Sunday 24 October 2010

The enemy of your enemy isn't your friend: He's just the next enemy in a long line of enemies who could have been your friend if it weren't for the fact that you keep seeing enemies everywhere.

From El Reg:

The enemy of my enemy 

OK the military might have a valid point about putting lives at risk, but you have to wonder how organisations like the Taliban have managed to garner enough support to warrant going after them with guns.

Well the reason why is - we gave them guns and ammo during the Cold War in an attempt to dislodge the Russians from Afghanistan and it all kinda snowballed from there. We weren't that bothered that this might be a problem at the time because they were keeping the Russians away from us. Unfortunately this attitude seems to have gotten us into a spot of bother.

So the question is, seeing as this "arm them and don't be too concerned with the consequences" would seem to be a repeated pattern of behaviour (at least as US foreign policy is concerned), who the hell are we arming right now? Because it will be them - whoever they are - that we have to deal with next. In fact if we are currently arming someone else in the next phase of whatever ideological battle we're supposed to be having maybe we should be learning from recent history and not repeating the same behaviour over and over again?

The enemy of your enemy isn't your friend: He's just the next enemy in a long line of enemies who could have been your friend if it weren't for the fact that you keep seeing enemies everywhere.

I hope AC doesn't mind my reposting this.  The final sentence says it all so well.

Posted via email from kwhitefoot's posterous

The enemy of your enemy isn't your friend: He's just the next enemy in a long line of enemies who could have been your friend if it weren't for the fact that you keep seeing enemies everywhere.

From El Reg:

The enemy of my enemy 

OK the military might have a valid point about putting lives at risk, but you have to wonder how organisations like the Taliban have managed to garner enough support to warrant going after them with guns.

Well the reason why is - we gave them guns and ammo during the Cold War in an attempt to dislodge the Russians from Afghanistan and it all kinda snowballed from there. We weren't that bothered that this might be a problem at the time because they were keeping the Russians away from us. Unfortunately this attitude seems to have gotten us into a spot of bother.

So the question is, seeing as this "arm them and don't be too concerned with the consequences" would seem to be a repeated pattern of behaviour (at least as US foreign policy is concerned), who the hell are we arming right now? Because it will be them - whoever they are - that we have to deal with next. In fact if we are currently arming someone else in the next phase of whatever ideological battle we're supposed to be having maybe we should be learning from recent history and not repeating the same behaviour over and over again?

The enemy of your enemy isn't your friend: He's just the next enemy in a long line of enemies who could have been your friend if it weren't for the fact that you keep seeing enemies everywhere.

I hope AC doesn't mind my reposting this.  The final sentence says it all so well.

Posted via email from kwhitefoot's posterous

Friday 8 October 2010

... on Twitpic

TEACHINGS OF DIOGENES

From http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Diogenes%20Folder/Diogenes.html *** Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups. "I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'". "That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'." Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?" Plato nodded. "Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes. Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'." ***

Posted via email from kwhitefoot's posterous

Saturday 2 October 2010

Parallel port output in Linux with Python

Parallel port output

 

http://pyserial.sourceforge.net/pyparallel.html

http://www.hare.demon.co.uk/ioport/ioport.html

http://bigasterisk.com/projects/parallel

http://www.ladyada.net/make/spokepov/download.html

http://book.opensourceproject.org.cn/kernel/kernelpri/index.html?page=opensource/0131181637/ch05lev1sec4.html

 

pyParallel

On Ubuntu 10.04 pyParallel can be installed from Synaptic.

Then start python:

>>> import parallel

>>> p=parallel.Parallel()

but that won't work

unless you first make /dev/parpart0 writable

# sudo chmod o+wr /dev/parport0

and unload the lp module

# sudo rmmod lp

For permanent changes it is best to add the user to the lp group instead of changing the permissions.  You still need to unload the lp module though.  Presumably you can do this in the init scripts.

 

 

 

Posted via email from kwhitefoot's posterous

Followers