Slashdot Mirror


Ian Clarke, Ernie Miller On Free Speech, Privacy

mpawlo writes "I am still pursuing my new pastime, interviewing interesting Internet policy individuals for Greplaw. Fresh catches include Freenet creator Ian Clarke on his decision to leave the USA, free speech and Freenet and former Lawmeme editor-in-chief Ernest Miller on DRM and privacy, copyright and the First Amendment... and, of course, why blogs matter. Maybe this will provide some food for thought."

391 comments

  1. Blogs matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Perhaps to dumb tech journalists or the hoards of useless geeks who love telling us all about their self-inflicted misery! No one cares about you or your sad little life, get used to it.

    1. Re:Blogs matter? by mpawlo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually it said "blawgs" in my original submission and referred to law blogs, that is online journals dedicated to law and policy, rather than the daily life of your favorite pet. This is also the issue that Ernie Miller addresses in the interview.

    2. Re:Blogs matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see that the continual mauling of the English language is not yet complete. How a person can write or read the word "blawgs" without feeling physically ill, or at the very least flinching, is a mystery to me.

      Is this the age that the internet has brought; the invention of ugly words by the illiterati?

    3. Re:Blogs matter? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1
      Actually it said "blawgs" in my original submission and referred to law blogs...

      Are you really absolutely positivily 100% without-a-doubt sure you did?

      It's not that I don't believe you, but that would imply that the Slashdot editors did some rudimentary spell checking :o)

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  2. Rights? What are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    See, I'm an amerikan (a conservative, not a neocon bush-head asshole...there's a BIG difference) and I'm trying to grasp the concept of this whole "rights" thing. What rights we have left are being stripped away for the appearance of security, and the mindless sheep of amerika (bleat) are too stupid to realize it.

    Moving to Canada won't fix the problem, as anything amerika gets involved in, canada will likely get screwed up in just via proximity.

    The more I see the more I realize the end time is coming. Don't bother planning for the future folks, you don't have one.

  3. what a prick... by rokzy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    nice start to interview

    # Who is Ernest Miller?

    The metaphysical answer is probably too much to go into here, but I can tell you what I do. I'm a fellow of the Information Society Project, eccentric writer on copyright and the First Amendment, videogame enthusiast and entrepreneur (not yet successfully, but one always hopes, see http://www.gamejockeys.net/).

  4. Re:I don't understand... by eu_neke · · Score: 1, Funny

    Because you have a government like this

  5. Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with Ian. It's time to go. Amerikkka isn't getting my little bit of tax dollars. I didn't vote for the smirking chimp and I didn't ask to have my rights taken away from me. Fuck this country. *spit*

    1. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Challenge:
      1. Explain why you believe that just because you didnt vote for the president he is illegitimate.
      2. List all these precious rights you have lost.
      Then come back and continue the trendy leftist whining.
    2. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not even 1/2 of America voted for *shrub* the smirking chip.

    3. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why the need to use childish insults and name calling? Is this the level of your intelligence and sophistication or are you just following the 'alternative' crowd in their derision?

    4. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then come back and continue the trendy leftist whining.

      Is it trendy to call things leftist?

    5. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by pen · · Score: 1
      Thanks to the Patriot Act I lost the right to choose a bank that offers me what I want. Yesterday, I tried to apply to Compass Bank. (They have real free checking -- they'll even refund the fees other banks' ATMs charge you.) Unfortunately, I was informed that after the Patriot Act went into effect, I am now required to physically visit the bank branch in order to open an account.

      (I live in Philadelphia; The bank's locations are nowhere near. This is fine, since I never visit my bank's branches anyway.)

      If I had anything to do with E*Trade Bank, I would be worried.

    6. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Because the majority of the voting population also did not vote for Bush, your usage of the term president is incorrect.

      2. The right to privacy, which is not enumerated in the constitution, and therefore granted to the people, has been steadily eroding since Bush took office. Granted, it was doing so before that happened, but it's really sped up since 9-11-03 (which, by the way, was caused by Bush's foreign policy (or lack thereof.))

      Re: Leftist whining. I don't see the world through the same 2 color ccd as you. Upgrade your hardware to some 32 bpp high res stuff, and maybe you can see what's going on around you. Be prepared to be pissed off when you do, though...

    7. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the best you could come up that you had to choose a different bank! Oh no I bet its worth than Nazi Germany right now isnt it. Liberal loser.

    8. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the best you could come up that you had to choose a different bank! Oh no I bet its worth than Nazi Germany right now isnt it. Liberal loser.

      Now, don't go calling him a "Liberal loser." There's no such thing as liberal anymore.

      How about "reactionary leftist loser"? The left loves to think of itself at liberal minded. Of course, the last time they had an original political idea, it was, oh, the 19th century? Maybe early 20th.

    9. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (i'm not the original AC)

      i usually refrain from calling statesmen names because even if i do not respect the man, i respect the office.

      now, however, gwb and his cronies have themselves desecrated the highest public offices in the USA to such an extent that anything i say can do no further harm to the office.

      i'll gladly call the president of the usa a moron and a shrub and his henchmen the most dangerous bunch of nationalistic lunatics the (religious) right has ever spawned.

    10. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privacy is an important right, if you don't believe so, I recommend you read George Orwell's 1984, or really, just think about it a little while. The damage that Bush has done to it has been limited by his lack of intelligence and the constraints put on his behavior due to government's checks and balances, but you better believe he'd push through some Total Information Awareness to log your keystrokes and tap your phone lines if only he could. It's behavior unbefitting a president, most of whom have at least pretended to be upstanding patriots whilst lining their pockets (c.reference Nixon)

    11. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter one little bit how "small" you think the right is that has been lost. The simple point is that a right has been lost. How difficult is this for you to grasp?

      You're almost like the protesters in Alabama whining about their "right" to ignore the Constitution as they see fit one day, while whining the next about the errosion of their 2nd Amendment rights.

    12. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the best you could come up that you had to choose a different bank! Oh no I bet its worth than Nazi Germany right now isnt it. Liberal loser.

      Actually, i'd say it's on par with Nazi Germany. Suspicious people opening bank accounts are reported to the police now. How many suspicious people just so happen to look middle eastern?

      Rather like watching the security check points at the airport, and making note of the white people vs middle eastern that gets stopped and asked to strip down.

      I think Nazi Germany reference is approperate!

    13. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, what "right"? This just isn't a small right, this flat out isn't a right. I don't remember reading anywhere that there was a right to open a bank account without being physically present at a branch. I'm surprised (if being surprised is even possible after all the other stupid stuff I've learned about after 9/11) that this was possible in the first place.

      A lot of common processes we take for granted really need to be tightened...

    14. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The president is illegimate because he got less than half the votes...duh

    15. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the first thing I note is you justify privacy in the Constitution, but you don't accept the electoral vote, which is also part of the Constitution. Not a big deal, but I want to point that out.

      Parts of the PATRIOT act are very questionable, but mostly it makes legal stuff that was already being done quietly and out of the view of the ordinary public. But a lot of the new rules were implemented to make up for a lack of intelligence for many years. Intelligence agencies were simply scaled back too much from their height during the cold war.

      As for leftist whining, it's too bad that the left, which supports a lot of things I agree with, supports things like abortion which I don't. On the other hand, the right is way too in favor of the rich and doesn't care enough about the environment. And on technological issues, it's unlikely to find a worthwhile candidate from either party. It's too bad there's nobody who really agrees with me on all the issues. No matter what, I get stuck with a candidate I don't like.

    16. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you justify privacy in the Constitution, but you don't accept the electoral vote, which is also part of the Constitution
      No need to throw the wheat out with the chaff... ;)

    17. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Pave+Low · · Score: 1

      Not even 1/2 of America voted for *shrub* the smirking chip.

      That is an interesting, but irrelevant point. We do know directly elect the President, and never have. Look up something called the Electoral College, and then come back to discuss.

      BTW, how come you people don't scream that 1/2 of the voters didn't vote for Clinton either? He didn't get a majority of the votes.

      --
      SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
    18. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is an interesting, but irrelevant point. We do know directly elect the President, and never have. Look up something called the Electoral College, and then come back to discuss.

      Yes, I'm aware of that antique circa 1780's system. The Electoral college in flordia should have had more sence and actually realised who the people were voting for. The Supreme court should have thrown out florida's votes all together because it's a corrupt state. Flordia's result was in doubt, throw it out as is permited under our law.

      BTW, how come you people don't scream that 1/2 of the voters didn't vote for Clinton either? He didn't get a majority of the votes.

      I'd have to double check that statement for truth. But there was no dispute over the choice the Electoral College made based on our rules regarding elections. The ballets didn't have the same issues and it was a clean cut victory, twice.

      Our armed forces at sea were not informed of the proper procedure for sending in their votes.

      We did NOT elect this man. As an American I refuse to respect this man who got into office, and hope that this mistake will result in some major voting reform.

    19. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by SMOC · · Score: 0

      BTW, how come you people don't scream that 1/2 of the voters didn't vote for Clinton either? He didn't get a majority of the votes.

      However, he DID get more votes than any other candidate.

      --
      All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    20. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather like watching the security check points at the airport, and making note of the white people vs middle eastern that gets stopped and asked to strip down.

      Have you done that? I've been through airports dozens of times since the new security procedures and I have seen, old white men removing their shoes, black women having their bags rifled through, asians scanned with the wand but I have yet to see a Middle Eastern person being browbeaten.

      How about some evidence to support your accusations. I forgot. This is slashdot. Reality doesn't come into play.

    21. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right to choose a bank that offers me what I want

      Which amendment was that in? Considering that they just announced that 9.9 million people were victimized by identity theft I think it is a pretty good idea to have to place a face to an account. There is a constant tradeoff between freedom and safety. Absolute freedom (no laws, no rules) means no safety and absolute safety means no freedom.

      It sucks that you have leave mommy's basement to go the back and sign up but those are the breaks.

    22. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by mr100percent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The precious rights that I have lost are the fact that the federal government can legally view what books I borrow and movies I rent, without my knowledge. They can do "sneak and peak" searches without my knowledge. Wiretaps and search warrants with much much less legal approval.

      Don't forget that I can now be labeled "enemy combatant" and locked up without a lawyer or a trial.

      According to the new Patriot II act proposed, the US government can declare me a non-US citizen based on any actions I do. That means if the government wanted to, they could revoke my US-born citizenship and take away my habeus corpus rights and ship me off to Guantanamo Bay.

    23. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Here's a better list, accusations that I would like him to answer.

    24. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by pen · · Score: 1

      I'd say non-interference with interstate commerce has this covered pretty well.

    25. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by pen · · Score: 1

      The constitution doesn't grant citizens rights. It grants a small, very short list of rights to the government. They are not allowed anything else.

    26. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      A lot of common processes we take for granted really need to be tightened...

      That is reactionary bullshit!

      I challange you to come up with one terrorist that would be stopped by this.

      The tightening of this kind of process hurts nobody but the honest people of the country, the dishonest will have no trouble circumventing this kind of increased security.

      Not to mention that all of the 9/11 hijackers had spotless records, and would have continued flying under our radar regardless of what additional checks you propose.

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    27. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave America, you prick. The problem with whining assholes is that they dont make money, save a few that sell books to you fuckers.

      You are a little unsuccessful bitch. You cant turn a dime in the system that is designed for you to do just that. Since it isnt handed to you, you bitch and whine.

      Do something contructive, you fucking whining puke.

    28. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asking for accountability is reactionary bullshit?

      Its not about this one measure stopping a terrorist. Its an entire attitude of proactively encouraging accountability in important everyday transactions. Crime, terrorist or otherwise, is here to stay, and having an atmosphere of responsibility is really the least we can do as normal citizens to make it harder for them to hurt us.

      Imagine if we put the effort we do as geeks into online security into real world security.

    29. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      hmm... so are you saying the govt doesn't get new "rights" by passing laws it made up?

      I thought governments worked like this:

      1. govt does A because of X (typically X is the govt itself)
      2. court says A is illegal
      3. govt passes law legitimizing A in some manner
      4. govt carries out A
      5. court says A is legal
      6. govt happy >:>

      If running plutorcracy (nearly all countries), replace X with elites/corporation; if running dictatorship replace X with dictator; if running fascism, replace X with religion/"race"/ethnicity/language/skin colour/hair colour/shape of nose/etc.

      Are you telling me I was wrong all this time?

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    30. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      You are going to be a great leader one day... of the fascist kind...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    31. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      I think your problem is that you live where they don't have any Middle Eastern people. That's probably why it seems like everybody except them is getting stripped.

    32. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      OMG really!11!??

      I though I was liberal, but I'm not!!>!!@@! HOly shit IM so shoCKEd!!11 I'm LEFTIST! OMG WHAT does leftist mean?! OMG it means I belong to the political left!! OMG what's left!? OMG it's the past participle of leave! OMG I'm not liberal, I just believe in the tennants of the past participle of leave! OMG IM SO FUCKING CONFUSED!!!!

      Seriously, does anybody know where leftist came from, or what the hell the difference is between it and liberal? It doesn't help that you never can find a dictionary with an actual definition for either left-wing or right-wing. This is why I only ever use liberal and conservative. Those at least tie in to the real world on some level. And what the hell new ideas have conservatives come up with recently? "Let's keep doing this shit some more."? Nobody's come up with anything new in politics since the 1400s, for fuck's sake. All liberals have done since then is invent the Muppets and all conservatives have done is move all their angsty manifestos from paper to radio. And they both invented an assload of new words with recursive definitions.

      Whoever does manage to come up with and idea they didn't steal from an 100 year old dead dictator gets my vote, but it doesn't look like it's happening anytime soon.

    33. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Good point. At least have the sense to recognize the gravity of the situation and go for broke.

      "No one in America voted for that cocksucking motherfucker shoving his hairy monkey-cock through our destinies, Karl 'Motherfucker' Rove."

      or

      "No one in America voted for Paul 'Fucking fuck fucker fucking fucks all fucking day' Wolfowitz, the man that's going to get us all fucking killed any fucking minute now, the cockfucking fuckfucker."

      or

      "The less than 1/2 of America that voted for that poor man George W. Bush probably were not aware that he was not going to actually perform any presidential duties during his term as president."

    34. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by mr100percent · · Score: 1
      Document any significant abuse of this supposed power? Padilla? Ok one.


      One that we know of. There were around 2,000 detentions of Muslims in the US immediately after 9/11. "Around" because the US government refused to say how many and WHO they were. Federal judges denied releasing names to the public. The names I heard about were because the familes screamed to the press. Ashcroft isn't going to make press releases saying he's breaking laws, so we don't know how many enemy combatants there are.


      I'm against all terrorists and I want the book thrown at them. However, it worries me that the US government can arrest anybody in the US and secretly lock them up as an enemy combatant. It would be ok if you could call a laywer and prove your innocence and go free afterwards, but the US is prepared to use "Secret evidence" in certian cases. Moussaui or Sami Al-Arian come to mind, but there could be dozens of others that we just dont know about. You can't prove your innocence if you cant debate the evidence you cant see.


      I don't like "secret" because it means there is no oversight. The folder of secret evidence that you can't look inside could be just blank pages for all you know. I know Bush wouldn't do this, but lets say he wanted his future opponent Howard Dean arrested. The arrest could be classified under "national security" as long as the President deems it "a clear and present danger." As long as nobody saw the FBI snatch him off the street, Dean would "disappear" indefinately and people would assume he became another Jimmy Hoffa.


      I don't buy your "The government doesnt declare innocent people as enemy combatants" idea, because a few dozen people in Guantanamo have been set free about a year later, turns out they were nothing but civillians.

    35. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...and yet, the Anonymous Coward doesn't make any denials about this list, and launches into an Ad Homenim attack.


      I somehow feel vindicated, if the accusations were obviously false then I would have heard something disproving it, instead of a simple "go away."

    36. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i didnt even read the fucking list because you are NOTORIOUS for regurgitating trash and not having a single orginal though. You are a piss poor excuse for anything. FO&D - satanic cultist.

    37. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see you living in a Muslim nation. Maybe if you did and murdered "your kind" you wouldnt be so complacent to let terrorist supporters and thier cult run amok. So please, fuck off with the Hitler crap.

  6. Re:Rights? What are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apart from the language this poster uses, I don't think it should be modded as flamebait. Interesting would be more apropriate since things are indeed heading into the wrong direction (some rapidly, some slowly and thus unnoticed).

  7. Re:Ian Clarke is a f*cking idiot by mpawlo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You are confusing Mr Ian Clarke with Mr John Gilmore. I guess you need to read Greplaw more frequently .-)

    The Gilmore flight stunt has been extensively debated. Mr John Gilmore and Professor Lawrence Lessig have issued replies to the debate on Mr John Gilmore's flight-stunt. Mr John Gilmore was rejected from a flight because Mr Gilmore wore a badge saying "Suspected Terrorist". Should the flight captain have ejected Mr Gilmore because of the button or not? The discussion has been heated, not least since Mr Seth Finkelstein suggested that Mr Gilmore's behaviour was 'a millionaire's version of trolling.' Mr Gilmore counter-trolled Mr Finkelstein and got an endorsement from Professor Lessig.

    Read Mr John Gilmore's reply.

    Read Professor Lessig's comment.

    Read Mr Seth Finkelstein's comment on the comments above.

    Best regards,

    Mikael

  8. A question for all US people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What do you think of the way your administration is handling things the last 10 years? Don't you just hate the fact that big companies seem to have alot more influence on politics than the average Joe has?

    Shouldn't this be changed as soon as possible to protect the rights you as a citizen should have?

    Or put in another way: what is the reason the US has taken this 'corporate control' road? How did this happen? Why did you all allow this to happen?

    1. Re:A question for all US people by djtrialprice · · Score: 1

      Don't you just hate the fact that big companies seem to have alot more influence on politics than the average Joe has?
      That's why you guys (I'm from Scotland) need an amendment to allow people who weren't born in the US to become president.
      Then you can get Arnie in the White House. I hear he's going to be The People's President

    2. Re:A question for all US people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we ask these same questions everytime a republican gets into office.... and we wouldn't have had 9/11 in the first place if we didn't have G.W. Bush. A republican Whitehouse favors bluechips unlike the 8 years of democratic leadership which cottage industry thrived.

      I don't feel this was allowed to happen except by the big mistake that got this bonehead into office, which WILL not happen again! Shrubs as a rule serve only 1 term.

    3. Re:A question for all US people by mc6809e · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What do you think of the way your administration is handling things the last 10 years? Don't you just hate the fact that big companies seem to have alot more influence on politics than the average Joe has?

      Shouldn't this be changed as soon as possible to protect the rights you as a citizen should have?

      Or put in another way: what is the reason the US has taken this 'corporate control' road? How did this happen? Why did you all allow this to happen?


      Why the obsession with corporate power? Just how much influence do they have on politics?

      Do they set the speed limits?
      Are they the reason I can't buy liquor on Sunday?
      Jeb Bush is the Governor of Florida. What corporation paid all those voters to vote for him? Jesus, Inc.?
      Are they responsible for the Patriot Act?

      There's a point where anti-corporatism starts to sound like an ideology or religion. Where's the moderation? There's plenty of blame to go around.

      I'd also like to point out that corporations for all their faults seem to be very effective ways of ordering people and resources for maximum effeciency. Most of the stuff you have in your house owes its existance to some corporation. Without corporations, life would be much harder.

    4. Re:A question for all US people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no Americans reading Slashdot at this time.

    5. Re:A question for all US people by vonFinkelstien · · Score: 1, Insightful
      You said: Without corporations, life would be much harder.

      I think most anthropologists would disagree. There was a heck of a lot less stress and a lot more free time for hobbies in the hunter and gather societies.

      As long as you are healthy in an H&G society, things are lot easier.

    6. Re:A question for all US people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3am on the west coast
      7am on the east coast

      just remember to -5 and -8 from GMT to get the time in the lower 48 states

    7. Re:A question for all US people by mc6809e · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You said: Without corporations, life would be much harder.
      I think most anthropologists would disagree. There was a heck of a lot less stress and a lot more free time for hobbies in the hunter and gather societies.

      As long as you are healthy in an H&G society, things are lot easier.


      You can't be serious.

      If you were right, then we would just revert back to H&G societies right now, reduce our stress, and get to those hobbies.

      But we don't. We don't because most of us would starve.

    8. Re:A question for all US people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Are they responsible for the Patriot Act?
      Depends on how you think this whole terrorism shit started in the first place:
      - Evil people in the middle east or
      - Evil corporate people in the West that want to ensure their money (oil) is safe.

      I do not give an opinion here, but nobody can convince me of either option. They're both quite possible.

      There's a point where anti-corporatism starts to sound like an ideology or religion.
      That's an interesting point you're making there because I see it the other way arround. When I look at Amerika, I see corporate control becoming some sort of must-have in the American ideology: the Amerikan dream. Which really involves having alot of money iso happyness in life.
      It's like: "hey, those cooperations want to make more money, that's their good right, so the influence is also their right."
      But that's diproportianal since companies have a lot more power on politics (through money, lobbying and legal knowledge) but do not think about the good of the people of the US. Yes, some innovations are good, but will they have your well being as a high topic on their agenda? Nope, only money (as it should be, I'm not saying that that's a bad thing itself).

      So I do not think corporations should have that much influence.

      Take for instance the war in Iraq. What do you think of the fact that people like Bush(sr) and James Baker III (both VERY influencial in current politics) have strong ties with companies like the Carlyle Group? Do you see the link? Can you guarantee mee that the decision for war was not partly made with influence of the Carlyle Group?
      This might be just a conspiracy theory, I'm not claiming that the link between the war and the Group is actually there. I'm just saying that such strong political/corporate ties should not exist to ensure independed decisions by politicians.

      maximum effeciency
      Yep, that's a positive thing, but it's not the only thing we're after in life. Sometimes effeciency should be diregarded because things need alot of care.

      So my point is: corporations are not evil *period*, but they should not have that much influence since they do not represent the will nor the well being of the people.

    9. Re:A question for all US people by hplasm · · Score: 0

      The NSA never sleeps...

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    10. Re:A question for all US people by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Arnold con't be president, he's not of native birth.

    11. Re:A question for all US people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are the reason you have laws such as the DMCA and UCITA. They're the reason the U.S has Software Patents and Business Method patents. They're the reason Copyright terms now extend to infinity and beyond and you have to pay to sing "Happy Birthday To You" in a public venue. They're the reason the U.S has laws which mean small time businesses get sued out of existence by IP shell companies.

      Thats just the IT industry.

    12. Re:A question for all US people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad fact is he is still a puppet for the republicans...The simpsons is extremely prophetic...*remembers the episode with McBain in the inner party meeting where they make Sideshow Bob their new candidate*...is he really saying anything new, putting any new policies forward?

    13. Re:A question for all US people by garyok · · Score: 1

      There was a heck of a lot less stress and a lot more free time for hobbies in the hunter and gather societies.

      Just as long as you think the constant struggle to find food, making war on neighbouring tribes to control the land, making your own clothes, and eradicating parasitic infections are hobbies.

      Hobbies?! The concept didn't even exist in the caveman days! Hobbies are slack in our system, overcapacity expressed as recreation. In those days overcapacity meant you had food to eat all week. Make a hobby out of that!

      Oh, hold on, you're USicans...

      --
      One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
    14. Re:A question for all US people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and we wouldn't have had 9/11 in the first place if we didn't have G.W. Bush.

      It amazes me how things that take place BEFORE he was President are blamed on Bush - like the attack on 9/11, the recession and the DCMA. Here is a hint - the preparation all took place over the years that Clinton was President. The last attack on the WTC took place while Clinton was President. The missed clues, the failed communications all took place while Clinton was President. The economy started tanking while Clinton was President. The DCMA was signed by President Clinton and push by Democrats.

      Don't rewrite history to favor your opinion.

    15. Re:A question for all US people by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Case in point, the FAA banned pretty much all sharp objects on planes after 9/11, including knitting needles and tweezers. BUT you can bring a cigarette lighter.

      It's because the Tobbaco lobby pressured the government to allow it.

    16. Re:A question for all US people by Silburn_Luke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right, but so is the other guy.

      The HG lifestyle can be better (for certain values of better) but it doesn't support the sort of population densities achievable with neolithic revolution technologies, so we can't go back without a 95+% die off - even though the survivors might be less stressed, have a better diet etc.

      Regards
      Luke

      --
      #include witty_one_liner.h
    17. Re:A question for all US people by chrisgeisel · · Score: 1

      Two questions:
      -Why spell America with a "k"?
      -Why post anonymously if you're not trolling?

    18. Re:A question for all US people by chrisgeisel · · Score: 1

      I see what you're getting at, but I dunno if that's the best example, since most people agree that the FAA banned list is full of ridiculous items--and that banning sharp objects of all kinds is not nearly as important as other security measures.

      I mean, tweezers? How is one going to establish control of an airplane with tweezers? The truth is that the best addition to airline security would be security officers--or cabin personnel with security training.

      Meanwhile, why did the tobacco lobby care if people have lighters on planes--last time I checked smoking on planes was a Federal offense.

    19. Re:A question for all US people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spelled America with a k because I'm quite bad at spelling. Sorry. I mix up those C's, K's, T's and D's etc... quite easily.

      I only post anonymously because I'm too lazy to create an account and use it. Didn't know you needed an account at slashdot to be a non-trolling person. Or better: I know this is not the case so I don't really understand your question.

    20. Re:A question for all US people by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Or put in another way: what is the reason the US has taken this 'corporate control' road? How did this happen? Why did you all allow this to happen?

      It's because getting elected is quite expensive. The only way anyone is able to afford to get elected is to have somebody subsidize their election. And that doesn't happen for free.

      It's also because of the voting system, though that's a bit less direct. But the voting system ensures that nearly everyone who bothers to vote will vote for one of the two front runners. And it's generally the one they find least distasteful. Not most pleasing. It's been quite awhile since I voted for a candidate because I liked him. But the voting system ensures that the winner will be one of two, and this allows those with sufficient wealth to have a sure winner merely by supporting both front-runners. And the more money a candidate has, the more ads he can buy. (Indirectly. It's illegal for him to do too much directly, so it is officially done by "supporting groups".)

      The design of the system is such that with a large population, only those with an equivalent, or nearly equivalent, funding will have a chance. A system based on, say, instant runnoff, would have a much differnt value given to funding. People could then vote on who they preferred in order of preference. How strange, then, that we have a system that concentrates power in the wealthy. And it's surely a pure coincidence that the puritans considered wealth in the world to be a sign of the favor of God.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    21. Re:A question for all US people by hellfire · · Score: 1

      But we don't. We don't because most of us would starve.

      Okay stop and look at what he said:

      As long as you are healthy in an H&G society, things are lot easier.

      Now go back to what you said. You are right, we don't because we would all starve, but c'mon! He did say "As long as you are healthy." And he's right! Nobody said that the solution wouldn't result in the deaths of billions of humans! Fewer humans means simplier! Pure Logic!

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    22. Re:A question for all US people by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I'm not an American but I think the answer lies in capitalism. USA took the path to capitalism, which necessarily results in commerce bodies (such as corporations and business owners) getting wealthy. And since capitalism values money over everything else, wealth translates to power...

      The path USA has taken is no different than any other country's... it's just that USA is far ahead (ie. more capitalistic) than the other countries. The same thing WILL happen in YOUR country--whatever that may be...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    23. Re:A question for all US people by Arandir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do you think of the way your administration is handling things the last 10 years?

      We had two different administrations over the last ten years. Of course, the cynical won't admit much of a difference between them, and the realist tends to agree.

      Don't you just hate the fact that big companies seem to have alot more influence on politics than the average Joe has?

      Are you implying that the rest of the world is different? Or is this EU patent vote a purely philosophical exercise in intellectual property theory?

      aside: Having worked for both US and European corporations, I greatly prefer the ones from the US. I get more respect, less racism, fewer SEC investigations, etc. Every US company I've worked for has given my profit sharing, stock options or discounts, and generally made me feel a part of a "family". My current German corporations forbids me from owning any of its stock, and has rescinded raises this year for US workers despite a 14% growth. It is currently testifying before US Congress on its illegal employment practices.

      Shouldn't this be changed as soon as possible to protect the rights you as a citizen should have?

      The whole idea of corporations being the enemy is facade. So I'll ignore them and tell you what the real problem is in the US. Government. It was govenmernt that created the artificial concept of "corporation". It was government that created the marketplace of influence peddling. Corporations don't go to congress and point guns a politician's head forcing them to vote a certain way. It's quite the opposite. It is the congressmen that go out into the world with a big "for sale" sign on their chests looking for the highest bidder.

      But the US people are slowly waking up to this selloff of their rights. The Democratic party is losing voters to the Greens. The Republican party is facing a grass roots libertarian takeover from within. People are voting out the career politicians, and instituting term limits. Though the world laughs at the upcoming California recall election, it's not about movie actors and circus performers, it's about tossing out a lifetime politician.

      Frankly, other than lobbying for absurd laws, corporations really don't impinge upon my liberties. In this regard they're not much different in my eyes than those people shouting "there need's to be a law" everytime they stub their toes.

      How did this happen? Why did you all allow this to happen?

      You might want to ask yourself the same questions, because it appears that Europe is only a few meters behind the US in the mad dash to tyranny. Asia's already waiting for us at the finish line.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    24. Re:A question for all US people by WindowlessView · · Score: 1

      Why? You can't smoke on any domestic flight anyway.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    25. Re:A question for all US people by Rebelli0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the given reason was that because you aren't able to smoke in the planes, smokers will be dying to light up the second they step off the plane and into the first environment that allows them to smoke. If you don't allow them to take a lighter they can't light up as easily.

      Sure they could buy a new lighter, or ask for a light from a stranger, but i think the idea here was that the tobacco industry would rather have it that there was never any barrier between an addict and the drug. Maybe they were worried that the inconvenience might trigger a reality check in some people, that hits home how dependent they really are.

      who knows, thats the given explaination in any case.

    26. Re:A question for all US people by WindowlessView · · Score: 1

      That reasoning does ring true. I would have thought they would have had better uses for their money than pay lobbyists for that though. As a former smoker I would never have gotten on a plane without putting nicotine patch on first. Even for a short flight there was always the chance you could get kidnapped by the carrier and held on the runway for 3 hours while they waited for a part or a pilot.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    27. Re:A question for all US people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole idea of corporations being the enemy is facade.

      I agree fully, this is also not what I meant. It's natural that the companies try to obtain influance when this is possible.
      My point: it should not be possible (at least not the way it is now).

      You might want to ask yourself the same questions, because it appears that Europe is only a few meters behind the US in the mad dash to tyranny.

      I agree, that's why I'm so extra concerned about what goes on in the US. We can learn from your mistakes so we don't make them.

    28. Re:A question for all US people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what he said...

    29. Re:A question for all US people by Wan2Be · · Score: 1

      I disagree wholeheartedly! If a lot less stress means that worrying about your next meal isn't stressful, then OK. If a lot more free time for hobbies discounts the hours to make hunting weapons, and the hours to gather enough for a family to eat and stay relatively healthy, then OK. It's less stressful to worry that your wife will be one of the 30% of women who die in childbirth, or that 50% of your children won't live past their 2nd birthday, or that your chances of living past the age of 45 is a bit less than 50/50, then OK. Sure, it sounds like a wonderful world, but try living off the land for a month and see where it takes you. Leisure time? Not really...

  9. Ian Clarke is also a prick... by rokzy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    unlike him, I don't believe in freedom of speech as an absolute. imo, he's the "western" equivalent of religious fundamentalists/suicide bombers.

    the FAQ for freenet basically says unless you tolerate child porn, you aren't a true believer as if belief in Freedom of Speech (his capitalisation) is morally superior.

    1. Re:Ian Clarke is also a prick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but ultimately, he's right.

      Your beliefs are just as religion as Clarke's. You have a religious belief that anybody who doesn't hold up "child porn" as the ultimate totem is, in fact, a child pornographer themselves and must be ignored.

      You're all about "saving the children", but in fact, you don't give a rat's ass about children, you want to make sure that ultimately people don't think Free Speech should be free. That's dangerous.

  10. tcpa info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't know enough

    So where can i find, what we know yet? against-tcpa.org are not a good source for objective informations about tcpa, drm, etc.

    Any suggestions?

  11. Can you smell what the prez is cooking? by Channard · · Score: 1, Funny
    Then you can get Arnie in the White House. I hear he's going to be The People's President

    That'd be The Rock, surely? After all, with Jesse Ventura managing to get into politics, it can't be long before more wrestlers take that path, and I for one welcome our new smackdown-laying senators.

  12. This is not a /. Interview... by SMOC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    but I've got to ask:

    Does it bother you that the main use of Freenet at the moment seems to be pr0n of a less-than-mature nature?

    I can understand the argument that child porn is something we'll just need to accept if we want to allow true freedom of speech, but last time I checked freenet, just about the only content I could find was child porn, so it seems either pedophiles are more tech-savvy than average, or the need for anonymity for other "forbidden" content is not so great yet.

    Of course, The RIAA's actions might change that quickly.

    --
    All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    1. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by BJH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How did you know it was child porn?

      Did you... download it?

      Quick! Over here! I've found a child pornographer!
      Please, someone arrest him! Think of the children!

    2. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by rokzy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "I can understand the argument that child porn is something we'll just need to accept if we want to allow true freedom of speech"

      then surely you understand that 9/11 is something you'll just need to accept if you want to allow true freedom of movement?

      don't be stupid. child porn has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. it is a crime to produce it in the first place, hence stopping its distribution is not a violation of freedom of speech. just like being arrested for being a drug dealer wouldn't be a violation of any right to do business. if your "religion" says murdering non-believers is the work of god, are you allowed to do so under the 1st amendment?

    3. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by SMOC · · Score: 1, Interesting

      child porn has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. it is a crime to produce it in the first place, hence stopping its distribution is not a violation of freedom of speech.

      That is not what I meant. I agree it should be illegal, it's just that with Freenet, it's next to impossible to track down, so you'll have to accept it popping up there.

      The only alternative is to forbid anonymity entirely, because it's not possible to be only anonymous when your NOT distributing child porn.

      --
      All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    4. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by grumbel · · Score: 0

      Producing child porn and distributing it are two very different things.

    5. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by L-s-L69 · · Score: 1

      Funny becuase last time I used freenet (yesterday) the main links engine had only two very old (so probably inaccessable) links to that kind of content. I dont doubt there is plenty of it on freenet, just as there probably is on the internet. As long as its not easly visable theres not a lot anyone can do about it, sadly.

    6. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by SMOC · · Score: 0

      Try file search on Frost

      --
      All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    7. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny thing about child porn, is that my great-grandmother (and probably yours) was married and head of a household at the age of twelve. The main reason behind this "think of the children" nonsense is the excessive coddling and retardation of children by corporate america. Adolescents are an ideal market for anything; after all, they don't have to earn any of their disposable income, so they're not so adverse to spending it on gaudy, trifling trash

    8. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Gorny · · Score: 1

      That's right. But the last time I surfed FreeNET for a few days (like 5 months ago) there very nice pages with information prohibited in some countries or banned under the DMCA.

      Well about the child pornography versus the freedom of speech: you can't have both. There's no compromise possible between the two. Simple as that. You've gotta accept the fact that you can't have them both.

      --
      Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing"
    9. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Gorny · · Score: 1

      If you've used some of the file sharing applications for FreeNET (such as Frost) you'll encounter files like: young_boy_naked.jpg. You dont have to be a rocket scientist (or even download and view it) to figure out what content it'll contain.

      No person who's not a pedophile will download and view and/or store these pictures. So go flame someone else :-|

      --
      Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing"
    10. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by hamster+foo · · Score: 1

      Child porn is very much an issue of freedom of speech or probably more accurately freedom of expression. In this case, US lawmakers have deeemed it illegal. If lawmakers deemed taking pictures of horses illegal or writing books about fishing illegal, does that mean the right to do so is not a matter of free expression? Regardless of what laws are created to restrict it, if it is a means of expression it is a matter of freedom of expression. Whether said freedoms should be restricted or banned is up to society, but the issue still falls under the freedom of expression discussion.

      It's also worth noting that while it is a crime in the US, the internet is an international medium where different cultures meet, and therefore a mix of cultural standards may clash. What is illegal in the US may be readily accepted in another country.

      --
      - b
    11. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      >last time I checked freenet, just about the only content I could find was child porn

      How, pray tell, did you find kiddie porn on freenet without knowing what you were looking for? Where exactly did you actively seek out and find the keys for kiddie porn?

      You're mistaken, trolling, or you're an active kiddie pornographer. Which one it is?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    12. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, because all "child porn" is illegal and abhorent, because it all involved raping little kiddies. Let's not for one second consider that one person's child porn is another persons record of a loving relationship.

      If two 16 year old Dutch guys want to film themselves fucking each other consensually and legally up the asses and then send it to their 16 year old friend in Texas, identify the criminals, the crime, the victim(s) and the appropriate punishment.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    13. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by BJH · · Score: 1

      I wasn't flaming you... I was just trying to highlight the difficulty of eliminating undesirable material if you desire genuine freedom of speech.

    14. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by SMOC · · Score: 1

      How about none of the above?
      Try using Frost to search for *ANY* images or videos and see the results. Extra points for searching for generic terms like blowjob. And no, Blowjob_11.jpg is NOT the 11th in a series.

      Also the main link site (forgot the name) has several such sites.

      Just because you couldn't find whatever you were looking for doesn't mean it's not there.

      --
      All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    15. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by blibbleblobble · · Score: 0

      "hence stopping its distribution is not a violation of freedom of speech."

      But to stop its distribution, you'd need to remove freedom of speech, no?

      You're free to speak, on all subjects except...

    16. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Rogerborg · · Score: 3

      Why are you talking about Frost when we're talking about freenet? I quote: "Frost is a p2p app that works on top of Freenet"

      If I look for and find kiddie porn on Kazaa, it follows that the main use of teh intarweb is kiddie porn, right?

      I'll ask again. How exactly did you determine that "the main use of Freenet at the moment seems to be pr0n of a less-than-mature nature"? Please support your assertion with quantitative data.

      I'm not saying that you're wrong. In fact, I suspect that you're right. But given the emotive nature of the assertion, I'm going to call bullshit on it until you expand on how you determined the usage of freenet.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    17. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by SMOC · · Score: 1

      Please support your assertion with quantitative data.

      Well, I'm sorry I did not perform a scientific investigation on the matter, but the difference between Kazaa and Frost is easily seen when searching for regular porn. Kazaa might return some child porn too, although I have never encountered it, while Frost hardly returns anything else.

      In fact, I suspect that you're right. But given the emotive nature of the assertion, I'm going to call bullshit on it until you expand on how you determined the usage of freenet.

      So, you suspect it is correct, but you still call it bullshit because I didn't explain exactly how I arrived at the assertion? Ok, I was searching for regular porn on freenet, and all I found was kiddie porn.

      --
      All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    18. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Gorny · · Score: 1

      Ah... apology accepted ;-)

      --
      Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing"
    19. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      I can understand the argument that child porn is something we'll just need to accept if we want to allow true freedom of speech

      Wow. This argument is horse#@$# of the worst kind. Accept it? I think NOT! Bamboozling and/or forcing kids into performing on camera is base criminal behavior. To equate the evidence of the crime (the pictures/video/whatever of the crime) to protected free speech or even commercial speech requires you set aside:

      * The criminal act committed in creating said kiddie porn.
      * The violation of (the rights)a minor.
      * Selling evidence for a profit.
      * Violating a minor in the pursuit of making money.

      In other words, for this "free speech" to exist one must overlook the chain of crime committed in creating, distributing and selling said kiddie porn! The problem is that with the exception of non-photographic art (which is sick, but protected expression), child porn of the photo or motion picture type is 100% a recording of the criminal violation of a minor and cannot exist without the commission of a very, very serious crime. To allow it's trade or distribution perpetuates the crime.

      For an analogy: conspiring, growing, distributng and using pot is illegal. Kiddie porn is no different: conspiring, creating, distributing and using it is illegal.

      --
      -- $G
    20. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      >I was searching for regular porn on freenet

      You were searching on Frost. Frost is not freenet, as Kazaa is not teh intarweb. We're talking about freenet. Freeeeeenet.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    21. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by SMOC · · Score: 1

      Wow. This argument is horse#@$# of the worst kind. Accept it? I think NOT!
      See response earlier in thread. I don't mean it should be legal to distribute kiddie porn, let alone create it, I just mean it is impossible to stop (the distribution that is) without limiting anonymity and thereby free speech.

      To equate the evidence of the crime (the pictures/video/whatever of the crime) to protected free speech or even commercial speech requires you set aside: *snip*
      So, news footage of a high-speed pursuit or bank robbery should not be protected free speech because it depicts a crime? Who gets to decide to what crimes this rule applies? What about depictions of police violence?

      To allow it's trade or distribution perpetuates the crime.
      Oh please. The same has been said about (regular) porn being a cause of rape. Also, it's not exactly *allowing* its distribution, it's more a case of accepting that the alternative (restricted privacy/anonymity/free speech) might be worse in the long run.

      For an analogy: conspiring, growing, distributng and using pot is illegal.
      So by your own logic, if I make a movie about growing cannabis, that should be illegal?
      Actually, where I live growing, distributing and using small amounts of pot IS legal :)
      By the way, I hope you're not really comparing the "crime" of smoking pot with raping children.

      --
      All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    22. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by SMOC · · Score: 1

      All right, I may have over-extrapolated.
      Still, frost-like tools (I don't know any others, but they probably exist, and probably have about the same content - over-extrapolation again I'm afraid.) are the only way to find content that's not the "I killed my wife and now I can confess without repercussions HAHAHA"-type documents found on the main portal/link thingie.

      --
      All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    23. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by evilmonkey_666 · · Score: 1
      You are evading the issue.

      Because freenet is not searchable, the only way to search freenet is to use a tool like frost!. So I agree that if frost, (which is the most widely used search tool on freenet), returns only child porn then it is a fair assessment to make that freenet is used mainly for child porn.

      --


      - PS. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R where eliminated.
    24. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by westlake · · Score: 1

      enough with the goat-sex links, already!

    25. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by antiMStroll · · Score: 1
      Does it bother you that the main use of Freenet at the moment seems to be pr0n of a less-than-mature nature?

      Straw man reasoning. Cite the figures, show the proof of this very serious allegation.

    26. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by SMOC · · Score: 1

      This is not straw man reasoning. It may be a fallacy of presupposition or loaded question though. :P

      And no, I still don't have figures. What do you want, a graph of my porn habits?

      --
      All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    27. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by poptones · · Score: 1

      Well, now that you ask: they're ALL criminals...

    28. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      I just mean it is impossible to stop (the distribution that is) without limiting anonymity and thereby free speech.
      It is always impossible to enforce any law at a 100% compliance rate. So what? Anonymity is something that allows citizens to excercise their freedoms. The government has the right to un-anonymize you the minute they find a crime either has been committed or have compelling cause to believe a crime will be committed.

      So, news footage of a high-speed pursuit or bank robbery should not be protected free speech because it depicts a crime? Who gets to decide to what crimes this rule applies? What about depictions of police violence?
      Apples and Oranges. Filming a crime for the sole purpose of profiting from it is very different than what the news does. Last I looked, the local TV stations weren't paying/bamboozling people into committing crimes just so they could film them and sell commercials.

      To allow it's trade or distribution perpetuates the crime.
      Oh please. The same has been said about (regular) porn being a cause of rape. Also, it's not exactly *allowing* its distribution, it's more a case of accepting that the alternative (restricted privacy/anonymity/free speech) might be worse in the long run.

      Apples and Oranges. Adult porn involves people engaged in whatever... that they consent to and agree to be filmed doing. Child porn is always a violation of rights of the child. No consent. The only way to make kiddie porn with real people is criminal. Making a really raunchy adult porn film is simply not. Regardless, there's no reason I can't have the expectation of privacy... unless I have committed a crime and the govt is looking for the criminal.

      So by your own logic, if I make a movie about growing cannabis, that should be illegal?
      No. Look up what the word conspire means. If you write a business plan about starting a pot distribution organization and you have the intent to execute the plan, you've committed conspiracy. Writing a speculative book on growing cannibis would actually be protected speech.

      --
      -- $G
    29. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      ...(child-porn example given)... identify the criminals, the crime, the victim(s) and the appropriate punishment
      You, for planting that image, (in) my mind, and What I Wouldn't Give to bitch-slap you for doing so. You and the goatse-cx trolls.
    30. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Actually that (ie. child porn in the system) shows that the system is working (No, I'm not a child pornographer). Freenet is supposed to guarantee (or at least increase) people's freedoms. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the people who have the least freedoms will start to use that system the most. Granted, this is not what we want but it is the price we pay for having the system. So for now, there won't be many others using the system but in the long-run society (ie. the whole public) will start using it. You even alluded to it by point out the MP3 file swappers. They might start using the system once they lose their freedoms when using the status quo.

      Typically what I described is how such systems work. For instance, look at black markets which try to trade goods in countries that ban stuff. Say you pick Afghanistan. When things were banned, the black markets moved goods. Initially, the goods were things like pornography (not child porn). But eventually they started trading music, movies, posters, etc.

      Same thing should happen with Freenet. Right now it might be used for unwanted activities. But in the long run, its benefit will be realized in the form of other things (of course, this is assuming that Freenet becomes popular)...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    31. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ouch. I bet they were fat and ugly though. Note that I picked Dutch 16 year old guys for a reason. There is absolutely nothing illegal about their side of the deal, but Texas has anti-sodomy laws and an AOC of 18. Is it legal and/or moral to send those images to a 16 year old in Texas?

      Heck, we could probably find some country where it's legal for a 14 year old to hump a donkey. How does that effect the morality of distributing images of that act outside of that jurisdiction?

      OK, what about images of consensual over 18 man on woman sex, filmed in Texas and send to Iran?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    32. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears to be legal to send $100 billion worth of explosives to their neighbour, so I don't think your sex tape is going to cause trouble.

    33. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck is it possible to moderate an unmoderated post overrated? TWICE?

    34. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by Arandir · · Score: 1

      Just what is your definition of free speech, by the way? I've exercised my right of free speech my entire life without once having to skim file lists of child porn.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    35. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      to whom should I address the package?

    36. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by BJH · · Score: 1

      OK, it's like this: If you provide a way for people to anonymously express their opinions (which includes things that may not necessarily be favorably viewed by the authorities), it will be very difficult to stop those who wish to abuse that system from distributing material that is (to you) unacceptable.

  13. right-wing whiner strategy? by rokzy · · Score: 2, Funny

    1. find a troll
    2. label them "lefty"
    3. ask them for more info
    4. assume they won't give it
    5. declare victory for the "right"
    6. ??? (probably some form of persecution)
    7. profit

    1. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Associating persecution with the right is one of the most ignorant things I've heard in a long time. I'd like to point out that the largest mass murder, in terms of people slaughtered, of the 20th century wasn't under Hitler or Stalin. As a matter of fact, it's still going on now, supported by the courts in the country it's happening in, and supported by worldwide organizations such as the UN. This is abortion in the United States. And it's something that a large majority of liberals support, even as the right tries to fight abortion. It's ironic how liberals can talk about persecution when these very liberals not only permit, but actively support, the largest mass murder of the last century.

      It's wonderful how most liberals like to throw around phrases like "human rights," but only when it's convenient to them. What about the human rights of millions of Iraqis under Saddam Hussein? And when about the human rights of unborn children?

      Since you already made an ignorant comment, I dare you to respond and defend the positions of the left.

    2. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my opinion, if it is not distinguishable from a chicken fetus, it counts as breakfast, not human. Anti-choice fetishists like yourself scare everyone with photos of partial birth abortions (which are already illegal everywhere), when most people would:
      1. Use a morning after pill, if lobbying from fucknut xtians hadn't made the FDA keep it from market indefinitely.
      2. Have an abortion in the first trimester, when the so-called "precious infant" looks exactly like the embryo of practically any other warm-blooded animal.
      And by the way, the reason right-wingers are associated with persecution is that they are still using the same McCarthyist tactics they did in the fifties. I encourage them to keep doing so, because the people such tactics work on are growing old and will eventually die.

    3. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you have figures, or just appeals to emotional imagery?

      abortion is not wrong.

      It's wonderful how you throw around phrases like "unborn children". a couple of cells is no more a child than an aspirin factory is biological weapons plant.

    4. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Most groups have extreme members. I am pro-life. This means I don't defend the actions of those who murder abortion doctors. That's wrong as well. I also oppose euthanasia of people. And even the death penalty, when administered inconsistently like in America, is not acceptable. I'm pro-life across the board. There is no hypocrisy here. Never judge a group based on its most extreme members. I guarantee you, a huge majority (probably over 99.9%) of pro-life people would never think of committing such a crime.

      You may have the right to control your own body, but not when it's at the expense of another life. That's not women's rights, that's murder.

      I also like how liberals like to accuse conservatives of refusing to accept science. The more science learns about the fetus, the more it agrees with the pro-life view that it's a human from the moment of conception on. Look up the latest research on pre-natal development. The very thing liberals accuse the conservatives of is key to their being able to justify abortion.

      Oh, and the profanity doesn't make you look mature, either. It just makes you look like an immature extremist. Next time, try calmly and clearly stating your views and they might be taken more seriously.

    5. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you already made an ignorant comment, I dare you to respond and defend the positions of the left.

      Why bother? You've already made up your mind and you have no intention of changing it; you just want a fight. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Whatever.

    6. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you refuse to defend your views with reasonable arguments, then you imply that they are indefensible. Defend them, and I'll listen. I'll read over what you have to say. It doesn't mean I'll agree with your views after that, but I'll certainly read what you have to say and perhaps try to further justify my views if I still feel the way I do.

      But instead of merely dismissing what I say, justify your views as I have tried to do throughout this thread.

    7. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, I did a lot of appeals to emotional imagery, especially with the references to Stalin and to the Holocaust. I can find numbers that will say that more children have been aborted than people were murdered under Stalin's or Hitler's regimes.

      So anyway, to be honest, science just doesn't really understand pre-natal development. But the more it does discover, the more the view of unbiased scientists moves closer to those who hold pro-life views that it's a human life from the moment of conception.

      If science doesn't know, then it's quite possible that the views of the pro-life side of the abortion argument could be correct. And given this, what if ten years from now, science decides it agrees pretty much with the pro-life views? How many people will have died out of acting on ignorant views? Note, I'm not calling you ignorant, I'm saying we're all ignorant because science simply doesn't understand what goes on.

    8. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One more thing I feel I need to say. When I say we don't know what happens so we should play it safe, this is the same argument that's used in a lot of other widely accepted viewpoints. For example, we haven't studied the climate long enough and we just don't have accurate enough records to prove that there really is excessive global warming and it's not part of a natural cycle. And yet environmentalists successfully argue we ought to play it safe. Their argument makes good sense. And both the environment and issues that involve human life (abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, etc.) are very important. I hope that better explains what I said.

    9. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that implies I don't wish to argue with you because it is both pointless and a waste of both of our times. The very fact that you choose to read something into my refusal to argue with you proves my initial point; you have already made up your mind and simply want a fight. You won't get one from me, I do not intend to justify myself or my views for anyone, yourself included.

    10. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a way it does, but the only way to come to a sensible conclusion on important and controversial issues such as abortion is to have open and honest discussions without the name-calling and hatred. I'm sure you have legitimate views, but you can't expect others to accept these fiews if you refuse to defend them in the face of other reasonable arguments.

      You're right, I wasn't correct in saying it makes your views indefensible in that you won't defend them. But there really is something to be gained from justifying them.

      Judging by your initial post, however, it makes me wonder if you're not as hardened in your views as you say I am in mine. Think about it.

    11. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over 40 million abortions have occurred in the United States since it was legalized in a Supreme Court decision. I have a link to that here if you doubt the number.

      I agree, we ought to educate about sex. Portray it for what it really is, and its importance, instead of what you see on TV. Some people will argue what you see on TV doesn't influence you, but I can't help but think how sex is portrayed there affects the attitudes of our youth about it.

      Bashing religion doesn't solve anything, though. And nobody is justifying blowing up abortion clinics or murdering the doctors who perform abortions.

    12. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pictures of partial birth abortions and clinic horror stories are common propaganda for anti-choicers to scare people with.

      It is about Christianity. A quick google for abortion wrong shows that most of the links are to Christian sites. If it's not about Christianity, then it's certainly about religion. I don't dislike lobbyists, but I do dislike the system that encourages politicians to pay more attention to special interests, as opposed to voters, of which lobbyists are a symptom.

      Every human being hatched from an egg. It proves nothing, because nothing can be empirically proven if you are willing to question your senses, but it does make you look a little hypocritical if you've ever eaten scrambled eggs. I didn't that a human embryo was a chicken embryo, I said that it was indistinguishable from one, which means that it does not feel any more or less torment than any other embryo does when "murdered". Unless of course, it had a soul . But of course, this isn't about religion.

    13. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hatched, as in the sense that the mother sits on the egg and then the baby cracks the egg open, I mean. Since you say it's about religion, what if it does have a soul?

    14. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many animals hatch from eggs while evading your narrow, self-serving definition of the word. The point is, when human embryos are terminated, they are indistinguishable from the embryos of any other mammal.
      what if it does have a soul? What if it has a giant man eating demon attached to it via a fourth-dimensional umbilicus, and said demon devours us for daring to attempting to abort its host? I'll risk it. Go find me a specimen of a soul, and I'll take this a little more seriously.

    15. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Condoms break, dude.

      Proper precautions should imply a lot more than 'condoms'. What about condoms plus the Pill, or condoms plus a coil?

      Ideas like 'taking the morning-after pill is murder', or that it would be preferable, as compared to that option, to 'put the child up for adoption', is the sort of thinking that in other domains would make you elegible for a free tin-foil hat.

      At the risk of sounding like flamebait, if the US would get a little better educated - and a little less reactionary - about contraceptives and their availability... and would cease to make these ridiculous noises about emergency (morning-after) contraception being somehow eeeevil... well... suffice it to say that women, at least, would be better off.

      Jeez.

    16. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by JWRose · · Score: 1

      The thing that most pro-lifers don't seem to understand is that being pro-choice does not necessarily mean pro-abortion. Just like, as you say, 99.9% of pro-lifers would not kill abortion doctors, most pro-choicers would not choose to have an abortion.

      --

      blah blah blah....
    17. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Shaklee39 · · Score: 1

      Yeah good point except it isn't true. Pro-life means you are AGAINST abortion in any way, not just for your own baby. Pro-choice means you can be FOR OR AGAINST abortion but it is your right to choose what is best for you.

    18. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      I heard that aspirin factory bombing was ordered by Bill Clinton when he tried to take out Bin Laden.

    19. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear you give money to terrorists. Towelheaded freak.

  14. anyone who makes a point with the format... by rokzy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..."we need to accept [bad thing] to have [good thing]" strikes me as being very small minded.

    it may be more difficult, expensive, take longer etc., but a better solution will usually exist.

    and when it comes to things such as free speech and child porn, I for one hope politicians do not opt for the "quick'n'easy" option.

    1. Re:anyone who makes a point with the format... by SMOC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The quick'n'easy option being what, making freenet and anonymity illegal?

      --
      All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    2. Re:anyone who makes a point with the format... by SMOC · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that we need to accept terrible difficulty and enormous expenses to have a better solution? Sorry, there's no regular expression for determining the validity of a statement.

      --
      All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    3. Re:anyone who makes a point with the format... by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1
      It's not quick-n-easy from our point of view, because we realize how technically difficult it would be, how oppressive it would be, and how futile it would be. But to a legislator, it is indeed just as quick-n-easy as anything else they do; just pass a law making anonymous communication, or even all forms of P2P, illegal, and let whichever organization cares sue/arrest people.

      Interestingly, since it could be argued in court that all internet communication is anonymous and P2P on some levels, this would be paramount to making everything illegal and selectively enforcing it. But does anybody influential care?

  15. I thought democracy was about having more votes? by CheeseEatingBulldog · · Score: 1

    The major thing that I don't get about the states is your voting system..it should be one man one vote, and the person with the most votes wins...
    There you go, full proof system for an election..none of these recount a state and use those results crap.

    And I think security and privacy have to be questioned.. When does security and Privacy turn a democracy into a police state?

    --

    It's always funny until someone gets hurt. Then it's just hilarious. -B.Hicks-
  16. EURO DMCA reloaded by Elektroschock · · Score: 4, Informative
    Not only the US became mad. In would also like to remind you of the EU IPR enforcement directive that will be discussed as early as sept 11 in the europarl JURI committee.

    http://www.ipjustice.org/081103codepress.shtml

    "If this proposal becomes a reality, major companies from abroad can use 'intellectual property' regulations to gain control over the lives of ordinary European citizens and threaten digital freedoms", said Andy Muller-Maguhn.

    http://www.ipjustice.org/ipenforcewhitepaper.shtml

    ---
    :-) Please also look at the evidence of anti-conspiracy conspiracy theory:
    discussion: sept 11 (WTC 2001)
    issued by EUC at January 30 2003(Hitler's takeover of power 1933)

  17. Godwin's Law by hey · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Godwin's Law is mentioned. So I looked it up:
    Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
    Pretty funny. hey's law is that everybody wants to have their own law.
    1. Re:Godwin's Law by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny
      Pretty funny. hey's law is that everybody wants to have their own law.

      Gotta have your own law dontcha? what a Nazi.

    2. Re:Godwin's Law by sbryant · · Score: 1

      However there is also a widely recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

      Of course. Washing your car to make it rain doesn't work.

      -- Steve

    3. Re:Godwin's Law by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      It's may have been intended as a humourous stab at a law, but it's become a cliche which people use to limit discourse. Invoking Godwin is nowadays no better than invoking Nazis.

    4. Re:Godwin's Law by Eol1 · · Score: 1

      This law really needs to be modified to include child pornography.

      As an internet discussion about censorship goes longer, the probability of a statement about how the subject or its inverse protects pedophiles and child pornograph approaches one.

      --
      De Oppresso Liber
    5. Re:Godwin's Law by MacJedi · · Score: 1
      Voila! Eol1's law!

      /joeyo

      --
      2^5
    6. Re:Godwin's Law by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      What if Godwin's Law applied to politics? From this point on, no politician is allowed to make the cause of war (or some other unwarranted intrussion) using Hitler or Nazi metaphors.

  18. ummm... by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ian's comment strikes me as a huge breach of godwin's law

    yes, the patriot act sucks, but we're not putting jews in ovens or rolling panzer tanks into canada or holding mass book burnings

    hyperbole and hysteria are interesting phenomena, look into the issue if you find yourself with a feeling of vertigo

    relax people, there is a LOT wrong with the current state of US politics and government (i personally view the influence of corporate money as a larger issue) but our adherence and commitment to the basic principles this country was founded upon is strong and well in the hearts of the majority of americans

    there is no illuminati folks, there is no man behind the curtain, no one is going to wave their hands and *poof* 250 years of american fundamentals are going to disappear overnight because we got scared on september 11th

    and if you don't believe me, blink, and in 2004 or 2008 gw bush will be gone

    some 1000 year reich that is

    and the last time i checked, the eu isn't exactly a hot bed of personal freedom, capice?

    hyperbole

    hysteria

    please by all means, do not stop fighting the patriot act, but PLEASE don't believe the hype, i am getting kind of sick of the everyone crying wolf- know what i mean?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:ummm... by TomV · · Score: 1


      yes, the patriot act sucks, but we're not putting jews in ovens or rolling panzer tanks into canada or holding mass book burnings

      Arabs to Guantanamo, whose army is it in Iraq and Afghanistan just now, and do you fancy giving an academic presentation about deCSS on US soil?
      </advocate>

      TomV

    2. Re:ummm... by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i hardly see how any of these things are even remotely on the same scale, by orders of magnitude, of the atrocities of the third reich

      yes, deCSS sucks, but you have to have some perspective of what how this particular little dank evil compares to the kind of horrid evils the nazis did

      know what i mean?

      you're drowning in hyperbole

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      yes, the patriot act sucks, but we're not putting jews in ovens or rolling panzer tanks into canada or holding mass book burnings
      I see, would you prefer to wait until we are before raising the alarm - because by then it will be too late.

      You know I bet there was someone in early 1930s Germany saying something very similar to what you just said, "hey, Hitlers bad, but he ain't no Stalin!"

    4. Re:ummm... by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      good lord

      you are the spitting image of hyperbole

      how about crying wolf? do you see any danger in that? screaming about imminent doom when there is none? so that when doom really is imminent, people stop listening to you because you're a tad hysterical all the time?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    5. Re:ummm... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      yes, the patriot act sucks, but we're not putting jews in ovens or rolling panzer tanks into canada or holding mass book burnings
      Well, you are sure running panzer into Irak, and the DMCA is sure like a lot book burning...
    6. Re:ummm... by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      no, you are dead wrong

      iraq is no poland, the differences are very fundamentally different

      if you don't see that, you are drowning in propaganda, not hyperbole

      dmca is a travesty, but it's not book burning, by many orders of magnitude it is less evil, even though it is still evil

      so with the dmca, there's the hyperbole you suffer from ;-)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      yes, the patriot act sucks, but we're not putting jews in ovens
      No, but you are constructing execution chambers at your concentration camp in Cuba
      or rolling panzer tanks into canada
      No, you are rolling them into Iraq instead
      or holding mass book burnings
      With the DMCA, and the police getting access to your reading habits - we don't need to burn books since we can just skip a step and arrest those that read the wrong ones
      but our adherence and commitment to the basic principles this country was founded upon is strong and well in the hearts of the majority of americans
      Ah yes, because Americans of 2003 are so much smarter than the Germans of 1930 - wake up!
      and the last time i checked, the eu isn't exactly a hot bed of personal freedom, capice?
      How many people have been executed in the EU this year?
    8. Re:ummm... by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      stop

      take a deep breath

      hyperbole

      propaganda

      you are drowning in it

      a false sense of security is dangerous

      but so is a false sense of alarmism

      i submit my sense of perspective and ability to gauge the proper order of magnitude of threats to basic freedoms is closer than reality to yours

      iraq is not poland

      dmca is not book burning

      executions of convicted murderers is not genocide

      if you can't see these things you are absolutely drowning in hyperbole and propaganda and you have successfully innoculated yourself from reality

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    9. Re:ummm... by SMOC · · Score: 1

      Nazis didn't start by actually gassing dissidents and whatnot by the millions. They started by slowly removing the rights and freedom of them. If you notice something like that starting in your own society, it doesn't mean it has to escalate to what the Nazis did, but it would be a good idea to keep an eye on it anyway.

      It can get a lot worse without being comparable to Auschwitz, or even the kristallnacht, but that doesn't mean it's ok.

      --
      All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    10. Re:ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      iraq is not poland
      Gee - you don't say - so what? Is an Iraqi child killed by an American bomb any less dead than a Polish child killed by a German tank?
      executions of convicted murderers is not genocide
      How many of those executed by the US in Cuba will be convicted by the US justice system? Not one - because the whole point of the Cuban concentration camp is to side-step the justice system, which is exactly the original purpose of the concentration camps in Germany.
    11. Re:ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No book burnings? You haven't been to the midwest have you?

      Every few weeks some preacher somewhere goes off on a tangent about how harry potter is a tool of satan, or that the NIV version of the christian bible is wrong. blah blah blah. I've seen book burnings, they exist in you're country.

      I've seen discrimination, i've seen people been run out of communities. Don't pretend your nation is the centre of all that is good in the world, your nation is just as fucked up as any other one.

    12. Re:ummm... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm not at all sure that the DMCA less evil, but I don't think you can really link it to Bush. I'm sure he would have been for it, but as I recall he was involved in state politics at the time.

      You can, of course, link it to the Republican party, and to various commercial interests. But please note that the Democrats didn't mount any significant opposition. And they could have. They could have stopped it cold. But they didn't.

      The Republicans may be more actively evil, but the Democrats don't oppose them. Not on the grounds that what they are doing is evil, anyway, but only on the ground of political expediance. That's not something that I could call good. Not with the best will in the world. That's just not wanting to be blamed. And it doesn't work. I blame them anyway. What difference does it make if an indifferent party is in control? It won't stop evil from being done. It won't even try. It's indifferent. And so the DMCA was passed.

      This isn't pre-war Germany. The Republicans have a much larger following, e.g., so they use different tactics. But the strategies appear quite similar. And as long as the Democrats remain indifferent, the Republicans can even afford to trade off the top office now and again. The Democrats will never undo the evil they have wrought. I don't really believe that they *need* to fix the voting machines, but they've certainly made sure that nobody can stop them.

      I suppose I'll continue to vote, but I doubt I'll ever again believe the results.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:ummm... by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i said none of those things

      america has plenty of problems

      you seemed to have developed an ability to think the subject matter at hand can be changed at will by yourself without any notice to the people you are talking to

      because what you are talking about bears no resemblance to what i was talking about

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    14. Re:ummm... by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      There were no Illuminati folks in the Nazi heirarchy either, and the US has attacked and now militarily controls two nations. Ovens came later, and aren't likely to follow here, but camps came first. Guantanamo has been tendered to Haliburton to be rebuilt as a permanent camp, the centerpiece a dedicated interrogation facility. Both nations vilified the 'other' or outsider, both began by severely delimiting personal rights in freedoms in the name of nation security. If none of this draws uncomfortable parrallels I reccommend reading more history.

    15. Re:ummm... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      More to the point, there have been federally sactioned book burnings. They may have been technically illegal, but the direct application of force to destroy all copies can be quite effective. And it's essentially impossible for an author or the owner of a small press to effectively protest. He won't be heard.

      And I'm not talking about anything recent. I haven't heard about that, so I don't know whether it has happend or not. But I wouldn't, which is the entire point. When the feds seized the works of Wilhelm Reich, and burned them, many of his works were destroyed, all copies, so to this day nobody knows what they contained. (We have some of his earlier works. They seem .. unusual and a bit cranky, but not reasonable grounds for destruction.) There was no legal grounds for the action, but nobody was ever prosecuted for the vandalism. The author was, if I recall correctly, jailed for something or other. Perhaps violation of the FDA rules on medical devices. And, if I further recall correctly, he died in prison. For saying things that people in power disapproved of.

      This didn't require the vast extension of state power that has happened recently. The right to free speech has always been dependant on either nobody being against your saying things, or having a powerful supporting group. The laws are one thing, and government and community actions are another. Sometimes the two agree. But only if you have power can you force them to agree.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    16. Re:ummm... by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      how many reasons do you want between how different nazi germany is from the present day situation we find ourselves do you want from me?

      i have a feeling that we could play tit for tat compare and contrast ad nauseum, and neither of us would budge

      because the details aren't important, the psychology is

      you seem to live in a world that does not resemble reality

      in the twilight world you live in, everything the us does is evil, and the us never does anything good in the world, and the solution to all of the problems in the world involves the us butting out of everything

      what a nice, simplistic one dimensional world you live

      too bad it isn't reality

      get back to us when you develop a moral sense of right and wrong which rises above a teenager's simplistic morality and empty righteous indignation

      get back to us when you develop a complex understanding of the world, and stop drowning in your simple, knee-jerk, childish propaganda

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    17. Re:ummm... by TomV · · Score: 1

      My german jewish grandparents didn't leave at the height of the atrocity - they wouldn't have been able to - they left for London in 1938 when my Dad was a year old. My polish jewish grandparents didn't leave Poland until shortly before the invasion.

      I do have some concept of what Nazi Germany was about ( I just have to look at all the people who *have* cousins and aunts and uncles and who won't take their family's name to the grave with them to see the impact). And I'm also horribly aware that, historically, fascists, be they Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Hitler, whoever, don't get into power because they look like lunatics, they get into power becasue at the time, they look, on first sight, like the *only* sane, reasonable people in a mad, unreasonable world.

      Guantanamo seems reasonable, because of the 'extraordinary dangers' we face. Invading Iraq apparently seemed 'reasonable' in view of the 'extraordinary' (or as MI6 seem to be saying at the Hutton inquiry, overstated and emotionalised) dangers posed by Saddam. DMCA seemed 'reasonable' because of the 'extraordinary' threat posed to the content industries by technological advances.

      They came for the Muslims and I did nothing because I was not a Muslim.
      They came for the Baathists and I did nothing becasue I was not a Baathist.
      They came for the cryptologists and I did nothing becasue I was not a cryptologist.
      Looks like I'm in pretty big trouble eventually...

      TomV

    18. Re:ummm... by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i really don't understand the paranoid world you live in

      i submit to you for rumination that the false sense of security you see in me bothers me as much as the false sense of alarmism i see in you

      i really, honestly believe i am more in touch with reality than you are

      hyperbole, you're drowning in it

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    19. Re:ummm... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      There is something you don't understand. It seems that you are concentrating on the end-results only. The worst thing the Nazis did were early on. There were not lethal or brutal by any means. Yet they hurt their victims the most.

      For instance, when the Nazis stripped people of their property (mostly Jews but also other "undesirable" people) or when they started profiling Jews, that was basically the most important step. Once they put the Jews into concentration camps, it was basically all over. It is next to imposibble to back out of that. If all people just waited until genocide was being carried out, it wouldn't work (this is actually what has happend in the past years). If you want to stop something like from happening, you need to do it right at thebeginning: when the Jews were stripped of property, forced to wear markers, and sent to concentration camp... if you waited until the Jews were being eliminated, well, good luck trying to get anything done...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    20. Re:ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i really, honestly believe i am more in touch with reality than you are
      Doesn't everybody?

    21. Re:ummm... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      BTW, I agree with you that the present US regime is not comparable to a Nazi regime. In fact, it isn't even fascist yet. I think USA will be basically become an imperialist rogue state (it already is practicing imperialism). So in that sense, USA will be more like Imperial Japan during WWII than Nazi Germany.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    22. Re:ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if it doesn't fit, you must acquit

    23. Re:ummm... by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      so all of the good done in the world from getting rid of a REAL imperialist regime (hint: iraq) means nothing to you?

      and when the us hands over power to un/ iraqis this will mean exactly what in your grand us-as-imperialist-power understanding of the world?

      you're drowning in hyperbole

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    24. Re:ummm... by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      yes but my reality can be rationalized

      the reality of the people i am butting heads with requires a level of paranoia and hyperbole to become understandable

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    25. Re:ummm... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Iraq isn't imperialistic. Why do you say it is?

      I don't really know what USA is going to do with Iraq. The Neo-cons botched Iraq, which is surprising since they can usually cook up some excuses for all their activities (their only hope right now is to start another war, or hope that terrorists strike). My feeling is that USA won't withdraw from Iraq. Even with the UN proposal, don't forget that USA still remains in control. I personally don't think the UN should get involved. USA started it and they should finish it. Besides if USA stays in control it won't work. Whoever that is going to send troops is only going to do it for one reason: oil. Most countries care about Iraq as much as they care about Greenland, which is to say not much. Oil will be their only reason and if USA remains in control, they won't get that.

      So I don't really see USA handing over power. Well, they really can't (even if they wanted to). First of all, USA needs to recoup its costs (I think they already spent over $70b and they likely want a piece of the oil revenues). Second, they will lose face if they retreat. Third, it will not look good for USA's close friends, especially Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait.

      Since USA won't withdraw, your point about USA as a non-imperial power isn't true...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    26. Re:ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can, of course, link it to the Republican party, and to various commercial interests. But please note that the Democrats didn't mount any significant opposition. And they could have. They could have stopped it cold. But they didn't."

      The biggest and highest paid whores for this shit have been democrats with huge leftist credentials. Howard Berman and Charles Conners both democrats come to mind. Democratrs are the water carriers for the MPAA and RIAA.

      You need to quit getting all your news from the internet. It's largely one sided and mostly wrong.

  19. Corporate control by Ryvar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As to why, the truth - and I say this is as an American - is because we're fat (statistically speaking we are becoming grossly obese), greedy (statistically the hardest workers the world while in a nation with one of the highest incomes - yes I know about Luxembourg) swine (check out our popular media sometime) so drunk on our own stupid swill (see that popular media again, or how about Britney's absolutely perfect perfect quote below her picture) that we no longer care (elections typically drawing in 30-40% of voters).

    It isn't as if any other humans would do any better though, so foreigners shouldn't think themselves superior - we're all born with pleasure centers, and predictable outcomes to them, and this results in addictions, etc. It isn't our fault as Americans because humans are penultimately mere deterministic ongoing molecular processes, or parsed down to English - we're all just ongoing (complicated) chemical reactions. Chemical reactions don't have faults - they just execute like computer programs. Yes Mr. Smarty-pants in the front row, I just denied the existence of free will.

    So 'how could we allow this to happen'? I'll describe the process, if you wish. The corporations, macro-human entities that exist only to acquire resource regardless of all other matters, catered to us in exchange for resource. They catered so well we stopped caring. Now that we've stopped caring the corporations have learned that they can modify the rules of the environment they exist in - that is, change the government in their favor - and they have so that the environment now allows them to gather yet MORE resource free of traditional limitations.

    As for rights being stripped away (the Patriot Act - and yes, they actively are being stripped away, ask a certain former employee of Intel or webmaster of raisethefist.org) the framers of the Constitution, being good legal engineers, built a defense in depth to prevent the system from completely running out of control. Over a long enough timeline, the probability of just about anything approaches one, including multiple simultaneous failures. 9/11 was but one breach. Another was an attorney general (who lost his senatorial race to a corpse, technically) with little understanding (or at least concern if he did understand) of the Constitution. Another element was a conservative administration headed by the members of the thinktank Project for a New American Century, who back in the Clinton administration openly advocated the US taking down Iraq to use as a base from which to topple many various Middle Eastern nations in succession like so many dominos. That there would be collusion between their oil-centric corporate interests here, as well, is simply gravy on top for them. You might have heard of some of the members of PNAC - they include Dick Cheney our Vice President, Donald Rumsfeld our Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz his righthand man, formerly Richard Perle, his much nastier lefthand man, Steve Forbes, Jeb Bush - the list goes on. I encourage you to at least read that last link so as to ascertain that I am certainly not a conspiracy theorist of any kind.

    There's your why and how. Shouldn't this be changed? Yes if you choose to believe in the sanctity of individuals, which as a strict Cartesian I do. Will it? I doubt it. I encourage you to vote for Howard Dean, as he's a step in the not-wrong direction regardless of your view of things like gun-control/abortion/gay marriage/healthcare.

    Any other questions? It's 3AM here in the west coast of the US and I'd like to go to bed.

    1. Re:Corporate control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      statistically the hardest workers the world while in a nation with one of the highest incomes

      Hardest workers in the western world maybe, while profiting from 3rd world workers working twice as hard for almost nothing.

    2. Re:Corporate control by doodleboy · · Score: 1
      Yes if you choose to believe in the sanctity of individuals, which as a strict Cartesian I do.
      Having read pretty much all of Descartes' philosophical work, I still don't understand what you could possibly mean. His big idea was Dualism (e.g. separation of Mind and Body), which was compelling at the time because it accounted for the growing body of scientific truth while preserving the world of ideas for God.

      But then science won that battle, and there's no longer any need for Dualism or any of its unpleasant implications. For example, as a strict Cartesian you would have to believe that your body is a mere machine and only loosely coupled to your mind. Is *your* body just a machine? It's even worse for animals - they don't have rational thought so they're nothing more than automatons? Is your dog a robot?

      That's just a start. Let's just say that strict Cartesians would have to hold a lot of positions that would not be popular among sane people today.
    3. Re:Corporate control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It isn't as if any other humans would do any better though, so foreigners shouldn't think themselves superior"
      No, I would never think any people being better than the other. However, US history plays a big part in the way the country was formed, I've got the feeling that freedom in the sense it's seen in Amerika is different than true freedom. Amerika's philosophy is that the government should not empose too many rules on the people, it should not have much power in the country. I do not understand this, it's like the people hating the government and thus the government getting support from the commercial area instead. The people just don't seem to care enough making it easy for the gov. to just do their (and the corporation's) own will.

      Doesn't Amerika just need some more political parties to choose from? And shouldn't all parties recieve the same amount of money for their campaigns during election times? I mean, lots of US people don't vote because they think both parties are all the same. While they could vote other parties than just either Rep. or Dem.

      "I encourage you to at least read that last link so as to ascertain that I am certainly not a conspiracy theorist of any kind."

      Yah, I've read that article before. It's worrying. But it's even more worrying that the general public does not seem to care much about it. Just as the close connections of politicians with the Carlyle Group (a huge defense contractor).

      In a true democracy, the people stand up against this sort of nonsense.

    4. Re:Corporate control by tcoady · · Score: 2, Informative

      Background here:
      http://www.monthlyreview.org/0503rupe.htm
      and some other stuff here
      http://www.dracos.co.uk/terrorism/

    5. Re:Corporate control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In a true democracy, the people stand up against this sort of nonsense."

      Ug, was going to respond, but then I realized you're just trolling...

    6. Re:Corporate control by ratamacue · · Score: 1
      As to why, the truth - and I say this is as an American - is because we're fat (statistically speaking we are becoming grossly obese), greedy (statistically the hardest workers the world while in a nation with one of the highest incomes - yes I know about Luxembourg) swine (check out our popular media sometime) so drunk on our own stupid swill (see that popular media again, or how about Britney's absolutely perfect perfect [cnn.com] quote below her picture) that we no longer care (elections typically drawing in 30-40% of voters).

      The people have nothing to do with it, and frankly, I'm getting sick of hearing this excuse. The simple fact is that government has a natural tendency to expand its powers over time. The fact that the people are involved in the voting process does not, in any way, change the fact that government is rooted in force, and that government requires an inequality of power in order to function. It is that inequality of power (the notion of some people holding more "legal" power than others) which allows government to oppress, waste, and generally cause destruction -- not a lack of interest in government from the people!

      The solution is to impose strict limits on the scope of government, and perhaps more importantly, to de-centralize power. Logically, the smaller the government, the less destruction they are capable of. The root of the issue is that power WILL be abused. Why? Because positions of power don't attract those who want to live in peace and mind their own business. Positions of power attract those who wish to control others through force. History has proven it time and time again -- there is no such thing as a government which doesn't abuse its power, and there never will be.

      As for the coporations, they are only playing the hand they've been dealt by government. More to the point, the corporations may be driving the car, but government handed them the keys. The root of the problem, again, is government -- in particular, the overly complex, ambiguous, highly exploitable system of law they have imposed. Corporate crime is only a symptom. We need to address the actual virus: big government.

    7. Re:Corporate control by bigdisk · · Score: 1

      "It isn't as if any other humans would do any better though, so foreigners shouldn't think themselves superior - we're all born with pleasure centers, and predictable outcomes to them, and this results in addictions, etc"

      I thought that was one of the most insightful and truthful comments I've seen in a while. Europeans and others like to rant about the US 24x7, but the reality is they are just as screwed up, and perhaps more so because they spend all their time obsessing about the US instead of trying to fix their own problems.

    8. Re:Corporate control by BoyHowdyAAF · · Score: 1

      As for rights being stripped away (the Patriot Act - and yes, they actively are being stripped away, ask a certain former employee of Intel

      Are you talking about Ken Hamidi? Because he won his appeal, you know (http://www.intelhamidi.com/victory.htm).

    9. Re:Corporate control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, like you haven't bought clothes or anything else from the 3rd world, and no one in your country owns stuck in such corporations, etc.

      Hypocrite.

    10. Re:Corporate control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, sorry if you think I was trolling, that was not my intention. I really think this world currently does not hold a democracy as it should and could be.

    11. Re:Corporate control by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I thought that was one of the most insightful and truthful comments I've seen in a while. Europeans and others like to rant about the US 24x7, but the reality is they are just as screwed up, and perhaps more so because they spend all their time obsessing about the US instead of trying to fix their own problems.

      I'm not a European but even I can say that Europe is NOWHERE near what USA is. Europe doesn't invade other countries, start wars, etc--at least at the same rate as USA. Europe also has better social structure. They pay higher taxes but their environmental protections are better, they work less (more holidays), less crime (at least the violent type), lower homelessness, etc.

      How many Europeans go "insane" and start shooting their former employers/employees? How many Europeans are actually scared to walk into "certain parts" of their town? Even things like drug addiction (illegal kind, although one may consider the legal kind as addiction too) are worse in USA (although I haven't checked the figures lately)...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    12. Re:Corporate control by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The solution is to impose strict limits on the scope of government. Logically, the smaller the government, the less destruction they are capable of.
      Ah, but don't forget the lessons of 1917 Russia, 1924 Italy, 1933 Germany, and 1799 France. They all had weak governments which, in the blink of an eye, found themselves unable to deal with an upstart group of power-hungry individuals who went on to cause tremendous amounts of damage. You don't want your government to have so much power that it forgets its job, true, but you do want it to have enough power to do its job in the first place.

      The root of the issue is that power WILL be abused.
      Only by those who think they can get away with it. Let's face it, power is too tempting, and indeed, too useful to be left alone. Unaccountable power, now there's the ticket to madness and mayhem. A big corporation that has the ear of the President has tremendous power and yet cannot be held accountable for any actions taken on their advice. Small wonder we find ourselves in a 'war of liberation and self-defense' whose origins are suspiciously financial in nature.

      We need to address the actual virus: big government.
      Again, a big government is not inherently bad, it simply gives more opportunities to more people to acquire more power which they may abuse with impunity. Human organizations only scale so well, and very quickly reach the level of the 'faceless bureaucrat' who can ruin lives on a whim. Since I can think of no way to get have the former without ending up with the latter, "big government is bad" would be a technically true statement; it's just very important to remember why. So when your government comes along with some law that gives themselves or another group power over the citizenry, don't just reject it out of hand. You never know, it might actually be useful. Instead, grant them power only in return for additional accountability. They want control over you, demand some control over them. This sort of thinking led to the Freedom of Information Act. I think that the disclosure of campaign contribution information will do far more good than attempts to regulate them ever could.

      An excellent example I came across awhile back was regarding the sale of personal information. If, say, a company wants to acquire and use information about you to make money, they should be allowed to do so. On the condition that the CEO and board of directors make the same information about themselves and their families public information, with dire consequences for trying to avoid this quid pro quo. Make them eat their own dogfood.

      I mean, what's the absolute biggest complaint about the Enron fiasco? Poor government and fiscal oversight are definitely lamented, but the biggest is that the guys who looted the company got away with it scott free, Rolo Tomasi style. I'm pissed that they were able to do at all, but far moreso that when it became clear what was going on, the guys running the company weren't being held accountable for running it into the ground.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    13. Re:Corporate control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what you are saying means that history at the matter of government power is a kind of a sinus with very steep down-curves (revolutions). Will this repeat itself in the West? This is kind of an interesting question, I guess.

    14. Re:Corporate control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that was not the point he was making. He just said the initial statement wasn't correct.

  20. Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Surak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No, not for a second. I have a deep conviction that the freedom to communicate is absolutely essential to human progress. This conviction was forged during my youth growing up during quite turbulent times in Ireland, during which I learned that terrorism is not a product of freedom, it is a symptom of the absence of freedom and understanding. Censorship is the enemy of freedom and understanding, and therefore the friend of terrorism.

    Exactly right, man. And it is that absence of freedom that will cause *further* terrorism in the U.S.

    Anyone think this is the *real* reason Ian Clarke is leaving? He's worried about possible terrorist actions taken against the U.S. government by its own citizens?

    1. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      You're saying that he may be *really* leaving because the citizens of the United States will rise up against thier own government? Anyone that thinks that will happen is a fool. There is no chance in hell that a group of citizens composed of more than a handful of wackos would take up arms against the U.S.government.

      First of all, the U.S. government would obliterate said group - in the media. They would instantly become Evil Spawn of Satan Terrorists, lose public support (if they had any) and eventually wither into nothingness. Secondly, while the U.S. is in a strong sense a violent culture overall it can also be a lazy one and one with an extremely short attention span. Third, doing such a thing on a massive scale would mean disruption of services, air-conditioning, Big Macs and Friends. Nope. Will never happen :)

    2. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Bertie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Knowing Ian (and I do, or at least I used to), he's missing being able to get a decent pint more than anything...

      It's funny, you know, reading Slashdot and seeing someone you know's name up in lights. Ian's something of a geek icon these days, yet to me he's just one of the few decent guys in the AI class, who lived across the road in fourth year, and had a slightly questionable taste in leather jackets.

      I can remember bumping into him just outside the shop at Potterrow during exam time in third year, and he was telling me about the thing he was doing for his "large practical", which made up a fair chunk of the course. At the time he seemed more interested in cutting down on the amount of unnecessary transfers of data from servers a long way away by making it available locally, rather than the anonymity aspect of things. Anyway, out of this grew Freenet, and here we are. It's a hell of a sight more than any of the rest of us achieved with our work, I'm sure...

      Edinburgh's a much nicer place to spend your days anyway. That wind in the winter would cut you in two, mind.

    3. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Gorny · · Score: 1

      That's also a very sad thing. The free press in the U.S. I've heared many stories about journalist who dared to ask very confronting questions to spokespeople or politicans themselves. Afterwards they weren't allowed into press conferences (because of their "brutal" actions of previous ones).

      Now that's freedom? In a good society the press also has some sort of a supervisory role. They've gotta be critics on the actions of the government and not take anything for granted (like the patriotism with the Iraqi War).

      I havent heared any critical sound during the "official war period" though there were some statements of Bill Clinton immediately after that. He's still a fellow who gains widely respect and maybe some more people (meda) are going to listen to him and try to be more critical on the foreign US politics.

      --
      Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing"
    4. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Sorry Gorny but you'll have to come to the U.S. and pay attention for a little while before making a statement like yours, and when you do, your statement will be quite different.

      I don't know where you're listening from, but there have been plenty of dissenting statements about our involvement in Iraq. Usually, they're the lead story on the national news broadcasts: Just last night, the lead story on NBC was about how the Pentagon made a mistake by planning 9 months for the war, but only 28 days for post-war. It was quite critical, and interesting.

      Journalists who ask tough questions are not those who are banned from future press opportunities. Those who are banned, are banned for a reason other than asking tough questions: more likely, said journalist was abusive or disruptive. Numerous good reporters have been in DC, at the White House, for many years while asking difficult questions of those in charge. Helen Thomas was one (though she recently retired).

    5. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      The press is treated in such a way because of the attitude of criticism. No politician wants them around if all they are going to do is attack.

      It's not the job of journalists to be political critics. Political informants, yes. They should expose every nook and cranny, every crack and crevice in the political and corporate system but do so with the intent of informing the public rather than swaying opinion. Propaganda is propaganda no matter which way it swings.

      Unfortunately, the press has been, for decades now, more concerned with ratings and public opinion of themselves than they have been with disseminating information to the public. Not that this is entirely the fault of the press as it's the public who rewards the sensationalistic and faux patriotic news with thier "eyeballs". It's just something you have to deal with when journalism is private and considered entertaining as opposed to informational.

      As far as those who spoke up during Gulf War II, Bill Clinton was not one of those people. He essentially, and very politically, softly sided with the Reagen/Bush/Bush administration. Clinton's former Vice-President has spoken out very vocally but, of course, isn't taken seriously as he's seen by the majority of the U.S. public as a loser, a buffoon (ironic) and what's probably the worst trait - a whiner. Personally, I think some of the things he said as the war was approaching and while we were in war was both very critical, dead-on and daring at a time when any dissent was considered near-treason.

      There are others that have spoken out, even a tiny contingent in Congress that have been critical of what's been going on from the beginning. You won't hear those voices, though. It's not good entertainment.

    6. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Pave+Low · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that the few haters that leave the US for the paradise of Canada or France are such big mouths about it.

      It's like they have to make a scene and be a drama queen when they leave like we should actually care about them. The truth is nobody does.

      The handful of uppity whiners who leave will be more than made up by the immigrants who still
      come here to seek a better life and opportunities.

      It's also interesting how the bobos who leave are usually the well-off types, I wonder why the unwashed masses aren't following them out. Maybe it's because this time the common folk know better.

      --
      SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
    7. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No, he's worried about possible terrorist actions taken by the U.S. Government against its citizens.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Bobzibub · · Score: 1

      Ahh, the media are asking tougher questions now. Where where they before the war when it mattered? The answer is that it is easy for them to ask those questions when the war is *obviously* not going as planned. Holding the administration's feet to the fire earlier could have improved policy decisions. The US media has definitely lost the ball on this one.

      As for Helen Thomas, good for her. She is cited as the exception rather than the rule isn't she?

      I think it is rather too cozy in Washington right now. Bush is so out of practice that he has to import Blair to do his speaking for him.

      Cheers,
      -b

    9. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Surak · · Score: 1

      I implied that by extension...

      You often have to take things I say to the next logical step. That's how I think. ;)

    10. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's also interesting how the bobos who leave are usually the well-off types, I wonder why the unwashed masses aren't following them out. Maybe it's because this time the common folk know better.

      It's because leaving is quite expensive. If you aren't well off, you can't afford it. And it's possible, though I don't know for certain, that the reason that you stop hearing about their problems with the US after they leave, is that the US isn't oppressing them any more. Or that they become more interested in where they are living now. Or the place that they are speaking isn't as near to your ears. Or some combination.

      I do agree that there can be other reasons. But any of these conjectures would meet your stated evidence.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    11. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      He's worried about possible terrorist actions taken against the U.S. government by its own citizens?

      What, you mean like the mostly-forgotten oklahoma city bombing? The forgotten and still unsolved anthrax mailings?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    12. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Surak · · Score: 1

      He's worried about possible terrorist actions taken against the U.S. government by its own citizens?

      What, you mean like the mostly-forgotten oklahoma city bombing? The forgotten and still unsolved anthrax mailings?


      Are you so certain those weren't the other way around? They convicted and executed Timothy McVeigh on almost *entirely* circumstancial evidence and a forced confession. Doesn't that seem the LEAST bit odd to you?

    13. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Arandir · · Score: 1

      Alec Baldwin is still here, and he's more well off that everyone on Slashdot put together. Promises promises...

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  21. Re:Rights? What are they? by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 5, Insightful
    (a conservative, not a neocon bush-head asshole...there's a BIG difference)


    This is wrong. The Bush administration is not comprised of conservatives.

    They are statist reactionaries. They want a very powerful state, a huge state in fact, a violent state and one that enforces obedience on the population. There is a kind of quasi-fascist spirit there, in the background, and they have been attempting to undermine civil rights in many ways. That's one of their long term objectives, and they have to do it quickly because in the US there is a strong tradition of protection of civil rights. But the kind of surveillance you are talking about of libraries and so on is a step towards it. They have also claimed the right to place a person - even an American citizen - in detention without charge, without access to lawyers and family, and to hold them there indefinitely, and that in fact has been upheld by the Courts, which is pretty shocking. But they have a new proposal, sometimes called Patriot II, a 80-page document inside the Justice department. Someone leaked it and it reached the press. There have been some outraged articles by law professors about it. This is only planned so far, but they would like to implement as secretly as they can. These plans would permit the Attorney General to remove citizenship from any individual whom the attorney general believes is acting in a way harmful to the US interests. I mean, this is going beyond anything contemplated in any democratic society. One law professor at New York University has written that this administration evidently will attempt to take away any civil rights that it can from citizens and I think its basically correct. That fits in with their reactionary statist policies which have a domestic aspect in the economy and social life but also in political life.
  22. Ian is not consequent enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like me, he should have never entered the US !

  23. leaving the USA by porkface · · Score: 1

    By leaving the USA, couldn't he eventually be branded a terrorist (for attacking US economic interests) and jailed without due process?

    1. Re:leaving the USA by Magic+Thread · · Score: 1

      No. Terrorism is the use of violence to influence politics.

  24. Is this really true? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    I haven't used freenet in a couple years and at the time there wasn't much content but it certainly wasn't just kiddie porn. Can anybody cite legitimate uses of freenet they are engaged in?

    1. Re:Is this really true? by Gorny · · Score: 1

      Completely anonymous communicaton. It's farely easy with Frost (file sharing application for FreeNET) to exchange PKI encrypted messages to other people. Works quite good though. Within 15 minutes some other people received my messages which mostly consited of "test, do you read me? :)" lines :)

      --
      Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing"
  25. Netherlands is a Republic by notaknob · · Score: 1

    The US is a republic, as are most European nations.

    I'm pretty sure that the election process in your country is similar to the USA's. Living in a true democracy as you describe, is only good if you're in the majority.

    Maybe you should ask someone how it was to live in the German Democratic Republic, which was often touted as a true democracy. They had security and privacy until September of 1989.

    1. Re:Netherlands is a Republic by CheeseEatingBulldog · · Score: 1

      Actually, the majority just has the most seats in the house. However other parties can club together to get something one as together they may outseat leading party. You see all parties still have their say in the houses. The seats are distributed according to percentage of the votes they have won, which I find a far more equal and fair way of controlling a country, instead of having two parties slug it out...what happens if they are both crap? You get to choose between crap and crap...not to mention most will vote their way however crap their party is...nah..I'll stick to euro democracy thank you.

      --

      It's always funny until someone gets hurt. Then it's just hilarious. -B.Hicks-
    2. Re:Netherlands is a Republic by SMOC · · Score: 1

      Living in a true democracy as you describe, is only good if you're in the majority.

      How does a system where a MINORITY can elect a president fix that?

      Also, you may or may not know this, but the Netherlands is actually a constitutional monarchy. (Which, of course, is a terrible thing: You can still go to jail here for insulting the Queen.)

      --
      All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    3. Re:Netherlands is a Republic by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Who's your monarch? Is it some dude from Netherlands or someone else? I live in Canada and it is also technically a constitutional monarchy. Sucks... nothing worse than everything takin an oath to the Queen instead of the country or some other entity :(

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    4. Re:Netherlands is a Republic by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Whether it is a republic or a British-style democracy, it makes no difference if you are the monority or not. Under both systems, the majority rules. In USA, you may FEEL that you can vote together as a state, but what's to stop a bunch of states from colluding together against you? In fact, that is what happens all the time in USA. The big states, New York, California, Texas, etc control everything. The other states don't really count. Even if you have the votes, you don't have the power.

      British-style democracy is actually better for minorities. The reason is because it is based on alliances. Typically, the smaller parties can ally with a few others to have some power. This is what happens in most countries (except weird ones ;) like Canada and Britain). In many other countries, you'll notice that the majority in power actually has to pay attention to their opponents. In the US-style system, the minorities have no voice whatsoever. You are literally forced to vote for a big party. This is why everyone votes for Republicans and Democrats. Every wonder why no one votes for the Green Party, Liberatarian Party, etc? You either vote for Democrats or Republicans or else you don't matter (might as well not vote).

      I personally don't like US-style systems. They are very static because you can hoard power. Under British-style systems, they are more dynamic and the opposition can overpower the major power if they do something no one likes (eg. all the minor parties can vote together against some bill that most hate). Of course, this comes with a price. British-style systems are unstable (many governments can have to call elections earlier after the coalition falls apart). In contrast, I can't recall a US govt ever failing and calling an early election. Nevertheless, I prefer a dynamic yet unstable system over a stable yet static system.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    5. Re:Netherlands is a Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Queen Beatrix.

      Someone called her a "Teutoonse teef" in some website's discussion forum, meaning something like "Teutonic bitch", whatever that may be. The guy, a 17-year old, and his father where arrested in the middle of the night, and eventually fined something like $500.

      Another time, the new wife of the heir to the throne, Maxima Zorreguieta, caused a traffic accident (she didn't yield when leaving the driveway of the palace), so they decided that suddenly the traffic rules didn't apply to that particular intersection.

      So no, I'm not too thrilled about the monarchy.

      LEVE DE REPUBLIEK!

    6. Re:Netherlands is a Republic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another time, the new wife of the heir to the throne, Maxima Zorreguieta [wikipedia.org], caused a traffic accident (she didn't yield when leaving the driveway of the palace), so they decided that suddenly the traffic rules didn't apply to that particular intersection.

      Not true. The judge said that she was partly guilty of the accident and had to pay 25% of the victims damages (who was speeding and didn't wear a seatbelt).

  26. Want some of my famous "left-wing fetus chili"? by leftie · · Score: 1

    Well, what's the use of all those fetuses going to waste. Thanks to Dubya we can't use already dead biological matter for something useful like curing illnesses, so there's nothing left to do but make chili. But it's mighty tasty... want some?

  27. When was Freenet scalable? by News+for+nerds · · Score: 1

    >Freenet is a pretty effective and scalable
    >way to distribute large files and it is
    > immune to "denial of service" attacks,
    > so it is certainly useful beyond its
    > primary goal of permitting anonymous
    > information distribution.

    Odd, all I heard are contrary to this comment by Ian. What a spammer.

    Freedom of speech is absolutely good thing, if all those spam and flamebait and troll are gone.

  28. Thus they all go offshore by some1somewhere · · Score: 1
    With more and more brilliant minds (and even not so brilliant minds) going offshore and leaving the US, who is going to be left?

    And on the same note, who is going to host their stuff on-shore? Sure it's cheaper, but with the DMCA and Patriot Act and all this crap, aren't we better off getting offshore web hosting, and leaving NO intellectual property in the US anymore?

    I can see this applying to not just people who are doing "grey area" things but even companies, individuals, and so forth that just don't want "BIG BROTHER" watching over them all the time, patent idiocy, copyright stupidity...... ugh, don't get me started...

    --
    **FREE** Track and view your phone's via CellID and/or WIFI and/or GPS :- http://tinyurl.com/la6fhd
    1. Re:Thus they all go offshore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > With more and more brilliant minds (and even not so brilliant minds) going offshore and leaving the US, who is going to be left?

      Just out of curiosity: who else is leaving?

  29. Re:Rights? What are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as an ameriCan you should know that ameriCa is written with a C and not a K...
    or is misspelling your country of origin a constitutionally protected right :-)

  30. Re:Rights? What are they? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

    Look up some info on granddaddy Prescott Bush. He thought Adolf Hitler was the greatest thing since the time when it was legal to own slaves.

  31. Re:Ian Clarke is a f*cking idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real *problem* I have with this form of protect is the fact that I was raised with the idea that a captain of any vessel has full authority to do anything they wish. I know this is true with ships at sea in international waters, and I actually support the belief that this should be true of aircraft. I feel also that captains should be accountable for their actions, but at the same time have full authority to actually do anything they feel is nessicary to assure the safety of their passangers.

    So yes.... I think that man should have been ejected from the flight. Not that I disagree with him or even his protest. Not that I even agree with limiting his freedom of speaking out his political views. I don't even agree with the captains choice to eject the man from the plane, and I feel the reason was too trivial to even take notice of. But I firmly believe the captain has cart blanch over passangers and crew, but full accountability for his/her actions back at land.

  32. Tinfoil hat mode by Surak · · Score: 1

    What Photon Ghoul hasn't mentioned, folks, is that he is an NSA operative. ;)

    1. Re:Tinfoil hat mode by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

      Why would I tell them that? Then they would know.

  33. Re:I thought democracy was about having more votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The major thing that I don't get about the states is your voting system..it should be one man one vote, and the person with the most votes wins...
    There you go, full proof system for an election..none of these recount a state and use those results crap.


    It's an antique voting system left over from the colonial days before we had nice things like rail road, automobiles, telegraph telephone, and automated tally computers. It was a pretty good idea when we had 13 states over a strech of 1500 miles when it was estimated that it would take too long to count every vote of every *man* in a central location using the technology from 1787.

    We SHOULD have switched to a more simple popular vote system after the spanish-american war as enough telegraph lines were around so even california could send in their results to D.C. But alas... we have not yet.

    We SHOULD propose this to our goverment, as well as establish a procedure for a revote in the event of suspected corruption.

  34. morons assure US that failure is NOT an option.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when opposing corepirate nazis/unprecedented evile/the walking dead. we're building a vessel that floats on almost any substance.

    that's right. you/we cannot afford the badtoll that lies ahead, should the greed/fear based georgewellian fuddite execrable fail to be neutralized.

    it's also corewrecked that. J. Public et AL has yet to become involved in open/honest 'net communications/commerce in a meaningful way. that's mostly due to the MiSinformation suppLIEd buy phonIE ?pr? ?firm?/stock markup FraUD execrable, etc...

    truth is, there's no better/more affordable/effective way that we know of, for J. to reach other J.'s &/or their respective markets.

    the recipe is:

    consult with/trust in yOUR creator. vote with yOUR wallet. more breathing. seek others of non-agressive intentions/behaviours. that's the spirit.

    use key words/indexing to identify yourself/your products.

    the overbullowned greed/fear based phonIE marketeers are self eliminating by their owned greed/fear/ego based evile MiSintentions. they must deny the existence of the power that is dissolving their ability to continue their self-centered evile behaviours.

    as the lights continue to come up, you'll see what we mean. meanwhile, there are plenty of challenges, not the least of which is the planet/population rescue (from the corepirate nazi/walking dead contingent) initiative.

    EVERYTHING is going to change, despite the lameNT of the evile wons. you can bet your .asp on that. when the lights come up, there'll be no going back, & no where to hide.

    we weren't planted here to facilitate/perpetuate the excesses of a handful of Godless felons. you already know that? yOUR ONLY purpose here is to help one another. any other pretense is totally false.

    pay attention (to yOUR environment, for example). that's quite affordable, & leads to insights on preserving life as it should/could/will be again. everything's ALL about yOUR motives.

    take care, we're here for you.

  35. Let me clarify by Ryvar · · Score: 1

    It's 4:43AM but my insomnia is raging - pardon my hideous grammar/spelling errors.

    My entire philosophy/ethics system - and it is possible to build one in the following manner - grows forth logically from 'I think, therefore I am' (basically the first three chapters of Meditations) and attempts to move to useful conclusions from there while making as few assumptions as possible. I'm not certain you'd call me a Dualist, though.

    Assuming nothing and simply stating 'cogito, ergo sum' gets us a few facts:

    1. Self exists
    2. Self is capable of cognition
    3. From this, and the fact that cognition of any kind other than self-recognition exists, we can logically derive that not-self in some form - be it a giant universe of floating green balls translating silently in space - exists.

    Taking the next step forward and avoiding the Cartesian circle - my concept of God may come about because of false data I am receiving afterall (I honestly think all of Meditations post-chapter 3 is essentially one giant 'don't burn me at the stake for inventing a concept bigger than God' note written for the Jesuits' benefit) we are left with the task of determining what the nature of the universe is in order that we might truly interact with it. Any explanation - literally an infinite number of explanations - might be correct. Therefore until a better explanation than the ones our senses present us with is provided, we must accept the explanation from our senses because evidence of any sort is better than no evidence.

    However, while one knows the three facts above, one is only tolerating - grudgingly at that - the explanation of the universe as 'more or less how we perceive' until a better explanation comes along.

    Thus, everything from here on out is going to be a belief, not a fact. There are only three facts (actually, fully, there's seven I know of but I'm not going to go that indepth here), but there are a lot of beliefs and most of them are false because only one of many possible explanations of the state of the universe is true.

    So. We have our facts, our beliefs, and for now we're treating the world filtering in through our eyes - including Slashdot - as real. The truth is, we assume, more or less what we observe. One of the first things readily observable is that there appear to be other, also sentient, beings out there and rather a lot of them. What to make of this information? Well, it's obvious that since everything outside of those three facts - including the entire world one perceives - is just belief, the only thing one can be truly said to possess is one's own sentient mind. Losing it, then, is to lose everything - and when they

  36. Damn everything, missed 'preview' and hit submit. by Ryvar · · Score: 1

    Here's the rest:

    and when they (assuming they are in fact sentient like us as seems to be the case presented by our senses) lose their sentient minds they also lose everything they have.

    Death, in other words, is so complete a negation that the dead may as well have never existed so utter is their loss.

    From this it follows that death is to be avoided at all costs where possible. The primary goal of existence then, would (assuming what we perceieve is true) seem to be to do everything we can to not die.

    It also follows that the next worst thing that can happen is for another of these sentient minds to cessate.

    Thus I hold individuals somewhat sacro sanct, though my own self moreso. The next obvious question someone reading this is going to ask is something silly about Extropy, and I'll reply preemptively that I have similar goals for different reasons.

    Does that answer your question fully?

  37. Thank you Ian! by MagicMerlin · · Score: 0

    Dir Mr. Clarke,

    Thank you for your very great contributions to American Society and the internet.

    Sincerely,
    The American Leauge of Catholic Priests

  38. Re:I thought democracy was about having more votes by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    it should be one man one vote, and the person with the most votes wins...

    Here's the deal:

    The US is a big place. Ya got areas where we all live on top of each other, stacked hundreds of floors deep, like New York, and ya got places where you can travel for hours and see nothing but sheep, like Montana. All part of what makes America great, etc. etc.

    Now, if it were "one man, one vote," there's very little statistical percentage behind a politician travelling beyond the country's major urban centers (NorthEast, West Coast, North Central, and mebbe Texas). He focuses his eforts there, he minimizes his travels and he maximizes his exposure. Why spend an hour doing a morning talk show in Boise, Idaho when he can sextuple or better his audience by spending an hour on local L.A. radio?

    Of course, in this scenario, the politico need only address the issues meaningful to the people living in these high-density urban areas. The issues of the farmers, conservationists, and rural Americans in general become third tier concerns.

    As it is now, in this republic, even though states like Idaho and South Dakota don't have as many Electoral College votes as New York and California, the 'points' for 'winning' these smaller population states rack up quickly. Consequently, no politician can elect to ignore them -- and that, of course, is a good thing.

    Incidently, the same "republic-esque" principals carry over into our Federal Legislature. The Senate consists of two politicians per state, regardless of a state's population. And the Senate is inarguably more powerful and prestigious than our free-for-all House of Represntatives whose membership is a function of various district's population (e.g., NY has more Reps than Mississippi).

    Appreciate that the views and perspectives you get by and large here on slashdot DO NOT reflect "average" US opinion at all, for good or for ill. I would hazard a guess that the great majority of the readership here is from those "urban population centers," cuz that's where the tech industry is. (I also think this board's become mostly high school and college kids, but that's more of an intuitive hunch...)

  39. Relevant Ian Clarke journal by bersl2 · · Score: 1

    He also speaks about what he feels about Godwin's Law in his /. journal.

  40. Who got the A that year? by harmonica · · Score: 2, Funny

    I understand Freenet was a school project and that you got a B. Who got the A that year?

    Some Finn who had the crazy idea of writing a Unix-like kernel for the x86 platform. Never heard of that guy again...

    1. Re:Who got the A that year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vote parent up :)

      hehe sweet shiat.

      i bet that sucker got hired by msft in the meantime =)

      muahahaha. sell your soul, and sell your ip

  41. Re:I thought democracy was about having more votes by CheeseEatingBulldog · · Score: 0

    heh, thanks for the explenation, I now see how it is supposed to work. *as for the guy above talking about going to prison for insulting the queen...well not that I have ever heard of, I mean I have met the women twice, both times when she was shopping near my old high school, and the dutch papers are full of crap on the royal family and no one has ever been punshed for it...

    --

    It's always funny until someone gets hurt. Then it's just hilarious. -B.Hicks-
  42. WOW! by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 0

    That was quite entertaining (in a moribund manner). You now have come up with the right-baiting bumper sticker to match the ol':
    Nuke a gay whale for Jesus!

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  43. Re:Rights? What are they? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hitler was TIme Magazines Man of the Year too. What is your point?

  44. Primary reason: speed. by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Freenet is dog slow. Downloads there will be orders of magnitude slower than what my line is capable of. So unless you *have* to get it from Freenet, you'd rather get it from somewhere else. In addition, it is very difficult to use Freenet for anything but file transfers, as the latency (and lack of containers to group stuff) makes surfing it almost hopeless.

    Those two put together, along with the CPU and memory use of Java makes it feel very much "under construction". Regarding the pedos, Freenet mostly just brought them "into the open". I'm pretty sure there's a lot of shit going on other places on the net too, only there they hide on pedo boards, pedo chats etc. and not "in your face" as they do on Freenet.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  45. Re:Rights? What are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That really worries me because it's true. Thousands of muslims were locked up after 9/11 and refused access to lawyers, because the US government "didn't want them to hire Johnnie Cochrans and get them all released."

  46. Re:Rights? What are they? by RightInTheNeck · · Score: 1

    Cool. I'll meet you somewhere and we'll steal a car and jump it off a cliff with a really great song playing while holding hands. Do you want to be Thelma or Louise?

  47. Re:Rights? What are they? by gobbo · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Hitler was TIme Magazines Man of the Year too. What is your point? "

    His main point is that Prescott Bush was financing the Nazi war effort, in full knowledge of that fact, a full 10 months after the war had been entered by the USA. At that point in 1942 the "Trading With The Enemy Act" was invoked, and the Union Banking Corporation had its assets seized. Ol' boy Prescott was a senior director; executives included two Nazi officials. I would say "study your history" but this historical fact has been obscured and suppressed.

    I guess his more important point is that there is evidence of a dynastic ideological continuity from grandfather to the current president, and so people should be prepared to experience a more subtle and complex rerun of Germany ca. 1932.

  48. Amen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have voted republican in virtually every election (except Bush Sr's 2nd term).

    I voted for Bush Jr, because I thought Gore was an idiot who thought he was a genius.

    But Ashcroft and cronies frighten me more than anything I've seen in my 45 years. Osama only knocked down two ugly buildings. The president is tearing down over two hundred years of setting an example to the rest of the world of what's can be right in the world.

    1. Re:Amen. by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      but who will you vote for in 2004? As a Republican, would really vote for Kerry or Dean over Bush?

    2. Re:Amen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but who will you vote for in 2004?

      While all others are evil on their on merit given the broken political system we have currently, this should answer your question
  49. Re:Damn everything, missed 'preview' and hit submi by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

    [3] does not get you not-self, unfortunately. At best, the cogito buys you solipsism. Any "facts" observed, even about the self, fall under the aegis of the Deceiver.

    In short, all the cogito buys you is "I am" and nothing more. Any factual observations you make are based on faith in empiricism, not rational deduction. The main claim of empiricism is that the things you observe are what they appear to be unless given reason to believe otherwise. I.e., the Deceiver is a straw man until you find him.

    Or do you mind a little empiricism in your rationalism? :) I don't mind at all.

    -l

    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  50. Radicalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what happens when you draw 1-dimensional caricatures of america and then base your radical rants on those caricatures.

    I'm very pleased to see that the US is deeply divided on all these issues. There is no 100% agreement, and George Bush was elected BY A MINORITY - a bizarre loophole in the electoral college.

    What's funny is these comments coming from Europe. Tell me about the anti-terror tactics in the UK, where there is a gov't video camera on every corner!!!

    Talk about big brother. Why doesn't Ian rant about that? Why aren't Europeans drawing 1-dimensional caricatures about the brits?

    1. Re:Radicalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even funnier is these comments coming from Ireland! Talk about a f*cked up place! Only in the last 4 years or so have the Brits gotten that country "pacified".

    2. Re:Radicalism by RevSmiley · · Score: 1

      Yea wonderful Ireland where up until the 1970's they put children in unpaid labor camps if they thought their familes couldn't care for them, where they were then sexually abused by catholic priests.

      Europe is NOT a free place. Those trying to pass it off as being so are self deluded. You have no rights in Europe if you think you do get arrested. The Germans need to STFU up since the crimes they commited 55 years ago are not yet attoned for. The 55 years of democracy forced on them by the victors of WW2 is pretty thin. You never see the screaming German extremist on TV.

      Anyone who thinks the US is less free hasn't been paying attention. All the shit that is suppposedly going on now has always gone on. Oh it's different when Democrats do it than when Republicans do. I forgot this is /. you get to ignore all the infringements the left has made or wants to make on personal freedom they get a free pass.

      --
      As you can see I don't care about my karma.
    3. Re:Radicalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough with the left wing vs right wing crap...
      http://www.self-gov.org/quiz/quiz.php#lib ertarian

      It's not just left-liberals who despise the current regime in this country. I despise Bush and socialism is disgusting so leftists are out the window too in my book.

    4. Re:Radicalism by RevSmiley · · Score: 1

      I have been a registered libertarian for ages. I will now be labled a total troll.

      I just have to point out the knee jerk "It's the republicans" fault when I the democrats are just as anti freedom as they proport the republicans to be.

      --
      As you can see I don't care about my karma.
  51. Re:Rights? What are they? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

    gobbo said it right.

    But as for Time Magazine, what's *your* point?

    a snippet from
    Since 1927, TIME Magazine has chosen a man, woman, or idea that "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." Though TIME's list is not an academic or objective study of the past, the list gives a contemporary viewpoint of what was important during each year. There are many interesting facts about the list:

  52. Re:Ian Clarke is a f*cking idiot by thePancreas · · Score: 0
    ~~~~~"You are confusing Mr Ian Clarke..."~~~ This is the same Ian Clarke that is saying that offering banned documents in China like "Scientology OT" information...

    Yeah lets get the Chinese hooked on Xenu

    http://www.xenu.net/

    Then when their country is falling appart ike most of the "Churches of Scientology" in my city, we'll move in and kick out their "Great Leader" and replace him with Travolta!!

    --
    I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank
  53. Re:Rights? What are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just one correction. The policies of Bush administration are not quasi-fascist. They are fascist, by definition. Said definition involves corporate control of economy, massive military, building of a national (or nationalistic, more properly) mindset in the population (via state propaganda), tight control over dissent and political opponents (via powerful state security apparatus and secret police), and imperial ambitions (see Iraq, Afghanistan, etc).

    I am oversimplifying a little, but not by much. I haven't bothered to supply direct and simple examples of all the above characteristics. It should be fairly simple to find them, however. Just take all the major crises and newsworthy events in the last 3 years and voila, you have it.

    Also, historically, fascism rose to power in Italy following a devastating economic crisis. Parallels with the present state of affairs are obvious. Finally, I don't want to delve into the detailed explanation of the economic crisis currently holding the world, but it was in my opinion inevitable.

    On a side note, I've lived in the U.S. on and off for the last 10 years. Things have definitely gone from bad to worse. I'd suggest that all of you self-satisfied Americans enjoy the last few nice years before the start of the next round of imperialism-driven World Wars. Sadly, it looks likely that this new round will be the last one.

  54. 0110010101001010100101010101001100100110 by Kjella · · Score: 1
    I can understand the argument that child porn is something we'll just need to accept if we want to allow true freedom of speech

    Wow. This argument is horse#@$# of the worst kind. Accept it? I think NOT! (...)
    Is the subject line the start of a protected free speech ASCII text or an image of kiddie porn?

    You can not choose "anonymous free speech" and "not anonymous kiddie porn". Your choices are "anonymous flow of information" or "not anonymous flow of information".

    Let me try giving you a real world analogy. If you gave me your mailing address, I could anonymously send you kiddie porn (if I had had any, trolls). Why? Because there's no requirement of ID, no need for a valid return address. Why would the rules be any different on the Internet? Juat because I have an IP, people expect there to be a tracable return path. But it's something we normally haven't had in the real world.

    Kjella
    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:0110010101001010100101010101001100100110 by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      You can not choose "anonymous free speech" and "not anonymous kiddie porn". Your choices are "anonymous flow of information" or "not anonymous flow of information".

      Wow. This is really confusing the issue. Should information be able to flow anonymously? Yes. Should law enforcement seek to identify and arrest criminals? Yes. Can law enforcement do their job without ending the right to be anonymous? Yes. Actually, in the US, we make law enforcement jump through LOTS of hoops to protect citizen rights.

      --
      -- $G
    2. Re:0110010101001010100101010101001100100110 by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Wow. This is really confusing the issue. Should information be able to flow anonymously? Yes. Should law enforcement seek to identify and arrest criminals? Yes. Can law enforcement do their job without ending the right to be anonymous? Yes. Actually, in the US, we make law enforcement jump through LOTS of hoops to protect citizen rights.

      I don't thin kthe original poster is confusing the issue (although I don't really look at the issue his/her way)...

      Everything you said is correct BUT granting FULL freedom of speech (or any freedom but let's stick with speech) will mean that what you are saying won't be true. That is, either your reasoning is flawed or you don't support FULL freedom of speech. Let's see what I mean.

      First case: You say info should flow freely, yet you say that law enforcement should identify these people. This is impossible. If the system is TRUELY anonymous, how can anyone identify a person? So what you are saying cannot be true--it's illogical. I don't know much about Freenet but if it DOES grant FULL freedoms, law enforcement can NEVER identify the people.

      Second case: The other possibility is that you don't believe in FULL freedom of speech and believe that police should always be able to trace criminals. In that case, you don't support things like Freenet at all.

      So you much take one of those positions. You mention that police is made to jump through "hoops" to protect individual rights. But this won't apply to Freent (or any other service that grants TRUE anonymity). Police can't do anything because it is technologically impossible to trace people in such a sytem (NOTE: I am assuming that Freent can implement a truely anonymous system. I have never used it and don't know how it works so this is just an assumption at this point).

      Just to avoid confusion, I'm not saying child porn should be legal. In fact, it NEVER will be. The reason is because it violates individual rights. A child is a person and hence has rights. No one can violate the child's human rights. Therefore, child porn will never be legal anywhere on earth (not counting non-progressive, or conservative regions). IF child porn (it's really child abuse) is legal, then I have the right to come and rape you. There is no difference between you assulting your child and me assaulting you. Either both are legal or none are.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    3. Re:0110010101001010100101010101001100100110 by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      First, don't assume you know what I belive or not. If you want to know, ask. Here is a very clear statement for you:

      * People have the right to be anonymous and assume privacy in your affairs.
      * When a crime is committed law enforcement must identify who committed the crime.

      In other words, the government should not be looking if they have no reason to look. Altering rights (i.e. requiring a backdoor or key escrow) to make looking easier for the govt would be a problem: it would eliminate annonymity and the assumption of privacy, and chill free speech.

      If the system is TRUELY anonymous, how can anyone identify a person?
      Technically you are right. In the real world, there will always be some kind of chain of evidence. It may not be digital - but it will be there and can be followed to unmask the culprit.

      Police can't do anything because it is technologically impossible to trace people in such a sytem (NOTE: I am assuming that Freent can implement a truely anonymous system. I have never used it and don't know how it works so this is just an assumption at this point).

      As long as there are users, there will be people who can be identified. The police should not be allowed to alter freedoms simply to make it easy to identify the bad guys. That's the tough part of police work: figuring out whodunit.

      (not counting non-progressive, or conservative regions)
      This isn't a conservative/liberal/progressive issue.

      Now about Freenet and other anonymous tools:
      There is no reason to restrict them. My original post was taking exception to Kiddie Porn = Expression => Should be acceptable as free speech.

      --
      -- $G
    4. Re:0110010101001010100101010101001100100110 by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      First, don't assume you know what I belive or not. If you want to know, ask.

      If I mischaracterized your position, I'm sorry. Having said that, my opinion of your position still doesn't change.

      When a crime is committed law enforcement must identify who committed the crime.

      How is law enforcement going to identify the culprits--at least on Freenet? It is impossible as I said. We are in a new age, if you can implement anonymity, no one can trace. It's just like e-mail. If you use GPG/PGP/whatever to communicate, law enforcement can't read what you are saying (even NSA and CIA have problems with encrypted e-mail).

      In the real world, there will always be some kind of chain of evidence. It may not be digital - but it will be there and can be followed to unmask the culprit.

      We are dealing with seperate things here. There will be the pysical evidence, which can be traceable. But I'm mainly talking about the digital stuff which is more important when it comes to child pornography. For instance, let's say you view child porn pictures. If all that is encrypted and no one can tell where it is coming from, no one can convict you.

      I think what you are hoping for (or expecting) is a mistake by the criminal. But my feeling is that we are moving towards a world where criminals will be all cloacked and undetectable. Law enforcement is already having problems and it will just get worse. For instance, the police is almost useless when it comes to helping businesses with corporate crime.

      Sivaram Velautahpillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  55. Re:Rights? What are they? by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    And we think Gore would be better? I agree that these ideas are far-reaching. With any luck, they will be weighed in and a compromise be reached. That's politics, though. There is no conspiracy here. It's not designed to yank Bo and Luke Duke out of their trailer and strip search them. Granted, left unbridled it could lead to that. That's what debates like this are for though and that's good. Given the choices, though, Bush has done far more than Gore would have done. We'd still be waiting on the UN to get it's finger out of it's ass (or more likely, out of the honey pot that was the sanctions against Iraq) and do something. We should not relinquish control to the UN period.

  56. hyperbole by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    http://merriamwebster.com/

    One entry found for hyperbole.

    Main Entry: hyperbole
    Pronunciation: hI-'p&r-b&-(")lE
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Latin, from Greek hyperbolE excess, hyperbole, hyperbola, from hyperballein to exceed, from hyper- + ballein to throw -- more at DEVIL
    Date: 15th century
    : extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-cream cones")
    - hyperbolist /-list/ noun

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  57. Ironically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'd suggest that all of you self-satisfied Americans enjoy the last few nice years before the start of the next round of imperialism-driven World Wars"

    I disagree with your entire premise, but let me explain a few things that will clear up why I think you're overhyping:

    1) Europeans *in general* have completely misunderstood American's need to strike back and gain revenge on Arabs/Muslims/Extremists. This is surprising, given US's history when attacked. The US has struck out violently when challenged militarily (I suspect Bin Laden is/was counting on that). The European view has been "Now American will understand the true feels in the middle east; the US's support for Israel, etc etc". Instead, the US has said "Attack us? Well, we'll take out a country or three and see what happens". Europeans don't have this mentality and thus seem surprised when it happens.

    2) That said, US citizens are now bored with this "war". They're bored with code orange alerts. Its not meaningful anymore other than they know they're pissed off about the long lines at airports.

    3) Bush will be gone next election *provided* the democrats nominate someone electable. Note that Dean is not electable. Bush is praying to Jesuschristalmighty the Dems nominate Dean.

    4) The next democratic president, will be far more sensitive to the public mood and will probably be less Facist than Bush.

    5) Any imperial wars will most likely be started in eastern europe or in some of the former soviet republics because of muslim militancy.

    6) In fact, looking at things objectively, if you are Bin Laden, and you want to shake up the world to create a Pan-Arab/Muslim Theocracy that controls the middle east, what better way than to attack the US, have the US start wars, hope for violent reaction in muslim countries in the region and look for a huge middle-east war to redraw the map. From Bin Laden's perspective, that can't *hurt*, because worst case, it gives him a shot at Pan-Muslim/Arab nationalism with a significant population base.

    Its this lack of foresight that makes Bush an idiot. He's playing Duke-Nuke-Em, and everybody else is playing chess.

  58. That's the last time... by Sanity · · Score: 2, Funny
    ...I make a hyperbolic statement under my real nick on /. I mean, its like living in Stalin's Russia!

    Oh shit...

    1. Re:That's the last time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next you're going to say you didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

      (Oh shit...)

  59. good lord by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    god save us all from your teenage-level simplistic moralizing and righteous indignation

    understand this:

    you fight wars to promote peace

    you abort fetuses to save children

    you let gays marry to promote family values

    if you don't understand the deeper meaning behind these surface level contradictions, then there is no use talking to you, as you demonstrate either a profound naivete, a stunted intellect, or a teenager-level morality which can only understand the world in simple one-dimensional ways

    in short, grow the up, you are a moral child, easily manipulated by propaganda

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  60. Re:Rights? What are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And we think Gore would be better?

    No. You don't get it, do you? The system is broken. Fucked. FUBAR. Neither of them would be good for the country. There are no more patriots left. The policies are driven by special interests and the upper 1%. People are treated like cattle because of their own ignorance.

    We should not relinquish control to the UN period.

    I guess we will.

    The point is, US alienated half the the globe and now that we're hurting in Iraq (looks and sounds like a quagmire), we're relinquishing control. The America loses no matter how you proceed from this point on.
  61. Re:Rights? What are they? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I call bullshit. Also, how that translates to George Bush having Nazi like tendencies is beyond me. Are grandchildren exact copies of their grandfathers?

  62. Re:morons assure US that failure is NOT an option. by Bertie · · Score: 1

    Blimey. I thought Stanley Unwin was dead.

  63. Re:Rights? What are they? by Hatta · · Score: 1

    quasi?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  64. Re:Rights? What are they? by fenix+down · · Score: 1

    Yes. ...

    Yes.

    Bush and Gore are/were (Gore got his mind back after he quit running, we'll see how that works for Bush) both empty shells 90% of the time. Gore was backed up by Clinton. Bush was backed up by Karl fucking Rove, phsychopath extraordinare. Even if Gore found the same mindset as Rove, he wouldn't have the numbers around to come up with the sheer volume of insanity Bush's hangers-on spend all day coming up with.

  65. Re:Rights? What are they? by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Bush has done a whole lot more than Gore would have. Bush has waged a war based on a personal vendetta and justified it with lies. He has destroyed not only civil liberties, but civil libertarian sentiment. It's dangerous in this country any more to be concerned for your rights or question the government. You may be seen as "unpatriotic" One fellow was even arrested for not wanting stamps with the US flag on it.

    Course it would be better with gore, I'd rather have a sniveling pussy in the whitehouse than a facist lunatic.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  66. Re:Rights? What are they? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    They aren't reactionaries, they are authoritarians. In an earlier day they might legitimately have been callec reactionary monarchists. And earlier Tories. But the monarchy has been too long gone for it to qualify even as "reactionary". Unfortunately, the same personality type has continued to scheme for it's return (with themselves at the head).

    Actually, from the Bush quotes, he doesn't aim so much for a monarchy as a dictatorship. Not too much difference, I suppose, except that there are precedents for constitutional monarchies.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  67. If all else fails... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...resort to name-calling. Whose the child now?

  68. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though I do not fully agree, it's very insightful in many aspects.

  69. Penultimate != Super-duper-ultimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ryvar, I am not trying to be nitpicky. Actually, I am trying to help. You seem fairly intelligent, so it only detracts from your discourse when you use the word "penultimate" incorrectly. The word means "next-to-last", and that is all that it means. For example, if you have a list of numbers from 1 to 10, the number 9 is the penultimate number on the list. You don't seem to be using it correctly. That's a real clunker in what otherwise seems to be a thoughtful post.

  70. Re:Rights? What are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if they are raised by them, they might become them!

  71. Hey, thanks! by Ryvar · · Score: 1

    Much appreciated. I am trying to brush up my writing a bit. I probably should've caught that myself, but 3AM, etc.

  72. i repeat by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    you are a moral child

    that is not name calling

    name calling is "you poopy head!" lol ;-P

    i called you a moral child

    that is not name calling, that is a characterization of the way you think based on the words you have written

    there is some thought and rationalization in my response to you, not a simple childish throw away stupid insult

    i repeat, you are a moral child, based on the words you have said

    not name calling at all

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  73. Ian Clarke is a retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    # What was wrong with the Mike Hawash situation?

    I am not an expert on that particular situation, however I was concerned that some people didn't appear to recognize that a guilty plea made under duress is no more valid than the confessions of guilt extracted from American POWs during the Vietnam war.

    THE GUY ADMITTED IN COURT THAT HE WAS PLANNING ON KILLING AMERICANS! HIS ATTORNEYS WOULD NOT ALLOW HIM TO SAY THAT UNLESS IT WAS TRUE!

  74. Care to give us the official scale of comparison? by abulafia · · Score: 1
    So to sum up, you spit out the definition of hyperbole, babble about who's the spitting image of hyperbole, who's making hyperbolic comments, what statement is a hyperbole. I'm glad you're practicing the use of that word, but you're getting a bit redundant.

    Perhaps you can enlighten us on the proper scale of response to recent events, perhaps a matrix of proper comparisons.

    Let's start with these:

    - Indefinite detention of citizens without due process

    This is like:
    a) Nazi Germany
    b) Today's China
    c) The worst abuses of the British state during the worst of the IRA attacks
    d) Mommy grounding me for something I didn't do
    e) Perfectly OK and right and proper

    - Invading a nation and seizing its assests for a personal vandetta

    This is like:
    a) Nazi Germany
    b) China's behavior towards the other China
    c) The worst abuses of [pick a European nation state] during the imperialist phase of history
    d) Mommy rooting through my crap and taking my porno
    e) perfectly OK and right and proper

    - Suppressing speech for corporate interests

    This is like:
    a) Nazi book burning
    b) China censoring the internet
    c) England handing out monopolies on book publishing
    d) Mommy telling me not to swear
    e) perfectly OK and right and proper

    Please, tell all us ignrnt fools the proper way to use metaphor. We're pining for your wisdom

    --
    I forget what 8 was for.
  75. Re:Care to give us the official scale of compariso by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    "Indefinite detention of citizens without due process"

    they're not citizens

    they're mostly terrorist assholes captured in a war

    you do understand that, don't you?

    "Invading a nation and seizing its assests for a personal vandetta"

    it was not done for a personal vendetta. so you watch a lot of hollywood movies, huh? ;-)

    "Suppressing speech for corporate interests"

    there is no suppressing speech for corporate interests, there is suppressing piracy for corporate interests. granted, i agree with you, the dmca is shark chum stupid, i'm not going to defend it. but i AM going to say it is about as evil as nazi germany as a chihuahua is as threatening as a tyranosaurus rex

    there's your wisdom, you ignorant fool ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  76. Idiocy by poptones · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Frost is basically a "newsgroup" client. There are all SORTS of newsgroups. Are there many MP3 or MOVIE newsgroups? No, not yet - because Freenet is not yet matured to the point it could reliably handle the traffic of, say, abm.complete-CD.mp3. There is a "music" client in development and some MP3 traffic is starting to show up - but I doubt it's going to be widely used for this until someone makes an all-in-wonderful single click "freenet.mp3" windows client installer. And even then it won't, until there are enough users to achieve a critical mass that would provide the speed of indexing "non geek" users demand.

    However, there are all sorts of "groups" just within frost. If "all you could find" is child porn, then I would posit "all you visited" were CHILD PORN GROUPS. Granted you aren't likely to find that stuff on usenet or the web (unless you know where to look), but then again so what? That's likely why it's on freenet.

    I keep seeing articles on places like WIRED and MSNBC that quote "facts" from government agencies like "there are 500 new child pornography websites opened each month" and yet, I must say, despite being on the web about a decade now and doing all sorts of research for arguments like this one, I've never seen one of these "child porn" websites myself. Oh, I do know about the multitude of sites like Webe web operates, or even the nudie ones like the russian mob set up. But these people are apparently talking about hard core sites (they often mention sexual activity, which means these ain't pinup pictures) and I honestly have to wonder how they are finding these things, or even if they truly are.

    Anyway... I have a freenet node. I've been mucking about with it for some time now. I set it up for NG routing and, despite being on dialup, I find it almost usable. I've found some cool stuff on there, like the banned linux girls website. And there is, in the listing of "The Freedom Engine," a couple of clearly labeled child porn sites. But this is a long, long way from being "most" or even "a lot" of the links listed in that search engine. If you are finding a preponderance of child porn, an experienced freenet user can only conclude that you are following a multitude of child porn links from the search engine and visiting chld porn newsgroups in Frost.

    And yeah, if you look for it, you will find it; that's the entire point of freenet.

    1. Re:Idiocy by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Error, actual informed opinion detected. Abort / Retry / Ignore?

      Thanks for expanding on my point, but I think we're pissing up the wind with this one. We're already at the "All I found was kiddie porn, so that's all there is." Given time, it'll be "All kiddie porn is on freenet, therefore all freenet is kiddie porn." Sigh.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  77. Re:A question for all US people Caliphate of Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Loser. You picked up that fucking trash from Mihcael Moore. You are clearly a sap for the bleatings of Begala, Carvile, Franken and Moore. You are part of a propaganda machine. All propaganda is bad, and fighting what you percieve to be lies with more lies shows you as the weak person you are.

    Also, if you have traveled recently, the sharp object restrictions are a bit more reasonable now, I was able to take a razor. Also, as for the lighter, the Tobacco lobby is such bull, they dont even have smoking rooms in 90% of the airports anymore. In fact, only Nevada airports come to mind.

    So cut the unadulterated bullshit.

  78. Re:Care to give us the official scale of compariso by Interrupting+Cow · · Score: 1

    I was going to criticize you for an ad hominem attack, but you're probably too stupid to get it.

    --
    in terminus illic est tantum opes
  79. About the USA and freedom by argoff · · Score: 1, Informative

    IMHO, the problem is that economic and political growing pains happen anytime society advances - and since the USA is ahead of the curve, it usually experiences these problems first. I don't think moving away will help much (unless you leave the fray so as to return later when things settle down) because eventually the same growing pains will reach elsewhere too.

    Other cultures will be less able to protect their liberties when the onslaught of growing pains starts to knock on their front door. I wish we had a new political frontier to go to. (the ocean?)

    1. Re:About the USA and freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      IMHO, the problem is that economic and political growing pains happen anytime society advances - and since the USA is ahead of the curve, it usually experiences these problems first.
      Why don't you stop waving your flag for long enough to recognise that in many, if not most respects the USA is definitely not ahead of the curve. It pollutes more than any other country. Its media are less effective than most EU countries (try watching a British journalist interviewing Tony Blair, then compare that to the dog and pony shows that pass for Presidential press conferences here). Laws like the DMCA are killing innovation... the list goes on.

      Have you ever actually been to another country?

    2. Re:About the USA and freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      society advances
      really? and in which direction is this advance of which you speak? forward? west? down maybe...

      the USA is ahead of the curve
      heh. if the US was ahead of the curve in emissions, consumption, human rights, etc.. then i might agree with you. i'm not saying that the US is better/worse then anywhere else (it is, but that's another discussion), more that your view of 'progress' is seriously bent out of shape, man.

  80. don't judge someone by their parents by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

    I'm no fan of Bush but don't judge someone by their parents! That's nothing more than stereotyping!!!

    Sivaram Velauthapillai

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    1. Re:don't judge someone by their parents by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      It's a pretty low degree of stereotyping at worst. I don't judge Bush by his father or grandfather, but i'd be dumb to deny that there was some cause and effect.

      And for the record here, i'm talking about nurture, not nature.

    2. Re:don't judge someone by their parents by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that the Bush family have a secret love affair with war and oil? I knew that Bush was addicted to oil but didn't know his grandfather was too? ;)

      Actually it's pretty serious stuff. I mean can I say you are a slavery supporter because your great great great great great grandfather owned slaves? Are you more apt to support slavery than me because my family has no history of slave ownership (at least in the last 1500 years)? :)

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    3. Re:don't judge someone by their parents by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "Are you saying that the Bush family have a secret love affair with war and oil?"

      Among other things, yes. It's no secret. You should read some more about their whole stinking clan. Samuel, Prescott, George H.W., George W, Neil Bush and then decide just how prejudiced you think i really am.

      "great great great great great"

      Why did you add 5 extra generations of separation in your example? Could it be that you see some validity to what I said?

  81. Reference please? by TomatoMan · · Score: 1

    One fellow was even arrested for not wanting stamps with the US flag on it.

    Link?

    --
    -- http://frobnosticate.com
  82. Re:Care to give us the official scale of compariso by abulafia · · Score: 1
    they're not citizens they're mostly terrorist assholes captured in a war you do understand that, don't you?

    I understand that more than one US citizen has been detained without due process, and that the current US regime refuses to divulge the identities of numerous other people who are still being detained without due process. Without knowing who they are, we don't know what nationality they are. I'm not going to start in with how the semantic absurdity "enemy combatant" is being used to circumvent international law, because that's slightly a different topic...

    it was not done for a personal vendetta. so you watch a lot of hollywood movies, huh? ;-)

    Intelligent minds can disagree here. Perhaps the Bush family hatred of Hussein wasn't the issue, perhaps it was merely the desire to loot the country. Would you care to defend that next?

    there is no suppressing speech for corporate interests, there is suppressing piracy for corporate interests

    Arresting people who talk about security measures and legally forbidding people to post links to certain kinds of software is not suppression of speech? Care to explain how that works? I suppose if I hit you every time you say something, I'm not attempting to stop you from speaking, right?

    So, to get back to my questions, would you like to demonstrate where exactly in your pantheon of statist evil the various actions fall?

    --
    I forget what 8 was for.
  83. Re:Rights? What are they? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1
    They are reactionary, conservative, AND authoratarian. I don't think those words are mutually exclusive. They describe different things: one describes what causes an action to be carried out, another deals with econopolitical stance, and the last deals with power.

    Here is why I consider them to be all three:

    • Reactionary: These guys are the complete opposite of progressives. They sit around doing nothing and then all of a sudden start doing something which often has nothing to do with anything long-term.
    • Conservative: Bush and his buddies are clearly conservative due to their policies on abortion, religion, attempts to enrich the wealthy class, etc.
    • Authoratarian: Most people consider this trait to be the most noticeable but I disagree. Only a few of the administration seem to be authoratarian (Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld, plus neo-cons (like Paul Wolfowitz, etc))
    I think the Bush administration really can't create a dictatorship (because Bush himself is incapable of running it). Instead, someone else (Cheney perhaps) will likely attempt to do that in a few elections down the road...

    Lastly, USA will end up a fascist state more than a dictatorship (don't forget that fascism doesn't require dictatorship. For instance, most people don't know that Nazism had massive support. People consider Hitler to be a dictator but if there were DEMOCRATIC elections, he would have kept winning them EASILY). Same thing will happen in USA I suspect...

    I think the turning point will be the next terrorist attack in USA (I think it will happen). USA will unroll their patriot act II and start implementing new policies...

    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  84. The problem with freenet... by poptones · · Score: 1
    a) people expect it to instantly work

    b) people install it then give up an hour after it looks like it doesn't

    I have downloaded files from freenet that ate up 100% of my very limited bandwidth. It may take an hour for it to find some good routes, but once it does it can be very, very fast. I know people with dsl who have said it runs faster than their (paid) usenet servers.

    It may take a week for your frenet client to get things sorted out. And if you never use it, it may NEVR get routes sorted out. It has to "learn where things are" and it cannot do that in an instant, and it cannot do that if you do not have it looking for things. Those first search pages are here for a reason; tell it to "find stuff" and let it run. So what if it takes all day? you don;t have to babysit it.

    The problem with freenet is also its strength: it is distributed and, in a primitive sense, "cognitive." You do not expect a baby to walk its first day out of its mother - nor should you expect freent to "walk" the first day it runs on your machine.

  85. Re:Care to give us the official scale of compariso by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    thanks for the condescending input, you asshole

    lol

    xoxoxoxoxox

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  86. Ban or burn... by poptones · · Score: 1
    same thing. And there ar PLENTY of banned books in the US. Books that you can go to jail for possessing. Books with real life ISBN numbers on the spine, that are now outlawed in the US. Books that are registered in the Library of Congress, that are no longer legal for individuals to keep in their own homes. How is that for twisted irony?

    Child porn or no, it really doesn't matter to me. Better the people who want that shit can get it for free instead of making it themselves - or paying others to do it for them.

    Laws that ban personal behavior have no place in a free society; information should never be the exclusive domain of the rich and/or well connected. The problem with laws that make shit illegal is that they really just make shit more expensive.

    1. Re:Ban or burn... by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      i agree with you

      information wants to be free

      but before you hold the us to such high standards, look to other countries and see if they measure up as well. all countries ban this that or the other thing, germany and france, nazi paraphenalia, china- god knows how many things, etc. don't even get started on the cloistered muslim countries and what they ban. the us bans very little in comparison to the vast majority of the world.

      i really am sick and tired of people who howl and moan about the state of affairs in the us. of course we can do better. there is always room for improvement.

      but these same people take no stock of how good they still have it compared to so many others.

      count your blessings, then start your complaints.

      i have found in my life that those who only complain and whine and moan are often the least deserving of anything. it's the quiet ones who are actually at work making things better for everyone. they have real character, you who howl and moan over every little stubbed toe you have have very little to really offer anyone.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  87. Re:Care to give us the official scale of compariso by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i would like you to examine to do a simple exercise for me

    i want you to take the levels of rights and lack thereof experienced by citizens in the united states and compare them with citizens of other countries

    i can think of a few countries that score higher than the us

    but you live in some sort of paranoid schizophrenic alternate reality if you don't rank the us amongst the very few highest countries whose citizens enjoy full expression of their basic human rights

    does the us have lots of problems? of course it does. but they are but molehills compared to the problems of other places.

    now what i would like you to do is get some perspective

    while you focus on all of the "horrible atrocities" the us commits, much more horrible evils are being committed in the world you live, to which you give no attention at all, apparently

    it must be nice to live in your small, narrowly focused world, completely out of touch with what real evil is really like, and without any knowledge of how it goes on every day around you, in corners of the world where your rich spoiled pampered ass would never dare shudder to go, and how you have built a wall in your mind so that your mind won't even dwell on those places.

    but you go right on attacking the "vast evils" of the united states

    surely you are doing much good in the world, right?

    again, it's nice to be simpleton in this world

    i will not be able to pierce the veil of your simplistic mind, you have walled it off in denial and paranoid hyperbole, and in your mind, your righteous indignation allows you to scream high holy terror at everything the us does, and not give a single thought to the giant mountains of evil going around you as well, of which the us has no part of whasoever, and in fact, is actively fighting, in your name

    but you go on with your bad self, you obviously know so much more than me, as proven by the simplistic way your world works: "us bad, us evil"

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  88. china and India by poptones · · Score: 1
    Have substantially larger poulations than the US. Euroupean nations have existed quite a long time and, while I expect American nations did as well, we will never really know because thy were esssntially wiped from the earth long ago. But the relevant point is this is all nothing new - WE ARE. This is one of the youngest nations on earth, and certainly the youngest to develop the sort of power it has.

    Many euro nations have more liberal laws than we do, yet they manage to survive just fine. One of the most influencial software projects ever came from Finland, for god's sake.

    the problems of the US are, largely, problems of its own making. And I see no signs at all of the US slowing down this behavior anytime soon. I don't see any potential presidential candidates that give me any faith the next administration will be "better" than the one we have now, either in terms of worldwide aggression or in terms of protecting our own freedom.

    If you want to see alarmist reactionism, I suggest you look to the Hill. I'm 41, and there is no way I would have kids in this country today. And you don't have to look far to see there are many Americans today who feel the same way as Ian, and are looking to vote with their feet.

    1. Re:china and India by Arandir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The prior poster's comment was not arguing that the US was a bed of roses, but that other nations keep following the US' lead.

      The US has software patents. The EU is on the verge of enacting some of its own.

      The US is fscking up Iraq. The UN wants to get involved so it can fsck Iraq as bad as it did in Kosovo.

      The US corporations are running amock. The European and Asian corporations are falling all over themselves trying to outdo the US corporations.

      The US has soldiers stationed in airports. We were slow on this one, as that has been commonplace in Europe for a decade.

      The US arrests a Russian programmer. Norway arrests a Norwegian programmer.

      I could go on, but the point is, there is no perfect nation in the world. All are tyrannies differing only in minor degrees.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  89. Re:Rights? What are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, he probably was an asshole and disturbed the peace.

    i stopped buying those outrageous claims a long time ago.

    he wasnt arrested because he calmly asked for non flag stamps.
    but if you start yelling and making a scene, what do you expect.

    you would get arrested at walmart if you noocked over the stuffed animals and started ranting about patriotism too.

    my guess is, that guy wasnt arrested because he didnt want the flagstamps, he was arrested for causing a scene and being an asshole.

  90. Clearly, the conversation is over by abulafia · · Score: 1
    You refuse twice to actually address questions asked directly to you, make bizarre assumptions about what I think (hint: you have no idea what my "small narrowly focused world" consists of, or what my beliefs are, other than that I disclosed that I dislike Bush), insult me repeatedly, and finally fall back on the classic "well it's worse elsewhere, so shut up" argument.

    So, have fun bashing strawmen and knowing you're such a worldly deep thinker that there's no reason to draw attention to problems at home because it is so much worse in Zimbabwe.

    --
    I forget what 8 was for.
  91. ALERT! quota exceeded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi,

    It appears you have exceeded your quota for the word "hyperbole". For the sake of keeping things interesting here, this is not permitted.

    Please try to apply more variation to your posts in the future.

    Thank you.

    1. Re:ALERT! quota exceeded by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      your post is nothing but so much hysteria

      lol ;-)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  92. what's your definition of CONCEPTION? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

    Why are you posting anonymous? Can't stand up for your beliefs? Anyway...

    What's your definition of CONCEPTION? Would you have the same view of conception without science? Are you against birth control too? If I can artificially fertilize human eggs with human sperm (outside the human body), would you consider that conception?

    Sivaram Velauthapillai

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  93. fine by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i will spend my days and my mental powers doing real good

    you will spend your days and mental powers beating a dead horse

    have fun with that, i'm glad you think your agenda is somehow important

    rich simple folk from spoiled pampered backgrounds often develop quaint pointless hobbies and obsessions

    you go on with your bad self

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " i will spend my days and my mental powers doing real good"..."rich simple folk from spoiled pampered backgrounds"..."you go on with your bad self"...

      Who the hell do you think you are - some kind of superhero black 14 year old trash talker?

      Christ, this guy's a martian.

    2. Re:fine by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      no

      i'm a klingon autistic superhero with porphyria

      please get it right ;-P

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  94. Re:morons assure US that failure is NOT an option. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are wrong. you purpose here is to breed and die.

    You are a serious threat to those around you.
    We know who you are. We are comming for you.

    Ass fucking is an option for you.

  95. Let me do you a favor circletimessquare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread - you couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper bag. You make wild accusations, argue against strawmen, and you have basically managed to demonstrate pretty much every logical fallacy in the book during the course of this thread, and in each case you conclude with childish insults that say much more about you than about the person against whom you are arguing.

    They say that it is better to be quiet, and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You should remember that.

  96. you're righteous indignation by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    is that of a teenager

    very loud, very angry, and very clueless

    you'll grow up and become an adult someday, i have faith in you child

    lol

    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

    smooches asswipe ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  97. Truth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Truth seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
    I assume you just were trying to troll the US with your post. Consider this feeding the troll

    I have questions for you. How many mass graves are OK. How much money spent to keep the homicide bombers going into Isreal is allowable? How many state employees with the title rapist is enough.
    this is just a fraction of crap Saddam was up to.

    Europe seems to be good at critising but very short of being able to solve any issues. How do you have "discussions" with some one to stop these kind of activities? That is the european solution it seems you negotiate while people die and actual oppression not the imagined kind you blame the US for takes place. Europe will be buried under the assult of radical militant islam . These islamists just want you dead. You really don't get it but seein how you have a silent invasion of them and haven't noticed yet it's too late alrerady. Enjoy your freedom while you have it. You will be forced to loose it to accomidate their repressive idea of morality and civil society soon enough. Europe is dead.

    1. Re:Truth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this means the Commander In Chief can lie to the entire nation and proclaim WMD as the primary reason to "pre-emptively" attack?

      No, no it doesn't.

      The fact that he is a BAD man, is not being argued. The reasons that we went in are the problem here.

  98. Iraq isn't imperialistic? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    would you mind telling that to kuwait and iran?

    brush up on your recent history there, friend

    so when the us does hand over power, what will you say then about it's intetions? you don't have to trust the us to do so, i do though. and when they do hand over power to iraqis, maybe you learn to trust their word as well.

    i don't see how you can see imperialism in a nation that spent 10 years developing a case for war with iraq after a united nations sanctioned invasion, and promises to foster democracy there and then leave... and not see imperialism in a nation that fought a bloody expansionistic war with iran and made a surprise takeover of kuwait

    the us has no friends in the middle east. iraq is but the first domino in the move of the middle east towards democracy. the monarchy to it's left and the theocracy to it's right are next to fall to democracy, not by military means, but by internal upheavel after they see how good the iraqis will have it under democracy. iran is already teetering under student unrest.

    democracy will bring peace to this region, and therefore peace of mind to the rest of us as well. there is no other way. the people of the middle east deserve peace and prosperity, and they will thank the us in time for giving it to them.

    it is entirely natural not to trust at first the intentions of others. but after the strength of one's word is revealed by being backed up by promised actions, only peace can blossom.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Iraq isn't imperialistic? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I think YOU should brush up on your history... especailly about the Iran/Iraq war. That was not an imperialistic war. In any case, imperialism requires more than one invasion. Only a few countries in history have warranted that title, and I say modern day USA is one. Oh one more thing: modern day imperialism is slightly different from Roman imperialism or even Japanese imperialism. Nowadays, you don't even need to invade countries. You can take over countries via other means. Invasion is your last resort. You preferred method are to create client and proxy states.

      i don't see how you can see imperialism in a nation that spent 10 years developing a case for war with iraq after a united nations sanctioned invasion, and promises to foster democracy there and then leave

      USA does not inherit its imperialist title from Iraq alone. Nevertheless, what were the reasons USA gave for invading Iraq? Foster democracy and leave was certainly not one of the reasons.

      iraq is but the first domino in the move of the middle east towards democracy

      USA has no credibility. Do you REALLY think USA is in Iraq to create a democracy? Doesn't it seem odd that some of USA's CLOSEST friends are the most ruthless and undemocratic countries ON THE PLANET? Maybe you should start by democratizing your friends before you go into enemy territory. I'll even give you the choice. Start with one of the Gulf countries. I suggest Saudi Arabia but if they are already democratic enough for your tastes, you can move onto Kuwait.

      ..the us has no friends in the middle east...

      Is that a typo or something? Many of USA's CLOSEST allies are in the Middle East. Countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. A Canadian prime minister can ask for meeting with the US govt and he'll be put at the bottom of the list. A Saudi monarch, or Isreali PM, or Kuwaiti monarch will ask for a meeting and it'll be arranged first thing next day.

      internal upheavel after they see how good the iraqis will have it under democracy. iran is already teetering under student unrest.

      Iran is as stable as ever. The mini-demonstrations were due to CIA efforts and were quashed. When was the last time democracy was developed by external efforts? Never! I hope one day you realize that society has to change from within, not due to outside foreign intervention. Besides, I don't see how a conservative US govt can ever support liberalism. Liberalism came from the left and all you right-wingers have no idea what women's rights, minority rights, workers' rights, etc are. It's a foreign language to the US govt. As I said, if USA can't even deploy female soldiers to protect the Saudi monarchy, how are they going to ever change a stranger? You should try influencing your friends before going after unknowns...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    2. Re:Iraq isn't imperialistic? by DragoonAK · · Score: 1

      You disgust me. Iran is as stable as ever? The students rebelling there were backed by the CIA? Iran is a theocracy and the people born there since the Revolution know that the Ayatollahs' promises are crap. The students and others demonstrated because when they ask for freedom of speech or try to exercise it, they get arrested, beaten and sometimes murdered, and they want to do something about it. That is internal change.

      So tyranny is fine except when it's done by the US? I don't think the US is perfect, and I strongly dislike its foreign policy, but it's sickening how many anti-American people think the US is pure evil while apologizing for states just as bad or even worse. The ayatollahs need to fall, just like the Shah.

    3. Re:Iraq isn't imperialistic? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Yes the theocracy has got to go... but the mini-revolt a few weeks ago was initiated by the CIA. If you check some newspaper report a few months ago (I don't remember who.. I think it was the LA Times), the US govt was considering initiating the overthrow of the Iranian govt. It got backfired... same thing as Venezuela...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    4. Re:Iraq isn't imperialistic? by DragoonAK · · Score: 1

      Bull. There is a strong current of discontent in Iran. Just because the US would like to see the Iran theocrats fall doesn't mean they're behind every action of the dissenters. It's an common tactic of third-world tyrants to associate the CIA or the US with those fighting. It's not like the students there are Chalabi or something.

      As for Venezuela, the US didn't initiate the putsch. Chavez pissed off a lot of the elite and powerful institutions like the oil company, church and media there by himself. What happened is that a number of the Venezuelan military came to the US and asked whether they would support them if they overthrew Chavez, and the government said "Yes". The US was one of the few countries in the world to approach the temporary replacements and offer recognition, and it was well-deserved egg on the Bush administration's face when Chavez returned to power. That's outrageous enough, and the wimpy Democrats didn't even push them on it. But don't see CIA plots lurking behind every bush. The coup attempt was homegrown.

      Not that I like Chavez or anything, but the rule of law and democracy needs to be established and followed, whether the leader was bad or not.

    5. Re:Iraq isn't imperialistic? by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      There IS a strong dissatisfaction with the Iranian regime. However, I don't think it is strong enough yet to initiate an overthrow or a counter-revolution. The only reason I say CIA was behind it is because USA was contemplating stepping up their overthrow plans and there was a demonstration within a few months? Coincidence?

      As far as Venezuela was concerned, it all depends on your stance and what you want to believe. Since all information is hidden and never revealed to the public, one can never be sure what is going on. To make matters worse, USA spends hundreads of millions (although not on Venezuela alone) on disinformation. So it is tough for me to get any "proof" of anything. I'm going to be labelled a conspiracy theorist but let me just say what I think USA was doing.

      First of all, there is the stuff that you mentioned. Needless to say, this is all from the mainstream press, which is basically controlled by an oligopoly: it's either the Associate Press or Reuters. As far as the Democrats not doing anything, why should they? They are in this whole thing together (as a sidenote, the Democrats were heavily in favour of invading Iraq too). Besides, how many Americans even know about this affair? Hardly anyone...

      In addition to that, there was ONE report (I know... single reports aren't credible but still :) ) which said that US warships jammed wireless communications during the coup. Apparently, all cellphones went dead during the few critical hours of the coup. There are two theories for this. One is that US warships jammed the signals (which is what one report was saying). Another is that the cellphone network was overloaded (a la New York during 9/11 when all cellphones were dead). Take your pick. I'm going with the former...

      Lastly, homegrown coup attempts do not result in their "leader" running off to a meeting with a foreign country. Unless the "leader" of the coup was taking orders from a foreign source, or being paid heavily for it, he/she wouldn't run off to meet US govt representatives. If anything, localized coups will always avoid foreign contact. Authoratarians who initiate coups will know in advance that foreign contact may result in counter-revolutions and him/her being executed for treason. Granted, this coup "leader" was a businessman (not a military leader or a politican) so maybe he was incompetent but I doubt that...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  99. Re:Rights? What are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my guess is, that guy wasnt arrested because he didnt want the flagstamps, he was arrested for causing a scene and being an asshole.


    So what? Is it forbidden to be an asshole? Where I come from, you can't be arrestet for being one, and even if we've got lots of assholes running around here, i find this a pretty nice situation...

  100. they are all whores by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    democrats and republicans alike

    the influence of corporate $ in US politics is a bigger travesty than a thousand dmcas

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  101. Re:I thought democracy was about having more votes by Arandir · · Score: 1

    it should be one man one vote, and the person with the most votes wins...

    Well, there goes the parliamentary system too!

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  102. NATO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I chacked NATO was the "army" in Afganistan. Thwe US is carrying out search and destroy mission on the Tallaban and will be for years I imagine. NATO is running the show.

    Whan was teh lasdt time anyone paid attention to deCSS? Don't you have at least one copy of the code? Have you had you door broken down because you do? Last time I checked my door was intact.

  103. good bye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good Bye. No one forced you to come here and no one is forcing you to stay. I can't say I will miss you. you seeem to be just one more left wing hate all the US does freaks.

  104. Re:Rights? What are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I call bullshit.

    Jesus Christ, just do a search on Google for "prescott bush" + hitler. The facts are well documented by reputable sources: The Bush family fortune was *built* by supporting the Nazis.

    Also, how that translates to George Bush having Nazi like tendencies is beyond me.

    It doesn't, nor is it implied that Prescott Bush had an interest in killing Jews. Rather, it's the notion that many of the people currently in power attained their positions through a history of blatant disregard for ethical considerations, through a desire for power at any cost, no matter who gets hurt in the process.

    Look around you, man. It's not Nazi Germany, and Bush isn't Hitler, but there's the same lack of ethics amongst the people in power today. And if it isn't put in check, *something* is going to happen.

  105. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2,4,6,9, muslims think ass fucking little boys is fine.

  106. Stubbed toes? by poptones · · Score: 1
    Fuck you and the hoofless horse you rode in on. Tell the kids living on the streets and being traded by mafiosi to quit complaining about their "stubbed toes."

    The US ban on child pornography fosters this behavior. It makes child pornography profitable to the point of attracting organized crime. But, because it's banned the only people who would dare talk about it must be "part of it" themselves and, therefore, no one dares speak of it in public lest tehy "incriminate" themselves. So Moldavian, Ukrainian, Russian kids go on being traded and shipped off to Israeli and Turkish brothels and sold on websites, but it's alright because we don't have to see it.

    Fuck you and your narrow, egotistical view. US money is prized everywhere, and laws like these drive profit and exploitation the world over.

  107. you have the righteous indignation by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    and the complex and nuanced understanding of the world

    of a teenager

    so angry, so loud, so clueless

    but don't worry child, i have faith in you, you will grow up someday, and know true wisdom

    enjoy your cynical teenage replacement in the meantime

    lol

    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

    smooches asswipe ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  108. Logic? by poptones · · Score: 1
    By your feeble logic, this page should also be "illegal" and the "publisher" thrown in jail. as would the people behind this one.

    You think you can actually ban anything? Banning behavior drives profit. Banning non political speech drives profit in the name of self rightcheousness. Whether it's alcohol, pot, or child porn - the second you ban personal use of something, you increase the profit motive substantially, and you expose a substantial number of otherwise innocent people to both prosecution and persecution.

    You hang the lynchers. You hang the rapists. You do not hang the people who view these things, no matter what their motive. Prosecuting people purely for motive amounts to thought crimes, and thought crimes are not the domain of a free society.

    1. Re:Logic? by westlake · · Score: 1

      Collecting child pornography is not a "thought crime," it is an action that directly and indirectly injures children; would you argue that society has no right to punish those who facilitate a rape or lynching?

    2. Re:Logic? by poptones · · Score: 1
      it is an action that directly and indirectly injures children

      See... you did it again. You make an assinine statement and provide absolutely zero argument to support this absurd (cough) "logic."

      Murder inarguably violates the civil rights of the victims. So does lynching (since it, simply, murder by hysteria). So do we make the collection of crime scene photos illegal? Do we imprison everyone who has a copy of In Cold Blood and a photo of Sharon Tate's mutilated body?

      HOW does collecting images of a crime already committed "facilitate" said crime? What bizarre planet do you live on where this is a rational argument? Apparently in your world all witnesses are to be prosecuted as conspirators...

    3. Re:Logic? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I think you will find that peoples desire to have something will motivate other to provide it, for a price.

      So the Demand is there for a Supply(I've heard those tefms somewhere before.hmm)

      So people wanting to find kiddie porn drives the demand and then people go out and create more kiddie porn.

      If there is no demand, supply will go away.
      So make it very hard on people creating the demand and you will reduce demand.

      Many many many studies have shown the sexually activity, especially FORCED sexual activity on children, cause long term, and often irreversible emotional scars.

      By having an enviroment that only goes after the people taking the images, you could never stop it. You must go after the person creating the demand to get to the person harming the children.

      Free speech does have its limits.

      What we do as a society is strike a balance.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Logic? by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      You think you can actually ban anything?
      Then why have laws at all? Laws reduce the occurance of socially unacceptable behaviors by establishing decentives. Some laws (taxes, licensing, etc) say you must do things or else. No law is 100% effective period. 90% effective is better than 0%. 25% is better than 0%.

      Banning behavior drives profit. Banning non political speech drives profit in the name of self rightcheousness.

      Banning behavior can drive profit. It can also reduce the size of a market and the resulting profits substantially. People who might buy a product if it were legal will not buy if it is illegal and the potential penalty isn't worth the benefit of buying. The result is that the industry serving the market is smaller, with fewer players serving a smaller base of buyers.

      I want to know why you think that child porn is protectable speech. It is expression, but not speech. The only way to create non-animated kiddie porn involves a physical or sexual assult of a child. The product that results is contraband - it is result of a crime and simply should never have existed.

      you expose a substantial number of otherwise innocent people to both prosecution and persecution.

      Laws suck if you disagree with them. At any given time in history someone has been "persecuted" or "prosecuted" for doing something he or she thought was OK and the govt didn't. Fortunately, in the case of child pornography, most of us either have children or actually were children at one time in our lives. Child porn is one of the few areas where citizens would be ready to ammend the constitution in the case the courts said it was protected speech. In the context of anonymous file sharing, there is great potential for the state to abuse people's rights becuase many people are unwitting participants in trafficing child porn. That said, the right thing to do is make sure the government understands the nature of anonymous p2p sharing - that users do not have control of what files are cached and distributed through thier node. It is much like a public area - I may own it, but I can't control the actions of the patrons.

      Prosecuting people purely for motive amounts to thought crimes,
      I'm not aware of any crimes that are pure motive crimes. Motive certainly can be used to determine the severity of a crime or to define a crime. Each of these crimes is different based on the motive:

      * You kill your neighbor's mom when you rush out of your garage because you are late, late, late to work. (Manslaughter, less jail time)
      * You kill your neighbor's mom because she is black and looked at you funny. (Hate Crime, more jail time possible death penalty)
      * You kill your neighbor's mom because she had an affair with your male or female partner. (Murder, more jail time, possible death penalty)

      --
      -- $G
  109. misperceptions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    first, i am not right wing, i am a liberal hawk. i am one with people like salman rushdie, who wholeheartedly embrace the forceful spread of democracy to dangeorus despotic regimes.

    it is only a sly joke that millions of people can be birthed into relatively liberal democracy to what they had before... all under the watchful eye of our idiot right wing moron-in-chief gw bush ;-)

    second, i agree with you about friends and the us. the us needs to center it's foreign policy on one and only one doctirne: the spread of democracy, no more, no less. any other commitment based on more cynical goals only makes us out to be hypocrits. sadly, us foreign policy falls short on this.

    however, i assert to you that the actions the us is making, for whatever cynical reason you see in them, is worth tons more than zero efforts the do-nothing other western democracies do not make.

    it is always better to forcefully act against a perceived evil than to sit around and fret about it and eventually do nothing. in such a case, the cancer only grows. saddam hussein was a cancer that needed removing, i don't see how you could debate me on this. there is a large plurality of opinion on this all over the world.

    fact: the world is better off without saddam hussein. if our opinions depart on this point we really don't have much to talk about.

    fact that remains to be seen: the us will democratize iraq. since this hasn't happened yet, we can only assert our feelings and beliefs about this. it is clear i believe the us will democratize iraq. it is clear you believe they will not.

    i'll tell you what, in a year or two, when you see the us leave iraq for good and leave iraq a democratic country, i hope you will revisit this little chat in your mind we have had, and be intellectually honest with me and note that faith in the us actually capable of doing good in the world is worth something.

    i will make the promise to you that if the outcome is not as i see it, i will revisit this little chat in my mind as well, and grant you your win, which, if unfortunately true, would be a win for the cynics.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:misperceptions by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      first, i am not right wing, i am a liberal hawk.

      I have never run into a liberal hawk in my life (especially when a country is carrying out unilateral action). Consider yourself unique. You must roost in a small nest since doves take up all the other spots on the left wing :)

      i am one with people like salman rushdie, who wholeheartedly embrace the forceful spread of democracy to dangeorus despotic regimes.

      The problem with Salman Rusdie is that he doesn't even live in his country anymore (for obvious reasons). What this means is that he often doesn't value the damage done by forceful change. Any sort of intervention will result in thousands up to tens of thousands of deaths. Rushdie doesn't consider these things because he is living in the comfort of Britain.

      Second, and more importantly, I don't see how you can expect a right-wing imperial govt to carry out any of the actions that you seek. As I pointed out, if they can't even get their allies to change how do they expect force to do it? Since you are a hawk I guess you expect force to be the magical answer but as a dove, let me tell you this: no one likes to be forced to do anything! Using force will only backfire. There is no way you can maintain something long term with force. History has shown this. Even some of the top totalitarian governments (which basically means max force) have failed within 100 years.

      it is always better to forcefully act against a perceived evil than to sit around and fret about it and eventually do nothing.

      Perceptions can be wrong.. in fact they are wrong most of the time. At the rate that USA is going, they should invade Canada next since it is perceived as being evil in many quarters of the white house. As a sidenote, you DO realize that most of your perception is shaped by govt propaganda right?

      in such a case, the cancer only grows. saddam hussein was a cancer that needed removing, i don't see how you could debate me on this. there is a large plurality of opinion on this all over the world.

      Actually most of the world is on my side. In case you haven't realized, the VAST MAJORITY of countries (including what neo-cons call the chocolate-making countries ;) Belgium, France, Germany, etc) were against the war. It actually gets worse for you. When people were polled all over the world (instead of relying on govt positions), even more people were against the war.

      Most people realize that circumventing international norms and laws to unilaterally invade is undesirable. It is a trait of authoratarian governments (chaulk another one up for imperialism). Who are you going to invade next? Cuba?

      Saddam Hussein is just one of many dictators on earth. So you are willing to remove the next dictator (who has done similar things)? I suggest that you start in Africa. They need some "cleaning up".

      fact: the world is better off without saddam hussein.

      Fact: the world is better off without homeless people. Let's go and kill all of them. That will eliminate homelessness for sure ;)

      it is clear i believe the us will democratize iraq. it is clear you believe they will not.

      History is on my side. USA hasn't democratized any country it invaded in the last 60 years (except Japan, Germany, and to a small extent South Korea). USA sure did a lot of democratizing in El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Indonesia, Vietnam, Haiti, Panama, and Afghanistan ;( ... Iraq will be just as democratic as those countries were when USA was involved...

      i'll tell you what, in a year or two, when you see the us leave iraq for good and leave iraq a democratic country, i hope you will revisit this little chat in your mind we have had, and be intellectually honest with me and note that faith in the us actually capable of doing good in the world is worth something.

      Sure..

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  110. Re:Rights? What are they? by cpeterso · · Score: 1


    or is it AmeriKKKa?

  111. What? by poptones · · Score: 1
    The government has the right to un-anonymize you the minute they find a crime either has been committed or have compelling cause to believe a crime will be committed.

    What is "compelling?" Is it "compelling" evidence you will rob a bank if you can get a ski mask? Is the logical response to this to ban all sales of ski masks? Is it logical to conclude people will not be able to mask their appearance if they cannot buy ski masks? Or to require "registration" of anyone purchasing a ski mask? Reminds me of a third rock episode where their plans to rob a bank were thwarted by the pens being chained to the tables.

    Child porn is always a violation of rights of the child. No consent. The only way to make kiddie porn with real people is criminal.

    So what? You hunt down the pornographers and prosecute them. Have you done any research on this? When you do, you will see figures turned up (by the police organizations themselves) that children pictured in child pornography are rarely found. I don't mean like one in ten - I mean like one in a thousand. That's one of the reasons it's such a big deal when they do actually track down someone who is creating the stuff.

    This, despite them saying there are tens of thousands of images.

    So, let's say there's 50 images of any given child - 50 pictures of a child being raped. That doesn't happen in a vacuum; there will be another person there (the rapist), and it will likely be filmed in a room, in a house, in a state or province or territory.

    Banning the sharing of these photos means you are mandating secrecy. You are grossly limiting the number of people who will see these photos, which means the state is protecting child rapists.

    How the fuck is that logical? Child pornography should be printed on goddamn milk cartons. It should be a HUGE FUCKING DEAL. There should be websites with HAVE YOU SEEN ME? printed in giant red letters followed by every recent image of molestation to be found. It should be the number one hit on google, because the more people who see these pictures the greater the chances of anyone - neighbor, spouse, or relative - recognizing a child, or a face, a hand, a tatoo, a dick, a couch or wallpaper or a chair.

    THAT is how you protect the children. By subverting the message and keeping the only available evidence of a very serious crime a secret, all you protect are the people doing the most damage: the people committing the acts in the first place.

  112. Re:Rights? What are they? by Line+Noise · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's the Straight Dope on the issue.

  113. Ian Clarke, better spin doctor than coder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ian Clarke is leaving the USA because he ran out of money, not because of any freedom of speech claim he makes. The whole thing is simply a publicity stunt, really.

  114. Ah-Nuld foah Goobah-noo-toh-ree-ahl... by poptones · · Score: 1
    In contrast, I can't recall a US govt ever failing and calling an early election.

    You obvious-lee haaave neevah huud oof calee-fon-ee-yah!

  115. So.... by poptones · · Score: 1
    basically you refuse to concede the point in spite of having no logical retort at all - and are not ashamed to admit it.

    Well, congrats on your proud ignorance!

  116. listen to the teenager yell by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i have made my points consistently and clearly in myraid ways throughout this thread

    i do not need to spoonfeed them to you again and again

    but if you insist on viewing my refusal to bow to your dogmatic argumentative needs as a concession that you are right, well then congratulations: you have completely won the entire argument, there is no merit to any of my views at all lol ;-)

    i don't think i will be the one to change you, child, a teenager needs to go to his room and skulk until the anger passes and clarity returns

    you'll get ii someday, i have faith in you growing up

    lol ;-P

    xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  117. TROLL ALERT by poptones · · Score: 1
    You mean insightful shit like this?

    stop take a deep breath hyperbole propaganda you are drowning in it .... god save us all from your teenage-level simplistic moralizing and righteous indignation in short, grow the up, you are a moral child, easily manipulated by propaganda ....

    How the fuck have you spewed more than twenty four of these utterly useless ad hominem attacks in this thread and escaped being modded a troll?

    1. Re:TROLL ALERT by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      well if you think nothing i write rises above simple trolling, then congratulations:

      YHBT YHL HAND

      anything i can help you with dear? LOL

      xoxoxoxoxoxoxox

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  118. Strawman by poptones · · Score: 1

    Apparently you were not a reader of /., nor a reader of the EFF website, when Clinton was in office...

  119. Re:I don't understand... by marko123 · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry. I'm not from around here. I've been reading this instead. Which one should I be reading?

    --
    http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
  120. Ian Clarke: The Emperor Has No Clothes by fahrvergnugen · · Score: 1

    I'll be the first to admit it, Freenet rocks. But Ian Clarke, when he's not busy letting us swap mp3's without worry of RIAA persecution, is not jesus. He's a flawed, perhaps very flawed, human being, and the way this whole thread has been spent lauding him has left me a bit nauseated.

    Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his business ventures like Uprizer are in the black, and that he's not just run out of money.

    That doesn't make him any less of an abusive, manipulative jerk. (Sorry for the Geocities URL, if anyone reads this instead of modding it troll maybe I can find a decent mirror somewhere)

    So thanks for Freenet, Ian, it's a great tool. It's just a pity that you're one, too.

    --
    Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
  121. Re:A question for all US people Caliphate of Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, I didnt read Moore or Franken and I don't know who the rest are.

    Anyways, its irrelevant who said it, it's still true. Just because security is more relaxed 2 years later doesn't mean anything, it was a much much bigger pain beforehand.

  122. Re:A question for all US people Caliphate of Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry we dont make it easier for your terrorist friends to fucking blow us up.

  123. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka THE liar persists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still don't know anyone. Sorry mister circumstantial, you don't have a case against the US Gov. Gather enough evidence and file a civil rights lawsuit against them. I'm sure your terrorist pals at the ACLU would have done so, except no evidence exists. Oh wait, a top secret cabal of people who piss on the constitution really run things and we are all Orwellian watched and marionettes and the reason you aren't successful at anything is the secret cabal of leaders determined you shouldn't be. It's not your fault. Everything bad in life is the secret technophiles doing evil through the long arms of evil companies and an evil government.

    Yes, its so complicated.

  124. the BSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    probably gets stacks of blank signed search warrants for a cigar and a promise to tour their schools with the microsoft bus. lol. well, you have to think of the children.

  125. Re:Rights? What are they? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    I just did a Google search on "Nazi" + aliens and got a bunch of web sites too. Therefore the Nazis must have been in collusion with the aliens! The web said so.

    So you think this "power at all costs" thing is pretty new huh?

  126. Re:Rights? What are they? by Hatta · · Score: 1
    Ok, he wasn't arrested. but he was certainly harassed. From http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,55838,00 .html


    Andrew Mandell, a member of Voices in the Wilderness, a group that protests U.S. sanctions against Iraq. Mandell was questioned by Chicago police and a postal inspector after refusing to use stamps featuring the American flag on a newsletter going out to 4,000 of the group's supporters.

    "Because of the work we do, we felt some people might be offended by the stamp, so we asked for any stamp but the American flag stamp," said Mandell.

    The postal worker asked Mandell and a colleague to wait while she got the stamps, then went into a back room to phone the police. Two cops arrived, asked Mandell what he had against the flag, and left after he explained the group's position. The postal worker told Mandell to return for his stamps the next day. When he did, a postal inspector took him into a back room to ask about the group's activities and funding. Additionally, the inspector requested to inspect the mass mailing before it was sent; Mandell acquiesced.

    "It felt like he had a lot of power to make my life miserable," Mandell said. "I didn't like the potential of the situation."
    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  127. Re:A question for all US people Caliphate of Lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Carville and Begala? You dont know who they are? And you think you are "up on things" enough to constantly rant about fucking politics? Give me a break. I suppose Mary Matalin is a mystery too.

  128. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka THE liar persists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually the ACLU has been working overtime since 9/11, trying to get people released and filing civil lawsuits for the cases we're talking about here.

  129. Re:Why I'm leaving Amerikkka THE liar persists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell me, do you actually believe that the government doesn't arrest innocent people?

  130. Re:Rights? What are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just sad and pathetic. Goodbye rights, hello police state.