I don't really follow Mac news specifically, so you may be right. However, comparing (as far as that's possible) www.apple.com to www.dell.com, it looks like either PCs are still a lot less expensive, or the Apple iMacs and Mac Minis come stuffed with free cocaine in little gold-plated boxes...
Right, which when compared to the 90%+ market-share of Windows is, frankly, squat.
Not to knock Apple - they make a genuinely good machine/OS, and their adoption rate is increasing... however, their position (in terms of market share) is still fragile. They aren't compatible with the de-facto standard, so they have to be careful with their tactics to avoid being squashed by the 800lb gorilla that is Microsoft.
To be sure, Microsoft couldn't easily kill Apple if it wanted to (hell, it hasn't managed to yet). However, Apple could very easily fall on their own sword (eg, by releasing OSX-for-beige-PCs).
You were lucky... When I were a lad we'd walk 30 miles in the snow to the office, uphill both ways. We'd spend all day hunched over with a length of wire and a rare-earth magnet, inducing currents in the wires to build up ASCII codes. When we'd finished we'd manually upload the files by telnetting to port 21, walk 30 miles 'ome again, oop'ill, in t' snow, eat a piece of dry bread for us tea, and me Dad would beat us t' sleep wi' a length of co-ax cabling...
the iPods are generating more revenue than their computers
Which tells you exactly what kind of market share their desktop machines have at the moment. Anything which reduces this further risks making their desktop market share so small it's effectively negligible.
and many people would still buy mac hardware- especially since anything in it would be inherently supported.
Nah, not for shit IMO. Aside from elitist Charles geeks people buy Macs now because of Mac OS/X's user interface and the fact that It Just Works. If Mac OS/X was available for commodity PC hardware nobody (again: normal people, not geeks) would spring the extra $$$ for Mac hardware too ("What's the point?", they'd chuckle - "I can be clever and safe a few hundred bucks!") and the Mac hardware platform would die (or at least, be taken very ill).
Of course, penny-pinching consumers would also find that on third-party commodity hardware It Just doesn't Work as well, so Apple (through no direct fault of their own) would also find their IJW reputation going down the tubes.
Their os userbase would expand greatly, their hardware userbase would probably stay very close in size, iPods would be unaffected or perhaps grow in sales...
Their OSX userbase would expand moderately - it's incompatible with Windows, so it's not going to expand "greatly" at any time while 90%+ of all PCs are still Windows, regardless of how great it is.
Their hardware userbase would shrink rapidly - normal users just won't pay over the odds for something they don't perceive as any better. We know OSX has been designed to run on the hardware and vice-versa. Your old maiden aunt buying her first Mac (assuming she isn't tempted away by de-facto standard Windows) will get a choice between OSX-and-Mac, or OSX-and-PC for a few hundred bucks less. In the absence of any real understood difference between them, and bearing in mind they both look and feel the same (OSX), which do you think she's going to choose?
iPod userbase wouldn't change - it's already Mac and PC compatible, so if Apple stopped making Macs tomorrow the iPod sales would hardly change.
They don't want to deal with all of the calls coming in that joe schmoe cant get it to work on his cyrix cpu or schmo joe can't get his el-cheapo scsi controller working or his $2 video card.
That's one reason, yes. The other is that OSX not being Windows-compatible hurts Apple when it comes to attracting new consumers to it. Making the hardware and software one package at least forces users to view Macs as a seamlessly-working package, which they don't mind paying a little extra for. Breaking the package open stops any part of it being perceived as seamless, and virtually ensures penny-pinching consumers will just nickle-and-dime them to death.
People currently understand that the machines and OS only works with authorized apple hardware (and from partners)
No. "People" understand that you buy "a PC with Windows", or you buy "a Mac". Macs are a package, indivisible.
"Most people" don't even understand there is a distinction between the hardware spec and the operating system. Hell, remember "most people" still can't program their video recorder clocks right.
As such, as soon as they realise the package is customisable and there's a choice, they'll plump for the cheapest option every time, and Apple much-vaunted reputation for solid engineering (apart from style, their only advantage over MS) flies right out of the window. And once people are used to OSX running on beige boxes and crashing because of dodgy third-party drivers, watch how long their reputation for coolness lasts, too.
You're half right in what you say - the third-party driver issue is a big reason to keep OSX Mac-only. However, there are several other just-as-good reasons as well, like preserving what little share of the desktop hardware market they currently have.
Clearly "legal strategy" patents are essential - after all, without legal strategy patents lawyers couldn't own their own discover-... idea-.. inventions.
Then there would be no driving economic force behind legal innovation, and the entire legal industry would stagnate, retarding the progress of the Unites States/Europe and ensuring that legal development only took place in other countries...
Does your significant other (yeah, yeah, Slashdoxy Moron, whatever) ask you to "hoover" before company comes?
In the UK, yes.
When I'm in a restaurant down there and they take my order and I say "Coke," they immediately ask what kind, and if I say "regular," they get confused. I think they're asking if I want a diet, but to them the word "coke" means basically "anything other than juice or coffee.
Ok, that's just stupid. "Coke" is short for "Coca Cola". It doesn't matter what brand of vacuum cleaner you use, as they all do the same thing (more or less). But calling all carbonated drinks the same thing is bloody stupid - there are clear differences between them, and while one might be perfectly acceptable you might violently object to another.
Page and Brin were going to name their company Googol, after the number. However, their first investor handed them a $10,000 cheque made out to "Google Inc", so they went with that spelling instead.
The Monty Python connection is a coincidence. Were you ever actually told differently by anyone, or did you just see it, assume and then start presenting said assumption as fact?
So being "at war" allows anyone to violate Godwin's law, and somehow it isn't then an acknowledgement that they've just lost the argument?
Does "Yeah, well... your mom!" work in wartime too?
I guess the big bad mans are just "misunderstood".
Not at all. They're pretty well understood by people who consider their motivations, try to see things from their point of view, and then use that insight to argue for countermeasures that might actually work, instead of "fighting" them by handing them more ammunition.
You're obviously bang alongside the "kick their arse until they stop" strategy, right? Well... the US's international reputation has dropped precipitously in the last few years, even after a huge sway of international sympathy had it up to record levels after 9/11. Your economy is tanking, your armed forces can't recruit enough people to even achieve replacement levels, and can't even afford to properly equip the ones it's got.
That is indeed a major part of the problem. The Arab world sees:
Arabs being shat on merely for the USA's convenience
Isreal being rewarded with billions of dolalrs of aide a year
Some Arab states being incorrectly blamed for supporting terrorism, and invaded and occupied on the flimsiest of pretexts
Israel knocking the shit out of anyone who looks at them funny, and the US not only not complaining about it, but materially aiding them to do it
It's not a universal panacea for immediate and total peace, but if the USA stopped shitting on the Arab world and playing quite such obvious favourites with Israel, the motivation for a lot of the anti-US sentiment in the middle east would wither away and die.
It's amazing how if you give someone who is thirsty a glass of water they like you, and if you kick their ass they want to kick your ass in return.
Apparently, to some people, it is.
But you're also forgetting the core Neocon belief - it doesn't matter if people hate you for kicking their arse, as long as you can keep kicking it every time they complain. And when they start to get back at you in the only way they can, a way you can't really defend against, you just kick their arse again, neatly solving the problem once and for all.
But here, the root cause is not lack of education (the recently-killed top terrorist here had a Dr. title to his name), quality of life (extremists here live quite well and nicely funded; the recently-released Basyir was taken home from jail by his supporters in a luxury van), or self-determination (Indonesia has been a free country for quite a while).
Sorry - maybe I should clarify: I'm not talking about the small group of affluent, educated ringleaders. I'm talking about the millions of people worldwide who serve as a recruiting pool for suicide bombers, couriers, support staff and general grunts.
No matter how motivated and insane/aggressive/amoral a small group of ringleaders are, they simply can't carry out actions like 9/11 on their own because they simply don't have the resources.
Don't forget that Osama Bin Laden and others were entirely funded and trained by the CIA for most of the 80s when they were fighting the USSR. They've had years to set up an international support network in countries whose populations already hate the West for all the reasons I've given, and the CIA helped fund them to do it.
This is not tinfoil-hat time - this is all documented historical fact.
I think the terrorists just hate people that do not believe like they do or share their values. Many muslim moderates here often get intimidated and terrorized by their extreme counterparts.
Exactly. A small minority truly hates the West, and simply "being nice" won't persuade them otherwise. Nevertheless, when they can't recruit suicide bombers, and have to actually enact their plans themselves, and can't rely on a network of volunteers all over the world to act as front-men and insulate them from law enforcement... well, how much terrorism are you really going to see?
And how much more are they going to have to get personally involved? And how much easier is it then going to be to catch them?
Yes, if a subset of some group of people sees, "We can get wonderful subsidies from the richer nations by launching a few terror strikes to bring their humanitarian attention to our people," what will they do?
No, what you do is start providing aid and support to muslim countries that don't support terrorism, and not providing any aid to those that do.
If all you do is spank countries that don't do what you want, all you end up with is bitter, resentful populations who already dislike you and hence are half-way to radicalisation on their own.
If you reward countries who play nice and (defend against but otherwise-) ignore the others, the political and economic pressure is on those countries to start playing nice.
It's easy to get people to hate the USA when you bomb their houses and kill their children. It's very hard to get people to hate the US when the country next door is building-up and prospering and the only reason your country isn't is because it's researching WMDs, or sponsiring terrorism, of the like.
You're right, in that rewarding terrorism only prolongs it. Unfortunately, so does responding tit-for-tat. The only way to get around it is to first stop giving them excuses and recruits, and then start on the long, slow PR campaign to reverse the trend.
You might say this is impossible, and that they just irrationally hate the West.
To that I say: where are the bombs in Sweden? Or The Netherlands? Or Estonia?
Contrarily, if a subset of a population goes terrorist, perhaps what we should do is not provide rewards to the entire population, but treat it as Israel is treating Lebanon.
Riiiight, because that's worked so well for the lasst 50 years. Israel spends five decades hammering the shit out of Palestine and any other nation that looks at them funny, and now the Palestinians (and Hezbollah) are world-reknowned for slipping over the Israeli border, running up to bus-stop queues and detonating the large packs of perfume and flowers strapped to them, right? Or persuading Israeli soldiers to come to Lebanon with them for a nice picnic and a round of charades.
There were plenty of terrorists in the past, for instance in the 19th Century. They were invariably treated harshly. Did their organizations prosper by the harsh treatment bringing in new recruits? How many 19th Century terrorist organizations are around today? Pretty close to none.
I'm sorry, but this is simply the most retarded thing I've ever read. How many ancient Egyptian terrorist cells are there still around? How many ancient Greek pantheon-worshippers are there still around? How many people still drive cars made in 1900? So, that proves that coca-cola and the internet is an effective solution to rebelling slaves, pantheistic religions and cars you have to hand-crank to get started, right?
People are generally rational enough not to engage in activities which will bring on hardship and death for most of their friends and relations.
Indeed. Assuming they feel they've got anything left to lose. As soon as they can't realistically see the situation getting any worse, then have nothing to lose.
Oh, and until the USA starts assassinating all the friends and relations of identified terrorists, there won't even be any direct consequences specifically for their friends and relations.
Kind of like how you know that pissing off terrorists more means they're more likely to commit atrocities, resulting in a (theoretically) elevated risk to yourself and your loved-ones. And yet you still support war in the middle east?
People are also rational enough, and cold enough, to do evil things if the end result is an improved situation for their friends and relations. So the first world has to do two things: (1) Richly reward any third-worl
Well let's see: First off, Bali is in Indonesia, so the fact you're listing these two separately suggests you aren't that well up on the matter.
Secondly, the actual organisation suspected of the attack was Jemaah Islamiyah, which (while it has Al Qaeda ties) has strongly denied any involvement.
Thirdly, Bali is a well-known tourist destination, and the bombs were aimed at a tourist-dominated bar, a tourist nightclub and the American Consulate. Over 4/5 of the people killed were western tourists.
I'm not so well-up on the Thailand situation, apart from pausing to point out that you can only cite al Qaeda-linked groups in your response, and that even a cursory Googling will show you that Thailand has a long history of seperatist Muslim violence (and, more recently, retaliatory violence by others against the muslim community).
I also can't find any information online explictly linking al Qaeda directly to attacks in Thailand or Burma. Can you provide evidence, or were you just pulling locations out of thin air?
Finally, all indication we have shows al Qaeda is a tiny, tiny hard-core of individuals who generally merely act as advisors and middle-men to other, already-established terrorist groups. Al Qaeda is a useful brand-name and resource-broker, rather than a traditional terrorist organisation.
Almost any terrorist group that commits an atrocity can be linked to al Qaeda, but that's just the point - "linked to" can mean anything, right down to "once briefly had contact with". Since the majority of their actions happen through third parties, this tells you nothing about their core motivations - only about those of the third parties, and that those motivations are "somewhat in line" with al Qaeda's.
And even if you were right, your point is moot. Whether al Qaeda wants to incite war between middle east and west or just get the west out of "their" territory... what do you think pissed them off to the point they're using terrorism as an end?
Would you strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a mall full of arabs? No. So why do they find it easy to find a group of people to do it? Hmmm.. maybe it's their religion, or maybe it's the fact that people live in poverty and are constantly being manipulated and pushed around by the west.
Well, I've known several muslims who had no inclination to blow themselves up, and there are several muslim countries (or countries with large muslim populations) who don't sponsor terrorism, so clearly it isn't the religion forcing people to become terrorists... I wonder what else it could be?
Like appeasing hostile forces in a culture war. That's always fun, "but what if we saw things from Hitler's point of view" is a great time killer. Go nuts - or more specifically - go FURTHER nuts.
Granted. But you aren't just betting the current administration is incompetent - you're betting that every single future government is equally incompetent.
Seriously - when was the last time a government got into power and said "you know, I think we've got too much information on our citizens - let's wipe a few databases and have a big record-bonfire".
I'm not worried too much about what Bush and the current Neocons would do (although the sheer randomness of their flailing about is slightly concerning, as I could be hit as much by accident as by design), but it can (indeed already has) have a chilling effect on people's liberty and free speech. In addition, once they've set up the system you've basically got an "Instant Police State - Just Add Competence".
All it takes is for an IT-competent government (or just advances in the technology to make it simpler to use) and suddenly there's nowhere to hide any more.
The snow is islam. The snowmen are the terrorists.
That's one opinion, sure - my opinion is that the snow is poverty, repression, lack of education and non-self-determination.
The thing is, there's a well-known correlation between poverty/violence and terrorism/fanaticism. However, the vast majority of muslims don't actually support terrorism - excluding a few fanatical hard-core terrorists and those governments who find it politically useful to oppose and demonise the USA to their population[1]. To me this would indicate that terrorism is less a result of Islam (per se) and more a result of poverty and injustice.
Sure, people use Islam as an excuse, but then that's true of every major world religion at various times, with the possible exception of buddhism.
I mean, people have bombed abortion clinics and (back in the day) crusaded a bloody swathe across the whole of the arab world in the name of Christianity. The IRA spend decades blowing the shit out of people who had beliefs that were 90% similar to them in Northern Ireland. People just use religion as an excuse to hate others - calling it a religious issue merely legitimises it (in some people's eyes).
Removing islam will be as easy as removing all the snow in the world.
Here we agree (although, as one poster pointed out, the US is doing a great job of this as well;-). So surely it's better to understand and persuade rather than try to eradicate. If you already know you can't eradicate the religion, what's the point in attacking - all you'll do is piss them off and make it worse.
Footnotes:
[1] Seriously - read up on the staged demonstrations over the whole Mohammed cartoons kerfuffle, with coachloads of rioters being bussed in by the Saudi, Iranian and Syrian governments, allowed to riot, and then all clearing out within minutes after a set period of time and good media coverage.
All those methods sound fine, but presuppose a degree of local influence that the West can never have on Islamic areas.
I disagree - political pressure is used to influence the government, and the government then has to sell the idea to its population. Governments have a whole suite of options to influence populations, from intimidation and fear through education and changing the law.
I think we agree on some fundamental points - I believe the average muslim doesn't give two shits about the West, and as long as he's left alone (and isn't dictated to) is happy to leave the West in peace. There are madmen and super-villains (for want of a better term), but without popular support they rarely get anywhere (just look at Al Qaeda before 9/11).
You seem to believe that the average muslim is in favour of invading the West and instituting an theocracy for the sake of it. I'm simplifying, but still.
If that's true, where were the constant muslim terrorist incidents and international tension before 9/11? Iran, Iraq, Syria and the rest didn't just drop out of the sky, did they?
Total war is a catalyst for positive change.
Sorry, but I believe things can still change without the necessity for bloodshed and thousands of deaths. Change more slowly, for sure, but more reliably and stably.
I also find the thought of "war as tool" to be utterly abhorrent. War and violence should be a last-ditch attmept at self-preservation, not just another option you wheel out when it seems like a good idea.
Well, given the president's dipping popularity is clearly of concern to the Whitehouse, I'd say he'd be doing a lot more press conferences and photo-ops if that's all it took.
And are you seriously arguing that when people are threatened they don't tend to stick with the herd and aren't more likely to support the current leader?
Post to convince other readers, lest they be misled by the original post.
And blathering on the internet can occasionally do good - in particular I've learned a lot of new things (subject to later verification, of course) by doing it.
Sure, the majority of terrorists are well-educated and well off. But where do you think the urge to fight comes from? And where do you think the massive popular support comes from?
Terrorism doesn't happen in a vacuum - otherwise we'd have had no reason to invade Afghanistan, the US wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and the US government wouldn't keep leering towards Syria, Iran and the rest.
Sure, the leaders and movers are generally well-educated and affluent, but that's true of any movement, even the completely evil ones. However, take away the legitimate concerns motivating the hatred and all but the hard-core fade away to nothing.
Read up on it - pre-9/11 Al Qaeda was a loose association of undesirables, lacking popular support and hounded out of almost every country they set up shop in. 9/11 provoked the US overreaction, and this in turn provoked the Arab world into perceiving an attack on them by the West. Bingo! Suddenly the Arab world is much more amenable to extreme points of view as the "moderates" suddenly start sounding like sympathisers. Exactly the same thing happened in the West.
And FWIW while I'm western, I'm not a libertarian.
The bulk fo the majro terrorists have been well-educated and well-off; we have been giving Middle Easterners self-determination as part of Bush's massively wrong-headed 'everyone wants to be free' scheme.
Just had to respond to this specifically:
Exactly what part of "marching into a country, fucking the infrastructure, deposing the government, installing a sock-puppet government of people cherry-picked to be friendly to your interests that totally lacks popular support, taking a huge chunk of the natural resources and awarding no-bid contracts to your industry buddies" qualifies as "giving middle-easterners self-determination"?
You seem to be arguing against me and with me at the same time - is it because you clearly missed my sarcasm?
FWIW, I'm in favour of reactive defence, and pro-improving-education/quality-of-life/etc.
Problem is there's a small minority of folks in that country (~4000) who aren't as enlightened as you are, and don't want, like, women to be educated and stuff. So since said folks don't favor education, but you do, shouldn't you be onside with getting rid of 'em?
Erm, no. I'm in favour of using moral, economic and political pressure to get them to do it. The important thing here is that you can't force enlightenment on anyone, let alone a whole culture. Knock down one fundamentalist regime and another will spring up to take its place, and in the mean-time you'll have an unstable region full of miserable people who are only likely to become more radicalised, not less - just look at Iraq and Afghanistan.
My whole point was that the only way to successfully enlighten regimes like this is slowly, by persuasion. Forcing it only gives something for people to get good and upset about, and upset people are likely to push in the opposite direction to what you want. In addition, the views you're espousing become associated with you, a hated figure. This puts even moderates off for fear for being labelled a sympathiser (look at Bush's constant use of the "with us or against us" rhetoric for a perfect example).
"Getting rid of 'em" only prolongs the problem far into the future.
Right, 'cause starving them to death was so much more humane! How come I've never heard a hundredth the complaints about the Iraq sanctions' concentration-camp routine as I now hear regarding the invasion of Iraq, despite the former having over 10 times the bodycount of the latter?
Personally? I hate the fact that it happened. However, I think it's better than wading in and destabilising the whole country because:
We didn't do anything. All we did was stop doing things, like "trading with a country we disagreed with". In my own personal morality sins of omission generally aren't as bad as sins of comission, and indirect actions aren't as bad as direct ones (YMMV). We'We're not morally obliged to trade with anyone. However, we are morally obliged not to invade and attack someone who's no threat to us.
It worked better. While the average Iraqi wasn't [much|any] better off, at least they weren't blaming us - they were blaming Saddam. And to be fair, it was his fault - I find it hard to believe he could pump millions into the military and afford huge palaces but couldn't afford to produce (or buy in from friendly regimes) more food or medical supplies. Contrast this with Iraq now - much the same level of poverty and deprivation, except now you're also more likely to get blown up or shot by militias, it's perceived as all the US's fault, and Iraq's a hotbed of terrorist recruitment as a result.
And in addition, the sanctions went on for over a decade - the Iraq war's only a year or two old. Proportionately which has killed more people?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really follow Mac news specifically, so you may be right. However, comparing (as far as that's possible) www.apple.com to www.dell.com, it looks like either PCs are still a lot less expensive, or the Apple iMacs and Mac Minis come stuffed with free cocaine in little gold-plated boxes...
;-)
But if I'm wrong, please do enlighten me...
Right, which when compared to the 90%+ market-share of Windows is, frankly, squat.
Not to knock Apple - they make a genuinely good machine/OS, and their adoption rate is increasing... however, their position (in terms of market share) is still fragile. They aren't compatible with the de-facto standard, so they have to be careful with their tactics to avoid being squashed by the 800lb gorilla that is Microsoft.
To be sure, Microsoft couldn't easily kill Apple if it wanted to (hell, it hasn't managed to yet). However, Apple could very easily fall on their own sword (eg, by releasing OSX-for-beige-PCs).
Indeed.
Plus, y'know, I never actually stated that iPods/iTunes were the majority of Apple's market - I merely responded to someone who did.
Notepad? Notepad?
You were lucky... When I were a lad we'd walk 30 miles in the snow to the office, uphill both ways. We'd spend all day hunched over with a length of wire and a rare-earth magnet, inducing currents in the wires to build up ASCII codes. When we'd finished we'd manually upload the files by telnetting to port 21, walk 30 miles 'ome again, oop'ill, in t' snow, eat a piece of dry bread for us tea, and me Dad would beat us t' sleep wi' a length of co-ax cabling...
Which tells you exactly what kind of market share their desktop machines have at the moment. Anything which reduces this further risks making their desktop market share so small it's effectively negligible.
Nah, not for shit IMO. Aside from elitist Charles geeks people buy Macs now because of Mac OS/X's user interface and the fact that It Just Works. If Mac OS/X was available for commodity PC hardware nobody (again: normal people, not geeks) would spring the extra $$$ for Mac hardware too ("What's the point?", they'd chuckle - "I can be clever and safe a few hundred bucks!") and the Mac hardware platform would die (or at least, be taken very ill).
Of course, penny-pinching consumers would also find that on third-party commodity hardware It Just doesn't Work as well, so Apple (through no direct fault of their own) would also find their IJW reputation going down the tubes.
Their OSX userbase would expand moderately - it's incompatible with Windows, so it's not going to expand "greatly" at any time while 90%+ of all PCs are still Windows, regardless of how great it is.
Their hardware userbase would shrink rapidly - normal users just won't pay over the odds for something they don't perceive as any better. We know OSX has been designed to run on the hardware and vice-versa. Your old maiden aunt buying her first Mac (assuming she isn't tempted away by de-facto standard Windows) will get a choice between OSX-and-Mac, or OSX-and-PC for a few hundred bucks less. In the absence of any real understood difference between them, and bearing in mind they both look and feel the same (OSX), which do you think she's going to choose?
iPod userbase wouldn't change - it's already Mac and PC compatible, so if Apple stopped making Macs tomorrow the iPod sales would hardly change.
That's one reason, yes. The other is that OSX not being Windows-compatible hurts Apple when it comes to attracting new consumers to it. Making the hardware and software one package at least forces users to view Macs as a seamlessly-working package, which they don't mind paying a little extra for. Breaking the package open stops any part of it being perceived as seamless, and virtually ensures penny-pinching consumers will just nickle-and-dime them to death.
No. "People" understand that you buy "a PC with Windows", or you buy "a Mac". Macs are a package, indivisible.
"Most people" don't even understand there is a distinction between the hardware spec and the operating system. Hell, remember "most people" still can't program their video recorder clocks right.
As such, as soon as they realise the package is customisable and there's a choice, they'll plump for the cheapest option every time, and Apple much-vaunted reputation for solid engineering (apart from style, their only advantage over MS) flies right out of the window. And once people are used to OSX running on beige boxes and crashing because of dodgy third-party drivers, watch how long their reputation for coolness lasts, too.
You're half right in what you say - the third-party driver issue is a big reason to keep OSX Mac-only. However, there are several other just-as-good reasons as well, like preserving what little share of the desktop hardware market they currently have.
Indeed!
Clearly "legal strategy" patents are essential - after all, without legal strategy patents lawyers couldn't own their own discover-... idea-.. inventions.
Then there would be no driving economic force behind legal innovation, and the entire legal industry would stagnate, retarding the progress of the Unites States/Europe and ensuring that legal development only took place in other countries...
No, wait-
Yeah, we use Lego as the plural in the UK too. I still don't know where "Legos" came from in the USA.
In the UK, yes.
Ok, that's just stupid. "Coke" is short for "Coca Cola". It doesn't matter what brand of vacuum cleaner you use, as they all do the same thing (more or less). But calling all carbonated drinks the same thing is bloody stupid - there are clear differences between them, and while one might be perfectly acceptable you might violently object to another.
Yeah, "Legos" are an American invention. Everyone else uses "Lego bricks".
Actually, that's wrong.
Page and Brin were going to name their company Googol, after the number. However, their first investor handed them a $10,000 cheque made out to "Google Inc", so they went with that spelling instead.
The Monty Python connection is a coincidence. Were you ever actually told differently by anyone, or did you just see it, assume and then start presenting said assumption as fact?
Does "Yeah, well... your mom!" work in wartime too?
Not at all. They're pretty well understood by people who consider their motivations, try to see things from their point of view, and then use that insight to argue for countermeasures that might actually work, instead of "fighting" them by handing them more ammunition.
You're obviously bang alongside the "kick their arse until they stop" strategy, right? Well... the US's international reputation has dropped precipitously in the last few years, even after a huge sway of international sympathy had it up to record levels after 9/11. Your economy is tanking, your armed forces can't recruit enough people to even achieve replacement levels, and can't even afford to properly equip the ones it's got.
Finally, your greatest enemy in the "war" is obviously so happy with the progress so far that he's materially and deliberately trying to keep Bush in power as long as he can.
Tell me - this butch, macho ass-kicking strategy... do you think it's working?
It's not a universal panacea for immediate and total peace, but if the USA stopped shitting on the Arab world and playing quite such obvious favourites with Israel, the motivation for a lot of the anti-US sentiment in the middle east would wither away and die.
Apparently, to some people, it is.
But you're also forgetting the core Neocon belief - it doesn't matter if people hate you for kicking their arse, as long as you can keep kicking it every time they complain. And when they start to get back at you in the only way they can, a way you can't really defend against, you just kick their arse again, neatly solving the problem once and for all.
No, really - once and for all.
Sorry - maybe I should clarify: I'm not talking about the small group of affluent, educated ringleaders. I'm talking about the millions of people worldwide who serve as a recruiting pool for suicide bombers, couriers, support staff and general grunts.
No matter how motivated and insane/aggressive/amoral a small group of ringleaders are, they simply can't carry out actions like 9/11 on their own because they simply don't have the resources.
Don't forget that Osama Bin Laden and others were entirely funded and trained by the CIA for most of the 80s when they were fighting the USSR. They've had years to set up an international support network in countries whose populations already hate the West for all the reasons I've given, and the CIA helped fund them to do it.
This is not tinfoil-hat time - this is all documented historical fact.
Exactly. A small minority truly hates the West, and simply "being nice" won't persuade them otherwise. Nevertheless, when they can't recruit suicide bombers, and have to actually enact their plans themselves, and can't rely on a network of volunteers all over the world to act as front-men and insulate them from law enforcement... well, how much terrorism are you really going to see?
And how much more are they going to have to get personally involved? And how much easier is it then going to be to catch them?
No, what you do is start providing aid and support to muslim countries that don't support terrorism, and not providing any aid to those that do.
If all you do is spank countries that don't do what you want, all you end up with is bitter, resentful populations who already dislike you and hence are half-way to radicalisation on their own.
If you reward countries who play nice and (defend against but otherwise-) ignore the others, the political and economic pressure is on those countries to start playing nice.
It's easy to get people to hate the USA when you bomb their houses and kill their children. It's very hard to get people to hate the US when the country next door is building-up and prospering and the only reason your country isn't is because it's researching WMDs, or sponsiring terrorism, of the like.
You're right, in that rewarding terrorism only prolongs it. Unfortunately, so does responding tit-for-tat. The only way to get around it is to first stop giving them excuses and recruits, and then start on the long, slow PR campaign to reverse the trend.
You might say this is impossible, and that they just irrationally hate the West.
To that I say: where are the bombs in Sweden? Or The Netherlands? Or Estonia?
Riiiight, because that's worked so well for the lasst 50 years. Israel spends five decades hammering the shit out of Palestine and any other nation that looks at them funny, and now the Palestinians (and Hezbollah) are world-reknowned for slipping over the Israeli border, running up to bus-stop queues and detonating the large packs of perfume and flowers strapped to them, right? Or persuading Israeli soldiers to come to Lebanon with them for a nice picnic and a round of charades.
I'm sorry, but this is simply the most retarded thing I've ever read. How many ancient Egyptian terrorist cells are there still around? How many ancient Greek pantheon-worshippers are there still around? How many people still drive cars made in 1900? So, that proves that coca-cola and the internet is an effective solution to rebelling slaves, pantheistic religions and cars you have to hand-crank to get started, right?
Indeed. Assuming they feel they've got anything left to lose. As soon as they can't realistically see the situation getting any worse, then have nothing to lose.
Oh, and until the USA starts assassinating all the friends and relations of identified terrorists, there won't even be any direct consequences specifically for their friends and relations.
Kind of like how you know that pissing off terrorists more means they're more likely to commit atrocities, resulting in a (theoretically) elevated risk to yourself and your loved-ones. And yet you still support war in the middle east?
Well let's see: First off, Bali is in Indonesia, so the fact you're listing these two separately suggests you aren't that well up on the matter.
Secondly, the actual organisation suspected of the attack was Jemaah Islamiyah, which (while it has Al Qaeda ties) has strongly denied any involvement.
Thirdly, Bali is a well-known tourist destination, and the bombs were aimed at a tourist-dominated bar, a tourist nightclub and the American Consulate. Over 4/5 of the people killed were western tourists.
I'm not so well-up on the Thailand situation, apart from pausing to point out that you can only cite al Qaeda-linked groups in your response, and that even a cursory Googling will show you that Thailand has a long history of seperatist Muslim violence (and, more recently, retaliatory violence by others against the muslim community).
I also can't find any information online explictly linking al Qaeda directly to attacks in Thailand or Burma. Can you provide evidence, or were you just pulling locations out of thin air?
Finally, all indication we have shows al Qaeda is a tiny, tiny hard-core of individuals who generally merely act as advisors and middle-men to other, already-established terrorist groups. Al Qaeda is a useful brand-name and resource-broker, rather than a traditional terrorist organisation.
Almost any terrorist group that commits an atrocity can be linked to al Qaeda, but that's just the point - "linked to" can mean anything, right down to "once briefly had contact with". Since the majority of their actions happen through third parties, this tells you nothing about their core motivations - only about those of the third parties, and that those motivations are "somewhat in line" with al Qaeda's.
And even if you were right, your point is moot. Whether al Qaeda wants to incite war between middle east and west or just get the west out of "their" territory... what do you think pissed them off to the point they're using terrorism as an end?
Would you strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a mall full of arabs? No. So why do they find it easy to find a group of people to do it? Hmmm.. maybe it's their religion, or maybe it's the fact that people live in poverty and are constantly being manipulated and pushed around by the west.
Well, I've known several muslims who had no inclination to blow themselves up, and there are several muslim countries (or countries with large muslim populations) who don't sponsor terrorism, so clearly it isn't the religion forcing people to become terrorists... I wonder what else it could be?
Uhhhh, Mr Godwin? We need a ruling here please...
Granted. But you aren't just betting the current administration is incompetent - you're betting that every single future government is equally incompetent.
Seriously - when was the last time a government got into power and said "you know, I think we've got too much information on our citizens - let's wipe a few databases and have a big record-bonfire".
I'm not worried too much about what Bush and the current Neocons would do (although the sheer randomness of their flailing about is slightly concerning, as I could be hit as much by accident as by design), but it can (indeed already has) have a chilling effect on people's liberty and free speech. In addition, once they've set up the system you've basically got an "Instant Police State - Just Add Competence".
All it takes is for an IT-competent government (or just advances in the technology to make it simpler to use) and suddenly there's nowhere to hide any more.
That's one opinion, sure - my opinion is that the snow is poverty, repression, lack of education and non-self-determination.
The thing is, there's a well-known correlation between poverty/violence and terrorism/fanaticism. However, the vast majority of muslims don't actually support terrorism - excluding a few fanatical hard-core terrorists and those governments who find it politically useful to oppose and demonise the USA to their population[1]. To me this would indicate that terrorism is less a result of Islam (per se) and more a result of poverty and injustice.
Sure, people use Islam as an excuse, but then that's true of every major world religion at various times, with the possible exception of buddhism.
I mean, people have bombed abortion clinics and (back in the day) crusaded a bloody swathe across the whole of the arab world in the name of Christianity. The IRA spend decades blowing the shit out of people who had beliefs that were 90% similar to them in Northern Ireland. People just use religion as an excuse to hate others - calling it a religious issue merely legitimises it (in some people's eyes).
Here we agree (although, as one poster pointed out, the US is doing a great job of this as well
Footnotes:
[1] Seriously - read up on the staged demonstrations over the whole Mohammed cartoons kerfuffle, with coachloads of rioters being bussed in by the Saudi, Iranian and Syrian governments, allowed to riot, and then all clearing out within minutes after a set period of time and good media coverage.
How about ripping out people's spines, freeze-and-shattering them, pulling out hearts or immolating them alive at the tender age of 13?
And I, also, am a fine upstanding member of society who almost never actually tears someone's head off and poops down their neck-hole.
Wow. You have my sympathy.
;-)
Kind of reminds me of the onion article...
I disagree - political pressure is used to influence the government, and the government then has to sell the idea to its population. Governments have a whole suite of options to influence populations, from intimidation and fear through education and changing the law.
I think we agree on some fundamental points - I believe the average muslim doesn't give two shits about the West, and as long as he's left alone (and isn't dictated to) is happy to leave the West in peace. There are madmen and super-villains (for want of a better term), but without popular support they rarely get anywhere (just look at Al Qaeda before 9/11).
You seem to believe that the average muslim is in favour of invading the West and instituting an theocracy for the sake of it. I'm simplifying, but still.
If that's true, where were the constant muslim terrorist incidents and international tension before 9/11? Iran, Iraq, Syria and the rest didn't just drop out of the sky, did they?
Sorry, but I believe things can still change without the necessity for bloodshed and thousands of deaths. Change more slowly, for sure, but more reliably and stably.
I also find the thought of "war as tool" to be utterly abhorrent. War and violence should be a last-ditch attmept at self-preservation, not just another option you wheel out when it seems like a good idea.
Well, given the president's dipping popularity is clearly of concern to the Whitehouse, I'd say he'd be doing a lot more press conferences and photo-ops if that's all it took.
And are you seriously arguing that when people are threatened they don't tend to stick with the herd and aren't more likely to support the current leader?
OK... I'll bite ;-)
Post to convince other readers, lest they be misled by the original post.
And blathering on the internet can occasionally do good - in particular I've learned a lot of new things (subject to later verification, of course) by doing it.
Sure, the majority of terrorists are well-educated and well off. But where do you think the urge to fight comes from? And where do you think the massive popular support comes from?
Terrorism doesn't happen in a vacuum - otherwise we'd have had no reason to invade Afghanistan, the US wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and the US government wouldn't keep leering towards Syria, Iran and the rest.
Sure, the leaders and movers are generally well-educated and affluent, but that's true of any movement, even the completely evil ones. However, take away the legitimate concerns motivating the hatred and all but the hard-core fade away to nothing.
Read up on it - pre-9/11 Al Qaeda was a loose association of undesirables, lacking popular support and hounded out of almost every country they set up shop in. 9/11 provoked the US overreaction, and this in turn provoked the Arab world into perceiving an attack on them by the West. Bingo! Suddenly the Arab world is much more amenable to extreme points of view as the "moderates" suddenly start sounding like sympathisers. Exactly the same thing happened in the West.
And FWIW while I'm western, I'm not a libertarian.
Just had to respond to this specifically:
Exactly what part of "marching into a country, fucking the infrastructure, deposing the government, installing a sock-puppet government of people cherry-picked to be friendly to your interests that totally lacks popular support, taking a huge chunk of the natural resources and awarding no-bid contracts to your industry buddies" qualifies as "giving middle-easterners self-determination"?
FWIW, I'm in favour of reactive defence, and pro-improving-education/quality-of-life/etc.
Erm, no. I'm in favour of using moral, economic and political pressure to get them to do it. The important thing here is that you can't force enlightenment on anyone, let alone a whole culture. Knock down one fundamentalist regime and another will spring up to take its place, and in the mean-time you'll have an unstable region full of miserable people who are only likely to become more radicalised, not less - just look at Iraq and Afghanistan.
My whole point was that the only way to successfully enlighten regimes like this is slowly, by persuasion. Forcing it only gives something for people to get good and upset about, and upset people are likely to push in the opposite direction to what you want. In addition, the views you're espousing become associated with you, a hated figure. This puts even moderates off for fear for being labelled a sympathiser (look at Bush's constant use of the "with us or against us" rhetoric for a perfect example).
"Getting rid of 'em" only prolongs the problem far into the future.
Personally? I hate the fact that it happened. However, I think it's better than wading in and destabilising the whole country because:
And in addition, the sanctions went on for over a decade - the Iraq war's only a year or two old. Proportionately which has killed more people?