Slashdot Mirror
Will Open Source Ever Become Mainstream?
Prabhu Ramachandran asks: "I am a graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley and as part of a course project I am trying to gather comments on the following question: Will the Open Source and Free Software communities develop software that will find widespread adoption amongst the mainstream, or is such software, by its nature, suitable only for sophisticated users?
As part of my literature survey I found an academic perspective that seemed to indicate that open source projects do not reach the mainstream because the developers tend to listen only to their smartest customers. There also seems to be a lack of detailed documentation and an easy-to-use interface which normally attract the not-so-sophisticated users. I would like to hear the thoughts of Open Source developers and others on this issue. If you would like to view my references or the comments posted on a website hosted for this purpose, please visit my website." There have already been some interesting comments posted on his website. What is your take on this issue?
in honour of the CliT.. RIP
1st comment I suck yea!1st comment I suck yea!1st comment I suck yea!
dammit. did i get it?
Doobies
Just tired of playing.
Not an uber account, but playable. On USWest, ACCT:*JawBreaker PW: fr33acct
Has an IK Barb, 2 mid level sorcs, and a MF Barb: Twin Ali Babas etc... It has a mule Pali with Pgems and some charms not in use by MF Barb. Have fun.
courtesy of The Village Voice:
Manhattan's Milosevic
How You Can Do What the Government Won't: Arrest Henry Kissinger
August 15 - 21, 2001
ou might have to be crazy. Or at least foolhardy. But you could try to bring
Henry Kissinger to justice for crimes against humanity. Consider, though,
what happened to the last people to talk even jokingly about plans for a
citizen's arrest of the real-life model for Dr. Strangelove.
It happened 30 years ago, when Kissinger was at his Strangelovian heights.
A group of anti-war protesters sought to raise the spirits of that estimable
Catholic priest Phil Berrigan, then in prison for destroying draft records. The
group got drunk one night, as Daniel Ellsberg recalls, and dashed off a letter
to Berrigan humorously suggesting they nab Kissinger for war crimes in
Vietnam. Prison authorities intercepted the mail and the FBI swooped down,
charging the writers with conspiracy to kidnap the secretary of state. Dubbed
the Harrisburg 6, the friends soon found themselves in a knock-down
drag-out to stay out of jail.
Fast-forward to this year, when Christopher Hitchens's compact indictment,
The Trial of Henry Kissinger, flares across the front cover of Harper's and clings
to a lower-tier spot among Amazon.com's top-100 books. Hitchens builds a
case against Nixon's man for atrocities around the globe, from East Timor and
Cambodia to South America and Washington, D.C. He shows just how
frighteningly small the world of Kissinger has become, as one foreign
government after another tries to get its hands on him, in the same way
world courts have tracked down Augusto Pinochet and Slobodan Milosevic.
Chile. France. Argentina. Slowly, they're closing in.
Suddenly, the Harrisburg 6 seem less like relics of a forgotten era and more
like prophets of an age to come. Here in the U.S., where the official response
has been cold silence, there is renewed behind-the-scenes preparation for
legal action against Kissinger. And some are again calling for a citizen's
arrest, lobbying for the public to do what the government won't.
But could an average person really collar Manhattan's Milosevic? "It would
surely be possible to do so, and to end up quickly in jail or a mental
institution," says the noted linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky. "A
17th-century English popular poet wrote that laws are like spider webs:
'Lesser flies are quickly ta'en, while the great break out again.' Not 100
percent true, of course, but a strong tendency, for reasons too obvious to
discuss."
Some suggest Kissinger, now an aging Manhattanite, is just too cuddly. "After
all, he's the darling of the establishment," says the historian Howard Zinn.
"These are all people who have had dinner with him. They don't want to say
they've had a war criminal for dinner."
Others question why Hitchens--or his readers--would bother with busting
Kissinger. "He was very much a No. 2 man, subordinate to Richard Nixon,"
recalls Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame. "It's absurd to say he's the principal
architect. Of course he's deserving of trial. But some people imagine that
Nixon didn't have the wit to think up those crimes on his own, and that's
quite mistaken. Kissinger was simply a very loyal, opportunist subordinate."
Nonetheless, there is a growing movement to put him in the dock as the
perp--or at least a witness--in crimes against humanity. The old Harvard
professor has to watch his step. Though he still moves freely about the
streets of New York, this "war criminal" had to slip out of Paris in May when
French police tried to serve him with a court summons. Activists from the East
Timor Action Network have repeatedly sought to question Kissinger during his
book tours, but again the former secretary of state either didn't answer or
disappeared. Demonstrators have also hounded him at speeches around the
country. This month, an Argentine judge ordered Kissinger to testify in a
human rights trial concerning a plan by Latin American governments to kidnap
and kill leftists during the 1970s.
And in July, a judge in Chile sent questions to Kissinger as a witness in a suit
brought by Joyce Horman, the widow of Charles Horman, a young journalist
killed during the Pinochet coup. Not amused, an administration source told
the London Telegraph, "It is unjust and ridiculous that a distinguished servant
of this country should be harassed by foreign courts in this way."
Kissinger, who didn't respond to Voice questions, shows some signs of
knowing the heat is on. In his mounting campaign to protect his image, he
recently agreed to release 10,000 pages of his papers kept under seal at the
Library of Congress. Such goodwill gestures may not be enough to save the
self-styled Dr. K. from a citizen's arrest, in which he could legally be plucked
off the sidewalk and deposited at a nearby precinct station for booking.
He keeps a fairly low profile these days, but he's hardly invisible. Though it's
not listed on the midtown building's marquee, the office for Kissinger
Associates is located at 350 Park Avenue, on the 26th floor. Anyone can enter
the lobby, passing a security guard and concierge unchallenged. Kissinger's
own receptionist sits behind a glass window. The spartan room contains a
dark wooden table, upon which rest a white phone and an ashtray, a single
couch and two armchairs, and a security camera mounted in one corner. The
receptionist politely tells a visitor Kissinger is not in. Not expected. Who
knows when he might drop in.
Don't think you can just hang around and wait for him to show up. A citizen's
arrest is not so easy. While the laws differ from state to state, they generally
allow for anyone who witnesses a felony, or knows which person committed
one, to make an immediate arrest. That can include a "reasonable" amount of
physical force. It would also normally involve some participation from the
cops.
Back down on Park Avenue, across from Kissinger's office, police officer John
Vanasco explains the procedure. "We take the person and process the
paperwork," he says. "If it is a crime, we take the person in custody, but we
need probable cause proving that the crime was committed."
In the case of someone accused of being a war criminal, Vanasco says, city
cops refer the matter to federal agencies, then hold the suspect for them.
A spokesperson for the NYPD puts it slightly differently. "Citizen's arrest has
nothing to do with us," he says. "You make the arrest on your own. We do
nothing more than transport the person. We are not making the arrest. We
are not involved in this."
Kissinger also keeps a home in Litchfield County, Connecticut, where state
police say citizen's arrests are not allowed. If you tried to capture him en
route, you'd get to deal with the New York State police. "It's all based on
what the citizen says," a spokesperson reports. "They may sign paperwork,
but they don't go out and physically arrest someone. It's not like it is in the
movies. It doesn't happen a lot."
The legal details of a citizen's arrest are downright confusing. "It's a tricky
issue," says Norman Siegel, former director of the New York Civil Liberties
Union and current candidate for public advocate. For misdemeanors, he says,
cops usually just write the accused a ticket. Felonies are another matter.
When approaching a person you intend to pick up, you're supposed to
explain that you're about to make an arrest, and tell the suspect why. That's
when the situation can turn ugly. What if the person tries to run away while
you're calling the cops from your cell phone? "Do you tackle them?" asks
Siegel. "Cuff them?" The tables could quickly turn, and you'd be the one
violating the law.
And if cops have reason to doubt the merit of accusations, they don't have to
follow through with the arrest. "A citizen's arrest doesn't really work," says
attorney Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who has tried
to nail various war criminals, from the contras to Haiti's Tonton Macoutes.
"They have to be committing a felony in front of you."
Still, despite all the hassles, citizen's arrests are used in New York City. The
unarmed New York Guardian Angels make about two a year. "Basically every
citizen has the right to make a citizen's arrest," says Mark Moore. "You
physically restrain a person and hold them until the local cops come. We're
trained in restraint holds, arm bars, and different locks."
Since Hitchens and others go after Kissinger for war crimes against civilian
populations--like killing 200,000 Timorese, one third of the population--one
might think the big human rights organizations would weigh in on this
subject. But when it comes to Dr. K., these groups tread lightly.
Alistair Hodgett, Amnesty International's American media director, says his
agency can do little until the government declassifies reams of information.
Even then, Amnesty wouldn't necessarily take aim at Kissinger. "We would
put the emphasis with the U.S. government to look at significant information,"
Hodgett says. "I don't believe or suggest that that's likely to occur."
The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights likewise barely dips a toe in the
water. "The international justice system shouldn't be about any one case,"
says Raj Purohit. "If there is someone who has solid evidence, then he
[Kissinger] should be held accountable."
As for a citizen's arrest of Kissinger, Purohit says, "That's not something we
would support. When it comes to these most serious crimes there has got to
be a proper [order] from a tribunal or indictment. I think under any of these
tribunals none of these would apply to Kissinger."
Human Rights Watch is similarly reluctant to style Kissinger in prison stripes.
"If Henry Kissinger signed off on bombing targets in Cambodia and Laos
knowing that they included civilian areas, as accounts have suggested, then
he could be charged with war crimes, by his victims or by the victims' families,"
says Reed Brody, an attorney who has gone around the world prosecuting
human rights crimes. "But I think that it's difficult not to confuse legal,
political, moral, historical responsibility on the one hand, and criminal liability
on another."
Despite such gloomy prognoses, there are other hopes. Ratner thinks you
could bring a civil action in Washington against Kissinger on behalf of the
children of General René Schneider, the Chilean general who was shot during
the Pinochet coup. And it might be possible to file a racketeering complaint in
New York arguing that Kissinger and others conspired using the interstate
communications--i.e, phones, faxes, etc.--to murder American citizens.
Another country could order him brought to trial on their soil. "Under the
extradition laws, we do not have any exceptions for American nationals,"
argues Alfred Rubin, a professor of international law at Tufts University. "The
U.S. has extradition treaties with many countries, including Spain, and we do
not except American nationals from their operation. If any countries in Europe
or elsewhere would like to extradite Henry Kissinger, they can bring a case
right now in an American court--and I'll bet you that Henry Kissinger knows all
about that."
Finally, it is conceivable that the widow of Charles Horman, the young
journalist who was killed in the Pinochet coup and was made famous by the
film Missing, could bring a suit under the civil rights statutes on grounds that
Kissinger and others conspired to deprive her husband of his rights. Since the
conspiracy took place in the U.S., the suit might have standing in federal
court.
Kissinger also might be prosecuted under the Alien Tort Claims Act. There has
been considerable talk among lawyers about bringing such a suit on behalf of
Chilean parties. Here the prospects are dicey, save for an opening granted by
the courts to sue CIA officials for torture in Guatemala. In another case,
lawyers argued in a Miami federal court that contra leaders conspired in Miami
to kill Ben Linder, a young American engineer in Nicaragua.
The Chilean judge sitting on a case against Pinochet is asking Kissinger to
come as a witness. Georgia Democratic representative Cynthia McKinney
recently wrote Secretary of State Colin Powell, asking for help in persuading
Kissinger to take the stand. She said Milosevic's arrest should allow the public
to concentrate on Kissinger now; if she desires, McKinney is in the position to
open a forum on the subject.
But heading to Chile to testify would place Dr. K. in the position of
discussing--in public and under oath--decisions he'd just as soon forget. Still,
Horman's widow thinks he should do what's right. "I don't see why Henry
Kissinger would not want to answer the questions," says Joyce Horman.
"He's not a defendant in our case; he's a witness. Considering that he has
said several times that he has no knowledge of the death of Charles Horman,
he should have no reason not to answer these questions."
One of the strongest calls for an investigation into Kissinger stems from the
violence in East Timor, where he stands accused of supporting Indonesia's
1975 bloody occupation of the recently freed Portuguese colony. In 1999 East
Timor once again exploded into violence, which U.S. troops attempted to
quell. A subsequent human rights commission proposed that the UN itself set
up a war crimes tribunal.
The U.S.-based East Timor Action Network would like the tribunal to extend
back to the original invasion. It could become a tool to find out what actually
happened, and a mechanism for trying Kissinger. "I believe a criminal case
can be made against him," says John Miller, a spokesman for the group. "One
country invaded another. He aided and abetted genocide. He provided a
political go-ahead and was instrumental in continuing the flow of U.S.
weapons." As for supporting a citizen's arrest, Miller says that would depend
on how it was done. "We are not into assaulting people," he says. "It would
be mostly as a way of furthering public education."
No doubt Kissinger is a disappearing symbol of the Cold War in general and
Indochina specifically. During a recent forum sponsored by Harper's magazine
at the National Press Club in Washington, a group including journalists and
former government professionals questioned why Kissinger should be singled
out when an entire administration ought to take the blame.
"These were not unique actions," said Scott Armstrong, whose National
Security Archive has consistently dug up and published America's dirty
laundry. "They were not covert. They were not Oliver North-type government
out of control. These were deliberate manipulations of the levers of power.
And Henry Kissinger was--is--very much in the loop. He defined the loop. And
[Hitchens's] indictment is of an entire administration. And those who served
with him, above him, across the Potomac, and even in Congress bear similar
measures of responsibility."
In a Voice interview Noam Chomsky seconds that idea. "Kissinger observes,
correctly, that he was conducting the foreign policy of the U.S.," he says. "The
U.S. is a powerful state, overwhelmingly powerful, in fact. It follows that its
leadership can make mistakes, but it cannot commit crimes in the technical
Orwellian sense. Only enemies, or those who are weak and defenseless, can
commit crimes in the literal sense. Accordingly, it is inconceivable that there
would be an effort to bring Kissinger to trial.
"And even if it were done, he could correctly plead selective prosecution,"
Chomsky adds. "After all, it was the Kennedy administration that escalated
the war against South Vietnam from Latin America-style terror to outright
aggression, and the Johnson administration that escalated the attack
sharply, also extending it to the rest of Indochina."
Roger Morris, best known for his scathing biography of Bill Clinton, worked
under Kissinger in the National Security Council during the Nixon era. At the
Press Club forum, Morris said he personally worked on a covert effort
(unknown to either the secretary of defense or state) to reach a peace
agreement in Vietnam. "There was on the table in the early spring of 1970 a
negotiated withdrawal of American forces by the end of 1970," he said. "That
was interrupted by the dementia, not, alas, of Henry Kissinger, but of the
man he worked for--Richard Nixon--and the ensuing Cambodian invasion.
And you know the sequel: Several thousand Americans died in the years that
followed as a result." He concluded, "Henry's transgressions would not have
been possible without the active intellectual and substantive support of his
aides."
Moreover, there's the whole question of what international law is intended to
accomplish. "International law does not involve personal crimes," argued
Rubin, the Tufts professor. "I would emphasize that immorality is not illegality,
and illegality is not personal criminal liability."
But a court hearing could do more for a nation than punish its most visible
villains. "I think it would be good to have a trial," says Zinn, the historian. "I
wouldn't want to put him in jail. I don't want to put any of these people in jail.
I don't believe in that. I think it should be more like the truth commission in
South Africa. Hold them up to the world, shame them, and ban them from
dinner parties."
There may be no tracking down of every powerful figure who has ever broken
the rules. Trace it right back through history, says former White House
candidate Ralph Nader. "Do you know any president who hasn't violated
international law dozens of times?" Nader says. "If Kissinger is a war criminal,
what about Clinton, who killed citizens in Iraq? You can't pick one person out.
It doesn't have credibility. International law is known primarily for violating it.
Is there anything the U.S. won't do abroad in violation of international law?"
For now, the way Kissinger's world keeps shrinking may have to be
punishment enough--at least until someone takes action. "Maybe if he makes
a mistake and travels abroad where he doesn't expect to be apprehended,
then that country could arrest and try him," concludes Zinn. "He doesn't want
to set foot in France because he's afraid of that. I think that's a very nice little
punishment that doesn't allow him to see Paris ever again. Apprehending him
in the U.S., with the judicial system and friends--even so-called critics?
Nothing is going to happen to him unless someone makes a citizen's arrest."
Harms and the Man
An indictment of Henry Kissinger for genocide, crimes against humanity, and
war crimes would include (but not be confined to) the following.
VIETNAM: Kissinger scuttled peace talks in 1968, paving the way for Richard
Nixon's victory in the presidential race. Half the battle deaths in Vietnam took
place between 1968 and 1972, not to mention the millions of civilians
throughout Indochina who were killed.
CAMBODIA: Kissinger persuaded Nixon to widen the war with massive
bombing of Cambodia and Laos. No one had suggested we go to war with
either of these countries. By conservative estimates, the U.S. killed 600,000
civilians in Cambodia and another 350,000 in Laos.
BANGLADESH: Using weapons supplied by the U.S., General Yahya Khan
overthrew the democratically elected government and murdered at least half
a million civilians in 1971. In the White House, the National Security Council
wanted to condemn these actions. Kissinger refused. Amid the killing,
Kissinger thanked Khan for his "delicacy and tact."
CHILE: Kissinger helped to plan the 1973 U.S.-backed overthrow of the
democratically elected Salvador Allende and the assassination of General
René Schneider. Right-wing general Augusto Pinochet then took over.
Moderates fled for their lives. Hit men, financed by the CIA, tracked down
Allende supporters and killed them. These attacks included the car bombing of
Allende's foreign minister, Orlando Letelier, and an aide, Ronni Moffitt, at
Sheridan Circle in downtown Washington.
EAST TIMOR: In 1975 President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger met
with Indonesia's corrupt strongman Suharto. Kissinger told reporters the U.S.
wouldn't recognize the tiny country of East Timor, which had recently won
independence from the Dutch. Within hours Suharto launched an invasion,
killing, by some estimates, 200,000 civilians.
First it was shared source. Now it's open value? Is it me or does it look like Microsoft is trying to co-opt the words "open" and "source" to confuse people? I'll bet this is what's happening.
WTF does "open value" mean anyway? The word open doesn't belong there at all. I wonder if we'll ever see the internal memos where they admit that since they can't win on the issues, they'll just muddy the waters by slinging the "open" "source" words around in different ways to see what sticks.
Coming soon: Microsoft: We're the trustworthy always open source for your business!
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Just hope the no one inserts this into his guestbook:
<IMG src="http://www.goatse.cx/hello.jpg">
that would be a shame...
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Ummmm... You said use OSX. As far as I know, it is still not Open Source.
The article talked about Open Source, not your personal preference for OSX which is very closed.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!