I did read the article. You obviously didn't read my post.
A quick "I don't know what that is" from each of them would have sufficed.
I didn't say that asking everyone available was a bad idea. I said that the herding didn't help. Obviously, they should try to figure it out what it is, which brings me back to my original point. They should have someone (hopefully more than one person) on staff that has been trained specifically for that purpose and has the expertise and equipment to be effective. I never insulted the screeners, which you seem to imply.
My only problem with the scenario was that they somehow thought that herding together to have a discussion would help. A quick "I don't know what that is" from each of them would have sufficed. A group of people who lack the expertise to figure out what something is won't be able to make the right judgment call as to whether or not to let it (and him) on the plane. Speculation doesn't keep us safe. I don't expect a screener to have that expertise. However, they should be able to call people who specialize in technology, weapons concealment, bombs, etc. It's more of an infrastructure issue to me. He probably would have missed his flight anyway, but at least there would be a process that makes sense.
Have you actually not been able to fit your bags anywhere? I've never had that happen. I did have to move over a single compartment once, but that was about it.
I would have to imagine that any company that operates on a large scale does that. Put it on the bench, test it for some common issues, and if it can't be easily repaired, take the whole unit apart and send each part out for batch testing. Others then make complete refurb units from the tested, working parts. In this case, they probably sent back a completely different refurb unit. Even in the picture where he shows the smudges, he circles a smudge where there was no signature before. They probably don't even care about the "ruined" chassis. If multiple component failure and major chassis damage aren't common, they're going to end-up with spare chassis. The signed chassis is probably on its way to a recycling facility or a dump.
Why hire more than one accountant/lawyer/secretary/etc for your company? Just hire one and let them handle it all, that way you avoid all of that nasty overhead.
Presumably, if you're running multiple VMs on the same box, the hardware is capable of handling the same load with only one instance of whatever OS with the same load. One person can't handle the same load as multiple, equally competent people so your analogy isn't a good one. A better analogy would be hiring four accountants for 10 hours per week instead of having one full-time accountant. One possible answer to the GP's question is fault segmentation. If a service in a VM fails in a horrible manner, the hardware and software is capable of preventing that failure from affecting all instances. In other words, you don't have to worry about your one accountant getting hit by a bus.
Wow, a Netscape faithful. I used Netscape from version 2 as well. Damn, did that crash a lot. Netscape 3 was a lot better. Does Netscape still include composer? > I haven't been using SeaMonkey (and haven't seen Netscape since version 7 since I've used FireFox only since 0.7) but based on my previous experience, it should provide a familiar experience.
To me, it's a simple and stupid design flaw that they will never fix because people are used to it. Being used to a bad design doesn't suddenly transform it; it's still a bad design.
It might be a bad design but it doesn't mean that everyone has a problem with it. I shift hand positions depending on which part of the controller I'm using. To use the analog sticks, I hold the controller with the tips of my fingers. That puts my thumbs in to the correct position to the use analog sticks without discomfort. I didn't have to learn to do that to work around a problem. I just did it the first time that I used the controller. I figured that that was why the sides were rounded.
What are those examples supposed to prove? Because Japanese and German people were once treated with suspicion, it must somehow mean that treating Muslims with suspicion is wrong? Or what? I don't get it. This is now, and what Muslims are doing or not doing has nothing to do with what some other people were doing or not doing many decades ago. There's no connection.
Japan and Germany were attacking other nations, thus the suspicion against people of Japanese and Germany descent. At least some Muslim nations are funding terrorists, thus the suspicion of Muslims. I don't know how you can dismiss the similarities. If you are in agreement with the interment during WWII, then at least have the balls to say so. Then at least you would have a consistent point of view. If you don't see a problem with what happened then, it's obvious that you wouldn't see a problem now.
I bet the number of Muslim friends you have is considerably lower than the number of Muslims who would gladly decapitate you.
How is that a rational argument? My friends vs. the number of extremists among 1.5 billion Muslims. Yeah, that's a fair comparison. You're more likely to killed by a non-Muslim in New York. Maybe you're statistically more likely to get killed by someone of a particular race or ethnicity. Let's fear them too! What point were you trying to make?
Are you really going to argue that Muslims pose no threat and that Islam is a Religion of Peace (tm) just because you have a couple of benign Muslim friends? Did it ever occur to you that maybe there's a world outside your small sphere of existence?
Am I going to argue that all Muslims pose no threat? No, of course not. I'm a New Yorker. I'm also not going to say that all Muslim nations pose no threat to other nations, because that's obviously not true. On the other hand, you argue that Islam is a Religion of Hate(tm). How small is your world that you think that all Muslims are evil and violent or actually believe that a majority of them are? If that were true, the U.S. would have been driven out of Afghanistan and Iraq a long time ago because the death toll would have been at least an order of magnitude higher than it is now.
Muslims always get a free pass. No matter how much they threaten, terrorize, kill and rampage, nobody says a word. If someone does say something, he's guilty of "hate mongering" or "racism." Muslims are never guilty of anything. Do you have a rational reason for ignoring what they do and attacking anyone who talks about it?
I'm not ignoring anything. You just make broad, sweeping rationalizations about 1.5 billion people, hence the hate mongering. Would it appease you to call it prejudice instead?
And **how** in the world can you be sure that the thousand of users using this versiuon kernel:
1) Know about the bug
2) Can change/recompile the kernel
3) Even know what a compiler is
4) Even care to fix it thinking about "I'm using Linuzz, I'm invencible"
That's the beauty of close Source. One Live Update service to fix them all. Not trolling. Just not everything is black and white. There are a LOT of shades of gray there in between.
The truth is that you can't. The thing is that you don't have that guarantee with closed source either. The difference is that open source gives a lot more options to those who can and even those who can't (by virtue that someone who can can supply a pre-compiled fix). Open source isn't perfect. It just has some serious advantages in this particular type of situation.
This isn't about "outsiders." The Japanese and Germans have developed a reputation for covert operations on behalf of their homelands while living in the United States (which is strictly their own fault). As a result, anyone who looks like they might be Asian (it's too hard to tell the difference) or German is subjected to extra scrutiny. It's just common sense.
I don't even know what this means.
Seriously? That was a reference to the internment of the Japanese and Germans (even American citizens of Japanese and German decent) in America during World World II.
The fact is that Jewish, Irish, German and Japanese people do not have the kind of reputations you're fantasizing about.
The examples are real ones taken from history. They're not theoretical. Oh, and I've had Muslim friends. They never even tried to kill me for being an infidel! They must've failed terrorism training camp or something. Your brand of hate mongering is eerily similar to the kinds of justifications that has been used throughout history in order to unjustly attack or oppress "undesirable" groups of people.
I really don't think you CAN be taught normal social interaction, its one of those things you pick up and incorporate way back in your youth while being originally socialized. What these books teach are to interaction, what "networking" is to genuine relationships, shallow, fictional, and purely pragmatic. It boils down to "how do I fool this person into thinking I'm someone I'm not".
I can see how "learning" to socialize might seem fake and sleezy but learned behavior isn't always manipulation. (I'm not going the debate the merits of books on behavior since I've never read any.) I've learned nuances of social interaction beyond simply having a conversation. I can read body language and project my own positive body language. That may sound manipulative, but to me, I am simply expressing myself as I am in a way that I didn't learn while I was a kid. If, for example, you would like to socialize with people but your natural body language is perceived to be stand-offish, learning how to correct that isn't manipulative. I'd be surprised if most adults didn't pick up a new behavior or two once in a while (positive or negative). They just don't think about it as much as I do. Even I don't have to think about behavior changes as much as I used to (although I still work to correct negative behaviors that I notice).
I actually had to start with learning to make eye contact. In high-school, I literally walked the halls while looking down at the floor. I spoke so little that some classmates were surprised that I could speak (or could speak English, as I'm Asian) when I actually spoke up in class. I've since learned to chit-chat and hold non-technical conversations of some length even with people I don't really know. Some basic things can be learned from a book but I agree that there's a lot of "normal" socialization skills that cannot be learned by reading. There's simply no comparison to real-world practice. To get better at socializing, you have to--gasp--socialize.
Can you hit Mute on the computer (yes) walk to the fridge during an online ad (yes, if I were The Flash) or fast-forward through a streaming ad (there's usually a way)?
The thing about ads mixed in with video is that so far, avoiding them usually isn't worth it (at least on the sites that I've seen). A 10-15 second commercial isn't long enough to raid the fridge. I've also seen some sites that don't let you pause during the commercial which means that you have to pause the video somewhere before or after the commercial if you want a longer break (which is stupid, since you're forced to watch the full length of the commercial anyway). I'm sure that they'll realize that short commercial breaks are too effective and we'll soon get back our regular bathroom break/fridge raid timed set of commercials.
Has anyone here ever intentionally clicked on a banner ad? A text ad? Any ad?
I will sometimes see an ad for which I think that the advertiser should pay a stupidity/greed tax. In those cases, I will click on them. (I've never clicked-through and actually bought anything). With Google, it's click-throughs so it still counts. It's how I help Google sponsor the Summer of Code and to help sustain my favorite web sites.
And yes, people that did not know my name but that had figured out where I came from have called me dutchman, and I had absolutely no problem with that, since after all, I'm dutch and male.
Unless you know of a derogatory form of "Dutchman", it's not the same. I have no problem with being called Japanese, Asian, American, or any of the "politically correct" combinations (like Asian-American). ("Japanman" would be irksome, but not offensive.) However, none of those have derogatory connotations in the U.S. that I'm aware of.
Before you go and label something derogatory you should demarcate the context, since what is derogatory and what is not varies quite a bit according to culture and location.
I agree that it's (mostly) about how it's intended, along with its context. In this case, the context was a statement made by an American who was educated in the U.S. and continues to live in the U.S. I can't say that he meant it to be derogatory (most likely he didn't) but it was still a poor choice of words, considering the source. I'm not up-in-arms about his particular use of the term. However saying that a term is inherently non-offensive (which isn't a statement made by you, but seemingly the position taken by the original poster to whom I originally responded) is just as wrong as saying that it's offensive in all usage (which certainly isn't my position).
I didn't ask about being called "a Dutchman". Has a stranger said "Dutchman" as if it were your name? In addition to that, you glossed over my other questions, including whether or not the term "Dutchman" has a history of derogatory usage. There's nothing derogatory about being from China, but being called "Chinaman" (especially when it's not "a Chinaman") is derogatory (at least in the U.S.). The origin of the word may have been benign, but that doesn't mean that the continued usage is. I'm sure that you can think of some words that started as benign but that even you'd agree are now racist terms. I don't find "Chinaman" to be offensive on the behalf of the Chinese, nor do I find the term particularly offensive if meant simply as a person from China (or Chinese descent). However, as I said, I'd be "Chinaman" to people many who actually use that term. It shows a level of ignorance, which is why I find it offensive. It's the tie-in with "chink", "gook", "slant", and a plethora of others that I have a problem with, but I guess that's OK because I just want to control the words you use.
"Chineseman" would be more akin to "Dutchman" or "Welshman". I think that part of the problem is the misappropriation of the term and the history of its use. I would be "a Chinaman" (or simply, "Chinaman" if referring to me directly) to many people who actually use that term, although I'm not Chinese. Have you called total strangers "Dutchman" or "Welshman"? Is there a history of usage of those terms that was derogatory? Have you ever used those terms to refer to all people of a certain skin color? Sure, there are worse terms, but I guess that most people who are saying that it's not racist at all haven't been alive long enough to have actually heard it used that way and have never been referred to as "Chinaman".
Really, I don't care to hear teachers cry about their suckie jobs, long hours and crap pay. I bust my ass more hours than any teacher ever will, but nobody calls me a "hero" or suggest that I should be revered in some way. I don't get a cushy pension at the end. I don't get to keep my job based on nothing more than the fact that I've been here for a long time.
You obviously have some serious bias against teachers. While I haven't seen any teachers here bitching about how hard they work (just non-teachers who've had relationships with teachers stating that most teachers do work harder than they're given credit for), apparently we get to hear your bitching about how hard you work. Boo hoo. Cry us a river. If you don't like your job, find a new one. I seriously doubt that you work more hours than my brother (a teacher). Perhaps in one job--it's possible. However when you include both jobs (he was working three at one point) plus the graduate level courses he's taking and raising a family, your hours would probably be a cut back for him. I've never once heard him complain about teaching or how hard he works in general. I don't think that I could ever work that hard for as long as he has (not only in sheer hours but in all efforts as well). I also doubt that he's the hardest working teacher on Earth so don't give us this crap that you put in more hours than any teacher ever will. Also, don't bring up child molesting like it's the favorite past time of all teachers or like it's a job perk. It just makes you look irrational.
They aren't perfect, though. I bought parts for a new computer for my daughter's Christmas present ("building it together is part of the gift":-), and after everything was signed and sealed, they delivered... a re-wrapped CPU. They asserted it was all they had left, so if I didn't want it at full price, we'd have to undo all of the paperwork, then go start over with the shopping.
Just curious--what paperwork would that be? Did you actually have a purchase order for those items (so they would need to void the invoice) or does it just mean that they would've had to accept the item back as a return and then sell it again to you at a discount (i.e. more work for them)?
The teachers table wouldn't have a one to many relationship with the phone numbers table. It would be a many to many relationship because a teacher can have more than one phone number and it's possible that one phone number is used by several teachers (by sharing an office or living together). A join on a many to many relationship would be extremely costly. The way to fix that is to introduce another table that links the two together. You overlooked the possibility of data duplication on both sides.
Strange, the Vonage site works fine for me. It has worked fine with the latest versions of FireFox since I became a customer about 3.5 years ago. I'm on Debian at home but I've accessed my Vonage account at work (Windows XP) too so it's not some platform difference. Maybe it's a problem with an extension, blocked cookie, or a bad Adblock filter.
One might argue that the insurgents are not terrorists and are thus not our enemy. A reasonable argument, save for one missing piece of logic. If the insurgents would wait we'd already be out of Iraq and they could be dealing with the local, underpowered government. Instead, they decide to take on the most powerful military in the world. Even on our bad days, that's not such a good idea.
I figured that the insurgents (the ones at the top of the chain, not the ones fighting and getting killed) are just putting on a good show. When the U.S. troops eventually leave (because the operational goal is not complete occupation), the leaders of the insurgents can claim that they drove the Americans out and can come out looking more powerful than they really are, which would ironically help to make them more powerful. Their position of power and the perceived weakness of the U.S. could then give them cause to overthrow the weak, U.S. installed government. If there are different strong insurgent groups that can't be unified, they can vie for power once the government collapses. I'm not a military strategist nor am I a politician, but it seems like a calculated plan of action to me. (Whether or not it's a good plan is an entirely different matter.)
Slashdot Mirror
My only problem with the scenario was that they somehow thought that herding together to have a discussion would help. A quick "I don't know what that is" from each of them would have sufficed. A group of people who lack the expertise to figure out what something is won't be able to make the right judgment call as to whether or not to let it (and him) on the plane. Speculation doesn't keep us safe. I don't expect a screener to have that expertise. However, they should be able to call people who specialize in technology, weapons concealment, bombs, etc. It's more of an infrastructure issue to me. He probably would have missed his flight anyway, but at least there would be a process that makes sense.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/03/04
Have you actually not been able to fit your bags anywhere? I've never had that happen. I did have to move over a single compartment once, but that was about it.
I would have to imagine that any company that operates on a large scale does that. Put it on the bench, test it for some common issues, and if it can't be easily repaired, take the whole unit apart and send each part out for batch testing. Others then make complete refurb units from the tested, working parts. In this case, they probably sent back a completely different refurb unit. Even in the picture where he shows the smudges, he circles a smudge where there was no signature before. They probably don't even care about the "ruined" chassis. If multiple component failure and major chassis damage aren't common, they're going to end-up with spare chassis. The signed chassis is probably on its way to a recycling facility or a dump.
Wow, a Netscape faithful. I used Netscape from version 2 as well. Damn, did that crash a lot. Netscape 3 was a lot better. Does Netscape still include composer? > I haven't been using SeaMonkey (and haven't seen Netscape since version 7 since I've used FireFox only since 0.7) but based on my previous experience, it should provide a familiar experience.
To me, it's a simple and stupid design flaw that they will never fix because people are used to it. Being used to a bad design doesn't suddenly transform it; it's still a bad design.
It might be a bad design but it doesn't mean that everyone has a problem with it. I shift hand positions depending on which part of the controller I'm using. To use the analog sticks, I hold the controller with the tips of my fingers. That puts my thumbs in to the correct position to the use analog sticks without discomfort. I didn't have to learn to do that to work around a problem. I just did it the first time that I used the controller. I figured that that was why the sides were rounded.
The truth is that you can't. The thing is that you don't have that guarantee with closed source either. The difference is that open source gives a lot more options to those who can and even those who can't (by virtue that someone who can can supply a pre-compiled fix). Open source isn't perfect. It just has some serious advantages in this particular type of situation.
The article introduction reads like a lolcats quote.
I can has free energy?
I really don't think you CAN be taught normal social interaction, its one of those things you pick up and incorporate way back in your youth while being originally socialized. What these books teach are to interaction, what "networking" is to genuine relationships, shallow, fictional, and purely pragmatic. It boils down to "how do I fool this person into thinking I'm someone I'm not".
I can see how "learning" to socialize might seem fake and sleezy but learned behavior isn't always manipulation. (I'm not going the debate the merits of books on behavior since I've never read any.) I've learned nuances of social interaction beyond simply having a conversation. I can read body language and project my own positive body language. That may sound manipulative, but to me, I am simply expressing myself as I am in a way that I didn't learn while I was a kid. If, for example, you would like to socialize with people but your natural body language is perceived to be stand-offish, learning how to correct that isn't manipulative. I'd be surprised if most adults didn't pick up a new behavior or two once in a while (positive or negative). They just don't think about it as much as I do. Even I don't have to think about behavior changes as much as I used to (although I still work to correct negative behaviors that I notice).
I actually had to start with learning to make eye contact. In high-school, I literally walked the halls while looking down at the floor. I spoke so little that some classmates were surprised that I could speak (or could speak English, as I'm Asian) when I actually spoke up in class. I've since learned to chit-chat and hold non-technical conversations of some length even with people I don't really know. Some basic things can be learned from a book but I agree that there's a lot of "normal" socialization skills that cannot be learned by reading. There's simply no comparison to real-world practice. To get better at socializing, you have to--gasp--socialize.
Can you hit Mute on the computer (yes) walk to the fridge during an online ad (yes, if I were The Flash) or fast-forward through a streaming ad (there's usually a way)?
The thing about ads mixed in with video is that so far, avoiding them usually isn't worth it (at least on the sites that I've seen). A 10-15 second commercial isn't long enough to raid the fridge. I've also seen some sites that don't let you pause during the commercial which means that you have to pause the video somewhere before or after the commercial if you want a longer break (which is stupid, since you're forced to watch the full length of the commercial anyway). I'm sure that they'll realize that short commercial breaks are too effective and we'll soon get back our regular bathroom break/fridge raid timed set of commercials.
Has anyone here ever intentionally clicked on a banner ad? A text ad? Any ad?
I will sometimes see an ad for which I think that the advertiser should pay a stupidity/greed tax. In those cases, I will click on them. (I've never clicked-through and actually bought anything). With Google, it's click-throughs so it still counts. It's how I help Google sponsor the Summer of Code and to help sustain my favorite web sites.
And yes, people that did not know my name but that had figured out where I came from have called me dutchman, and I had absolutely no problem with that, since after all, I'm dutch and male.
Unless you know of a derogatory form of "Dutchman", it's not the same. I have no problem with being called Japanese, Asian, American, or any of the "politically correct" combinations (like Asian-American). ("Japanman" would be irksome, but not offensive.) However, none of those have derogatory connotations in the U.S. that I'm aware of.
Before you go and label something derogatory you should demarcate the context, since what is derogatory and what is not varies quite a bit according to culture and location.
I agree that it's (mostly) about how it's intended, along with its context. In this case, the context was a statement made by an American who was educated in the U.S. and continues to live in the U.S. I can't say that he meant it to be derogatory (most likely he didn't) but it was still a poor choice of words, considering the source. I'm not up-in-arms about his particular use of the term. However saying that a term is inherently non-offensive (which isn't a statement made by you, but seemingly the position taken by the original poster to whom I originally responded) is just as wrong as saying that it's offensive in all usage (which certainly isn't my position).
I've been called a dutchman plenty of times
I didn't ask about being called "a Dutchman". Has a stranger said "Dutchman" as if it were your name? In addition to that, you glossed over my other questions, including whether or not the term "Dutchman" has a history of derogatory usage. There's nothing derogatory about being from China, but being called "Chinaman" (especially when it's not "a Chinaman") is derogatory (at least in the U.S.). The origin of the word may have been benign, but that doesn't mean that the continued usage is. I'm sure that you can think of some words that started as benign but that even you'd agree are now racist terms. I don't find "Chinaman" to be offensive on the behalf of the Chinese, nor do I find the term particularly offensive if meant simply as a person from China (or Chinese descent). However, as I said, I'd be "Chinaman" to people many who actually use that term. It shows a level of ignorance, which is why I find it offensive. It's the tie-in with "chink", "gook", "slant", and a plethora of others that I have a problem with, but I guess that's OK because I just want to control the words you use.
"Chineseman" would be more akin to "Dutchman" or "Welshman". I think that part of the problem is the misappropriation of the term and the history of its use. I would be "a Chinaman" (or simply, "Chinaman" if referring to me directly) to many people who actually use that term, although I'm not Chinese. Have you called total strangers "Dutchman" or "Welshman"? Is there a history of usage of those terms that was derogatory? Have you ever used those terms to refer to all people of a certain skin color? Sure, there are worse terms, but I guess that most people who are saying that it's not racist at all haven't been alive long enough to have actually heard it used that way and have never been referred to as "Chinaman".
Really, I don't care to hear teachers cry about their suckie jobs, long hours and crap pay. I bust my ass more hours than any teacher ever will, but nobody calls me a "hero" or suggest that I should be revered in some way. I don't get a cushy pension at the end. I don't get to keep my job based on nothing more than the fact that I've been here for a long time.
You obviously have some serious bias against teachers. While I haven't seen any teachers here bitching about how hard they work (just non-teachers who've had relationships with teachers stating that most teachers do work harder than they're given credit for), apparently we get to hear your bitching about how hard you work. Boo hoo. Cry us a river. If you don't like your job, find a new one. I seriously doubt that you work more hours than my brother (a teacher). Perhaps in one job--it's possible. However when you include both jobs (he was working three at one point) plus the graduate level courses he's taking and raising a family, your hours would probably be a cut back for him. I've never once heard him complain about teaching or how hard he works in general. I don't think that I could ever work that hard for as long as he has (not only in sheer hours but in all efforts as well). I also doubt that he's the hardest working teacher on Earth so don't give us this crap that you put in more hours than any teacher ever will. Also, don't bring up child molesting like it's the favorite past time of all teachers or like it's a job perk. It just makes you look irrational.
They aren't perfect, though. I bought parts for a new computer for my daughter's Christmas present ("building it together is part of the gift" :-), and after everything was signed and sealed, they delivered... a re-wrapped CPU. They asserted it was all they had left, so if I didn't want it at full price, we'd have to undo all of the paperwork, then go start over with the shopping.
Just curious--what paperwork would that be? Did you actually have a purchase order for those items (so they would need to void the invoice) or does it just mean that they would've had to accept the item back as a return and then sell it again to you at a discount (i.e. more work for them)?
The teachers table wouldn't have a one to many relationship with the phone numbers table. It would be a many to many relationship because a teacher can have more than one phone number and it's possible that one phone number is used by several teachers (by sharing an office or living together). A join on a many to many relationship would be extremely costly. The way to fix that is to introduce another table that links the two together. You overlooked the possibility of data duplication on both sides.
This might be because I'm slightly colorblind, but the colors on the ACAP page make my eyes bleed.
[visits link] Hey, have you ever heard of induced colorblindness?
Strange, the Vonage site works fine for me. It has worked fine with the latest versions of FireFox since I became a customer about 3.5 years ago. I'm on Debian at home but I've accessed my Vonage account at work (Windows XP) too so it's not some platform difference. Maybe it's a problem with an extension, blocked cookie, or a bad Adblock filter.
One might argue that the insurgents are not terrorists and are thus not our enemy. A reasonable argument, save for one missing piece of logic. If the insurgents would wait we'd already be out of Iraq and they could be dealing with the local, underpowered government. Instead, they decide to take on the most powerful military in the world. Even on our bad days, that's not such a good idea.
I figured that the insurgents (the ones at the top of the chain, not the ones fighting and getting killed) are just putting on a good show. When the U.S. troops eventually leave (because the operational goal is not complete occupation), the leaders of the insurgents can claim that they drove the Americans out and can come out looking more powerful than they really are, which would ironically help to make them more powerful. Their position of power and the perceived weakness of the U.S. could then give them cause to overthrow the weak, U.S. installed government. If there are different strong insurgent groups that can't be unified, they can vie for power once the government collapses. I'm not a military strategist nor am I a politician, but it seems like a calculated plan of action to me. (Whether or not it's a good plan is an entirely different matter.)
I wonder if those run linux. If not, how long before they become a botnet?
Botnet by land, fish net by sea.