Broke US law? How? The company he works for might have broken the law, and even that is a big maybe. But how did Dimitri break US law? He wrote the program in Russia where he isn't subject to US law. He only talked about it here. How does that make him a criminal?
They hate us because we practice an interventionist foreign policy, which is another issue altogether (and not one I want to debate).
I think I see your point. This is probably what Bush meant in his speech yesterday when he said that NMD would allow us to continue to "spread freedom" in the world. Basically we will still be able to bomb whomever we wish without facing serious retribution.
There might have been an additional factor. I don't know if this was still true at the point when OS/2 got slaughtered in the marketplace
I don't know about the theory you present, but I have an additional factor to add as well. When OS/2 got slaughtered, as I understand it, it was largely due to the fact that you couldn't buy OS/2 without also paying for Windows due to Microsoft's per-processor (and later per-machine) licensing. Who wants to pay that much? Not many apparently.
The simple fact that we have the capability of stopping such an attack would probably do more to halt nuclear proliferation amongst rogue states than anything else ever has.
This seems to be one of the main points of contention (second only to the likelihood of someone actually launching a missile at us when there are better and much less traceable methods of delivery). How exactly will this halt nuclear proliferation? Won't they just work towards building up more and better missiles so that they will once again have the power to be on equal footing with the US? Is China likely to just give up and concede that the US will be the lone gunman of the world? Hell no. They'll keep working at stealing our tech and creating their own to try to at least level the playing field. There will be another arms race. We'll end up with more nukes in the world rather than fewer. Additionally, if we end up as the supreme nuclear power in the world, and especially if we use that position to try to influence things in the world, wouldn't that be like putting a big "Nuke Me!" sign on our back? Won't we see a huge increase in pissed off foreigners joining terrorist organizations to try to rid the world of the US menace?
Now, that's the argument I'm putting forth in a sort of devil's advocate kind of way. I'd like to see it rebutted successfully and thoroughly. I have been thinking about this and I can see both sides of it. I like the idea of having a defense against nukes. I don't want the US to get hit anymore than anyone else here does. I just don't think that this is being done in the right way. I think we're going to just end up pissing everybody off and it's going to blow up in our faces (possibly literally).
The only thing that has really kept us at peace is the fact that we don't want to die and neither do our enemies. We both know that if either of us attacks, we'll both be utterly destroyed. Now, with a defense system in place, we've put China, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, etc. in an inferior position. Suddenly their nuclear arsenals aren't really a threat anymore. What will they do? I think they'll build up until they are a threat again. Either they will have missiles that can fool our system, or they'll have enough to saturate our defenses.
Now there is the possible outcome that we'll see China and maybe India build up to roughly the same capability as Russia currently has. Then they may feel that they are secure again. They could defeat our defenses. They will likely be pissed off that we forced them into such spending though. But if that happens, then we'll have our defense against rogue missiles, and we'll still have the same basic MAD principle applying to us and our largest possible adversaries.
If that's the way it works out, fine. I just don't know if that's the way it will work out, or what other consequences we'll face because of that. I just hope the government is giving the same attention to making sure bombs and fissable material are not brought into the country through other means. That just seems to be the most likely method of attack.
If you managed to find a way to get around clicking on a clickthrough agreement, you're probably guilty of another crime under the DMCA and/or UCITA if it applies in your state.
Copyright law was supposed to be a bargain. Creators would create new music and such and we, the people, would agree not to compete with them commercially for a period of time. That bargain is long gone, since that time, copyright has been extended well beyond any reasonable period of time, and our rights to non-commercial use have been severely curtailed. Copyright is not a bargain anymore. It's a exercise in abuse of government power. It's corporate welfare. It's a unilateral declaration that we have no right to the ideas and information we know and have access to. Everything that should have been public domain by now was stolen from us. I think we have a right to take what we want now. We've been swindled long enough.
Once we know something, it's ours as well as whomever thought of it first. The law was once somewhat reasonable on this issue. We simply had to refrain from competing commercially with the original creator for a relatively limited period of time. After such time we could do as we liked with the information. Today, IP corporations are trying to make their control over ideas and other sorts of IP absolute and perpetual. We should not stand for it. Violating such laws is simply not immorral at all. It's us or them. Do we plan to allow the collective creativity and knowledge of this country to be locked up and only be accessible through fees paid to the holders of the information? Sounds like a bleak future.
Actually, it's legal in the US. The RIAA is reluctant to admit it though. As long as you aren't selling the copies for profit or distributing on a massive scale, it's legal.
Microsoft's EULA does make it illegal to install software on more than one machine, regardless of whether they are used at the same time or not. I'm sure many other companies do the same.
If it's a missile, it will come from some country, or from a ship which can be traced. As others have pointed out though, if an individual terrorist group (i.e. not state sponsored) manages to get their hands on everything they need for a nuke, they aren't likely to wait around to try and get their hands on an icbm as well. They'll build the bomb and smuggle it into the country by truck, plane, ship, or some other means. Then they'll detonate it.
So a power would indeed threaten to use them--and if the U.S. only lost one city, do you think that world opinion would support the genocide of an entire nation in response? What did the women and children of that country do to merit death, especially when we have not been totally destroyed?
Same as those in the US city, nothing. But if they launch a nuke first, I think the world would expect us to retaliate in kind. The surprise would be if we chose not to. I doubt we'd take that route though. It would probably depend on whether or not we believe they might have more nukes as well as any other consequences that our launching might have for us, them, their neighbors, etc.
That stuff I understand. What I don't buy is that some country is gonna buy the stuff to build a nuke or buy a nuke outright and launch it at us. See, these guys don't have a problem sending some of their people out to die to take a whack at us. But if it was their entire country, and with it their way of life, religion, etc. on the line, even the biggest nuts wouldn't be able to come up with a reason to do it. What we should be fearing is the smaller weapons smuggled that could be smuggled in. That seems to be a lot more likely than someone launching at us and thereby ensuring their own destruction.
My previous reservations aside, doesn't the successful test make you want to eat your words?
In his defense, I don't think a single successful test proves a thing about the viability of the system. The test was most likely done under ideal conditions, and the Military has been known to give their toys less than realistic advantages when the public is actually interested in the outcome. If someone is going to launch at us, I don't see how they can fail to take the system into account. In that case I would think they would use some sort of countermeasures. This has always been the point that most of the system's critics bring up. The system should be pretty easy to fool with relatively simple countermeasures. When it can be shown to deal with such things, then I may start believing it's worthwhile technologically. Politically is a whole other story.
3. You suggest that if out of 100 missiles one got through that the attack would be 100% effective, and the system would therfor be ineffective. This is akin to arguing that condoms should not be worn during sex because they only reduce the chance of contracting an STD to 5% instead of 0%. Your argument is flawed, and the hundred million people that are or are not killed by the 99 missiles intercepted in your example disagree with you.
I think what he was saying is that if 100 missiles were launched at ONE CITY (e.g. DC), and only 1 got through, that's all it would take to destroy the city. 100% effectiveness. Russia has thousands of nukes. We couldn't possibly survive a full launch by them (and there's no reason for them not to launch everything they've got, seeing as how the world will likely come to an end shortly after that. Might as well get their money's worth.)
The real problem I see is that the nations that have missiles aren't likely to use them anymore than Russia is. Most of the smaller countries don't even have good enough missiles to deliver a warhead to the US. The thing we should be worried about is bombs being smuggled into the US and/or built here. I think this system will end up doing more harm than good.
Don't we have our own nukes in Japan too? Plus nukes in subs all over the place? The US supposedly has over 10K nuke missiles total, and plenty more warheads IIRC. Whatever happens, we have the capability to destroy the entire world if we chose to. We don't need nuclear allies.
I don't think you're understanding. Yes, China and Russia have nukes. So do India and Pakistan now. So does North Korea. But none of them want their entire country to glow in the dark. So they don't attack us. This has worked pretty well for the last 50 years. Now Bush wants to go and fuck it all up by giving us what looks to everyone else as an edge in the MAD (mutually assured destruction) game.
They'll continue to quietly build (under cover) until they have enough arms to be a significant threat.
They already have more than enough to annihilate us and most of the rest of the world. Russia has thousands of nukes. The US has over 10 thousand. If either of us launch, the world is fucked. Get it?
At least instead of developing more nuclear arms, the US is now trying to render existing arms less effective.
Umm.. you mean render EVERYONE ELSE'S existing arms less effective. And they will respond how? By building MORE EFFECTIVE missiles, of course. Plus, they'll be a lot more likely to use them if they feel we're gaining the upper hand. We'll be back in the 50s again waiting in fear for someone to finally push the button.
Now, as things stand today, we're really not in any danger of another country launching a nuke at us. At least not any more than we've always been. As the previous poster pointed out, it's much more likely that a nuke will be smuggled into the country and detonated. It would be a lot easier to do it that way, and a lot harder to track the source. This system will do nothing to protect us from terrorist attacks, which is the bogeyman dejour these days. Then there's the little problem that the system will not likely be able to deal with more than a few missiles, and if those missiles have even rudimentary countermeasures, it will probably completely fail to hit them.
I don't think you're understanding. Yes, China and Russia have nukes. So do India and Pakistan now. So does North Korea. But none of them want their entire country to glow in the dark. So they don't attack us. This has worked pretty well for the last 50 years. Now Bush wants to go and fuck it all up by giving us what looks to everyone else as an edge in the MAD (mutually assured destruction) game.
They'll continue to quietly build (under cover) until they have enough arms to be a significant threat.
They already have more than enough to annihilate us and most of the rest of the world. Russia has thousands of nukes. The US has over 10 thousand. If either of us launch, the world is fucked. Get it?
At least instead of developing more nuclear arms, the US is now trying to render existing arms less effective. Umm.. you mean render EVERYONE ELSE'S existing arms less effective. And they will respond how? By building MORE EFFECTIVE missiles, of course. Plus, they'll be a lot more likely to use them if they feel we're gaining the upper hand. We'll be back in the 50s again waiting in fear for someone to finally push the button.
Now, as things stand today, we're really not in any danger of another country launching a nuke at us. At least not any more than we've always been. As the previous poster pointed out, it's much more likely that a nuke will be smuggled into the country and detonated. It would be a lot easier to do it that way, and a lot harder to track the source. This system will do nothing to protect us from terrorist attacks, which is the bogeyman dejour these days. Then there's the little problem that the system will not likely be able to deal with more than a few missiles, and if those missiles have even rudimentary countermeasures, it will probably completely fail to hit them.
And that jeopardizes our supreme interests how? All the treaties we made with the Soviet Union were inherited by Russia. I fail to see how this jeopardizes us in any way.
Russia ALREADY HAS LOTS OF NUKES! Even if they had to build more, they would do it. They've done it before without worrying about the consequences to their economy.
Either way, it wouldn't take very many to fuck us up anyway. This missile defense system won't be able to handle very many missiles. And if they decide to equip those missiles with even rudimentary countermeasures, we will be severely fucked.
Strange. I usually get at least a form letter back. Although it usually takes several months to even get that. What's worse is when the return letter shows a complete lack of comprehension of what I was saying, or, more likely, they didn't even bother to read it.
I sent a letter to my rep regarding Napster. Now, in that letter, I didn't say I supported Napster. In fact, I specifically stated that I didn't support what they were doing, but that I had other issues that I felt needed to be addressed. I got a return letter saying something to the effect of, "Thank you for your opinion. Your support for Napster has been taken in to account, yadda yadda..." THAT WAS INFURIATING!
Just 5 years ago, I remember shopping for a car with my GF, and a V6 accord could be had for $16,000.00
Of course in the last 5 years the Accord has been upscaled quite a bit with the Civic taking over the lower end and another (i forgot the name now) taking over the "itty bitty" category from the civic. I don't think you can compare the two now.
How much is matinee now? $5.75 How about just 3 years ago? $3.00 Now I know inflation isn't that high.... That's what a monopoly does to you, since over here, Regal Cinemas is the only theatre chain in town... Don't want to pay $7.75? Then you're SOL, don't watch a movie than....
Was this meant to support your point? If so, you lost me.
As for the insurance companies, I have to chalk it up to corruption. The government mandates that we have insurance on our vehicles, but they don't do nearly enough to make sure the insurance companies don't screw people over. The insurance industry is huge and has great lobbying power. That's why you get screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
Broke US law? How? The company he works for might have broken the law, and even that is a big maybe. But how did Dimitri break US law? He wrote the program in Russia where he isn't subject to US law. He only talked about it here. How does that make him a criminal?
And I'll clearly respond:
No problem.
They hate us because we practice an interventionist foreign policy, which is another issue altogether (and not one I want to debate).
I think I see your point. This is probably what Bush meant in his speech yesterday when he said that NMD would allow us to continue to "spread freedom" in the world. Basically we will still be able to bomb whomever we wish without facing serious retribution.
There might have been an additional factor. I don't know if this was still true at the point when OS/2 got slaughtered in the marketplace
I don't know about the theory you present, but I have an additional factor to add as well. When OS/2 got slaughtered, as I understand it, it was largely due to the fact that you couldn't buy OS/2 without also paying for Windows due to Microsoft's per-processor (and later per-machine) licensing. Who wants to pay that much? Not many apparently.
I shudder to think about what happens when you try moving an app to another drive in Windows... *shudder* see? :)
The simple fact that we have the capability of stopping such an attack would probably do more to halt nuclear proliferation amongst rogue states than anything else ever has.
This seems to be one of the main points of contention (second only to the likelihood of someone actually launching a missile at us when there are better and much less traceable methods of delivery). How exactly will this halt nuclear proliferation? Won't they just work towards building up more and better missiles so that they will once again have the power to be on equal footing with the US? Is China likely to just give up and concede that the US will be the lone gunman of the world? Hell no. They'll keep working at stealing our tech and creating their own to try to at least level the playing field. There will be another arms race. We'll end up with more nukes in the world rather than fewer. Additionally, if we end up as the supreme nuclear power in the world, and especially if we use that position to try to influence things in the world, wouldn't that be like putting a big "Nuke Me!" sign on our back? Won't we see a huge increase in pissed off foreigners joining terrorist organizations to try to rid the world of the US menace?
Now, that's the argument I'm putting forth in a sort of devil's advocate kind of way. I'd like to see it rebutted successfully and thoroughly. I have been thinking about this and I can see both sides of it. I like the idea of having a defense against nukes. I don't want the US to get hit anymore than anyone else here does. I just don't think that this is being done in the right way. I think we're going to just end up pissing everybody off and it's going to blow up in our faces (possibly literally).
The only thing that has really kept us at peace is the fact that we don't want to die and neither do our enemies. We both know that if either of us attacks, we'll both be utterly destroyed. Now, with a defense system in place, we've put China, India, Pakistan, N. Korea, etc. in an inferior position. Suddenly their nuclear arsenals aren't really a threat anymore. What will they do? I think they'll build up until they are a threat again. Either they will have missiles that can fool our system, or they'll have enough to saturate our defenses.
Now there is the possible outcome that we'll see China and maybe India build up to roughly the same capability as Russia currently has. Then they may feel that they are secure again. They could defeat our defenses. They will likely be pissed off that we forced them into such spending though. But if that happens, then we'll have our defense against rogue missiles, and we'll still have the same basic MAD principle applying to us and our largest possible adversaries.
If that's the way it works out, fine. I just don't know if that's the way it will work out, or what other consequences we'll face because of that. I just hope the government is giving the same attention to making sure bombs and fissable material are not brought into the country through other means. That just seems to be the most likely method of attack.
If you managed to find a way to get around clicking on a clickthrough agreement, you're probably guilty of another crime under the DMCA and/or UCITA if it applies in your state.
Copyright law was supposed to be a bargain. Creators would create new music and such and we, the people, would agree not to compete with them commercially for a period of time. That bargain is long gone, since that time, copyright has been extended well beyond any reasonable period of time, and our rights to non-commercial use have been severely curtailed. Copyright is not a bargain anymore. It's a exercise in abuse of government power. It's corporate welfare. It's a unilateral declaration that we have no right to the ideas and information we know and have access to. Everything that should have been public domain by now was stolen from us. I think we have a right to take what we want now. We've been swindled long enough.
Once we know something, it's ours as well as whomever thought of it first. The law was once somewhat reasonable on this issue. We simply had to refrain from competing commercially with the original creator for a relatively limited period of time. After such time we could do as we liked with the information. Today, IP corporations are trying to make their control over ideas and other sorts of IP absolute and perpetual. We should not stand for it. Violating such laws is simply not immorral at all. It's us or them. Do we plan to allow the collective creativity and knowledge of this country to be locked up and only be accessible through fees paid to the holders of the information? Sounds like a bleak future.
Actually, it's legal in the US. The RIAA is reluctant to admit it though. As long as you aren't selling the copies for profit or distributing on a massive scale, it's legal.
Microsoft's EULA does make it illegal to install software on more than one machine, regardless of whether they are used at the same time or not. I'm sure many other companies do the same.
If it's a missile, it will come from some country, or from a ship which can be traced. As others have pointed out though, if an individual terrorist group (i.e. not state sponsored) manages to get their hands on everything they need for a nuke, they aren't likely to wait around to try and get their hands on an icbm as well. They'll build the bomb and smuggle it into the country by truck, plane, ship, or some other means. Then they'll detonate it.
So a power would indeed threaten to use them--and if the U.S. only lost one city, do you think that world opinion would support the genocide of an entire nation in response? What did the women and children of that country do to merit death, especially when we have not been totally destroyed?
Same as those in the US city, nothing. But if they launch a nuke first, I think the world would expect us to retaliate in kind. The surprise would be if we chose not to. I doubt we'd take that route though. It would probably depend on whether or not we believe they might have more nukes as well as any other consequences that our launching might have for us, them, their neighbors, etc.
That stuff I understand. What I don't buy is that some country is gonna buy the stuff to build a nuke or buy a nuke outright and launch it at us. See, these guys don't have a problem sending some of their people out to die to take a whack at us. But if it was their entire country, and with it their way of life, religion, etc. on the line, even the biggest nuts wouldn't be able to come up with a reason to do it. What we should be fearing is the smaller weapons smuggled that could be smuggled in. That seems to be a lot more likely than someone launching at us and thereby ensuring their own destruction.
My previous reservations aside, doesn't the successful test make you want to eat your words?
In his defense, I don't think a single successful test proves a thing about the viability of the system. The test was most likely done under ideal conditions, and the Military has been known to give their toys less than realistic advantages when the public is actually interested in the outcome. If someone is going to launch at us, I don't see how they can fail to take the system into account. In that case I would think they would use some sort of countermeasures. This has always been the point that most of the system's critics bring up. The system should be pretty easy to fool with relatively simple countermeasures. When it can be shown to deal with such things, then I may start believing it's worthwhile technologically. Politically is a whole other story.
3. You suggest that if out of 100 missiles one got through that the attack would be 100% effective, and the system would therfor be ineffective. This is akin to arguing that condoms should not be worn during sex because they only reduce the chance of contracting an STD to 5% instead of 0%. Your argument is flawed, and the hundred million people that are or are not killed by the 99 missiles intercepted in your example disagree with you.
I think what he was saying is that if 100 missiles were launched at ONE CITY (e.g. DC), and only 1 got through, that's all it would take to destroy the city. 100% effectiveness. Russia has thousands of nukes. We couldn't possibly survive a full launch by them (and there's no reason for them not to launch everything they've got, seeing as how the world will likely come to an end shortly after that. Might as well get their money's worth.)
The real problem I see is that the nations that have missiles aren't likely to use them anymore than Russia is. Most of the smaller countries don't even have good enough missiles to deliver a warhead to the US. The thing we should be worried about is bombs being smuggled into the US and/or built here. I think this system will end up doing more harm than good.
Don't we have our own nukes in Japan too? Plus nukes in subs all over the place? The US supposedly has over 10K nuke missiles total, and plenty more warheads IIRC. Whatever happens, we have the capability to destroy the entire world if we chose to. We don't need nuclear allies.
Shoulda previewed......shoulda been like this:
I don't think you're understanding. Yes, China and Russia have nukes. So do India and Pakistan now. So does North Korea. But none of them want their entire country to glow in the dark. So they don't attack us. This has worked pretty well for the last 50 years. Now Bush wants to go and fuck it all up by giving us what looks to everyone else as an edge in the MAD (mutually assured destruction) game.
They'll continue to quietly build (under cover) until they have enough arms to be a significant threat.
They already have more than enough to annihilate us and most of the rest of the world. Russia has thousands of nukes. The US has over 10 thousand. If either of us launch, the world is fucked. Get it?
At least instead of developing more nuclear arms, the US is now trying to render existing arms less effective.
Umm.. you mean render EVERYONE ELSE'S existing arms less effective. And they will respond how? By building MORE EFFECTIVE missiles, of course. Plus, they'll be a lot more likely to use them if they feel we're gaining the upper hand. We'll be back in the 50s again waiting in fear for someone to finally push the button.
Now, as things stand today, we're really not in any danger of another country launching a nuke at us. At least not any more than we've always been. As the previous poster pointed out, it's much more likely that a nuke will be smuggled into the country and detonated. It would be a lot easier to do it that way, and a lot harder to track the source. This system will do nothing to protect us from terrorist attacks, which is the bogeyman dejour these days. Then there's the little problem that the system will not likely be able to deal with more than a few missiles, and if those missiles have even rudimentary countermeasures, it will probably completely fail to hit them.
I don't think you're understanding. Yes, China and Russia have nukes. So do India and Pakistan now. So does North Korea. But none of them want their entire country to glow in the dark. So they don't attack us. This has worked pretty well for the last 50 years. Now Bush wants to go and fuck it all up by giving us what looks to everyone else as an edge in the MAD (mutually assured destruction) game.
They'll continue to quietly build (under cover) until they have enough arms to be a significant threat.
They already have more than enough to annihilate us and most of the rest of the world. Russia has thousands of nukes. The US has over 10 thousand. If either of us launch, the world is fucked. Get it?
At least instead of developing more nuclear arms, the US is now trying to render existing arms less effective. Umm.. you mean render EVERYONE ELSE'S existing arms less effective. And they will respond how? By building MORE EFFECTIVE missiles, of course. Plus, they'll be a lot more likely to use them if they feel we're gaining the upper hand. We'll be back in the 50s again waiting in fear for someone to finally push the button.
Now, as things stand today, we're really not in any danger of another country launching a nuke at us. At least not any more than we've always been. As the previous poster pointed out, it's much more likely that a nuke will be smuggled into the country and detonated. It would be a lot easier to do it that way, and a lot harder to track the source. This system will do nothing to protect us from terrorist attacks, which is the bogeyman dejour these days. Then there's the little problem that the system will not likely be able to deal with more than a few missiles, and if those missiles have even rudimentary countermeasures, it will probably completely fail to hit them.
I'll be rather annoyed though. Oh, and dead too.
And that jeopardizes our supreme interests how? All the treaties we made with the Soviet Union were inherited by Russia. I fail to see how this jeopardizes us in any way.
Russia ALREADY HAS LOTS OF NUKES! Even if they had to build more, they would do it. They've done it before without worrying about the consequences to their economy.
Either way, it wouldn't take very many to fuck us up anyway. This missile defense system won't be able to handle very many missiles. And if they decide to equip those missiles with even rudimentary countermeasures, we will be severely fucked.
And everybody blows it off when I claim that the drug war fosters corruption in the police and military.
Strange. I usually get at least a form letter back. Although it usually takes several months to even get that. What's worse is when the return letter shows a complete lack of comprehension of what I was saying, or, more likely, they didn't even bother to read it.
I sent a letter to my rep regarding Napster. Now, in that letter, I didn't say I supported Napster. In fact, I specifically stated that I didn't support what they were doing, but that I had other issues that I felt needed to be addressed. I got a return letter saying something to the effect of, "Thank you for your opinion. Your support for Napster has been taken in to account, yadda yadda..." THAT WAS INFURIATING!
Just 5 years ago, I remember shopping for a car with my GF, and a V6 accord could be had for $16,000.00
Of course in the last 5 years the Accord has been upscaled quite a bit with the Civic taking over the lower end and another (i forgot the name now) taking over the "itty bitty" category from the civic. I don't think you can compare the two now.
How much is matinee now? $5.75 How about just 3 years ago? $3.00 Now I know inflation isn't that high.... That's what a monopoly does to you, since over here, Regal Cinemas is the only theatre chain in town... Don't want to pay $7.75? Then you're SOL, don't watch a movie than....
Was this meant to support your point? If so, you lost me.
As for the insurance companies, I have to chalk it up to corruption. The government mandates that we have insurance on our vehicles, but they don't do nearly enough to make sure the insurance companies don't screw people over. The insurance industry is huge and has great lobbying power. That's why you get screwed.