"apostroph ist, was ihr draus macht" – ein fall für die apostroph-gruselgalerie: du schein'st es ja nicht kapiert zu haben, fanta...

games people play: duden besserwisserspiel.

meanwhile back in the jungle: assoziations-blaster was offline (7 – 11 september 2001).

hey, what a cool feature: p3k.org wrapped into web-blaster.

last night i watched a documentary about the german constitutional court, a bunch of eight judges, being something like an ultimate instance of adjucation (nevertheless it's not a divine power and it made some remarkably bad decisions as well).

although the court is not involved in any trial about germany's role in the upcoming war actions (at least at the moment), one of the judges (which seem to be very deliberate and smart people, btw. – as far as i can tell) said something very insightful about the difficulties to find the right sentence on controversal issues: you have to argue with the other judges, to wriggle with their arguments, to step into the "purgatory of decision making" – because there is so much at stake.

now back to the war mongers in the us and europe: many leaders recently were empowered by parliament or senate to have exclusive control over military action to be taken. they don't have to negotiate about controversial issues with anyone of their staff anymore (although they still can).

reminder: the overall tenor in mainstream media and the public concerning what to do with the terrorists (and especially the countries that became suspects of nurturing terror) was "act now, negotiate later".

i think this was the wrong approach. sure, there was a lot of action to be taken immediately to prevent further attacks (aka defense). sure you defend yourself! but concerning the upcoming raids of the oh so "civilised western world", this "purgatory of decision making" would have been more than just necessary. for the media, for the public and especially for politicians. not despite – but because there is so much at stake.

unix 101, an overview of unix illustrated with several examples (command reference, vi editor, shell script workshop).

"auch dave winer ist ein beispiel dafür, wie sehr patriotismus das hirn zuscheißt." – jörg kantel, der schockwellenreiter.

and i thought i was the only one thinking so... anyway, craig jensen rebutts dave winer at booknotes. i can be thankful as well.

on the week-end i installed some new stuff on my netbsd performa: netatalk (the version patched for afp/tcp by adrian sun) and samba.

bill mcgonigle's netatalk faq and this how to by anders brownworth helped me a lot with installation and configuration.

now i can easily connect from any other mac or windows machine to the pizzabox – well, almost easily: strangely enough, it worked from a windows 2000 machine but it did not from a computer running windows nt... i think due to misconfiguration on the nt box (otherwise it wouldn't work at all, would it?).

certainly i did enable plain text passwords in nt just as i did with windows 2000 (but i probably should undo this when i turn to ssl and security issues once).

update: after some fiddling around i finally made it! unfortunately, i cannot tell exactly what i did... but i assume it had to do with a missing FqdnUsesSmbServerName key in the nt registry. here is a full description of the circumstances.

btw. php is now also working seamlessly with apache. i had to recompile both packages enabling dso support (which was not too difficult thanks to 10 essential php tips for developers from india).

think i'll have to update my netbsd report.

it was good to blog some news when the big news sites went down. but now i am sick of self-proclaimed war correspondents formerly known as tech-bloggers. i wish a lot of those would return to their "normal life" again. more and more i read about careless suggestions and pretty dumb agitation. what a mess.

i'll have to re-invent my link list on the left. erase and rewind.

seems the self-absorption has now even caught those who recently appeared to be a little bit more deliberate: lately, dave winer talks about "thoughtlessness and arrogance among europeans", europeans "not getting" that this is "not like an earthquake or hurricane" or "acts of god", that "this is a war".

and he links to an article in the london sunday times stating "they [the us-americans] saved europe from barbarism in two world wars. after the second world war they rebuilt the continent from the ashes. they confronted and peacefully defeated soviet communism, the most murderous system ever devised by man, and thereby enforced the slow dismantling – we hope – of chinese communism, the second most murderous. america, primarily, ejected iraq from kuwait and helped us to eject argentina from the falklands. america stopped the slaughter in the balkans while the europeans dithered".

thanks for reminding me. and i apoligize already for getting a little bit upset now. but for me as an european, although i agree upon that they freed germany from the nazis, the usa appear as suspects in any other of the military actions mentioned in the article. suspects, not culprits. i suspect them to be gone to war too often as aggressors and not defenders, fighting because of power and pecuniary reasons, for oil, hegemony and whatever (this is probably how the little word "primarily" could be interpreted as well). ask some victims, ask some of those who are not mentioned in this very paragraph, but don't ask me if you want to investigate.

this article leaves out so much (if not all) of the reasons why they really hate america, no matter whether this is reasonable or not. this article is full of self-evident self-denial, it's the exact contradiction to the one in the guardian titled "they can't see why they are hated" which was linked on scripting news just a few days ago.

today, well-behaved dave says "thank you" for black'n'white journalism. and just like the sunday times author, however in a more subtle way, dave is asking for the decision: "whose side are you really on?" – a stupid question by the way, because it suggests that there is no real choice and that it's all about the usa. and darn! it's not! and there is certainly more to this than just taking side in an actual conflict.

from my point of view, the chance that americans "get it", that they understand those who in fact know and suffer or suffered from terrorism and its consequences for decades (just think about ireland, spain or corse just to name a few western european countries), the option of the usa understanding the role of this country as opportunist of terrorism, decreased to a minimum.

just look how they are making the same mistake again, abusing pakistan as ally against afghanistan. but the enemy of one's enemy does not necessarily mean to be one's friend.

and who said that this was the (first) wakeup call?

clubspotting: kassablanca, jena (reload yourself).

fun with unicode: haboglabobloggin' in the hall of mirrors (sort of).