Just wants to recommend this great section from the website of a great English newspaper: The Guardian.
The "Comment is free" name comes from a quote by the former editor of the newspaper: CP Scott. The full sentence is: "Comment is free, but facts are sacred" and, acording to their website, reflects the values of the newspaper.
Ohh, the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/
See you there ;)
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Why the Middle East Crisis is important?
Yesterday I read this post in the blog of the BBC editors blog.
It was about the statistics of war, and how much coverage was given to the current conflicts in the world.
The editor of the Ten O'clock News at the BBC tried to justify why the story which implicated fewer lost of human lives was not the most important, but the one with less time on air. He pointed as reasons the complexity of the story, the relations of that story with other conflicts which are developing in the World and the fact it comes from the "Middle East" as the main reasons why that story was the main international story.
I think those reasons where all true, from the point of view of a journalist, but there is another one: The other stories, both were yesterday's news (the Iraq story is more than three years old and It has been the main international story for almost all of those three years and the Congolese conflict has been an ongoing conflict since almost the replacement of Zaire by the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1997) and the Middle East Crisis is today's news, just two weeks old.
But I want to explain Why I think the Middle East Crisis is so important in other sense: looking from the point of view of the international relations.
I mean: Why just two weeks after the begin of the attacks of Israel into Lebanon there was a meeting of international leaders trying to give a solution to the crisis?
Just because is now a Middle East Crisis. Is an international conflict which could turn into a regional conflict.
The Iraqi Violence have been going for years, but confined to the Iraqi soil, mostly as a civil war between Sunnis and Shia's (is a little bit more complex than that, but those are the basics) and do not involve forces from other countries (besides the United States and coalition forces, who are just observers and try to not get into the conflict), specially not forces from the region. The Iraqi violence can turn into an international or regional conflict if one of the these two countries enter into the Iraqi conflict:
First Iran, which is not probable, because the Shi'a leader, those supported by Iran, have recognized the government of Iraq and now their main objective is to calm down the country so the coalition forces couldn't have more reasons to be in Iraq.
The other option is the involvement of Turkey in the North, which is really difficult because the Kurdish have assumed their status quo and do not want to extend their territories.
Iraq of course, is in the headlines now, because It's Prime Minister was visiting the United States, more than for the violence in Iraq itself which is just a two minutes story, with images from a news agency rather than those which comes directly from the network who is airing the story.
The Congolese conflict had not been international since like 2003, after the withdrawal of the Rwandan and Ugandan forces. From that year on the civil war has continued, but mostly within the Congolese frontiers. This conflict is on the news because of the elections that will be held on this week-end, which can end the violence. This will be the first free elections in 40 years in that country.
Although Craig Oliver didn't mention It, I cannot avoid the Somalia issue. This is also a civil war, but It's turning into a international conflict. This is not yet a regional one, but It's slowly turning into that, after the involvement of Ethiopian forces.
This conflict it's becoming more important from the point of view of the international relations, but, sadly, there will not be many news about It in the TV bulletins, mostly, because the "good guys" are loosing and they are not the good guys in the eyes of the Somalis.
Getting back to the Middle East Crisis, the current phase of the crisis began with the kidnap of two Israeli soldiers by a Palestinian radical group, at this point it was just one more incident in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has been going on since 2001.
But then a Lebanese radical group followed the move and kidnap two more soldiers, answered by the Israelis with attacks on Lebanon, then Hezbollah answered with rockets against Northern Israel and what is the current Middle East Crisis.
The first problem in the current crisis is the possibility of a reissue of the Lebanon War which lasted 30 years, until 2000, in the South of Lebanon with the Israelis fighting Hezbollah, a war which ended not because of one side won, but because of an accident and an election in Israel.
The other problem is that the probabilities of involvement of other countries are high. Syria and Iran have many interest in the region, specially Syria in the Golan Heights (a portion of Syria which is occupied by the Israeli just as the South portion of Lebanon was occupied by them in an attempt to stop Hezbollah from attacking Northern Israel).
fortunately this problem has been avoided for the moment, with the announcement made by the Israeli defense Forces they will not advance any further into the Lebanese territory.
But today Al-Qaeda say they will respond to the attacks made by the Israeli forces in Lebanon, which is difficult and can only be seen as opportunistic (this because Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization and Hezbollah is Shi'a, with is the same to say Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, they are both Muslims and Arabs, but those are the only things they got in common). I don't think Al-Qaeda can respond to the attacks in Lebanon and be seen by the Shi'as as the heroes of the hole Islamic Faith, but if they do it, they will be the absolute winners in this conflict.
The current Middle East crisis is a crisis since It get out of Israeli territory.
But, as Condolezza Rice has said, and most analysis agree with that, the conflict has roots which are beyond the problem of a ceasefire. A ceasefire could help, but will not solve the problem.
The solution would not be easy, but the main reason why to focus on the crisis is not to solve it, just try to put a limit, in relation to both time, and territory.
Just Remember that Israel has atomic weapons and maybe Iran has them too.
It was about the statistics of war, and how much coverage was given to the current conflicts in the world.
The editor of the Ten O'clock News at the BBC tried to justify why the story which implicated fewer lost of human lives was not the most important, but the one with less time on air. He pointed as reasons the complexity of the story, the relations of that story with other conflicts which are developing in the World and the fact it comes from the "Middle East" as the main reasons why that story was the main international story.
I think those reasons where all true, from the point of view of a journalist, but there is another one: The other stories, both were yesterday's news (the Iraq story is more than three years old and It has been the main international story for almost all of those three years and the Congolese conflict has been an ongoing conflict since almost the replacement of Zaire by the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1997) and the Middle East Crisis is today's news, just two weeks old.
But I want to explain Why I think the Middle East Crisis is so important in other sense: looking from the point of view of the international relations.
I mean: Why just two weeks after the begin of the attacks of Israel into Lebanon there was a meeting of international leaders trying to give a solution to the crisis?
Just because is now a Middle East Crisis. Is an international conflict which could turn into a regional conflict.
The Iraqi Violence have been going for years, but confined to the Iraqi soil, mostly as a civil war between Sunnis and Shia's (is a little bit more complex than that, but those are the basics) and do not involve forces from other countries (besides the United States and coalition forces, who are just observers and try to not get into the conflict), specially not forces from the region. The Iraqi violence can turn into an international or regional conflict if one of the these two countries enter into the Iraqi conflict:
First Iran, which is not probable, because the Shi'a leader, those supported by Iran, have recognized the government of Iraq and now their main objective is to calm down the country so the coalition forces couldn't have more reasons to be in Iraq.
The other option is the involvement of Turkey in the North, which is really difficult because the Kurdish have assumed their status quo and do not want to extend their territories.
Iraq of course, is in the headlines now, because It's Prime Minister was visiting the United States, more than for the violence in Iraq itself which is just a two minutes story, with images from a news agency rather than those which comes directly from the network who is airing the story.
The Congolese conflict had not been international since like 2003, after the withdrawal of the Rwandan and Ugandan forces. From that year on the civil war has continued, but mostly within the Congolese frontiers. This conflict is on the news because of the elections that will be held on this week-end, which can end the violence. This will be the first free elections in 40 years in that country.
Although Craig Oliver didn't mention It, I cannot avoid the Somalia issue. This is also a civil war, but It's turning into a international conflict. This is not yet a regional one, but It's slowly turning into that, after the involvement of Ethiopian forces.
This conflict it's becoming more important from the point of view of the international relations, but, sadly, there will not be many news about It in the TV bulletins, mostly, because the "good guys" are loosing and they are not the good guys in the eyes of the Somalis.
Getting back to the Middle East Crisis, the current phase of the crisis began with the kidnap of two Israeli soldiers by a Palestinian radical group, at this point it was just one more incident in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has been going on since 2001.
But then a Lebanese radical group followed the move and kidnap two more soldiers, answered by the Israelis with attacks on Lebanon, then Hezbollah answered with rockets against Northern Israel and what is the current Middle East Crisis.
The first problem in the current crisis is the possibility of a reissue of the Lebanon War which lasted 30 years, until 2000, in the South of Lebanon with the Israelis fighting Hezbollah, a war which ended not because of one side won, but because of an accident and an election in Israel.
The other problem is that the probabilities of involvement of other countries are high. Syria and Iran have many interest in the region, specially Syria in the Golan Heights (a portion of Syria which is occupied by the Israeli just as the South portion of Lebanon was occupied by them in an attempt to stop Hezbollah from attacking Northern Israel).
fortunately this problem has been avoided for the moment, with the announcement made by the Israeli defense Forces they will not advance any further into the Lebanese territory.
But today Al-Qaeda say they will respond to the attacks made by the Israeli forces in Lebanon, which is difficult and can only be seen as opportunistic (this because Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization and Hezbollah is Shi'a, with is the same to say Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, they are both Muslims and Arabs, but those are the only things they got in common). I don't think Al-Qaeda can respond to the attacks in Lebanon and be seen by the Shi'as as the heroes of the hole Islamic Faith, but if they do it, they will be the absolute winners in this conflict.
The current Middle East crisis is a crisis since It get out of Israeli territory.
But, as Condolezza Rice has said, and most analysis agree with that, the conflict has roots which are beyond the problem of a ceasefire. A ceasefire could help, but will not solve the problem.
The solution would not be easy, but the main reason why to focus on the crisis is not to solve it, just try to put a limit, in relation to both time, and territory.
Just Remember that Israel has atomic weapons and maybe Iran has them too.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Use your strengths
About the 'Middle-East' crisis, and I refer to the current crisis, the one between Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon.
When you are in a negotiation, you are always told to use your strengths.
And that is what Israel is doing now.
Many 'people' are saying that Israel is 'over reacting' and I think is truth. But not for the same reasons they think it.
I think Israel got a 'strength' in Its dealings with their neighbours and the 'International Community'. And I mean 'strength' in two senses:
First they are the wealthy and, more important, the ones which have more 'guns'.
But secondly, this is also a strength in negotiations. This is 'the' point in which Israel is strong: they have more fire power than anyone in the region and the only one that have more fire power and can deploy it in that region is their main ally (the United States).
So they need to use their strength, in both senses (and now reversing them in the argument) they first need to make sure the conflict is mainly based on fire power and second, they need to use their fire power against their enemies.
If they are driven again from open fighting they will loose the conflict, not because they are bad diplomats, but because they have bad advertising advisors and the everybody is or against them or with them so they cannot use someone that it seems is neutral, but in really is with them as a mediator. The whole of Europe is openly with the Palestinian, the whole ex-communist countries are in the same situation, mainly because they provided weapons to the Palestinians to fight against Israel, China is in the same situation, and the United States is openly with them, so they are not going to be accepted by the Palestinians.
So they can not negotiate and win, or at least to impose their terms, so the best way to impose their terms, no matter how bad is for public image, is to fight openly, they already have the worst image they can have.
And the problem It was when there was an opportunity, and I don't mean an open gate, just a window (Hamas was going to open the gate of recognition of the State of Israel), of a peace process in the Palestinian problem, they just over reacted and began a major conflict after the kidnap of two soldiers by an splinter group.
I know their motives: they just don't want to negotiate with those groups and they want to show them It's bad to make that sort of actions.
But they knew before that, those attacks would diminish the power of the Palestinian Authority and would not show those groups to stop that kind of acts, but encourage them to do so. Those groups does not care about the well being of the Palestinian (or Arab) people, they just want to make politics. And the best way to make politics is to let the Israelis get into Gaza to attack and destroy, and watch as the Palestinians (and many other people around the world) does not blame for the destruction to the terrorist group which made the first move, but the Israelis who over reacted.
So later another group, not so splintered, kidnaps others Israeli soldiers, and wait for the Israeli response. More destruction, more bad publicity and more politics.
The right answer of Israel is not to over react, just react.
And look up for new strengths in their dealings in the Middle East. Their neighbours are getting closer to those strengths, just ask the people in Haifa.
When you are in a negotiation, you are always told to use your strengths.
And that is what Israel is doing now.
Many 'people' are saying that Israel is 'over reacting' and I think is truth. But not for the same reasons they think it.
I think Israel got a 'strength' in Its dealings with their neighbours and the 'International Community'. And I mean 'strength' in two senses:
First they are the wealthy and, more important, the ones which have more 'guns'.
But secondly, this is also a strength in negotiations. This is 'the' point in which Israel is strong: they have more fire power than anyone in the region and the only one that have more fire power and can deploy it in that region is their main ally (the United States).
So they need to use their strength, in both senses (and now reversing them in the argument) they first need to make sure the conflict is mainly based on fire power and second, they need to use their fire power against their enemies.
If they are driven again from open fighting they will loose the conflict, not because they are bad diplomats, but because they have bad advertising advisors and the everybody is or against them or with them so they cannot use someone that it seems is neutral, but in really is with them as a mediator. The whole of Europe is openly with the Palestinian, the whole ex-communist countries are in the same situation, mainly because they provided weapons to the Palestinians to fight against Israel, China is in the same situation, and the United States is openly with them, so they are not going to be accepted by the Palestinians.
So they can not negotiate and win, or at least to impose their terms, so the best way to impose their terms, no matter how bad is for public image, is to fight openly, they already have the worst image they can have.
And the problem It was when there was an opportunity, and I don't mean an open gate, just a window (Hamas was going to open the gate of recognition of the State of Israel), of a peace process in the Palestinian problem, they just over reacted and began a major conflict after the kidnap of two soldiers by an splinter group.
I know their motives: they just don't want to negotiate with those groups and they want to show them It's bad to make that sort of actions.
But they knew before that, those attacks would diminish the power of the Palestinian Authority and would not show those groups to stop that kind of acts, but encourage them to do so. Those groups does not care about the well being of the Palestinian (or Arab) people, they just want to make politics. And the best way to make politics is to let the Israelis get into Gaza to attack and destroy, and watch as the Palestinians (and many other people around the world) does not blame for the destruction to the terrorist group which made the first move, but the Israelis who over reacted.
So later another group, not so splintered, kidnaps others Israeli soldiers, and wait for the Israeli response. More destruction, more bad publicity and more politics.
The right answer of Israel is not to over react, just react.
And look up for new strengths in their dealings in the Middle East. Their neighbours are getting closer to those strengths, just ask the people in Haifa.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
♬ Ave MARIA ♬
♬
Ave Maria
Gratia plena
Maria, gratia plena
Maria, gratia plena
Ave, ave dominus
Dominus tecum
Benedicta tu in mulieribus
Et benedictus
Et benedictus fructus ventris
Ventris tuae, Jesus.
Ave Maria
Ave Maria
Mater Dei
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus
Ora pro nobis
Ora, ora pro nobis peccatoribus
Nunc et in hora mortis
Et in hora mortis nostrae
Et in hora mortis nostrae
Et in hora mortis nostrae
Ave Maria
♬
Sunday, February 05, 2006
:-O Don't become a monster in order to defeat a monster :-O
Well, for those of you that don't know where the title phrase of this post comes from I tell You: It comes from the booklet of the Vertigo 2005 // U2 Live from Chicago DVD, which I received as a present in my birthday.
I like U2, and I liked the present. In fact I bought the ticket for the concert on my birthday, but I don't like the attitude the band had been taking in the last tour.
First, and noticed by all: they charge to some material from the band in their website. I know this is normal and many bands do it. But is just the tip of the iceberg. In my country, Chile they are charging prices that are much above what many people can afford to just listen and watch them live in concert. Here there is a list of prices. Just in case they take the site down, I take a couple of screen shots:
Just in case the prices are in Chilean Pesos using today exchange rate (528 Chilean pesos per one US. Dollar) the final price of the tickets (Precio final) would be:
Galeria (the cheapest location): US $ 36.72.
Cancha: US $ 65.49.
Pacífico Lateral Sur: US $ 65.49.
Pacífico Lateral: US $ 65.49.
Andes: US $ 109.78
Pacífico Bajo: Norte y Sur: US $ 182.27
Pacífico Alto: US $ 282.01
Pacífico Medio Centro (the most expensive location) : US $ 350.15
I don't know how much live concerts cost in other countries in the world, but as an example Oasis charges 15.000 Chilean pesos (US $ 28.39) in every location or Carlos Santana which charges between 7.000 Chilean pesos in the cheapest location (US $ 13.25) and 40.000 (US $ 75.71) in the most expensive. And they are international and everybody knows them also.
They also created a 'new location' Pacífico Lateral Sur which is explicitly warned as: 'with limited view'. That location didn't exist when the first ticket where put on sale, but after in just one day they sold almost 75% of the tickets, they opened the 'new' location.
The main problem with U2 is their main singer and leader: Bono is the champion of the 'good causes' in the world (as an example look at this 'Band News' in the their website).
I was in the last concert in Chile and It was not as much expensive as is now. I can't remember the prices in detail, but they were not as high charged as they are now. In timennity the band initially had prohibited alcohol or cigarettes brands to sponsor the concert, but finally they agree to accept those brands in certain countries (including Chile) in order not to over-charge the ticket prices. Well, I don't know what happened in between but this time Coca-Cola is the main sponsor and the tickets are over priced (from my country point of view).
The funny thing is the last tour in Chile was based in the man as a consumer and a not so subtle criticism to consumerism. Well, with the Elevation tour in between, they forgot this stanza and now they are treating their fans as consumers and they try to convert them into compulsive consumers which make long rows in a sunny day just to get one ticket (or as just four, because you couldn't get more than that) which was what happened in Chile.
I don't know. I like the band, I like their music, but, I don't like their 'new' way of looking at 'me' just as a consumer and not as a music listener. I prefer the last.
I like U2, and I liked the present. In fact I bought the ticket for the concert on my birthday, but I don't like the attitude the band had been taking in the last tour.
First, and noticed by all: they charge to some material from the band in their website. I know this is normal and many bands do it. But is just the tip of the iceberg. In my country, Chile they are charging prices that are much above what many people can afford to just listen and watch them live in concert. Here there is a list of prices. Just in case they take the site down, I take a couple of screen shots:
Just in case the prices are in Chilean Pesos using today exchange rate (528 Chilean pesos per one US. Dollar) the final price of the tickets (Precio final) would be:Galeria (the cheapest location): US $ 36.72.
Cancha: US $ 65.49.
Pacífico Lateral Sur: US $ 65.49.
Pacífico Lateral: US $ 65.49.
Andes: US $ 109.78
Pacífico Bajo: Norte y Sur: US $ 182.27
Pacífico Alto: US $ 282.01
Pacífico Medio Centro (the most expensive location) : US $ 350.15
I don't know how much live concerts cost in other countries in the world, but as an example Oasis charges 15.000 Chilean pesos (US $ 28.39) in every location or Carlos Santana which charges between 7.000 Chilean pesos in the cheapest location (US $ 13.25) and 40.000 (US $ 75.71) in the most expensive. And they are international and everybody knows them also.
They also created a 'new location' Pacífico Lateral Sur which is explicitly warned as: 'with limited view'. That location didn't exist when the first ticket where put on sale, but after in just one day they sold almost 75% of the tickets, they opened the 'new' location.
The main problem with U2 is their main singer and leader: Bono is the champion of the 'good causes' in the world (as an example look at this 'Band News' in the their website).
I was in the last concert in Chile and It was not as much expensive as is now. I can't remember the prices in detail, but they were not as high charged as they are now. In timennity the band initially had prohibited alcohol or cigarettes brands to sponsor the concert, but finally they agree to accept those brands in certain countries (including Chile) in order not to over-charge the ticket prices. Well, I don't know what happened in between but this time Coca-Cola is the main sponsor and the tickets are over priced (from my country point of view).
The funny thing is the last tour in Chile was based in the man as a consumer and a not so subtle criticism to consumerism. Well, with the Elevation tour in between, they forgot this stanza and now they are treating their fans as consumers and they try to convert them into compulsive consumers which make long rows in a sunny day just to get one ticket (or as just four, because you couldn't get more than that) which was what happened in Chile.
I don't know. I like the band, I like their music, but, I don't like their 'new' way of looking at 'me' just as a consumer and not as a music listener. I prefer the last.
Friday, December 02, 2005
About oppression and oppressors.
Well, this post is just about the nations, groups and people which have put other in a diminished position, especially about those which have been oppressed before and then they become the oppressors. I don't know why in all these cases the group or the people oppressed wants something as a revenge and they usually avenge against other group, not their oppressors, but a completely different group of people.
I'm talking here about two groups which where oppressed in their times, and later they became the dominant group in other context and, in that position, they oppressed those which where under their control including ways to realize their oppression them in new ways.
The two groups are the Jews and the Afrikaner. The Jewish oppression is well know in the Nazi Germany and, a little less known, in the Soviet Union (1).
About the Afrikaner, the oppression made by the British is a lot less known. The, at that time Boers, fought two wars against the British and in the second they where keep prisoners in Concentration Camps in what is now South Africa. There where also critics in the UK because of the use of tactics such as scorched earth and other problems. And this war was not fought because of the liberation of the slaves, but because of gold, that beautiful metal which has moved the history of humanity for centuries (there was a problem with voting rights, but the main problem were the taxes on gold).
Then we advance in history and see how these two groups became oppressors themselves. The Jews became mainly military and plutocrats oppressors, confining the Palestinians into small portions of territory in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, mostly after the Six-Day War, but using them as labour force in those kind of works which the Israelis don't like (much like the present situation in Europe today with immigrants), but keeping strict border controls on the labour force. About the Afrikaners, they became oppressors in the 1940's after the National Party won the elections, enacting laws that established differences between the white people and the "other people", especially in personal relationships, placed to lives or works to perform. This system was legally and practically established, not as the Israeli one which is more practical and less legally (the "legal" part in the Israeli system is in the border control part).
But the fact is that both group of people where oppressed and when they got the power they became oppressors themselves. How can I explain this? I'm not a "guru" or any thing like that, but I think the problem is power, and that old quote from Lord Acton:
"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
So when they got the power, those people which where oppressed, they got corrupted and start to, not avenge, as I said above, but to use their power in a corruptive manner.
(1) Probably the Doctor's Plot is the last of the Stalin policies against the Jews, but there where others, previous to this one, which where as harsh as this.
I'm talking here about two groups which where oppressed in their times, and later they became the dominant group in other context and, in that position, they oppressed those which where under their control including ways to realize their oppression them in new ways.
The two groups are the Jews and the Afrikaner. The Jewish oppression is well know in the Nazi Germany and, a little less known, in the Soviet Union (1).
About the Afrikaner, the oppression made by the British is a lot less known. The, at that time Boers, fought two wars against the British and in the second they where keep prisoners in Concentration Camps in what is now South Africa. There where also critics in the UK because of the use of tactics such as scorched earth and other problems. And this war was not fought because of the liberation of the slaves, but because of gold, that beautiful metal which has moved the history of humanity for centuries (there was a problem with voting rights, but the main problem were the taxes on gold).
Then we advance in history and see how these two groups became oppressors themselves. The Jews became mainly military and plutocrats oppressors, confining the Palestinians into small portions of territory in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, mostly after the Six-Day War, but using them as labour force in those kind of works which the Israelis don't like (much like the present situation in Europe today with immigrants), but keeping strict border controls on the labour force. About the Afrikaners, they became oppressors in the 1940's after the National Party won the elections, enacting laws that established differences between the white people and the "other people", especially in personal relationships, placed to lives or works to perform. This system was legally and practically established, not as the Israeli one which is more practical and less legally (the "legal" part in the Israeli system is in the border control part).
But the fact is that both group of people where oppressed and when they got the power they became oppressors themselves. How can I explain this? I'm not a "guru" or any thing like that, but I think the problem is power, and that old quote from Lord Acton:
"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
So when they got the power, those people which where oppressed, they got corrupted and start to, not avenge, as I said above, but to use their power in a corruptive manner.
(1) Probably the Doctor's Plot is the last of the Stalin policies against the Jews, but there where others, previous to this one, which where as harsh as this.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
England expects that every man will do his duty.
Well. A long time since I didn't post in this blog. In fact I did post, but I delete it afterwards, because the post was to personal to be in the web.
But now I come back with my views about a takeover. The takeover of the British mobile phone operator O2 by Telefonica, the big Spanish telecommunications operator.
And the title of the post refers to the Battle of Trafalgar. A battle fought in the Spanish sea. I think now that this is the second "British emblem company" which falls in foreign hands, the first one was Manchester United, now in the hands of Malcom Glazer, a man from the United States and the owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (American Football). I think the first was more important than the second one, but a second one reflects a trend, and that's an strange trend.
I must admit I kinda like the Britons. They have produce a great law system, a rich history (in such a small part of the world), a big empire, many sports, great fiction, a great playwritter (William Shakespeare), a great detective (Sherlock Holmes, is fiction, but anyway), a great news source (the BBC), great music, great humour (Monty Python and The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy) and the language in which I'm writing now. And yes, this part of the post seems like I'm a Britons arse-licker, and I know they have done bad things too (Ireland, as an example), but I tend to think they would need to protect their country the way the French are doing it. I know the Britons are the most euro-skeptics in Europe, but they are now "in the" globalisation and they need to be ware of that and protect what they are, if not, they will be just another country in the world and there will be no more special site for them. The other countries will tend to ignore the news about their models or royal-line.
But now I come back with my views about a takeover. The takeover of the British mobile phone operator O2 by Telefonica, the big Spanish telecommunications operator.
And the title of the post refers to the Battle of Trafalgar. A battle fought in the Spanish sea. I think now that this is the second "British emblem company" which falls in foreign hands, the first one was Manchester United, now in the hands of Malcom Glazer, a man from the United States and the owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (American Football). I think the first was more important than the second one, but a second one reflects a trend, and that's an strange trend.
I must admit I kinda like the Britons. They have produce a great law system, a rich history (in such a small part of the world), a big empire, many sports, great fiction, a great playwritter (William Shakespeare), a great detective (Sherlock Holmes, is fiction, but anyway), a great news source (the BBC), great music, great humour (Monty Python and The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy) and the language in which I'm writing now. And yes, this part of the post seems like I'm a Britons arse-licker, and I know they have done bad things too (Ireland, as an example), but I tend to think they would need to protect their country the way the French are doing it. I know the Britons are the most euro-skeptics in Europe, but they are now "in the" globalisation and they need to be ware of that and protect what they are, if not, they will be just another country in the world and there will be no more special site for them. The other countries will tend to ignore the news about their models or royal-line.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
About open software, part 2.
A lot of water under the bridge on open software. But first I need to make an introduction. When I first used an Open Operative System (and with that I mean Linux, I have had in mind tro try BSD, but I never took that into action) I tried the Mandrake Linux 9.0 distribution (for more info about why this is called a distribution I refer you to wikipaedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution) I dropped it because of security issues: you needed administrator privileges just to connect it to the Internet. So I kept using MS for a while until I got Red Hat 9. It was a good product and I used it a lot, but some time later, Red Hat Inc. ended the product life and changed to a project, the Fedora Project. I didn't know if a project was going to be a success or not, so when I needed to format my hard drive, I changed back to MS for a while, until I get a copy of SuSE 9.1. I installed it and It was just good. Worked well. I got just one big problem when a patch in the kernel crushed the X server (the desktop, so I got just the black screen with text) but I solved the issue. The real problem began with Novell. They bought SuSE and began to changed the way things where managed. At first it seemed that it was good, they opened YAST (the software manager) so anybody could use it and they also offered a free DVD download of the complete system (before that you just could download using a not so friendly FTP installation), but then things got back in time and was even less comfortable that before. They stop offering the DVD download of the complete system (just a live DVD) for the new release and the older releases where poorly patched and without new versions (as an example the last Firefox patch changed the cookie administration so it will accept all cookies by default, a thing that you could change later, and it won't open your bookmarks or activate the find as you type unless you open a new window, in which those functions will began to work).
And my father got a problem with his PC so I used that situation to use that computer as a test field so I installed my old Red Hat 9 and updated the system with yum (an update tool which is part of the Fedora Core Project, the project created by Red Hat) using the repositories in Fedora Legacy (http://www.fedoralegacy.org) . It was not good, it was better, better than SuSE. As an example I updated and I got the Instant Messenger Gaim to it last version (1.27), in SuSE I am still with 0.7, patched with the security issues but older than the one I got in Red Hat, and with no new features like buddy icons or file transfers.
With all that I wanted to say: Open Software is good and some 'freak only OSs' are good too. Fedora Core is something like a freak-only OS, with Red Hat (the corporate sponsors) strongly against including any software which not allow to offer the source with the software, they said this is because a legal reason (and that's why other projects like Mono are not included in Fedora, considering that Mono offers the source code), but is more easy to install and run and, as the GNOME motto said, just works. I liked that and that is what I want in a system. To just works. You need to circunvent some problems like install Flash, Real Player or Java after you have finished the system install, but after that works great and updated, without any problem. I'm gonna give Fedora a try, replacing completly SuSE on my desktop.
And, finally: Talking about GNOME. Since my father's computer doesn't have enough memory or hard disk to use two both windows managers. I have been using KDE since I first began to use Linux, back in the middle of the 1990's, with the SuSE Linux 6.1 of my uncle, so I like KDE. But I kind of like GNOME. It's less fancy, but a lot more prepared to the work space
So I think I will began to use GNOME in the moments when I will use the PC for work and KDE for less important things.
Well.
I want to write more often on the blog so I will try it.
;-)
If you want to take a look at the sources:
http://www.mandriva.com/ Mandriva, formely Mandrake Linux.
http://fedora.redhat.com Fedora Core Project.
http://www.redhat.com Red Hat Home Page.
http://www.debian.org Debian
http://www.fedoralegacy.org Fedora Legacy Project.
http://www.suse.com SuSE.
http://www.novell.com Novell
And my father got a problem with his PC so I used that situation to use that computer as a test field so I installed my old Red Hat 9 and updated the system with yum (an update tool which is part of the Fedora Core Project, the project created by Red Hat) using the repositories in Fedora Legacy (http://www.fedoralegacy.org) . It was not good, it was better, better than SuSE. As an example I updated and I got the Instant Messenger Gaim to it last version (1.27), in SuSE I am still with 0.7, patched with the security issues but older than the one I got in Red Hat, and with no new features like buddy icons or file transfers.
With all that I wanted to say: Open Software is good and some 'freak only OSs' are good too. Fedora Core is something like a freak-only OS, with Red Hat (the corporate sponsors) strongly against including any software which not allow to offer the source with the software, they said this is because a legal reason (and that's why other projects like Mono are not included in Fedora, considering that Mono offers the source code), but is more easy to install and run and, as the GNOME motto said, just works. I liked that and that is what I want in a system. To just works. You need to circunvent some problems like install Flash, Real Player or Java after you have finished the system install, but after that works great and updated, without any problem. I'm gonna give Fedora a try, replacing completly SuSE on my desktop.
And, finally: Talking about GNOME. Since my father's computer doesn't have enough memory or hard disk to use two both windows managers. I have been using KDE since I first began to use Linux, back in the middle of the 1990's, with the SuSE Linux 6.1 of my uncle, so I like KDE. But I kind of like GNOME. It's less fancy, but a lot more prepared to the work space
So I think I will began to use GNOME in the moments when I will use the PC for work and KDE for less important things.
Well.
I want to write more often on the blog so I will try it.
;-)
If you want to take a look at the sources:
http://www.mandriva.com/ Mandriva, formely Mandrake Linux.
http://fedora.redhat.com Fedora Core Project.
http://www.redhat.com Red Hat Home Page.
http://www.debian.org Debian
http://www.fedoralegacy.org Fedora Legacy Project.
http://www.suse.com SuSE.
http://www.novell.com Novell
Saturday, April 09, 2005
About open software and the 'next door guy' (or my first post, since my first post)
"Well, this is my first post since my first post, so is technically my second post (I remember American Pie 2, a film which I watched before American Pie, so I didn't understood to much).
I want to talk about what got me occupied for most of the time in the last week (and some days of the week before that too!) and that is putting the software in two 'almost new' PCs, one for my father and the other for my grandfather ('almost new' because they where used)
The thing is that they bought two PCs 'almost' identical (one of them got like twice as much memory as the other) but after some in-family discussion we agreed that the one with more memory will go to my father and the other to my grandfather, because he doesn't know even how to turn a computer On.
Then it came the part when I, the one that knows about computers in the family, was going to install all the software they needed in their PCs.
Since like 5 years ago I have been a strong advocate of 'Free Software' and with Free Software I mean just that, no second readings. Well, for those who doesn't know anything about free software I explain that is software which their creators put the 'source code' available as part of the software, so if any one got a problem with the software (and knows a little about programming) will take the source and edit the software so they can edit it and doesn't got a lot of strange symbols which only machines can understand, instead of a language that you and I can learn. The benefits of free software or 'open software' are that if someone is using it, knows the programming language and find a problem with the software, he or she can edit it and correct the bug with no problem or add a new feature they find useful, so the software evolves faster and got less problems or security issues. The other main benefit is you can use it without paying royalties to any company and if someone provides you the binary (that's the program translated to those funny symbols which only machines can understand) you can install it free of charge on your machine.
Linux and other software like Mozilla Firefox or OpenOffice.org are classified as this type of software, and the idea has been exported to other formats like Encyclopaedia with an open Wikipaedia.
I like the concept, specially since you can install a program without 'stealing' software from company that charges for it and the idea that is, mainly, community driven, so the community decides which are the things they like about a software and what don't.
Now it comes to my problem with the 'free software' and that is extremist. There is a project called Debian, which is completely community driven and is trying to give the world a completely free operative system and the software necessary to do whatever you need to do in your life (well that's not the idea, but a kind of) , they are mainly based on Linux and the project is very democratic. I like the idea of a project rather than a company because many times a company just want to change the direction of a product and just cancel product lines without previous notification to their customers but in this kind of project their customers can also participate in the development of the product.
But there is a problem with this model. The problem is that the Debian project is created by software programmers to software programmers, they don't even think in the 'normal person' or 'newbie' as they call him or her (not to mention the people who have never used a PC in their life). I came to this after trying to install a Debian derivative to those two PCs. I said I tried because I didn't do it. Debian was to much difficult to install. Now is much easier than it used to be, but it's still difficult, specially when it comes to recognise peripherals. I tried to use it, but It was too difficult, It needed the port, the model, refresh rates and a lot of other data. I would overcome all those problems if It would be a PC I was going to use, but It was not. It was a PC that It would be use it: one by a person which likes simplicity and the other by a person which barely knows how to turn the PC On and maybe doesn't how to turn it Off, and they needed something easier to use, and if it's difficult to install, it certainly would be difficult to use.
I finally installed Linux in those two PCs, but I used one based in a company, but as is open software, got support from the community and all the benefits that comes with open software, but It was easier to use and to install, just make mouse clicks and a little bit more.
With this I don't want to underestimate Debian's efforts, I like the project, but I think they need to be more 'open' to the general public and not just to the programmers and make their project for the 'normal people' not a freak-only OS.<
But there is other problem with Debian and that is: extremism. The Debian project is aimed at create a completely 'free' operating system, and that means COMPLETELY free and that means all the sources need to be available to the general public (which, as I explained above, means just the programmers, who are the only ones that can understand them) and other requirements that are too many to explain in detail. Well there are some software you can use in a free operating system (Acrobat Reader or Sun's Java for example) but that there are no sources available (they are 'closed source'), these software is not included in Debian because is not free. They sometimes add some software which is not free, but in a special part of the project and is even more difficult to install
Again: I like the project, but they need to 'open' it to the software that is useful, but is not free. I think that a completely free operating system would be great, but, unfortunately, now there is not such a OS, so you need to adapt to what you got, and if you just got closed software, but you can use it without legal problems in your OS, use it and don't make it more difficult to use it, until there is a solution. There is a difference with software like Windows Media Player or MSN Messenger that the company that makes them don't like the software running in an 'open' system at all, in those cases, you need to work with what you got, and that's create other software.
I plan to return to this point in a future post, more about free software in general, but until then ;-)
Camahueto.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
My first post.
Well, well, this is my first post on my blog and I wish to use to explain how this is will be.
I want to post about my life and specially thoughts about everything, that means everything I'm interested in, well that's pretty much.
I'm interested in linguistics, software (open anyone?), Wikipedia (again, open anyone?), sciences sometimes, law (now much an obligation than anything else, specially here), history, literature (more reading than the theory), geography, human cultures and civilizations, media and publicity and what lifes brings to my mind, like politics, RPGs (which I play, sometimes) or 'interpersonal relations' (that includes love and friendship) and of course: the life, universe and everything, which is equal to 42 ;-)
Well, I want to write, just that. If you want to post, do it, but if no one finds this blog between the millions that are in this internet, I will keep writing on it.
By the way: Camahueto is just other incarnation of one of the most common myths in the human culture: Dragons.
I want to post about my life and specially thoughts about everything, that means everything I'm interested in, well that's pretty much.
I'm interested in linguistics, software (open anyone?), Wikipedia (again, open anyone?), sciences sometimes, law (now much an obligation than anything else, specially here), history, literature (more reading than the theory), geography, human cultures and civilizations, media and publicity and what lifes brings to my mind, like politics, RPGs (which I play, sometimes) or 'interpersonal relations' (that includes love and friendship) and of course: the life, universe and everything, which is equal to 42 ;-)
Well, I want to write, just that. If you want to post, do it, but if no one finds this blog between the millions that are in this internet, I will keep writing on it.
By the way: Camahueto is just other incarnation of one of the most common myths in the human culture: Dragons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)