.
I really don't know what the deal is with this slashdot attitude that "work = self-respect". That's total hogwash. Self-respect comes from yourself, and work is an EXTERNAL part of your life. Letting work anywhere CLOSE to your self-respect means that you don't have any.
Work should be a challenge. If its a challenge, keep on going. That will make you feel great at the end of the day. But nothing about a challenge was mentioned in the post; only quality. If you don't have time to do your own QA, then you're probably already being challenged, even if its only "code monkey" work.
If I were in your shoes, I'd start looking for another job as a Software Engineer, but wouldn't even THINK about leaving your present job until you've got another offer... the current job market is INCREDIBLY thin right now, even for programmers (compared to what it was a year ago).
Agreed. Everybody who did their research and has a vested interest in ICANN's outcome seems to be a board member of ICANN. At-large members get squat for information, and the board chair makes fun of them for not getting involved and coming to the "local" events that could possibly be over 1000 miles away?
Bah! I smell political horse shit from a bunch of really really really smart engineers. They say that technical people make horrible leaders (business or national). So far, ICANN seems to be proving them all right.
Of course, the dude from South Africa and his buddy from Asia seemed like they weren't power-hungry control freaks, so maybe there is still hope.
At ICANN meetings around the globe, Bildt said, "we're seeing the same people from the same countries turning up at different places. That's not quite global involvement. That's global presence, perhaps."
Bzzt! Wrong answer, Mr. Bildt. That's vested interest and a lot of $$$$$. If you make the events less public, then you will limit attendance to the rich. That's what the other two dudes were trying to get across to you, but you were too thick-headed to consider that you might actually be wrong, so you spouted off like a 2nd grader and hoped your leverage and experience would make the other board members nod solemnly and agree with your (off-base) opinion.
Of course, you didn't contemplate that your quote would be posted all over the internet, where your raving emotions have no effect on a semi-intelligent individual. So while your board members might have been swayed for the moment, the rest of us are not.
Additionally, we don't appreciate your elitist attitude, and would prefer that you start marketing your presence to the general public through traditional channels such as TV advertising, Internet sites, and industry-specific written materials before you write-off the interest of the general public in your affairs. Thank you, and good day, sir.
> It also installs a backdoor in the infected host,
...
/. You understand how your brain can think one thing and your fingers type another. And as a bug alert, it makes sense that you wouldn't proofread it because you want to get the thing out. Yeah, its a lame excuse, but more valied than any other proofreading excuse.
> listening on UDP port 5503 or higher.
>
> An attacker could connect to this port via TCP and
I'm pretty sure he meant to say "...connect to this port via the TCP/IP protocol...", which is still kinda iffy, but sounds better than "...connect to that new fangled internet thingie..."
Come on, you've got at least a TINY bit of nerd in you if ya read
Because Sci-Fi isn't doing so hot.