Slashdot Mirror
Palladium's Power To Deny
BrianWCarver writes "The Chronicle of Higher Education has the most detailed article I've yet seen on Microsoft's Palladium architecture. The article discusses the potential Palladium has to give publishers power to eliminate fair use and the potential for software manufacturers to use Palladium to enforce shrink-wrap licenses. Comments from several great sources including, Ed Felten (Freedom to Tinker), Eben Moglen (pro-bono counsel for the Free Software Foundation and recent Slashdot interviewee), and Seth Schoen (Electronic Frontier Foundation) among many others. Key quotations from article: Palladium could create 'a closed system, in which each piece of knowledge in the world is identified with a particular owner, and that owner has a right to resist its copying, modification, and redistribution. In such a scenario the very concept of fair use has been lost.' 'Palladium will "turn the clock back" to the days before online information was widely available.' and 'Microsoft could decide to lock everything up.'"
that is being defended is the right for the citizens of a democracy to oppose, and even prevent, a war?
If not than it certainly hasn't occured to you that this freedom is exactly the *same* freedom that you think they aren't defending.
KFG
According to the same people protesting against the war now, we're supposed to be stuck in Afghanistan fighting the wily Taliban who teach us the same lesson they dealt to the Soviets a decade ago as hundreds of thousands starve to death because of US indifference to their suffering.
Ooops.
The anti-war crowd is getting a record of chicken little exaggeration of casualties and of covering up how bad these regimes are.
B. Isn't smarter to protest before a war happens, than after?
Well, normally yes, but since Bush is going to do whatever he wants anyway...
Remember, he was the candidate with LESS votes.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
Funny you say that, when G.W. has effectively sidestepped congress (read: the elected representatives) in his pursuit of the war.
Give with the left hand, take with the right....
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Last I heard, Isreal has been attacked/invaded about 4 or 5 times in the last 60 years. Of course, that's not counting the suicide bombers or the Scuds during the Gulf War.
I'll also take a karma hit, it's non-existant anyway :)
The question is, why is Bush so interested in taking on iraq all of a sudden ? And not 2 or 5 years ago when the people in iraq were also suffering ? Are iraq hiding terrorists ? Not according to what we've been told.
And of course Saddam have or have had weapons of mass-destruction, Bush sr sold them to him ! Well that's what I've heard. How's that for hypocrisy ?
And not speaking up against a war because it might "empower" Saddam must be the most silly reason ever, it's not the "peaceniks" who will pull the triggers.
However I do agree that the people of iraq deserve a better leader than Saddam.
I don't know why. Like I (think) I said before, I'm not pro-war. I'm just 100% against the antiwar people that are counterproductive. They wave their signs, flags, and dream of the 60's when their very actions will probably increase the chance of the conflict they supposedly want to avoid.
As for why, I would have to assume that there is information that we don't know about. Bush is burning a ton of political capital on this and I truly believe that politicians only burn capital this quickly when it is absolultely necessary. And I don't buy the whole "Bush wants more oil for his companies or his friends' companies." I don't realistically think Bush (or any president) would start a war just to improve their business position. And even if they were to consider it, I don't think they'd burn this much domestic and international political capital on it.
I believe there is more information than what we, the public, knows. That's generally the case on any international issue.
And of course Saddam have or have had weapons of mass-destruction, Bush sr sold them to him ! Well that's what I've heard. How's that for hypocrisy ?
I've also heard we didn't land on the moon and that the Israelis were the true masterminds of 9/11.
And not speaking up against a war because it might "empower" Saddam must be the most silly reason ever, it's not the "peaceniks" who will pull the triggers.
Wrong, my dear sir. Just check the news on Saturday and Sunday. Saturday: Nice, photo-op marches. Sunday: Those same marches broadcast on Iraqi TV with the slogan "World against America" or something like that. This sort of thing certainly doesn't turn the heat up on Saddam--the only possible effect it can have is for Saddam to think, "Oh, look at that. There's no way they can attack with so much public opinion against it" (never mind that less than 1% of the population of the U.S., Europe, Canada, Russia, and Australia actually marched).
You can argue that Saddam might not read anything into the marches. However, you can't argue that Saddam is now more likely to cooperate. If there is any effect, the only effect those marches can have on Saddam is to embolden him under the false assumption that the protests make him safe. Saddam, thus, continues to resist--making a war more likely.
Speaking up against war is fine. It's clear that many don't agree. I'm not even sure I agree. But street protests such as these show countries and allies divided, and that only helps Iraq.
Saddam will be gone in two months, probably one. I expect it to be messier than the last war but by in large I expect that the war will be won quickly and the peaceniks will be made to look like fools for making so much noise about it. And France will look like idiots. Of course, both of these are already true. 1960's peaceniks are now viewed pretty much as utopian drug-using hippies. France is looked upon as an old world power that was grandfathered into the "new masters of the world" even though they had to be saved in WWII from the Germans and really have no business being on the U.N. Security Council as a veto-wielding member. What did they do to deserve THAT position?