Without gcc being available to Linus, it is doubtful whether there would even have been a kernel to compile. Linus would have had to resort to a commercial compiler, which back then typically cost around $500.
gcc was *not* the only free compiler for x86. All that gcc brought to the table was support for non-x86 architectures. Linux's support for non-x86 may have been important for business adoption but for the overwhelming majority of hobbyists and unix enthusiasts who put Linux on the map x86-only would have been just fine.
Without the GPL, it is also questionable how far along Linux would be today.
That is largely irrelevant. If Linux did not fill the void of inexpensive/free desktop unix something else would have. FreeBSD for example. FSF politics may have suffered without Linux, but not *nix users or computing in general.
AAC is not a closed format, also DRM not required
on
Rio Brand Closes Doors
·
· Score: 1
AAC is not a closed format, also DRM is not required.
If I had a $1 for every person who wanted Ogg ...
on
Rio Brand Closes Doors
·
· Score: 1
Truth is, Apple simply crushed them with superior development, product and marketing.
Several people mentioned Ogg as a counterargument, but that is a niche feature few want. If I had a $1 for every person who wanted Ogg, I'd still go broke. Good technology is not enough, it has to fill a hole in the marketplace.
" What a short-sighted comment this is! If they are going to discontinue work on the AC2 server engine and client then obviously they would be the ones that benefit the most with a GPL license since any community additions and fixes would go back to the company without any cost to themselves. The GPL is good for some applications but not all applications. [cut]"
I'm sorry but the GP has a far better grasp on short sighted than you do. What you are failing to see is that they could not use those changes in their other related servers due to the viral nature of the GPL. [insert]
Apologies for the bad paste. "The GPL is good for some applications but not all applications" should have been added to my paragraph not yours.
What a short-sighted comment this is! If they are going to discontinue work on the AC2 server engine and client then obviously they would be the ones that benefit the most with a GPL license since any community additions and fixes would go back to the company without any cost to themselves. The GPL is good for some applications but not all applications.
I'm sorry but the GP has a far better grasp on short sighted than you do. What you are failing to see is that they could not use those changes in their other related servers due to the viral nature of the GPL.
Sure the games use the same code, but so does Quake I/II/III and Doom 3 and Carmack GPLs most of that...
He GPLs his "obsolete" engines as he moves on to something new, it was clear in AC's case they are using similar not new servers. Secondly you fail to understand id's business. It is not merely selling retail games, it is also licensing engines. It is in id's vested interest to get as many people familiar with their engine's as possible. Even when you move to a new engine there is going to be a certain familiarity and comfort from knowing the previous engine.
Economics is what interferes with doing the RIGHT thing, which is giving everything away.
Someone else commented on your ignorance of the law, I guess I'll comment on your ignorance of economics. Economic is figuring out how to take what you have and get what you want. Economics is not business, although the subject of economics is important to business, just like the subject of mathematics is important to business. Economics is part of the foundation of FOSS: How do I get the software I want? I write a small bit of it and share it with others who are doing the same. That is economics.
If you are going to go on an anti-capitialist rant at least take some time off from the playground and go to some Communist Youth meeting. They should be able to provide you with some rudimentary knowledge so you actually understand some big words like "economics" and don't make a such fool of yourself. Or at least when you do it won't be on such a boneheaded thing.
Our failing is not due to the "right wing" or religion. Religion and science are not incompatible, Newton and Einstein come to mind, the Vatican operates a world class observatory that is highly regarded, hell the Dean of the Chemistry department at a California state university that I attended was a Catholic priest. On a more practical side do you think that among all those scientists and engineers from the 40s-70s who gave us our tremendous lead there was a lack of churchgoers?
You could also argue that the "left wing" has done quite a bit of damage to the US educational system as well. Catering to unions and administrators at the expense of kids in the classroom, relaxing standards (my California HS required only one year of math to graduate), failing to push the more able children to attain excellence, social promotions, being overly concerned with a child's feelings and self image (if they are not performing at their ability they should be scolded), etc. I've talked to various older members of my family. In the 40s and 50s the local high school had two tracks, one college prep and one vocational, both had plenty of appropriate math and science classes. I once applied for a job at a lumber supply yard, they gave me a written test with simple math problems involving fractions. I turned it in and asked if this was a joke, the manager said he wished it was, he said most recent high school grads can't figure out 3/8 + 3/16. That didn't happen much in previous decades when kids were required to take one type of math class or the other.
The real solution to our education problems is simple, don't let immature and lazy kids make life altering decisions. Make them take lots of math and science classes. At least they'll have more options when they graduate and not be locked out of certain paths due to a bad decision when they were 14.
If you aren't a Christian, then why in the world are you discussing this with me? ? Are you a cruel person merely looking for someone to berate?
I choose not to suffer fools of the left or right. You injected yourself and your favorite topic into a conversation about Che Gueverra, you came to me. If dislike being berated do not play the fool. If you cannot deal with someone who does not "lose it" when you attempt childish provocations, who responds with rational arguments rather than bible thumping brimestone then you need to spend less time on the playground and more time hitting the books.
The Christian god certainly *did* strike down sinners at the moment of sin.
Irrelevant, back to my actual statement: "I believe that according to Christian doctrine we are all sinners and obviously God is not striking down sinners at the moment of sin. Your ploy falls to a believer's argument that you are merely afforded the opportunity to one day repent." Notice the phrase "Christian doctrine", that means the topic is related to the teachings of Christ. What you had referred to, Herod, occured prior to Christ. Even then, your survival proves nothing. Even in the old testament days sinners did not necessarily get zapped on the spot. You may have heard about the flood or sadam and gamora (sp?). So, old testament or new, your point is pointless. But I'm going to return to my point regarding Christian doctrine. For Christ repentance was a big part of his mission, so your ability to live past the moment of sin is pretty damn consistent. Another part of his mission was telling people that the rules have changed, even if God had struck down all sinners instantly in the old testament, which he did not, Christ changed the rules. You might have heard something about being against the stoning of sinners for example. So my point stands, your continued existance is consistent with Christian doctrine.
This also appears in the story about how Intel fired Randall Schwartz, IIRC.
Actually you dont remember correctly. He was not an employee, he was not responsible for the machines he was doing this sort of thing on, he was also doing things like punching holes in theif firewall after being told not to do so. Now Intel and local authorities were quite overzealous in his prosecution, but he was also victim to his own stupidity. If you are a contractor and you want to test security make sure the sysadmin for the machine knows. FBI stats show that most computer crime is comitted by insiders, not the outside hacker boogyman of TV and movies. It is reasonable for the company to suspect that you are up to no good.
"I believe that according to Christian doctrine we are all sinners and obviously God is not striking down sinners at the moment of sin."
Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died." Acts 12:23
Herod was killed for the mere act of not praising god. I, on the other hand, can blaspheme with gross excess and survive. The only thing that is obvious to me is that your imaginary god is extreme in both his cruelty and in his inconsistency.
I'll ignore your failing to notice that I was speaking in the present tense and your quote is thereby irrelevant. However even in the old testament the case you site is the exception not the rule. More importantly *Christ*ian doctrine, as in Christ, is the topic. The rules changed since the old testament. Good lord, you are losing an argument to a Sunday school washout and someone who hasn't attended church in decades. You are an "expert" only in your own mind.
Your religion is a guilt-based, misanthropic religion, as evidenced by your belief that everyone is inherently evil.
Who said I was a believer? That is one of many of your ignorant assumptions. I've merely pointed out that you seem as biased, selective, and close minded as any rabid fundi I've seen. You merely differ by polarity.
"Your ploy falls to a believer's argument that you are merely afforded the opportunity to one day repent."
It certainly does not, since your god killed for far less than I did.
No, you continue in ignorance of Christianity. There's nothing really wrong with that, except that you claim knowledge of the subject material when you do not. Go find a theologan, my statement is consistent with Christian doctrine. Your is a selective cherry picking of passages and out of context references, the same tactic used by fundi's to misrepresent and minipulate. Again, you differ only in polarity, and like any good fundi you are unable to see this because it is so counter to your heartfelt belief system.
You have nothing to base this on other than my general hostility to Christianity. I can likely out-class you in scripture knowledge as I have done with so many of your bretheren.
Your ignorance seems boundless, you are talking to someone who was kicked out of Sunday school for misbehaving and not paying attention. Yet even with my deficient understanding of Christian doctrine it is obvious that you epitomize the blind leading the blind (in your case fitting in both the secular and non-secular contexts), for example the god-strike-me-down ploy. I believe that according to Christian doctrine we are all sinners and obviously God is not striking down sinners at the moment of sin. Your ploy falls to a believer's argument that you are merely afforded the opportunity to one day repent. You tried to provoke an emotion by saying something controversial, you made no argument, displayed no knowledge, no logic, no skill. It really was a childish effort.
I was capitalizing on your choice of words to describe the events surrounding Jesus Christ's life. You chose "story", not "biography".
The grandfather post chose "story", not I.
I take it as a small personal mission of mine to ensure that Christian propaganda does not go unchalleneged.
How hypocritical given you poor reading comprehension, poor understanding of Christianity, etc. You seem as blind and bigotted as the most rabid fundi you most likely despise, you seem to merely be at the other intollerant ill-informed extreme.
"If you continue reading the story you will find out that his death was not permanent. Apologies for the spoiler.;-)"
I appreciate the admission that this is a story rather than reality...
Apparently both your logic and language fu is weak:
story Pronunciation Key (stôr, str)
n. pl. stories
1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=story
... We wait for you when you wish to react to what you can reason rather than what you merely hope to be true.
My understanding of Che is not limitted to the tag that comes with the t-shirt, I read Che's book.
"However sacrificing your own people for propoganda purposes, as Che teaches, few would argue that this is not pyschopathic."
-Interestingly if you look at the Christian god . In the stories did he not send his own son down to spread his word and intend for him to be sacrificed for his goals.
If you continue reading the story you will find out that his death was not permanent. Apologies for the spoiler.;-)
No, the point of the thread was that Che was one of the people who *advocates* putting innocent civilians into harms way. He *needs* their death for propoganda purposes. He therefore qualifies for the psychopath title that some objected to originally.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. The US military said those were necessary to bring about an end to the war.
I am not here to debate if that was right or wrong... but it is exactly what Che did in principle.Civilian casualties to further ones goals
What you are failing to realize is that Che and the terrorists sacrifice *their own* people. They *need* the death of *their own* people for propoganda to further a political goal. In 1945 the US acted to *save* American *and Japanese* lives, not further some political goal. Imperial Japan, a country that bears little resemblance to modern Democratic Japan, was willing to sacrifice millions of *its own* civilians. In 1945 a blockade looked like it would starve millions, an invasions looked to kill millions, the atomic bomb seemed to be a way to end the war with an order of magnitude fewer casualties. That's the horrible math of war, kill few, kill many, or leave a murderous regime in power. A regime that uses civilians for bayonette practice, uses humans for bio warfare experiements, infects villages with plague to test bio delivery systems. It's easy to say the atomic bombing were wrong when being superficial and revisionist, however the truth is actually far more complicated.
I realize you don't want to debate the justification of the atomic bombings but I fealt a little background info was need to justify the argument that the decision to bomb was not psychopathic. It was a rational decision. Whether it was right or wrong rational people will debate for ever, as they should, but few would argue it was psychopathic. However sacrificing your own people for propoganda purposes, as Che teaches, few would argue that this is not pyschopathic.
Having a monitoring system that can quickly and automatically identify a RFID position and movement anomaly among millions of active casino chips is something else.
A system only needs to track the chips around the table, not the entire casino. Catch people adding chips to a winning pile, people removing chips from a losing pile, people taking chips from their neighbor's pile, etc.
Really? Even in the case where they bombed a restaurant because they thought Sadam was there? The odds that they'd hit Sadam were not that great, and they were virtually certain to hit someone innocent.
If it's a bunker or hideout of some sort then Sadaam brought harm to the civilians. If the US put hospitals around it's nuclear silos wouldn't you say the US was putting innocents in harms way? Extreme example but the same concept. You don't put your military assets among civilians unless you want human shields.
Sorry, but you are the one who is not listening. The US military does not intentionally put the villagers into harms way, the terrorists do, just as Che teaches. We try not to kill them, Che *needs* their death as a tool to manipulate the emotions of other. Which, is exactly what you are falling victim to with the FISH comment. The terrorists operating from civilian homes are following Che's teachings, the terrorists are hoping that villagers dies so that they can get a propoganda tool as Che teaches. The US would prefer that civilians not get caught inbetween.
No one is denying that innocents die, but you have to look at who put them in harms way (terrorists, Che) and who has remorse when they do die (not terrorists, not Che).
You are also simplifying military training a bit. Military training does not even touch on killing. Instead it stresses automatic reactions. When threatened, you are given a sophisticated response that your body carries out before it gets the chance to be worried or scared.
But that reflex is based on the internal fight or flight decision, it is conditioning to favor fight. The innate ability to fight has to be there in the first place. In general what you say is true, a silhouette shaped target is subtle desensitisation, but some training is unambiguous about killing. For example the Marine Corp recruits running the bayonette course and doing hand-to-hand training.
I think you need to compare snipers not to the general population of combat vets but to the more elite troops. Highly motivated, disciplined, and trained, and of course volunteers. PTS also comes in various degrees, it may not manifest itself in a way that draws clinical attention.
You are confusing unintended "collateral damage" and intentional harm. If you insists on Iraq analogies Che's position would be closer to the terrorists who view civilians as a resource to be used to further their goals. Che advocated *intentionally* putting civilians into harms way and *rationalized* their suffering and deaths as the price to advance socialism. The US military is not intentionally targetting innocent villagers.
The truth is that we all possess the innate ability to suppress normal social behaviors and to engage in violence under "necessary" conditions. That is a proven survival trait. It is the basis of military training. However the psychopath may be miswired to suppress social behaviors too easily, or all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Without gcc being available to Linus, it is doubtful whether there would even have been a kernel to compile. Linus would have had to resort to a commercial compiler, which back then typically cost around $500.
gcc was *not* the only free compiler for x86. All that gcc brought to the table was support for non-x86 architectures. Linux's support for non-x86 may have been important for business adoption but for the overwhelming majority of hobbyists and unix enthusiasts who put Linux on the map x86-only would have been just fine.
Without the GPL, it is also questionable how far along Linux would be today.
That is largely irrelevant. If Linux did not fill the void of inexpensive/free desktop unix something else would have. FreeBSD for example. FSF politics may have suffered without Linux, but not *nix users or computing in general.
AAC is not a closed format, also DRM is not required.
Truth is, Apple simply crushed them with superior development, product and marketing.
Several people mentioned Ogg as a counterargument, but that is a niche feature few want. If I had a $1 for every person who wanted Ogg, I'd still go broke. Good technology is not enough, it has to fill a hole in the marketplace.
" What a short-sighted comment this is! If they are going to discontinue work on the AC2 server engine and client then obviously they would be the ones that benefit the most with a GPL license since any community additions and fixes would go back to the company without any cost to themselves. The GPL is good for some applications but not all applications. [cut]"
I'm sorry but the GP has a far better grasp on short sighted than you do. What you are failing to see is that they could not use those changes in their other related servers due to the viral nature of the GPL. [insert]
Apologies for the bad paste. "The GPL is good for some applications but not all applications" should have been added to my paragraph not yours.
What a short-sighted comment this is! If they are going to discontinue work on the AC2 server engine and client then obviously they would be the ones that benefit the most with a GPL license since any community additions and fixes would go back to the company without any cost to themselves. The GPL is good for some applications but not all applications.
...
I'm sorry but the GP has a far better grasp on short sighted than you do. What you are failing to see is that they could not use those changes in their other related servers due to the viral nature of the GPL.
Sure the games use the same code, but so does Quake I/II/III and Doom 3 and Carmack GPLs most of that
He GPLs his "obsolete" engines as he moves on to something new, it was clear in AC's case they are using similar not new servers. Secondly you fail to understand id's business. It is not merely selling retail games, it is also licensing engines. It is in id's vested interest to get as many people familiar with their engine's as possible. Even when you move to a new engine there is going to be a certain familiarity and comfort from knowing the previous engine.
Economics is what interferes with doing the RIGHT thing, which is giving everything away.
Someone else commented on your ignorance of the law, I guess I'll comment on your ignorance of economics. Economic is figuring out how to take what you have and get what you want. Economics is not business, although the subject of economics is important to business, just like the subject of mathematics is important to business. Economics is part of the foundation of FOSS: How do I get the software I want? I write a small bit of it and share it with others who are doing the same. That is economics.
If you are going to go on an anti-capitialist rant at least take some time off from the playground and go to some Communist Youth meeting. They should be able to provide you with some rudimentary knowledge so you actually understand some big words like "economics" and don't make a such fool of yourself. Or at least when you do it won't be on such a boneheaded thing.
Our failing is not due to the "right wing" or religion. Religion and science are not incompatible, Newton and Einstein come to mind, the Vatican operates a world class observatory that is highly regarded, hell the Dean of the Chemistry department at a California state university that I attended was a Catholic priest. On a more practical side do you think that among all those scientists and engineers from the 40s-70s who gave us our tremendous lead there was a lack of churchgoers?
You could also argue that the "left wing" has done quite a bit of damage to the US educational system as well. Catering to unions and administrators at the expense of kids in the classroom, relaxing standards (my California HS required only one year of math to graduate), failing to push the more able children to attain excellence, social promotions, being overly concerned with a child's feelings and self image (if they are not performing at their ability they should be scolded), etc. I've talked to various older members of my family. In the 40s and 50s the local high school had two tracks, one college prep and one vocational, both had plenty of appropriate math and science classes. I once applied for a job at a lumber supply yard, they gave me a written test with simple math problems involving fractions. I turned it in and asked if this was a joke, the manager said he wished it was, he said most recent high school grads can't figure out 3/8 + 3/16. That didn't happen much in previous decades when kids were required to take one type of math class or the other.
The real solution to our education problems is simple, don't let immature and lazy kids make life altering decisions. Make them take lots of math and science classes. At least they'll have more options when they graduate and not be locked out of certain paths due to a bad decision when they were 14.
If you aren't a Christian, then why in the world are you discussing this with me? ? Are you a cruel person merely looking for someone to berate?
I choose not to suffer fools of the left or right. You injected yourself and your favorite topic into a conversation about Che Gueverra, you came to me. If dislike being berated do not play the fool. If you cannot deal with someone who does not "lose it" when you attempt childish provocations, who responds with rational arguments rather than bible thumping brimestone then you need to spend less time on the playground and more time hitting the books.
The Christian god certainly *did* strike down sinners at the moment of sin.
Irrelevant, back to my actual statement: "I believe that according to Christian doctrine we are all sinners and obviously God is not striking down sinners at the moment of sin. Your ploy falls to a believer's argument that you are merely afforded the opportunity to one day repent." Notice the phrase "Christian doctrine", that means the topic is related to the teachings of Christ. What you had referred to, Herod, occured prior to Christ. Even then, your survival proves nothing. Even in the old testament days sinners did not necessarily get zapped on the spot. You may have heard about the flood or sadam and gamora (sp?). So, old testament or new, your point is pointless. But I'm going to return to my point regarding Christian doctrine. For Christ repentance was a big part of his mission, so your ability to live past the moment of sin is pretty damn consistent. Another part of his mission was telling people that the rules have changed, even if God had struck down all sinners instantly in the old testament, which he did not, Christ changed the rules. You might have heard something about being against the stoning of sinners for example. So my point stands, your continued existance is consistent with Christian doctrine.
This also appears in the story about how Intel fired Randall Schwartz, IIRC.
Actually you dont remember correctly. He was not an employee, he was not responsible for the machines he was doing this sort of thing on, he was also doing things like punching holes in theif firewall after being told not to do so. Now Intel and local authorities were quite overzealous in his prosecution, but he was also victim to his own stupidity. If you are a contractor and you want to test security make sure the sysadmin for the machine knows. FBI stats show that most computer crime is comitted by insiders, not the outside hacker boogyman of TV and movies. It is reasonable for the company to suspect that you are up to no good.
"I believe that according to Christian doctrine we are all sinners and obviously God is not striking down sinners at the moment of sin."
Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died." Acts 12:23 Herod was killed for the mere act of not praising god. I, on the other hand, can blaspheme with gross excess and survive. The only thing that is obvious to me is that your imaginary god is extreme in both his cruelty and in his inconsistency.
I'll ignore your failing to notice that I was speaking in the present tense and your quote is thereby irrelevant. However even in the old testament the case you site is the exception not the rule. More importantly *Christ*ian doctrine, as in Christ, is the topic. The rules changed since the old testament. Good lord, you are losing an argument to a Sunday school washout and someone who hasn't attended church in decades. You are an "expert" only in your own mind.
Your religion is a guilt-based, misanthropic religion, as evidenced by your belief that everyone is inherently evil.
Who said I was a believer? That is one of many of your ignorant assumptions. I've merely pointed out that you seem as biased, selective, and close minded as any rabid fundi I've seen. You merely differ by polarity.
"Your ploy falls to a believer's argument that you are merely afforded the opportunity to one day repent."
It certainly does not, since your god killed for far less than I did.
No, you continue in ignorance of Christianity. There's nothing really wrong with that, except that you claim knowledge of the subject material when you do not. Go find a theologan, my statement is consistent with Christian doctrine. Your is a selective cherry picking of passages and out of context references, the same tactic used by fundi's to misrepresent and minipulate. Again, you differ only in polarity, and like any good fundi you are unable to see this because it is so counter to your heartfelt belief system.
You have nothing to base this on other than my general hostility to Christianity. I can likely out-class you in scripture knowledge as I have done with so many of your bretheren.
Your ignorance seems boundless, you are talking to someone who was kicked out of Sunday school for misbehaving and not paying attention. Yet even with my deficient understanding of Christian doctrine it is obvious that you epitomize the blind leading the blind (in your case fitting in both the secular and non-secular contexts), for example the god-strike-me-down ploy. I believe that according to Christian doctrine we are all sinners and obviously God is not striking down sinners at the moment of sin. Your ploy falls to a believer's argument that you are merely afforded the opportunity to one day repent. You tried to provoke an emotion by saying something controversial, you made no argument, displayed no knowledge, no logic, no skill. It really was a childish effort.
I was capitalizing on your choice of words to describe the events surrounding Jesus Christ's life. You chose "story", not "biography".
The grandfather post chose "story", not I.
I take it as a small personal mission of mine to ensure that Christian propaganda does not go unchalleneged.
How hypocritical given you poor reading comprehension, poor understanding of Christianity, etc. You seem as blind and bigotted as the most rabid fundi you most likely despise, you seem to merely be at the other intollerant ill-informed extreme.
"If you continue reading the story you will find out that his death was not permanent. Apologies for the spoiler. ;-)"
...
... We wait for you when you wish to react to what you can reason rather than what you merely hope to be true.
I appreciate the admission that this is a story rather than reality
Apparently both your logic and language fu is weak:
story Pronunciation Key (stôr, str) n. pl. stories
1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=story
My understanding of Che is not limitted to the tag that comes with the t-shirt, I read Che's book.
"However sacrificing your own people for propoganda purposes, as Che teaches, few would argue that this is not pyschopathic."
;-)
-Interestingly if you look at the Christian god . In the stories did he not send his own son down to spread his word and intend for him to be sacrificed for his goals.
If you continue reading the story you will find out that his death was not permanent. Apologies for the spoiler.
No, the point of the thread was that Che was one of the people who *advocates* putting innocent civilians into harms way. He *needs* their death for propoganda purposes. He therefore qualifies for the psychopath title that some objected to originally.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki .. The US military said those were necessary to bring about an end to the war.
I am not here to debate if that was right or wrong ... but it is exactly what Che did in principle .Civilian casualties to further ones goals
What you are failing to realize is that Che and the terrorists sacrifice *their own* people. They *need* the death of *their own* people for propoganda to further a political goal. In 1945 the US acted to *save* American *and Japanese* lives, not further some political goal. Imperial Japan, a country that bears little resemblance to modern Democratic Japan, was willing to sacrifice millions of *its own* civilians. In 1945 a blockade looked like it would starve millions, an invasions looked to kill millions, the atomic bomb seemed to be a way to end the war with an order of magnitude fewer casualties. That's the horrible math of war, kill few, kill many, or leave a murderous regime in power. A regime that uses civilians for bayonette practice, uses humans for bio warfare experiements, infects villages with plague to test bio delivery systems. It's easy to say the atomic bombing were wrong when being superficial and revisionist, however the truth is actually far more complicated.
I realize you don't want to debate the justification of the atomic bombings but I fealt a little background info was need to justify the argument that the decision to bomb was not psychopathic. It was a rational decision. Whether it was right or wrong rational people will debate for ever, as they should, but few would argue it was psychopathic. However sacrificing your own people for propoganda purposes, as Che teaches, few would argue that this is not pyschopathic.
Having a monitoring system that can quickly and automatically identify a RFID position and movement anomaly among millions of active casino chips is something else.
A system only needs to track the chips around the table, not the entire casino. Catch people adding chips to a winning pile, people removing chips from a losing pile, people taking chips from their neighbor's pile, etc.
Chips like those used for the card games, roulette, dice. Slot machine tokens, RFID might work there too.
Really? Even in the case where they bombed a restaurant because they thought Sadam was there? The odds that they'd hit Sadam were not that great, and they were virtually certain to hit someone innocent.
If it's a bunker or hideout of some sort then Sadaam brought harm to the civilians. If the US put hospitals around it's nuclear silos wouldn't you say the US was putting innocents in harms way? Extreme example but the same concept. You don't put your military assets among civilians unless you want human shields.
But then, you're not listening, are you ??
Sorry, but you are the one who is not listening. The US military does not intentionally put the villagers into harms way, the terrorists do, just as Che teaches. We try not to kill them, Che *needs* their death as a tool to manipulate the emotions of other. Which, is exactly what you are falling victim to with the FISH comment. The terrorists operating from civilian homes are following Che's teachings, the terrorists are hoping that villagers dies so that they can get a propoganda tool as Che teaches. The US would prefer that civilians not get caught inbetween.
No one is denying that innocents die, but you have to look at who put them in harms way (terrorists, Che) and who has remorse when they do die (not terrorists, not Che).
His book was required reading for all US soldiers, at least back in the 1980's.
Know your enemy. Dehumanize your enemy, especially easy when his own words do it.
You are also simplifying military training a bit. Military training does not even touch on killing. Instead it stresses automatic reactions. When threatened, you are given a sophisticated response that your body carries out before it gets the chance to be worried or scared.
But that reflex is based on the internal fight or flight decision, it is conditioning to favor fight. The innate ability to fight has to be there in the first place. In general what you say is true, a silhouette shaped target is subtle desensitisation, but some training is unambiguous about killing. For example the Marine Corp recruits running the bayonette course and doing hand-to-hand training.
I think you need to compare snipers not to the general population of combat vets but to the more elite troops. Highly motivated, disciplined, and trained, and of course volunteers. PTS also comes in various degrees, it may not manifest itself in a way that draws clinical attention.
You are confusing unintended "collateral damage" and intentional harm. If you insists on Iraq analogies Che's position would be closer to the terrorists who view civilians as a resource to be used to further their goals. Che advocated *intentionally* putting civilians into harms way and *rationalized* their suffering and deaths as the price to advance socialism. The US military is not intentionally targetting innocent villagers.
The truth is that we all possess the innate ability to suppress normal social behaviors and to engage in violence under "necessary" conditions. That is a proven survival trait. It is the basis of military training. However the psychopath may be miswired to suppress social behaviors too easily, or all the time.