So just give them something that has everything and don't put stupid limitations in that don't need to be there. Don't put theses stupid limitations like Maximum memory, maximum processors, maximum connections to IIS.
The kind of person who needs to go out and buy an 8-way box with 16 GB of RAM is probably happy to spend more money on the OS than the kind of person who goes out to buy a single-processor box with 512M of RAM. Thus, you do your bit as a socially-conscious company and help the person who is happy to part with more money do so.
I don't see anyone saying things like that about the next-gen copy-protection layers.
TBH I don't think the copy-protection itself is at fault, it's that more or less any widespread copy protection mechanism that has ever existed has eventually been broken. The only condition is that PCs are physically able to read the media - this was the biggest stumbling block for GD (on the Dreamcast) and Nintendo's GameCube disks.
How it will be broken remains to be seen - my money is on a few enterprising hackers and a poorly-written software implementation which allows someone access to its keys.
I guess the quality of the power supply can make a big deal too.
It makes a huge deal. A cheap 500W power supply may be less capable than a decent 350W unit.
Further, certainly with cheaper PSUs, it's a bad idea to run them at anywhere near their rated limit. Draw 250W+ on a cheap 300W PSU and you'll be buying a new power supply sooner rather than later.
When the hell is linux going to get good music production software?
The general reply to this kind of question in any forum filled with F/OSS zealots is "When you write it".
The correct reply is "A couple of years after someone who has the musical background, the technical expertise, the time and the inclination to do so starts a project, and there are enough other people with a similar background and expertise to keep it going. An alternative possibility is enough people with the background and the desire to work on Linux put enough pressure on an established developer of music production software to port it".
It still boils down to "you'll have to do something about it yourself" but at least now it's a little clearer as to what your options are.
I don't know many shops prepared to make the hardware upgrades Vista is going to require, or the infrastructure changes.
I'm not prepared to make any major infrastructure changes to accomodate any given OS. Seeing as I've got a fairly hetrogenous infrastructure, I don't see the need.
However, you've got to be pragmatic about this. My employer develops embedded software and the toolchain we use is Windows only. While a number of developers would move over to Linux in a flash if they could, they can't. (Well, technically, I'm pretty sure they could, since the only clever thing about the toolchain is a customised version of GCC built as a cross-compiler and a handful of proprietary cross-compiled libraries. But nobody is willing to spare the time to migrate it, and it's a bit difficult to ring up the supplier of your toolchain and ask their opinion on some odd bug when the first thing you say is "Ah, yes, we managed to get it running on Linux. Works quite well, actually...."
Sooner or later it's possible that a new version of some critical tool will require Vista. Given past experiences, this is unlikely, but if it happens I'll just have to get a Vista box to integrate.
SCO's lawyers are going to get jack squat in extra fees after a certain point.... The law firm doesn't get a penny more unless they win
Sounds to me like the law firm has a disincentive to put any real work into the case after that certain point. Much beyond it, I can imagine this conversation:
"We've got some more paperwork to do with the SCO case" "Give it to the work experience kid after he's finished getting everyone's coffee"
You can file a patent on a perpetual motion machine if you choose -- but to do so, you have to submit a working model to the PTO with the application.
Presumably, then, they'll only award the patent once they're satisfied it works. So if someone did submit a patent for a perpetual motion machine that actually worked, he'd have to sit around until the end of the universe to be granted his patent.
From this we can assume that perpetual motion machines are effectively exempt from patent protection. No wonder nobody's developing one!
You know, I would generally reckon that if someone goes to the trouble of consciously not watching ad breaks, chances are they're not all that interested in buying something that's advertised. Therefore, all you're doing by trying to subvert this is pissing money down the loo.
Blair and his labor party should serve as a reminder that socialism is not all about fluffy welfare states.
Blair and his Labour party are nothing to do with socialism. The abolition of Clause 4 and granting tax breaks to businessmen (even though it was later revoked - at least our judges have balls) don't sound very socialist to me.
What we essentially have in today's Labour is the old conservative party only slightly less rabid.
Because they can't do as they wish it's not viable.
Put like that, it rather looks like the business model is more about controlling the distribution of a product rather than the product itself.
Sounds like organised crime - Prohibition era, organised crime distributes alcohol, makes money and gets very tetchy about someone else competing with them. Today, organised crime distributes music^H^H^H^H^Hdrugs, makes money and gets very tetchy about someone else competing with them.
which means that the UK people are very rich and educated and the country is developed..
Yes, but like every other country in the world, educated or otherwise, we have our fair share of people who were dropped on theirs heads as babies who you simply cannot educate much beyond walking, talking, reading and sometimes writing.
Yes, but with the greatest of respect we're not talking about some throwaway £400 desktop which is practically impossible to buy without a Windows license.
We're talking about 5 proper rack-mounted servers. Dell's website forces you to take an extra step in order to have your server shipped with Windows - as standard, it ships with nothing at all. So I still think the grandparent was either talking rubbish in order to gain karma or is an idiot.
We purchased five brand new Dell rackmountable servers last month. When we got them, we burned in some linux and threw the windows disks in the trash...
Seeing as Dell doesn't force you to buy an operating system with their servers, why did you bother buying them in the first place?
As long as it doesn't cross the channel, or spill down into Southern Ireland, who cares if the Ulsterites smash up their own town?
Lots and lots of people in NI have strong links with either Eire or Great Britain. In many cities across GB there are strong Irish communities. There's a pretty strong chance that a civil war would cross the Irish Sea or into the Republic of Ireland.
I don't see it crossing the channel, however, as the French are unlikely to be that concerned.
There's no reason left for the Unionists to hang on
Except that most of them have lived in Ireland for generations, and aren't about to be told to leave by some jumped up bloke in a balaclava who thinks he's Mr. Almighty because he can get hold of explosives.
I personally support the raiding of fundamentalist Christian churches for such people.
But not eradicating Christianity altogether? Why not? How do you know that Christian fundamentalists form the minority? Or how to tell a fundamentalist from a non-fundamentalist?
Which is why you start with nuking Mecca- something you CAN do overnight that sends a message that Allah either doesn't exist or hates Moslems.
09:00 : World Situation.
1 billion Muslims in the world. 99.99% are either pro-US or indifferent. 0.01% are radical anti-US.
09:05: US nukes Mecca.
09:20: News of US nukes has reached pretty much every corner of the globe. New situation:
999,500,000 Muslims in the world. 99.9999% are anti-US. 0.0001% live under rocks and get all their news from their pet potato, Alfie.
While I find your point of view interesting, I really can't say I agree with it. Would you have me rounded up and shot?
Ah, but here you have the main problem. The Unionists and the Loyalists did have strongly opposing views and historically haven't been prepared to concede any ground. Left to their own devices, there would probably be all-out civil war before long.
If the UK withdraws support from the Unionists, and the RI withdraws support from the IRA, they'll still fight- but eventually they'll die and the Southern Irish will be able to resettle the northern six counties. There's no need at all for the UK to be there anymore.
I sincerely doubt it. There's still a large enough group of Unionists to not only cause trouble, but to have sex and make babies.
The Irish problem has existed in one form or another since the 1600's. To expect it to die in one generation is optimistic in the extreme.
Only if you think leaving 3/4ths of the form blank is a valid Visa application- or that it's legal to issue Visas to people on FBI watch lists.
Why should incompetence on the part of a US government department be taken out on the rest of the world?
I've never even clapped eyes on a US Visa form - the closest I've seen is the "temporary visitors visa" they're issuing now at airports. Have you actually read one of those? It asks, straight up, "Are you planning on any terrorist activities? Tick Yes: No: ", along with a number of other equally inane questions.
However, the biggest mistake it makes is that it assumes someone who's serious about waging an attack on US soil will either A: answer honestly or B: not have a properly planned alibi in advance. Really I think it's just to provide an excuse so they can arrest a terrorist before they do any harm - that way you can arrest them for lying on the form. Of course, you have to detect these lies then track the person down BEFORE they do any harm - not by any means an easy feat.
At this point, I don't see that we have any choice in the matter.
But there also exist radical Christians - who consider it perfectly acceptable to blow up abortion clinics. Should we round up Christians too? How about groups like animal rights campaigners who attack vivisection laboratories? Round up everyone who's shown a sympathetic attitude towards animals?
I'm saying the proper way to deal with North Korea would be to turn South Korea into an Island- and then it doesn't matter because there IS no North Korea to become "less and less co-operative with the UN." Similarly, I see no other solution to Islamic Terrorism than to eliminate Islam from the world.
All 1 billion followers of Islam, including the 99.99% who would never even consider strapping Semtex to themselves then going for a walk in a crowded city? Really? This can't be done overnight, and while you're in the process of doing it, you're creating an excellent recruitment campaign for the hardline terrorists.
The IRA hadn't had diametrically opposed point of view to the UK since the 1900s- there was no need left to keep up the occupation of Ireland
The Irish Republic has only existed in its current form since 1921. And the IRA in its current form has only existed since 1969. "Threatening to blow up" Northern Ireland would quite likely have united the Unionists and the Loyalists all right - against the UK. And it's not generally held to be a good idea to nuke a country that's only about 100 miles away.
and there is no real reason left to keep up the occupation of Northern Ireland today.
Now, this may equally be the fault of a succession of Tory governments, but the thing you have to recall is that throughout the most recent spate of troubles (which began in the late '60s, but really kicked off following Bloody Sunday in 1972), the UK policy was "We shall never negotiate with terrorists". As soon as an organisation was found to have terrorist links, they were essentially out of any discussion.
The problem here is that every damn organisation which was complaining about the situation in NI had terrorist links.
Beyond that, the UK and the Republic of Ireland have been trying to broker a peace between the Unionists and the Loyalists, with varying degrees of success. It seems fairly quiet right now, and the IRA has "officially" declared that it's given up on violence - though if history teaches us anything, it suggests that this peace won't last forever.
And we're stuck that way- the only thing we can do is make the Whack-a-Mole more efficient by using a bigger hammer. Whack-a-Mole is an easy game if you use a sheet of plywood instead of the hammer- same thing here. bin Laden and al Qaida is no more in control than the guy who lights the fuse on a stick of dynamite- and a rather short fuse at that.
The 9/11 terrorists were all legitimately in the US. The 7/7 bombers in the UK were all legitimately here, and in many cases had been for some years. Are you suggesting we round up every single Muslim the world over?
Because in the end, it's the same equation- but North Korea can only hit 7 targets without a large amount of manufacturing- where the US can hit 7000 and still have warheads left over.
It's precisely this "STFU and do as we bloody well tell you or we'll send the army in, you see if we don't!" attitude that had Saddam Hussein applauding the 9/11 terrorists, that has made the short, simple "get into Iraq, topple Hussein, sort them out with a democratic government, get out" the long drawn-out affair it's turning into and that has resulted in the likes of North Korea becoming less and less co-operative with the UN.
and if it had become clear that the UK had a "put your historical differences behind you and make peace, or we will make the peace of the grave" mentality the talks would have started *much* earlier
The UK couldn't say "put YOUR historical differences behind you" as we were the party the IRA was opposed to. We were in talks with Sinn Feinn (for want of a better word, the "politically correct", not-blowing-everyone-up branch of the IRA) for years, but it never achieved anything because for years neither us nor Sinn Feinn were prepared to concede any ground, and we had polar viewpoints.
The *only* thing they will accept is total victory- or total loss.
Who's "They"? If we're talking about the Islamic extremists, the main reason they've taken it upon themselves to declare the Western world (and in particular, the US and allies) to be fair targets is because they don't like US foreign policy. They're hardly going to start liking US foreign policy if every time they have a minor victory somewhere in the world, the US response is to march over to the middle east and overthrow an existing government there. There are enough Muslims in the world today that if only 0.05% worldwide embrace violence (a significantly larger number than are now), the US is going to be playing a global game of Whack-a-Mole.
On top of that, a number of nations which are likely to be at least slightly sympathetic to Islamic extremists (purely because they're likely to be sympathetic to any viewpoint that isn't pro-US) are within easy nuking distance of US allies. The US might have trouble retaining allies when North Korea is threatening to nuke anyone within range who proclaims US loyalty.
The proper response to terrorism isn't self-censorship- it's more and bigger terrorism. You find out what the terrorists care about and you take that away as spectacularly and explosively as possible.
Which served the UK so well when we had the IRA blowing something up every 6-9 months at the height of the troubles.
What they cared about was Northern Ireland becoming free of UK rule - presumably it would then have come under the auspices of Eire. Blowing up Northern Ireland (or, for that matter, the Republic of Ireland) would simply have sent out a great big message to any remaining Irish saying "We don't care about you, we don't care about civilian casualties, we just want control of that bit of land". By the same token, we couldn't abandon Northern Ireland unilaterally, as there was another group (the Ulster Unionists) who wanted to remain part of Great Britain and had no problem with retaliating against the IRA.
The really saddening thing, though, is..... someone....simply isn't making sense because their language skills are so poor...... what are they going to get in the job market, for example?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but there's a difference.
I was serious.
(And yes, I know it's starting to sound like something out of Monty Python, but hey...)
So just give them something that has everything and don't put stupid limitations in that don't need to be there. Don't put theses stupid limitations like Maximum memory, maximum processors, maximum connections to IIS.
The kind of person who needs to go out and buy an 8-way box with 16 GB of RAM is probably happy to spend more money on the OS than the kind of person who goes out to buy a single-processor box with 512M of RAM. Thus, you do your bit as a socially-conscious company and help the person who is happy to part with more money do so.
I don't see anyone saying things like that about the next-gen copy-protection layers.
TBH I don't think the copy-protection itself is at fault, it's that more or less any widespread copy protection mechanism that has ever existed has eventually been broken. The only condition is that PCs are physically able to read the media - this was the biggest stumbling block for GD (on the Dreamcast) and Nintendo's GameCube disks.
How it will be broken remains to be seen - my money is on a few enterprising hackers and a poorly-written software implementation which allows someone access to its keys.
And let's face it, it'll be circumvented somehow, right?
You know this. I know this. Doesn't look like the MPAA does though.
And perhaps a new motherboard as well.
And the rest! The worst I've seen was a cheap power supply taking out every other damn component in the case.
I guess the quality of the power supply can make a big deal too.
It makes a huge deal. A cheap 500W power supply may be less capable than a decent 350W unit.
Further, certainly with cheaper PSUs, it's a bad idea to run them at anywhere near their rated limit. Draw 250W+ on a cheap 300W PSU and you'll be buying a new power supply sooner rather than later.
When the hell is linux going to get good music production software?
The general reply to this kind of question in any forum filled with F/OSS zealots is "When you write it".
The correct reply is "A couple of years after someone who has the musical background, the technical expertise, the time and the inclination to do so starts a project, and there are enough other people with a similar background and expertise to keep it going. An alternative possibility is enough people with the background and the desire to work on Linux put enough pressure on an established developer of music production software to port it".
It still boils down to "you'll have to do something about it yourself" but at least now it's a little clearer as to what your options are.
I don't know many shops prepared to make the hardware upgrades Vista is going to require, or the infrastructure changes.
I'm not prepared to make any major infrastructure changes to accomodate any given OS. Seeing as I've got a fairly hetrogenous infrastructure, I don't see the need.
However, you've got to be pragmatic about this. My employer develops embedded software and the toolchain we use is Windows only. While a number of developers would move over to Linux in a flash if they could, they can't. (Well, technically, I'm pretty sure they could, since the only clever thing about the toolchain is a customised version of GCC built as a cross-compiler and a handful of proprietary cross-compiled libraries. But nobody is willing to spare the time to migrate it, and it's a bit difficult to ring up the supplier of your toolchain and ask their opinion on some odd bug when the first thing you say is "Ah, yes, we managed to get it running on Linux. Works quite well, actually...."
Sooner or later it's possible that a new version of some critical tool will require Vista. Given past experiences, this is unlikely, but if it happens I'll just have to get a Vista box to integrate.
SCO's lawyers are going to get jack squat in extra fees after a certain point.... The law firm doesn't get a penny more unless they win
Sounds to me like the law firm has a disincentive to put any real work into the case after that certain point. Much beyond it, I can imagine this conversation:
"We've got some more paperwork to do with the SCO case"
"Give it to the work experience kid after he's finished getting everyone's coffee"
You can file a patent on a perpetual motion machine if you choose -- but to do so, you have to submit a working model to the PTO with the application.
Presumably, then, they'll only award the patent once they're satisfied it works. So if someone did submit a patent for a perpetual motion machine that actually worked, he'd have to sit around until the end of the universe to be granted his patent.
From this we can assume that perpetual motion machines are effectively exempt from patent protection. No wonder nobody's developing one!
the DRM that has not been cracked offers no new content over formats that have less protection (e.g. CDs, DVDs).
Yet.
People buy the product?
You know, I would generally reckon that if someone goes to the trouble of consciously not watching ad breaks, chances are they're not all that interested in buying something that's advertised. Therefore, all you're doing by trying to subvert this is pissing money down the loo.
But, what do I know? IANAMB (marketing bunny)
There are ways to distribute data over the internet securely to devices that also lock down the data.
Show me one. One which works 100%, because if it's broken once, it can go on P2P forever.
Blair and his labor party should serve as a reminder that socialism is not all about fluffy welfare states.
Blair and his Labour party are nothing to do with socialism. The abolition of Clause 4 and granting tax breaks to businessmen (even though it was later revoked - at least our judges have balls) don't sound very socialist to me.
What we essentially have in today's Labour is the old conservative party only slightly less rabid.
Because they can't do as they wish it's not viable.
Put like that, it rather looks like the business model is more about controlling the distribution of a product rather than the product itself.
Sounds like organised crime - Prohibition era, organised crime distributes alcohol, makes money and gets very tetchy about someone else competing with them. Today, organised crime distributes music^H^H^H^H^Hdrugs, makes money and gets very tetchy about someone else competing with them.
which means that the UK people are very rich and educated and the country is developed..
Yes, but like every other country in the world, educated or otherwise, we have our fair share of people who were dropped on theirs heads as babies who you simply cannot educate much beyond walking, talking, reading and sometimes writing.
Our solution is to give them a job in government.
Yes, but with the greatest of respect we're not talking about some throwaway £400 desktop which is practically impossible to buy without a Windows license.
We're talking about 5 proper rack-mounted servers. Dell's website forces you to take an extra step in order to have your server shipped with Windows - as standard, it ships with nothing at all. So I still think the grandparent was either talking rubbish in order to gain karma or is an idiot.
We purchased five brand new Dell rackmountable servers last month. When we got them, we burned in some linux and threw the windows disks in the trash...
Seeing as Dell doesn't force you to buy an operating system with their servers, why did you bother buying them in the first place?
As long as it doesn't cross the channel, or spill down into Southern Ireland, who cares if the Ulsterites smash up their own town?
Lots and lots of people in NI have strong links with either Eire or Great Britain. In many cities across GB there are strong Irish communities. There's a pretty strong chance that a civil war would cross the Irish Sea or into the Republic of Ireland.
I don't see it crossing the channel, however, as the French are unlikely to be that concerned.
There's no reason left for the Unionists to hang on
Except that most of them have lived in Ireland for generations, and aren't about to be told to leave by some jumped up bloke in a balaclava who thinks he's Mr. Almighty because he can get hold of explosives.
I personally support the raiding of fundamentalist Christian churches for such people.
But not eradicating Christianity altogether? Why not? How do you know that Christian fundamentalists form the minority? Or how to tell a fundamentalist from a non-fundamentalist?
Which is why you start with nuking Mecca- something you CAN do overnight that sends a message that Allah either doesn't exist or hates Moslems.
09:00 : World Situation.
1 billion Muslims in the world. 99.99% are either pro-US or indifferent. 0.01% are radical anti-US.
09:05: US nukes Mecca.
09:20: News of US nukes has reached pretty much every corner of the globe. New situation:
999,500,000 Muslims in the world. 99.9999% are anti-US. 0.0001% live under rocks and get all their news from their pet potato, Alfie.
While I find your point of view interesting, I really can't say I agree with it. Would you have me rounded up and shot?
once the Unionists and Loyalists are talking
Ah, but here you have the main problem. The Unionists and the Loyalists did have strongly opposing views and historically haven't been prepared to concede any ground. Left to their own devices, there would probably be all-out civil war before long.
If the UK withdraws support from the Unionists, and the RI withdraws support from the IRA, they'll still fight- but eventually they'll die and the Southern Irish will be able to resettle the northern six counties. There's no need at all for the UK to be there anymore.
I sincerely doubt it. There's still a large enough group of Unionists to not only cause trouble, but to have sex and make babies.
The Irish problem has existed in one form or another since the 1600's. To expect it to die in one generation is optimistic in the extreme.
Only if you think leaving 3/4ths of the form blank is a valid Visa application- or that it's legal to issue Visas to people on FBI watch lists.
Why should incompetence on the part of a US government department be taken out on the rest of the world?
I've never even clapped eyes on a US Visa form - the closest I've seen is the "temporary visitors visa" they're issuing now at airports. Have you actually read one of those? It asks, straight up, "Are you planning on any terrorist activities? Tick Yes: No: ", along with a number of other equally inane questions.
However, the biggest mistake it makes is that it assumes someone who's serious about waging an attack on US soil will either A: answer honestly or B: not have a properly planned alibi in advance. Really I think it's just to provide an excuse so they can arrest a terrorist before they do any harm - that way you can arrest them for lying on the form. Of course, you have to detect these lies then track the person down BEFORE they do any harm - not by any means an easy feat.
At this point, I don't see that we have any choice in the matter.
But there also exist radical Christians - who consider it perfectly acceptable to blow up abortion clinics. Should we round up Christians too? How about groups like animal rights campaigners who attack vivisection laboratories? Round up everyone who's shown a sympathetic attitude towards animals?
I'm saying the proper way to deal with North Korea would be to turn South Korea into an Island- and then it doesn't matter because there IS no North Korea to become "less and less co-operative with the UN." Similarly, I see no other solution to Islamic Terrorism than to eliminate Islam from the world.
All 1 billion followers of Islam, including the 99.99% who would never even consider strapping Semtex to themselves then going for a walk in a crowded city? Really? This can't be done overnight, and while you're in the process of doing it, you're creating an excellent recruitment campaign for the hardline terrorists.
The IRA hadn't had diametrically opposed point of view to the UK since the 1900s- there was no need left to keep up the occupation of Ireland
The Irish Republic has only existed in its current form since 1921. And the IRA in its current form has only existed since 1969. "Threatening to blow up" Northern Ireland would quite likely have united the Unionists and the Loyalists all right - against the UK. And it's not generally held to be a good idea to nuke a country that's only about 100 miles away.
and there is no real reason left to keep up the occupation of Northern Ireland today.
Now, this may equally be the fault of a succession of Tory governments, but the thing you have to recall is that throughout the most recent spate of troubles (which began in the late '60s, but really kicked off following Bloody Sunday in 1972), the UK policy was "We shall never negotiate with terrorists". As soon as an organisation was found to have terrorist links, they were essentially out of any discussion.
The problem here is that every damn organisation which was complaining about the situation in NI had terrorist links.
Beyond that, the UK and the Republic of Ireland have been trying to broker a peace between the Unionists and the Loyalists, with varying degrees of success. It seems fairly quiet right now, and the IRA has "officially" declared that it's given up on violence - though if history teaches us anything, it suggests that this peace won't last forever.
And we're stuck that way- the only thing we can do is make the Whack-a-Mole more efficient by using a bigger hammer. Whack-a-Mole is an easy game if you use a sheet of plywood instead of the hammer- same thing here. bin Laden and al Qaida is no more in control than the guy who lights the fuse on a stick of dynamite- and a rather short fuse at that.
The 9/11 terrorists were all legitimately in the US. The 7/7 bombers in the UK were all legitimately here, and in many cases had been for some years. Are you suggesting we round up every single Muslim the world over?
Because in the end, it's the same equation- but North Korea can only hit 7 targets without a large amount of manufacturing- where the US can hit 7000 and still have warheads left over.
It's precisely this "STFU and do as we bloody well tell you or we'll send the army in, you see if we don't!" attitude that had Saddam Hussein applauding the 9/11 terrorists, that has made the short, simple "get into Iraq, topple Hussein, sort them out with a democratic government, get out" the long drawn-out affair it's turning into and that has resulted in the likes of North Korea becoming less and less co-operative with the UN.
Really? I don't remember the UK nuking Ulster....
I'm sorry, I forgot my <sarcasm> tags.
and if it had become clear that the UK had a "put your historical differences behind you and make peace, or we will make the peace of the grave" mentality the talks would have started *much* earlier
The UK couldn't say "put YOUR historical differences behind you" as we were the party the IRA was opposed to. We were in talks with Sinn Feinn (for want of a better word, the "politically correct", not-blowing-everyone-up branch of the IRA) for years, but it never achieved anything because for years neither us nor Sinn Feinn were prepared to concede any ground, and we had polar viewpoints.
The *only* thing they will accept is total victory- or total loss.
Who's "They"? If we're talking about the Islamic extremists, the main reason they've taken it upon themselves to declare the Western world (and in particular, the US and allies) to be fair targets is because they don't like US foreign policy. They're hardly going to start liking US foreign policy if every time they have a minor victory somewhere in the world, the US response is to march over to the middle east and overthrow an existing government there. There are enough Muslims in the world today that if only 0.05% worldwide embrace violence (a significantly larger number than are now), the US is going to be playing a global game of Whack-a-Mole.
On top of that, a number of nations which are likely to be at least slightly sympathetic to Islamic extremists (purely because they're likely to be sympathetic to any viewpoint that isn't pro-US) are within easy nuking distance of US allies. The US might have trouble retaining allies when North Korea is threatening to nuke anyone within range who proclaims US loyalty.
The proper response to terrorism isn't self-censorship- it's more and bigger terrorism. You find out what the terrorists care about and you take that away as spectacularly and explosively as possible.
Which served the UK so well when we had the IRA blowing something up every 6-9 months at the height of the troubles.
What they cared about was Northern Ireland becoming free of UK rule - presumably it would then have come under the auspices of Eire. Blowing up Northern Ireland (or, for that matter, the Republic of Ireland) would simply have sent out a great big message to any remaining Irish saying "We don't care about you, we don't care about civilian casualties, we just want control of that bit of land". By the same token, we couldn't abandon Northern Ireland unilaterally, as there was another group (the Ulster Unionists) who wanted to remain part of Great Britain and had no problem with retaliating against the IRA.
The really saddening thing, though, is..... someone....simply isn't making sense because their language skills are so poor...... what are they going to get in the job market, for example?
They'll become senior IT executives..
AFAIK that wasn't the case about 18 months ago. Either that or they were checking the OS string returned, and decided they didn't like that.