INN OF LOST SOULS: general chit-chat thread

[oh_brother]

I guess from the horribly early post beo flew off this morning...enjoy Cyprus!

[Jan]

Today, Colonel Gaddafi has been captured and I've lost my red pencil so I can't underline mistakes in my students' tests.

[oh_brother]

Killed I hear. Sorry about your red pencil though.

[Jan]

It's much worse, actually. It was on the floor and my colleague stepped on it and smashed it. Bad day. And, yeah, he's dead. Gaddafi, I mean, not my colleague.

[oh_brother]

It was a bit shocking to see the footage on the news. He was an awful man with a lot of blood on his hands but beating him while he is defenceless won't bring anyone back. And then being killed in the streets...I am not sure I believe he was killed in "crossfire".

Also the western leaders are being a bit hypocritical, given how so many of them went over to shake hands and hang out in his tent.

[Jan]

It was a bit shocking to see the footage on the news. He was an awful man with a lot of blood on his hands but beating him while he is defenceless won't bring anyone back. And then being killed in the streets...I am not sure I believe he was killed in "crossfire".

True. Under ideal conditions, Gaddafi should be captured and should be given a fair trial. In an ideal World, even the most brutal dictator (and he was one of the most brutal ones) doesn't deserve death without a fair trial. But this is not an ideal World. As Winston Churchill wrote, ideal conditions can only be found in heaven. I won't cry for Colonel Gaddafi.

Also, showing these images and footages really is disturbing and shocking. I don't know what the children might think about it. I'm actually quite a sensitive person and I can't get images like this out of my head for days. And I'm really not sure if the "it's the war, you see" argument is valid. Seeing a billboard with a mutilated Afghan teenage girl - with her nose and ears cut - on my daily walk to work is not a pleasant thing and causes me a lot of anxiety. But it's quite interesting that the (relatively) independent Arab TVs (like Al Arabiya or Al Jazeera) have a tendency to show even more brutal and disturbing images than the Western TVs, quite openly and without any warning.

Also the western leaders are being a bit hypocritical, given how so many of them went over to shake hands and hang out in his tent.

That's right. But I'm also very much convinced that NATO did the right thing, and, more importantly - this time - in the right way. I'm very sure that Libya 2011 (together with, for example, the Gulf 1991 or Kosovo 1999) will serve as an example of a well-led NATO foreign operation (unlike, for example, Afghanistan 2001 or the Gulf 2003).

Anyway, I'm being too serious now, let's talk about something funny!

[Sophia]

Kosovo 1999... will serve as an example of a well-led NATO foreign operation

We could have quite an "entertaining" debate on this, but I'm assuming you probably don't want to bother.

[Jan]

Please do go on! Hit me!

(I was in Kosovo back in 1997, then in 2000 and a few times again, last time in 2009. I had a few friends in the Czech KFOR team down in Podujevo. Not that it would matter too much - I'm really very much interested in your opinions! I didn't have much opportunity to talk about Kosovo with someone from the other side of The Pond lately, so I'm very interested in the developing view on it over there.)

I'd also add Bosnia 1995 (Operation "Deny Flight" / Operation "Deliberate Force") to the list, but it was awfully late.

[Ameena]

I'll agree on the whole "icky images" thing - as I work at a place that sells newspapers and was stuck on the tills all day, I've seen quite a variety of lovely images of that Gadaffi bloke in various states of blood-covered life/death, seeing how the front pages are covered with them. Give it a week or two, there'll be a book out about him and this whole rebellion thingy and what it's led up to.
But I think that killing someone "because they killed other people" just shows that basically you're perfectly willing to stoop to their level and do exactly the kind of thing they would do...

[Gambit37]

But I think that killing someone "because they killed other people" just shows that basically you're perfectly willing to stoop to their level and do exactly the kind of thing they would do...

Do you think you'd have this moral high-view if you'd lived under his oppressive authoritarian regime for over 40 years?

[Ameena]

I have no idea, as I haven't .

[oh_brother]

Do you think you'd have this moral high-view if you'd lived under his oppressive authoritarian regime for over 40 years?

No, probably not. But an important point of justice is that it has to be given impartially, without excessive anger. You cannot have angry people - regardless of how justified the anger is - doling out vengance.

So if something terrible was done to me, or my family, I should not be allowed to get even with the guilty party. Even though of course I would want to.

[oh_brother]

@Jan - I think you are right though, that on the grand scale of wars this was a success - a dictator was overthrown, and hopefully a more independent Libya is being born. Overall I think NATO getting involved was the right option.

[Gambit37]

An important point of justice is that it has to be given impartially, without excessive anger. You cannot have angry people - regardless of how justified the anger is - doling out vengance.

Agreed in principle. But the ideal is far from reality, especially where people have been oppressed for so long: impartiality goes out of the window. I have absolutely no problem with what they did to him.

What I do have a problem with is the politicians who were cosying up to him for years, who are now trying to re-write their own personal histories as if they had never met him.

[Jan]

What I do have a problem with is the politicians who were cosying up to him for years, who are now trying to re-write their own personal histories as if they had never met him.

True. Unfortunately, Gaddafi wasn't the only and the last Arab dictator supported by the West. It was similar in the case of H. Mubarak in Egypt, and it is the same in the cases of Saudi Arabia or Bahrain and elsewhere. Saudi Arabia is actually one of the worst tyrannies in the World but its armed forces are very strong and equipped with advanced Western technology (the Royal Saudi Air Force has hundreds of F15s, Tornados and Typhoons, more are on order; the Army has hundreds of Abrams main battle tanks). This equipment, of course, can be (and actually is) used against their own people, can be used against neighbours, against Israel, or even the West itself. This, in turn, drives the ordinery Arabs against the West, as they see the West as the supporter and sponsor of their own dictators.

But, from my experience, most of the mistakes made by Western leaders during last 20 years were not caused by wrong intentions but by wrong means.

In foreign policy, you always have to make choices and a compromise between an idealistic approach (à la R. Reagan) and a pragmatic approach (à la H. Kissinger). It's never easy and sometimes the result is far from nice. This is very complicated especially in the fragile and volatile Middle East. Would you support a dictator who keeps his country more or less stable, has a peace treaty with Israel, and crushes the local islamists (like H. Mubarak in Egypt)? Or would you go against him and/or eventually overthrow him with a prospect of a democratic transition, but also with a danger of anarchy, islamist uprising and potentially a threat to Israel (like S. Hussein in Iraq)? For decades, the Western leaders have preferred the first approach and are still preferring it in many cases. Just look how long it took to B. Obama to turn against H. Mubarak! Most of the instances of the second approach (Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003) were rather tragic.

[Jan]

Jesus. A few minutes ago I found that the Czech girl murdered a few weeks ago in Costarica (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... bbing.html) was actually the eldest daughter of the Head of my Department at the Faculty. He's a very decent, gentle, calm and nice man, one of the finest I know, he wouldn't hurt a fly and I'm very sure she was the same. I just can't believe it. My hands are shaking and my stomach hurts. I think I need a drink today.

[oh_brother]

God, thats awful. I heard about the case a while ago, it must be awful to actually know the people affected by it.

I feel really sorry for you head of faculty, I cannot imagine what it feels like to lose a loved one like that.

[beowuuf]

Same, these stories are terrible anyway, made all the worse if you can see the effects of them in people you know. Or worse, to havr to deal with it directly.

[Gambit37]

Random: On the Legend of Grimrock forums I have 111 posts. Here I have 11119 posts. So I only have to make almost exactly 100 times more posts on LoG to match my DM total! Give me 10 years, I'm sure I'll manage it

[Jan]

Well, you already have 11125 posts here and, broadly speaking, I'm afraid you won't be able to overtake your identity here with your identity there (unless you bribe BW to write there for you), because it's like the "Achilles and the tortoise" paradox, if you know what I mean.

[Gambit37]

I have decided not to undertake the challenge

[raixel]

God, Chrome annoys the pants off me. While Ive heard great things about it, I *will not* install it, simply based on the fact that it sneakily tries to install itself on my system constantly with other programs.

Since I had to wipe my drive this weekend, Ive been reinstalling a ton of programs, and at least 5 or 6 of them tried to install Chrome along with whatever the program was. Some of them didnt even let me know they were going to do it! I just installed a program(non-shady, from a signed and safe company/site), like 5 mins ago. It said "express install/custom install". I of course clicked custom and looked it over. NOWHERE easily visible did it say it was going to install Chrome, nor was this a Google made program where I would have expected it. Suddenly, Chrome is pinned to my taskbar, and my default browser is Chrome, and Chrome is opening a bunch of "Thank you for installing Chrome/new features/how to use pages over my current firefox page.

Annoyed, I go into my Control Panel and uninstalled it. Then it opens IE (EW! seriously, even after I told it to reset my browser to FIrefox!) and takes me to a "why did you uninstall Chrome"" page. I checked the appropriate boxes, and this is what I wrote in the comments:

Stop bundling Chrome with other products! Or at least give fair warning it wants to install! It should not be a tiny checkbox in a custom install option on a non Google product- that was how I ended up with it, because I missed it while looking over the install files. I would be more willing to try it, because I actually dont like the latest version of Firefox as much as previous versions. But as long as it constantly is trying to get on my system without me wanting it there, I will *never* use it.

How annoying.

[Jan]

"Well, what've you got?"

"Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and chrome; egg bacon and chrome; egg bacon sausage and chrome; chrom bacon sausage and chrome; chrome egg chrome chrome bacon and chrome; chrome sausage chrome chrome bacon chrome tomato and chrome."

"Have you got anything without chrome?"

"Well, there's chrome egg sausage and chrome, that's not got much chrome in it."

[oh_brother]

I have similar issues with Apple - always having this software update running even if iTunes is not active. And trying to install safari on my computer...stop wasting my time and slowing my already slow computer! I actually uninstalled iTunes out of sheer irritation. DivX is another one that annoys me, the amount of updates it gives is a real pain, I uninstalled it too.

[beowuuf]

Yeah, my ipod decided to die, so while I fight to get it fixed (my fault, lost the receipt over new years) and I keep getting the itunes thing springing up, even though I am free of itunes again. I wish winamp would hurry up and figure out the 6th gen thingie they need to to so I can load a new ipod through it not itunes. *shudder*

and yeah, adobe was pulling the chrome crap at once point, I think there was a warning, but it happened when other thigns were jumping up, and next thing I knew i had chrome. I understand it's not terrible like it used to be, but the sneaky install and whiny 'why did you uninstall' stuff has put me right off. Firefox is gettign a little bloated, but I'll stick with it for now because of that.

That and the nerve of my andriod phone daring to tell me it can't exist without a google account when I gave it one, when it can happily live without one, has made me a little leery of google stuff in general.

[Gambit37]

Google own Android, and they are trying to own the web too, so it's pretty much a given that to get the best out of the Android OS you're gonna need a Google account. Sucks, but true. No different to owning an iPhone, again you need an Apple ID to get the best out of it. All hardware/software that's closely tied to a particular maufacturer is going to end up going down this route, so better get used to it

As for Chrome installing itself with other software: I hadn't heard about that. But so what? It's the fastest browser out there, so you may as well use it!

[raixel]

NEVER! Of course, I'm the type of person where if you try and force me/sneak me into doing something, I will get beyond-all-reason obstinate and stubborn about it. I'm a Taurus, after all Besides, AFAIK Chrome doesnt have NoScript, which is seriously the BEST net protection out there as far as actual evil webpage protection. Its great to be able to go to quasi-legal streaming sites in russia or india and only have the box with the vid in it active, so I dont have to worry bout clickjacking/ad popups/annoying ads with sound/secret downloads ect.

Yeah, I had to install Firefox 12. And its seriously Bloaty McBloatfox. The last decent one was that stable release of 3. I think it was like 3.7.something. 4 was alright, but that was when the creep started happening (IE the beginning of the end). But then I didnt upgrade at all till like 11.something. And that was 2 months ago, when I got this box running and I didnt have a choice in the matter, as my old comp's processor/internals was a pile of slag(Well, not literally. But it did go well over TJmax and did the old melted-solder-fried-component mamba). So now Ive got 12. And it makes me want to stick a pin in it, and try and burst the bloatbubble.

[beowuuf]

I know Google = android, evn gave them my account details when I wanted to download an app, but when I then tell the phone to get rid of that account afterwards, and it says 'no, you HAVE to have an account on this phone' and I have to reset the damn thing - since when it's been happily working since with no account on it, just like before - then screw google. Opportunistic bullshit, just like the sneak chrome installs. And the alternative to going 'oh, I guess it's how thigns are going, may as well give in' is to not use their browser even if it is faster, since we don't know what they'll do with it, and no, I don't have to put up with the manufacterer's crap to use hardware. Boohoo if I can't use a few things I don#t care about, and if they try to lock me out of my own device, then screw them, I don't need their hardware.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jw_on_tech/arch ... oogle.aspx

[Gambit37]

I didn't say it was right for providers to lock you in, just that it's largely inevitable. If you want the full benefits of their ecosystems, you have to accept their rules. This is why I've never gone down the route of Cult of Apple, their walled gardens are some of the worst out there for what they let you do/not do with their stuff. I still would like an IPad though!

[beowuuf]

Like owingn a new iPod and being forced to use itunes. Bleh to them. Anywya, my point was that it essentially tried to trick you in to keeping a google account on there, lying that the phone needed that account as a primary account so you couldn't delete it. It's not 'play by my rules' it's 'I'm lying to you to get you to use all our apps now, since it;s a hassle to stop us.' Just like it's a little pathetic to have chrome - a full web browswer - try to trick you in to installing it, then hoping it';s too much effort to delete it, or you go 'well, since I have it.'

It's not the same as being locked down by a manufacturer, it's the being tricked to use something you didn't want to that rubs me the wrong way. And if that's their behaviour now, then what is acceptable in the future?