We bombed Vietnam more than all our bombing in WWII. We defoliated the jungles and resettled people (who didn't want to go) into "secure hamlets." Thousands of noncombatants died. When the war was over the horror of Cambodia resulted. We fought there WAY longer than we fought in WWII, and we still couldn't "win." Only an absolute fool would want to keep fighting in Vietnam any longer.
What did Vietnam have that we need? Absolutely nothing. Not a god damn thing.
We intervened in a civil war taking place in one country--Vietnam. There was no "South Vietnam" except insofar as it was created by the Allies after WWII. It was all one country. The leaders of "South Vietnaam" were crap. Have you ever read about Bao Dai or Ngo Dinh Diem? They were awful. When we ramped up the war (because WE wanted to), we had to depose Diem and replace him with more pliant generals. The "leaders" of South Vietnam didn't want to prosecute the war aggressively--WE DID.
The idea that we were fighting for the people of Vietnam was nonsense. We were fighting a war against "Communism" while the Vietnamese were fighting a civil war.
We were fighting against an "idea." That was so stupid. You shouldn't fight wars against ideas. You're then killing people to change their mind. That is ridiculous.
I haven't seen anything that indicates that the people of Vietnam are "slaves to an ideal." As far as I can see, Vietnam is doing better and better postwar.
I get your point--that a capitalist free market economy is something that we should be forcing at gunpoint upon other countries. I just reject it.
People who steal software, books and music are thieves only because the law makes them thieves. Their is nothing inherently wrong about copying another person's song or building another device just like that person's. Tribesmen have sung songs and reproduced weapons created by others for centuries before the first copyright and patent laws.
Your own point of view supports the selfish greedy copyright/patent holder. They want to keep other people from using what they make unless other people give them resources.
The law should be a reasonable balance between fostering the innovation of the creative person and fostering the sharing of creative ideas. Right now, it's tilted way too far too one side.
On this issue, the media is massively slanted in favor of extended intellectual property rights. People who want looser copyright/patent don't have much of a voice outside of forums like this.
I support the greedy downloaders who rage against the copyright machine!
I don't think China is going to invade its neighbors any time in the near future. Unless the US gets much more imperially adventuristic in Asia, China won't be much of a military problem.
The banks just push their credit card losses onto their customers. Too bad the tea-partying retards don't take it in their heads to do something about that!
The big issue that I see is that there is not enough pressure on banks to keep their credit card transactions secure (or not make them)!
The malware plague would dry up pretty fast if credit card fraud wasn't so easy to do.
Think about the model you just proposed. Would you be foolish enough to invest all your money in such a business model? If you did, you'd be hamstringing yourself from the start. Your competition would annihilate you.
Now, if you're talking about forcing your idea on other people, that's just the little totalitarian dictator that's in all of us talking.
Think about models that engage human nature, not models that force and repress it into designated patterns.
First, you need copyright protection so that loaning out ebooks by a library is fair use. I think that already exists, but I'm not sure how it works with scumsucking DRM.
Second, you need to make it so that people can donate their used ebooks to libraries. This will save your municipalities tons of money. This may require a copyright fix.
Third, facilitate inter-library loans of e-books.
Who needs to own a book? If you need it, download it from your public library. You may have to wait for a lot of other people ahead of you in line to read it, but that's a small price to pay for having a virtually limitless supply of books available to you.
The ebook is custom-made for the public library system. It's easy to manage (less expense for communities) and it maximizes usage by the citizens who pay for the books. If people can donate their books to the library system, books can also be acquired much cheaper.
Wikileaks stands for the proposition that all the secrets of open governments should be laid bare for all to see while all the secrets of closed governments should remain secret.
So long as the publisher discloses that it is an edited version, it is okay by me. I'll read the original, thank you. But I won't be thought police for anybody else. I can't make a principled distinction between this instance of bowdlerization and my mangling of another artist's creative commons output.
This is a free speech issue. Tasteless speech should be protected too!
Google search results used to be reliable. You could refine your searches, based on previous search results, and progressively narrow your search until you get what you seek. Now you keep getting paid ad "search results."
I'm sick of this shit. Any ideas for an alternative search engine?
The scorpion needs to get across the river, but he can't swim. He asks the frog to ferry him across. The frog refuses; he tells the scorpion that the scorpion will sting him and he will drown. The scorpion tells the frog that he won't sting the frog, because if he did, they both would drown. The frog ferries the scorpion. Midriver, the scorpion stings the frog. Before they both drown, the frog asks the scorpion, Why? The frog states: It's my nature.
Expecting gratitude from Novell is like expecting gratitude from a scorpion. The scorpion will sting, and Novell will seek to maximize profit.
I don't think Novell realized the huge bad will it has generated.
I disagree with you in the strongest possible way. Not because your idea is bad--on the contrary, your idea is good. In a hypothetical world it would be excellent.
But take it from me, a person with experience in the field. There is no way--absolutely no fucking way--that the judges would ever, ever do that. They can't bring themselves to lock up suspended drivers. They just can't do it. In Washington, they--the judges--went to the legislature to get the 3 time habitual traffic offender mandatory minimum reduced from one year to six months.
I love your idea, but the judges just won't do it.
What difference is there between a Wikileaks spy, a Russian spy, a British spy, or a British Petroleum spy? I don't think that there is any difference. The social value of the leak is the most important thing. Does the leak help or hurt?
Inevitably, some people will passionately argue that the disclosure of any government secret is bad--no matter what the secret. You can't convince these people and you should not even bother trying. These are the "my country right or wrong" people. Dismissing these people is a mistake--they are the necessary glue that keeps this Country together (but they can get carried away . ..).
Leaking information can hurt people in unintended ways because the leaker is never blessed with perfect knowledge, perfect reasoning, and perfect foresight.
I think that the motives and personality of the leaker are irrelevant. Deep Throat, for instance, was motivated by feelings of hurt and revenge (because he didn't get promoted), but the information he provided helped expose Nixon for the vile crook that he was.
The idiot-heads who think that EVERYTHING should be leaked because there should be no secrets ought to start their work in Russia, China, or Myanmar before they start thoughtlessly tearing up our fabric of secrecy. They're just tools that help others take advantage of our openness.
The decision to leak is a complex moral decision that should only be undertaken with care.
I think Ellsberg did exactly the right thing. The American public (and Congress) was being blatantly lied-to and high school kids were getting killed (along with massive numbers of innocent Cambodians and Laotians). He didn't hurt our effort on the ground because he only disclosed historical material. He did hurt our war effort because, once the lies were exposed the Vietnam War was exposed as the folly that it obviously was.
Ellsberg took on a huge moral responsibility (and RISK of causing unintended harm) when he disclosed the Pentagon Papers and I think he responsibly shouldered that responsibility. The Pentagon Papers was not an easy moral call.
Assange and his associates are indiscriminate leakers. They've made one moral decision (that secrecy is bad) and they're not making any more. They don't care who they hurt and they don't bother to think about it. They are morally irresponsible and they unwittingly advance the efforts of those who seek to make Western governments more closed.
Bradley Manning's only defense is that he is a big stupid idiot oblivious to the moral problem he faced.
In the law, you can't have a tie. Otherwise, you'd have babies split down the middle all over the place, and that would be awful.
There needs to be a rule to break the tie. In baseball, I was taught, the runner gets the tie. That means that the presumption is that the runner is not out at first base. In other words, if the umpire can't make up her mind, then the runner wins.
These presumptions are necessary--and quite useful. Such presumptions are REBUTTABLE presumptions. In other words the default is "X", but if the evidence meets a certain standard (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, etc.) then, and only then, "not X" is proven.
An irrebuttable presumption is a MONSTER. It is a fact that is presumed to exist and no amount of proof can disprove that fact. Irrebuttable presumptions are often used when it comes to proof of knowledge. In other words if I've got a contract and it's signed by you (and there is no proof of fraud, undue influence, etc.) then it is irrebuttably proven that you knew what the heck you signed--and no amount of proof that you could introduce would ever change that fact in court.
Such irrebuttable presumptions are exceedingly useful because they avoid bogging courts down in useless arguments. They are also useful because people are aware of these presumptions.
This case appears to be an example of a really harsh irrebuttable presumption. Over there in GB, the law appears to irrebuttably presume that the Banks' computer programmers know what the fuck they are doing.
That's like irrebuttably presuming that an interest rate of 100 percent monthly is reasonable! Don't laugh: Read your laws.
Forget abortion, the right to arm bears, family values, political correctness, and all that distracting nonsense! THIS IS THE STUFF TO PAY ATTENTION TO. All that other stuff comes after the money!
Slashdot Mirror
We bombed Vietnam more than all our bombing in WWII. We defoliated the jungles and resettled people (who didn't want to go) into "secure hamlets." Thousands of noncombatants died. When the war was over the horror of Cambodia resulted. We fought there WAY longer than we fought in WWII, and we still couldn't "win." Only an absolute fool would want to keep fighting in Vietnam any longer.
What did Vietnam have that we need? Absolutely nothing. Not a god damn thing.
We intervened in a civil war taking place in one country--Vietnam. There was no "South Vietnam" except insofar as it was created by the Allies after WWII. It was all one country. The leaders of "South Vietnaam" were crap. Have you ever read about Bao Dai or Ngo Dinh Diem? They were awful. When we ramped up the war (because WE wanted to), we had to depose Diem and replace him with more pliant generals. The "leaders" of South Vietnam didn't want to prosecute the war aggressively--WE DID.
The idea that we were fighting for the people of Vietnam was nonsense. We were fighting a war against "Communism" while the Vietnamese were fighting a civil war.
We were fighting against an "idea." That was so stupid. You shouldn't fight wars against ideas. You're then killing people to change their mind. That is ridiculous.
I haven't seen anything that indicates that the people of Vietnam are "slaves to an ideal." As far as I can see, Vietnam is doing better and better postwar.
I get your point--that a capitalist free market economy is something that we should be forcing at gunpoint upon other countries. I just reject it.
People who steal software, books and music are thieves only because the law makes them thieves. Their is nothing inherently wrong about copying another person's song or building another device just like that person's. Tribesmen have sung songs and reproduced weapons created by others for centuries before the first copyright and patent laws.
Your own point of view supports the selfish greedy copyright/patent holder. They want to keep other people from using what they make unless other people give them resources.
The law should be a reasonable balance between fostering the innovation of the creative person and fostering the sharing of creative ideas. Right now, it's tilted way too far too one side.
On this issue, the media is massively slanted in favor of extended intellectual property rights. People who want looser copyright/patent don't have much of a voice outside of forums like this.
I support the greedy downloaders who rage against the copyright machine!
You lose a war when you give up. We gave up in Vietnam (thank God!).
I don't think China is going to invade its neighbors any time in the near future. Unless the US gets much more imperially adventuristic in Asia, China won't be much of a military problem.
The banks just push their credit card losses onto their customers. Too bad the tea-partying retards don't take it in their heads to do something about that!
The big issue that I see is that there is not enough pressure on banks to keep their credit card transactions secure (or not make them)!
The malware plague would dry up pretty fast if credit card fraud wasn't so easy to do.
Sorry you got modded down. You should have been modded up.
Foolish statement in a frivolous article.
Think about the model you just proposed. Would you be foolish enough to invest all your money in such a business model? If you did, you'd be hamstringing yourself from the start. Your competition would annihilate you.
Now, if you're talking about forcing your idea on other people, that's just the little totalitarian dictator that's in all of us talking.
Think about models that engage human nature, not models that force and repress it into designated patterns.
Free as in Beer
and
Free as in Free to Oppress!
This is SONY, remember. They were religiously proprietary and closed source before Apple ever was a Woz dream.
Betamax tapes? How many companies made them?
That dog gets a bone, it don't let go.
The answer to ebooks is public libraries.
First, you need copyright protection so that loaning out ebooks by a library is fair use. I think that already exists, but I'm not sure how it works with scumsucking DRM.
Second, you need to make it so that people can donate their used ebooks to libraries. This will save your municipalities tons of money. This may require a copyright fix.
Third, facilitate inter-library loans of e-books.
Who needs to own a book? If you need it, download it from your public library. You may have to wait for a lot of other people ahead of you in line to read it, but that's a small price to pay for having a virtually limitless supply of books available to you.
The ebook is custom-made for the public library system. It's easy to manage (less expense for communities) and it maximizes usage by the citizens who pay for the books. If people can donate their books to the library system, books can also be acquired much cheaper.
This would be massively good for communities.
Wikileaks stands for the proposition that all the secrets of open governments should be laid bare for all to see while all the secrets of closed governments should remain secret.
I'm not sure that is good.
So long as the publisher discloses that it is an edited version, it is okay by me. I'll read the original, thank you. But I won't be thought police for anybody else. I can't make a principled distinction between this instance of bowdlerization and my mangling of another artist's creative commons output.
This is a free speech issue. Tasteless speech should be protected too!
The photog only authorized PRIVATE use of the picture. Why don't you respect that and take it off your site?
Google search results used to be reliable. You could refine your searches, based on previous search results, and progressively narrow your search until you get what you seek. Now you keep getting paid ad "search results."
I'm sick of this shit. Any ideas for an alternative search engine?
The scorpion needs to get across the river, but he can't swim. He asks the frog to ferry him across. The frog refuses; he tells the scorpion that the scorpion will sting him and he will drown. The scorpion tells the frog that he won't sting the frog, because if he did, they both would drown. The frog ferries the scorpion. Midriver, the scorpion stings the frog. Before they both drown, the frog asks the scorpion, Why? The frog states: It's my nature.
Expecting gratitude from Novell is like expecting gratitude from a scorpion. The scorpion will sting, and Novell will seek to maximize profit.
I don't think Novell realized the huge bad will it has generated.
The colonialists ate Chinese lunch. The current regime isn't serving.
Guess there's not going to be a sequel to the Opium Wars.
I disagree with you in the strongest possible way. Not because your idea is bad--on the contrary, your idea is good. In a hypothetical world it would be excellent.
But take it from me, a person with experience in the field. There is no way--absolutely no fucking way--that the judges would ever, ever do that. They can't bring themselves to lock up suspended drivers. They just can't do it. In Washington, they--the judges--went to the legislature to get the 3 time habitual traffic offender mandatory minimum reduced from one year to six months.
I love your idea, but the judges just won't do it.
If there were a better alternative, I'd go there.
The trained drunks are really good at basic baseline driving. It is REALLY hard to catch them.
But give the trained drunk one glitch in his driving situation--one unexpected thing--and that sorry bastard becomes a KILLER.
Freedom of speech includes the right not to publish anything you don't want to publish.
Anybody else is still free to distribute the materials Amazon doesn't want.
Thre is no censorship here.
If I can carry around all my data in a little pod, then all I'll need is access to input and output devices.
That would be far out. Thanks IBM, for the neat science fiction story of the day!
Doubtless many of the "copyrighted" songs are derivative from earlier folk works that are long out of copyright. This is utterly silly.
What difference is there between a Wikileaks spy, a Russian spy, a British spy, or a British Petroleum spy? I don't think that there is any difference. The social value of the leak is the most important thing. Does the leak help or hurt?
Inevitably, some people will passionately argue that the disclosure of any government secret is bad--no matter what the secret. You can't convince these people and you should not even bother trying. These are the "my country right or wrong" people. Dismissing these people is a mistake--they are the necessary glue that keeps this Country together (but they can get carried away . . .).
Leaking information can hurt people in unintended ways because the leaker is never blessed with perfect knowledge, perfect reasoning, and perfect foresight.
I think that the motives and personality of the leaker are irrelevant. Deep Throat, for instance, was motivated by feelings of hurt and revenge (because he didn't get promoted), but the information he provided helped expose Nixon for the vile crook that he was.
The idiot-heads who think that EVERYTHING should be leaked because there should be no secrets ought to start their work in Russia, China, or Myanmar before they start thoughtlessly tearing up our fabric of secrecy. They're just tools that help others take advantage of our openness.
The decision to leak is a complex moral decision that should only be undertaken with care.
I think Ellsberg did exactly the right thing. The American public (and Congress) was being blatantly lied-to and high school kids were getting killed (along with massive numbers of innocent Cambodians and Laotians). He didn't hurt our effort on the ground because he only disclosed historical material. He did hurt our war effort because, once the lies were exposed the Vietnam War was exposed as the folly that it obviously was.
Ellsberg took on a huge moral responsibility (and RISK of causing unintended harm) when he disclosed the Pentagon Papers and I think he responsibly shouldered that responsibility. The Pentagon Papers was not an easy moral call.
Assange and his associates are indiscriminate leakers. They've made one moral decision (that secrecy is bad) and they're not making any more. They don't care who they hurt and they don't bother to think about it. They are morally irresponsible and they unwittingly advance the efforts of those who seek to make Western governments more closed.
Bradley Manning's only defense is that he is a big stupid idiot oblivious to the moral problem he faced.
Meet the new crap.
Same as the old crap.
Anybody can do what this guy is doing. It's not particularly hard.
Note that the spammers are settling with him!
In the law, you can't have a tie. Otherwise, you'd have babies split down the middle all over the place, and that would be awful.
There needs to be a rule to break the tie. In baseball, I was taught, the runner gets the tie. That means that the presumption is that the runner is not out at first base. In other words, if the umpire can't make up her mind, then the runner wins.
These presumptions are necessary--and quite useful. Such presumptions are REBUTTABLE presumptions. In other words the default is "X", but if the evidence meets a certain standard (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, etc.) then, and only then, "not X" is proven.
An irrebuttable presumption is a MONSTER. It is a fact that is presumed to exist and no amount of proof can disprove that fact. Irrebuttable presumptions are often used when it comes to proof of knowledge. In other words if I've got a contract and it's signed by you (and there is no proof of fraud, undue influence, etc.) then it is irrebuttably proven that you knew what the heck you signed--and no amount of proof that you could introduce would ever change that fact in court.
Such irrebuttable presumptions are exceedingly useful because they avoid bogging courts down in useless arguments. They are also useful because people are aware of these presumptions.
This case appears to be an example of a really harsh irrebuttable presumption. Over there in GB, the law appears to irrebuttably presume that the Banks' computer programmers know what the fuck they are doing.
That's like irrebuttably presuming that an interest rate of 100 percent monthly is reasonable! Don't laugh: Read your laws.
Forget abortion, the right to arm bears, family values, political correctness, and all that distracting nonsense! THIS IS THE STUFF TO PAY ATTENTION TO. All that other stuff comes after the money!