Anyway, first off, I'd like to say that if you have a 10,000 person organization, and you'renot running AD yet, handle that first. I'd guess that you're looking at at *least* 4 months for planning and implementation of your AD environment.
Sure. I think the Windows guys are up to two years of planning at this point. It isn't clear to me why they haven't reached critical mass yet.
Also, you might as well go right to Windows 2003 (AD 2.0) since Exchange 2003 can only run in an AD 2.0 environment and on Windows 2003 server.
I assume they have planned for this. I believe MS is involved.
Finally, yes, Exchange 2003 routing is much better than 5.5 (which was hooooriiiible). Now, if you're familiar with sendmail routing, who cares?:-) The only way you're going to be able to do the Exchange 2k3 (or 2k) routing you require is to program some custom COM event sinks in a.NET language.
Gack! sounds like a nightmare. Our needs have simplified greatly since I implemented the original solution. we still support a number of domains, but are down to only two mail systems.
I am more than happy to stick with sendmail. Unfortunately, I am not the CIO. To be honest, I was hoping E2003 was as lame as E5.5 so I could just say, "not possible." My initial reaction was, "might be possible but inherently bad from a security standpoint in that it removes an abstraction layer and puts user data in the DMZ."
If you question is "can it be done" the answer is "sure it can". Just remember that just like any major infrastructure change, it ain't gonna be easy or quick to do.
I dunno, implementing the current system was pretty quick and easy. Does MS have any publicly available documentation on their SMTP implementation?
If you're looking for spam/anti-virus management - definitely check out Postini (www.postini.com) - they rock and are pretty cheap ($1.25/month/user). Setting us up with this service removed 4 front-end mail relays from my DMZ and dropped our spam over 90%.
Let me guess, you used to use SpamAss:-) We are comitted to Brightmail. Seems to work anyway. I've been at 99% for weeks. Pretty extensible and resource stingy.
"Just land" is a lot to argue about. For example,the Palestinians do not have a ntional budget big enough to compensate all the israeli settelers with equal DEVELOPED acreage in what would be the remaining nation of Israel.
Compensate the "settlers?" That is insane. "Settling" is a war crime. Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the
territories it occupies." Likewise, the 1907 Hague Regulations prohibit the confiscation of public and
private property in occupied territory. Furthermore, you make it sound like these "settlers" have made some kind of risky capital investment in these camps. In actual fact they live of fat Israeli government subsidies. "Settlers" receive tax breaks, grants and loans for land and construction, subsidies for water and agriculture, free schooling, and preference in government jobs. In many cases the government even pays to bulletproof their cars. If Israel can foot the bill for their "settlement" she can also pay to relocate them.
During WWII the Germans packed up my entire family, confiscated all their property and sent them to Auschwitz. They then imported Germans to live in there houses. After the war, nobody asked the four survivors to compensate the Germans for their relocation back to Germany. On the contrary, they received generous reparations checks from the German government till the day they died. After the fall of Jaruzelski, the Polish government offered repatriation, as required by international law. If I had the original deed, I could go to Warsaw and claim my mother's house.
Abstracting routing from messaging keeps all the data inside the firewall where it belongs. If my sendmail boxes are rooted, I can just rebuild them. If an Exchange box is systemed (or whatever the Windows equivalent of rooting is) our user data is all over the internet. In our industry that means uncomfortable questions from Uncle Sam.
I agree 100%, as does our security officer. I was hoping for some insight into the technical capabilities of E2003's SMTP implementation. If it just plain won't work then it spares us the security debate (which can get political).
Here is another good Eqbal site. He was not just a brilliant academic, but a man of great principle and compassion who awed inspired everyone around him.
My question: why must one side lose and the other win? Why don't the Israelis and the Palestinians work together and create a secular democratic government? Jews and Arabs can work and live side by side. This is a win/win situation! Let economic freedom and inter-dependencies foster peace.
That is the conclusion "leftist" intellectuals like Eqbal Ahmad and Edward Said eventually reached. However, you have to understand that if Israel becomes a multiethnic pluralistic democracy, it is no longer Israel. Zionism is predicated on Jewish sovereignty. Israel without Zionism is a tough sell to Israelis (because it eventually means Palestine).
Conversely, the single state solution requires Palestinians accept their disenfranchisement. When the UN partitioned Palestine, Jews comprised about 31% of the population and owned 7% of the land. The plan awarded them more than half the country, and the 1948 war and expulsions disenfranchised hundreds of thousands more Palestinians. When Ahmad and Said began preaching the single state solution, it was blasphemous to mainstream Palestinian nationalists. Now the Palestinian body politic is more receptive to such a message. But the same weariness which created this spirit of compromise has empowered a competing religious radicalism which doesn't know the concept of compromise and will actively disrupt any hint of it.
Is it hopeless? Yes and no. The reality is a single state solution is all but inevitable. Israel's Jewish population is shrinking and its Palestinian population (Muslim, Christian and Druze) is growing. If you count non-Israeli citizens in the occupied territories, Palestinians under Israeli rule will soon outnumber Jews. While the current administration envisions a South African style minority rule surrounded by Palestinian Bantustans, such a model is not sustainable. In the long run it will suffer the same fate as South Africa: pluralistic multiethnic democracy.
". . . Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What causehave we to complain about their fierce
hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we TURN
into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived.
We should demand his blood not from the [Palestinian] Arabs of Gaza but from ourselves. . . . Let us make
our reckoning today. We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall
not be able to plant a tree or build a house. . . . Let us not be afraid to see the hatred the accompanies and
consumes the lives of hundreds of thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs who sit all around us and wait the
moment when their hand will be able to reach our blood."
-Moshe Dayan, eulogizing a settler killed by a Palestinian in 1969-
Thank you, thank you, thank you. You saved me a lot of writing. The only thing I might add is where you said,
"Creationism does not use the scientific method to determine proof," I would note that it is impossible to use scientific method to determine "proof." Proof is essentially a rationalist concept. We use scientific method to disprove, or fail to disprove, hypotheses. TheBruce, like all creationists, does not understand the difference between empiricism (and science) and rationalism.
Damn, I knew I should have includeed citations. The first two are from John Adams' letters to Jefferson. As a poster pointed out the first Adams quote is fragmented and misleading. The full quote is supportive, if critical, of religion,
Twenty times, in the course of my late Reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it." ! ! ! But in this exclamati[on] I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell. So far from believing in the total and universal depravity of human Nature; I believe there is no Individual totally depraved. The mos abandoned Scoundrel that ever existed, never Yet Wholly extinguished his Conscience, and while Conscience remains there is some Religion. Popes, Jesuits and Sorbonists and Inquisitors have some Conscience and some Religion. So had Marius and Sylla, Caesar Cataline and Anthony, an Augustus had not much more, let Virgil and Horace say what they will.
You can find both of those in The Adams Jefferson Letters, The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, Edited by Lester J. Cappon, University of North Carolina Press (1959, 1987)
Adams, although not a Christian (in the trinitarian sense of believing Jesus is God) was pretty religious. He vacillated between Deism and Unitarianism. He was adamant about seperation of church and state however, and was angry when the Massachusetts constitutional Convention modified his draft to include Christianity. Seven years later he was vidicated when the citizens of the Commonwealth voted (under referendum) to repeal the Christian clause by a 10-1 margin.
He later wrote, " "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" (The Great Quotations, ed. by George Seldes, (Citadel Press) quoting letter by J.A. to F.A. Van der Kamp Dec. 27, 1816 )
The Jefferson quote on the Gospel of St. John is from a letter to Alexander Smyth. (Thomas Jefferson, An Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 quoting letter by T.J. to Alexander Smyth Jan. 17, 1825)
The Jeferson quote on the corruption of Christian doctrine is from the Adams correspondence. (Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., p. 246, quoting letter by T.J. to John Adams July 5, 1814 )
The first Madison quote is from a letter, (The Madisons by Virginia Moore, p. 43 quoting letter by J.M. to William Bradford April 1, 1774) the other two are from his Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785.
Priestly's quip on Franklin is on page 60 of his autobiography.
In 1831 prominent Episcopal minister Bird Wilson complained that "The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....
"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." (sermon preached in October, 1831, first sentence quoted in John E. Remsberg, "Six Historic Americans," second sentence quoted in Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15)
Valid point. Allan may not have posessed the earth shaking intellect of Franklin, Jefferson and Adams, or the dogged statesmanship of Madison. But he was influential in his way. His decisive strike at Ticonderoga galvanized Congress to the cause of revolution. And he wasn't the backwoods hick soldier you might think. Like pretty much all the founding father's he was an intellectual. In 1784 he published a philosophy treatise entitled Reason the Only Oracle of Man.
Besides, without Allen Vermont would still be part of New York, which would be a great tragedy.
Thanks for clarifying that. I had forgotten the last bit. Adams was raised a Congregationalist, but his written beliefs vaccilated between Unitarianism and Deism.
George Washington -- "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God
or the Bible."
Nonetheless Washington was best described as a Deist. He rarely attended church and refused communion when he did. He declined ministerial attention on his death bed. After his death there was an active propaganda campaign, spearheaded by Rev. Mason Locke Weems, to portray his as a Christian. Many apocryphal (get it, apocryphal:-) ) story's and quotations resulted, including the ridiculous cherry tree business. Washington's religious tolerance was legendary. He banned anti-Catholic Pope Day celebrations in the Continental Army and appointed the Universalist John Murray Chaplain.
Andrew Jackson -- "That book, sir, is the rock on what our republic rests."
Umhh...not a founding father. But he was genocidal butcher. Chalk one up for the Christians. Not that Madison and Jefferson were much better, being hypocritical slave owners.
"My original convictions upon this subject have been confirmed by the course of events for several years, and experience is every day adding to their strength. That those tribes can not exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear." -- Andrew Jackson
"This is a CHRISTIAN NATION." US Supreme Court Feb 1892 Church of Holy Trinity vs US.
Wow, that is totally irrelevant.
"Religion {Christianity} is the basis & foundation of Government."James Madison
"Christianity is the companion of Liberty." Alexis de Tocqueville
Hardly a founding father. He wasn't even born until 1805. By the time he arrived in the US in 1831 the movement to Christianize America was in full swing.
John Adams 1813 says: Founding Fathers achieved independence upon the general principles of Christianity.
It is worth reading this in context. Adams was actually talking about the remarkable diversity of the founding fathers. He specifically includes atheists, anabaptists and agnostics. His reference is to the theoretical original principles of Christianity as distinct from church doctrine.
"Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.
Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.
The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young G
It is kind of amusing that people are so worried about offending a very very very small minority of people, so much so that they want to change one of the founding principles that the U.S was built on and is still being built on.
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" -John Adams
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -John Adams
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." -Thomas Jefferson
"No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself, and the least and last of all should I undertake to criticize works on the Apocalypse (Revelations). It was between fifty and sixty years since I read it and then I considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams." -Thomas Jefferson
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." -James Madison
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." -James Madison
"That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." -Ethan Allen
"denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." -Ethan Allen
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." -Benjamin Franklin
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an
With Mac OS X, there's no need to go running netatalk; OS X will speak NFS just fine -- or, if you don't want to go that far, there's always FTP and/or SSH. If you're in a mixed environment, OS X's SMB support is good enough that there's little point in running netatalk in addition to SAMBA.
OS X 10.2.x's SMB support is fine, unless you want to browse shares on a routed network. It can't do that. The WINS/nmblookup implementation is broken. There is an Apple technote about it, which I have posted here previously but don't feel like digging up right now. I have been bugging my Apple tech rep about this since Jaguar came out (Hi Eric). Apple assures me that Panther's implementation will work.
NFS, and certainly FTP, do not meet our security standards. SSH/SFTP is great, but not an appropriate substitute for a network file system (neither is FTP of course).
A big part of allowing Macs to be easy additions to one's IT environment is simply using actual standards, instead of "Microsoft standards." Generally, Mac OS X does an excellent job of supporting standards that have RFCs associated with 'em.
This could not be more true. Nonetheless, although we are an MS centric shop (CIFS on Windows and Exchange), we have no problem supporting ~580 Macs (vs. ~6,000 PCs) with a single field tech. His main complaint is that management is always trying to get him to fill his time working on Windows. And we are only just now implementing ARD. There are a few little issues stemming from crazed MS monoculture (like administrative assistants who publish web forms generated from PowerPoint), but in general things run pretty smoothly.
Our PHB's have been impressed enough with OS X that it is now our recommended unix workstation platform. We have a large grant funded research community, whom we can't exactly tell what to buy, but we strongly encourage them to go with OS X over RedHat (their other favorite). I am a unix sysadmin, BTW.
If you'll read my post again you may notice that I never stated a suicide bombing was automatically a terrorist attack.
You are right. I misinterpreted the sentence, " I'm pretty sure that if the Palestinians had tanks, aircraft, and weaponry to match the Israeli army that they would most likely fight using them instead of suicide bombings." Actually it reminds me of the (true) scene in Battle of Algiers where the French reporter asks an FLN prisoner (I forget whom),
"Isn't it a dirty thing to use women's baskets to carry bombs to kill innocent people?"
To which the operative replies,
"And you? Doesn't it seem even dirtier to you to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages with thousands of innocent victims? It would be a lot easier for us if we had planes. Give us your bombers, andwe'll give you our baskets."
Note how my arguments hinged on the type of target and not the methods used. In light of this, I would think it may be extremely hard for a suicide bomber to do any major damage to a platoon of tanks and soldiers....therefore they are left with terrorist suicide bombings on civilian rather than military targets.
Your deduction is incorrect. The hated checkpoints are a favorite target. Israeli soldiers are everywhere in the occupied territories, and killing just one is a major victory. Remember the FLN in Algeria or the NLF in Vietnam. This is a war of attrition, a war of national liberation against a colonial occupier. NLF and PAVN sappers were happy to blow themselves up just to cut a hole in the barbed wire big enough to give another guerilla some chance at killing an American. Until the "cease fire" the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade was the most active suicide bombing outfit, and before 2002 they had never (according to the US state Department) attacked a civilian target. In mid 2002 they changed this policy, citing sharply increased IDF attacks on Palestinian civilians. I do not know what the current ratio of terrorist to military assaults is, on a per militia basis or in general.
As far as the initial war, yes...it was a territorial battle. You can blame Britain for this as their Balfour Declaration was used to establish a homeland for the Jews in what was once a Turkish Ottoman Arab empire. Britain was placed in control of Palestine and basically kicked off this entire mess with the establishment of Jewish colonies in Palestine. The Jews (Israelis) were not happy with the portions they were given and decided to take control of more of the territory. Yes, they also invaded Lebanon (with the intentions of eliminating the PLO, which is fine...it's war...but I do disagree with the massacre of the refugees at Sabra and Shatilla.
You missed my point. It is not a simple territorial battle. It is a war of national liberation against a colonial occupier. That is a much thornier issue than a border dispute, especially when an ideology of race (Zionism) is added to the mix. The closest anolog is Apartheid South Africa.
BTW, in 1947 Zionists comprised 31% of Palestine's population and owned just 7% of the land. The UN partition plan handed them half the country, including most of the choicest farmland. As you note, they took more in the 1948 war.
As I see it, this is far more than a territory battle. The Muslim extremist world will not tolerate Zionists living on Muslim soil in any capacity at all. They are not willing to live together with the Israelis peacefully as......you guessed it...they are not Muslims. Many wars have been fought over territory with eventual compromises and resolutions. It's just that when an extremist form of religion is involved no compromises can be made; especially when one or both of the parties is unwilling to put aside religion for the sake of a logical and peaceful resolution. I think that the majority of Palestinians would be absolutely thrilled to death if a fair solution was ava
Not to abuse you, but you seem to be typical self-hating Jew. Here are your tipical lies exposed:
What a specious and offensive statement. Hating Zionism is no more dependent on hating Jews than hating Naziism is dependent on hating Germans or hating Apartheid requires hating Afrikaaners. If a German said he hated Nazism and the practices of the German military in WWII, few would call him a self hating German.
It's not Sharon, but Lebanese "christian" militia who were arguably responsible for Sabra and Shatila arguable massacre. It's very typical: arabs kill other arabs and the jews are at fault.
Israeli court found him responcible for political reasons because of the bunch of leftist who run the Supreme Court of Israel. Sharon did not order killing innocent people in Sabra and Shatila, Israelis did not kill innocent people in Sabra and Shatila. period. Sharon did a lot of wrong and despicable things, but this is not one of them.
It isn't clear who specifically ordered the killings at Sabra and Shatila. However it is clear that Amos Yaron's troops occupied the area and for all intents and purposes stood guard while the South Lebanon Army killed nearly all the inhabitants, 100% non-combatents. The SLA was not a grass-roots militia like Amal or Hizbollah, it was an Israeli armed, trained and recruited proxy army. The IDF actually created it from the remnants of the DFF and other small militias (largely Lebanese Army deserters). The idea that the SLA was independent enough to perpetrate Sabra and Shatila under Yaron's nose without his permission or order is unhistorical. The SLA was Israel's Ostbattalion. Yaron reported to Sharon who was certainly responsible for his actions. Time Magazine reported that Sharon had personally promised Bashir Geymayel's family revenge in the interval between his assasination and Sabra and Shatila. He lost a libel suit against them although it is not clear their information was solid.
This leftist court you describe was the same one which
four years later upheld the legality of torture (after an appeal by an IDF soldier out of whom Shin Beth tortured an espionage confession). After finding Amos Yaron responsible for Sabra and Shatila it recommended he not be promoted for three years.
There were no such thing as Palestinian civil institutions. Judea and Samaria were annexed by Jordan before six-day war. So they probably were Jordanian civil institutions. BTW, Israel built a lot of social infrastructure for palestinian and israeli arabs, scools, universities, hospitals, etc.
Of course not, there was no Palestine or Palestinians. A land without a people, blah, blah, blah... There were plenty of Palestinian institutions. There was the PNC, the PLO, the PNA, schools, hospitals, utilities etc. "Israeli Arabs" are Palestinians. The term "Israeli Arabs" is an artificial distinction based on documentation, not ethnicity or heritage. Certainly Israel has built segregated Palestinian schools for the segregated Palestinian neighborhoods in Israel. I was not aware of them building such facilities in the occupied territories. At one point they may have done so. However I doubt it was the IDF doing the building. My comments were entirely about the IDF, and the IDF has devoted a great deal of energy to destroying schools, hospitals and public facilities in the occupied territories.
Yes, funding Hamas was a bad idea. That days it looked ok (ala divide and conquer), but, unfortunately, it did not worked out. Probably modern Islam is a wrong religion to build peaceful society on.
On the contrary, it has been stunningly successful. Palestine is on the brink of civil war. Fatah is paralyzed and the PNA a shambles. Palestinian society is decimated. Not that this helps Israelis in the long run, but it was the intended effect. I do appreciate your candor regarding your hatred of Islam howeve
The reason I think that we tend to fund Isreal is based on the fact that they traditionally act in a more militarily proper fashion than the Palestinian extremist terrorists do. The Israeli army typically has an intended military target (terrorist leader, etc.) however there may be, as in any war, collateral damage. The Palestinian terrorists on the other hand tend to purposely direct their attacks against civilians rather than military targets.
As a Jew and the son of a victim of genocide I am dumbfounded by your lack of knowledge of the practices of the Israeli Defense Forces. At this point Terrorism is nearly their entire mission. The littany of major terrorist attacks, from Der Yasin to Qana to Jenin) is shocking enough, even if we simply ignore the daily torture, summary executions, and expropriations and destruction of property in occupied Palestine. Prime Minister Sharon himself was found responsible by Israel's own Supreme Court of the massacre of 2-3000 Palestinian refugees at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. As punishement he was forced to resign his post as Menachim Begin's (the former leader of the terrorist Stern Gang) Minister of Defense.
BTW, the war was not a holy war until Israel made it one by systematically destroying Palestinian civil institutions and supporting fringe religious groups like Hamas as a foil to the PLO. At its core this is not a religious issue it is a colonial one. Zionism is a non-Jewish ideology in that it contradicts Jewish theology. It is a European Colonial ideology.
Furthermore, a suicide bombing is not automatically terrorist. It is the target, not the method that defines terrorism. Two days ago a bomber blew himself up at a military checkpoint. That was not terrorism.
Your statement that the US is for neither side and opposes all terrorism shows a remarkable ignorance of both American and Israeli history.
I am also disgusted that I must post this anonymously to avoid Zionist harassment.
Not from that page I can't. I see a bunch of inflamatory, racist drivel -- but last I checked, even racist speech was protected by the First Amendment here in the US. At least in name, anyways.
Of course. Kahane Chai and Kach did not get on the State Departments limited and arbitrary list of terrorist organizations by publishing. They got there by murdering people and committing other acts of terror in Israel, Palestine and the United States. Baruch Goldstein, who killed 29 worshippers at a Hebron Mosque was a Kach member acting on behalf of her sister organization, the Jewish Defense League (JDL). Officially Kach is a political party and the JDL a militia. Meir Kahane founded both of them. Another Kach affiliated militia, Eyal, assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
Until 2001 the State Department listed Kahane Chai and Kach seperately. For some reason they merged them that year. The two organizations do have extensive cross membership. IIRC, 2001 was also the year the State department added Hizbollah to the list.
According to the article, the list includes "newkach.org, kahane.org, kahane.net, kahanetzadak.com as aliases for the Jewish group Kahane Chai or Kach." This is quite different than listing the sites themselves based on their content. I wonder if the names in question are legal business entities.
I don't get the Taxachusetts moniker. I live here and pay 5% income tax, 5% sales tax and $.21/gallon gas tax. Doesn't seem so bad to me. New York has 4-6.85% income, 4% sales (plus $1.50 on cigarettes) and $.226 gas tax. Li'l Rhodie has 7% sales, $.31/gallon gas and a flat 1/4 of your federal income tax liability. West Virginians pay 6% sales, $.2535/gallon gas and 3-6.5% income tax. Californians endure a 7.25-8.25% sales tax, $.18/gallon sales tax and 1-9.3% income tax. Sure, I could move to Wyoming and pay less, but how many unix sysadmin jobs are there in Wyoming and what do they pay?
True. In the "bad old days" it was a lot harder to learn stuff like that.
The bad old days before AltaVista?
Of course if you know of a MacOS X xemacs port that supports Cocoa fonts, I'd love you forever. I'm very disappointed with the continued fixed-font or ugly font (X-windows reliant) versions of emacs:-(
DAMN YOU XEmacs HERATIC!! EMACS IS THE SHIZMIT!! OK, I actually couldn't care less. I am ambi-editorial. I just couldn't resist.:-)
An interest in video production and editing got me my first Mac in 1998, a beige G3/266. I upgraded to a G4/450 dual processor in 2000. I found MacOS 9 very appealing, but since it didn't run emacs, it could not be my primary development machine.
Emacs runs under MacOS. Last I looked there were two ports of GNU Emacs and one of Xemacs. Moot point now of course.
The RIAA is an association. It doesn't sell music or organize the selling of music. Its members form the vast majority of publishers of copyrighted music, but to say the RIAA has a "monopoly" in that respect would be like saying the American Association of Supermarkets has a monopoly in food distribution, or that the AAA has a monopoly in car ownership.
Or that the NFL (a non-profit association) has a monopoly on professional football. Oh wait, they do. Or so the court found when the USFL sued them. The RIAA may not act as a monopoly, but that is not inherent in the structure of non-profit associations.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. I think the Windows guys are up to two years of planning at this point. It isn't clear to me why they haven't reached critical mass yet.
I assume they have planned for this. I believe MS is involved.
Gack! sounds like a nightmare. Our needs have simplified greatly since I implemented the original solution. we still support a number of domains, but are down to only two mail systems.
I am more than happy to stick with sendmail. Unfortunately, I am not the CIO. To be honest, I was hoping E2003 was as lame as E5.5 so I could just say, "not possible." My initial reaction was, "might be possible but inherently bad from a security standpoint in that it removes an abstraction layer and puts user data in the DMZ."
I dunno, implementing the current system was pretty quick and easy. Does MS have any publicly available documentation on their SMTP implementation?
Let me guess, you used to use SpamAss
Compensate the "settlers?" That is insane. "Settling" is a war crime. Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territories it occupies." Likewise, the 1907 Hague Regulations prohibit the confiscation of public and private property in occupied territory. Furthermore, you make it sound like these "settlers" have made some kind of risky capital investment in these camps. In actual fact they live of fat Israeli government subsidies. "Settlers" receive tax breaks, grants and loans for land and construction, subsidies for water and agriculture, free schooling, and preference in government jobs. In many cases the government even pays to bulletproof their cars. If Israel can foot the bill for their "settlement" she can also pay to relocate them.
During WWII the Germans packed up my entire family, confiscated all their property and sent them to Auschwitz. They then imported Germans to live in there houses. After the war, nobody asked the four survivors to compensate the Germans for their relocation back to Germany. On the contrary, they received generous reparations checks from the German government till the day they died. After the fall of Jaruzelski, the Polish government offered repatriation, as required by international law. If I had the original deed, I could go to Warsaw and claim my mother's house.
Abstracting routing from messaging keeps all the data inside the firewall where it belongs. If my sendmail boxes are rooted, I can just rebuild them. If an Exchange box is systemed (or whatever the Windows equivalent of rooting is) our user data is all over the internet. In our industry that means uncomfortable questions from Uncle Sam.
I agree 100%, as does our security officer. I was hoping for some insight into the technical capabilities of E2003's SMTP implementation. If it just plain won't work then it spares us the security debate (which can get political).
Here is another good Eqbal site. He was not just a brilliant academic, but a man of great principle and compassion who awed inspired everyone around him.
Conversely, the single state solution requires Palestinians accept their disenfranchisement. When the UN partitioned Palestine, Jews comprised about 31% of the population and owned 7% of the land. The plan awarded them more than half the country, and the 1948 war and expulsions disenfranchised hundreds of thousands more Palestinians. When Ahmad and Said began preaching the single state solution, it was blasphemous to mainstream Palestinian nationalists. Now the Palestinian body politic is more receptive to such a message. But the same weariness which created this spirit of compromise has empowered a competing religious radicalism which doesn't know the concept of compromise and will actively disrupt any hint of it.
Is it hopeless? Yes and no. The reality is a single state solution is all but inevitable. Israel's Jewish population is shrinking and its Palestinian population (Muslim, Christian and Druze) is growing. If you count non-Israeli citizens in the occupied territories, Palestinians under Israeli rule will soon outnumber Jews. While the current administration envisions a South African style minority rule surrounded by Palestinian Bantustans, such a model is not sustainable. In the long run it will suffer the same fate as South Africa: pluralistic multiethnic democracy.
". . . Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What causehave we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we TURN into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived. We should demand his blood not from the [Palestinian] Arabs of Gaza but from ourselves. . . . Let us make our reckoning today. We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house. . . . Let us not be afraid to see the hatred the accompanies and consumes the lives of hundreds of thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs who sit all around us and wait the moment when their hand will be able to reach our blood."
-Moshe Dayan, eulogizing a settler killed by a Palestinian in 1969-
Thank you, thank you, thank you. You saved me a lot of writing. The only thing I might add is where you said, "Creationism does not use the scientific method to determine proof," I would note that it is impossible to use scientific method to determine "proof." Proof is essentially a rationalist concept. We use scientific method to disprove, or fail to disprove, hypotheses. TheBruce, like all creationists, does not understand the difference between empiricism (and science) and rationalism.
Damn, I knew I should have includeed citations. The first two are from John Adams' letters to Jefferson. As a poster pointed out the first Adams quote is fragmented and misleading. The full quote is supportive, if critical, of religion,
Twenty times, in the course of my late Reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it." ! ! ! But in this exclamati[on] I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell. So far from believing in the total and universal depravity of human Nature; I believe there is no Individual totally depraved. The mos abandoned Scoundrel that ever existed, never Yet Wholly extinguished his Conscience, and while Conscience remains there is some Religion. Popes, Jesuits and Sorbonists and Inquisitors have some Conscience and some Religion. So had Marius and Sylla, Caesar Cataline and Anthony, an Augustus had not much more, let Virgil and Horace say what they will.
You can find both of those in The Adams Jefferson Letters, The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, Edited by Lester J. Cappon, University of North Carolina Press (1959, 1987)
Adams, although not a Christian (in the trinitarian sense of believing Jesus is God) was pretty religious. He vacillated between Deism and Unitarianism. He was adamant about seperation of church and state however, and was angry when the Massachusetts constitutional Convention modified his draft to include Christianity. Seven years later he was vidicated when the citizens of the Commonwealth voted (under referendum) to repeal the Christian clause by a 10-1 margin.
He later wrote, " "As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" (The Great Quotations, ed. by George Seldes, (Citadel Press) quoting letter by J.A. to F.A. Van der Kamp Dec. 27, 1816 )
The Jefferson quote on the Gospel of St. John is from a letter to Alexander Smyth. (Thomas Jefferson, An Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 quoting letter by T.J. to Alexander Smyth Jan. 17, 1825)
The Jeferson quote on the corruption of Christian doctrine is from the Adams correspondence. (Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., p. 246, quoting letter by T.J. to John Adams July 5, 1814 )
The first Madison quote is from a letter, (The Madisons by Virginia Moore, p. 43 quoting letter by J.M. to William Bradford April 1, 1774) the other two are from his Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785.
You can find the Allen quotes in his treatise Reason, the Only Oracle of Man of 1784
The Franklin line comes from a 1790 letter to Ezra Stiles in which he frankly identifies himself as a Deist.
The Paine Quote is from his The Age of Reason
Priestly's quip on Franklin is on page 60 of his autobiography.
In 1831 prominent Episcopal minister Bird Wilson complained that "The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected not a one had professed a belief in Christianity.... "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." (sermon preached in October, 1831, first sentence quoted in John E. Remsberg, "Six Historic Americans," second sentence quoted in Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15)
Valid point. Allan may not have posessed the earth shaking intellect of Franklin, Jefferson and Adams, or the dogged statesmanship of Madison. But he was influential in his way. His decisive strike at Ticonderoga galvanized Congress to the cause of revolution. And he wasn't the backwoods hick soldier you might think. Like pretty much all the founding father's he was an intellectual. In 1784 he published a philosophy treatise entitled Reason the Only Oracle of Man.
Besides, without Allen Vermont would still be part of New York, which would be a great tragedy.
Thanks for clarifying that. I had forgotten the last bit. Adams was raised a Congregationalist, but his written beliefs vaccilated between Unitarianism and Deism.
Nonetheless Washington was best described as a Deist. He rarely attended church and refused communion when he did. He declined ministerial attention on his death bed. After his death there was an active propaganda campaign, spearheaded by Rev. Mason Locke Weems, to portray his as a Christian. Many apocryphal (get it, apocryphal :-) ) story's and quotations resulted, including the ridiculous cherry tree business. Washington's religious tolerance was legendary. He banned anti-Catholic Pope Day celebrations in the Continental Army and appointed the Universalist John Murray Chaplain.
Umhh...not a founding father. But he was genocidal butcher. Chalk one up for the Christians. Not that Madison and Jefferson were much better, being hypocritical slave owners.
"My original convictions upon this subject have been confirmed by the course of events for several years, and experience is every day adding to their strength. That those tribes can not exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear." -- Andrew Jackson
Wow, that is totally irrelevant.
Madison didn't actually say that.
Hardly a founding father. He wasn't even born until 1805. By the time he arrived in the US in 1831 the movement to Christianize America was in full swing.
It is worth reading this in context. Adams was actually talking about the remarkable diversity of the founding fathers. He specifically includes atheists, anabaptists and agnostics. His reference is to the theoretical original principles of Christianity as distinct from church doctrine.
"Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty. Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No. The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young G
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" -John Adams
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -John Adams
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." -Thomas Jefferson
"No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself, and the least and last of all should I undertake to criticize works on the Apocalypse (Revelations). It was between fifty and sixty years since I read it and then I considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams." -Thomas Jefferson
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -James Madison
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." -James Madison
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." -James Madison
"That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." -Ethan Allen
"denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." -Ethan Allen
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." -Benjamin Franklin
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an
OS X 10.2.x's SMB support is fine, unless you want to browse shares on a routed network. It can't do that. The WINS/nmblookup implementation is broken. There is an Apple technote about it, which I have posted here previously but don't feel like digging up right now. I have been bugging my Apple tech rep about this since Jaguar came out (Hi Eric). Apple assures me that Panther's implementation will work.
NFS, and certainly FTP, do not meet our security standards. SSH/SFTP is great, but not an appropriate substitute for a network file system (neither is FTP of course).
This could not be more true. Nonetheless, although we are an MS centric shop (CIFS on Windows and Exchange), we have no problem supporting ~580 Macs (vs. ~6,000 PCs) with a single field tech. His main complaint is that management is always trying to get him to fill his time working on Windows. And we are only just now implementing ARD. There are a few little issues stemming from crazed MS monoculture (like administrative assistants who publish web forms generated from PowerPoint), but in general things run pretty smoothly.
Our PHB's have been impressed enough with OS X that it is now our recommended unix workstation platform. We have a large grant funded research community, whom we can't exactly tell what to buy, but we strongly encourage them to go with OS X over RedHat (their other favorite). I am a unix sysadmin, BTW.
You are right. I misinterpreted the sentence, " I'm pretty sure that if the Palestinians had tanks, aircraft, and weaponry to match the Israeli army that they would most likely fight using them instead of suicide bombings." Actually it reminds me of the (true) scene in Battle of Algiers where the French reporter asks an FLN prisoner (I forget whom),
"Isn't it a dirty thing to use women's baskets to carry bombs to kill innocent people?"
To which the operative replies,
"And you? Doesn't it seem even dirtier to you to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages with thousands of innocent victims? It would be a lot easier for us if we had planes. Give us your bombers, andwe'll give you our baskets."
Your deduction is incorrect. The hated checkpoints are a favorite target. Israeli soldiers are everywhere in the occupied territories, and killing just one is a major victory. Remember the FLN in Algeria or the NLF in Vietnam. This is a war of attrition, a war of national liberation against a colonial occupier. NLF and PAVN sappers were happy to blow themselves up just to cut a hole in the barbed wire big enough to give another guerilla some chance at killing an American. Until the "cease fire" the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade was the most active suicide bombing outfit, and before 2002 they had never (according to the US state Department) attacked a civilian target. In mid 2002 they changed this policy, citing sharply increased IDF attacks on Palestinian civilians. I do not know what the current ratio of terrorist to military assaults is, on a per militia basis or in general.
You missed my point. It is not a simple territorial battle. It is a war of national liberation against a colonial occupier. That is a much thornier issue than a border dispute, especially when an ideology of race (Zionism) is added to the mix. The closest anolog is Apartheid South Africa.
BTW, in 1947 Zionists comprised 31% of Palestine's population and owned just 7% of the land. The UN partition plan handed them half the country, including most of the choicest farmland. As you note, they took more in the 1948 war.
What a specious and offensive statement. Hating Zionism is no more dependent on hating Jews than hating Naziism is dependent on hating Germans or hating Apartheid requires hating Afrikaaners. If a German said he hated Nazism and the practices of the German military in WWII, few would call him a self hating German.
It isn't clear who specifically ordered the killings at Sabra and Shatila. However it is clear that Amos Yaron's troops occupied the area and for all intents and purposes stood guard while the South Lebanon Army killed nearly all the inhabitants, 100% non-combatents. The SLA was not a grass-roots militia like Amal or Hizbollah, it was an Israeli armed, trained and recruited proxy army. The IDF actually created it from the remnants of the DFF and other small militias (largely Lebanese Army deserters). The idea that the SLA was independent enough to perpetrate Sabra and Shatila under Yaron's nose without his permission or order is unhistorical. The SLA was Israel's Ostbattalion. Yaron reported to Sharon who was certainly responsible for his actions. Time Magazine reported that Sharon had personally promised Bashir Geymayel's family revenge in the interval between his assasination and Sabra and Shatila. He lost a libel suit against them although it is not clear their information was solid.
This leftist court you describe was the same one which four years later upheld the legality of torture (after an appeal by an IDF soldier out of whom Shin Beth tortured an espionage confession). After finding Amos Yaron responsible for Sabra and Shatila it recommended he not be promoted for three years.
Of course not, there was no Palestine or Palestinians. A land without a people, blah, blah, blah... There were plenty of Palestinian institutions. There was the PNC, the PLO, the PNA, schools, hospitals, utilities etc. "Israeli Arabs" are Palestinians. The term "Israeli Arabs" is an artificial distinction based on documentation, not ethnicity or heritage. Certainly Israel has built segregated Palestinian schools for the segregated Palestinian neighborhoods in Israel. I was not aware of them building such facilities in the occupied territories. At one point they may have done so. However I doubt it was the IDF doing the building. My comments were entirely about the IDF, and the IDF has devoted a great deal of energy to destroying schools, hospitals and public facilities in the occupied territories.
On the contrary, it has been stunningly successful. Palestine is on the brink of civil war. Fatah is paralyzed and the PNA a shambles. Palestinian society is decimated. Not that this helps Israelis in the long run, but it was the intended effect. I do appreciate your candor regarding your hatred of Islam howeve
BTW, the war was not a holy war until Israel made it one by systematically destroying Palestinian civil institutions and supporting fringe religious groups like Hamas as a foil to the PLO. At its core this is not a religious issue it is a colonial one. Zionism is a non-Jewish ideology in that it contradicts Jewish theology. It is a European Colonial ideology.
Furthermore, a suicide bombing is not automatically terrorist. It is the target, not the method that defines terrorism. Two days ago a bomber blew himself up at a military checkpoint. That was not terrorism.
Your statement that the US is for neither side and opposes all terrorism shows a remarkable ignorance of both American and Israeli history.
I am also disgusted that I must post this anonymously to avoid Zionist harassment.
Of course. Kahane Chai and Kach did not get on the State Departments limited and arbitrary list of terrorist organizations by publishing. They got there by murdering people and committing other acts of terror in Israel, Palestine and the United States. Baruch Goldstein, who killed 29 worshippers at a Hebron Mosque was a Kach member acting on behalf of her sister organization, the Jewish Defense League (JDL). Officially Kach is a political party and the JDL a militia. Meir Kahane founded both of them. Another Kach affiliated militia, Eyal, assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
Until 2001 the State Department listed Kahane Chai and Kach seperately. For some reason they merged them that year. The two organizations do have extensive cross membership. IIRC, 2001 was also the year the State department added Hizbollah to the list.
According to the article, the list includes "newkach.org, kahane.org, kahane.net, kahanetzadak.com as aliases for the Jewish group Kahane Chai or Kach." This is quite different than listing the sites themselves based on their content. I wonder if the names in question are legal business entities.
I don't get the Taxachusetts moniker. I live here and pay 5% income tax, 5% sales tax and $.21/gallon gas tax. Doesn't seem so bad to me. New York has 4-6.85% income, 4% sales (plus $1.50 on cigarettes) and $.226 gas tax. Li'l Rhodie has 7% sales, $.31/gallon gas and a flat 1/4 of your federal income tax liability. West Virginians pay 6% sales, $.2535/gallon gas and 3-6.5% income tax. Californians endure a 7.25-8.25% sales tax, $.18/gallon sales tax and 1-9.3% income tax. Sure, I could move to Wyoming and pay less, but how many unix sysadmin jobs are there in Wyoming and what do they pay?
They aren't? Then it is a good thing OS X is unusual.
Emacs runs under MacOS. Last I looked there were two ports of GNU Emacs and one of Xemacs. Moot point now of course.
I was preparing to write a proposal for my state representative. Now I can drop it and concentrate on my lane splitting legalization bill.
Or that the NFL (a non-profit association) has a monopoly on professional football. Oh wait, they do. Or so the court found when the USFL sued them. The RIAA may not act as a monopoly, but that is not inherent in the structure of non-profit associations.
Actually, you don't. Tuvak served on Voyager, not Enterprise.
LIke Jeff Raskin's.