The problem is that the "nerds", tweakers, and hackers usually push the state of the art for other "nerds", tweakers, and hackers. Very rarely have they done so so in a way that benefits "ordinary folks".
They may not target ordinary folks. But they certainly do benefit ordinary folks. The entire industry is driven by major and subtle changes introduced by hackers - albeit not always introduced to the mainstream by hackers alone.
As one example, lets look at Apple. It begins with the Homebrew Computer Club - hackers doing things to show to other hackers. Woz puts together some nice designs and gives away paper copies so others can build them themselves. Jobs thinks they should build and sell the designs. They do; the Apple I. But it's still hardware for hackers. One has to still add a keyboard, monitor, etc. to make it usable. Woz continues to improve his designs. Jobs pushes to include a keyboard and a custom molded case that not only makes the Apple II ready to go out of the box, but gives it a consumer electronics feel. The Apple II is among the first wave of microcomputers that go beyond the hacker crowd. And Visicalc is the killer app that makes microcomputers business devices. That sequence of events is the beginning of everything changing.
Look at the state of Linux on the desktop. It's great for us, but despite what anybody says, it doesn't have the level of usability (different from eyecandy, looks, etc) that would prevent tech support calls to me from my mom. Therefore, we have two different markets with varying degrees of overlap. Nothing is wrong with that.
Not everything that hackers do will have mainstream application. Linux on the desktop might be one of those things. Yet, my wife recently asked me to put Ubuntu on her laptop and has been very happy with it replacing WinXP (although she still keeps WinXP on her desktop system). And Linux in general impacts the mainstream in ways that they're completely unaware of.
At face value, that's all true. But it also misses a very important part of the bigger picture. It's those "nerds", tweakers, and hackers that push the state of the art which we all end up enjoying. Sometimes there's really sudden, disruptive change. But often that disruption comes from a series of small hacks that stack up in ways central gatekeepers never foresee or approve of. And that means that even the stereotypical parents, grandparents, and sisters can benefit even if they don't even understand how the Internet works much less what custom firmware is.
For most people the benefits of a closed community, screened apps that haven't had viruses or malware, and a wonderful intuitive GUI (IMHO, Android is getting closer but is still not consistent nor as intuitive as iphone or Palm WebOs) and easy upgrades that actually are released to the phones (as opposed to the fragmentation that's Android) is worthwhile. Fact is Android Droid are STILL waiting for Verizon to let them get 2.1 of Android. How's that for control?
None the less, there is strength in that so-called fragmentation. If I want an iPhone, there's only one place to get one - Apple, and by association, AT&T. If I want an Android device, there are numerous networks and manufacturers providing them. At various price points.
A co-worker of mine had gotten a G1. I wasn't keen to switch to T-Mobile and I thought the G1 was a bit under-powered. When the Motorola Droid came out, I got that. Another co-worker got a Nexus One a few months after that.
We all got phones that worked for us. And while they are very different ("fragmented" if you will), we all share pointers on things to do and apps to run. There are rare times when one of us has something the others don't (I really like my LED flash based flashlight app), for the most part, we really haven't felt this "fragmentation" being a barrier.
I'm all for convenience and quick-access to features, etc. But what the parent is implying (and some people seem to think) is that one needs these apps to manage background processes. Not only are these quick-access to running apps, but they include auto-kill / cleanup features. And often this is touted as a way to save battery power.
I was toying around with a couple of these and eventually realized that I just don't need them. I have one left that I've kept around for an alternative view of running applications. But I've found that my Droid tends to handle itself without my intervention (although sometimes an app will mis-behave - those usually get uninstalled if they do it too much).
And I'll guarantee that their multitasking implementation will be the best too. You won't need one of those apps that are popular on Android to kill off the background processes, cause Apple's implementation won't be careless and lazy the way Android's is.
I'm not even so sure that Android users need one of those app killers. But someone will write one for the iPhone none the less. If Apple allows it, more will follow.
While questionable, it is, if something like that exists in a war, acceptable to perceive cameras with huge zooms as RPGs.
I've never been in combat. But I've played paintball when there have been photographers (and have been a photographer myself) on the field. There are a couple times I remember trying to hit them having full belief that I was aiming at an opponent. Once I realized what was going on, I had to really question why I thought a reporter with a camera looked anything like a paintball player. While paintball itself has limited application to combat, I suspect confirmation bias has a lot to do with this situation and my own experiences.
I do complain about the second assault when the van tried to pick up the wounded/dead. You have two advantages working on your side in this situation.
Fair point. I suppose the question I have in that light is whether they were dealing with a lot of disappearing bodies and weapons. If they were expecting that sort of support, I'd imagine they would be eager to stop it. And I would note that even an unskilled person with a weapon can be dangerous if not consistent / effective. But even so, I could definitely see the argument that capturing enemy support (or sorting out insurgents from good Samaritans) with ground troops would be preferable to simply shooting them down. Assuming that doing so hadn't already proven to be too much of a risk.
Being a child sitting in moms minivan doesn't make you a non combatant. Sitting at home quietly watching TV doesn't make you a non-combatant. They seem to take the view that if American soldiers feel like shooting you then you're not a non-combatant.
So does any of these things have anything to do with aiding enemy troops or are you just trying to invoke emotional response? The thread was about picking up and tending to wounded. Your examples seem to be unrelated.
The very fact that the military tried to cover this up is a sign they know very well they fucked up in a big way.
I agree completely. It's a major screwup. Despite whether they intended to or not, these forces killed civilians (and reporters if that makes a difference). And instead of slipping it under the carpet, they should be owning up to it.
These choppers are about 2km away. They have the ability to wipe them out, at any time, at leisure, should the need arise. The ground forces investigating the event are 10-15 minutes away, according to the radio communication it's APCs with support.
Except for the fact that they are in a city that has plenty of cover. Even within the short period of time that the event unfolds, there are times when the gunship does not have a shot and has to wait until it is in a different position. And that was against targets who were relatively stationary.
There is NO scenario you could draw for me that does not warrant waiting for the reinforcements and having them sort it out.
Let's say the group wasn't reporters and civilians but actually an armed group setting up to attack ground forces. Would calling in reinforcements to sort it all out be a good idea then? I'd rather kill them then and there without risking a single shot fired at my ground units who won't have the advantage of being behind cover as they move in to the area.
Show me one good reason to rub them out then and there.
I have a hard time doing that as they were clearly in the wrong. The assessment of the situation was wrong. They weren't shooting at what they thought (or at least said) they were shooting at. They were describing things that, ultimately, didn't exist. They killed people who they didn't have any business killing.
It begs the question: Why the frak are we is that place anyways?
Over 10 years ago, it was apparent that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. However, doing so by force would lead to a whole mess of issues (many of which we're dealing with now). So Saddam was left in power but the deck was stacked against him maintaining power. Unfortunately, Saddam is an amazingly resilient and ruthless leader - surviving internal attempts to unseat him. Furthermore, the US was uncomfortable with supporting the Shia element due to possible ties with Iran. And the Kurds were rather happy in their own virtually autonomous state. And so the problem continued without resolution. During that time there were elections, changes in power, and political scandals that continued to delay external action.
Terrorism was a nice little excuse to re-visit the problem. But by then, I have to wonder if any plans that had been made back in the "new world order" days were current enough to invoke. It sure didn't look like it post-invasion.
Try watching it. People *inside* the armed forces leaked this. They feel its wrong enough to leak. People who were in Iraq an saw the video also think its pretty bad.
I watched it. I found the event to be pretty bad but I'm one of the (apparent) few here that doesn't buy the way the event is being couched by wikileaks. But I think it was the right thing to leak it simply because the air of cover-up around it. These sorts of things should be vetted in the light of day.
But shooting a Family that did nothing but stop to pick a wounded man on the side of the road, is nothing short of a war crime. And the "don't bring kids to battle" doesn't work when its the US that took the battle to Baghdad (Where, shock horror, families live with children).
The problem I have with this interpretation is that, on first viewing the video, I couldn't see the children until ground forces were carrying them out of the van. It wasn't until the very nicely done zoom-and-crop job that they stand out. With that in mind, you see footage of a van showing up to pick up wounded. And that has me wondering how often this happened in that environment. Was this a first-time event? Or were troops often dealing with bodies and weapons disappearing?
Personally, I may not agree with their interpretation of the issue but what makes them different (and, in my opinion, important) is that, regardless of any editorial they may add to the story, they always post all the original material they receive unedited.
The only links I've seen from wikileaks on the military footage is edited and editorialized. Did I miss something?
Going through it frame at a time, it's hard to see any hostile intent. I'm not judging anyone, just trying to rationalize what they were calling in with the video. Trying to weigh the immediate need to shoot vs moving ground forces into the area. Did anyone see anything that looked like hostile intent? There didn't appear to be anyone around to threaten.
What seems to be missing from this is context. What was going on before this video? Quotes after some of the footage indicates that this was one of a series of engagements. And the delay between the sound of gunfire on the tape and rounds hitting targets indicate that the gunship is a fair distance away from the targets. All in all, it looks like the gunships were out hunting for targets that shouldn't be expecting combat at that moment. The idea wouldn't be to direct troops in so that an enemy force has something to shoot at.
Granted - hindsight and a lot of helpful labels (and a bit of zoom-and-crop) clearly show that what the troops were describing was not what was going on.
We never should have gone to Iraq, but politicians are like marshmallows in the the face of a president calling for military action in the name of "national security" and "terrorism". I wish they had a brain as big as their hubris.
We should have gone in to Iraq years earlier and without the pretense of fighting terrorism. Iraq was a loose end that had gone on for over 10 years.
I get that that's the stock response, but I think it's a copout. A netbook is in fact the nearest comparable device to the iPad that is currently common in the user space...
And yet, we're not talking about a netbook. They're very distinctly different devices. Dismissing the entire point as a "stock response" because you can find better value in similar devices is a little short-sighted, IMHO.
Not that your assessment doesn't have a good point. I actually sort of agree - I'm not rushing out to buy an iPad. It's too locked down and expensive for my tastes. I'm waiting for Android pads.
But I can still recognize that this product isn't a laptop. And it isn't a netbook. It's something different with an interesting potential.
It does less than a similarly equipped laptop, and for only twice the price! As a bonus for your money, you get no USB expansion ports, and can even only run one app at a time! Apple's innovation is staggering.
I'd argue that it's not a tablet computer - or at least, not in the style that we've been accustomed to in the past 10 years. Apple might have something very different here (time will tell). Yeah, sure... at it's heart, the iPad is a computer. But the interface and intended use are a different take on how we use such a device. And that difference might be just enough, implementing in just the right way, to finally alter people's perceptions about how to use and interact with data.
Think of it in Star Trek terms. There were different interfaces that worked particularly well for different tasks. They had direct access to the ship's computer through voice commands. They had terminals that also linked to the ship's computer. And then they were running around with diagnostics and signing duty rosters, etc. with these small pad devices.
The iPad strikes me as being that pad device; the right interface for a particular subset of computing. And, frankly, a type of computing that just hasn't been fully realized using the hardware and interfaces that have existed in the last 10 years.
Sure - the hype is almost palpable. The territory just isn't that ground-breaking. And I seriously doubt I'll ever purchase an iPad (I'm more interested in Android variations). But it is possible that the iPad will get people to see things differently; in ways that they're not yet understanding because they don't "get" what the iPad is. Yet.
Re:Goofy, it's quite clear you have no clue
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 1
I'd be worried about your reply if I thought you existed.
Naw, apk. Doesn't bother me a bit. If anything, I'm mildly amused. We've progressed in your play book to the phase where you start to follow me around. Just like last time I showed that you didn't know what you were talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Form factor means a lot. Especially with mobile data devices. Apple's Newton was a nice device for what it did but it was no Palm Pilot.
Of course, folks who really liked the Newton would complain that the Pilots were no Newton.
Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. WinCE killed my father. Prepare to die.
The problem is that the "nerds", tweakers, and hackers usually push the state of the art for other "nerds", tweakers, and hackers. Very rarely have they done so so in a way that benefits "ordinary folks".
They may not target ordinary folks. But they certainly do benefit ordinary folks. The entire industry is driven by major and subtle changes introduced by hackers - albeit not always introduced to the mainstream by hackers alone.
As one example, lets look at Apple. It begins with the Homebrew Computer Club - hackers doing things to show to other hackers. Woz puts together some nice designs and gives away paper copies so others can build them themselves. Jobs thinks they should build and sell the designs. They do; the Apple I. But it's still hardware for hackers. One has to still add a keyboard, monitor, etc. to make it usable. Woz continues to improve his designs. Jobs pushes to include a keyboard and a custom molded case that not only makes the Apple II ready to go out of the box, but gives it a consumer electronics feel. The Apple II is among the first wave of microcomputers that go beyond the hacker crowd. And Visicalc is the killer app that makes microcomputers business devices. That sequence of events is the beginning of everything changing.
Look at the state of Linux on the desktop. It's great for us, but despite what anybody says, it doesn't have the level of usability (different from eyecandy, looks, etc) that would prevent tech support calls to me from my mom. Therefore, we have two different markets with varying degrees of overlap. Nothing is wrong with that.
Not everything that hackers do will have mainstream application. Linux on the desktop might be one of those things. Yet, my wife recently asked me to put Ubuntu on her laptop and has been very happy with it replacing WinXP (although she still keeps WinXP on her desktop system). And Linux in general impacts the mainstream in ways that they're completely unaware of.
At face value, that's all true. But it also misses a very important part of the bigger picture. It's those "nerds", tweakers, and hackers that push the state of the art which we all end up enjoying. Sometimes there's really sudden, disruptive change. But often that disruption comes from a series of small hacks that stack up in ways central gatekeepers never foresee or approve of. And that means that even the stereotypical parents, grandparents, and sisters can benefit even if they don't even understand how the Internet works much less what custom firmware is.
For most people the benefits of a closed community, screened apps that haven't had viruses or malware, and a wonderful intuitive GUI (IMHO, Android is getting closer but is still not consistent nor as intuitive as iphone or Palm WebOs) and easy upgrades that actually are released to the phones (as opposed to the fragmentation that's Android) is worthwhile. Fact is Android Droid are STILL waiting for Verizon to let them get 2.1 of Android. How's that for control?
None the less, there is strength in that so-called fragmentation. If I want an iPhone, there's only one place to get one - Apple, and by association, AT&T. If I want an Android device, there are numerous networks and manufacturers providing them. At various price points.
A co-worker of mine had gotten a G1. I wasn't keen to switch to T-Mobile and I thought the G1 was a bit under-powered. When the Motorola Droid came out, I got that. Another co-worker got a Nexus One a few months after that.
We all got phones that worked for us. And while they are very different ("fragmented" if you will), we all share pointers on things to do and apps to run. There are rare times when one of us has something the others don't (I really like my LED flash based flashlight app), for the most part, we really haven't felt this "fragmentation" being a barrier.
I have one. Got the update (currently showing 2.1-update1). It wasn't a big deal.
I'm all for convenience and quick-access to features, etc. But what the parent is implying (and some people seem to think) is that one needs these apps to manage background processes. Not only are these quick-access to running apps, but they include auto-kill / cleanup features. And often this is touted as a way to save battery power.
I was toying around with a couple of these and eventually realized that I just don't need them. I have one left that I've kept around for an alternative view of running applications. But I've found that my Droid tends to handle itself without my intervention (although sometimes an app will mis-behave - those usually get uninstalled if they do it too much).
And I'll guarantee that their multitasking implementation will be the best too. You won't need one of those apps that are popular on Android to kill off the background processes, cause Apple's implementation won't be careless and lazy the way Android's is.
I'm not even so sure that Android users need one of those app killers. But someone will write one for the iPhone none the less. If Apple allows it, more will follow.
Its a unified ad service to give Apple 40% of the pie.
Expect apps using home rolled ad solutions to be bounced
It's a unified ad service to keep the information gathered by an ad service out of Google's hands.
While questionable, it is, if something like that exists in a war, acceptable to perceive cameras with huge zooms as RPGs.
I've never been in combat. But I've played paintball when there have been photographers (and have been a photographer myself) on the field. There are a couple times I remember trying to hit them having full belief that I was aiming at an opponent. Once I realized what was going on, I had to really question why I thought a reporter with a camera looked anything like a paintball player. While paintball itself has limited application to combat, I suspect confirmation bias has a lot to do with this situation and my own experiences.
I do complain about the second assault when the van tried to pick up the wounded/dead. You have two advantages working on your side in this situation.
Fair point. I suppose the question I have in that light is whether they were dealing with a lot of disappearing bodies and weapons. If they were expecting that sort of support, I'd imagine they would be eager to stop it. And I would note that even an unskilled person with a weapon can be dangerous if not consistent / effective. But even so, I could definitely see the argument that capturing enemy support (or sorting out insurgents from good Samaritans) with ground troops would be preferable to simply shooting them down. Assuming that doing so hadn't already proven to be too much of a risk.
Yup - you're right. I expected links at wikileaks without going on to their "special project" site.
Being a child sitting in moms minivan doesn't make you a non combatant.
Sitting at home quietly watching TV doesn't make you a non-combatant.
They seem to take the view that if American soldiers feel like shooting you then you're not a non-combatant.
So does any of these things have anything to do with aiding enemy troops or are you just trying to invoke emotional response? The thread was about picking up and tending to wounded. Your examples seem to be unrelated.
The very fact that the military tried to cover this up is a sign they know very well they fucked up in a big way.
I agree completely. It's a major screwup. Despite whether they intended to or not, these forces killed civilians (and reporters if that makes a difference). And instead of slipping it under the carpet, they should be owning up to it.
Nope, sorry, but nope. Listen to the radio.
These choppers are about 2km away. They have the ability to wipe them out, at any time, at leisure, should the need arise. The ground forces investigating the event are 10-15 minutes away, according to the radio communication it's APCs with support.
Except for the fact that they are in a city that has plenty of cover. Even within the short period of time that the event unfolds, there are times when the gunship does not have a shot and has to wait until it is in a different position. And that was against targets who were relatively stationary.
There is NO scenario you could draw for me that does not warrant waiting for the reinforcements and having them sort it out.
Let's say the group wasn't reporters and civilians but actually an armed group setting up to attack ground forces. Would calling in reinforcements to sort it all out be a good idea then? I'd rather kill them then and there without risking a single shot fired at my ground units who won't have the advantage of being behind cover as they move in to the area.
Show me one good reason to rub them out then and there.
I have a hard time doing that as they were clearly in the wrong. The assessment of the situation was wrong. They weren't shooting at what they thought (or at least said) they were shooting at. They were describing things that, ultimately, didn't exist. They killed people who they didn't have any business killing.
Are you implying that shooting up people trying to help the wounded is OK?
Devil's in the details. But rendering aid to wounded does not in itself make you a non-combatant.
It begs the question: Why the frak are we is that place anyways?
Over 10 years ago, it was apparent that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. However, doing so by force would lead to a whole mess of issues (many of which we're dealing with now). So Saddam was left in power but the deck was stacked against him maintaining power. Unfortunately, Saddam is an amazingly resilient and ruthless leader - surviving internal attempts to unseat him. Furthermore, the US was uncomfortable with supporting the Shia element due to possible ties with Iran. And the Kurds were rather happy in their own virtually autonomous state. And so the problem continued without resolution. During that time there were elections, changes in power, and political scandals that continued to delay external action.
Terrorism was a nice little excuse to re-visit the problem. But by then, I have to wonder if any plans that had been made back in the "new world order" days were current enough to invoke. It sure didn't look like it post-invasion.
Try watching it. People *inside* the armed forces leaked this. They feel its wrong enough to leak. People who were in Iraq an saw the video also think its pretty bad.
I watched it. I found the event to be pretty bad but I'm one of the (apparent) few here that doesn't buy the way the event is being couched by wikileaks. But I think it was the right thing to leak it simply because the air of cover-up around it. These sorts of things should be vetted in the light of day.
But shooting a Family that did nothing but stop to pick a wounded man on the side of the road, is nothing short of a war crime. And the "don't bring kids to battle" doesn't work when its the US that took the battle to Baghdad (Where, shock horror, families live with children).
The problem I have with this interpretation is that, on first viewing the video, I couldn't see the children until ground forces were carrying them out of the van. It wasn't until the very nicely done zoom-and-crop job that they stand out. With that in mind, you see footage of a van showing up to pick up wounded. And that has me wondering how often this happened in that environment. Was this a first-time event? Or were troops often dealing with bodies and weapons disappearing?
Personally, I may not agree with their interpretation of the issue but what makes them different (and, in my opinion, important) is that, regardless of any editorial they may add to the story, they always post all the original material they receive unedited.
The only links I've seen from wikileaks on the military footage is edited and editorialized. Did I miss something?
Going through it frame at a time, it's hard to see any hostile intent. I'm not judging anyone, just trying to rationalize what they were calling in with the video. Trying to weigh the immediate need to shoot vs moving ground forces into the area. Did anyone see anything that looked like hostile intent? There didn't appear to be anyone around to threaten.
What seems to be missing from this is context. What was going on before this video? Quotes after some of the footage indicates that this was one of a series of engagements. And the delay between the sound of gunfire on the tape and rounds hitting targets indicate that the gunship is a fair distance away from the targets. All in all, it looks like the gunships were out hunting for targets that shouldn't be expecting combat at that moment. The idea wouldn't be to direct troops in so that an enemy force has something to shoot at.
Granted - hindsight and a lot of helpful labels (and a bit of zoom-and-crop) clearly show that what the troops were describing was not what was going on.
We never should have gone to Iraq, but politicians are like marshmallows in the the face of a president calling for military action in the name of "national security" and "terrorism". I wish they had a brain as big as their hubris.
We should have gone in to Iraq years earlier and without the pretense of fighting terrorism. Iraq was a loose end that had gone on for over 10 years.
It proves that he watched Star Trek as a kid. :P
I get that that's the stock response, but I think it's a copout. A netbook is in fact the nearest comparable device to the iPad that is currently common in the user space...
And yet, we're not talking about a netbook. They're very distinctly different devices. Dismissing the entire point as a "stock response" because you can find better value in similar devices is a little short-sighted, IMHO.
Not that your assessment doesn't have a good point. I actually sort of agree - I'm not rushing out to buy an iPad. It's too locked down and expensive for my tastes. I'm waiting for Android pads.
But I can still recognize that this product isn't a laptop. And it isn't a netbook. It's something different with an interesting potential.
It does less than a similarly equipped laptop, and for only twice the price! As a bonus for your money, you get no USB expansion ports, and can even only run one app at a time! Apple's innovation is staggering.
Which is a scathing review of the device if the iPad is, in fact, a laptop. But don't think that's what it is supposed to be at all.
I'd argue that it's not a tablet computer - or at least, not in the style that we've been accustomed to in the past 10 years. Apple might have something very different here (time will tell). Yeah, sure... at it's heart, the iPad is a computer. But the interface and intended use are a different take on how we use such a device. And that difference might be just enough, implementing in just the right way, to finally alter people's perceptions about how to use and interact with data.
Think of it in Star Trek terms. There were different interfaces that worked particularly well for different tasks. They had direct access to the ship's computer through voice commands. They had terminals that also linked to the ship's computer. And then they were running around with diagnostics and signing duty rosters, etc. with these small pad devices.
The iPad strikes me as being that pad device; the right interface for a particular subset of computing. And, frankly, a type of computing that just hasn't been fully realized using the hardware and interfaces that have existed in the last 10 years.
Sure - the hype is almost palpable. The territory just isn't that ground-breaking. And I seriously doubt I'll ever purchase an iPad (I'm more interested in Android variations). But it is possible that the iPad will get people to see things differently; in ways that they're not yet understanding because they don't "get" what the iPad is. Yet.
I'd be worried about your reply if I thought you existed.
Naw, apk. Doesn't bother me a bit. If anything, I'm mildly amused. We've progressed in your play book to the phase where you start to follow me around. Just like last time I showed that you didn't know what you were talking about.