> I think this was the most revealing part of your post
I think you cannot read.
> -- don't dare express yourself politically because we can't handle any of that kind of discussion in here.
Heh, no, just don't assume that everyone who is involved with writing open source software shares the same ideas that are very popular among GPL proponents.
Specifically, when looking at BSD licensed software, as is the case with FreeBSD (just in case you didn't notice yet, we were discussing FreeBSD, not Linux here), you may actually notice that the people designign and writing it don't care that much about 'the open source methodology' but about making something that is usable to everyone. You make closed source software? fine. Makign a card with closed source drivers? perfect, we don't care.
You make somethign wuith a closed source FreeBSD driver? great, if you want it will get listed as a FreeBSD supporting device.
If you think that pointing out the difference between that way of thinking, and the way of thinkign that is very popular among GPL 'fans' is stiffening the discussion, then well, too bad.
I do think tho that you are a bit oversensitive to statements that might be read as being negative with regards to the GPL, and thereby are doign the exact thing that you accuse me of, stiffenign discussion.
> One can only hope those "certain hardware manufacturers" aren't the ones that treat you like nVidia does. This is not "support", this is an opportunity to acquire a set of chains. Fans of the open source methodology ought to see how accepting proprietary code isn't going to make your system better--you're choosing to toss out the developmental advantages that open source advocates focus on (or instead not recognizing the limitations in ignoring software freedom for users). The free software community wasn't built by catering to software proprietors and it won't be sustained by giving into them.
That is all noice, and will appeal to people in the Linux/GPL world. FreeBSD does have a free and open source license, but has a different idea about development model, and don't try to express and pursue a political and social goal with their license.
This is not about the validity of your argument, but about the assumptions it is based on, which do not apply to everyone.
I was about to do the same but decided to meddle with the old driver for a last time to see if it could in fact work. It did work for me upto and including FreeBSD 5.1, and I got it to work again on -current by basicly going back to a kernel and pthread setup similar to 5.1, which of course made using -current a bit pointless.. but hey, I got a working workstation with fast opengl, and that is what I needed..
This new fdriver is good news, means I can go back to tracking -current and actually seeing some results of new tech that is in there;)
> According to the Koran, the practices of the Prophet, and Islamic Law >........ > The Dimma WAS pretty tolerant when the comparison was the Spanish Inquisition. Not so much in the modern era.
Thanks for the excelent explanation there.
There is one thing worth noticing here however, neither Judism or Christianity recognize any other religion (that most modern believers in either tolerate the idea of other religions is a seperate issue, tho one that is very relevant to the whole problem the west and the muslim world are having)
> Saddam in any case was a) a nominally Muslim ruler, who fulfilled all the obligations of a muslim, and therefore according to doctrine was a muslim and b) a profoundly hostile to the US regime. While extensive co-operation was unlikely the probability of a Stalin-Hitler type pact was always possible. Two leaders with relatively weak military forces, both muslims, hostile to the US seeking an alliance of convenience? I'd be surprised if there were not any intelligence sharing at the least.
Reasonable assumption I think, and I definitely don't see a problem from the side of Al-Queda for this. I do see some issues on the side of Iraq however, Saddam has been too consistent in suppressing religious extremism over time and seemed quite aware of the danger it would bring.
But as I said in another post, when his position became desperate, this option might well have become a reality. I just haven't seen or heard of any verifiable proof regarding this.
> The middle east problem is being solved by invading places like Iraq. Not that we should go to war for peace in the Middle East--as an American, that is not related to the US national defense and thus is not a justification. (But I still feel it was justified in the aim of national defense)
Everyone his own opinion..
> However--Iraq was a major source of funding for Islamist terrorists in Israel.
Uh, mind showing any proof of that? so far I all heard was that that claim is rather unfounded.
If you are talking about Iran and funding Hezbolah, that is an entirely different story.
> You can't have peace in the middle east until you stop fueling the terrorists--and the fuel isn't theology, hatred, or inequality...it's money.
Yes, money is the problem, however not in the way you seem to think. Lack of money among common people, not to say utter poverty, is what allows groups like Hamas, Hezbolah, and even Al-Queda to find support among the people, and make the whole thing an uphill battle for anyone they decide to fight, unless you believe that simply destroying the middle east and all that lives there is a solution.
> If anything, this article reveals Islamic fundamentalist terrorism as the sham it is. It's not based around a religious belief--it's a corporation that generates profits from terror. They've got public relations, issue mission statements, and deal with the media.
Yes, as is quite evident from them denouncing any modernity unless it helps them with their effords to spread fear.
You cannot stop such people simply by means of policy, but you can change the fact that they can easily recruit people to do the dirty work.
There are reasons why it is so much easier to recruit peopel for such actions in many middle eastern countries then it is in most of the west (not that it is impossible in the west, just a lot more difficult)
A large factor in how sensitive peopel are for extremist ideas is how well they can live their lives. If you want proof of that, please read up a bit on Germany during the 20s and 30s of the last century for example.
> It's hilarious to me when people try to say that our foreign policy is what drives these people--that our policies made poor folks like Bin-Laden strike out (who despite his cave dwelling is among the world's rich elite) It's money and power that these people want. And they'll kill all of you to get it.
Bin-Laden is not poor, his message appeals to poor people without much of a future.
And yes, the US foreign policy is in part to blame for this situation, but only in part.
> So, uh, do you mean "another way, then sending in your army" or "another way than sending in your army"?
The later, thanks for the correction (English is not my primary language, and I tend to forget things at times... oh, don't confuse that with typos, which I happen to make a lot)
> Contrary to popular/. belief, proper spelling and punctuation DOES make a difference.
Ah, no prob with the correction, but maybe it would be an idea to start realizing that not everyone here has English as primary language, so maybe peopel just don't know;P
> The analogy is not exact enough. Suppose those Native Americans began peacefully buying land and settling with the announced intention of creating their own enclave and the locals started terrorizing them before they created their enclave?
When the intention is known, do you really blame the locals for objecting? I have a problem with their means, and in fact I think they should accept what happened, but that doesn't make it less understandable how they feel about the matter. I'm not trying to put blame on anyone (if I would, lets bring in the French and the English because they have their fair share of blame in this) but I am trying to point at what the underlying problem is.
> I object to many Israeli policies, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for the locals either.
Agreed, they dealt with this in a rather bad way, and are responsible for quite a part of the escalation.
> The US doesn't "support" dictators for the fun of it. First, if the pacifist President Carter had supported Iran more, Iran would still be a (semi-)ally. Islamic fundamentalists took over Iran and Carter refused to help. The previous Iranian administration certainly had problems, but compare it to the current Iranian administration.
I'll leave that judgement to the Iranian people.
I'd advise you however to go read some non US sources on the rule of the Sjah in Iran before making any judgements yourself.
I'd also like to point you at the southern Americas and the USA knowingly eliminating democraticly elected governments out of fear for communism and to protect the interests of some US companies who had earlier on struck extremely unfair deals with those countries.
No, it has nothing to do with pacifist Carter and everything with the USA having a double standard, claiming democracy, but throwing it out whenever it comes in handy, and supporting oppressive governments.
You still do not realize obviously that the theory of your enemies enemy being your friend has failed? You really didn't realize that the people who attacked the USA on 9/11 were its allies in earlier times? Valued because of their fanatism in fighting the RUssians back then, noone ever imagined that those could turn against the USA and that maybe such fanatics were just dangerous in general and should not be supported for short term goals due to the long term consequences?
> Second, Sadaam was given weapons and aid so that Iraq would not go the same route. It was in a war with Iran and the US really didn't want the Islamic problem to spread.
The way to prevent that is to provide a viable alternative, not to suppress the population. The USA has made that same mistake with regards to other countries they meddle with again and again, and it failed again and again. Please take a look at why after the 2nd world war Germany and Japan didn't fail completely, you will notice a very significant difference in how those were dealt with.
The 'Islamic problem' finds its cause in poverty and desperation of people. Address those and the problem becomes solvable. Cause more oppression and the problem will become bigger. It is really very simple at that level (solving the poverty problem is not simple at all, I realize that)
> In hindsight, that seems pretty smart. As time went on, his speeches became more and more anti-Western.
No it was not smart, Sadam and his policies have been clear from the start, and we knew by that time that Stalinism was really not something to support.
It was at best smart with regards to the priorities as people perceived them at the time, but all hindsight gives us is the realisation that the priorities were wrong.
Also, fear for islamism? more like an obsession with what had happened at the US embasy in Iran.
If there was fear for Islamism involved, peopel like Osama would not have been supported by the USA.
> As a side note, there seems to be a lot of confusion over the US "creating a monster". However, the US supplied only about 2% of Iraq's weapons. France, Germany, Russia, and China supplied about 80%.
I never said the USA created a monster there tho, but they did support someone of whom they could very well have known that he was not a nice or anywhere reliable ally. He got into the Ba'ath party because he was good at murderign people, and that was known at the time for example, and so were the Stalinist ideas of the party.
As a sidenote, the USA was far from alone in that and the USSR and China had obvious reasons for supporting hoim (as a fellow Communist leader)
Bottomline, the problem with US policy in the middle east is that they accept one evil to fight another, but don't seem to be able to judge which evil is greater and how it might come to bite them. The wise thing to do would be to stop supporting it alltogether and look a bit better at long term strategic goals instead of short term tactical ones.
> Rather than invade Iraq, our resources would have been wisley spent finding a solution the real problem. About 300 miles to the west of Iraq. The terrorist threat will never cease until the middle east problem is resolved fairly to everyone involved.
I definitely agree that that should happen and that it will resolve a large part of the terrorist problem there, but settling that problem will not stop people like Osama. He has religious motives, and has no problemm attacking other muslims who don't follow his exact interpretation of Islam either. It would help a lot in removing the conditions that allow him to recruit deperate people tho.
At any rate, his claims regarding 'the fight against the jews' are quite likely more political then anything else. It helps with gaining support in that area and since desperation is extremely common among young pallestinians, it makes for easy recruitment. Israelhas been helping with that for quite a bit by trying to reduce the strength of Hamas (but well.. that is a choice between 2 evils for them)
> Because it can only lead to one thing: lame appeasement attempts.
Or the realisation that there is a problem that you can fix in another way then sending in your army.
In this specific case, stopping to support dictators in the middle east and encouraging a better distribution of welth over the population will do a lot to kill the ability of people like Osama to recruit people for their fight.
> We have known from day #1 that the Arab terrorists attempting to attack America hate us for specific reasons: kicking Sadaam Hussein out of Kuwait; propping up and supporting financially and militarily the country of Israel.
Kicking Sadam out of Kuwait itself wasn't a problem, non Muslims on Arabic soil was a problem for as far as Osama and his people are concerned. They don't care much for Sadam and the like.
Sadam was not exactly friendly towards religious fanatics, and only started trying to become allies with them when his position became desperate.
THe Ba'ath party he was in charge of is basicly an Arab variation on the Soviet communist party, using a lot of the ideas and methods of Stalin's time. As a consequence it was hostile to any proounced expression of religion, altho it did tolerate religion as long as it was not very pronounced. Sadam's cabinet had non religious people, muslims and at least one christian as members.
Besides being based on communist/stalinist ideas, the Ba'ath parties of both Iraq and Syria have a stated goal of re-uniting Arabia, with either Bagdad or Damascus as capital.
People like Osama also happen to believe in a united Arabia, but base themselves on an outdated and warped version of Islam.
> Make no mistake about it. If we hadn't been supporting Israel for the last two generations the neighboring Muslims would have killed every single Jew there. That's their goal. Elimination of the jews. Period. So okay, we acknowledge it. Now what? Are we going to stand by and watch the billion Muslims destroy the sixty million Jews?
Jews have lived in Pallestina for centuries under Arab and Ottoman rule as well as Christian rule (during the crusades)
A substantial community of christian people have also lived in the area for centuries.
In 1948 before Israel was founded, there used to be some 40000 christians living in Jarusalem. Now there are some 7000 of them left.
Now, Israel exists, and there is no turning back there, and it has a right to defend itself from attack, and of course its friends have a right to help it in that fight.
Now just for a moment imagine the following:
A substantial group of native americans decides to join up, claim a part of the USA as their own independent country and kick out a large number of the non native americans living in the area.
There can be little doubt that those people do in fact have some past claim on the territory, but it is rather debatable if that claim should still be honored in such a drastic way.
That is however the exact thing the world has asked from the Arab world in general, and the peopel living in Pallestina in particular.
As said, I support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, but I also see that in fact the Arab world does have a legitiate problem with the existance of it, and that issue needs to be settled.
> It is common knowledge why the terrorists hate us. They hate Israel, we support Israel. We believe that individuals should be able to select their own religion, and live their lives according to chosen precepts. Bin Laden et all do not believe this. They do not recognize Christianity, or Judiasm. They do not recognize the right of existenence of non-Muslims.
In its more common interpretation Islam actually explicitly recognizes Judism and Christianity. The rather warped version that Isama and friends follow does not recognize most muslims as 'believers' besides not recognizing Judism and Christianity. If it were upto them, the population of Iran should be converted or k
> The shuttle managed to do its whole program, until it went back into the atmosphere, as if there was nothing wrong.
> The Apollo 13 managed to fly to the moon and back, with a lot of luck and despite all the odds.
In case of the shuttle, there was an indication that soemthign had happened, there was no indication of potentially catastrophic failure.
The opposite was true in case of Apollo 13, it was evident from the start that there was potentially catastrophic damage.
> The shuttle was damaged into the heatshield.
> The Apollo 13 was not damaged in the re-entry capsule.
The Apollo 13 was damaged in a way that made life support during the flight fail if it wasn't for having some spare in the form of the lunar module.
The luck here is that it was there and was usable.
The luck was that first fo all the Apollo astronauts knew they were in serious trouble, and second, were able to 'patch' the system up enough to make it back.
The 'bad' luck in case of the shuttle is first fo all NASA ignorign the initial indications that there might be a problem.
Succesfull? a safe return is part of succes, so neither mission was succesfull. (remember how Kennedy defined the goal of going to the moon if you don't think safe return is part of a succesfull mission)
That is somewhat debatable.. I'm pretty sure that it isvery common in US society, but I also know that it is one of the things that make that many foreigners consider US society to be simplistic.
I personally prefer grey;P
> In order for someone to qualify as a hero, we need to be able to dismiss their little personal failings - sometimes they aren't so little - and focus on the good things they've done.
Uh? not really. TO regard someoen as a hero, that someone has to do somethign exceptional in the face of danger. We are bound to forgive mistakes in such a case.
> That makes dead heroes much easier to come by, as we, as a society, are reluctant to speak ill of the dead.
True, but it is still nonsense. Either all shuttle astronauts are heroes, or none are (unless they did somethign exceptional). The 7 who died are victims of a terrible and possibly prevcentable accident. Calling them heroes serves no other purpose then inflating national pride and softening up the feelings of those left behind. It is the same as rewarding people medals when they are returned in bodybags from a warzone.
> Or traditional compiler as opposed to JVM, as I pointed out.
Well, its clear what you mean there, but eh, you can use a traditional compiler in a JVM if you'd want to.. At any rate, it is not that relevant if you use a traditional compiler or a just in time compiler (it may matter for how much time you have for doign your optimizing tho, a jit compiler that takes minutes to compile soemthing is not very acceptable, while it may be for a traditional compiler, so amount of time spent on optimizing can be wiildly different). Eliminating the JVM however by compiling to nativ4e machien code instead of bytecode can make quite a difference however.
At any rate, I mentioned that option a bit later when answerign your comment about a C++ compiler in JAVA. You are quite right to bring it up because it is like comparing apples and oranges otherwise.
Let me just answer it again tho because it is rather relevant to the point I am tryign to make here.
The only constrains that are not a result of imperfect implementation of compiler and optimizer are the limits set by your runtime environment. In a comparable runtime environment and with equally well implemented optimizers, writing equivalent code in two languages should result in almost or completely identical sequences of instructions to your VM or hardware.
> Neither is necessarily written in C++, BTW.
Nope, and in fact, the language they are written in only matters for how easy it is to write them well, but for the rest is irrelevant.
> Incorrect (and in fact you have yet to understand my point). Here are some references:
* COMPARISON OF FORTRAN AND C [note the parts about optimization]
* Performance of Java versus C++ [note 1) Pointers make optimization hard]
I hope that helped... Please read and understand both thoroughly before posting again.:-)
Interesting read indeed, tho I had seen the 2nd one before, and as you are probably aware of as (for as far as I know) regular slashdot reader, its claims are not undisputed either.
At any rate, this doesn't change that optimizing is an implementation detail of the compiler and/or runtime environment. Language design can make that job easier, sure, but it doesn't prevent good optimizing if you have the time for it. That time is a lot more readily available with traditional compilers then with JIT compilers but they can't take advantage of runtime optimizing that easily.
Note that it is all about hard/easy, not about impossible.
On another note, pay per view does work in specific cases, and is one of the things employed happily by the porn industry to make the internet proffitable for them for example. My comments regarding pay per view are more aimed at using it for content in general as the movie and music industry seem to want. Maybe the BBC archive is actually another example of somethignt hat could work on a pay per view basis, tho I'd say that in that case UK residents should get a free ticket to all content since they payed for it already.. I,might myself be willing to pay some of their content, especially when it is published using some OSS codec so I can actually play it on my favorite hardware and software;)
> Instead, if you want to back to the archive and watch a old show, something that you can't do now for any price, you pay a small fee for the download. It is my firmly held conviction that this would generate loads of revenue, although I admittedly have no evidence for this whatsoever besides my own gut feeling, mainly based on the fact that I know I'd spend a lot of money on this service, were it available.
Well, I don't live in the UK, but in a country with a similar system of fees for public television. My first issue with this is that I already payed for it to begin with. (I wouldn't mind payign a small compensation for bandwidth and such tho)
> I don't why this would be a barrier to creating good content. In fact, this system should be a much more powerful motivator for content creators to focus on quality. People may be willing to sit their backsides on the couch and watch whatever crap happens to be on (viz.: the latest Nielsen ratings), but they are likely to exercise much more discretion if they have to reach into their wallet.
It might work, logically, you are making a lot of sense. Looking at what goes around in the nearby videoshop however convinces me people don't mind spending their money on crap either.
What population? if you mean the US population.. I'm not living there, but I do know it was them who couldn't manage writing Englsh like the rest of the world so they ahd to make their own variation on the spelling;P At any rate.. don't like the message so shoot the messenger eh?
Well, all I can say is I hope to see more of it. I have no issue with JAVA as a language (I have with how SUN manages it, see the java related article on my weblog for that). If it integrates well with my desktop environment, I don't see why I shouldn't be using JAAVA applets.
Of course as someone mentioned, this is pretty irrelevant for the server side of things, but heh... we were talking about user interfaces here;P
> the grandparent is correct. in java some optimizations are possible because of language design. for example in java you can move memory, compactt it, reduce the fragmentation etc, which you cant do it in C++.
Seeing how the JVM that allows this is written in C++, I am pretty sure it is implemented in C++, and as a simple consequence, also possible in C++.
That JAVA makes it easy to do is nice when you need this, but has zero to do with the performance argument.
> The poster's point was that he benefits from the BBC although he doesn't own a TV or (therefore) pay a license fee. The opposite is also true: if you own a TV but never watch BBC, you still pay the fee. I agree that this isn't a terrible system, as such things go, but it would clearly be better from an economic standpoint to have a more direct link between cost and benefit.
Ok, clear enough. However, it has to be economically viable to do it, but after that you should remove the economical argument if you want to focus on creating good content.
I believe the current BBC is excelent proof of that.
> Isn't this a bit like some at the turn of the (20th) century saying that cars will never succeed, using the argument that horses and buggies are everywhere? At its heart, this is a technological issue. We don't currently have technology to deploy an efficient pay-per-whatever system, so all-you-can-eat solutions win out. But we're getting close in many ways to removing the friction from small pay-for-content transactions, at which point the clear economic advantages I mentioned start to kick in.
No it isn't at all like that. First of all, while we don't have generally accepted micropayments right now, there are enough ways to get around the 'how do we pay' issue to make this work right now. It is not a technological issue, it also has nothign to do with peopel clinging to old technology, it has all to do with user experience and how people want to spend their time and money.
Systems for 'pay per use' have been the norm for the telephone network and data communications for decades, and have been replaced by 'as many as you can eat' solutions in very recent times only (yeah yeah, I know about fixed fee local calls in the USA, but for the rest of the world, it has always been pay per minute or second) The huge increase in connectivity only started when peopel could get it for a flat fee, knowign what they'd have to spend on it exactly instead of being confronted with rather unpleasant surprises, not to mention issues with beign bileld for service that you never used and related issues.
The 'friction' here is people not knowing what their bill will be at the end of the month, and having to consider the price of what they watch instead of being able to sit back and enjoy.
Slashdot Mirror
And I kept some money in my pocket..
> I think this was the most revealing part of your post
I think you cannot read.
> -- don't dare express yourself politically because we can't handle any of that kind of discussion in here.
Heh, no, just don't assume that everyone who is involved with writing open source software shares the same ideas that are very popular among GPL proponents.
Specifically, when looking at BSD licensed software, as is the case with FreeBSD (just in case you didn't notice yet, we were discussing FreeBSD, not Linux here), you may actually notice that the people designign and writing it don't care that much about 'the open source methodology' but about making something that is usable to everyone. You make closed source software? fine. Makign a card with closed source drivers? perfect, we don't care.
You make somethign wuith a closed source FreeBSD driver? great, if you want it will get listed as a FreeBSD supporting device.
If you think that pointing out the difference between that way of thinking, and the way of thinkign that is very popular among GPL 'fans' is stiffening the discussion, then well, too bad.
I do think tho that you are a bit oversensitive to statements that might be read as being negative with regards to the GPL, and thereby are doign the exact thing that you accuse me of, stiffenign discussion.
> One can only hope those "certain hardware manufacturers" aren't the ones that treat you like nVidia does. This is not "support", this is an opportunity to acquire a set of chains. Fans of the open source methodology ought to see how accepting proprietary code isn't going to make your system better--you're choosing to toss out the developmental advantages that open source advocates focus on (or instead not recognizing the limitations in ignoring software freedom for users). The free software community wasn't built by catering to software proprietors and it won't be sustained by giving into them.
That is all noice, and will appeal to people in the Linux/GPL world. FreeBSD does have a free and open source license, but has a different idea about development model, and don't try to express and pursue a political and social goal with their license.
This is not about the validity of your argument, but about the assumptions it is based on, which do not apply to everyone.
I was about to do the same but decided to meddle with the old driver for a last time to see if it could in fact work. It did work for me upto and including FreeBSD 5.1, and I got it to work again on -current by basicly going back to a kernel and pthread setup similar to 5.1, which of course made using -current a bit pointless.. but hey, I got a working workstation with fast opengl, and that is what I needed..
;)
This new fdriver is good news, means I can go back to tracking -current and actually seeing some results of new tech that is in there
> That's some pretty piss-poor advice there. Did you have anything specific in mind?
Nom but BBC world might be an option for example.
> You're not really suggesting that a source is accurate simply becuase it is "non US", are you?
No, I am suggesting that most sources in the US are biassed with regards to Iran.
You do not have to believe that btw, but even when you don't, it is still a very good idea to base yourself on multiple independent sources.
> According to the Koran, the practices of the Prophet, and Islamic Law ........
>
> The Dimma WAS pretty tolerant when the comparison was the Spanish Inquisition. Not so much in the modern era.
Thanks for the excelent explanation there.
There is one thing worth noticing here however, neither Judism or Christianity recognize any other religion (that most modern believers in either tolerate the idea of other religions is a seperate issue, tho one that is very relevant to the whole problem the west and the muslim world are having)
> Saddam in any case was a) a nominally Muslim ruler, who fulfilled all the obligations of a muslim, and therefore according to doctrine was a muslim and b) a profoundly hostile to the US regime. While extensive co-operation was unlikely the probability of a Stalin-Hitler type pact was always possible. Two leaders with relatively weak military forces, both muslims, hostile to the US seeking an alliance of convenience? I'd be surprised if there were not any intelligence sharing at the least.
Reasonable assumption I think, and I definitely don't see a problem from the side of Al-Queda for this. I do see some issues on the side of Iraq however, Saddam has been too consistent in suppressing religious extremism over time and seemed quite aware of the danger it would bring.
But as I said in another post, when his position became desperate, this option might well have become a reality. I just haven't seen or heard of any verifiable proof regarding this.
> The middle east problem is being solved by invading places like Iraq. Not that we should go to war for peace in the Middle East--as an American, that is not related to the US national defense and thus is not a justification. (But I still feel it was justified in the aim of national defense)
Everyone his own opinion..
> However--Iraq was a major source of funding for Islamist terrorists in Israel.
Uh, mind showing any proof of that? so far I all heard was that that claim is rather unfounded.
If you are talking about Iran and funding Hezbolah, that is an entirely different story.
> You can't have peace in the middle east until you stop fueling the terrorists--and the fuel isn't theology, hatred, or inequality...it's money.
Yes, money is the problem, however not in the way you seem to think. Lack of money among common people, not to say utter poverty, is what allows groups like Hamas, Hezbolah, and even Al-Queda to find support among the people, and make the whole thing an uphill battle for anyone they decide to fight, unless you believe that simply destroying the middle east and all that lives there is a solution.
> If anything, this article reveals Islamic fundamentalist terrorism as the sham it is. It's not based around a religious belief--it's a corporation that generates profits from terror. They've got public relations, issue mission statements, and deal with the media.
Yes, as is quite evident from them denouncing any modernity unless it helps them with their effords to spread fear.
You cannot stop such people simply by means of policy, but you can change the fact that they can easily recruit people to do the dirty work.
There are reasons why it is so much easier to recruit peopel for such actions in many middle eastern countries then it is in most of the west (not that it is impossible in the west, just a lot more difficult)
A large factor in how sensitive peopel are for extremist ideas is how well they can live their lives. If you want proof of that, please read up a bit on Germany during the 20s and 30s of the last century for example.
> It's hilarious to me when people try to say that our foreign policy is what drives these people--that our policies made poor folks like Bin-Laden strike out (who despite his cave dwelling is among the world's rich elite) It's money and power that these people want. And they'll kill all of you to get it.
Bin-Laden is not poor, his message appeals to poor people without much of a future.
And yes, the US foreign policy is in part to blame for this situation, but only in part.
> So, uh, do you mean "another way, then sending in your army" or "another way than sending in your army"?
/. belief, proper spelling and punctuation DOES make a difference.
;P
The later, thanks for the correction (English is not my primary language, and I tend to forget things at times... oh, don't confuse that with typos, which I happen to make a lot)
> Contrary to popular
Ah, no prob with the correction, but maybe it would be an idea to start realizing that not everyone here has English as primary language, so maybe peopel just don't know
> Do posts need bludgeoning straightforwardness before anyone here on slashdot understands the punchline?
Nah, but unless they are, there will always be people who won't understand it.
> The analogy is not exact enough. Suppose those Native Americans began peacefully buying land and settling with the announced intention of creating their own enclave and the locals started terrorizing them before they created their enclave?
When the intention is known, do you really blame the locals for objecting? I have a problem with their means, and in fact I think they should accept what happened, but that doesn't make it less understandable how they feel about the matter. I'm not trying to put blame on anyone (if I would, lets bring in the French and the English because they have their fair share of blame in this) but I am trying to point at what the underlying problem is.
> I object to many Israeli policies, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for the locals either.
Agreed, they dealt with this in a rather bad way, and are responsible for quite a part of the escalation.
> The US doesn't "support" dictators for the fun of it. First, if the pacifist President Carter had supported Iran more, Iran would still be a (semi-)ally. Islamic fundamentalists took over Iran and Carter refused to help. The previous Iranian administration certainly had problems, but compare it to the current Iranian administration.
I'll leave that judgement to the Iranian people.
I'd advise you however to go read some non US sources on the rule of the Sjah in Iran before making any judgements yourself.
I'd also like to point you at the southern Americas and the USA knowingly eliminating democraticly elected governments out of fear for communism and to protect the interests of some US companies who had earlier on struck extremely unfair deals with those countries.
No, it has nothing to do with pacifist Carter and everything with the USA having a double standard, claiming democracy, but throwing it out whenever it comes in handy, and supporting oppressive governments.
You still do not realize obviously that the theory of your enemies enemy being your friend has failed? You really didn't realize that the people who attacked the USA on 9/11 were its allies in earlier times? Valued because of their fanatism in fighting the RUssians back then, noone ever imagined that those could turn against the USA and that maybe such fanatics were just dangerous in general and should not be supported for short term goals due to the long term consequences?
> Second, Sadaam was given weapons and aid so that Iraq would not go the same route. It was in a war with Iran and the US really didn't want the Islamic problem to spread.
The way to prevent that is to provide a viable alternative, not to suppress the population. The USA has made that same mistake with regards to other countries they meddle with again and again, and it failed again and again. Please take a look at why after the 2nd world war Germany and Japan didn't fail completely, you will notice a very significant difference in how those were dealt with.
The 'Islamic problem' finds its cause in poverty and desperation of people. Address those and the problem becomes solvable. Cause more oppression and the problem will become bigger. It is really very simple at that level (solving the poverty problem is not simple at all, I realize that)
> In hindsight, that seems pretty smart. As time went on, his speeches became more and more anti-Western.
No it was not smart, Sadam and his policies have been clear from the start, and we knew by that time that Stalinism was really not something to support.
It was at best smart with regards to the priorities as people perceived them at the time, but all hindsight gives us is the realisation that the priorities were wrong.
Also, fear for islamism? more like an obsession with what had happened at the US embasy in Iran.
If there was fear for Islamism involved, peopel like Osama would not have been supported by the USA.
> As a side note, there seems to be a lot of confusion over the US "creating a monster". However, the US supplied only about 2% of Iraq's weapons. France, Germany, Russia, and China supplied about 80%.
I never said the USA created a monster there tho, but they did support someone of whom they could very well have known that he was not a nice or anywhere reliable ally. He got into the Ba'ath party because he was good at murderign people, and that was known at the time for example, and so were the Stalinist ideas of the party.
As a sidenote, the USA was far from alone in that and the USSR and China had obvious reasons for supporting hoim (as a fellow Communist leader)
Bottomline, the problem with US policy in the middle east is that they accept one evil to fight another, but don't seem to be able to judge which evil is greater and how it might come to bite them. The wise thing to do would be to stop supporting it alltogether and look a bit better at long term strategic goals instead of short term tactical ones.
> Rather than invade Iraq, our resources would have been wisley spent finding a solution the real problem. About 300 miles to the west of Iraq. The terrorist threat will never cease until the middle east problem is resolved fairly to everyone involved.
I definitely agree that that should happen and that it will resolve a large part of the terrorist problem there, but settling that problem will not stop people like Osama. He has religious motives, and has no problemm attacking other muslims who don't follow his exact interpretation of Islam either. It would help a lot in removing the conditions that allow him to recruit deperate people tho.
At any rate, his claims regarding 'the fight against the jews' are quite likely more political then anything else. It helps with gaining support in that area and since desperation is extremely common among young pallestinians, it makes for easy recruitment. Israelhas been helping with that for quite a bit by trying to reduce the strength of Hamas (but well.. that is a choice between 2 evils for them)
> Because it can only lead to one thing: lame appeasement attempts.
Or the realisation that there is a problem that you can fix in another way then sending in your army.
In this specific case, stopping to support dictators in the middle east and encouraging a better distribution of welth over the population will do a lot to kill the ability of people like Osama to recruit people for their fight.
> We have known from day #1 that the Arab terrorists attempting to attack America hate us for specific reasons: kicking Sadaam Hussein out of Kuwait; propping up and supporting financially and militarily the country of Israel.
Kicking Sadam out of Kuwait itself wasn't a problem, non Muslims on Arabic soil was a problem for as far as Osama and his people are concerned. They don't care much for Sadam and the like.
Sadam was not exactly friendly towards religious fanatics, and only started trying to become allies with them when his position became desperate.
THe Ba'ath party he was in charge of is basicly an Arab variation on the Soviet communist party, using a lot of the ideas and methods of Stalin's time. As a consequence it was hostile to any proounced expression of religion, altho it did tolerate religion as long as it was not very pronounced. Sadam's cabinet had non religious people, muslims and at least one christian as members.
Besides being based on communist/stalinist ideas, the Ba'ath parties of both Iraq and Syria have a stated goal of re-uniting Arabia, with either Bagdad or Damascus as capital.
People like Osama also happen to believe in a united Arabia, but base themselves on an outdated and warped version of Islam.
> Make no mistake about it. If we hadn't been supporting Israel for the last two generations the neighboring Muslims would have killed every single Jew there. That's their goal. Elimination of the jews. Period. So okay, we acknowledge it. Now what? Are we going to stand by and watch the billion Muslims destroy the sixty million Jews?
Jews have lived in Pallestina for centuries under Arab and Ottoman rule as well as Christian rule (during the crusades)
A substantial community of christian people have also lived in the area for centuries.
In 1948 before Israel was founded, there used to be some 40000 christians living in Jarusalem. Now there are some 7000 of them left.
Now, Israel exists, and there is no turning back there, and it has a right to defend itself from attack, and of course its friends have a right to help it in that fight.
Now just for a moment imagine the following:
A substantial group of native americans decides to join up, claim a part of the USA as their own independent country and kick out a large number of the non native americans living in the area.
There can be little doubt that those people do in fact have some past claim on the territory, but it is rather debatable if that claim should still be honored in such a drastic way.
That is however the exact thing the world has asked from the Arab world in general, and the peopel living in Pallestina in particular.
As said, I support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, but I also see that in fact the Arab world does have a legitiate problem with the existance of it, and that issue needs to be settled.
> It is common knowledge why the terrorists hate us. They hate Israel, we support Israel. We believe that individuals should be able to select their own religion, and live their lives according to chosen precepts. Bin Laden et all do not believe this. They do not recognize Christianity, or Judiasm. They do not recognize the right of existenence of non-Muslims.
In its more common interpretation Islam actually explicitly recognizes Judism and Christianity. The rather warped version that Isama and friends follow does not recognize most muslims as 'believers' besides not recognizing Judism and Christianity. If it were upto them, the population of Iran should be converted or k
> Is it not the case that they changed the formulation of the foam in an attempt to be "environmentally friendly"?
Could be...
> And that the foam did not have these problems when they used the original, non-green formula?
All that means is that they didn't test the new foam correctly.
> Political correctness is going to kill this country. It already killed those astronauts.
No, people not doing their job properly can be blamed for both.
> The shuttle managed to do its whole program, until it went back into the atmosphere, as if there was nothing wrong.
> The Apollo 13 managed to fly to the moon and back, with a lot of luck and despite all the odds.
In case of the shuttle, there was an indication that soemthign had happened, there was no indication of potentially catastrophic failure.
The opposite was true in case of Apollo 13, it was evident from the start that there was potentially catastrophic damage.
> The shuttle was damaged into the heatshield.
> The Apollo 13 was not damaged in the re-entry capsule.
The Apollo 13 was damaged in a way that made life support during the flight fail if it wasn't for having some spare in the form of the lunar module.
The luck here is that it was there and was usable.
The luck was that first fo all the Apollo astronauts knew they were in serious trouble, and second, were able to 'patch' the system up enough to make it back.
The 'bad' luck in case of the shuttle is first fo all NASA ignorign the initial indications that there might be a problem.
Succesfull? a safe return is part of succes, so neither mission was succesfull.
(remember how Kennedy defined the goal of going to the moon if you don't think safe return is part of a succesfull mission)
> We humans like things to be black and white.
;P
That is somewhat debatable.. I'm pretty sure that it isvery common in US society, but I also know that it is one of the things that make that many foreigners consider US society to be simplistic.
I personally prefer grey
> In order for someone to qualify as a hero, we need to be able to dismiss their little personal failings - sometimes they aren't so little - and focus on the good things they've done.
Uh? not really. TO regard someoen as a hero, that someone has to do somethign exceptional in the face of danger. We are bound to forgive mistakes in such a case.
> That makes dead heroes much easier to come by, as we, as a society, are reluctant to speak ill of the dead.
True, but it is still nonsense. Either all shuttle astronauts are heroes, or none are (unless they did somethign exceptional). The 7 who died are victims of a terrible and possibly prevcentable accident. Calling them heroes serves no other purpose then inflating national pride and softening up the feelings of those left behind. It is the same as rewarding people medals when they are returned in bodybags from a warzone.
Any regular ebay user is likely to be quite aware of the problem...
> Or traditional compiler as opposed to JVM, as I pointed out.
:-)
Well, its clear what you mean there, but eh, you can use a traditional compiler in a JVM if you'd want to.. At any rate, it is not that relevant if you use a traditional compiler or a just in time compiler (it may matter for how much time you have for doign your optimizing tho, a jit compiler that takes minutes to compile soemthing is not very acceptable, while it may be for a traditional compiler, so amount of time spent on optimizing can be wiildly different). Eliminating the JVM however by compiling to nativ4e machien code instead of bytecode can make quite a difference however.
At any rate, I mentioned that option a bit later when answerign your comment about a C++ compiler in JAVA. You are quite right to bring it up because it is like comparing apples and oranges otherwise.
Let me just answer it again tho because it is rather relevant to the point I am tryign to make here.
The only constrains that are not a result of imperfect implementation of compiler and optimizer are the limits set by your runtime environment. In a comparable runtime environment and with equally well implemented optimizers, writing equivalent code in two languages should result in almost or completely identical sequences of instructions to your VM or hardware.
> Neither is necessarily written in C++, BTW.
Nope, and in fact, the language they are written in only matters for how easy it is to write them well, but for the rest is irrelevant.
> Incorrect (and in fact you have yet to understand my point). Here are some references:
* COMPARISON OF FORTRAN AND C [note the parts about optimization]
* Performance of Java versus C++ [note 1) Pointers make optimization hard]
I hope that helped... Please read and understand both thoroughly before posting again.
Interesting read indeed, tho I had seen the 2nd one before, and as you are probably aware of as (for as far as I know) regular slashdot reader, its claims are not undisputed either.
At any rate, this doesn't change that optimizing is an implementation detail of the compiler and/or runtime environment. Language design can make that job easier, sure, but it doesn't prevent good optimizing if you have the time for it. That time is a lot more readily available with traditional compilers then with JIT compilers but they can't take advantage of runtime optimizing that easily.
Note that it is all about hard/easy, not about impossible.
On another note, pay per view does work in specific cases, and is one of the things employed happily by the porn industry to make the internet proffitable for them for example. My comments regarding pay per view are more aimed at using it for content in general as the movie and music industry seem to want. Maybe the BBC archive is actually another example of somethignt hat could work on a pay per view basis, tho I'd say that in that case UK residents should get a free ticket to all content since they payed for it already.. I ,might myself be willing to pay some of their content, especially when it is published using some OSS codec so I can actually play it on my favorite hardware and software ;)
Well, good, go tell the JAVA world now please ;)
> Instead, if you want to back to the archive and watch a old show, something that you can't do now for any price, you pay a small fee for the download. It is my firmly held conviction that this would generate loads of revenue, although I admittedly have no evidence for this whatsoever besides my own gut feeling, mainly based on the fact that I know I'd spend a lot of money on this service, were it available.
Well, I don't live in the UK, but in a country with a similar system of fees for public television. My first issue with this is that I already payed for it to begin with. (I wouldn't mind payign a small compensation for bandwidth and such tho)
> I don't why this would be a barrier to creating good content. In fact, this system should be a much more powerful motivator for content creators to focus on quality. People may be willing to sit their backsides on the couch and watch whatever crap happens to be on (viz.: the latest Nielsen ratings), but they are likely to exercise much more discretion if they have to reach into their wallet.
It might work, logically, you are making a lot of sense. Looking at what goes around in the nearby videoshop however convinces me people don't mind spending their money on crap either.
What population? if you mean the US population.. I'm not living there, but I do know it was them who couldn't manage writing Englsh like the rest of the world so they ahd to make their own variation on the spelling ;P At any rate.. don't like the message so shoot the messenger eh?
Well, all I can say is I hope to see more of it. I have no issue with JAVA as a language (I have with how SUN manages it, see the java related article on my weblog for that). If it integrates well with my desktop environment, I don't see why I shouldn't be using JAAVA applets.
;P
Of course as someone mentioned, this is pretty irrelevant for the server side of things, but heh... we were talking about user interfaces here
> the grandparent is correct. in java some optimizations are possible because of language design. for example in java you can move memory, compactt it, reduce the fragmentation etc, which you cant do it in C++.
Seeing how the JVM that allows this is written in C++, I am pretty sure it is implemented in C++, and as a simple consequence, also possible in C++.
That JAVA makes it easy to do is nice when you need this, but has zero to do with the performance argument.
> The poster's point was that he benefits from the BBC although he doesn't own a TV or (therefore) pay a license fee. The opposite is also true: if you own a TV but never watch BBC, you still pay the fee. I agree that this isn't a terrible system, as such things go, but it would clearly be better from an economic standpoint to have a more direct link between cost and benefit.
Ok, clear enough.
However, it has to be economically viable to do it, but after that you should remove the economical argument if you want to focus on creating good content.
I believe the current BBC is excelent proof of that.
> Isn't this a bit like some at the turn of the (20th) century saying that cars will never succeed, using the argument that horses and buggies are everywhere? At its heart, this is a technological issue. We don't currently have technology to deploy an efficient pay-per-whatever system, so all-you-can-eat solutions win out. But we're getting close in many ways to removing the friction from small pay-for-content transactions, at which point the clear economic advantages I mentioned start to kick in.
No it isn't at all like that. First of all, while we don't have generally accepted micropayments right now, there are enough ways to get around the 'how do we pay' issue to make this work right now.
It is not a technological issue, it also has nothign to do with peopel clinging to old technology, it has all to do with user experience and how people want to spend their time and money.
Systems for 'pay per use' have been the norm for the telephone network and data communications for decades, and have been replaced by 'as many as you can eat' solutions in very recent times only (yeah yeah, I know about fixed fee local calls in the USA, but for the rest of the world, it has always been pay per minute or second) The huge increase in connectivity only started when peopel could get it for a flat fee, knowign what they'd have to spend on it exactly instead of being confronted with rather unpleasant surprises, not to mention issues with beign bileld for service that you never used and related issues.
The 'friction' here is people not knowing what their bill will be at the end of the month, and having to consider the price of what they watch instead of being able to sit back and enjoy.