"As someone who's used XP, the time lost (microseconds per day) are more than made up for with the added reliability of the system and the much easier recovery process."
How can you say that WinXP is noticably more reliable than Win2k with a straight face? The differences in reliability are invisible at best, and if they are noticable they are in Win2k's favor. This is to be expected when you consider that Win2k is proven code from NT and 9x while XP is a exerimental testbed of new ideas.
And I also take issue with the "much easier" to restore. The Backup Wizard in XP doesn't look much changed from 2000. As for registry repairs, I haven't actually looked into the features of either one (no need to, which is the way it should be), but if it's anything like the "improvements" in scanreg between 98 and ME (one's DOS-based, one's GUI), I wouldn't call them "great."
As for your comments about how the time lost is miliseconds, they just DOCUMENTED how much time is lost, and it's about 12%. We're not talking about miliseconds of lost time (unless you only typed for 0.0x seconds), we're talking about 7 seconds every minute. Three days a month.
"What makes the hardware division even better is the fact that they don't (to the best of my knowledge) do this shady stuff that the MS software division does."
I recall being fustrated when trying to make the old Sidewinder Gamepad and Gravis Gamepad Pro work together. No matter what, the Microsoft pad wouldn't work at all when they were both plugged into the same port. And when all is said and done, the Gravis Gamepad Pro works in DOS.
Re:What's in a name: DOS
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"MS wrote the whole OS from scratch and did a fairly good job at the low levels"
*cough*
Back when IBM and MS were all buddy-buddy still, they started working on a DOS-killer by the name of "OS/2." OS/2 1.x came out from both companies much in the same was as early MS/PC-DOS releases. From there, though, differences in coding opinion brought about a code forking in its successors. On the one hand, IBM went on to make OS/2 2.x, and ever onward to OS/2 Warp.
On Microsoft's side of the fork, they were working on OS/2 3.0. They took what they had of the code, put the ol' Windows 3.1 GUI on top of it, and released it. However, instead of calling it "OS/2 3.x," they opted instead to rename it "Windows NT 3.x." Ever wonder why Windows XP can run programs that use older OS/2 instruction sets, or why NT up to 3.51 could read HPFS?
More details are available at a rather interesting article over here.
So, I guess I'm just trying to point out that they didn't do a very good job with NT at the lower levels. IBM did.
Re:Not only does XP have the command prompt
on
MS DOS: A Eulogy
·
· Score: 2
Even worse, after all this time working on making a new GUI interface, it still has Ye Ole Program Manager.
That, and Notepad STILL can't open files bigger than about 640 KB.
"We were attacked by people who have never claimed responsibility."
Claiming responsibility for terrorist attacks is SO 80's. Like back when terrorist groups worked for a single state intelligence arms and had specific political goals. The idea here wasn't to use fear to modify political policy, the idea was to kill a bunch of Americans and make the survivors fearful of God's wrath in general.
"It is possible that all who were involved perished in the crashes."
I believe it was our Attourney General who pointed out that terrorists don't function in a vacuum. They needed money to function in the US (pay the rent, utilities, bills), to buy the plane tickets, to pay for the flight lessons, to get into the country to begin with. Somebody needed to supply the money, and somebody else needed to launder it. If ALL of those people were on those planes, there'd need to be a lot more than four planes.
"Our government and the major media want us to believe that Osama ibn Laden was responsible, despite the fact that he actually claims responsibility for his attacks."
He does? Find me a source that has him quoted as taking responsibility for the USS Cole, the East Africa embassy bombings, or any of the other terrorist attacks (successful or failed) that have his name all over it through the shear coordination of the attacks. I'll bet you can't, because he doesn't care whether we know it or not.
" He is a guest of the Taleban, who has told us (since 9/xx) that they will turn him over upon receipt of conclusive evidence."
1.) "Conclusive" is such a broad term. What is conclusive for us (and just about any rational person) may still be considered "inconclusive" to them. They can hire themselves Johnny Cocharin.
2.) They did NOT say they would turn him over to us. The furthest they've gone is saying they'd turn him over to a "third party." To me that sounds like Iraq.
3.) We've had all sorts of evidence in his previous attacks (Cole, Africa), but in both of those cases they saw fit to continue providing him shelter. It would appear that the ONLY reason they've said as much as they've said now is because we're actively dropping bombs on their heads. Even this time around they started with "We won't do anything," moved on to "We'll try him in one of our courts," and only now arrived at "We'll send him to a third party."
And finally, note that the people saying this are the same people who have been saying for years that they have taken away his ability to perform any terrorist attacks. That's what they said before the East Africa bombings, that's what they said before the Cole bombing, and that's what they've been saying before, during, and after September 11. With a line like that, why should be believe anything they say?
"The Taleban has offered to negotiate several times;"
Find me the earliest time they offered to negotiate, and I will find you a threat (or actual application) of force coming from the United States that predates it.
... and "negotiation" is infinitely more than they offered for Osama's previous attacks and our wishy-washy responses.
"Bush's claim that "we will use Diplomacy" remains untrue (he has rejected every offer)."
What, did you misinterpret his "We will not discuss or negotiate" statement? (Which is quite similar to what the the Taliban has said about bin Laden in the years prior to September 11...)
"Bush refuses to turn over any evidence, citing "National Security"--does that mean that Americans would riot in the streets if they knew what was really happening?"
No, it means that making the evidence public knowledge at this time would compromise the sources of that information. Which is worse, having folks like you run around with conspiracy theories, or having informants slowly disemboweled over the course of several days? It's nice to know that you put your own peace-of-mind over the well-being of people risking their lives to provide information.
So far, everybody that Bush has seen fit to divulge information to has reiterated that the evidence is conclusive and more than enough to indict on. And if the French are able and willing to go that far to say that, it must be good.
"Now we are bombing the shit out of the poorest nation in the world because they are bound under their Holy Law to protect their guest."
No, their leaders are acting bound by their own interpretation of holy law to protect someone they probably shouldn't have accepted as a guest to begin with. And the fact that he's so welcomed as a guest casts doubt on the "innocence" of the Taliban.
"We slander them on TV with false stories about opium (which can't grow in a four-year drought...),"
Poppies are rugged (how do you think they were able to grow in Afghanistan to begin with?), and can grow quite well when most of what is left of the still-airable land is devoted to them (which it is).
"while we are using neighboring Uzbehkistan--#2 worldwide in opium production--"
So, who's number one? Did you just shoot down your own statement? And you don't mention whether the Uzbek government is actively trying to stop that production. Just because Colombia is a big producer of cocaine, for instance, doesn't mean Bogota is all that happy about it. The Taliban, on the other hand...
"as an air base for our troop transports,"
Things like this happen when you need to attack a land-locked country and the only weapon systems we can deploy without using anybody else's airspace are nukes. Besides, the Uzbeks have only agreed to host humanitarian and rescue missions on their soil.
"just like we did with Laos/Cambodia during VietNam"
No, we're using Uzbek air bases, we're not bombing them for giving aid and shelter to the Taliban. And there isn't any Pol Pot equivalent in Uzbekistan (thank God).
"Back to the topic, our politicians and lobbyists are shredding the Constitution with the full support of the misled American majority."
Deciding to blame either the politicians or their constituants is a chicken-and-egg problem. The way you so easily choose to blame one over the other disturbs me.
"I wish to move to a country with more civil liberties, such as Germany."
I wouldn't say Germany has better civil liberties. Wrong as it may be, Americans at least have the legal right to make derrogitory statements about Muslims and Arabs.
Anyway, why are you "asking" for an explaination when you seem to have your mind made up already?
IANAL, and generally unclear on the law, but if you ended up snail-mailing your payment to the seller, you might be able to call it "mail fraud" and send the USPS after them.
If you paid through credit card, aren't there other inherent protections? Or is that only with unauthorized transactions?
I think Microsoft has more immediate money-making interests in shutting down auctions on older versions of Windows.
Windows XP Professional, full version, will retail for around $300. The upgrade if I remember correctly goes for around $200. Still pricey, but...
Windows XP can upgrade from either 98 and up or NT 4.0 Workstation and up. Perusing eBay, we find we can pick up a copy of NT 4.0 Workstation for around $20-$40 (complete with non-functioning hardware to make the OEM license transfer legal). So if you get an old copy of NT 4.0 and an upgrade to XP instead of just getting the retail version, you save $60-$80, the guy who sold you the old softare is happy to make some money, and the only real loser here is Microsoft.
I think it's less worrying about license violations as much as Microsoft trying to close a legal price loophole.
I get junk mail. I get spam. Personally, if I had to choose one or the other, I'll go with the junk mail any day.
The first thing that comes to mind is the fact that, for the recipient, junk mail is free. It may not be wanted, but I don't have to pay $20+ for the privledge to download it.
Secondly, there is an appreciable cost for the advertiser to send junk mail, while a spammer only needs an internet account. The fact that the advertiser needs to worry about costs means that they'll be more careful with who to send the advertising to. I don't think I've ever gotten junk mail, for instance, that wasn't in English.
If you get suckered into some shady deal through spam (bogus contests, pyramid schemes), about all you can do is ask their ISP nicely to please remove their account. If you get suckered into something similar through junk mail, the USPS has their very own law enforcement arm to hunt people like that down and prosecute them.
And speaking of postal laws, there are legal limits to what unsolicited mail can advertise. I can't count the amount of spam I get for sex sites, while the closest I've gotten to unsolicited pornographic junk mail was the ol' Victoria's Secret catalog (and even then I think it was addressed to the former occupant).
So, even though junk mail may kill the rain forests and is aided by the USPS itself, I still find it infinitely better than the spam that even now flods my e-mail boxes.
Ehhh... not entirely true. While there is no mechanism that I know of to authenticate the sender, you can request a certificate of mailing to authenticate that the letter has been sent, as well as using various methods of confirming both receipt and the identity of the receiver.
I send you this anthrax in order to have your advice.
See you later. Thanks
Seriously, though. Just about everybody with a computer has a modem, and a slightly smaller number of those people have a scanner. So why does he believe that e-mails are more advantageous than faxes?
"To hell with the fact that you gave the matches so he could get rid of the garden rubbish. The CIA trained these people, now the things they learned are used against their teachers. Please keep motivation and ability seperate."
To continue your analogy, we gave these "children" matches, but they got their own Zippo. We trained them to mount counter-insurgency operations within their own borders, operations that heavily relied on one source (CIA) for money, weaopns, and other assistance. They learned about avoiding foreign intelligence services while setting up international cells while not relying on any one resource too heavily all by themselves.
Between this comment and some other comments made by the original poster, it seems that some of you don't feel that the Afghanis are capable of thinking for themselves, that we are required to hold their hands for them to do anything. What is this, the White Man's Burden?
"I for myself would rather have had they hadn't bombed as many countries period."
... and not more than two setences later...
"It shows very clearly that America will only stand up if its interests are hurt, not out of moral outrage about the wrongs in the world."
Well, which is it? Should we attack fewer people or more? We have the responsibility to defend everybody else BUT ourselves? And you wonder why this hasn't gone well with voters?
"Another thing, might Heinlein not have meant 'political and economic preasure' when he was talking about "spanking" whilst meaning bombing when talking of an axe? Just to put stuff into perspective a bit."
Someone asked his drill seargent why they needed to learn knife fighting when "some prof type" could just "push a button" and nuke them.
"You try to tell us that the US has never ever done anything wrong and that even if it did it was all an honest mistake and people should just forgive the US."
No, I tried to point out that there are no simple solutions or simple reasons for any of this. Unlike what the original poster seems to feel, 9/11 was not entirely the US's fault. However, I am also aware that this was not entirely bin Laden's fault, either. As in many other examples in recent decades, what our interests are doing there in harm's way to begin with is very questionable. But I still feel that the response we saw on 9/11 to our foreign policy was disproportionate, and we are still well within our rights to go after these people (a point that I and the original poster seem to disagree on).
"Please look beyond what you are being told. This is not an adult video game."
... and yet you try so hard to make it cut-and-dry...
""Abu Sayyaf... train[ed] terrorists in the methods taught by the CIA...""
Unfortunately, you seem to have neglected to mention that they've skewed quite far from the terrorist methods that they were taught. Back then, terrorist organizations tended to be married to one intelligence service or another, have clear and announced political goals, and took credit for an act immediately so that their victims could mull over why they had been attacked. Their goal is to motivate their victims through the use of terror.
On the other hand, what we have here is a lose network of terrorist organizations that do not rely on any one source of funds too heavily, have relatively obscure, religion-oriented goals, and tend not to immediately take credit. Instead, as we saw with the kamikaze attacks in New York and DC, it was more important for these people to do good by their God than to make a political statement.
In short, terrifying Americans and swaying their opinion one way or another is now only a secondary goal. Literally killing as many Americans as possible has moved up to #1.
If you think the CIA would teach the Afghanis what they did to us last month, I ask you this: If Afghanis hijacked an Aeroflot jet and flew it into the Supreme Soviet, is there any doubt in your mind that they would have sent in the full brunt of the Red Army into Afghanistan (complete with their NBC weapons) instead of the trickle we saw?
"Afghanistan is the 15th country the U.S. government has bombed in 30 years, an average of 5 countries bombed every 10 years. Will there be 5 more countries in the next 10 years?"
Would you rather we stay focused on one target and slowly grind it into the dust before moving on to the next?
When somebody threatens American insterests (like, say, blow up a few hundred of our Marines stationed abroad with the consent of the host government, or bomb airliners, or attack US-flagged oil tankers, etc.), it is both necessary to respond and to respond with the appropriate amount of force. If the amount of force is too little, the US is considered to a bunch of push-overs, with everything we own essentially up-for-grabs.
To quote Heinlein's Starship Troopers:
If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cut its head off? Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy city with an H-bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an axe. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is
controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him...but to make him do what you want to do. Not killing...but controlled and purposeful violence.
If you think that we've been too violent in the past, where do you think we should draw the line marking where we respond violently (and how violently) and where we don't? If you can think of a better answer, maybe you should run for office. Or easier still, vote.
"The U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in that time."
That's an interesting figure you have there. I don't know where you got it (and I'm curious about it), but I have a feeling you've padded it with questionable sources. Sources like:
A Palestinian throws rocks and Moletov cocktails at an Israeli soldier. The soldier feels threatened and shoots the Palestinian. The gun used was an M-16, so therefore the US killed the Palestinian.
Iraq's government is busy threatening its neighbors, developing (more) NBC weapons, and trying to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders. The US government is squeamish about giving aid to such a regime, especially when its doubtful such aid would actually reach those that need it ("The Republican Guard needs that food more than you do."), but is willing to send such aid if Iraq demonstrates that it neither owns nor is developing weapons of mass destruction. Because Iraq considers its own weapons stockpile more important than the health and well-being of its people, the US is responsible for all deaths in Iraq due to starvation
Sound familiar? It's a real shame that you're not the only one that believes that the US is the prime cause for all of these deaths.
As for the rest, those that were bombed were given ample warning and the chance to back down from doing what they shouldn't have been doing ("Lybia, stop trying to claim international waters as your own." "Cuba, stop trying to take over Grenada." "Iraq, don't invade/get out of Kuwait." "Serbia, stop butchering Muslims."). However, they made a decision to invite attacks by US forces instead. If anything, these should serve as examples that soetimes words are just not enough.
... and now you all but flat-out say "Boeing helped the hijackers."
"Weapons making is EXTREMELY profitable."
... while getting executed for treason is not. Your name, your family, and your life aren't worth the billions you might make, especially when you're already rolling in it. You don't stay that rich for that long by taking risky chances like that.
On top of that, such companies also lose money on their consumer goods as the civillians who used to buy cars and planes and televisions and everything else say "Hey, there's a war going on. Maybe we should save our money..."
"There are people who do hidden things to push the U.S. government into conflict because they want the money."
Do you have proof? Do you even have circumstantial evidence? Do you have anything more than some shady website run by a certifiable paranoid?
"In the past ten years, parties to 45 current conflicts have taken delivery of over $42 billion worth of U.S. weaponry."
Was the US actively involved in any of those 45 conflicts through shady dealings? Was the US actively involved in any of those conflicts period?
Better yet, is there any reason to believe that those conflicts wouldn't be happening right now if US companies weren't selling them weapons? I've yet to see a gun that comes complete with the desire and will to kill another person.
It sounds to me that the US is the cause of all ill-will everywhere. If somebody wants to kill somebody else, it's probably because the CIA was beaming "hate waves" into them from a satellite in LEO...
You start your post stating that we all should "look beyond." But no amount of looking, no matter what you're looking at, is a substitute for thought and analysis. Perhaps you should consider that before you lazily pick up that "The US is the source of all evil!" banner that somebody else made for you.
"8000 Taliban fighters that have moved to the Uzbekistan (sp?) border."
Personally, if they're really there, I think our best bet would be to force the Taliban's hand and make them invade Uzbekistan. All of their advantages lie in fighting in Afghanistan, where they know every square inch of land and have a good idea on how to avoid the old mine fields. On the other hand, the US probably knows more about Uzbekistan than most Uzbeks. The CIA was pretty much the definitive source of accurate maps of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, how much of that could have possibly changed in the past ten years? Combine that with the well-armed/trained/fed/motivated troops they'd be facing, and you have a very demoralizing slap in the face for the high and mighty Taliban and bin Laden.
You know what I miss most about those days? NO FRIGGIN ADS!!!! No pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-overs, pop-you-in-the-mouth, banners, animations, Shockwave, etc... Except for having to deal with an upload/download ratio, I could pretty much spend my hour downloading a pirated copy of Doom II in peace. Now I get to pay over $20.00 a month for the privledge of having an appreciable percentage of my bandwidth dedicated to advertisers.
You know what else I miss from those days? NO SPAMMERS!!!
My God, BBSes of days gone by are seeming downright civilized when compared to what we have today. Even the flamers stuck to their own little topic area on the boards.
But your honor! The plaintiff's e-mail address was subscribed to our "mailing list" already. If he didn't want the e-mail, he shouldn't have subscribed to begin with.
What? He didn't subscribe? Then it must have been some sort of practical joke by his friends (we get those ALL the time). He should really be more careful about who he calls "friend"...
"Prior to 1492, it was said ad nauseum that the Earth was flat. Didn't make it so."
A name for you to look up: Eratosthenes
Besides, I'm failing to see how sailing off into the unknown and looking at a text file are analogous. One involves hidden dangers and doubts about food supplies, while the other involves a text editor.
"It is very possible to hide backdoors in code that are almost impossible to find, even in Open Source code. Read this article by Ken Thompson:"
Already read it. There is an infinity of difference (literally) between "impossible" and "almost impossible."
I see no mention in the article of Mr. Thompson releasing the code to the masses to find out if the trojan is really undetectable. All I see is the unsupported statement "No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code," which can be interpreted as an insult to the intelligence of the community, an egotistical statement on Mr. Thompson's part, or both. There is a difference between "I can't see how it could be detected" and "It is undetectable."
I'm getting sick of all the paranoid types here going on and on about how it's antithetical of the NSA to make a truly secure product for the masses, you can't trust them, blah blah blah...
Secure encryption is a matter of national security. It's a matter of an American company being able to keep its secrets secure from foreign competition (amongst other things). It's about AMD being able to make a new innovation, for instance, without having to worry about Hitachi "coincidentally" and suddenly patenting that same innovation before AMD gets to the patent office.
If you're going to have to rely on such a program for the validity of the economy (et al), there is no logical reason to shoot yourself in the foot by installing back doors in all such software. That secret back door cannot stay a secret forever. All it requires is one act of treason for that "secret" back door to be just about anything but (possibly even public domain).
Yes, I know the FBI wants escrow encryption, but even then that's only giving the Feds the ability to get to the keys to decrypt it (with a court order), not some magic key of their own. Because again, that magic key is one act of treason away from the public domain.
And here comes the flame...
It disturbs me how many posts on here all say the same thing: "It says 'NSA,' so therefore it must be bad." And yet, surprisingly enough, nobody has yet to find any such super secret NSA log-in account in the open source code. This gut reaction reminds me too much of the people who were saying as early as the evening of September 11th that it was all an ATF plot. Can't you people think differently for once, especially when there's no logical reason not to? I pity you for not being able to change gears every once in a while. If Congress passed a resolution delcaring the sky was blue, where would that leave you?
Blind distrust of the government is just as bad as blind trust, if not moreso. At least with blind trust it demonstrates the ability to trust something, and you can go out of the house every once in a while without putting your aluminum foil suit on...
If this even was about encryption (which it's not), knowing how an encryption algorithm works and how to defeat it are two entirely different things. If crypto software relied entirely on the program's ability to hide how it encrypted something, then it's a simple matter to buy yourself a copy and decompile it.
If there's a backdoor, why haven't you looked at the publicly-available source code and found it yet? And better yet, how do you put a back door into encryption in a product that has no encryption?
As has been said before ad nauseum, if there's a backdoor, it will be trivial to spot because it's open source. Distrust of the government only works if you're logical about it.
Slashdot Mirror
"As someone who's used XP, the time lost (microseconds per day) are more than made up for with the added reliability of the system and the much easier recovery process."
How can you say that WinXP is noticably more reliable than Win2k with a straight face? The differences in reliability are invisible at best, and if they are noticable they are in Win2k's favor. This is to be expected when you consider that Win2k is proven code from NT and 9x while XP is a exerimental testbed of new ideas.
And I also take issue with the "much easier" to restore. The Backup Wizard in XP doesn't look much changed from 2000. As for registry repairs, I haven't actually looked into the features of either one (no need to, which is the way it should be), but if it's anything like the "improvements" in scanreg between 98 and ME (one's DOS-based, one's GUI), I wouldn't call them "great."
As for your comments about how the time lost is miliseconds, they just DOCUMENTED how much time is lost, and it's about 12%. We're not talking about miliseconds of lost time (unless you only typed for 0.0x seconds), we're talking about 7 seconds every minute. Three days a month.
"What makes the hardware division even better is the fact that they don't (to the best of my knowledge) do this shady stuff that the MS software division does."
I recall being fustrated when trying to make the old Sidewinder Gamepad and Gravis Gamepad Pro work together. No matter what, the Microsoft pad wouldn't work at all when they were both plugged into the same port. And when all is said and done, the Gravis Gamepad Pro works in DOS.
"MS wrote the whole OS from scratch and did a fairly good job at the low levels"
*cough*
Back when IBM and MS were all buddy-buddy still, they started working on a DOS-killer by the name of "OS/2." OS/2 1.x came out from both companies much in the same was as early MS/PC-DOS releases. From there, though, differences in coding opinion brought about a code forking in its successors. On the one hand, IBM went on to make OS/2 2.x, and ever onward to OS/2 Warp.
On Microsoft's side of the fork, they were working on OS/2 3.0. They took what they had of the code, put the ol' Windows 3.1 GUI on top of it, and released it. However, instead of calling it "OS/2 3.x," they opted instead to rename it "Windows NT 3.x." Ever wonder why Windows XP can run programs that use older OS/2 instruction sets, or why NT up to 3.51 could read HPFS?
More details are available at a rather interesting article over here.
So, I guess I'm just trying to point out that they didn't do a very good job with NT at the lower levels. IBM did.
Even worse, after all this time working on making a new GUI interface, it still has Ye Ole Program Manager.
That, and Notepad STILL can't open files bigger than about 640 KB.
"Any person who double-crosses another is evil--fair & simple."
Three words for you: Claus von Stauffenberg
Anybody who claims ethics are black-and-white is either foolish or has something to hide.
"We were attacked by people who have never claimed responsibility."
Claiming responsibility for terrorist attacks is SO 80's. Like back when terrorist groups worked for a single state intelligence arms and had specific political goals. The idea here wasn't to use fear to modify political policy, the idea was to kill a bunch of Americans and make the survivors fearful of God's wrath in general.
"It is possible that all who were involved perished in the crashes."
I believe it was our Attourney General who pointed out that terrorists don't function in a vacuum. They needed money to function in the US (pay the rent, utilities, bills), to buy the plane tickets, to pay for the flight lessons, to get into the country to begin with. Somebody needed to supply the money, and somebody else needed to launder it. If ALL of those people were on those planes, there'd need to be a lot more than four planes.
"Our government and the major media want us to believe that Osama ibn Laden was responsible, despite the fact that he actually claims responsibility for his attacks."
He does? Find me a source that has him quoted as taking responsibility for the USS Cole, the East Africa embassy bombings, or any of the other terrorist attacks (successful or failed) that have his name all over it through the shear coordination of the attacks. I'll bet you can't, because he doesn't care whether we know it or not.
" He is a guest of the Taleban, who has told us (since 9/xx) that they will turn him over upon receipt of conclusive evidence."
1.) "Conclusive" is such a broad term. What is conclusive for us (and just about any rational person) may still be considered "inconclusive" to them. They can hire themselves Johnny Cocharin.
2.) They did NOT say they would turn him over to us. The furthest they've gone is saying they'd turn him over to a "third party." To me that sounds like Iraq.
3.) We've had all sorts of evidence in his previous attacks (Cole, Africa), but in both of those cases they saw fit to continue providing him shelter. It would appear that the ONLY reason they've said as much as they've said now is because we're actively dropping bombs on their heads. Even this time around they started with "We won't do anything," moved on to "We'll try him in one of our courts," and only now arrived at "We'll send him to a third party."
And finally, note that the people saying this are the same people who have been saying for years that they have taken away his ability to perform any terrorist attacks. That's what they said before the East Africa bombings, that's what they said before the Cole bombing, and that's what they've been saying before, during, and after September 11. With a line like that, why should be believe anything they say?
"The Taleban has offered to negotiate several times;"
Find me the earliest time they offered to negotiate, and I will find you a threat (or actual application) of force coming from the United States that predates it.
... and "negotiation" is infinitely more than they offered for Osama's previous attacks and our wishy-washy responses.
"Bush's claim that "we will use Diplomacy" remains untrue (he has rejected every offer)."
What, did you misinterpret his "We will not discuss or negotiate" statement? (Which is quite similar to what the the Taliban has said about bin Laden in the years prior to September 11...)
"Bush refuses to turn over any evidence, citing "National Security"--does that mean that Americans would riot in the streets if they knew what was really happening?"
No, it means that making the evidence public knowledge at this time would compromise the sources of that information. Which is worse, having folks like you run around with conspiracy theories, or having informants slowly disemboweled over the course of several days? It's nice to know that you put your own peace-of-mind over the well-being of people risking their lives to provide information.
So far, everybody that Bush has seen fit to divulge information to has reiterated that the evidence is conclusive and more than enough to indict on. And if the French are able and willing to go that far to say that, it must be good.
"Now we are bombing the shit out of the poorest nation in the world because they are bound under their Holy Law to protect their guest."
No, their leaders are acting bound by their own interpretation of holy law to protect someone they probably shouldn't have accepted as a guest to begin with. And the fact that he's so welcomed as a guest casts doubt on the "innocence" of the Taliban.
"We slander them on TV with false stories about opium (which can't grow in a four-year drought...),"
Poppies are rugged (how do you think they were able to grow in Afghanistan to begin with?), and can grow quite well when most of what is left of the still-airable land is devoted to them (which it is).
"while we are using neighboring Uzbehkistan--#2 worldwide in opium production--"
So, who's number one? Did you just shoot down your own statement? And you don't mention whether the Uzbek government is actively trying to stop that production. Just because Colombia is a big producer of cocaine, for instance, doesn't mean Bogota is all that happy about it. The Taliban, on the other hand...
"as an air base for our troop transports,"
Things like this happen when you need to attack a land-locked country and the only weapon systems we can deploy without using anybody else's airspace are nukes. Besides, the Uzbeks have only agreed to host humanitarian and rescue missions on their soil.
"just like we did with Laos/Cambodia during VietNam"
No, we're using Uzbek air bases, we're not bombing them for giving aid and shelter to the Taliban. And there isn't any Pol Pot equivalent in Uzbekistan (thank God).
"Back to the topic, our politicians and lobbyists are shredding the Constitution with the full support of the misled American majority."
Deciding to blame either the politicians or their constituants is a chicken-and-egg problem. The way you so easily choose to blame one over the other disturbs me.
"I wish to move to a country with more civil liberties, such as Germany."
I wouldn't say Germany has better civil liberties. Wrong as it may be, Americans at least have the legal right to make derrogitory statements about Muslims and Arabs.
Anyway, why are you "asking" for an explaination when you seem to have your mind made up already?
IANAL, and generally unclear on the law, but if you ended up snail-mailing your payment to the seller, you might be able to call it "mail fraud" and send the USPS after them.
If you paid through credit card, aren't there other inherent protections? Or is that only with unauthorized transactions?
I think Microsoft has more immediate money-making interests in shutting down auctions on older versions of Windows.
Windows XP Professional, full version, will retail for around $300. The upgrade if I remember correctly goes for around $200. Still pricey, but...
Windows XP can upgrade from either 98 and up or NT 4.0 Workstation and up. Perusing eBay, we find we can pick up a copy of NT 4.0 Workstation for around $20-$40 (complete with non-functioning hardware to make the OEM license transfer legal). So if you get an old copy of NT 4.0 and an upgrade to XP instead of just getting the retail version, you save $60-$80, the guy who sold you the old softare is happy to make some money, and the only real loser here is Microsoft.
I think it's less worrying about license violations as much as Microsoft trying to close a legal price loophole.
I get junk mail. I get spam. Personally, if I had to choose one or the other, I'll go with the junk mail any day.
The first thing that comes to mind is the fact that, for the recipient, junk mail is free. It may not be wanted, but I don't have to pay $20+ for the privledge to download it.
Secondly, there is an appreciable cost for the advertiser to send junk mail, while a spammer only needs an internet account. The fact that the advertiser needs to worry about costs means that they'll be more careful with who to send the advertising to. I don't think I've ever gotten junk mail, for instance, that wasn't in English.
If you get suckered into some shady deal through spam (bogus contests, pyramid schemes), about all you can do is ask their ISP nicely to please remove their account. If you get suckered into something similar through junk mail, the USPS has their very own law enforcement arm to hunt people like that down and prosecute them.
And speaking of postal laws, there are legal limits to what unsolicited mail can advertise. I can't count the amount of spam I get for sex sites, while the closest I've gotten to unsolicited pornographic junk mail was the ol' Victoria's Secret catalog (and even then I think it was addressed to the former occupant).
So, even though junk mail may kill the rain forests and is aided by the USPS itself, I still find it infinitely better than the spam that even now flods my e-mail boxes.
Postal mail has no authentication
Ehhh... not entirely true. While there is no mechanism that I know of to authenticate the sender, you can request a certificate of mailing to authenticate that the letter has been sent, as well as using various methods of confirming both receipt and the identity of the receiver.
As long as I still keep getting checks made out to me here in Florida and my bank sits in Texas, I'll always have at least one use for the USPSl.
Hi! How are you?
I send you this anthrax in order to have your advice.
See you later. Thanks
Seriously, though. Just about everybody with a computer has a modem, and a slightly smaller number of those people have a scanner. So why does he believe that e-mails are more advantageous than faxes?
"Most free." Shame on you.
At any rate, I find it sad/pathetic/what have you that news.bbc.co.uk seems to have more and better updates than www.cnn.com
"To hell with the fact that you gave the matches so he could get rid of the garden rubbish. The CIA trained these people, now the things they learned are used against their teachers. Please keep motivation and ability seperate."
To continue your analogy, we gave these "children" matches, but they got their own Zippo. We trained them to mount counter-insurgency operations within their own borders, operations that heavily relied on one source (CIA) for money, weaopns, and other assistance. They learned about avoiding foreign intelligence services while setting up international cells while not relying on any one resource too heavily all by themselves.
Between this comment and some other comments made by the original poster, it seems that some of you don't feel that the Afghanis are capable of thinking for themselves, that we are required to hold their hands for them to do anything. What is this, the White Man's Burden?
"I for myself would rather have had they hadn't bombed as many countries period."
... and not more than two setences later...
"It shows very clearly that America will only stand up if its interests are hurt, not out of moral outrage about the wrongs in the world."
Well, which is it? Should we attack fewer people or more? We have the responsibility to defend everybody else BUT ourselves? And you wonder why this hasn't gone well with voters?
"Another thing, might Heinlein not have meant 'political and economic preasure' when he was talking about "spanking" whilst meaning bombing when talking of an axe? Just to put stuff into perspective a bit."
Someone asked his drill seargent why they needed to learn knife fighting when "some prof type" could just "push a button" and nuke them.
"You try to tell us that the US has never ever done anything wrong and that even if it did it was all an honest mistake and people should just forgive the US."
No, I tried to point out that there are no simple solutions or simple reasons for any of this. Unlike what the original poster seems to feel, 9/11 was not entirely the US's fault. However, I am also aware that this was not entirely bin Laden's fault, either. As in many other examples in recent decades, what our interests are doing there in harm's way to begin with is very questionable. But I still feel that the response we saw on 9/11 to our foreign policy was disproportionate, and we are still well within our rights to go after these people (a point that I and the original poster seem to disagree on).
... and yet you try so hard to make it cut-and-dry...
""Abu Sayyaf
Unfortunately, you seem to have neglected to mention that they've skewed quite far from the terrorist methods that they were taught. Back then, terrorist organizations tended to be married to one intelligence service or another, have clear and announced political goals, and took credit for an act immediately so that their victims could mull over why they had been attacked. Their goal is to motivate their victims through the use of terror.
On the other hand, what we have here is a lose network of terrorist organizations that do not rely on any one source of funds too heavily, have relatively obscure, religion-oriented goals, and tend not to immediately take credit. Instead, as we saw with the kamikaze attacks in New York and DC, it was more important for these people to do good by their God than to make a political statement.
In short, terrifying Americans and swaying their opinion one way or another is now only a secondary goal. Literally killing as many Americans as possible has moved up to #1.
If you think the CIA would teach the Afghanis what they did to us last month, I ask you this: If Afghanis hijacked an Aeroflot jet and flew it into the Supreme Soviet, is there any doubt in your mind that they would have sent in the full brunt of the Red Army into Afghanistan (complete with their NBC weapons) instead of the trickle we saw?
"Afghanistan is the 15th country the U.S. government has bombed in 30 years, an average of 5 countries bombed every 10 years. Will there be 5 more countries in the next 10 years?"
Would you rather we stay focused on one target and slowly grind it into the dust before moving on to the next?
When somebody threatens American insterests (like, say, blow up a few hundred of our Marines stationed abroad with the consent of the host government, or bomb airliners, or attack US-flagged oil tankers, etc.), it is both necessary to respond and to respond with the appropriate amount of force. If the amount of force is too little, the US is considered to a bunch of push-overs, with everything we own essentially up-for-grabs.
To quote Heinlein's Starship Troopers:
If you think that we've been too violent in the past, where do you think we should draw the line marking where we respond violently (and how violently) and where we don't? If you can think of a better answer, maybe you should run for office. Or easier still, vote.
"The U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in that time."
That's an interesting figure you have there. I don't know where you got it (and I'm curious about it), but I have a feeling you've padded it with questionable sources. Sources like:
- A Palestinian throws rocks and Moletov cocktails at an Israeli soldier. The soldier feels threatened and shoots the Palestinian. The gun used was an M-16, so therefore the US killed the Palestinian.
- Iraq's government is busy threatening its neighbors, developing (more) NBC weapons, and trying to exterminate an ethnic minority in its own borders. The US government is squeamish about giving aid to such a regime, especially when its doubtful such aid would actually reach those that need it ("The Republican Guard needs that food more than you do."), but is willing to send such aid if Iraq demonstrates that it neither owns nor is developing weapons of mass destruction. Because Iraq considers its own weapons stockpile more important than the health and well-being of its people, the US is responsible for all deaths in Iraq due to starvation
Sound familiar? It's a real shame that you're not the only one that believes that the US is the prime cause for all of these deaths.As for the rest, those that were bombed were given ample warning and the chance to back down from doing what they shouldn't have been doing ("Lybia, stop trying to claim international waters as your own." "Cuba, stop trying to take over Grenada." "Iraq, don't invade/get out of Kuwait." "Serbia, stop butchering Muslims."). However, they made a decision to invite attacks by US forces instead. If anything, these should serve as examples that soetimes words are just not enough.
... and now you all but flat-out say "Boeing helped the hijackers."
"Weapons making is EXTREMELY profitable."
... while getting executed for treason is not. Your name, your family, and your life aren't worth the billions you might make, especially when you're already rolling in it. You don't stay that rich for that long by taking risky chances like that.
On top of that, such companies also lose money on their consumer goods as the civillians who used to buy cars and planes and televisions and everything else say "Hey, there's a war going on. Maybe we should save our money..."
"There are people who do hidden things to push the U.S. government into conflict because they want the money."
Do you have proof? Do you even have circumstantial evidence? Do you have anything more than some shady website run by a certifiable paranoid?
"In the past ten years, parties to 45 current conflicts have taken delivery of over $42 billion worth of U.S. weaponry."
Was the US actively involved in any of those 45 conflicts through shady dealings? Was the US actively involved in any of those conflicts period?
Better yet, is there any reason to believe that those conflicts wouldn't be happening right now if US companies weren't selling them weapons? I've yet to see a gun that comes complete with the desire and will to kill another person.
It sounds to me that the US is the cause of all ill-will everywhere. If somebody wants to kill somebody else, it's probably because the CIA was beaming "hate waves" into them from a satellite in LEO...
You start your post stating that we all should "look beyond." But no amount of looking, no matter what you're looking at, is a substitute for thought and analysis. Perhaps you should consider that before you lazily pick up that "The US is the source of all evil!" banner that somebody else made for you.
"8000 Taliban fighters that have moved to the Uzbekistan (sp?) border."
Personally, if they're really there, I think our best bet would be to force the Taliban's hand and make them invade Uzbekistan. All of their advantages lie in fighting in Afghanistan, where they know every square inch of land and have a good idea on how to avoid the old mine fields. On the other hand, the US probably knows more about Uzbekistan than most Uzbeks. The CIA was pretty much the definitive source of accurate maps of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, how much of that could have possibly changed in the past ten years? Combine that with the well-armed/trained/fed/motivated troops they'd be facing, and you have a very demoralizing slap in the face for the high and mighty Taliban and bin Laden.
You know what I miss most about those days? NO FRIGGIN ADS!!!! No pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-overs, pop-you-in-the-mouth, banners, animations, Shockwave, etc... Except for having to deal with an upload/download ratio, I could pretty much spend my hour downloading a pirated copy of Doom II in peace. Now I get to pay over $20.00 a month for the privledge of having an appreciable percentage of my bandwidth dedicated to advertisers.
You know what else I miss from those days? NO SPAMMERS!!!
My God, BBSes of days gone by are seeming downright civilized when compared to what we have today. Even the flamers stuck to their own little topic area on the boards.
Has it been introduced to the Senate yet? And if so, what's the bill number? Useful information to have when bitching to your Senators.
But your honor! The plaintiff's e-mail address was subscribed to our "mailing list" already. If he didn't want the e-mail, he shouldn't have subscribed to begin with.
What? He didn't subscribe? Then it must have been some sort of practical joke by his friends (we get those ALL the time). He should really be more careful about who he calls "friend"...
"Prior to 1492, it was said ad nauseum that the Earth was flat. Didn't make it so."
A name for you to look up: Eratosthenes
Besides, I'm failing to see how sailing off into the unknown and looking at a text file are analogous. One involves hidden dangers and doubts about food supplies, while the other involves a text editor.
"It is very possible to hide backdoors in code that are almost impossible to find, even in Open Source code. Read this article by Ken Thompson:"
Already read it. There is an infinity of difference (literally) between "impossible" and "almost impossible."
I see no mention in the article of Mr. Thompson releasing the code to the masses to find out if the trojan is really undetectable. All I see is the unsupported statement "No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code," which can be interpreted as an insult to the intelligence of the community, an egotistical statement on Mr. Thompson's part, or both. There is a difference between "I can't see how it could be detected" and "It is undetectable."
I'm getting sick of all the paranoid types here going on and on about how it's antithetical of the NSA to make a truly secure product for the masses, you can't trust them, blah blah blah...
Secure encryption is a matter of national security. It's a matter of an American company being able to keep its secrets secure from foreign competition (amongst other things). It's about AMD being able to make a new innovation, for instance, without having to worry about Hitachi "coincidentally" and suddenly patenting that same innovation before AMD gets to the patent office.
If you're going to have to rely on such a program for the validity of the economy (et al), there is no logical reason to shoot yourself in the foot by installing back doors in all such software. That secret back door cannot stay a secret forever. All it requires is one act of treason for that "secret" back door to be just about anything but (possibly even public domain).
Yes, I know the FBI wants escrow encryption, but even then that's only giving the Feds the ability to get to the keys to decrypt it (with a court order), not some magic key of their own. Because again, that magic key is one act of treason away from the public domain.
And here comes the flame...
It disturbs me how many posts on here all say the same thing: "It says 'NSA,' so therefore it must be bad." And yet, surprisingly enough, nobody has yet to find any such super secret NSA log-in account in the open source code. This gut reaction reminds me too much of the people who were saying as early as the evening of September 11th that it was all an ATF plot. Can't you people think differently for once, especially when there's no logical reason not to? I pity you for not being able to change gears every once in a while. If Congress passed a resolution delcaring the sky was blue, where would that leave you?
Blind distrust of the government is just as bad as blind trust, if not moreso. At least with blind trust it demonstrates the ability to trust something, and you can go out of the house every once in a while without putting your aluminum foil suit on...
If this even was about encryption (which it's not), knowing how an encryption algorithm works and how to defeat it are two entirely different things. If crypto software relied entirely on the program's ability to hide how it encrypted something, then it's a simple matter to buy yourself a copy and decompile it.
If there's a backdoor, why haven't you looked at the publicly-available source code and found it yet? And better yet, how do you put a back door into encryption in a product that has no encryption?
" backdoors will they put here?"
As has been said before ad nauseum, if there's a backdoor, it will be trivial to spot because it's open source. Distrust of the government only works if you're logical about it.