Russia still sends men into space and has a great deal experience in doing so. They have great technical knowledge in the field and built what many consider to be a superior shuttle vehicle, the Buran. Unfortunately they lack funding.
China also have a space program and have sent a man into space. They're newcomers in the game, but they're working pretty hard.
Then there's the X-Prize. Sure it's sub-orbital, but many of the competitors have scalable plans which are intended to go orbital in later versions.
It would be no great tragedy if the Shuttle program were over - it is way past its intended life anyway and should have been replaced by now. Also the whole design was a compromise, and it suffered from it to the extent that they lost two of them from design flaws. I also don't understand why they built a fleet either - they could have improved the design instead of making copies with the later models.
Somehow I don't think that the service men/women who died trying to "save" South Vietnam were thinking about "Capitalism" or "Democracy" either. I am sure that most of them were thinking something like "I've got to get out of here".
However I do think that this was exactly the thinking that led the senior brass in Washington to send them there. The Vietnam war (and the Korean war too) was prosecuted because the rise of communism was seen as a threat to the American way of life - in other words a threat to Capitalism.
Unfortunately America preaches capitalism and free market economics all the time but is very two-faced about this kind of stuff. Massive subsidies to domestic industries and sanctions against foreign industries is directly contrary to these ideals.
Interference in the affairs of other nations is rarely welcomed, whether that is done through economic means or with a gun. The US doesn't like it when other nations try to interfere with its own internal affairs. For some reason though they seem to think it's perfectly OK for them to interfere with the affairs of others.
When you behave like that payback is inevitable - another name for this concept is Karma.
My reading of Bill's interview was that although they won't be putting WinFS into Longhorn they will be putting essentially a clone of Apple's Searchlight technology in there instead.
From what was briefly described all of the features of Searchlight would be there and it will be implemented in a similar manner.
WinFS goes further in its storage model, and this is where I'm not so clear. From what I've gathered it's akin to a fully featured SQL database system layered on top of the underlying filing system. Apple don't have that right now, although the storage model they had for the Newton was an OODBMS, not a filing system. It is possible (although I think it unlikely) that Apple could come up with their own "Future Storage" system based on the old Newton model before Microsoft finishes WinFS.
Given the lack of plans for server support for WinFS for Longhorn it seems very sensible to drop this right now and wait for it to mature. Networked environments are, after all, pretty important.
However Apple are advertising for WiFi and Bluetooth engineers for their iPod division. It seems fairly clear that the iPod will be gaining some wireless capabilities, and linking it in to an Airport Express music network would make a great deal of sense. That could be why Jobs smiled his wry smile in response to Airport Express speculation.
It is of course completely irrelevant that their pentium is a heap of crap, as you imply. These are the kind of idiots that don't believe that you could have a 3d game on a 20 year old 8bit micro - showing them Elite blows their minds.
They think that because a computer is slow it's worthless. Well, that's what Microsoft and Intel keep telling us so it must be true. Also their 3d shooter is damn slow. That's gotta be proof.
Conversely those of us with brains, real software development knowledge, and an appreciation of physics realise that you hardly need any computing power at all for an Apollo space craft. Indeed it's arguable that the computer they did have was overkill - a computer-less solution could have been engineered.
In Star Trek IV when Scotty visits the glass factory and gives the owner the formula for "transparent aluminum" he uses a computer and creates an atomic model.
The implication of that is that other atoms that are not aluminium are involved.
Whilst the name might not be technically accurate it's not all that inaccurate. Calling it "transparent alumina" isn't much more accurate than "transparent alumium" since this substance is an alloy of alumina with other rare-earth metal oxides.
Then would you care to explain what made the Olympics possible since Ancient Greek times? They didn't have advertising hit-squads back then did they?
The Olympics have not been going since Ancient Greek times.
There were the ancient Olympics, which stopped several thousand years ago.
Now we have the modern Olympics, started just over 100 years ago. Two different competitions with different organisations and different sets of ideals.
So one company decides to make a closed source version of Linux with their own enhancements. So what? That doesn't stop other people making their own enhancements that do equivalent things.
Indeed DistroInc would be an untrusted, and untrustable distribution. With free and open versions of Linux still available they would also have to make something extremely compelling to garner any interest. That would not be an easy task. I find it very unlikely that they would sell many copies.
So you're actually saying that a science-fiction writer should be able to patent random ideas he has no idea how to implement, and then collect royalties if he's lucky enough for a team of scientists and engineers to actually invent it within the next 20 years?
Does that "promote progress of science" ?
As I tried to point out the idea of a geosynchronous satellites is actually not all that complex. The details of that idea are also not particularly complex. It was still a novel idea when Clarke came up with it. The difficult bit is getting the satellite out into position, however that is a separate problem.
The idea of anchoring a satellite at a point in space by no means other than gravity is a novel one. I am however fairly sure that the first geosynchronous satellites did not appear until over 15 years after Clarke first proposed the idea. At that time patents only lasted 15 years. In this case the question is moot.
Patents cover ideas, not specific implementations. Copyright is the tool to use to cover an implementation of an idea.
Personally I believe that 20 years is far too long to protect an idea with a patent. That length of duration is, IMHO, contrary to the notion of promoting progress of science. This can be clearly seen with the land-grab of patents that has occurred in recent years. It is not cheap to apply for a patent today, and only the very rich can afford to legally enforce their patents through the courts.
Arthur C. Clarke didn't try to obtain a patent for TV relay satellites.
What he did do was establish the principle of geosynchronous orbit, and geosynchronous satellites. Whilst the concept was patentable he chose not to try to patent the idea.
How is important to patents. How a geosynchronous satellite works is simple - it is in an orbit whereby its orbital speed ensures it remains above the same point on the planet surface as the planet rotates. Whilst this may be a fairly simple concept it seems that nobody had come up with it before Clarke.
To claim that Clarke wouldn't have deserved a patent for the idea on the basis that he could not plan it in specific technical detail does not make sense to me. Very little detail is needed for this specific idea. The satellite itself is a radio relay - a known technology - the important and novel part is its location. The method of delivering the satellite to its position is irrelevant.
The reason why 16:9 screens are more expensive than 4:3 screens is two-fold.
Firstly many wide-screen TVs are high definition. This necessitates a whole load of extra technology and a significantly higher-spec display, which costs more money.
Secondly TV manufacturing was geared up to 4:3 screens, and to produce 16:9 screens means having to start over. Demand for 16:9 screens in some markets like Europe has now caught up with 4:3, where wide-screen generally isn't high-def yet. In North America wide-screen TVs are almost exclusively high-def, so there's a double price premium to be paid, and demand for 16:9 screens is a tiny fraction of that for 4:3 screens.
Don't assume Windows isn't the best OS for everyone. I'm being serious here.
Hmmm... A double negative in that first sentence. This therefore means: Do assume Windows is the best OS for everyone.
You don't happen to work for Microsoft do you?:-)
A fairer assessment of operating systems would be: 1) Don't assume Windows is the best OS for everyone. 2) Windows might be the best OS for some people.
Or a bit more extensively... 1) There are other alternatives to Windows. For some applications Windows is not be the best choice as sometimes better versions appear on different platforms. 2) For some people under some circumstances Windows might actually be their best choice. For business 100% compatibility with Microsoft Word might be important. For home users the ability to easily play the latest game might be of overriding importance to them.
Don't ignore the fact though that some people have found very usable operating systems that let them do exactly what they want with no fussing that don't come from Redmond. Windows is not a panacea.
Big corporations with people in charge who have no understanding of modern technology or people don't view free software (or free anything) as "an abomination and unclean". They just view it with deep suspicion.
This is perfectly natural. If someone you had never seen before was giving away free burgers on the street you might view that with suspicion. If somebody approached you and said "here, take this truck - it's free" you would view that with suspicion too. You would be right to do so in both cases. The burger could of course be tainted meat and you could end up being poisoned. The truck will need gas and insurance, and could end up being rather expensive.
Big companies look at free software and think "this can't really be free - what's the catch?" They are right to ask that question. Often it is difficult to do a real cost-benefit analysis with free software, and so the free solution gets ruled out as its true cost is unknown. Unknown cost is riskier than expensive.
I rarely access Slashdot by going to the web site these days. Instead I subscribe to the RSS feed. The great thing about it is all of the article URLs are plain "slashdot.org" addresses, so all the articles come out in the old green and grey colour scheme. I didn't even realise what people were complaining about for months.
My point, in part, is that simply ignoring any claims being made by any terrorist group is unwise.
If the demands they are making are unreasonable then this has to be explained in a reasonable manner. This would go a long way to isolating them, as you suggest, and reducing their support. Saying "you're evil - I'm not going to listen to anything you have to say" is most definitely not a reasonable approach.
The fact that people were sick and tired of the killing in NI is a given, and it was undoubtedly a great help.
As I see it the big problem right now in dealing with Al Quaeda is that the USA is not sick and tired of the killing.
It is truly tragic that children are being used as weapons. However we need to remember that the responsibility here is with the adults who raise these children to hate, and push them to make suicide attacks. A child of 7-8 is not fully capable of understanding what's going on. Indeed many adults don't seem to be capable of understanding such issues either. Raising children to hate creates a vicious cycle, and this is a great complication.
It is tragic that a parent would feel it necessary to raise their child to kill itself.
A problem with the scenario that you put forward of the child being captured and discovering that Jews can be nice is that this is a very difficult picture to see when your home has been destroyed by Israeli helicopter gun-ships.
It is very easy to brand people as terrorists, and forget that they might consider themselves freedom fighters. They do not have sophisticated weapons, whereas their enemies do. What then are their options?
Would they continue to with suicide bombing if they had their own helicopter gun-ships and missiles?
I doubt that they would. However war is not a very civilised activity. If "the enemy" hits civilian targets then it's very tempting to go after their civilian targets too.
I agree with you - it is a very nasty world we live in, and there have been wars continuing in this vane for tens of thousands of years, not just the last 2000. I am not so naiive as to think that there are easy solutions, and I also doubt that this will be resolved within our lifetime.
Part of the problem here is that one of the countries that supported the rise of fundamentalist Islam was the USA. The CIA was instrumental in putting the Taliban in charge in Afghanistan. They funded the organisations that went on to become Al Quaeda, since they were fighting against Russian/communist oppression. It is also well documented that the USA supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. Unfortunately what goes around comes around.
No, we don't need to ponder these questions. Their position and intentions are clear. We should do everything we can to make sure all these fuckers and their twisted ideology are dead.
So what is their position?
What are their intentions?
I don't think this is anywhere near as clear as you're making out. I don't think you can answer these questions with any degree of certainty.
The big problem with the approach that you're advocating (i.e. kill them all) is that attempting to do this will only encourage others to take up their cause, especially since innocents will also die in the process.
I don't think you really know the answers to these questions, and suspect you just guessing, based on what you've been told by President Bush and his good buddy Rumsfeld.
They are psychotic, and cannot be helped.
This, and your other statements go a long way to showing that you don't know what you're talking about.
I have some direct experience with dealing with psychotics. The way to deal with them is to reason with them. Telling them "you're crazy" doesn't do any good at all. Attacking them just makes them angrier. Most psychotics can actually be helped.
Taking the opinion that there is no common ground to be found, no reason to compromise, and no reason to take their views into account is naiive at best IMHO. This approach serves only to escalate the problem, and logically dictates that the only solution is to eliminate all the terrorists.
Recent history has shown that this is not the way to deal with terrorists, and is not the way to resolve terror. The UK had a problem with terrorism for many years over Northern Ireland. When I was growing up the position of the UK government was to refuse to listen to the grievances of the terrorists. The approach was basically the one you are advocating. The leaders of Sinn Fein, the political party linked to the IRA, were actually elected members of the British parliament, yet they were banned from entering the House of Commons, and their voices were banned from TV. They were censored, and the terrorism continued.
Eventually things changed - their voices were allowed to be heard, and a dialogue was opened up. This turned out to be a very effective way of tacking the problem. It has not been completely solved, but there is very little terrorist activity involving Northern Ireland now. The dialogue is ongoing.
It is a great shame that the lessons from Ireland are being ignored.
If I had some mod-points today you would definitely get one for insightful.
The real reasons behind terrorism are rarely discussed because they are complex. Terrorists are hardly ever crazed madmen, despite what Bush might insist upon. They are people with a grievance, but they choose to stand their ground in a way that many people find to be morally wrong. Suicide bombers don't want to kill themselves, rather they feel they have no alternative.
The big problem with questioning the reasons behind terrorism is that it might show that we are doing something wrong - that we are bringing terrorism upon ourselves. Those that do genuinely and honestly question the reasons behind terrorism already know that this is the case.
The two quotes that you made clearly show that America has been doing something wrong in the eyes of the terrorists. We need to question the validity of their position, and do that in an intelligent manner without instantly rejecting their position. We also need to question the validity of the position that our governments are taking too.
This debate raises some very difficult questions which few politicians are willing to answer, since it tends to expose the immorality and inconsistency of their own position.
You're right of course John, KVC and KVO shouldn't be too hard for the GNUstep folks to implement, especially since how it works is documented.
The thing is though a search for KVO and GNUstep turns up nothing. It doesn't even seem to have been discussed on their mailing lists, and Panther has been around for almost a year now. It doesn't even seem to be on their radar.
For me to port my application to GNUstep I'd need KVO, KVC, KVV, and Bindings (and possibly a tiny bit of CoreGraphics too). Going this way significantly decreased my development time and program complexity, thus increasing its reliability. Porting to GNUstep without these things would basically require a complete re-write. I'm sure they'll get there one day, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Cocoa# intrigues me though. I'm slowly learning C# right now and so far it seems like a very reasonable language. Whilst I am a fan of Obj-C and Cocoa going the C#, Mono, Cocoa#route for my next application might be an interesting idea, since it would greatly assist porting to Linux and Windows.
Thanks for the reassurance about the licensing of DotGNU.
And thanks to for pointing me towards that argument thread between the Mono and DotGNU folks. Miguel seems to have a talent for winding people up the wrong way and Rhys seems to have an exceptionally thin skin. That is just my observation - I don't mean to offend either party by saying this.
It seems to me that both need to work on their people skills, and learn the meaning of the word "compromise". Unfortunately from my observations "compromise" is a word missing from the vocabulary of many free software people - RMS and ESR possibly being the two best examples of this phenomena.
It's a great shame that Mono and DotGNU won't be working together. A very useful philosophy to have when conducting software development is to not re-invent the wheel. By refusing to make slight compromises in their positions these guys seem intent to do exactly that and waste a load of effort. It's sad, and we all suffer from it.
Slashdot Mirror
Open your eyes man!
NASA has no monopoly in sending men into space.
Russia still sends men into space and has a great deal experience in doing so. They have great technical knowledge in the field and built what many consider to be a superior shuttle vehicle, the Buran. Unfortunately they lack funding.
China also have a space program and have sent a man into space. They're newcomers in the game, but they're working pretty hard.
Then there's the X-Prize. Sure it's sub-orbital, but many of the competitors have scalable plans which are intended to go orbital in later versions.
It would be no great tragedy if the Shuttle program were over - it is way past its intended life anyway and should have been replaced by now. Also the whole design was a compromise, and it suffered from it to the extent that they lost two of them from design flaws. I also don't understand why they built a fleet either - they could have improved the design instead of making copies with the later models.
Somehow I don't think that the service men/women who died trying to "save" South Vietnam were thinking about "Capitalism" or "Democracy" either. I am sure that most of them were thinking something like "I've got to get out of here".
However I do think that this was exactly the thinking that led the senior brass in Washington to send them there. The Vietnam war (and the Korean war too) was prosecuted because the rise of communism was seen as a threat to the American way of life - in other words a threat to Capitalism.
Unfortunately America preaches capitalism and free market economics all the time but is very two-faced about this kind of stuff. Massive subsidies to domestic industries and sanctions against foreign industries is directly contrary to these ideals.
Interference in the affairs of other nations is rarely welcomed, whether that is done through economic means or with a gun. The US doesn't like it when other nations try to interfere with its own internal affairs. For some reason though they seem to think it's perfectly OK for them to interfere with the affairs of others.
When you behave like that payback is inevitable - another name for this concept is Karma.
Looks more like GI=GO to me.
That's the best description I've heard of the Drake Equation in years.
Clearly if all your variables in an equation of that complexity are guesses then the results are essentially meaningless.
My reading of Bill's interview was that although they won't be putting WinFS into Longhorn they will be putting essentially a clone of Apple's Searchlight technology in there instead.
From what was briefly described all of the features of Searchlight would be there and it will be implemented in a similar manner.
WinFS goes further in its storage model, and this is where I'm not so clear. From what I've gathered it's akin to a fully featured SQL database system layered on top of the underlying filing system. Apple don't have that right now, although the storage model they had for the Newton was an OODBMS, not a filing system. It is possible (although I think it unlikely) that Apple could come up with their own "Future Storage" system based on the old Newton model before Microsoft finishes WinFS.
Given the lack of plans for server support for WinFS for Longhorn it seems very sensible to drop this right now and wait for it to mature. Networked environments are, after all, pretty important.
Interesting quote...
However Apple are advertising for WiFi and Bluetooth engineers for their iPod division. It seems fairly clear that the iPod will be gaining some wireless capabilities, and linking it in to an Airport Express music network would make a great deal of sense. That could be why Jobs smiled his wry smile in response to Airport Express speculation.
Too many links, and not one of them led to the 3D Industry Forum web site, which would have been useful since that's the group that's pushing U3D.
The hoaxers are dicks.
It is of course completely irrelevant that their pentium is a heap of crap, as you imply. These are the kind of idiots that don't believe that you could have a 3d game on a 20 year old 8bit micro - showing them Elite blows their minds.
They think that because a computer is slow it's worthless. Well, that's what Microsoft and Intel keep telling us so it must be true. Also their 3d shooter is damn slow. That's gotta be proof.
Conversely those of us with brains, real software development knowledge, and an appreciation of physics realise that you hardly need any computing power at all for an Apollo space craft. Indeed it's arguable that the computer they did have was overkill - a computer-less solution could have been engineered.
In Star Trek IV when Scotty visits the glass factory and gives the owner the formula for "transparent aluminum" he uses a computer and creates an atomic model.
The implication of that is that other atoms that are not aluminium are involved.
Whilst the name might not be technically accurate it's not all that inaccurate. Calling it "transparent alumina" isn't much more accurate than "transparent alumium" since this substance is an alloy of alumina with other rare-earth metal oxides.
Then would you care to explain what made the Olympics possible since Ancient Greek times? They didn't have advertising hit-squads back then did they?
The Olympics have not been going since Ancient Greek times.
There were the ancient Olympics, which stopped several thousand years ago.
Now we have the modern Olympics, started just over 100 years ago. Two different competitions with different organisations and different sets of ideals.
Sorry, but this example is BS.
So one company decides to make a closed source version of Linux with their own enhancements. So what? That doesn't stop other people making their own enhancements that do equivalent things.
Indeed DistroInc would be an untrusted, and untrustable distribution. With free and open versions of Linux still available they would also have to make something extremely compelling to garner any interest. That would not be an easy task. I find it very unlikely that they would sell many copies.
So you're actually saying that a science-fiction writer should be able to patent random ideas he has no idea how to implement, and then collect royalties if he's lucky enough for a team of scientists and engineers to actually invent it within the next 20 years?
Does that "promote progress of science" ?
As I tried to point out the idea of a geosynchronous satellites is actually not all that complex. The details of that idea are also not particularly complex. It was still a novel idea when Clarke came up with it. The difficult bit is getting the satellite out into position, however that is a separate problem.
The idea of anchoring a satellite at a point in space by no means other than gravity is a novel one. I am however fairly sure that the first geosynchronous satellites did not appear until over 15 years after Clarke first proposed the idea. At that time patents only lasted 15 years. In this case the question is moot.
Patents cover ideas, not specific implementations. Copyright is the tool to use to cover an implementation of an idea.
Personally I believe that 20 years is far too long to protect an idea with a patent. That length of duration is, IMHO, contrary to the notion of promoting progress of science. This can be clearly seen with the land-grab of patents that has occurred in recent years. It is not cheap to apply for a patent today, and only the very rich can afford to legally enforce their patents through the courts.
Arthur C. Clarke didn't try to obtain a patent for TV relay satellites.
What he did do was establish the principle of geosynchronous orbit, and geosynchronous satellites. Whilst the concept was patentable he chose not to try to patent the idea.
How is important to patents. How a geosynchronous satellite works is simple - it is in an orbit whereby its orbital speed ensures it remains above the same point on the planet surface as the planet rotates. Whilst this may be a fairly simple concept it seems that nobody had come up with it before Clarke.
To claim that Clarke wouldn't have deserved a patent for the idea on the basis that he could not plan it in specific technical detail does not make sense to me. Very little detail is needed for this specific idea. The satellite itself is a radio relay - a known technology - the important and novel part is its location. The method of delivering the satellite to its position is irrelevant.
The reason why 16:9 screens are more expensive than 4:3 screens is two-fold.
Firstly many wide-screen TVs are high definition. This necessitates a whole load of extra technology and a significantly higher-spec display, which costs more money.
Secondly TV manufacturing was geared up to 4:3 screens, and to produce 16:9 screens means having to start over. Demand for 16:9 screens in some markets like Europe has now caught up with 4:3, where wide-screen generally isn't high-def yet. In North America wide-screen TVs are almost exclusively high-def, so there's a double price premium to be paid, and demand for 16:9 screens is a tiny fraction of that for 4:3 screens.
Don't assume Windows isn't the best OS for everyone. I'm being serious here.
:-)
Hmmm... A double negative in that first sentence. This therefore means:
Do assume Windows is the best OS for everyone.
You don't happen to work for Microsoft do you?
A fairer assessment of operating systems would be:
1) Don't assume Windows is the best OS for everyone.
2) Windows might be the best OS for some people.
Or a bit more extensively...
1) There are other alternatives to Windows. For some applications Windows is not be the best choice as sometimes better versions appear on different platforms.
2) For some people under some circumstances Windows might actually be their best choice. For business 100% compatibility with Microsoft Word might be important. For home users the ability to easily play the latest game might be of overriding importance to them.
Don't ignore the fact though that some people have found very usable operating systems that let them do exactly what they want with no fussing that don't come from Redmond. Windows is not a panacea.
I subtly disagree.
Big corporations with people in charge who have no understanding of modern technology or people don't view free software (or free anything) as "an abomination and unclean". They just view it with deep suspicion.
This is perfectly natural. If someone you had never seen before was giving away free burgers on the street you might view that with suspicion. If somebody approached you and said "here, take this truck - it's free" you would view that with suspicion too. You would be right to do so in both cases. The burger could of course be tainted meat and you could end up being poisoned. The truck will need gas and insurance, and could end up being rather expensive.
Big companies look at free software and think "this can't really be free - what's the catch?" They are right to ask that question. Often it is difficult to do a real cost-benefit analysis with free software, and so the free solution gets ruled out as its true cost is unknown. Unknown cost is riskier than expensive.
I rarely access Slashdot by going to the web site these days. Instead I subscribe to the RSS feed. The great thing about it is all of the article URLs are plain "slashdot.org" addresses, so all the articles come out in the old green and grey colour scheme. I didn't even realise what people were complaining about for months.
Yeah, just take a liver stem cell and encourage it to grow in the right way and hey-presto, new liver.
Except of course stem cell research is banned in the USA.
Oh dear.
Strange...
:-)
You're complaining about a movie about a troll.
As a result you get modded as a troll.
Shouldn't you therefore like Shrek?
My point, in part, is that simply ignoring any claims being made by any terrorist group is unwise.
If the demands they are making are unreasonable then this has to be explained in a reasonable manner. This would go a long way to isolating them, as you suggest, and reducing their support. Saying "you're evil - I'm not going to listen to anything you have to say" is most definitely not a reasonable approach.
The fact that people were sick and tired of the killing in NI is a given, and it was undoubtedly a great help.
As I see it the big problem right now in dealing with Al Quaeda is that the USA is not sick and tired of the killing.
It is truly tragic that children are being used as weapons. However we need to remember that the responsibility here is with the adults who raise these children to hate, and push them to make suicide attacks. A child of 7-8 is not fully capable of understanding what's going on. Indeed many adults don't seem to be capable of understanding such issues either. Raising children to hate creates a vicious cycle, and this is a great complication.
It is tragic that a parent would feel it necessary to raise their child to kill itself.
A problem with the scenario that you put forward of the child being captured and discovering that Jews can be nice is that this is a very difficult picture to see when your home has been destroyed by Israeli helicopter gun-ships.
It is very easy to brand people as terrorists, and forget that they might consider themselves freedom fighters. They do not have sophisticated weapons, whereas their enemies do. What then are their options?
Would they continue to with suicide bombing if they had their own helicopter gun-ships and missiles?
I doubt that they would. However war is not a very civilised activity. If "the enemy" hits civilian targets then it's very tempting to go after their civilian targets too.
I agree with you - it is a very nasty world we live in, and there have been wars continuing in this vane for tens of thousands of years, not just the last 2000. I am not so naiive as to think that there are easy solutions, and I also doubt that this will be resolved within our lifetime.
Part of the problem here is that one of the countries that supported the rise of fundamentalist Islam was the USA. The CIA was instrumental in putting the Taliban in charge in Afghanistan. They funded the organisations that went on to become Al Quaeda, since they were fighting against Russian/communist oppression. It is also well documented that the USA supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. Unfortunately what goes around comes around.
No, we don't need to ponder these questions. Their position and intentions are clear. We should do everything we can to make sure all these fuckers and their twisted ideology are dead.
So what is their position?
What are their intentions?
I don't think this is anywhere near as clear as you're making out. I don't think you can answer these questions with any degree of certainty.
The big problem with the approach that you're advocating (i.e. kill them all) is that attempting to do this will only encourage others to take up their cause, especially since innocents will also die in the process.
I don't think you really know the answers to these questions, and suspect you just guessing, based on what you've been told by President Bush and his good buddy Rumsfeld.
They are psychotic, and cannot be helped.
This, and your other statements go a long way to showing that you don't know what you're talking about.
I have some direct experience with dealing with psychotics. The way to deal with them is to reason with them. Telling them "you're crazy" doesn't do any good at all. Attacking them just makes them angrier. Most psychotics can actually be helped.
Taking the opinion that there is no common ground to be found, no reason to compromise, and no reason to take their views into account is naiive at best IMHO. This approach serves only to escalate the problem, and logically dictates that the only solution is to eliminate all the terrorists.
Recent history has shown that this is not the way to deal with terrorists, and is not the way to resolve terror. The UK had a problem with terrorism for many years over Northern Ireland. When I was growing up the position of the UK government was to refuse to listen to the grievances of the terrorists. The approach was basically the one you are advocating. The leaders of Sinn Fein, the political party linked to the IRA, were actually elected members of the British parliament, yet they were banned from entering the House of Commons, and their voices were banned from TV. They were censored, and the terrorism continued.
Eventually things changed - their voices were allowed to be heard, and a dialogue was opened up. This turned out to be a very effective way of tacking the problem. It has not been completely solved, but there is very little terrorist activity involving Northern Ireland now. The dialogue is ongoing.
It is a great shame that the lessons from Ireland are being ignored.
If I had some mod-points today you would definitely get one for insightful.
The real reasons behind terrorism are rarely discussed because they are complex. Terrorists are hardly ever crazed madmen, despite what Bush might insist upon. They are people with a grievance, but they choose to stand their ground in a way that many people find to be morally wrong. Suicide bombers don't want to kill themselves, rather they feel they have no alternative.
The big problem with questioning the reasons behind terrorism is that it might show that we are doing something wrong - that we are bringing terrorism upon ourselves. Those that do genuinely and honestly question the reasons behind terrorism already know that this is the case.
The two quotes that you made clearly show that America has been doing something wrong in the eyes of the terrorists. We need to question the validity of their position, and do that in an intelligent manner without instantly rejecting their position. We also need to question the validity of the position that our governments are taking too.
This debate raises some very difficult questions which few politicians are willing to answer, since it tends to expose the immorality and inconsistency of their own position.
You're right of course John, KVC and KVO shouldn't be too hard for the GNUstep folks to implement, especially since how it works is documented.
The thing is though a search for KVO and GNUstep turns up nothing. It doesn't even seem to have been discussed on their mailing lists, and Panther has been around for almost a year now. It doesn't even seem to be on their radar.
For me to port my application to GNUstep I'd need KVO, KVC, KVV, and Bindings (and possibly a tiny bit of CoreGraphics too). Going this way significantly decreased my development time and program complexity, thus increasing its reliability. Porting to GNUstep without these things would basically require a complete re-write. I'm sure they'll get there one day, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Cocoa# intrigues me though. I'm slowly learning C# right now and so far it seems like a very reasonable language. Whilst I am a fan of Obj-C and Cocoa going the C#, Mono, Cocoa#route for my next application might be an interesting idea, since it would greatly assist porting to Linux and Windows.
Thanks for the reassurance about the licensing of DotGNU.
And thanks to for pointing me towards that argument thread between the Mono and DotGNU folks. Miguel seems to have a talent for winding people up the wrong way and Rhys seems to have an exceptionally thin skin. That is just my observation - I don't mean to offend either party by saying this.
It seems to me that both need to work on their people skills, and learn the meaning of the word "compromise". Unfortunately from my observations "compromise" is a word missing from the vocabulary of many free software people - RMS and ESR possibly being the two best examples of this phenomena.
It's a great shame that Mono and DotGNU won't be working together. A very useful philosophy to have when conducting software development is to not re-invent the wheel. By refusing to make slight compromises in their positions these guys seem intent to do exactly that and waste a load of effort. It's sad, and we all suffer from it.