Pangloss

Why wouldn't it be?

Maybe they would, and maybe they wouldn't. Perception is a funny thing. Why should we help you with your problems when you turn a blind eye to ours? Sounds like a chicken or egg problem to me. Wouldn't it make more sense for us to do something about IRA funding AND for you to join us in our fight against Al Qaida?

Constitutional amendments aren't normally bound to wartime. Was this one supposed to be just in times of war?

This lead the news tonight, at least on the broadcast I usually watch (ABC News). They had a forensic expert take a look at pictures and he couldn't find any inconsistencies between them (but that doesn't make it a match). It's interesting that this seems to have caught Washington completely off guard. The guy was mayor of Tehran for the last two years, and yet this is the first time this has come up. Apparently it came up because former hostages from that event saw his picture in the news. (Of course if it turns out that it's the same guy, I'm sure we'll hear conspiracy nuts claim that this was all engineered by the Bush White House.) (sigh)

If I remember correctly, a Korean woman was walking her dog along a subway platform and it took a dump on the platform. She was asked to clean it up but she (allegedly) ignored them and left the scene. Passers-by took her picture and posted it on the Internet, and it became kind of a national sensation. She was ostracized and nationally embarassed. There's a bit of info on it here: http://www.docuverse.com/blog/donpark/EntryViewPage.aspx?guid=e5e366f9-050f-4901-98d2-b4d26bedc3e1

When this issue comes up in the US, one of the points raised is that the 9/11 hijackers all had plenty of authentic identification papers. I'm actually in favor of increasing security for existing ID systems. Better tamper-resistance, more complex color coding, watermarking, and so forth, to make it harder to fake them. I don't harbor any illusions about its ability to stop terrorism, but I suppose I'm amendable to the idea that it might make it harder. Regarding cameras, I'm a long-time supporter of EFF and freedom of speech organizations, but I have to say that, having read David Brin's "A Transparent Society", I'm starting to come down in favor of the if-you-can't-beat-them approach. We need to get our heads out of the sand and start watching the watchers, because it doesn't seem likely that they're going to stop watching us. On the other hand.... Did you guys catch that bit running around the blogosphere about the girl in Korea whose dog pooped on the subway, and what happened to her when the citizenry decided to do something about it?

This story just keeps getting stranger and stranger. Today the White House said that it would look into allegations that Iran's new president was one of the people who took Americans hostage when they took over the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979. Here's a story about it from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4636955.stm A couple of interesting quotes: (Emphasis mine. That's really interesting.) Fascinating. Both sides seem to have some validity to their claims, and it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

For the record, I was opposed to Iraq, but I understand that you're "you" refers to Americans in general, not me in particular. I share your concerns. But I can't help but think that at least some of that kind of sentiment arises because of US involvement. Still, I don't mean to suggest that anyone here is guilty of such. I respect your opinion on it, and defend your decision to speak your mind. I have to take issue with you on something else, Sev. Europe is *very much* in the throes of "knee-jerk reactions to civil liberties", and they have nothing to do with Americans. ID cards in Britain are a major issue right now, are they not? And where can you go in London without being viewed on a camera? You guys are not immune to that kind of thing, and you clearly cannot blame those examples on Americans.

Fascinating PBS Frontline running this week about the use of private contractors in Iraq. Hallibutron's subsidiary alone supplies a whopping THIRTY BATTALIONS worth of support, at a cost of $12 billion so far. In total we have something like 150,000 contractors in country. Some of the more interesting problems explored include poor communications between the private contractors and the Army, and resentment amongst soldiers. The full (60-minute) episode can be viewed online here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/ One thing about this that struck me is that we may be looking at the future of warfare, in a sense. Nobody wants to join the military so that they can clean latrines in a war zone for minimum wage and a few college subsidies. It may be that in the future all support work will be contracted out. What I wondered is: Could this be a GOOD thing? Look at these advantages: 1) It's even more "voluntary". Many troops are from disadvantaged backgrounds and are there mainly for the long-term benefits. A private contractor, on the other hand, specifically signed up for the conflict, and can leave any time they want. They're most definitely doing what they WANT to do, right? 2) It puts our money where our mouth is. Troops are cheap. Contractors are not. In a sense, this approach more directly involves people in the process. "Want a free Iraq? It's gonna cost ya." If they can work out the current problems, what's not to like?

Ok, this country is supposed to be about free speech.

As an American, the thing that pisses me off most about the whole thing is the European attitude. They seem to think that terrorism is no big deal, and that the real enemy is American imperialism. That some unholy evil has been unleashed on the world and it is their job to 'cleanse' it. See how ridiculous that sounds when you turn it around? Be honest yourself. Terrorism is a serious threat, and if anybody should know that it's Europeans. Try selling that "terrorists are a lot less of a threat than communism ever was" line in Madrid. Or Northern Ireland. I'll send out a search party if you're not back in a couple of days. I totally agree with you that restricting civil liberties is a serious problem, and I actually sympathize with your point quite a bit (and I'm not trying to mock you here). I just think you go too far the other way is all.

The main point I wanted to make with this thread is that there *is* good news coming out of Iraq, it's just that it's often overshadowed by the bad news. I don't mean to suggest that the purchasing of home electronics in any way offsets the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. What I mean to suggest is that these people (a) care very much about their freedom, and therefore (b) are probably fighting very hard to keep it. In other words, it's not a "quagmire". It's a promising, developing situation. So long as we keep the pressure on, and keep moving in the right direction, things may actually work out. So far as I can tell, we're actually on the right track, grim though it may be.

I don't understand flag-burning bans. This country is all about free speech, and it just seems to run contrary to that principle.

Apparently they're taking another shot at Scrushy, by the way, focusing on some counts that were thrown out earlier, and trying him in federal district court in Atlanta which will produce a non-home-town jury.

Cool, thanks. I think I may have to check both of 'em out.

Yup, those are valid points, IMO.

ABC News's David Kerley reported tonight that electricity production in Iraq exceeds that of before the war! The reason for current blackouts is the vast purchasing of home electronics, like Internet-capable computers and satellite television receivers, items BANNED under Saddam's rule. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying everything's great in Iraq. But SURELY this is an *overwhelming* indication that naysayers on the far left are spinning things out of proportion when they talk about underdeveloped and unrecovered infrastructure. A print version of the story may be found here: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=890243&page=1

Just curious if anybody's working in this area. These are approaches to web applications that do not involve Java or .NET development environments. Instead the environment uses Javascript and XML exclusively. Google Maps is said to be a good example of this in action. The Wikipedia article on AJAX is pretty good (can be found here), and it talks about some of the recent criticism including the intensive development and testing requirements (which seems to run contrary to some of the claims). I've looked briefly at Ruby on Rails in the past and it looked like an interesting system, but I haven't done anything with it yet. Mostly these days I find myself playing around with ASP.NET apps, and the odd Java applet. But I feel like I might as well be wearing a disco suit for all the currentness of this approach. (Other programmers point and laugh when my bitstreams pass their routers.) ;-)

Right, that's basically it. Probably a useful clarification given the way the discussion played out. Thanks for chiming in.

Yeah, that's a shame. Well, you win some you lose some.

Right, that's why you need the little applet running in the background. It takes the Java code and turns it into a program. The advantage of this approach is that the same code works on any platform. Only the background piece changes. (Java programs can also be compiled into standalone applications, and then they don't need the background applet, but they lose their platform independence for that executable.) Java is, I believe, the property of Sun, but they develop it in an "open" way with their "community" approach.

Lufthansa has had wireless connections to passenger laptops available for years? Really? That's interesting, I did not know that.

Hehe, cute. Reminds me of the old geek version of strikeout text: "^H^H^H^H". (hehe)

Well that's one way of looking at it. Obviously Justice O'Conner would disagree with you, however, about the remifications of this case.

It's coming, not actually here yet (as I understand it). Several articles on the subject have been appearing recently. I wrote something about this for a class last term. I believe United just got approval from the FAA to install a system on its airplanes.