collision detection: Web's first indie war correspondent begins his tour

March 27, 2003

Web's first indie war correspondent begins his tour

My friend Chris Allbritton, of Back To Iraq, has begun his postings from on the road in the region. He arrived in Turkey today and has some interesting conversations with his contacts there:

The region is rife with conspiracy theories. Aykut said that if I went out and asked the people on the street, half would say the United States committed 9/11 so it could go after Iraq. (Interestingly, almost half of Americans � 45 percent � believe Saddam was personally behind 9/11.) Turkey is also rippling with an anti-Bush sentiment. Turks like Americans and sometimes, even America. But more than 90 percent oppose this war and a similar percentage absolutely loathe George W. Bush. Aykut sheepishly admitted he hoped the war would go badly so Bush would lose in 2004.
Mehmet also said that the Turks, Iranians and Syrians were coming to an �understanding� regarding Iraqi Kurdistan. The upshot is that Iran and Syria would get Turkey�s back if it moved on the Kurdish enclave in defiance of America�s wishes. Iran would even send in its own troops, he said, if the Turks invaded unilaterally. I have no idea if this is true, but Stratfor had something on this not too long ago claiming the exact same thing.

Chris' trip is all the more significant given that more and more blogs by commercial war correspondents are being shuttered. A few days ago, I noted that CNN shut down the blog of its correspondent Kevin Sites; today, Howard Sherman pointed out to me that Time just asked Joshua Kucera, one of their war reporters, to shut down his blog too.

Posted by Clive Thompson at March 27, 2003 08:36 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/251

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Web's first indie war correspondent begins his tour:

» jessie connors from jessie connors

jessie connors
real estate coaching
success coaching

[Read More]

Tracked on March 15, 2005 6:20 PM

Comments

Posted by: sonneries at January 8, 2004 9:57 AM

Posted by: repondeur at January 10, 2004 4:41 AM

Nice site. thx.

Posted by: Online Casino at January 16, 2004 2:38 AM

This code should compile and run just fine, and you should see no changes in how the program works. So why did we do all of that?

Posted by: Rosanna at January 20, 2004 12:48 PM

Each Stack Frame represents a function. The bottom frame is always the main function, and the frames above it are the other functions that main calls. At any given time, the stack can show you the path your code has taken to get to where it is. The top frame represents the function the code is currently executing, and the frame below it is the function that called the current function, and the frame below that represents the function that called the function that called the current function, and so on all the way down to main, which is the starting point of any C program.

Posted by: Ellen at January 20, 2004 12:48 PM

This will allow us to use a few functions we didn't have access to before. These lines are still a mystery for now, but we'll explain them soon. Now we'll start working within the main function, where favoriteNumber is declared and used. The first thing we need to do is change how we declare the variable. Instead of

Posted by: John at January 20, 2004 12:48 PM

The most basic duality that exists with variables is how the programmer sees them in a totally different way than the computer does. When you're typing away in Project Builder, your variables are normal words smashed together, like software titles from the 80s. You deal with them on this level, moving them around and passing them back and forth.

Posted by: Ellen at January 20, 2004 12:48 PM

When the machine compiles your code, however, it does a little bit of translation. At run time, the computer sees nothing but 1s and 0s, which is all the computer ever sees: a continuous string of binary numbers that it can interpret in various ways.

Posted by: Ninion at January 20, 2004 12:48 PM

For this program, it was a bit of overkill. It's a lot of overkill, actually. There's usually no need to store integers in the Heap, unless you're making a whole lot of them. But even in this simpler form, it gives us a little bit more flexibility than we had before, in that we can create and destroy variables as we need, without having to worry about the Stack. It also demonstrates a new variable type, the pointer, which you will use extensively throughout your programming. And it is a pattern that is ubiquitous in Cocoa, so it is a pattern you will need to understand, even though Cocoa makes it much more transparent than it is here.

Posted by: Emery at January 20, 2004 12:48 PM

Seth Roby graduated in May of 2003 with a double major in English and Computer Science, the Macintosh part of a three-person Macintosh, Linux, and Windows graduating triumvirate.

Posted by: Zachary at January 20, 2004 12:49 PM

Posted by: Bartholomew at January 20, 2004 12:49 PM

Since the Heap has no definite rules as to where it will create space for you, there must be some way of figuring out where your new space is. And the answer is, simply enough, addressing. When you create new space in the heap to hold your data, you get back an address that tells you where your new space is, so your bits can move in. This address is called a Pointer, and it's really just a hexadecimal number that points to a location in the heap. Since it's really just a number, it can be stored quite nicely into a variable.

Posted by: Mildred at January 20, 2004 12:49 PM

Posted by: Alice at January 20, 2004 12:49 PM

I just surfed around and found your site, I really enjoyed the visit and hope to come back soon. Greetings,

�

Posted by: hebergement web at January 21, 2004 5:59 AM