Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Code And War
"Should Open Source developers help the U.S. prepare for war with Iraq?" Roblimo has a piece on NewsForge which addresses that question by showing a specific way that the U.S. military is using Free and Open Source software (in simulator-based training for Blackhawk helicopters), and letting one of the developers involved speak for himself. If software is Free, doesn't that already answer the question of who can use it?
...and you wonder why Islamic fundamentalists say the same of Americans.
Now, if only they would distribute the software for the simulators or even run "Arcades" with networks of these thing setup, we could have 8 year old fighter veterans!
Now the Iraqi pilots get get up to snuff in their large fleet of Blackhawk choppers using US simulators!
What part of OPEN do you not understand?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I mean, if they need to cut and paste from one app to another, or easily manage printers, or add and remove hardware frequently, or do things without having to spend large amounts of time learning arcane info, they should use Windows.
Obviously, you have no claim as to what your software can and cannot be used for if you release it out into the world. Whether or not you believe the upcoming war with Iraq is justified or not, it doesn't stop the software they use from being used.
This is a completely moot issue, but it is good for discussion I suppose. The thing that should not be seen is exclusion clauses from the GPL and other open source licenses. I would hate to see "This software may not be used for military purposes" because that will lead down a path that is more counter-productive. Would you rather have the military and government using open source software or Microsoft?
Code audits are important when using software for military purposes, to ensure that everything is accurate. Whether it's personnel tracking, mission tracking, or simulation software, accuracy is important. Maybe my view is just tainted because I'm finding myself leaning more toward the pro-War campaign...
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Give me a break. Developers aren't helping the "U.S. go to war with Iraq" they're developing software. I'm sure terrorists somewhere have an apache webserver running, it's not like the "developers helped them become terrorists by giving them a tool to create a membership database."
Software is software, open source software shouldn't try to control who uses it (other than stopping someone else for breaking the GPL) or for what purpose.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
*yawn*
I don't want to write open source code becasue somebody may use it for evil.
I won't want to work for a corporation because they may exploit someone.
I don't want to sell hammers because someone could hit someone else with it.
Let's face it. If you are doing anything at all productive in society somebody can use that to their benifit in a way that you may not agree with.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
Tongue in cheek, but is this a good thing for OS when blackhawks have been crashing a lot recently?
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Isn't open source, GPL, et al supposed to be a digital hippie movement? Peace dudes!
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
I was under the impression that GPL and a few other licences do not allow the imposition of other rules.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes." ???
Non-issue ...
If it's under the standard sorts of open source licenses, then, yes, it's already answered. If some hippies and/or Frenchies want to make a peaceful purposes only license, well, then they can, and they can release software under it.
Although we can't perceive the use that code might have 100 years in the future (if any), developers should at least think about who might use their code when they make it open. Are there any licenses that restrict the military from using the code the way commercial entities are sometimes limited by certain licenses? Is it the place of the developer to show that bias? Does anyone really have the illusion that a government in North Korea or anywhere else is going to give a rat's ass about how a developer in Kansas wants his code used?
I don't think this faults the developers at all. This is like making knives; you can eat with it or you can butcher with it. The responsibility is up to the user.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Fortunately even if a source code is free i can add to the free license that the code mustnt be used in any military projects or projects related to non-civil actions at all. And i will do that from this point in time!
Now you taint the ability for Governments to switch to linux and escape the Microsoft licenses propogating less freedom in the world.
Congratulations on helping destroy the goal of Free software. I only hope no one uses your projects anyway. Open your eyes to the big picture.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
The problem with freedom - be it of speech or of software - is that you don't get to choose who you grant it to - otherwise it is no longer freedom.
You can choose not to give it to your enemies, but what's to stop you from arbitrarily dciding that your enemies are everyone except a select few.
There is always a responsibility that goes along with any project you work on - but it will get done with or without you. Ask Oppenheimer or Feynman or Einstein.
Never!
Should Open Source developers help the U.S. prepare for war with Iraq?
Open source developper develop according to a licence. If certain uses are not ok with them, they can a licence like java, preventing usage where human life could be endangered (nuclear facilities, medical...).
If they release free software, anybody is free to use and modify it.
Now, placing restriction again use of software by some 'evil' organization, those organisations being, depending of the point of view, Osama bin Laden's crew, or Irak, or the US Army, is no longuer doing free software.
And the next guy who comes along doesn't like the military or governement, so restricts the usage from both of them.
Next guy doesn't like the military, the government, corporations or any incorporated businesses. So he restricts usage to all of them.
The next person doesn't like homosexuals or mexicans and restricts the usage from them.
Lets not start a vicious cycle, keep free software free for everyone. Period.
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right"
Being open source, who could even restrict it's usage? Well, we can bitch all we want if open-source is used for "controversial" issues, but that just says that open source is not that open at all. So do we start putting in "fine print (tm)" with the GPL licensing?
Worse case scenario in history. What do you think Einstein went through when other people expounded on his work and eventually created the nuclear bomb? He didn't like it one bit but there you go...
I drink, therefore, I am.
-- W. C. Fields
That is all very well and good. You can probably add whatever clauses you want to a licence. But how well would that actually hold water once the lawyers got involved?
If you really want to retain that sort of control over the source, then you probably have to close the source.
Download my free songs!
In terms of software licenses, which doesn't fully cover the question, but..:
RMS is very clear on this, and for those who don't agree with him (which seems to be the latest fad) many others have to.
You should not keep let politics like this get in the way. There was a particular project that released there code under a license that was basically GPL'ed but with a line saying that it was not to be used by terrorists and not to be used to help kill people. RMS really disliked the license, and argued that such lines are impossible to define.
and you wonder why Islamic fundamentalists say the same of Americans.
Actually, they say the same of Americans because they are highly intolerant of other cultures and religons.
I would know, I've been to Saudi Arabia and seen this intolerance first hand. Ever been to a shopping mall in SA? They typically have a government kiosk in the center which speaks of the US, Capitalism, and Christians in a most poisonous manner. Quite ironic considering their malls are populated with American brand stores (e.g. The Gap, Nike, etc.)
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
# Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to goatse.cx.
Will you change your license if you happen to agree with a specific war? For example, what if a foreign country's military was actively killing your neighbors and/or family?
--sex
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
I just found some remarks by Eric S. Raymond on socially responsible programming. Very interesting.
Closed and opensource software will both be used for good and evil....deal with it.
Example:
Opensource encryption software can be used to protect liberties and the prying eyes of big government. It can also be used to hide child porn or terrorist activities...
should we abolish the encryption software just because it can be used for evil?
I'd really hate to see a new modified license that restricts use of software based on political bias.
How about:
"Should Open Source developers help the Iraq prepare for war with U.S.?"
Like come on, open source developers live in Iraq too, don't they?
People kill people, religion gives people the reason to do it. We create our own differences, hatred is a state of mind etc...
Anyway why Iraq is singled out I don't know, especially when North Korea launched a missile as a demonstration of the US visit to Japan. That's agressive behaviour, something Saddam hasn't engaged in recently anyway.
I understand that the goverment can declare something classified for defense purposes (or somesuch). Haven't they done this with books and research. Could they declare classified a pice of GPL software for "national security reasons".
I don't live in the US, so its a bit of a gray area for me.
No sig
I hope not. No one has enough traction to stay on that slope for long.
Then you won't be distributing Open Source software, and it won't be GPL. If that's acceptable to you, fine write your own license. I'm (mostly) against war, however, restricting the use of the code instantly invalidates it as Open Source.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
The outcome of this war is certain. The only question is, how many Iraqis and how many Americans will die in the process? Good software is part of the key to preserving lives on both sides: the sooner the war ends, the fewer lives will be lost; and good software (along with good hardware and good training) will shorten the length of the war.
Finally, consider that the work on government programs won't be used only in Iraq. That's just where we need it at the moment. Should the US find itself fighting North Korea, the same software and hardware and training is going to save lives there as well.
I don't agree with the concept of invading Iraq. But I do believe in saving lives; and I think that contributing to government software efforts will help us toward that end.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Lets not start a vicious cycle, keep free software free for everyone. Period.
Exactly. A license that restricts what can be done with software does no good for anyone. This is why the GPL is a useless license.
I call bullshit. It works fine for me.
And then have the blackhawk control software crash, like the new 7-series BMW control software?
That could be interesting... a "possessed" Blackhawk bombing random targets and crashing into buildings...
"Owning a computer is like having your very own TV -- with a built in radio!" - Ed Helms
he can design his own open source license, if he so chooses.
i'd be vaguely disturbed if something i wrote went toward killing people, but how you deal with that as a developer would be your choice. ultimately you can't control how people use your code once you release it. after all, the government could choose to ignore his "CUL (civil use license)" and who could stop them? who's to say that windows xp doesn't contain half the linux kernel in it? theft is one advantage of having the closed end of a closed source program.
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
You can do whatever you want with your code! But if it has such a restriction, it ain't GPL, and it fails many definitions of "open".
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
The article is not slashdotted, and your text is not from any of the linked articles.
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
The article is NOT slashdotted -- it works fine. Besides, if you are going to cut-and-paste the story to help others, you should do it ANONYMOUSLY! This is the most blatant attempt at karma whoring I've seen in quite awhile. Mods, please cut him down to teach him and others a lesson!
Is the NSA a civil or military use?
You'll have to define your terms.
If you address one, you implicitly exclude
the other. E.g., "The U.S. Army can't use
this" can be read to say "... but the Navy can."
Also, can NASA use your software?
Their flights are actually classified as
military operations according to the FAA.
Yes, but US opinion is largely in favour of attacking Iraq since some americans have the unfounded belief that every muslim is a terrorist. Not very tollerant is it?
:)
I take your point about US goods, when they found alqueda's computers they were running Windows on Intel/AMD processors. Hmm maybe that's why they hate the US, for producing Windows?
...is willing to break international law to wage a unilateral war, they sure are going to obey some stupid provision in a modified GPL. Yeah.
What makes you think that the military would want your crappy code? I've seen your code and it SUCKS!
Yea, its worth it if my software helps kill people so long as it hurts Microsoft. You realy need to figure out whos side your on, its us VS Microsoft, everything else is just collateral damage.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
with my government using open source software to fight terrorists...
as long as they...
don't call me a terrorist.
Iraqis are allowed to buy Microsoft Flight Simulator to enhance their techniques, as well as Microsoft Excel to keep track of their renegade bombing missions. I don't see any difference with them having access to opensource, except that m$ dosen't make money from them.
Posting useless rant since 2003.
I think you have it all wrong. It's not that Americans believe every muslim is a terroist, rather it's Americans believe that every terrorist is a muslim. HUGE difference there and I still can't figure out why I don't see muslim leaders around the world standing up against terrorism.
This article starts out by claiming that Free Software and GPL supporters are both "anti-war." (A very nebulous term in itself; anti-war can mean a lot of different things.) Last I checked, your opinions on software licensing didn't dictate or even hold particular relevance to your opinions on war. I'm sure that you can find people who consider themselves to be FS or OS supporters who have all sorts of differing opinions on war.
When somebody tries to start their argument by stating something like that as fact, it really reduces their credibility.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
The question itself is flawed. Why should participants in the open source movement as a whole take any particular position? Surely that's up to each individuals?
This "we should" or "we shouldn't" is the kind of factionalism that starts wars in the first place.
Any free/open source software developer should be aware of the ramifications of allowing freedom of use of their software. I think people look at OSS in a very pollyana fashion, thinking it will only be used for helping children find lost puppies or curing cancer or something like that. If you give power to someone, including through software, the temptation is there to use it for evil. It's sad because most OSS types are genuinely interested in the betterment of others, not themselves. But the reality is that you have to make the choice whether to release it.
no, we'd loose.
open sores sucks.
Why don't you just put "no terrorists can use this software" to your licence? (As if they'll follow your instructions.)
If your code is so important that the military would want to use it, chances are, militant terrorists would want to use it to. They'll use it reguardless of the license, and the only group to be put at a "disadvantage" is the military.
For the pure Open Source Developer I would suppose the answer is "Its the code I do it all for the code" and so it is truely free software/libraries ect.(free as in beer)
For the Hawks its "For Freedom, God, Country and GNU/BSD" not nesc. in that order
For Doves its probably something like "No Software/War for oil"
Others it may well be: "What does my software have to do with anything related to terrorism/war? Who cares"
and then finally for the rest it is a balance of all of the above and more.
I personally think that everything we do has an effect one way or another. We should be aware of it and be aware of the consequenses.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
There is a goatse.cx link in this post. Please mod it down so other /. readers aren't tricked into viewing it.
In Canada we have the same sort of kiosk's to talk about the US.
It's called a hockey game
Posting useless rant since 2003.
Better watch out there. You are coming close to mentioning a certain time in history with a certain war started by a certain leader of a certain country that did certain things to certain people in certain parts of the world. And once you do that someone gets to say "You lose." I know it's a strange rule, but that's how everyone else plays.
if you are enough brain damaged to agree with a war, your code probably sucks.
One of the things that struck me is how much Open Source is dependent on international development. Just off of the top of my head, Linux and Python were started outside of the US. Now, both are supported by developers around the world. Historically, nations have viewed techological advances as national resources, both out of national pride as well as national security. However, Open Source software is inherently borderless.
This would appear to some to make Open Source a security risk, but it isn't necessarily so. To play in the open source game, you have to be a contributor. So you need to be a nation that develops people with strong technical skills and keeps them. You also have to allow those people access to other people around the world in order to share ideas.
Saddam Hussein may get some benefit from Open Source, in that it gives him software that is free distributable. However, I would imagine it's rather difficult attracting and retaining technical talent in a regime as oppressive as his. In short, despots may be able to use Open Source software, but they'd have a hard time leveraging it fully without free and open communication with the rest of the world.
It's also further proof of the interdependence of developed countries upon each other.
Presumably you could grab the text of the GPL, rename it the "NOWAR-GPL" and throw in some text about not allowing military purposes. You'd probably need to be a lawyer to get it right, though.
The cake is a pie
Coming soon: Black Hawk Down II: Blue Screens of Death, Literally
yeah right, talk to people who havnt been there.
i lived there all through my childhood (8 years) and no i am neither a muslim nor is middle east my native. i have seen no such kiosk, ever in any mall.
Talk of a lack of freedom to speak, to assemble together peacefully , to practice ones own religion and Burkhas (Veils) for women -I would agree. Then again thats their culture, that is the way they have evolved. One cannot judge a culture qualitatively or through comparisons. More often than not , cultures are there in the first place because they serve the needs of the society in that area - the needs differ from place to place.
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
Attention Military Personnel:
From now on, you are forbidden from using the crappy text editor that cronostitan wrote under a 'free' license.
Thanks
If they ask for a feature or bug fix without paying, it's like any other open source project and any other feature request: you have no obligation to do anything for whatever reason. You have a perfect right to decide for yourself if this is something you want to volunteer your time for. There is absolutely nothing wrong with telling the US military, like any other open source user, that if they want a feature, they can hire you to implement it.
But don't worry: Rumsfeld will probably invoke some sort of "emergency draft procedure for skilled individuals", used to force open source developers for free. After all, it's only big companies like Lockheed and Microsoft that should receive the benefit of our tax dollars.
If you want to ensure Microsoft has a monopoly, then adding political baggage to Free Software Licences seems like a great way to do that.
Best Buy can have you arrested
The government is going to use someone's code one way or the other. If the government is using crappy proprietary code that has not been through the open-source peer review, military systems are at a greater risk of failure. Failures when lives are on the line mean that even MORE people die. At least if some quality open-source is used, there is a smaller chance of bugs causing more death on both sides.
Oh crap...the thought of my software being used to kill Iraqi children is just too much to bear...[sob]
The cake is a pie
Bush prepares for war. With a simplistic view of the Near East he will spill fire and and encourage terrorism. Nobody can stop him anymore not even old European allies of the US.
However everybody is obliged to resist. The internet provides you with the ability to be better informed than media industry. The internet is a perfect tool against governmental desinformation.
I suggest you to read the bible. What would Jesus do? Bush say he knew the Bible but he does not read it.
That was a really great idea!! Thanks! I will do the same from this point in time.
there are horizontal applications (Apache, PGP) that are useful for a lot of purposes, and there are vertical applications (Blackhawk training simulators) that have a specific purpose. As a developer, if I write a horizontal application, I don't think I should be able to restrict who can use it or what they use it for, because that leads to a loss of freedom in general.
But...
If I write an application whose sole purpose is to train people to use expensive flying machines to kill people, the problem is not with my software licensing, it's with my choice of projects.
happy to see that people with a balanced head exist ! Thanks.
When you release a tool out to the public wether being a program or a hammer. You will have to expect that people are going to use your tool in different ways and in many of which you dont expect or perhaps dont agree with. Those are part of the risks you have to take when you release software under OSS licences. You risk that people who you dont want to have you software will have it.
If release an open source program, is just like if you made a hammer and mass produced it. they are both designed to be tools to help improve ones life, and both are easaly available to the public, (assuming you hammer design wasnt pattented) and can copied and manuplited. Now should you feel morality responcible because you hammer was more effient or cheaper then someone else hammer that a military used you design and started using it to help a military? Of course not it is a tool attended to make a job easier.
Its your right to oppose war but one shouldnt feel morally responcible if something you did helped out the war effert. Because the war will still continue without your effert. They would just use more Tax money (that you are paying anyways) to make or buy the tools themself. We have been going to war for thousands of years, before open source software has even been consived.
As in the case as OSS software for flight simulators and the like you should at least get a better consiousness that you are at least making sure the solders are better trained to so they are safer in their activites and more effective in their targets. War is not pritty can clean but at least to modern technology of the last couple of decades causualtys on both sides of a formal war is lessen. So your program helped the solder knock out a telecomunication complex. compared without you program the governmet that will go to war anyways will drop carpet bombing all over the city.
Killing people is a side effect of war not the point of it. The point of war is to nutralize a threat inorder to make a statment or to gain power to change a situation.
I am not pro-war I would much rather have a peacefull situation but if there is one I much rather have the least amount of death as possible on both side and if OSS programs can help that I am all for it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Now you taint the ability for Governments to switch to linux and escape the Microsoft licenses propogating less freedom in the world.
As I read it, the GPL is politically neutral. it doesn't matter if you are a liberal, conservative, dicatator or saint, you have the same rights, and you can't take away those rights from others that use your code.
Its about bonified equality of use. It doesn't presume use, good or evil. The goal, it would seem, is to allow everyone to freely use the software to achieve their goals.
To put these "no war" use limitations is not only silly and purely politically motivated (its not anti-war, its anti-Bush. Even Sheryl Crow was doing USO tours in Bosnia when Clinton was in office, and now wears anti-military shirts. Hypocrite). Then its a matter of interpretation. What if the Govt. wanted to use it in the Bosnian conflict. Was that a war, a police action, or a rescue of Muslims from Christians? Depends on who you ask.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
War or no war, this man needs killing like a rabid dog. And Iraq needs to be free.
Free?! What version of GPL should I use for a country>?
Those same helicopters are used for search and rescue as well as to deliver humanitarian aid. Do you believe that the military should not be allowed to use linux on their computers too? How about the defense contractors... they're using linux to design future weapons... What about the movie industry... again using linux for special effects in movies that glorify war. While you are at it, why don't you boycot swingline as I just used their stapler to staple together my report on how best to employ napalm against women and children.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Isn't that the tiny little backwoods place north of New York?
It's obvious that Free Softare can not restrict the usage. It is available for all to use for any purpose. Morally that must be the case to ensure Freedom.
Once Richard Stallman said that someone should make a machine to grind up babies and turn them into lubrication for tanks and guns. If they did, then he would write the software to operate it and release it under the GPL.
The point of this is not that he supports that goal. He doesn't. The point is that Free Software must be Free and must be Free for All. If it is not then it inherently loses its value and might as well be proprietary.
It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are dimmer than dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
Let's suppose that Americans are totally intollerant of muslims. That doesn't mean we're intolerant of all religions. Just Islam. But Islam is intolerant of ALL other religions.
At any rate, tollerance is just newspeak for saying that there is no black and white, everything is some shade of gray. People like to hide behind a flag of tollerance because they refuse to except that moral truths exist.
If OS software helps the military be more efficient, then the developers of such are helping save lives.
1. The inspection team lead, Hans Blix, has said that the small concessions to Resolution 1441 Iraq is making are due to the current show of force by the US/UK and others. If not for that, he would simply be continuing to blow the UN off. So, the feared war may not happen. Scare him into submission.
2. If it comes to war, a more efficient military would be able to win sooner, with fewer losses on either side.
3. A better trained and equipped fighting force will be able to hit the actual military targets better, will less collateral damage. Or would you prefer we revert to WWII-style carpet bombing with 100+ aircraft to hit a particular building?
4. Whether they use OS or proprietary, if the decision is made, they WILL go to war. "Oh no...we can't use ProjectX. The developer has said we can't use it for military purposes!" does not enter into the decision.
So, by the military using the best software for the task (open, closed, whatever works the best), they are better able to prosecute and finish combat action.
Coders...start your keyboards!
If you decide that there are certain types that shouldn't use it, all of a sudden you are responsible for those who do use it.
For example, since the telephone system makes no attempt to monitor who uses the phones, they are not responsible for crimes planned with them. If they started monitoring for reason 'A', then people could sue with, 'Well, you stopped people doing A, but my guy was hurt because you didn't stop them from B'
So then the question becomes, how much effort are you going to go through for your licensing. I mean, will you say that any protest group shouldn't use it, or any private schools with religous leanings shouldn't use it?
Why bother with the restrictions-- and if you are really paranoid anyway, what's going to stop the government from using it for their oh-so-evil-and-nefarious purposes and jus not telling you about it?
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
Free software has always prided itself on being useful in baby-mulching machines... I don't see how war is any different.
(seriously, just google for "baby-mulching machines")
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
.... that all Open Source developers are against the war?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Free as in death?
Forget the whales - save the babies.
I'm still trying to figure out why we need to go to war?
There hasn't been any proof given to the UN or provided by the US or any other contry that proves that Iraq has or is building weapons of mass distruction. I mean its been a while since Iraq has tried to do anything against it's neighbors or the US, so why are we going to war? It wasn't Iraq that caused the attack on the twin towers, it was Osama and his followers and we've done a good job shutting down most of his group, but what is the reason for going to war?
Anyone want to explain it for me?
-Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
Talk of a lack of freedom to speak, to assemble together peacefully , to practice ones own religion and Burkhas (Veils) for women -I would agree. Then again thats their culture, that is the way they have evolved.
No - That's the way their manipulative rulers have caused it to evolve.
One cannot judge a culture qualitatively or through comparisons. More often than not , cultures are there in the first place because they serve the needs of the society in that area - the needs differ from place to place.
True, however do you not believe that humans everywhere should have certain fundamental rights? Such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble peacefully, or the freedom to elect their own leaders? I think they should.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
If you post certain kinds of encryption software, expect a visit by the FBI.
Have you never noticed those labels on software packages that say "not for export outside the US and Canada?" I am pretty sure that reflects the strength of the encryption in the product.
Do you really think countries like China or Iraq will abide by the terms of your license? You'd be preventing law-abiding countries from using the technology while freely giving it to ones that have no respect for international law.
You may be against the U.S. attacking Iraq, but I doubt that you'd like to support (for example) North Korea attacking South Korea.
All files that origins from Jgaa's Internet (including the War software series) are released as copyrighted freeware under these conditions. In short: Unless you are the government, you can use the software for free.
This "distribute" within 2b of the GPL has been explicitly interpreted, by Richard Stallman and others with key position in open source licensing organizations, not to apply to large organizations that deploy software internally. While this means big corporations can deploy GPL'ed software without publishing their modifications to it, thereby favoring centralization of business assets, it also means the ultimate beneficiary of GPL software is the government since it is the biggest organization of them all.
Fundamentally, the GPL is the product of the communist culture from which Stahlman issued as close as his immediate family who were card-carrying members of the US communist party.
If you thought there was a conflict between centralized business and communism you should read more on the history of the communist revolution in Russia -- specifically the half-billion (2003USD) contribution to Leon Trotsky made by Wall Street magnate Jacob Schiff, without which Trotsky could not have started bolshevism.
Trotsky and Schiff both would have approved of the GPL.
Seastead this.
I am against the killing of innocent civilians, and the military and the public relations for the military are experts in spinning massacres into `collateral damage' and `mistakes'.
I have given a lot of thought about the issue of whether I want the military of any nation to use the software I create to mutilate the lives of other people. I obviously do not want this, and I would love to have a debate about having a software license that explicitly forbids this use.
As the previous poster pointed out, once you go down this path, some people might not like X, or Y, and impose further restrictions, but this is not too different from where we are today.
There is a line to be drawn, and I would very much like to hear people's opinions on what is an acceptable line to draw, and where to draw it.
As you might expect, I consider the war being promoted against Iraq to be immoral. The spin for this war has gone through a number of phases, and it has yet to click. Alarming how easily the population can be manipulated through fear.
Miguel.
Yes, but US opinion is largely in favour of attacking Iraq since some americans have the unfounded belief that every muslim is a terrorist.
Actually, US public opinion is just barely in favor of attacking Iraq. The latest poll, which came out about two weeks ago, indicated that about 60% of Americans support the administration's plan to invade Iraq with support of a coalition of allies and at least tacit UN approval.
War is not a popular thing. Never has been, never will be. Unfortunately, whether or not it's popular has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it's right.
Oh, and the bit about terrorism? Americans are well aware that our actions in Afghanistan were motivated by 9/11, but that our actions in Iraq basically are not. The Bush Doctrine says that the threat of international terrorism is so great that regimes that support, encourage, or tolerate terrorist groups post a direct threat to the United States, but that's just one more nail in the Baath government's coffin. For the rest of it, we're just trying to finally, after 12 long years, finish the Gulf War. It never ended, because Iraq never accepted the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement. It's gotten to the point where they either accept the terms-- which Mr. Hussein has indicated that he will not do-- or we bring down the Baath government and install a new regime that will accept the terms.
We Americans know exactly why we're doing this. I sometimes think that the rest of the world doesn't, though.
I write in my journal
What does this article have to do with rampantly homosexual linux zealots? Isn't that the only kind of news Slashdot posts about?
Speaking of which, my ass took quite a pounding last night by a Hawaiian lumberjack named Keoni Morrell. He looked sexy as all hell with the "Got root?" shirt that I gave him for Valentine's Day.
I think his point is, if you ban non-military, non-civil use (or even just non-military use), you ban the pentagon from using linux servers or work stations. You ban the pentagon, what's to get anyboy in ght egovernment to do it? Even if they're not killing - essentially, licensing is a hairy issue where often the breadth or narrowness of limitations is often hard to measure.
Furthermore, software under such a license would cease to be Free Software, as it would restrict Freedom 0. Such a piece of software would also not be free under the DFSG either.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
You Lose.
Hello, McFly? If you want to kill open-source, start adding weird and useless conditions until you have a EULA like Microsoft. "The military can't use it," "You can't use this software if the company produces carbon-based pollution," "You can't use this software if you are involved in cutting down rainforests," "You can't use this software if you used a car to get to work today," "You can't use this software if you |insert liberal activist agenda here|."
Free software is free software. If you're going to start putting conditions on who can and can't use it you might as well remove the word "free" and just call it "Discrimination-promoting software."
So if commercial software is giving special attention to government use of software in their licenses, perhaps there is reason to have the same in the various open source software licenses.
Besides all the restrictions some software has against its use in mission-critical situations like controlling nuclear reactors (though mainly to protect themselves from legal liability if the software fails spectacularly).
A license which will restrict use of the software by anyone releated with violence or hate against humanity.
Nice. So now we'll have the US military unable to use this software because undoubtedly some slimy attorney and software developer will sue them. Meanwhile, do you think the opponent in a war would care about the license? Nope. So now, the opponent benefits. Traitor!
That is great and all, but a license does not stop anyone from using it. For instance if country XYZ (e.g. "terrorist" nations) decides to use your software for military purposes and do not care for your licenses, there is nothing stopping them. Hence you cannot regulate who uses it.
Hey if a "you have to pay for this software" clause in a license doesn't work, what would make "do not use it for military" work?
Software is a tool, period.
... Open Source developers attempting to regulate what their *Open* Source can and can not be used for... please.
True, however do you not believe that humans everywhere should have certain fundamental rights? Such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble peacefully, or the freedom to elect their own leaders? I think they should.
Agreed, seeing every city in the world with the same ideals that we honour in democratic nations would be nice. But we should also understand that Any change should come from within the country - not forced upon externally.
I would be the happiest to see American Culture as a whole being adopted throughout the world through its inherent power and influence (which is happening to a lots of places in the world btw) - not because of its military muscle.
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
I would not.
If you include such a restriction in your license, that decision is already made. You don't want your product to be used to kill _anyones_ neighbors and/or family.
If you take that back, "your" sides' military will go out and kill those who killed your neighbors, killing someone elses' neighbours in the process.
The argument of killing someone to prevent other killings is flawed.
my
This is why the GPL is a useless license.
Except that GPL grants you freedoms, it does not take them away.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
The Last StarFighter. The StarFighter video game was a "stealth" training and selection tool. And the candidates were paying for their training. Cost effective.
That was the cleverest thing I've read all day.
ya, there is nothing those military boys like more than free beer. They may even like it more than the college kids!
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
(Score:-29764, Not Funny)
Get paid to code OSS
The best place for a hacker to be is countering US electronic attacks on Iraq, it is anti war, and you get to be mildly subversive and get to earn your spurs defending rather than attacking.
Do they give logs of what the US military have been doing so there can be a community deconstruction and defense?
Be Free: Free Software Tuition
Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes." ???
The definition of "open source" says, among other things, "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor".
So if you made a license that said it couldn't be used for war, by definition, it wouldn't be an open source license.
(You could change the definition of "open source", but other people have already pointed out what's wrong with that.)
Make love not code.
I love the typical ultra-liberal Slashdot kneejerk. Consider (applying to US laws/military):
1. You owe all of the grand technology you wrote your comment on to the US military. All of the cool stuff we work on and use personally with regards to Internet communications was developed, in part, by the military. They make good stuff.
2. So what if the military uses the code? I'm not about to sling around the T-word (begins and ends with 'T', favorite word of Ashcroft), but c'mon. Might that be a little reactionary to prohibit the group that protects our freedoms from employing your work to protect more of our freedoms? It's the politicians, not the military, that suck.
3. Two words: emminent domain.
4. If you think for a split second that some silly clause in an open software license is going to stop the US mililtary, or that if you managed to prove it, you could sue them successfully, you need to stop huffing gasoline.
I don't mean this to come off as a troll (it's a passionate disagreement), but just 'cause it's military don't mean it's bad. Lighten up, folks.
You may want to be careful using a blanket clause for the military. Not only does the military wage war, our primary purpose, we also do peace keeping, disaster relief (natural and otherwise), research, medicine. Do you want to restrict it to just the combat arms jobs or does that mean that finannce, medical, personnel, supply, etc cant use open source either.
One might also have to define what one means by military. Do I voilate the clause by using your software while I go to college funded by my GI Bill benefits? If I work for a police station and martial law is declared, am I all of a sudden not allowed to use my software because the Army is in control? What if I develop a great software program that is then used as a weapon? Does that mean that the product is illegitmate because I used your source for a program that became a weapon somewhere down the line?
Using a military restriction seems more throuble than its worth. If your really against the military, there are other more productive things you can do.
PFC Gruhn
US Army, Fort Lewis
"Serve and Sustain"
"Oh, dear! This American programmer says I can't use this software, so I guess I'll just have to leave it alone! Darn these modified GPL licenses anyway. What's this world coming to? These programmer types just have too much power. Now I can't do what I want to."
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
...so I hope you don't intend on using any GPL'd code in your project.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
If open source developers should do anything for the Bush's "war effort", it should be this!.
LoL, How true!
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Bush is a fucking war-monger. In the past two years he's attacked one country (Afganistan) and is already trying to attack another (Iraq). His justification for Afganistan was that a small group of people in that country attacked America, therefore he can go to war with the whole country and overthow the government. What kind of logic is that? According to that logic, if the KKK blew up a building in Toronto, Canada would be justified in attacking the U.S. and overthowing the government.
As for Iraq, since when can one country dictate to another what weapons it can and cannot have. Especially when there has been no indication of that Iraq would even use the weapons against the U.S. or any of its allies. If the U.S. can demand Iraq not have any weapons of mass destruction, why can't Iraq demand that the U.S. destroy all its nuclear weapons? The U.S. has actually threatened to use them against Iraq. Talk about a double standard!
And yes, I am an American and not proud of it.
Good idea, Einstein. I'm sure people like Saddam and Uday Hussain, Ferdinand Marcos, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot will abide by that.
Unfortunately, the U.S. and other civilized nations would be the only ones that would suffer. Murderous regimes aren't noted for reading the GPL, let alone complying with it.
I can't help it - I'm a 19D.
In the US, laws, amendments and provisions to various justice levels permits the military to use anything they want, regardless of patents or licensing, provided it has something to do with national security.
This means that if the military juges your software (or hardware or whatever), they can appropriate, use or copy the work on their own if security calls for it.
IANAL, so I dont have references to these, but it's been mentioned before, and there has been occasions where this has already been done, such as in imaging and communication fields.
In theory, though, they can't use this provision to resell the idea outside of their own use.
The problem is more one of how a license with "moral clauses" could be interpreted. How do I know what's a moral use of software? If I advocate violence against Americans because I think they're horrible warmongers who all deserve to die, I certainly think it's moral, but would other people? What if I put up a page saying how we shouldn't blame Israelis for whacking a few Palestinian civilians in the streets by accident? How do I know if the author thinks that's moral?
This sort of license is only trying to impose someone else's political views on other people. The GPL is political enough - we don't need this. We certainly don't need something which opens up the possibility of a lawsuit with minimal justification.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
If a developer doesn't like war, then he better put that in the license. Short of that, he has nothing to complain about.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
It is painfully official; Netcraft continually confirms: *BSD is dying.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are dimmer than dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
word for the daze: execrable.
.asp much longer, or it might eXPlode.
maybe va lairIE should enlist the source forgerIE, in some last gasper attempt to re-incarnate the lnux payper.
lookout bullow. don't leave your head up your
I think this "all or nothing" argument is a cop out, a "reductio ad absurdum" excuse for people who can't or won't consider the potential ramifications of their actions in the world at large.
Everyone, no matter what their position in society or what work they do, has a responsibility to consider how their actions affect other people both in the short and long term. We can no longer afford short-sighted short term thinking -- the earth is too small a place these days.
Furthermore, this comment (and others) don't seem to be based on the content of the articles. (No, I am not new to slashdot! I just haven't let my standards sink to the lowest common denominator. Yet.) The anti-war link to the bluefish site in the original article is a discussion of whether or not to put an anti-war banner on the bluefish, not whether or not to develop code. Anthony L. Awtrey's remarks in the article presents his contrasting opinions in support of military action against Iraq, based in part on his wife's personal experience. Serious public discussion of these issues is what democracy is (supposed to be) all about.
Maybe the prospect of a major war in the Middle East makes you *yawn* but I'm glad to see that not everyone shares this view.
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
Why Iraq? they don't have a nuclear capability, North Korea does and they're pretty unstable.
You and which army?
Not all 'military projects' are bad. When I was in the army, I secured my country's borders (not primarily hunting illegal immigrants, but the facilitators that take all their money) and helped victims of natural catastrophes. Of course, there also are those 'military projects' that are about killing lots of humans. For good reasons, they are planned and conducted rather secretly and the people involved are making rather sure no one gets access to their computers. So, why do you think they would respect your little license terms?
And who decides which 'actions' are 'non-civil' and in which ways a software program could be 'related' to them? That whole idea is callow humbug.
I'd rather try making the world a little better and thus a less likely place to start wars by creating stuff like free software, not almost-free software.
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
Not to mention which this won't be a war as we are used to thinking of them. Casualties in the Gulf War were very low, and I can't imagine this being much different. As you say, the military considers minimization of collateral damage to be a top priority. The concept of there being 100,000 civilian deaths (I've heard someone say it) is FUD.
Not to mention which, programmers aren't experts on military matters. This is scarcely better than Susan Sarandon et al spouting off about the war. Yes, they have a right to free speech, but I'm not exactly going to let a moron actor change my views easily. Nor a programmer, just because he won't let the military use his crappy program.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
... to drag off our women and rape the children. But wait! We can't fight them! That would be war! We can't have war, not at any cost! Darn, and this sewage pipe is so cold and stinky.
Disclaimer: Actual Cubans may not necessarily drag off American women and/or rape American children.
I had a buddy that worked in Huntsville, Alabama, for a DoD kinda place. He created/tuned rocket engines on a 'Fat' Mac way back when.
He was always worried about 'creating something that might hurt someone', but I could never see the fear in that. Let's say I create a rocket-thingy. It's *intended* use is to shoot down attacking hijacked aircraft. But what if it misses and hits someone on the ground?
What I'm getting to is, even if you don't expect it to, it could. (See also Apache) And if your product *is* used in anger, there's also a chance for it to save the day. We just have to hope that those we counted on at the last election do what we expect.
So don't sweat it- if it's what you like, do it- get paid, go home, have babies and live happily ever after.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Reminds me of that free FTP server Warftp. Obviously the author dislikes government agencies so much he released it under a license that allows everybody except governmental institutions to use his software.
So if someone doesn't like the US military, they can restrict the license of their software.
What's the common thread? Anti-U.S. sentiment.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
Believe as we believe of no software for you, sheesh at least microsoft just wants you money and control of your computer -- they don't tell you what to believe.
But therein lies a real 'double edged sword', the great thing about the GPL/LGPL is that it doesn't have lots of different potentially incompatible licenses - so people can mix and match their software - libertarian code works with lefty code works with evil warmongering republican code.
These sorts of of issues ARE real-life ethics problems people deal with every day, 20 years ago I used to port Unix to new hardware for a living .... one day a new job came into work from Israel (we would get them from all over the world, even from behind the then iron curtain), one by one engineers refused to work on the project (we found out it was going into a tank), eventually management found someone who would do it.
> die in a war, I tell them that Saddam has
> already spilled more Iraqi blood than any
> aggressor.
I guess he's killed over 150,000 civilians that the "surgical bombing" of the Gulf War did. It's certainly possible.
When was the last time you had to wonder if the plane flying overhead might be dropping a bomb on you and your loved ones?
No problem, got Karma to burn... Feel free to moderate this down as well.
Please stick your head back up your ass and allow GPL software to be used in the almost completely unrestricted way that GPL software was designed. The last thing the GPL movement needs is for a bunch of busy bodies deciding who can use the software and under what circumstances the software can be used.
What if Linus suddenly decided that anybody having anything to do with 'fur' , could not use Linux? ANTI-FUR GPL
What if Linus decided that companies that produce GM food could not use Linux? ANTI-GM food GPL ?????????
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
If you don't want people using your code, get a clue - and make it proprietary.
The day I see the GPL include a subsection denoting, "Unless you're a warmongering nation, then you can't use it!" is the day I start including, "Unless you're a smelly hippy trying to use software as a political platform. Then you can't use it!" on all my code.
Software != Politics.
Stop trying to make it such.
The bulk of the comments here all seem to insinuate something to the effect that as an open source developer, you should not expect to have any restrictions whatsoever placed upon your work, and that you accept this upon "opening" your work. This is totally ridiculous. The GPL itself places all types of restrictions on the use of the open source. It could be argued that some of these restrictions are in fact politically motivated. Arguments to the effect that it is impossible to define "military uses" could be applied to just about anything in the law. The law is all about attempting to place a concrete definition on an inherently ambiguous problem, so that folks can interpret it as their reason dictates -- and upon a conflict of understanding, the parties show up in a court and a judge/jury settles the dispute w/ their interpretation. I see the task of defining an open source license that excludes military uses as no more difficult than defining the GPL that excludes derivative uses (i.e. new apps that uses GPL'd libraries) from not being GPL'd. If a group of programmers wants such an open source license, I say great, go for it, and get a good lawyer to help you draft it.
3 Years ago when I was in high school the army parked a big trailer in front of the school filled with video games to entice people into joining the military. People were skipping classes to play games.
Yay propaganda.
Seriously, 'free' means 'free', not 'free minus epsilon'.
Signatures are for stupids.
Well you are certainly within your right to do so (assuming that a parent license does not prohibit further restrictions), but is that the best thing to do?
As other posters have mentioned, not only does restricting Government/military use of Open Source software encourage them to seek out closed-source options but have you considered a scenario where your country's military might need something you have created in an operation you do support?
The "military" doesn't just mean the infantry, armor and artillery types...it also includes some sectors of homeland defense and disaster relief. Some aspects of military research can directly benefit the public (bioterrorism defense research, for instance). And where exactly would the Coast Guard fit in?
Software can be used for both good and bad purposes. If a tool can do more good than harm, why place restrictions on where it could possibly do good?
To Awtrey's credit, he has thought the issue through and considered the effects of his actions, and is willing to engage in a reasoned discussion of his decisions. What I can't understand is other people's unwillingness to go through the same process with regards to their own opinions and actions.
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
Yes, of course OpenSource can/will/should be used to truly free iraq. Freeing the Iraqi people by Killing Saddam and his Armies is a great use for OpenSource. Over the years, our freedoms have often been defended by using "free" and/or volunteer resources.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Wasn't the internet itself a military project? Besides, where do you draw the line. The military is HUGE. If I use your code to run my business that makes MREs (Meal Ready to Eat) which I sell to campers and relief agencies, am I violating the terms of your license if I sell them to the Military too? "I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who said...'I drank what?'"
Diagnosis: you are paranoid. As luck would have it, you're also being followed.
Death to all fanatics!
Yea, its worth it if my software helps kill people so long as it hurts Microsoft. You realy need to figure out whos side your on, its us VS Microsoft, everything else is just collateral damage.
I'm an open source contributor, and I'm not against Microsoft. I run Linux, support GNU and the FSF, and have been involved in a few open source projects.
There is no war to be fought with Microsoft, and zealots are just here to hurt the progression of Linux to the desktop. The goal is not to destroy Microsoft, the goal is to create a great desktop for everyone to enjoy, without any legal issues.
Please take your zealotry and stick it in a nice, tightly sealed jar. We do not need your kind to act as PR for the Open Source community.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Dude, your head is screwed on backwards! The prospect of getting more beer should be priority #2 after you deal with item #1 on the agenda, the beer currently in front of you.
Sheesh. Kids these days. I weep for America.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"Discrimination-promoting software."
Pledge of Allegiance: One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all...
Interesting combination. You want a nation 'Under God' without discrimination. Pick one.
Lets not start a vicious cycle, keep free software free for everyone. Period.
I assume you favour a BSD license then? The GPL restricts the use of GPL code to GPL'ed projects, and so already restricts freedom.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Going to war would be in compliance with resolution 1441.
Clear, Dark Skies
Quotes from Zimmerman regarding developing technology that might be used by criminals and terrorists:
By the way, the U.S. Military is not the bad guy here, and by no means do I want anyone to think that I feel that way. Should we go to war, it's our kids that will be the targets of bullets and most likely gas and bio shit, all because in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, our elected leaders sowed the seeds of discontent around the world, and ignored the crop.
I hope our military uses whatever they can, however they can, legally. If you have a problem with the war, run for the PTA, the local council, state government, or federal government. Did you remember to vote?
Good idea, Einstein. I'm sure people like Saddam and Uday Hussain, Ferdinand Marcos, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot will abide by that.
Uhm, what's your point? Whether there are restrictions or not, they still use the software. I believe I made the point against the possibility of restrictions hurting legitimate and peaceful government operations... glad to see you are quick to flame without reading.
Unfortunately, the U.S. and other civilized nations would be the only ones that would suffer. Murderous regimes aren't noted for reading the GPL, let alone complying with it.
Wonderful. You are redundant.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
A related quote, on the selective enforcement of laws:
A hypothetical case: Let's say I was going to blow up VA Software with a cruise missile and inside this cruise missile I was running embedded RTLinux. You find this out because I have a Sourceforge project where I am releasing my modified source in compliance with the GPL.
As we can see the GPL is only a legal document, not an ethical or moral one. As I'm following the letter of the GPL, the RTLinux developers shouldn't care... legally.
Sure, they can be outraged and upset with everything else (and why not?). But ethical use has nothing to do with the GPL. Open Source is egalitarian in that way. I can use Apache to host anti-abortion or anti-death penalty websites. As many as I want. The license isn't there to judge intent.
Now could they create a new OS license that makes it illegal for someone to use the technology in weaponry? SURE! But it isn't, so right now it is moot.
What is music when you despise all sound?
If you're generous enough to give it freely to society, you shouldn't worry about whatever applications misguided people put it to.
If you have concerns about how members of society choose to behave, you need to work to improve society.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
By making machines that can kill foreigners more efficiently, we save lives. You say: "the sooner the war ends, the fewer lives will be lost"
If d is total deaths, weapon killing efficiency is K, and t is time;
Kt = d or
t = d/K
Given that time = money;
$ = deaths / Killing efficiency
Expect a profit-motivated Bush war to be a long, slow one, with lots of body bags.
I had a look at the slideshow in the link and was amused by this page where it has some word definitions, one of which is Ownship. Now I thought that this is what happens when crackerz take control of the simulator and take the driver on the wildest ride of their life.
Then I realised it probably should have read own ship. Much less interesting...
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
Good luck in learning that we used your code. Slap in in a Secret or TS system and you would never even get the right to know we used it.
You, sir, are a big, smelly NAZI! You're worse than George Bush!
If you follow Stallman closely, he's against war.
www.stallman.org
Creating stuff to help governments kill people isn't exactly a good hobby.
This isn't an issue limited to free software or even to software at all; it's a technology issue and, reduced to its bare essence, the question is whether an inventor is responsible for the use of his inventions.
The question of intellectual property is entirely beside the point. I remember that, when downloading Oracle for Linux, I was required to fill out an HTML form affirming that I would not use the product for the development of nuclear weapons. Somehow, I have a hard time picturing Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il saying, "Well, shit. I can't use Oracle for my clandestine nuclear program because of this license. I guess I'll have to use MySQL instead." The same is true of commercial software. Does anyone believe an export license (or for that matter, a licensing fee) would stop anyone from either purchasing a boxed copy in the US or Europe or just downloading a copy from alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc? If you don't want your code to be misused, don't release it. If you release it, it eventually, inevitably will be misused.
Several years ago, I completed work on a library and set of tools for textual- and communication-traffic analysis. Among the things you could do with the tools was determining authority relationships between people in an organization on the basis of the patterns of their email communications. Another interesting application, which I tested with a full non-binaries Usenet feed, was a surprisingly effective system for determining the political affiliation of posters on the basis of their non-political postings. (For the curious, I used a sample group of 1,000 posters who made consistent ideological posts to political newsgroups as well as non-political posts to non-political newsgroups.) The accuracy rate over a six month period approached 95%.
Concluding that such code could be used by governments to track political dissidents, I was reluctant to release the code. Once John Ashcroft and John Poindexter appeared on the scene, I destroyed the source. This was probably pointless, as the algorithms being used are well-understood -- only the particular combination of algorithms was novel -- and the NSA probably has similar software written by much smarter guys than me, but when my own government, much less foreign tyrants, is arresting people without charges and holding them incommunicado in undisclosed locations, I didn't want to be responsible for contributing to the next round of political arrests.
Contrary to what the above seems to imply, I don't think inventors ought to be held responsible for the misuse of their inventions. I do think that inventors ought to be held responsible for failing to consider the potential consequences of misuse, however. In my case, I decided the potential benefits were outweighed by the potential abuses and decided not to release. Ultimately, that's all you can do if you are concerned about abuses, for the simple reason that the people who are likely to abuse your code are not going to be stopped by legal fictions like the GPL, copyrights, patents, or anything less substantial than the barrel of a gun.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I once knew a couple of programmers who were avowed pacifists and who worked on the software which ran the Sergeant York air defence system.
I have often wondered if it was a coincidence that some of the software components of the system never really worked properly.
#include
//Ok let's see if it will run without //War being declared...
#include
#include
#include
int main()
{
cout "Attack!" endl;
while ((War==True) && (!Over_And_We_All_Go_Home_Heros))
{
Bomb();
}
return 0;
}
- The point is to disarm S. Hussein and Iraq
- We need to "keep the oil flowing"
- If you are against the invasion, you support S. Hussein
- If you support the UN, you do not have the will, courage, strength, etc. to confront S. Hussein
- We are doing it to stop the proliferation of WMD
- We are going to liberate the people of Iraq
- We are going to bring democracy to Iraq
- We have no "territorial ambitions," as G. Bush has claimed
- We are committed to fighting evil
- We are by definition fundamentally good, and thus most suited to decide on our own what regimes should be confronted and how to do it
- An overwhelmingly strong military and demonstrable willingness to use it are the best guarantors of peace
- The best way to dissuade authoritarian regimes from developing deterrent WMD arsenals is to threaten them with full-scale military invasion
- We will defeat asynchronous, decentralized, distributed religious fundamentalist terrorists with full-scale military confrontation
I could go on, but I don't have time. If you believe in the above points, then may the gods have mercy on all of us.Better log off the Internet (descendant of DARPANet) Have fun doing nothing for the rest of your life.
4. If you think for a split second that some silly clause in an open software license is going to stop the US mililtary, or that if you managed to prove it, you could sue them successfully, you need to stop huffing gasoline.
I think, having worked on a defense research project, that a clause in a license would prevent the military in any democratic country from using your software. I don't think for a moment that it would stop Sadam's military from using your software. If you place such a restriction in license then you are basically saying 'My government can't use this software, but my government's enemies can'. I would describe myself as anti-war, but Saddam has to be stopped somehow. If the only way that this can be done is through war then I would hope that we would use the latest technologies availible to ensure a quick victory with the minimum of civilian casualties. Arming Saddam at the expense of our own forces does not do this, and, while software written now is unlikely to be used in this war, if you place such restrictions in your code then in the next war you are likely to be responsible for civilian deaths, or the deaths of members of your country or the UN's armed forces. There is no absolution option, the choice is simply whose death you would rather be (partially) responsible for.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
After all, that America's Army game must cost them a ton in development fees and distribution fees
I did read what you wrote, I just whiffed on the fact that you were quoting someone. My dumb error. I apologize.
I can't help it - I'm a 19D.
Murderous regimes like Dubya's evil empire, perhaps?
If you are right that Iraq doesn't have the bomb (I'm not sure even the inspectors can say that with any certainty), all the more reason to invade them rather than North Korea - Iraq won't launch nukes it doesn't have. Attacking North Korea in no way assures they won't get a nuke off, unless the US were to launch an all-out preemptive nuke attack against them, which is not on the table right now, in small part because it would prove true North Korea's belief that the US wants to destroy their country.
> Oh, and the bit about terrorism? Americans are well aware that our actions in Afghanistan were motivated by 9/11, but that our actions in Iraq basically are not.
What do you base this on? Polls on the subject have shown that Americans are dramatically misinformed on this subject, with huge numbers of them believing that there were Iraq citizens among the 9/11 criminals, and more believing in evidence tying Iraq to Bin Laden that, in fact, doesn't exist.
I thought you were making a statement about "equality" turned to "bone". I looked up "bonified" in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and found the following:
So is it the bonefish or the bonfire that you believe should have "equality of use"?
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Even Sheryl Crow was doing USO tours in Bosnia when Clinton was in office, and now wears anti-military shirts. Hypocrite).
Supporting your troops and protesting a war are not mutually exclusive. Plus maybe she felt we had more reason to be in Bosnia than Iraq.
I did read what you wrote, I just whiffed on the fact that you were quoting someone. My dumb error. I apologize.
*gasp* Oh holy hell, I did not just see this. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. You have just taken a great step to proving the people on here were not all assholes. Again, thanks.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
If Open Source is good for for the militaries (not just the US's), the militaries and their billions of dollars of research will be very good for open source. Most of our beloved geek stuff like the internet had its beginnings in military research.
Besides, wouldn't it be cool if the Recuiting games like AA, were made for Linux?
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
Just spread a rumor that they're using unlicensed copies of Windows, IIS, Office, etc. Then just have the Army follow the Microsoft lawyers and its all over in a couple of days.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Should China be prohibited from using GPL code because they enslave their population and have a dictatorship/communist government? No. As much as despise the Chinese government, that's not what GPL is about. BC
Is this really what you want Open Source software to be associated with? War and bloodshed? "...xx..people died....aid...open source....developer's cheer..." Ok. Good. Great...
When the Klingons gave weapons to one faction in a pre-industrial society, Kirk went ahead and gave weapons to the other faction in an effort to restore equality.
Think of open source as having your own built-in Kirk... or RMS with a phaser. Sure they're going to use it for military purposes, but then so can the other guy.
And if there are bugs, so much the better.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Hey, I screwed up. That makes me human. I would be a fucktard, though, if I didn't apologize.
I can't help it - I'm a 19D.
How can you be so sure that they do not have nuclear capability? All we know is that they are actively trying to get nuclear capability. In fact, when France sold Iraq a Nuclear generator to build a "power plant" (even though they live on top of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world) in the 80's, many experts agreed that they would have had nuclear weapons by the time the first Gulf war rolled around. (Fortunately, this made Israel a bit to nervous, so they took the generator out with an air strike).
North Korea is very different because they have told us that they have nukes. The only reason you tell the world that you have nukes is to gain diplomatic leverage, which is something North Korea desperately needs now considering their economic situation. On the other hand, the only reason you would develop nukes and not tell the world is so that you can use them.
Where's the discrimination in 'Under God'? God could be Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Buddah, Money, Sex, Snicker bars, etc...
For example, I worship at the Church of My Livingroom Couch, and find that I am NOT in fact discriminated against through the pledge of allegiance.
----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson
Whether or not war is right or wrong is not the issue with Iraq. Saddam has very little to do with the "terrorists" that the US is attempting to fend off, if you buy their rhetoric. There is never a right and a wrong in war. Only those that dominate, and they that win write the history books. I happen to think it's wrong, but some other people think it's right. I live in the US and will do what I can show my disdain for the current Government as I think they are a bunch of damn money-grubbing bullies. But they get to write history with their actions. It's just a damn shame they won't think about what they are doing first. They are short-sighted imbeciles, just look at Bush and Cheany's Coorporate antics, which are exemplified by his current tax antics. They have a "make as much as you can and run" policy. Which will turn Iraq into something far worse than it is currently...
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
So what?
And the export restrictions by USA? Don't they affect the GPL in exactly the same way?
The GPL is not neutral. The concept of equality/free use is not inherent in a capitalistic/freemarket economy. Socialism and Communism (I am talking Communism as a theory not as practiced over the last 80+ years) lean/push those types of ideals.
A freemarket requires winners and losers to drive competition in the market place. Not equality.
I am not advocating one theory over another.
Open source can never be used for military purposes. China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and other unfriendly to the USA countries would never, ever, ever use open source.
Oops, forgot about the China government sponsored version of linux.
OMG! Super villians use Linux! LINUX MUST DIE!!!
Open Source is bad, 'mmkay?
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
While I wouldn't put much stock in a Die Hard-type movie as a good source, the government can stop a patent from issuing, or take it outright. Methods include secrecy orders (seals a patent application for N years) or eminent domain (where the government takes property, but must compensate the owner.)
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
Mr Bush just go in and get the job done, not tomorrow not next week but do it now. The UN and the opposing countries have been reduced to untrustworty cowards. France, Germany and Russia all signed the disarament agreement in November. That is right they signed the document, now that we know their signatures are not worth the paper they are written on, their opinions mean nothing. The hell with the UN just go get it done...
Got Code?
"Once rockets go up,
who cares where they come down?
That's not my department,"
says Werner von Braun.
Hey, I screwed up. That makes me human. I would be a fucktard, though, if I didn't apologize.
;-)
No, it would make you a Slashdot regular
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
The American millitary answers to no-one. The debate is pointless since they would use whatever technology they could get there hands on. Oddly enough this sounds similar to the Iraqi millitary. They mentioned zimmerman and pgp and guilt but software is no different from any other technology. Hundereds of years ago, no-one had guns, then someone invented guns, and now all countries have guns (except for us brits who have guns that dont like sand). Software just propogates faster than hardware because of its nature. But then you could argue that its ok to sell other countries software and weapons, if technology is already being made availiable freely. Why is putting instructions to build chemical weapons from household ingreadients on the web different to giving instructions to build gpg from the source? (ok they are very different things, bad example)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
No, its means I am from the south. We also use "yall, aint, momandem, fixing to, younto, aight, yonder, hellatious, wondermus" among others.
:)
bonified defined: Genuine article. Real deal. Certifiable. True.
Use in context:
Anyone who would make fun of the word "bonified" is a bonified yankee or foreigner.
Any more questions?
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Open source is about giving freedom/free speech to all. I'm very sure all developers have their very own contrasting idea about a lot of things. But it really doesn't matter, they're to co-exists.
If you force some idea to someone, you're just talking the freedom out of open source.
I anti-war myself. But whatever any developer do for the US government is their business. They have the freedom/right to do so.
Or ask yourself this, planes are used by terrorists to destroy the WTO towers. So are we to stop the production of planes because the terrorist use them? Similarly, the US government may use open source software to do whatever they want, even though a lot of them are idiotic.
You can have tools fall into good hands and bad. And yes, they yell vastly different result. But what about it? Are you to control who should use it or not? Will you be able to? Do you want to take away the freedom?
Supporting your troops and protesting a war are not mutually exclusive. Plus maybe she felt we had more reason to be in Bosnia than Iraq.
Except in Bosnia, we didn't go through the UN. No, I think its simply because she is very liberal, like many in the music and movie industry, and chooses to support based upon the political leanings of the person in charge. Yes, what you are saying is POSSIBLE, however, it is not PROBABLE.
And I agree that the race may not always go to the swiftest, but the smart money always bets that way.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
While one might not be supportive of the US military, restricting use of the software would not stop anyone, especially our enemies. Say that the enemy, regardless of who they are, begins to blow off the licence and begins to use it for military purposes. If its a critical enough target, we would like to bring it down. Unfortunatly we would be restained since WE FOLLOW THE LICENCE. Our only way to attack your software would (probably) be to use your own software to study its strengths and weak spots. Therefore for us to do our job, we would have to break the licence that the enemy already broke.
Hiding behind a licence is wrong, but evil will do it while we would respect it and get screwed in the process
PFC Gruhn
US Army, Fort Lewis
"Serve and Sustain"
I heard SendMail has a killing radius of 20 meters. Newer Patriot missiles are actually being fitted with Gimp warheads.
Rock-on.
-- jimmycarter
Wow, finally, a slashdotter for whom the saying "IANAL, but ..." does not apply.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
does writing or contributing to open source, have anything at all with your own personal political views. I really don't think it does.
I'd say do what your own convictions tell you to. If you feel that your contributions to a project are going towards a means that you don't like.. then don't contribute. But as a previous post said, Open source is open source. Anybody can use it. If you don't like that then don't do open source anymore. (or at least not in the project that is contributing to your moral conundrum.)
Who makes you Sig?
But, oh no, listening to someone who actually came from the region and is free to talk about it would go against one of the principles of Cyber-punditry.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Even as a very strong anti-war activist, I find offense to the idea that people would want to restrict free software from being free. While I hate the thought that my code could be used to kill people, I also have to accept that it is just as likely to save people with advances in medical technology, etc. Open source is a progressive movement, and just because it benefits an act that can be seen as non-progressive, you're causing as much harm as good by limiting it. Parallels can be drawn to the recent Supreme Court case involving civil disobedience by anti-abortion activists. No matter how much I disagree with their cause, they have the same right to liberties as I do, and I support their ability to voice them. Freedom is no longer freedom if it only belongs to a select few. And in the end, it works out all right. I use Open Source technologies heavily in my struggle to keep this war from materializing. There are uses for server technology, desktop publishing and imaging, encryption, communications software, etc., that would not be available to me without Open Source due to my status as a volunteer - working completely without funding. Additionally, I'm much more trusting of Open Software, as there's no way to tell with closed products if the government has a backdoor to every word you say, every rally you organize; and suddenly federal marshalls start appearing before your act of civil disobedience even gets underway. It's tough to see code you right used in a way you don't agree with, but limiting its use in ANY way puts you on the same level as corporations with thick EULAs designed to circumvent freedoms to individuals.
- Jason Baker (Project Bomns)
I would be qutie proud if the military found my code worthy of their use.
I fail to see the destinction...
I can't help it - I'm a 19D.
of people taking for a given that this war is bad because that's what "good liberals" think. I'm not necessarily saying it's a great idea, as I haven't really made up my mind -
So, let me see if I understand your position.
You havn't made up your mind, but your sick of people that have? You havn't made up your mind, but you know enough about it to critique people that have thought about it, and made up their mind?
Are you waiting around until someone tells you what to think on the AM radio?
Personaly, I'm sick of people supporting the war in Iraq because it's the "good conservative" answer to terrorism. What has failed is Bush forign policy. He doesn't have an answer for terrorism, so he's got the sheep bleating "Iraq!" Apparently, it seems to be working.
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
ah, but ms is trying to take over OUR world...hey, you see evil, you bring it down, it's that simple. so, bring em both to their knees! and, no, i'm not joking.
- real hackers don't have sigs -
Which is all really fine until you realise that they might not have a claim here because it's simply a legal notice, not a work of authorship. Oops! You will note that the FSF has not yet tested this in court. There are plenty of programs distributed under a modified GPL license. They could sue any and all of them if they wanted. I wonder why they haven't...
So... Microsoft licenses are propagating less freedom in the world. Agreed, more or less. But then how's military propagating freedom? people like you should be shot in the head for letting governments wage wars because "it gives more freedom."
Now the Iraqi pilots get get up to snuff in their large fleet of Blackhawk choppers using US simulators!
No No No - you got it all wrong. Contrary to the title, I refuse to believe this is a open source software issue. We all know both the US armed forces and the Iraqi's have a right to use it as much as anyone else does. IMHO this is about the war, so I'll bite. (I know I'm gonna get it, but I can't resist)
Screw the UN, screw France, and screw Saddam Hussein. We simply need to invade now and get it over with. Let's get real - you can't possibly expect the US gov to dally while this guy biulds god only knows what. C'mon we all know the first place any terrorist is going to go when they're looking for those big bad bombs - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. But unlike the other two, we've patiently been trying to rid ourselves of Saddam's bullshit for 12 years. Even if he didn't have massive amounts of oil to finance his nuke programs, and even if he hadn't killed millions, and even if he didn't genocide his own people - it would still be a just war if for anything for the sake of trying to resuce the Iraqi people. I think even the folks in France know I'm right.
Mr. Anonymous Coward loses! Strangest NetHack death: Terminated by Godwin.
I work for a major news publisher and develop its Web site. One of the most frustrating thing I've run across is when seeking "free" and "open" Perl scripts and other resources only to find that the author has included comments in the source that it's free for use except by corporate users. Great. Your anti-corporate attitude does nothing to hurt the big-wigs at these large corporations, but makes my job infintely more complicated and shoots yet another hole through the credibility of the free software movement.
So, either make it free... all free, or don't. Don't make yourself a hypocrite.
The High Priests of the Bazaar
This paper presents a case against the open source movement and explains why the open source model does not work economically for the vast majority of those involved in the production of commercial software. There are several arguments against the OS (open source) model.
Open Source Doesn't Make Economic Sense For Most
The open source organization has presented a few cases that supposedly explain why OS works economically. However, if you examine the cases objectively you will find that the cases are flimsy and non-specific and do not address any specific concerns. They attempt to bolster their case by pointing out a few "successes", among which Caldera and Red Hat are displayed as shining examples.
The real economic question of the OS model is how is money made, and who is making the money. Who is being rewarded financially for the enormous development effort? The open source initiative claims that there are at least four different models that allow someone to reap rewards. Oddly, it is not mentioned that it is not necessarily the people who did the development work that gain financially.
The four primary business cases mentioned by OS proponents are "Selling Support", "Loss Leader", "Widget Frosting" and "Accessorizing."
The first case proposes that money can be made via selling support for the free software product. This is by far the strongest case and is proven to work, for a few small companies. The two companies that are shown as positive examples of this business model are Red Hat and Caldera, who distribute and support the Linux operating system. What is never mentioned is that neither of these two companies has contributed significantly in relative terms to the Linux development process. Its important to note that using this business model, the people that make the money are usually not the ones who have invested in the development process. So much for the strongest case.
The second case is based on the idea that you give away a product as open source so you can make money selling a closed source program. This also can work, but it should be noted that the money is being made off the closed source product and not off of the open source. An example of this model would be Netscape, who gives away the source code of their client browser so the OS community can do development, but keeps their "cash cow" products completely closed. Obviously, this case may only work if you have a software product that lends itself to this sort of "give away the razor and make money on the blades" system. The truth is that the vast majority of software is monolithic. So much for the loss leader case.
The third case, "Widget Frosting", sounds completely practical. The premise that hardware makers produce open source software so that the OS development community will work for free to produce better drivers and interface tools for their hardware products. It sounds great on the surface, especially for the company that produces the hardware: they get free drivers and do not have to pay for expensive developers. The OS community wins by getting presumably stable drivers and tools. What is not mentioned is the reason hardware makers usually don't do this is because they do not want to reveal trade secrets regarding their hardware design. Production of efficient drivers requires an intimate knowledge of the hardware the driver is for. It is almost always the case that it is in the hardware developers' best interest to keep their hardware secrets close to home. This also brings up the question of why isn't hardware "open"? So much for the frosting case.
The final case, "Accessorizing", is similar to the first, but throws in the idea of selling books and complete systems with the open source software, and other accessories as well. It is obvious that selling books qualifies as support, and that it really belongs in the first case. The idea of selling computer systems, T-Shirts, dolls, again begs the question: "Who is making the money?" As with the first case, it is not necessarily the people who have done the development work. Additionally, the question of how much money can be made selling books, t-shirts, mugs, etc, is never answered. O'Reilly Associates is frequently used as an example to be a company who has made money using this case. The reader should notice that O'Reilly Associates are not the people doing the development work. Indeed, it is never asked why all the O'Reilly books are not available for free or at least at manufacturing cost? This also brings up the question of why isn't book production "open"? Perhaps they are waiting to see if they could sell enough O'Reilly T-Shirts to pay their bills. So much for the accessories.
Open Source Does Not Necessarily Produce Better Software
The open source proponents frequently state that OS necessarily produces better software. This statement is made without any evidence. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary. GCC is a standard compiler produced by the GNU organization. It lags its commercial counterparts in both efficiency and features. The reason behind is illustrates the largest weakness in the OS plan. It is very hard to convince qualified engineers that they should do such boring and unglamorous work without any sort of financial reward. The idea of throwing large quantities of people at the source does not work in this case, since there are not large quantities of qualified individuals available.
Open Source Did Not Make the Internet Successful
Another statement made by the OS community is that somehow open source was responsible for the success of the Internet. The reason behind this is probably a result of the confusion between what is open source and what is an open protocol. It is easy to see that the foundation of the Internet was built on open protocols. This does not equate to open source, for the two are quite different. The vast majority of the machines on the Internet run on closed source operating systems running mostly closed source software, which communicate using open protocols.
Where Does Open Source Work?
Open source does work in certain cases. A good example of where it may work well is Netscape. The act of giving away the source to the OS community so they can work for free and produce a product that helps the sales of their server software was a stroke of genius and proved very profitable for the relatively few at Netscape. But is this truly making money off of open source? Isn't the money is made off of the closed source software?
Another example of where it does work is the aforementioned Red Hat. Red Hat has been successful making money off of the work of thousands of others who have contributed to the Linux operating system and the associated GNU programs that have shipped with the Linux distributions. The question is: do those who work at Red Hat deserve to be rewarded, or do the people who do the actual development work deserve to be rewarded? Should the money go to the few, or to the many? It seems that the High Priests of the Bazaar believe the former.
THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE RECOPIED AND REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT RESTRICTION, HOWEVER ADDITIONS/MODIFICATIONS/CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE LABELED AS SUCH WHERE THEY OCCUR.
I fail to see the destinction...
I was just saying most the people on Slashdot are fucktards who will never admit to being wrong.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
A freemarket requires winners and losers to drive competition in the market place.
While I respect your opinion in this matter, I think you are missing a few key points.
A free market place is where everyone has equal OPPORTUNITY. What you DO with that opportunity will decide your fate, but you have the same rights as I do to sell "widgets".
The only losers in a free market are the ones who do not have something of value to offer the market. For instance: I am not an painter. I have an equal opportunity to paint as Picasso did. So I quit my job, and become a painter. No one buys them, but they will pay big money for Picasso's. I go broke. I go back to my old job, which I was pretty good at, and got paid good money for.
The market place did not make Picasso a winner and me a loser. His talent made him a winner, and my lack of talent made me a loser.
The concept of equity is absolutely inherent in a freetrade/capitalistic society. Equity in opportunity, NOT equity in outcome. Socialism is based upon redistribution of wealth, thus equity of outcome. In America, the concepts of "Equity in Opportunity" and "Equity in Outcome" are constantly debated, and are the basis for the differences of the two primary parties.
As to free use, it fits capitalism fine. I create something, with the same opportunity as anyone else, and I choose what I want to do with it afterward. I can sell it. I can lease it. I can hold it. I can freely distribute it and let others do the same. It neither favors capitalism nor socialism, as long as the creator has the option. It is neutral in this respect.
It may "sound" more like socialism, because someone probably isn't making money. But free software is about "free speech" more than "free beer". As the GPL states, I can sell Linux for $1000 a copy or $10 a copy, or give it away (the free beer part). What I can't do is restrict YOUR right to use it as you see fit, and redistribute it as you see fit, the "free speech" part.
As to Communism as a Theory versus Communism as it has been practiced, I am deeply of the believe that Communisim as a Theory is just that, and it will never work the same in the real world as it does on paper because people are selfish. This type of selfishness is not bad. It is natural, normal, and necessary to our survival. If the stronger birds didn't push the weakest birds out of the nest, there would not be enough food for all. People will not work harder than the weakest worker if they are not rewarded better. To do otherwise may sound wonderful, and self sacrificing, but the fact is man's instinct to preserve self IS stronger than the instinct to preserve species. If you want a man to do more than minimum, to excell, you have to have a carrot in front of him. Capitalism under a democratic republic free market society offers that carrot to everyone, with a guarantee of opportunity, but not of outcome. Outcome is based upon your choices of profession, the amount of work you put into it, how adept you are at the profession, and even a little luck.
Communism as a Practice has been tried by several different countries, and we have seen the best it could possibly offer as a practice. The problem is: It doesn't work in practice the same as it works in theory.
Trying to make a utopian society based upon communistic ideals is like herding cats. You can show me how on paper, but you still can't do it in real life.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
If not, then you refute your own argument, and if you do effectively condone cannibalism you're utterly amoral.
Either way, you're a FOOL
http://www.donarmstrong.com
So why is the GPL itself not GPL'd (or released under one of the open-documentation licenses)?
Choosing GPL as license is in itself a pretty strong political statement. GPL is restrictive for many uses (e.g. compared with BSD/MIT/Apache licenses) so I don't find it strange if someone would add another paragraph.
Something like
No part of this software can be used for research, manufacture or use of nuclear power, nuclear, chemical or biological warfare or in states sanctioned by United Nations embargos or blockades.
That's very much like GPL's idea "It can't be used as a part of products that don't share our ideas about software licensing".
Many people in this discussion seem to think that "freedom" in the true sense means "the user's freedom to do whatever he wants" when actually "the authors freedom and right to be respected for his work" is a more important basis of freedom (and GPL).
Maybe the war in Iraq (soon on a theatre near you) is a too hot issue to be a good example. But show me someone that would be proud of seeing their free software enabling the genocide in Rwanda. GPL is already a lot about ideas, ethics and moral so anybody choosing GPL for their project should be articulate enough to decide for themselves which uses are acceptable. Choosing GPL just because "it is the ultimately cool freedom thing" is not what GNU is about.
First of all, as everyone else points out, it's a non-issue. The government will do what they want, the terrorists are more than likely using opensource encryption, etc...
for the sake of argument, let's say you can ban the military from using open source. what about those linux clusters that help break "bad guy" encryption, or the clusters they use to similate any number of things including nuclear weapon blasts. would you rather we go back to dropping nuks on remote south pacific islands?
how about this...i'm in the US Air Force. does that mean i can't run linux on all my machines in my dorm room? i know it's a stretch, but i do live on a military base and use my computers to contact people in my office regarding work (unclassified of course). couldn't that be taken as "use by the government"? what about a previous posters thought of saying "can't be downloaded for use by members of the military"?
-frozen
I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
Under GPL, you don't have the freedom to take away others' freedom. Under BSD, you do. That's why Bill likes BSD (but only for others --- Microsoft would never released BSD code.)
I stand corrected...that RMS guy is one smart cookie.
The cake is a pie
No, that's the damned point. I'm criticizing people who have done the opposite - made up their mind without thinking just because NPR told them to. Yes, there are people on both sides that are guilty of this, and they piss me off equally. However, I'm surrounded by the pacifist camp, being as how I'm in grad school, and Universities are pretty leftist. If I still lived in the south (gun racks per capita: 3) I would probably be having this discussion with the other side. No, I do NOT favor "killing them all and letting God sort them out," which seems to be considered a reasonable argument there.
Personaly, I'm sick of people supporting the war in Iraq because it's the "good conservative" answer to terrorism. What has failed is Bush forign policy. He doesn't have an answer for terrorism, so he's got the sheep bleating "Iraq!" Apparently, it seems to be working.
That's true. To an extent, Bush's motivation, consciously or subconsciously, is that this is a proxy war for bin Laden, whom he can't find. So I agree, the motivation for it kind of sucks. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the war shouldn't occur. A lot of the evidence regarding an Iraq/Al Queda link is classified, but other non-Germany/France countries seem fairly compelled by it when they see it. That's enough reason for me to be a bit less skeptical about the war given, say, Spain's reaction.
Also, to defend Bush - he inherited this situation after 8 years of Clinton and the UN allowing Saddaam to blatantly violate terms of the treaty with no consequences. Bush Sr. bowed to pressure, largely of a humanitarian basis, to end the first war and save lives - something that in hindsight may not have been so smart. However, he had no way of knowing just how weak the UN would prove. So to say that this is Bush Jr's foreign policy failure is a bit disingenious. What should he have done - asked Saddaam a little nicer to let inspectors have unfettered access (which they've never had) ?
Also, when will diplomacy have effectively failed? Because it ain't working now, either from us or the UN. And what do we do then?
Here's a question - what's your answer for terrorism? Because taking out governments that blatantly sponsor it seems to be the only recourse, other than just living with it. Ultimately, it comes down to this: how much risk are we willing to assume for something worse than 9/11 to happen? Saddaam has illegal weapons, and assuming he won't use them is dangerously naive - he's used them in every war he's engaged in, including genocide on Iraqis (Kurdish).
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
No.
The concept that any right is "fundamental" derives from belief. For example, when you believe a God, and that God says humans have the right to life, then you believe that a human has a "fundamental" right to life. (Feel free to substitute "God" for another source of fundamentalism, such as conscience. It doesn't matter.) When the source of the belief is different, then what is considered a fundamental right can also differ.
In fact, a resident alien (green card holder) in the US is granted the right to live and work, but not vote, even at the local level. The election of leaders that affect such alien's day-to-day life is apparently not fundamental. In fact, it constitutes taxation without representation.
Another example is the right to exploit our environment. The Christian Bible vaguely says something about lording over all of creation, but another culture may say something entirely different (such as taking only what you really need). Such a culture might, for example, ban drilling for oil in nature preserves.
How about right to life? Pulling the plug on a comatose patient deprives him of the right to life, because he dies. This sort of thing is governed by different laws in different lands, probably even with the US. Some nations think that the death penalty infringes on even the criminal's right to life. Abortion is another obvious issue where minds differ greatly.
Now, there are obviously many things that virtually all human cultures share as fundamental rights. However, there is no common authority from which those rights derive, which is why they're not really fundamental, and why anybody should be very careful telling other people what their fundamental rights should be.
15+ years ago, almost everything done for the government was open source. It was hard to figure out exactly who to get what from, and you did have to pay distributions costs, but there was plenty of military-related software available free. I bought a catalog of this software from a company that would, for a hefty fee, actually go through all the hoops of getting the free code for its customers. (I think that Greg Aharonian who now publicizes absurd patents ran that business.) Things like fighter and logistics simulations and such were in the catalog. Sadly, I chucked the catalog in a sorry fit of cleaning years back when my office just overflowed with such useless but precious effluvia.
If you think that the United States is interested in deposing brutal dictators, you need to brush up on your recent US history.
Why does the United States support Saudi Arabia? Why has the United States backed military coups and dictatorships in Venezuela and Pakistan? Why did it support Saddam Hussein when he was at war with Iran, using chemical weapons?
Even if this hypocrisy wasn't self-evident, this is a war of aggression, a first strike, an unprovoked war. Do you feel comfortable with your government setting that precedent?
The world is starting to view Bush as a pretty serious threat to world peace, at this point.
John C. Worsley - Artist, Musician, Coder
Portfolio
and for very personal reasons, as you'll see from his words, which NewsForge has edited (very lightly) only for grammar and clarity, not for content.
See, slashdot editors? It's not impossible for someone running a website to actually fucking EDIT.
Should open source developers help Iraq prepare for war with the United States?
Actually, it's bonafide (from the latin bona fide, meaning good faith).
Why Iraq?
Short answer: we're still trying to end the Gulf War. The long answer is going to have to start with a history lesson. I hope you'll take the time to read it, and to understand.
On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait. That same day, the United Nations Security Council (UNSEC) adopted resolution 660, demanding that Iraq withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally to the positions they were in on August 1.
Between August 6 and November 28, UNSEC adopted 12 resolutions on the problem, finally adopting resolution 678 on November 29. Resolution 678 authorized UNSEC member states, in particular the US-led Allied Coalition, to use "all necessary means" to enforce the will of the Security Council if Iraq refused to comply by January 15.
Iraq didn't comply. There was a war. On February 27, 1991, the US-led Coalition announced a unilateral, temporary cease-fire to discuss with Iraq the terms of a permanent, formal cease-fire and an end to the war. On March 2, UNSEC adopted resolution 686, which recognized the temporary cease-fire and called on Iraq to accept the Coalition's terms. On March 3, Iraq agreed to the terms, and the formal cease-fire was signed on April 6. On April 8, UNSEC adopted resolution 687 which called on Iraq, as a condition of the cease-fire, to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons... [and] all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres." Resolution 687 also establised a United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and tasked them with verifying-- not enforcing, but verifying-- Iraq's compliance.
Almost immediately, Iraq began to defy the will of UNSEC and the Allied Coalition. On August 15, 1991, UNSEC adopted resolution 707 in which they "condemn[ed] Iraq's serious violation of a number of its obligations under section C of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq provide full, final and complete disclosure... of all aspects of its programmes," "allow the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access," "cease immediately any attempt to conceal, or any movement or destruction of any material or equipment," and so on. If these demands sound familiar, they should. We've been making them since 1991.
For the next five years, UNSCOM tried in vain to verify Iraq's compliance. On June 12, 1996, UNSEC adopted resolution 1060, which "deplore[d] the refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On June 21, 1997, UNSEC adopted resolution 1115, which "condemn[ed] the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On October 23 of the same year, they did it again with resolution 1134. Then again on November 12 with resolution 1137.
On August 5, 1998, Iraq announced that they intended to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM. A month later, on September 9, UNSEC adopted resolution 1194, in which they "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq," accused Iraq of "a totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind its above-mentioned decision and cooperate fully with the Special Commission."
On October 31, Iraq formally ceased cooperation with UNSCOM. On November 5, UNSEC adopted resoltuion 1205, which "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the Special Commission," accused Iraq once more of "a flagrant violation of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998."
On November 11, the UN withdrew its staff from Iraq. The US-led Allied Coalition began planning an operation to be called "Desert Fox." The mission of the operation would be to strike Iraqi targets from the air with the goal of reducing Iraq's ability to pursue weapons of mass destruction and to threaten its neighbors, and to demonstrate to Iraq the consequences of further defiance. On November 14, with B-52 bombers in the air and within 20 minutes of striking their targets, Saddam Hussein agreed to let inspectors back in. On December 8, UNSCOM executive director Richard Butler reported that Iraq was still not complying, and ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.
On December 16, 1998, the Allied Coalition launched Operation Desert Fox. For four days, Coalition aircraft struck Iraqi military targets and targets related to Iraqi WMD programs. The strikes continued for four days, ending on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. On the last day of the strikes, Iraq's resolve was unshaken, and they declared that UNSCOM would never be allowed back into their country.
The correct course of action at this point would have been to follow up the limited air strikes with an all-out air campaign, followed immediately by invasion from all fronts and the forced disbanding of the Baath party and government. Unfortunately, the United States and the rest of the Allied Coalition lacked the political will to carry out such a massive military campaign at that time. The events of 9/11, however, served to galvanize American and Allied political will.
In 1999, however, that was not the case. On December 17, 1999, UNSEC adopted resolution 1284 which created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to carry out UNSCOM's mandate, deciding that "UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687."
Finally, on September 16, 2002, after a series of failed negotiations, Iraq agreed to allow UNMOVIC inspectors into their country. Their goal, as stated in a letter from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, was "to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction." On October 1, 2002, Iraq and UNMOVIC/IAEA agreed on the terms for the return of the inspectors.
On November 8, 2002, UNSEC adopted resolution 1441, which declared that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations," offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations," demanded that Iraq provide to UNMOVIC" a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes," declared that "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq... shall constitute a further material breach," and, finally, stated "that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." On November 13, 2002, Iraq agreed to accept the terms of resolution 1441, saying, "We hereby ask you to inform the Security Council that we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable." The letter of acceptance, from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri, was filled with paranoid ramblings of great length and creativity, accusing the United States of "the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq," and stridently declaring that claims that Iraq has produced chemical and biological weapons were "fabrications" and "baseless." It's a fascinating read, and it's available on line here.
On December 7, 2002, Iraq delivered a 12,000 page dossier on its weapons programs in which it declared that it has no weapons of masss destruction at all. On December 19, Dr. Hans Blix, head of UNMOVIC, reported that the declaration was incomplete, and left many questions unanswered. Since that time, it has been determined that the declaration was not merely incomplete, but inaccurate as well. On January 27, 2003, Dr. Blix said in his report to UNSEC, "Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq?s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues." He then went on to give some examples: Iraq has claimed that they only produced VX nerve agent on a pilot scale. UNMOVIC has information, including documents produced by Iraq, that contradicts this claim. Iraq declared that 19,500 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988. An Iraqi Air Force document uncovered by UNMOVIC indicates that the correct number is 13,000. Iraq has refused to reconcile this difference of 6,500 chemical weapons. The list goes on and on.
That brings us, more or less, up to the present date. For the past twelve years, Iraq has been repeatedly reminded that they are required, under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, to voluntarily and unilaterally disarm. They have refused to do so.
Acting under the mandate of resolution 678 of November 29, 1991, the US, as a member of UNSEC, has the legal authority to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. The Allied Coalition attempted to do so in 1998 with limited strikes on military targets, but to no avail. Iraq continues, even in the face of further military action, to defy the Coalition and the Security Council. We have reached the point where we can no longer hold onto the hope that sanctions, strongly worded resolutions, or limited military strikes might convince Iraq to comply. We have reached the point where the only realistic hope for an end to this conflict lies in the destruction of the Baath government and the establishment of a democratic regime.
I hope this answers your question.
I write in my journal
Seems that the very definition of Open Source precludes any restrictions on who can use it and for what purpose. Get over it. It's really best in the long run.
Note the following provisions of the Open Source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php)
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.
Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
Once they start hardcoding weapon specs, it will cease to be open-source.
echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >>
I got it, and I really wanted to use a smiley emoticon to show that I was trying to be funny, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it.
I can't help it - I'm a 19D.
Anybody with security clearance can label anything secret up to his level of clearance. Declassification is harder. We generally just burned the papers rather than try to declassify. Dealing with knowledge by people who are not supposed to have knowlegde is tricky and done on a case by case basis. {I created electronic warfare software.}
My father was an officer in Air Force Intelligence and one fine day they had a problem. It seems there was a professor going around proudly talking about how he had deduced some important military secret (and he was exactly correct). My father flew out to his location in full uniform, took him out into an empty field and told him, "You are right. Now for your nation's sake, please shut up!" My father says thats all it took and the problem was solved.
preface: this isn't meant as a troll or flame, etc. but it may be quite naive. nevertheless, honest questions.
why shouldn't iraq have weapons? they're a sovereign nation, just as the u.s., right? seems strange to pre-emptively declare war on a country because they have their own weapons. do they have more or better weapons than the u.s.?
finally, if you prevent countries from having their own weapons, then aren't you forcing countries to resort to clandestine "terrorist" tactics?
i do understand that iraq lost, signed a treaty, etc. i'm not asking a historical question.
The war againts Iraq is hardly immoral considering that resolution 1441 was passed with an unanimous vote. That's as moral as international politics go.
On the other hand I consider keeping Sadam in power clearly inmoral. The same goes for every other dictator out there.
However I agree that the population is easily manipulated through fear; you just have to look at the Europeans. They think they can appease terrorists by supporting Saddam and bashing Bush.
I can't verify the claims of course, but have no reason to doubt them.
I say we infiltrate an Air Force base, find a stealth bomber and replace "thier" eproms with "our" eproms.
Next we get a buttload of pop-corn and secretly stash it in one of Saddam's palaces.
When the war starts, we get even with both sides and feed the Iraqis for a week.
Oops, Sorry, Enjoy,
A lot of the evidence regarding an Iraq/Al Queda link is classified, but other non-Germany/France countries seem fairly compelled by it when they see it.
It isn't classified, it's fabricated. If there were al Queda in Iraq, we would have already invaded Iraq. We have established that we don't need UN approval to destroy al Queda.
Queda is a fundamentalist Islamic group, and will be where it finds sympathy. Iraq is a secular state. The only power in Iraq is Hussein. He doesn't share it with the mullas or the imams.
he inherited this situation after 8 years of Clinton and the UN allowing Saddaam to blatantly violate terms of the treaty with no consequences.
Blaming Clinton, the typical republican excuse, doesn't carry any water. Clinton inherited the situation from Bush Sr. His excuse wasn't "humanitarian," but "no UN mandate" for a regiem change. Just like we have now.
Here's a question - what's your answer for terrorism? Because taking out governments that blatantly sponsor it seems to be the only recourse, other than just living with it.
The problem isn't one of government, its one of culture. We do for the House of Saud what we did for Japan after WWII. We park several armored divisions in downtown Mecca and change the culture with blue jeans, VCRs and constitutional government. To that end, Hussein could be an asset, as he already oversees a secular government and a fairly westernized society.
Saddaam has illegal weapons, and assuming he won't use them is dangerously naive - he's used them in every war he's engaged in, including genocide on Iraqis (Kurdish).
So he's used them in his own country's military actions. Big deal. To date, they havn't been used in *any* terrorist act.
Box cutters and ammonium nitrate seem to do the trick for most terrorists. We should be focusing our resources on that.
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
The New York Times, the BBC, The Washington Post, and others While not using any new technology, the protest was organized completely via the Internet, and could be indicative of the way digital culture is blending with traditional culture every passing day."
no, it's cos they have stockpiles of, and have *used on their own people*, biological agents, germs, gas.. deadly nerve gas, for instance.
Who's to say they'd ever use stuff like that again? Eh. But I'd have a hard time believing that, once a leader used such a weapon in such a fashion that he could be trusted to never use it again.
The US is not suggesting that Iraq's conventional military be stripped a la Versailles, rather that they show proof of having destroyed certain types of weapons that they implicitly admitted having when they agreed to destroy them.
Boy, imagine a beowulf cluster of those!
statements restricting their use for ...
How stupid! Governments are sovern. There is no one to stop them from ignoring any and all statements anyone makes anywhere.
Ou, oo, I'll write words on paper!! That'll stop the greatest military force in histoty ! Yeah!
The word "unilateral" has 2 different senses:
;)
Adjective:
1. Involving only one part or side.
Now, I'm not sure how you want to count it, UN votes, population, land area or whatever. The US side is nowhere near having a majority of the world supporting immidiate war, so *their side* wants to unilaterally wage war on Iraq.
Of course, the only reason they use that word now is because the alternative is to have "the world" behind them, pretty much every other war ever fought has been unilaterally decleared by one side, nations usually don't come together and sign a joint statement "Let's have a war"
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Should Open Source developers help the U.S. prepare for war with Iraq?"
The question for "Free Software" can then be:
Free as in beer?
Free as in speech?
Free as in not suffering under the thumb of a murderous dictator?
killing is still wrong, which makes war wrong by extension.
try not to forget the basics, as they're important.
I got it, and I really wanted to use a smiley emoticon to show that I was trying to be funny, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it.
Ah, the plane flew right over my head, missing within inches. I'll use the fact I'm on drugs due to being really sick... yay for Dayquil!
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
<
<
<
<
Liberty uber alles.
And name me one of the above countries in which the majority of the population is ~for~ the war? What happened to "Democracy"? (Kuwait and Qatar are not democracies, so I guess that shouldn't be a requirement for them)
Theo is right.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
A group of friend here in New zealand are developing glp licensed "battlefield simulation software". This would allow poorer nations greater understanding of the weaponary, that a more hightech foe such as the US might use against them. The aim was to reduce the treat of imperilism by, by making casualities more prevailant on the hightech side. There are currently 17 of us involved, with backgrounds varying from New Zealand Army, to wireless communications experts. Open source software sould be used to breakdown the barriers between the haves and have nots, not increase them.
Actually, maybe it's been too long since I browsed at -1, mabye this is already in use. You could just take the text of this post, and put the name of whoever is in it for Stallman.
Not that I would EVER encourage the trolls. EVER. I NEVER laugh at a good troll. That would undermine the role of slashdot as a high quality source of news and discussion. Just laughing. So stop that!
Liberty uber alles.
Sorry, my previous replies were somehow attached one level too low. My mistake, I think.
Dunno. There may be two different approaches to tackling this moral question. If you're in the GNU camp, you wait for Mr. Stallman's opinion on the war and help/stonewall the U.S. armed forces accordingly. If you're in the BSD camp, you make up your own mind on the matter or just avoid the issue altogether and keep coding, not giving a rat's behind whether the masses will use your code for good or evil. Does that answer your (stupid) question?
Am I the only one who thinks it is nuts that only the use of Open source software by the US is considered amoral??? What about all the other nations with far worse records of human rights abuse and their use of open source?? Should we mention that North Korea's is starving their people while investing in weapons of mass distruction---why don't people question about their use of open source? The list goes on and as usual, only the US (and maybe Isreal) are somehow held to a different standart than the rest of the world.
And the funny thing is a lot of people seem to think that a Saddam would give a shit about how he uses, modifies and impliments your open source code. There's not a whole hellva lot you can do to stop him even if it wasn't "open source". Think he gives a crap about MS copyrights if he were so inclines to try and modify something of theirs?
It like the gun myth that if you somehow regulate everything it'll be "alright" when the sad facts are that 95% of this countries shootings are commited by people who don't care about regulation, laws or copyrights. If they have a mind to, they will obtain your code, alter it and there isn't a thing you can do to stop them short of never releasing it. On that note, it sure as heck isn't your fault if they use that code for purposes you never intended just like the gun company isn't responsible for your murdering rampage.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Ironic. You're the one wacked on Dayquil, and I'm the one that started this with a dumb post.
;)
I can't help it - I'm a 19D.
Great conspiracy theory. You chase UFO's too? There don't have to be al Queda *IN* Iraq for Iraq to *collaborate* with them toward a common end. Yes, bin Laden has condemned Iraq as a secular nation, but that doesn't mean they both don't consider us enemy #1 - and therefore willing to work together. Your assumption that "we would have already invaded" doesn't fly.
Blaming Clinton, the typical republican excuse, doesn't carry any water. Clinton inherited the situation from Bush Sr. His excuse wasn't "humanitarian," but "no UN mandate" for a regiem change. Just like we have now.
Carries a lot of water. Yeah, the UN was weak - but had Clinton done something about it in '92 when Saddaam sensed weakness and started blocking inspectors, we wouldn't have the problem we have today. At that point, the coalition was strong, he could have more easily pressured the UN, and there was more momentum toward disarming Iraq at the time. But what did he do? Jack shit. So he has to carry a lot of the weight for the problem, because he could have influenced the UN but he didn't even try. Put it this way - you can't blame Bush Jr. for not solving the problem without blaming Clinton at least as much. You could contend that neither is at fault at best an dblame the weak UN instead.
The problem [terrorism] isn't one of government, its one of culture. We do for the House of Saud what we did for Japan after WWII. We park several armored divisions in downtown Mecca and change the culture with blue jeans, VCRs and constitutional government. To that end, Hussein could be an asset, as he already oversees a secular government and a fairly westernized society.
You're being a bit generous with "fairly westernized" - they don't seem to have any of the characteristics unless you consider a military dictator as opposed to a religious dictator "western." I don't care how you define the problem, you have yet to advocate ANY solution. Unfortunately, Saddaam isn't as likely as the house of Saud to let our tanks in. And as for constitutional government in Saudi Arabia - did I miss something?
So he's used them in his own country's military actions. Big deal. To date, they havn't been used in *any* terrorist act.
And you don't have to be a damned genius to realize that if he'll use them on his own people, he'll use them on anyone else. As for whether they've been used in any terrorist act yet...do you want to wait? Want another 9/11?
Box cutters and ammonium nitrate seem to do the trick for most terrorists. We should be focusing our resources on that.
Yeah, and we are. For one, box cutters will never work again - didn't even work on the fourth plane. And there are only so many people you can kill with ammonium nitrate/diesel oil bombs, as they're pretty crude. And since Oklahoma City, ammonium nitrate (and other oxidizers) are HIGHLY controlled.
Bottom line - you criticize the planned war. OK, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, but your arguments against it are...what? Claims of conspiracies and fabricated evidence? That's ridiculously lame. Go with the cost, ($100b) if anything. Go with the slippery slope argument - basically, that getting rid of *just* Iraq won't work without Syria, etc. Or fear of the scorched-earth policy that Saddaam will likely follow if deposed. Or power-vacuum theory. You have so many choices, don't go with the shitty argument. Do realize, though, that an anti-war stance ultimately admits that we have effectively no hope of stopping terrorism, as its sources will go unchecked. You have no alternative solution, the UN has done *absolutely* nothing - so, again, other than *living* with terrorism, which I don't find particularly attractive, what do we do other than destroy all regimes that support it?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"peace at all cost" thinking costs more lives than just going to war when you are up against a madman. Think Europe, 1938 or Ethopia, 1933.
Saddam is a psychopathic fascist who does unspeakable things to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the region. He won't be any easier to deal with once he has nuclear weapons.
When you support the anti-war movement, you support him and everything he stands for, much like people who in the 1930's insisted that we should stay out of the war. Just as then, it is lead by anti-capitalists (pro-fascists and stalinist freaks), who hide their very unpopular political backgrounds from the useful idiots who suck it up because they have the philosophical sophistication of a six year old, (or in this case, missed out on the sixties) and can't seem to draw moral distinctions between the fire and the fire brigade.
Just as then, the anti-war movement is totally irresponsible because it offers no practical solutions except the immediate and total surrender of our ridiculously successful way of life. Suggesting we should kick the oil habit without a viable replacement is the mark of an idiot or someone who wants die of starvation. Suggesting we should do nothing while our cities are attacked or while our enemies prepare to attack our civilian populations is the mark of a coward or klebold worshipping loser. Suggesting that we are a haven for facsim when people who live in *real* fascist countries risk their lives to get here and not the other way around is just deluded.
The Iraqi's *want* us to invade. You'd have to be a moron not to see why.
"Appeasement is the practice of feeding a steak to a tiger in the hopes he will become a vegetarian". - Winston Churchhill
Ironic. You're the one wacked on Dayquil, and I'm the one that started this with a dumb post.
Well, in all actuality, the one who started this dumb post was some non-native speaker declaring his loathing for governmental use of his open source software.
This is probably one of the longest, least-substance filled, but fun threads I've ever been involved in. Yay for slow work days!
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
you cannot say : I think even the folks in France know I'm right.
when you begin with: Screw the UN, screw France,...
and we cannot expect anithing from the US gov.
remember GWB was not elected by a majority of US citizens, neither by a majority of US electors, and in fact, according to university who recounted florida , he was not elected at all.
Perhaps people in France want the "coup d'etat" to be limited to USoA, and not exported to the world.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: how much risk are we willing to assume for something worse than 9/11 to happen?
Where's the definitive proof that 9/11 was completely, wholly, and independently a terrorist action? As I recall, the investigation pretty much stopped when it pointed at Afganistan. Can we pick up the investigation and try to follow the money trail all the way to the end?
Where will it lead? Russia? France? Back to Germany? To George W. Bush Jr.?
The WTC attach has the trappings of a group of professionals, but was carried out by amateurs. I'm not at all convinced that Bin Laden was solely responsible for it, if he even had anything to do with it.
I'd really prefer for people to think, learn, and think some more, before they act. This hasn't happened. Our Fellow American is pointing his finger at everybody slightly darker than he is accusing them of terrorism, or seeking weapons of mass destruction. He's really starting to look a lot more German to me (as in Adolf Hitler), and as far as I know there's still no definitive proof who Hitler's terrorist adversaries were and plenty of suspicion that he paid them off himself.
Before you can use 9/11 as a reason for going around warmongering the middle east you MUST prove that the Middle East as a region is responsible somehow for it. So where's the proof?
Like what I said? You might like my music
Oh. Can you please furnish a list of your extensive contributions toward GPL/OSS so that I can delete it from my hard drive? I'm sure I'd better get an early start so that I can get it all done by tommorrow's dawn.
China is a huge one-party state that brutally oppresses its people, but it has also shown a great deal of interest in Linux and other open source projects, many of which could easily be used to monitor and/or block the the activities of Chinese citizens whether on or off the net. China's usage of information technology as a way of controlling its citizenry (perhaps paralleling our own government's actions after 9/11) has been a controversial issue longer than this coming war. So how can it be any less morally relevent to the open source movement than the war against Iraq? I'd like to hear what people think about this.
Amen brother pharm
Well.. since I see that i can't do much 'bout misusing my sources I will just lock it down. I know some people might upset that now and cry "free sources , free sources". It is my choice indeed what i do with my intellectual property. Yes... I enjoy using free software and sources too but if I see my software is misused or there is the possibility of misuse what reason do i have to give out a piece of source? I am not talking about a winamp player (or did i miss a military purpose for winamp players?). I would support an "army" which is used for helping people without weapons. But i will do everything to prevent a war because violence only creates counter-violence. Every war in history showed that an agressor never had the right to attack and only created a big mess of grief and death. Do you really want to support something like that?
Spelling errors were made for your amusement only...
Well... yes.. indeed I am scared :/. ;).
:(
You are right. It isn't GPL anymore if i would change a license like that. I know that by now
The only way is to not publish sources at all if there is a possibilty of misuse.
Spelling errors were made for your amusement only...
Hmmm.. This is troubling to me. Here's my take. At any point certain people are going to be against a certain war for certain reasons. But it doesn't mean that the certain war is unjust. If you try to prevent something from being used in a war, but then you need war to protect your own ass, are you going to change your mind and allow it because now it suits you?
Number 8 is Qatar??? That's pretty damn unilateral. When you're thumping your chest, counting your allies and your number eight backer is Qatar you're in deep shit. Hell, number seven on your list is Kuwait, oh yeah, like they'd dissent on this issue. If "unilateral" gives you problems how about calling it:
i stic
monolithic
unsolicited
expansionist
opportun
obessive
imperial
or
hypocritical?
The U.S. justifies attacking Iraq because Iraq has violated UN resolutions. At the same time the U.S. cries that if the UN doesn't give it the go ahead to attack then the UN risks becoming irrelevant. How can the U.S. argue in good conscious that it has the moral right to enforce the UN resolutions without the blessing of the UN? That's shameless vigilantism, and it's pretty clearly wrong.
-dameron
If on the other hand, your software is a political platform for your views and you think that's more important than Free Software (or Open Source Software, depending on your leaning), then go ahead and add the restrictions. I won't use your software since I find software that pretends to be Free while throwing in lots of additional random restrictions to be much more distasteful than straightforward, honest commercial software.
1) If partial de-Batthification were only half answers, then Germany and Japan must still be ruled by closet nazis and militarists, respectively.
2) The main goal is to gain the freedom for the U.S. to exert leverage against the main source of terror in the Mideast: A corrupt house of Saud, that pays for terrorism to appease it's people so long as it happens elsewhere. This is not exactly the sort of policy that can be expressed before it is inacted, unless you want to walk to work, until your company folds because it can't get its products to market.
3) This is a question of oil to be sure: France opposes regime change because it gets a large chunk of its oil cheap (illegal, black market items are always cheaper than retail) This cheap oil comes at the expense of the Iraqi people. Plenty of blood for oil there. Oil is worth fighting for. Maybe one day we'll get the "opportunity" to fight for food or water, (like if we don't fight for oil when the issue comes up). I guess we'll just have to make due with a "lesser" reason until more "moral" reasons are available.
1441 does *not* authorize war. Bush demanded the UN authorize an invasion if inspections fail and the UN refused. The final resolution warned of "severe consequences" instead. Bush has been trying to spin that into authorization ever since.
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
How many people would support a new clause in the GPL or another free software license prohibiting the code from being used in support of killing people?
After reading the summary of the past 20 years or so of Iraq, I see numerous times where the UN gives Iraq an ultimatum, and every time Iraq stalls or refuses to cooperate. Whats the hell is the UN even doing there when they aren't going to back up their ultimatums. If you are gonna do something about it, then DO IT, dont keep extending the deadline - it just gives Iraq more reason to repeat what they are doing. The UN is backed by all these countries yet they are unable to control the situation. And everytime Iraq continues cooperation with the UN, its after the US is on the verge of sending in airstrikes. They are just playing games with everyone, and tooling the UN, making the UN look like their little bitches.
Hooray indeed. I think /. could use a whole lot more couth, humor, and thought, and less... well you know as well as I do.
I can't help it - I'm a 19D.
Whats the hell is the UN even doing there when they aren't going to back up their ultimatums.
That's the million-dollar question, isn't it. The UN Security Council has failed-- not just in this case, but repeatedly-- to prevent war. What's the point of continuing to have the meetings, then?
I write in my journal
why shouldn't iraq have weapons? they're a sovereign nation, just as the u.s., right?
They shouldnt have weapons because that was the condition that the international community placed on them at the cease fire at the end of the Gulf War. The world told Iraq that once they learned to play nice (read: not invade thier neighbors and lob SCUD missiles at Israel for no reason) they could have their weapons back.
Hooray indeed. I think /. could use a whole lot more couth, humor, and thought, and less... well you know as well as I do.
This is why I stay in my journal cluster much more than the front site.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
I'm not trying to start a flame war but,
The aim was to reduce the treat of imperilism
Name one country that has ever been threatened by imperialism from the United States? Spoils of war with western europe back in the 1890's does not meet the criteria.
You can accuse of us of "capitalism" though. How about a "capitalism simulation software" where 3rd world nations can train to block walmarts and McDonalds from entering thier sphere of influence?
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
This is getting slightly OT -- but the body-piercing ammo was actually created by a former police officer.
In that case i think that body armor piercing bullets were used for the greater good by stopping the criminals, thereby protecting the average citizen.
They were -created- because FMJ (full metal jacket) and JHP (hacketed hollow point) bullets don't fare well when shooting into a car door at awkward angles, or when hitting a windshield. They were made to go through -that- kind of stuff without being deflected. It so happens that it also works well against a kevlar vest I guess.
So, was the point of making a bullet that goes through car doors to kill people better? No, not really. It so happens that a bullet that goes where it's supposed to is -SAFER-. The officer can how take a shot that otherwise would have been much more dangerous -- possibly sending the deflected round into an innocent person.
Somehow this relates the the parent discussion -- I hope.
I think if the military wants to use it they should at least give their training program up to download, or pay some full-time developers to improve the Linux Kernel (or other open source project) and publicly release the modifications, it would be better for them and everyone, and why wouldn't they do that they have billions (trillions?) of dollars to spend.
not paraphrasing; the original 'göring quote' is about culture. but now that you said it: the syntax _is_ remarkably similar to the canonical english version of the 'göring quote' you find at google. the canonical german version, however, doesn't speak of reaching for the revolver, but of switching the safety lock of.
so why do i put 'göring quote' in quote marks? because göring never actually said that, it's one of these phrases that originated somewhere else and became famous because they fit and he _could have_ said that. like the 'marie-antoinette quote', "let them eat cake", that she never really said.
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
Yes we waged a war against Iraq for invading Kuwait, and yes we stopped because Iraq agreed to certain terms. Iraq has not met those terms so we are not starting a new war, we are continuing the exsisting war. Just because we gave them more than enough opertunity to comply doesn't mean we have to continue to wait.
What I really fear is when its over will the Iraqis ask us why we waited so long like the holocast survivers asking us why we didn't bomb the concetration camps durring WW II?
I don't need any "proof" of WMD, I've seen pictures of Iranian soldiers in a hospital with the skin peeling of their bodies and blisters the size of grapefruit because of Iraqi mustard gas attacks.This was back when Iraq was our "friend" because they were fighting the evil Iranians. If Saddam does this to fellow Muslums, what would he do to infidels like us?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
17 people huh? Do they have a web site yet?
You seem to be missing some very important concepts (the original poster even more so).
Concept #1: Government acts on behalf of it's own interests. If said country's interests are the same as another country's, then great. Most of the time it doesn't work that way. Let's use your confused concept of bin laden for this one: bin laden didn't like the Soviets. The US didn't like the Soviets either. Have you ever heard the phrase "your enemy's enemy is my friend?" Naturally the US gave bin laden some weapons. One thing to keep in mind is that we never sponsored him in any government. He was always a rogue. He was even disowned by his family. Citing him in your post was not a totally logical decision (but who ever accused a liberal of being logical?) You are also confusing the Mujahadeem with the Taliban. Not very poise.
Concept #2: Morality. It is grey in international relations. This is a result of different value systems (e.g. different definitions of 'good'). This is where socialists (liberals) have a lot of trouble. I can't support everyone's comments, but is the US inherently evil because of freedom (see chapter 1,What's So Great About America by Dinesh D'Souza)? This is relavent as to why we are being attacked by Islamic terrorists.
Concept #3: Good citation practices. This is a problem for a lot of people, so don't feel too bad. It's really hard for me to remember 1984 because I was 2 years old back then. If you could post links to relevant sources in your comments, at the very least cite a book or article, it would be a great help. I've never heard before that the US gave Iraq chemicals . This in peticular would be an enlightening read.
Concept #4: Nuclear Weapons. No one in their right mind actually wants to use these things (see Concept #2). The whole purpose of having these weapons is so that one need not use them. Husein is so dangerous because he's actually crazy enough to use them. North Korea hasn't passed that test yet, even though they don't actually have 'the bomb' (but they're trying to get one) and Israel isn't that stupid (they ARE pretty stupid). This relates prominantly with liberating the Iraqi people. Their leader is NUTS (in a BAD way)! Also, you can thank Mr. Clinton for dallying. It was HIS administration that was in office when opportunity was prime to take care of all these terrorists. It was during HIS administration that the US was beginning to be severly attacked. All Mr. Clinton did was raise highway speed limits and play around too much with Concept #2. The past can't be changed now, but I believe that Mr. Bush is trying to deal with it.
I hope that this will help you and other slashdotters. Have a nice day!
What polls? Please provide links when you quote these polls.
OSS isn't helping the government in this case. If the army can't get open source software, the army will go buy closed source software and spend tax money. Is CompuServe being unethical for selling Windows to a US military official? No. The availability of, or the lack of, open source sotware does not aid or hamper tax-backed government's acquirement of software... but it does save tax-payer's money!
Similarly, the Drugs Fund Terrorism argument is equally flawed. The Atmosphere provides breathing for potential terrorists. Shall we Blast the Atmosphere? No.
Some (me perhaps) think it is you that is the short-sighted imbecile. For the people that live in Iraq it is far worse than you are currently willing to believe. Look outside your little protected sphere and perhaps you will see that things aren't great for everyone living under tyranny.
Have you taken the time to read articles written by people who left Iraq? Have you listened to their interviews? I have not heard or read a single one that doens't support the US ousting Saddam. Does their view not matter? Are they as short-sighted as the current administration you hate so much?
How can you respect Saddam more than your own government? I know why, because you don't live in Iraq where you have no rights.
And BTW, the previous administration launched a completely unilateral attack on Iraq. I hope you think they were short-sighted imbeciles as well? I'm guessing you are a blindly loyal Democrat and just happen to think they can do no wrong.
Do you think your "well-regulated militia" really stands a chance if the US Armed Forces can be turned on its citizens?
Nope, but it's better to die fighting for your beliefs that to live a coward.
And, yes, engineer's should be cogniscent of what they are developing and it's possible uses.
-Craig
If you are doing anything at all productive in society somebody can use that to their benifit in a way that you may not agree with.
Fortunately, posting to Slashdot is not productive to society.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
But if one realizes that developed code can only be used to kill civilians or perhaps even worse, a software that does not help in deciding a conflict, i.e. software that might unintentionally heat up the conflict, one must take the responsibility and decide not to do the coding.
--- A hard rain's a-gonna fall (Bob Dylan) ---
There is solid, non-classified evidence of an al-Qaeda / Saudi Arabia link. Have a look at the nationalities of the 9-11 hijackers and where they obtained their visas. (15/19 were form Saudi Arabia.) link to article It's well known that Saudi money funds Islamic fundamentalist groups all across the Middle East.
Oh, and that Osama Bin Laden guy? Remind me again where he was from...
It's tempting to believe that because both Hussein and Bin Laden hate the US so much, they must consider themselves to be on the same side. Not the case at all --- there are more than two sides.
There is no reason to believe that an attack on Iraq will weaken al-Qaeda, and lots of reasons to suppose that it will strengthen the appeal of Islamic fundamentalism.
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
I think that you're lying
;)
BUT you do realize that the likely result of an accurate simulation of advanced capabilities will not provide a battlefield advantage to these parties , it will inspire them to avoid battlefield warfare. The technological and resources advantage enjoyed by US and NATO forces is a factor in the emergence of high yield ( ie. lots of dead civilians ) terrorist strategies. So you wouldn't be impeding our capabilities , you'd be promoting the extermination of innocent civilians. But that's good too - right ?
I'll be sure to forward you're information to our contact at the SIS , just in case
How come every post in this thread that is sympathetic to war is modded down as flamebait?
Dear Moderators,
I understand that war invokes strong feelings on both sides. But please stop moderating down people whose views you disagree with. If you feel the need to point out some gross misrepresentation of facts or some illogical argument, then reply. Don't Mod.
Thank you.
It's not a fucking "vicious circle". I wish people would stop abusing that expression.
For the rest of it, we're just trying to finally, after 12 long years, finish the Gulf War. It never ended, because Iraq never accepted the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement. It's gotten to the point where they either accept the terms-- which Mr. Hussein has indicated that he will not do-- or we bring down the Baath government and install a new regime that will accept the terms. The gulf war was about removing Hussein's army from Kuwait. That was all that was authorized by the UN.
Here's a question - what's your answer for terrorism? Because taking out governments that blatantly sponsor it seems to be the only recourse, other than just living with it.
So, before heading to Iraq the US should probably head over to Israel, then perhaps they can begin giving reparations for their home grown terrorism.
I would love to debate any moron who tries to draw a connection between Bin Ladin and Saddam on national TV. Saddam is the absolute antithesis to Bin Ladin's ideology, so much of an apostate in his eyes that working with the likes of him would be totally out of the question. Saddam regularly kills and imprisons Islamic activists, ones much less radical than Bin Ladin. Hell, Bin Ladin's main beef with the Saudi family was over American troops being stationed there, something much less damning Islamically speaking than what Saddam does on a day to day basis -- in most other respects he believed they were fine. Do you think someone as secular as Saddam is going to fly with him?
Of course, since these televised "political analysts" don't actually know anything about the religion or culture of the region, they aren't able to make that connection.
Ultimately, it comes down to this: how much risk are we willing to assume for something worse than 9/11 to happen?
How about adopting policy that's fair, instead of planting conflicts across the globe to ensure US economic benefit? Wouldn't that be nicer than getting frisked down at the airport, for the so-called "protection of your freedom."
Saddaam has illegal weapons, and assuming he won't use them is dangerously naive - he's used them in every war he's engaged in, including genocide on Iraqis (Kurdish).
Right, and the US is the only country on earth that's ever used Nuclear weapons. In case you didn't know, the US used biological weapons on its civilians too. Don't you feel so much more righteous than Saddam now?
The gulf war was about removing Hussein's army from Kuwait. That was all that was authorized by the UN.
Yes, and no. Iraq accepted the terms of the 1991 cease-fire, which included UNSCR 687. Because UNSCR 687 and the subsequent resolutions were enacted under chapter VII of the UN Charter, they are binding on UN members, and the members of UNSEC are authorized to take action to enforce those resolutions. It's an obscure but vitally important point of international law.
I write in my journal
I believe it was under Clinton that more military action was initiated than any president up to the time of WW2 (might be right after, its been awhile since I saw the raw data). Clinton was also in power when so many Americans were put under the lethal boot of the wanna-be police state. That is much more like Saddam than what we had before or after Clinton so I can see why people so eagerly support Saddam actively or through the passive-aggressive method of not applying consistent criteria to him and other monsters as they do the current US president.
You havn't made up your mind, but your sick of people that have?
It's sort of like my friend the weekend before last. "Let's go over to San Fransisco, they're having this big peace rally thing. It will be fun. We can meet some chicks!"
I get just as tired as the poster at these people who protest the war simply because it's the thing to do. They're a "good liberal" so they think the way other "good liberals" tell them to think. I mean, Hollywood isn't out there telling people what to think because they're stupid. They're doing it because they know people will actually think how they're told to think by Hollywood!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Name one country that has ever been threatened by imperialism from the United States?
Ummm how about the Philipines, various pacific islands and South American nations. Not to mention cultural imperialism which has a far greater reach than the military might. I hate to burst your bubble, but the US has a history of extending its sphere of influence, often to the detriment of those who come under it.
So close, yet so far away. You lose.
Ummm how about the Philipines, various pacific islands and South American nations
Again, the spoils of war with Spain in the late 1890's. Are they free now?
Not to mention cultural imperialism which has a far greater reach than the military might.
Nobody in America forced our products or culture on you. If you don't like WalMart or McDonalds then don't purchase these products. Somebody liked them and thats why they are there.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the US has a history of extending its sphere of influence, often to the detriment of those who come under it.
Again, statements with no proof or facts. We extended our power over Germany and Japan and thats why they have to agree with us on all US issues. We are soon to influence Afganistan politics. If you don't like us because we are capitalist then say so. Do you know that your local McDonalds is owned by someone in your country? It's called a Franchise. Does your country ship products to the US? Do you know that if you make a good product it will sell in the US? You need to look again at the "Free Market" economy.
I am not your enemy. Just a voice for logic and common sense.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
... a Blackhawk crashes over Colombia killing 20 something people on board. Hope it is not related.
Does your country ship products to the US? Yup but the US insists on imposing tariffs to protect its own interests while demanding that we drop ours. That is the price of doing business with the US. Australia is just about to enter into negotiations with the US on a free trade agreement and one of the points is the US demand that we drop our local content rules for television so as to allow more American television onto our screens.
As to the Philipines they weren't declared free until 1946. Tell me something, does America still hold onto Samoa, Guam, Wake, Puerto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, and Guantanamo Bay? Formerly independant nations or parts of independant nations that are now part of the US.
A nation does not have to have an Emporer to have imperial designs or notions.
Do you know that your local McDonalds is owned by someone in your country? It's called a Franchise.
Ooh look sarcasm, on slashdot, who'ld have thunk it, listen mate I am fully aware of how McDonalds nd other purveyors of edible shit operate. America lecturing others about opening up their markets to foriegn investment is laughable considering the massive tariffs they inflict on others.
Yes but know for instance the correct range to engage M1s with T72s does help a under equiped nation prepare its self. Also knowing the formational structure and tacticial doctrine greatly helps a nation prepare for war. Also choices such as whether to engage tanks which you cannot destroy vs APC's which you can easily kill, can often turn the tide of a modern battle. Tactical doctrine in allot of smaller countries is whoefully lacking, knowing when and how to fight was how the Vietcong were able to defeat the US, and how the Afgans defeated the USSR. As to your lame comment about the SIS, why would they care, making such software violates no NZ export laws.
First off, yes I think the armed forces would not want to go up against the US citizenry. There are over 100 million gun owners in the USA and nearly half the guns on the planet are in the US. Piss off the most radical extreme 1% and you have a major problem on your hands, 10% and you have an uncontrolable unmanagable disaster, plus many of the citizenry IS ex military and well trained - not fun to mess with either. (renember when the ATF went up against the NRA and the militas and Clinton later backed off - you don't think he did it cause of his character do you)
Second, in the US - the military is highly integrated into the civilian population. You would have treason out the yin yang. (this integration is there for a reason BTW)
Third, renember that the economic engine that pays for all that nice military equiptment, supplies, and logistics IS the civilian population. Good luck trying to seize and supply it all by force.
Finally, they nearly tried a military occupation after the civil war. I forgot what happened, but it turned out to be such a disaster that it is taught as a no-no in military text and training to this day.
9. Czech Republic
10. Cyprus
11. Hungary
12. Slovenia
13. Slovakia
14. Bulgaria
15. Romania
16. Turkey
17. Poland
18. Lithuania
19. Estonia
20. Latvia
21. Malta
22. And even more...
For story see here.
That someone in Iraq is using Open Source software right now.
If you live in a country thats economically crippled free as in price sofware must seem like a good deal.
another Roadkill on the Information Superhighway
Oh, sure, if you put a clause in your licence saying 'not for use by terrorists', that'll fix it.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Microsoft should market Windows to the iraq people. We will be sure to win the war.
What's your source for this info? To me it seems like you're using CIA as source and that renders your 'facts' pretty worthless. CIA is working for it's survival and for a president who wants a war. Of course they'll claim Saddam is the great satan and that it's totaly worth killing 10s of thousands Iraqie citizens to kill him. Do you trust all marketing companies?
It's very important to remember that Bush sr, Clinton and Bush jr all have wanted war against Iraq, and they've all been against inspections. Amongst the things you 'forget' to mention is that CIA infiltrated UNSEC and used it to both collect info for the -98 desert fox attack and for trying to get an uprising -96. It's not like that has been helping UNSEC and later UNMOVIC. I'd suggest you read the book War Plan Iraq It takes up most of what you mention but from another point of view, a view that never gets through in normal media.
What makes you so sure? http://ccminc.faithweb.com/islam/05veil.html
Perhaps it was a decision made for a reason that you might not have fathomed? Perhaps it was made for a need that didn't arise in the part of the world you come from. I don't want to judge you or the custom but I do think your comment is in bad taste and VERY judgemental.
To take this even further, supposing one WANTS to give up his/her freedom of speech for something which that person thinks is more valuable, would people like you let them?
Short answer: we're still trying to end the Gulf War
Then why the US goverment doesn't say it? You should be speaking instead of them, but then... would you be telling the REAL reason? I don't think so.
hey, and while we're at it perhaps we could print 'not for use by terrorists' on back of airline tickets too ...mmmm you're on to something here... ;-P
--
Simon
I don't think that is allowed in the US constitution. One cannot give up their fundamental rights even if they wish to.
What makes you think he would work on a palestinian tank, or any tank for that matter?
I for one would not work on code that would primary be for military use, I would consider it immoral to do so.
So, no, I wouldnt work on a israeli tank.
I guess in your mind that makes me a anti-semit.
But I wouldn't work on a Swedish tank or an US tank or any tank at all.
Can you grasp the difference?
Please try.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Bush is a psychopathic fundamentalist who does unspeakable things to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the Gulf region.
(By unspeakable, I refer to his complete lack of respect for everything that the USA is supposed to stand for)
When you support the anti-war movement, you support him and everything he stands for
Bullshit, this is one of the disinformation tactics mentioned in the above link.
Being opposed to war does not mean that we are opposed to doing anything. All it means is that we are not happy about being deliberatly misled by our leaders to start a war that is going to cause more long term problems than it will solve.
Do you think the USA is going to win over any friends in the region by medling further in the Middle East? Why don't you ask the next generation of potential terrorists, who will grow up hating the country that killed their parents...
Suggesting we should do nothing while our cities are attacked or while our enemies prepare to attack our civilian populations is the mark of a coward or klebold worshipping loser.
Ahh, but you forget the fact that your cities were attacked because of meddling in the past. Doing nothing would be a better solution (I'm not saying it's the best though). Going around killing people is only going to inspire the next generation of terrorists. And as the war on terrorism is inherently unwinnable (you can't defeat an enemy you can't see), I question the reasoning and motives behind the current policies.
Yup but the US insists on imposing tariffs to protect its own interests while demanding that we drop ours. That is the price of doing business with the US. Australia is just about to enter into negotiations with the US on a free trade agreement and one of the points is the US demand that we drop our local content rules for television so as to allow more American television onto our screens.
What tariffs on what products? Maybe our business news is slow but I haven't heard of any. If we did enact tariffs on a product it is to save our workers manufacturing the same product. I would think Austrialia does the same thing.
As to the Philipines they weren't declared free until 1946. Tell me something, does America still hold onto Samoa, Guam, Wake, Puerto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, and Guantanamo Bay? Formerly independant nations or parts of independant nations that are now part of the US. All became territory after the war with Spain. We didn't invade them, Spain did. They are free to leave at any time. None seem to mind being receipients of our tax money.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
I wouldn't get too whipped up about your special project. Unless you are unusually wonderful I doubt that you will do anything better, or more militarily useful, than what they could get for $50 from any of a number of computer game companies, or from various wargaming magazines. Frankly, they would probably benefit more from a single Cuban, Chinese, or Russian advisor.
Imperialism? You need to get out more. Maybe read a few books not written by knee-jerk leftists. Heres a hint comrade: The historical dialectic brought an end to real imperialism by major western powers 50 years ago. You've heard that the UK left India and the French aren't in Indochina anymore, right? What about the Phillipines being independent? You've heard that the Italians aren't in Africa any more? The Germans are out of anywhere they used to be?
Actually, most imperialism these days is by third world nations. Viet Nam captured Cambodia and threatened Thailand. Iraq has invaded Iran and Kuwait, and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia. (Kuwait was actually declared to be an Iraqi province after being captured.) For Bonus points Iraq has threatened to simply destroy Israel, apparently being willing to take the Palestinians with them. Saddam has done pretty well with modern weapons too: He used nerve gas against tens of thousands or Iranians and his own villages, and threatened the UN sanctioned coalition led by the US. He has used missiles against the cities of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel (didn't need to against Kuwait since he captured the whole country).
I know I'm a day late (and probably a dollar short) on this, but I thought a note from someone who is familiar with the subject matter in the report might be of value.
Personally, I think its a rather shoddy bit of work.
First off, and most importantly to the Slashdot crowd, last I checked MODSAF was not OpenSource, by the OSI defintion. See section 5: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups". MODSAF is freely available to anyone working on a DoD job, but so is just about any other DoD-bankrolled software ever written.
Secondly, he actually did a study and found that using translators to automaticly turn Fortran into C, is a bad idea (created unmaintainable crap that ran slower). I suppose there may be some PHBs out there who need to hear this, but for the rest of us...DUH!
Thirdly, he kept talking about C++ like its the paragon of OO-ness, and implicitly calling Ada a non-OO language. Both horribly wrong. The only bright spot I saw here was the use of Java for a new IOS. Java's actually a really good fit for an IOS (Instructor/Operator Station), as they are all about GUIs and network communications. I just hope the component library they used isn't "disappeared" by Sun on them. These Sims need to be maintained for decades.
I think the subject of OSS in the military is a really good topic. But MODSAF is not an example. Instead, look at Gnat (GPL), CLIPS (public domain), and RTEMS (Modified GPL). All were originally sponsored by the DoD, but now have lots of users outside the military and commercial companies supporting them. The DoD should be doing more such projects.
I dont need to imagine...keeps the house nice and toasty in the winter.
Makes good barbeque in the summer.
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
It is vitally important to the current regime that US citizens believe the war is to "keep the oil flowing" or "keep the cost of oil down". Joe Sixpack is perfectly willing to have a lot of brown people in a foreign country die for cheap gas, and the administration cannot be unaware of this.
However, the obvious and demonstrable result of attacking Iraq is higher profits for US oil companies due to greatly increased market value of their product. Attack Iraq -> Gas costs more -> Texans make more money. This isn't theory, it's a historical fact.
Both President Bushes have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice the economic well-being of the US citizenry by enacting what the elder Bush called "Voodoo Economics"; purposely driving portions of the middle class into poverty in order to further the social agendas of the ultra-rich.
Sir William of Occam thus concludes that they are most likely quite willing to drive up the price of oil by fleecing the American consumer, even if it means killing a bunch of heathens far away.
You left out the part where US Ambassador April Glaspie gave Saddam Hussein the green light to attack the nasty little slave-trafficking dictatorship of Kuwait. Kind of a key moment I think.
You left out Bush's refusal of Iraq and Russia's peace offers, too, but that's not quite as bad.
Incidentally, this is not to defend Iraq, but I don't think the US Government has ever produced a 12,000 page document that was both complete and correct.
I mean, seriously, the documentation is another straw man. It's not worth your time, and nobody really cares one way or another about it except possibly the inspection team members themselves.
No major player has substantially switched their position based on that document, and there was no realistic expectation that anyone would.
At this point, unless God himself rides down from the heavens on a shining chariot and strikes George Bush on the forehead with a thunderbolt, the US policy is "war, red war we'll give 'em".
The question is: is it reasonable to run the simulation on top of open source components (i.e. RT Linux), using open-source tools (GNU C++, f2c, etc).? The answer is yes - simulation can be run on almost any system that meets the requirements for hard or near-hard real time.
However, this DOESN'T mean you can run an F-16 simulator on your desktop. While the tools may be open-source, the actually simulation code will be owned by the government, and won't be freely distributed. Plus, it is not an easy problem to divorce the code from the hardware. You have to build that into the code, and most of this code was written in Fortran or Ada, back when they felt lucky not to be writing in assembler.
The comparison to Apache is good: can the military run it's webservers off Apache? Sure. Does that mean Joe Linux can have a .mil site? Not really.
Obviously a pro-war moderator...
Bush is a psychopathic fundamentalist who does unspeakable things [medialens.org] to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the Gulf region.
yes, I must have missed that part about him trying out chemical weapons on his own people, or the acid baths, or calling for the holocaust part II, or paying bounties to PLO for their terrorist organizations. What kind of clueless f*ck compares the *elected* (by official electors as provided in the constitution, you moron) leader of the Free world to a second rate hitler who starves his people so that he can have a bigger nuclear penis? You're an idiot.
(By unspeakable, I refer to his complete lack of respect for everything that the USA is supposed to stand for)
Ooo boy. That's nearly as bad as torturing children to death in front of their parents.
What *EXACTLY* has Bush done that shows a lack of respect for what the USA is supposed to stand for? Can you even tell me what the USA is supposed to stand for? I doubt it, because you're just another vile spouting idiot with a feeble "education" who learned everything you "know" about "freedom" from MTV. I bet you can't even define what a "right" is. You probably can't even rationalize why the Constitution does a better job of protecting human rights than the U.N's declaration of Human Rights ever will. Fool.
When you support the anti-war movement, you support him and everything he stands for
Bullshit, this is one of the disinformation tactics mentioned in the above link.
Logical error: Appeal to authority/Circular reasoning.
The original claim is baseless and wrong, written by an idiot who might try reading a little Orwell if he can sound out the big words. If you support stopping the war, you must logically be in favor of extending Saddamn's regime. Even a chimpanzee could grasp this binary relationship.
Only a Eurotrash pseudo-intellectual would try to rationalize that it doesn't. Have you read too much Postmodern French Philosophy?
Being opposed to war does not mean that we are opposed to doing anything. All it means is that we are not happy about being deliberatly misled by our leaders to start a war that is going to cause more long term problems than it will solve.
spoken like a true frenchman. Q: Hey, why are there trees lining the streets of paris? A: So the Germans can march in the shade.
Do you mean long term problems like keeping Americans alive to buy some more oil? Long term problems like liberating the Iraqi people? Long term problems like destabilizing a fundamentally corrupt chain of arab states led by backwards authoritarians who blame all their internal problems on the west? Here's a clue: You can easily see that you're argument is flawed because it can be used to justify all sorts of ridiculous conclusions. If your grandfather thought like you did, you'd be living in a fascist police state. War solves most intractable problems in human interaction in a very permanent fashion. Only a deluded idiot who has never cracked a history book or lived through a time of strife would believe the old hippie canard that "violence solves nothing".
Inspectors are now in Iraq because of a tangible threat of force. They are not there because of 12 years of sanctions, or 8 years of inspections. Iraq is not complying because it is hoping people like you will win the day. It will not comply until American boots are in the sand, because that is how the world works, little lamb.
Do you think the USA is going to win over any friends in the region by medling further in the Middle East? Why don't you ask the next
Well, win some Iraqi friends, and we already have the Iranian youth on our side. This stupid ass idea that "the arab street will rise up" is an obvious myth. Gee, by your account we f*cked with them for fifty years, (Guess muslims don't appreciate that we fought the last three wars in Kuwait, Somolia, and Kosovo on their behalf) back up their supposedly mortal enemy, Israel, (who hasn't attacked a muslim neighbor since the Six Day War, and humiliated the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. What is it going to take to get this street off it's ass? Bombing Mecca? Only fools think that the most advanced society on earth has to fear the scorn of people who don't even have the freedom to protest without their government's permission.
Yeah, just like the Japanese and the Germans are running around trying to blow up Americans today. Even the Vietnamese respect the fact that we weren't there to conquer them.
Ahh, but you forget the fact that your cities were attacked because of meddling in the past. Doing nothing would be a better solution (I'm not saying it's the best though). Going around killing people is only going to inspire the next generation of terrorists.
Yes, that's why there's all those nazi's and japanese militarists running around today. Because killing people who are bent on killing you really solves nothing. Is it naptime yet?
And as the war on terrorism is inherently unwinnable
ASSUMPTION - which is patently ridiculous.
Terrorism will end if people don't think it's in their interests to kill their children for some misguided cause. Right now many do. That will change if A) things improve for them, or B) Antiterror techniques are racheted up until it's very difficult to inflict damage on American targets.
(you can't defeat an enemy you can't see)
Woa, they have "predator" light bending camofluage now? Wow, we better just kill ourselves then, before they get us for refusing to stop that barbarous habit of hunting them down and killing or capturing the deluded fools who want to slaughter every single American they can get their hands on. Yes, let's just become good muslims, and enslave our women, and do nothing while they slaughter or enslave members of other religions, or even their own religion (like that bombing of Shite muslims in Pakistan) or Al Queda's hatred for Saudi Arabia, which practices a very strict version of the Sharia, all because the [insert offender here, especially if he has something worth taking] were not backwards enough to please the ignorant little wannabe iman.
Our priests are our servants. They used to be the leaders of our society. They aren't any more, and there's a reason for that. We are the apogee of human achievement. They are a common pox not worthy of classification. They have nothing of value to show us. We have much to show them, as they will soon see as we tighten the noose around this pathetic little twelfth century cult.
I question the reasoning and motives behind the current policies.
Oh, beg you're pardon your majesty, I didn't realize that we needed you're leave before we go free that slave pen and put an end to France's illicit oil supply. Can you perhaps provide better reasoning for your position than "killing is always bad" and "violence never solves anything." You're a twit. Leave the Geopolitics to the professionals who have forgotten more than you'll ever know about foreign policy.
Go ahead now little fools, mod me down.
Fuck you, you piece of shit Muslim. Always making excuses for all your genocides. Hope the USAF coats their bombs with pig fat.
Go back to worshipping your demonistic pedophile prophet and his fucked up Allah, you uncivilized piece of shit. After Iraq, it will be Saudi that will get bent over. I can't wait!
Are both going on my friends list. If all conflicts could be so rational, and respectful, as the arguments presented by these two gentlebeings, we would have no war.
While I agree with Major Tom's points more than those of Twirlip, I have the utmost respect for both of them based on how they conduct themselves while discussing emotionally charged issues.
You might have to sift through a lot of dirt to find them, but there are diamonds to be found in the slashdot rough.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Every time Hussein executes somebody with a gun, or that ETA in Spain kills yet another politician, or another robber kills a victim, yeah, they are preventing the violence of those people against them
Absolutely, you hit the nail in the head with that bullet of yours.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I must have missed that part about him trying out chemical weapons on his own people
I'm from the UK. We were gassing the Kurds long before Saddam was born. Saddam's attacks on the Kurds were supported by the Regan administration, who shut down congresses attempt to do some thing about it. But, now that this suddenly suits Bush, it becomes a big issue. Where was the call to war back then? Iraq was an ally of the USA at the time, the west was supplying the ability for him to do this. That is complete hypocracy.
or the acid baths, or calling for the holocaust part II, or paying bounties to PLO for their terrorist organizations.
I'd like to see proof of either of the first two. Sounds like the usual "he is evil" talk, used by the like of Bush. If you can remember the first Gulf war, perhaps you can remember the story about the Iraqi soldiers stealing Kuwaiti incubators, leaving the babies to die on the cold floor. It was Bush Sr. that used that lie to get the undecided congress and public to back that war. Frankly, I don't believe a word Bush says.
As for financing terrorist organisations, that's a bit rich comming from an American. Perhaps you should have a chat to the people from England and Northern Ireland, who's lives have been destroyed by the IRA, a terrorist organisation funded by the US.
Or perhaps the Taliban and Al Qeuda, who we both funded and partially created by the US. Or countless other terrorist groups in South Africa, Asia and South America.
That's nearly as bad as torturing children to death in front of their parents.
Hmm, next you'll be telling me that he eats babies! If we are going to go for all the traditional racist hatred incitements used throughout history that is. These insults date back to biblical times. Gimmie credible proof that Saddam has tortured children to death please.
What *EXACTLY* has Bush done that shows a lack of respect for what the USA is supposed to stand for? Can you even tell me what the USA is supposed to stand for?
To paraphrase a popular cartoon, "Truth, justice and the American way". Democracy is founded on the principle of an informed electorate. Bush is deliberatly lying and misleading the electorate, to push though policies and wars that coincidently work out well for his oil buddies. Jeez, the national security adviser has an oil tanker named after her! He is corrupt and a disgrace. He is also turning the entire world against the USA.
vile spouting idiot with a feeble "education" who learned everything you "know" about "freedom" from MTV.
Jesus, are you are one of these Yanks who thinks that the USA is the only country in the world where freedom florishes?
Just to bring you up to date, most of the world has more freedom than the US. Your complete lack of world knowledge and blind patriotism shocks me. The USA is a great place, don't get me wrong. But you need to throw off this "we are superiour" attitute. If you were superiour, I could maybe handle it, but you aren't/
And let me point out that this is the first time I've ever heard an American imply that everyone elses education system is "feeble". You don't know jack, the US education system is a joke. While you are still gluing macaroni to card we are learning calculus and second languages.
You probably can't even rationalize why the Constitution does a better job of protecting human rights than the U.N's declaration of Human Rights ever will. Fool.
Perhaps the original constitution does, I'm not an expert in US history. Not the key word "history". The US constitution doesn't stand for shit anymore, all the ammendments have pretty much destroyed the original values it once held. Just about every one of the primary ammenments (or whatever they are called) has been attacked by recent legislation. By all means be proud of what the US constitution once was, but stop pretending to yourself that it means anything nowadays.
Bullshit, this is one of the disinformation tactics mentioned in the above link.
Logical error: Appeal to authority/Circular reasoning.
Actually, it's a classic straw man argument, not Circular reasoning. Are you suggesting that starting a war is the only option available at the current time? Of course it isn't.
Even a chimpanzee could grasp this binary relationship.
It's not a binary relationship. Sure, you could have a war, or you could not have a war. Two choices there. You could also increase sanctions, encourage the population to revolt (and actually back them up this time) or use the SAS/CIA to go into Iraq to attack the infrastructure and leadership. There's several options right there.
Raining down 800 cruise missiles on a highly populated city is not the only choice available.
Only a Eurotrash pseudo-intellectual would try to rationalize that it doesn't.
Your true racist tendances are showing now. Is it impossible for a citizen of Europe to be an intellectial? And the "Eurotrash" mention? You are sick, twisted, misguided fool.
spoken like a true frenchman. Q: Hey, why are there trees lining the streets of paris? A: So the Germans can march in the shade.
Semi-funny, I'll grant you that. It's also highly racist and would not be tollerated here. But racism is much inbred into the American way, isn't it. First it was the Indians, nice bit of ethnic cleansing there. Twenty million culled down to less than half a million in the space of two generations. Hitler would be proud, he never thought of calling the concentration camps "reservations".
Then the blacks. Nice bit of slavery you had going there. You stole them from their homeland, make them work for no pay, denied them the rights granted by the constitutions and are still shitting on them today. Look at the startling ratio of blacks/whites in your prison population. Disgusting.
Then the Japanese. Again, rounded up into re-named concentration camps, this time you called them "interment" camps. Since you mention Orwell, I guess you are familiar with the concept of "newspeak".
And the communists. Ohhh, that was a deep hatred, wasn't it. I wonder how many were starved by forcing the Ruskies into an arms race that their ecconomic environment (communism) could not support, ultimately breaking the countries back. I bet you are proud of this to. Yet, despite you stockpiling masses of nuclear weapons, pointing them at everyone who shows a little independance, and using your government agencies to fuck these countries over big time, putting CIA agents into the highest governmental positions then later killing them because they disagree with someone. And you are trying to tell me Iraq is a bad nation? Don't make me laugh, you're lack of knowledge of world history only goes to prove the point that your eduction is sub-standard.
And now it's the Arabs. Can you see how you have been manipuated into hating various groups over the years? Hatred which has aided those at the top to acheive their goals...
Do you mean long term problems like keeping Americans alive to buy some more oil?
When has Iraq ever presented a threat to the USA?
Long term problems like liberating the Iraqi people? Long term problems like destabilizing a fundamentally corrupt chain of arab states led by backwards authoritarians who blame all their internal problems on the west?
Jesus, you really need to get hit by a clue-stick. The liberation of the Iraqi people was never an issue when the US first aided Saddam to power, and supported him. The people of many states in the Middle East are currently (as I type) being surpressed by the governments supported by the USA. Kuwait (where women can't vote), Saudi Arabia (where no one can vote, even if they could, they'd find it hard with the government cutting their hands off).
Why, all of a sudden, has the plight of the Iraq people become an issue for the USA? Historically, you couldn't give a shit about them. Ditto the people who suffered under the US creation and support of the Talliban. When they stopped playing ball with US business interests, they suddenly became this "axis of evil". Note, this switch of "good guy" to "bad guy" happened prior to 9/11, that had nothing to do with the demonisation of Afganistan.
War solves most intractable problems in human interaction in a very permanent fashion. Only a deluded idiot who has never cracked a history book or lived through a time of strife would believe the old hippie canard that "violence solves nothing".
Hmm, sort of. War is the ultimate power, I'll grant you that. It it isn't always the answer, and it's never the only answer.
With respect to your mention of "permanent fashion", that is completely false. It worked in WW2, very well in fact. However, I'd hardly call Korea, Solmalia or Afganistan a permanent solution. War didn't work out very well in those places. Just because the media stops reporting somnething it doesn't mean that it's no longer a problem, it just means that it no longer gets ratings. The rain forests are still being destroyed you know, yet the media interest has gone elsewhere.
(In case you don't know, and if you only follow US media outlet you probably won't, but control of Afganistan is currently being fought over by the government left in place by the US, the remainder of the Talliban and the drug/crime lords. It's a total mess, but the western media seems to have forgotten about it)
Inspectors are now in Iraq because of a tangible threat of force. They are not there because of 12 years of sanctions, or 8 years of inspections.
Yes, and if the threat of force brought all this about, then it is valid. But it's not as simple as that. War is inevitable, there are too many troops commited to the region to not go in. Iraq is now completely complying with the inspectors etc. We have no reason to attack, but we will anyway.
Iraq is not complying because it is hoping people like you will win the day. It will not comply until American boots are in the sand, because that is how the world works, little lamb.
Jesus fucking christ. I really hope you are trolling me here. I really do. This "American boots in the sand" belief was the reasoning the terrorists behind 9/11 hate you. The lives of all those innocent people were lost due to these arogant beliefs. Do you think you can run half-way across the world, kill and fuck people over, without some form of retailiation. Who made you King of the World?
Seing as your country has a terrible record for international relations, I think you are the worst possible nation to do this role. It is the role of the U.N., which represents the whole civilised world. Are you familiar with the concept of democracy, or is facism more your thing?
Gee, by your account we f*cked with them for fifty years, (Guess muslims don't appreciate that we fought the last three wars in Kuwait, Somolia, and Kosovo on their behalf)
You weren't fighting on their behalf. You fighting in the iterests of your own business dealings. I'm not saying that these things weren't admiral or anything like that, but it's not a clear-cut as you make out.
back up their supposedly mortal enemy, Israel, (who hasn't attacked a muslim neighbor since the Six Day War, and humiliated the mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
Excuse me? Israel is illegally occupying a foreign land right now! They are commiting their own holocaust. They have killed all of the key Palestinion figureheads. Any intelectials, writers and politions have been assasinated by the Israelis, but the media refers to these as "targeted killings". Please follow the link and learn about the corporate medias deliberate distortion of the facts in this matter.
Only fools think that the most advanced society on earth has to fear the scorn of people who don't even have the freedom to protest without their government's permission.
Firstly, I have to laugh at the "most advanced society on earth". Please explain the why so much poverty is allowed to exist in this mythical land? Why there are communities of homeless people all over the place. I was amazed to see this in the US, hardly a shining example of modern living. Please explain why you still apply the death penalty to mentally retarded people.
And please explain to me your beliefs about free expression are in any way relevant in modern America. We are talking about a place that cages protestors into "free speach zones", well out of the way from whatever they are protesting. The same society that attempted to ban the anti-war rallys in several cities. And how your government is now tracking an analysising every communication on the internet, databasing anything deemed interesting. How can you feel safe critizing a government who is noting down everything you say? Again, a keystone of democracy is the ability to critize the government, but now all that will get you is a higher "terrorist ranking" on an automated system somewhere, again something that is specifically stated against in the US constitution.
Yeah, just like the Japanese and the Germans are running around trying to blow up Americans today. Even the Vietnamese respect the fact that we weren't there to conquer them.
So, it worked some times. Big deal, it doesn't mean you are going to get a 100% success rate. Remember, Bin Ladens personal beef with the US is due to the fact that the Saudi royal family (dictators) are supported and guarded by US troops. I'd say that's a pretty big example of this kind of thing not working out.
Terrorism will end if people don't think it's in their interests to kill their children for some misguided cause. Right now many do. That will change if A) things improve for them, or B) Antiterror techniques are racheted up until it's very difficult to inflict damage on American targets.
Hmm. And you do you propose making it difficult to inflict damage to the US? Ban diesel and fertiliser? Have checkpoints every 10 miles on the road, searching for bombs etc? Having all plane passengers tied up in their seats? Not possible.
Amazingly, we are in agreement on your first point. If things improve for them, terrorism will stop. But that's not going to happen, and it's not in the interests of our leaders. Again, I bring attention to the fact that our governments (I'm from the UK, which is more similar to the US than Europe by the way) happily deal with and support countries that are screwing over their populations. Until we have honest governments that refuse to have anything to do with these nutjobs and display some honour and valor, then that's not going to happen.
And as I can't see either of these things happening in the near future, I say that the war on terrorism is unwinnable.
(you can't defeat an enemy you can't see)
Woa, they have "predator" light bending camofluage now?
No, but the US is actually developing that sort of technology, not sure with what success though. But that's a geeky side note that has so far been the most on-topic statement so far.
You can't see them because they look like you and be. They don't wear uniforms. They don't have special badges or rings. Sure, you could round up all the Arabs (if you were to throw out yet another part of the constitution), but then you still get the likes of Timmoty McVeigh and the IRA. How do you propose to "win" this "war"?
Yes, let's just become good muslims, and enslave our women, and do nothing while they slaughter or enslave members of other religions, or even their own religion (like that bombing of Shite muslims in Pakistan)
100 years ago, America was enslaving the Blacks. Around the same time, my country denied women the right to vote and the right to own property. We are a more advanced society than them. But it doesn't mean that we are "better" than them and we shouldn't look down on them. Look at how far our societies have come in the last 200 years. You can't expect the world to advance at a uniform rate.
And the sad fact is that we call many countries who do look down on women "allies". We can't critize one nation for doing something when we support other nations that do the same, if not worse. Saudi is an ally of the west, yet Afganistan in 2001 would be a relative paradise for the women there.
They are a common pox not worthy of classification. They have nothing of value to show us.
Again, we are in agreement about something. It's a shame thought that the only ammendment in the constitution to survive unscathed is the first. The Ruskies had that right, religion is stupid.
I didn't realize that we needed you're leave before we go free that slave pen and put an end to France's illicit oil supply. Can you perhaps provide better reasoning for your position
Simple. Because there are other slave pens being supported by us that give us oil supplies that we aren't preparing for war with. If we are going to go around the world fighting for freedom, then we should apply that fairly and not pick out only the ones that we also benefit from attacking.
It is this hipocracy that is the basis for my anti-war stance.
You don't know jack, the US education system is a joke. While you are still gluing macaroni to card we are learning calculus and second languages.
Well, the part of you they bother to teach. (In Germany, it'd be that part that goes to the Gymnasium.) The majority are considered too dumb to learn, so you send them off to job training programs, while the Americans are still trying to teach them history and math and literature. It's the great lie of international education: that you can validily compare the European students in college-bound schools with the American students in general-education schools, and get a valid result.
While the US higher-ed system is a bit more generic than ours, the mandatory part of schooling is almost the same.
I would be the happiest to see American Culture as a whole being adopted throughout the world
Speaking as an American, I do not want this to occur. Nations should maintain their own cultures. There is no one "best" culture in the world. What I would like to see is democracy, capitalism, and various personal freedoms (speech, religon, etc) effected to all the nations. These are ideals that people of all cultures deserve, and should have.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
To take this even further, supposing one WANTS to give up his/her freedom of speech for something which that person thinks is more valuable, would people like you let them?
I certainly would let them. That is their choice to make. However in Iraq, Iran, SA, do you honestly believe that (in recent times) the citizens have been offered this choice?
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Freedom of religion is absolutely ridiculous. Millions of people with hundreds of (sometimes drastically) different belief systems cannot co-exist peacefully for any length of time. Different beliefs, esp. those as deeply-rooted (read: irrational) as religious beliefs invariably get forced upon others, etc. etc.
Any religion that professes to know the truth is automatically wrong. The only correct religion with the knowledge we have is "agnostic". To follow anything else is irrational, illogical, and quite frankly unfair to everybody you interact with.
evil adrian
Freedom of religion is absolutely ridiculous. Millions of people with hundreds of (sometimes drastically) different belief systems cannot co-exist peacefully for any length of time. Different beliefs, esp. those as deeply-rooted (read: irrational) as religious beliefs invariably get forced upon others, etc. etc.
Your statement is contradictory. If people of a given nation have Freedom of Religon, (as we do in the US) then they are not subjected to other beliefs being forced upon them. That is the nature of "Freedom of Religon". Secondly, there is no reason why people of different religons cannot peacfully coexist. Have a look at the US. That is one of the premises on which the nation was founded. There are members of various Christian sects, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, and Atheists all peacefully coexisting. The only interruption to this religous peace is intollerant extremists (e.g. the KKK), and intollerant (read: evil) religons like some of the Islamic sects.
Any religion that professes to know the truth is automatically wrong. The only correct religion with the knowledge we have is "agnostic". To follow anything else is irrational, illogical, and quite frankly unfair to everybody you interact with.
This statement is in quite bad taste, and is just plain incorrect. Whatever religon you believe in is the correct one for you. If you choose not to believe in any religon, that is also your choice. But to say that anyone who has religous beliefs is irrational and illogical is just plain ignorant. Perhaps it is you who is simply uneducated in religons of the world, hence your abstination from beliefs.
Not sure where you pulled "quite frankly unfair to everybody you interact with" but it is this ignorance and buffoonery that causes religous tension. I suggest you spend some time in the religous section of a library simply for the puspose of educating yourself in a subject which you are obviously misinformed.
Food for thought: Assuming you are in the US, the money in your pocket right now says "In God we Trust".
I'm not even sure why I even responded to your obvious flamebait.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
This statement is in quite bad taste, and is just plain incorrect. Whatever religon you believe in is the correct one for you.
Actually, you are incorrect. The world is composed of two things -- FACT and FICTION. If you don't know the FACT, you could very well be believing FICTION. It is completely illogical to believe you know the answers to things that yield incomplete information -- especially religion -- and therefore make a "choice". It is illogical to choose. For the record, if we had complete information about the realm of religion, there would only be ONE CORRECT RELIGION. That means that EVERY OTHER RELIGION IS WRONG. So quite frankly, your view -- which millions of other people share -- is on shaky ground from the very start, and borders on insane.
If you choose not to believe in any religon, that is also your choice. But to say that anyone who has religous beliefs is irrational and illogical is just plain ignorant.
Actually, I just laid out a rational, logical argument that argues why religious belief is irrational and illogical. Go figure!
Perhaps it is you who is simply uneducated in religons of the world, hence your abstination from beliefs.
Perhaps I realize that I *don't* know the answer, and have realized that it is irresponsible, irrational, immoral, and illogical to blindly believe something based on very, very incomplete information.
Not sure where you pulled "quite frankly unfair to everybody you interact with" but it is this ignorance and buffoonery that causes religous tension.
How you interact with other people is based on your belief system. If your belief system is unsound, your interactions with other people -- even if they result in the correct action -- are still being done for the wrong reason. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is bad. Doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons is even worse. Therefore, acting irrationally on other people is unfair to them.
I suggest you spend some time in the religous section of a library simply for the puspose of educating yourself in a subject which you are obviously misinformed.
It is obvious I have put more thought into this than you ever have.
evil adrian
Food for thought: Assuming you are in the US, the money in your pocket right now says "In God we Trust".
The US Gov't forces religion on its people. They do so with the money, with the pledge of allegiance... and who the hell knows what other crap Bush is going to pull with his faith-based initiatives.
I don't understand why you brought that up.
evil adrian
I don't understand why you brought that up.
It was brought up to illustrate the presence of religon. No one is telling you what to believe or not believe. What you are being told is to respect the beliefs of others, and respect the presence of said beliefs.
It's kind of like a questionable magazine. If you don't like it don't subscribe!. It's quite simple. but you are in the wrong if you prevent others from subscribing, or if you say that people are "wrong" for doing so.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
They are wrong for acting on irrational and illogical beliefs. It affects me. They affect me. Therefore it is perfectly within my rights to complain about it.
Religion is illogical and irrational. Sorry, that's the way it is. Faith is belief without evidence, and by its very definition is illogical! Yet, we continue to allow millions of people to act irrationally.
I don't have to respect beliefs. I respect truth.
evil adrian
Actually, you are incorrect. The world is composed of two things -- FACT and FICTION. If you don't know the FACT, you could very well be believing FICTION. It is completely illogical to believe you know the answers to things that yield incomplete information -- especially religion -- and therefore make a "choice". It is illogical to choose. For the record, if we had complete information about the realm of religion, there would only be ONE CORRECT RELIGION. That means that EVERY OTHER RELIGION IS WRONG. So quite frankly, your view -- which millions of other people share -- is on shaky ground from the very start, and borders on insane.
Sorry pal, wrong again. The world is not filled with "fact or fiction". For instance, I know that a flame is hot. I do not need to put my hand into it to learn of this first hand. I can learn through the teachings of others that this is so.
Actually, I just laid out a rational, logical argument that argues why religious belief is irrational and illogical. Go figure!
Wrong again bud. You laid out your personal opinion which happens to be not based on anything at all.
Perhaps I realize that I *don't* know the answer, and have realized that it is irresponsible, irrational, immoral, and illogical to blindly believe something based on very, very incomplete information.
You are mistaken, again. There is a big difference between faith and "blindly believing". In addition, religon is not based solely on faith. It's also based on historical documents and real historical people. Do documents and people not fall within the realm of fact?
How you interact with other people is based on your belief system. If your belief system is unsound, your interactions with other people -- even if they result in the correct action -- are still being done for the wrong reason. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is bad. Doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons is even worse. Therefore, acting irrationally on other people is unfair to them.
This is an incorrect assumption. The way I interact with others may be influenced by my religous beliefs, but is certainly not because of them. You do not have a firm graps on the principles of cause and effect.
It is obvious I have put more thought into this than you ever have.
It is obvious that you have a deep rooted blind faith in atheism, therefore you are the one acting irrationally. My religous beliefs stem from facts while yours stem from "blind faith".
Now who's on shaky ground?
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Sorry pal, wrong again. The world is not filled with "fact or fiction". For instance, I know that a flame is hot. I do not need to put my hand into it to learn of this first hand. I can learn through the teachings of others that this is so.
But you cannot learn "God exists" or "God wants you to do X". People simply do not know. The world is fact and fiction. It really is all 1's and 0's when you break everything down.
Wrong again bud. You laid out your personal opinion which happens to be not based on anything at all.
It's NOT A FUCKING OPINION. Are you reading ANYTHING I wrote? My thoughts happen to be based on this thing called "reality" which involves this thing called "evidence". Unlike whatever religion you or anyone else happens to practice.
You are mistaken, again. There is a big difference between faith and "blindly believing". In addition, religon is not based solely on faith. It's also based on historical documents and real historical people. Do documents and people not fall within the realm of fact?
Historical documents? Real historical people? I suppose you're going to tell me that the Bible is a historical document? And Jesus Christ was a real historical person? Or whatever book / prophet / messiah you like best. All of the "historical documents" that exist are analyses of various holy books... the holy books are no more provably correct than a Dr. Suess book.
Prove me wrong.
This is an incorrect assumption. The way I interact with others may be influenced by my religous beliefs, but is certainly not because of them. You do not have a firm graps on the principles of cause and effect.
Your actions are based on your entire belief system. Part of that system is religious belief. A very large part for some people. Therefore, religion influences behavior. So, what exactly am I missing?
It is obvious that you have a deep rooted blind faith in atheism, therefore you are the one acting irrationally. My religous beliefs stem from facts while yours stem from "blind faith".
My religious beliefs are the ones based in fact, ass.
It's really obvious you haven't been reading my posts. I said that AGNOSTIC is the only way to go, because nobody knows. You can't believe something just because it feels good -- that's not enough to constitute rationality. And, as a representative of every other blinded, religious, intelligence-affected person, you ignore what I say, and continue to insist that you're right.
Present facts, please, otherwise quit responding to my posts.
evil adrian
The so-called "desktop metaphor" of today's workstations is instead an
"airplane-seat" metaphor. Anyone who has shuffled a lap full of papers
while seated between two portly passengers will recognize the difference --
one can see only a very few things at once.
-- Fred Brooks
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...