Ahh well. As for the driverless car/truck/bike - this sounds quite cool, what makes this harder than pilotless planes? (We already have those, the drone things... I am missing something?)
Isn't this argument as old as locks? What produces a better lock?
1) A box containing a secret that isn't easy to examine
2) A box open to inspection that interested parties can improve
Microsoft believe (or say they believe) it's the former, many people (myself included) believe it's the latter. Open Source can only work if you believe it's the latter.
Most government agencies behave as if they believe option 1. So what is their motivation in choosing Open Source?
What I'd really like is "Open Source Government" (are you listening Mr Blair?).
Of course all locks (and all software) is less than perfect, and flaws will be found in both kinds, but I think they are more visible and easier to fix if we can all see.
Bill Gates won't be a "sir" as he isn't a british subject - he'll be Bill Gates KBE (Knight of the British Empire), but not "Sir Bill Gates" (I'd have more chance - mind you I'd need to change my name to William Gates, and do something worth getting knighted for... but you know what I mean).
As to does he deserve it? I don't see it personally, but then I miss the "Golden Age" when computers were all different (Amiga, Atari, Mac, etc). "Which version of XP do you want?" (Home, Professional, Media, Tablet) isn't quite the same really. As we have Billg to thank for the near monoculture of modern IT I find it hard to applaud.
Maybe it is stupid to spend $1000+ on a PC just to play games.
If all you want are FPS's, platform games, driving games, etc then a PS2 or XBox (for Halo probably) would be better. Of course the GameCube is a steal at it's new price point (Metroid Prime anyone?).
Of course if you're into Flightsims then a PC is a requirement. Personally I think that consoles are often overlooked by PC buyers, a PC to do "light duty" is very cheap (and by "light duty" I mean WP, email etc) you could afford a console and a slew of games with the "change". As I say not much use if you're a flightsim nut.
Well for me at least I went from C64 --> Atari ST --> Amiga --> Acorn RISC OS --> NeXTSTEP --> WindowsNT4 --> Linux --> Mac OS X Server
And on the the "finished" versions of Mac OS X (Mac OS X users will understand this last point Mac OS X Server 1.x was a VERY different product to Mac OS X Server 10.x).
The C64 wasn't my first machine, but was one I really liked, however the provided language was dreadful, I rather liked the BBC from that point of view (inline assembler - or drop in another language ROM - neat!). Alas I couldn't afford a BBC B, and the games were better on the C64 anyway!
Still it's good that people still remember this "golden age" of computer design, before the clones (which would be fine, if they'd not killed off all the other systems). I know a lot of PC peeps don't like to hear this - but I really miss those times and the number of totally different machines there were. Anybody else feel that?
I still regularly use a NeXT Cube with the legendary NeXTdimension card. She's double headed (1 Mono MegaPixel display and 1 Colour 21" MegaPixel display) with a orignal non-ADB keyboard and mouse.
I use it to diagnose network problems, look up quotes (the book kind not the stock kind) and as a display for my PS2, or Nintendo GameCube. She's in wonderful condition and is a very special part of computing history. I have other NeXT systems, but this is the nicest they made. She was made in 1992.
I find it amazing how many people have a "problem" with the GPL and see it as "restrictive" - when it's aim is quite the converse.
We have an obligation to legislate not just for one section of the software industry who seeks to impose its business model on the rest of industry, which moreover is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users.
So are we expected to believe that the GPL restricts the rights of users? Firstly the GPL doesn't restrict what you can USE the software for - business, is quite acceptable.
It doesn't even restrict the rights of developers, they can extend the software however they feel. What it does do is PROTECT the rights of users and developers to have the same rights from derived works.
So if I extend some GPL program that's fine, if I wish to distribute the derived work that's also fine, BUT I must make my changes under the GPL. If I don't want that then I can't work with that product. Seems easy.
Compare that with "traditional" software (actually open source is older than the closed model, but you know what I mean), here I can't extend the product because I don't have the source, and I am not allowed to decompile it (for any use).
In short the GPL restricts a right that traditional software DOESN'T give me! Even that restriction is only that I cannot take that right away in derived works.
You can make money from GPL software, it is not "anti-business" you can charge for services, and additions to the software, but you make those in the environment of the GPL.
I am not saying I think the GPL is the right way to go for ALL software, clearly it isn't - but the GPL is not evil, and end users have nothing to fear from it. Developers should understand the legal impact any license they agree to (but this should not be a problem, as long as one takes care to check the details).
I think you're forgetting Unix - it was open source, before someone decided that to make a buck off it they needed to close the source.
I'd also add that most "open source" projects are started by some one who needs a program to do something, so they are often in fairly established areas, but this doesn't mean that they are not good/useful projects.
Sendmail would also strike me as an exception to you rule.
It replaced Display Postscript with Display PDF. (To quote Apple about Quartz Extreme: "...Quartz, the revolutionary composited windowing system in Mac OS X that uses the Portable Document Format (PDF) as the basis of its imaging model.")
Sure, actually Quartz is a mix of Display PDF, QuickTime, and OpenGL, though Apple's documentation sometimes shows Quartz AND QuickTime, OpenGL - Apple aren't very consistant with their use of terminology. It gives a lot of the advantages of Display PostScript without the performance overhead. Many of the ideas are being "borrowed" by the open source community.
The usage of Postscript did seem pretty weird; using vector rather than bitmap based widgets has advantages, but Postscript seems like overkill to me. I suppose decent caching (as done for vector fonts) should eliminate almost all the performance penalty, but still...
Actually performance tuning was a big issue, and choosing between the three methods was quite a problem. The performance was such an issue that NeXT provided a way around it for Insigna Solutions (makers of SoftPC) called "Interceptor" that basically blew a hole in the windowserver for the application to manipulate directly (but the docmentation was never released and it was always buggy {from what I'm told - I never used it myself}).
Of course dragging the Print menu item into your menu to allow your application to print was very attractive! (Apple have that ability in Mac OS X by virtue of using PDF)
Sorry that's what I MEANT (and your second person to think I meant something else - so "my bad").
Actually it was not just the high costs associated with Display PostScript but the poor performance too. Of course Display PostScript has some neat tricks too - but on balance I think Quartz is a solution more in tune with the Mac.
No, Quartz is what replaced "Display Postscript" in Mac OS X 10.0 and onwards.
The NeXT often had programmers more familiar with Objective C (an OO version of C) bending their minds around PostScript to get the window server to display their new widget correctly.
Yeah, but Apple dropped it in Mac OS X v10.0 (and later). It only appeared in Mac OS X Server 1.0 - 1.2 (Crazy numbering there from Apple's marketing department!)
On the NeXT running with "public windowserver" was considered a security risk (and rightly so) though I never saw an 'sploit that used this.
Programming PostScript is a similar mind bending experience to programming Forth.
The new Mac windowserver is much faster than the one on the NeXT but being PDF based has similar "look Ma, no extra code" printing abilities (which is cool). Apple took the view that the Mac needed high performance (for games - I know Mac & games in the same sentance... weird). I believe that the GNUstep project uses GhostScript in a similar way to the way NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript (see www.gnustep.org for more).
Well for myself I'd want to burn it to CD to I could listen to it in the car. And the clincher is - what happens if the "great experiment" fails?
With Apple's offering I own the music and can put it onto CD, if Microsoft pulls the plug my music collection evaporates a month after it stops. Let's not forget paying that bill (no pun intended) may not be our decision, they may find that the service isn't cost effective. Come to it, they might hike the price up, so you're held hostage by your music collection. On refection I like Apple's view of music better.
Okay sure, the Windows pop was a little cheap (I've obviously started to "conform" to Mac culture).
Well it seems that in many ways they are very similar - sure the technology is different but they seem to do the same things.
What we have is a desktop with (maybe) two screens and a laptop with no keyboard that convert from one to another. Sure you're getting there two different ways but that's what you're doing in both cases.
I'll be honest, the best seems to be the Tablet PC, the higher bandwidth between processor and display seems much better, and the fact that it works when truly separated from the basestation. Of course the down side is that the whole PC must conform to the limitations of a laptop. But neither seems well optimised for Quake or similar.
As for Mac, well I'm a Mac OS 9 hater... I just don't get what the attraction was. Mac OS X is actually very nice - I'm unconfortable with Microsoft's practices and power. But I know that a lot of people like the price/performance of Intel PCs, I just draw my line in a different place. (I spent 10 long years with lots of PCs - I just wanted something that worked better, even if it wasn't the fastest thing on the block).
I'm unsure about the whole proposition of Tablet PCs (and as I said - I don't think the Smart Display is really for me) and would feel more positive if the whole thing could be converted to Linux if I didn't get on with XP (I've used XP for 5 mins - and hated it, they'd moved EVERYTHING from Windows2000). I'm not even sure I'd want a Mac Tablet - if Apple did such a thing they'd really need to change how ink works on a Mac. (I use a pen input thing on my Mac)
So we've all figured out that this isn't a Tablet PC thingy - anyone know where we can find that reviewed?
I guess I'd like to see what (if anything) stands in the way of a Linix Tablet on that hardware.
This is sort of confusing though - I don't see why you'd want this "Smart Display" instead of a Tablet PC? Weird. (But then I guess I don't quite understand why you'd want a Windows PC anyway... games perhaps, though PS2 and GameCube seems more than enough for anyone...)
I imagine MS will be calling EA to get this game "fixed" to stop this from happening - it'll be interesting to see if EA "fix" it really quickly or drag their feet (after all, won't they sell a few copies of this now?)
This sounds pretty damn spiffy to me, I like the idea of using an XBox to run Linux software - and I don't see doing this can be seen as breaking any laws. I mean, you'd not be pirating anything, or modifying anything it HAS to be in the clear - right?
It's an interesting point - I think that we'd have called it a 'covert operation'. The media do like the word terrorism, as it is now so politically loaded. It does in part depend on WHO is doing it. (Here I mean soldier, operative or citizien not a political classification) I did find the use of the word odd myself.
I'm just saying that your sig is actually misleading (it needs clarification) AND is likely to cause offense. I think it would be better if you changed it, as a mark of respect for the lives lost on 9/11, but also as I think that causing offense to someone is a bad start to changing their mind.
As I said I'm not American, and perhaps you'd like to remember that the attack of 9/11 wasn't an attack on Americans but an attack on the nationals of many nations, including the Muslims that the attackers claim to represent.
Well of course I don't quite see it as you do, I agree that it's not always as cut and dried as it's presented. You keep talking about the bombing of desalination plants - but it's not just civilians who need drinking water, in war targets such as this DO have military significance and concern for the civilian population can make it onto the "back burner". This is not something we can be proud of, but we must protect the lives of our own citiziens first, let us hope that in this campain we can (and of course we can, it needs the political will to do so) pay more attention to the needs of the people of Iraq. But if you fight a war with "one hand tied behind your back" then ultimatly you lose and civilians get killed anyway - fighting in a humanitarian way is very hard.
You also have to look at the conduct of the "troops" to decide if they are soldiers or enemy combatants. People who hijack planes, or remove military uniforms to blend with the civilians are not soldiers. Do I think this should be used as a reason to dodge the Geneva Convention? No, I don't agree with that policy at all.
There is no "war" between Al Qaeda, because Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation - there IS a war between Iraq. It the the mothods of Al Qaeda that mean that their actions cannot be called a war. Osama bin Laden hides under cover of Jihad and religion to try and give legitimacy to the actions of Al Qaeda, we should not fall into the trap of seeing him as representing his religion. His use of it as cover defiles it, just as the IRA's defiled theirs. He wants us to mistake Al Qaeda for Muslims, we must not allow that to happen.
It is important that we try and act in an even handed way now - we have not done so in the past, and there is blood on our hands, now is the time to support the creation of a Palestine state that is secure from attack.
But I still find the sig offensive - perhaps you might want to consider: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".
Well again you're confusing a war with terrorism. As for Israel's attacks on Palestine, I don't agree with them or think they are effective in the way you suggest. Personally I believe that the Israel/Palestine situation is a graphic example of where the west's policy has failed - largely due to a lack of political will, I hope that this will change and that a equitable and lasting peace can conclude hostilities.
The idea that flying a passenger jet into a building is a way of "denting" it is just foolish. The aim of the attackers of 9/11 is clear - to cause a massive loss of life. There can be no justification for this inhuman act.
You are right that causing civilian deaths can be an effective weapon of war, and one that western powers have used in the past - and one that might be necessary again. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced the Japanese to surrender, and from a military stand point have to be seen as effective.
You seem to think that I'm American - I'm not, and I did not agree with Americans funding the IRA at the time, but remember that this was not the US Administration.
There can be no excuse or justification for the attacks of 9/11 or any doubt that those who sanctioned those attacks did not intend the consequences. To suggest otherwise is to defile the lives lost on that day.
But War ISN'T Terrorism. Terrorism is spreading fear amoung populations for political aims, war is a military compain to achieve objectives that cannot be achieved dipolomatically (either because they are unreasonable or becasue those at war are facing an unreasonable administration). They are QUITE different.
In a wartime situation you might reasonably hit something like WTC, but normally you would do it with military ordinance during the night. The night time affords cover and minimises civilian deaths, normally this would ONLY happen after war had started (ie hostilities would be announced).
I find your sig to be offensive, and detracts from anything you have to say - the WTC was not destroyed as a military target, but as a symbol of economic power and a place of high population density (the death of civilians was the objective), your sig tries to paint a different picture.
This Texas Rep seems to have forgotten WHO elected him, the parents of "these kids" and sending someone to jail for three years for swapping files (albeit copyrighted works) seems rather harsh, they'd probably have been better off to actually steal the CDs! (In terms of their sentence)
I don't think that a justice system should be used to "scare" someone - especially when a great number of people don't think that much of a crime has been committed. Basically people have taped each others' CDs and records for years, and music still gets made, Puffy Daddy still buys his plane, the sky doesn't fall in. The problem is we don't see "these kids" as criminals - okay they are, but not the kind of criminals who need to be jailed. We do see a lot of musicians as criminals though, they make vast fortunes from music that is likely to inflame racial tensions and advocate criminal acts - this Texas Rep should choose his friends more wisely if he hopes to be re-elected.
It also seems pretty hypocritical to add a levy on blank CD media and STILL go after individuals who are buying them. It seems that the music industry wants to be paid twice - once for original CDs and once for blank media.
Well this makes one start to wonder, if each program is going to have a unique DLL (or at least one shared with VERY few others) why bother to have DLLs at all? Why not just roll the library up into the application binary?!
It'll be interesting to see how this adds to the bloat, I imagine it won't take long for the average user to amass quite a number of these things, mostly doing the same job!
Slashdot Mirror
Err - offtopic?! (It's meant to be funny)
(Hmm, "userless modding" maybe?)
Ahh well. As for the driverless car/truck/bike - this sounds quite cool, what makes this harder than pilotless planes? (We already have those, the drone things... I am missing something?)
So sad... Maybe you could setup a "userless firstpost!" ... But who'd fund it?
Isn't this argument as old as locks? What produces a better lock?
1) A box containing a secret that isn't easy to examine
2) A box open to inspection that interested parties can improve
Microsoft believe (or say they believe) it's the former, many people (myself included) believe it's the latter. Open Source can only work if you believe it's the latter.
Most government agencies behave as if they believe option 1. So what is their motivation in choosing Open Source?
What I'd really like is "Open Source Government" (are you listening Mr Blair?).
Of course all locks (and all software) is less than perfect, and flaws will be found in both kinds, but I think they are more visible and easier to fix if we can all see.
Bill Gates won't be a "sir" as he isn't a british subject - he'll be Bill Gates KBE (Knight of the British Empire), but not "Sir Bill Gates" (I'd have more chance - mind you I'd need to change my name to William Gates, and do something worth getting knighted for... but you know what I mean).
As to does he deserve it? I don't see it personally, but then I miss the "Golden Age" when computers were all different (Amiga, Atari, Mac, etc). "Which version of XP do you want?" (Home, Professional, Media, Tablet) isn't quite the same really. As we have Billg to thank for the near monoculture of modern IT I find it hard to applaud.
Maybe it is stupid to spend $1000+ on a PC just to play games.
If all you want are FPS's, platform games, driving games, etc then a PS2 or XBox (for Halo probably) would be better. Of course the GameCube is a steal at it's new price point (Metroid Prime anyone?).
Of course if you're into Flightsims then a PC is a requirement. Personally I think that consoles are often overlooked by PC buyers, a PC to do "light duty" is very cheap (and by "light duty" I mean WP, email etc) you could afford a console and a slew of games with the "change". As I say not much use if you're a flightsim nut.
Well for me at least I went from C64 --> Atari ST --> Amiga --> Acorn RISC OS --> NeXTSTEP --> WindowsNT4 --> Linux --> Mac OS X Server
And on the the "finished" versions of Mac OS X (Mac OS X users will understand this last point Mac OS X Server 1.x was a VERY different product to Mac OS X Server 10.x).
The C64 wasn't my first machine, but was one I really liked, however the provided language was dreadful, I rather liked the BBC from that point of view (inline assembler - or drop in another language ROM - neat!). Alas I couldn't afford a BBC B, and the games were better on the C64 anyway!
Still it's good that people still remember this "golden age" of computer design, before the clones (which would be fine, if they'd not killed off all the other systems). I know a lot of PC peeps don't like to hear this - but I really miss those times and the number of totally different machines there were. Anybody else feel that?
I still regularly use a NeXT Cube with the legendary NeXTdimension card. She's double headed (1 Mono MegaPixel display and 1 Colour 21" MegaPixel display) with a orignal non-ADB keyboard and mouse.
I use it to diagnose network problems, look up quotes (the book kind not the stock kind) and as a display for my PS2, or Nintendo GameCube. She's in wonderful condition and is a very special part of computing history. I have other NeXT systems, but this is the nicest they made. She was made in 1992.
I find it amazing how many people have a "problem" with the GPL and see it as "restrictive" - when it's aim is quite the converse.
We have an obligation to legislate not just for one section of the software industry who seeks to impose its business model on the rest of industry, which moreover is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users.
So are we expected to believe that the GPL restricts the rights of users? Firstly the GPL doesn't restrict what you can USE the software for - business, is quite acceptable.
It doesn't even restrict the rights of developers, they can extend the software however they feel. What it does do is PROTECT the rights of users and developers to have the same rights from derived works.
So if I extend some GPL program that's fine, if I wish to distribute the derived work that's also fine, BUT I must make my changes under the GPL. If I don't want that then I can't work with that product. Seems easy.
Compare that with "traditional" software (actually open source is older than the closed model, but you know what I mean), here I can't extend the product because I don't have the source, and I am not allowed to decompile it (for any use).
In short the GPL restricts a right that traditional software DOESN'T give me! Even that restriction is only that I cannot take that right away in derived works.
You can make money from GPL software, it is not "anti-business" you can charge for services, and additions to the software, but you make those in the environment of the GPL.
I am not saying I think the GPL is the right way to go for ALL software, clearly it isn't - but the GPL is not evil, and end users have nothing to fear from it. Developers should understand the legal impact any license they agree to (but this should not be a problem, as long as one takes care to check the details).
Is anyone else bored with this come back?
I think you're forgetting Unix - it was open source, before someone decided that to make a buck off it they needed to close the source.
I'd also add that most "open source" projects are started by some one who needs a program to do something, so they are often in fairly established areas, but this doesn't mean that they are not good/useful projects.
Sendmail would also strike me as an exception to you rule.
It replaced Display Postscript with Display PDF. (To quote Apple about Quartz Extreme: "...Quartz, the revolutionary composited windowing system in Mac OS X that uses the Portable Document Format (PDF) as the basis of its imaging model.")
Sure, actually Quartz is a mix of Display PDF, QuickTime, and OpenGL, though Apple's documentation sometimes shows Quartz AND QuickTime, OpenGL - Apple aren't very consistant with their use of terminology. It gives a lot of the advantages of Display PostScript without the performance overhead. Many of the ideas are being "borrowed" by the open source community.
The usage of Postscript did seem pretty weird; using vector rather than bitmap based widgets has advantages, but Postscript seems like overkill to me. I suppose decent caching (as done for vector fonts) should eliminate almost all the performance penalty, but still...
Actually performance tuning was a big issue, and choosing between the three methods was quite a problem. The performance was such an issue that NeXT provided a way around it for Insigna Solutions (makers of SoftPC) called "Interceptor" that basically blew a hole in the windowserver for the application to manipulate directly (but the docmentation was never released and it was always buggy {from what I'm told - I never used it myself}). Of course dragging the Print menu item into your menu to allow your application to print was very attractive! (Apple have that ability in Mac OS X by virtue of using PDF)
Sorry that's what I MEANT (and your second person to think I meant something else - so "my bad").
Actually it was not just the high costs associated with Display PostScript but the poor performance too. Of course Display PostScript has some neat tricks too - but on balance I think Quartz is a solution more in tune with the Mac.
No, Quartz is what replaced "Display Postscript" in Mac OS X 10.0 and onwards.
The NeXT often had programmers more familiar with Objective C (an OO version of C) bending their minds around PostScript to get the window server to display their new widget correctly.
Yeah, but Apple dropped it in Mac OS X v10.0 (and later). It only appeared in Mac OS X Server 1.0 - 1.2 (Crazy numbering there from Apple's marketing department!)
On the NeXT running with "public windowserver" was considered a security risk (and rightly so) though I never saw an 'sploit that used this.
Programming PostScript is a similar mind bending experience to programming Forth.
The new Mac windowserver is much faster than the one on the NeXT but being PDF based has similar "look Ma, no extra code" printing abilities (which is cool). Apple took the view that the Mac needed high performance (for games - I know Mac & games in the same sentance... weird). I believe that the GNUstep project uses GhostScript in a similar way to the way NeXTSTEP used Display PostScript (see www.gnustep.org for more).
Well for myself I'd want to burn it to CD to I could listen to it in the car. And the clincher is - what happens if the "great experiment" fails?
With Apple's offering I own the music and can put it onto CD, if Microsoft pulls the plug my music collection evaporates a month after it stops. Let's not forget paying that bill (no pun intended) may not be our decision, they may find that the service isn't cost effective. Come to it, they might hike the price up, so you're held hostage by your music collection. On refection I like Apple's view of music better.
Okay sure, the Windows pop was a little cheap (I've obviously started to "conform" to Mac culture).
Well it seems that in many ways they are very similar - sure the technology is different but they seem to do the same things.
What we have is a desktop with (maybe) two screens and a laptop with no keyboard that convert from one to another. Sure you're getting there two different ways but that's what you're doing in both cases.
I'll be honest, the best seems to be the Tablet PC, the higher bandwidth between processor and display seems much better, and the fact that it works when truly separated from the basestation. Of course the down side is that the whole PC must conform to the limitations of a laptop. But neither seems well optimised for Quake or similar.
As for Mac, well I'm a Mac OS 9 hater... I just don't get what the attraction was. Mac OS X is actually very nice - I'm unconfortable with Microsoft's practices and power. But I know that a lot of people like the price/performance of Intel PCs, I just draw my line in a different place. (I spent 10 long years with lots of PCs - I just wanted something that worked better, even if it wasn't the fastest thing on the block).
I'm unsure about the whole proposition of Tablet PCs (and as I said - I don't think the Smart Display is really for me) and would feel more positive if the whole thing could be converted to Linux if I didn't get on with XP (I've used XP for 5 mins - and hated it, they'd moved EVERYTHING from Windows2000). I'm not even sure I'd want a Mac Tablet - if Apple did such a thing they'd really need to change how ink works on a Mac. (I use a pen input thing on my Mac)
So we've all figured out that this isn't a Tablet PC thingy - anyone know where we can find that reviewed?
I guess I'd like to see what (if anything) stands in the way of a Linix Tablet on that hardware.
This is sort of confusing though - I don't see why you'd want this "Smart Display" instead of a Tablet PC? Weird. (But then I guess I don't quite understand why you'd want a Windows PC anyway... games perhaps, though PS2 and GameCube seems more than enough for anyone...)
I imagine MS will be calling EA to get this game "fixed" to stop this from happening - it'll be interesting to see if EA "fix" it really quickly or drag their feet (after all, won't they sell a few copies of this now?)
This sounds pretty damn spiffy to me, I like the idea of using an XBox to run Linux software - and I don't see doing this can be seen as breaking any laws. I mean, you'd not be pirating anything, or modifying anything it HAS to be in the clear - right?
I think I'll wait for X before I'll switch.
It's an interesting point - I think that we'd have called it a 'covert operation'. The media do like the word terrorism, as it is now so politically loaded. It does in part depend on WHO is doing it. (Here I mean soldier, operative or citizien not a political classification) I did find the use of the word odd myself.
I'm just saying that your sig is actually misleading (it needs clarification) AND is likely to cause offense. I think it would be better if you changed it, as a mark of respect for the lives lost on 9/11, but also as I think that causing offense to someone is a bad start to changing their mind.
As I said I'm not American, and perhaps you'd like to remember that the attack of 9/11 wasn't an attack on Americans but an attack on the nationals of many nations, including the Muslims that the attackers claim to represent.
Well of course I don't quite see it as you do, I agree that it's not always as cut and dried as it's presented. You keep talking about the bombing of desalination plants - but it's not just civilians who need drinking water, in war targets such as this DO have military significance and concern for the civilian population can make it onto the "back burner". This is not something we can be proud of, but we must protect the lives of our own citiziens first, let us hope that in this campain we can (and of course we can, it needs the political will to do so) pay more attention to the needs of the people of Iraq. But if you fight a war with "one hand tied behind your back" then ultimatly you lose and civilians get killed anyway - fighting in a humanitarian way is very hard.
You also have to look at the conduct of the "troops" to decide if they are soldiers or enemy combatants. People who hijack planes, or remove military uniforms to blend with the civilians are not soldiers. Do I think this should be used as a reason to dodge the Geneva Convention? No, I don't agree with that policy at all.
There is no "war" between Al Qaeda, because Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation - there IS a war between Iraq. It the the mothods of Al Qaeda that mean that their actions cannot be called a war. Osama bin Laden hides under cover of Jihad and religion to try and give legitimacy to the actions of Al Qaeda, we should not fall into the trap of seeing him as representing his religion. His use of it as cover defiles it, just as the IRA's defiled theirs. He wants us to mistake Al Qaeda for Muslims, we must not allow that to happen.
It is important that we try and act in an even handed way now - we have not done so in the past, and there is blood on our hands, now is the time to support the creation of a Palestine state that is secure from attack.
But I still find the sig offensive - perhaps you might want to consider: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".
Well again you're confusing a war with terrorism. As for Israel's attacks on Palestine, I don't agree with them or think they are effective in the way you suggest. Personally I believe that the Israel/Palestine situation is a graphic example of where the west's policy has failed - largely due to a lack of political will, I hope that this will change and that a equitable and lasting peace can conclude hostilities.
The idea that flying a passenger jet into a building is a way of "denting" it is just foolish. The aim of the attackers of 9/11 is clear - to cause a massive loss of life. There can be no justification for this inhuman act.
You are right that causing civilian deaths can be an effective weapon of war, and one that western powers have used in the past - and one that might be necessary again. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced the Japanese to surrender, and from a military stand point have to be seen as effective.
You seem to think that I'm American - I'm not, and I did not agree with Americans funding the IRA at the time, but remember that this was not the US Administration.
There can be no excuse or justification for the attacks of 9/11 or any doubt that those who sanctioned those attacks did not intend the consequences. To suggest otherwise is to defile the lives lost on that day.
But War ISN'T Terrorism. Terrorism is spreading fear amoung populations for political aims, war is a military compain to achieve objectives that cannot be achieved dipolomatically (either because they are unreasonable or becasue those at war are facing an unreasonable administration). They are QUITE different.
In a wartime situation you might reasonably hit something like WTC, but normally you would do it with military ordinance during the night. The night time affords cover and minimises civilian deaths, normally this would ONLY happen after war had started (ie hostilities would be announced).
I find your sig to be offensive, and detracts from anything you have to say - the WTC was not destroyed as a military target, but as a symbol of economic power and a place of high population density (the death of civilians was the objective), your sig tries to paint a different picture.
This Texas Rep seems to have forgotten WHO elected him, the parents of "these kids" and sending someone to jail for three years for swapping files (albeit copyrighted works) seems rather harsh, they'd probably have been better off to actually steal the CDs! (In terms of their sentence)
I don't think that a justice system should be used to "scare" someone - especially when a great number of people don't think that much of a crime has been committed. Basically people have taped each others' CDs and records for years, and music still gets made, Puffy Daddy still buys his plane, the sky doesn't fall in. The problem is we don't see "these kids" as criminals - okay they are, but not the kind of criminals who need to be jailed. We do see a lot of musicians as criminals though, they make vast fortunes from music that is likely to inflame racial tensions and advocate criminal acts - this Texas Rep should choose his friends more wisely if he hopes to be re-elected.
It also seems pretty hypocritical to add a levy on blank CD media and STILL go after individuals who are buying them. It seems that the music industry wants to be paid twice - once for original CDs and once for blank media.
Well this makes one start to wonder, if each program is going to have a unique DLL (or at least one shared with VERY few others) why bother to have DLLs at all? Why not just roll the library up into the application binary?!
It'll be interesting to see how this adds to the bloat, I imagine it won't take long for the average user to amass quite a number of these things, mostly doing the same job!
There must be a better solution than this!