| Wednesday,
March 15, 2006
The Ides of March
RFID Viruses and Worms.
http://www.rfidvirus.org/
http://www.rfidvirus.org/papers/percom.06.pdf
- Roland Dobbins
One more thing to worry about, but it can't be
ignored.
==========
Subject: Bullet trains
I've ridden Amtrak out to California and back, largely
because it's about as cheap as airline tickets and the station is marginally
closer to where I live than any airport that has decent prices (Des Moines
International is notoriously expensive to fly from---it's a long story).
I've never known it to be other than punctual; about the only complaints I
have are that the food on board is expensive and I have to muscle my own
luggage on and off the train. I also get the chance to see countryside I
couldn't from an airplane or a car.
That said, I think that passenger trains are never
going to be a big thing again, and bullet trains are Absolutely Right Out,
for one simple reason---liability. In this day and age, anything that goes
wrong can get someone with deep pockets sued---this sort of nonsense did a
lot to all but destroy the manufacturers of small private planes, or so I am
told---and after _one_ real good accident on a passenger train, the lawsuits
would be flying, fast and furious.
The railroads mostly don't want to hassle with
passengers, either, because (as Arthur C. Clarke pointed out somewhere)
freight, unlike passengers, doesn't mind being shunted off to a siding for
four hours, nor does freight demand that its feet be warm and its martinis
chilled.
Eric Oppen
==============
Who Speaks for the
Army=
Subject: Staying in Iraq
In your recent essay, you speak of the Army (or the
military) as of one mind on the issue of staying to win. I've gotten the
impression, however, that there is somewhat of a divide between the regular
army and the part-time army (National Guard, Reserves) in terms of support
for the war. I've seen polls showing that the part-timers tend to be less
supportive of staying the course. If true, how would this factor into your
argument that we need to stay because the Army believes it can win?
The other issue is that the Army is not static in it's
makeup, particularly at the level of the infantryman. I know that a number
of units have had several rotations through the theater. But I expect you
still have some people being discharged, and new recruits coming in. Those
new recruits haven't yet seen the blood of comrades being invested. That
they are signing up during a time of war indicates that they are strongly
supportive of the effort, but they still don't have the same level of
investment as those who have seen combat. Because of those new recruits, you
still must face the question of asking idealistic men to put themselves at
risk, not for a necessary result so much as to justify what has already been
lost. In investing circles, this is called putting good money after bad, and
it can be a very costly mistake.
It is a common among Americans to value winning very
highly, to want to win for the sake of winning, despite the merits of the
contest. Maybe that is OK in business, or investing, or sports. But in war,
trying to win just for the sake of winning becomes harder to justify.
In the case of Iraq, there are good reasons to
question whether or not winning is realistic, particularly if you define
winning as the establishment of a Western style secular democracy. That
outcome basically requires that large numbers of Iraqis make the decision
that their identity as Iraqis is more important to them than their
identities as Shias, Sunnis or Kurds. They must decide that there are times
when they will not heed the call of Islam, but give heed first to the
constitution. And they must be committed enough to those decisions to risk
their own lives to defend those choices. Much of that is well outside the
control of the Army.
CP, Hartford, Connecticut
==
Jerry:
Can’t say that I disagree with much of what you said
in your mini essay. There was some pretty good food for thought. I did have
a bit of a problem with staying in Iraq, though. Specifically, you state
“And so long as the Army believes that, we the people have an obligation to
those we sent in harm's way to let them try.”
My question is who decides who speaks for the Army? Is
it the Generals? Or are they (paraphrasing from Carter) “Shutting up and
soldiering”? Wasn’t there a survey recently of the grunts on the ground that
indicated they wanted out? What relevance does that have?
Perhaps we are damaging the country more by making it
harder for the National Guard and Reserves to recruit, thus, not being able
to actually “guard the nation” like they are supposed to do. How many have
to die before it becomes not worth it?
Different subject:
Although I didn’t read the article in Byte regarding
the fingerprint reader on Thinkpads, I have one and experienced it. I have
been working in China and after walking to work in the cold dry weather, I
have trouble logging on. Breathing on the fingertips works. I think (no
proof) that it is related to moisture and temperature of my hands. Cold and
dry (at least colder and drier than when you originally set the machine up)
seem to cause problems. I’ve never been totally locked out of the machine
though. But it does makes me think I should write the CTL-ALT-DEL password
down someplace I can find it.
Finally, an interesting essay:
http://www.howardafrench.com:
“Letter from China: A countryside jaunt to the reality of China
<http://www.howardwfrench.com/archives/2006/03/09/l
etter_from_china_a_countryside_jaunt_to_the_reality_of_china/> ”
Since this is where I’m currently working, I can
attest to its truth.
Thanks for the always interesting thoughts.
Regards, Craig
The question of who speaks for the Army is
important, and goes to the heart of the question of the structure of
military power. If we are to continue imperial adventures, we will need
imperial forces; which means lessening the dependence of the expeditionary
forces on the National Guard and home contingent.
If we would abolish FEMA, and restructure
Civil Defense properly, we could do this, with the National Guard divided
into a ready reserve (volunteer) that expects deployment and the Guard/Civil
Defense forces which don't.
There are many prices to empire. This
would be one of them. It is never cheap. The whole notion of self government
is that it is small, relatively efficient, and cheap. If we expect large
benefits from government we must also expect it to be costly and inefficient
and corrupt.
=========
Subject: Destroying America
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
I read the excerpt from Dick Lamm's speech with
growing horror. Items one through six adequately describe Canada, my home
and native land. We are rapidly approaching item 7, and since the book
mentioned is about America and not Canada, we won't get to item 8. Canada's
lack of patriotism, and by that I mean real, unadulterated "I'd kill for my
country" patriotism, worries me.
Last year I attended a trade show in Las Vegas. I, and
my Canadian co-workers, visited the Fremont Street Experience (which IMHO is
the best part of Vegas!). There we watched one of the many roof top movies
that play every so often, and are always followed up by an intense
bombardment of American patriotism. The mostly American crowd cheered and
clapped as expected, my co-workers exclaimed that they would never be so
patriotic as to cheer our flag, and I cringed. I cringed because I so wanted
to clap and cheer, but it's not "my" flag. I cringed because my co-workers
couldn't feel patriotic about their own country.
Why oh why, can't Canadians understand what it means
to be proud about one's country? We have done many things to be proud of,
though sadly not too many in recent years. Is that it? Have I answered my
own question? Is it truly because we have become so ruled by the bureaucrats
that we can no longer think for ourselves, no longer feel pride in our
country's actions because we are isolated from those actions? Because our
actions have become washed out, politically correct, and totally empty of
feeling mouthings of nothingness?
Anyway I would like this letter to stand as a warning
to your fellow Americans. Pay close attention to Canada people, watch our
news, be aware of what is going on socially and politically in your close
neighbor, because if you don't pay attention you'll end up just like us. And
that is not a happy thing!
Stay strong & don't waver!
Bill Grigg Kelowna BC Canada
=
Jerry
I always liked that speech by Richard Lamm, but I
doubted it was legit. So, when it showed up on your site, I "Snoped" it out.
I was shocked! Not only did Lamm make the speech, but
he provided a revised version to Snopes.com:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
Some things truly are a wonder.
Ed
I am mildly astonished, not that the quote
is real, but that Snopes with its agenda would take the trouble to say so.
=
World War IV
Jerry,
I've been pondering your essay from yesterday, and
have discovered that I'm not among the intellectual elite who know the
answer, but here's a few thoughts.
The war on terror is a politically correct way of
referring to the war on militant Islam. One of our local radio hosts, Mike
Rosen, refers to this as World War IV (the cold war being III). Perhaps
calling it the 6th crusade (I believe that's the current count) would be the
most honest of all.
The first challenge is that our opponent has largely
abandoned the concept of nation-states, and formed an amorphous meta-nation.
Citizens of this meta-nation owe their allegiance not to the nation in which
they reside, but to a particular religious belief. They are uniting behind
this single belief, while we are adopting multiculturalism and excusing
Muslim hatred (witness the press response to the Danish cartoon incident).
This appeasement is no different than what Neville
Chamberlain did with Hitler, and now, as then, Europe is deep in denial. We
are repeating history, and now as before, America and her few allies
(Britain and Australia) will stand alone.
So in response to your essay: Spreading democracy is
our current strategy to battle the meta-nation and win the war. Iraq and
Afghanistan are the latest battlefields that strategy has lead us to fight
upon. We can argue that strategy, and the logistics, tactics, and choice of
battlefields; we can debate how the war is being fought, but we cannot argue
if the war should be fought. War is upon us, and it is as imperative to
fight - and win - this war against militant Islam as it was to battle Hitler
and Communism.
One thing is certain though: The most important
battlefield is here at home, fighting against those 8 points Dick Lamm
described. We cannot even have an open discussion of the true nature of the
war - a war of ideas and beliefs. We reap what we have sown.
Regards,
Doug
===========
This next is very long, but I wouldn't put
it up if I didn't think it worth your time. It is relevant to the above.
Subject: Fwd: Article about muslims taking over
Britain deleted from Telegraph Web Site
Thank God for Google's caching. Yes indeed:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/error_page.html
Sorry, the page you have requested is not available
Please try again later
This error message may occur for a number of reasons:
We are unable to locate any more files relating to this subject
The file may have been moved or deleted because it is
out of date
You may have followed a link from another web site
that contains an incorrect or out of date URL (web page address)
You may have typed an incorrect URL into your browser
There may be an error on the telegraph.co.uk site.
The TELEGRAPH has disavowed this previously-posted
content.
'The day is coming when British Muslims form a
state within a state' By Alasdair Palmer (Filed: 19/02/2006)
For the past two weeks, Patrick Sookhdeo has
been canvassing the opinions of Muslim clerics in Britain on the row over
the cartoons featuring images of Mohammed that were first published in
Denmark and then reprinted in several other European countries.
"They think they have won the debate," he says
with a sigh. "They believe that the British Government has capitulated to
them, because it feared the consequences if it did not.
====================================================
IMAGE:
Dr Patrick Sookhdeo
====================================================
"The cartoons, you see, have not been published
in this country, and the Government has been very critical of those
countries in which they were published. To many of the Islamic clerics,
that's a clear victory.
"It's confirmation of what they believe to be a
familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call
'adverse consequences' - violence to the rest of us - then the British
Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent."
Dr Sookhdeo adds that he believes that "in a
decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim
clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia
law.
"It is already starting to happen - and unless
the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the
Islamic community, it will continue."
For someone with such strong and uncompromising
views, Dr Sookhdeo is a surprisingly gentle and easy-going man. He speaks
with authority on Islam, as it was his first faith: he was brought up as a
Muslim in Guyana, the only English colony in South America, and attended a
madrassa there.
"But Islamic instruction was very different in
the 1950s, when I was at school," he says. "There was no talk of suicide
bombing or indeed of violence of any kind. Islam was very peaceful."
Dr Sookhdeo's family emigrated to England when
he was 10. In his early twenties, when he was at university, he converted to
Christianity. "I had simply seen it as the white man's religion, the
religion of the colonialists and the oppressors - in a very similar way, in
fact, to the way that many Muslims see Christianity today.
" Leaving Islam was not easy. According to the
literal interpretation of the Koran, the punishment for apostasy is death -
and it actually is punished by death in some Middle Eastern states. "It
wasn't quite like that here," he says, "although it was traumatic in some
ways."
Dr Sookhdeo continued to study Islam, doing a
PhD at London University on the religion. He is currently director of the
Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity. He also advises the Army
on security issues related to Islam.
Several years ago, Dr Sookhdeo insisted that
the next wave of radical Islam in Britain would involve suicide bombings in
this country. His prediction was depressingly confirmed on 7/7 last year.
So his claim that, in the next decade, the
Muslim community in Britain will not be integrated into mainstream British
society, but will isolate itself to a much greater extent, carries weight
behind it. Dr Sookhdeo has proved his prescience.
"The Government, and Tony Blair, the Prime
Minister, are fundamentally deluded about the nature of Islam," he insists.
"Tony Blair unintentionally revealed his ignorance when he said, in an
effort to conciliate Muslims, that he had 'read through the Koran twice' and
that he kept it by his bedside.
"He thought he was saying something which
showed how seriously he took Islam. But most Muslims thought it was a joke,
if not an insult. Because, of course, every Muslim knows that you cannot
read the Koran through from cover to cover and understand it.
The chapters are not written to be read in that
way. Indeed, after the first chapter, the chapters of the Koran are ordered
according to their length, not according to their content or chronology: the
longest chapters are first, the shorter ones are at the end.
"You need to know which passage was revealed at
what period and in what time in order to be able to understand it - you
cannot simply read it from beginning to end and expect to learn anything at
all.
"That is one reason why it takes so long to be
able to read and understand the Koran: the meaning of any part of it depends
on a knowledge of its context - a context that is not in the Koran itself."
The Prime Minister's ignorance of Islam, Dr
Sookhdeo contends, is of a piece with his unsuccessful attempts to
conciliate it. And it does indeed seem as if the Government's policy towards
radical Islam is based on the hope that if it makes concessions to its
leaders, they will reciprocate and relations between fundamentalist Muslims
and Tony Blair's Government will then turn into something resembling an
ecumenical prayer meeting.
Dr Sookhdeo nods in vigorous agreement with
that. "Yes - and it is a very big mistake. Look at what happened in the
1990s. The security services knew about Abu Hamza and the preachers like
him. They knew that London was becoming the centre for Islamic terrorists.
The police knew. The Government knew. Yet nothing was done.
"The whole approach towards Muslim militants
was based on appeasement. 7/7 proved that that approach does not work - yet
it is still being followed. For example, there is a book, The Noble Koran: a
New Rendering of its Meaning in English, which is openly available in Muslim
bookshops.
"It calls for the killing of Jews and
Christians, and it sets out a strategy for killing the infidels and for
warfare against them. The Government has done nothing whatever to interfere
with the sale of that book.
"Why not? Government ministers have promised to
punish religious hatred, to criminalise the glorification of terrorism, yet
they do nothing about this book, which blatantly does both."
Perhaps the explanation is just that they do
not take it seriously. "I fear that is exactly the problem," says Dr
Sookhdeo. "The trouble is that Tony Blair and other ministers see Islam
through the prism of their own secular outlook.
They simply do not realise how seriously
Muslims take their religion. Islamic clerics regard themselves as locked in
mortal combat with secularism.
"For example, one of the fundamental notions of
a secular society is the moral importance of freedom, of individual choice.
But in Islam, choice is not allowable: there cannot be free choice about
whether to choose or reject any of the fundamental aspects of the religion,
because they are all divinely ordained. God has laid down the law, and man
must obey.
'Islamic clerics do not believe in a society in
which Islam is one religion among others in a society ruled by basically
non-religious laws. They believe it must be the dominant religion - and it
is their aim to achieve this.
"That is why they do not believe in
integration. In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy
for the future - and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence.
That is to say, do not integrate.
"Rather, concentrate Muslim presence in a
particular area until you are a majority in that area, so that the
institutions of the local community come to reflect Islamic structures. The
education system will be Islamic, the shops will serve only halal food,
there will be no advertisements showing naked or semi-naked women, and so
on."
That plan, says Dr Sookhdeo, is being followed
in Britain. "That is why you are seeing areas which are now almost totally
Muslim. The next step will be pushing the Government to recognise sharia law
for Muslim communities - which will be backed up by the claim that it is
"racist" or "Islamophobic" or "violating the rights of Muslims" to deny them
sharia law.
"There's already a Sharia Law Council for the
UK. The Government has already started making concessions: it has changed
the law so that there are sharia-compliant mortgages and sharia pensions.
"Some Muslims are now pressing to be allowed
four wives: they say it is part of their religion. They claim that not being
allowed four wives is a denial of their religious liberty. There are Muslim
men in Britain who marry and divorce three women, then marry a fourth time -
and stay married, in sharia law, to all four.
"The more fundamentalist clerics think that it
is only a matter of time before they will persuade the Government to concede
on the issue of sharia law. Given the Government's record of capitulating,
you can see why they believe that."
Dr Sookhdeo's vision of a relentless battle
between secular and Islamic Britain seems hard to reconcile with the
co-operation that seems to mark the vast majority of the interactions
between the two communities.
"Well, it isn't me who says Islam is at war
with secularisation," he says. "That's how Islamic clerics describe the
situation."
But isn't it true that most Muslims who live in
theocratic states want to get out of them as quickly as possible and live in
a secular country such as Britain or America? And that most Muslims who come
to Britain adopt the values of a liberal, democratic, tolerant society,
rather than insisting on the inflexible rules of their religion?
"You have to distinguish between ordinary
Muslims and their self-appointed leaders," explains Dr Sookhdeo. "I agree
that the best hope for our collective future is that the majority of Muslims
who have grown up here have accepted the secular nature of the British state
and society, the division between religion and politics, and the importance
of allowing people to choose freely how they will live.
"But that is not how most of the clerics talk.
And, more significantly, it is not how the 'community leaders' whom the
Government has decided represent the Muslim community think either.
"Take, for example, Tariq Ramadan, whom the
Government has appointed as an adviser because ministers think he is a
'community leader'. Ramadan sounds, in public, very moderate. But in
reality, he has some very extreme views. He attacks liberal Muslims as
'Muslims without Islam'. He is affiliated to the violent and uncompromising
Muslim Brotherhood.
"He calls the education in the state schools of
the West 'aggression against the Islamic personality of the child'. He has
said that 'the Muslim respects the laws of the country only if they do not
contradict any Islamic principle'. He has added that 'compromising on
principles is a sign of fear and weakness'."
So what's the answer? What should the
Government be doing? "First, it should try to engage with the real Muslim
majority, not with the self-appointed 'community leaders' who don't actually
represent anyone: they have not been elected, and the vast majority of
ordinary Muslims have nothing to do with them.
"Second, the Government should say no to
faith-based schools, because they are a block to integration. There should
be no compromise over education, or over English as the language of
education. The policy of political multiculturalism should be reversed.
"The hope was that it would to ensure separate
communities would soften at the edges and integrate. But the opposite has in
fact happened: Islamic communities have hardened. There is much less
integration than there was for the generation that arrived when I did. There
will be much less in the future if the present trend continues.
"Finally, the Government should make it
absolutely clear: we welcome diversity, we welcome different religions - but
all of them have to accept the secular basis of British law and society.
That is a non-negotiable condition of being here.
"If the Government does not do all of those
things then I fear for the future, because Islamic communities within
Britain will form a state within a state. Religion will occupy an
ever-larger place in our collective political life. And, speaking as a
religious man myself, I fear that outcome."
Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on
this page should phone 44 (0) 207 538 7505 or e-mail <mailto:syndication@telegraph.co.uk>syndication@telegraph.co.uk
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml>Muslims
want sharia law in UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml
====================================================
Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in
UK By Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite (Filed: 19/02/2006)
Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law
introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.
The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a
fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers
who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent
thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.
====================================================
IMAGE:
50pc said interracial relations were worsening
====================================================
Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community
becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society,
even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.
The results of the poll, conducted for the
Sunday Telegraph, came as thousands of Muslims staged a fresh protest in
London yesterday against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed. In Libya,
at least 10 people died in protests linked to the caricatures.
And in Pakistan, a cleric was reported to have
put a $1 million (£575,000) bounty on the head of the Danish cartoonist who
drew the original pictures.
Last night, Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP involved
with the official task force set up after the July attacks, said the
findings were "alarming". He added: "Vast numbers of Muslims feel disengaged
and alienated from mainstream British society." Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the
secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "This poll
confirms the widespread opposition among British Muslims to the so-called
war on terror."
The most startling finding is the high level of
support for applying sharia law in "predominantly Muslim" areas of Britain.
Sadiq Khan: 'Alarming'
Islamic law is used in large parts of the
Middle East, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, and is enforced by religious
police. Special courts can hand down harsh punishments which can include
stoning and amputation.
Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed
said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent
opposed it. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers' motives,
and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were "right".
Nearly two thirds thought the video images
shown last week of British troops beating Iraqi youths were symptomatic of a
wider problem in Iraq. Half did not think the soldiers would be
"appropriately punished".
Half of the 500 people surveyed said relations
between white Britons and Muslims were getting worse. Only just over half
thought the conviction of the cleric Abu Hamza for incitement to murder and
race hatred was fair.
Mr Khan, the MP for Tooting, said: "We must
redouble our efforts to bring Muslims on board with the mainstream
community. For all the efforts made since last July, things do not have
appear to have got better."
He agreed with Sir Iqbal that the poll showed
Muslims still had a "big gripe" about foreign policy, particularly over the
war on terror and Iraq.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said:
"It shows we have a long way to go to win the battle of ideas within some
parts of the Muslim community and why it is absolutely vital that we
reinforce the voice of moderate Islam wherever possible."
A spokesman for Charles Clarke, the Home
Secretary, said: "It is critically important to ensure that Muslims, and all
faiths, feel part of modern British society. Today's survey indicates we
still have a long way to goŠ [but] we are committed to working with all
faiths to ensure we achieve that end."
12 February 2006: Leader of cartoon rally warns
of 'fire throughout the world'
6 February 2006: Arrest pedlars of hate, police
urged
==========
Subject: If it weren't for men...
Re: "If it were not for women, men would be living in
caves, scratching and grunting."
Fred has a good rejoinder: "Without men, civilization
would last until the oil needed changing."
Regards,
Steve Erbach Neenah, WI
http://TheTownCrank.blogspot.com
"The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is
he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." -- Plutarch
============
Subject: Telemarketing Scam
Dr. Pournelle I just received a telemarketing call
from a group of east Asians who claimed that the U.S. Government.
"Department of Health" had contracted with them to send "Anti-bird Flu" kits
to U.S. citizens. When I asked the guy who called me where he was from he
said "Florida". I then asked to speak to someone with an American accent and
after being cycled through several "Supervisors" all of who had east Asian
accents I could hear in the background the first guy saying "Does anybody
here REALLY sound like an American?"
This group of Floridians couldn't tell me the capital
of Florida or what county Miami is in. But, they were very reluctant to hang
up on me without getting a credit card number. I managed to keep them
talking for about ten minutes until after a couple of minutes of rather
unimaginative name calling (by them) they finally hung up on me.
I didn't bother to tell them I am on the "No Call"
list. It is good to see that VOIP has brought the price of phone calls from
Asia low enough for telemarketing. But they either need to hire some voice
coaches or some North Americans to be "Supervisors"
Steve
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Wednesday
|
