Fair enough. However, one of the key players in this patent cold war is IBM which has done some of this. And they contribute code. It's not that I trust IBM per se. But they've done a lot more than Microsoft has.
Firstly, you are being pedantic. Most Americans will admit that they feel safer. I was using the "we" in the sense of the majority. there is no statement of feeling, opinion or perception that one can make about all americans simultaneously. Obviously, not EVERYone feels safer. You can put your attitude away.
The majority of folks I worked with did not feel safer. But then, I'm in a security related industry. So we're likely to be a little out of the mainstream.
I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of Americans felt safer. But the majority? When people are making jokes about nail clippers, I have to wonder if the mainstream doesn't have some inkling of security theatre - that it doesn't go beyond my immediate circle.
Fewer than half of all Americans think the country is safer now than it was on Sept. 11, 2001, and more than three-quarters expect the United States to be the target of a major terrorist attack at home or abroad in the next few months, according to a new poll.
The survey, released yesterday by the nonpartisan Council for Excellence in Government, found that about half of respondents were concerned that terrorists would strike near their home or work. Seventy-three percent identified themselves as anxious or concerned about terrorism, and 26 percent said they were calm.
And what were they worried about?
The survey of 1,633 adults from Feb. 5 to Feb. 8 also found that although Americans are concerned about terrorism, they rank it behind the economy and health care as the nation's top priorities. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
It is your perception that Americans felt safe. But your perception might be as insular as mine, sans attitude.
I feel pretty safe in stating that many people that would help starving children locally probably would not pick up a gun and start shooting at people. Those that are willing to shoot at people, and risk get shot at as well, probably aren't too worried about a little travel.
Hold on now, we're not talking about the morality of shooting people. That's already been decided; it's being done. That's not the point. The point is to what extent will people go to in order to do it?
Attacks on US military targets didn't soak up AQ's resources because they didn't have anyone actively trying to capture or kill them in between their attacks. It's a lot harder to plan and carry out those kinds of actions when the US military is trying to find you and kill you, than when your targets are only acting defensively.
Actually - go read up about the attacks I noted. They WERE being actively hunted between those attacks.
However, I do agree that the scale was different. The invasion of Afghanistan took away a lot of resources from Al-Qaeda. As I noted, I'm fully supportive of that. But that's not the same thing as the war in Iraq.
Your claim is that Iraq takes attention off the US. That it will tie up Al-Qaeda resources. When historically, they were able to both attack US interests in the region as well as the US directly. Iraq has it's purpose but it is not to providing a better target to decreases terrorism in the world.
You may have been aware of what Bush was doing and disapproved, but that places you firmly in the minority. I was aware, and wouldn't have approved at other times, but knew that eventually those powers grabbed by the Bush administration would be revoked.
I need assurances. I need to know there is a check to the power being given. Without that check, it becomes a tool of oppression and evil. History shows it time and time again.
I've seen security folks go of the rail. I know what happens when a sec
Well, actually, foreign operative would fall within the exceptions for a warrant within FISA so you wouldn't need to prove anything front of a judge.
A poor choice of words on my part. I'm thinking of a scenario where I am a U.S. citizen working for foreign interests, thus becoming their operative.
The TSP which has been ruled legal in it's original incarnation was never designed to pick up evidence other then what was necessary to foil terrorist plots or to arrest terrorists. It didn't care if you were speeding last week or took acid or ran over the neighbors cat. It was only intended to and able to act on matters of national security.
Well yes, of course it doesn't. It never does. And neither do IRS agents abuse their access to look up the tax records of celebrities. Neither does law enforcement use their authority to harass people they don't like. Never at all.
Of particular note from the article you linked:
The company argued that âoeby placing discretion entirely in the hands of the executive branch without prior judicial involvement, the procedures cede to that branch overly broad power that invites abuse,â the court wrote.
But, the court ruled, âoethis is little more than a lament about the risk that government officials will not operate in good faith.â(TM)
âoeThat sort of risk exists even when a warrant is required,â it said.
That just floors me. It is essentially aruging that warrents are useless. We should do away with them. What do we need with governmental oversight anyway?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rail against authority and fight the machine. But I am a firm believer that oversight, however imperfect, must be maintained. Even corrupt oversight tends to leave paper trails that can later be followed to convict the corrupt. And so if the authorities executing this "war on terrorism" wish to do so, then by all means require them to leave that paper trail.
It really has be wondering about the sanity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. A cynic might note that they are a part of the very problem they were being asked to address.
I see the value in what they provided. But is it the same value as contributing code?
One of the things I'm looking for is proof that Microsoft is changing from their past. Providing easier access to their products doesn't really do it. Providing code does as would open licensing of their patents.
I said we feel safer. I'm not sure that we actually are.
That's a huge problem right there (and I'd note that I, myself, do not feel safer so please exclude me from your "we"). You FEEL safer. So if I talked to you real nice and made you feel good about buying the Brooklyn bridge, would it negate the fact that I conned you?
I understand what you're saying here. But I find it a really, really horrifying argument to make. I'd argue it being a moot point if it weren't for the fact that so many probably agree with you. The point shouldn't be about how you feel. The point should be about what was done and whether it was appropriate.
However, I do believe that Iraq has taken the majority of Al Queda's attention. I know that I can only really do so many things in a given day. It's far more immediately gratifying to take care of the easy (close) things than to try and work on the larger picture items. (I'm paying the price for that now as a grad student who's thesis deadline is fast approaching)
Resource management is an issue - you can only do so much with so many resources. But what if I could get more resources?
If I tell you that you could volunteer to go overseas and help starving children, what's the likelihood of you doing so? Not too likely as it involves a lot of personal investment for an objective that's pretty abstract to the here and now. How about if I had a starving child standing next to me and you could give them some food right here and now? Much easier. As you noted, it's much more gratifying to take care of the things close to you.
The issue with looking at Iraq as a sponge for terrorist resources is the concern that it is generating resources as well. Angry college students and young people with a lot of anger and nothing better to do (a lot to do with unemployment) are right in the region. Give them something next door to go shoot at and it's not hard to recruit them to do so. Getting them trained and prepared to do something long term and detailed over-seas is a much different situation.
Also, I don't know where Khobar Towers is, but I'm guessing it's not in the US, so while it may have made a name for AQ it didn't scare Americans at home. That was the reason why 9/11 was world changing for most Americans, the attacks hit home. We expect our military personnel to be attacked and occasionally die, even when we aren't officially at war. It's the death of hundreds of civilians that created the environment of fear, which in turn gave Bush a mandate to make us feel safer by any means necessary in the short term.
You should check out the link the AC posted below when he blasted me for not knowing about Khobar Towers (incidentally, I lived there from time to time but not during the bombing). In fact, the AC posted a nice laundry list of incidents that shows Al-Qaeda's more well known activities.
The point of this is that Al-Qaeda has had plenty of US military targets to choose from. And they have attacked them. Yet this did not soak up their resources and divert their attention from the US and the attacks on 9/11. The idea that Iraq will divert any future 9/11-like attacks isn't supported by history.
Why? Because as you noted, military folks dying is different than civilians dying. As the point of these things is terror (aka psycological warfare), you want lots of bang for your buck. Iraq, while bloody, provides all the bang that Al Khobar and other US military targets does. It will not prevent them from looking for another big civilian target in the future.
Many may hate the man now, but he did exactly what we wanted him to do at the time. It's just that, now we aren't as scared and it's easier to vilify him, than to admit that any losses of personal freedom were our own fault.
I faulted the President for the things he did as he did them. I did not sit there, quaking in fear, saying "please
I'm well aware of all these incidents (I even specifically mention Khobar Towers). But keep in mind that 3 of them were outside US border. If you want to broaden the scope that way then you should probably keep going back in to the 80s (or even further depending on where you want to draw the line).
The 3rd, the attempt on the World Trade Center, was ineffective. I was inclined to disregard it as a botched attempt (the Oklahoma bombing was fire more effective) but that isn't due to any diligence on the part of US Authorities. So true - there has been a valid attack on the US that was not prevented previous to 9/11.
Of course - that doesn't mean that post-9/11, the "war on terror" has kept us safe. The record in recent times has been an attack in 1993 followed by an attack in 2001. If the "war on terror" was required to maintain safety then why did it take 8 years for the second attempt? And what's to say we're not due for the next big hit, this being 2009, 8 years after the last attack?
The point here is that the record of attacks previous to 9/11 and post-9/11 aren't that drastically different. There is nothing to support that the "war on terrorism", or at least our domestic aspect of it, has had any net positive effect.
Now - one point I'd like to make that I don't think has been addressed is that disrupting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan has likely had a positive effect. And I would argue that if any aspect of the "war on terrorism" should be credited with our safety, it is entirely in that arena.
What right have you lost? What can't you do now that you were happily doing before Bush took office?
It's not about what I can or can not do. I'm doing everything I did now after Bush that I did before Bush. But then, that's how these things work. You're all fine and happy until you fall afoul of someone. And that's when you become really interested in the checks and balances that keep Governmental authority from being abused.
Bush's actions have chipped away at those checks and balances. And while that doesn't mean much to most people, I can only hope that it will never HAVE to mean anything to you.
And don't get me wrong. If I am a foreign operative then by all means, tap my communications and catch me out. Use my communications to uncover my cohorts. Play the spy game and win. But be sure that you've done the due dilligance to ensure that I am, in fact, said foreign operative before doing so. And prove that work in front of a judge.
No attacks since 2001 is a pretty good record (whether you believe that Iraq was important before hand, you have to admit that it has taken al Queda's focus off of the citizens within the US and turned it to the military in a foreign country. Sucks for those in Iraq, but good for the citizens of the US that aren't in the military, at least in the short term)
We had no attacks before 2001 either. There were attempts before then. And there are attempts now. The real truth is that the actual situation hasn't changed.
No, I don't believe that Iraq has taken the heat for the US. It may provide a more convenient target. But does that remove the US as a target or just make it so that Al-Qaeda can make more attacks than before? Keep in mind that the infamous attack that put Al-Qaeda on the map was the bombing of Khobar Towers. That proceeded the (successful) attack of 9/11. It did not prevent it.
It's simple, We were scared and Bush did anything he could to make us feel safe. Not all of it was effective, or even within the normal powers of the presidency, but overall we all feel safer than we did 7 years ago.
The only reason I feel safer now than I did 7 years ago is that Bush's Administration has been removed. I have yet to see what Obama does with the aftermath (and I fear you may be right on that point).
Meanwhile, the threats that face us are basically the same that faced us in before 2001. We may be taking them more seriously now. And I don't believe anyone with boxcutters will be able to hold control of an aircraft full of people ever again. But ultimately the situation and the players are still the same. None of the security theatre and Bush's over-reaching has managed to change that because, frankly, it's a difficult thing to handle.
Regarding Battlestar Galactica, there's one big reason I've never been able to really enjoy the show. We have barely 50,000 humans left, facing a constant threat of extinction by the cylons, and the show depicts humans engaged in what I consider insignificant squabbles. They're constantly hung up about issues which I think given their precarious position should be a non-issue. I would think humanity, facing such a situation, would either run like hell or pull out all the stops to survive and win.
I am more inclined to believe this is the condition of humanity. Stress brings out the best and worse in us.
Some of the best experiences I've had in my professional career (or careers, depending how you want to look at it) were with various military units. These times were during high-stress deployment situations where the team pulled together and got things done despite whatever pressure we were under. There was a real feeling of accomplishment and camaraderie when we managed to pull off whatever it was we were asked to do.
I know that these situations also put a lot of stress on families. I saw a lot of military marriages suffer and, in some cases, fall apart under the pressure. People would bitch about the fights they were having at home and they were rarely over the main cause of the stress: deployments. And while my own family found it stressful as well, my marriage was ultimately strengthened for the experience.
None of these stresses involved extinction. However, stress in general does odd things to people. And you can never really be sure how someone will react until they have experienced it (and even then there's always the person who snaps after having dealt with the same thing a dozen times).
Don't bother waiting. If you already think it is reputable, nobody's going to change your mind. Your bias lays along theirs.
Me, myself... I cringe when I watch Fox. I do watch and read them. But I cringe. However, I also cringe at CNN on occasion (sometimes because they're trying oh-so-hard to look like Fox). And I occasionally cringe at NPR. But I might be somewhat unique in that.
There are folks who think CNN is absolutely straight and narrow, how it is. Likewise with NPR. And then theres those who think Fox is the "truth" and the likes of CNN and NPR have more bias than a double-headed coin.
That's what they want you to think. That's what they want you to normalize. Except, of course, that it isn't true. If you don't think so, look at your national enemies. They grew a big enough backbone to stand up to you, despite the fact that you're war criminals who drop nukes on cities.
OK. I'll play your game.
If people didn't buckle under to pressure, why are all those who are "sticking up" so pissed about their countrymen? What's the big complaint of the US? Meddling in the Middle East. Putting pressure on various countries to do the US' bidding. So the complaint is that the majority avoid "doing the right thing" to save their own hides or, worse yet, gain power. Sounds like the point has been proven.
Do people grow backbones? Sure they do. But they're a minority. And they tend to get wiped out. Happens all the time. Our "national enemies" know this as they've wiped out resistance themselves. It's just now that they've found themselves fighting to maintain control over what they had seized themselves. As for nukes, their only interest is getting them. They know darned well that no nukes are likely to be dropped on any cities in the near future unless it is their doing.
Maybe it's because your citizenry are morally bankrupt after being transfixed by Hollywood illusions...
While I agree that Baywatch may be a crime against humanity, it is a crime I'm comfortable with when considering the scale of crimes committed around the world.
Seriously. In Iraq, the suicide bombers are largely al Qaeda imports - they're not Iraqis and they're not trying to get their country back.
The Iraqis tend to be the one with mortars. Which makes a lot more sense to me. If I were a freedom fighter (and I think those who truely ARE Iraqi freedom fighters are misguided) I'd be keen to fight for something I'm going to see in the future.
Lastly, holy crap, can we get over the immature "Bush's war on terror" shit? Seriously. He's out. The Democrats in office backed him up, and they are sending plenty of signals that nothing's changing on that front. Get over it.
I hope not. We need to remember what the Bush Administration has done to the rights of this country. We need to remember what the "war on terror" did for us and to us. We need to seriously examine how we allowed this kind of thing to happen less it goes to the next level during the next time around.
I should probably point out that I'm not one of these "Bush's illegal war" types. And I don't believe Obama is the next coming. So I'd expect I don't follow a lot of the Bush-bashing mindset common around here (and other places). But at the same time, I find myself being highly critical of the Administration.
You know, it's funny, maybe 5 or 6 years ago it would've been:
Windows 2000 = lean Windows XP = bloated
Yes, but Win2K is no longer on the table is it? I've still got one desktop instance with Win2K Pro. But as time and hardware march on, incompatibilities are inevitable (so far I've been OK for drivers but iTunes hit that barrier) - nevermind that there are no more bug fixes happening for it.
So under forced migration, you have to consider what you have available. Granted - WinXP will soon be a distant memory like Win2K before it. But for now, it is still fresh in the mind. And the comparisons of Win2K, WinXP, and Vista are still very valid if not a moot point.
There's two things going on with the Presidential Inauguration. We have our nation's first Black President (and sorry - those who point out the mixed blood of past presidents miss that it takes a chemistry set to possibly consider their mixed racial background). We also have our next President.
The national first stands alone. It is monumental; a step forward for our nation. And indication that we have, indeed, changed since past decades (even if improvement continues). It is an event that itself should symbolize hope. I'm all for the enthusiasm of the event.
But the other half of this is that we have a new President. This is where the man should be considered not for the historical symbolism but rather for what he is; a man. A politician. A president stepping in to the challenges of that office. And, like every other politician, one that has his own beliefs and agenda. This is where the optimism should stop and reality should take a firm grip of the situation. Distortion fields should be switched firmly to the "Off" position.
If it takes cynicism to get people to put their feet back on the ground, so be it. Good for them. Today they may be party poopers. But tomorrow they will be realists. If anything, today is the time for the hopeful; tomorrow is the time of the cynic.
I'm sure Microsoft employees work hard every day on (almost) everything that Microsoft produces. I'm not sure why this would be considered remarkable or especially praise-worthy for Linux users.
I suppose that this, codeplex and their other efforts could be all a big plot to win mindshare from OSS developers and users and convert them to MS, then they'll break compatibility again, but really if they think that will succeed, they're living in a fairy tale world. Honestly, I do think this is an attempt to be a bit more cooperative, even for business reasons. The best thing we can do as Linux users is support actions that facilitate open platform and do our best to stifle technologies that are clearly an attempt to do the opposite.
The crux to this strategy of supporting "actions that facilitate open platform" is figuring out what really does this. Is what Microsoft doing really this?
Keep in mind that while Microsoft "repeatedly helped the Mono developers and have truly made an effort to set a new precedent with many of their.NET technologies," their CEO was talking about Linux violating Microsoft patents. There's no details to the allegation, of course. But it does make one very wary of accepting Microsoft's helping hand when you're not entirely sure what they're holding behind their back.
This does bring to mind other elephants in the patent portfolio world; none bigger than IBM themselves. The Sith Lord to Microsoft in the IT industry, if you will. A difference that I see in this case is that IBM is contributing code directly to various projects. I would imagine things would get a bit dicey in court if IBM tried to renege by claiming patent rights over code they had licensed themselves (even with IBM's fabled power lawyers).
So it's all fine and dandy that Microsoft wants to speak softly, smile, and pat the OSS world on the head. But I'm keen to see guarantees that the other hand doesn't hold a big club.
So, you're saying that if we ignore all the laws that say "Your device is ours because what we thought up is on there", we end up with pirates competing with legits... and the legits are winning?
I don't think it's a given. But then you don't really get guarantees in business. But I do believe is that it's not a given that "piracy" is an end to any "intellectual property" business.
Interesting. Now, lets talk patents and copyrights in terms of impinging on free trade.
The reason things were like they were in Saudi was that they didn't recognize copyright. All these tapes were perfectly legal and so they were traded openly. I don't believe this is the case today.
I never understood this editorial opinion in most posts here.
Everyone is different so I wouldn't even begin to claim my view is shared by other posters. However, I'll throw in my observation none the less.
I grew up with the microcomputer revolution in the 80s (my family got their first home computer in 1980). Within a couple years, I found the (what would later be called) warez scene. I "pirated" hundreds of software titles. Most of the time I didn't even run the software and the floppies I had would sit shelved at two or three uses.
I should also point out that copy protection schemes were constantly evolving during this decade and were constantly defeated. I'd be shocked at what some of my friends who bought a game would have to do to play it on their computers (although a key wheel is nothing compared to the DRM shenanigans of these days).
Yet despite this flourishing underground, the nascent computer software market flourished; exploded. And in fact, the big video game bust of the decade had more to do with consoles and largely un-copied software than the numerous titles that were traded under the table at computer user groups and BBS' across the country. And with this growth, implosion, and then further growth, we have a market that takes on entertainment industries that have existed for decades before it.
I'm a software engineer and I'd be out on the streets if our customers illegally downloaded our software.
I have no idea what class of software you write, but I'd think the safe bet is that you do have some percentage of customers who have illegal copies of your software. In addition, there's likely others who have copies of your software who are not, in fact, your customers.
Sure, there are underserved markets, but most pirates are people who want to listen to music, watch movies, or play games for free. I don't see what economic model is going to squeeze profit out of that.
It's about competition. I agree that it's got to be annoying to compete with yourself - but it can be done (just ask folks selling new products that are comparable to the used versions available on eBay). I saw it in work in Saudi Arabia. Every shopping mall we went to had several pirate music stores (software stores copied disks while-you-wait for the price of media and sold badly copied, but bound, manuals). The tapes from these stores were distinctive and cheap... both in price and quality. You could get almost anything you wanted - to include the then-just-released Madonna album "Erotica" (talking sex is apparently different than showing skin).
I was surprised to find that in the same shopping district was a large music store that boasted high-range audio hardware and genuine / non-counterfeit tapes (and CDs which were less common at that time). Advertisements pointed out all the quality you got with a genuine tape - better cassette, art, and lyrics. The price more than the counterfeit tapes - about twice as much. But the store was busier than any of the competing counterfeit stores we visited.
It seems that the counterfeit tapes stores countered this with additional tracks on their tapes. Sometimes the tracks were by the same artist, but often they were from another artist in a similar or same genre - I suppose it was "if you liked this, try this too" kind of thing.
So why is a person who lacks authority, expecting to assert authority? This is always the part that confuses me.
It's quite simple, really. If you let those security guys have authority, they start to abuse it. Next thing you know, they're making you change your password, taking away your Bonzai Buddy, and interfering with your opportunities to see hot naked celebrity pics.
Yeah. I can see how that worked out for Age of Conan. World of Warcraft also had a very well received beta period and the outcome was also entirely unexpected.
"unscrupulous reporting" is a pretty good description of what the so-called journalist did.
I'm amazed at the ire this little piece generated. Sure - the facts scream "clueless" in almost every step of the article (nothing appears to be manufactured but someone in the know can make a reasonable guess at the mistakes made each time). But this is often the case with any subject matter that has a degree of complexity. Turning it in to a personal attack does nothing to improve the situation. And neither does over-reaction to the issue with phrases as "unscrupulous reporting."
I certainly would. If you don't know what something means, you can find out. If you don't, and you get ripped off, then you've only got your own lazy self to blame.
While I'm all for "buyer beware" and having some knowledge about the services I'm hiring, I'd also still consider a con man a con man whether he was preying on my ignorance or not (and so would any other decent service tech - be it IT, auto mechanics, or what have you).
On another note, nouveau provides EXA, which makes it faster than nvidia for 2D on all the cards it supports. Just FYI. (They're working on 3D, too, but it'll take a bit since nVidia's still firmly in kitten-killing territory.)
Yup - 'cause when I'm driving home from Fry's with a brand spankin' new Nividia card in my hot little hands, the whole way I'm thinking "oh boy is Open Office gonna scream now!":)
(Although I really am looking forward to when the 3D support gets hashed out)
The UK government isn't censoring the internet. Some ISP's are. ISP's are free to choose whether they want to use a blacklist. You are free to choose an ISP that doesn't use the blacklist. Hence, I think a totalitarian dictatorship might be a bit of an overstatement.
I agree that avoiding hyperbole is a good idea. But only because such a tactic tends to gloss over the details. And that's where the devil can be found in this case.
On the surface it appears that this is simply a private organization providing a service to private companies. As you stated, ISPs choose to follow the recommendations of the IWF (the exact method of doing this remains a rather large question and is one of the base issue in this particular case). There is no direct government mandate to adhere to the IWF's list.
However, this glosses over the fact that the IWF was formed with assistance of the UK Government and continues to operate with, among other sources, EU funding. That the IWF works so closely with the UK Government lends an additional air of authority. Despite the lack of official authority or Governmental office, the IWF acts very much like they have both.
This really does give the appearance of the UK Government imposing bans without the hassle of them getting their hands dirty to do it. But anyone who wishes to make this claim had better understand the how and why of it. Otherwise the public will look at the claims, look at the situation at face value, and dismiss it outright without a full understanding of the players and their actions.
"Molly, I'd like to buy this microchip a beer. I didn't think much of him at first. But after that dogfight today, I've grown to respect him. He's a hell of a pilot. Shoot - the only reason we're not still up there is that we called it a draw 'cause we both ran low on fuel."
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough. However, one of the key players in this patent cold war is IBM which has done some of this. And they contribute code. It's not that I trust IBM per se. But they've done a lot more than Microsoft has.
Firstly, you are being pedantic. Most Americans will admit that they feel safer. I was using the "we" in the sense of the majority. there is no statement of feeling, opinion or perception that one can make about all americans simultaneously. Obviously, not EVERYone feels safer. You can put your attitude away.
The majority of folks I worked with did not feel safer. But then, I'm in a security related industry. So we're likely to be a little out of the mainstream.
I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of Americans felt safer. But the majority? When people are making jokes about nail clippers, I have to wonder if the mainstream doesn't have some inkling of security theatre - that it doesn't go beyond my immediate circle.
From a Washington Post article dated Thursday, April 1, 2004:
Fewer than half of all Americans think the country is safer now than it was on Sept. 11, 2001, and more than three-quarters expect the United States to be the target of a major terrorist attack at home or abroad in the next few months, according to a new poll.
The survey, released yesterday by the nonpartisan Council for Excellence in Government, found that about half of respondents were concerned that terrorists would strike near their home or work. Seventy-three percent identified themselves as anxious or concerned about terrorism, and 26 percent said they were calm.
And what were they worried about?
The survey of 1,633 adults from Feb. 5 to Feb. 8 also found that although Americans are concerned about terrorism, they rank it behind the economy and health care as the nation's top priorities. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
It is your perception that Americans felt safe. But your perception might be as insular as mine, sans attitude.
I feel pretty safe in stating that many people that would help starving children locally probably would not pick up a gun and start shooting at people. Those that are willing to shoot at people, and risk get shot at as well, probably aren't too worried about a little travel.
Hold on now, we're not talking about the morality of shooting people. That's already been decided; it's being done. That's not the point. The point is to what extent will people go to in order to do it?
Attacks on US military targets didn't soak up AQ's resources because they didn't have anyone actively trying to capture or kill them in between their attacks. It's a lot harder to plan and carry out those kinds of actions when the US military is trying to find you and kill you, than when your targets are only acting defensively.
Actually - go read up about the attacks I noted. They WERE being actively hunted between those attacks.
However, I do agree that the scale was different. The invasion of Afghanistan took away a lot of resources from Al-Qaeda. As I noted, I'm fully supportive of that. But that's not the same thing as the war in Iraq.
Your claim is that Iraq takes attention off the US. That it will tie up Al-Qaeda resources. When historically, they were able to both attack US interests in the region as well as the US directly. Iraq has it's purpose but it is not to providing a better target to decreases terrorism in the world.
You may have been aware of what Bush was doing and disapproved, but that places you firmly in the minority. I was aware, and wouldn't have approved at other times, but knew that eventually those powers grabbed by the Bush administration would be revoked.
I need assurances. I need to know there is a check to the power being given. Without that check, it becomes a tool of oppression and evil. History shows it time and time again.
I've seen security folks go of the rail. I know what happens when a sec
Well, actually, foreign operative would fall within the exceptions for a warrant within FISA so you wouldn't need to prove anything front of a judge.
A poor choice of words on my part. I'm thinking of a scenario where I am a U.S. citizen working for foreign interests, thus becoming their operative.
The TSP which has been ruled legal in it's original incarnation was never designed to pick up evidence other then what was necessary to foil terrorist plots or to arrest terrorists. It didn't care if you were speeding last week or took acid or ran over the neighbors cat. It was only intended to and able to act on matters of national security.
Well yes, of course it doesn't. It never does. And neither do IRS agents abuse their access to look up the tax records of celebrities. Neither does law enforcement use their authority to harass people they don't like. Never at all.
Of particular note from the article you linked:
The company argued that âoeby placing discretion entirely in the hands of the executive branch without prior judicial involvement, the procedures cede to that branch overly broad power that invites abuse,â the court wrote.
But, the court ruled, âoethis is little more than a lament about the risk that government officials will not operate in good faith.â(TM)
âoeThat sort of risk exists even when a warrant is required,â it said.
That just floors me. It is essentially aruging that warrents are useless. We should do away with them. What do we need with governmental oversight anyway?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rail against authority and fight the machine. But I am a firm believer that oversight, however imperfect, must be maintained. Even corrupt oversight tends to leave paper trails that can later be followed to convict the corrupt. And so if the authorities executing this "war on terrorism" wish to do so, then by all means require them to leave that paper trail.
It really has be wondering about the sanity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. A cynic might note that they are a part of the very problem they were being asked to address.
I see the value in what they provided. But is it the same value as contributing code?
One of the things I'm looking for is proof that Microsoft is changing from their past. Providing easier access to their products doesn't really do it. Providing code does as would open licensing of their patents.
I said we feel safer. I'm not sure that we actually are.
That's a huge problem right there (and I'd note that I, myself, do not feel safer so please exclude me from your "we"). You FEEL safer. So if I talked to you real nice and made you feel good about buying the Brooklyn bridge, would it negate the fact that I conned you?
I understand what you're saying here. But I find it a really, really horrifying argument to make. I'd argue it being a moot point if it weren't for the fact that so many probably agree with you. The point shouldn't be about how you feel. The point should be about what was done and whether it was appropriate.
However, I do believe that Iraq has taken the majority of Al Queda's attention. I know that I can only really do so many things in a given day. It's far more immediately gratifying to take care of the easy (close) things than to try and work on the larger picture items. (I'm paying the price for that now as a grad student who's thesis deadline is fast approaching)
Resource management is an issue - you can only do so much with so many resources. But what if I could get more resources?
If I tell you that you could volunteer to go overseas and help starving children, what's the likelihood of you doing so? Not too likely as it involves a lot of personal investment for an objective that's pretty abstract to the here and now. How about if I had a starving child standing next to me and you could give them some food right here and now? Much easier. As you noted, it's much more gratifying to take care of the things close to you.
The issue with looking at Iraq as a sponge for terrorist resources is the concern that it is generating resources as well. Angry college students and young people with a lot of anger and nothing better to do (a lot to do with unemployment) are right in the region. Give them something next door to go shoot at and it's not hard to recruit them to do so. Getting them trained and prepared to do something long term and detailed over-seas is a much different situation.
Also, I don't know where Khobar Towers is, but I'm guessing it's not in the US, so while it may have made a name for AQ it didn't scare Americans at home. That was the reason why 9/11 was world changing for most Americans, the attacks hit home. We expect our military personnel to be attacked and occasionally die, even when we aren't officially at war. It's the death of hundreds of civilians that created the environment of fear, which in turn gave Bush a mandate to make us feel safer by any means necessary in the short term.
You should check out the link the AC posted below when he blasted me for not knowing about Khobar Towers (incidentally, I lived there from time to time but not during the bombing). In fact, the AC posted a nice laundry list of incidents that shows Al-Qaeda's more well known activities.
The point of this is that Al-Qaeda has had plenty of US military targets to choose from. And they have attacked them. Yet this did not soak up their resources and divert their attention from the US and the attacks on 9/11. The idea that Iraq will divert any future 9/11-like attacks isn't supported by history.
Why? Because as you noted, military folks dying is different than civilians dying. As the point of these things is terror (aka psycological warfare), you want lots of bang for your buck. Iraq, while bloody, provides all the bang that Al Khobar and other US military targets does. It will not prevent them from looking for another big civilian target in the future.
Many may hate the man now, but he did exactly what we wanted him to do at the time. It's just that, now we aren't as scared and it's easier to vilify him, than to admit that any losses of personal freedom were our own fault.
I faulted the President for the things he did as he did them. I did not sit there, quaking in fear, saying "please
OK. Fair enough point. Let's explore that a bit.
I'm well aware of all these incidents (I even specifically mention Khobar Towers). But keep in mind that 3 of them were outside US border. If you want to broaden the scope that way then you should probably keep going back in to the 80s (or even further depending on where you want to draw the line).
The 3rd, the attempt on the World Trade Center, was ineffective. I was inclined to disregard it as a botched attempt (the Oklahoma bombing was fire more effective) but that isn't due to any diligence on the part of US Authorities. So true - there has been a valid attack on the US that was not prevented previous to 9/11.
Of course - that doesn't mean that post-9/11, the "war on terror" has kept us safe. The record in recent times has been an attack in 1993 followed by an attack in 2001. If the "war on terror" was required to maintain safety then why did it take 8 years for the second attempt? And what's to say we're not due for the next big hit, this being 2009, 8 years after the last attack?
The point here is that the record of attacks previous to 9/11 and post-9/11 aren't that drastically different. There is nothing to support that the "war on terrorism", or at least our domestic aspect of it, has had any net positive effect.
Now - one point I'd like to make that I don't think has been addressed is that disrupting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan has likely had a positive effect. And I would argue that if any aspect of the "war on terrorism" should be credited with our safety, it is entirely in that arena.
What right have you lost? What can't you do now that you were happily doing before Bush took office?
It's not about what I can or can not do. I'm doing everything I did now after Bush that I did before Bush. But then, that's how these things work. You're all fine and happy until you fall afoul of someone. And that's when you become really interested in the checks and balances that keep Governmental authority from being abused.
Bush's actions have chipped away at those checks and balances. And while that doesn't mean much to most people, I can only hope that it will never HAVE to mean anything to you.
And don't get me wrong. If I am a foreign operative then by all means, tap my communications and catch me out. Use my communications to uncover my cohorts. Play the spy game and win. But be sure that you've done the due dilligance to ensure that I am, in fact, said foreign operative before doing so. And prove that work in front of a judge.
No attacks since 2001 is a pretty good record (whether you believe that Iraq was important before hand, you have to admit that it has taken al Queda's focus off of the citizens within the US and turned it to the military in a foreign country. Sucks for those in Iraq, but good for the citizens of the US that aren't in the military, at least in the short term)
We had no attacks before 2001 either. There were attempts before then. And there are attempts now. The real truth is that the actual situation hasn't changed.
No, I don't believe that Iraq has taken the heat for the US. It may provide a more convenient target. But does that remove the US as a target or just make it so that Al-Qaeda can make more attacks than before? Keep in mind that the infamous attack that put Al-Qaeda on the map was the bombing of Khobar Towers. That proceeded the (successful) attack of 9/11. It did not prevent it.
It's simple, We were scared and Bush did anything he could to make us feel safe. Not all of it was effective, or even within the normal powers of the presidency, but overall we all feel safer than we did 7 years ago.
The only reason I feel safer now than I did 7 years ago is that Bush's Administration has been removed. I have yet to see what Obama does with the aftermath (and I fear you may be right on that point).
Meanwhile, the threats that face us are basically the same that faced us in before 2001. We may be taking them more seriously now. And I don't believe anyone with boxcutters will be able to hold control of an aircraft full of people ever again. But ultimately the situation and the players are still the same. None of the security theatre and Bush's over-reaching has managed to change that because, frankly, it's a difficult thing to handle.
Regarding Battlestar Galactica, there's one big reason I've never been able to really enjoy the show. We have barely 50,000 humans left, facing a constant threat of extinction by the cylons, and the show depicts humans engaged in what I consider insignificant squabbles. They're constantly hung up about issues which I think given their precarious position should be a non-issue. I would think humanity, facing such a situation, would either run like hell or pull out all the stops to survive and win.
I am more inclined to believe this is the condition of humanity. Stress brings out the best and worse in us.
Some of the best experiences I've had in my professional career (or careers, depending how you want to look at it) were with various military units. These times were during high-stress deployment situations where the team pulled together and got things done despite whatever pressure we were under. There was a real feeling of accomplishment and camaraderie when we managed to pull off whatever it was we were asked to do.
I know that these situations also put a lot of stress on families. I saw a lot of military marriages suffer and, in some cases, fall apart under the pressure. People would bitch about the fights they were having at home and they were rarely over the main cause of the stress: deployments. And while my own family found it stressful as well, my marriage was ultimately strengthened for the experience.
None of these stresses involved extinction. However, stress in general does odd things to people. And you can never really be sure how someone will react until they have experienced it (and even then there's always the person who snaps after having dealt with the same thing a dozen times).
Don't bother waiting. If you already think it is reputable, nobody's going to change your mind. Your bias lays along theirs.
Me, myself... I cringe when I watch Fox. I do watch and read them. But I cringe. However, I also cringe at CNN on occasion (sometimes because they're trying oh-so-hard to look like Fox). And I occasionally cringe at NPR. But I might be somewhat unique in that.
There are folks who think CNN is absolutely straight and narrow, how it is. Likewise with NPR. And then theres those who think Fox is the "truth" and the likes of CNN and NPR have more bias than a double-headed coin.
That's what they want you to think. That's what they want you to normalize. Except, of course, that it isn't true. If you don't think so, look at your national enemies. They grew a big enough backbone to stand up to you, despite the fact that you're war criminals who drop nukes on cities.
OK. I'll play your game.
If people didn't buckle under to pressure, why are all those who are "sticking up" so pissed about their countrymen? What's the big complaint of the US? Meddling in the Middle East. Putting pressure on various countries to do the US' bidding. So the complaint is that the majority avoid "doing the right thing" to save their own hides or, worse yet, gain power. Sounds like the point has been proven.
Do people grow backbones? Sure they do. But they're a minority. And they tend to get wiped out. Happens all the time. Our "national enemies" know this as they've wiped out resistance themselves. It's just now that they've found themselves fighting to maintain control over what they had seized themselves. As for nukes, their only interest is getting them. They know darned well that no nukes are likely to be dropped on any cities in the near future unless it is their doing.
Maybe it's because your citizenry are morally bankrupt after being transfixed by Hollywood illusions...
While I agree that Baywatch may be a crime against humanity, it is a crime I'm comfortable with when considering the scale of crimes committed around the world.
--
-1 Feeding the Troll
Seriously. In Iraq, the suicide bombers are largely al Qaeda imports - they're not Iraqis and they're not trying to get their country back.
The Iraqis tend to be the one with mortars. Which makes a lot more sense to me. If I were a freedom fighter (and I think those who truely ARE Iraqi freedom fighters are misguided) I'd be keen to fight for something I'm going to see in the future.
Lastly, holy crap, can we get over the immature "Bush's war on terror" shit? Seriously. He's out. The Democrats in office backed him up, and they are sending plenty of signals that nothing's changing on that front. Get over it.
I hope not. We need to remember what the Bush Administration has done to the rights of this country. We need to remember what the "war on terror" did for us and to us. We need to seriously examine how we allowed this kind of thing to happen less it goes to the next level during the next time around.
I should probably point out that I'm not one of these "Bush's illegal war" types. And I don't believe Obama is the next coming. So I'd expect I don't follow a lot of the Bush-bashing mindset common around here (and other places). But at the same time, I find myself being highly critical of the Administration.
You know, it's funny, maybe 5 or 6 years ago it would've been:
Windows 2000 = lean
Windows XP = bloated
Yes, but Win2K is no longer on the table is it? I've still got one desktop instance with Win2K Pro. But as time and hardware march on, incompatibilities are inevitable (so far I've been OK for drivers but iTunes hit that barrier) - nevermind that there are no more bug fixes happening for it.
So under forced migration, you have to consider what you have available. Granted - WinXP will soon be a distant memory like Win2K before it. But for now, it is still fresh in the mind. And the comparisons of Win2K, WinXP, and Vista are still very valid if not a moot point.
There's two things going on with the Presidential Inauguration. We have our nation's first Black President (and sorry - those who point out the mixed blood of past presidents miss that it takes a chemistry set to possibly consider their mixed racial background). We also have our next President.
The national first stands alone. It is monumental; a step forward for our nation. And indication that we have, indeed, changed since past decades (even if improvement continues). It is an event that itself should symbolize hope. I'm all for the enthusiasm of the event.
But the other half of this is that we have a new President. This is where the man should be considered not for the historical symbolism but rather for what he is; a man. A politician. A president stepping in to the challenges of that office. And, like every other politician, one that has his own beliefs and agenda. This is where the optimism should stop and reality should take a firm grip of the situation. Distortion fields should be switched firmly to the "Off" position.
If it takes cynicism to get people to put their feet back on the ground, so be it. Good for them. Today they may be party poopers. But tomorrow they will be realists. If anything, today is the time for the hopeful; tomorrow is the time of the cynic.
I'm sure Microsoft employees work hard every day on (almost) everything that Microsoft produces. I'm not sure why this would be considered remarkable or especially praise-worthy for Linux users.
I suppose that this, codeplex and their other efforts could be all a big plot to win mindshare from OSS developers and users and convert them to MS, then they'll break compatibility again, but really if they think that will succeed, they're living in a fairy tale world. Honestly, I do think this is an attempt to be a bit more cooperative, even for business reasons. The best thing we can do as Linux users is support actions that facilitate open platform and do our best to stifle technologies that are clearly an attempt to do the opposite.
The crux to this strategy of supporting "actions that facilitate open platform" is figuring out what really does this. Is what Microsoft doing really this?
Keep in mind that while Microsoft "repeatedly helped the Mono developers and have truly made an effort to set a new precedent with many of their .NET technologies," their CEO was talking about Linux violating Microsoft patents. There's no details to the allegation, of course. But it does make one very wary of accepting Microsoft's helping hand when you're not entirely sure what they're holding behind their back.
This does bring to mind other elephants in the patent portfolio world; none bigger than IBM themselves. The Sith Lord to Microsoft in the IT industry, if you will. A difference that I see in this case is that IBM is contributing code directly to various projects. I would imagine things would get a bit dicey in court if IBM tried to renege by claiming patent rights over code they had licensed themselves (even with IBM's fabled power lawyers).
So it's all fine and dandy that Microsoft wants to speak softly, smile, and pat the OSS world on the head. But I'm keen to see guarantees that the other hand doesn't hold a big club.
So, you're saying that if we ignore all the laws that say "Your device is ours because what we thought up is on there", we end up with pirates competing with legits... and the legits are winning?
I don't think it's a given. But then you don't really get guarantees in business. But I do believe is that it's not a given that "piracy" is an end to any "intellectual property" business.
Interesting. Now, lets talk patents and copyrights in terms of impinging on free trade.
The reason things were like they were in Saudi was that they didn't recognize copyright. All these tapes were perfectly legal and so they were traded openly. I don't believe this is the case today.
I never understood this editorial opinion in most posts here.
Everyone is different so I wouldn't even begin to claim my view is shared by other posters. However, I'll throw in my observation none the less.
I grew up with the microcomputer revolution in the 80s (my family got their first home computer in 1980). Within a couple years, I found the (what would later be called) warez scene. I "pirated" hundreds of software titles. Most of the time I didn't even run the software and the floppies I had would sit shelved at two or three uses.
I should also point out that copy protection schemes were constantly evolving during this decade and were constantly defeated. I'd be shocked at what some of my friends who bought a game would have to do to play it on their computers (although a key wheel is nothing compared to the DRM shenanigans of these days).
Yet despite this flourishing underground, the nascent computer software market flourished; exploded. And in fact, the big video game bust of the decade had more to do with consoles and largely un-copied software than the numerous titles that were traded under the table at computer user groups and BBS' across the country. And with this growth, implosion, and then further growth, we have a market that takes on entertainment industries that have existed for decades before it.
I'm a software engineer and I'd be out on the streets if our customers illegally downloaded our software.
I have no idea what class of software you write, but I'd think the safe bet is that you do have some percentage of customers who have illegal copies of your software. In addition, there's likely others who have copies of your software who are not, in fact, your customers.
Sure, there are underserved markets, but most pirates are people who want to listen to music, watch movies, or play games for free. I don't see what economic model is going to squeeze profit out of that.
It's about competition. I agree that it's got to be annoying to compete with yourself - but it can be done (just ask folks selling new products that are comparable to the used versions available on eBay). I saw it in work in Saudi Arabia. Every shopping mall we went to had several pirate music stores (software stores copied disks while-you-wait for the price of media and sold badly copied, but bound, manuals). The tapes from these stores were distinctive and cheap... both in price and quality. You could get almost anything you wanted - to include the then-just-released Madonna album "Erotica" (talking sex is apparently different than showing skin).
I was surprised to find that in the same shopping district was a large music store that boasted high-range audio hardware and genuine / non-counterfeit tapes (and CDs which were less common at that time). Advertisements pointed out all the quality you got with a genuine tape - better cassette, art, and lyrics. The price more than the counterfeit tapes - about twice as much. But the store was busier than any of the competing counterfeit stores we visited.
It seems that the counterfeit tapes stores countered this with additional tracks on their tapes. Sometimes the tracks were by the same artist, but often they were from another artist in a similar or same genre - I suppose it was "if you liked this, try this too" kind of thing.
So why is a person who lacks authority, expecting to assert authority? This is always the part that confuses me.
It's quite simple, really. If you let those security guys have authority, they start to abuse it. Next thing you know, they're making you change your password, taking away your Bonzai Buddy, and interfering with your opportunities to see hot naked celebrity pics.
Yeah. I can see how that worked out for Age of Conan. World of Warcraft also had a very well received beta period and the outcome was also entirely unexpected.
"unscrupulous reporting" is a pretty good description of what the so-called journalist did.
I'm amazed at the ire this little piece generated. Sure - the facts scream "clueless" in almost every step of the article (nothing appears to be manufactured but someone in the know can make a reasonable guess at the mistakes made each time). But this is often the case with any subject matter that has a degree of complexity. Turning it in to a personal attack does nothing to improve the situation. And neither does over-reaction to the issue with phrases as "unscrupulous reporting."
I certainly would. If you don't know what something means, you can find out. If you don't, and you get ripped off, then you've only got your own lazy self to blame.
While I'm all for "buyer beware" and having some knowledge about the services I'm hiring, I'd also still consider a con man a con man whether he was preying on my ignorance or not (and so would any other decent service tech - be it IT, auto mechanics, or what have you).
On another note, nouveau provides EXA, which makes it faster than nvidia for 2D on all the cards it supports. Just FYI. (They're working on 3D, too, but it'll take a bit since nVidia's still firmly in kitten-killing territory.)
Yup - 'cause when I'm driving home from Fry's with a brand spankin' new Nividia card in my hot little hands, the whole way I'm thinking "oh boy is Open Office gonna scream now!" :)
(Although I really am looking forward to when the 3D support gets hashed out)
The UK government isn't censoring the internet. Some ISP's are. ISP's are free to choose whether they want to use a blacklist. You are free to choose an ISP that doesn't use the blacklist. Hence, I think a totalitarian dictatorship might be a bit of an overstatement.
I agree that avoiding hyperbole is a good idea. But only because such a tactic tends to gloss over the details. And that's where the devil can be found in this case.
On the surface it appears that this is simply a private organization providing a service to private companies. As you stated, ISPs choose to follow the recommendations of the IWF (the exact method of doing this remains a rather large question and is one of the base issue in this particular case). There is no direct government mandate to adhere to the IWF's list.
However, this glosses over the fact that the IWF was formed with assistance of the UK Government and continues to operate with, among other sources, EU funding. That the IWF works so closely with the UK Government lends an additional air of authority. Despite the lack of official authority or Governmental office, the IWF acts very much like they have both.
This really does give the appearance of the UK Government imposing bans without the hassle of them getting their hands dirty to do it. But anyone who wishes to make this claim had better understand the how and why of it. Otherwise the public will look at the claims, look at the situation at face value, and dismiss it outright without a full understanding of the players and their actions.
"Molly, I'd like to buy this microchip a beer. I didn't think much of him at first. But after that dogfight today, I've grown to respect him. He's a hell of a pilot. Shoot - the only reason we're not still up there is that we called it a draw 'cause we both ran low on fuel."