Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Journal: China: Getting the Facts 4

A common theme that I've noticed in Slashdot stories about China is that no one seems to know China's actual laws about free speech, criticizing the government, or religion. Nearly everyone is surprised when I drag out the Chinese Constitution and show them the rights that the government supposedly guarantees.

While getting +5's for knowing this is a nice racket, I feel that it's far more important to catalog the information in one place so that others can learn and spread understanding of China's abuses.

Thus this weeks article is China: Getting the Facts.

If you find yourself in a discussion about China again, I hope you'll find it a useful resource to direct people to. If some of you feel that it's worthy of a front page Slashdot story, feel free to submit it. :-)

User Journal

Journal Journal: Come Dream With Me: Stirling Engines 6

As the price of gas surged past $3.00 a gallon, many consumers began to wake up to more efficient road vehicles such as hybrid cars. These cars reduce your overall costs by requiring less gas at the pump for the same range. Unfortunately, such savings are bound to be only a temporary fix. Oil prices have dropped back down for the moment, but they're still sitting at some of the highest prices in the history of the modern world. To avoid a transportation collapse (which would result in an economic collapse), we need to reduce our dependency on oil. And fast.

This week's article is part of a new series of articles I'm introducing called, "Come Dream With Me." This series is intended to showcase existing technologies that can be used to make our everyday lives better and our futures brighter. All we need to do is develop them.

The current episode is a two parter focused on Stirling Engines in both planes and cars. Let me know what you think. My hope is that everyone will learn a little something that will help them in the future. :-)

User Journal

Journal Journal: The Synergistic PC 2

Alrighty, then! Now that I've finally got home internet again (which means that I'll soon be replying to many of the emails that I have piled up in my box!) I've put out a new article! This time, you can actually *have* the future I described, today!

Read More!

Don't you love the title, BTW? Buzzwords are fun, whee! (Or maybe I've done just a little too much cold medication. You decide.)

User Journal

Journal Journal: As those of you on the notify list already know... 2

...the latest and greatest article is up and running! This week I decided to take some time and tackle the recent article by Sal Cangeloso, where he suggests that Linux needs more consolidation.

Sorry if I've been kind of slow in responding to your posts. I've been a little busy working on some cool stuff for the future. Not that I'm going to give anything away... ;-)

User Journal

Journal Journal: In other news... 4

...it seems that OSNews has picked up the followup series. It strikes me that the comments this time are much better thought out and even handed than the first story. Of course, some people are still repeating the same stupid mistakes. "I don't want 18 copies of a PNG loader in memory!"

*sigh*

User Journal

Journal Journal: Ok, so I wasn't early 3

Well, I did try to get this article out early, but it just didn't happen. So here we are on Thursday Night (as usual), and I've just published the second part of the Followup series. I highly recommend you read this one, because it covers a lot more detail about how the DBFS can be implemented and used. Feel free to submit the followup to any news source that will take it. I certainly don't mind the traffic. ;-)

Another new and interesting thing you'll find on my blog is a small white box located underneath the skyscraper ad on the left. If you type your email address in there, you can sign up to receive an automatic email every time I publish a new article. I'm running it through the Notify List service, so we'll see how it works out.

Enjoy!

User Journal

Journal Journal: Spread the word! 7

A follow up to last week's four part series is now online. Call all your friends, neighbors, relatives, blogging buddies, and Linus Torvalds to let them know! ;-)

Follow Up article.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Uh Oh 17

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've probably seen that my article is now on the front page of Slashdot. Unsurprisingly, the comments are of a much better quality than those on OSNews.

I have to say that it's a bit weird, though. It's like looking into the eye of a hurricane and hoping you won't get blown away. If I thought I had trouble keeping up with the comments before, there is absolutely no hope now.

Now if you'll excuse me, I myself am going to go hide under a rock until the storm blows over. Maybe after it's over, the aftermath will have hooked a few interested Linux developers. ;-)

User Journal

Journal Journal: Wow. Just wow. 6

I can't believe my recent blog article is getting so amazingly hammered. I've been trying to respond to criticisms and questions, but I'm quickly getting overwhelmed. So... I have no idea what I'm going to do about it other than keep plugging away. It's kind of fun to fan the flames. :-)

Even though Slashdot doesn't seem to want to pick up the story, I found out that OSNews picked it up. The people over there have been generally unkind, and have decided to ignore the intelligent points of my article and instead use their forums for an all out flamefest. The few actual criticisms seem mostly based on things I either didn't say, or a desire to plug their ears, ignore any points that are made, and hope it goes away. I have no idea why they do this. Are OSNews discussions always this... I don't know... useless?

Outside of OSNews, one of the things that I've noticed is that a lot of people seem to be skimming over the articles and losing the details. They then go on to criticize without double checking. A few examples:

- Is it a good idea to tie MySQL (or other major DB Engine) to the file system? How does that effect maintenance? (For the record, I used SQL tables as a metaphor. The DBFS should be a complete file system. Using something like Berkeley DB to store the data in a file on the DBFS is probably the easiest solution, but is hardly the same thing as bringing a large database online.)

- AppFolders aren't abstract enough. The user can still see inside the folder. (These people seem to miss the HUGE sections on wrapping the AppFolders into disk images.)

- Have you seen technology XYZ? It already does some of this. (Yes, I have seen it. That's why there's a link to it at the bottom of the article.) ;-)

Now I realize that the language could use some cleaning up in a few places (especially the last article which was a bit rushed), but is it possible that something else is impacting people's ability to read clearly? For example, does the blog color scheme cause anyone here problems? I've been considering changing it, but I'm none too happy with most of blogger.com's offerings. I may have to create a custom template. :-/

Welp, back to the grindstone. (With a little sleep in between.)

Announcements

Journal Journal: Back in the Writing Business 1

In case you've been hiding under a rock, I have recently decided to start blogging. Most of my previous articles have already been copied over, and I've been adding new articles on the order of about once per week.

The most recent episode is still a work in progress, but the first two parts have been released. So if you're curious and can't wait, here are the links:

The Linux Desktop Distribution of the Future Part 1
The Linux Desktop Distribution of the Future Part 2

I'd love to hear from you all what you think of the new blog. What types of articles would you like to see? Should I just keep chugging on as is? Would you like a mailing list to hear when new articles get posted? I'm interested in your opinion!

Censorship

Journal Journal: Any idea why the US media seems mum on this? 3

In a way, this reminds me of the Iraq prisoner abuse story, in that it seems to be getting coverage outside the US (especially the line " Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. " Which, coming in 2002, from a high level (albeit foreign) source, would be a rather big story, I would think.

Update: Well, a bit of noticeis being taken now.

From The London Times:

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...