Oz is not the forefront of this "let's block the internet to save our children movement". Unfortunately the do-gooders in Finland have beat you to it, giving us a very sour tasting "Win". However, the implementation is a DNS block, which just ends up as being a "child porn here" list for anyone who knows how to poll a DNS servo and use diff.
What happens when some marketing guy at Cyberd.. err.. IBM reads this article and then remembers that they're building a "cognitive computer" with DARPA cash and decides to create some wonderful synergy.
We get several movies (Space Odyssey 2001, Terminator trilogy and Matrix trilogy among them) and a TV series (Sarah Connor Chronicles) to warn us that AI will eventually turn on us and put us on the brink of extinction.
Yet we decide to build one before we perfect and mass produce pulse rifles and EMP grenades.
Actually, this spring there was a demonstration against this crude and yet ineffective way of filtering kiddieporn. A finnish MP and EFF activist Jyrki Kasvi went on a morning TV show and laid out all the arguments why a deny list with no oversight can not work (anonymous proxies, etc) and why it creates collateral damage (false positives, pedos using the list as a list for kiddieporn addys, etc). He also said that blocking by itself is not an answer, it's much better to improve co-operation between police forces of different countries, so the sites themselves and their owners could be taken down.
He was countered by a person from Mannerheimin Lastensuojeluliitto (a "leading" Finnish organization for child protection). The counter included no technical commentary, just a simple statement repeated many times with slight variation and a passionate voice. The statement roughly translates to "wont anybody think of the children". The debate ended there and you could clearly see she won the argument, atleast in the eyes of the "neutral" reporters conducting the interview.
Emotional invocation of our primal instincts to protect our young can still outweigh any petty logic that can tickle our neocortex's fancy.
This sounds like a really nice idea for the people, but what about the environment when literally everybody affords a car?
Sheesh.. I feel rage building again (lucky I don't turn green and grow in size when that happens)... someone starts talking about the 3rd world masses finally being able to afford a car and someone from an industrialized world pulls the "what about the environment" card out of their ass.
If you're so worried about the environment, perhaps you should give up your car then and tell your friends to do the same. I mean, why should the people in India not get a car? If anything, it's their turn to have a car and our turn to walk 10 miles to work.
Environment is a valid concern, but the way you ask the question seems to premise that the western world is the only part of the world allowed to have cars and pollution.
The problem your "boycotts" have is that **AA will just point to any decline in sales as a result of piracy instead of them alienating the consumers, giving them another excuse for pursuing even worse laws. This will lead into further boycotts, which in turn will lead to... well you get the point.
Surely at some point the word of "boycott" will reach mainstream press past the propaganda of **AA and turn public opinion against tighter laws, but by then how many people's lives have they already ruined in order to safeguard their profit margins? How many people in the "general public" see the whole extent of **AA greed? And while they think that any objections are just "outcries of thieves", there will not be an end to the oppressive legislation. Or do you think these guys would hesitate to throw a thousand, or a hundred thousand people to jail to protect their profits?
The only alternative I can see to the "war" escalating is spreading knowledge in small, but believable (truth doesn't help if it's not believable), packages to as many people as possible. Harass your local press with links to these stories, harass your congressman. Those things will help eventually.. bitching on slashdot might increase your Karma score, but won't solve the problem. Besides, Karma score won't help you if your 87 year old granny is hauled away to the Gulag for possessing a mixtape you made her when you were five.
They keep finding genes for all kinds of "unwanted conditions", so one must draw the conclusion that the next step is to find a way to screen for these genes in embryos, or possibly prospective partners (I hate to sound too GATTACA here, but bear with me).
Now, i'm not one of those "genetics will destroy mankind" nutjobs, but there is one point i'm worried about.. if we start eliminating/changing genes that we don't want, are we perhaps eliminating things humanity needs in the future. Few examples:
-Autism is something people would probably like to eradicate, but on the other hand many brilliant people suffer from a mild form of autism. -Where would Woody Allen be without his neurotism?
People are already stuffing their kids with Ritalin to control their behaviour and place it in an acceptable mold. But if you homogenize everything (whether through drugs, or in the future, altering genes), how can we progress? Instead of a pack of individuals, are we becoming a hive?
In techie terms: Is mankind selling it's chance to evolve into v2.0 in the future in exchange for a quick fixpack?
patented slashdot slapdown, and I will attempt to deliver my best shot:
So what M$ is saying that if you upgrade the hardware you can get a downgraded XP? That's nice.. "we're not petty or anything, but we'd rather see less laptops in the hands of children in developing countries than have them using Linux".
Well, between the Classmate going downhill and Linux being free, the only one looking to make a buck are the chair manufacturers.
If you exercise a muscle, will it not grow stronger? If you watch or play violent media and get violent impulses, will you not exercise your impulse control.
Do some people get heart attacks at the gym? Yes. Do some people crack when exposed to too many violent impulses? Yes.
Should this stop the healthy majority from exercising their muscles or their impulse control? Perhaps, if you want to have a country full of flabby people with little self-restraint.. oh wait..
Filter away.. but wait, aren't they then blocking all traffic of a certain type (bittorrent for example), I mean, they can't really easily and reliably distinguish what is legal and what is illegal content, though i'm sure that certain companies will offer products/services that claim to do just that (hello MediaPretender). If you can only filter by traffic type and not based on content, then all one needs to do to make all the money in the world is:
-start a company that delivers content via bittorrent -have a few friends "buy" products and then be unable to complete the download -have them then proceed to mock this company -file lawsuit against ISP, claim loss of business damages for $100k and $20M in punitive damages -repeat
Then again, if bittorrent and all other dedicated P2P protocols are somehow filtered, there's still many protocols that can be "hijacked" to carry payloads but cannot really be filtered (IRC, NEWS.. heck, if you encrypt the content, even email).
Try as they might, illegal filesharing will never end.. it may only diminish if they start offering a reasonably priced and featured legal alternative.
Didn't they say that the surge has worked, everything is hunky-dory, etc.. it's an unnecessary piece of equipment. I mean, they wouldn't lie to us, would they?
I think it's the number that makes it sound cool. Numbers are very sexy and so are abbreviations, R2D2, p2p, two-by-four. So if any format is going to bring mp3 down on base of the name it has to have a number in it...and a cool abbreviation.
Oh and lower numbers are sexier as well.
Anyone got any ideas?
Ogg=o2g -> which is kind of cool because when you pronouce it ow-two-gee in my language (and languages of my region) it sounds like a word for 'abalienate, alienate, disaffect, estrange'...so you could say I o2g-ed a few songs last night.
How about AudioMeister1003 (or AM1k3) format. It has a german sounding name and it's 1000 better than MP3.
Ahem, seems like a short history lesson is in order.. *Pulls out a slide rule and a stern expression*..
MP3 has several things on it's side that have been successful for other products in historical situations:
1. all things being equal, the sexier sounding name wins. And "empeethree" has a simplistic, yet technical sound to it. Whereas AAC and WMA can be thrown right out the window. Ogg has some appeal, but nowhere near the sexiness of mp3.
2. Recognition.. whenever a brand has become synonymous with the whole technology they have had the advantage of immediate recognition, this is a major marketing advantage (free publicity anyone?). A lot of who use WMA will still talk about their "MP3 songs".
3. Now.. as to being "inferior" technically. You need only to look at things like DC and AC, VHS and Betamax or Amiga and PC (oh boy, am I gonna get it for that last one) to see that the technically superior solution is not always the one that ends up on top.
However, while the wide proliferation of MP3 *SEEMS* to guarantee it's future based on similar historical events, there is always one historical factor that could change it all: A new technology that offers a decisive advantage over MP3 and manages to capture a fanatical core fanbase. Such pieces of technology have many times overtaken rivals with near total market dominance (does anyone remember Atari, 3Dfx, or Altavista?).
But until something earthshattering comes forth, I see cool runnings for the old, venerable, MP3.
Exactly what he said:) Plus the fact that it's slowly but surely becoming an "in" thing to be seen to be on the consumer's side. Why fight a fight you can't win and ruin your reputation in the process. Why not make a big hoopla about cutting funding to RIAA and then cut it by 10%, which is invested into other counterpiracy measures. Not only will your company look good (compared to the other 3 major labels), but they may actually see slightly improved results.
Or it could be that the music industry is turning altruistic in it's old age and they wish to slash their profit margins by condoning free downloads. The next move in this vein will undoubtedly be a repeal of the "work for hire" clauses in all contracts, as well as a large hike in royalties.
Actually, Putin's regime bears a closer resemblance to fascist regimes... if you look at near history, there's several common points with Germany of 1933-1939.
-Hitler and Putin were both elected by democratic elections (initially) -Both were "strong leaders" who "rescued" their countries from a depression -Both refused to yield power once they got it -Both suppressed dissidents with a firm hand -Both had politically inconvenient people "dissappeared" or jailed -Both garner support from embracing a militant nationalism
I know, I know, i'm bringing out the Nazi card in a conversation, but atleast i'm trying to point out valid similarities instead of just shouting "You nazi".
Am I the only one getting massive of Deja-vu? "Our OS at the moment isn't up to scratch, but don't worry, the next version will be better".
We keep ragging on Bush for being stupid, but atleast he's got something on us, and I quote: "We have this sayin' in Texas... uuh.. fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... umh... aah.. well, you won't fool me again". Yet the majority of our species keep falling for the same one.
First they build a communist style healthcare which provides the rich with the same shitty care as the plebs. Now they refuse to prosecute people for heinous crimes like downloading copyrighted music.
In tomorrow's news:
"Fellow Americans, I, uh.., Al-GAYDA!! Al-Gayda. On our borders, Al-Gayda! Uh, terrorist camps in Canada. We have hard, concrete hard, evidence type proof, of the Al-Gayda in canada. And I say to you, my people, the United States will not stand idle when evil builds camps in our backyard. Now I've told the President of Canada, Queen Elizabeth, that if they won't shut down the camps, and provide us with the proof that the camps is shut down the United States will take action! I've also told them to disarm their weapons of mass distrucshun an all them terr-ists. People of America, I promise to you that I'll elimnate the threat to our southern borders! God Bless America!" ***ROARING APPLAUSE AND CHEERING FROM A HUGE CROWD*** (despite the fact that the speech was delivered from the Oval Office).
Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but pre-WW2, the biggest threat to world peace war not Hitler and nazism, it was Stalin and communism. The Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty of '39 produced an alliance of unprecedented power and it's secret clauses divided europe into zones of interest.
Before even this happened, UK and the rest of the western world had bowed to nazi demands more than once, notably on the case of Czechoslovakia who was their ally (see Munich Betrayal), an independent nation that was given to Germany piecemeal to provide the people of Britain and France with peace.
Now, does this make UK and France Nazi countries? An independent observer might think so somehow. Not that the betrayal of allies ends there. Though war was declared against Germany over the invasion of Poland, no overt action was really taken. And when the Soviet Union invaded, there was no declaration of war or hostilities. In fact, prominent British nazis were interned, but not prominent communists. Does this make UK a Stalinist country?
After Finland gets attacked by Soviet Union in winter of '39, it is bombarded, by "bread baskets" from the USSR and by sympathetic rhetoric and promises of aid from the western powers. A plan is even hatched by the British and French to "help Finland" by landing in northern Norway and seizing the ore deposits in northern Sweden, virtually guaranteeing a German response (and turning Scandinavia into a proxy battlefield).
You can argue that all these moves were necessary to protect UK from another world war. But if actions of questionable morality can be justified by the good of the country, they make sense.
Now for the case of Finland and the Nazis:
One of the major contributors of tangible (not rhetorical) aid to Finland is actually Fascist Italy. With western aid being limited to obsolete equipment bought at hard currency and delivered too late and with no spare parts. Germany, while officially neutral, permits aid to Finland to pass through it's territory, something many other countries don't allow.
Surrounded by two "evil", allied, regimes, one leading a historical foe (which in '41 was already demanding more concessions on top of those gained in the Winter War) and one leading a historical ally, is it a wonder if a German proposition of offering military equipment in return of rights-of-passage to Norway and use of some military bases was accepted?
In short, it is not just a case of being between a rock and a hard place. It's also seeing how the game of realpolitik is played, with little or no regard for morality to safeguard one's own interests. Each of the belligerents of WW2 were allied to an evil dictatorship at some point in the war, some even to both of them at different points in time. The fact that post-war propaganda makes Soviet Union a "victim" and a "lesser evil" is just winner's history. You can actually get a fairly unbiased view of the war in Europe from the book "Europe at War" by Norman Davies. However if you like your history black and white, do not read the book, it will only serve to ruin your view of the world.
While the external frame is very important to any airplane, stealthy or not, what matters is what goes into the plane and what materials is it built out of. You can't just build a life-size carbon fiber chassis and call it a stealth plane if you put a whole heap of non-stealthy stuff inside.
Stealth is a defensive technology anyway, meaning your fighter is stealthy only until a single weakness is found. You can't really say at this point if this is a project that will succeed. Or if it's even meant to succeed. I mean, would you put it past the Japanese to force the US hand to sell them to F22 by threatening to build a competitor which they might sell to god-knows-who to finance the development. the previous sentence is an artistic liberty I took to get my point across, i'm sure the F22 is more advanced than the F15 in areas other than stealth.
Slashdot Mirror
Oz is not the forefront of this "let's block the internet to save our children movement". Unfortunately the do-gooders in Finland have beat you to it, giving us a very sour tasting "Win". However, the implementation is a DNS block, which just ends up as being a "child porn here" list for anyone who knows how to poll a DNS servo and use diff.
What happens when some marketing guy at Cyberd.. err.. IBM reads this article and then remembers that they're building a "cognitive computer" with DARPA cash and decides to create some wonderful synergy.
Yet we decide to build one before we perfect and mass produce pulse rifles and EMP grenades.
Organic brain doesn't sound so hot now, does it?
Look, matey, I know a dead business model when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now
MPAA: I'm not dead yet!
Actually, this spring there was a demonstration against this crude and yet ineffective way of filtering kiddieporn. A finnish MP and EFF activist Jyrki Kasvi went on a morning TV show and laid out all the arguments why a deny list with no oversight can not work (anonymous proxies, etc) and why it creates collateral damage (false positives, pedos using the list as a list for kiddieporn addys, etc). He also said that blocking by itself is not an answer, it's much better to improve co-operation between police forces of different countries, so the sites themselves and their owners could be taken down. He was countered by a person from Mannerheimin Lastensuojeluliitto (a "leading" Finnish organization for child protection). The counter included no technical commentary, just a simple statement repeated many times with slight variation and a passionate voice. The statement roughly translates to "wont anybody think of the children". The debate ended there and you could clearly see she won the argument, atleast in the eyes of the "neutral" reporters conducting the interview. Emotional invocation of our primal instincts to protect our young can still outweigh any petty logic that can tickle our neocortex's fancy.
Sheesh.. I feel rage building again (lucky I don't turn green and grow in size when that happens)... someone starts talking about the 3rd world masses finally being able to afford a car and someone from an industrialized world pulls the "what about the environment" card out of their ass.
If you're so worried about the environment, perhaps you should give up your car then and tell your friends to do the same. I mean, why should the people in India not get a car? If anything, it's their turn to have a car and our turn to walk 10 miles to work.
Environment is a valid concern, but the way you ask the question seems to premise that the western world is the only part of the world allowed to have cars and pollution.
Maybe they've just seen too many hacker movies and want to try out their "You have hacked into microsoft.com!" page.
The problem your "boycotts" have is that **AA will just point to any decline in sales as a result of piracy instead of them alienating the consumers, giving them another excuse for pursuing even worse laws. This will lead into further boycotts, which in turn will lead to... well you get the point.
Surely at some point the word of "boycott" will reach mainstream press past the propaganda of **AA and turn public opinion against tighter laws, but by then how many people's lives have they already ruined in order to safeguard their profit margins? How many people in the "general public" see the whole extent of **AA greed? And while they think that any objections are just "outcries of thieves", there will not be an end to the oppressive legislation. Or do you think these guys would hesitate to throw a thousand, or a hundred thousand people to jail to protect their profits?
The only alternative I can see to the "war" escalating is spreading knowledge in small, but believable (truth doesn't help if it's not believable), packages to as many people as possible. Harass your local press with links to these stories, harass your congressman. Those things will help eventually.. bitching on slashdot might increase your Karma score, but won't solve the problem. Besides, Karma score won't help you if your 87 year old granny is hauled away to the Gulag for possessing a mixtape you made her when you were five.
They keep finding genes for all kinds of "unwanted conditions", so one must draw the conclusion that the next step is to find a way to screen for these genes in embryos, or possibly prospective partners (I hate to sound too GATTACA here, but bear with me).
Now, i'm not one of those "genetics will destroy mankind" nutjobs, but there is one point i'm worried about.. if we start eliminating/changing genes that we don't want, are we perhaps eliminating things humanity needs in the future. Few examples:
-Autism is something people would probably like to eradicate, but on the other hand many brilliant people suffer from a mild form of autism.
-Where would Woody Allen be without his neurotism?
People are already stuffing their kids with Ritalin to control their behaviour and place it in an acceptable mold. But if you homogenize everything (whether through drugs, or in the future, altering genes), how can we progress? Instead of a pack of individuals, are we becoming a hive?
In techie terms: Is mankind selling it's chance to evolve into v2.0 in the future in exchange for a quick fixpack?
patented slashdot slapdown, and I will attempt to deliver my best shot:
So what M$ is saying that if you upgrade the hardware you can get a downgraded XP? That's nice.. "we're not petty or anything, but we'd rather see less laptops in the hands of children in developing countries than have them using Linux".
Well, between the Classmate going downhill and Linux being free, the only one looking to make a buck are the chair manufacturers.
If you exercise a muscle, will it not grow stronger? If you watch or play violent media and get violent impulses, will you not exercise your impulse control.
Do some people get heart attacks at the gym? Yes.
Do some people crack when exposed to too many violent impulses? Yes.
Should this stop the healthy majority from exercising their muscles or their impulse control? Perhaps, if you want to have a country full of flabby people with little self-restraint.. oh wait..
Filter away.. but wait, aren't they then blocking all traffic of a certain type (bittorrent for example), I mean, they can't really easily and reliably distinguish what is legal and what is illegal content, though i'm sure that certain companies will offer products/services that claim to do just that (hello MediaPretender). If you can only filter by traffic type and not based on content, then all one needs to do to make all the money in the world is:
-start a company that delivers content via bittorrent
-have a few friends "buy" products and then be unable to complete the download
-have them then proceed to mock this company
-file lawsuit against ISP, claim loss of business damages for $100k and $20M in punitive damages
-repeat
Then again, if bittorrent and all other dedicated P2P protocols are somehow filtered, there's still many protocols that can be "hijacked" to carry payloads but cannot really be filtered (IRC, NEWS.. heck, if you encrypt the content, even email).
Try as they might, illegal filesharing will never end.. it may only diminish if they start offering a reasonably priced and featured legal alternative.
Didn't they say that the surge has worked, everything is hunky-dory, etc.. it's an unnecessary piece of equipment. I mean, they wouldn't lie to us, would they?
How about AudioMeister1003 (or AM1k3) format. It has a german sounding name and it's 1000 better than MP3.
Ahem, seems like a short history lesson is in order.. *Pulls out a slide rule and a stern expression*..
MP3 has several things on it's side that have been successful for other products in historical situations:
1. all things being equal, the sexier sounding name wins. And "empeethree" has a simplistic, yet technical sound to it. Whereas AAC and WMA can be thrown right out the window. Ogg has some appeal, but nowhere near the sexiness of mp3.
2. Recognition.. whenever a brand has become synonymous with the whole technology they have had the advantage of immediate recognition, this is a major marketing advantage (free publicity anyone?). A lot of who use WMA will still talk about their "MP3 songs".
3. Now.. as to being "inferior" technically. You need only to look at things like DC and AC, VHS and Betamax or Amiga and PC (oh boy, am I gonna get it for that last one) to see that the technically superior solution is not always the one that ends up on top.
However, while the wide proliferation of MP3 *SEEMS* to guarantee it's future based on similar historical events, there is always one historical factor that could change it all: A new technology that offers a decisive advantage over MP3 and manages to capture a fanatical core fanbase. Such pieces of technology have many times overtaken rivals with near total market dominance (does anyone remember Atari, 3Dfx, or Altavista?).
But until something earthshattering comes forth, I see cool runnings for the old, venerable, MP3.
Exactly what he said :) Plus the fact that it's slowly but surely becoming an "in" thing to be seen to be on the consumer's side. Why fight a fight you can't win and ruin your reputation in the process. Why not make a big hoopla about cutting funding to RIAA and then cut it by 10%, which is invested into other counterpiracy measures. Not only will your company look good (compared to the other 3 major labels), but they may actually see slightly improved results.
Or it could be that the music industry is turning altruistic in it's old age and they wish to slash their profit margins by condoning free downloads. The next move in this vein will undoubtedly be a repeal of the "work for hire" clauses in all contracts, as well as a large hike in royalties.
"Quicktime bug!?! Oh sweet Joseph of Arimathea!!!! Quick, inform the users.. YES BOTH OF THEM!"
Actually, Putin's regime bears a closer resemblance to fascist regimes... if you look at near history, there's several common points with Germany of 1933-1939.
-Hitler and Putin were both elected by democratic elections (initially)
-Both were "strong leaders" who "rescued" their countries from a depression
-Both refused to yield power once they got it
-Both suppressed dissidents with a firm hand
-Both had politically inconvenient people "dissappeared" or jailed
-Both garner support from embracing a militant nationalism
I know, I know, i'm bringing out the Nazi card in a conversation, but atleast i'm trying to point out valid similarities instead of just shouting "You nazi".
Am I the only one getting massive of Deja-vu? "Our OS at the moment isn't up to scratch, but don't worry, the next version will be better".
We keep ragging on Bush for being stupid, but atleast he's got something on us, and I quote: "We have this sayin' in Texas... uuh.. fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... umh... aah.. well, you won't fool me again". Yet the majority of our species keep falling for the same one.
A game called "Tools of Destruction" for Wii. Why does that sound so cool and expensive at the same time?
First they build a communist style healthcare which provides the rich with the same shitty care as the plebs. Now they refuse to prosecute people for heinous crimes like downloading copyrighted music.
In tomorrow's news:
"Fellow Americans, I, uh.., Al-GAYDA!! Al-Gayda. On our borders, Al-Gayda! Uh, terrorist camps in Canada. We have hard, concrete hard, evidence type proof, of the Al-Gayda in canada. And I say to you, my people, the United States will not stand idle when evil builds camps in our backyard. Now I've told the President of Canada, Queen Elizabeth, that if they won't shut down the camps, and provide us with the proof that the camps is shut down the United States will take action! I've also told them to disarm their weapons of mass distrucshun an all them terr-ists. People of America, I promise to you that I'll elimnate the threat to our southern borders! God Bless America!" ***ROARING APPLAUSE AND CHEERING FROM A HUGE CROWD*** (despite the fact that the speech was delivered from the Oval Office).
Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but pre-WW2, the biggest threat to world peace war not Hitler and nazism, it was Stalin and communism. The Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty of '39 produced an alliance of unprecedented power and it's secret clauses divided europe into zones of interest.
Before even this happened, UK and the rest of the western world had bowed to nazi demands more than once, notably on the case of Czechoslovakia who was their ally (see Munich Betrayal), an independent nation that was given to Germany piecemeal to provide the people of Britain and France with peace.
Now, does this make UK and France Nazi countries? An independent observer might think so somehow. Not that the betrayal of allies ends there. Though war was declared against Germany over the invasion of Poland, no overt action was really taken. And when the Soviet Union invaded, there was no declaration of war or hostilities. In fact, prominent British nazis were interned, but not prominent communists. Does this make UK a Stalinist country?
After Finland gets attacked by Soviet Union in winter of '39, it is bombarded, by "bread baskets" from the USSR and by sympathetic rhetoric and promises of aid from the western powers. A plan is even hatched by the British and French to "help Finland" by landing in northern Norway and seizing the ore deposits in northern Sweden, virtually guaranteeing a German response (and turning Scandinavia into a proxy battlefield).
You can argue that all these moves were necessary to protect UK from another world war. But if actions of questionable morality can be justified by the good of the country, they make sense.
Now for the case of Finland and the Nazis:
One of the major contributors of tangible (not rhetorical) aid to Finland is actually Fascist Italy. With western aid being limited to obsolete equipment bought at hard currency and delivered too late and with no spare parts. Germany, while officially neutral, permits aid to Finland to pass through it's territory, something many other countries don't allow.
Surrounded by two "evil", allied, regimes, one leading a historical foe (which in '41 was already demanding more concessions on top of those gained in the Winter War) and one leading a historical ally, is it a wonder if a German proposition of offering military equipment in return of rights-of-passage to Norway and use of some military bases was accepted?
In short, it is not just a case of being between a rock and a hard place. It's also seeing how the game of realpolitik is played, with little or no regard for morality to safeguard one's own interests. Each of the belligerents of WW2 were allied to an evil dictatorship at some point in the war, some even to both of them at different points in time. The fact that post-war propaganda makes Soviet Union a "victim" and a "lesser evil" is just winner's history. You can actually get a fairly unbiased view of the war in Europe from the book "Europe at War" by Norman Davies. However if you like your history black and white, do not read the book, it will only serve to ruin your view of the world.
..for the simple reason that they'd have to be employing human beings for that to happen.
Microsoft Man 1.0
While the external frame is very important to any airplane, stealthy or not, what matters is what goes into the plane and what materials is it built out of. You can't just build a life-size carbon fiber chassis and call it a stealth plane if you put a whole heap of non-stealthy stuff inside.
Stealth is a defensive technology anyway, meaning your fighter is stealthy only until a single weakness is found. You can't really say at this point if this is a project that will succeed. Or if it's even meant to succeed. I mean, would you put it past the Japanese to force the US hand to sell them to F22 by threatening to build a competitor which they might sell to god-knows-who to finance the development. the previous sentence is an artistic liberty I took to get my point across, i'm sure the F22 is more advanced than the F15 in areas other than stealth.