It is clear that the conspiracy is wide ranging indeed, both geographically and temporally, but the role of the Templars may be a diversion from the true miscreants. Do you think my post illumes I'm right, or does it illume I'm naughty?
He who would solve the mystery must remember Everywhere lies and deceit await to ensnare Listen to the inspiration of wisdom and always seek Perfect knowledge where it may be found Mark my words or you may find Eternal frustration is your portion !
I would have to think so, yes. Spy satellites relying on cameras have limited coverage at any one time. The plane only has to land and move to a hanger to be hidden. That doesn't take very long.
The floodgates are being opened for marijuana based on "medicinal" or "therapeutic" grounds, but most of the use is recreational. The accumulating evidence seems to be pointing out that the outcome won't be a good one. Who would ever imagine that sucking the psychoactive smoke of burning material into your lungs would be a good idea? People that are high, I suppose.
If your neighbor is destroying his or her health, life, and family with meth, would your sense of empathy and proportion lead to you to help them get treatment, or to simply wag your head in subtle disapproval over the choices they made up to the point they died?
You know, I love a good conspiracy theory but the Truthers couldn't even tell an entertaining story, even if you excuse their lack of understanding of middle-school science.
On one hand I want to agree with you, but on the other hand I'll point out their views were pretty popular on Slashdot about 10 years ago.
Of course your point about blacksmiths being part of the cover up means nobody has dug deep enough to uncover the true depths of the conspiracy. Were medieval guilds in on the plot? And what about the role of the Templars?
...something as simple as wearing a mask, it's illegal?
You can thank the Klan for that in many places. Are you in favor of rolling back the anti-Klan laws?
The "land of the free and the home of the brave" has many places that ban the act of wearing masks in public places. Free? Brave? To drones, maybe.
Blacks, Jews, and Catholics do live more freely since few in the Klan were brave enough to make their allegiance known openly and commit their foul deeds without anonymity. Do you resent that? Do you think that America is less free or brave because the Klan finds it more difficult to hide itself to harass or kill blacks, Jews, and Catholics?
So basically you're stating that those programs can't fulfill the promises made about them. That is clarity that needs to be more widely shared, especially among people that think that government can cure all of societies woes.
Does the economic chaos that will result from trying to meet the promises piss you off too?
You aren't in favor of Obamacare by any chance are you?
You can tell someone knows what they are talking about when they assume we all have the exact same techical requirements regardless of what the job is.
All of those systems were commercially available at the time for the price indicated, so yes there was inexpensive PC Unix out there at the time. Their subsequent fortunes in the marketplace or within their respective companies doesn't change their availability at the time. The Unix market was both highly competitive between companies, and against other offerings. Windows NT took a bit bite out of more than one company with a Unix-centric strategy.
As to "maximum return on minimum investment," why do you think people went after Linux? Isn't that more or less a big part of your argument? That it was cheap so everybody could get it? Or at least the "street Linux" was cheap. But you do realize that both Red Hat and Suse tried to get a good return on investment? I've seen Red Hat bills per system that were higher than Sun bills for similar systems, and the Sun bill was for both hardware and software support. The history of companies involved with open source is littered with failed companies that couldn't turn a profit, and that includes Linux companies. There certainly appears to have been some fratricide in Linuxland as well.
A/UX ran on hardware from what was the major competitor for X86 hardware / software at the time so it is entirely reasonable to include it since you could buy it at the time. Although if you like we could drop A/UX and focus on what is the most successful *nix desktop system - NextStep AKA MacOS X. NextStep was also available for X86 at the time.
If market share is your concern then you should be passing over Linux until the mid to late 90s since in 1993 it was negligible.
Sorry, but I'm right. Coherent was pretty cheap, ~ $100.00. Minix wasn't that pricey either. SCO competitors often undercut them on price and could often run the wide range of commercial software available for it.
For comparison: " Windows NT operating system. Initial version is 3.1. Price is US$495, or US$295 as an upgrade from a previous Windows operating system. - Chronology of Microsoft Windows Operating Systems"
Consensys System V: Base 2 user license - $249 Unlimited users complete package - $1,295
Dell Unix System V R4 Base 2 user license - $495 Unlimited users complete package - $1,295
Interactive Unix Base 2 user license - $495 Unlimited users complete package - $3,195
SCO Open Desktop Base 2 user license - $1,295 Unlimited users complete package - $4,290
Univel UnixWare Base 2 user license - $249 Unlimited users complete package - $2,495
A/UX was a flat cost ( ~ $700 on cdrom) and could support 16 users and came with a fully loaded system including utilities, fortran and C compilers. Licenses to copy were $439. On top of that it could run Macintosh software.
Many of the free and open tools, such as the GNU collection, could run on lots of the commercial releases as well. And that's before considering the UCB code. By '93 the BSDs were entering the scene as well.
And lets not forget the fact that as wonderful as Linux & *BSD were in the early 90s there was little commercial software that ran on them, and even if it did it might not have been cost effective to run things on a PC compared to what a workstation or bigger machine could do.
If you wanted a real computer that could do real stuff (as opposed to a DOS box, which wasn't even network aware in any substantive way, and even in non-substantive ways required $$$ for bare-bones, single-function software tools that were cobbled together out of batch files and nonsense), you had to:
- Get your hands on dedicated Unix workstation hardware, which was often poorly documented/supported outside of a corporate sales account
Sorry, but your history is a bit off and overstates the relative impact of Linux at the time. There were actually quite a few real Unix and Unix-like operating systems available in the 80s to early 90s that ran on X86 hardware such as desktop PCs. The prices ranged from pretty cheap to expensive but still much more affordable than proprietary Unix workstations. Some examples include Coherent, PC/IX, AIX, Dell Unix, Rockport Unix, USL UnixWare, Interactive Unix, Xenix, Venix, SCO Unix, Minix, Xinu, Idris, and a number of others. On the Macintosh there was at least A/UX, several different BSD Unix releases, Idris, and MachTen. The Lisa had Xenix. We'll skip over the Amiga and Atari ST series which also had Unix or Unix-like things on them.
In the early years of its existence, MWC received a visit from an AT&T delegation looking to determine whether MWC was infringing on AT&T Unix property. The delegation included Dennis Ritchie, who concluded that "it was very hard to believe that Coherent and its basic applications were not created without considerable study of the OS code and details of its applications" and "that looking at various corners [for peculiarities, bugs, etc. that I knew about in the Unix distributions of the time] I couldn't find anything that was copied. It might have been that some parts were written with [AT&T] source nearby, but at least the effort had been made to rewrite. If it came to it, I could never honestly testify [...] that what they generated was irreproducible from the manual."[1]
--------
As a result, the Unix networking ways—thanks in many ways directly to Linux—would eventually become the industry standard form of networking (TCP/IP over ethernet) that we take for granted today—but in no way was history certain to end up this way. We could just have well been tossing the equivalent of glorified FidoNet payloads today.
Without Linux, GNU, and BSD, it's no stretch to say that we may not have had an Internet today in any way that we'd recognize, and certainly Linux has been the most visible and most widely distributed amongst the three.
Both the internet and Unix networking were well established before Linux had any real influence, including TCP/IP and Ethernet.
Linux was a great accomplishment, but the BSDs would have done just as well for the role it played. The time gap would only have been about 18 months. Both Linux and the BSDs are really for the most part just reimplementation of Unix work done before. They made Unix technology more widely available to the masses.
You're just confused about both the history and what constitutes "misdeeds." Much of the Japanese military was willing to continue the struggle to the death. Maybe you should look into the revolt over the surrender proposals.
I wouldn't feel too guilty. What happened in Iraq was no worse than Saddam's long term average body count or less, and now it is done. Saddam is gone, his sons who were even worse than Saddam was will never take power, and Iraq is a democracy even if it is a troubled one. They at least have a chance. Saddam intended to go back to his usual ways as soon as he could, and between the oil for food bribery and waning interest the world wasn't going to contain him for much longer.
Even Afghanistan is better off without the Taliban.
My reaction on hearing the news was to wonder when the war crimes trial would be convened, I am still waiting.
That is because you are a nitwit.
3 years ago a man was murdered in his home, apparently an unarmed man. He was convicted of Nothing. Was not a national of any country that the United States was at war with (you can not declare war on an organisation or individual, only a nation. Something US presidents appear to conveniently forget)
Bin Laden was the leader of an armed revolutionary faction making war on the US. You see to have a bunch of "personal rules" that aren't related to reality. You're going to continue to be disappointed.
The US currently has; A War on drugs.... A total failure. But it does employ lots of people. A war of Terror.... I am not even sire what that is! Does everyone get a security blanket stolen from Afghanistan or what. I assume the desired outcome is to make the little kiddies less scared It has achieved nothing substantive in a decade but also employs a lot of people..
The "war on drugs" is rhetorical. You do understand that, right? The "war on terror" is symbolic language. The Authorization for Use of Military Forces specifies military action against the perpetrators of 9/11 and their supporters. You don't seem to have any useful information to comment on.
Your post is bullshit, including that load of crap about it being deliberately timed to coincide with the US elections. Anyone bothering to familiarize themselves at even the most basic level would realize the difficulties of the trial. I do like your "sort of" comment. I guess you think there was genuine doubt about Saddam killing massive numbers of people? I guess 800+ mass graves and nerve gassing the Kurds would leave some people in doubt.
I suggest simply reading this article to get a better idea of what was going on and the chaos they had to contend with.
Authoritarian governments often see the political in what we consider the mundane. They are often wary of allowing "Western" or "bourgeois" ideas to "corrupt" the masses under their control. Even literature or art from their own society can be banned. Consider the example of Doctor Zhivago:
I assume you didn't bother to read any of that since it was from a court in Belgium. The thing that is made up here is the claim that "the NSA threw away the Constitution." Since they are still subject to the control of the President, Congress, and the courts, that doesn't seem to be true.
You don't have a right to confidential communications with the enemy in wartime. You don't have a right to make war on the US. You seem to have an expansive view of "people's rights" that is supported by the law or Constitution. And yet you don't seem to object to Americans being killed, totally depriving them of their rights.
Slashdot Mirror
It is clear that the conspiracy is wide ranging indeed, both geographically and temporally, but the role of the Templars may be a diversion from the true miscreants. Do you think my post illumes I'm right, or does it illume I'm naughty?
He who would solve the mystery must remember
Everywhere lies and deceit await to ensnare
Listen to the inspiration of wisdom and always seek
Perfect knowledge where it may be found
Mark my words or you may find
Eternal frustration is your portion
!
I would have to think so, yes. Spy satellites relying on cameras have limited coverage at any one time. The plane only has to land and move to a hanger to be hidden. That doesn't take very long.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
The floodgates are being opened for marijuana based on "medicinal" or "therapeutic" grounds, but most of the use is recreational. The accumulating evidence seems to be pointing out that the outcome won't be a good one. Who would ever imagine that sucking the psychoactive smoke of burning material into your lungs would be a good idea? People that are high, I suppose.
If your neighbor is destroying his or her health, life, and family with meth, would your sense of empathy and proportion lead to you to help them get treatment, or to simply wag your head in subtle disapproval over the choices they made up to the point they died?
You know, I love a good conspiracy theory but the Truthers couldn't even tell an entertaining story, even if you excuse their lack of understanding of middle-school science.
On one hand I want to agree with you, but on the other hand I'll point out their views were pretty popular on Slashdot about 10 years ago.
Of course your point about blacksmiths being part of the cover up means nobody has dug deep enough to uncover the true depths of the conspiracy. Were medieval guilds in on the plot? And what about the role of the Templars?
I've yet to see a reasonable explanation for the loss of telemetry and apparent maneuvers to avoid radar.
There are reasonable explanations, just not innocent ones.
Sounds like the next time we'll hear about mh370, the plane will be on its way to a building near you...
There is a claim that would seem to open the door for that.
BREAKING: Lt. Gen. McInerney Says #MH370 Is In Pakistan – ‘I Got A Source That Confirmed It Yesterday’
Hopefully it is just another conspiracy theory.
...something as simple as wearing a mask, it's illegal?
You can thank the Klan for that in many places. Are you in favor of rolling back the anti-Klan laws?
The "land of the free and the home of the brave" has many places that ban the act of wearing masks in public places. Free? Brave? To drones, maybe.
Blacks, Jews, and Catholics do live more freely since few in the Klan were brave enough to make their allegiance known openly and commit their foul deeds without anonymity. Do you resent that? Do you think that America is less free or brave because the Klan finds it more difficult to hide itself to harass or kill blacks, Jews, and Catholics?
That could be the epitaph for the Western welfare state. Europe is heading in the same direction as Japan.
So basically you're stating that those programs can't fulfill the promises made about them. That is clarity that needs to be more widely shared, especially among people that think that government can cure all of societies woes.
Does the economic chaos that will result from trying to meet the promises piss you off too?
You aren't in favor of Obamacare by any chance are you?
You can tell someone knows what they are talking about when they assume we all have the exact same techical requirements regardless of what the job is.
All of those systems were commercially available at the time for the price indicated, so yes there was inexpensive PC Unix out there at the time. Their subsequent fortunes in the marketplace or within their respective companies doesn't change their availability at the time. The Unix market was both highly competitive between companies, and against other offerings. Windows NT took a bit bite out of more than one company with a Unix-centric strategy.
As to "maximum return on minimum investment," why do you think people went after Linux? Isn't that more or less a big part of your argument? That it was cheap so everybody could get it? Or at least the "street Linux" was cheap. But you do realize that both Red Hat and Suse tried to get a good return on investment? I've seen Red Hat bills per system that were higher than Sun bills for similar systems, and the Sun bill was for both hardware and software support. The history of companies involved with open source is littered with failed companies that couldn't turn a profit, and that includes Linux companies. There certainly appears to have been some fratricide in Linuxland as well.
A/UX ran on hardware from what was the major competitor for X86 hardware / software at the time so it is entirely reasonable to include it since you could buy it at the time. Although if you like we could drop A/UX and focus on what is the most successful *nix desktop system - NextStep AKA MacOS X. NextStep was also available for X86 at the time.
If market share is your concern then you should be passing over Linux until the mid to late 90s since in 1993 it was negligible.
Sorry, but I'm right. Coherent was pretty cheap, ~ $100.00. Minix wasn't that pricey either. SCO competitors often undercut them on price and could often run the wide range of commercial software available for it.
For comparison: " Windows NT operating system. Initial version is 3.1. Price is US$495, or US$295 as an upgrade from a previous Windows operating system. - Chronology of Microsoft Windows Operating Systems"
Unix list princes from 1993:
Consensys System V:
Base 2 user license - $249
Unlimited users complete package - $1,295
Dell Unix System V R4
Base 2 user license - $495
Unlimited users complete package - $1,295
Interactive Unix
Base 2 user license - $495
Unlimited users complete package - $3,195
SCO Open Desktop
Base 2 user license - $1,295
Unlimited users complete package - $4,290
Univel UnixWare
Base 2 user license - $249
Unlimited users complete package - $2,495
A/UX was a flat cost ( ~ $700 on cdrom) and could support 16 users and came with a fully loaded system including utilities, fortran and C compilers. Licenses to copy were $439. On top of that it could run Macintosh software.
Many of the free and open tools, such as the GNU collection, could run on lots of the commercial releases as well. And that's before considering the UCB code. By '93 the BSDs were entering the scene as well.
And lets not forget the fact that as wonderful as Linux & *BSD were in the early 90s there was little commercial software that ran on them, and even if it did it might not have been cost effective to run things on a PC compared to what a workstation or bigger machine could do.
I wouldn't know what to do if it weren't for linux.
Probably run FreeBSD, or one of the other *BSDs.
If you wanted a real computer that could do real stuff (as opposed to a DOS box, which wasn't even network aware in any substantive way, and even in non-substantive ways required $$$ for bare-bones, single-function software tools that were cobbled together out of batch files and nonsense), you had to:
- Get your hands on dedicated Unix workstation hardware, which was often poorly documented/supported outside of a corporate sales account
Sorry, but your history is a bit off and overstates the relative impact of Linux at the time. There were actually quite a few real Unix and Unix-like operating systems available in the 80s to early 90s that ran on X86 hardware such as desktop PCs. The prices ranged from pretty cheap to expensive but still much more affordable than proprietary Unix workstations. Some examples include Coherent, PC/IX, AIX, Dell Unix, Rockport Unix, USL UnixWare, Interactive Unix, Xenix, Venix, SCO Unix, Minix, Xinu, Idris, and a number of others. On the Macintosh there was at least A/UX, several different BSD Unix releases, Idris, and MachTen. The Lisa had Xenix. We'll skip over the Amiga and Atari ST series which also had Unix or Unix-like things on them.
Coherent
In the early years of its existence, MWC received a visit from an AT&T delegation looking to determine whether MWC was infringing on AT&T Unix property. The delegation included Dennis Ritchie, who concluded that "it was very hard to believe that Coherent and its basic applications were not created without considerable study of the OS code and details of its applications" and "that looking at various corners [for peculiarities, bugs, etc. that I knew about in the Unix distributions of the time] I couldn't find anything that was copied. It might have been that some parts were written with [AT&T] source nearby, but at least the effort had been made to rewrite. If it came to it, I could never honestly testify [...] that what they generated was irreproducible from the manual."[1]
--------
As a result, the Unix networking ways—thanks in many ways directly to Linux—would eventually become the industry standard form of networking (TCP/IP over ethernet) that we take for granted today—but in no way was history certain to end up this way. We could just have well been tossing the equivalent of glorified FidoNet payloads today.
Without Linux, GNU, and BSD, it's no stretch to say that we may not have had an Internet today in any way that we'd recognize, and certainly Linux has been the most visible and most widely distributed amongst the three.
Both the internet and Unix networking were well established before Linux had any real influence, including TCP/IP and Ethernet.
Linux was a great accomplishment, but the BSDs would have done just as well for the role it played. The time gap would only have been about 18 months. Both Linux and the BSDs are really for the most part just reimplementation of Unix work done before. They made Unix technology more widely available to the masses.
You're just confused about both the history and what constitutes "misdeeds." Much of the Japanese military was willing to continue the struggle to the death. Maybe you should look into the revolt over the surrender proposals.
I wouldn't feel too guilty. What happened in Iraq was no worse than Saddam's long term average body count or less, and now it is done. Saddam is gone, his sons who were even worse than Saddam was will never take power, and Iraq is a democracy even if it is a troubled one. They at least have a chance. Saddam intended to go back to his usual ways as soon as he could, and between the oil for food bribery and waning interest the world wasn't going to contain him for much longer.
Even Afghanistan is better off without the Taliban.
My reaction on hearing the news was to wonder when the war crimes trial would be convened, I am still waiting.
That is because you are a nitwit.
3 years ago a man was murdered in his home, apparently an unarmed man. He was convicted of Nothing. Was not a national of any country that the United States was at war with (you can not declare war on an organisation or individual, only a nation. Something US presidents appear to conveniently forget)
Bin Laden was the leader of an armed revolutionary faction making war on the US. You see to have a bunch of "personal rules" that aren't related to reality. You're going to continue to be disappointed.
The US currently has;
A War on drugs.... A total failure. But it does employ lots of people.
A war of Terror.... I am not even sire what that is! Does everyone get a security blanket stolen from Afghanistan or what. I assume the desired outcome is to make the little kiddies less scared It has achieved nothing substantive in a decade but also employs a lot of people..
The "war on drugs" is rhetorical. You do understand that, right?
The "war on terror" is symbolic language. The Authorization for Use of Military Forces specifies military action against the perpetrators of 9/11 and their supporters.
You don't seem to have any useful information to comment on.
Your post is bullshit, including that load of crap about it being deliberately timed to coincide with the US elections. Anyone bothering to familiarize themselves at even the most basic level would realize the difficulties of the trial. I do like your "sort of" comment. I guess you think there was genuine doubt about Saddam killing massive numbers of people? I guess 800+ mass graves and nerve gassing the Kurds would leave some people in doubt.
I suggest simply reading this article to get a better idea of what was going on and the chaos they had to contend with.
Hussein Trial Halts Again, Setting Off Wave of Criticism
Authoritarian governments often see the political in what we consider the mundane. They are often wary of allowing "Western" or "bourgeois" ideas to "corrupt" the masses under their control. Even literature or art from their own society can be banned. Consider the example of Doctor Zhivago:
During Cold War, CIA used ‘Doctor Zhivago’ as a tool to undermine Soviet Union
The quote is from Good Will Hunting, a great movie. The problem is the polemic in the quote is a load Chomsky inspired of bull.
After 9/11 their mission was changed, to assume that the entire US population was the enemy.
There are enemies that hide among the US population. The US population is not the enemy.
Fuck off.
You had a fairly reasonable post till that.
Maybe your understanding of "evil" is confused?
I assume you didn't bother to read any of that since it was from a court in Belgium. The thing that is made up here is the claim that "the NSA threw away the Constitution." Since they are still subject to the control of the President, Congress, and the courts, that doesn't seem to be true.
You don't have a right to confidential communications with the enemy in wartime. You don't have a right to make war on the US. You seem to have an expansive view of "people's rights" that is supported by the law or Constitution. And yet you don't seem to object to Americans being killed, totally depriving them of their rights.
The NSA is now a domestic surveillance apparatus and nothing more.
North Korea, Iran, al Qaida, China, and Russia will be relieved to hear that.