Kiril Yeskov wrote The Last Ring-Bearer from the premise that "history is written by the victors" and that, perhaps, Lord of the Rings was propaganda written by the victors of the War of the RIng.
Please don't be obtuse, it makes it hard to have a productive discussion. If I used Osama bin ladin instead of nazi germany how would anything have changed?
Not much, as neither example addresses the main point I was making, namely that the HLP wished to engage in an activity that one could reasonably consider not supportive of terrorism.
As to whether we are personally at war with these people, we are allied with people that are and thus it doesn't really matter.
The Turks view them as terrorists and we have an obligation on pain of them refusing to cooperate with us to treat the kurds as our enemies.
Presumably meaning "to treat the PKK as our enemies".
Regardless, if we accept that they're terrorists then we can't help them. They have to stop.
Can American organizations at least try to convince them to stop and offer them advice on how to press their cause peacefully?
As to their objectives, it is dangerous to take their word for it.
To whose objectives are you referring? The organizations deemed terrorist, or organizations such as the HLP?
Terrorists are very happy to say that a box is full of baby milk one moment and then use that same box full of "baby milk" to blow up a bus later. So you can't believe their position outright because they lie.
As do, of course, states.
It is possible they just wanted to create political problems for their enemies by bringing in international authorities.
What sort of political problems?
As to quixotic political struggles, there will be reprisals from the turks and indians if they perceive you as helping terrorists in their own country.
Then let the Turkish or Indian government take action against the HLP.
I understand what you're saying, the problem is that I don't know if that is actually what they were trying to do. As you must know, the struggle would be quixotic.
"They" the HLP? Presumably "would be" quixotic because the Turkish government won't ever grant the Kurds an independent state, and the Sri Lankan government wouldn't ever have given the Tamils and independent state, except as a result of being defeated in battle?
What happens when that becomes apparent?
People write them off as well-meaning but ineffectual?
And what if they only engage in the process to waste everyone's time in full knowledge that it is all a farce?
Hey, if they waste enough of the organizations' time that they make fewer terrorist attacks, wouldn't that be a Good Thing?:-)
Not that I see any evidence that they only engage in the process to waste everyone's time.
Okay, lets say we're fighting Nazi germany and you're going to run a charity in the US to send medical supplies to starving orphans in Germany that have suffered because of American bombing.
Do you think the US government is going to let you do that?
If you want a closer apples to apples comparision... lets say you're helping the nazis file legal challenges against the US war against Nazi Germany... See?
It all applies.
Again, no; there is no U.S. war against the PKK or the Tamil Tigers.
Look, I feel for the Kurds. They should really have their own country. But our alliance with the turks requires us to not recognize the kurds. And the tamil tigars are not getting their independence this side of ever. So what is the point?
The point of what? Trying to advise the PKK or Tamil Tigers how to peacefully attempt to achieve their goals? Maybe it's Quixotic, but that hardly makes it criminal.
Both of these groups are more likely to get genocided then they are to get independence. If I were them, I'd keep my head down and not piss off the powers that hold sway over me. I might prepare... stock pile weapons... organize. But never give them any provocation to distrust me or oppress my people.
Presumably by "stock pile weapons" you mean "stockpile weapons very secretly", as if "they" find out about it, that would sure turn into "provocation to distrust me or oppress my people".
I'd recommend both groups be loyal members of their respective nations and stop fighting. It serves no purpose.
Perhaps that's what the HLP had in mind?
Look, you don't help terrorists. With anything. That's the law.
It may be the law, but, if "with anything" includes "with trying to achieve your goals with non-terrorist means", then, well, the law is an ass, and should be fixed to more clearly indicate what is, and what isn't, "material support and resources".
The issue is helping a criminal element. That includes helping them by giving them medicine or helping them by giving them food or in this case helping them petition international bodies for aid.
The law doesn't stipulate that some kinds of help for terrorist groups are okay and some are not. It says helping them is wrong.
Then I, at least, consider the law wrong, if it says that help to allow an organization to attempt to achieve goals such as rights for Kurds within Turkey or an independent state for Tamilswithout resorting to violence is wrong. I do not think helping them in that fashion is inherently wrong. That's what was being argued in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project.
It is a requirement that you know they're bad people. So in the case of your charity example, you'd have to show that whomever you wanted to charge with this knew the money was going to terrorists.
Actually, I didn't give any examples, I gave a bunch of links. In the case of Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court held that
As to the particular speech plaintiffs propose to undertake, it is wholly foreseeable that directly training the PKK on how to use international law to resolve disputes would provide that group with information and techniques that it could use as part of a broader strategy to promote terrorism, and to threaten, manipulate, and disrupt. Teaching the PKK to petition international bodies for relief also could help the PKK obtain funding it would redirect to its violent activities.
so that even trying to help a designated terrorist organization solve problems without blowing shit up could help them "promote terrorism" and "threaten, manipulate, and disrupt".
Perhaps 18 U.S. Code 2339A and 2339B could use a little work here, especially given the chilling effects on donations mentioned in some of the links in my previous post.
If someone is providing "material support" to terrorists then fuck them. Lets say Osama bin ladin is living in my house and I know it is him... and I and feeding him and giving him cover. That is an example of material support. If you're doing that... then allow me to say on behalf of the American people, that you can eat all the fucking dicks.
Exactly why is this a bad thing? I don't get it. Someone explain this to me?
Does material support not mean what I think it means? I don't understand.
...is crap. We can afford our *current* system, but not a complete socialist-style healthcare system applied to the general population. It will either destroy the federal budget, or the resulting healthcare for individuals will be far worse than what we see now.
Would you like evidence? No problem: Google for "Veterans Administration" if you want an example of what US-government run healthcare looks like.
As someone whose spouse has had to ensure that travesty of an organization, I can tell you first-hand that you most emphatically do not want to go to a government-run hospital or doctor.
It's nice that you did your Wikipedia homework, but have you actually USED the service in any of these countries to know for a fact that it works to your satisfaction?
I've lived in 3 of these countries and I can categorically say you have no clue what you're talking about.
So in which 3 of the 20 countries referred to by the person to which you're replying have you lived, in what fashion did the health insurance system or the health care system not work to your satisfaction, and in what fashion does the system in the US work more to your satisfaction?
The Netherlands have partially abolished government-run health care because it became too expensive.
By "government-run health care" do you mean "government-owned-and-operated hospitals and government-employed doctors" or do you mean "government-run health insurance paying for care from privately-owned hospitals and privately-employed doctors"?
The study compared Neonicotinoids laced pollen to sugar water. Which means it was not a fair comparison. There needs to be a comparison between Neonicotinoids laced pollen and unlaced pollen.
No, the study compared neonicotinoid-laced sugar water with sugar water:
Individual foraging-age worker bumblebees or cohorts of 25 forager honeybees were housed in plastic boxes for 24 h and given access to two types of food tubes: one containing sucrose solution and one containing sucrose solution laced with a specific concentration of the[sic] IMD, TX, or CLO.
(If you follow the "bees prefer nectar laced with neonicotinoids" link in the/. article and then the "the insects tended to eat more of the contaminated food" link from the article you get to after following that link, you can read the paper without going through a paywall.)
So, no, it's not a comparison between neonicotinoid-laced pollen and pollen, but it's also not a comparison between (neonicotinoid-laced) pollen and sugar water.
I can't even get past the fact that the TWC - AOL merger was labeled the worst in the entire history of the US and then they went for a second indentical title with Comcast. Who the hell is running things at Time Warner?
Different people from the ones who are running things at Time Warner Cable, as Time Warner Cable was spun off from Time Warner in 2009. (And Time Warner has nothing to do with Time Magazine; that's now a product of Time Inc.)
"our skills actually create value."
But legal skills create money. Most people would choose money over value (would you like $100 in fiat currency or 40 loaves of bread?).
I might go for the 40 loaves of bread, if I could sell them for more than $100.
On the other hand, I might choose a Fiat 500 over either of them.
OS X actually has perfectly fine support for shared libraries. They are supposed to be installed under/Library/Frameworks,
...and OS X keeps track of which installed applications use them, and either prevent uninstallation of shared libraries/frameworks that are used by installed applications or at least warn about it?
No, it doesn't - it doesn't even have an official uninstaller (although the ambitious can whip up a script to do that, such as the Wireshark uninstaller script I have; not sophisticated, though, as it doesn't dump the file list from the package manifest to figure out what stuff needs to be removed, it just has that knowledge wired into it).
And it definitely does not have a way to tie installable application A to installable shared library/framework X, so that installing A automatically installs X if A and X are separate packages from separate vendors.
That is the sort of "[management of] shared libraries/frameworks as installable objects separate from applications that use them" to which I was referring.
And, yes, that does sound a bit like the packaging management systems on some Linux distributions. From my limited experience with various Linux VMs on my Mac, they seems to work OK, but I don't have enough experience with them to say that there aren't problematic failure modes.
At least OS X frameworks have some support for versioning, so that if application A tested with version n of X and set up to require version n and application B is tested with version m of X and set up to require version m, they could be installed "side-by-side".
There's no reason why they couldn't do that on iOS as well, just let developers share frameworks on the App Store and build a mechanism into the App Store where an app can require other apps or frameworks.
And set up a framework (no pun intended) so that they can do the same sort of vetting of frameworks that they do on applications. Yes, that would be a Good Thing, but I'm not about to assume, without further information, that it's not that hard.
Non system libraries are statically linked.a files in IOS. Apple insists on this, although I'm not entirely sure why. I guess its to avoid DLL hell.
I suppose they could support providing dynamically-linked libraries as part of an app bundle. However, it's not clear why that would be any better than statically linking the library, as Apple probably wouldn't allow those dynamically-linked libraries to be shared between applications (apps being sandboxed, they couldn't pull in a.dylib from another app bundle) and wouldn't allow them to be updated separately from the app bundle. The only advantages it might provide would be code sharing between executable images in the same app bundle and convenience of building app bundles if the libraries are provided as.dylibs.
Neither OS X nor iOS are really set up to manage shared libraries/frameworks as installable objects separate from applications that use them. Perhaps they should be set up to do so, but that might need to be done carefully to avoid, well, DLL hell.
Trains don't have security theater yet because of the lower perceived potential impact - you can't crash a train into something, for example. This is, of course, an display of lack of imagination.
These days you don't see the same hype around microkernals that you did back then
No, but they are still in use. HURD, FreeBSD, OS X, and iOS all use the Mach microkernel to some extent.
For FreeBSD, presumably you mean "FreeBSD is based on 4.4-Lite, and 4.4BSD picked up the virtual memory system from Mach", rather than "FreeBSD uses the Mach messaging code", which it doesn't. So it doesn't use any of the microkernelish parts of Mach.
(Not that OS X or iOS make much traditionally-microkernelish use of them, either.)
Slashdot Mirror
Kiril Yeskov wrote The Last Ring-Bearer from the premise that "history is written by the victors" and that, perhaps, Lord of the Rings was propaganda written by the victors of the War of the RIng.
The Eagles are representations of those who dwell beyond the Sea,
Actually, most of them were born in the Midwest or Texas.
No, he would be considered pretty right wing in France, the UK, Italy, Germany, in fact... pretty much all of Europe.
Right-wing, or centrist? What are examples of European centrists to his left?
Please don't be obtuse, it makes it hard to have a productive discussion. If I used Osama bin ladin instead of nazi germany how would anything have changed?
Not much, as neither example addresses the main point I was making, namely that the HLP wished to engage in an activity that one could reasonably consider not supportive of terrorism.
As to whether we are personally at war with these people, we are allied with people that are and thus it doesn't really matter.
The Turks view them as terrorists and we have an obligation on pain of them refusing to cooperate with us to treat the kurds as our enemies.
Presumably meaning "to treat the PKK as our enemies".
Regardless, if we accept that they're terrorists then we can't help them. They have to stop.
Can American organizations at least try to convince them to stop and offer them advice on how to press their cause peacefully?
As to their objectives, it is dangerous to take their word for it.
To whose objectives are you referring? The organizations deemed terrorist, or organizations such as the HLP?
Terrorists are very happy to say that a box is full of baby milk one moment and then use that same box full of "baby milk" to blow up a bus later. So you can't believe their position outright because they lie.
As do, of course, states.
It is possible they just wanted to create political problems for their enemies by bringing in international authorities.
What sort of political problems?
As to quixotic political struggles, there will be reprisals from the turks and indians if they perceive you as helping terrorists in their own country.
Then let the Turkish or Indian government take action against the HLP.
I understand what you're saying, the problem is that I don't know if that is actually what they were trying to do. As you must know, the struggle would be quixotic.
"They" the HLP? Presumably "would be" quixotic because the Turkish government won't ever grant the Kurds an independent state, and the Sri Lankan government wouldn't ever have given the Tamils and independent state, except as a result of being defeated in battle?
What happens when that becomes apparent?
People write them off as well-meaning but ineffectual?
And what if they only engage in the process to waste everyone's time in full knowledge that it is all a farce?
Hey, if they waste enough of the organizations' time that they make fewer terrorist attacks, wouldn't that be a Good Thing? :-)
Not that I see any evidence that they only engage in the process to waste everyone's time.
Okay, lets say we're fighting Nazi germany and you're going to run a charity in the US to send medical supplies to starving orphans in Germany that have suffered because of American bombing.
Do you think the US government is going to let you do that?
No, but that's a different case. Quite apart from the fact that the Third Reich was a nation-state whilst neither the PKK nor the Tamil Tigers are, and that we're not at war with either of those organizations (aside from being "at war" with "terrorism"), what the Humanitarian Law project in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project said they wanted to do was "[trainin] PKK members to use international law to resolve disputes peacefully; [teach] PKK mem- bers to petition the United Nations and other representative bodies for relief; and [engage] in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds living in Turkey and Tamils living in Sri Lanka."
If you want a closer apples to apples comparision... lets say you're helping the nazis file legal challenges against the US war against Nazi Germany... See?
It all applies.
Again, no; there is no U.S. war against the PKK or the Tamil Tigers.
Look, I feel for the Kurds. They should really have their own country. But our alliance with the turks requires us to not recognize the kurds. And the tamil tigars are not getting their independence this side of ever. So what is the point?
The point of what? Trying to advise the PKK or Tamil Tigers how to peacefully attempt to achieve their goals? Maybe it's Quixotic, but that hardly makes it criminal.
Both of these groups are more likely to get genocided then they are to get independence. If I were them, I'd keep my head down and not piss off the powers that hold sway over me. I might prepare... stock pile weapons... organize. But never give them any provocation to distrust me or oppress my people.
Presumably by "stock pile weapons" you mean "stockpile weapons very secretly", as if "they" find out about it, that would sure turn into "provocation to distrust me or oppress my people".
I'd recommend both groups be loyal members of their respective nations and stop fighting. It serves no purpose.
Perhaps that's what the HLP had in mind?
Look, you don't help terrorists. With anything. That's the law.
It may be the law, but, if "with anything" includes "with trying to achieve your goals with non-terrorist means", then, well, the law is an ass, and should be fixed to more clearly indicate what is, and what isn't, "material support and resources".
Oh my... do you really want to talk about the cold war?
Sure.
Yes, the US did undermine democracies during the cold war but only when they were seen to be allied with Soviets.
Seen by people with a clue, or seen by people who thought "willingness not to be hostile towards the Soviet Union" constituted an alliance, or seen by the predecessor to British Petroleum to be a bunch of pesky nationalizers?
Would it matter to you if I pointed out that a fair number of democracies were subverted by the soviets as well? I think not.
You are correct - it wouldn't matter because 1) I already knew it and 2) "they did it, too" is insufficient for me to overlook our doing it.
Would it matter if I said that the calculation was that if the soviets gained a foothold they'd use it to project power and undermine other countries?
No, because I'm not convinced that they would have gained that sort of foothold in, say, Guatemala or Iran.
The issue is helping a criminal element. That includes helping them by giving them medicine or helping them by giving them food or in this case helping them petition international bodies for aid.
The law doesn't stipulate that some kinds of help for terrorist groups are okay and some are not. It says helping them is wrong.
Then I, at least, consider the law wrong, if it says that help to allow an organization to attempt to achieve goals such as rights for Kurds within Turkey or an independent state for Tamils without resorting to violence is wrong. I do not think helping them in that fashion is inherently wrong. That's what was being argued in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project.
It is a requirement that you know they're bad people. So in the case of your charity example, you'd have to show that whomever you wanted to charge with this knew the money was going to terrorists.
Actually, I didn't give any examples, I gave a bunch of links. In the case of Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court held that
so that even trying to help a designated terrorist organization solve problems without blowing shit up could help them "promote terrorism" and "threaten, manipulate, and disrupt".
Perhaps 18 U.S. Code 2339A and 2339B could use a little work here, especially given the chilling effects on donations mentioned in some of the links in my previous post.
If someone is providing "material support" to terrorists then fuck them. Lets say Osama bin ladin is living in my house and I know it is him... and I and feeding him and giving him cover. That is an example of material support. If you're doing that... then allow me to say on behalf of the American people, that you can eat all the fucking dicks.
Exactly why is this a bad thing? I don't get it. Someone explain this to me?
Does material support not mean what I think it means? I don't understand.
Well, here's what it means according to law.
However, whether something counts as "material support" or not is, well, up to interpretation, as has been noted by a number of people.
What are you talking about? Steven Wozniak built the first Apple computer.
YHBT.
That's not something you hear often...
...but you know what? ....it works.
Especially as the name of a rock band.
...is crap. We can afford our *current* system, but not a complete socialist-style healthcare system applied to the general population. It will either destroy the federal budget, or the resulting healthcare for individuals will be far worse than what we see now.
Would you like evidence? No problem: Google for "Veterans Administration" if you want an example of what US-government run healthcare looks like.
As someone whose spouse has had to ensure that travesty of an organization, I can tell you first-hand that you most emphatically do not want to go to a government-run hospital or doctor.
So how about a system wherein the provision of health care services isn't a government monopoly, but you have, for example, either a national insurance system paying for the provision of health care services from private and public entities or a mixture of legally-required insurance provided by regulated non-profit insurance organizations or, for some, private insurance organizations, paying for the provision of health care services from private and public entities?
And Australia.
You appear to be mistaken.
It's nice that you did your Wikipedia homework, but have you actually USED the service in any of these countries to know for a fact that it works to your satisfaction? I've lived in 3 of these countries and I can categorically say you have no clue what you're talking about.
So in which 3 of the 20 countries referred to by the person to which you're replying have you lived, in what fashion did the health insurance system or the health care system not work to your satisfaction, and in what fashion does the system in the US work more to your satisfaction?
The Netherlands have partially abolished government-run health care because it became too expensive.
By "government-run health care" do you mean "government-owned-and-operated hospitals and government-employed doctors" or do you mean "government-run health insurance paying for care from privately-owned hospitals and privately-employed doctors"?
God already told us about the 4 corners of the earth
Four corners?
The study compared Neonicotinoids laced pollen to sugar water. Which means it was not a fair comparison. There needs to be a comparison between Neonicotinoids laced pollen and unlaced pollen.
No, the study compared neonicotinoid-laced sugar water with sugar water:
(If you follow the "bees prefer nectar laced with neonicotinoids" link in the /. article and then the "the insects tended to eat more of the contaminated food" link from the article you get to after following that link, you can read the paper without going through a paywall.)
So, no, it's not a comparison between neonicotinoid-laced pollen and pollen, but it's also not a comparison between (neonicotinoid-laced) pollen and sugar water.
I can't even get past the fact that the TWC - AOL merger was labeled the worst in the entire history of the US and then they went for a second indentical title with Comcast. Who the hell is running things at Time Warner?
Different people from the ones who are running things at Time Warner Cable, as Time Warner Cable was spun off from Time Warner in 2009. (And Time Warner has nothing to do with Time Magazine; that's now a product of Time Inc.)
... the forward looking understanding of technology that Time Warner, a copyright focused company would have brought to the relationship.
So why would a cable company be "copyright-focused"?
"our skills actually create value." But legal skills create money. Most people would choose money over value (would you like $100 in fiat currency or 40 loaves of bread?).
I might go for the 40 loaves of bread, if I could sell them for more than $100.
On the other hand, I might choose a Fiat 500 over either of them.
FUCK you and your god damned bullshit.
Fuck you culture warrior identity politics fuckface asshole prick.
BC/AD is part of the fucking culture ass grabbing fuck puke.
FUCK YOU, history changer Goebbels re-writer.
I vote for renaming them BFC ("Before Fucking Christ") and AFD ("Anno Fucking Domini").
OS X actually has perfectly fine support for shared libraries. They are supposed to be installed under /Library/Frameworks,
...and OS X keeps track of which installed applications use them, and either prevent uninstallation of shared libraries/frameworks that are used by installed applications or at least warn about it?
No, it doesn't - it doesn't even have an official uninstaller (although the ambitious can whip up a script to do that, such as the Wireshark uninstaller script I have; not sophisticated, though, as it doesn't dump the file list from the package manifest to figure out what stuff needs to be removed, it just has that knowledge wired into it).
And it definitely does not have a way to tie installable application A to installable shared library/framework X, so that installing A automatically installs X if A and X are separate packages from separate vendors.
That is the sort of "[management of] shared libraries/frameworks as installable objects separate from applications that use them" to which I was referring.
And, yes, that does sound a bit like the packaging management systems on some Linux distributions. From my limited experience with various Linux VMs on my Mac, they seems to work OK, but I don't have enough experience with them to say that there aren't problematic failure modes.
At least OS X frameworks have some support for versioning, so that if application A tested with version n of X and set up to require version n and application B is tested with version m of X and set up to require version m, they could be installed "side-by-side".
There's no reason why they couldn't do that on iOS as well, just let developers share frameworks on the App Store and build a mechanism into the App Store where an app can require other apps or frameworks.
And set up a framework (no pun intended) so that they can do the same sort of vetting of frameworks that they do on applications. Yes, that would be a Good Thing, but I'm not about to assume, without further information, that it's not that hard.
Non system libraries are statically linked .a files in IOS. Apple insists on this, although I'm not entirely sure why. I guess its to avoid DLL hell.
I suppose they could support providing dynamically-linked libraries as part of an app bundle. However, it's not clear why that would be any better than statically linking the library, as Apple probably wouldn't allow those dynamically-linked libraries to be shared between applications (apps being sandboxed, they couldn't pull in a .dylib from another app bundle) and wouldn't allow them to be updated separately from the app bundle. The only advantages it might provide would be code sharing between executable images in the same app bundle and convenience of building app bundles if the libraries are provided as .dylibs.
Neither OS X nor iOS are really set up to manage shared libraries/frameworks as installable objects separate from applications that use them. Perhaps they should be set up to do so, but that might need to be done carefully to avoid, well, DLL hell.
Trains don't have security theater yet because of the lower perceived potential impact - you can't crash a train into something, for example. This is, of course, an display of lack of imagination.
Yup.
No, but they are still in use. HURD, FreeBSD, OS X, and iOS all use the Mach microkernel to some extent.
For FreeBSD, presumably you mean "FreeBSD is based on 4.4-Lite, and 4.4BSD picked up the virtual memory system from Mach", rather than "FreeBSD uses the Mach messaging code", which it doesn't. So it doesn't use any of the microkernelish parts of Mach.
(Not that OS X or iOS make much traditionally-microkernelish use of them, either.)