Maybe the Alchemy that Stephenson suggests Newton was involved in is just what most British universities need to be able to start paying the professors that they already employ...
You Yanks are just catching up with us Brits. The next thing that will happen is that the high density areas will need more coverage, and the areas with no reception at all will need to be addressed. In short, more masts. Then you'll get your local news coverage plastered with NIMBYs, (normally affluent middle class soccer moms with kids in tow) saying they don't want a mast near them. But they do want cellphone coverage. Hypocrites. The same people who are currently complaining that they get crappy service and cut off in the middle of calls are the same people who in a years time will be whinging that the new mast at the end of the road is giving them cancer. Unless you suck it up, you'll never be happy with cellphone companies. You got 'em coming, you got 'em going. They can do only wrong... except that without a cell, your life would almost certainly be different.
I am English. When I first moved to the US, I was waiting on the plastic coming through from my newly-opened US bank account, and was using a combination of UK visa card and the US cheque book that arrived 2 weeks before the accompanying plastic.
I go into a WalMart (I know, first mistake, there and then,) and attempt to purchase about $10 worth of stuff with a cheque. The lad on the till asks me if I have an in-state driving licence. I reply that I don't, as I am foreign, but I do have a UK passport on me.
He looks at the passport, kinda flicks through it, and then passes it back saying that it is not satisfactory ID, as the only thing WalMart accept as ID for cheques is an in-state driving licence.
They don't accept passports? WTF?
To quote from the inside of the front leaf of the UK passport;
Her Brittanic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all these whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hinderance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary. Apparently, shopping in WalMart doesn't count...
In the end, my friend paid for the groceries with his card, as WalMart simply would not accept my cheque without that all important in-state driving licence.
But they are voluntary...
Governments have been wanting to introduce ID cards ever since they first heard of them. They are an amazing tool, and really benefit no-one in the end except the state. To have the ID card is a Machiavellian masterstroke, and lets face it... try and find someone who really supports the idea of the nation state without having just a *little* Machaivelli in them.
The problem is, most of the citizens of the state ask the question 'How much liberty are we willing to sacrifice for safety, protection by the state?' This trade off is a question which normally comes down to some middle ground, and is answered quite culturally, as we saw with the article about CCTV in the UK, which is unlikely to get significantly off the starting blocks in the USA.
This dilemma of liberty/safety relies on a relative lack of fear on the part of the citizens to keep the ID cards and other infringements of civil liberties at bay. However, in the wake of the 11th Sept attacks, the balance has shifted, by making everyone feel that much less safe.
If the government are ever going to pull off an introduction of cards, it is whilst the right wing can sell the moderates by playing on their fear.
This debate over ID cards has nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks, it is merely a framework in which some devious Machiavellian politicians can sly through a normally unpopular idea.
Don't fall for it. Whilst paying due regard and respect to those involved in the 11th Sept attacks, and the aftermath now ensuing, please have a memory prior to that date. Remember that you would not have wanted it then, and in a few months, or a few years, or whenever some semblence of normality returns, you will not want it then either.
Like we did in Kosovo?
Like we did in Vietnam?
Like we did in Korea?
Like we did in every conflict ever...
If we kill civilians, we term it the oh-so-PC 'collateral damage.'
If they kill civilians, we call it terrorism.
By attacking them you are a terrorist. It is apt that you posted as an anonymous coward, for that is what you are. You are using the same reasoning as OBL to attack him. You are willing to see civilian afghan casualties, as he is willing to see US ones. You are willing for some of your troops to die in the attacks, and so is he. You have a noble cause, as does the opposition. Your reasoning is based in dogmatic, religious, patriotic conviction, and so is OBLs.
Think logically, something I would hope that/. readers, of all the people on the web would be able to do, and really ask yourself what good attacking Afghanistan would do.
Break the cycle of terrorism and hatred, and then you have won, you are vindicated, you can mourn your martyrs, and seek justice.
Not revenge.
"Friends" include the US, who not only funded the Taleban throughout the 80s and 90s, but also gave OBL training and weapons. Last year alone, the US govt gifted the Taleban $43million, supposedly for a war against drugs.
If that doesn't make the US a "friend" of OBL, then I'd like to see what rules of "Friendship" you are talking about.
"Wipe these SOBs off the face of the planet and you will end the violence."
You cannot wipe them out, because by attacking them, you fuel them, create more, and there is no point at which you can stop, because the more you do it, the more blurred the line becomes, and you simply become one of them.
The logical arguement for the terrorist attack, and the retaliation is the same, we are no different, we just live in a different culture.
So let me get this right? Are we invading Afghanistan (possibly) for the 1997 indictment, or the WTC acts?
Or maybe it's just because we have no certain target, the Taliban seem like an easy target, and OBL is already unpopular.
Is this simply a case of the US people (like you) baying for blood, and the authorities giving them a scapegoat.
Even if you get OBL, you solve nothing, his group will splinter, and continue. You win nothing.
The cause is to break the cycle of dogmatism, hatred, and terrorism, practised by both sides, and show compassion.
OBL does not even recognise any state unless he suits him. His cause is to destroy all arab governments, and found a united Islamic territory, ruled by him. If the West destroy Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, as we are well on the way to doing, then we play to his game plan. We should recognise (if there is proof he was responsible) that OBL is the target, not any nation, not any citizenry.
This war is different to any we have ever faced before. It is not a nation against a nation, it is two groups of polaraised opinion, with each of those groups crossing borders, and outwith International law.
If you want, you can compare it to the US 'War on Drugs'... which is equally immorral and dangerous.
US embassies are technically US soil as well, under international law. The attack on the Cole is also a violation of soveriegn territory.
You have still not once stopped to consider the reasoning behind the terrorists, and asked yourself why they did it.
People don't just do this shit for fun. At the very least, they *think* they had a reason. If the US respond with violence, then it will not only justify them, but give other people a greater reason to carry on thier cause.
The reasoning behind the US response is no different, logically, from the original reason for the terrorist attack. One side feels violated, and responds.
Stop that cycle, and then you have won.
You are already begging the question that the Afghans are guilty, of which there is no proof.
Bin Laden, if he is the culprit, fights not for the Afghans, but for an extremist Islamic faction, which most certainly have suffered at the hands of the West.
If you really wished to state first blood, why don't you cite the USS Cole, or the US embassies? You are not, because you don't want to think of the history, because then you might have to consider the effects of the spread of Christianity and Global capitalisation.
You are blaming a nation mostly full of innocent refugees, for the alleged acts of one man, whose cause you do not, nor wish to understand.
There are two sides to this, and they are BOTH wrong.
So under your logic, he equally has a right to attack any US citizen, as they are all guilty of some crime, and proof will be forthcoming.
Please, open your mind, not your mouth!
There is no proof that any Afghans were involved.
There is no proof that Bin Laden was involved.
This doesn't mean that they weren't, but that there is no proof, which you asked for.
Also, if you had read my post, instead of replying in short shift, you would see my defence for this not being first blood at all, which you still have not changed. If you are going to simply reply with opinion, and culturally fuelled hatred, then expect the same from them.
In the mean time, can you please explain again how if you were in Bin Laden's shoes (If you cite him as the culprit) that he has NO reason to attack the US?
This is a cycle, which we now perpetuate. It needs to stop, with compassion and justice, not hatred and violence.
There is no first blood, it is a cycle of violence. It has been going on since ages when.
They were responding to some perceived act of violence agianst them, else they could not have justified it. Whether we agree with them of not is another thing... we cannot understand them truly, we are not terrorists, but equally, they cannot understand us, they are not capitalist democrats.
What we do depends on who you read, what you believe, try starting with Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Then maybe Foucault. Either way, they did not attack us without *any* cause. They just attacked us for a cause with which we disagree. There really is no difference between our reasoning and theirs.
Ask yourself, if you wrote the arguments out in logical form, how much would your validation for a strike against the terrorists differ from their justification for the attack in the first place?
The problem is not the argument, but the dogmatic system in which we exist. Both arguments are invalid, but neither side is willing to see it in their own reason.
By counterstriking, we are not getting to the heart of the problem, but in fact, we make it stronger. The situation is caused by fanaticism, dogma, hatred, and irrational violent action. We in the west are just as guilty of this as the terrorists.
Shouldn't we step back and ask not what we can do for our country, but what we can do for humanity?
For once I agree with the NRA; guns don't kill people, but nor do people. Religious hatred motivating weak people kills people. Fight dogma and religion, not people and guns.
One of the most incredible books to have been written about this is 'The Mars Mystery' By Graham Hancock. The book postulates at length about these phenomena.
Graham Hancock has a really well written, and comprehensive web page, with a page of links that specifically deal with this subject here.
There is a lot of information there, and on the linked pages, about recent discoveries, and not so recent discoveries. One linked page refers to a set of lunar photographs released by Nasa in 1966.
I am not sure personally that this is evidence of anything too fantastic, aliens, conspiracies or the like, but whether it is or not, it is interesting to note that there are some phenomena that do not fit into our currently accepted scientific world theory, and that the investigation into them is going on quite specifically outside of the mainstream.
As Paul K Feyerabend put it, "Success in science depends not only on rational argument but on a
mixture of subterfuge, rhetoric and propaganda."
Duly done. I am now fucked off.
Please feel free to enlighten me further with your wisdom and intelligent observations on the topic of the software industry.
Please redirect all future comments to please_tell@some_cunt_who_cares.com
Slashdot Mirror
Why is this something to look forward to? The first one was the biggest pile of hollywood shit ever made. It had zero redeeming features.
Rob already thought of this, years ago:
http://cmdrtaco.net/rants/lights.shtml
Maybe the Alchemy that Stephenson suggests Newton was involved in is just what most British universities need to be able to start paying the professors that they already employ...
You Yanks are just catching up with us Brits. The next thing that will happen is that the high density areas will need more coverage, and the areas with no reception at all will need to be addressed.
In short, more masts.
Then you'll get your local news coverage plastered with NIMBYs, (normally affluent middle class soccer moms with kids in tow) saying they don't want a mast near them. But they do want cellphone coverage.
Hypocrites.
The same people who are currently complaining that they get crappy service and cut off in the middle of calls are the same people who in a years time will be whinging that the new mast at the end of the road is giving them cancer.
Unless you suck it up, you'll never be happy with cellphone companies. You got 'em coming, you got 'em going. They can do only wrong... except that without a cell, your life would almost certainly be different.
Verbatim.
I still think Tarantino should've got the job. He's fucked up enough to translate it.
Same goes for Gilliam, I guess.
I am English. When I first moved to the US, I was waiting on the plastic coming through from my newly-opened US bank account, and was using a combination of UK visa card and the US cheque book that arrived 2 weeks before the accompanying plastic.
I go into a WalMart (I know, first mistake, there and then,) and attempt to purchase about $10 worth of stuff with a cheque. The lad on the till asks me if I have an in-state driving licence. I reply that I don't, as I am foreign, but I do have a UK passport on me.
He looks at the passport, kinda flicks through it, and then passes it back saying that it is not satisfactory ID, as the only thing WalMart accept as ID for cheques is an in-state driving licence.
They don't accept passports? WTF?
To quote from the inside of the front leaf of the UK passport;
Her Brittanic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all these whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hinderance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.
Apparently, shopping in WalMart doesn't count...
In the end, my friend paid for the groceries with his card, as WalMart simply would not accept my cheque without that all important in-state driving licence.
But they are voluntary...
Governments have been wanting to introduce ID cards ever since they first heard of them. They are an amazing tool, and really benefit no-one in the end except the state. To have the ID card is a Machiavellian masterstroke, and lets face it... try and find someone who really supports the idea of the nation state without having just a *little* Machaivelli in them.
The problem is, most of the citizens of the state ask the question 'How much liberty are we willing to sacrifice for safety, protection by the state?' This trade off is a question which normally comes down to some middle ground, and is answered quite culturally, as we saw with the article about CCTV in the UK, which is unlikely to get significantly off the starting blocks in the USA.
This dilemma of liberty/safety relies on a relative lack of fear on the part of the citizens to keep the ID cards and other infringements of civil liberties at bay. However, in the wake of the 11th Sept attacks, the balance has shifted, by making everyone feel that much less safe.
If the government are ever going to pull off an introduction of cards, it is whilst the right wing can sell the moderates by playing on their fear.
This debate over ID cards has nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks, it is merely a framework in which some devious Machiavellian politicians can sly through a normally unpopular idea.
Don't fall for it. Whilst paying due regard and respect to those involved in the 11th Sept attacks, and the aftermath now ensuing, please have a memory prior to that date. Remember that you would not have wanted it then, and in a few months, or a few years, or whenever some semblence of normality returns, you will not want it then either.
Like we did in Kosovo?
Like we did in Vietnam?
Like we did in Korea?
Like we did in every conflict ever...
If we kill civilians, we term it the oh-so-PC 'collateral damage.'
If they kill civilians, we call it terrorism.
But that makes you a terrorist as well.
Do we kill you also?
Use reason, not fear and hatred.
See the paradox, educate yourself, improve the world.
By attacking them you are a terrorist. It is apt that you posted as an anonymous coward, for that is what you are. You are using the same reasoning as OBL to attack him. You are willing to see civilian afghan casualties, as he is willing to see US ones. You are willing for some of your troops to die in the attacks, and so is he. You have a noble cause, as does the opposition. Your reasoning is based in dogmatic, religious, patriotic conviction, and so is OBLs. /. readers, of all the people on the web would be able to do, and really ask yourself what good attacking Afghanistan would do.
Think logically, something I would hope that
Break the cycle of terrorism and hatred, and then you have won, you are vindicated, you can mourn your martyrs, and seek justice.
Not revenge.
"Friends" include the US, who not only funded the Taleban throughout the 80s and 90s, but also gave OBL training and weapons. Last year alone, the US govt gifted the Taleban $43million, supposedly for a war against drugs.
If that doesn't make the US a "friend" of OBL, then I'd like to see what rules of "Friendship" you are talking about.
"Wipe these SOBs off the face of the planet and you will end the violence."
You cannot wipe them out, because by attacking them, you fuel them, create more, and there is no point at which you can stop, because the more you do it, the more blurred the line becomes, and you simply become one of them.
The logical arguement for the terrorist attack, and the retaliation is the same, we are no different, we just live in a different culture.
Sorry, somebody has been scribbling on my song sheet.
:-)
So let me get this right? Are we invading Afghanistan (possibly) for the 1997 indictment, or the WTC acts?
Or maybe it's just because we have no certain target, the Taliban seem like an easy target, and OBL is already unpopular.
Is this simply a case of the US people (like you) baying for blood, and the authorities giving them a scapegoat.
Even if you get OBL, you solve nothing, his group will splinter, and continue. You win nothing.
The cause is to break the cycle of dogmatism, hatred, and terrorism, practised by both sides, and show compassion.
OBL does not even recognise any state unless he suits him. His cause is to destroy all arab governments, and found a united Islamic territory, ruled by him. If the West destroy Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, as we are well on the way to doing, then we play to his game plan. We should recognise (if there is proof he was responsible) that OBL is the target, not any nation, not any citizenry.
This war is different to any we have ever faced before. It is not a nation against a nation, it is two groups of polaraised opinion, with each of those groups crossing borders, and outwith International law.
If you want, you can compare it to the US 'War on Drugs'... which is equally immorral and dangerous.
US embassies are technically US soil as well, under international law. The attack on the Cole is also a violation of soveriegn territory.
You have still not once stopped to consider the reasoning behind the terrorists, and asked yourself why they did it.
People don't just do this shit for fun. At the very least, they *think* they had a reason. If the US respond with violence, then it will not only justify them, but give other people a greater reason to carry on thier cause.
The reasoning behind the US response is no different, logically, from the original reason for the terrorist attack. One side feels violated, and responds.
Stop that cycle, and then you have won.
You are already begging the question that the Afghans are guilty, of which there is no proof.
Bin Laden, if he is the culprit, fights not for the Afghans, but for an extremist Islamic faction, which most certainly have suffered at the hands of the West.
If you really wished to state first blood, why don't you cite the USS Cole, or the US embassies? You are not, because you don't want to think of the history, because then you might have to consider the effects of the spread of Christianity and Global capitalisation.
You are blaming a nation mostly full of innocent refugees, for the alleged acts of one man, whose cause you do not, nor wish to understand.
There are two sides to this, and they are BOTH wrong.
So under your logic, he equally has a right to attack any US citizen, as they are all guilty of some crime, and proof will be forthcoming.
Please, open your mind, not your mouth!
There is no proof that any Afghans were involved.
There is no proof that Bin Laden was involved.
This doesn't mean that they weren't, but that there is no proof, which you asked for.
Also, if you had read my post, instead of replying in short shift, you would see my defence for this not being first blood at all, which you still have not changed. If you are going to simply reply with opinion, and culturally fuelled hatred, then expect the same from them.
In the mean time, can you please explain again how if you were in Bin Laden's shoes (If you cite him as the culprit) that he has NO reason to attack the US?
This is a cycle, which we now perpetuate. It needs to stop, with compassion and justice, not hatred and violence.
There is no first blood, it is a cycle of violence. It has been going on since ages when.
They were responding to some perceived act of violence agianst them, else they could not have justified it. Whether we agree with them of not is another thing... we cannot understand them truly, we are not terrorists, but equally, they cannot understand us, they are not capitalist democrats.
What we do depends on who you read, what you believe, try starting with Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Then maybe Foucault. Either way, they did not attack us without *any* cause. They just attacked us for a cause with which we disagree. There really is no difference between our reasoning and theirs.
Ask yourself, if you wrote the arguments out in logical form, how much would your validation for a strike against the terrorists differ from their justification for the attack in the first place?
The problem is not the argument, but the dogmatic system in which we exist. Both arguments are invalid, but neither side is willing to see it in their own reason.
By counterstriking, we are not getting to the heart of the problem, but in fact, we make it stronger. The situation is caused by fanaticism, dogma, hatred, and irrational violent action. We in the west are just as guilty of this as the terrorists.
Shouldn't we step back and ask not what we can do for our country, but what we can do for humanity?
For once I agree with the NRA; guns don't kill people, but nor do people. Religious hatred motivating weak people kills people. Fight dogma and religion, not people and guns.
Yes, probably true, and doesn't that scare you? What sets us apart from them?
One of the most incredible books to have been written about this is 'The Mars Mystery' By Graham Hancock. The book postulates at length about these phenomena.
Graham Hancock has a really well written, and comprehensive web page, with a page of links that specifically deal with this subject here.
There is a lot of information there, and on the linked pages, about recent discoveries, and not so recent discoveries. One linked page refers to a set of lunar photographs released by Nasa in 1966.
I am not sure personally that this is evidence of anything too fantastic, aliens, conspiracies or the like, but whether it is or not, it is interesting to note that there are some phenomena that do not fit into our currently accepted scientific world theory, and that the investigation into them is going on quite specifically outside of the mainstream.
As Paul K Feyerabend put it, "Success in science depends not only on rational argument but on a mixture of subterfuge, rhetoric and propaganda."
Duly done. I am now fucked off.
Please feel free to enlighten me further with your wisdom and intelligent observations on the topic of the software industry.
Please redirect all future comments to please_tell@some_cunt_who_cares.com
Haha.