Wouldn't it be more of a level playing field if both processors were allowed to use their optimum RAM types? Sure, keep the rest of the system honest, but don't handicap one processor by forcing it to use a RAM type it wasn't initially designed for.
If the comparison were between machines, or between chipsets, perhaps it would be a good idea to bring optimized configurations of each. The comparison however, is between CPUs, in which case adding another variable such as memory type will only serve to make the results less credible.
(Besides, they were both designed to be able to use DDR memory.)
That's fine and dandy, but the point that you miss is that we want the source code to what we pay for and use. That alone makes all the difference in the world.
It's a really simple but extraordinarily crucial issue that cannot be over-emphasized.
Your computer's CDROM drive uses error correction code/circuitry (ECC). The CD has information on it that messes with this and causes the CD not to play on the Computer, or even if it does and the CD is duplicated, sequences of 0s or 1s are written which can destroy your speakers (which cannot handle square waves) on playback.
Home entertainment systems, on the other hand, do not have the same ECC circuitry, and therefore, will not have a problem playing back the original CD. The only problem is that their speakers may also be blown in an attempt to play those duplicated CDs with the square waves.
I may be a bit off, but it's something along those lines.
The continued freedom to create and use free software is always in danger. Unfortunately, some interests seem to use the tragic events of September 11, 2001 as an excuse for wide-ranging infringement on civil liberties, some of which may threaten the very ability to create free software at all.
- http://kernel.org/
"It really depends on the people you work with. If you have common interests, then it's easy to get together after work."
Actually, it's amazing the similarities and common interests you will discover that you share with others if you will just take the time to get together with them.
And you will also find that even (and especially) in the ways that they differ from you, they will teach you a lot.
Actually, I don't mind the size of today's CD. It's perfect for me, it's small and light-weight enough, and the size is now standardized. All my cases are of that same size.
I have come to fall in love with the CD. It is a universally open standard, and offers anything I want: Data storage, audio storage, accessible from anywhere, (re)recordable...
The only thing that can make me leave the CD format is if they come up with something that has all the advantages of the CD and offers even more storage capacity. Until then, everything else is an also-ran.
If IBM doesn't use the patent as a sword, then who should care? Nobody. If they start charging royalties for those who "infringe," if they start trying to attack other companies who have since done the same obvious thing, then you can sound the alarms of righteous indignation.
Until then, STFU. Please.
That is exactly the type of ignorance that leads to these sort of problems. "Ehh, don't worry, let them grab all the patents they can. It's no big deal afterall. Let's just STFU until they enforce it and it really becomes a problem beyond our control."
How foolish. While they may apply for a patent just so someone else does not and they do not really intend to enforce it, they are obligated to enforce it or risk losing it. But even if they do not, this error in the issuing of the patent is still detrimental to society because it may discourage others from developing similar technologies, and if they do, these others will have to pay royalties to the patent holder that did hardly any innovation, if at all. So no, shutting TFU is hardly a wise solution. Attack the problem at the root and at the beginning. It is the fool that waits until the house collapses to decide that it is now time to buy termite spray.
This is so long overdue. We need to have a process in which applications for the issue of a patent are presented to the public for review on a web site before the patent is issued so that cases of prior art may be presented. It isn't easy being perfectly vigilant and informed about developments in technology so as to be better able to separate true and legitimate innovations from ridiculous applications, and indeed the USPTO has goofed up too many times to count.
We desperately need better public review as such errors are immensely detrimetal to the advancement of society. This is the only way that the interests of the public can be more effectively protected against the horridly selfish and capitalistic schemes of these corporations.
I know it's somewhat cool these days to have resistant this and genetically modified that, but I think it's time that we realize that in engaging in all these artificial methods on a large scale, we shall also be automatically selecting for strains of pathogens that cannot be resisted.
For a real world example of this, consider that the over-prescription and abuse of antibiotics has led to the development of bacterial strains that are resistant to even the most powerful antibiotic (Vancomycin D.?) that we have been able to produce. Keep in mind that these pathogenic organisms are such simple lifeforms with extremely fast reproductive cycles. As such, they are able to modify their genetic makeup within a few generations and in such a short amount of time to come up with a resistant strain. One might say, "Hey, just come up with another antibiotic", but the fact is that strains develope *much* faster than we can develope new antibiotics, and as these antibiotics are used, we inevitably select for the resistant and usually more violent strain.
Today is Sunday.....usually for me it is a day of hope, joy, celebration and praise. But these are not the emotions that grip my heart nor the thoughts that fill my mind. Along with all of you, this week has perhaps been among the most difficult I have ever experienced. I feel the utter shock of those dreadful acts of terrorism in New York and Washington DC. I feel sorrow for those who have suffered personally, or today suffer both the continuing uncertainty and the heavy grief because of their missing loved ones, most of whom will be added to the growing list of those who died in those first moments of death and destruction.
And I find myself breathing a prayer for our nation, for our President and members of Congress, for all of our leaders; governmental, military, civilian and religious. But I must confess that at no time in my forty-eight years of ministry do I feel so bereft of simple answers for such a complex situation. Surely we ALL need the wisdom of God.
My special concerns are for the Christian church. We do not have to look very long at history before we discover that all too often the Church of Jesus Christ becomes co-opted by the "powers" to bless political/military acts that are inconsistent with the values of the Kingdom of God. Too often, in the emotion of the moment, the Church fails to discern the difference between those values and the values of a nation, especially a nation in crisis. With our nation literally wrapped in the patriotic symbols of red, white and blue, this is a time for the people of Faith, the people of the Word of God to stand "outside" of the immediate situation and then ask those critical questions that relate to this national/global tragedy. While one must NEVER endorse acts of terrorism against civilian populations, either by us or by our enemies, we must also recognize that the people of Faith have a special responsibility to follow the words of Jesus, "Blessed are the peacemakers; for theirs is the Kingdom of God." St. Paul's words to the early Roman Christians (who faced barbaric terrorism on every hand!) take on special meaning for me today: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil.... live at peace with everyone.... Do not take revenge." Romans 12:17-19.
I feel such a heavy sorrow, not only for the victims in New York and Washington DC, but I feel for the victims of those innocent people who have suffered from our own acts of violence. This is a day, not for revenge, but for repentence. This is a day to not only condemn the barbaric acts of this week's violence; it is a time when every Christian has a responsibility to ask serious questions as to why so many of the world's people have such deep anger against American and Western nations and the "global economy" they control; an economy that provides excess and luxury to a minority of the world's people by building on the sweat and labor of millions who have no access to these luxuries, nor no realistic prospects of escaping their personal bonds of poverty. This is a time, not for recriminations, but for some critical and BIBLICAL (prophetic) thinking about the shapes and forms of injustice in our world.
I received a very thoughtful piece from the War Resisters Council that I pass on to you as one perspective that can help all of us in reflecting upon this weeks events. As Christians, we must seek long-term answers, not just short-term solutions. Be encouraged in the fact that ultimately, our only promise and hope is in God: "God is our refuge and strength, an ever present help in trouble...."
Art Beals
STATEMENT FROM THE WAR RESISTERS LEAGUE
"As we write, Manhattan feels under siege, with all bridges, tunnels, and subways closed, and tens of thousands of people walking slowly north from Lower Manhattan. As we sit in our offices here at War Resisters League, our
most immediate thoughts are of the hundreds if not thousands of New Yorkers who have lost their lives in the collapse of the World Trade Center. The day is clear, the sky is blue, but vast clouds billow over the ruins where so many have died, including a great many rescue workers who were there when the final collapse occurred.
Of course we know that our friends and co-workers in Washington, D.C. have similar thoughts about the ordinary people who have been trapped in the part of the Pentagon which were also struck by a jet. And we think of the innocent passengers on the hi-jacked jets who were carried to their doom on this day. We do not know at this time from what source the attack came. We do know that Yasser Arafat has condemned the bombing. We hesitate to make an extended analysis until more information is available but some things are clear. For the Bush Administration to talk of spending hundreds of billions on Star Wars is clearly the sham it was from the beginning, when terrorism can so easily strike through more routine means.
We urge Congress and George Bush that whatever response or policy the U.S. develops it will be clear that this nation will no longer target civilians, or accept any policy by any nation which targets civilians. This would mean an end to the sanctions against Iraq, which have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. It would mean not only a condemnation of terrorism by Palestinians but also the policy of assassination against the Palestinian leadership by Israel, and the ruthless repression of the Palestinian population and the continuing occupation by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza.
The policies of militarism pursued by the United States have resulted in millions of deaths, from the historic tragedy of the Indochina war, through the funding of death squads in Central America and Colombia, to the sanction and air strikes against Iraq. This nation is the largest supplier of conventional weapons in the world and those weapons fuel the starkest kind of terrorism from Indonesia to Africa. The early policy support for armed resistance in Afghanistan resulted in the victory of the Taliban creation of Osama Bin Laden.
Other nations have also engaged in these policies. We have, in years past, condemned the actions of the Russian government in areas such as Chechnya, the violence on both sides in the Middle East, and in the Balkans. But our nation must take responsibility for its own actions. Up until now we have felt safe within our borders. To wake on a clear day to find our largest city under siege reminds us that in a violent world, none are safe. Let us seek an end of the militarism that has characterized this nation for decades. Let us seek a world in which security is gained through disarmament, international cooperation, and social justice not through escalation and retaliation. We condemn without reservation attacks such as those which occurred today, which strike at thousands of civilians may these profound tragedies remind us of the impact U.S. policies have had on other civilians in other lands. We also condemn reflexive hostility against people of Arab descent living in this country and urge that Americans recall the part of our heritage that opposes bigotry in all forms.
We are one world. We shall live in a state of fear and terror or we shall move toward a future in which we seek peaceful alternatives to violence, and a more just distribution of the world resources. As we mourn the many lives lost, our hearts call out for reconciliation, not revenge."
As we reflect upon the tragic events of this week and an appropriate "response," I thought you might like to see this letter from my college roommate, Tamim Ansary, who grew up in Afghanistan. I think he offers an interesting perspective on Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Afghanistan.
Toivo Kallas
Department of Biology & Microbiology
Date: Thursday, 13 Sep 2001
Dear Friends,
Yesterday I heard a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage," and he asked, "What else can we do? What is your suggestion?" Minutes later I heard a TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about these issues especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's been going on over there. So I want to share a few thoughts with anyone who will listen.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I fervently wish to see those monsters punished. But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who captured Afghanistan in 1997 and have been holding the country in bondage ever since. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a master plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would love for someone to eliminate the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country. I guarantee it.
Some say, if that's the case, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban themselves? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, damaged, and incapacitated. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. Millions of Afghans are widows of the approximately two million men killed during the war with the Soviets. And the Taliban has been executing these women for being women and have buried some of their opponents alive in mass graves. The soil of Afghanistan is littered with land mines and almost all the farms have been destroyed . The Afghan people have tried to overthrow the Taliban. They haven't been able to.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble with that scheme is, it's already been done. The Soviets took care of it . Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? one. Destroy their infrastructure? There is no infrastructure. Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only land in the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. (They have already, I hear.) Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.
So what else can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. I think that when people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" many of them are thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. They are thinking about overcoming moral qualms about killing innocent people. But it's the belly to die not kill that's actually on the table. Americans will die in a land war to get Bin Laden. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that, folks. To get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. The invasion approach is a flirtation with global war between Islam and the West.
And that is Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants and why he did this thing. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. AT the moment, of course, "Islam" as such does not exist. There are Muslims and there are Muslim countries, but no such political entity as Islam. Bin Laden believes that if he can get a war started, he can constitute this entity and he'd be running it. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in Muslim lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, even better from Bin Laden's
point of view. He's probably wrong about winning, in the end the west would probably overcome--whatever that would mean in such a war; but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden yes, but anyone else?
I don't have a solution. But I do believe that suffering and poverty are the soil in which terrorism grows. Bin Laden and his cohorts want to bait us into creating more such soil, so they and their kind can flourish. We can't let him do that. That's my humble opinion.
Tamim Ansary
So what does Mentsch mean anyway? A mentsch is a decent, just and caring human being. What Would a Mentsch Do? is a contemporary statement of a centuries old theme in Judaism, What Would a Mentsch Do? is a question you ask yourself before you engage in an activity, highlighting the moral dimension of every act and giving yourself the opportunity to make the world more just and kind one deed at a time.
"I'm sorry, but why do so many people here care about the business aspects of Ximian?"
How many companies make Free Software? Not too many. And even the few that do don't seem to be so prosperous. So when we see a company that contributes software AND (most importantly) Source Code to the community, why in the world would we want to see them go bankrupt? Failing to support these small companies that do great things is simply begging to see the large corporations continue to dominate all aspects of our lives. That's why we care.
If it only had to be that small and that brief, why didn't they just fire a bullet?! Heck, for that amount of money, I'll gladly give you MY gun and all the bullets you want!
Linux, as an Operating System, is pretty advanced and stable now. What we need are a horde of good, easy to use, visually appealing, professionally looking and feeling, standardized, and openly-specified hard-core applications, and you need lots of them. Also, since Micro$oft has a huge headstart, it will only be beneficial if these applications can read (embrace) Micro$oft file formats and then convert (extend - ha ha!) them to an open format. Thus users will not have to sacrifice their data in adopting open standards, which will only make the decision to go to Linux less difficult.
We need to do this, and we need to do this right now. We have already fallen behind in a race which we cannot afford to lose.
As far as I know, no one makes a more user friendly, more beautiful, or more elegant interface than Apple. Hence though Unix has always been there, and Unix is free, there still is so much appeal in Apple's version which is OS-X.
There is already a ridiculous number of programming languages out there to do just about anything imaginable.
Before I can be convinced to adopt another language, what I really want to know is why we absolutely need this language, and what it has to offer that other languages do not, and if it will be an openly-specified language accepted by academia and all major standards bodies.
I know that there are many (Micro$oft included) who undermine, overlook and/or deny the FSF's vast contribution to society. Needless to say, they are just ignorant or do so out of an ulterior motive.
In the past, I have bought, and I have also downloaded.
However, even though it is possible to spend nothing on Free Software, I think we should bother to spend money on Free Software. We need to support these Free Software companies. They desperately need the money, and hey, we get the source code which is the most important part. Hell in my opinion, we should be spending more on Free Software. There is so much to gain, and a WHOLE lot to lose if these companies go out of business.
We cannot afford to make hypocrites of ourselves. How can we hail the virtues of Free Software while we hear others laugh that these companies will soon be history, and then fail to support these companies directly - monetarily and in development? That won't make much sense.
While I see your point that with all these tremendous increases in the computational power of personal computers, generally there may be less of an incentive to engage in a cooperative global computing grid. However, such a grid (and even the very existence and prevalence of the Internet somewhat attests to this) has its advantages. No matter how powerful a single computer can be, networked computers are very often more powerful than solitary ones. Considering that there will always be demand for greater and greater computing power, I doubt that Moore's Law will deter us from such a global computing grid.
(Let me just mention also that the so-called "Moore's Law" isn't really a law, but just an observation for the present times and technology.)
Slashdot Mirror
I never laughed so hard ...
Wouldn't it be more of a level playing field if both processors were allowed to use their optimum RAM types? Sure, keep the rest of the system honest, but don't handicap one processor by forcing it to use a RAM type it wasn't initially designed for.
If the comparison were between machines, or between chipsets, perhaps it would be a good idea to bring optimized configurations of each. The comparison however, is between CPUs, in which case adding another variable such as memory type will only serve to make the results less credible.
(Besides, they were both designed to be able to use DDR memory.)
The land of the "free".
That's fine and dandy, but the point that you miss is that we want the source code to what we pay for and use. That alone makes all the difference in the world.
It's a really simple but extraordinarily crucial issue that cannot be over-emphasized.
Your computer's CDROM drive uses error correction code/circuitry (ECC). The CD has information on it that messes with this and causes the CD not to play on the Computer, or even if it does and the CD is duplicated, sequences of 0s or 1s are written which can destroy your speakers (which cannot handle square waves) on playback.
Home entertainment systems, on the other hand, do not have the same ECC circuitry, and therefore, will not have a problem playing back the original CD. The only problem is that their speakers may also be blown in an attempt to play those duplicated CDs with the square waves.
I may be a bit off, but it's something along those lines.
The continued freedom to create and use free software is always in danger. Unfortunately, some interests seem to use the tragic events of September 11, 2001 as an excuse for wide-ranging infringement on civil liberties, some of which may threaten the very ability to create free software at all.
- http://kernel.org/
"It really depends on the people you work with. If you have common interests, then it's easy to get together after work."
Actually, it's amazing the similarities and common interests you will discover that you share with others if you will just take the time to get together with them.
And you will also find that even (and especially) in the ways that they differ from you, they will teach you a lot.
Actually, I don't mind the size of today's CD. It's perfect for me, it's small and light-weight enough, and the size is now standardized. All my cases are of that same size.
I have come to fall in love with the CD. It is a universally open standard, and offers anything I want: Data storage, audio storage, accessible from anywhere, (re)recordable...
The only thing that can make me leave the CD format is if they come up with something that has all the advantages of the CD and offers even more storage capacity. Until then, everything else is an also-ran.
First they complain that we waste time trying to make Linux easy to use on the desktop.
Then they complain that Linux is too difficult to use on the desktop.
For all I care, they can write their own code, or take a hike.
If IBM doesn't use the patent as a sword, then who should care? Nobody. If they start charging royalties for those who "infringe," if they start trying to attack other companies who have since done the same obvious thing, then you can sound the alarms of righteous indignation.
Until then, STFU. Please.
That is exactly the type of ignorance that leads to these sort of problems. "Ehh, don't worry, let them grab all the patents they can. It's no big deal afterall. Let's just STFU until they enforce it and it really becomes a problem beyond our control."
How foolish. While they may apply for a patent just so someone else does not and they do not really intend to enforce it, they are obligated to enforce it or risk losing it. But even if they do not, this error in the issuing of the patent is still detrimental to society because it may discourage others from developing similar technologies, and if they do, these others will have to pay royalties to the patent holder that did hardly any innovation, if at all. So no, shutting TFU is hardly a wise solution. Attack the problem at the root and at the beginning. It is the fool that waits until the house collapses to decide that it is now time to buy termite spray.
This is so long overdue. We need to have a process in which applications for the issue of a patent are presented to the public for review on a web site before the patent is issued so that cases of prior art may be presented. It isn't easy being perfectly vigilant and informed about developments in technology so as to be better able to separate true and legitimate innovations from ridiculous applications, and indeed the USPTO has goofed up too many times to count.
We desperately need better public review as such errors are immensely detrimetal to the advancement of society. This is the only way that the interests of the public can be more effectively protected against the horridly selfish and capitalistic schemes of these corporations.
In the United States of America, sharing music is now called "stealing", and having MP3s on your computer is now a terrorist activity.
That is what the FreeNet project is all about.
[This line added to avoid the stupid "Lameness" filter.]
I know it's somewhat cool these days to have resistant this and genetically modified that, but I think it's time that we realize that in engaging in all these artificial methods on a large scale, we shall also be automatically selecting for strains of pathogens that cannot be resisted.
For a real world example of this, consider that the over-prescription and abuse of antibiotics has led to the development of bacterial strains that are resistant to even the most powerful antibiotic (Vancomycin D.?) that we have been able to produce. Keep in mind that these pathogenic organisms are such simple lifeforms with extremely fast reproductive cycles. As such, they are able to modify their genetic makeup within a few generations and in such a short amount of time to come up with a resistant strain. One might say, "Hey, just come up with another antibiotic", but the fact is that strains develope *much* faster than we can develope new antibiotics, and as these antibiotics are used, we inevitably select for the resistant and usually more violent strain.
Just a note of warning.
A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE.
Dear family and friends:
Today is Sunday.....usually for me it is a day of hope, joy, celebration and praise. But these are not the emotions that grip my heart nor the thoughts that fill my mind. Along with all of you, this week has perhaps been among the most difficult I have ever experienced. I feel the utter shock of those dreadful acts of terrorism in New York and Washington DC. I feel sorrow for those who have suffered personally, or today suffer both the continuing uncertainty and the heavy grief because of their missing loved ones, most of whom will be added to the growing list of those who died in those first moments of death and destruction.
And I find myself breathing a prayer for our nation, for our President and members of Congress, for all of our leaders; governmental, military, civilian and religious. But I must confess that at no time in my forty-eight years of ministry do I feel so bereft of simple answers for such a complex situation. Surely we ALL need the wisdom of God.
My special concerns are for the Christian church. We do not have to look very long at history before we discover that all too often the Church of Jesus Christ becomes co-opted by the "powers" to bless political/military acts that are inconsistent with the values of the Kingdom of God. Too often, in the emotion of the moment, the Church fails to discern the difference between those values and the values of a nation, especially a nation in crisis. With our nation literally wrapped in the patriotic symbols of red, white and blue, this is a time for the people of Faith, the people of the Word of God to stand "outside" of the immediate situation and then ask those critical questions that relate to this national/global tragedy. While one must NEVER endorse acts of terrorism against civilian populations, either by us or by our enemies, we must also recognize that the people of Faith have a special responsibility to follow the words of Jesus, "Blessed are the peacemakers; for theirs is the Kingdom of God." St. Paul's words to the early Roman Christians (who faced barbaric terrorism on every hand!) take on special meaning for me today: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil.... live at peace with everyone.... Do not take revenge." Romans 12:17-19.
I feel such a heavy sorrow, not only for the victims in New York and Washington DC, but I feel for the victims of those innocent people who have suffered from our own acts of violence. This is a day, not for revenge, but for repentence. This is a day to not only condemn the barbaric acts of this week's violence; it is a time when every Christian has a responsibility to ask serious questions as to why so many of the world's people have such deep anger against American and Western nations and the "global economy" they control; an economy that provides excess and luxury to a minority of the world's people by building on the sweat and labor of millions who have no access to these luxuries, nor no realistic prospects of escaping their personal bonds of poverty. This is a time, not for recriminations, but for some critical and BIBLICAL (prophetic) thinking about the shapes and forms of injustice in our world.
I received a very thoughtful piece from the War Resisters Council that I pass on to you as one perspective that can help all of us in reflecting upon this weeks events. As Christians, we must seek long-term answers, not just short-term solutions. Be encouraged in the fact that ultimately, our only promise and hope is in God: "God is our refuge and strength, an ever present help in trouble...."
Art Beals
STATEMENT FROM THE WAR RESISTERS LEAGUE
"As we write, Manhattan feels under siege, with all bridges, tunnels, and subways closed, and tens of thousands of people walking slowly north from Lower Manhattan. As we sit in our offices here at War Resisters League, our
most immediate thoughts are of the hundreds if not thousands of New Yorkers who have lost their lives in the collapse of the World Trade Center. The day is clear, the sky is blue, but vast clouds billow over the ruins where so many have died, including a great many rescue workers who were there when the final collapse occurred.
Of course we know that our friends and co-workers in Washington, D.C. have similar thoughts about the ordinary people who have been trapped in the part of the Pentagon which were also struck by a jet. And we think of the innocent passengers on the hi-jacked jets who were carried to their doom on this day. We do not know at this time from what source the attack came. We do know that Yasser Arafat has condemned the bombing. We hesitate to make an extended analysis until more information is available but some things are clear. For the Bush Administration to talk of spending hundreds of billions on Star Wars is clearly the sham it was from the beginning, when terrorism can so easily strike through more routine means.
We urge Congress and George Bush that whatever response or policy the U.S. develops it will be clear that this nation will no longer target civilians, or accept any policy by any nation which targets civilians. This would mean an end to the sanctions against Iraq, which have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. It would mean not only a condemnation of terrorism by Palestinians but also the policy of assassination against the Palestinian leadership by Israel, and the ruthless repression of the Palestinian population and the continuing occupation by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza.
The policies of militarism pursued by the United States have resulted in millions of deaths, from the historic tragedy of the Indochina war, through the funding of death squads in Central America and Colombia, to the sanction and air strikes against Iraq. This nation is the largest supplier of conventional weapons in the world and those weapons fuel the starkest kind of terrorism from Indonesia to Africa. The early policy support for armed resistance in Afghanistan resulted in the victory of the Taliban creation of Osama Bin Laden.
Other nations have also engaged in these policies. We have, in years past, condemned the actions of the Russian government in areas such as Chechnya, the violence on both sides in the Middle East, and in the Balkans. But our nation must take responsibility for its own actions. Up until now we have felt safe within our borders. To wake on a clear day to find our largest city under siege reminds us that in a violent world, none are safe. Let us seek an end of the militarism that has characterized this nation for decades. Let us seek a world in which security is gained through disarmament, international cooperation, and social justice not through escalation and retaliation. We condemn without reservation attacks such as those which occurred today, which strike at thousands of civilians may these profound tragedies remind us of the impact U.S. policies have had on other civilians in other lands. We also condemn reflexive hostility against people of Arab descent living in this country and urge that Americans recall the part of our heritage that opposes bigotry in all forms.
We are one world. We shall live in a state of fear and terror or we shall move toward a future in which we seek peaceful alternatives to violence, and a more just distribution of the world resources. As we mourn the many lives lost, our hearts call out for reconciliation, not revenge."
Dear Colleagues,
As we reflect upon the tragic events of this week and an appropriate "response," I thought you might like to see this letter from my college roommate, Tamim Ansary, who grew up in Afghanistan. I think he offers an interesting perspective on Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Afghanistan.
Toivo Kallas
Department of Biology & Microbiology
Date: Thursday, 13 Sep 2001
Dear Friends,
Yesterday I heard a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage," and he asked, "What else can we do? What is your suggestion?" Minutes later I heard a TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about these issues especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's been going on over there. So I want to share a few thoughts with anyone who will listen.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I fervently wish to see those monsters punished. But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who captured Afghanistan in 1997 and have been holding the country in bondage ever since. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a master plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would love for someone to eliminate the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country. I guarantee it.
Some say, if that's the case, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban themselves? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, damaged, and incapacitated. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food. Millions of Afghans are widows of the approximately two million men killed during the war with the Soviets. And the Taliban has been executing these women for being women and have buried some of their opponents alive in mass graves. The soil of Afghanistan is littered with land mines and almost all the farms have been destroyed . The Afghan people have tried to overthrow the Taliban. They haven't been able to.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble with that scheme is, it's already been done. The Soviets took care of it . Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? one. Destroy their infrastructure? There is no infrastructure. Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only land in the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. (They have already, I hear.) Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would be making common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.
So what else can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. I think that when people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" many of them are thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. They are thinking about overcoming moral qualms about killing innocent people. But it's the belly to die not kill that's actually on the table. Americans will die in a land war to get Bin Laden. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that, folks. To get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. The invasion approach is a flirtation with global war between Islam and the West.
And that is Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants and why he did this thing. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. AT the moment, of course, "Islam" as such does not exist. There are Muslims and there are Muslim countries, but no such political entity as Islam. Bin Laden believes that if he can get a war started, he can constitute this entity and he'd be running it. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in Muslim lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, even better from Bin Laden's
point of view. He's probably wrong about winning, in the end the west would probably overcome--whatever that would mean in such a war; but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden yes, but anyone else?
I don't have a solution. But I do believe that suffering and poverty are the soil in which terrorism grows. Bin Laden and his cohorts want to bait us into creating more such soil, so they and their kind can flourish. We can't let him do that. That's my humble opinion.
Tamim Ansary
So what does Mentsch mean anyway? A mentsch is a decent, just and caring human being. What Would a Mentsch Do? is a contemporary statement of a centuries old theme in Judaism, What Would a Mentsch Do? is a question you ask yourself before you engage in an activity, highlighting the moral dimension of every act and giving yourself the opportunity to make the world more just and kind one deed at a time.
"I'm sorry, but why do so many people here care about the business aspects of Ximian?"
How many companies make Free Software? Not too many. And even the few that do don't seem to be so prosperous. So when we see a company that contributes software AND (most importantly) Source Code to the community, why in the world would we want to see them go bankrupt? Failing to support these small companies that do great things is simply begging to see the large corporations continue to dominate all aspects of our lives. That's why we care.
If it only had to be that small and that brief, why didn't they just fire a bullet?! Heck, for that amount of money, I'll gladly give you MY gun and all the bullets you want!
Linux, as an Operating System, is pretty advanced and stable now. What we need are a horde of good, easy to use, visually appealing, professionally looking and feeling, standardized, and openly-specified hard-core applications, and you need lots of them. Also, since Micro$oft has a huge headstart, it will only be beneficial if these applications can read (embrace) Micro$oft file formats and then convert (extend - ha ha!) them to an open format. Thus users will not have to sacrifice their data in adopting open standards, which will only make the decision to go to Linux less difficult.
We need to do this, and we need to do this right now. We have already fallen behind in a race which we cannot afford to lose.
As far as I know, no one makes a more user friendly, more beautiful, or more elegant interface than Apple. Hence though Unix has always been there, and Unix is free, there still is so much appeal in Apple's version which is OS-X.
There is already a ridiculous number of programming languages out there to do just about anything imaginable.
Before I can be convinced to adopt another language, what I really want to know is why we absolutely need this language, and what it has to offer that other languages do not, and if it will be an openly-specified language accepted by academia and all major standards bodies.
You may prefer Ogg Vorbis, you may not.
Either way, just be grateful that you have a choice, one of which is absolutely Free in every sense.
We do. There are many, but the Free Software Foundation immediately comes to mind.
I know that there are many (Micro$oft included) who undermine, overlook and/or deny the FSF's vast contribution to society. Needless to say, they are just ignorant or do so out of an ulterior motive.
In the past, I have bought, and I have also downloaded.
However, even though it is possible to spend nothing on Free Software, I think we should bother to spend money on Free Software. We need to support these Free Software companies. They desperately need the money, and hey, we get the source code which is the most important part. Hell in my opinion, we should be spending more on Free Software. There is so much to gain, and a WHOLE lot to lose if these companies go out of business.
We cannot afford to make hypocrites of ourselves. How can we hail the virtues of Free Software while we hear others laugh that these companies will soon be history, and then fail to support these companies directly - monetarily and in development? That won't make much sense.
While I see your point that with all these tremendous increases in the computational power of personal computers, generally there may be less of an incentive to engage in a cooperative global computing grid. However, such a grid (and even the very existence and prevalence of the Internet somewhat attests to this) has its advantages. No matter how powerful a single computer can be, networked computers are very often more powerful than solitary ones. Considering that there will always be demand for greater and greater computing power, I doubt that Moore's Law will deter us from such a global computing grid.
(Let me just mention also that the so-called "Moore's Law" isn't really a law, but just an observation for the present times and technology.)