Nonsense. Many of the various scientific fields are highly dogmatic and, even today, still reject obviously factual material which would wreak havoc with the prevailing world view. They're rejected as being poorly researched, overlooked as ooparts, and a myriad of reasons.
Take, for instance, the stubborn insistence of contemporary 'evolutionary darwinists' that there is no plausible way that anything other than slow gradual change (or punctuated equilibrium) could've resulted in change within our universe. They apply the damn theory (which has some pretty serious global-application sticking points!) to anything and everything. Why, oh why, do you need a unified theory? Isn't it possible that something else might apply?
Here's the process they go through when they consider something like that, though:
"Let's see... that's likely 24/7/365 support, with a couple hours turnaround. We've got 20 servers at $3K/year for a service contract that does that. But I think we can get away with off-weekend and next-day support, so we can afford the $1800/server rate. Yeah, we can get rid of that guy!"... 6 months later, the position is opened up again.
(In short, I'd like to see someone find a comparable service level to what a resident professional can provide, for even twice the cost. 90% of the time, you -still- have to troubleshoot the problem when you've got those contracts, because their 'technician' is someone who worked for 5 months during the dotcom boom as some IT Director's gopher.)
Same thing happens when a company dumps a professional for a "technician". Dump the professional and before you know it shit starts breaking due to entropy, and you've got to get someone competent back in there or the ship is sunk.
I wonder if the information in your text books doesn't have a geographical/climatic bias and is incomplete. I strongly ssupect that the 3-month thaw/freeze cycle in many parts of the upper Midwest (and Canada) were taken into consideration. Or, for that matter, chemicals put on the road to inhibit ice formation (creating a temperature differential that likely allows water to seep into the road, but not out), and so on.
Oh, forget Sony. I'm wary of freaking magnets to this day. No, not because of that specific design flaw, but a magnet here or a magnet there... well, they have a way of mucking things up for CRTs and an ill-placed floppy.
Computer case cuts are the worst. I've currently got... 5, all in visible states of healing, that I have acquired in the last couple weeks.
They're kind of an anomaly, really. I've got knives sharp enough to shave with, and I've cut myself with all sorts of things. But outside of a computer case, I've never been cut and not noticed it. With a computer case, I'll sometimes cut a huge gash in my hand and notice the wet sensation before any discomfort (or feel the sharpness of the cut). It's quite peculiar.
And newer cases have that problem, too. I'd wager up through about 3-4 years ago there were a number which would do a number on you before you knew it. The 'extraneous' thin-punched metal parts (eg. a metal shield for an unused drive bay or frill RF shielding where you really didn't need it, etc.) has been a problem long after they fixed the "punched steel is sharp" problem.
I swear, the blue LED in my system for the power/sleep must be 2 watts. It's visible even with tape over it, because the front of the case is thin aluminum with acrylic over it, so the sides of the led are 'embedded' within the acrylic. I ended up unplugging it. If it's on, I'll notice it.
I've got W7 on a P3M 1.2GHz w/ 512M. Aside from the slow disk, it's at least as fast as XP on the same machine (and disk I/O is less of a penalty than under XP). They might actually release a good product this time around, I'm surprised to say.
Keyboards are one of my personal pet peeves as well. I've been an "IBM keyboards only" person since I was about 17 years old (over a decade). Model Ms and similar layouts (when others had to put up with me) were the order of the day until I got a Thinkpad, in which case I quickly adapted to wrapping my hands around the whole device (non-alphanumeric and multikey stuff is much faster on a smaller keyboard, IMO. And I think my overall typing speed may have been a bit faster, as well.)
I'm right with you on the "twice too large" enter key. You hit it with your pinky; often, after years of use, the keyboard only has a small 1cm^2 wear point on the Enter key anyway, at that.
Though, I actually got acclimated to a smaller keyboard layout on my Thinkpad X30 over the past 6 years. I recently decommissioned that machine and got a Thinkpad USB keyboard, and it's maybe 10% larger than the X30s. I'm having a difficult time adapting. Key combinations I could do without moving my whole hand now require me to readjust awkwardly and use two hands (eg. ctl-alt-F#).
Here's another big irritation: inconsistent space bars. It's the most commonly used key on a keyboard, by far. And yet quite a few basically require the user to hit the damn key dead-center. I've got long fingers and I will usually hit the space bar only on the outside edge; many (most, except their latest metallic design) are completely unusable for me.
I saw a Toshiba laptop recently and I was distinctly impressed with the overall tactility/response of the keyboard while remaining quiet and not being squishy.
Out of curiosity, why do these machines get a 'knucklebuster' qualification? You offered no explanation. I'm well versed in the "oh my god I almost lost my finger and didn't notice until I saw blood squirting" feeling that some system cases still invoke, or the "rubix-cube meets tetris hardware replacement" some cases invoke, though.
The worst designs I've run across in recent memory are Dell Optiplex 270/280s (almost impossible to shut the case w/o shearing a cable, some laptop internals on a flimsy area, non-standard PSU formfactor, etc. etc.), the pretty-nifty-on-the-surface 'original' Apple G3/G4 towers (w/ the pretty candy coating and built-in handles) - PSU difficult to remove, drives even moreso - opposite what a normal PC is, where the motherboard is the PITA to remove). Oh, and the hardware that takes the cake is the first iBook, the one with a G3. I think you've got to remove 40 odd screws of 8 different types before you're even at a point where one component can be replaced (and that's after mutilating the case). That's got to be the worst laptop I've seen for "closed". Hell, I've taken apart odd-form factor stuff that wasn't made to be modular and was easier to get into than that.
And XP x64 is a piece of junk. Seriously. Relatively unstable, poor application -or- hardware support, and glitchy. Urg.
Relative to Texas, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Washington, and California (and maybe a couple others) ? It sure is!
When driving from West Coast to East Coast, it sure was refreshing (short of crossing PA length-wise) because passing by each state took less than a 'driving day' once we got to Minnesota. Tip to base, sure, it's probably a substantial drive. But by area and width, it's not that big. I got all the way across the state while my wife slept the last time we went by. Not "East Coast" in size (well, maybe slightly larger than NY), but certainly not a Western state.
The terminology I use when trying to describe travel out here isn't miles, at least not directly. It's more like: "You know how it's 20 miles to work for you, but it takes almost an hour? If i want to "eat out" it's likely not only quicker to get dressed in my hunting gear and go shoot a deer, but it's half the distance. "Eating out" is a once-a-week event because just getting there, eating, and getting back takes the better part of the evening."
Yet, when you say "The state capital is in the middle of the state. It takes about 4 hours to get from one side of the state to the capital. I've done that drive, on major roads, and have completed the trip without seeing a single vehicle until getting into town" - they don't believe me, or that it's possible.
Gravel roads usually don't pothole. They get ruts. It'll happen mostly in the spring when large trucks (think farm vehicles) drive on the ground when there is a wet substructure to the gravel, causing the gravel to sink and spread. Another vehicle comes along, pushes it down some more - and wet soil, particularly with a heavy clay base, gets more pliable the more it's worked. This results in a fairly sizable rut on many roads.
Now, if you're not traveling it when it's wet and worn with a heavy vehicle, it's not such an issue. A gravel road, even a poorly maintained one, can last for decades without maintenance if you're not driving on it with a 2-ton pickup after a heavy rainfall.
Oh, and a good gravel road will allow a 'family car' to go about 60mph without much of a problem. I'd guess a gravel raod with moderate traffic gets regraded every 3-4 years out here in SD. (Hell, sometimes it's not even necessary when it gets really bad: someone with a big truck will just drive on the 'bumps' between the ruts after a rain and even it all out again!)
I say move all the goods transportation back to trains (and put more rail in to area population centers) and move the back roads to gravel as they degrade throughout most of the country. Over-the-road trucking, while providing jobs, is a fool's errand and very costly to the country (in terms of fuel for the trucks, labor, maintenance on the trucks and road, etc.)
From an economic perspective, it seems to be a pretty good idea to be near a progressive liberal population during a recession. Employers and employees move to the area, and generally things improve.
It doesn't even have to be "near" the area, just the preferred destination. Look at Missoula, Montana. They've gotten a massive influx of well-to-do people from California, Portland, and Vancouver areas. Why? Their money buys more things per dollar, and there is less tax per dollar earned. You're winning on both sides of the equation.
The problem with time travel is that, unlike a transistor or capacitor, we're stuck with a problem of available resources. It is exponentially more difficult (and expensive) to get the ingredients all together, so we've got to be damn sure we've got it right (or close) the first time. Because, in all likelihood, we won't be able to test it (and fail) again (due to cost).
Pretty simple, really. It doesn't take much looking to find info (on wikipedia, even) that the next generation Atom (due out end of 2009) will tentatively be a dual core SoC with integrated next-gen (for Intel, anyway) GPU.
Those questions are not the ones that Ahmadinejad has asked. His questions are not of the inquisitive type, but of the rhetorical - a nod and a wink to those on his "side".
To suppose that he is making those 'statement/questions' in a sense to question where the future will take us in a positive way implies benevolence. He's demonstrated nothing but the opposite, both domestically and internationally. The moon producing children seems more plausible.
Many people have. That's why there are so many Iranian businessmen in the US. But it's harder to get into the US now.
Unless you're Mexican, Saudi, Egyptian, or Sudanese, yeah. Don't ask me why that makes any sense, because the US didn't offer similar extensions of good will to the "downtrodden" descendants of white immigrants to the rest of Africa when they were being systematically killed by local tyrants.
I'd agree with the parent that the GP is incorrect in his statement of "the fate of a nation is determined by its people". But likewise, I disagree with your follow-up statement. No, he wasn't assuming that unarmed civilians could bring down a regime. That's just stupid.
A citizen is indeed a civilian, but a civilian is not necessarily a citizen. In western (particularly American) thought, there is an additional prerequsite to that claim: a citizen must do what is necessary to protect his citizenship. This means, through logical conclusion, that he is armed. An armed citizenry is not something your average tyrant is likely to find too pleasant.
Though, I suppose those pesky militia members aren't likely to be a problem in Iran. The militants all likely support the regime anyway.
You mean like in the 2nd world war where the Soviets crushed 3/4 of the Wermacht on the Eastern front before a single boat landed on Normandy's beaches?
Oh, you mean that whole "winter invasion" thing Hitler messed up (not that it could be helped) after the war had been going on for years throughout Europe?
I have to wonder where Russian pilots got, well, air planes (or for that matter, pilot training). Care to illuminate? My understanding is that having a surplus of equipment (particularly, air) was the primary contributor (2nded by many warm bodies) to Russia being able to "hold the line" against Germany at all.
He didn't suppose it was ramshackle. Just nowhere near "top". Yes, Iran's Air Force was impressive in the 1970s. One might suppose it was a pet project of the Shah's, akin to a millionaire's exotic sport car collection - because the other components of the military were pretty lackluster:
Navy...? Nothing to speak of, not even remotely. Hell, even Israel had submarines by the 1960s. Iran started making their own in the 1990s (Chinese design?), but their Navy is still somewhat lackluster. Army...? By far the largest part of their military: tanks, missiles, guns, and (of course) troops, much of it domestically made. This, of course, is useful to a tyrant, as it allows for control of the indemic population and inhibits the cut-off of war machinery in the event of expansive persuits.
Of course, it's all moot in an "us vs. them" type scenario: our hands are tied as far as how much can be done to inhibit abuses once they've got the Bomb.
Logistically and tactically, it doesn't make sense to take down the communications of your "allies". Maybe not even from an operational perspective. However, it makes a lot of sense from a strategic vantage.
If you're trying to spur your ideological allies - who are, up until this point, sitting like typical Western lumps on a log waiting for someone else to do something - it might be a very good idea to push them one step further than the regime is pushing them to get them to their 'breaking point'. A gradual encroachment on freedoms (a filtering of a service one month, and several months later it being eliminated entirely, or people slowly disappearing) is much less likely to push people to action than a quick push.
However, I'd say that this kind of move is a bit beyond the ideological or strategic capabilities of this US Administration - unless the sanity and genius behind the perceived flubs with NK, Iranian, and RU diplomacy is really well hidden. We'll see. I'm betting on "tyrants doing what tyrants do, for 1100, Alex".
There is only one thing to do at a point like this (where the election was so overtly stollen - as if Bush had one a 3rd term), and it does not (directly) involve SMS or re-establishing connections to popular communication/news sites.
I mean, seriously. Your country was just taken over, and you're up in arms about communications? You should be, literally, up in arms. AKA, "Revolution". Given Ahmadinejad history with such things as revolution, it's only natural that he'd take steps to shut out the most readily available communication methods for orchestrating one.
"Social networks" and SMS? Please. That is DANGEROUS. Using such things when the network si known to be dangerous - ie, in a "Krystal Knaght" type situation would likely occur after extended monitoring of said networks.
You are now "behind enemy lines", the enemy being your own government. Your networks need to be small and personal - composed of people you know and trust, and who are equally frearful as you. You need to use encryption pads and other mechanisms for passing communication; nothing that stands out or or anything traceable to its source, such as a wifi mesh or packet radio.
And most importantly, you need to take active action against your government. If public protests don't do the job, then consider a popular violent revolution, if there is support for such things. It either happens soon or it doesn't happen at all: the coup leaders will be quick to squash down on un-friendly sentiment and people will acclimate to the atmosphere of fear, becoming comfortable with their new malevolent dictatoriat.
In short, what you need is guns, lots of guns. They should be in fairly ready supply on your southern border; your fellow countrymen have been deporting them to Iraq for some time, and maybe some Kurds or Iraqis would be benevolent to reciprocate (albiet, in a more kind manner).
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. Many of the various scientific fields are highly dogmatic and, even today, still reject obviously factual material which would wreak havoc with the prevailing world view. They're rejected as being poorly researched, overlooked as ooparts, and a myriad of reasons.
Take, for instance, the stubborn insistence of contemporary 'evolutionary darwinists' that there is no plausible way that anything other than slow gradual change (or punctuated equilibrium) could've resulted in change within our universe. They apply the damn theory (which has some pretty serious global-application sticking points!) to anything and everything. Why, oh why, do you need a unified theory? Isn't it possible that something else might apply?
So much for the hopes that MS might actually implement a relevant and useful feature their clients want!
Here's the process they go through when they consider something like that, though:
"Let's see... that's likely 24/7/365 support, with a couple hours turnaround. We've got 20 servers at $3K/year for a service contract that does that. But I think we can get away with off-weekend and next-day support, so we can afford the $1800/server rate. Yeah, we can get rid of that guy!" ... 6 months later, the position is opened up again.
(In short, I'd like to see someone find a comparable service level to what a resident professional can provide, for even twice the cost. 90% of the time, you -still- have to troubleshoot the problem when you've got those contracts, because their 'technician' is someone who worked for 5 months during the dotcom boom as some IT Director's gopher.)
Same thing happens when a company dumps a professional for a "technician". Dump the professional and before you know it shit starts breaking due to entropy, and you've got to get someone competent back in there or the ship is sunk.
I wonder if the information in your text books doesn't have a geographical/climatic bias and is incomplete. I strongly ssupect that the 3-month thaw/freeze cycle in many parts of the upper Midwest (and Canada) were taken into consideration. Or, for that matter, chemicals put on the road to inhibit ice formation (creating a temperature differential that likely allows water to seep into the road, but not out), and so on.
Oh, forget Sony. I'm wary of freaking magnets to this day. No, not because of that specific design flaw, but a magnet here or a magnet there... well, they have a way of mucking things up for CRTs and an ill-placed floppy.
Computer case cuts are the worst. I've currently got... 5, all in visible states of healing, that I have acquired in the last couple weeks.
They're kind of an anomaly, really. I've got knives sharp enough to shave with, and I've cut myself with all sorts of things. But outside of a computer case, I've never been cut and not noticed it. With a computer case, I'll sometimes cut a huge gash in my hand and notice the wet sensation before any discomfort (or feel the sharpness of the cut). It's quite peculiar.
And newer cases have that problem, too. I'd wager up through about 3-4 years ago there were a number which would do a number on you before you knew it. The 'extraneous' thin-punched metal parts (eg. a metal shield for an unused drive bay or frill RF shielding where you really didn't need it, etc.) has been a problem long after they fixed the "punched steel is sharp" problem.
Oh, seriously. Fuck MediTech. They can't even be bothered to implement standard terminal protocols.
You must be using a fairly old version, though.
I swear, the blue LED in my system for the power/sleep must be 2 watts. It's visible even with tape over it, because the front of the case is thin aluminum with acrylic over it, so the sides of the led are 'embedded' within the acrylic. I ended up unplugging it. If it's on, I'll notice it.
I've got W7 on a P3M 1.2GHz w/ 512M. Aside from the slow disk, it's at least as fast as XP on the same machine (and disk I/O is less of a penalty than under XP). They might actually release a good product this time around, I'm surprised to say.
Keyboards are one of my personal pet peeves as well. I've been an "IBM keyboards only" person since I was about 17 years old (over a decade). Model Ms and similar layouts (when others had to put up with me) were the order of the day until I got a Thinkpad, in which case I quickly adapted to wrapping my hands around the whole device (non-alphanumeric and multikey stuff is much faster on a smaller keyboard, IMO. And I think my overall typing speed may have been a bit faster, as well.)
I'm right with you on the "twice too large" enter key. You hit it with your pinky; often, after years of use, the keyboard only has a small 1cm^2 wear point on the Enter key anyway, at that.
Though, I actually got acclimated to a smaller keyboard layout on my Thinkpad X30 over the past 6 years. I recently decommissioned that machine and got a Thinkpad USB keyboard, and it's maybe 10% larger than the X30s. I'm having a difficult time adapting. Key combinations I could do without moving my whole hand now require me to readjust awkwardly and use two hands (eg. ctl-alt-F#).
Here's another big irritation: inconsistent space bars. It's the most commonly used key on a keyboard, by far. And yet quite a few basically require the user to hit the damn key dead-center. I've got long fingers and I will usually hit the space bar only on the outside edge; many (most, except their latest metallic design) are completely unusable for me.
I saw a Toshiba laptop recently and I was distinctly impressed with the overall tactility/response of the keyboard while remaining quiet and not being squishy.
Out of curiosity, why do these machines get a 'knucklebuster' qualification? You offered no explanation. I'm well versed in the "oh my god I almost lost my finger and didn't notice until I saw blood squirting" feeling that some system cases still invoke, or the "rubix-cube meets tetris hardware replacement" some cases invoke, though.
The worst designs I've run across in recent memory are Dell Optiplex 270/280s (almost impossible to shut the case w/o shearing a cable, some laptop internals on a flimsy area, non-standard PSU formfactor, etc. etc.), the pretty-nifty-on-the-surface 'original' Apple G3/G4 towers (w/ the pretty candy coating and built-in handles) - PSU difficult to remove, drives even moreso - opposite what a normal PC is, where the motherboard is the PITA to remove). Oh, and the hardware that takes the cake is the first iBook, the one with a G3. I think you've got to remove 40 odd screws of 8 different types before you're even at a point where one component can be replaced (and that's after mutilating the case). That's got to be the worst laptop I've seen for "closed". Hell, I've taken apart odd-form factor stuff that wasn't made to be modular and was easier to get into than that.
And XP x64 is a piece of junk. Seriously. Relatively unstable, poor application -or- hardware support, and glitchy. Urg.
Relative to Texas, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Washington, and California (and maybe a couple others) ? It sure is!
When driving from West Coast to East Coast, it sure was refreshing (short of crossing PA length-wise) because passing by each state took less than a 'driving day' once we got to Minnesota. Tip to base, sure, it's probably a substantial drive. But by area and width, it's not that big. I got all the way across the state while my wife slept the last time we went by. Not "East Coast" in size (well, maybe slightly larger than NY), but certainly not a Western state.
The terminology I use when trying to describe travel out here isn't miles, at least not directly. It's more like: "You know how it's 20 miles to work for you, but it takes almost an hour? If i want to "eat out" it's likely not only quicker to get dressed in my hunting gear and go shoot a deer, but it's half the distance. "Eating out" is a once-a-week event because just getting there, eating, and getting back takes the better part of the evening."
Yet, when you say "The state capital is in the middle of the state. It takes about 4 hours to get from one side of the state to the capital. I've done that drive, on major roads, and have completed the trip without seeing a single vehicle until getting into town" - they don't believe me, or that it's possible.
Gravel roads usually don't pothole. They get ruts. It'll happen mostly in the spring when large trucks (think farm vehicles) drive on the ground when there is a wet substructure to the gravel, causing the gravel to sink and spread. Another vehicle comes along, pushes it down some more - and wet soil, particularly with a heavy clay base, gets more pliable the more it's worked. This results in a fairly sizable rut on many roads.
Now, if you're not traveling it when it's wet and worn with a heavy vehicle, it's not such an issue. A gravel road, even a poorly maintained one, can last for decades without maintenance if you're not driving on it with a 2-ton pickup after a heavy rainfall.
Oh, and a good gravel road will allow a 'family car' to go about 60mph without much of a problem. I'd guess a gravel raod with moderate traffic gets regraded every 3-4 years out here in SD. (Hell, sometimes it's not even necessary when it gets really bad: someone with a big truck will just drive on the 'bumps' between the ruts after a rain and even it all out again!)
I say move all the goods transportation back to trains (and put more rail in to area population centers) and move the back roads to gravel as they degrade throughout most of the country. Over-the-road trucking, while providing jobs, is a fool's errand and very costly to the country (in terms of fuel for the trucks, labor, maintenance on the trucks and road, etc.)
From an economic perspective, it seems to be a pretty good idea to be near a progressive liberal population during a recession. Employers and employees move to the area, and generally things improve.
It doesn't even have to be "near" the area, just the preferred destination. Look at Missoula, Montana. They've gotten a massive influx of well-to-do people from California, Portland, and Vancouver areas. Why? Their money buys more things per dollar, and there is less tax per dollar earned. You're winning on both sides of the equation.
The problem with time travel is that, unlike a transistor or capacitor, we're stuck with a problem of available resources. It is exponentially more difficult (and expensive) to get the ingredients all together, so we've got to be damn sure we've got it right (or close) the first time. Because, in all likelihood, we won't be able to test it (and fail) again (due to cost).
I think you're overblowing things a bit. Just wait until Windows kernel version 2.6 er 8 and we'll see who's releasing original products!
Pretty simple, really. It doesn't take much looking to find info (on wikipedia, even) that the next generation Atom (due out end of 2009) will tentatively be a dual core SoC with integrated next-gen (for Intel, anyway) GPU.
Those questions are not the ones that Ahmadinejad has asked. His questions are not of the inquisitive type, but of the rhetorical - a nod and a wink to those on his "side".
To suppose that he is making those 'statement/questions' in a sense to question where the future will take us in a positive way implies benevolence. He's demonstrated nothing but the opposite, both domestically and internationally. The moon producing children seems more plausible.
Many people have. That's why there are so many Iranian businessmen in the US. But it's harder to get into the US now.
Unless you're Mexican, Saudi, Egyptian, or Sudanese, yeah. Don't ask me why that makes any sense, because the US didn't offer similar extensions of good will to the "downtrodden" descendants of white immigrants to the rest of Africa when they were being systematically killed by local tyrants.
I'd agree with the parent that the GP is incorrect in his statement of "the fate of a nation is determined by its people". But likewise, I disagree with your follow-up statement. No, he wasn't assuming that unarmed civilians could bring down a regime. That's just stupid.
A citizen is indeed a civilian, but a civilian is not necessarily a citizen. In western (particularly American) thought, there is an additional prerequsite to that claim: a citizen must do what is necessary to protect his citizenship. This means, through logical conclusion, that he is armed. An armed citizenry is not something your average tyrant is likely to find too pleasant.
Though, I suppose those pesky militia members aren't likely to be a problem in Iran. The militants all likely support the regime anyway.
You mean like in the 2nd world war where the Soviets crushed 3/4 of the Wermacht on the Eastern front before a single boat landed on Normandy's beaches?
Oh, you mean that whole "winter invasion" thing Hitler messed up (not that it could be helped) after the war had been going on for years throughout Europe?
I have to wonder where Russian pilots got, well, air planes (or for that matter, pilot training). Care to illuminate? My understanding is that having a surplus of equipment (particularly, air) was the primary contributor (2nded by many warm bodies) to Russia being able to "hold the line" against Germany at all.
Not as ramshackle as your post would indicate.
He didn't suppose it was ramshackle. Just nowhere near "top". Yes, Iran's Air Force was impressive in the 1970s. One might suppose it was a pet project of the Shah's, akin to a millionaire's exotic sport car collection - because the other components of the military were pretty lackluster:
Navy ...? Nothing to speak of, not even remotely. Hell, even Israel had submarines by the 1960s. Iran started making their own in the 1990s (Chinese design?), but their Navy is still somewhat lackluster. ...? By far the largest part of their military: tanks, missiles, guns, and (of course) troops, much of it domestically made. This, of course, is useful to a tyrant, as it allows for control of the indemic population and inhibits the cut-off of war machinery in the event of expansive persuits.
Army
Of course, it's all moot in an "us vs. them" type scenario: our hands are tied as far as how much can be done to inhibit abuses once they've got the Bomb.
Logistically and tactically, it doesn't make sense to take down the communications of your "allies". Maybe not even from an operational perspective. However, it makes a lot of sense from a strategic vantage.
If you're trying to spur your ideological allies - who are, up until this point, sitting like typical Western lumps on a log waiting for someone else to do something - it might be a very good idea to push them one step further than the regime is pushing them to get them to their 'breaking point'. A gradual encroachment on freedoms (a filtering of a service one month, and several months later it being eliminated entirely, or people slowly disappearing) is much less likely to push people to action than a quick push.
However, I'd say that this kind of move is a bit beyond the ideological or strategic capabilities of this US Administration - unless the sanity and genius behind the perceived flubs with NK, Iranian, and RU diplomacy is really well hidden. We'll see. I'm betting on "tyrants doing what tyrants do, for 1100, Alex".
There is only one thing to do at a point like this (where the election was so overtly stollen - as if Bush had one a 3rd term), and it does not (directly) involve SMS or re-establishing connections to popular communication/news sites.
I mean, seriously. Your country was just taken over, and you're up in arms about communications? You should be, literally, up in arms. AKA, "Revolution". Given Ahmadinejad history with such things as revolution, it's only natural that he'd take steps to shut out the most readily available communication methods for orchestrating one.
"Social networks" and SMS? Please. That is DANGEROUS. Using such things when the network si known to be dangerous - ie, in a "Krystal Knaght" type situation would likely occur after extended monitoring of said networks.
You are now "behind enemy lines", the enemy being your own government. Your networks need to be small and personal - composed of people you know and trust, and who are equally frearful as you. You need to use encryption pads and other mechanisms for passing communication; nothing that stands out or or anything traceable to its source, such as a wifi mesh or packet radio.
And most importantly, you need to take active action against your government. If public protests don't do the job, then consider a popular violent revolution, if there is support for such things. It either happens soon or it doesn't happen at all: the coup leaders will be quick to squash down on un-friendly sentiment and people will acclimate to the atmosphere of fear, becoming comfortable with their new malevolent dictatoriat.
In short, what you need is guns, lots of guns. They should be in fairly ready supply on your southern border; your fellow countrymen have been deporting them to Iraq for some time, and maybe some Kurds or Iraqis would be benevolent to reciprocate (albiet, in a more kind manner).