Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (51962)	7/24/2004 7:52:10 PM
From: techguerrilla	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Very thoughtful response .......... .......... and my sentiments exactly. We are involved in a quagmire now. It is going to take someone with an ability to persuade and consolidate different interests. That's the antithesis of bush. He is nothing more than a confrontationist. John Kerry, though, has a lot of harmonizing tendencies. All of this really reminds me of an article I read in the New York Times this morning about the "war of terror" is really more of an ideological war. It was a great article. I suggest it to all. nytimes.com War of Ideology By David Brooks July 24, 2004 When foreign policy wonks go to bed, they dream of being X. They dream of writing the all-encompassing, epoch-defining essay, the way George F. Kennan did during the cold war under the pseudonym X. Careers have been spent racing to be X. But in our own time, the 9/11 commission has come closer than anybody else. After spending 360 pages describing a widespread intelligence failure, the commissioners step back in their report and redefine the nature of our predicament. We're not in the middle of a war on terror, they note. We're not facing an axis of evil. Instead, we are in the midst of an ideological conflict. We are facing, the report notes, a loose confederation of people who believe in a perverted stream of Islam that stretches from Ibn Taimaya to Sayyid Qutb. Terrorism is just the means they use to win converts to their cause. It seems like a small distinction - emphasizing ideology instead of terror - but it makes all the difference, because if you don't define your problem correctly, you can't contemplate a strategy for victory. When you see that our enemies are primarily an intellectual movement, not a terrorist army, you see why they are in no hurry. With their extensive indoctrination infrastructure of madrassas and mosques, they're still building strength, laying the groundwork for decades of struggle. Their time horizon can be totally different from our own. As an ideological movement rather than a national or military one, they can play by different rules. There is no territory they must protect. They never have to win a battle but can instead profit in the realm of public opinion from the glorious martyrdom entailed in their defeats. We think the struggle is fought on the ground, but they know the struggle is really fought on satellite TV, and they are far more sophisticated than we are in using it. The 9/11 commission report argues that we have to fight this war on two fronts. We have to use intelligence, military, financial and diplomatic capacities to fight Al Qaeda. That's where most of the media attention is focused. But the bigger fight is with a hostile belief system that can't be reasoned with but can only be "destroyed or utterly isolated." The commissioners don't say it, but the implication is clear. We've had an investigation into our intelligence failures; we now need a commission to analyze our intellectual failures. Simply put, the unapologetic defenders of America often lack the expertise they need. And scholars who really know the Islamic world are often blind to its pathologies. They are so obsessed with the sins of the West, they are incapable of grappling with threats to the West. We also need to mount our own ideological counteroffensive. The commissioners recommend that the U.S. should be much more critical of autocratic regimes, even friendly ones, simply to demonstrate our principles. They suggest we set up a fund to build secondary schools across Muslim states, and admit many more students into our own. If you are a philanthropist, here is how you can contribute: We need to set up the sort of intellectual mobilization we had during the cold war, with modern equivalents of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to give an international platform to modernist Muslims and to introduce them to Western intellectuals. Most of all, we need to see that the landscape of reality is altered. In the past, we've fought ideological movements that took control of states. Our foreign policy apparatus is geared toward relations with states: negotiating with states, confronting states. Now we are faced with a belief system that is inimical to the state system, and aims at theological rule and the restoration of the caliphate. We'll need a new set of institutions to grapple with this reality, and a new training method to understand people who are uninterested in national self-interest, traditionally defined. Last week I met with a leading military officer stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, whose observations dovetailed remarkably with the 9/11 commissioners. He said the experience of the last few years is misleading; only 10 percent of our efforts from now on will be military. The rest will be ideological. He observed that we are in the fight against Islamic extremism now where we were in the fight against communism in 1880. We've got a long struggle ahead, but at least we're beginning to understand it. E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (51962)	7/25/2004 1:17:16 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Tour de technology sfgate.com <<...As Lance Armstrong, the five-time winner of the Tour de France makes a final sprint toward a record sixth victory on Sunday, he will have relied on his skills, his teammates and the latest technology to get him there faster. Everything from training exercises in a wind tunnel to light-weight carbon-fiber bikes have made all the difference in Armstrong's performance, shaving precious seconds from his time and bringing him closer to the finish line. His "F-One" team consists of Trek, a bike manufacturer; Nike, which designed Armstrong's snug skin suits; Giro, which provided his aerodynamic helmets; and chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices in Sunnyvale, whose computers helped him analyze and refine his techniques during training. "Lance is a very demanding and very sophisticated user of technology, and there really is no better partner for us," said Morris Denton, director of global marketing and branding for AMD, in a phone conversation from France. Armstrong used AMD processors during wind-tunnel exercises at the University of Washington last December, in which his team varied wind speeds and measured his different levels of body resistance to determine the best way for him to position himself on his bike. As part of its sponsorship agreement with Armstrong, AMD will pay him an undisclosed sum of money and provide him and his teammates with technology equipment in return for placing the company logo on Armstrong's jersey and all official team gear. The agreement also requires that Armstrong make special appearances at AMD events. Denton said he hopes the company will play a more active role with the team next year. Trek, based in Wisconsin, provided Armstrong's team of 26 with more than 100 bikes this year. Armstrong received four bikes tailored specifically for him. The bikes are mostly made out of the same carbon fibers used in satellites. Although the company began designing the bikes immediately after the Tour de France in 2002, it tweaked certain components to make the bikes as light as possible. This year's bikes just squeaked past the minimum weight limit of 14.96 pounds. In fact, one of Armstrong's bikes, known as the SSL -- or super, super light -- actually weighed in below the regulated limit during Wednesday's time trials and Armstrong's team had to scramble to add more weight to it. In the end, Armstrong scrapped the SSL and opted for the SL, or super light, bike. Michael Sagan, senior industrial designer for Trek, said all of Armstrong's bikes are created on computer before any physical construction is done. Armstrong himself takes pains to be a part of the planning process, making his likes and dislikes well known. "He's kind of a geek at heart in wanting to know everything about everything," Denton said. So far, his eye for detail has paid off. Neal Rogers, associate editor for Velo News, a publication that covers domestic and international races, said technology has certainly contributed to Armstrong's success. "It plays a pretty big role," Rogers said. "Lance is known to be meticulous with his equipment." Not all athletes have that same advantage. For instance, Rogers points out that most cyclists cannot practice in a wind tunnel because it is too expensive. With or without technology, cyclists must still contend with the elements that are outside of their control. For instance, during last year's Tour de France, the handlebars of Armstrong's bike snagged the strap of an onlooker's shopping bag, causing a fall that almost cost him a victory. "Pretty much in order to win, the heavens have to smile on you," Rogers said...>>