Slashdot Mirror

I think Obama's position on war is pretty clear.

Also (I said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again) voting to allocate funds for a war in progress does not necessarily mean not objecting to that war. There is no option for no war at that point, the choice is between funding the troops fighting the war, or not funding the troops fighting the war. Choosing to fund the troops fighting the war is the pragmatic decision. It's not inconsistent with opposing the war in principle.

[the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The question is not whether his speeches remain libre, but whether he can be compelled to make them libre. I write OSS. That isn't good enough for Stallman -- he wants everything I write to be "free software", including the stuff I have not chosen to release under OSS licenses. (Like, say, the stuff that pays the rent.) Stallman makes some speeches available free as in beer. In one of them, he lays out his grand theory of IP.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_Software_and_Beyond:_Human_Rights_in_the_Use_of_Software

Way down in that document, he divides IP into 3 segments, and says how he would deal with them.

1) Useful IP: Programs, recipes, instructions on how to do things, must be free.

2) Works that state the views of certain parties: Stallman's speeches fall here, as well as op-eds, etc.

Let me quote directly: "Now here my answer is different, I don't think modified versions of these works contribute to society, all they do is misrepresent the authors. So I propose a compromised copyright system which says that everybody is free non-commercially to redistribute exact copies. But modifications require permission and commercial use require permission."

So there you have it, Stallman is free to remix, derive from, and commercially exploit the fruits of my labor (whether I like it or not), but I am not allowed to modify, derive from, or commercially exploit the fruits of his labor (unless he lets me). That sure sounds fair.

Not relevent to the discussion, but for completeness' sake:

3) Arts and entertainment: movies, paintings, & etc. 10 year exclusive rights to modification and commercial use.

I don't remember the christian bible telling you to kill non-believers, rape their wives, and enslave their children, [...]

Funny, I think I remember stuff like that. Try Deuteronomy 20:10-16:

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: [...]

Ok, you get the point: imperialism, enslavement, plunder, genocide, all in one single chapter of the Deuteronomy; of course there is a lot more if you care to read on. Googling around I found a pretty site that might help you understand that the Bible is just as nuts as any other religious text.

I've found several interesting OLDER stories at Wikisource which I found quite enjoyable:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Sleeper_Awakes
and others by H.G.Wells:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:H._G._Wells

Similarly, you can read classic stuff from Jules Verne. Lots of short stories and such by various authors.

Their index of stuff doesn't seem very complete, but if you search for an author (google "wikisource $AUTHOR"), it seems to work very well.

Other good stories I've read recently:
Little Brother, by Cory Doctorow
http://craphound.com/littlebrother/Cory_Doctorow_-_Little_Brother.htm

The metamorphosis of Prime Intellect (may not be worksafe ;))
http://www.kuro5hin.org/prime-intellect/
(I enjoyed this more than LB, though LB was very engaging as well.)

I've found several interesting OLDER stories at Wikisource which I found quite enjoyable:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Sleeper_Awakes
and others by H.G.Wells:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:H._G._Wells

Similarly, you can read classic stuff from Jules Verne. Lots of short stories and such by various authors.

Their index of stuff doesn't seem very complete, but if you search for an author (google "wikisource $AUTHOR"), it seems to work very well.

Other good stories I've read recently:
Little Brother, by Cory Doctorow
http://craphound.com/littlebrother/Cory_Doctorow_-_Little_Brother.htm

The metamorphosis of Prime Intellect (may not be worksafe ;))
http://www.kuro5hin.org/prime-intellect/
(I enjoyed this more than LB, though LB was very engaging as well.)

You keep using that source... I do not think it proves what you think it proves.

I think this may be a case where Wikipedia leads astray. I could easily be wrong, but double-checking the Athanasian Creed, it does not say anything about non-directionality. It doesn't have "God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit". It only has things stated the other way around.

There could be more going on here, but I would have to see some strong documentation to the contrary.

OT:And you thought *IAA was heavy handed, at least they don't have the powers of DoD or The Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay (HBC was allowed to raise armies and make war...).

You might want to actually read U.S. v. Miller. It doesn't say what you appear to believe. As to what the militia was, the Supreme court wrote:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Their reason for not overturning on appeal was that,

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."

With the clear implication that if a weapon WERE demonstrated to the court to be part of ordinary military equipment or that it was able to contribute to the common defense then it WOULD be protected by the second amendment.

Better mail university professors some bombs eh?.

All kidding aside, you've just made exactly the (fairly astute IMHO) point Ted Kaczynski made in his manifesto available here Industrial Society and It's Future.

Pretty good read, even if what he decided to do about it was entirely deplorable.

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
• A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
• The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Unfortunatelly I don't have mod points... Let's see how long it takes until someone mod you up.

Until then, let me enlight the rest of you that didn't got the reference:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/At_the_Mountains_of_Madness

Great history.

Most of those points are valid, but you forgot to check your facts at the end:

"...[Iran's] continuing defiance of the world community -- no, not just the US -- on its nuclear processing.

Who's wearing a tin foil hat now?

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the de facto unelected member of the UN Security Council (Germany) are not the world community: they are just six out of about 200 countries in the United Nations. Making Germany into a de facto member of the "permanent member" group of the UNSC is not exactly something in line with what the world community wants. Discussion on adding more non-Western large regional powers such as India, Brazil and Nigeria, as well as Japan, has been going on for some time. Three of the present five permanent members are Western - the de facto adding of Germany to this group is only making the power imbalance worse. So who is defying the world community?

As for the sanctions and threats to bomb Iran back into the Stone Age, check out the opinion of the 118 members of the Non-Aligned Movement:

The ministers welcomed the cooperation extended by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the IAEA including those voluntary confidence-building measures undertaken, with a view to resolve the remaining issues. They noted the assessment of the IAEA director- general that all nuclear material declared by Iran had been accounted for. ... The ministers reaffirmed the inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities and that any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities, operational or under construction, poses a great danger to human beings and the environment, and constitutes a grave violation of international law, principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and regulations of the IAEA. ... The ministers strongly believed that all issues on safeguards and verification, including those of Iran, should be resolved within the IAEA framework, and be based on technical and legal grounds.

The UNSC is defying the world community by not recognising Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which states the inalienable right of Iran (and other signatories) to "develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".

Check out the reality: five official nuclear weapons states are defying the international community - as represented by the NPT - by failing to

"pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,"

as they are obliged to under Article VI of the NPT. As for unofficial nuclear weapons states, Israel, India and Pakistan are defying the world community by not joining the NPT. Israel is not even willing to state openly that it has 200-300 nuclear warheads.

And what does the regional "world community", close to Iran - those potentially most threatened by Iran (apart from the state with 200-300 nuclear warheads to defend itself with) - think of the situation?

LONDON, June 18 (IranMania) - Arab League secretary general has stressed that Arabian states are unanimous in their opposition to military attack on Iran and call for solving the differences on Iran's nuclear program through talks, IRNA reported. ... Mousa also criticized the performances of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and desc

Most of those points are valid, but you forgot to check your facts at the end:

"...[Iran's] continuing defiance of the world community -- no, not just the US -- on its nuclear processing.

Who's wearing a tin foil hat now?

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the de facto unelected member of the UN Security Council (Germany) are not the world community: they are just six out of about 200 countries in the United Nations. Making Germany into a de facto member of the "permanent member" group of the UNSC is not exactly something in line with what the world community wants. Discussion on adding more non-Western large regional powers such as India, Brazil and Nigeria, as well as Japan, has been going on for some time. Three of the present five permanent members are Western - the de facto adding of Germany to this group is only making the power imbalance worse. So who is defying the world community?

As for the sanctions and threats to bomb Iran back into the Stone Age, check out the opinion of the 118 members of the Non-Aligned Movement:

The ministers welcomed the cooperation extended by the Islamic Republic of Iran to the IAEA including those voluntary confidence-building measures undertaken, with a view to resolve the remaining issues. They noted the assessment of the IAEA director- general that all nuclear material declared by Iran had been accounted for. ... The ministers reaffirmed the inviolability of peaceful nuclear activities and that any attack or threat of attack against peaceful nuclear facilities, operational or under construction, poses a great danger to human beings and the environment, and constitutes a grave violation of international law, principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and regulations of the IAEA. ... The ministers strongly believed that all issues on safeguards and verification, including those of Iran, should be resolved within the IAEA framework, and be based on technical and legal grounds.

The UNSC is defying the world community by not recognising Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which states the inalienable right of Iran (and other signatories) to "develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".

Check out the reality: five official nuclear weapons states are defying the international community - as represented by the NPT - by failing to

"pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,"

as they are obliged to under Article VI of the NPT. As for unofficial nuclear weapons states, Israel, India and Pakistan are defying the world community by not joining the NPT. Israel is not even willing to state openly that it has 200-300 nuclear warheads.

And what does the regional "world community", close to Iran - those potentially most threatened by Iran (apart from the state with 200-300 nuclear warheads to defend itself with) - think of the situation?

LONDON, June 18 (IranMania) - Arab League secretary general has stressed that Arabian states are unanimous in their opposition to military attack on Iran and call for solving the differences on Iran's nuclear program through talks, IRNA reported. ... Mousa also criticized the performances of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and desc

Oh, certainly. I'm not debating that at all. But here in the USA, much of our electrical power comes from coal, which is -- as you point out -- the dirtiest damn thing in the world. We need something scalable, something base-load, and something *now* to replace it, and nuclear is the only thing that fits the bill.

Where and when geothermal, solar, and wind are feasible, *use them*. I'm not advocating a nuclear-only future, only saying that at the moment it's got to be the heavy lifter until we figure out how to get TW of power out of solar/wind. There are lots of answers, and they should all be explored... but nuclear is here now, and available now. There are no slashdot stories on "People figure out how to make power out of uranium"; that's old hat. But we do have stories on "People figure out neat way to do solar-thermal"; we're in one right now. Solar-thermal is neat, and about as clean as it gets -- this is worthy research!

But I'm *posting* this using power from an old fission plant. Let's replace coal with fission, and then turn on solar/wind/tidal/geothermal/fusion/kinetic drive from Ike spinning in his grave as they become available.

I'll hold my cheers until the government actually starts _using_ open formats.

There is also an approved motion, filed in 2002, that "requests the government to ensure that, by 2006, all software used in the public sector complies with open standards" (full (dutch) text of the motion).

This is what we want. This is what we _should_ have. It's outrageous for a government to force us to deal with prorprietary formats.

Furthermore, the motion expresses concern about the cost of the government using proprietary software that uses proprietary formats, and requests that the government "stimulate the adoption and development of open-source software in the public sector".

Regardless, the (previous) government inked a $$$ deal with Microsoft, apparently without even considering alternatives. I do some work for government agencies, and Windows is everywhere. Having said that, Linux is, too. I don't know about document formats they use for interacting with citizens; they always give me paper forms. But in my communications with them, it's Outlook and MS Word and Excel.

It's now 2007, one year past the target of the motion, and there's a long way to go still.

Conflict of interest? Welcome to the military-industrial-congressional complex, the backbone of US hegemony.

Both I and the IEEE beg to differ. You might want to read this link.

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/reverse.html

and

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_9/Sections_906_and_907

about reverse engineering , you will find it is indeed legal to reverse anything in the USA as long as its done for education and is not to be done for profit as well as to make a profit.

America: Processed cheese eating capitulation elephants.

"Illegal combatants have no rights. And yes, that is spelled out in the Geneva Convention. Look it up."

Not so fast. Article 5 of the third Geneva Convention is quite clear: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Furthermore, where they have no rights under the Geneva Conventions, they do have rights under municipal and international law. The relevant quote:

"Once a combatant is found by a competent tribunal to be an unlawful combatant, he or she no longer has the rights and privileges accorded to a prisoner of war (POW), but he retains all the rights any other civilian would have under municipal and international law in the same situation." from here

Therefore, no discovery, no suit, no way ...

And therefore no conviction either.

And no new courts?

I meant "no new problems" in the 6 years, not "no new courts".

The military commissions are new courts with much more "lenient" rules for admission of evidence.

The military commissions — America's implementation of the "competent tribunals" mandated by the Geneva conventions — apply to people suspected of being unlawful combatants.

Fortunately for US citizens, they haven't been able to use them against us.

Exactly. So, I don't understand, why you keep bringing this up in connection with electronic surveilance. Can we, please, get back on topic?

But, please, don't respond, until the Cool-Aid wears off. Thank you.

Art.5 of the new proposal violates art.3 comma 2, art.9, art.21 and art.41 of the Constitution.

Article 5 of the proposal defines "publishing activity" as production, distribution and collecting advertisement revenue. Did you mean article 6, the one that makes it compulsory for anyone with a "publishing activity" to register?

As for the Constitution articles, let's flesh them out one by one:

• Article 3:2 says It is the duty of the Republic to remove those obstacles of an economic and social nature which, really limiting the freedom and equality of citizens, impede the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all workers in the political, economic and social organization of the country. This has not much to do with publishing. If it were to be as widely interpreted as you seem to want it to be, then they should abolish train and public-transport fares (hey, I'm in favor of that), completely cover all costs of political activity and so on.
• Article 9 says The Republic promotes the development of culture and scientific and technical research. It safeguards landscape and the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation. This is about universities and higher educations. It does not even state that research is free. Writing on a website has little to do with this article.
• Article 21 says All have the right to express freely their own thought by word, in writing and by all other means of communication. The press cannot be subjected to authorization or censorship. [...] Printed publications, shows and other displays contrary to morality are forbidden. The law establishes appropriate means for preventing and suppressing all violations. It seems to me that this article's last two sentences were written by some fascist, and are already now something that should be abolished. Aside that, compulsory registration does not eliminate your freedom of speech, it only makes it difficult to actually use it. Anyone familiar with Italian bureaucracy will know that registering is going to take time, effort, probably money, a decent amount of patience, and of course approving the registration may take forever: in the law proposal, there are no maximum terms after which registration must be granted.
• Article 41 says Private economic initiative is free. [...] This has, again, nothing to do with what we were discussing. We were discussing personal websites, not commercial ones. This article is not about freedom of speech: indeed, it is listed under "Title III: Economic relations", not "Title I: Civil Rights".

So, again, I do not see what is directly unconstitutional about this law proposal. Of course, my opinion is that this means there is a problem in the Constitution, not that the proposal is fine. Feel free to elaborate.

Aside all the political siding here (which adds nothing to the discussion), you should notice that some articles of the law contradict the Constitution (the Italian Constitution, that is), therefore this law won't make it anywhere.

I wish I could believe that. The Constitution explicitly forbids financing private schools in article 33, yet private schools are financed using some creative accountability, such as calculating the savings to public school when a kid goes to private school. Anyway, which article of the Constitution would this law violate? Article 21 says nothing about being free from a requirement of registration. This is the same system applied to newspapers, it's not illegal today. The point is not to prohibit blogs, which would never get through the Constitutional Court, the point is to make it difficult to open one, or to make it a liability if you do open one without having gone through the bureaucracy, or to open a loophole so that blogs may be closed for some administrative reason.

Also, a minor correction: the main Italian newspaper is "Il Corriere della Sera", not "La Repubblica" (important, but not the main).

Hmm, I think I recall reading that Repubblica passed Corriere some months ago. The Wikipedia has only data from 2005, unfortunately.

wikisource has a copy: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers

"Dream on. It's only going to get worse from here."

Worse in rhetoric only. Threatening is MUCH better than suing:
flash movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YExl9ojclo
text: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_%E2%80%9CBe_very_afraid%E2%80%9D_tour

I made a little check on the history of the damages clause, according to this page the structure of damages has been unchanged since 1976 with two adjustments of the values in 1988 and 1999. I think you can safely say that in 1976, mass end-user piracy was not a problem. Apart from some mix tapes and a xeroxed book, the only people that would do any significant amount of copyright infringement was larger presses, stamping machines and other "organized" piracy. At the time, it probably make sense that you'd make many copies of one work so that a statutory minimum of 750$ per work was reasonable.

With digital works, that has been completely changed upside down. You're not making 100 copies of one work to get economics of scale, you're making one copy of 100 works because you want a copy yourself. So if say 100 people made 100 copies each in 1976 and swapped 99 of their copies, they'd be fined a minimum of 750$ each. Today, if the same people today each download one copy of each work, the number of copies are the same (100*100) but the minimum damages have increase 100-fold to 750$*100 works = 75000$ because everyone is making a minor infringement on all the works. Does that make any sense whatsoever? No. It's like saying that stealing this huge bar of chocolade is one count of theft while stealing this bag of tiny chocolades is 100 counts of thefts. It's the best law the RIAA didn't even have to buy - it's simply grown into complete unreasonability all by itself.

Humans can't distinguish well between any languages they don't speak. This was the premise for The Murders in the Rue Morgue .

Blooming nonsense. The naturally naive outpourings of a self-hating Indian as usual:

The Indian Constitution protects the Fundamental rights of people far more zealously than the US does. Freedom of Speech is certainly important. However, in a developing country with large volume of poor and exploitable people, the fundamental rights that the Constitution of India does guarantee ie:

1.Right to equality
2.Right to freedom
3.Right against exploitation
4.Right to freedom of religion
5.Cultural and educational rights
6.Right to constitutional remedies

Carry precedence in our social context. I'm no big fan of Babasaheb Ambedkar (he was quite the nutcase in other areas), but he knew what he was doing when he wrote the constitution.Have you even read the bloody thing, or are you just mouthing off nonsense?

Oh, and Article 19 Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.
(1) All citizens shall have the right -
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

Does guarantee freedom of speech. It's just not as high up on the list as the right not to be starved to death, is all (we've still got a loong way to go in that area though).

Have a read: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Indi a/Part_III

The only significant thing that the US constitution guarantees that the Indian Constitution does not is the right to bear arms (legal stuff, like the right not to incriminate yourself, are contained in the Indian penal code), and that IS due to historical reasons. It just doesn't figure too highly in our sociopolitical superstructure, and can easily be abused by certain people called "Naxalites" (remember those fine thugrats?).

Democracy is a great thing, and is implementable everywhere, but the specifics must vary with region/culture. You cannot fit the square peg of the US constitution into the round hole of India. You need a round peg. I wouldn't expect that a developed and wealthy nation like the United States would need a special Constitutional amendment like "Right against exploitation", sine that can be covered in the legal system.

Some minor Google browsing and WikiSource seem to indicate the Reagan wrote his own Inaugural Address, which is where that quote is from. I'd say the burden of proof lies on you to show us that Peggy Noonan wrote this speech as she did some of his others.

At the end of the original French Le Petit Chaperon Rouge, there is a moral which makes the sexual aspect of the story pretty clear (translated into English):

"One sees here that young children, above all young girls, pretty, well to do and gentle, will do bad in encountering all sorts of people. . . I speak of the 'wolf', for all the wolves. . . without sound. . . follow young maidens. . . into houses, into lanes. But beware! know that the most gentle wolves, of all the wolves, are the most dangerous"

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Well, it's just their own desire for self-preservation. The world's leaders all got together after WWII and decided that there was to be a permanent and lasting peace, what with the looming threat of atomic weapons and all. Unfortunately, the 60's happened and there was a communications revolution and people saw through the fairly thin veil covering the "power elite", "big business", "the military industrial complex", etc. So they realized that the only way they could keep increasing or at least maintaining their own power over the masses (versus us thinking for ourselves, god help us) there needed to be a permanent state of "war" on something.

Because war is against an "enemy" surely we need to "secure ourselves" from this enemy. It's Country 101, something any old Dad would do for his family, and perfectly natural. Obviously this isn't going to work in the long run for population control and resource division, but we're past due for a major war, as far as history is concerned, and I think the energy crisis will probably do it for us.

At any rate, the truth of your statement, and some of the others I've read really resonates. I mean, we caused 9/11 ourselves. We caused the middle east. By We I mean They. After WWII, they created Israel, right in the middle of the junction of the European, Asian and African worlds. And they shipped most of the Jews from Europe there, and gave them guns. This was the British, by the way, look up "Palestine Mandate" if you have any further questions about this. They took land from not only the sizable Muslim population (Arabs, Jordanian, Syrian, Iraqi, etc.) but also the sizable Christian population as well.

And Evangelical Christians (such as George W. Bush) believe that it's prophecized that in order to bring about "the rapture" (the second coming of Jesus), the Muslims and Jews must destroy each other in Palestine (Israel). So all of this conflict is generally welcomed. It's not just profit. It's power. It's fairly obvious that these people get together and talk to each other. It's fairly obvious they know what's going on because it's their JOB to know what's going on. We just have to start accepting the fact that we are the little people.

People in China don't question what their power elite does. And somehow they manage to survive and grow as a country. In America, the great experiment was what would happen if we (as a people) could talk as much shit as we want about our country. And the 60's broke that.

So what, we're still a young country. We don't really know what the future holds. We're only about 250 years old, you know, which isn't long in the great scheme of things. We need to learn to think bigger. It's more than just America anymore! Your and my existence is fairly meaningless in the great scheme of things. Our central bank has been fleecing the entire world for a half-century and you didn't think eventually we would have to back up our loans with something? What do we have to give? Protection, that's about it. Haven't you heard Russia started flying bombers again? If you think this is about a few stupid terrorists, think again.

This is about the New World Order. And I'm not talking about conspiracy shite. There are competing philosophies chomping at the bit to make a play for world leadership, not limited to the EU, China, India, Russia, the Middle East (consolidating into one or two larger countries or economic systems). On September 11, 1990, George H. W. Bush gave a speech called "Toward a New World Order", in which he states:

A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective--a new world order--can emerge: A new era--freer from the threat

And he dismissed a literal interpretation of Genesis

Where does he say this?

Not in the Wikipedia article perhaps, but his confessions are on wikisource. Try reading Books XI, XII, XIII in particular.

It never says he denies creation.

And I never said he did. In those days there was no reason to doubt it. I said he rejected a literal reading of Genesis, and more generally, rejected using literal Biblical accounts to reject empirical observations.

Perhaps before spouting off, you can read some of the historical commentaries on (what I presume is) your own religion. Mine isn't Christianity -- I claim no religion, but come from a Hindu background. But I do like to stay informed.

The rest of your post merely shows your ignorance of basic biology. Which is not so surprising given your ignorance even of theological literature.

The red cross is not an ordinary trademark symbol. Usage of the red cross emblem is governed under the first and second Geneva Conventions.

If I am reading it right, a red cross may have one of two distinct meanings. It may either be used as a sign that a person/building/ship is protected by the Geneva Conventions, or may be used as a logo by the Red Cross. Any other use is forbidden.

Also, there is the reason that trademark laws were created, for consumer protection. Trademarks exists so that when a consumer sees a trademark, they will associate the product they see it on with whatever organization they associate the trademark with. In the case of a red cross, the vast majority of Americans associate it with the International Red Cross, not Johnson & Johnson. Use of a red cross by Johnson & Johnson would likely confuse people into thinking the product was connected with the Red Cross, while usage by the Red Cross would not mislead people into thinking it connected with Johnson & Johnson. Because most consumers would associate the red cross this way, Johnson & Johnson's use of the trademark is what would deceive consumers, completely defeating the point of trademark law.

The red cross is not an ordinary trademark symbol. Usage of the red cross emblem is governed under the first and second Geneva Conventions.

If I am reading it right, a red cross may have one of two distinct meanings. It may either be used as a sign that a person/building/ship is protected by the Geneva Conventions, or may be used as a logo by the Red Cross. Any other use is forbidden.

Also, there is the reason that trademark laws were created, for consumer protection. Trademarks exists so that when a consumer sees a trademark, they will associate the product they see it on with whatever organization they associate the trademark with. In the case of a red cross, the vast majority of Americans associate it with the International Red Cross, not Johnson & Johnson. Use of a red cross by Johnson & Johnson would likely confuse people into thinking the product was connected with the Red Cross, while usage by the Red Cross would not mislead people into thinking it connected with Johnson & Johnson. Because most consumers would associate the red cross this way, Johnson & Johnson's use of the trademark is what would deceive consumers, completely defeating the point of trademark law.

The use by individuals, societies, firms or companies either public or private, other than those entitled thereto under the present Convention, of the emblem or the designation " Red Cross " or " Geneva Cross " or any sign or designation constituting an imitation thereof, whatever the object of such use, and irrespective of the date of its adoption, shall be prohibited at all times.

Nevertheless, such High Contracting Parties as were not party to the Geneva Convention of 27 July 1929, may grant to prior users of the emblems, designations, signs or marks designated in the first paragraph, a time limit not to exceed three years from the coming into force of the present Convention to discontinue such use provided that the said use shall not be such as would appear, in time of war, to confer the protection of the Convention.

The High Contracting Parties shall, if their legislation is not already adequate, take measures necessary for the prevention and repression, at all times, of the abuses referred to under Article 53.

The use by individuals, societies, firms or companies either public or private, other than those entitled thereto under the present Convention, of the emblem or the designation " Red Cross " or " Geneva Cross " or any sign or designation constituting an imitation thereof, whatever the object of such use, and irrespective of the date of its adoption, shall be prohibited at all times.

Nevertheless, such High Contracting Parties as were not party to the Geneva Convention of 27 July 1929, may grant to prior users of the emblems, designations, signs or marks designated in the first paragraph, a time limit not to exceed three years from the coming into force of the present Convention to discontinue such use provided that the said use shall not be such as would appear, in time of war, to confer the protection of the Convention.

The High Contracting Parties shall, if their legislation is not already adequate, take measures necessary for the prevention and repression, at all times, of the abuses referred to under Article 53.

J&J have the trademark in the area of medicines and so on, and now the ARC is using that trademark to promote their own produces.

I think that J&J have the law on their side in this case.

With the exception of the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs of the present Article, the emblem of the red cross on a white ground and the words " Red Cross" or " Geneva Cross " may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the present Convention and other Conventions dealing with similar matters.

As an exceptional measure, in conformity with national legislation and with the express permission of one of the National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies, the emblem of the Convention may be employed in time of peace to identify vehicles used as ambulances and to mark the position of aid stations exclusively assigned to the purpose of giving free treatment to the wounded or sick.

If someone started a project to provide that kind of information for Project Gutenberg books, I'd get on board to help. Bonus points if they're also putting them in formats that don't suck (making plain text look good on the screen is a pain in the ass).

• http://gutenberg.hwg.org/ - HTML Writer's Guild - They have moved to a more XML scheme for markups, but it originally started by a couple of guys who wanted to take the PG material and formatted it using HTML. The raw ASCII is available, of course, if you really want to get it.
• http://www.wikisource.org/ - Wikisource - A "sister project" to Wikipedia and sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, this project aims primarily to support Wikipedia with original source documents, although most of the "regular" participants simply are fans of old documents. You have all of the tools available on the MediaWiki software for markups (aka the same software used for Wikipedia) and some extensive work has been done with many documents to "pretty them up" and format them to something more than a plain ASCII text page. While some Project Gutenberg pages do exist on this site, it isn't exclusively PG material.

You missed the reference. The parent was referring to http://www.wikisource.org/, one of the Wikipedia sister projects that works with original source materials.... and yes, actual books.

Often criticized as a duplication of Project Gutenberg, it does have some unique documents that you can't find elsewhere, and is *much easier* to add new documents to this project than say PG or other free text websites. I like Distributed Proofreader's approach to text quality quite a bit, but this is an alternative.

The "people first" attitude is one I'd accept if it weren't so short-sighted; most of what people advocate (and here I'm including the things you listed as "good reasons") as beneficial to people, really aren't in the long run.

Those issues are rather less important--it's partly a scientific and economic question what really serves human well-being. I happen to believe human beings are better off with a sustainable, bright green post-industrial society combined with preservation of ecosystems, especially the more unique or beautiful ones, that don't need to be altered for human needs. One might argue that reverting to a pre-industrial society would serve human well-being because industrial societies either fail to serve human well-being, or because no industrial society is ecologically sustainable. I just don't see how you can be absolutist about not destroying any "natural" (i.e. non-human) ecosystem or species while actually accepting the principle of human well-being. "There is no human benefit in doing things which harm or threaten other species."? Really? Even the species of bacteria that causes tuberculosis?

Do you honestly think it's "beneficial to people" to abandon industry? Agriculture? Medicine? If so, that's our point of disagreement--an important point of disagreement, but one that I'm not interested in pursuing. On the other hand, if you're interested in ways to build a technological society that's ecologically sustainable and beneficial to humans even in the long run, we have no disagreement at all.

Try Theodore Kaczynski's Industrial Society and Its Future (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_ and_Its_Future), popularly known as The Unabomber Manifesto. In it he outlines the same slavery to technological advancement in a far less muggy way. Although I have no issue with multiple similar texts spanning the same topic, the fact that he doesn't reference (as far as the summary goes) Kaczynski's seminal contribution makes me somewhat wary of this author's breadth and credibility.

The CIA has been doing nasty stuff in Europe. Of course, torture is illegal, which is why the CIA uses extraordinary rendition and secret prisons in Eastern Europe, rather than torture people at home.

For your enlightenment:
CIA ran secret prisons for detainees in Europe, says inquiry
German ministers 'knew about CIA torture cells'
CIA jails in Europe 'confirmed'