Re:So let me get this straight...
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 2, Informative
By not providing anyone with the information needed to take the offending code out, they are effectively limiting what kind of damages they can seek - they haven't proven, or even provided any kind of information to back up their claims, that Linux contains stolen code. Even if SCO proves to be correct, I doubt any court would let them go after anyone that keeps using Linux at the moment, because SCO has done nothing to give these people an opportunity to remove just the offending code. Similarly, I doubt any court would consider that IBM could be held liable for damages for use of SCO proprietary code that they could have prevented had SCO informed people which specific parts of Linux contain stolen code so the code could be replaced.
SCO is essentially saying "you stole something from my house when you came to visit the other day, but I won't tell you what you stole so you can give it back to me, because it will affect my case against you for burglary". Which is bullshit. The only excuse is to spread FUD about the legality of using Linux without a license from SCO. The code they claim has been copied will become public knowledge either during or immediately after the court case.
Even if SCO manages to lure the judge into sealing the evidence (which would be extraordinary, seeing as the code is already out in the open, and giving out information about which code is theirs would be the only way for people to avoid violating their rights), IBM will still need to be able to see it, and will still be able to rip the code out of Linux and release a "clean" version, people will go from there.
So there is NO reason for them to withhold at the very least the information about which specific files they believe contain their code except to try to blackmail people into paying for their licenses, which, again, is something I don't exactly think will help their case.
That's a classic sales 101 mistake: NEVER, EVER ask a question if the answer might be no. When possible it is preferrable to stick to statements. Don't ask for value judgements from the customer, or the result often end up just like you describe.
Instead of asking if you wanted hot crispy fries, it might have been better to say "Our fries are really hot and crispy today. Would you like some?". It's instantly making it harder for the customer to say no, because if they got cold and soggy fries last time, they've already disarmed you by saying that TODAY their fries ARE hot and crispy, and people like to agree with if you state something and they don't know for sure you're wrong.
It's a bit long though, and still open you up to value judgements from repeat customers who may have been disappointed several times. Sometimes you MUST push the value of a product - if the product isn't well known to the customer you need to explain to them why the product is worth it. But fries is a well known product for practically all consumers. So "Would you like fries with that?" might be better, unless you really have exceptional quality fries and want to try to make sure the customers realize that (and you aren't worried that they might disagree).
Taking it to the extreme, just saying "fries with that?" might possibly work even better, as you're turning it almost into a statement. You're not presenting it as a decision, but as a request for confirmation that, yes, indeed, you do want fries with that as expected of a good consumer like you.
Sales is 99% psychology and leading the customer to want to agree with you - someone who is ready to buy something is likely fully prepared to buy a little bit more if you make it "hard enough" psychologically to say no ("ooh, I have to think and make a decision, and they'll think I'm cheap if I say no - better just agree with what the nice man is saying").
If you're good, you'll sell a shitload, and even get people starting to make up ridiculous excuses for why they can't buy FooBars from you today, because they want your approval not to agree with you.
The problem is that pushing additional things WORK. Time and time again some company achieve ridiculous revenue increases by doing this. The thing is, it doesn't cost them anything, which mean even a very small percent of people saying yes is a significant bonus. When you're working with razor thin margins, techniques like this can be the difference between a loser and a highly profitable winner in the marketplace if you get it right.
No, it won't spell the end of telemarketing. These kind of provisions have been required by law for YEARS both in various US states and in lots of countries throughout the world, and yes, people have been prosecuted, but telemarketing still remains viable.
In fact, in some cases it may reduce costs for telemarketing companies, because the people that tend to sign up for these "do not call" lists are the people who REALLY dislike the calls and that would just waste the time of the telemarketers anyway. So instead of mutual timewasting the telemarketers can call someone else who is more likely to buy instead.
I don't think you're getting the point. It isn't similar to a Yahoo user group in that in any group, presumable all members are members of the same group. This is more like a buddy list that dynamically changes based on data you enter. Location needed be of interest to you, but the idea is still interesting - based on some criteria it finds people who might be worth talking to. It's not a group - the other people don't know about eachother unless they happen to be close matches to eachother as well.
The thing is, instead of actively looking for groups that match your current criteria, this thing looks for you.
If your criteria are long term static - you always want to find people living in area X, with interests A,B,C, then a group would serve the same purpose. If your criteria changes quickly - you're out travelling, for instance, and want to find people where you are right this moment and might stay for a day or two, finding groups that match might be a real hassle. Especially if you're criteria are very specific.
Let's say you're in city Foo, and want to find other people of nationality Bar with an interest for a certain type of exotic cuisine, because you fancy to share a meal with someone who speak the same language as you for a change. How likely are you to find a group that matches?
It might be a cool thing. I don't know my neighbours, because I don't have time to befriend everyone around me, when most of them are highly likely not to share any of my interests. With something like this you might find a lot of people with shared interests wherever you are, without having to spend time looking for them.
Entering a location is a hassle if you keep moving around, though. That said, you can buy databases of detailed geographical information about IPs quite cheaply from a number of sources. It will still be a neccesity though, considering large ISPs that use dynamically assigned IPs over huge geographic areas, or even static addresses.
ADSL providers would be one - My ADSL connection is PPP over ATM, and my IP address belongs to my ISP somewhere in London. I just moved halfway across town, and moved my IP address with me. Any comprehensive databases of IP to location are based on the location of the ISP, updated through whois entries for the IP blocks, and while in my case it would likely know that I'm in London, it would likely be a location far away from either of the two places in London I've had my ADSL.
I guess a combination would be great, and they could use it to build a database of locations as well. If you can set up a number of profiles, and for each of them either explicitly state the location or say that you want it detected, but it will be within this specific region (which could be the world if you're out travelling, or a specific city). Then you could give it specific information for a few places you are often, and give it a generic "I'm somewhere in Foo city, if you can give a better estimate please try" otherwise.
Ah, yes. What we need is an Orwellian superstate with the power to 'license' how many children we'll have. Who gets to decide? No doubt the people you personally approve of to make the decisions, eh?
No, what is needed is for the world to take poverty seriously. History shows that birthrates in a society drops dramatically as education is improved and society becomes wealthier. Further, immigration patterns in Europe shows that this is a pattern that is stronger than cultural differences - second and third generation of people from immigrant families mostly adapt to the birth rate patterns of the country they have moved to, regardless of cultural differences.
That said, China has had considerable success with it's one child policy. Yes, there are problems with it, but China would be in a shitload more problems if they hadn't instituted the policy. As it is, by limiting the number of children, usually to one per couple (there are exceptions), some estimate that China has reduced the number of births since the policy was instituted in 1979 by 250 million, and that China's birth rate is now 1.8, meaning they will actually likely start to see a decline in population in a decade or two if the policy is kept as is.
Yes, it is draconian, and yes it does cause human suffering. But China is struggling to feed it's current population - close to 250 million more people would have cause immense human suffering as well. Not to mention that on the longer term a continued growth rate like that would put devastating pressures on world resources.
Tell that to the Chinese. China has very little arable land, and continuously battles famines when crops aren't good enough. China certainly need more farm land.
And, yes, there is a need for it to be in particular places, and in particular countries. Transport is expensive, and SLOW (when you suddenly need to move in crisis help for tens of million of people because a flood has destroyed the crops, for instance), and imports of a large part of your food has a devastating effect on your trade balance and tend to require foreign currency. Lack of own food production is also a massive military weakness.
Fact is China is struggling to feed it's population, and frequently failing with it's current amount of farm land, for the above reasons. I'm not saying the Three Gorges project is good, just that trying to pretend that China doesn't have any use for more farmland show a lack of knowledge about the situation in China.
It can also be tax heaven. For people working in the UK and considering working for a foreign company, or for that matter even doing consultancy work in the UK, I would recommend looking into offshore Employee Benefit Trusts, and consultancies that can help you with them. There's at least one Isle of Man based one that can handle all of it for you for a small percentage of income (unfortunately can't remember the name).
Essentially the deal is that the UK tax system is heavily rigged towards rich people (aren't they all, but the UK more than most), but Employee Benefit Trusts can often be utilized by mere mortals too.
If you are employed by an offshore company, and that company pay you a salary, you still have to pay normal income tax. However, nothing forces the company to pay you everything as salary. Instead, they can pay you a "low" salary (low for the IT sector) of up to about £20k-£25k a year, which will be taxed at the lower tax bands, and pay an amount into an employee benefit trust every three months or so.
Technically the trustee is independently deciding what the money should go to - that is a requirement for trusts to be able to pay out to UK residents in a tax efficient manner. However the company will recommend that the money be paid to the employee (you) in a tax efficient manner. Since the trustee is legally bound to act in the beneficiarys best interest, it would be almost unprecented for the trustee not to do so.
The net result can be that with proper planning you end up paying 15-20% income tax at most, even with salaries 4-5 times the UK national average, or more.
It could in theory be used if you're working full time for a UK company too, but I doubt they would be ready to take the hassle, as you would need to be employed by some offshore shell company for it to work.
It is a big deal, because there are no obvious technical reasons for them to do so. Why now? The IP is outdated. The UNIX trademark is controlled by the Open Group and not SCO. And Microsoft already have for years have a contract with SCO restricting Microsofts right to enter the Unix market.
Furthermore, Microsoft have had a POSIX compatibility layer for NT, and have shown in the past (Winsock is a prime example) that they don't mind borrowing code from the BSD's.
So I ask again: Why?
There seem to be no technical or business benefits from Microsoft in licensing anything from SCO except in bolstering SCOs FUD campaign against Linux by making their claims seem more credible (the "hey, Microsoft paid up a few million for a license, so there must be something in it" effect).
As long as there is no credible reasons presented for why they should pay ridiculous amounts of money to license code they have no apparent use for, it is completely justified to drag out theories as to what it really was for.
Everyone else in the business does it, including SCO and Microsoft, so why shouldn't Perens be allowed to counter with the same kind of unsubstantiated theories?
Just in terms of population: Europe's population after WWII was twice the size of America's. Today, it is 50 million more. By 2050, America's will be bigger.
Uhm. Europe's population is above 700 million. If you are talking about EU's population, then you might be true, except of course that the EU is rapidly expanding the number of countries, and so will close in on 500 million people after the next round of new member states.
Yeah, just like the allies went to war with Hitler because they were "jealous" of him. Get out of the playground politics and into the real world pal!
No, I don't equate Bush with Hitler, but I am making the point that just because you disagree with the schoolyard bully doesn't imply that you are "jealous" of their strength.
Even more importantly, counteracting the US isn't about counteracting Bush, but about the next US government, and the one after, and the one after that. The US has shown that it is willing to ignore international law to protect it's interests. Nobody should feel safe that in 10-15-20-50 years the US won't have an even more hawkish government and that "protecting US interests" won't mean coming after them.
Our "glorious" politicians had to break the f... constitution to send the troops (war must be declared by the Sejm - it wasn't), but noone brings this up now.
This is much like the US. What you have to realise is that declaring war in the formal sense and waging war (sending troops) is very different. Few states bother to declare war anymore. The US hasn't declared war on anyone since World War II.
It's a nice little loophole that governments are using to get away with military aggression without the humiliation of large opposition in parliaments.
In most countries where this is the case (such as the US), the main limitation of not declaring war is typically the inability to use certain laws against foreign elements in their country (to use internment camps, for intstance) but this is generally not an issue when a war is being fought on someone elses territory against a vastly inferior adversary.
And of course there's the well publicized case of Turkey's "support" being bought with extensive US aid after prolonged haggling and massive public opposition.
Seems like you didn't have much history class either. EU originated as the coal and steel trade union between Germany and France as a way or tieing the countries interests together in the aftermath of World War II to prevent either from attacking the other again. It evolved into EEC as a way to tie other European nations even tighter together by integrating trade and economy.
Whether or not Europe would be any better is open for debate, but Europe certainly seems to have learned from it's history, contrary to the US, who keeps on invading, overthrowing regimes and waging war with wild abandon just as it has for most of it's history.
I agree that power is the problem. However in this case the powers of government aren't expanded. Adding another GPS like system limit government powers because neither the US nor European governments will now be able to limit access to a positioning system unilaterally. Instead of the US being able to withhold this service from anyone they please, they would now have to cooperate with ESA which has enough problems getting it's member countries to cooperate internally if they want to be able to prevent an adversary from getting positioning services.
It dramatically REDUCES the power any individual government has to arbitrarily control access to positioning services.
And some of the Iraqis attending anti war demonstrations in London and elsewhere, several of whom had been forced to flee Saddams regime even openly said what they thought about the US invasion: Imperialist agression.
Trying to gauge popular sentiment by listenting to a few individuals, whether for or against the war, will teach you nothing than that there are individual that agree with either side.
As for defending every fucking dicator, the exact same argument can be applied with greater strength to the US. Without US support, half of them wouldn't have gotten power in the first place, or certainly would have been unable to hold on to power for as long as they've done.
Being critical of war does not equate to supporting the current rule somewhere. It equates to being concerned with the loss of life in a war, and of whether the US, with it's history of installing dictators and oppressive puppet regimes worldwide has any moral right to interfere in the name of "liberating" anyone.
When CIA helped "liberate" Chile from It's democratically elected president, it resulted in 13 years of violent military dictatorship. When the CIA helped "liberate" Indonesia from it's democratically elected government, it resulted in 30+ years of military dicatatorship AND the genocide of more than half a million east timorese.
In Iran, US support for the regime of the Shah is one of the primary reason the US is so hated there now, after the people finally overthrew him.
And lets not forget how friendly the US was to Saddam as long as he was more concerned with being anti-Iran than being a threat to US oil interests.
In Afghanistan, US support for "liberating" the country from Soviet influence led to one of the most oppressive muslim states in history.
In Angola, US support for the UNITA rebels against the elected MPLA run government resulted in one of the bloodiest and longest civil wars Africa has seen. Similarly in Mocambique.
Support for contras in Nicaragua culminated with mining Nicaraguan ports, in a move that was declared illegal by international courts and saw the US being fined billions (which never were paid) because the ports in question were in use for civilian traffic.
I'm certainly not claiming that European governments have clean hands. On the contrary. However, the above are some of the reasons why so many people don't trust the US to take decisions on how to "liberate" people, and why so many people see governments getting involved in overthrowing regimes by using military force as bad in almost any case. Who gets to decide which regimes are bad enough to attack?
And if this is about liberation, why is nothing being done about for instance Mugabe, as you mentioned (and this applies both to the US and Europe, as well as African leaders), instead of spending huge efforts on Iraq?
The saddest part in the case of Mugabe, is that it could be done without firing a single bullet: Put pressure on South Africa to cut water and electricity, and Mugabe will give in in days - Zimbabwe is totally dependent on water and electricity supplies via South Africa, and has been since the days of colonial rule.
Funnily enough, the metric system has been the official basis for defining units in the US since 1893, so this affects the US as well - in the US an inch is officially defined by it's length in metric units, for instance.
This is common in many poor countries. Check the price of copper, and check the average salary in some of these countries... For many, "recycling" phone cable is a much better source of income than any legal work they would have a chance of getting.
Uhm. One percent of a billion is 10 million. There are way more people than that who have cellphones in the UK alone. Scandinavia, with a population of roughly 25 million has more than 20 million cellphones.
I agree with your point, though, that the country is large enough that a very low cellphone penetration still make up a sizable number, but the EU is close to a population of 400 million, and as far as I know all member states have a cell phone penetration of more than 50%, some well above 80%.
But regarding price, you are right. That is why cell phone penetration is Africa has increased so rapidly. It's massively cheaper to build out a wireless network than a wired network - the only reason we're being charged more for wireless in Europe and the US is that the landline network is already there, and has been written off decades ago.
In Nigeria, on the other hand, where a population of 120 million have been sharing around 500.000 landlines, and installing more lines typically means extending the network, it took only 6 months before more people had cellphones than landlines because it is much easier to get a cellphone than to get a landline installed.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO is essentially saying "you stole something from my house when you came to visit the other day, but I won't tell you what you stole so you can give it back to me, because it will affect my case against you for burglary". Which is bullshit. The only excuse is to spread FUD about the legality of using Linux without a license from SCO. The code they claim has been copied will become public knowledge either during or immediately after the court case.
Even if SCO manages to lure the judge into sealing the evidence (which would be extraordinary, seeing as the code is already out in the open, and giving out information about which code is theirs would be the only way for people to avoid violating their rights), IBM will still need to be able to see it, and will still be able to rip the code out of Linux and release a "clean" version, people will go from there.
So there is NO reason for them to withhold at the very least the information about which specific files they believe contain their code except to try to blackmail people into paying for their licenses, which, again, is something I don't exactly think will help their case.
Instead of asking if you wanted hot crispy fries, it might have been better to say "Our fries are really hot and crispy today. Would you like some?". It's instantly making it harder for the customer to say no, because if they got cold and soggy fries last time, they've already disarmed you by saying that TODAY their fries ARE hot and crispy, and people like to agree with if you state something and they don't know for sure you're wrong.
It's a bit long though, and still open you up to value judgements from repeat customers who may have been disappointed several times. Sometimes you MUST push the value of a product - if the product isn't well known to the customer you need to explain to them why the product is worth it. But fries is a well known product for practically all consumers. So "Would you like fries with that?" might be better, unless you really have exceptional quality fries and want to try to make sure the customers realize that (and you aren't worried that they might disagree).
Taking it to the extreme, just saying "fries with that?" might possibly work even better, as you're turning it almost into a statement. You're not presenting it as a decision, but as a request for confirmation that, yes, indeed, you do want fries with that as expected of a good consumer like you.
Sales is 99% psychology and leading the customer to want to agree with you - someone who is ready to buy something is likely fully prepared to buy a little bit more if you make it "hard enough" psychologically to say no ("ooh, I have to think and make a decision, and they'll think I'm cheap if I say no - better just agree with what the nice man is saying").
If you're good, you'll sell a shitload, and even get people starting to make up ridiculous excuses for why they can't buy FooBars from you today, because they want your approval not to agree with you.
People are sheep :)
The problem is that pushing additional things WORK. Time and time again some company achieve ridiculous revenue increases by doing this. The thing is, it doesn't cost them anything, which mean even a very small percent of people saying yes is a significant bonus. When you're working with razor thin margins, techniques like this can be the difference between a loser and a highly profitable winner in the marketplace if you get it right.
In fact, in some cases it may reduce costs for telemarketing companies, because the people that tend to sign up for these "do not call" lists are the people who REALLY dislike the calls and that would just waste the time of the telemarketers anyway. So instead of mutual timewasting the telemarketers can call someone else who is more likely to buy instead.
The thing is, instead of actively looking for groups that match your current criteria, this thing looks for you.
If your criteria are long term static - you always want to find people living in area X, with interests A,B,C, then a group would serve the same purpose. If your criteria changes quickly - you're out travelling, for instance, and want to find people where you are right this moment and might stay for a day or two, finding groups that match might be a real hassle. Especially if you're criteria are very specific.
Let's say you're in city Foo, and want to find other people of nationality Bar with an interest for a certain type of exotic cuisine, because you fancy to share a meal with someone who speak the same language as you for a change. How likely are you to find a group that matches?
It might be a cool thing. I don't know my neighbours, because I don't have time to befriend everyone around me, when most of them are highly likely not to share any of my interests. With something like this you might find a lot of people with shared interests wherever you are, without having to spend time looking for them.
ADSL providers would be one - My ADSL connection is PPP over ATM, and my IP address belongs to my ISP somewhere in London. I just moved halfway across town, and moved my IP address with me. Any comprehensive databases of IP to location are based on the location of the ISP, updated through whois entries for the IP blocks, and while in my case it would likely know that I'm in London, it would likely be a location far away from either of the two places in London I've had my ADSL.
I guess a combination would be great, and they could use it to build a database of locations as well. If you can set up a number of profiles, and for each of them either explicitly state the location or say that you want it detected, but it will be within this specific region (which could be the world if you're out travelling, or a specific city). Then you could give it specific information for a few places you are often, and give it a generic "I'm somewhere in Foo city, if you can give a better estimate please try" otherwise.
No, what is needed is for the world to take poverty seriously. History shows that birthrates in a society drops dramatically as education is improved and society becomes wealthier. Further, immigration patterns in Europe shows that this is a pattern that is stronger than cultural differences - second and third generation of people from immigrant families mostly adapt to the birth rate patterns of the country they have moved to, regardless of cultural differences.
That said, China has had considerable success with it's one child policy. Yes, there are problems with it, but China would be in a shitload more problems if they hadn't instituted the policy. As it is, by limiting the number of children, usually to one per couple (there are exceptions), some estimate that China has reduced the number of births since the policy was instituted in 1979 by 250 million, and that China's birth rate is now 1.8, meaning they will actually likely start to see a decline in population in a decade or two if the policy is kept as is.
Yes, it is draconian, and yes it does cause human suffering. But China is struggling to feed it's current population - close to 250 million more people would have cause immense human suffering as well. Not to mention that on the longer term a continued growth rate like that would put devastating pressures on world resources.
And, yes, there is a need for it to be in particular places, and in particular countries. Transport is expensive, and SLOW (when you suddenly need to move in crisis help for tens of million of people because a flood has destroyed the crops, for instance), and imports of a large part of your food has a devastating effect on your trade balance and tend to require foreign currency. Lack of own food production is also a massive military weakness.
Fact is China is struggling to feed it's population, and frequently failing with it's current amount of farm land, for the above reasons. I'm not saying the Three Gorges project is good, just that trying to pretend that China doesn't have any use for more farmland show a lack of knowledge about the situation in China.
Essentially the deal is that the UK tax system is heavily rigged towards rich people (aren't they all, but the UK more than most), but Employee Benefit Trusts can often be utilized by mere mortals too.
If you are employed by an offshore company, and that company pay you a salary, you still have to pay normal income tax. However, nothing forces the company to pay you everything as salary. Instead, they can pay you a "low" salary (low for the IT sector) of up to about £20k-£25k a year, which will be taxed at the lower tax bands, and pay an amount into an employee benefit trust every three months or so.
Technically the trustee is independently deciding what the money should go to - that is a requirement for trusts to be able to pay out to UK residents in a tax efficient manner. However the company will recommend that the money be paid to the employee (you) in a tax efficient manner. Since the trustee is legally bound to act in the beneficiarys best interest, it would be almost unprecented for the trustee not to do so.
The net result can be that with proper planning you end up paying 15-20% income tax at most, even with salaries 4-5 times the UK national average, or more.
It could in theory be used if you're working full time for a UK company too, but I doubt they would be ready to take the hassle, as you would need to be employed by some offshore shell company for it to work.
Furthermore, Microsoft have had a POSIX compatibility layer for NT, and have shown in the past (Winsock is a prime example) that they don't mind borrowing code from the BSD's.
So I ask again: Why?
There seem to be no technical or business benefits from Microsoft in licensing anything from SCO except in bolstering SCOs FUD campaign against Linux by making their claims seem more credible (the "hey, Microsoft paid up a few million for a license, so there must be something in it" effect).
As long as there is no credible reasons presented for why they should pay ridiculous amounts of money to license code they have no apparent use for, it is completely justified to drag out theories as to what it really was for.
If you have a better explanation, let us see it.
Everyone else in the business does it, including SCO and Microsoft, so why shouldn't Perens be allowed to counter with the same kind of unsubstantiated theories?
Uhm. Europe's population is above 700 million. If you are talking about EU's population, then you might be true, except of course that the EU is rapidly expanding the number of countries, and so will close in on 500 million people after the next round of new member states.
Yeah, just like the allies went to war with Hitler because they were "jealous" of him. Get out of the playground politics and into the real world pal!
No, I don't equate Bush with Hitler, but I am making the point that just because you disagree with the schoolyard bully doesn't imply that you are "jealous" of their strength.
Even more importantly, counteracting the US isn't about counteracting Bush, but about the next US government, and the one after, and the one after that. The US has shown that it is willing to ignore international law to protect it's interests. Nobody should feel safe that in 10-15-20-50 years the US won't have an even more hawkish government and that "protecting US interests" won't mean coming after them.
This is much like the US. What you have to realise is that declaring war in the formal sense and waging war (sending troops) is very different. Few states bother to declare war anymore. The US hasn't declared war on anyone since World War II.
It's a nice little loophole that governments are using to get away with military aggression without the humiliation of large opposition in parliaments.
In most countries where this is the case (such as the US), the main limitation of not declaring war is typically the inability to use certain laws against foreign elements in their country (to use internment camps, for intstance) but this is generally not an issue when a war is being fought on someone elses territory against a vastly inferior adversary.
And of course there's the well publicized case of Turkey's "support" being bought with extensive US aid after prolonged haggling and massive public opposition.
When? I guess the US government is a bit too busy cosying up to the Saudi dictatorship at the moment to wage war against them... Wonder why...
Oh, that's right, we don't need evidence because the US government is known for being so trustworthy...
Besides, you should try to Google for wars started by the US over the last two hundred years some time.
I would see that as a huge boost to world peace, as it would give the US one more reason to think twice before starting more wars.
Whether or not Europe would be any better is open for debate, but Europe certainly seems to have learned from it's history, contrary to the US, who keeps on invading, overthrowing regimes and waging war with wild abandon just as it has for most of it's history.
It dramatically REDUCES the power any individual government has to arbitrarily control access to positioning services.
Trying to gauge popular sentiment by listenting to a few individuals, whether for or against the war, will teach you nothing than that there are individual that agree with either side.
As for defending every fucking dicator, the exact same argument can be applied with greater strength to the US. Without US support, half of them wouldn't have gotten power in the first place, or certainly would have been unable to hold on to power for as long as they've done.
Being critical of war does not equate to supporting the current rule somewhere. It equates to being concerned with the loss of life in a war, and of whether the US, with it's history of installing dictators and oppressive puppet regimes worldwide has any moral right to interfere in the name of "liberating" anyone.
When CIA helped "liberate" Chile from It's democratically elected president, it resulted in 13 years of violent military dictatorship. When the CIA helped "liberate" Indonesia from it's democratically elected government, it resulted in 30+ years of military dicatatorship AND the genocide of more than half a million east timorese.
In Iran, US support for the regime of the Shah is one of the primary reason the US is so hated there now, after the people finally overthrew him.
And lets not forget how friendly the US was to Saddam as long as he was more concerned with being anti-Iran than being a threat to US oil interests.
In Afghanistan, US support for "liberating" the country from Soviet influence led to one of the most oppressive muslim states in history.
In Angola, US support for the UNITA rebels against the elected MPLA run government resulted in one of the bloodiest and longest civil wars Africa has seen. Similarly in Mocambique.
Support for contras in Nicaragua culminated with mining Nicaraguan ports, in a move that was declared illegal by international courts and saw the US being fined billions (which never were paid) because the ports in question were in use for civilian traffic.
I'm certainly not claiming that European governments have clean hands. On the contrary. However, the above are some of the reasons why so many people don't trust the US to take decisions on how to "liberate" people, and why so many people see governments getting involved in overthrowing regimes by using military force as bad in almost any case. Who gets to decide which regimes are bad enough to attack?
And if this is about liberation, why is nothing being done about for instance Mugabe, as you mentioned (and this applies both to the US and Europe, as well as African leaders), instead of spending huge efforts on Iraq?
The saddest part in the case of Mugabe, is that it could be done without firing a single bullet: Put pressure on South Africa to cut water and electricity, and Mugabe will give in in days - Zimbabwe is totally dependent on water and electricity supplies via South Africa, and has been since the days of colonial rule.
Funnily enough, the metric system has been the official basis for defining units in the US since 1893, so this affects the US as well - in the US an inch is officially defined by it's length in metric units, for instance.
This is common in many poor countries. Check the price of copper, and check the average salary in some of these countries... For many, "recycling" phone cable is a much better source of income than any legal work they would have a chance of getting.
I agree with your point, though, that the country is large enough that a very low cellphone penetration still make up a sizable number, but the EU is close to a population of 400 million, and as far as I know all member states have a cell phone penetration of more than 50%, some well above 80%.
But regarding price, you are right. That is why cell phone penetration is Africa has increased so rapidly. It's massively cheaper to build out a wireless network than a wired network - the only reason we're being charged more for wireless in Europe and the US is that the landline network is already there, and has been written off decades ago.
In Nigeria, on the other hand, where a population of 120 million have been sharing around 500.000 landlines, and installing more lines typically means extending the network, it took only 6 months before more people had cellphones than landlines because it is much easier to get a cellphone than to get a landline installed.