I was reading an interview in the New Scientist about a linguist who specialises in obscure languages.
According to her there is a language belonging to an Amazonian tribe where you *have* to put how you know something. For example, if you say that Jack told you something you have to also say how he told you. For example if he phoned you you would say "Jack told me, non-visually."
With examples like that, I'd have to say that it is perfectly possible for language to define how a society operates and how people think.
Take for example also the Chinese language. The Chinese language is tonal. This means that songs that people write have to take this into account so that people can actually understand what you're singing. Modern songs aren't so bad esp. Mandarin songs as Mandarin only has a few tones and is much more forgiving of tonal mistakes. But Cantonese has 7 and older Chinese languages have 9. They figure out how to sing centuries old songs where only the lyrics survive by working out the tones of the words. That is an example of the language influencing the entire musical heritage of the culture. I've also noticed that word plays are much more popular in Chinese and Japanese than in English, because there are so many words that sound similar. In English you only have a limited subset of words for familial relations. In Chinese, there is a title for practically every permutation of familial relation you can have. For example the wife of your father's older brother has a different title to the wife of your mother's young brother and to your father's older sister and to your mother's older sister and your father's younger brother's wife etc. etc. Also close non-blood ties are usually expressed in family terms like big brother or Uncle (one of the many terms for uncle depending on if they are your father or mother's friend and whether they are older or younger than your father/mother), or little sister etc. Hell, there is a tradition in many families of choosing given names that reflect which generation you are so when you meet someone from your family you can tell how senior/junior they are to you from their names (this practice became defunct after the Communists) This just displays the importance of family in China. That the Chinese think in terms of family units and family ties waaaay more than native English speaking cultures do. In fact even government structure is seen in terms of family with the Emperor being the "father" of the nation and the obedience people have to the Emperor being seen as the same sort of obedience a son owes his father. This is embodied in Confucianism - though note that Confucius merely put together what people had already thought for a long time. That is a very large difference in thinking that is reflected in the different languages.
Also looking at 1984, the entire focus on Newspeak was to get rid of words like "freedom" (or subvert their meaning). It is much harder to think of a concept if you don't have a word for it.
I disagree with the statement that new versions of Chinese will spring up. If you look at China, Mandarin is so wide-spread in the north because of the Central Plains region. Good geography easy spread. Language diversity and genetic diversity is much larger in the south due to the much more difficult terrain of the south which limits the spread of languages. This also made the south much more easily defensible than the north as has been shown many times in Chinese history with the Yangtze river the single greatest defensive barrier in China (esp. against northerners who don't know how to fight on water). It was a lot more useful than the Great Wall ever was. The reason why they didn't diversify more was because the Chinese Empire was very good at reintegrating those regions back into the Empire after every time the Empire broke up and there were a lot of migrations from the north esp. masses of refugees during times of turmoil in the north. Modern technology makes the geographical reasons for the language diversity in the south null.
The scientists don't want it and think it's unsafe. From my readings of major scientific magazines and journals, e-voting as it is being implemented in the US is raising major alarm bells.
People well-versed in computer technology think it's dangerous and unsafe.
Management (ie. the electoral officials) want it. Companies (who will profit from it) want it.
Basically those who are usually the most gung-ho about new technology and most technologically literate think the idea needs careful thinking and the technology is flawed. Those who are the most technologically illiterate and those who stand to make money out of it are all for it. This is a case of management over-riding the concerns of the engineers who are waving red flags going "Danger, danger".
I see a disaster in the making here. Oh well, it will all come out in the wash when lawsuits from losing candidates start. Or we have another Florida, except this time as another poster pointed out as there is no audit trail, we'll have to flip a coin to see who is President. Or I guess redo the entire election.
Oh and to add, quite a lot of these refugees are still locked up somewhere - yes including children and have been for years. Some of them have gone so far as to sewing up their lips, committing suicide, etc. The Howard government is trying to reduce their legal rights as much as possible (Wait, they have the right to appeal? Hmm, let's see if we can take that away...)
Anyone in Australia during the last election would remember the demonisation of Iraqi refugees. Man, they were a threat to the country! Evil, I tell you, the sort of people who would throw their own children overboard these Iraqis fleeing from Saddam Hussein. They are not the sort of people we want in this country. If we don't stop them now, they'd all come here and ruin this fine country of ours Australia. Only the Howard government can stop this. The opposition would let all these *Iraqis* come in. This won Howard the election (he was trailing in the polls before he started this line).
After listening to Howard demonise Iraqi refugees for years, not even the most fervant Howard fanboy would believe that he went to Iraq to help the Iraqi people. Especially since the demonisation still continues to this day. In fact his core base would probably turn against him if he started expressing too much concern for Iraqis. Talkback radio (ie. Alan Jones and John Laws) would kill him.
Because you are absolutely naive if you think Howard cares at all about the people of Iraq. He didn't say anything when the Kurds got gassed. Before the war, during the war and after the war he demonised Iraqi refugees and tried to send them back to Iraq so that Saddam Hussein could kill them. He even lied about Iraqi refugees throwing their children overboard in order to get re-elected. This was a huge scandal in Australia. So during the last election he was willing to sacrifice Iraqi refugees in order to get re-elected. Do you really think he gives a damn?
I seem to remember him admitting that the reason Australia was going to war was to help America. Helping the Iraqi people was never an issue. The Free Trade agreement was an issue that was repeatedly brought up by politicians and the media as well as the need for American military protection. Considering this he is stupid to send troops to war without guaranteeing economic and military benefits for Australia. He really is Bush's doormat.
Speaking as an Australian I can say that Australia is more accurately America's doormat.
Take for example this trade agreement. Australia could hardly get anything on agriculture, one of its biggest export areas and one where America's trade barriers really hurt. And yet we are still planning to sign it as a good deal. Personally I'm trying to work out how exactly this trade deal is going to help us at all. The farmers hate it and claim it sells out the farming industry (actually it's more like the status quo hasn't really changed ie. the deal gives almost zero benefits to farmers). The unions hate it and claims it sells out the manufacturing industry. The actors and TV producers hate it and claims it sells out the Australia movie and TV industry. The doctors are just relieved because they thought it could have been much worse (they thought PBS would be dismantled or crippled - it's still not clear whether it will be or not so the doctors are still worried). There are some vague rumblings of support from manufacturers but it seems more like some will benefit and some will be hit badly so it's a toss up whether manufacturing as a whole will benefit. Trust me, we're a doormat.
I mean geez, Howard, if you're going to send troops to Iraq to support an unpopular war, couldn't you at least get some financial benefit from it? And I thought he was a smart political operative. I guess his love of Bush (trust me even conservative Murdoch-owned newspapers here put in cartoons showing Howard worshipping Bush in bed) over-road his political smarts.
For one thing - if you knew proper grammar, sentence-structure etc. it would have made your comment that much easier to read. I'm not a grammar Nazi. But in your case I spent a lot more time concentrating on the process of reading what you wrote rather than thinking about what you wrote. This is mainly because your lack of capitalisation means that your comment just looks like one big blob of text. Also your sentence structure sucks. You put commas where there should be full-stops which means that the flow of the text is wrong and I have to stop to think about what you really meant. At least you attempted to put it in paragraphs.
Good grammar is about making it easier for your readers to read what you wrote by breaking up the text into logical structures that are easy for the eyes to parse. Whenever I see something on the web that is just one big blob of text (no capitalisation, no paragraph breaks etc.) with very bad spelling I don't read it unless the information it contains is vital. Why? Because it gives me a headache and strains my eyes just trying to parse the text to get to the information. It's not about elitism. It's about saving my eyes and head from having to read 3 times slower and concentrating twice as hard to get to the information than if the author had bothered to try to separate the words into a proper structure and ran it through a spell-check.
Having proper grammar and spelling is like having everyone using standard C or standard C++ rather than weird variant number 1000 that only works on this computer when there is a full moon. It might be more boring and staid, but having a standard framework that everyone agrees on makes it much easier to understand what the other guy is talking about. Smaller groups may use their own special deviations (which make it harder for those outside their group to understand their programs). If new deviations become popular enough they get added to the standard. But still having that standard framework is vital, and those who choose to deviate from it should still be fully grounded in it so they can communicate easily with others not in their special "group".
Reviewer hasn't used KDE for a while?
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: 1
I have the feeling that the reviewer hasn't used KDE for ages (or could be using the Red Hat version which has some features taken out)
For example the font installer has been in KDE for ages. I remember using it when the Mandrake font installer decided to not work and this was several versions ago. This was one of the KDE features that Red Hat removed from their version of KDE.
Likewise tabs have been around for quite a while as has the service menu.
GPL free vs BSD free
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: 5, Informative
QT is as free as the Linux kernel since they are both under the GPL. In fact, it's even more "free" because you can make closed-source programs with it (even if it means paying someone) while you don't have that option at all with just the GPL.
Now however if you're talking about BSD free, then no QT is not free. But then again under this definition neither is Linux (the kernel), gcc, etc. either. So if you're going to dump QT for not being "free" to be fair you have to dump on practically all of Linux as well.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the viral nature of the GPL or close-sourcing GNOME or KDE. I'm talking about Bruce Perens basically saying that for a community of active commercial developers of software for Linux, the GPL is not viable. One of the chief arguments he puts out against QT and one of the chief arguments that a lot of people on Slashdotters who criticise QT use is that commercial developers do not want to use a toolkit which they can only close-source if they pay a fee. Perens wants to encourage commercial developers (a "cottage" industry) to develop for Linux and is in effect saying GPL is not good for commercial development (because as you say KDE's libraries are purely GPL).
Thus if Perens says QT's license is bad for commercial developers (and hence hostile to the software business) because you cannot close-source QT apps without paying Trolltech, then how much worse is the GPL for commercial development where you don't even have the option of paying someone?
To be frank, I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't picked up on this yet. I'm waiting for the press-release from Seattle: "Long-time Linux advocate says open-source hostile for commercial software development."
Personally I don't mind closed-source software. I'm not an open-source fanatic, but to my mind, if you are an open-source advocate it does your cause any good to be so contradictory.
If you say that QT is bad for commercial developers of software because you can't close source your work without paying money, then it stands to reason that the GPL is even worse for commercial developers because you can't close source it at all.
In fact isn't Bruce Perens saying what people like MS say? Software companies will not develop work if they cannot close-source it. Open source is anti-commercial.
How can Bruce Perens on one hand say that GPL and open-source is good for commerce and business and on the other hand say that not being able to close-source your work for free will hinder and destroy software companies esp. small ones? I'm surprised MS hasn't picked up on this contradiction yet to attack Linux.
"Even one of the most ardent advocates of Open source Mr Bruce Perens says that software developers need to be able to close-source their work otherwise they won't develop software. Even Mr Perens believes that the GPL is harmful to the software industry."
Not a question, but I'd just like to point out that Al-Sistani, the Shi'ite cleric that's currently causing such a lot of trouble for George Bush has his own website (yes, there is an English version):
http://www.sistani.org/
Al-Sistani is one of the top Shi'ite clerics in Iraq, based in the holy city of Najaf and a direct descendent of the Prophet Mohammed. He is of course conservative. It's interesting to see this mixture of latest IT and tech.
Anyway one of the questions here is do clerics in Iraq see IT tech as evil? I think that if even the top Shi'ite cleric the Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani has a website I think that somewhat answers that question. You can even ask religious questions through a webform, the answers to which are guaranteed to 'bear the seal of the office of the Grand Ayatollah Uzma Sistani.'
Release cycle is not the same as support period
on
MandrakeSoft Roundup
·
· Score: 1
The actual text says:
"Bancilhon expects to see updated versions of the "community version" every six months, while the "official" version will be on an 18 month release cycle."
Release cycle is not the same as how long the support period for patches etc. will be. I mean look at Windows - it is on a release cycle of every 2-3 years and yet its update cycle is something around 5 years I think (and even longer if you kick up a big enough stink).
The article says that a big difference between the "community" release and Fedora is that whilst Fedora is entirely separate from Red Hat, Red Hat makes no promises etc., the Mandrake "community" release will still be done under the Mandrake banner, by Mandrake employees and the article says *supported* by Mandrake employees as part of their jobs. I presume that support will be the same as what the current download version gets. I get the impression that the community release is just a new name for the current download version. It is still an 'official' Mandrake product (unlike Fedora). Mandrake releases every 6 months now anyway.
". The "community" version of Mandrake will still be produced by company developers and supported by MandrakeSoft employees as part of their job, unlike the Fedora project which is produced outside of Red Hat's formal development structure and supported by volunteers."
It seems more like they are adding a new product called the "official" version which will have a longer release cycle.
An essential difference between Mandrake and Redhat is that whilst Redhat is abandoning the (home) desktop (which is part of the reason for the move to spin off the free version as an unsupported volunteer product), the home desktop is probably one of Mandrake's biggest areas.
First thing, it doesn't seem as if they are blacklisted yet, only that their IP-block is on some sort of warning level before being blacklisted if their ISP doesn't do anything about spammers.
Secondly, I don't understand why people blame SPEWS. All SPEWS does is provide a list of what they think a black-list should be. They are not forcing anyone to use it. They are not a government body or even a standards organisation. They are not trying to trick anyone with false promises or advertising a dangerous product. Obviously the people who are using it agree with its philosophies (ie. collateral damage) and believe that the false positives are worth it to get rid of the spam. ISPs that implement it are businesses first and formost. If they were losing more customers due to complaints about false positives than to complaints about spam they would have disabled it ages ago. As for complaints that SPEWS have too much power, they get the power by people who run ISPs deciding to voluntarily and of their own free will give it to them. They don't dictate terms to anyone, they don't force anyone to use their blacklists. SPEWS is a symptom of the problem not the cause. Just like fevers and boils are often the body's attempt to get rid of the disease. Mighty inconvient but useful. The cause is spammers and ISPs that support them. Managing to wipe out SPEWS is like popping smallpox boils. It does nothing to get rid of the disease. The question is whether SPAM is a disease that SPEWS can get rid of or whether the disease is so severe that the fever is useless and the inconvience was all for naught.
I think the issue is that the problem with spam is so huge that any anti-spam action you take is going to cause problems for someone somewhere. No approach is NOT going to cause problems. Legal approaches either seem to legitimise spam or add more government control and often seem to be useless with little teeth anyway. Technical approaches like changes to email protocols seem to be going no-where quickly and take lots of money and inconvience to implement. If people fustrated with the slow technical changes start implementing different protocols we could end with a Balkanisation of email. Making people pay for each email sent will cause big problems with people who legitimately need to send out mailing lists. End user filtering tends to be more complex than the average user likes and doesn't address the problem that the email still costs money to the ISP (and hence to you). Blacklists tend to cause collateral damage. It's like the solution to any major problem - someone somewhere is going to have to give. Either you allow the government exert more control over the internet, you are willing to spend a lot of money fixing the problem technologically or you accept that blacklists are going to cause collateral damage. What are people willing to sacrifice to get rid of spam, because you are going to have to sacrifice something because it is the legal and technical status quo that allows it to happen. Just like if you want to get rid of pollution, you are going to have to sacrifice something because it is our current way of life that causes the massive pollution problems that exist today.
Personally I think the best approach would be for spammers to all get struck by lightning and suffer in the 7 Hells for the rest of eternity but somehow I doubt that will happen.
Reminds me of Zhuge Liang's wooden oxen (back in the 3rd century AD - though now people think looking at the plans he left behind it might just have described the invention of the wheelbarrow rather than an actual mechanical beast)! From Romance of the Three Kingdoms:
"I have had a scheme ready for a long time. The timber that I collected and bought in the River Lands was for the construction of wooden transport animals to convey grain. It will be very advantageous, as they will require neither food nor water and they can keep on the move day and night without resting...They are being made now after my plans, but they are not yet ready. Here I have the sketches for these mechanical oxen and horses, with all their dimensions written out in full. You may see the details."
Zhuge Liang then produced a paper, and all the generals crowded round to look at it. They were all greatly astonished and lauded, "The Prime Minister is superhuman!"
A few days later the new mechanical animals were complete and began work. They were quite life-like and went over the hills in any desired direction. The whole army saw them with delight. They were but in charge of Right General Gao Xiang and a thousand soldiers to guide them. They kept going constantly between Saber Pass and the front carrying grain for the use of the soldiers.
Along the Saber Pass mountain roads The running horses bore their loads, And through Xie Valley's narrow way The wooden oxen paced each day. O generals, use these means today, And transport troubles take away.
Where asked where the idea came from he replied:
"The world is filled with things of man's making. I have long observed vehicles throughout the land, and considered the principle by which beasts of burden walk, and thus invented this..."
The story also comes with a case of military espionage as the enemy Sima Yi captures some of them and tries to copy the design.
US Journalist: So are you going to be running Linux or Windows in this country of yours?
Sherif Ali: I'll tell you that when I *have* a country.
BTW what is the Arabic support in Linux like? That's probably the most important thing. The other thing going for Linux is it is considered less American than Windows and considering the rock bottom opinion most Arabs have of America, that probably works in its favour. There have been boycotts of American goods in Arab countries. And aren't there export restrictions on American goods to some countries like Syria and Iran? And doesn't China do a lot of business with Arab countries? If the Chinese government starts adopting Linux heavily this could spill to the Arab countries.
Personally I would use the term Zealots rather than Zionists.
The Zealots were a bunch of militant religious nuts who dragged the majority moderate Jews to war with Rome, leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, the burning of the Temple and the final destruction of what remained of Israel, leaving the Jews without a homeland for the next 2000 years. They refused to abide any foreign rule because Israel could only be ruled according to the strict word of God and believed that any violent means were acceptable, to achieve their aims. The Jews bitterly regretted the Zealots during their wandering years, but obviously they haven't learnt not to allow their interactions with their neighbours to be ruled by violent militant religious nuts who believe they are on a holy quest from God to maintain the sancitity and purity of the Jewish state.
Zionism used to be quite secular and was actually despised by Jewish fundamentalists. Then it got hijacked by militant fundamentalists who want to recreate the Israel of Solomon and David. Never mind that particular Israel hasn't existed for over 2000 years and other people settled in the region over the last couple of millenia. While the majority of Israelites just want to live their lives and don't give a damn about Greater Israel, the rantings of the settlers involve lines like "God gave us this land so it belongs to us. The Palestinians should acknowledge us as the rulers or they should just get out." The fact that most people don't seem to realise that *both* sides are driven by religious nuts who are perfectly willing to use force against innocent civilians to achieve their aims and don't care a whit about the suffering of their own people just shows that the Jewish Zealots have a better PR machine.
The funny thing is now the Jews are coming to realise that if they keep the Palestinian lands, they will soon no longer be a Jewish state because the Arab birthrate is much higher. So the options are to either reliquish the land and remain small, but democratic and Jewish. They could keep the land, and remain Jewish by not allowing the Arabs to vote in a sort of apartheid system therefore no longer be a democracy (what do you call a country where the majority are not allowed to vote because of their race?). They could keep the land, and remain Jewish by driving all of the Arabs out ie. ethnic cleansing (Israel could be the first democracy to do ethnic cleansing...). Or they could keep the land, remain a democracy and the Jewish nature of the state will be wiped out in a decade when Arabs form the majority of the population,and vote in an Arab PM. Personally I'd choose (1) but somehow I have a feeling the zealots are going to drive Israel to (2) or (3). If (4) happens I'd consider it karma.
I'm sorry, but I just lost all respect for you when you included New Zealand in that list. New Zealand is about as anti-war as you can possibly get. If there was a spectrum with the US on one end, New Zealand would be in the extreme opposite end. India is also anti-war. You're getting anti-war Norway confused with pro-war Denmark (don't worry, Osama bin Laden did that too). And the government of Uzbekistan is well known for its use of torture and the death penalty against politcal opponents, not to mention putting human rights activists in mental hospitals. I wouldn't exactly be proud of their support. I would have put Japan instead of Uzbekistan myself. And let's not forget that it is only the *governments* of those countries that supported the US. In all of them, the vast majority of the *people* were opposed to it (except Israel and Kuwait I suppose, though 50% of Kuwaities still think the US is a potential military threat to *them*)
I'm sorry, I still can't get pass *New Zealand* being on the list of supporters of the US. It's like seeing the head of PETA listed as the best man at the wedding of the CEO of Furs, Inc.
While anti-war, I believe Saddam Hussein's capture is a good thing. He was evil and deserves to be punished for his crimes.
However I suspect some of the congratulations from world leaders may be a bit strained. And I'm not sure that all of the members of the US government would really have liked to see him captured alive.
You see the thing is, Saddam had a lot of dealings with various countries like France, Russia and of course the US esp. during the times when he was busy murdering and massacring people. At one point he was a respectable member of the international community and a US ally (incidentally during the same time he was massacring people, but well when has foreign relations ever been about human rights). He could probably tell about some very embarassing things esp. since there are suggestions the trial will be televised. For example he could say "When I ordered the Kurds to be gassed, the US government said nothing to me but Mr Cheny sent me a message hoping that I am successful in pacifying the country and winning against Iran" (to get this, see news about Kissinger's notes to Argentina during their own "dirty war" which involved massive human rights violations) or "Yes, the French *were* selling me weapons on the sly after the Gulf War". Emphatic denials could also kill the Saddam-Osama rumours AND the weapons of mass destruction rumours as well which the Bush administration have used so effectively.
I think the more the Bush administration (and other world leaders like Chirac) think about it, the more they'll realise it might have been better if he had given them a reason to shoot him dead during the capture. That would have been the ideal solution. Saddam would be gone so the morale boost and prestige would still be there. But dead men don't talk.
"The world under heaven, after a long period of division, tends to unite; after a long period of union, tends to divide. This has been so since antiquity. When the rule of the Zhou Dynasty weakened, seven contending kingdoms sprang up, warring one with another until the kingdom of Qin prevailed and possessed the empire. But when Qin's destiny had been fulfilled, arose two opposing kingdoms, Chu and Han, to fight for the mastery. And Han was the victor."
"Before him bowed the kings of Shu and Wu, Content to forfeit kingly power for life. All down the ages rings the note of change, For fate so rules it; none escapes its sway. The three kingdoms have vanished as a dream, The useless misery is ours to grieve."
These are the opening and ending lines of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, one of the most popular and well-known books in China. In the Chinese mentality the reunification of Taiwan with China is something that is going to happen eventually, if not right now. Why? They look at history. China has always split into 2 or more countries after the end of a dynasty and one of those countries has always gone and defeated the others to reunify China. Since it has always happened in the past it will happen in the future (Chinese believe strongly in cycles). If people wonder where China's obsession with unification comes from...Historical characters such as those in Three Kingdoms who reunite China (or try really really hard eg. Ngok Fei) are always admired and become national heroes and are even elevated to gods.
I can see China invading Taiwan though not right now. If civil unrest continues in China and the economy goes downhill, in order to maintain power the government might raise the spectre of nationalism. Nationalism is already replacing Communism as the idealism the government is using to keep people loyal and faithful. And once nationalism is raised in rhetoric it may be a war that the Chinese government is forced into by its own proclaimations. It may back itself into a corner and decide invading and the consequences would be better than losing face. And unification has always been a fascination of the Chinese as books like Romance of the Three Kingdoms show. Think - a restless China with economic problems, a new young energetic Chinese premier comes into power on the back of a strong nationalist campaign. He thinks - could I become another Guan Yu from Three Kingdoms (who is now worshipped as a god)? The temptation to recreate the Oath of the Peach Tree Garden may be too hard to resist. Chinese rulers have done a lot more stupid illogical frankly self-destructive things in the past.
In these circumstances, the needs of technology users in America are going to be the least of their considerations. Godhood or computer users in the US? Godhood or computer users in the US?
Here is a comment by Prince Feisal. Those who've watched Lawrence of Arabia know he was the head of the Arab Revolt against the Turks. He was also the direct descendent of the eldest son of the Prophet's daughter Fatima and his father was the leader of Mecca and one of the Princes of Arabia (one of his chief allies was the head of the Shiites).
He made a comment to Lawrence of his fear that after the Turks were defeated the English would take over the Middle East (which did happen). He feared the arrival of increasing amounts of British soldiers and the potential for British betrayal after the war ended and for them to renegade on their promises of independence. Lawrence tried to reassure him by saying that there were many British soldiers in France and the French did not fear them. His reply:
"And though I know the British do not want it, yet what can I say, when they took over Sudan, also not wanting it? They hunger for desolate lands, to build them up; and so, perhaps, one day Arabia will seem to them precious. Your good and my good, perhaps they are different, and either forced good or forced evil will make a people cry with pain. Does the ore admire the flame which transforms it? There is no reason for offence, but a people too weak are clamant over their little own. Our race will have a cripple's temper till it has found its feet."
The Arab attitude to America is probably the same, except this time fuelled by memories of the British betrayal, and America's support of their oppressive rulers and America's attitudes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their mistrust of Britain (and British soldiers in Arabia) was fueled by suspicion alone. Their mistrust of America (and the West) is fueled by experience and hence much more severe and intractable. And now they *know* how valuable their land (more specially) their oil is to other countries.
Has the West and America in particular in the last 100 years given *any* reason for the people of Arabia to trust them and to believe that they only have good intentions? Why should they believe in the America? Because they say they only want to help, they aren't going to try to rule, the soldiers are only there to help the Arabs? It was exactly the same things the British said. "We come as liberators not conquerors" to the Iraqis was originally a British line. America is not Britain but since Arab independence, what has America done to prove that it can be trusted by the Arabs?
One has to wonder how much of the failure of Arabia in the last century has to do with Western meddling and Western propping up of despots for their oil. A lot of the Western partitioning of Arabia (and Africa too for that matter) was very badly thought out. And the creation of Israel was forced on the people already living there (this kind of thing causes massive resentment of the newcomers even within the same country eg. China, Iraq). Of course even without interference the Arabs might have descended to internal fighting, but let's be frank, the Arabs didn't fail on their own. They had a lot of help from interested Western parties - either through incompetence or to protect their supply of precious oil.
Well if anyone is interested in some statistics from www.religioustolerance.org:
In the 2000 elections, 79% of people who identify themselves as from the "religious right" (14% of the electorate) voted Republican. Of the 83% identifying themselve as non-religious right, 55% voted Democrat, 41% Republican. This was from exit polls (and apparently Catholics were less skewed towards Democrats than usual). From this it is obvious why the Republicans rely on the religious right so heavily politically. Currently a Republican Presidental candidate (even one with mainstream support like Bush) that displeases the religious right cannot win an election. The Republican party is effectively hostage to the religious right.
This also tallies with the result that amongst heavy church goers (more than once a week), 62% vote Republican, 36% Democrat. For those who never go to church it is the opposite way round. For casual church goers, 56% voted Rep. 41% Dem. Also it seems that of the religious groups, the base of Republican support is amongst Protestants as they are the only religious group which they have majority support. Evangelical Christians are both heavy church goers and Protestant.
Personally my opposition to human cloning comes not so much from religious reasons as because I feel very very sorry for the clones. What would it be like knowing you are a clone? As stories I've read from people who were adopted show, people have very strong feelings about their origins eg. finding their birth parents. Where you come from is something that weighs heavily on people's minds. Think of how adopted children feel when they get told they aren't their parents' real kid. How would you feel being told you are a clone of your father? Or the clone of a dead brother or sister?
Also it is inevitable that clones will be stigmitised in human society. When they go to school they will be considered freaks of nature, their very existence deemed monstrous. They'd probably be turned down for jobs - essentially they will be marked from birth as societal outcasts. The only people likely to accept them will be the scientists who created them and even then only as experimental subjects.
But even that doesn't matter so much if they were loved, as guidance and acceptance and unconditional love from your parents can help people through the worse of things, but from what I read of the people who want clones as children, they don't seem to be entirely mentally stable. Many of the stories seem to involve a dead child who they literally want to bring back from the dead. Anyone grow up in a family and go to a school where you were continually expected to be as good as your older brother/sister? Same thing, except a million times worse. Your parents will be expecting you to *be* your dead brother or sister. Why else would they have spent tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars cloning them when they could just have had another child? Other reasons also seem bad - as an organ bank for someone. Human bodies put in storage to have organs taken out to be used for spares (I've actually read a manga about that where a doctor feeling sorry for the clone and hating the selfish brat who is the original secretly switches the two so the brat's organs are harvested and the clone 'becomes' the brat albeit with amnesia). And making the child the clone of one of the parents seems to be firstly somewhat egotistical and brings up all sorts of emotional complications and feelings. You'd also have to question the mentality and ego of someone who wants to spend a fortune on a clone of him/herself rather than using a sperm/egg bank or adoption. Essentially all of the people who want clones (with perhaps the exception of those who want a clone to harvest organs for a dying child though even that is morally dubious by any standards) seem to be some of the most selfish mentally unstable people who either seem to have an ego problem (too large) or are too obsessive about the past. There is no way any of them could guide a clone child through a hostile world where their very existence is seen as wrong.
Not in the schools around where I live. Kids there run businesses where they sell pirated games to other kids. Why bother trying to work out how to crack Game X where you can buy it for a couple of bucks from Johnny down the corridor at lunch time? And once one kid gets a pirated copy with cracks, every 12 year old can do "casual piracy". And these are respectable private suburban church schools. The protections they are putting in aren't stopping kids from pirating them either. It's just helping set up profit making pirating rings in schools.
Slashdot Mirror
I was reading an interview in the New Scientist about a linguist who specialises in obscure languages.
According to her there is a language belonging to an Amazonian tribe where you *have* to put how you know something. For example, if you say that Jack told you something you have to also say how he told you. For example if he phoned you you would say "Jack told me, non-visually."
With examples like that, I'd have to say that it is perfectly possible for language to define how a society operates and how people think.
Take for example also the Chinese language. The Chinese language is tonal. This means that songs that people write have to take this into account so that people can actually understand what you're singing. Modern songs aren't so bad esp. Mandarin songs as Mandarin only has a few tones and is much more forgiving of tonal mistakes. But Cantonese has 7 and older Chinese languages have 9. They figure out how to sing centuries old songs where only the lyrics survive by working out the tones of the words. That is an example of the language influencing the entire musical heritage of the culture. I've also noticed that word plays are much more popular in Chinese and Japanese than in English, because there are so many words that sound similar. In English you only have a limited subset of words for familial relations. In Chinese, there is a title for practically every permutation of familial relation you can have. For example the wife of your father's older brother has a different title to the wife of your mother's young brother and to your father's older sister and to your mother's older sister and your father's younger brother's wife etc. etc. Also close non-blood ties are usually expressed in family terms like big brother or Uncle (one of the many terms for uncle depending on if they are your father or mother's friend and whether they are older or younger than your father/mother), or little sister etc. Hell, there is a tradition in many families of choosing given names that reflect which generation you are so when you meet someone from your family you can tell how senior/junior they are to you from their names (this practice became defunct after the Communists) This just displays the importance of family in China. That the Chinese think in terms of family units and family ties waaaay more than native English speaking cultures do. In fact even government structure is seen in terms of family with the Emperor being the "father" of the nation and the obedience people have to the Emperor being seen as the same sort of obedience a son owes his father. This is embodied in Confucianism - though note that Confucius merely put together what people had already thought for a long time. That is a very large difference in thinking that is reflected in the different languages.
Also looking at 1984, the entire focus on Newspeak was to get rid of words like "freedom" (or subvert their meaning). It is much harder to think of a concept if you don't have a word for it.
I disagree with the statement that new versions of Chinese will spring up. If you look at China, Mandarin is so wide-spread in the north because of the Central Plains region. Good geography easy spread. Language diversity and genetic diversity is much larger in the south due to the much more difficult terrain of the south which limits the spread of languages. This also made the south much more easily defensible than the north as has been shown many times in Chinese history with the Yangtze river the single greatest defensive barrier in China (esp. against northerners who don't know how to fight on water). It was a lot more useful than the Great Wall ever was. The reason why they didn't diversify more was because the Chinese Empire was very good at reintegrating those regions back into the Empire after every time the Empire broke up and there were a lot of migrations from the north esp. masses of refugees during times of turmoil in the north. Modern technology makes the geographical reasons for the language diversity in the south null.
A new technology.
The scientists don't want it and think it's unsafe. From my readings of major scientific magazines and journals, e-voting as it is being implemented in the US is raising major alarm bells.
People well-versed in computer technology think it's dangerous and unsafe.
Management (ie. the electoral officials) want it.
Companies (who will profit from it) want it.
Basically those who are usually the most gung-ho about new technology and most technologically literate think the idea needs careful thinking and the technology is flawed. Those who are the most technologically illiterate and those who stand to make money out of it are all for it. This is a case of management over-riding the concerns of the engineers who are waving red flags going "Danger, danger".
I see a disaster in the making here.
Oh well, it will all come out in the wash when lawsuits from losing candidates start. Or we have another Florida, except this time as another poster pointed out as there is no audit trail, we'll have to flip a coin to see who is President. Or I guess redo the entire election.
Oh and to add, quite a lot of these refugees are still locked up somewhere - yes including children and have been for years. Some of them have gone so far as to sewing up their lips, committing suicide, etc. The Howard government is trying to reduce their legal rights as much as possible (Wait, they have the right to appeal? Hmm, let's see if we can take that away...)
Anyone in Australia during the last election would remember the demonisation of Iraqi refugees. Man, they were a threat to the country! Evil, I tell you, the sort of people who would throw their own children overboard these Iraqis fleeing from Saddam Hussein. They are not the sort of people we want in this country. If we don't stop them now, they'd all come here and ruin this fine country of ours Australia. Only the Howard government can stop this. The opposition would let all these *Iraqis* come in. This won Howard the election (he was trailing in the polls before he started this line).
After listening to Howard demonise Iraqi refugees for years, not even the most fervant Howard fanboy would believe that he went to Iraq to help the Iraqi people. Especially since the demonisation still continues to this day. In fact his core base would probably turn against him if he started expressing too much concern for Iraqis. Talkback radio (ie. Alan Jones and John Laws) would kill him.
Because you are absolutely naive if you think Howard cares at all about the people of Iraq. He didn't say anything when the Kurds got gassed. Before the war, during the war and after the war he demonised Iraqi refugees and tried to send them back to Iraq so that Saddam Hussein could kill them. He even lied about Iraqi refugees throwing their children overboard in order to get re-elected. This was a huge scandal in Australia. So during the last election he was willing to sacrifice Iraqi refugees in order to get re-elected. Do you really think he gives a damn?
I seem to remember him admitting that the reason Australia was going to war was to help America. Helping the Iraqi people was never an issue. The Free Trade agreement was an issue that was repeatedly brought up by politicians and the media as well as the need for American military protection. Considering this he is stupid to send troops to war without guaranteeing economic and military benefits for Australia. He really is Bush's doormat.
No, no, that's the UK.
Speaking as an Australian I can say that Australia is more accurately America's doormat.
Take for example this trade agreement. Australia could hardly get anything on agriculture, one of its biggest export areas and one where America's trade barriers really hurt. And yet we are still planning to sign it as a good deal. Personally I'm trying to work out how exactly this trade deal is going to help us at all. The farmers hate it and claim it sells out the farming industry (actually it's more like the status quo hasn't really changed ie. the deal gives almost zero benefits to farmers). The unions hate it and claims it sells out the manufacturing industry. The actors and TV producers hate it and claims it sells out the Australia movie and TV industry. The doctors are just relieved because they thought it could have been much worse (they thought PBS would be dismantled or crippled - it's still not clear whether it will be or not so the doctors are still worried). There are some vague rumblings of support from manufacturers but it seems more like some will benefit and some will be hit badly so it's a toss up whether manufacturing as a whole will benefit. Trust me, we're a doormat.
I mean geez, Howard, if you're going to send troops to Iraq to support an unpopular war, couldn't you at least get some financial benefit from it? And I thought he was a smart political operative. I guess his love of Bush (trust me even conservative Murdoch-owned newspapers here put in cartoons showing Howard worshipping Bush in bed) over-road his political smarts.
For one thing - if you knew proper grammar, sentence-structure etc. it would have made your comment that much easier to read. I'm not a grammar Nazi. But in your case I spent a lot more time concentrating on the process of reading what you wrote rather than thinking about what you wrote. This is mainly because your lack of capitalisation means that your comment just looks like one big blob of text. Also your sentence structure sucks. You put commas where there should be full-stops which means that the flow of the text is wrong and I have to stop to think about what you really meant. At least you attempted to put it in paragraphs.
Good grammar is about making it easier for your readers to read what you wrote by breaking up the text into logical structures that are easy for the eyes to parse. Whenever I see something on the web that is just one big blob of text (no capitalisation, no paragraph breaks etc.) with very bad spelling I don't read it unless the information it contains is vital. Why? Because it gives me a headache and strains my eyes just trying to parse the text to get to the information. It's not about elitism. It's about saving my eyes and head from having to read 3 times slower and concentrating twice as hard to get to the information than if the author had bothered to try to separate the words into a proper structure and ran it through a spell-check.
Having proper grammar and spelling is like having everyone using standard C or standard C++ rather than weird variant number 1000 that only works on this computer when there is a full moon. It might be more boring and staid, but having a standard framework that everyone agrees on makes it much easier to understand what the other guy is talking about. Smaller groups may use their own special deviations (which make it harder for those outside their group to understand their programs). If new deviations become popular enough they get added to the standard. But still having that standard framework is vital, and those who choose to deviate from it should still be fully grounded in it so they can communicate easily with others not in their special "group".
I have the feeling that the reviewer hasn't used KDE for ages (or could be using the Red Hat version which has some features taken out)
For example the font installer has been in KDE for ages. I remember using it when the Mandrake font installer decided to not work and this was several versions ago. This was one of the KDE features that Red Hat removed from their version of KDE.
Likewise tabs have been around for quite a while as has the service menu.
QT is as free as the Linux kernel since they are both under the GPL. In fact, it's even more "free" because you can make closed-source programs with it (even if it means paying someone) while you don't have that option at all with just the GPL.
Now however if you're talking about BSD free, then no QT is not free. But then again under this definition neither is Linux (the kernel), gcc, etc. either. So if you're going to dump QT for not being "free" to be fair you have to dump on practically all of Linux as well.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the viral nature of the GPL or close-sourcing GNOME or KDE. I'm talking about Bruce Perens basically saying that for a community of active commercial developers of software for Linux, the GPL is not viable. One of the chief arguments he puts out against QT and one of the chief arguments that a lot of people on Slashdotters who criticise QT use is that commercial developers do not want to use a toolkit which they can only close-source if they pay a fee. Perens wants to encourage commercial developers (a "cottage" industry) to develop for Linux and is in effect saying GPL is not good for commercial development (because as you say KDE's libraries are purely GPL).
Thus if Perens says QT's license is bad for commercial developers (and hence hostile to the software business) because you cannot close-source QT apps without paying Trolltech, then how much worse is the GPL for commercial development where you don't even have the option of paying someone?
To be frank, I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't picked up on this yet. I'm waiting for the press-release from Seattle: "Long-time Linux advocate says open-source hostile for commercial software development."
Personally I don't mind closed-source software. I'm not an open-source fanatic, but to my mind, if you are an open-source advocate it does your cause any good to be so contradictory.
If you say that QT is bad for commercial developers of software because you can't close source your work without paying money, then it stands to reason that the GPL is even worse for commercial developers because you can't close source it at all.
In fact isn't Bruce Perens saying what people like MS say? Software companies will not develop work if they cannot close-source it. Open source is anti-commercial.
How can Bruce Perens on one hand say that GPL and open-source is good for commerce and business and on the other hand say that not being able to close-source your work for free will hinder and destroy software companies esp. small ones? I'm surprised MS hasn't picked up on this contradiction yet to attack Linux.
"Even one of the most ardent advocates of Open source Mr Bruce Perens says that software developers need to be able to close-source their work otherwise they won't develop software. Even Mr Perens believes that the GPL is harmful to the software industry."
If he's a potential Darwin Award nominee, it makes you wonder about the people he managed to trick out of their money...
Not a question, but I'd just like to point out that Al-Sistani, the Shi'ite cleric that's currently causing such a lot of trouble for George Bush has his own website (yes, there is an English version):
http://www.sistani.org/
Al-Sistani is one of the top Shi'ite clerics in Iraq, based in the holy city of Najaf and a direct descendent of the Prophet Mohammed. He is of course conservative. It's interesting to see this mixture of latest IT and tech.
Anyway one of the questions here is do clerics in Iraq see IT tech as evil? I think that if even the top Shi'ite cleric the Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani has a website I think that somewhat answers that question. You can even ask religious questions through a webform, the answers to which are guaranteed to 'bear the seal of the office of the Grand Ayatollah Uzma Sistani.'
The actual text says:
"Bancilhon expects to see updated versions of the "community version" every six months, while the "official" version will be on an 18 month release cycle."
Release cycle is not the same as how long the support period for patches etc. will be. I mean look at Windows - it is on a release cycle of every 2-3 years and yet its update cycle is something around 5 years I think (and even longer if you kick up a big enough stink).
The article says that a big difference between the "community" release and Fedora is that whilst Fedora is entirely separate from Red Hat, Red Hat makes no promises etc., the Mandrake "community" release will still be done under the Mandrake banner, by Mandrake employees and the article says *supported* by Mandrake employees as part of their jobs. I presume that support will be the same as what the current download version gets. I get the impression that the community release is just a new name for the current download version. It is still an 'official' Mandrake product (unlike Fedora). Mandrake releases every 6 months now anyway.
". The "community" version of Mandrake will still be produced by company developers and supported by MandrakeSoft employees as part of their job, unlike the Fedora project which is produced outside of Red Hat's formal development structure and supported by volunteers."
It seems more like they are adding a new product called the "official" version which will have a longer release cycle.
An essential difference between Mandrake and Redhat is that whilst Redhat is abandoning the (home) desktop (which is part of the reason for the move to spin off the free version as an unsupported volunteer product), the home desktop is probably one of Mandrake's biggest areas.
First thing, it doesn't seem as if they are blacklisted yet, only that their IP-block is on some sort of warning level before being blacklisted if their ISP doesn't do anything about spammers.
Secondly, I don't understand why people blame SPEWS. All SPEWS does is provide a list of what they think a black-list should be. They are not forcing anyone to use it. They are not a government body or even a standards organisation. They are not trying to trick anyone with false promises or advertising a dangerous product. Obviously the people who are using it agree with its philosophies (ie. collateral damage) and believe that the false positives are worth it to get rid of the spam. ISPs that implement it are businesses first and formost. If they were losing more customers due to complaints about false positives than to complaints about spam they would have disabled it ages ago. As for complaints that SPEWS have too much power, they get the power by people who run ISPs deciding to voluntarily and of their own free will give it to them. They don't dictate terms to anyone, they don't force anyone to use their blacklists. SPEWS is a symptom of the problem not the cause. Just like fevers and boils are often the body's attempt to get rid of the disease. Mighty inconvient but useful. The cause is spammers and ISPs that support them. Managing to wipe out SPEWS is like popping smallpox boils. It does nothing to get rid of the disease. The question is whether SPAM is a disease that SPEWS can get rid of or whether the disease is so severe that the fever is useless and the inconvience was all for naught.
I think the issue is that the problem with spam is so huge that any anti-spam action you take is going to cause problems for someone somewhere. No approach is NOT going to cause problems. Legal approaches either seem to legitimise spam or add more government control and often seem to be useless with little teeth anyway. Technical approaches like changes to email protocols seem to be going no-where quickly and take lots of money and inconvience to implement. If people fustrated with the slow technical changes start implementing different protocols we could end with a Balkanisation of email. Making people pay for each email sent will cause big problems with people who legitimately need to send out mailing lists. End user filtering tends to be more complex than the average user likes and doesn't address the problem that the email still costs money to the ISP (and hence to you). Blacklists tend to cause collateral damage. It's like the solution to any major problem - someone somewhere is going to have to give. Either you allow the government exert more control over the internet, you are willing to spend a lot of money fixing the problem technologically or you accept that blacklists are going to cause collateral damage. What are people willing to sacrifice to get rid of spam, because you are going to have to sacrifice something because it is the legal and technical status quo that allows it to happen. Just like if you want to get rid of pollution, you are going to have to sacrifice something because it is our current way of life that causes the massive pollution problems that exist today.
Personally I think the best approach would be for spammers to all get struck by lightning and suffer in the 7 Hells for the rest of eternity but somehow I doubt that will happen.
Reminds me of Zhuge Liang's wooden oxen (back in the 3rd century AD - though now people think looking at the plans he left behind it might just have described the invention of the wheelbarrow rather than an actual mechanical beast)! From Romance of the Three Kingdoms:
"I have had a scheme ready for a long time. The timber that I collected and bought in the River Lands was for the construction of wooden transport animals to convey grain. It will be very advantageous, as they will require neither food nor water and they can keep on the move day and night without resting...They are being made now after my plans, but they are not yet ready. Here I have the sketches for these mechanical oxen and horses, with all their dimensions written out in full. You may see the details."
Zhuge Liang then produced a paper, and all the generals crowded round to look at it. They were all greatly astonished and lauded, "The Prime Minister is superhuman!"
A few days later the new mechanical animals were complete and began work. They were quite life-like and went over the hills in any desired direction. The whole army saw them with delight. They were but in charge of Right General Gao Xiang and a thousand soldiers to guide them. They kept going constantly between Saber Pass and the front carrying grain for the use of the soldiers.
Along the Saber Pass mountain roads
The running horses bore their loads,
And through Xie Valley's narrow way
The wooden oxen paced each day.
O generals, use these means today,
And transport troubles take away.
Where asked where the idea came from he replied:
"The world is filled with things of man's making. I have long observed vehicles throughout the land, and considered the principle by which beasts of burden walk, and thus invented this..."
The story also comes with a case of military espionage as the enemy Sima Yi captures some of them and tries to copy the design.
US Journalist: So are you going to be running Linux or Windows in this country of yours?
Sherif Ali: I'll tell you that when I *have* a country.
BTW what is the Arabic support in Linux like? That's probably the most important thing. The other thing going for Linux is it is considered less American than Windows and considering the rock bottom opinion most Arabs have of America, that probably works in its favour. There have been boycotts of American goods in Arab countries. And aren't there export restrictions on American goods to some countries like Syria and Iran? And doesn't China do a lot of business with Arab countries? If the Chinese government starts adopting Linux heavily this could spill to the Arab countries.
Personally I would use the term Zealots rather than Zionists.
The Zealots were a bunch of militant religious nuts who dragged the majority moderate Jews to war with Rome, leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, the burning of the Temple and the final destruction of what remained of Israel, leaving the Jews without a homeland for the next 2000 years. They refused to abide any foreign rule because Israel could only be ruled according to the strict word of God and believed that any violent means were acceptable, to achieve their aims. The Jews bitterly regretted the Zealots during their wandering years, but obviously they haven't learnt not to allow their interactions with their neighbours to be ruled by violent militant religious nuts who believe they are on a holy quest from God to maintain the sancitity and purity of the Jewish state.
Zionism used to be quite secular and was actually despised by Jewish fundamentalists. Then it got hijacked by militant fundamentalists who want to recreate the Israel of Solomon and David. Never mind that particular Israel hasn't existed for over 2000 years and other people settled in the region over the last couple of millenia. While the majority of Israelites just want to live their lives and don't give a damn about Greater Israel, the rantings of the settlers involve lines like "God gave us this land so it belongs to us. The Palestinians should acknowledge us as the rulers or they should just get out." The fact that most people don't seem to realise that *both* sides are driven by religious nuts who are perfectly willing to use force against innocent civilians to achieve their aims and don't care a whit about the suffering of their own people just shows that the Jewish Zealots have a better PR machine.
The funny thing is now the Jews are coming to realise that if they keep the Palestinian lands, they will soon no longer be a Jewish state because the Arab birthrate is much higher. So the options are to either reliquish the land and remain small, but democratic and Jewish. They could keep the land, and remain Jewish by not allowing the Arabs to vote in a sort of apartheid system therefore no longer be a democracy (what do you call a country where the majority are not allowed to vote because of their race?). They could keep the land, and remain Jewish by driving all of the Arabs out ie. ethnic cleansing (Israel could be the first democracy to do ethnic cleansing...). Or they could keep the land, remain a democracy and the Jewish nature of the state will be wiped out in a decade when Arabs form the majority of the population,and vote in an Arab PM. Personally I'd choose (1) but somehow I have a feeling the zealots are going to drive Israel to (2) or (3). If (4) happens I'd consider it karma.
I'm sorry, but I just lost all respect for you when you included New Zealand in that list. New Zealand is about as anti-war as you can possibly get. If there was a spectrum with the US on one end, New Zealand would be in the extreme opposite end. India is also anti-war. You're getting anti-war Norway confused with pro-war Denmark (don't worry, Osama bin Laden did that too). And the government of Uzbekistan is well known for its use of torture and the death penalty against politcal opponents, not to mention putting human rights activists in mental hospitals. I wouldn't exactly be proud of their support. I would have put Japan instead of Uzbekistan myself. And let's not forget that it is only the *governments* of those countries that supported the US. In all of them, the vast majority of the *people* were opposed to it (except Israel and Kuwait I suppose, though 50% of Kuwaities still think the US is a potential military threat to *them*)
I'm sorry, I still can't get pass *New Zealand* being on the list of supporters of the US. It's like seeing the head of PETA listed as the best man at the wedding of the CEO of Furs, Inc.
While anti-war, I believe Saddam Hussein's capture is a good thing. He was evil and deserves to be punished for his crimes.
However I suspect some of the congratulations from world leaders may be a bit strained. And I'm not sure that all of the members of the US government would really have liked to see him captured alive.
You see the thing is, Saddam had a lot of dealings with various countries like France, Russia and of course the US esp. during the times when he was busy murdering and massacring people. At one point he was a respectable member of the international community and a US ally (incidentally during the same time he was massacring people, but well when has foreign relations ever been about human rights). He could probably tell about some very embarassing things esp. since there are suggestions the trial will be televised. For example he could say "When I ordered the Kurds to be gassed, the US government said nothing to me but Mr Cheny sent me a message hoping that I am successful in pacifying the country and winning against Iran" (to get this, see news about Kissinger's notes to Argentina during their own "dirty war" which involved massive human rights violations) or "Yes, the French *were* selling me weapons on the sly after the Gulf War". Emphatic denials could also kill the Saddam-Osama rumours AND the weapons of mass destruction rumours as well which the Bush administration have used so effectively.
I think the more the Bush administration (and other world leaders like Chirac) think about it, the more they'll realise it might have been better if he had given them a reason to shoot him dead during the capture. That would have been the ideal solution. Saddam would be gone so the morale boost and prestige would still be there. But dead men don't talk.
"The world under heaven, after a long period of division, tends to unite; after a long period of union, tends to divide. This has been so since antiquity. When the rule of the Zhou Dynasty weakened, seven contending kingdoms sprang up, warring one with another until the kingdom of Qin prevailed and possessed the empire. But when Qin's destiny had been fulfilled, arose two opposing kingdoms, Chu and Han, to fight for the mastery. And Han was the victor."
"Before him bowed the kings of Shu and Wu,
Content to forfeit kingly power for life.
All down the ages rings the note of change,
For fate so rules it; none escapes its sway.
The three kingdoms have vanished as a dream,
The useless misery is ours to grieve."
These are the opening and ending lines of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, one of the most popular and well-known books in China. In the Chinese mentality the reunification of Taiwan with China is something that is going to happen eventually, if not right now. Why? They look at history. China has always split into 2 or more countries after the end of a dynasty and one of those countries has always gone and defeated the others to reunify China. Since it has always happened in the past it will happen in the future (Chinese believe strongly in cycles). If people wonder where China's obsession with unification comes from...Historical characters such as those in Three Kingdoms who reunite China (or try really really hard eg. Ngok Fei) are always admired and become national heroes and are even elevated to gods.
I can see China invading Taiwan though not right now. If civil unrest continues in China and the economy goes downhill, in order to maintain power the government might raise the spectre of nationalism. Nationalism is already replacing Communism as the idealism the government is using to keep people loyal and faithful. And once nationalism is raised in rhetoric it may be a war that the Chinese government is forced into by its own proclaimations. It may back itself into a corner and decide invading and the consequences would be better than losing face. And unification has always been a fascination of the Chinese as books like Romance of the Three Kingdoms show. Think - a restless China with economic problems, a new young energetic Chinese premier comes into power on the back of a strong nationalist campaign. He thinks - could I become another Guan Yu from Three Kingdoms (who is now worshipped as a god)? The temptation to recreate the Oath of the Peach Tree Garden may be too hard to resist. Chinese rulers have done a lot more stupid illogical frankly self-destructive things in the past.
In these circumstances, the needs of technology users in America are going to be the least of their considerations. Godhood or computer users in the US? Godhood or computer users in the US?
Here is a comment by Prince Feisal. Those who've watched Lawrence of Arabia know he was the head of the Arab Revolt against the Turks. He was also the direct descendent of the eldest son of the Prophet's daughter Fatima and his father was the leader of Mecca and one of the Princes of Arabia (one of his chief allies was the head of the Shiites).
He made a comment to Lawrence of his fear that after the Turks were defeated the English would take over the Middle East (which did happen). He feared the arrival of increasing amounts of British soldiers and the potential for British betrayal after the war ended and for them to renegade on their promises of independence. Lawrence tried to reassure him by saying that there were many British soldiers in France and the French did not fear them. His reply:
"And though I know the British do not want it, yet what can I say, when they took over Sudan, also not wanting it? They hunger for desolate lands, to build them up; and so, perhaps, one day Arabia will seem to them precious. Your good and my good, perhaps they are different, and either forced good or forced evil will make a people cry with pain. Does the ore admire the flame which transforms it? There is no reason for offence, but a people too weak are clamant over their little own. Our race will have a cripple's temper till it has found its feet."
The Arab attitude to America is probably the same, except this time fuelled by memories of the British betrayal, and America's support of their oppressive rulers and America's attitudes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their mistrust of Britain (and British soldiers in Arabia) was fueled by suspicion alone. Their mistrust of America (and the West) is fueled by experience and hence much more severe and intractable. And now they *know* how valuable their land (more specially) their oil is to other countries.
Has the West and America in particular in the last 100 years given *any* reason for the people of Arabia to trust them and to believe that they only have good intentions? Why should they believe in the America? Because they say they only want to help, they aren't going to try to rule, the soldiers are only there to help the Arabs? It was exactly the same things the British said. "We come as liberators not conquerors" to the Iraqis was originally a British line. America is not Britain but since Arab independence, what has America done to prove that it can be trusted by the Arabs?
One has to wonder how much of the failure of Arabia in the last century has to do with Western meddling and Western propping up of despots for their oil. A lot of the Western partitioning of Arabia (and Africa too for that matter) was very badly thought out. And the creation of Israel was forced on the people already living there (this kind of thing causes massive resentment of the newcomers even within the same country eg. China, Iraq). Of course even without interference the Arabs might have descended to internal fighting, but let's be frank, the Arabs didn't fail on their own. They had a lot of help from interested Western parties - either through incompetence or to protect their supply of precious oil.
Well if anyone is interested in some statistics from www.religioustolerance.org:
In the 2000 elections, 79% of people who identify themselves as from the "religious right" (14% of the electorate) voted Republican. Of the 83% identifying themselve as non-religious right, 55% voted Democrat, 41% Republican. This was from exit polls (and apparently Catholics were less skewed towards Democrats than usual). From this it is obvious why the Republicans rely on the religious right so heavily politically. Currently a Republican Presidental candidate (even one with mainstream support like Bush) that displeases the religious right cannot win an election. The Republican party is effectively hostage to the religious right.
This also tallies with the result that amongst heavy church goers (more than once a week), 62% vote Republican, 36% Democrat. For those who never go to church it is the opposite way round. For casual church goers, 56% voted Rep. 41% Dem. Also it seems that of the religious groups, the base of Republican support is amongst Protestants as they are the only religious group which they have majority support. Evangelical Christians are both heavy church goers and Protestant.
Personally my opposition to human cloning comes not so much from religious reasons as because I feel very very sorry for the clones. What would it be like knowing you are a clone? As stories I've read from people who were adopted show, people have very strong feelings about their origins eg. finding their birth parents. Where you come from is something that weighs heavily on people's minds. Think of how adopted children feel when they get told they aren't their parents' real kid. How would you feel being told you are a clone of your father? Or the clone of a dead brother or sister?
Also it is inevitable that clones will be stigmitised in human society. When they go to school they will be considered freaks of nature, their very existence deemed monstrous. They'd probably be turned down for jobs - essentially they will be marked from birth as societal outcasts. The only people likely to accept them will be the scientists who created them and even then only as experimental subjects.
But even that doesn't matter so much if they were loved, as guidance and acceptance and unconditional love from your parents can help people through the worse of things, but from what I read of the people who want clones as children, they don't seem to be entirely mentally stable. Many of the stories seem to involve a dead child who they literally want to bring back from the dead. Anyone grow up in a family and go to a school where you were continually expected to be as good as your older brother/sister? Same thing, except a million times worse. Your parents will be expecting you to *be* your dead brother or sister. Why else would they have spent tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars cloning them when they could just have had another child? Other reasons also seem bad - as an organ bank for someone. Human bodies put in storage to have organs taken out to be used for spares (I've actually read a manga about that where a doctor feeling sorry for the clone and hating the selfish brat who is the original secretly switches the two so the brat's organs are harvested and the clone 'becomes' the brat albeit with amnesia). And making the child the clone of one of the parents seems to be firstly somewhat egotistical and brings up all sorts of emotional complications and feelings. You'd also have to question the mentality and ego of someone who wants to spend a fortune on a clone of him/herself rather than using a sperm/egg bank or adoption. Essentially all of the people who want clones (with perhaps the exception of those who want a clone to harvest organs for a dying child though even that is morally dubious by any standards) seem to be some of the most selfish mentally unstable people who either seem to have an ego problem (too large) or are too obsessive about the past. There is no way any of them could guide a clone child through a hostile world where their very existence is seen as wrong.
Not in the schools around where I live. Kids there run businesses where they sell pirated games to other kids. Why bother trying to work out how to crack Game X where you can buy it for a couple of bucks from Johnny down the corridor at lunch time? And once one kid gets a pirated copy with cracks, every 12 year old can do "casual piracy". And these are respectable private suburban church schools. The protections they are putting in aren't stopping kids from pirating them either. It's just helping set up profit making pirating rings in schools.