So I guess (part of) Nimba is legal then, since one of the (4-5?) ways it propagates is through malicious Javascript in web pages. Also, I guess it means I can write a program that wipes your hard drive, label is as a text editor and make it available for download. It's your responsability if you download it.
Arguing this is like arguing what Code Red/Nimba is just an IIS issue. Sure IIS should be more secure, but there's still a malicious intent. The same for this. Sure, the "don't close from JavaScript" feature shouldn't be on by default, but there's always going to be a hole somewhere in all browsers. This kind of behaviour should not be allowed.
Do you *really* think advertisers pay for ads that aren't noticed? They know exactly what they're doing. Also, the problem is not that much this screensaver advertisement but it's where does it end. Hey, maybe they could start the courses with a 2 minute ad read by the professor. But why not make it 5 minutes? or 20?...
If you write a book on fishing, and after reading it I invent a new maneuver that allows the catching of a larger type of bass, I shouldn't be forced to tell you how I did it.
With the GPL, you could invent a new way of fishing without telling anybody (remember, only redistribution is restricted). Your example should read:
"I write a book on fishing and give it to you for free, and after reading it you invent a new maneuver that allows the catching of a larger type of bass. You are *not* allowed to create a new book by copy-pasting my text, add your technique and sell it without giving me the same rights I gave you."
I think that's reasonable. You are also (under the GPL) allowed to write a new book which is equivalent to mine (but without copying mine verbatim).
Last time I read the LGPL, there was a clause that said that you are free to relicense LGPL stuff as GPL. Explicitly saying it's both LGPL and GPL seems redundant, right? Or am I missing something?
From the LGPL text:
You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices.
Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.
How many non-americans are in favor of backdoors for US government? I don't think there'd be much support for that! From that point it just means: go get your software outside the US... Since the countries will never agree on "common backdoors" or things like that, forcing the US citizens to use encryption with backdoor would be totally useless.
Does that mean if I go to microsoft.com and download a free demo, I'm allow to redistribute it freely? I don't think so. The same with the GPL. "Free" would mean gratis and the fact that you don't pay for a piece of software doesn't allow you to redistribute it. So it still ends up being copyright infringement.
I've relicensed everything under a libpng/zlib-style agreement, thus distancing myself from the extreme opinions of GPL's adherents.
Does that mean you'll stop using your "libpng/zlib-style agreement" if RMS starts using it. That point is simply non-sense.
The GPL is about power, not freedom; buy into the GPL myth, and you're just exchanging one master (Mr. Gates) for another (Mr. Stallman).
You can agree or disagree with RMS. However, there's a big difference here: On any piece of GPL'd code (unless is copyrighted by the FSF, but most is not) I have as much rights as RMS. I can't say that about Bill (what's my right on Windows? None).
At last, as many have pointed out. GPL means "I help you it you do the same to others" ie. "if you want my code, let others do the same with what you derive from my code". In most cases that's fair.
As for people saying GPL is bad for buisnesses, BSD is good. Well, it's not even always true. Just look at Qt. Troll Tech can make money with Qt even though it's GPL'd. If Qt were BSD, Troll couldn't sell any Qt license (there's also FFTW that's like that and probably others). What it comes down to is: GPL is better that BSR for companies that originally wrote the code, while BSD is better for companies that want to grab the code written by others. In most cases, I'd choose the first one.
We started an Open Source project (the Overflow project - see sig) about 2 years ago. I can say that our problem is mostly the opposite: how to get people to collaborate. We receive many e-mails asking for help on how to compile or things like that, but very few people have really helped or sent patches. Actually, most of the "external" help comes from the fact that the company I work for (The project existed long before I worked there) decided to use it in its product (it's OK, the project is LGPL).
So the question is: how do you get people involved? or even, how do you know how many people use your software. From the sourceforge stats, I know there have been ~15,000 downloads in the past 18 months. Of course, most of the times we only get e-mails when there's trouble so we have no idea how many people are using it? is it 50% of the downloads (well, surely not), or 10% 1%, 0,001%???
Israel wasn't who offered the partition, it was Britain before they pulled out.
I know, that's why (the thread started from that) I say that the europeans are mostly responsible for all the trouble in middle east (even before Israel, after WW I).
Israel has only invaded territories when they were attacked first, or about to be attacked in 1967.
For 1967, I think Syria looked for trouble. However, AFAIK (I may be wrong, though) just before they tried to invade Egypt without being attacked.
But, they have occupied land for far too long, and they've definitely built too many settlements.
That, I really agree with. Mostly with cities like Hebron where ~100 jews prevent ~100000 palestinians from living a normal life.
Israel was created in 1948. The Palestinians were NOT "kicked out." They were offered to partition the land with the Jews in 1947, but rejected it.
We canadians need a warmer place to live, so we're taking California and Florida from you. However, as an act of good will and generosity, we are offering partition the land with you. So we have a deal, right?
Of course they refused! Who wouldn't? Also, note that Israel is quite good about security issues. See, they invade territory after territory, but that's only for their protection (like the 6-day war against Syria). Maybe they should take all middle-east... I mean... why take a chance?
Interesting how a conflict which has been going on for thousands of years can be caused by countries which weren't even in existance until recently.
May I remind you that all middle east countries were created less than a hundred years ago when the europeans divided the Ottoman empire. And all (most) the trouble there is now comes from there. The only trouble before there was before that was the crusades (europeans again) and the fall of the Eastern Roman empire (Constantinople->Istambul). The the *recent* trouble was caused by first, the abitrary division of countries (~1920) and then the creation of Israel (1945-1950?) by kicking the palestinians out.
The problem is that there were people there before the Palestinians; the Hebrew.
They were there 2000 years ago, and then they scattered all around the world. They sure weren't kicked out by the palestinians and that's the difference with native americans. If you leave an area and don't return there for 2000 years, does that allow you to kick (and kill) everybody there when you return? (If that's the rule, there's going to be a lot of action soon!)
it's a discussion about why this barbarous group of people is allowed to continue?
I won't even debate here, that plain racism.
Remember "An eye for an eye...", that doesn't come from Islam
No, it comes from the Old Testament - there *is* a newer version. Most of you Arab apologists love quoting stuff from the Old Testament, while conveniently forgetting the "love your neighbour as yourself" New Testament. Nope, Islam is the religion that brought us the delightful concept of jihad.
First, may I remind you that this "old version" is still in use by judaism, while the "newer version" is used by islam....but that's besides the point. As for jihad, it is just the arabic translation of "crusade" and I am against both.
They don't want the Isreali out, they want them dead. I don't blame the Israeli's for defending themselves against that kind of religion-fueled hatred.
That's the problem with conflicts going on for too long. At first, they just wanted the Isreali out, but it slowly changed for the worse. It's sad, but unfortunatly human nature. Have you ever heard of Hebron? Population: 100200 100000 palestinians and 200 Israeli. There is a "curfew" that says that all 100000 palestinians have to stay inside during the day in order to protect the 200 Israeli that live there. Try going there for a couple years living like these palestinians do.
As for this "religion-fueled hatred", try ask an Israeli if he thinks the palestinians should all be killed.
So, you're saying that the crusades (about 800 years ago) are similiar to the Bin Laden situation today
No, the crusades were much worse. They made a lot more deads and lasted a lot longer. Actually, I would consider them more as genocide than terrorism. Of course that was long ago, and some lessons have been learned, some not. But that was a bit OT anyway.
who's responsible for bringing jewish people on the same land as muslims who were already there Evolution? The Egyptians in biblical times? How far back in history are you looking?
Only ~50 years. You seem to think that the countries have been as the are for hundreds of years. That's not the case. Before World War I, there was only the Ottoman Empire, which was defeated and the US, UK and France divided the territory as they pleased. Israel (as we know it) didn't exist yet. It was only after WWII that they "gave" the palestinial land (how kind!) to the jewish people and Israel was born. The only problem is that there were people there: the palestinians. They lost their land, they lost everything. Anyway, I suggest you have a look at the history of the region. Even if it doesn't make you change your mind, it is something very interesting and insightful.
Only excerpts (I have no interest in reading more) - the unbelievers are not people and are to be converted, by the 'sword' if necessary.
Sounds a lot like crusades. Every (major) religion has this sort of things. Remember "An eye for an eye...", that doesn't come from Islam. Many people are trying to paint Islam as a religion of fanatics. That's not the case; well, no more than any religion (See pro-life extremists killing doctors,...). The problem with the Israel-palestinian conflict is that the Israeli pushed the palestinians to a point where many feel they have nothing to lose. In those cases, expect the worse.
However, remember the crusade. It's long ago, but it shows that no religion can say it's better on these grounds? Agreed. But then again, the Christians haven't crashed into any towers or exploded car bombs in busy streets lately of which I am aware.
No, they killed thousands by the sword. What's worse it that those you "ordered" the crusades weren't "extremists", they were kings, and well respected people. That's much worse.
Now, after several years, more training, and several guns later, B turned around and shot A, as well as C. A is to blame only for starting B's training, not for **everything** that happened in the interval, as you apparently seem to think.
Have I ever said B is not to blame or that A should take all the responsability? No. However, if you act like A, you should be aware of the risks it implies in the long term. In the '80 (right?), if looked good to sponsor Afganistan guerilla against Rissia... but they didn't think longer term...
And I am not trying to say that arab countries are not sponsoring terrorism (sure many are, and it's a very sad thing). What I have a problem with is that many are pushing the idea that "arab=terrorism", to which I say "look at what YOU did in terms of terrorism".
You are looking at history through very something colored glasses. Get the right prescription, OK?
Why is it that I deserve an insult for everything you don't agree with? Have I unsulted you? Or do you feel threatened in your ideas?
Now, get a history book. Who is the most responsible for all the trouble in middle east? Religion.
Right. But who's responsible for bringing jewish people on the same land as muslims who were already there? europeans. Sure, there's always been some trouble there before, but they sure didn't help.
Look up what the current Moslem texts say about the unbelievers.
And what do they say? Have you ever read the Coran? I cannot comment since I have never read it and I'm not moslim. However, remember the crusade. It's long ago, but it shows that no religion can say it's better on these grounds?
What the US (A) did was give a gun to someone (B) and say "go kill this guy (C)". Now B turned around and shot A instead of C. Yes B (in this case the terrorists) is to blame, but so is A.
And as I said, I pretty sure the US sponsored more acts of terrorism (though different) than most arab countries. Just think about the number of dictators or rebel organizations the helped, in most cases by sending weapons. How many terrorism acts has the CIA only performed.
Now, get a history book. Who is the most responsible for all the trouble in middle east? The allies (US, UK, France). They are the ones who divided the land arbitrarly, without caring about the people there. They are the ones who established Israel by taking the land of the Palestinians. And now, suprise! There trouble in the area. Don't know where that came from...
I just grow disgusted by the constant "the US deserved this, the US made this man"
No, the US (nor anybody else) doesn't deserve this and I am against any kind of "political violence". However, at the same time, the US made this possible. In order for such a tragedy to occur, you need two things: a motive and the capacity.
First, the current US foreign politics maximizes the number of people and nations with the motive. While I don't agree at all with these acts, you have to remember that you can't piss of everybody in the world and expect never to get into trouble.
Second, the capacity. The americans (from the CIA and others) gave the capacity to Bin Laden. They helped Iraq (and Saddam) against Iran. They were involved (by sending weapons, training,...) in so many civil wars around the world that they gave (or at least help) terrorism capacity to many organizations. Of course, I'm talking about the US here, but many european nations (UK comes first) did that too.
This is not meant to *excuse* these unnecessary violent acts, but I think it *explans* them.
According to your logic, then, if an ex-military man uses his skills to mug and kill someone, the Army is to blame?
There's a big difference there. They did not give Bin Laden normal military training. They made him into a terrorist. He didn't change what he was doing, he kept doing the same thing except with a different target. Somehow, the US thinks that terrorism against Russia or other countries is OK, as long as it doesn't target US. The US has only itself to blame for that. Of course, I was assuming here that it is Bin Laden, which is not at all sure yet.
Any country that supports or harbors terrorists on any scale had better sit down and take a long, hard look at what they are doing today, they probably won't last the next decade if they continue. The people that did this must be exterminated including any who support them.
If (not the *if*) the actions came from Bin Laden, the U.S. has to realize that it is a "country that supports or harbors terrorists" in that it is the CIA that "made" Bin Laden, so he could fight the russians in Afganistan. The U.S. DOES support terrorism, as long as it is against other nations. Now that a U.S. sponsored terrorist turns against the U.S. suddently it becomes someone else's fault. Of course bombing Afganistan is much simpler that rethinking your (US agancies,...) own methods.
Sorry for the bad joke. At the time I posted it looked (well, to me) far less serious than that, something like "a cesna had a problem an crashed into WTC"....and my IQ at that time in the morning is not too high either...
This is not about the GPL being proven in court. Let's say version A is GPl and (later) version B is not. What doesn this mean? It means "I give you permission to use A with the GPL, but not B". The fact that B is GPL or not has no effect, you can still have A as GPL. By making B non-GPL, they are not removing anything, they are just not making more stuff GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
So I guess (part of) Nimba is legal then, since one of the (4-5?) ways it propagates is through malicious Javascript in web pages. Also, I guess it means I can write a program that wipes your hard drive, label is as a text editor and make it available for download. It's your responsability if you download it.
This is a client-side browser issue.
Arguing this is like arguing what Code Red/Nimba is just an IIS issue. Sure IIS should be more secure, but there's still a malicious intent. The same for this. Sure, the "don't close from JavaScript" feature shouldn't be on by default, but there's always going to be a hole somewhere in all browsers. This kind of behaviour should not be allowed.
Warning: under the DMCA it is illegal to reverse-engineer (or play with) your OREO cookies!
You end up licensing your dishwasher
Your hamburger comes with an EULA
and students won't notice it after a week or two
Do you *really* think advertisers pay for ads that aren't noticed? They know exactly what they're doing. Also, the problem is not that much this screensaver advertisement but it's where does it end. Hey, maybe they could start the courses with a 2 minute ad read by the professor. But why not make it 5 minutes? or 20?...
Why encryption research people should be the only ones to feel bad? What about people in the knife industry, in the airplane industry, ...
I'm pretty sure that even if the hijackers had used guns, americans would still have though that banning crypto is better than banning guns.
If you write a book on fishing, and after reading it I invent a new maneuver that allows the catching of a larger type of bass, I shouldn't be forced to tell you how I did it.
With the GPL, you could invent a new way of fishing without telling anybody (remember, only redistribution is restricted). Your example should read:
"I write a book on fishing and give it to you for free, and after reading it you invent a new maneuver that allows the catching of a larger type of bass. You are *not* allowed to create a new book by copy-pasting my text, add your technique and sell it without giving me the same rights I gave you."
I think that's reasonable. You are also (under the GPL) allowed to write a new book which is equivalent to mine (but without copying mine verbatim).
Last time I read the LGPL, there was a clause that said that you are free to relicense LGPL stuff as GPL. Explicitly saying it's both LGPL and GPL seems redundant, right? Or am I missing something?
From the LGPL text:
You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices.
Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.
How many non-americans are in favor of backdoors for US government? I don't think there'd be much support for that! From that point it just means: go get your software outside the US... Since the countries will never agree on "common backdoors" or things like that, forcing the US citizens to use encryption with backdoor would be totally useless.
Does that mean if I go to microsoft.com and download a free demo, I'm allow to redistribute it freely? I don't think so. The same with the GPL. "Free" would mean gratis and the fact that you don't pay for a piece of software doesn't allow you to redistribute it. So it still ends up being copyright infringement.
I've relicensed everything under a libpng/zlib-style agreement, thus distancing myself from the extreme opinions of GPL's adherents.
Does that mean you'll stop using your "libpng/zlib-style agreement" if RMS starts using it. That point is simply non-sense.
The GPL is about power, not freedom; buy into the GPL myth, and you're just exchanging one master (Mr. Gates) for another (Mr. Stallman).
You can agree or disagree with RMS. However, there's a big difference here: On any piece of GPL'd code (unless is copyrighted by the FSF, but most is not) I have as much rights as RMS. I can't say that about Bill (what's my right on Windows? None).
At last, as many have pointed out. GPL means "I help you it you do the same to others" ie. "if you want my code, let others do the same with what you derive from my code". In most cases that's fair.
As for people saying GPL is bad for buisnesses, BSD is good. Well, it's not even always true. Just look at Qt. Troll Tech can make money with Qt even though it's GPL'd. If Qt were BSD, Troll couldn't sell any Qt license (there's also FFTW that's like that and probably others). What it comes down to is: GPL is better that BSR for companies that originally wrote the code, while BSD is better for companies that want to grab the code written by others. In most cases, I'd choose the first one.
We started an Open Source project (the Overflow project - see sig) about 2 years ago. I can say that our problem is mostly the opposite: how to get people to collaborate. We receive many e-mails asking for help on how to compile or things like that, but very few people have really helped or sent patches. Actually, most of the "external" help comes from the fact that the company I work for (The project existed long before I worked there) decided to use it in its product (it's OK, the project is LGPL).
So the question is: how do you get people involved? or even, how do you know how many people use your software. From the sourceforge stats, I know there have been ~15,000 downloads in the past 18 months. Of course, most of the times we only get e-mails when there's trouble so we have no idea how many people are using it? is it 50% of the downloads (well, surely not), or 10% 1%, 0,001%???
Does anybody have experience on this?
Israel wasn't who offered the partition, it was Britain before they pulled out.
I know, that's why (the thread started from that) I say that the europeans are mostly responsible for all the trouble in middle east (even before Israel, after WW I).
Israel has only invaded territories when they were attacked first, or about to be attacked in 1967.
For 1967, I think Syria looked for trouble. However, AFAIK (I may be wrong, though) just before they tried to invade Egypt without being attacked.
But, they have occupied land for far too long, and they've definitely built too many settlements.
That, I really agree with. Mostly with cities like Hebron where ~100 jews prevent ~100000 palestinians from living a normal life.
Israel was created in 1948. The Palestinians were NOT "kicked out." They were offered to partition the land with the Jews in 1947, but rejected it.
We canadians need a warmer place to live, so we're taking California and Florida from you. However, as an act of good will and generosity, we are offering partition the land with you. So we have a deal, right?
Of course they refused! Who wouldn't? Also, note that Israel is quite good about security issues. See, they invade territory after territory, but that's only for their protection (like the 6-day war against Syria). Maybe they should take all middle-east... I mean... why take a chance?
Interesting how a conflict which has been going on for thousands of years can be caused by countries which weren't even in existance until recently.
May I remind you that all middle east countries were created less than a hundred years ago when the europeans divided the Ottoman empire. And all (most) the trouble there is now comes from there. The only trouble before there was before that was the crusades (europeans again) and the fall of the Eastern Roman empire (Constantinople->Istambul). The the *recent* trouble was caused by first, the abitrary division of countries (~1920) and then the creation of Israel (1945-1950?) by kicking the palestinians out.
Idiot.
Hey, thanks for showing your good manners!
The problem is that there were people there before the Palestinians; the Hebrew.
...but that's besides the point. As for jihad, it is just the arabic translation of "crusade" and I am against both.
They were there 2000 years ago, and then they scattered all around the world. They sure weren't kicked out by the palestinians and that's the difference with native americans. If you leave an area and don't return there for 2000 years, does that allow you to kick (and kill) everybody there when you return? (If that's the rule, there's going to be a lot of action soon!)
it's a discussion about why this barbarous group of people is allowed to continue?
I won't even debate here, that plain racism.
Remember "An eye for an eye...", that doesn't come from Islam
No, it comes from the Old Testament - there *is* a newer version. Most of you Arab apologists love quoting stuff from the Old Testament, while conveniently forgetting the "love your neighbour as yourself" New Testament. Nope, Islam is the religion that brought us the delightful concept of jihad.
First, may I remind you that this "old version" is still in use by judaism, while the "newer version" is used by islam.
They don't want the Isreali out, they want them dead. I don't blame the Israeli's for defending themselves against that kind of religion-fueled hatred.
That's the problem with conflicts going on for too long. At first, they just wanted the Isreali out, but it slowly changed for the worse. It's sad, but unfortunatly human nature. Have you ever heard of Hebron? Population: 100200 100000 palestinians and 200 Israeli. There is a "curfew" that says that all 100000 palestinians have to stay inside during the day in order to protect the 200 Israeli that live there. Try going there for a couple years living like these palestinians do.
As for this "religion-fueled hatred", try ask an Israeli if he thinks the palestinians should all be killed.
So, you're saying that the crusades (about 800 years ago) are similiar to the Bin Laden situation today
No, the crusades were much worse. They made a lot more deads and lasted a lot longer. Actually, I would consider them more as genocide than terrorism. Of course that was long ago, and some lessons have been learned, some not. But that was a bit OT anyway.
who's responsible for bringing jewish people on the same land as muslims who were already there Evolution? The Egyptians in biblical times? How far back in history are you looking?
...). The problem with the Israel-palestinian conflict is that the Israeli pushed the palestinians to a point where many feel they have nothing to lose. In those cases, expect the worse.
Only ~50 years. You seem to think that the countries have been as the are for hundreds of years. That's not the case. Before World War I, there was only the Ottoman Empire, which was defeated and the US, UK and France divided the territory as they pleased. Israel (as we know it) didn't exist yet. It was only after WWII that they "gave" the palestinial land (how kind!) to the jewish people and Israel was born. The only problem is that there were people there: the palestinians. They lost their land, they lost everything. Anyway, I suggest you have a look at the history of the region. Even if it doesn't make you change your mind, it is something very interesting and insightful.
Only excerpts (I have no interest in reading more) - the unbelievers are not people and are to be converted, by the 'sword' if necessary.
Sounds a lot like crusades. Every (major) religion has this sort of things. Remember "An eye for an eye...", that doesn't come from Islam. Many people are trying to paint Islam as a religion of fanatics. That's not the case; well, no more than any religion (See pro-life extremists killing doctors,
However, remember the crusade. It's long ago, but it shows that no religion can say it's better on these grounds? Agreed. But then again, the Christians haven't crashed into any towers or exploded car bombs in busy streets lately of which I am aware.
No, they killed thousands by the sword. What's worse it that those you "ordered" the crusades weren't "extremists", they were kings, and well respected people. That's much worse.
Now, after several years, more training, and several guns later, B turned around and shot A, as well as C. A is to blame only for starting B's training, not for **everything** that happened in the interval, as you apparently seem to think.
Have I ever said B is not to blame or that A should take all the responsability? No. However, if you act like A, you should be aware of the risks it implies in the long term. In the '80 (right?), if looked good to sponsor Afganistan guerilla against Rissia... but they didn't think longer term...
And I am not trying to say that arab countries are not sponsoring terrorism (sure many are, and it's a very sad thing). What I have a problem with is that many are pushing the idea that "arab=terrorism", to which I say "look at what YOU did in terms of terrorism".
You are looking at history through very something colored glasses. Get the right prescription, OK?
Why is it that I deserve an insult for everything you don't agree with? Have I unsulted you? Or do you feel threatened in your ideas?
Now, get a history book. Who is the most responsible for all the trouble in middle east? Religion.
Right. But who's responsible for bringing jewish people on the same land as muslims who were already there? europeans. Sure, there's always been some trouble there before, but they sure didn't help.
Look up what the current Moslem texts say about the unbelievers.
And what do they say? Have you ever read the Coran? I cannot comment since I have never read it and I'm not moslim. However, remember the crusade. It's long ago, but it shows that no religion can say it's better on these grounds?
What the US (A) did was give a gun to someone (B) and say "go kill this guy (C)". Now B turned around and shot A instead of C. Yes B (in this case the terrorists) is to blame, but so is A.
And as I said, I pretty sure the US sponsored more acts of terrorism (though different) than most arab countries. Just think about the number of dictators or rebel organizations the helped, in most cases by sending weapons. How many terrorism acts has the CIA only performed.
Now, get a history book. Who is the most responsible for all the trouble in middle east? The allies (US, UK, France). They are the ones who divided the land arbitrarly, without caring about the people there. They are the ones who established Israel by taking the land of the Palestinians. And now, suprise! There trouble in the area. Don't know where that came from...
I just grow disgusted by the constant "the US deserved this, the US made this man"
...) in so many civil wars around the world that they gave (or at least help) terrorism capacity to many organizations. Of course, I'm talking about the US here, but many european nations (UK comes first) did that too.
No, the US (nor anybody else) doesn't deserve this and I am against any kind of "political violence". However, at the same time, the US made this possible. In order for such a tragedy to occur, you need two things: a motive and the capacity.
First, the current US foreign politics maximizes the number of people and nations with the motive. While I don't agree at all with these acts, you have to remember that you can't piss of everybody in the world and expect never to get into trouble.
Second, the capacity. The americans (from the CIA and others) gave the capacity to Bin Laden. They helped Iraq (and Saddam) against Iran. They were involved (by sending weapons, training,
This is not meant to *excuse* these unnecessary violent acts, but I think it *explans* them.
According to your logic, then, if an ex-military man uses his skills to mug and kill someone, the Army is to blame?
There's a big difference there. They did not give Bin Laden normal military training. They made him into a terrorist. He didn't change what he was doing, he kept doing the same thing except with a different target. Somehow, the US thinks that terrorism against Russia or other countries is OK, as long as it doesn't target US. The US has only itself to blame for that. Of course, I was assuming here that it is Bin Laden, which is not at all sure yet.
Any country that supports or harbors terrorists on any scale had better sit down and take a long, hard look at what they are doing today, they probably won't last the next decade if they continue. The people that did this must be exterminated including any who support them.
...) own methods.
If (not the *if*) the actions came from Bin Laden, the U.S. has to realize that it is a "country that supports or harbors terrorists" in that it is the CIA that "made" Bin Laden, so he could fight the russians in Afganistan. The U.S. DOES support terrorism, as long as it is against other nations. Now that a U.S. sponsored terrorist turns against the U.S. suddently it becomes someone else's fault. Of course bombing Afganistan is much simpler that rethinking your (US agancies,
Sorry for the bad joke. At the time I posted it looked (well, to me) far less serious than that, something like "a cesna had a problem an crashed into WTC". ...and my IQ at that time in the morning is not too high either...
Were the planes running NT?
This is not about the GPL being proven in court. Let's say version A is GPl and (later) version B is not. What doesn this mean? It means "I give you permission to use A with the GPL, but not B". The fact that B is GPL or not has no effect, you can still have A as GPL. By making B non-GPL, they are not removing anything, they are just not making more stuff GPL.