Flying hijacked airliners into buildings has nothing to do with passive resistance. America wanted nothing from Al Qaida or the Taliban. You are reasoning by analogy, a sure sign of a bankrupt position, but it's much worse when the analogy doesn't fit even approximately.
America isn't crushing a nation, we all know the USA won't even occupy Afghanistan or demand any tariff. When the murderers are removed from power and brought to justice the USA won't remain in Afghanistan. I'm at a loss to see what your point even is, this business of accusing America of being a conquering expansionist nation is clearly nonsense. Look at Europe after WWII, compare and contrast Soviet held territory to the rest, look at Japan. Infact America invading these countries turned out to be the most benign invasions in history. Even after World War One, the US opposed the draconian conditions in the treaty of Versailles but was overruled by others.
Defensive agression is justified, this is not the same as preemptive defensive aggression, that is where your spurious analogy fails.
You seem to have missed the point of the post I responded to. Don't you realize that he's calling Amreican actions in Afghanistan terrorism. Self defense has everything to do with this, within the confines of his definition, personally I prefer your definition, but I'd throw in a 'deliberately' in there. The point is that the USA seems to be concerned with his definition also, if you'll remember it released documents to the UN stating that it would need to act with military force against Afghanistan and possibly other nations in order to defend itself. This is the legal justification for the war within the confines of the UN charter. That is a simple fact, you may not like it but it's the basis for the legality of current US military actions. Self defense is what makes this action legal.
You've waded in and assumed I've taken a position contrary to the one I infact did. I agree this is a completely justified war. I strongly object to anyone calling it terrorism. This is the kind of sick confused moral equivalence that disgusts me.
After a Red Cross facility has been occupied by enemy forces, it ceases to become a Red Cross facility. But then you new that I was referring to enemy forces. In the face of war and enemies who literally seek to destroy us, your cute little word games are inappropriate. This is not some academic point of debate, lend the issues the gravity they deserve. As for your closing point, you are used to moral equivalence and arguing by analogy, it is the factual nature of my post which confuses you.
I see...the concept of an indirect attack. It has to come to this. Paint a big conspiracy and then accuse the USA of the worlds ills. You have to ignore a lot of facts to buy into these theories however. You have to ignore refusals by Saddam to allow arms inspections, or to sell is quota of oil in exchange for medical supplies. It's emotional blackmail with the lives of his own citizens as the cannon fodder. You have to ignore the duplicity of the PA, and the fact that Yasser Arifat has been in the White House more times than any other 'world leader'. You have to ignore the sheltering of Hamas and other organizations who kill innocents in Israel, or the territorial concessions made by Israel in recent negotiations, after which Yasser Arafat decided to pack up shop and unleash the intifada-II and suicide bombers, afterall if he could get this much without a drop of blood just imagine what he could get if he turned to mass murder.
I agree these are not academic and distant questions, but your notion that the truth or middle ground lies half way between any too opposing positions is fundamentally flawed.
It never occurs to you to examine the facts in these cases and ascribe some degree of fault or culpability. That is a very academic and distant notion. If we applied it in reality as we seem to be doing increasingly, we will all end up in ruins, simply because anyone cynical enough can manipulate our emotions to the point where we ignore their actions, and concede half the ground between us and them, even if they are utterly wrong. Then they can go for round two with the same tactics.
The case is not for killing Afghans, it's for killing the Taliban and Al Qaida. Some would like to confuse the two, or pretend that only innocent civilians are being killed but that is not the case. I don't like war, and if we could resucitate the dead innocents in Afghanistan who wouldn't? However we cannot competely disavow war as a means of self defense when attacked. That's a recipie for madmen across the globe to kill innocents and hide amongst civilians. There would be no end to the carnage. The fact remains that even after the Northern Alliance freed Mazar-e-Sharif and Kabul, the people on the street were celebrating their freedom. I would put it to you that as a nation most people of Afghanistan would look back on recent events as a small but terrible price to pay for their freedom from the Taliban. You are practiced at pointing out the attrocities of war, but you haven't suggested an alternative that wouldn't invite disaster. Not everyone has been raised on your diet of Disney feature films, there are bad people in the world who will exploit the weak, both nations and people.
Unlike you I have a relative who speaks fluent Arabic. You're only betraying your utter bias now. It was actually an ABC interview long before September 11th in which bin Laden called for the murder of innocent Americans. You can try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, but even English speakers know there would have been a massive outcry if the translation was incorrect, because there are huge numbers of Arabic speakers who saw the taped interview. There was even discussion in Arab circles as to whether he had the authority to issue such a Fatwa. At that time bin Laden wasn't trying to deny his attrocities, and relished his position as the leader who poked the "great satan" in the eye.
It's moderated just fine. Just look at the moderation on the rest of this thread, it's heavily weighted the other way. It is absolutely clear that the belief that America was hamstrung and a paper tiger led in part to the obcenity of Sept 11th. Even now some want the USA to do nothing in defense of freedom when there has never been a clearer case for self defense. Some accuse America of agression which gives succor to those who comitted the attrocity, and encourages others to do the same. It strains me to imagine just what kind of abhorrant obcenity it would take before you'd actually have the USA defend itself, and not accuse it of naked aggression.
You seem to ignore the uncomfortable fact that it was the USA which was attacked. Oh and FYI, I'm not a citizen of the USA. Maybe you'd like the world to turn to shit and have the USA sit back and let cavemen (yes, that isn't a pejorative term, it's where these guys live) fly airliners into buildings, but I don't. The USA was more than content to leave Afghanistan to the influence of Pakistan's ISI and Iran, but when it hardboured terrorists who massacred innocents on US soil something had to be done. It may infuriate you that the USA is kicking ass in Afghanistan, but that's what happens when you initiate a war on America. It comes as a surprise to many who saw the USA turn tail and run when they were attacked during peacekeeping and humanitarian mission, but that's because they believed the prognosis of bin Laden and his ilk. This is justified action and I'm thoroughly satisfied with the actions of the USA and the consequences. If the USA hadn't acted against these murderers, observers like you would be dancing around saying what a paper tiger the USA was as you laughed up your sleve at the murder of thousands in NY. Meanwhile bin Laden would be gearing up for further attrocities. No thanks, well done Uncle Sam. The fact that you have an opposing opinion doesn't mean that you are half right, simply because the media entertains fools of all kinds doesn't mean your position is morally equivalent. No, you are dead wrond, and morally bankrupt. The only case you can make is to confuse the issues beyond recognition. Thankfully clearer minds prevail in Washington D.C. and America is taking the fight to a regime which has initiated a war against the USA.
Self defense is a lawful position, that's in the UN charter. What kind of fool would think self defense is unlawful? Even if it's not written down in black and white (which it is), it's a fundamental principal of natural justice.
We've all seen the interview where bin Laden called for the murder of all Americans reguardless of whether they were in the armed forces. We've SEEN this, and the US should have acted before we had 5000 dead as a pretext to defend itself. Too bad for you that bin Laden as good as admitted his guilt since the attacks in his video to his followers. All you idiots now have to go find another anti-American cause.
I want to make this point clear, it is idiots like you who contributed to the attack on Sept 11th. Your moral ambivilence is abhorrant. The USA should have acted more forcefully before the 11th to get bin Laden but couldn't because you the willfull confusion and deliberate obfuscation of the facts by fools like you. Now even after that attack you don't crawl back under your rock, instead you're out in full force accusing the USA of the very thing that has been inflicted upon it. The case has never been clearer, there is more than enough evidence to go after bin Laden and his supporters (and there was even before Sept 11th), and the Taliban had their chance to turn them over and didn't. Of course they were never going to because they are complicit in his irrational Islamicist expansionist designs.
You're a confused idiot, just remember that you, your kids and your grandkids have to live in the world you manage to construct. Self defense is entirely legal and legitimate, which rules out your definition. Americans aren't blocking out any bigger picture, but you have to be very selective with the information you choose to ingest to arrive at your warped position.
Sigh, this is sad, the arrogance of the USA? This isn't arrogance, it's self defense. The USA could immolate any number of countries and they don't. Do you really think if the tables were turned that the USA would be left alone by the miscreants you support?
The USA was not randomly dropping food supplies, your choice of words betrays your true intent. You use a humanitarian gesture as a means to attack the country dropping food aid. Reminds me of the Taliban, who while raiding UN resources, and blocking UN food convoys, was complaining about the looming humanitarian disaster.
That is real hypocricy, you really have to muddy the waters and confuse the issues on all sides to support your strained position. You're greatest regret in all of this is that millions of refugees aren't staving and you can't point a finger at the US and accuse it of causing the disaster.
We did hear of a guard on the door of the Red Cross injured in the first attack. The rest we only have the word of the Taliban and the journalists in their pockets who they guided around a very select set of incidents, giving one side of the story. For a time all we heard about from the media was civilian casualties, in the most targeted air campaign in history. Then we heard of how US air power and the Northern Alliance would never defeat the Taliban. How reliable do those sycophantic sources look now.
Good for the USA, defending our freedom and values against the enemy and against the evil hypocrites who seek to distort the truth and have us disarm ourselves in the face of emotional blackmail by the most despicable characters imaginable.
If you're feeling bad about the Somali ISP just cast your mind back to Sept 11th or back to Mogadishu when the US Rangers were dragged through the street after being attacked by bin Laden backed Somalis. If you'll remember that mission started out as an attempt to feed starving Somalis until Aidid attacked and killed *Pakistani* UN troops.
What bothers me is jet liners packed with innocents slamming into skyscrapers. The Somali's put all their eggs into one basket, and the terrorists held that basket, too bad.
There are large enclosures which house these tubes, they aren't just floating in the drink. The load over a small tube is much less that that over a large enclosure.
And we're not talking about one breaking here, there are clearly large numbers which broke, by the sounds of it around half.
How about they refilled too quickly, or never equalized the pressure in the sensors. It seems clear that SOMETHING went wrong here, that detector used to be filled with heavy water, second time around the enclosures implode. It beggs the question, what did they do wrong the second time that they did right before? It seems foolish to suggest that the detector enclosures were not up to spec. Besides, if they weren't they should have known about it. It would be simple to pressurize the enclosures, no need to withstand the many atmospheres of pressure at the bottom of that tank.
It's one thing to optimize for a game or a specific set of calls, it's quite another to build in a different driver path which is only executed for that game based on the name of the program and not the data being sent. Quake 3 is not just a game, it is a benchmark, possibly the most observed benchmark, and ATI knows this. This driver optimization appears to attempt to skew the results of that benchmark by cutting corners which cannot be cut when running other identical software. It's not looking at the OpenGL stream and optimizing for a set of calls, it's using predetermined knowledge of corners which can be cut through human intervention, perhaps not even executing all the graphics calls being sent. This makes it a deliberate attempt to deceive people reviewing cards. This is not an entirely new phenomenon, but it is dishonest, this is not a good thing whether you play Quake 3 or not.
Quit acting like a spoiled kid. You don't know what draconian means. Someone looks in your bag before entering a building and all of a sudden it's draconian. That's simple security for your own protection and the protection of others. Next time thank the guard and move on.
That's Mars you idiot. Pluto is just a spec in the distance, it has a label which you are incorrectly associating with the big Mars like circle that also happens to be Mars.
The criticisms of OpenAL seem entirely reasonable to informed readers. OpenGL is an immediate mode API, an audio API and the nature of audio inherently requires a retained mode implementation from the ground up, probably a scene graph like API. The flaws in OpenAL are obvious and serious.
Well it might be reasonable if you have no other plans. These guys were in professional services, the plan was supposed to be that they'd do contract development on this stuff and VA would turn a profit on that. In addition you help make your platform more viable and retain expertise both inhouse and on the platform.
It now seems that graphics IHV's need to have a strong vested interest in driver development on Linux for it to happen.
Yea, what is all this subscription nonsense about anyway. I was under the impression I could just use sourceforge and CVS the code from any project there etc. What does a subscription actually entitle someone to?
Slashdot Mirror
Flying hijacked airliners into buildings has nothing to do with passive resistance. America wanted nothing from Al Qaida or the Taliban. You are reasoning by analogy, a sure sign of a bankrupt position, but it's much worse when the analogy doesn't fit even approximately.
America isn't crushing a nation, we all know the USA won't even occupy Afghanistan or demand any tariff. When the murderers are removed from power and brought to justice the USA won't remain in Afghanistan. I'm at a loss to see what your point even is, this business of accusing America of being a conquering expansionist nation is clearly nonsense. Look at Europe after WWII, compare and contrast Soviet held territory to the rest, look at Japan. Infact America invading these countries turned out to be the most benign invasions in history. Even after World War One, the US opposed the draconian conditions in the treaty of Versailles but was overruled by others.
Defensive agression is justified, this is not the same as preemptive defensive aggression, that is where your spurious analogy fails.
You seem to have missed the point of the post I responded to. Don't you realize that he's calling Amreican actions in Afghanistan terrorism. Self defense has everything to do with this, within the confines of his definition, personally I prefer your definition, but I'd throw in a 'deliberately' in there. The point is that the USA seems to be concerned with his definition also, if you'll remember it released documents to the UN stating that it would need to act with military force against Afghanistan and possibly other nations in order to defend itself. This is the legal justification for the war within the confines of the UN charter. That is a simple fact, you may not like it but it's the basis for the legality of current US military actions. Self defense is what makes this action legal.
You've waded in and assumed I've taken a position contrary to the one I infact did. I agree this is a completely justified war. I strongly object to anyone calling it terrorism. This is the kind of sick confused moral equivalence that disgusts me.
After a Red Cross facility has been occupied by enemy forces, it ceases to become a Red Cross facility. But then you new that I was referring to enemy forces. In the face of war and enemies who literally seek to destroy us, your cute little word games are inappropriate. This is not some academic point of debate, lend the issues the gravity they deserve. As for your closing point, you are used to moral equivalence and arguing by analogy, it is the factual nature of my post which confuses you.
I see...the concept of an indirect attack. It has to come to this. Paint a big conspiracy and then accuse the USA of the worlds ills. You have to ignore a lot of facts to buy into these theories however. You have to ignore refusals by Saddam to allow arms inspections, or to sell is quota of oil in exchange for medical supplies. It's emotional blackmail with the lives of his own citizens as the cannon fodder. You have to ignore the duplicity of the PA, and the fact that Yasser Arifat has been in the White House more times than any other 'world leader'. You have to ignore the sheltering of Hamas and other organizations who kill innocents in Israel, or the territorial concessions made by Israel in recent negotiations, after which Yasser Arafat decided to pack up shop and unleash the intifada-II and suicide bombers, afterall if he could get this much without a drop of blood just imagine what he could get if he turned to mass murder.
I agree these are not academic and distant questions, but your notion that the truth or middle ground lies half way between any too opposing positions is fundamentally flawed.
It never occurs to you to examine the facts in these cases and ascribe some degree of fault or culpability. That is a very academic and distant notion. If we applied it in reality as we seem to be doing increasingly, we will all end up in ruins, simply because anyone cynical enough can manipulate our emotions to the point where we ignore their actions, and concede half the ground between us and them, even if they are utterly wrong. Then they can go for round two with the same tactics.
The case is not for killing Afghans, it's for killing the Taliban and Al Qaida. Some would like to confuse the two, or pretend that only innocent civilians are being killed but that is not the case. I don't like war, and if we could resucitate the dead innocents in Afghanistan who wouldn't? However we cannot competely disavow war as a means of self defense when attacked. That's a recipie for madmen across the globe to kill innocents and hide amongst civilians. There would be no end to the carnage. The fact remains that even after the Northern Alliance freed Mazar-e-Sharif and Kabul, the people on the street were celebrating their freedom. I would put it to you that as a nation most people of Afghanistan would look back on recent events as a small but terrible price to pay for their freedom from the Taliban. You are practiced at pointing out the attrocities of war, but you haven't suggested an alternative that wouldn't invite disaster. Not everyone has been raised on your diet of Disney feature films, there are bad people in the world who will exploit the weak, both nations and people.
Unlike you I have a relative who speaks fluent Arabic. You're only betraying your utter bias now. It was actually an ABC interview long before September 11th in which bin Laden called for the murder of innocent Americans. You can try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, but even English speakers know there would have been a massive outcry if the translation was incorrect, because there are huge numbers of Arabic speakers who saw the taped interview. There was even discussion in Arab circles as to whether he had the authority to issue such a Fatwa. At that time bin Laden wasn't trying to deny his attrocities, and relished his position as the leader who poked the "great satan" in the eye.
It's moderated just fine. Just look at the moderation on the rest of this thread, it's heavily weighted the other way. It is absolutely clear that the belief that America was hamstrung and a paper tiger led in part to the obcenity of Sept 11th. Even now some want the USA to do nothing in defense of freedom when there has never been a clearer case for self defense. Some accuse America of agression which gives succor to those who comitted the attrocity, and encourages others to do the same. It strains me to imagine just what kind of abhorrant obcenity it would take before you'd actually have the USA defend itself, and not accuse it of naked aggression.
You seem to ignore the uncomfortable fact that it was the USA which was attacked. Oh and FYI, I'm not a citizen of the USA. Maybe you'd like the world to turn to shit and have the USA sit back and let cavemen (yes, that isn't a pejorative term, it's where these guys live) fly airliners into buildings, but I don't. The USA was more than content to leave Afghanistan to the influence of Pakistan's ISI and Iran, but when it hardboured terrorists who massacred innocents on US soil something had to be done. It may infuriate you that the USA is kicking ass in Afghanistan, but that's what happens when you initiate a war on America. It comes as a surprise to many who saw the USA turn tail and run when they were attacked during peacekeeping and humanitarian mission, but that's because they believed the prognosis of bin Laden and his ilk. This is justified action and I'm thoroughly satisfied with the actions of the USA and the consequences. If the USA hadn't acted against these murderers, observers like you would be dancing around saying what a paper tiger the USA was as you laughed up your sleve at the murder of thousands in NY. Meanwhile bin Laden would be gearing up for further attrocities. No thanks, well done Uncle Sam. The fact that you have an opposing opinion doesn't mean that you are half right, simply because the media entertains fools of all kinds doesn't mean your position is morally equivalent. No, you are dead wrond, and morally bankrupt. The only case you can make is to confuse the issues beyond recognition. Thankfully clearer minds prevail in Washington D.C. and America is taking the fight to a regime which has initiated a war against the USA.
Self defense is a lawful position, that's in the UN charter. What kind of fool would think self defense is unlawful? Even if it's not written down in black and white (which it is), it's a fundamental principal of natural justice.
We've all seen the interview where bin Laden called for the murder of all Americans reguardless of whether they were in the armed forces. We've SEEN this, and the US should have acted before we had 5000 dead as a pretext to defend itself. Too bad for you that bin Laden as good as admitted his guilt since the attacks in his video to his followers. All you idiots now have to go find another anti-American cause.
I want to make this point clear, it is idiots like you who contributed to the attack on Sept 11th. Your moral ambivilence is abhorrant. The USA should have acted more forcefully before the 11th to get bin Laden but couldn't because you the willfull confusion and deliberate obfuscation of the facts by fools like you. Now even after that attack you don't crawl back under your rock, instead you're out in full force accusing the USA of the very thing that has been inflicted upon it. The case has never been clearer, there is more than enough evidence to go after bin Laden and his supporters (and there was even before Sept 11th), and the Taliban had their chance to turn them over and didn't. Of course they were never going to because they are complicit in his irrational Islamicist expansionist designs.
You're a confused idiot, just remember that you, your kids and your grandkids have to live in the world you manage to construct. Self defense is entirely legal and legitimate, which rules out your definition. Americans aren't blocking out any bigger picture, but you have to be very selective with the information you choose to ingest to arrive at your warped position.
Sigh, this is sad, the arrogance of the USA? This isn't arrogance, it's self defense. The USA could immolate any number of countries and they don't. Do you really think if the tables were turned that the USA would be left alone by the miscreants you support?
The USA was not randomly dropping food supplies, your choice of words betrays your true intent. You use a humanitarian gesture as a means to attack the country dropping food aid. Reminds me of the Taliban, who while raiding UN resources, and blocking UN food convoys, was complaining about the looming humanitarian disaster.
That is real hypocricy, you really have to muddy the waters and confuse the issues on all sides to support your strained position. You're greatest regret in all of this is that millions of refugees aren't staving and you can't point a finger at the US and accuse it of causing the disaster.
We did hear of a guard on the door of the Red Cross injured in the first attack. The rest we only have the word of the Taliban and the journalists in their pockets who they guided around a very select set of incidents, giving one side of the story. For a time all we heard about from the media was civilian casualties, in the most targeted air campaign in history. Then we heard of how US air power and the Northern Alliance would never defeat the Taliban. How reliable do those sycophantic sources look now.
Good for the USA, defending our freedom and values against the enemy and against the evil hypocrites who seek to distort the truth and have us disarm ourselves in the face of emotional blackmail by the most despicable characters imaginable.
If you're feeling bad about the Somali ISP just cast your mind back to Sept 11th or back to Mogadishu when the US Rangers were dragged through the street after being attacked by bin Laden backed Somalis. If you'll remember that mission started out as an attempt to feed starving Somalis until Aidid attacked and killed *Pakistani* UN troops.
What bothers me is jet liners packed with innocents slamming into skyscrapers. The Somali's put all their eggs into one basket, and the terrorists held that basket, too bad.
This sounds even more annoying than lint. :-)
There are large enclosures which house these tubes, they aren't just floating in the drink. The load over a small tube is much less that that over a large enclosure.
And we're not talking about one breaking here, there are clearly large numbers which broke, by the sounds of it around half.
How about they refilled too quickly, or never equalized the pressure in the sensors. It seems clear that SOMETHING went wrong here, that detector used to be filled with heavy water, second time around the enclosures implode. It beggs the question, what did they do wrong the second time that they did right before? It seems foolish to suggest that the detector enclosures were not up to spec. Besides, if they weren't they should have known about it. It would be simple to pressurize the enclosures, no need to withstand the many atmospheres of pressure at the bottom of that tank.
It's one thing to optimize for a game or a specific set of calls, it's quite another to build in a different driver path which is only executed for that game based on the name of the program and not the data being sent. Quake 3 is not just a game, it is a benchmark, possibly the most observed benchmark, and ATI knows this. This driver optimization appears to attempt to skew the results of that benchmark by cutting corners which cannot be cut when running other identical software. It's not looking at the OpenGL stream and optimizing for a set of calls, it's using predetermined knowledge of corners which can be cut through human intervention, perhaps not even executing all the graphics calls being sent. This makes it a deliberate attempt to deceive people reviewing cards. This is not an entirely new phenomenon, but it is dishonest, this is not a good thing whether you play Quake 3 or not.
Quit acting like a spoiled kid. You don't know what draconian means. Someone looks in your bag before entering a building and all of a sudden it's draconian. That's simple security for your own protection and the protection of others. Next time thank the guard and move on.
That's Mars you idiot. Pluto is just a spec in the distance, it has a label which you are incorrectly associating with the big Mars like circle that also happens to be Mars.
I thought the article made it clear that the Sun licensing issues were a smoke screen. That being the case let's move on and lynch Lutris.
You are hopelessly naive.
The criticisms of OpenAL seem entirely reasonable to informed readers. OpenGL is an immediate mode API, an audio API and the nature of audio inherently requires a retained mode implementation from the ground up, probably a scene graph like API. The flaws in OpenAL are obvious and serious.
Well it might be reasonable if you have no other plans. These guys were in professional services, the plan was supposed to be that they'd do contract development on this stuff and VA would turn a profit on that. In addition you help make your platform more viable and retain expertise both inhouse and on the platform.
It now seems that graphics IHV's need to have a strong vested interest in driver development on Linux for it to happen.
Yea, what is all this subscription nonsense about anyway. I was under the impression I could just use sourceforge and CVS the code from any project there etc. What does a subscription actually entitle someone to?
The DRI is still there and Open Source.
VA is basically left with nothing and this software will go on, probably supported by at least some of the individuals VA just laid off.
VA is a distraction here. Let's hope the individuals can position themselves to deliver on the driver work that Linux needs.