Because it will be illegal/against the DMCA/against copyright law in your country/against the Mac OS X EULA to run Mac OS X on anything but Apple hardware, as it currently is today.
Therefore, it will only be geeks/slashdot-types/hackers/people who don't mind running Mac OS X illegally in an annoyingly unsupported configuration who will be running it on non-Apple hardware.
In other words, Apple hardware is the only place where you'll be able to legally run Mac OS X on a supported hardware configuration in a supported fashion. So while some pimply engadget-and-boingboing-reading geek may have Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, Ubuntu, Debian, and all manner of other crap running on his slick little Sony Vaio, ordinary people and companies who actually want support and to, you know, run software legally, won't do this. And that represents about 99% of the marketplace.
Whether or not Microsoft wants Windows XP or Windows Vista to run on Intel-based Macs, it will.
Also, I never said that Mac OS X would run on commodity hardware. I'm saying the exact opposite: that Windows will run on Apple's Intel-based hardware. But on this topic, if you're arguing that the only way Apple can keep Mac OS X on its own hardware is via DRM, you'd be wrong. Apple currently specifies that Mac OS X can only run on Apple-branded hardware in the EULA. The legality aspect alone would relegate running Mac OS X (or hacking it to run) on commodity hardware to a comparatively negligible subset of slashdot-types, hackers, people content to pirate the OS, people content to run without any support from Apple on completely unsupported configurations, etc. In other words, on the grand scale, just about no one.[1] Sure, Apple *might* use DRM to do this, but it doesn't have to. Mac OS X currently has no product activation of any kind; it doesn't even have a serial number.
Whether it is in a direct-boot capacity or in a virtual machine, or both, remains to be seen, but you can be sure Windows WILL run on the Intel-based Macs, period. (And if you're arguing that Apple will somehow specifically disallow it, that flies in the face of both Phil Schiller, the number 2 man at Apple, specifically saying that Apple will not do anything to preclude people from installing Windows on Intel-based Macs, and the fact that multiple solutions for running Windows on PowerPC hardware, albeit in emulation, exist today. Are you honestly saying that we'll have less options to run Windows in actual x86 hardware? Hardly.)
Further, the last thing Apple wants is people Mac OS X applications getting killed because of the reasoning that people can just run them in Windows, so why even make it any more? Apple developers, including Microsoft's Mac Business Unit, understand that Mac OS X users want to run software in the Mac OS X interface and environment. Running software at full speed in Windows under, say, a virtual machine environment will be a convenience, not the default. Yes, you can make arguments that developers will kill their Mac products, but that makes the assumption that a very large percentage of the Mac userbase will fork out for a VM plus a license of Windows (whether or not these are ultimately bundled together in some product is beside the point - the point is, it will be costly). Further, there is no value in Mac OS X if there is no software. And since Mac OS X growth and Apple growth in general is at the highest in the company's history, Mac OS X developers will not be leaving the platform. There are compelling reasons to choose Mac OS X over Windows, and people, business, and academia are making that decision daily.
Apple says no. Our guess is that some enterprising hacker may be able to get it to work, but we'd expect that if anyone can get OS X to run on PC hardware, it will be a laborious process, and the end result may not be a particularly stable system. You certainly won't be able to go out, buy OS X, stick the install DVD in a Dell PC, and have it just work. Apple intends Mac OS X to only run on Apple hardware.
Q: Will I be able to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC?
A: No.
Q: Try and stop me!
A: Apple most assuredly will--try, that is. And they'll fail, just like Microsoft failed to stop people from installing Linux and MAME on the Xbox. But like MS, all Apple has to do is make sure that only Slashdot-reading, VoIP-using, PC-assembling, DMCA-breaking geeks hack their way to an "unapproved" configuration of hardware and software. If it's illegal (th
Further, by the end of 2007, all Macs will be Intel based (according to Apple's initial statement).
So people might care to see what types of things may, and likely will, be possible.
Especially people who might want to buy *one* machine, say, a laptop, and run Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, and other x86 OSes on it, all at native speeds. And yes, one way or another, this will likely be trivially possible. See my otherposts for more information.
In other words, this is very interesting to that group of people. Which, among slashdot readers, is probably quite a lot.
But if they're using EFI (a distinct possibility), it's still likely that Windows will be able to be directly installed.
And even if they make the unlikely choice of Open Firmware, that doesn't stop Windows (and any other x86 OS) from running at essentially the full speed of the native underlying hardware in a virtual machine environment that someone is bound to produce. In fact, that's likely even *more* desirable to a larger number of people than the hassle of dual booting. And a VM is possible regardless of what the boot mechanism will be.
See my post here for more details. At the very, very least it could run Linux and Windows nicely in a virtual machine environment, but it's very likely that yes, they will run Linux - and Windows - regardless of whether the final machines utilize BIOS, Open Firmware, or EFI. Why wouldn't they? Especially in the case of Linux. PowerPC Macs run several varieties of Linux today; why wouldn't they also be able to run on production Intel-based Macs, even if they make the surprising decision of using Open Firmware? And there's no reason Apple would want to *prevent* people from installing Linux, or even Windows, as Phil Schiller himself has said Apple won't do anything to preclude people from installing Windows on Intel-based Macs.
This is a huge coup for Apple: imagine a laptop that can seamlessly run Windows XP and Linux - PLUS Mac OS X. Or better yet, run one environment (such as Mac OS X) and have your other environments in a VM at essentially full speed. It would be a dream machine, to be sure.
...and this is easy since the Developer Transition Platform is just running a generic Intel motherboard, generic Intel video chipset, an Intel Pentium 4 660 processor with HT, and a standard Intel BIOS (NOT a Phoenix BIOS as has been incorrectly reported elsewhere), but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.
Since it will be running on x86 hardware, processor instructions do not have to be emulated: they can run natively at near-full speed of the underlying hardware.
Further, though Apple will do nothing to stop users from installing Windows on production Intel-based Macintosh systems, it's likely that the production systems will evolve beyond the generic hardware that makes the Developer Transition Platform. Apple itself has said, "Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." This means there may be additional specialized hardware for which Windows drivers and specialized support profiles will not be maintained by Apple. Of course, this isn't stopping anyone from making them, and Intel has said that Intel-based Macs will use commodity Intel processors, chipsets, and other support components, but it might not be quite as seamless as just popping in a Windows CD and installing (though it very well could be).
Let's also not forget that the production machines may not be - and likely will not be - using BIOS, rendering useless any such conventional PC multi-boot configurations. (But even with EFI or Open Firmware, there's no reason Apple couldn't maintain a robust multi-boot system.)
The point is that a virtual machine product could offer a supported configuration for x86 OSes, including Windows, Linux variants, etc., without the headache and hassle of rebooting into another OS. Sure, dual/multi-booting has benefits, and certainly this will be possible on even the production hardware, but most users would likely prefer a Virtual PC-like environment for running x86 OSes/applications without rebooting.
On this topic, one wonders if Microsoft will be the entity that releases this first. After all, they've already got Virtual PC for Mac, and Virtual PC for Windows (and Microsoft Virtual Server) is exactly this type of virtual machine product, albeit for Windows. On one hand, you can argue that for Microsoft, it's just another copy of Windows sold, so why should they care? But on the other hand, if they make a first-class VM product for Mac OS X that runs Windows (and other x86 OSes) seamlessly at near-full speed of the native hardware, it definitely assists in the sales of more machines designed primarily to run Mac OS X, which could be a poor strategic choice...
But even if Microsoft doesn't do it, let's hope someone like EMC does with vmware.
"I've working in educational and corporate IT" (and in fact do now), and I can say that Macs are extremely prevalent in academic, government, and research environments, and everyone in those environments knows it. It's hard to walk around a large research campus or a national lab without seeing Macs everywhere. So while I'm not making any claims whether Macs are 1 in 5 business desktops, to say that Macs aren't prevalent in bullshit.
And by the way, just as an example, Macs are MORE than 1 in 5 machines at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, one of the nations largest universities. It's not uncommon to find this at many large research institutions.
Whether the "chip" business is in reference to the "PowerPC chip" (which, knowing USA Today, it could be), or IBM's overall CPU business, or IBM's general semiconductor business as a whole, Apple still represents a vanishingly small proportion of IBM's business. Sure, no company wants to lose 2% of its business - on this scale, that can account for millions - or tens of millions - of dollars. However, 2% is still small enough, regardless of the frame of reference, that Apple was most certainly not significantly driving IBM chip development. In fact, since raw clock frequency is about the last thing IBM cares about (at least from a specification one-upsmanship standpoint), Apple was probably a thorn in IBM's side in that respect. (It might pay to remember that at the time of Jobs' Intel announcement, IBM had missed its 3GHz commitment to Apple by over a year, and was/is still only shipping 2.7GHz parts.)
It's also probably worth mentioning to all the people who think that IBM's recent 970MP and low-power 970FX offerings are "perfect" for Apple that, while the 970MP may certainly be attractive for the Xserve and Power Mac lines (and may in fact be used), the low-power 970FX can't just be popped into a PowerBook. The support chipsets (e.g., HyperTransport) required for the G5 all generate substantially more heat than the similar support chipsets with the G4 (74xx) family, making the total heat profile of a hypothetical low-power G5-based PowerBook still much higher than even the highest-end G4-based PowerBooks.
As for the Apple/Intel FAQ, I am the author of that site (and it is completely non-commercial, non-profit, not associated with anything monetarily or financially in any way, and is exclusively for informational purposes), so that's why it's described as such. I'll try to confirm whether it is PowerPC, POWER + PowerPC, all CPU products, or all semiconductor products. Ultimately, though, whatever it actually is, Apple was still a very small part of IBM's business, and, as such, was not "driving" PowerPC development in any significant way, and the truth of my statement remains.
So hacker gets death...because he costs companies millions in lost revenue, but CEO of company who commits fraud and loots the pension funds for billions gets nothing or maybe a few years in prison?
Actually, it was kind of tongue-in-cheek, meant to illustrate the seriousness of the effects of some of the worst attacks. And actually, it's more than "millions" that things like the premier worms and viruses cost. It's "billions", real billions of dollars, just like the looting CEOs. And that "lost revenue" that you seem so quick to write off amounts to real impact on our economy. Real lost jobs, real negative impacts, real effects on the mechanics of US business and government.
And a "few years in prison"?
63-year old former Worldcom CEO Bernard Ebbers got 25 years.
80-year old Adelphia founder John Rigas got 15 years.
48-year old former Adelphia CFO Timothy Regas got 20 years.
(The Enron trial is not until January 2006).
Seems like they're getting what they deserve, eh? Doesn't sound like "nothing" to me (funny how the slashdot crowd seemingly expects the wheels of justice to turn instantly there, but would likely be part of the same group of people who would be overly careful to not rush to prejudge others of perhaps lesser means in legal situations).
Malicious computer hackers (née crackers) and malware writers should get due punishment as well. And no, not the "death penalty", but a harsh one. And no, not kids who pass around the admin password for iBooks in junior high, or people who happen to surf via an open, unprotected access point. But the real malicious hackers; the exact type the original article is referring to.
I'm not arguing that there have never been instances where the US or UK military did something unacceptable, or chose to ignore civilian deaths as collateral to another operation, or indeed intentionally killed civilians for a strategic objective.
I simply do not agree with your analysis and subsequent conclusions. I believe that in the majority of these instances, and on the whole, the general goal is an overall reduction in loss of life; the priority being our "side" first, and innocent civilians in general second. The atomic bombings of Japan are an excellent example, as I noted.
I also understand the arguments regarding suicide bombing and IEDs being the only way to retaliate. I suppose it would be futile of me to point out that (aside from the police or people who they feel are complicit with the US) they are, in some cases, killing their OWN PEOPLE! The twisted logic that has to be used to justify that is appalling, considering even if you make the argument that it's simply one to sway opinion to eject the Americans that are killing/oppressing them in the first place, the "oppression" they would claim to eject will only be replaced with their own oppression based on radical fundamentalist Islam. No matter what kind of arguments you can make in favor of suicide bombers and terrorists and their actions, whether it is with 737 or IED, I will not agree, on a philosophical level. Let me be clear: I do understand the argument. I, however, do not agree with it. I may be wrong. I am not saying I'm right. I'm simply trying to articulate my viewpoint.
However, using human calculus is a really slippery slope.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. It's just that others seem to be using this mechanism, e.g., "x number of Americans dead" or "y number of Iraqis" dead. If the number of dead is somehow important - and I agree that it is - perhaps its worthwhile to examine the scope and scale. I would propose that ~1700 Americans dead during an over-two-year military operation with a massive troop presence in this context is rather amazing.
As for the Iraqis:
Do you have any credible or concrete information to show that more or less Iraqis would have died if we'd never invaded?
In another post, I said this is difficult to prove one way or the other because of a lack of accurate accounting. But before the war, and indeed before Bush was even in office, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International independently claimed that approximately 100,000 Iraqis were dying per year as a direct result of the sanctions.
So assuming we believe those numbers, and since continuing sanctions as-is were presented as the only reasonable alternative to military action, we compare to Iraqi deaths due to the US military operations. If we double iraqbodycount.net's figures, we arrive at 50,000. If we quadrupule it, 100,000. By any account, assuming 200,000 dead as a result of the US action is a very high, and probably incorrect, estimate. The actual number is likely closer to between 50,000 and 100,000. And no, neither of us have credible, concrete estimates on which to base this - but I won't use the lowest estimates, so I believe it's equally disingenuous for others to use the highest.
While there are no good figures on Iraqi deaths due to insufficient infrastructure, it is believed that, while incomplete, the US has done a satisfactory job of restoring some infrastructure, electricity, sanitation, basic services, medical care, clean water, and food, to certain non-urban areas of Iraq that suffered gravely the prior decade, thus reducing the unnecessary deaths in these areas. These were, at times, also deaths attributed to the sanctions process. Of course, we've now learned that there was massive corruption in the sanctions process and among the contract administrators of the UN Oil for Food Programme, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, the major beneficiaries of the spoils being, coincidentally, France, Germany, and Russia, in that order.
In any event, it's certainly arguable that there was a net preservation of Iraqi life, if we take HRC and Amnesty's sanctions death figures and compare them with even a quadrupled iraqbodycount.net estimate. Human calculus? Yes. But at some point you have to do an analysis of the operation from various perspectives. Are we actually securing Iraq, or are we at least on the road there? Are the terror attacks still targeting US military targets, or have they shifted more to Iraqi National Guard and Iraqi police, or indeed even to Iraqi civilians? Are we improving the state of affairs in Iraq, generally (NOT just viewing exclusively population centers like Baghdad), as compared with before we arrived? Will the government of Iraq be able to assert authority and control over the nation? What are the implications of our actions, both immediate (increase in terror recruiting) and long term (reduction in the tolerance for radicals amongst the people of Iraq of the mideast at large)? Is it worth it? I would argue that it is.
It's not just the 1700 soldiers who signed up to die. And it's not the 200,000 Iraqis who were under the wrong shell at the wrong time.
Make no mistake: just because I haven't mentioned the Iraqi lives lost in the previous post doesn't mean I haven't considered them. The images of the Iraqi suffering, whether intended or not, sadden me, and the thoughts of their hardships have troubled me just as much as an American family who may have lost a loved one.
The real sacrifice is the "generational" investment (the one that is shielde
When you begin to make the arguments that really it's all the same, you're falling into the trap of moral relativism. There is no provision for intent, for desire, for meaning, for remorse, for accident, for malice. You're essentially saying that the difference between generals and terrorists is the difference between winners and losers.
Note when you referred to WWII, for example, you used the word strategic. That word is telling. While scores of civilians were killed, most historians and scholars (other than the ones trying to rewrite history with an anti-US/West slant) agree that the action saved countless more lives. If you kill 10 to save 100, is that not worth it? Or is the very act despicable? Or is it despicable because you never really *know for sure* that you're saving 100; all you really know is that you're killing 10?
Don't misunderstand me: I understand perfectly the argument you're making. I simply don't agree with it. When a terrorist bombs a bus, the goal is to kill as many people as possible on that bus. You might say, well, perhaps that's *his* technique to save some more of his *own* people. Indeed. But if the ideals embraced by his people include brutally subjugating or killing anyone who doesn't agree with their twisted interpretation of Islam, do you not see a slight difference? Or is that just the same when applied to the US? I.e., that the US kills anyone who doesn't agree with it?
If you're a moral relativist, we'll never agree. If you believe that Saudi suicide bombers killing their Arab brothers and sisters in Iraq are identical to a US soldier following all procedures accidentally killing civilians with an errant round, then you've already gone down a road of intellectual self-neutering that, sadly, removes a little bit of humanity from all of us.
Saying the "end result" of a military conflict is "casualties" is meaningless. Of course there will be casualties. Is that the only result?
No "trick" pointing that out.
Further - and you can choose to believe it or not, since I assume your insinuating about a false appeal for authority - I was in the Air Force, which can be easily verified by the Department of Defense with a records request, and my sister is currently an active duty (i.e., full time) member of the Wisconsin Air National Guard's 115th Fighter Wing. While you can argue this is irrelevant to the discussion, it's just as irrelevant as the "old timer" pointing out that he "almost" went to Vietnam. ("Almost"? And that somehow makes him an authority on the subject??!) Further, many respondents usually come back with things like "Well, easy for you to sit there and talk big while others actually in the military are over in Iraq dying while you sit and type in front of a computer." While that doesn't even merit a response, I thought I'd point out that I was, in fact, in the military.
And as for his cutesy little "And the greatest damage is going to be done to the tender part between the ears," if you think that's a comment that merits any serious consideration, then I really don't even know what to say. (What the hell is that even supposed to mean?)
The only "trick" here was making any sense out of the original poster's comments.
Instead, we heard about 9/11, and then "yellow cake," and then we heard about "WMD," and then we heard about toppling an evil dictator and the suffering of the Iraqi people.
Agreed. While I do believe these were corollary reasons, they were by no means the primary reason(s). However, as I noted above, the primary reason being a multi-pronged, multi-year (or perhaps multi-decade) strategy of initiating difficult changes in the mideast would not have flown as a justification. Sure, there would have been those that understood it, but for better or worse, that would not have worked as a justification for the action.
It seems clear this is nothing more than a manifestation of Strauss' concept of "noble lies".
The Bush administration has been embarassed and disgraced for its claims about Iraq and WMDs. If they had been honest, maybe it would have gone differently.
Once again, agreed.
However, considering the wealth of (essentially circumstantial) evidence that Iraq still was in possession of WMD it was previously known to be in possession of and for which it provided no proof or accounting of any destruction or disarmament, I do believe the Bush administration and planners legitimated believed they would encounter caches of WMD in Iraq, thus vindicating the war based on that reasoning. In reality, the weapons were properly either hidden well enough long ago, and indeed, many or nearly all likely do not even remain in Iraq.
The war in Iraq is backfiring horribly, just as most of those with expertise, including former president George Bush, predicted. Whether or not the war is "justified" is immaterial if it cannot reasonably be expected to succeed.
This is patently incorrect. On what basis do you make this claim?
Those opposed said that the transfer of sovereignty wouldn't happen.
It did.
They said the elections wouldn't happen.
They did.
They said a constitution wouldn't be drawn.
It is.
Now, you can make arguments as to whether or not Iraq is truly sovereign, whether the elections were truly effective, or whether the constitution is really a creation manifestly of the Iraqi people.
Perhaps the answer to all of those is, no, not completely. But the process is not perfect, and the fact of the matter is that there is an internationally recognized sovereign government officially in administrative and governmental control of Iraq. That the US forces are still required in some areas is incidental to this particular argument; however, it is likely that US forces will remain for some time to assist with such tasks as rebuilding, which will slowly become a higher priority than even security.
If the war in Iraq is actually helping the cause of Islamic Fascism, what then?
It indeed is.
And was always expected to do so in the short term.
This is one of my favorite arguments, because it presumes that someone expected Islamic radicalism to simply be quashed quickly and easily by entering a single, somewhat secular nation-state.
That is not at all the strategy. The strategy is one of influence by proxy and adjacency. Certainly the Panislamic radicals will use the Iraq action as a recruiting tool, and indeed as a method to sway more people to their position! But the reasoning they use to do so is flawed. The American infidels do not want to kill all Muslims. They do not want to kill all Arabs. They do not want to take over the middle east. They do not want to kill their brothers and sisters and mothers and children. They do not want to convert them to Christianity. They do not want to fly the US flag over their countries (save for at embassies, the brief and quickly corrected mistake of covering Saddam's face with the American flag aside). All of the recruiting statements are simply not true. Some may simply be upset at circumstance and the presence of the Americans, but the true radicalism is borne of things that are decidedly UNtrue. The evil Satan
I'm sure it feels great to be on the winning side in the election
I'm glad you know who I voted for.
Hint: it wasn't Bush.
but the end result of Iraq is going to be the end result of Viet Nam: casualties.
???
The end result of ANY military conflict is "casualties". Is that your only metric by which to judge?
400,000 Americans died in World War II. By your measure, that must be a catastrophe beyond all others.
But wait, it wasn't.
Perhaps "casualties" aren't the best measure of a military action? And, in the context of only talking about US casualties, ~1700 casualties for over two years, with the numbers barely climbing, is next to nothing considering the scope of this operation. Note: this does not diminish the contributions of the dead or disabled; I am merely stating a fact. Now, if you're not willing to accept ANY casualties for ANY reason, then, we're in fundamental disagreement here. Further, I am myself a former member of the military, and I have family members currently in the military, so I'm not speaking from a "comfortable distance" in that respect.
And the greatest damage is going to be done to the tender part between the ears.
Is this supposed to be some kind of deep statement? The only intellectual damage that will happen here is going to be from the wool that some choose to pull over their eyes.
There were distinct reasons Iraq was chosen. I'd like to reiterate this from one of my previous messages, below. You can make arguments about North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., as being more "appropriate" targets under various circumstances, but Iraq was picked for a reason. And no, it wasn't to "help the wealthy man".
---
It's pretty saddening that no one will confront the very real danger that is Panislamism and its radical forms, especially Europe, given its close geographic proximity. Regardless of what Europe's motivation is for ignoring this threat, the Panislamic radicals won't differentiate between Paris and Washington DC when it's time to execute attacks against the West.
As for the insurgency in Iraq, where the fuck do you think these people come from? That they're just ordinary Iraqis fighting the evil US dog occupiers? Hardly. Most of them are radicals, many not even from Iraq, who are attacking and killing their own Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters indiscriminately, in the hopes of turning them manifestly against the US forces, forcing an almost pragmatic decision: even though there will be turmoil and perhaps civil war if the US leaves, we'll keep killing you until you rise up against the US, or make it politically difficult for the US to remain. Then we'll install the radical Islamic theocracy that only 1% of Iraqis said they wanted in numerous Oxford Research studies in Iraq. And then truthout can say "Look, we told you so! The US going into Iraq just made the whole region worse; look at even Iran's recent election! See, the Republicans don't care about making the mideast a safer place or fighting terror, in fact, all they're really concerned about is the flow of oil!"
What a completely retarded view. First, all the naysayers who, disgustingly, in my opinion, invoke the US war dead in favor of their arguments also apparently don't care about Iraqis at all. Because if the US leaves, a SHITLOAD more Iraqis will die than ever would have, regardless of whether or not the US ever set foot in Iraq in 2003. That is an absolute given. So if they're out to "preserve life", that's certainly not the way to do it. Further, some people apparently can't understand the concept of sacrifice and taking risks. But I won't even get into that here. And finally, there is continuing and perpetual ignorance to the fact that we don't yet live in the utopian Star Trek-style world government where everyone is happy: there are people in the world, regardless of why (and, as I've said before, it's not due exclusively, or even mostly, to US policy), who want to see and end to the West. And no, it's not because they "hate freedom" (though, actually, they do). But the reason is irrelevant. There comes a time when you realize that there still are nation-states on this Earth, and that sometimes, they need to be defended. Proactively. Or, to say a dirty word, "preemptively". Anyone who can't see the writing on the wall with respect to energy and the mideast has their head in the sand. And frankly, the need for energy from at least quasi-friendly states in the mideast in the short term is not necessarily at odds with standing up quasi-democratic, free governments among the peoples of the mideast. (Iraq was a good place to start, because it was an easy case to make in a simplistic fashion, and was one of the MOST secular states, meaning the least likelihood of an internal Islamic backlash.)
Even Kerry got it:
To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region s governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area fr
To dismiss the terrorists as insane is to delude ourselves. Bin Laden and his fellow fanatics are products of failed societies that breed their anger. America needs a plan that will not only defeat terror but reform the Arab world
By Fareed Zakaria
To the question "Why do the terrorists hate us?" Americans could be pardoned for answering, "Why should we care?" The immediate reaction to the murder of 5,000 innocents is anger, not analysis. Yet anger will not be enough to get us through what is sure to be a long struggle. For that we will need answers. The ones we have heard so far have been comforting but familiar. We stand for freedom and they hate it. We are rich and they envy us. We are strong and they resent this. All of which is true. But there are billions of poor and weak and oppressed people around the world. They don't turn planes into bombs. They don't blow themselves up to kill thousands of civilians. If envy were the cause of terrorism, Beverly Hills, Fifth Avenue and Mayfair would have become morgues long ago. There is something stronger at work here than deprivation and jealousy. Something that can move men to kill but also to die.
Osama bin Laden has an answer--religion. For him and his followers, this is a holy war between Islam and the Western world. Most Muslims disagree. Every Islamic country in the world has condemned the attacks of Sept. 11. To many, bin Laden belongs to a long line of extremists who have invoked religion to justify mass murder and spur men to suicide. The words "thug," "zealot" and "assassin" all come from ancient terror cults--Hindu, Jewish and Muslim, respectively--that believed they were doing the work of God. The terrorist's mind is its own place, and like Milton's Satan, can make a hell of heaven, a heaven of hell. Whether it is the Unabomber, Aum Shinrikyo or Baruch Goldstein (who killed scores of unarmed Muslims in Hebron), terrorists are almost always misfits who place their own twisted morality above mankind's.
But bin Laden and his followers are not an isolated cult like Aum Shinrikyo or the Branch Davidians or demented loners like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber. They come out of a culture that reinforces their hostility, distrust and hatred of the West--and of America in particular. This culture does not condone terrorism but fuels the fanaticism that is at its heart. To say that Al Qaeda is a fringe group may be reassuring, but it is false. Read the Arab press in the aftermath of the attacks and you will detect a not-so-hidden admiration for bin Laden. Or consider this from the Pakistani newspaper The Nation:
"September 11 was not mindless terrorism for terrorism's sake. It was reaction and revenge, even retribution." Why else is America's response to the terror attacks so deeply constrained by fears of an "Islamic backlash" on the streets? Pakistan will dare not allow Washington the use of its bases. Saudi Arabia trembles at the thought of having to help us publicly. Egypt pleads that our strikes be as limited as possible. The problem is not that Osama bin Laden believes that this is a religious war against America. It's that millions of people across the Islamic world seem to agree.
This awkward reality has led some in the West to dust off old essays and older prejudices redicting a "clash of civilizations" between the West and Islam. The historian Paul Johnson has argued that Islam is intrinsically an intolerant and violent religion. Other scholars have disagreed, pointing out that Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for "true Islam" or quoting the Quran. The Quran is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible).
You can find in it condemnations of war and incitements to struggle, beautiful expres
You need to study the history of the region again, with open eyes, this time. It's been a western plaything for some time now. Pay particular attention to western oil companies.
It appears that it is you who is in need of further study. Your comment about "western oil companies" is particularly telling, as the problems of the mideast are rooted in times much earlier than any in which any oil company, western or otherwise, was ever an influence. See above.
Look at the definition of terrorism:
First line from this article, ironically:
There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism.
These attacks are in revenge for actions against groups that have long been persecuted by those who would take their countries natural resources just to make a quick buck. You can deny this if you like, but you'll have to wake up sooner or later.
Another area you unfortunately misunderstand. You seem to believe that it's all about "making a quick buck", and that if only the West was somehow friendlier or less greedy with regard to the mideast, then Islamic radicalism and Western democracy could peacefully coexist.
There would be untold suffering - not just inconvenience, but all-out suffering and death - of likely millions of people if there was a wholesale collapse of the US (and, in turn, European) economies if there was an interruption in our ability to obtain energy in a stable, secure, predictable, and reasonably priced manner. There would be massive unemployment, massive poverty (by global, not Western, standards), starvation, suffering, and deaths. This is a very real probability in the event of a cascading economic collapse.
Yes, the US and West need to find alternative energy sources. But it also doesn't want to become extinct in the meantime. If you find no value in general Western ideals of freedom, democracy, equality, and liberty, then I am saddened for you. There are no absolutes here. Certainly there have been Western abuses, corruption, and all manner of evil deeds or even inattention at one time or another. But if you believe that Arabs blowing up their Arab brothers and sister and terrorists attacking innocent civilians is a rational, sensible course of action, then our views our fundamentally different.
You may also be interested in knowing that, contrary I'm sure to your belief, the US is not interested in indiscriminately killing Iraqis, and in fact has gone to great lengths to reduce innocent civilian death. However, death is an effect of war. While no solid numbers are available due to infrastructure, accounting, administrative, and other various issues, there has very likely been a significant net preservation of Iraqi life since March 2003, when compared with the 100,000 Iraqis who died each year under sanctions, as a direct result of sanctions, according to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. This preservation includes all Iraqis accidentally killed during the invasion, and Iraqis killed by suicide attacks within Iraq. And this is just from the improvements to infrastructure, sanitation, food and water distribution, and so on, made (primarily) by the Army Corps of Engineers as a matter of course during the process of securing and rebuilding the country. Just because you can cherry-pick examples of deficient rebuilding, errant bombs, or US mistakes resulting in civilian deaths, does not make it the norm, nor does it even represent in even a small way the general US activity in Iraq.
I'm glad you can sit so smugly in your position that the US is wrong for wanting to spread democratic ideals, and those of freedom, including the critical free flow of information - even if the reasoning for some in the US/West is to en
Um, wow. You actually believe that "people in Iraq", i.e., normal citizens of Iraq, have anything whatsoever to do with this?
If by "people in Iraq" you mean radical Panislamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and many places OTHER than Iraq, who believe there should be a single Islamic theocracy across the whole of the mideast that is the rightful seat of government for the world, then yes, absolutely.
I find this all or nothing view - especially coming from an argument point that tends to condemn "all or nothing, black and white" views - rather disconcerting.
So you're saying that full scale ethnic and religious genocide is the only way to modernize and democratize the mideast, to enable a free flow of information and a free exchange of ideas, and to empower the peoples of said nations to control their own personal and collective destinies in an environment that nurtures ideals of freedom? (Note: any belief that terrorist ideals or those of Panislamic radicals are "just as valid" as, e.g., Western democratic ideals is pure, unadulterated moral relativism.)
That the only logical solution is to pack up, and let the threat of Panislamic radicalism fester and grow in the mideast, and to be content to deal with brutal terrorist attacks, regardless of whether more people die from "smoking" or "car accidents" each year?
Smoking is a choice. Car accidents have the word "accident" in the name for a reason. A terrorist attack is a deliberate decision on the part of another human to kill as many people, usually innocent, in the target site as is practical or possible. Additionally, the reason why airline disasters (not referring to 9/11, here) are so heavily covered even as many more die from other reasons is because larger incidents resonate negatively with people. People don't like the idea of dozens of hundreds of people dying at once. It scares them. It shakes their being. And no, it's not an effect of "the media". It's a very natural, human reaction to mass casualty.
I suppose I don't need to remind anyone of the suffering that would occur from a massive collapse of the economies of the US and/or West stemming from an inability to obtain secure, stable supplies of reasonably priced energy sources. For better or worse, this is the nature of things.
The US (and/or the West) are not responsible exclusively, or even mostly, for the situation in the mideast. The mideast has had its own difficulties with modernization since before the US was even remotely an influence, or indeed even existed. If you're content to point the finger squarely at the US or UK or the Iraq action for these attacks, be my guest. But that's a severely and seriously wrongheaded idea.
When it becomes politically expedient, the terrorists will make no distinction between London, Washington DC, Paris, or Madrid, regardless of any nations real or perceived support or non-support of, e.g., the Iraq action. And then what will you do? Be content to placate, and eventually essentially live subservient to terrorist whim and demands?
To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region s governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia.
The American people have a right to hear the answer to a fundamental question: How are we going to win this war? What is our strategy for eliminating the terrorists, discrediting their cause, and smashing their forces so that America can actually be safer?
The jihadist movement that hates us is gaining adherents around the
Slashdot Mirror
Because it will be illegal/against the DMCA/against copyright law in your country/against the Mac OS X EULA to run Mac OS X on anything but Apple hardware, as it currently is today.
Therefore, it will only be geeks/slashdot-types/hackers/people who don't mind running Mac OS X illegally in an annoyingly unsupported configuration who will be running it on non-Apple hardware.
In other words, Apple hardware is the only place where you'll be able to legally run Mac OS X on a supported hardware configuration in a supported fashion. So while some pimply engadget-and-boingboing-reading geek may have Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, Ubuntu, Debian, and all manner of other crap running on his slick little Sony Vaio, ordinary people and companies who actually want support and to, you know, run software legally, won't do this. And that represents about 99% of the marketplace.
So, as I said, this is a huge coup for Apple.
Whether or not Microsoft wants Windows XP or Windows Vista to run on Intel-based Macs, it will.
:
Also, I never said that Mac OS X would run on commodity hardware. I'm saying the exact opposite: that Windows will run on Apple's Intel-based hardware. But on this topic, if you're arguing that the only way Apple can keep Mac OS X on its own hardware is via DRM, you'd be wrong. Apple currently specifies that Mac OS X can only run on Apple-branded hardware in the EULA. The legality aspect alone would relegate running Mac OS X (or hacking it to run) on commodity hardware to a comparatively negligible subset of slashdot-types, hackers, people content to pirate the OS, people content to run without any support from Apple on completely unsupported configurations, etc. In other words, on the grand scale, just about no one.[1] Sure, Apple *might* use DRM to do this, but it doesn't have to. Mac OS X currently has no product activation of any kind; it doesn't even have a serial number.
Whether it is in a direct-boot capacity or in a virtual machine, or both, remains to be seen, but you can be sure Windows WILL run on the Intel-based Macs, period. (And if you're arguing that Apple will somehow specifically disallow it, that flies in the face of both Phil Schiller, the number 2 man at Apple, specifically saying that Apple will not do anything to preclude people from installing Windows on Intel-based Macs, and the fact that multiple solutions for running Windows on PowerPC hardware, albeit in emulation, exist today. Are you honestly saying that we'll have less options to run Windows in actual x86 hardware? Hardly.)
Further, the last thing Apple wants is people Mac OS X applications getting killed because of the reasoning that people can just run them in Windows, so why even make it any more? Apple developers, including Microsoft's Mac Business Unit, understand that Mac OS X users want to run software in the Mac OS X interface and environment. Running software at full speed in Windows under, say, a virtual machine environment will be a convenience, not the default. Yes, you can make arguments that developers will kill their Mac products, but that makes the assumption that a very large percentage of the Mac userbase will fork out for a VM plus a license of Windows (whether or not these are ultimately bundled together in some product is beside the point - the point is, it will be costly). Further, there is no value in Mac OS X if there is no software. And since Mac OS X growth and Apple growth in general is at the highest in the company's history, Mac OS X developers will not be leaving the platform. There are compelling reasons to choose Mac OS X over Windows, and people, business, and academia are making that decision daily.
[1] From http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/features/intelfaq/
Will any PC be able to run Mac OS X for Intel?
Apple says no. Our guess is that some enterprising hacker may be able to get it to work, but we'd expect that if anyone can get OS X to run on PC hardware, it will be a laborious process, and the end result may not be a particularly stable system. You certainly won't be able to go out, buy OS X, stick the install DVD in a Dell PC, and have it just work. Apple intends Mac OS X to only run on Apple hardware.
From http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ar s/3
Q: Will I be able to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC?
A: No.
Q: Try and stop me!
A: Apple most assuredly will--try, that is. And they'll fail, just like Microsoft failed to stop people from installing Linux and MAME on the Xbox. But like MS, all Apple has to do is make sure that only Slashdot-reading, VoIP-using, PC-assembling, DMCA-breaking geeks hack their way to an "unapproved" configuration of hardware and software. If it's illegal (th
Hehe. ;-)
I nterface
For others who might really not know what it is, this is EFI:
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_
And yet, people have them.
Further, by the end of 2007, all Macs will be Intel based (according to Apple's initial statement).
So people might care to see what types of things may, and likely will, be possible.
Especially people who might want to buy *one* machine, say, a laptop, and run Mac OS X, Windows, Linux, and other x86 OSes on it, all at native speeds. And yes, one way or another, this will likely be trivially possible. See my other posts for more information.
In other words, this is very interesting to that group of people. Which, among slashdot readers, is probably quite a lot.
...they likely won't be using BIOS.
But if they're using EFI (a distinct possibility), it's still likely that Windows will be able to be directly installed.
And even if they make the unlikely choice of Open Firmware, that doesn't stop Windows (and any other x86 OS) from running at essentially the full speed of the native underlying hardware in a virtual machine environment that someone is bound to produce. In fact, that's likely even *more* desirable to a larger number of people than the hassle of dual booting. And a VM is possible regardless of what the boot mechanism will be.
There's no reason to believe it won't.
See my post here for more details. At the very, very least it could run Linux and Windows nicely in a virtual machine environment, but it's very likely that yes, they will run Linux - and Windows - regardless of whether the final machines utilize BIOS, Open Firmware, or EFI. Why wouldn't they? Especially in the case of Linux. PowerPC Macs run several varieties of Linux today; why wouldn't they also be able to run on production Intel-based Macs, even if they make the surprising decision of using Open Firmware? And there's no reason Apple would want to *prevent* people from installing Linux, or even Windows, as Phil Schiller himself has said Apple won't do anything to preclude people from installing Windows on Intel-based Macs.
This is a huge coup for Apple: imagine a laptop that can seamlessly run Windows XP and Linux - PLUS Mac OS X. Or better yet, run one environment (such as Mac OS X) and have your other environments in a VM at essentially full speed. It would be a dream machine, to be sure.
...and this is easy since the Developer Transition Platform is just running a generic Intel motherboard, generic Intel video chipset, an Intel Pentium 4 660 processor with HT, and a standard Intel BIOS (NOT a Phoenix BIOS as has been incorrectly reported elsewhere), but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.
Since it will be running on x86 hardware, processor instructions do not have to be emulated: they can run natively at near-full speed of the underlying hardware.
Further, though Apple will do nothing to stop users from installing Windows on production Intel-based Macintosh systems, it's likely that the production systems will evolve beyond the generic hardware that makes the Developer Transition Platform. Apple itself has said, "Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." This means there may be additional specialized hardware for which Windows drivers and specialized support profiles will not be maintained by Apple. Of course, this isn't stopping anyone from making them, and Intel has said that Intel-based Macs will use commodity Intel processors, chipsets, and other support components, but it might not be quite as seamless as just popping in a Windows CD and installing (though it very well could be).
Let's also not forget that the production machines may not be - and likely will not be - using BIOS, rendering useless any such conventional PC multi-boot configurations. (But even with EFI or Open Firmware, there's no reason Apple couldn't maintain a robust multi-boot system.)
The point is that a virtual machine product could offer a supported configuration for x86 OSes, including Windows, Linux variants, etc., without the headache and hassle of rebooting into another OS. Sure, dual/multi-booting has benefits, and certainly this will be possible on even the production hardware, but most users would likely prefer a Virtual PC-like environment for running x86 OSes/applications without rebooting.
On this topic, one wonders if Microsoft will be the entity that releases this first. After all, they've already got Virtual PC for Mac, and Virtual PC for Windows (and Microsoft Virtual Server) is exactly this type of virtual machine product, albeit for Windows. On one hand, you can argue that for Microsoft, it's just another copy of Windows sold, so why should they care? But on the other hand, if they make a first-class VM product for Mac OS X that runs Windows (and other x86 OSes) seamlessly at near-full speed of the native hardware, it definitely assists in the sales of more machines designed primarily to run Mac OS X, which could be a poor strategic choice...
But even if Microsoft doesn't do it, let's hope someone like EMC does with vmware.
For more general information, see http://appleintelfaq.com/.
I call shenanigans on your bullshit post.
"I've working in educational and corporate IT" (and in fact do now), and I can say that Macs are extremely prevalent in academic, government, and research environments, and everyone in those environments knows it. It's hard to walk around a large research campus or a national lab without seeing Macs everywhere. So while I'm not making any claims whether Macs are 1 in 5 business desktops, to say that Macs aren't prevalent in bullshit.
And by the way, just as an example, Macs are MORE than 1 in 5 machines at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, one of the nations largest universities. It's not uncommon to find this at many large research institutions.
"Beam me up, Scotty!"
"He's dead, Jim."
Ok, now that that's out of the way, I'm sure the rest of the slashdot article comments will be thoughtful, insightful commentary on Doohan's passing.
Such as:
He lost a finger during the D-Day invasion as a captain in the Royal Canadian Artillery.
He was also a linguist, and devised the Vulcan and Klingon lanuages for the original Star Trek motion picture.
He had his youngest daughter in 2000, when he was 80 (!), with his wife Wende, whom he'd been married to since 1975. Way to go, James.
More
Whether the "chip" business is in reference to the "PowerPC chip" (which, knowing USA Today, it could be), or IBM's overall CPU business, or IBM's general semiconductor business as a whole, Apple still represents a vanishingly small proportion of IBM's business. Sure, no company wants to lose 2% of its business - on this scale, that can account for millions - or tens of millions - of dollars. However, 2% is still small enough, regardless of the frame of reference, that Apple was most certainly not significantly driving IBM chip development. In fact, since raw clock frequency is about the last thing IBM cares about (at least from a specification one-upsmanship standpoint), Apple was probably a thorn in IBM's side in that respect. (It might pay to remember that at the time of Jobs' Intel announcement, IBM had missed its 3GHz commitment to Apple by over a year, and was/is still only shipping 2.7GHz parts.)
It's also probably worth mentioning to all the people who think that IBM's recent 970MP and low-power 970FX offerings are "perfect" for Apple that, while the 970MP may certainly be attractive for the Xserve and Power Mac lines (and may in fact be used), the low-power 970FX can't just be popped into a PowerBook. The support chipsets (e.g., HyperTransport) required for the G5 all generate substantially more heat than the similar support chipsets with the G4 (74xx) family, making the total heat profile of a hypothetical low-power G5-based PowerBook still much higher than even the highest-end G4-based PowerBooks.
As for the Apple/Intel FAQ, I am the author of that site (and it is completely non-commercial, non-profit, not associated with anything monetarily or financially in any way, and is exclusively for informational purposes), so that's why it's described as such. I'll try to confirm whether it is PowerPC, POWER + PowerPC, all CPU products, or all semiconductor products. Ultimately, though, whatever it actually is, Apple was still a very small part of IBM's business, and, as such, was not "driving" PowerPC development in any significant way, and the truth of my statement remains.
So hacker gets death...because he costs companies millions in lost revenue, but CEO of company who commits fraud and loots the pension funds for billions gets nothing or maybe a few years in prison?
Actually, it was kind of tongue-in-cheek, meant to illustrate the seriousness of the effects of some of the worst attacks. And actually, it's more than "millions" that things like the premier worms and viruses cost. It's "billions", real billions of dollars, just like the looting CEOs. And that "lost revenue" that you seem so quick to write off amounts to real impact on our economy. Real lost jobs, real negative impacts, real effects on the mechanics of US business and government.
And a "few years in prison"?
63-year old former Worldcom CEO Bernard Ebbers got 25 years.
80-year old Adelphia founder John Rigas got 15 years.
48-year old former Adelphia CFO Timothy Regas got 20 years.
(The Enron trial is not until January 2006).
Seems like they're getting what they deserve, eh? Doesn't sound like "nothing" to me (funny how the slashdot crowd seemingly expects the wheels of justice to turn instantly there, but would likely be part of the same group of people who would be overly careful to not rush to prejudge others of perhaps lesser means in legal situations).
Malicious computer hackers (née crackers) and malware writers should get due punishment as well. And no, not the "death penalty", but a harsh one. And no, not kids who pass around the admin password for iBooks in junior high, or people who happen to surf via an open, unprotected access point. But the real malicious hackers; the exact type the original article is referring to.
How much of IBM's innovative chip design was pushed forward by Apple?
Almost none. Apple is less than 2% of IBM's PowerPC business.
Apple/Intel FAQ
demachina,
I'm not arguing that there have never been instances where the US or UK military did something unacceptable, or chose to ignore civilian deaths as collateral to another operation, or indeed intentionally killed civilians for a strategic objective.
I simply do not agree with your analysis and subsequent conclusions. I believe that in the majority of these instances, and on the whole, the general goal is an overall reduction in loss of life; the priority being our "side" first, and innocent civilians in general second. The atomic bombings of Japan are an excellent example, as I noted.
I also understand the arguments regarding suicide bombing and IEDs being the only way to retaliate. I suppose it would be futile of me to point out that (aside from the police or people who they feel are complicit with the US) they are, in some cases, killing their OWN PEOPLE! The twisted logic that has to be used to justify that is appalling, considering even if you make the argument that it's simply one to sway opinion to eject the Americans that are killing/oppressing them in the first place, the "oppression" they would claim to eject will only be replaced with their own oppression based on radical fundamentalist Islam. No matter what kind of arguments you can make in favor of suicide bombers and terrorists and their actions, whether it is with 737 or IED, I will not agree, on a philosophical level. Let me be clear: I do understand the argument. I, however, do not agree with it. I may be wrong. I am not saying I'm right. I'm simply trying to articulate my viewpoint.
Thanks for a reasoned reply.
Hello,
However, using human calculus is a really slippery slope.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. It's just that others seem to be using this mechanism, e.g., "x number of Americans dead" or "y number of Iraqis" dead. If the number of dead is somehow important - and I agree that it is - perhaps its worthwhile to examine the scope and scale. I would propose that ~1700 Americans dead during an over-two-year military operation with a massive troop presence in this context is rather amazing.
As for the Iraqis:
Do you have any credible or concrete information to show that more or less Iraqis would have died if we'd never invaded?
In another post, I said this is difficult to prove one way or the other because of a lack of accurate accounting. But before the war, and indeed before Bush was even in office, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International independently claimed that approximately 100,000 Iraqis were dying per year as a direct result of the sanctions.
So assuming we believe those numbers, and since continuing sanctions as-is were presented as the only reasonable alternative to military action, we compare to Iraqi deaths due to the US military operations. If we double iraqbodycount.net's figures, we arrive at 50,000. If we quadrupule it, 100,000. By any account, assuming 200,000 dead as a result of the US action is a very high, and probably incorrect, estimate. The actual number is likely closer to between 50,000 and 100,000. And no, neither of us have credible, concrete estimates on which to base this - but I won't use the lowest estimates, so I believe it's equally disingenuous for others to use the highest.
While there are no good figures on Iraqi deaths due to insufficient infrastructure, it is believed that, while incomplete, the US has done a satisfactory job of restoring some infrastructure, electricity, sanitation, basic services, medical care, clean water, and food, to certain non-urban areas of Iraq that suffered gravely the prior decade, thus reducing the unnecessary deaths in these areas. These were, at times, also deaths attributed to the sanctions process. Of course, we've now learned that there was massive corruption in the sanctions process and among the contract administrators of the UN Oil for Food Programme, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, the major beneficiaries of the spoils being, coincidentally, France, Germany, and Russia, in that order.
In any event, it's certainly arguable that there was a net preservation of Iraqi life, if we take HRC and Amnesty's sanctions death figures and compare them with even a quadrupled iraqbodycount.net estimate. Human calculus? Yes. But at some point you have to do an analysis of the operation from various perspectives. Are we actually securing Iraq, or are we at least on the road there? Are the terror attacks still targeting US military targets, or have they shifted more to Iraqi National Guard and Iraqi police, or indeed even to Iraqi civilians? Are we improving the state of affairs in Iraq, generally (NOT just viewing exclusively population centers like Baghdad), as compared with before we arrived? Will the government of Iraq be able to assert authority and control over the nation? What are the implications of our actions, both immediate (increase in terror recruiting) and long term (reduction in the tolerance for radicals amongst the people of Iraq of the mideast at large)? Is it worth it? I would argue that it is.
It's not just the 1700 soldiers who signed up to die. And it's not the 200,000 Iraqis who were under the wrong shell at the wrong time.
Make no mistake: just because I haven't mentioned the Iraqi lives lost in the previous post doesn't mean I haven't considered them. The images of the Iraqi suffering, whether intended or not, sadden me, and the thoughts of their hardships have troubled me just as much as an American family who may have lost a loved one.
The real sacrifice is the "generational" investment (the one that is shielde
The difference is intent.
When you begin to make the arguments that really it's all the same, you're falling into the trap of moral relativism. There is no provision for intent, for desire, for meaning, for remorse, for accident, for malice. You're essentially saying that the difference between generals and terrorists is the difference between winners and losers.
Note when you referred to WWII, for example, you used the word strategic. That word is telling. While scores of civilians were killed, most historians and scholars (other than the ones trying to rewrite history with an anti-US/West slant) agree that the action saved countless more lives. If you kill 10 to save 100, is that not worth it? Or is the very act despicable? Or is it despicable because you never really *know for sure* that you're saving 100; all you really know is that you're killing 10?
Don't misunderstand me: I understand perfectly the argument you're making. I simply don't agree with it. When a terrorist bombs a bus, the goal is to kill as many people as possible on that bus. You might say, well, perhaps that's *his* technique to save some more of his *own* people. Indeed. But if the ideals embraced by his people include brutally subjugating or killing anyone who doesn't agree with their twisted interpretation of Islam, do you not see a slight difference? Or is that just the same when applied to the US? I.e., that the US kills anyone who doesn't agree with it?
If you're a moral relativist, we'll never agree. If you believe that Saudi suicide bombers killing their Arab brothers and sisters in Iraq are identical to a US soldier following all procedures accidentally killing civilians with an errant round, then you've already gone down a road of intellectual self-neutering that, sadly, removes a little bit of humanity from all of us.
He implied I voted for Bush.
I didn't.
He's the one who made the error, not I, whether you agree with me, or the war, or not.
Sorry.
I didn't vote for Bush. He implied that I did.
That's no debater's trick; he was flat wrong.
Saying the "end result" of a military conflict is "casualties" is meaningless. Of course there will be casualties. Is that the only result?
No "trick" pointing that out.
Further - and you can choose to believe it or not, since I assume your insinuating about a false appeal for authority - I was in the Air Force, which can be easily verified by the Department of Defense with a records request, and my sister is currently an active duty (i.e., full time) member of the Wisconsin Air National Guard's 115th Fighter Wing. While you can argue this is irrelevant to the discussion, it's just as irrelevant as the "old timer" pointing out that he "almost" went to Vietnam. ("Almost"? And that somehow makes him an authority on the subject??!) Further, many respondents usually come back with things like "Well, easy for you to sit there and talk big while others actually in the military are over in Iraq dying while you sit and type in front of a computer." While that doesn't even merit a response, I thought I'd point out that I was, in fact, in the military.
And as for his cutesy little "And the greatest damage is going to be done to the tender part between the ears," if you think that's a comment that merits any serious consideration, then I really don't even know what to say. (What the hell is that even supposed to mean?)
The only "trick" here was making any sense out of the original poster's comments.
Instead, we heard about 9/11, and then "yellow cake," and then we heard about "WMD," and then we heard about toppling an evil dictator and the suffering of the Iraqi people.
Agreed. While I do believe these were corollary reasons, they were by no means the primary reason(s). However, as I noted above, the primary reason being a multi-pronged, multi-year (or perhaps multi-decade) strategy of initiating difficult changes in the mideast would not have flown as a justification. Sure, there would have been those that understood it, but for better or worse, that would not have worked as a justification for the action.
It seems clear this is nothing more than a manifestation of Strauss' concept of "noble lies".
The Bush administration has been embarassed and disgraced for its claims about Iraq and WMDs. If they had been honest, maybe it would have gone differently.
Once again, agreed.
However, considering the wealth of (essentially circumstantial) evidence that Iraq still was in possession of WMD it was previously known to be in possession of and for which it provided no proof or accounting of any destruction or disarmament, I do believe the Bush administration and planners legitimated believed they would encounter caches of WMD in Iraq, thus vindicating the war based on that reasoning. In reality, the weapons were properly either hidden well enough long ago, and indeed, many or nearly all likely do not even remain in Iraq.
The war in Iraq is backfiring horribly, just as most of those with expertise, including former president George Bush, predicted. Whether or not the war is "justified" is immaterial if it cannot reasonably be expected to succeed.
This is patently incorrect. On what basis do you make this claim?
Those opposed said that the transfer of sovereignty wouldn't happen.
It did.
They said the elections wouldn't happen.
They did.
They said a constitution wouldn't be drawn.
It is.
Now, you can make arguments as to whether or not Iraq is truly sovereign, whether the elections were truly effective, or whether the constitution is really a creation manifestly of the Iraqi people.
Perhaps the answer to all of those is, no, not completely. But the process is not perfect, and the fact of the matter is that there is an internationally recognized sovereign government officially in administrative and governmental control of Iraq. That the US forces are still required in some areas is incidental to this particular argument; however, it is likely that US forces will remain for some time to assist with such tasks as rebuilding, which will slowly become a higher priority than even security.
If the war in Iraq is actually helping the cause of Islamic Fascism, what then?
It indeed is.
And was always expected to do so in the short term.
This is one of my favorite arguments, because it presumes that someone expected Islamic radicalism to simply be quashed quickly and easily by entering a single, somewhat secular nation-state.
That is not at all the strategy. The strategy is one of influence by proxy and adjacency. Certainly the Panislamic radicals will use the Iraq action as a recruiting tool, and indeed as a method to sway more people to their position! But the reasoning they use to do so is flawed. The American infidels do not want to kill all Muslims. They do not want to kill all Arabs. They do not want to take over the middle east. They do not want to kill their brothers and sisters and mothers and children. They do not want to convert them to Christianity. They do not want to fly the US flag over their countries (save for at embassies, the brief and quickly corrected mistake of covering Saddam's face with the American flag aside). All of the recruiting statements are simply not true. Some may simply be upset at circumstance and the presence of the Americans, but the true radicalism is borne of things that are decidedly UNtrue. The evil Satan
I'm sure it feels great to be on the winning side in the election
I'm glad you know who I voted for.
Hint: it wasn't Bush.
but the end result of Iraq is going to be the end result of Viet Nam: casualties.
???
The end result of ANY military conflict is "casualties". Is that your only metric by which to judge?
400,000 Americans died in World War II. By your measure, that must be a catastrophe beyond all others.
But wait, it wasn't.
Perhaps "casualties" aren't the best measure of a military action? And, in the context of only talking about US casualties, ~1700 casualties for over two years, with the numbers barely climbing, is next to nothing considering the scope of this operation. Note: this does not diminish the contributions of the dead or disabled; I am merely stating a fact. Now, if you're not willing to accept ANY casualties for ANY reason, then, we're in fundamental disagreement here. Further, I am myself a former member of the military, and I have family members currently in the military, so I'm not speaking from a "comfortable distance" in that respect.
And the greatest damage is going to be done to the tender part between the ears.
Is this supposed to be some kind of deep statement? The only intellectual damage that will happen here is going to be from the wool that some choose to pull over their eyes.
*Sigh*
There were distinct reasons Iraq was chosen. I'd like to reiterate this from one of my previous messages, below. You can make arguments about North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., as being more "appropriate" targets under various circumstances, but Iraq was picked for a reason. And no, it wasn't to "help the wealthy man".
---
It's pretty saddening that no one will confront the very real danger that is Panislamism and its radical forms, especially Europe, given its close geographic proximity. Regardless of what Europe's motivation is for ignoring this threat, the Panislamic radicals won't differentiate between Paris and Washington DC when it's time to execute attacks against the West.
As for the insurgency in Iraq, where the fuck do you think these people come from? That they're just ordinary Iraqis fighting the evil US dog occupiers? Hardly. Most of them are radicals, many not even from Iraq, who are attacking and killing their own Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters indiscriminately, in the hopes of turning them manifestly against the US forces, forcing an almost pragmatic decision: even though there will be turmoil and perhaps civil war if the US leaves, we'll keep killing you until you rise up against the US, or make it politically difficult for the US to remain. Then we'll install the radical Islamic theocracy that only 1% of Iraqis said they wanted in numerous Oxford Research studies in Iraq. And then truthout can say "Look, we told you so! The US going into Iraq just made the whole region worse; look at even Iran's recent election! See, the Republicans don't care about making the mideast a safer place or fighting terror, in fact, all they're really concerned about is the flow of oil!"
What a completely retarded view. First, all the naysayers who, disgustingly, in my opinion, invoke the US war dead in favor of their arguments also apparently don't care about Iraqis at all. Because if the US leaves, a SHITLOAD more Iraqis will die than ever would have, regardless of whether or not the US ever set foot in Iraq in 2003. That is an absolute given. So if they're out to "preserve life", that's certainly not the way to do it. Further, some people apparently can't understand the concept of sacrifice and taking risks. But I won't even get into that here. And finally, there is continuing and perpetual ignorance to the fact that we don't yet live in the utopian Star Trek-style world government where everyone is happy: there are people in the world, regardless of why (and, as I've said before, it's not due exclusively, or even mostly, to US policy), who want to see and end to the West. And no, it's not because they "hate freedom" (though, actually, they do). But the reason is irrelevant. There comes a time when you realize that there still are nation-states on this Earth, and that sometimes, they need to be defended. Proactively. Or, to say a dirty word, "preemptively". Anyone who can't see the writing on the wall with respect to energy and the mideast has their head in the sand. And frankly, the need for energy from at least quasi-friendly states in the mideast in the short term is not necessarily at odds with standing up quasi-democratic, free governments among the peoples of the mideast. (Iraq was a good place to start, because it was an easy case to make in a simplistic fashion, and was one of the MOST secular states, meaning the least likelihood of an internal Islamic backlash.)
Even Kerry got it:
To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region s governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area fr
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/101 501_why.html
The Politics of Rage: Why Do They Hate Us?
To dismiss the terrorists as insane is to delude ourselves. Bin Laden and his fellow fanatics are products of failed societies that breed their anger. America needs a plan that will not only defeat terror but reform the Arab world
By Fareed Zakaria
To the question "Why do the terrorists hate us?" Americans could be pardoned for answering, "Why should we care?" The immediate reaction to the murder of 5,000 innocents is anger, not analysis. Yet anger will not be enough to get us through what is sure to be a long struggle. For that we will need answers. The ones we have heard so far have been comforting but familiar. We stand for freedom and they hate it. We are rich and they envy us. We are strong and they resent this. All of which is true. But there are billions of poor and weak and oppressed people around the world. They don't turn planes into bombs. They don't blow themselves up to kill thousands of civilians. If envy were the cause of terrorism, Beverly Hills, Fifth Avenue and Mayfair would have become morgues long ago. There is something stronger at work here than deprivation and jealousy. Something that can move men to kill but also to die.
Osama bin Laden has an answer--religion. For him and his followers, this is a holy war between Islam and the Western world. Most Muslims disagree. Every Islamic country in the world has condemned the attacks of Sept. 11. To many, bin Laden belongs to a long line of extremists who have invoked religion to justify mass murder and spur men to suicide. The words "thug," "zealot" and "assassin" all come from ancient terror cults--Hindu, Jewish and Muslim, respectively--that believed they were doing the work of God. The terrorist's mind is its own place, and like Milton's Satan, can make a hell of heaven, a heaven of hell. Whether it is the Unabomber, Aum Shinrikyo or Baruch Goldstein (who killed scores of unarmed Muslims in Hebron), terrorists are almost always misfits who place their own twisted morality above mankind's.
But bin Laden and his followers are not an isolated cult like Aum Shinrikyo or the Branch Davidians or demented loners like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber. They come out of a culture that reinforces their hostility, distrust and hatred of the West--and of America in particular. This culture does not condone terrorism but fuels the fanaticism that is at its heart. To say that Al Qaeda is a fringe group may be reassuring, but it is false. Read the Arab press in the aftermath of the attacks and you will detect a not-so-hidden admiration for bin Laden. Or consider this from the Pakistani newspaper The Nation:
"September 11 was not mindless terrorism for terrorism's sake. It was reaction and revenge, even retribution." Why else is America's response to the terror attacks so deeply constrained by fears of an "Islamic backlash" on the streets? Pakistan will dare not allow Washington the use of its bases. Saudi Arabia trembles at the thought of having to help us publicly. Egypt pleads that our strikes be as limited as possible. The problem is not that Osama bin Laden believes that this is a religious war against America. It's that millions of people across the Islamic world seem to agree.
This awkward reality has led some in the West to dust off old essays and older prejudices redicting a "clash of civilizations" between the West and Islam. The historian Paul Johnson has argued that Islam is intrinsically an intolerant and violent religion. Other scholars have disagreed, pointing out that Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for "true Islam" or quoting the Quran. The Quran is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible).
You can find in it condemnations of war and incitements to struggle, beautiful expres
The difficulties in the Middle East aren't to do with `modernization`, whatever that means.
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/101 501_why.html
You need to study the history of the region again, with open eyes, this time. It's been a western plaything for some time now. Pay particular attention to western oil companies.
It appears that it is you who is in need of further study. Your comment about "western oil companies" is particularly telling, as the problems of the mideast are rooted in times much earlier than any in which any oil company, western or otherwise, was ever an influence. See above.
Look at the definition of terrorism:
First line from this article, ironically:
There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism.
These attacks are in revenge for actions against groups that have long been persecuted by those who would take their countries natural resources just to make a quick buck. You can deny this if you like, but you'll have to wake up sooner or later.
Another area you unfortunately misunderstand. You seem to believe that it's all about "making a quick buck", and that if only the West was somehow friendlier or less greedy with regard to the mideast, then Islamic radicalism and Western democracy could peacefully coexist.
There would be untold suffering - not just inconvenience, but all-out suffering and death - of likely millions of people if there was a wholesale collapse of the US (and, in turn, European) economies if there was an interruption in our ability to obtain energy in a stable, secure, predictable, and reasonably priced manner. There would be massive unemployment, massive poverty (by global, not Western, standards), starvation, suffering, and deaths. This is a very real probability in the event of a cascading economic collapse.
Yes, the US and West need to find alternative energy sources. But it also doesn't want to become extinct in the meantime. If you find no value in general Western ideals of freedom, democracy, equality, and liberty, then I am saddened for you. There are no absolutes here. Certainly there have been Western abuses, corruption, and all manner of evil deeds or even inattention at one time or another. But if you believe that Arabs blowing up their Arab brothers and sister and terrorists attacking innocent civilians is a rational, sensible course of action, then our views our fundamentally different.
You may also be interested in knowing that, contrary I'm sure to your belief, the US is not interested in indiscriminately killing Iraqis, and in fact has gone to great lengths to reduce innocent civilian death. However, death is an effect of war. While no solid numbers are available due to infrastructure, accounting, administrative, and other various issues, there has very likely been a significant net preservation of Iraqi life since March 2003, when compared with the 100,000 Iraqis who died each year under sanctions, as a direct result of sanctions, according to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. This preservation includes all Iraqis accidentally killed during the invasion, and Iraqis killed by suicide attacks within Iraq. And this is just from the improvements to infrastructure, sanitation, food and water distribution, and so on, made (primarily) by the Army Corps of Engineers as a matter of course during the process of securing and rebuilding the country. Just because you can cherry-pick examples of deficient rebuilding, errant bombs, or US mistakes resulting in civilian deaths, does not make it the norm, nor does it even represent in even a small way the general US activity in Iraq.
I'm glad you can sit so smugly in your position that the US is wrong for wanting to spread democratic ideals, and those of freedom, including the critical free flow of information - even if the reasoning for some in the US/West is to en
Um, wow. You actually believe that "people in Iraq", i.e., normal citizens of Iraq, have anything whatsoever to do with this?
If by "people in Iraq" you mean radical Panislamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and many places OTHER than Iraq, who believe there should be a single Islamic theocracy across the whole of the mideast that is the rightful seat of government for the world, then yes, absolutely.
I find this all or nothing view - especially coming from an argument point that tends to condemn "all or nothing, black and white" views - rather disconcerting.
So you're saying that full scale ethnic and religious genocide is the only way to modernize and democratize the mideast, to enable a free flow of information and a free exchange of ideas, and to empower the peoples of said nations to control their own personal and collective destinies in an environment that nurtures ideals of freedom? (Note: any belief that terrorist ideals or those of Panislamic radicals are "just as valid" as, e.g., Western democratic ideals is pure, unadulterated moral relativism.)
That the only logical solution is to pack up, and let the threat of Panislamic radicalism fester and grow in the mideast, and to be content to deal with brutal terrorist attacks, regardless of whether more people die from "smoking" or "car accidents" each year?
Smoking is a choice. Car accidents have the word "accident" in the name for a reason. A terrorist attack is a deliberate decision on the part of another human to kill as many people, usually innocent, in the target site as is practical or possible. Additionally, the reason why airline disasters (not referring to 9/11, here) are so heavily covered even as many more die from other reasons is because larger incidents resonate negatively with people. People don't like the idea of dozens of hundreds of people dying at once. It scares them. It shakes their being. And no, it's not an effect of "the media". It's a very natural, human reaction to mass casualty.
I suppose I don't need to remind anyone of the suffering that would occur from a massive collapse of the economies of the US and/or West stemming from an inability to obtain secure, stable supplies of reasonably priced energy sources. For better or worse, this is the nature of things.
The US (and/or the West) are not responsible exclusively, or even mostly, for the situation in the mideast. The mideast has had its own difficulties with modernization since before the US was even remotely an influence, or indeed even existed. If you're content to point the finger squarely at the US or UK or the Iraq action for these attacks, be my guest. But that's a severely and seriously wrongheaded idea.
When it becomes politically expedient, the terrorists will make no distinction between London, Washington DC, Paris, or Madrid, regardless of any nations real or perceived support or non-support of, e.g., the Iraq action. And then what will you do? Be content to placate, and eventually essentially live subservient to terrorist whim and demands?
To destroy our enemy, we have to know our enemy. We have to understand that we are facing a radical fundamentalist movement with global reach and a very specific plan. They are not just out to kill us for the sake of killing us. They want to provoke a conflict that will radicalize the people of the Muslim world, turning them against the United States and the West. And they hope to transform that anger into a force that will topple the region s governments and pave the way for a new empire, an oppressive, fundamentalist superstate stretching across a vast area from Europe to Africa, from the Middle East to Central Asia.
The American people have a right to hear the answer to a fundamental question: How are we going to win this war? What is our strategy for eliminating the terrorists, discrediting their cause, and smashing their forces so that America can actually be safer?
The jihadist movement that hates us is gaining adherents around the
Perhaps this will mean the banner that has existed on VideoLAN's site for the last several months can finally go away... (previous slashdot coverage)
But I use Mapquest, you insensitive clod!
Come on, a username of 'iclod', a post to slashdot about a game called 'iCLOD'...it had to be done!