Sorry, more to say. Thanks for the information, as I am uniformed about research in the area of eliminating interference on the same frequency.
You are right, of course. The tech does not exist. But Apple has 70,000 millions+ dollars in cash money that says that they can develop it. And probably are. I do hope.
But perhaps not. Steve Jobs really believed that sharing copyrighted information was stealing (not mentioning his phone phreaker days when he sold Woz's and his box that made free long distance calls with a digital tone generator). He probably would not welcome a system that he could not personally monitor, in spirit if not in fact.
So it probably comes down to open source to manufacture mesh networks that actually work, and are not compromised at the factory to snitch out the users.
Well, I don't want to stream video; I want an alternate network that can't be shut down by commercial decree. Wireless, decentralized mesh networks are the only solution to that. Any non-censored communication is better than none at all.
How, in the name of reality, could he pick and choose amongst 100K files that he couldn't read if he had all month, esp. since he had minutes, not hours, to download it all. Nope, he did what he could. If you don't know where the papers are in the file cabinet, you clone the cabinet and let others sort it out later. It's about what is possible and what isn't. His other choice was to walk away. He took the braver way, and now he has to explain himself, and if at all possible in this circus, manage to convince rather biased judges that his superiors, possibly their friends, had covered up murder and worse than murder, and that he had no other way to obtain the evidence.
Free Kevin, and Kick Lamo's Ass. And a nut shot for the Wired editor and his spook buddy who started this all.
2A) The NY Times and the London Guardian informed the US government, before publishing anything, that they were in possession of the documents. They invited the US to review what was to be published, and were given the power to edit the documents so that no soldier would be endangered by publication. The US government refused to cooperate. So, please, keep this in mind when you talk about Manning "releasing" documents. All the T's were crossed and the i's dotted.
Manning released nothing to the press. The New York Times and the Guardian had control of review and release. And the "getting people killed" thing? If government lies had been exposed ten years ago, we'd have no soldiers in Iraq to *be* killed.
And what Manning specifically wanted to be released was the tape of civilians actually being killed by rogue US soldiers - murder. If you are worried about "people killed", I believe Manning has you covered.
You are unfortunately misinformed. The details are readily available if you Google them. However, do not include Fox News or any of the rightist websites in your searches - they have been aggressively lying for some years and are not to be trusted with the time of sunrise tomorrow.
Try the Red Cross, or Amnesty International, or any decent law discussion group about the case.
Iraq is not a "war". It is an invasion, under false pretense, as a prelude to conquest. The people we are shooting cannot even fight back. We stole the oil after yattering about terrorism. Those people had been under embargo - by US - for ten endless years. Then we slaughtered them. Then we tortured them. Then we imprisoned them in their own country. They had no animus towards us, and no involvement in any military action against us. It was an attack against an almost helpless nation, with 60+ thousand burned, exploded, and shot to death in days for the crime of existing. We are not the heroes, and Iraq is not a "war". Every action we take there is a further crime piled on the original crimes. Th people there are helpless against giants in armor who can kill them at will, and have. This must be ground into the souls of Americans, or this will happen again and again.
1) Manning DID NOT release the documents, as you keep asserting. He transmitted them to Wikileaks, a trusted organization that kept secret whistleblowers secret.
2) Wikileaks DID NOT RELEASE a blessed thing; the New York Times, the Guardian of London, and two other papers were given the block of documents, and they and they *alone* released what they thought safe to release after careful review, in which Wikileaks did not participate. If you have a problem, take it up with the newspapers, not Manning, not Wikileaks.
3) The full documents got out after a reporter from the Guardian, I believe, idiotically published the password in an article. Go hang him.
4) Manning and Wikileaks exercise due diligence and made sure that they released nothing harmful to the troops by giving control of the release to responsible reporters who were supposed to know what they are doing. That is precisely how responsible leakers have always done it.
5) The reporters let us see that our troops had committed a savage murder, on camera, and the chain of command had refused to investigate.
6) Large number of stories are now known to us about immoral and illegal acts committed by our government and others. One of those reports triggered the uprising called the Arab Spring. Perhaps you've heard of it.
7) The US government in the past ten years has extended secret classifications to even mundane domestic reports. We even have secret laws that we cannot see, and no-fly lists that cannot be seen or contested. We have a country run in secret down to our police departments. A country that does not know, CANnot know, by law, what is actually happening in their name cannot possess the knowledge to govern themselves, making democracy itself impossible, even illegal. To become informed is to break the law. To break this blockade on truth is to spend 18 months in solitary without charge while they try to get you to falsely implicate others. To try to keep your country free and murderers tried for their crimes, they will lock you up for years without charges and then give you two weeks to get ready for trial after your mind is half gone and you haven't talked to a sane human for so long you can't construct sentences, let alone argue, against the full might of a national secrecy state that likes power and ain't about to give any up to lippy men with notions of right and wrong.
This is not about oaths and laws. This is about what is right, and what is wrong. And knowing enough to understand the different.
Yes. Read. You can google it. You can even watch the video, as it was released long ago by Wikileaks. He found evidence of US soldiers murdering a crowd - on camera. He tried for very long to get anyone in the chain of command to care. They did not. He did what he thought necessary when your command is hiding murders - he leaked it. You will refuse to look, as will his prosecutors and judges. This is a travesty.
The war was a lie. The President and Cheney declared that Iraq had attacked us. We went there and slaughtered 60K+ people outright, destroyed their electrical generator plants, water systems, gas lines, highways and outright stole their only national resource, the oil under their feet. We did it against the advice of almost every country on earth. We've led to the deaths and torture of almost two million people. We've emptied the country of its people as they fled a 120+ degree hell that now has no jobs, no air conditioning, barely food, and has a government consisting of the son of a bitch, Chalabi, who told Bush and Cheney anything they wanted to hear. He is now in charge of the oil fields and is essentially the secret service. We have installed another bunch of thieves, and you want to "bring our boys home", like they just fought Adolph. That country could not, would not, did not want to attack us. but it had lovely oil, and we stole it.
Please educate yourself on what was in those messages. Manning specifically was outing a mass murder, done on camera by US soldiers, that his superiors, after being informed by him, ignored. You are being willfully ignorant.
In 1863, he would have been instructed to kill runaway negroes and peaceful Indian villages. The past is not a moral high ground. If he had refused either one of those orders he would have been whipped and/or executed.
His primary oath was to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to his superiors. If your superiors refuse to act on evidence of murder, and the chain of command knows damned well there was a murder, than what can you do? You can: 1) shut up, as three million others with the same clearance did, or 2) obey your oath to the people and the Constitution and expose the murderers and their abettor who are hiding behind the cloak of secrecy which was not intended for hiding criminals. Your choice.
So who, exactly, are going to bring those who committed murder while representing us, and those who hid it, even with clear evidence, to their hangings?
Except it didn't happen that way, did it? ALL the providers adopted data caps within months of each other. ALL the providers charged for overages, about equally. ALL the providers won't upgrade their infrastructure. Competition did happen, and they competitively decided to copy each other so they could all profit; if one carrier decided to instead increase capacity and maintain unlimited data plans, that carrier, competitively, would not be making as much profit as possible and the shareholders would have risen up to replace the CEO. They are not in business to increase their base number of users - they are in business to increase their profits quarterly. And, once more, real world experiment is over, and objectively your argument has failed the test of reality. They did not compete, they acted as a meta-corporation and raised prices and lowered service simultaneously. Competition does not work at this level of capitalism, as Adam Smith warned us. They collude to maintain prices.
Oh, I know indeed. And sound cannon and tax investigations and pepper cannon. But at some point, if we don't, we're never leaving a world-wide police state. They will become ensconced into the Panopticon State, and to add insult to that they will make us pay car-loan prices for our incarceration. We need comm they can't control. A century ago, our lives weren't funneled through one network. Now it is, and they have grabbed control and we are now seeing the beginning of what that means. It will become infinitely worse unless we end-run them. By which I mean 802.22 on mesh networks. And it doesn't have to be illegal - if we can get that spectrum declared public access, like 802.11 etc, then we can do it legally. Of course they will demand gov issued digital certificates and all that for the routers, and there we would have to make a stand for all the marbles. Without anon comm, you cannot have a free world. Can. Not.
802.22, and limit the hogs. And someday the interference problem will be licked and we will have multiple users on the same frequency; it's a software problem we haven't solved yet, not a physical one.
The big problems with network capacity happened in San Francisco and New York City, both places loaded with tech journalists who had the ability to broadcast their complaints. Other cities are mostly fine.
SF dwellers complain, but don't seem to realize that it takes two years to get a new cell installed in their city due to NIMBY laws. AT&T simply could not roll out new capacity after the iPhone took off in 2007 for over two years because they were not permitted to do so. The problem started to diminish when the extra cells started going up... in 2009. Sometimes, when you have a problem, look in the mirror and the answer is staring back at you.
If I were Jobs, I'd stomp in, put my bare feet up on your desks, give you the old staring laser eye, and say: "The Internet is shit. We need to make a new one."
Apparently he was of the same mind as I. In 2006-2007 he wanted to build a new data network using 802.22, the old TV spectrum which goes through walls quite well, to build a new nationwide WiFi network.
Image this. A 99 dollar box, an Apple Net box, as it were, that anyone could buy and plug into the wall. It automatically meshes with any other AppleNet boxes it can detect, and starts passing packets, at a really, really high speed - those frequencies are capacious.
Data, voice, all the same.No network carriers, unless perhaps the government could just operate major long-distance backbones through the agency of private companies as a cost of having a civilization. That last might become unnecessary as the number of nodes in the mesh increase geometrically; like Bittorrent, the more people participate, the faster the network becomes.
No carriers. No profit. All we need is bandwidth and a simple box anyone could buy.
You could make outdoor ones that have tiny solar panels, and just plant them anywhere you can get permission. More the infinitely better.
And in the future, some genius will solve the interference problem. Interference in radio is a hardware/software solvable limitation, not a physical one. True; research it, it's fascinating. When we have fast enough processors, we can solve that problem and crowd thousands of channels on the same frequency.
This is all not only feasible, it is absolutely necessary for our economy and our personal freedom - not to mention we won't be robbed forever by two or three corporations. We need to remove the aspect of centralized control from our communications structure.
They aren't providing a service; they are manufacturing a scarcity of service. Any producer or provider will ultimately do this if they are not regulated in some fashion. They will build out a minimum of infrastructure for a maximum of profit. And they will never stop raising fees. Our great-grandparents understood this, so electrical utilities and such are government-regulated monopolies. Some things can't be covered by free market economics. Wiring all homes is one of those things.
The Declaration of Independence is not our law. The Constitution is. And that law is quite clear, along with the nearly contemporaneous language of the Treaty of Tripoli (which is also law); we are a secular society, by intention and basic to our definition. We are not a Christian nation. Google Treaty of Tripoli.
Instead of yet another reason for police to kick doors in, let's just accept the fact that lasers exist. Either polarize the windows in the cockpit, or have the pilots wear polarized goggles when they look outside, or start not-using the windows so much - instrumentation is really good now.
I think, anyway this goes, that this "problem" isn't as worrying as they make out. I think it is a back door to outlawing lasers in civilian hands. Reason for that would be the inevitable evolution of handheld laser weapons, which would be noiseless, untraceable, and have a range of tens of miles. Sniper rifles for everyone, in their back pocket. I think they want to head that off at the pass.
We could build a personal laser gun now. Think of it: get a hundred low-power laser pointer emitters, and build a mechanism to aim all the beams at the same point - it would be devastating. And I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried it yet.
I'm not saying that the police and the military won't have laser weapons soon. I'm saying they don't want *citizens* to have them, and this "problem" is the pretext to make sure anyone with a laser goes to prison. New battery and fuel cell tech mean that laser guns are coming soon, and they will make the wielders more powerful than anyone with a gunpowder weapon. They want laser weapons to be classified as terrorist devices. Unless they point them at you, in which case they will be swell. Done rambling.
I just read Terry Pratchett's novel "Snuff". In it, Commander Sam Vimes of the Watch says, roughly thus, "First comes the crime, then you make the law." Some things are too big and new for laws to cover them. We never defined "treason" as "defining gobs of money as 'speech' and letting giant antinational corporate entities spend as much as they like to buy the government in whatever way they like". So, no, it's not currently treason, the way chaining Africans wasn't kidnapping and murder at the time. But it still was kidnapping and murder. And it still is treason.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask for the Sun, settle for the Moon. Which is what they wanted anyway. But sometimes they even get the Sun, so why not try for it?
We are suckers. There is no "compromise" with this law.
Sorry, more to say. Thanks for the information, as I am uniformed about research in the area of eliminating interference on the same frequency.
You are right, of course. The tech does not exist. But Apple has 70,000 millions+ dollars in cash money that says that they can develop it. And probably are. I do hope.
But perhaps not. Steve Jobs really believed that sharing copyrighted information was stealing (not mentioning his phone phreaker days when he sold Woz's and his box that made free long distance calls with a digital tone generator). He probably would not welcome a system that he could not personally monitor, in spirit if not in fact.
So it probably comes down to open source to manufacture mesh networks that actually work, and are not compromised at the factory to snitch out the users.
Well, I don't want to stream video; I want an alternate network that can't be shut down by commercial decree. Wireless, decentralized mesh networks are the only solution to that. Any non-censored communication is better than none at all.
How, in the name of reality, could he pick and choose amongst 100K files that he couldn't read if he had all month, esp. since he had minutes, not hours, to download it all. Nope, he did what he could. If you don't know where the papers are in the file cabinet, you clone the cabinet and let others sort it out later. It's about what is possible and what isn't. His other choice was to walk away. He took the braver way, and now he has to explain himself, and if at all possible in this circus, manage to convince rather biased judges that his superiors, possibly their friends, had covered up murder and worse than murder, and that he had no other way to obtain the evidence.
Free Kevin, and Kick Lamo's Ass. And a nut shot for the Wired editor and his spook buddy who started this all.
2A) The NY Times and the London Guardian informed the US government, before publishing anything, that they were in possession of the documents. They invited the US to review what was to be published, and were given the power to edit the documents so that no soldier would be endangered by publication. The US government refused to cooperate. So, please, keep this in mind when you talk about Manning "releasing" documents. All the T's were crossed and the i's dotted.
Manning released nothing to the press. The New York Times and the Guardian had control of review and release. And the "getting people killed" thing? If government lies had been exposed ten years ago, we'd have no soldiers in Iraq to *be* killed.
And what Manning specifically wanted to be released was the tape of civilians actually being killed by rogue US soldiers - murder. If you are worried about "people killed", I believe Manning has you covered.
You are unfortunately misinformed. The details are readily available if you Google them. However, do not include Fox News or any of the rightist websites in your searches - they have been aggressively lying for some years and are not to be trusted with the time of sunrise tomorrow.
Try the Red Cross, or Amnesty International, or any decent law discussion group about the case.
Iraq is not a "war". It is an invasion, under false pretense, as a prelude to conquest. The people we are shooting cannot even fight back. We stole the oil after yattering about terrorism. Those people had been under embargo - by US - for ten endless years. Then we slaughtered them. Then we tortured them. Then we imprisoned them in their own country. They had no animus towards us, and no involvement in any military action against us. It was an attack against an almost helpless nation, with 60+ thousand burned, exploded, and shot to death in days for the crime of existing. We are not the heroes, and Iraq is not a "war". Every action we take there is a further crime piled on the original crimes. Th people there are helpless against giants in armor who can kill them at will, and have. This must be ground into the souls of Americans, or this will happen again and again.
1) Manning DID NOT release the documents, as you keep asserting. He transmitted them to Wikileaks, a trusted organization that kept secret whistleblowers secret.
2) Wikileaks DID NOT RELEASE a blessed thing; the New York Times, the Guardian of London, and two other papers were given the block of documents, and they and they *alone* released what they thought safe to release after careful review, in which Wikileaks did not participate. If you have a problem, take it up with the newspapers, not Manning, not Wikileaks.
3) The full documents got out after a reporter from the Guardian, I believe, idiotically published the password in an article. Go hang him.
4) Manning and Wikileaks exercise due diligence and made sure that they released nothing harmful to the troops by giving control of the release to responsible reporters who were supposed to know what they are doing. That is precisely how responsible leakers have always done it.
5) The reporters let us see that our troops had committed a savage murder, on camera, and the chain of command had refused to investigate.
6) Large number of stories are now known to us about immoral and illegal acts committed by our government and others. One of those reports triggered the uprising called the Arab Spring. Perhaps you've heard of it.
7) The US government in the past ten years has extended secret classifications to even mundane domestic reports. We even have secret laws that we cannot see, and no-fly lists that cannot be seen or contested. We have a country run in secret down to our police departments. A country that does not know, CANnot know, by law, what is actually happening in their name cannot possess the knowledge to govern themselves, making democracy itself impossible, even illegal. To become informed is to break the law. To break this blockade on truth is to spend 18 months in solitary without charge while they try to get you to falsely implicate others. To try to keep your country free and murderers tried for their crimes, they will lock you up for years without charges and then give you two weeks to get ready for trial after your mind is half gone and you haven't talked to a sane human for so long you can't construct sentences, let alone argue, against the full might of a national secrecy state that likes power and ain't about to give any up to lippy men with notions of right and wrong.
This is not about oaths and laws. This is about what is right, and what is wrong. And knowing enough to understand the different.
Yes. Read. You can google it. You can even watch the video, as it was released long ago by Wikileaks. He found evidence of US soldiers murdering a crowd - on camera. He tried for very long to get anyone in the chain of command to care. They did not. He did what he thought necessary when your command is hiding murders - he leaked it. You will refuse to look, as will his prosecutors and judges. This is a travesty.
The war was a lie. The President and Cheney declared that Iraq had attacked us. We went there and slaughtered 60K+ people outright, destroyed their electrical generator plants, water systems, gas lines, highways and outright stole their only national resource, the oil under their feet. We did it against the advice of almost every country on earth. We've led to the deaths and torture of almost two million people. We've emptied the country of its people as they fled a 120+ degree hell that now has no jobs, no air conditioning, barely food, and has a government consisting of the son of a bitch, Chalabi, who told Bush and Cheney anything they wanted to hear. He is now in charge of the oil fields and is essentially the secret service. We have installed another bunch of thieves, and you want to "bring our boys home", like they just fought Adolph. That country could not, would not, did not want to attack us. but it had lovely oil, and we stole it.
Please educate yourself on what was in those messages. Manning specifically was outing a mass murder, done on camera by US soldiers, that his superiors, after being informed by him, ignored. You are being willfully ignorant.
In 1863, he would have been instructed to kill runaway negroes and peaceful Indian villages. The past is not a moral high ground. If he had refused either one of those orders he would have been whipped and/or executed.
His primary oath was to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to his superiors. If your superiors refuse to act on evidence of murder, and the chain of command knows damned well there was a murder, than what can you do? You can: 1) shut up, as three million others with the same clearance did, or 2) obey your oath to the people and the Constitution and expose the murderers and their abettor who are hiding behind the cloak of secrecy which was not intended for hiding criminals. Your choice.
So who, exactly, are going to bring those who committed murder while representing us, and those who hid it, even with clear evidence, to their hangings?
Except it didn't happen that way, did it? ALL the providers adopted data caps within months of each other. ALL the providers charged for overages, about equally. ALL the providers won't upgrade their infrastructure. Competition did happen, and they competitively decided to copy each other so they could all profit; if one carrier decided to instead increase capacity and maintain unlimited data plans, that carrier, competitively, would not be making as much profit as possible and the shareholders would have risen up to replace the CEO. They are not in business to increase their base number of users - they are in business to increase their profits quarterly. And, once more, real world experiment is over, and objectively your argument has failed the test of reality. They did not compete, they acted as a meta-corporation and raised prices and lowered service simultaneously. Competition does not work at this level of capitalism, as Adam Smith warned us. They collude to maintain prices.
Oh, I know indeed. And sound cannon and tax investigations and pepper cannon. But at some point, if we don't, we're never leaving a world-wide police state. They will become ensconced into the Panopticon State, and to add insult to that they will make us pay car-loan prices for our incarceration. We need comm they can't control. A century ago, our lives weren't funneled through one network. Now it is, and they have grabbed control and we are now seeing the beginning of what that means. It will become infinitely worse unless we end-run them. By which I mean 802.22 on mesh networks. And it doesn't have to be illegal - if we can get that spectrum declared public access, like 802.11 etc, then we can do it legally. Of course they will demand gov issued digital certificates and all that for the routers, and there we would have to make a stand for all the marbles. Without anon comm, you cannot have a free world. Can. Not.
802.22, and limit the hogs. And someday the interference problem will be licked and we will have multiple users on the same frequency; it's a software problem we haven't solved yet, not a physical one.
The big problems with network capacity happened in San Francisco and New York City, both places loaded with tech journalists who had the ability to broadcast their complaints. Other cities are mostly fine.
SF dwellers complain, but don't seem to realize that it takes two years to get a new cell installed in their city due to NIMBY laws. AT&T simply could not roll out new capacity after the iPhone took off in 2007 for over two years because they were not permitted to do so. The problem started to diminish when the extra cells started going up... in 2009. Sometimes, when you have a problem, look in the mirror and the answer is staring back at you.
NYC? Dunno.
Here's a thought. Why don't we just do it anyway? FCC be damned.
If I were Jobs, I'd stomp in, put my bare feet up on your desks, give you the old staring laser eye, and say: "The Internet is shit. We need to make a new one."
Apparently he was of the same mind as I. In 2006-2007 he wanted to build a new data network using 802.22, the old TV spectrum which goes through walls quite well, to build a new nationwide WiFi network.
Image this. A 99 dollar box, an Apple Net box, as it were, that anyone could buy and plug into the wall. It automatically meshes with any other AppleNet boxes it can detect, and starts passing packets, at a really, really high speed - those frequencies are capacious.
Data, voice, all the same.No network carriers, unless perhaps the government could just operate major long-distance backbones through the agency of private companies as a cost of having a civilization. That last might become unnecessary as the number of nodes in the mesh increase geometrically; like Bittorrent, the more people participate, the faster the network becomes.
No carriers. No profit. All we need is bandwidth and a simple box anyone could buy.
You could make outdoor ones that have tiny solar panels, and just plant them anywhere you can get permission. More the infinitely better.
And in the future, some genius will solve the interference problem. Interference in radio is a hardware/software solvable limitation, not a physical one. True; research it, it's fascinating. When we have fast enough processors, we can solve that problem and crowd thousands of channels on the same frequency.
This is all not only feasible, it is absolutely necessary for our economy and our personal freedom - not to mention we won't be robbed forever by two or three corporations. We need to remove the aspect of centralized control from our communications structure.
They aren't providing a service; they are manufacturing a scarcity of service. Any producer or provider will ultimately do this if they are not regulated in some fashion. They will build out a minimum of infrastructure for a maximum of profit. And they will never stop raising fees. Our great-grandparents understood this, so electrical utilities and such are government-regulated monopolies. Some things can't be covered by free market economics. Wiring all homes is one of those things.
They would be slaughtered anyway.
The Declaration of Independence is not our law. The Constitution is. And that law is quite clear, along with the nearly contemporaneous language of the Treaty of Tripoli (which is also law); we are a secular society, by intention and basic to our definition. We are not a Christian nation. Google Treaty of Tripoli.
The bottom line is simple: a motherboard will not boot unless a third party permits. You will have no control over this. The computer is not yours.
Instead of yet another reason for police to kick doors in, let's just accept the fact that lasers exist. Either polarize the windows in the cockpit, or have the pilots wear polarized goggles when they look outside, or start not-using the windows so much - instrumentation is really good now.
I think, anyway this goes, that this "problem" isn't as worrying as they make out. I think it is a back door to outlawing lasers in civilian hands. Reason for that would be the inevitable evolution of handheld laser weapons, which would be noiseless, untraceable, and have a range of tens of miles. Sniper rifles for everyone, in their back pocket. I think they want to head that off at the pass.
We could build a personal laser gun now. Think of it: get a hundred low-power laser pointer emitters, and build a mechanism to aim all the beams at the same point - it would be devastating. And I'm surprised that someone hasn't tried it yet.
I'm not saying that the police and the military won't have laser weapons soon. I'm saying they don't want *citizens* to have them, and this "problem" is the pretext to make sure anyone with a laser goes to prison. New battery and fuel cell tech mean that laser guns are coming soon, and they will make the wielders more powerful than anyone with a gunpowder weapon. They want laser weapons to be classified as terrorist devices. Unless they point them at you, in which case they will be swell. Done rambling.
I just read Terry Pratchett's novel "Snuff". In it, Commander Sam Vimes of the Watch says, roughly thus, "First comes the crime, then you make the law." Some things are too big and new for laws to cover them. We never defined "treason" as "defining gobs of money as 'speech' and letting giant antinational corporate entities spend as much as they like to buy the government in whatever way they like". So, no, it's not currently treason, the way chaining Africans wasn't kidnapping and murder at the time. But it still was kidnapping and murder. And it still is treason.