If you have a problem with that, try living in some fourth-world shithole for a few years and then tell me that all cultures are equally good and valuable
I think you're confusing "culture" with "poverty". Fourth-world "shitholes" are "shitholes" because they are impoverished, there is famine and starvation. Believe it or not, it is possible for people to be happy and satisfied without electricity, without McDonalds, without TV or computers etc. There are people who have shelter, food, friends and family without any modern Western comforts such as electricity, and they are happy with their culture. "Culture" has nothing to do with poverty, starvation, torture, rape opression etc.
Your comment shows your own ignorance. I remember once seeing on television some tourists from the USA were visiting a small african village, and one of them interviewed made the comment, "Wow, these people live without electricity -- and they're actually happy.". Come on, people were capable of being happy for thousands of years before we had electricity to the home, McDonalds, television etc. If the people of some country like Swaziland or Botswana are quite happy living the way they've lived for thousands of years, what right does anyone have to come rushing to their "rescue" with McDonalds and television? Just because a country isn't a player in the global economy, doesn't mean their people aren't happy. If those same people were living miserable lives in famine, oppression etc, that would be a different story, but that is not related to "culture". A "poor country" economically doesn't imply unhappy people.
even if their objectives were territorial acquisition rather than revenge
I think to state that the US motive here is revenge is oversimplistic and unfair. Emotions aside, rationally thinking, an extremely important primary motivation is not revenge but self-defence - quite simply, if no action is taken, the terrorists will strike again, and it will be worse next time (e.g. maybe weapons of mass destruction). The situation is far more complex than just "revenge", presenting such an oversimplified view is an insult to the victims and to the decision-makers involved. By stating that revenge is the only (or primary) motive, you imply that not doing anything might be an acceptable (or perhaps even noble) course of action to take. Actually, doing nothing would be a really stupid course of action to take.
I keep seeing people here remind us that the Taliban and related terrorist groups as they are today are to a fair degree the product of the US during the Soviet/Afghan war. (Which, by the way, is also detailed on cnn.com - I've found CNN surprisingly not quite as US-centric as they usually are).
Anyway, my response is, so what? Is the US response to that supposed to be "gee I guess we had this WTC thing coming then" or something like that? Thats ridiculous. Are they supposed to feel guilty? Or responsible for what happened?
Its not always obvious who to support and who not to support. Currently, its obvious the US should assist the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. In practice its impossible to tell if that might turn out to be a horrible mistake 20 years from now, for all we know they'll turn out to be the next Taliban. So while there may be a lesson to be learned here, its not quite as simple as you hint at. Nobody can predict.
If you're implying that the US don't intervene at all in foreign conflicts, well, clearly that would be a stupid thing to do, given that certain foreigners are bent on flying planes into US buildings.
So what bearing then does this information possibly have on the US in its situation today. Apart from being an interesting piece of trivia, I don't quite see why it should have any real effect on their decision making or on their feelings towards Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Clearly, something has to be done. If nothing is done, the next step will be for the terrorists to use weapons of mass-destruction. Even if not, a sustained and continual terrorist campaign on the US homeland left unchecked would lead to a complete deterioration of the US economy as the people live in fear. This is part of Osama's desire to destroy the US. So "doing nothing" is completely ruled out.
So something has to be done, but what? A propaganda war? Try to get the radical Islam fringe to "see the error of their ways"? That might work on a few of the less zealous croud, the mainstream muslims who still aren't completely sure who they support here, but it isn't going to work on the fanatics. These people (as stated in the article) have a completely different idea about what "success" means - they believe only in what they are going to get in the 'afterlife', and the only thing they live for on earth is to spread islam, and they are not only willing, but eager, to die for that cause. These people cannot be convinced by any amount of reasoning - there is only one way to get rid of fanatics like that, and thats to hasten their journey to the afterlife. "Trying to reason with the terrorists" can be ruled out, and propaganda campaigns will have very limited effect on other middle eastern countries, who already have a strong anti-US slant in their media.
A US war on Afghanistan will be very difficult, and may turn into a second Vietnam. These terrorists have been living and fighting in the harsh conditions of the Afghan mountains for thousands of years, they are born and bred soldiers.
People tend to think of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden as separate, but they're very closely linked, Osama is a top man in the Taliban government and has relations in the Taliban. You can't fight religous fanatics separate from the Taliban, not only must the Taliban must be removed from power, but the entire radical fringe must be removed from the populace. I don't know how you go about doing that without resulting in further conflict years from now.
Its a really difficult situtation. Its easy to sit in a comfortable home and criticise the US reaction and say "its not going to work". But its a lot harder to actually come up with better ideas that are workable.
In any case, it's not a broad "you can't create an anti-Microsoft web site with Frontpage
Maybe not, but as worrying as that is that it does seem to be a broad "you can't link to an anti-Microsoft web site" if you're using those components. So if a site that happened to use an MS stock ticker or something wanted to link (say) to my MS crash gallery for some reason, they wouldn't be able to. So MS-criticism gets much less exposure. News sites like zdnet that are sometimes critical of MS would suddenly take on a far more neutral tone toward MS, if they wanted to use those components (and in future this license will undoubtedly extend to more and more MS software, e.g. FrontPage itself, MS Word, Windows itself). This of course is just the beginning of a trend, MS is just getting people used to the idea. Once people are used to the idea, it will be popping up everywhere.
It somewhat reminds me of totalitarian governments which make it illegal to criticise the government. Although I doubt Microsoft is going to be setting up "rehabilitation camps" very soon:), so obviously its not quite as bad.
There is one more aspect, psychologically, the "fear" aspect. Even if that clause in the contract is actually not legal (I don't know the details but I know there are some rights you can't sign away, UCITA or not), the majority of people would not know that for sure, and they would avoid saying anything bad about MS on their sites "just in case". Moreover, they would probably be also less inclined to even link to sites that criticise Microsoft in any way.
So no matter what the legalities, the end result will be less MS criticism on the Internet.
NOT goin to war would be a horrible move on our part. All it's doing is appeasing the terrorists, who will continue bombing and killing lives if we don't fight back
Not going to war would be even worse than that. Not going to war means allowing various countries to continue giving safe harbour (and organizations to continue financing) terrorist organizations. The level of terrorism was raised a couple notches Tuesday, but by allowing terrorists to continue, you give them the freedom and ability to raise the level a few notches more sometime in the future. That is, by not stamping out terrorism now (and if that requires a war, so be it), we pave the way for the next level, which would undoubtedly be slaughter by the millions, not thousands. Terrorist organizations are widespread, well-financed and well-protected.. this allows terrorists to perhaps build nuclear or biological weapons. The madmen of this world (e.g. pot pol, hitler etc) have proven that there is no limit to the scale of mass-murder by an individual, and sooner or later one of these terrorists (perhaps bin Laden) will decide to take terrorism to the next level (if someone will willingly kill up to 50,000 people or more, as this attack had the potential to do, then why not 200,000? and why not 1,000,000 then?). This must be stopped before it ever gets that far, and that means doing whatever is necessary to prevent terrorists from having that safe haven and financing.
I was watching here in South Africa live after the planes had hit but before the buildings collapsed, about about an hour after the attacks began, and it was as I remember it about 3 PM here. We are on the same time as Jerusalem, so from the time of the attacks there were probably at least four hours more of daylight up there in which to have shot those scenes. So this indymedia story sounds to me like it is probably FUD. In fact "3 PM" sounds pretty accurate to me. Lets get our facts straight here and keep FUD off/. and elsewhere. Check before you post, it isn't complex math.
I was watching here in South Africa live after the planes had hit but before the buildings collapsed, about about an hour after the attacks began, and it was as I remember it about 3 PM here. We are on the same time as Jerusalem, so from the time of the attacks there were probably at least four hours more of daylight up there in which to have shot those scenes. So this indymedia story sounds to me like it is probably FUD. In fact "3 PM" sounds pretty accurate to me. Lets get our facts straight here and keep FUD off/. and elsewhere. Check before you post, it isn't complex math.
But if we go charging into the Middle East without a proper investigation, without being sure that we're going after the right man or group, we WILL be PROVING ourselves to be as bad as they claim
I'm afraid it does not matter who the US lashes out against, even if they ONLY go after the guilty parties, the anti-US propaganda machine will MAKE SURE that US still looks like the bad guys. To think that such actions from the US will somehow "make them realise how wrong they are about the US" is very naive. The propaganda machine will turn any US response into yet another reason to hate the US, and there is nothing that can be done about that. Obviously the US can't do *nothing* in response though. Its a difficult situation, I don't see a solution, not until the day that all countries have democracies and freedom of speech will these problems even come close to being eradicated.
We have freedoms guaranteed via restrictions on government (theoretically) through the Constituation and the Bill Of Rights, South Africa and your other examples do not
I am all for a slightly restrained offensive against all nations deemed to be supporting terrorist activities. I say give them the choice of performing "acts of good faith" such as the ejection of known terrorists, freezing of assets, destruction of training infrastructure, and CESSASTION OF PROPAGANDA, to back up all the verbal condemning that everyone is bandying about
I fully agree. Giving a known terrorist safe harbour is no less a crime than being a terrorist. If I had personally knowingly allowed someone like (for example) Timothy McVeigh to hide out safely in my own home and use my place to plot his activities, that certainly would not mean that I'm not an active participant in his crimes, and it would certainly be VERY meaningless for me to publicly condemn his actions. If a country like Afghanistan knowingly provides such safe sanctuary to international terrorists, they are in the same way active participants of "crimes" perpetrated by those terrorists against other countries. So attack those countries that will harbour terrorists.
If the people here on/. cannot tell the difference between a military attack on a country and blowing up 100% random civilians, including women and children from all parts of the world, then I'm sorry for them. There is a HUGE difference. All of the military people I know go to great pains to avoid injuring innocent civilians, while terrorists go to great pains to ensure that they injure innocent civilians. Its a gaping difference, the fact that so many people here can't see it just reaffirms my belief that most people are too stupid to think. You can argue that people are people, military or not, but compare: (a) killing ten thousand random individuals, including women and children, from all parts of the world who are innocently going about their daily, crime-free lives, and: (b) killing a couple hundred people currently training themselves to become terrorists with the ultimate goal of murdering people such as those in group (a). How so many people cannot see the "subtle" differences between those two groups is beyond me.
Propaganda unfortunately appears to be a problem no matter what country you live in (no exceptions that I know of). I can't think of any real solutions, apart from (a) providing people with freedom to express their own ideas (free speech) and (b) giving people an education that teaches them to think and teaches them to come to their own conclusions about things. A ready flow of information from many sources is important. The "sheeple" problem appears to be a combination of people only having access to a particular one-sided view of things, and people simply accepting the views that are presented to them. Thus the "solution" would be to convert every country to a free democracy in similar spirit to the USA, and a large-scale improvement in worldwide education, with more focus on critical thinking. Obviously, this 'solution' is not on the verge of happening - not unless something BIG forces a lot of change upon the world. Currently there are billions of people whose general views on life are already very well formed, and no amount of gentle persuasion can change that.
Sounds like you and the terrorists are in substantial agreement
Thats odd, I don't remember advocating bombing random targets with random innocent civilians/children in them from random countries around the world. Funny, isn't it. Can't you think?
Install a remotely-activated self-destruct capability in every plane. Once it's been determined that a plane has been compromised, this option can be considered
I was thinking, it might be possible to combine GPS with a big database and build airline control systems that will physically prevent it from being possible to fly the plane into a big building. Hardest part would be keeping the system secure (e.g. making sure it could not easily be disabled by a clued up person).
In future decades to come it will probably also become possible to build enough sensors and AI into the planes to allow the planes to examine their own environment and prevent something like this. Thats far down the line though.
Of course, these are just technical workarounds, symptomatic treatment of a problem that otherwise wouldn't be solved (the fundamentalism that creates the desire in the first place to do something like this)
Something tells me the founding fathers' idea of freedom did not include the freedom to fly a commercial airliner into the side of the world trade center. Just a thought.
Freedom extends to those who are willing to live in society without harming others. Those who wish to harm others do not get the same freedoms.
A trial and conviction would be a much more satisfying and peaceful solution
Except for one problem - there will still be hundreds more zealots lining up to do the next big terrorist act, possibly even bigger than this one. That kind of zealotry cannot be quashed by throwing a few people in jail. Given that though, I'm afraid I can't think of any better solutions.
Bombing the crap out of any country that supports terrorism (e.g. by allowing terrorists to hide out in their country) should eventually result in all governments refusing to harbour terrorists, that would at least make it very difficult for terrorists to *have* a safe hideout where they can sit and plan such horrible attacks - the overall message from society should be that terrorists will not be tolerated, will not be "safely harboured" anywhere they go, and will be hunted down wherever they go. Terrorists like bin Laden (assuming it was him) can exist precisely because of a culture of tolerance - he lives in a society that is willing to safely harbour him, thus condoning his actions. This condoning creates an environment where terrorists can prosper. Bombing the crap out of any such environment leaves no place for terrorists to go. Throwing a few in jail will do nothing to stop the problem.
Remember, six bin Laden flunkies are already spending their lives in jail for the Feb 93 WTC bombing - that didn't exactly stop this from happening, did it? There are hundreds more zealots volunteering to be the next ones.
Kill them all - as horrible as that sounds, it is the only solution. Unless someone else can offer another solution that will actually work? We know from experience that cute little trials and punishments are ineffective.
I thought Microsoft "solved" this problem indirectly by just stopping actually modifying their software:) With little to no incentive to improve, their software has gone through several years of notable stagnation. I suspect we no longer see MFC DLL version problems because MFC has hardly changed in the last two to three years.
You are right about DirectX.. any release of DirectX includes all previous versions of DirectX.. this is generally a good thing, because in spite of the slight bloating, all your older games still run.. with full "bug for bug" backwards compatibility, because all the binary code is actually there.
Backwards compatibility is, on the whole, a good thing, even though it can be a PITA for developers... though its a bit weird to think that even the latest GeForce3 from NVidia still has a section of its circuitry devoted to handling CGA and EGA video modes:)
is like trying to kill.jpg because of pr0n pics are being traded
Didn't you mean to say "illegal porn"? Trading porn is legal AFAIK (unless its copyrighted etc). Why do people so often seem to talk about porn as if it is illegal? Are people confusing what is legal with what is 'morally acceptable' in their religions or something? I can't see where else it might come from.
The system doesn't automatically convict you, it just possibly alerts nearby police, in which case you would almost certainly be pulled over, at which time you could explain the situation and undergo an actual breathalyser test if necessary.
Now if the system automatically connected to a central traffic offences database and listed you for drunk driving, THAT would be a real problem. In the future authorities will probably be relying more and more on computers for assistance, so it is not unthinkable that future systems may attempt to do this.
Quite frankly I'm not opposed to the basic concept, as long as it remains simple. Drunk driving is not a right. Drunk drivers kill innocent people on public roads.
I have to agree. Even if it might be shown to be true on some technicality (e.g. "software only company"), its still a misleading statement (and a deliberately misleading one at that) - it seems like it was intended to give the impression that Microsoft was/is some sort of visionary and/or innovative company. It sounds like a relative of the piece of propaganda which claims that MS was the only company ever "visionary" enough to try bring computing to the masses etc. Thats what it reminds me of, at any rate.
Perhaps you missed it in the news, but Microsoft was recently tried in court for illegally abusing their monopoly position to retain dominance and unfairly squash competition. It was generally called the "Microsoft antitrust trial", and not only was Microsoft found guilty, but the appeals court upheld the guilty verdict. So Microsoft's success was ill-gained - this is not just arbitrary opinions of some people, its a fact that has been not only found in court but upheld by the appeals court (or do you think all the judges are also just jealous of Microsoft's success?).
The reason for the boycott is basically that all the illegal tactics that Microsoft used to gain dominance are still being used, they continue to break the law, and the lack of competition that results from this is harming customers.
Did you really not notice this trial that was going on? It was very well publicised. Or did you just neglect to listen when the facts of the case were discussed in the media?
anyone deliberately cybersquatting would not have been so stupid as to get the.org but not the much more valuable.com, it just doesn't make any sense
OK.. I see the.com had already been registered long before Barrett registerd the.org. So this might be deliberate cybersquatting. That does not make it a trademark infringement however, all the other criteria still appy.
That's misappropriation of a trademark in its simplest form.
No, trademark infringement isn't quite that simple. Trademarks are associated with specific goods, in this case BattleBots are trading in "entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots." It is only trademark infringement if Barrett also intended to trade "entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots" under that name. Clearly he has not, he is trading "internet services" under that name. Under trademark law, this is completely legal. I could legally for example sell fast food under the tradename "Biap", and not only would it NOT be infringing on your "biap", but I would also have a legal right to www.biap.org and www.biap.com, had I got there first. Even if I'm not trading anything I might still have rights to those domains if I was clearly not intending to profit from them and wasn't acting in bad faith. A company called Biap doesn't automatically have rights to biap.org, certainly not under trademark laws at any rate.
If the BattleBots TV show people have a case, its not because of a trademark issue - Barrett is clearly not attempting to hijack their profits, he is not even competing with them. He would have to actually be competing with them for it to be a trademark issue.
Cybersquatting, maybe, but trademark misappropriation, no. I don't think its deliberate cybersqatting though, as anyone deliberately cybersquatting would not have been so stupid as to get the.org but not the much more valuable.com, it just doesn't make any sense. Cybersquatting alone has nothing to do with trademark law anyway, it is just sometimes fought using a trademark issue, since a lot of cybersquatting cases also happen to be trademark cases.
This is not exactly on-topic, but relates to what you're saying.. in psychology, development of moral reasoning, we learnt that there are basically six stages of moral reasoning that people go through as they grow up. The majority of people stop developing at about age 16 at stage 4 ("conventional morality"), which is "preserve the social order" - this stage basically amounts to "rules are rules, we must follow them". And so we see such posts on slashdot:)
A few people (usually people who study further after school) progress to stages 5 and 6 ("post-conventional morality"), which involve actually thinking about the rights of individuals, and "an orientation toward universal principles of justice".
Its interesting to see this sort of discussion on topics like the Sklyarov case in terms of that, as you can usually categorize which stage someone is in by their posts:) (The earlier stages are typically reasoning that children use, e.g. "don't get caught").
Slashdot Mirror
If you have a problem with that, try living in some fourth-world shithole for a few years and then tell me that all cultures are equally good and valuable
I think you're confusing "culture" with "poverty". Fourth-world "shitholes" are "shitholes" because they are impoverished, there is famine and starvation. Believe it or not, it is possible for people to be happy and satisfied without electricity, without McDonalds, without TV or computers etc. There are people who have shelter, food, friends and family without any modern Western comforts such as electricity, and they are happy with their culture. "Culture" has nothing to do with poverty, starvation, torture, rape opression etc.
Your comment shows your own ignorance. I remember once seeing on television some tourists from the USA were visiting a small african village, and one of them interviewed made the comment, "Wow, these people live without electricity -- and they're actually happy.". Come on, people were capable of being happy for thousands of years before we had electricity to the home, McDonalds, television etc. If the people of some country like Swaziland or Botswana are quite happy living the way they've lived for thousands of years, what right does anyone have to come rushing to their "rescue" with McDonalds and television? Just because a country isn't a player in the global economy, doesn't mean their people aren't happy. If those same people were living miserable lives in famine, oppression etc, that would be a different story, but that is not related to "culture". A "poor country" economically doesn't imply unhappy people.
even if their objectives were territorial acquisition rather than revenge
I think to state that the US motive here is revenge is oversimplistic and unfair. Emotions aside, rationally thinking, an extremely important primary motivation is not revenge but self-defence - quite simply, if no action is taken, the terrorists will strike again, and it will be worse next time (e.g. maybe weapons of mass destruction). The situation is far more complex than just "revenge", presenting such an oversimplified view is an insult to the victims and to the decision-makers involved. By stating that revenge is the only (or primary) motive, you imply that not doing anything might be an acceptable (or perhaps even noble) course of action to take. Actually, doing nothing would be a really stupid course of action to take.
I keep seeing people here remind us that the Taliban and related terrorist groups as they are today are to a fair degree the product of the US during the Soviet/Afghan war. (Which, by the way, is also detailed on cnn.com - I've found CNN surprisingly not quite as US-centric as they usually are).
Anyway, my response is, so what? Is the US response to that supposed to be "gee I guess we had this WTC thing coming then" or something like that? Thats ridiculous. Are they supposed to feel guilty? Or responsible for what happened?
Its not always obvious who to support and who not to support. Currently, its obvious the US should assist the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. In practice its impossible to tell if that might turn out to be a horrible mistake 20 years from now, for all we know they'll turn out to be the next Taliban. So while there may be a lesson to be learned here, its not quite as simple as you hint at. Nobody can predict.
If you're implying that the US don't intervene at all in foreign conflicts, well, clearly that would be a stupid thing to do, given that certain foreigners are bent on flying planes into US buildings.
So what bearing then does this information possibly have on the US in its situation today. Apart from being an interesting piece of trivia, I don't quite see why it should have any real effect on their decision making or on their feelings towards Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Will we never learn?
Have you got any better ideas?
Clearly, something has to be done. If nothing is done, the next step will be for the terrorists to use weapons of mass-destruction. Even if not, a sustained and continual terrorist campaign on the US homeland left unchecked would lead to a complete deterioration of the US economy as the people live in fear. This is part of Osama's desire to destroy the US. So "doing nothing" is completely ruled out.
So something has to be done, but what? A propaganda war? Try to get the radical Islam fringe to "see the error of their ways"? That might work on a few of the less zealous croud, the mainstream muslims who still aren't completely sure who they support here, but it isn't going to work on the fanatics. These people (as stated in the article) have a completely different idea about what "success" means - they believe only in what they are going to get in the 'afterlife', and the only thing they live for on earth is to spread islam, and they are not only willing, but eager, to die for that cause. These people cannot be convinced by any amount of reasoning - there is only one way to get rid of fanatics like that, and thats to hasten their journey to the afterlife. "Trying to reason with the terrorists" can be ruled out, and propaganda campaigns will have very limited effect on other middle eastern countries, who already have a strong anti-US slant in their media.
A US war on Afghanistan will be very difficult, and may turn into a second Vietnam. These terrorists have been living and fighting in the harsh conditions of the Afghan mountains for thousands of years, they are born and bred soldiers.
People tend to think of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden as separate, but they're very closely linked, Osama is a top man in the Taliban government and has relations in the Taliban. You can't fight religous fanatics separate from the Taliban, not only must the Taliban must be removed from power, but the entire radical fringe must be removed from the populace. I don't know how you go about doing that without resulting in further conflict years from now.
Its a really difficult situtation. Its easy to sit in a comfortable home and criticise the US reaction and say "its not going to work". But its a lot harder to actually come up with better ideas that are workable.
In any case, it's not a broad "you can't create an anti-Microsoft web site with Frontpage
Maybe not, but as worrying as that is that it does seem to be a broad "you can't link to an anti-Microsoft web site" if you're using those components. So if a site that happened to use an MS stock ticker or something wanted to link (say) to my MS crash gallery for some reason, they wouldn't be able to. So MS-criticism gets much less exposure. News sites like zdnet that are sometimes critical of MS would suddenly take on a far more neutral tone toward MS, if they wanted to use those components (and in future this license will undoubtedly extend to more and more MS software, e.g. FrontPage itself, MS Word, Windows itself). This of course is just the beginning of a trend, MS is just getting people used to the idea. Once people are used to the idea, it will be popping up everywhere.
It somewhat reminds me of totalitarian governments which make it illegal to criticise the government. Although I doubt Microsoft is going to be setting up "rehabilitation camps" very soon :), so obviously its not quite as bad.
There is one more aspect, psychologically, the "fear" aspect. Even if that clause in the contract is actually not legal (I don't know the details but I know there are some rights you can't sign away, UCITA or not), the majority of people would not know that for sure, and they would avoid saying anything bad about MS on their sites "just in case". Moreover, they would probably be also less inclined to even link to sites that criticise Microsoft in any way.
So no matter what the legalities, the end result will be less MS criticism on the Internet.
NOT goin to war would be a horrible move on our part. All it's doing is appeasing the terrorists, who will continue bombing and killing lives if we don't fight back
Not going to war would be even worse than that. Not going to war means allowing various countries to continue giving safe harbour (and organizations to continue financing) terrorist organizations. The level of terrorism was raised a couple notches Tuesday, but by allowing terrorists to continue, you give them the freedom and ability to raise the level a few notches more sometime in the future. That is, by not stamping out terrorism now (and if that requires a war, so be it), we pave the way for the next level, which would undoubtedly be slaughter by the millions, not thousands. Terrorist organizations are widespread, well-financed and well-protected .. this allows terrorists to perhaps build nuclear or biological weapons. The madmen of this world (e.g. pot pol, hitler etc) have proven that there is no limit to the scale of mass-murder by an individual, and sooner or later one of these terrorists (perhaps bin Laden) will decide to take terrorism to the next level (if someone will willingly kill up to 50,000 people or more, as this attack had the potential to do, then why not 200,000? and why not 1,000,000 then?). This must be stopped before it ever gets that far, and that means doing whatever is necessary to prevent terrorists from having that safe haven and financing.
I was watching here in South Africa live after the planes had hit but before the buildings collapsed, about about an hour after the attacks began, and it was as I remember it about 3 PM here. We are on the same time as Jerusalem, so from the time of the attacks there were probably at least four hours more of daylight up there in which to have shot those scenes. So this indymedia story sounds to me like it is probably FUD. In fact "3 PM" sounds pretty accurate to me. Lets get our facts straight here and keep FUD off /. and elsewhere. Check before you post, it isn't complex math.
I was watching here in South Africa live after the planes had hit but before the buildings collapsed, about about an hour after the attacks began, and it was as I remember it about 3 PM here. We are on the same time as Jerusalem, so from the time of the attacks there were probably at least four hours more of daylight up there in which to have shot those scenes. So this indymedia story sounds to me like it is probably FUD. In fact "3 PM" sounds pretty accurate to me. Lets get our facts straight here and keep FUD off /. and elsewhere. Check before you post, it isn't complex math.
But if we go charging into the Middle East without a proper investigation, without being sure that we're going after the right man or group, we WILL be PROVING ourselves to be as bad as they claim
I'm afraid it does not matter who the US lashes out against, even if they ONLY go after the guilty parties, the anti-US propaganda machine will MAKE SURE that US still looks like the bad guys. To think that such actions from the US will somehow "make them realise how wrong they are about the US" is very naive. The propaganda machine will turn any US response into yet another reason to hate the US, and there is nothing that can be done about that. Obviously the US can't do *nothing* in response though. Its a difficult situation, I don't see a solution, not until the day that all countries have democracies and freedom of speech will these problems even come close to being eradicated.
We have freedoms guaranteed via restrictions on government (theoretically) through the Constituation and the Bill Of Rights, South Africa and your other examples do not
Make that "did not" :) ... (http://www.gov.za/structure/constitution.htm)
I am all for a slightly restrained offensive against all nations deemed to be supporting terrorist activities. I say give them the choice of performing "acts of good faith" such as the ejection of known terrorists, freezing of assets, destruction of training infrastructure, and CESSASTION OF PROPAGANDA, to back up all the verbal condemning that everyone is bandying about
I fully agree. Giving a known terrorist safe harbour is no less a crime than being a terrorist. If I had personally knowingly allowed someone like (for example) Timothy McVeigh to hide out safely in my own home and use my place to plot his activities, that certainly would not mean that I'm not an active participant in his crimes, and it would certainly be VERY meaningless for me to publicly condemn his actions. If a country like Afghanistan knowingly provides such safe sanctuary to international terrorists, they are in the same way active participants of "crimes" perpetrated by those terrorists against other countries. So attack those countries that will harbour terrorists.
If the people here on /. cannot tell the difference between a military attack on a country and blowing up 100% random civilians, including women and children from all parts of the world, then I'm sorry for them. There is a HUGE difference. All of the military people I know go to great pains to avoid injuring innocent civilians, while terrorists go to great pains to ensure that they injure innocent civilians. Its a gaping difference, the fact that so many people here can't see it just reaffirms my belief that most people are too stupid to think. You can argue that people are people, military or not, but compare: (a) killing ten thousand random individuals, including women and children, from all parts of the world who are innocently going about their daily, crime-free lives, and: (b) killing a couple hundred people currently training themselves to become terrorists with the ultimate goal of murdering people such as those in group (a). How so many people cannot see the "subtle" differences between those two groups is beyond me.
Propaganda unfortunately appears to be a problem no matter what country you live in (no exceptions that I know of). I can't think of any real solutions, apart from (a) providing people with freedom to express their own ideas (free speech) and (b) giving people an education that teaches them to think and teaches them to come to their own conclusions about things. A ready flow of information from many sources is important. The "sheeple" problem appears to be a combination of people only having access to a particular one-sided view of things, and people simply accepting the views that are presented to them. Thus the "solution" would be to convert every country to a free democracy in similar spirit to the USA, and a large-scale improvement in worldwide education, with more focus on critical thinking. Obviously, this 'solution' is not on the verge of happening - not unless something BIG forces a lot of change upon the world. Currently there are billions of people whose general views on life are already very well formed, and no amount of gentle persuasion can change that.
Sounds like you and the terrorists are in substantial agreement
Thats odd, I don't remember advocating bombing random targets with random innocent civilians/children in them from random countries around the world. Funny, isn't it. Can't you think?
Install a remotely-activated self-destruct capability in every plane. Once it's been determined that a plane has been compromised, this option can be considered
I was thinking, it might be possible to combine GPS with a big database and build airline control systems that will physically prevent it from being possible to fly the plane into a big building. Hardest part would be keeping the system secure (e.g. making sure it could not easily be disabled by a clued up person).
In future decades to come it will probably also become possible to build enough sensors and AI into the planes to allow the planes to examine their own environment and prevent something like this. Thats far down the line though.
Of course, these are just technical workarounds, symptomatic treatment of a problem that otherwise wouldn't be solved (the fundamentalism that creates the desire in the first place to do something like this)
Something tells me the founding fathers' idea of freedom did not include the freedom to fly a commercial airliner into the side of the world trade center. Just a thought.
Freedom extends to those who are willing to live in society without harming others. Those who wish to harm others do not get the same freedoms.
A trial and conviction would be a much more satisfying and peaceful solution
Except for one problem - there will still be hundreds more zealots lining up to do the next big terrorist act, possibly even bigger than this one. That kind of zealotry cannot be quashed by throwing a few people in jail. Given that though, I'm afraid I can't think of any better solutions.
Bombing the crap out of any country that supports terrorism (e.g. by allowing terrorists to hide out in their country) should eventually result in all governments refusing to harbour terrorists, that would at least make it very difficult for terrorists to *have* a safe hideout where they can sit and plan such horrible attacks - the overall message from society should be that terrorists will not be tolerated, will not be "safely harboured" anywhere they go, and will be hunted down wherever they go. Terrorists like bin Laden (assuming it was him) can exist precisely because of a culture of tolerance - he lives in a society that is willing to safely harbour him, thus condoning his actions. This condoning creates an environment where terrorists can prosper. Bombing the crap out of any such environment leaves no place for terrorists to go. Throwing a few in jail will do nothing to stop the problem.
Remember, six bin Laden flunkies are already spending their lives in jail for the Feb 93 WTC bombing - that didn't exactly stop this from happening, did it? There are hundreds more zealots volunteering to be the next ones.
Kill them all - as horrible as that sounds, it is the only solution. Unless someone else can offer another solution that will actually work? We know from experience that cute little trials and punishments are ineffective.
I thought Microsoft "solved" this problem indirectly by just stopping actually modifying their software :) With little to no incentive to improve, their software has gone through several years of notable stagnation. I suspect we no longer see MFC DLL version problems because MFC has hardly changed in the last two to three years.
You are right about DirectX .. any release of DirectX includes all previous versions of DirectX .. this is generally a good thing, because in spite of the slight bloating, all your older games still run .. with full "bug for bug" backwards compatibility, because all the binary code is actually there.
Backwards compatibility is, on the whole, a good thing, even though it can be a PITA for developers ... though its a bit weird to think that even the latest GeForce3 from NVidia still has a section of its circuitry devoted to handling CGA and EGA video modes :)
all that dynamic binding costs Java in performance across the board
I would guess that the cost of running on a virtual machine impacts Java's performance far more significantly than does dynamic binding.
is like trying to kill .jpg because of pr0n pics are being traded
Didn't you mean to say "illegal porn"? Trading porn is legal AFAIK (unless its copyrighted etc). Why do people so often seem to talk about porn as if it is illegal? Are people confusing what is legal with what is 'morally acceptable' in their religions or something? I can't see where else it might come from.
The system doesn't automatically convict you, it just possibly alerts nearby police, in which case you would almost certainly be pulled over, at which time you could explain the situation and undergo an actual breathalyser test if necessary.
Now if the system automatically connected to a central traffic offences database and listed you for drunk driving, THAT would be a real problem. In the future authorities will probably be relying more and more on computers for assistance, so it is not unthinkable that future systems may attempt to do this.
Quite frankly I'm not opposed to the basic concept, as long as it remains simple. Drunk driving is not a right. Drunk drivers kill innocent people on public roads.
more revisionist history here perhaps
I have to agree. Even if it might be shown to be true on some technicality (e.g. "software only company"), its still a misleading statement (and a deliberately misleading one at that) - it seems like it was intended to give the impression that Microsoft was/is some sort of visionary and/or innovative company. It sounds like a relative of the piece of propaganda which claims that MS was the only company ever "visionary" enough to try bring computing to the masses etc. Thats what it reminds me of, at any rate.
Perhaps you missed it in the news, but Microsoft was recently tried in court for illegally abusing their monopoly position to retain dominance and unfairly squash competition. It was generally called the "Microsoft antitrust trial", and not only was Microsoft found guilty, but the appeals court upheld the guilty verdict. So Microsoft's success was ill-gained - this is not just arbitrary opinions of some people, its a fact that has been not only found in court but upheld by the appeals court (or do you think all the judges are also just jealous of Microsoft's success?).
The reason for the boycott is basically that all the illegal tactics that Microsoft used to gain dominance are still being used, they continue to break the law, and the lack of competition that results from this is harming customers.
Did you really not notice this trial that was going on? It was very well publicised. Or did you just neglect to listen when the facts of the case were discussed in the media?
anyone deliberately cybersquatting would not have been so stupid as to get the .org but not the much more valuable .com, it just doesn't make any sense
OK .. I see the .com had already been registered long before Barrett registerd the .org. So this might be deliberate cybersquatting. That does not make it a trademark infringement however, all the other criteria still appy.
That's misappropriation of a trademark in its simplest form.
No, trademark infringement isn't quite that simple. Trademarks are associated with specific goods, in this case BattleBots are trading in "entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots." It is only trademark infringement if Barrett also intended to trade "entertainment in nature of competitive events featuring robots" under that name. Clearly he has not, he is trading "internet services" under that name. Under trademark law, this is completely legal. I could legally for example sell fast food under the tradename "Biap", and not only would it NOT be infringing on your "biap", but I would also have a legal right to www.biap.org and www.biap.com, had I got there first. Even if I'm not trading anything I might still have rights to those domains if I was clearly not intending to profit from them and wasn't acting in bad faith. A company called Biap doesn't automatically have rights to biap.org, certainly not under trademark laws at any rate.
If the BattleBots TV show people have a case, its not because of a trademark issue - Barrett is clearly not attempting to hijack their profits, he is not even competing with them. He would have to actually be competing with them for it to be a trademark issue.
Cybersquatting, maybe, but trademark misappropriation, no. I don't think its deliberate cybersqatting though, as anyone deliberately cybersquatting would not have been so stupid as to get the .org but not the much more valuable .com, it just doesn't make any sense. Cybersquatting alone has nothing to do with trademark law anyway, it is just sometimes fought using a trademark issue, since a lot of cybersquatting cases also happen to be trademark cases.
Standardard IANAL disclaimer applies.
This is not exactly on-topic, but relates to what you're saying .. in psychology, development of moral reasoning, we learnt that there are basically six stages of moral reasoning that people go through as they grow up. The majority of people stop developing at about age 16 at stage 4 ("conventional morality"), which is "preserve the social order" - this stage basically amounts to "rules are rules, we must follow them". And so we see such posts on slashdot :)
:) (The earlier stages are typically reasoning that children use, e.g. "don't get caught").
A few people (usually people who study further after school) progress to stages 5 and 6 ("post-conventional morality"), which involve actually thinking about the rights of individuals, and "an orientation toward universal principles of justice".
Its interesting to see this sort of discussion on topics like the Sklyarov case in terms of that, as you can usually categorize which stage someone is in by their posts