Terrorism is NOT just hurting people! With that definition, almost anything can be terrorist. I am not supporting virus writers but the last thing I want is for them to be charged with terrorism... Terrorism has a specific meaning; let's not just use it for everything you don't like...
That's not terrorism; that's damage to property. Does anyone consider say arson to be terrorism? Nope--at least not yet. An arsonist is charged with damaging stuff but not for terrorism. Same thing with vandals and so forth... I realize that the US govt is attempting to charge any sort of vandalism with terrorism (that's Ashcroft's goal: to shut down protestors) but it hasn't happened yet...
I think he is going above that... he is actually comparing the linux advocates to terrorists! The only people I see comparing anything to terrorism are right-wingers (such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'reilley, Jerry Fallwell, etc). No one else in their right mind would compare other things to terrorism.
I'm going to get flamed for this (feel free to point out any disagreements)... my point wasn't that right wingers don't like linux (many do, especially the Liberatarian branch of conservatism (i.e. liberatarian/right or liberatarian/conservative)). However, it is my view that conservatives do not have a good understanding of terrorism, and they equate terrorism with almost anything else that suits their fancy. For instance, only the Bush administration can possibly claim that using (illegal) drugs is the same as helping a terrorist. Conservatives also have a very simplistic view with only good and evil existing in the world. They fail to realize that the world has a lot of neutral entities that are involved in ad-hoc relationships.
That is not name-calling. I'm referring you by your econopolitical stance. If I called you 'an idiot', 'a fool', or something like that, then it would be name calling. If you call me a leftist or a liberal or something, it is not name calling IMO.
I DO flame capitalists but haven't done it to you. I generally only do that on international issues...
You mean they have to pay (via taxes) for "free" health care and they still are willing to pay for private (and better) healthcare?
Some people will do that. These are generally the wealthy. If you are wealthy, socialized institutions are bad for you...
The "underpinning" of capitalism is profit, not efficiency. Sometimes people think efficiency leads to more profit, most of the time I think they are deluding themselves.
Efficiency leads to more profit. They are correlated. I don't see why you would think otherwise.
I'm an old-fashion capitalist. I believe in building sustainable businesses, giving customers a good product and good service at a good price. Efficiency and profit are not gods to worshipped. There are thousands of businesses out there like that, everything from mom-and-pop corner groceries to (arguably) Apple Computer.
Modern day is closer to capitalism than anything. By claiming that you are an "old-fashioned capitalist", whatever that means, you are simply deflecting blame.
Profit and consequently efficiency ARE worshipped by all, under capitalism! There is no difference between Apple and Microsoft, or Dell, or whatever. The only reason it may SEEM better is because they are smaller and weaker. Similarly, the mom&pop shops are no different than a large corporation, except that they are smaller and weaker. The way both, mom&pop and a large corporation, strategizes is the same: both attempt to maximize profits. Also, both attempt to create monopolies (it is the goal of all businesses). The larger corporations are closer to a monopoly so they are more reckless but I can guarantee you that a mom&pop operation would be the same when it reaches that size--and power!
A capitalist such yourself no doubt seeks a free market with perfect competition (this is why you like the mom&pop shops--they are in perfect competition and hence best for consumers). My theory however, which you will no doubt deny, is that free markets will ultimately lead to oligopolies and monopolies. The world is moving in that direction. There are probably 5 media companies controlling 80%+ of the media; 2 large airplane manufactueres (Boeing, and Airbus) responsible for 70%+ of the market (not counting military); less than 20 banks control 70%+ of the world's capital flow (you are talking at least $5trillion); I think there are only like 4 major car manufacturers in the world now; etc. Start worshipping the capitalist overlords--if you haven't started already!!!
Going back to privatization, do you support privatizing everything (as CATO institute and other capitalists call for)? Would you privatize public works, schools, police, prisons, etc?
The author sounds like a right winger who neither knows what terrorism is nor what the linux "movement" is about.
Equating linux advocates with terrorists should be limited to the Bush administration and John Ashcroft. Too bad this guy took up the cause...
I strongly believe that if September 11th showed us anything, it was that zealots of any movement represent a huge risk to that movement because they do not consider the repercussions of their actions.
Does this guy even know what he is talking about? The terrorists view the repercussions as GOOD. What movement are they representing, other than their own? The "movement" was not hurt by 9/11 but rather helped by it. Usama bin Laden is closer to his goal than he was 5 years ago!
Until the author understands what terrorism is, I suggest that he stay away from comparing it to other things, let alone a computer "movement".
Oh, one last thing... this guy claims to "care" about linux but how much do you want to bet that he is a doubleagent?
You are probably a capitalist so this is going to fall on 'blind eyes' but anyway...
I'm curious, if the Canadian national healthcare system is free and so "efficient", why do they need private insurance companies?
As all things in life, it has more to do with battle of ideologies than anything. We don't NEED private companies but a segment of the population supports it (usually the capitalists who are the wealthy elites). The arguments made by these folks are the same ones made in USA (I guess the same stuff that you would say). Namely, costs are going up, wait times are too long, 'I don't want to pay for others', markets are more efficient, etc.
The vast majority of the healthcare system is government run. But capitalists want to privatize the health care system. Most Canadians view healthcare as almost part of Canadian identity so there is little support for privatization. They have so far failed but did make some in-roads so there is some private stuff (also, the province of Alberta, which is the most right wing region in Canada, is more privatized than the rest).
Moreover, I think "efficiency" is the managerial equivalent of fools-gold; it looks good on paper, but is otherwise worthless. For example, we've had a number of bank mergers around here relatively recently. The first thing they always do is close branches and raise fees; for "efficiency" of course. Less customer service and higher fees. I'm sure it looks good on paper though.
Efficiency is a key underpinning of capitalism. Many of the actions of capitalists are in the name of efficiency (eg. laying off workers, moving companies off-shore, privatizing forestry service/energy/healthcare/etc, cutting taxes, shrinking government, etc). If you don't support the notion of efficiency then what was your original point? Furthermore, WHAT are you? You don't sound like a capitalist. What is your reason for the privatization of public services?
Ayn Rand pretty much solidified that selfish view. It is amazing how many Americans go with her 'selfishness is good; altruism is bad' doctrine...
Of course, it should be noted that none of these selfish people even consider the fact that the poor people don't go and die in a gutter. Instead, they are more likely come and rob you. Ever wonder why violent crime in USA is much higher than many countries? And locking up people and sending them through the courts probably costs more than the social program.
When your computer makes a TCP connection to another host, your machine is a client and the other is a server. Its as simple as that. As long as TCP is around, the client/server model will always remain.
But that applies to anything; everything is client/server since one is always a "host" and another is always a "client". I don't think that's what peer/peer means. Would you consider UDP to be client/server?
With your view, there would be no difference between peer/peer and client/server when it comes to multiplayer computer games. Everything that is widely considered as peer/peer would be client/server.
How much do you want to bet that USA will be involved in yet another war when that bill rolls around, oh in 2004? The US govt has already started initiating mass propaganda to drum up support for an attack on Syria and Iran.
Wouldn't it be great if the country was set up for the well-being of its citizens and not its corporations? Oh well.
Not under capitalism. Capitalists will disagree and attempt to blame govt regulation but MY THEORY (take it for what it's worth) is that capitalism will lead to oligopolies and monopolies. This essentially means that a FEW CORPORATIONS will control everything. Under the capitalism doctrine, humans don't even exist; instead, only CONSUMER-WORKERS exist. How many capitalists and their lap dogs (i.e. politicians) ever consider a human to be a living, breathing entity, as opposed to a consumer-worker?
Saying "oh well" and shrugging things off means that you simply threw your life away. Nothing in life is easy and it is worth fighting for. Anyway, it's your life: you only have one so choose carefully...
What you are saying is true to some extent (eg. recent upheavels in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Argentina). However, I would not endorse waiting for great oppression from the govt before taking action. There are many cases where early action would have helped. Classic examples include the rise of Nazism (no one did anything; in fact, Britain and USA even supported early pre-Nazi organizations, not to mention the fact that there was even an Olympics under Hitler), and Stalinism (since nothing was done early, it wasn't stopped; of course, stopping Stalinism would have been tough becaue it was a counter-revolution to communism, which defeated the capitalist British/US-backed White Army). By the time people did start reacting to these two cases, it was too late.
I don't know if you are suggesting that we sit back until something major happens. Or if you are just commenting on human behaviour. Whatever the case is, one should always act at the earliest possible time. There is a simple reason for this. Those that seek to oppress others may become too powerful at a later time. Going with the Nazism example, stopping the mass burnings of "Jewish books", as well as anti-war and leftist books (including famous works such as All Quiet on the Western Front) in Germany would have been easier than trying to confront the govt after it has solidified its power.
One should not allow even a drop of civil rights or human rights to be sacrificed... every little bit you lose, the oppressor gains!
One thing you fail to realize is that most people cannot afford to go to $100-a-plate fundraisers, or even donate maximum allowed limits (usually $500 to $5000). Ever wonder why nearly all fundraisers are attended by the wealthy and executives? Ever wonder why speeches given at a location are pre-selected?
I hate to say it but people with your attitude are precisely why the democratic system is being corrupted. The politicians are RESPONSIBLE to the citizens. Citizens do not--and should not--pay money to political parties, attend speeches, form lobby groups, etc. Such activities will simply shift power to the elites and the wealthy.
I'm not saying what you are saying is wrong--you are not. Politicians do REACT to financial contributions and lobby groups. My point is that such activities are precisely the ones that hurt the system. Participating in them will not help matters. It will just make you support the status quo, and possibly strengthen the existing state of politics. You might win the short term but in the long term, you are simply contributing to the demise of what one calls democracy.
Last time USA tried it, the British/Canadians beat them back and burnined down Washington. It was called the War of 1812 and it probably scares the imperialists in USA;)
Also Canadians are mostly liberals with socialist principles. I don't think the imperialists really want a few more liberals running around. They will likely never be elected ever again if Canada is annexed:)
"...and download my database from work to home weekly."
Isn't that a bit risky? What if someone interecepts your download (I don't know how but plausible) or breaks into your house and steals the data? If you are a small business, or if your house is pretty secure (not my house) then it's ok. Otherwise, I would be sceptical...
As far as HD being better than tapes, I'm no expert on back but I don't think so. HDs are supposed to have worse reliability. Besides, as backup experts say, HD is not really a true backup medium because you can accidentally delete things (it's harder to do that on tape).
You have a point but it is my observation that even the forms are moving away from carbon copy. They are still around by I think they are being phased out. How many carbon copy forms do you fill out in an year? Not that many...
I think you can't really consider p2p to be client/server, ESPECIALLY when the modern systems (Gnutella, Kazaa, etc) don't have a "central server". When you are downloading, you are not doing it from ONE "server"; rather, you are downloading from other "clients".
So... I would consider p2p to be still peer/peer...
I think it's $6k ONE WAY! So it's more like $5k (normal) vs $12k (Concorde)... Of course, the wealthy and the corporate executives can afford it but no one else can. If I'm not mistaken, the $6k is also subsidized by the airlines (i.e. run at a loss), so this thing would never have taken off...
Seriously, Rugby is a man's sport. Americanized Rugby serves TV (they change the rules to make time for commercials. Oh yeah, that's a real sport!)
The capitalist overlords in USA want to add commercials to EVERYTHING. They even show some soccer games with commercials (although they don't stop the game.)
Actually there are very few countries that recognize Taiwan. Other than USA and its proxies, I don't know who does. Taiwan isn't even in the UN (it has observer status though, I think). The Taiwan situation is weird. Technically it is not a seperate country but in reality it is.
Total Annihilation? Man you must be old (well so am I:) )... TA just never gained popularity so I doubt it was ever considered... I haven't been into gaming recently but the only RTS game to be worthy is Starcraft. I really haven't played Warcraft III (except a bit here and there) but I don't think it belongs there...
Slashdot Mirror
Terrorism is NOT just hurting people! With that definition, almost anything can be terrorist. I am not supporting virus writers but the last thing I want is for them to be charged with terrorism... Terrorism has a specific meaning; let's not just use it for everything you don't like...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's not terrorism; that's damage to property. Does anyone consider say arson to be terrorism? Nope--at least not yet. An arsonist is charged with damaging stuff but not for terrorism. Same thing with vandals and so forth... I realize that the US govt is attempting to charge any sort of vandalism with terrorism (that's Ashcroft's goal: to shut down protestors) but it hasn't happened yet...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think he is going above that... he is actually comparing the linux advocates to terrorists! The only people I see comparing anything to terrorism are right-wingers (such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'reilley, Jerry Fallwell, etc). No one else in their right mind would compare other things to terrorism.
I'm going to get flamed for this (feel free to point out any disagreements)... my point wasn't that right wingers don't like linux (many do, especially the Liberatarian branch of conservatism (i.e. liberatarian/right or liberatarian/conservative)). However, it is my view that conservatives do not have a good understanding of terrorism, and they equate terrorism with almost anything else that suits their fancy. For instance, only the Bush administration can possibly claim that using (illegal) drugs is the same as helping a terrorist. Conservatives also have a very simplistic view with only good and evil existing in the world. They fail to realize that the world has a lot of neutral entities that are involved in ad-hoc relationships.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Ahhh, name calling.
That is not name-calling. I'm referring you by your econopolitical stance. If I called you 'an idiot', 'a fool', or something like that, then it would be name calling. If you call me a leftist or a liberal or something, it is not name calling IMO.
I DO flame capitalists but haven't done it to you. I generally only do that on international issues...
You mean they have to pay (via taxes) for "free" health care and they still are willing to pay for private (and better) healthcare?
Some people will do that. These are generally the wealthy. If you are wealthy, socialized institutions are bad for you...
The "underpinning" of capitalism is profit, not efficiency. Sometimes people think efficiency leads to more profit, most of the time I think they are deluding themselves.
Efficiency leads to more profit. They are correlated. I don't see why you would think otherwise.
I'm an old-fashion capitalist. I believe in building sustainable businesses, giving customers a good product and good service at a good price. Efficiency and profit are not gods to worshipped. There are thousands of businesses out there like that, everything from mom-and-pop corner groceries to (arguably) Apple Computer.
Modern day is closer to capitalism than anything. By claiming that you are an "old-fashioned capitalist", whatever that means, you are simply deflecting blame.
Profit and consequently efficiency ARE worshipped by all, under capitalism! There is no difference between Apple and Microsoft, or Dell, or whatever. The only reason it may SEEM better is because they are smaller and weaker. Similarly, the mom&pop shops are no different than a large corporation, except that they are smaller and weaker. The way both, mom&pop and a large corporation, strategizes is the same: both attempt to maximize profits. Also, both attempt to create monopolies (it is the goal of all businesses). The larger corporations are closer to a monopoly so they are more reckless but I can guarantee you that a mom&pop operation would be the same when it reaches that size--and power!
A capitalist such yourself no doubt seeks a free market with perfect competition (this is why you like the mom&pop shops--they are in perfect competition and hence best for consumers). My theory however, which you will no doubt deny, is that free markets will ultimately lead to oligopolies and monopolies. The world is moving in that direction. There are probably 5 media companies controlling 80%+ of the media; 2 large airplane manufactueres (Boeing, and Airbus) responsible for 70%+ of the market (not counting military); less than 20 banks control 70%+ of the world's capital flow (you are talking at least $5trillion); I think there are only like 4 major car manufacturers in the world now; etc. Start worshipping the capitalist overlords--if you haven't started already!!!
Going back to privatization, do you support privatizing everything (as CATO institute and other capitalists call for)? Would you privatize public works, schools, police, prisons, etc?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The author sounds like a right winger who neither knows what terrorism is nor what the linux "movement" is about.
Equating linux advocates with terrorists should be limited to the Bush administration and John Ashcroft. Too bad this guy took up the cause...
I strongly believe that if September 11th showed us anything, it was that zealots of any movement represent a huge risk to that movement because they do not consider the repercussions of their actions.
Does this guy even know what he is talking about? The terrorists view the repercussions as GOOD. What movement are they representing, other than their own? The "movement" was not hurt by 9/11 but rather helped by it. Usama bin Laden is closer to his goal than he was 5 years ago!
Until the author understands what terrorism is, I suggest that he stay away from comparing it to other things, let alone a computer "movement".
Oh, one last thing... this guy claims to "care" about linux but how much do you want to bet that he is a doubleagent?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
(NOT QUOTED IN ORDER)
You are probably a capitalist so this is going to fall on 'blind eyes' but anyway...
I'm curious, if the Canadian national healthcare system is free and so "efficient", why do they need private insurance companies?
As all things in life, it has more to do with battle of ideologies than anything. We don't NEED private companies but a segment of the population supports it (usually the capitalists who are the wealthy elites). The arguments made by these folks are the same ones made in USA (I guess the same stuff that you would say). Namely, costs are going up, wait times are too long, 'I don't want to pay for others', markets are more efficient, etc.
The vast majority of the healthcare system is government run. But capitalists want to privatize the health care system. Most Canadians view healthcare as almost part of Canadian identity so there is little support for privatization. They have so far failed but did make some in-roads so there is some private stuff (also, the province of Alberta, which is the most right wing region in Canada, is more privatized than the rest).
Moreover, I think "efficiency" is the managerial equivalent of fools-gold; it looks good on paper, but is otherwise worthless. For example, we've had a number of bank mergers around here relatively recently. The first thing they always do is close branches and raise fees; for "efficiency" of course. Less customer service and higher fees. I'm sure it looks good on paper though.
Efficiency is a key underpinning of capitalism. Many of the actions of capitalists are in the name of efficiency (eg. laying off workers, moving companies off-shore, privatizing forestry service/energy/healthcare/etc, cutting taxes, shrinking government, etc). If you don't support the notion of efficiency then what was your original point? Furthermore, WHAT are you? You don't sound like a capitalist. What is your reason for the privatization of public services?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
US system is not so efficient either:
U.S. Wastes Health-care Funds: Administrative Costs Double Canada's Rate - Better System Could Aid Millions Researchers Say
Ayn Rand pretty much solidified that selfish view. It is amazing how many Americans go with her 'selfishness is good; altruism is bad' doctrine...
Of course, it should be noted that none of these selfish people even consider the fact that the poor people don't go and die in a gutter. Instead, they are more likely come and rob you. Ever wonder why violent crime in USA is much higher than many countries? And locking up people and sending them through the courts probably costs more than the social program.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
When your computer makes a TCP connection to another host, your machine is a client and the other is a server. Its as simple as that. As long as TCP is around, the client/server model will always remain.
But that applies to anything; everything is client/server since one is always a "host" and another is always a "client". I don't think that's what peer/peer means. Would you consider UDP to be client/server?
With your view, there would be no difference between peer/peer and client/server when it comes to multiplayer computer games. Everything that is widely considered as peer/peer would be client/server.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How much do you want to bet that USA will be involved in yet another war when that bill rolls around, oh in 2004? The US govt has already started initiating mass propaganda to drum up support for an attack on Syria and Iran.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Wouldn't it be great if the country was set up for the well-being of its citizens and not its corporations? Oh well.
Not under capitalism. Capitalists will disagree and attempt to blame govt regulation but MY THEORY (take it for what it's worth) is that capitalism will lead to oligopolies and monopolies. This essentially means that a FEW CORPORATIONS will control everything. Under the capitalism doctrine, humans don't even exist; instead, only CONSUMER-WORKERS exist. How many capitalists and their lap dogs (i.e. politicians) ever consider a human to be a living, breathing entity, as opposed to a consumer-worker?
Saying "oh well" and shrugging things off means that you simply threw your life away. Nothing in life is easy and it is worth fighting for. Anyway, it's your life: you only have one so choose carefully...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What you are saying is true to some extent (eg. recent upheavels in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Argentina). However, I would not endorse waiting for great oppression from the govt before taking action. There are many cases where early action would have helped. Classic examples include the rise of Nazism (no one did anything; in fact, Britain and USA even supported early pre-Nazi organizations, not to mention the fact that there was even an Olympics under Hitler), and Stalinism (since nothing was done early, it wasn't stopped; of course, stopping Stalinism would have been tough becaue it was a counter-revolution to communism, which defeated the capitalist British/US-backed White Army). By the time people did start reacting to these two cases, it was too late.
I don't know if you are suggesting that we sit back until something major happens. Or if you are just commenting on human behaviour. Whatever the case is, one should always act at the earliest possible time. There is a simple reason for this. Those that seek to oppress others may become too powerful at a later time. Going with the Nazism example, stopping the mass burnings of "Jewish books", as well as anti-war and leftist books (including famous works such as All Quiet on the Western Front) in Germany would have been easier than trying to confront the govt after it has solidified its power.
One should not allow even a drop of civil rights or human rights to be sacrificed... every little bit you lose, the oppressor gains!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Who is a troll? One that posts AC or one that doesn't? ... Something to think about...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
One thing you fail to realize is that most people cannot afford to go to $100-a-plate fundraisers, or even donate maximum allowed limits (usually $500 to $5000). Ever wonder why nearly all fundraisers are attended by the wealthy and executives? Ever wonder why speeches given at a location are pre-selected?
I hate to say it but people with your attitude are precisely why the democratic system is being corrupted. The politicians are RESPONSIBLE to the citizens. Citizens do not--and should not--pay money to political parties, attend speeches, form lobby groups, etc. Such activities will simply shift power to the elites and the wealthy.
I'm not saying what you are saying is wrong--you are not. Politicians do REACT to financial contributions and lobby groups. My point is that such activities are precisely the ones that hurt the system. Participating in them will not help matters. It will just make you support the status quo, and possibly strengthen the existing state of politics. You might win the short term but in the long term, you are simply contributing to the demise of what one calls democracy.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Welcome to capitalism...
Start sucking up to your capitalist overlords, for they are the ones that rule your life...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Last time USA tried it, the British/Canadians beat them back and burnined down Washington. It was called the War of 1812 and it probably scares the imperialists in USA ;)
:)
Also Canadians are mostly liberals with socialist principles. I don't think the imperialists really want a few more liberals running around. They will likely never be elected ever again if Canada is annexed
Sivaram Velauthapillai
"...and download my database from work to home weekly."
Isn't that a bit risky? What if someone interecepts your download (I don't know how but plausible) or breaks into your house and steals the data? If you are a small business, or if your house is pretty secure (not my house) then it's ok. Otherwise, I would be sceptical...
As far as HD being better than tapes, I'm no expert on back but I don't think so. HDs are supposed to have worse reliability. Besides, as backup experts say, HD is not really a true backup medium because you can accidentally delete things (it's harder to do that on tape).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You have a point but it is my observation that even the forms are moving away from carbon copy. They are still around by I think they are being phased out. How many carbon copy forms do you fill out in an year? Not that many...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Not to mention there PREDICTION that dot matrix printers are out...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If p2p is client/server then what is peer/peer?
I think you can't really consider p2p to be client/server, ESPECIALLY when the modern systems (Gnutella, Kazaa, etc) don't have a "central server". When you are downloading, you are not doing it from ONE "server"; rather, you are downloading from other "clients".
So... I would consider p2p to be still peer/peer...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think it's $6k ONE WAY! So it's more like $5k (normal) vs $12k (Concorde)... Of course, the wealthy and the corporate executives can afford it but no one else can. If I'm not mistaken, the $6k is also subsidized by the airlines (i.e. run at a loss), so this thing would never have taken off...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seriously, Rugby is a man's sport. Americanized Rugby serves TV (they change the rules to make time for commercials. Oh yeah, that's a real sport!)
The capitalist overlords in USA want to add commercials to EVERYTHING. They even show some soccer games with commercials (although they don't stop the game.)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Actually there are very few countries that recognize Taiwan. Other than USA and its proxies, I don't know who does. Taiwan isn't even in the UN (it has observer status though, I think). The Taiwan situation is weird. Technically it is not a seperate country but in reality it is.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Total Annihilation? Man you must be old (well so am I :) )... TA just never gained popularity so I doubt it was ever considered... I haven't been into gaming recently but the only RTS game to be worthy is Starcraft. I really haven't played Warcraft III (except a bit here and there) but I don't think it belongs there...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
At least fewer people will be killed inadvertently the next time a Columbine happens. The kids will have better aim.
Actually the killers actually killed the people they wanted. There wasn't any "inadvertent" kills (I don't even know what that means)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai