"I have to laugh. That statement is very absurd. I didn't self declare the enemies either. THEY did that. They declared war on the west. And the repeat that declaration every once in a while."
There is a nut at the local train station who stands at the gate and "declares" where the train is going, he has a very loud voice and is noticed by everyone, guess what: nobody pays much attention because it is obvious he is a nut. The US had a major terror attack (organised and executed by a handfull of nuts), all of a sudden OBL is promoted to station master and declares where the US is going. Why the fuck would anyone want to give a cult leader in a cave that sort of political clout? People declare war on the US every day but nobody pays much attention unless they do something, if they do launch an attack they are found and locked up. In the past the POTUS did not entertain the idiocy of declaring an endless world war on nutcases for the simple reason you cannot insulate everyone against random nuts who might do us harm for political gain. GWB's declaration of a "war on terror" did nothing for your security, rather it gave OBL an hugely exagerated political voice as reward for a relatively minor but spectacular assult. I belive that many of the actual victims of the assult now support an organisation called "not in our name".
"As for the effectiveness of international law: Is it stopping... Is it worth a popcorn fart?"
How can it stop anything if the only superpower ignores it or any other treaty that may limit it's absolute power? Why should Iran or anybody else play by US rules when the US can do what it likes and change the rules at a whim? You would be far more effective if you lobbied your goverment to put it's power where it's mouth is and live by it's own standard of "all men are created equal". Until the US starts practising what it preaches, international law will never be worth more that a popcorn fart.
"Did it keep Saddam Hussein from attacking first Iran"
Surely you are aware the US nutured Saddam for the express purpose of containing Iran after the revolution, the US used Saddam as a buffer between Iran and the Saudi oil fields. Saddam was just one of the many "strong man" puppets the US have nutured all over the planet since the end of WW2, often by violently overthrowing elected governments to protect their oil interests. As they say "you reap what you sow", while the US refuses to "play by the rules" the problem of "rouge states" will continue. The "war on terror" is not a solution, it is one half of a timeless problem, it translates directly into the sentiment "a war to end all wars" (now where have I heard that one before?).
"Many people live in a world that think will just keep on going in the same pleasant way it has been."
It may be "plesant" for you sit there in your armchair pointing out wiches, you can simply ignore the suggestion that the overwhelming majority are normal people who just want to get on with life. It is a very short distance between your armchair (there out to get us) and the world view of an insergent (there out to get us). You are both more than willing to kill and die to "defend your way of life", the destruction of millions of bystanders lives as a means to that ends is always the fault of the other guy. Yes, AQ want to kill us or better yet get us to kill each other, they see us as their enemy but you should never forget that "us" refers to the world's population, what chance do they really have of realizing their goals?
To "win" the "terrorists" must pull down the beginings of a global civilisation and build it up again in their own image, this is the definition of revolution. Instilling panic, confusion and distrust has always been the primary weapon for a small band with revolutionary zeal and nothing left to loose. Everyone in the existing civilization(s) becomes a powerfull enemy, their only viable strategy is to divide and conqure (eg: AQ in Kashmir), n
(1) - Not new or unique, there have always been a "A very large group of people who are willing to die to kill large numbers of us."
(2) -...and small groups willing to use WMD...think Guy Falks or the "suitcase nukes" Rummy has been banging on about since the seventies.
"The latter means..." everyone has the potential to use WMD, simply because they exist. There is no "new threat" since 9/11, the new threat arrived in 1945. Since then it has been theoretically possible for a "cult" (eg: the kremlin, whitehouse, AQ) to wipe out all of humanity. The technology exsits and it can't be uninvented, the only way to stop it's use is for all the tribes to be at relative peace with one another.
Re: The Brits, the IRA, Palestinans and AQ: The Brits (since the fall of Thatcher) have done a great deal to support International law that could go a long way to curbing the "Saddam like" leaders of "rouge states". The US does not approve of International law because it means they would have to play by the same rules and would loose their absolute status as the world's only superpower. The IRA have been consigned to the dustbin of history, if you want to do the same to AQ then look at the Brits legal fight against the financiers of the IRA or the bravery of the Italian judiciary in their fight against the Mafia. The British forces are under order not to fire on fleeing aggressors. How far any particular "cult" will go to achive their aims or defend their interests is simply conjecture.
"You are falling into (and loving) the old fashioned view of terrorism: a gang of criminals who can do minimal damage compared to a government."
If it is "old fashioned" to realise an obvious fact then I'm old fashioned. The US could wipe out most of Europes major cities with one submarine, AQ have so far been incapable of destroying anything larger than a skyscraper. "Old fashioned thinking" says: "Let's make sure they don't hijack one of those submarines", it assumes it's unreasonable to get rid of the sub!
"Al Qaeda and other Islamofascists also have another important characteristic: their goals are much more ambitions than the IRA's - they don't want to control just a few counties in one country - they want to convert, by force, the entire world to their particular cult, and are willing to die and to kill to do so."
Explain how this is different - "The USA is converting the planet to their capitalist cult by force" - You are simply a member of the most powerfull cult that has ever existed. Personally I think it is possible to have a universal cult against indiscriminant violence for political gain or revenge but I don't think it is likey.
"Now I can understand that you sympathize with the Iraqi peoples' desire to live under a brutal sadist and tyrant..."
I can understand that you want to put words in my mouth but please don't, just because I am against your world view does not imply I am with "them". If anybody can be accused of desiring the Iraqi people "to live under a brutal sadist and tyrant" it would be the people who put him there and supported him, don't ya think so? Little wonder Rummy's blood runs cold at the thought of international law.
"This is not, indeed, a conventional war. Neither was the cold war (which your history left out) in which millions were killed. Since we don't have a nation as a visible enemy, shall we let millions be killed in this "non-war?""
I'm sorry I also left out the the fall of Rome, the battle of Hastings and the french revolution. I agree we should not "let millions be killed", so to this end, as much as is practicable, we should tone down the "under the bed" hysteria displayed in your post before it reaches the level of the Rawandan genocide. We should also maintain a less apocoliptic and more multi-lateral military as an option of last resort, it's primary function would be disaster relief (foremos
"We can judge his actions though, and they speak pretty loudly."
I agree, Bill has talked about "giving it all away" for a very long time, he is now well and trully making good on the promise. I imagine his foundation will still be doing "good deeds" long after he has gone.
I have praised Bill for his charity before and usually get people saying "it's just part of his evil marketing plan". The foundation has now given away a total of ~$30B, that's some marketing plan!!!
That would be fine but I doubt if it would be practical. I think it is inevitable that corporations and governments will gather as much demographics as they can because it is extremely usefull to themselves and society as a whole (ie: a tool is neither good or bad, it is at best usefull).
The only practicable response the public has is to ensure we have the right to watch those who are watching us. I think the kind of beauracracy you propose would simply make the tool too expensive for anyone other than a govt or large corporation to use (as they did in the "old days"). What about a right to demand an annonomised copy of any govt/commercial data set that contains your data? So if someone passes my data to MS then I get access to the data set after giving MS a short time advantage as reward for tabulating it. I mean if I helped in any way to build the data set I should have some right to use it as I wish (especially in these days of virtual property). If we could reasonably trust each other to "do no evil" (or at least nobody gets away with major evil), then a large and open electronic census could be seen as a good thing.
I don't think anyone doubts there are groups of many colours who seek to unreasonably control others through violent means. I am sure in the muslim world I could find an echo of your sentiments who would say something like... "There are 300 million well armed Americans and a large percentage of them want to kill us".
I disagree with the assertion that "the war on terror" is a war. It is a series of police actions against disparate groups with a variety of causes. The brits did not treat the IRA as a war and start bombing the fuck out of N. Ireland, both IRA and Republican terrorist actions were treated as major crimes. OBL is a criminal not a super power. As for Iraq, the majoriy of people blowing themselves up are insergents, they don't want "infidels" occupying their land. No matter how pointless and tragic the attacks in Iraq you have to ask what motivates them? How would you react if the situation was reversed and your faimly was "accidently" wiped out by the occupiers.
Just because a CIA trained leftover from the cold war managed to pull off a huge military stunt to bring attention to his cause does not mean there is a need for a global police state. Sure his little band wants everybody to "enjoy" a Taliban style government but I seriously doubt the majority of the muslim world are interested in giving them any opportunity to do so.
Every "threat" mentioned in this thread has also been an action taken by "responsible" governments since Hirroshima. As for nukes I am more worried about the "haves" than the "have nots".
"A suicidal cult - the Islamofascists"
Perhaps the Islamofacists could fight it out with the Christafacist and the Ziofacists in a WWF "cage bout" billed as the "identical triplet match". The other 99.9999999% of the population who think all meglomanics are fucking nuts would then be able to get on with something more constructive. People the world over are starting to see themselves as global citizens, global corporations are well established, yet global governance is still no better than a gathering of warlords. Surely after 10-15,000 years we can find a better way to build civilization(s) than simply eliminating anyone who is different in the most efficient manner possible.
"...a single attack by Islamic extremists killed more Americans..."
The other week the representatives of the Christian extremists announced they had (so far) killed at least 30,000 citizens of a different country and religion in retaliation for that single act of barbarisim. The total number of US soldiers killed and wounded may end up being comprable to the original "terrorist act". OTOH: Your govt may be lead by a suicidal-cult who are all looking forward to "judgement day".
"We didn't choose it and are not responsible for it."
If everone took that attitude towards both sides of the meat grinder, there would be no meat grinder. The "war on terror" is like fighting a spot fire with a flame thrower and expecting no more problems. US citizens can assist by making their goverment appreciate that it is energy that drives their long term economic survival not oil.
"you should read about the incredible messes in World War II"
My parents were school children in the UK during the war, I was born in 59 and missed the Aussie draft for Vietnam by ~4yrs but many people I have known didn't. I appreciate the fact that the western military have made efforts to avoid civilian harm in recent times (compared to say: the diliberate incineration of 250,000 civilians in the city of Dressden). However attrocities by "the good guys" was often talked about with pride, until one day an uncensored Vietnam started appearing on TV. Let's hope WW2 was the real "war to end all wars", attempting a trilogy would likely be the end of civilization.
"When there is a gigantic gorilla in the room, worrying obsessively about the faint possibility that an ant might get in is beyond reason!
It's especialy unconfortable when the gorilla wears red white and blue and is the one doing the worrying. OTOH: Nobody wants ants to eat their foundations, if someone gives their info freely, don't they also forefiet their right to control what it is used for?
Yep the global whiteboard still has plenty of nationalistic uses, I live in Oz and respect the BBC as a source of news but they only download their video to the UK. I understand that it was paid for by the UK but still can't help being a little dissapointed. As an Aussie I find little to watch on the commercial channels, I also find it embarassing that Rupert Murdoch is identified as an Aussie. Most of my viewing time is spent watching the ABC or SBS, both (in my opinion) are world class broadcasters and we should take more pride in them as an alternative to the Ruperts of this world.
I'm also not sure that Oz is all that far behind anymore, I recently watched a Letterman show where he bluntly accused O'Riley (from faux) of lying(several times) during an interview about political correctness and Christmas. It was a jovial interview but Letterman was obviously intent on screwing him as badly as he could while he was outside of his protective bubble. I have never been a big fan of the Letterman show and his jokes still suck but the way he conducted this interview and his humility when Madona told him off have added to my respect of him as a person.
What I would like to see is a law compelling all broadcasters to submit (into a national archive) a digitized copy of their UNEDITED videos of OUR politicians spoken words. Clips of a personal and non-financial nature would not be stored without personal permission. The archive would natuarlly be freely open to search engines and media sources could have the right to demand a STANDARD fee if anyone were to use their clips for profit. Most importantly, media giants would not have the right to refuse access. As it currently stands media companies own our politicans words, some (cough-Faux-cough) habitually use this freehold to curtail the feedoms of others, ie: heavily censor political speech that does not match their narrow political agenda.
With an archive it would be much simpler to "build a story" using a politicans words out of context but it would become increasingly difficult for the spin masters to censor that context. Many who own "the press" naturally see this sort of thing as a credible threat to their still powerfull voices.
I belive the printing press gave those who could afford to own one a very powerfull voice, the internet has reduced the entry cost to global publication (and quality porn) by several orders of magnitute in the space of a single decade. It's one thing to have feedom of speech but with six-billion voices chattering at once we also require a freedom to listen to what our policians say in public, read and use knowlage our taxes have paid for and eventually listen to what corporate spin our politicians hear at "corporate dinner speaches". It's inevitiable that corporations and governments will use technology to watch us in public, we should return the favour in kind.
High quality combined with low cost usually means it runs like molases. It does not mean it is cheap, it's just that high quality + high performance is the most expensive option.
TFA: I don't really see anything new in the article, it basiclly says quality is a function of the effort spent on planning and verifying that components meet or exceed the design specs, real engineers have been perfecting that method for centuries. Also comparing a few sample projects to the huge number of projects and organisations that have used CMM is kinda pointless, except to say that CMM is not perfect. Me thinks the IEEE wants to muscle in on CMM's established territory.
I am not saying I worked for Telstra but at the time I think I was too busy minimising billing to unproductive time by sharing it amoungst customers bills. The point of the exercise was to maximise the execs bonus for "increasing productivity", the vast majority of tickets were performed for a fixed labour fee, diverting time away from the unproductive account made no difference to revenue or productivity. Soon Telstra will have what they always wanted, no workforce means everything is profit!
"But for me personally, I ignore the certs/diplomas whatever on the Mechanics walls. I don't know what they mean anyway."
Nobody ever pays attention until things go wrong, people assume an MD is able to diagnose or make a reasonable specialist refferal. If it is something serious it would be silly not to get a second opinion but even if you are silly you still deserve a minimum standard of competence from a doctor.
"I know that certifications are nice to check off a list, but I think many people find it leads to at best mediocraty."
It leads to a minimum standard, qualified does not equate to "good", it equates to "good enough". I would not expect a random mechanic to be "good" but I expect them to be "good enough" that my brakes don't fail at the first stop light. I expect an anethitist to be good enough to keep me under when I'm on the table. If either of them are charging me for a service and are not "good enough" then I have legal recourse.
"...but isn't that what references and interviews and heck, the probationary period for?
No, that is how you find the good ones amoungst those that qualify.
I worked at a large telco when Australia introduced 10% GST to replace a dizzying array of existing sales taxes and rules. I was assigned to represent the interests of our system in the company wide discussions that went on for a long time about how to handle GST rounding errors. Eventually something like this article was produced showing various rounding algorithims and their pros and cons and a mandated algorithm was given to all projects. The extreme amount of time, effort and documentation was (in my mind incorrectly) blamed on the executives ignorance of floating point limitations in computing.
The execs eventually told us they were mainly concerened that any unavoidable error should be in the customers favour...problem solved. Their downfall was not ignorance it was because they ran the meetings poorly, we were simply there to listen and answer questions. ie: They set themselves up to immediately stray out of requirements, the high level problem was forgotten and the meetings became a series of informal discussions on the wonderland of floating point. They completely missed the fact that GST was the same as existing sales taxes except for the "customer's favour and disclosure" mandates, they were way to busy tring to convert X/11 into dollars and cents.
Certifications count because they are written into the contract as the minimum acceptable standard of work the customer will receive, this in turn can play a part in insurance premiums, loans, etc. No cert, no customer, no fucking job, exactly the same as any other industry, don't you care wether your mechanic is qualified to fix your brakes? Brutally capitalistic and beuracratic but very simple for the customer to understand and easy for the vendor to comply. When things go badly pear shaped and a few million dollars evaporates even Judge Judy will understand that particular clause.
What about bulldozers, with a modern roll cage nobody gets hurt, you can always create your own paking spot, strong enought to drag home the spoils of shopping... The benifits are endless, it could even have saved New Orleans!
I don't know about the USA but over here in Australia builder's wagons are everywhere, they have these huge chunks of armour on the front called "bull bars". The purpose of this armour is to pulverise large animals without scratching the duco. I can see the need for a bull bar in the outback but most of these morons never leave the suburbs, photographers "NEEEED" one to drive themselves to weddings!
If the bulldozer idea doesn't take off then perhaps we could secretly get parking spaces reduced by an inch or two each time they are painted. Over time it will become impractical to use anything bigger than a hatchback to get the shopping or drop the kids at school.
"..it was (is) very annoying to see someone straight out of school, spend $30,000 or whatever to get an MCSE in 6 months and then drop straight into a $90,000 a year position when someone who has years of "real world" experience is still stuck in a $28,000 helpdesk position."
I have been in IT for over 15yrs and in the workforce for 30yrs. In IT I have worked mainly in development on large scale projects and have interviewed over a hundred applicants in that time. I have seen many people who are worse than useless at their job and I have on occasion hired some of them myself. I have never seen this happen, people with proven experience do not have to put up with being chained up to a call center phone for a pitance. If by "helpdesk" you mean third level support, then these people must be mature enough to deal with competing queries from multiple powerfull customers, they are normally well paid individuals with proven experience, the majority have some kind of tertiary qualification.
I myself have a BSc in computer science, it cost me ~$60K (mainly lost income) and three years of my time. I had been interested in computers since the late seventies, I did the degree for the specific reason of making "big bucks" from my hobby, it has proven to be worth far more than it cost. The "big-bucks" says I can now go back to acedimia and get payed to continue my hobby and teach others (the bucks are just too seductive right now and I have a new hobby). The vast majority of people who I have worked with have either had a related degree, doctorate or served a long "apprenticeship" in the mainframe days. Occasionally I have come across people who have unrelated degrees (eg: biology) but these people are usually found in testing, documentation or management.
"The ability to perform a job is the key thing..."
I would rephrase that as "potential", "ability" is what maintains your employment. If you don't have "a bit of paper" how do I know you have any potential? I can't interview every asshat who tells me "the answers to all problems are in this browser thingy", I need someone else to filter out this sort of noise and find some "qualified" applicants. There are simply too many people wanting the $90K job that I am offering on behalf of my employer. In any workplace bigger than a shop-front this filtering task is performed by the HR department or an external agency.
Now if the HR people send me their selection of applicants for a "senior developer with relevant tertiary qualifications" and I get five pimply kids with a shinny new MSCE stappled to their forehead, what do I do? I can either suck it up and watch the project go into the bit bucket or I can reject all of them.
After all the manhours expended to find these five teenage wiz-kids, HR will definitely want to know why they are unsuitable. It is the project managers function to acurately describe what they want, HR then go and find people who they think match the description. Sometimes HR have template job descriptions such as "senior software developer" but the hiring manager has the power to reject any/all applicants. I have only worked at one IT company that did not operate like this when it came to hiring people, that company employed 4 people including the married couple who owned it.
I am not saying that an unqualified person cannot do the job, I have seen worthy people migrate from low-paying jobs, often via company sponsored tertiary education. I'm asking why should I give anyone the time of day when I have not already personally witnessed their POTENTIAL? The answer is because I need to hire strangers. Before I actually meet the stranger face to face, a "bit of paper" is the only clue I get that says they might be suitable for the job.
"...and I've been able to find a great IT Manager position..."
So now it is your responsibility to hire great IT people, right? If you needed somebody to write trivial windows apps and did not want to spend days interviewing people, what experience and qualifications would you suggest HR look for when selecting applicants?
"Its the same reason Wikipedia is not considered a legitimate source of info."
Why is it not a legitimate source, the probelm of errors is that people absolute authority from just one source. If the internet is not for transforming politics what use is it?
"Everyone else had the raw data in hand, but no one could make heads or tails of it."
This is the definition of genius, he accepted that the speed of light was constant as experiments had shown, this lead him to the idea of variable space and time. He may have used more than logical deduction but it did not appear in his 3 page paper, there was not a single reference.
"With this I certainly agree and don't think I said anything to the contrary, but I do think your statement goes very well with my point that scientists are about as humble as the local preacher and as a secular layman, the lack of humility (on both sides) can be very off putting."
Yes, narrow-mindedness is a human trait often found in authority type figures. It is a pity philosophy is not taught at school along with art, science and language (OTOH: I dropped out of high school at 16 beliving Uri Geller could bend spoons and I was pronounced "good at science"!!!). I was not trying to be argumentative, I am saying science has an overall answer to your Q2, philosophy and maths are still working on Q1.
"I'm not saying good people don't do it, but it's wrong"
My point, maybe a lousy act but it does not follow he was a lousy human being. My wife of 20yrs treated me in a similar manner before she left, a few thoughtless and selfish acts do not negate the rest of the 20yrs we spent together.
"There is a distinct difference between 'breaking someone's heart' (ending a relationship when the other still cares for you) and violating their trust. One is one of many natural paths for a relationship, the other is simply a poor way to treat a fellow human being."
"I'm leaving for someone else" has the same ring as "I'm leaving for someone else that I have slept with". The result in both cases is an overwhelming feeling of loss, an overwhelming feeling of betrayal would seem to indicate an ownership mindset towards the other person. Infidelity is a symptom of weak sexual relationship bonds, not a serious character fault.
If Einstien were the pinup boy for the institution of marraige rather than the institution of science you may have a point, but he is not, so you don't. His infidelity (iconicly portrayed as shoelaces) show him up as human rather than superhuman, something science should never forget.
"He may have stated his credo, but he lived life as an adulterer and philanderer. Great science, but lousy human being.
Just the word "adulterer" makes me wince.
Breaking someones heart does not imply you are a lousy human being, it's actually part of the birds and bees that someone should have explained to you by now. Most adults have broken at least one heart, if you haven't then you are an unusal case. Broken hearts is the reason people mature and get more circumspect about relationships, many people end up avoiding permenant sexual relationships alltogether. Regardless of your personal disgust with Einstein having followed his heart, humans by and large are serial monogomists, learn to deal with it.
Don't bother retrospectivly ranting about chauvanisim either, at that time in history it was a "fact of life", he simply never thought to question that part of "common-sense". Much like stoning adulterers was a "fact of life" during the dark ages, male domination was simply the prevaling morality.
If science must have an iconic personality, I would like it to be a gentle, humourous and humane one that inspires awe and wonder. I can think of none more fitting than Einstien.
At sufficient resolution all life is shaped like swiss cheese.
Many of the organs you mention are considered as variations on the end of the "tube", ie: they all pass through the stomach. The blood stream and other minute passages in and around the body are ignored. This is done to create distinct "body plans", traditionally used to classify life into different phyla.
Sadly I forget her name, but it was not Einstien who showed that E=MV^2. She proved Newton (E=MV) to be wrong by dropping solid balls into clay and measuring the depth. Einstien turned the whole thing on it's head and asked "What if the speed of light really is constant, could space and time vary?". I don't know if it was deliberate but it actually questioned Newtons assumption (time is constant) that formed the basis of his Principa[sic].
Slashdot Mirror
"I have to laugh. That statement is very absurd. I didn't self declare the enemies either. THEY did that. They declared war on the west. And the repeat that declaration every once in a while."
... Is it worth a popcorn fart?"
There is a nut at the local train station who stands at the gate and "declares" where the train is going, he has a very loud voice and is noticed by everyone, guess what: nobody pays much attention because it is obvious he is a nut. The US had a major terror attack (organised and executed by a handfull of nuts), all of a sudden OBL is promoted to station master and declares where the US is going. Why the fuck would anyone want to give a cult leader in a cave that sort of political clout? People declare war on the US every day but nobody pays much attention unless they do something, if they do launch an attack they are found and locked up. In the past the POTUS did not entertain the idiocy of declaring an endless world war on nutcases for the simple reason you cannot insulate everyone against random nuts who might do us harm for political gain. GWB's declaration of a "war on terror" did nothing for your security, rather it gave OBL an hugely exagerated political voice as reward for a relatively minor but spectacular assult. I belive that many of the actual victims of the assult now support an organisation called "not in our name".
"As for the effectiveness of international law: Is it stopping
How can it stop anything if the only superpower ignores it or any other treaty that may limit it's absolute power? Why should Iran or anybody else play by US rules when the US can do what it likes and change the rules at a whim? You would be far more effective if you lobbied your goverment to put it's power where it's mouth is and live by it's own standard of "all men are created equal". Until the US starts practising what it preaches, international law will never be worth more that a popcorn fart.
"Did it keep Saddam Hussein from attacking first Iran"
Surely you are aware the US nutured Saddam for the express purpose of containing Iran after the revolution, the US used Saddam as a buffer between Iran and the Saudi oil fields. Saddam was just one of the many "strong man" puppets the US have nutured all over the planet since the end of WW2, often by violently overthrowing elected governments to protect their oil interests. As they say "you reap what you sow", while the US refuses to "play by the rules" the problem of "rouge states" will continue. The "war on terror" is not a solution, it is one half of a timeless problem, it translates directly into the sentiment "a war to end all wars" (now where have I heard that one before?).
"Many people live in a world that think will just keep on going in the same pleasant way it has been."
It may be "plesant" for you sit there in your armchair pointing out wiches, you can simply ignore the suggestion that the overwhelming majority are normal people who just want to get on with life. It is a very short distance between your armchair (there out to get us) and the world view of an insergent (there out to get us). You are both more than willing to kill and die to "defend your way of life", the destruction of millions of bystanders lives as a means to that ends is always the fault of the other guy. Yes, AQ want to kill us or better yet get us to kill each other, they see us as their enemy but you should never forget that "us" refers to the world's population, what chance do they really have of realizing their goals?
To "win" the "terrorists" must pull down the beginings of a global civilisation and build it up again in their own image, this is the definition of revolution. Instilling panic, confusion and distrust has always been the primary weapon for a small band with revolutionary zeal and nothing left to loose. Everyone in the existing civilization(s) becomes a powerfull enemy, their only viable strategy is to divide and conqure (eg: AQ in Kashmir), n
All this talk about sources is fine but what do I use in the car when oil is too expensive or will we all drive futuristic Delorians?
"The new and UNIQUE threat is;"
...and small groups willing to use WMD...think Guy Falks or the "suitcase nukes" Rummy has been banging on about since the seventies.
(1) - Not new or unique, there have always been a "A very large group of people who are willing to die to kill large numbers of us."
(2) -
"The latter means..." everyone has the potential to use WMD, simply because they exist. There is no "new threat" since 9/11, the new threat arrived in 1945. Since then it has been theoretically possible for a "cult" (eg: the kremlin, whitehouse, AQ) to wipe out all of humanity. The technology exsits and it can't be uninvented, the only way to stop it's use is for all the tribes to be at relative peace with one another.
Re: The Brits, the IRA, Palestinans and AQ: The Brits (since the fall of Thatcher) have done a great deal to support International law that could go a long way to curbing the "Saddam like" leaders of "rouge states". The US does not approve of International law because it means they would have to play by the same rules and would loose their absolute status as the world's only superpower. The IRA have been consigned to the dustbin of history, if you want to do the same to AQ then look at the Brits legal fight against the financiers of the IRA or the bravery of the Italian judiciary in their fight against the Mafia. The British forces are under order not to fire on fleeing aggressors. How far any particular "cult" will go to achive their aims or defend their interests is simply conjecture.
"You are falling into (and loving) the old fashioned view of terrorism: a gang of criminals who can do minimal damage compared to a government."
If it is "old fashioned" to realise an obvious fact then I'm old fashioned. The US could wipe out most of Europes major cities with one submarine, AQ have so far been incapable of destroying anything larger than a skyscraper. "Old fashioned thinking" says: "Let's make sure they don't hijack one of those submarines", it assumes it's unreasonable to get rid of the sub!
"Al Qaeda and other Islamofascists also have another important characteristic: their goals are much more ambitions than the IRA's - they don't want to control just a few counties in one country - they want to convert, by force, the entire world to their particular cult, and are willing to die and to kill to do so."
Explain how this is different - "The USA is converting the planet to their capitalist cult by force" - You are simply a member of the most powerfull cult that has ever existed. Personally I think it is possible to have a universal cult against indiscriminant violence for political gain or revenge but I don't think it is likey.
"Now I can understand that you sympathize with the Iraqi peoples' desire to live under a brutal sadist and tyrant..."
I can understand that you want to put words in my mouth but please don't, just because I am against your world view does not imply I am with "them". If anybody can be accused of desiring the Iraqi people "to live under a brutal sadist and tyrant" it would be the people who put him there and supported him, don't ya think so? Little wonder Rummy's blood runs cold at the thought of international law.
"This is not, indeed, a conventional war. Neither was the cold war (which your history left out) in which millions were killed. Since we don't have a nation as a visible enemy, shall we let millions be killed in this "non-war?""
I'm sorry I also left out the the fall of Rome, the battle of Hastings and the french revolution. I agree we should not "let millions be killed", so to this end, as much as is practicable, we should tone down the "under the bed" hysteria displayed in your post before it reaches the level of the Rawandan genocide. We should also maintain a less apocoliptic and more multi-lateral military as an option of last resort, it's primary function would be disaster relief (foremos
"We can judge his actions though, and they speak pretty loudly."
I agree, Bill has talked about "giving it all away" for a very long time, he is now well and trully making good on the promise. I imagine his foundation will still be doing "good deeds" long after he has gone.
I have praised Bill for his charity before and usually get people saying "it's just part of his evil marketing plan". The foundation has now given away a total of ~$30B, that's some marketing plan!!!
Whoever moded that as a troll has also had a humour bypass.
That would be fine but I doubt if it would be practical. I think it is inevitable that corporations and governments will gather as much demographics as they can because it is extremely usefull to themselves and society as a whole (ie: a tool is neither good or bad, it is at best usefull).
The only practicable response the public has is to ensure we have the right to watch those who are watching us. I think the kind of beauracracy you propose would simply make the tool too expensive for anyone other than a govt or large corporation to use (as they did in the "old days"). What about a right to demand an annonomised copy of any govt/commercial data set that contains your data? So if someone passes my data to MS then I get access to the data set after giving MS a short time advantage as reward for tabulating it. I mean if I helped in any way to build the data set I should have some right to use it as I wish (especially in these days of virtual property). If we could reasonably trust each other to "do no evil" (or at least nobody gets away with major evil), then a large and open electronic census could be seen as a good thing.
I don't think anyone doubts there are groups of many colours who seek to unreasonably control others through violent means. I am sure in the muslim world I could find an echo of your sentiments who would say something like... "There are 300 million well armed Americans and a large percentage of them want to kill us".
I disagree with the assertion that "the war on terror" is a war. It is a series of police actions against disparate groups with a variety of causes. The brits did not treat the IRA as a war and start bombing the fuck out of N. Ireland, both IRA and Republican terrorist actions were treated as major crimes. OBL is a criminal not a super power. As for Iraq, the majoriy of people blowing themselves up are insergents, they don't want "infidels" occupying their land. No matter how pointless and tragic the attacks in Iraq you have to ask what motivates them? How would you react if the situation was reversed and your faimly was "accidently" wiped out by the occupiers.
Just because a CIA trained leftover from the cold war managed to pull off a huge military stunt to bring attention to his cause does not mean there is a need for a global police state. Sure his little band wants everybody to "enjoy" a Taliban style government but I seriously doubt the majority of the muslim world are interested in giving them any opportunity to do so.
Every "threat" mentioned in this thread has also been an action taken by "responsible" governments since Hirroshima. As for nukes I am more worried about the "haves" than the "have nots".
"A suicidal cult - the Islamofascists"
Perhaps the Islamofacists could fight it out with the Christafacist and the Ziofacists in a WWF "cage bout" billed as the "identical triplet match". The other 99.9999999% of the population who think all meglomanics are fucking nuts would then be able to get on with something more constructive. People the world over are starting to see themselves as global citizens, global corporations are well established, yet global governance is still no better than a gathering of warlords. Surely after 10-15,000 years we can find a better way to build civilization(s) than simply eliminating anyone who is different in the most efficient manner possible.
"...a single attack by Islamic extremists killed more Americans..."
The other week the representatives of the Christian extremists announced they had (so far) killed at least 30,000 citizens of a different country and religion in retaliation for that single act of barbarisim. The total number of US soldiers killed and wounded may end up being comprable to the original "terrorist act". OTOH: Your govt may be lead by a suicidal-cult who are all looking forward to "judgement day".
"We didn't choose it and are not responsible for it."
If everone took that attitude towards both sides of the meat grinder, there would be no meat grinder. The "war on terror" is like fighting a spot fire with a flame thrower and expecting no more problems. US citizens can assist by making their goverment appreciate that it is energy that drives their long term economic survival not oil.
"you should read about the incredible messes in World War II"
My parents were school children in the UK during the war, I was born in 59 and missed the Aussie draft for Vietnam by ~4yrs but many people I have known didn't. I appreciate the fact that the western military have made efforts to avoid civilian harm in recent times (compared to say: the diliberate incineration of 250,000 civilians in the city of Dressden). However attrocities by "the good guys" was often talked about with pride, until one day an uncensored Vietnam started appearing on TV. Let's hope WW2 was the real "war to end all wars", attempting a trilogy would likely be the end of civilization.
"When there is a gigantic gorilla in the room, worrying obsessively about the faint possibility that an ant might get in is beyond reason!
It's especialy unconfortable when the gorilla wears red white and blue and is the one doing the worrying. OTOH: Nobody wants ants to eat their foundations, if someone gives their info freely, don't they also forefiet their right to control what it is used for?
Yep the global whiteboard still has plenty of nationalistic uses, I live in Oz and respect the BBC as a source of news but they only download their video to the UK. I understand that it was paid for by the UK but still can't help being a little dissapointed. As an Aussie I find little to watch on the commercial channels, I also find it embarassing that Rupert Murdoch is identified as an Aussie. Most of my viewing time is spent watching the ABC or SBS, both (in my opinion) are world class broadcasters and we should take more pride in them as an alternative to the Ruperts of this world.
I'm also not sure that Oz is all that far behind anymore, I recently watched a Letterman show where he bluntly accused O'Riley (from faux) of lying(several times) during an interview about political correctness and Christmas. It was a jovial interview but Letterman was obviously intent on screwing him as badly as he could while he was outside of his protective bubble. I have never been a big fan of the Letterman show and his jokes still suck but the way he conducted this interview and his humility when Madona told him off have added to my respect of him as a person.
What I would like to see is a law compelling all broadcasters to submit (into a national archive) a digitized copy of their UNEDITED videos of OUR politicians spoken words. Clips of a personal and non-financial nature would not be stored without personal permission. The archive would natuarlly be freely open to search engines and media sources could have the right to demand a STANDARD fee if anyone were to use their clips for profit. Most importantly, media giants would not have the right to refuse access. As it currently stands media companies own our politicans words, some (cough-Faux-cough) habitually use this freehold to curtail the feedoms of others, ie: heavily censor political speech that does not match their narrow political agenda.
With an archive it would be much simpler to "build a story" using a politicans words out of context but it would become increasingly difficult for the spin masters to censor that context. Many who own "the press" naturally see this sort of thing as a credible threat to their still powerfull voices.
I belive the printing press gave those who could afford to own one a very powerfull voice, the internet has reduced the entry cost to global publication (and quality porn) by several orders of magnitute in the space of a single decade. It's one thing to have feedom of speech but with six-billion voices chattering at once we also require a freedom to listen to what our policians say in public, read and use knowlage our taxes have paid for and eventually listen to what corporate spin our politicians hear at "corporate dinner speaches". It's inevitiable that corporations and governments will use technology to watch us in public, we should return the favour in kind.
High quality combined with low cost usually means it runs like molases. It does not mean it is cheap, it's just that high quality + high performance is the most expensive option.
TFA: I don't really see anything new in the article, it basiclly says quality is a function of the effort spent on planning and verifying that components meet or exceed the design specs, real engineers have been perfecting that method for centuries. Also comparing a few sample projects to the huge number of projects and organisations that have used CMM is kinda pointless, except to say that CMM is not perfect. Me thinks the IEEE wants to muscle in on CMM's established territory.
I am not saying I worked for Telstra but at the time I think I was too busy minimising billing to unproductive time by sharing it amoungst customers bills. The point of the exercise was to maximise the execs bonus for "increasing productivity", the vast majority of tickets were performed for a fixed labour fee, diverting time away from the unproductive account made no difference to revenue or productivity. Soon Telstra will have what they always wanted, no workforce means everything is profit!
"But for me personally, I ignore the certs/diplomas whatever on the Mechanics walls. I don't know what they mean anyway."
Nobody ever pays attention until things go wrong, people assume an MD is able to diagnose or make a reasonable specialist refferal. If it is something serious it would be silly not to get a second opinion but even if you are silly you still deserve a minimum standard of competence from a doctor.
"I know that certifications are nice to check off a list, but I think many people find it leads to at best mediocraty."
It leads to a minimum standard, qualified does not equate to "good", it equates to "good enough". I would not expect a random mechanic to be "good" but I expect them to be "good enough" that my brakes don't fail at the first stop light. I expect an anethitist to be good enough to keep me under when I'm on the table. If either of them are charging me for a service and are not "good enough" then I have legal recourse.
"...but isn't that what references and interviews and heck, the probationary period for?
No, that is how you find the good ones amoungst those that qualify.
I worked at a large telco when Australia introduced 10% GST to replace a dizzying array of existing sales taxes and rules. I was assigned to represent the interests of our system in the company wide discussions that went on for a long time about how to handle GST rounding errors. Eventually something like this article was produced showing various rounding algorithims and their pros and cons and a mandated algorithm was given to all projects. The extreme amount of time, effort and documentation was (in my mind incorrectly) blamed on the executives ignorance of floating point limitations in computing.
The execs eventually told us they were mainly concerened that any unavoidable error should be in the customers favour...problem solved. Their downfall was not ignorance it was because they ran the meetings poorly, we were simply there to listen and answer questions. ie: They set themselves up to immediately stray out of requirements, the high level problem was forgotten and the meetings became a series of informal discussions on the wonderland of floating point. They completely missed the fact that GST was the same as existing sales taxes except for the "customer's favour and disclosure" mandates, they were way to busy tring to convert X/11 into dollars and cents.
Certifications count because they are written into the contract as the minimum acceptable standard of work the customer will receive, this in turn can play a part in insurance premiums, loans, etc. No cert, no customer, no fucking job, exactly the same as any other industry, don't you care wether your mechanic is qualified to fix your brakes? Brutally capitalistic and beuracratic but very simple for the customer to understand and easy for the vendor to comply. When things go badly pear shaped and a few million dollars evaporates even Judge Judy will understand that particular clause.
Good point, sex and politics will never be seperated.
What about bulldozers, with a modern roll cage nobody gets hurt, you can always create your own paking spot, strong enought to drag home the spoils of shopping... The benifits are endless, it could even have saved New Orleans!
I don't know about the USA but over here in Australia builder's wagons are everywhere, they have these huge chunks of armour on the front called "bull bars". The purpose of this armour is to pulverise large animals without scratching the duco. I can see the need for a bull bar in the outback but most of these morons never leave the suburbs, photographers "NEEEED" one to drive themselves to weddings!
If the bulldozer idea doesn't take off then perhaps we could secretly get parking spaces reduced by an inch or two each time they are painted. Over time it will become impractical to use anything bigger than a hatchback to get the shopping or drop the kids at school.
"..it was (is) very annoying to see someone straight out of school, spend $30,000 or whatever to get an MCSE in 6 months and then drop straight into a $90,000 a year position when someone who has years of "real world" experience is still stuck in a $28,000 helpdesk position."
I have been in IT for over 15yrs and in the workforce for 30yrs. In IT I have worked mainly in development on large scale projects and have interviewed over a hundred applicants in that time. I have seen many people who are worse than useless at their job and I have on occasion hired some of them myself. I have never seen this happen, people with proven experience do not have to put up with being chained up to a call center phone for a pitance. If by "helpdesk" you mean third level support, then these people must be mature enough to deal with competing queries from multiple powerfull customers, they are normally well paid individuals with proven experience, the majority have some kind of tertiary qualification.
I myself have a BSc in computer science, it cost me ~$60K (mainly lost income) and three years of my time. I had been interested in computers since the late seventies, I did the degree for the specific reason of making "big bucks" from my hobby, it has proven to be worth far more than it cost. The "big-bucks" says I can now go back to acedimia and get payed to continue my hobby and teach others (the bucks are just too seductive right now and I have a new hobby). The vast majority of people who I have worked with have either had a related degree, doctorate or served a long "apprenticeship" in the mainframe days. Occasionally I have come across people who have unrelated degrees (eg: biology) but these people are usually found in testing, documentation or management.
"The ability to perform a job is the key thing..."
I would rephrase that as "potential", "ability" is what maintains your employment. If you don't have "a bit of paper" how do I know you have any potential? I can't interview every asshat who tells me "the answers to all problems are in this browser thingy", I need someone else to filter out this sort of noise and find some "qualified" applicants. There are simply too many people wanting the $90K job that I am offering on behalf of my employer. In any workplace bigger than a shop-front this filtering task is performed by the HR department or an external agency.
Now if the HR people send me their selection of applicants for a "senior developer with relevant tertiary qualifications" and I get five pimply kids with a shinny new MSCE stappled to their forehead, what do I do? I can either suck it up and watch the project go into the bit bucket or I can reject all of them.
After all the manhours expended to find these five teenage wiz-kids, HR will definitely want to know why they are unsuitable. It is the project managers function to acurately describe what they want, HR then go and find people who they think match the description. Sometimes HR have template job descriptions such as "senior software developer" but the hiring manager has the power to reject any/all applicants. I have only worked at one IT company that did not operate like this when it came to hiring people, that company employed 4 people including the married couple who owned it.
I am not saying that an unqualified person cannot do the job, I have seen worthy people migrate from low-paying jobs, often via company sponsored tertiary education. I'm asking why should I give anyone the time of day when I have not already personally witnessed their POTENTIAL? The answer is because I need to hire strangers. Before I actually meet the stranger face to face, a "bit of paper" is the only clue I get that says they might be suitable for the job.
"...and I've been able to find a great IT Manager position..."
So now it is your responsibility to hire great IT people, right? If you needed somebody to write trivial windows apps and did not want to spend days interviewing people, what experience and qualifications would you suggest HR look for when selecting applicants?
Yeah, they say the same thing about horses.
"Its the same reason Wikipedia is not considered a legitimate source of info."
Why is it not a legitimate source, the probelm of errors is that people absolute authority from just one source. If the internet is not for transforming politics what use is it?
"Everyone else had the raw data in hand, but no one could make heads or tails of it."
This is the definition of genius, he accepted that the speed of light was constant as experiments had shown, this lead him to the idea of variable space and time. He may have used more than logical deduction but it did not appear in his 3 page paper, there was not a single reference.
"With this I certainly agree and don't think I said anything to the contrary, but I do think your statement goes very well with my point that scientists are about as humble as the local preacher and as a secular layman, the lack of humility (on both sides) can be very off putting."
Yes, narrow-mindedness is a human trait often found in authority type figures. It is a pity philosophy is not taught at school along with art, science and language (OTOH: I dropped out of high school at 16 beliving Uri Geller could bend spoons and I was pronounced "good at science"!!!). I was not trying to be argumentative, I am saying science has an overall answer to your Q2, philosophy and maths are still working on Q1.
"I'm not saying good people don't do it, but it's wrong"
My point, maybe a lousy act but it does not follow he was a lousy human being. My wife of 20yrs treated me in a similar manner before she left, a few thoughtless and selfish acts do not negate the rest of the 20yrs we spent together.
"There is a distinct difference between 'breaking someone's heart' (ending a relationship when the other still cares for you) and violating their trust. One is one of many natural paths for a relationship, the other is simply a poor way to treat a fellow human being."
"I'm leaving for someone else" has the same ring as "I'm leaving for someone else that I have slept with". The result in both cases is an overwhelming feeling of loss, an overwhelming feeling of betrayal would seem to indicate an ownership mindset towards the other person. Infidelity is a symptom of weak sexual relationship bonds, not a serious character fault.
If Einstien were the pinup boy for the institution of marraige rather than the institution of science you may have a point, but he is not, so you don't. His infidelity (iconicly portrayed as shoelaces) show him up as human rather than superhuman, something science should never forget.
"He may have stated his credo, but he lived life as an adulterer and philanderer. Great science, but lousy human being.
Just the word "adulterer" makes me wince.
Breaking someones heart does not imply you are a lousy human being, it's actually part of the birds and bees that someone should have explained to you by now. Most adults have broken at least one heart, if you haven't then you are an unusal case. Broken hearts is the reason people mature and get more circumspect about relationships, many people end up avoiding permenant sexual relationships alltogether. Regardless of your personal disgust with Einstein having followed his heart, humans by and large are serial monogomists, learn to deal with it.
Don't bother retrospectivly ranting about chauvanisim either, at that time in history it was a "fact of life", he simply never thought to question that part of "common-sense". Much like stoning adulterers was a "fact of life" during the dark ages, male domination was simply the prevaling morality.
If science must have an iconic personality, I would like it to be a gentle, humourous and humane one that inspires awe and wonder. I can think of none more fitting than Einstien.
At sufficient resolution all life is shaped like swiss cheese.
Many of the organs you mention are considered as variations on the end of the "tube", ie: they all pass through the stomach. The blood stream and other minute passages in and around the body are ignored. This is done to create distinct "body plans", traditionally used to classify life into different phyla.
Sadly I forget her name, but it was not Einstien who showed that E=MV^2. She proved Newton (E=MV) to be wrong by dropping solid balls into clay and measuring the depth. Einstien turned the whole thing on it's head and asked "What if the speed of light really is constant, could space and time vary?". I don't know if it was deliberate but it actually questioned Newtons assumption (time is constant) that formed the basis of his Principa[sic].