Come to think of it, the original question that prompted my post was "why did the Johnson's go with NCC-1706 for the Exeter's hull number?"
The answer I came up with, based upon the 1975 SFTM, would seem to support the "true to form" label given to their efforts: the "period" reference materials listed Exeter as NCC-1706. Screw Paramount's decree of what's official and what isn't!;-)
It doesn't really help that my source material, as cool as it is, raises more questions than it answers, though...
As for your other points of dogma, I've got to go with Kirk and the Old Religion. *8-)
Slightly more seriously, on the Kirk/Picard question, that's actually a tough one for me. I'll go with Kirk most of the time, because a) people usually ask the "...better Captain..." question, and b) they also usually have difficulty separating the actors' portrayal from the characters.
On point A, I think it would be difficult to say that Kirk the Captain was less than a tough, shrewd, and determined operator. Enterprise under his command was the only ship to complete its 5 year mission (ok, pulling from slightly post-TOS material here). And, for cryin' out loud, his first recorded mission resulted in new tactical study materials for Academy Cadets (The Corbomite Manuever). On the other hand, Picard was also very determined, and tough in his own way. But his way really was one of diplomacy and politics, as opposed to Kirk's sheer ballsy piracy (ala Captain Blood). And how many Enterprises has Picard lost!? In all the excitement I lost count...
As far as B goes, I don't care how many Shakespearean stage productions Bill has done, he'll never be the actor that Patrick is. Here's a fun idea: try to imaging Patrick Stewart's rendition of Kirk, and Bill Shatner's Picard.
Not sure what their source was for that info, but if anyone _is_ interested in canon...
The 1975 Ballantine, Franz Joseph edition (stardate 7511.01) Star Fleet Technical Manual lists four rounds of comissioning for the "Heavy Cruiser class", as follows:
4 replacements for Constitution class ships lost in the line of duty:
- Constellation II, NCC-1728
- Farragut II, NCC-1729
- Intrepid II, NCC-1730
- Valiant II, NCC-1731
111 MK-IXb class: hull numbers from NCC-1732 through NCC-1843
- Achernar, NCC-1732 (class ship)
- Tikopai, NCC-1800 (class ship)
One thing that bugs me about all this is the murky issue of what "class" all of these are supposed to be called: heavy cruiser, Constitution, or what?
The implication that I take from my source is as follows:
- the MK-IX run of ships are "Constitution class Heavy Cruisers"
- the MK-IXa run are "Bonhomme Richard class Heavy Cruisers"
-the MK-IXb run numbered NCC-1732 - NCC-1799 are "Achernar class Heavy Cruisers"
- the MK-IXb run numbered NCC-1800 - NCC-1843 are "Tikopai class Heavy Cruisers"
...but I've obviously already lost too much sleep over the whole question anyway...
You obviously have not read the material I linked to earlier in this thread. Read the Federalist Papers (No. 39 specifically) to find out why the Founding Fathers thought it was important to distinguish between a Democracy(tm) and a Republic(tm) in the context of this brand new government they were forming. As far as I'm concerned, that is a far more legitimate source than any modern dictionary.
I'll grant you that the difference comes down to a fine point. But that point is _very_ important. And you won't see the distinction in a dictionary, unless you pay close attention. You take issue with the fact that I didn't list all definitions of both words. I chose the two definitions that were the most similar to illustrate my point. You, apparently, did not get it. The point was that even the definitions of "republic" and "democracy" that are most similar are, in fact, different. The words are not interchangeable. To say that "all A are B" does not mean that "all B are A." There are democratic elements and principles in our system of government. However, according to other writings of some of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, it is proper to refer to our system as a Constitutional Republic. Here's a discussion about what Benjamin Franklin had to say about our form of government: http://www.constitutioncenter.org/resources/site_c ontributors/beeman/beeman.asp
The fact that you've decided to engage in name calling only weakens your argument. Did it ever occur to you that government-run schools might muddy the point that our representatives are our servants, that they are legally bound to serve the citizenry within strictly defined limits, rather than lucky individuals empowered to rule over us as they see fit? Doesn't it occur to you that government agencies have a vested interest in creating the notion that citizens only have entitlements granted by governmental authority? Doesn't it occur to you that as soon as the citizenry is convinced that government is something that happens to them, it becomes true? If not, then they've succeeded quite handily at indoctrinating you with this particular meme.
Definitions from dictionary.com and thin air (I see no URLs or other references to exact source material) are hardly compelling when compared to words written by co-authors of the U.S. system of government.
It is _not_ as simple as that. Read your friggin' history! And try more than 1 source for your definitions.
For example, www.m-w.com's definitions of Republic and Democracy are similar, with one critical difference (see if you can spot it):
Republic - 1b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
Democracy - 1b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of
representation usually involving periodically held free elections
If you can't see the difference, you're part of the problem.
I would direct you, sir, to learn your American civics.
The facts that we directly elect our representatives, and that various states utilize the voter initiative mechanism of legislation (in conflict with the designs of the founding fathers, btw), do not alter the fact that our system is properly referred to as a constitutional republic.
See the Federalist Papers (No. 39, to be specific) for a lengthy discussion of why it is proper to describe the government founded by our constitution as a republic: http://www.federalist.com/fedpapers/fed_39.html
If the previous sparks your interest, see http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/constit.html for a decent treatment of why voter initiatives are a step towards the "tyranny of the majority" that many of the founding fathers wanted to guard against with a republican, rather than democratic system.
Your argument might have more punch if you couched it in the correct terms. The United States of America is _not_ a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. The popular vote would probably be all that mattered if we did, in fact, live in a democracy. However, the Electoral College is a critical element distinguishing our republican form of government from a democracy.
...or, even better, Mike Myers as Dr. Evil on the Jerry Springer Show:
Yes, Jerry, plotting to take over the world is a full time job, easily 60 hours a week...Minime makes it bearable though, he's so cuddly and evil... How many hours do you work in a week, Jerry?
According to my sources (who must remain nameless) LinuxOne will soon be announcing their new product line: Linux for Ordinary Users -Special Edition Revised (affectionately referred to as LOU-SER by LinuxOne insiders). This totally-new-from-the-ground-up distribution will incorporate state of the art, cutting edge user friendliness features, have rock solid stability, international character sets for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Israeli, Lakota Sioux, British-, Canadian-, Australian-, AND American-English users, and there will even be a Playstation2 version in Q1 of 2001!
I think the world would be a safer place without guns - it's worth the price of the occasional bear in your back garden and the lack of a recreational shooting range...
Why would you feel safer handing the responsibility for your personal physical well being to someone (the police, armed with guns, btw) who doesn't even have a legal responsibility to protect you?
Yeah, except that in the 25+ years of the existance of the current holes, noone did misuse the holes on a scale as was done recently.
That is a good point. Has anyone considered how many sites were not vulnerable to this attack because of security audits run with these tools? It may not be a large number. However, the fact that there has been no press on this aspect of the issue does not mean that no such sites exist.
Burgerking didn't say "we are innocent - they did it themselves" when some kids experiences some rather nasty side effects of playing with a toy. And that was for something with a harmless intended purpose.
...even though they would have been morally correct to make that statement. Please don't confuse Tort with Morality. Even if Burger King settled or lost a liabilty action, that still does not equate to their moral responsiblity for the inattention or negligence of the parents. This example really only illustrates that Burger King decided it would cost them less in dollars and in public relations to make the claimants go away as quickly and quietly as possible than any monetary gain from a legal victory.
People have a moral responsibility for their actions, and that includes giving away dangerous stuff to lusers. Even if they live in a jurisdiction that is to backwards to recognize this.
Between your first statement and this one, I can't understand why you would think that Mixter is any more responsible for the actions of lamer miscreants than the admins of the sites that got hit. After all, as you say, these holes have been known about for 25+ years. Aren't the admins morally responsible for leaving open a means of disrupting their sites'?
I found it really disturbing and scary when I read that President Clinton is intending to dedicate $240 million for the sole purpose of wiretapping and domestic surveillance. In my opinion, no amount of denial of service attacks or computer intrusions could ever cause a comparable amount of money to be lost in the future. Additionally, such methods and laws can easily be circumvented by malicious people using compromised systems to relay through a number of encrypted channels and are therefore affecting everyone except the people they are intended against.
I have to give the guy credit for this observation. Personally, I think we should all be concerned about the FBI's increasing budget for these kinds of surveillance activities: For any who didn't already know, U.S. law no longer prohibits the Federal Bureau of Investigation from conducting international operations. If we don't police our community voluntarily, some government agency will be happy to increase our taxes and take over the job.
Yaruar Wrote:
Reminds me of most weapons makers who dissolve themselves from blame as the creators by saying that theirs is a tool that is misused....he knew that people were going to abuse his creation.
Your opinion, Yaruar, reflects the moral righteousness of a coward. Instead of addressing the behavior of the wrongdoers, you attack the actions of a toolmaker who 'made it possible'.
Your simile with weapons manufacturers is apt, but your conclusions are wrong. Tools in and of themselves, as inanimate objects, can be neither good nor evil. It is the intent of the tool user, and the actions performed by said tool user which are either good or evil. If 'evil' actions are socially unacceptable (thus codified into law), I say it is reasonable for a manufacturer to assume that the 'evil' uses of their tool will not outweigh the 'good' uses. The mere possiblity of wrongdoers misusing the tool for 'evil' does not invalidate the 'good' that is done with a tool. Neither does it make the manufacturer responsible for another individual's evil/bad/illegal actions.
Please explain how Mixter's good faith effort to inform the public of a security problem (by publicly posting his code, to enable testing for vulnerability) qualifies as a 'moral vacuum'? You accuse Mixter of being an egotistical hacker (spoken as a dirty word) because he supplied his tool to the public. I, on the other hand, say he did good, by publishing his tool(s), and rightly expecting the 'good guys' to use it to protect themselves before the 'bad guys' used it to hurt them.
As an aside: Who is morally superior: 1) a woman lying in an alley, raped, beaten, and strangled by her own stockings, or 2) a woman explaining to the police how her attacker recieved that fatal gun shot wound to the chest? Evildoers will find tools to use for evil, whether they are firearms, knives, baseball/cricket bats, or a woman's silk stockings. Check the UK's (and Australia's for that matter) violent crime statistics after the complete (near-complete in Australia) ban on firearms ownership.
Actually, according to the Merriam-Webster definition (1a and 1b), the Open Source Software movement is very similar to communism.
He thinks that all open source advocates are mindless followers of a cult whose idea is that everything should be open source and free.
If you replace the word "all" in that statement with the word "most" or "many", Bob Metcalf would not be the only one to think that way. However, despite the visceral reaction the word may induce, I think it behooves us to give it some consideration. Because OSS Advocacy IS a political battle (Have you ever tried to sell an OSS solution to a pointy-haired manager?). AND because of the difference between Communism on paper and Communism in China, or Communism in the nation-state formerly known as the Soviet Union, or Communism in Kampuchea (Cambodia), or...
It's the FBI's job to hunt these guys down (maybe, do they have jurisdiction if the attack is launched from another country?) But the media has fixated on the cops and robbers aspect of this story.
My understanding is that the FBI's Charter has changed in the last ~5 years, so that they are no longer prohibited from conducting international operations. At the same time, the CIA's Charter was changed, so that they are no longer prohibited from conducting domestic operations.
Although Mongoose raised the point jokingly, it is not such an outlandish idea that NSA may have been involved in this as a fundraising effort. Anyone remember a little incident in Waco, Texas a few years ago...? You know, ATF, FBI, Army National Guard (Delta Force?). There have been, IMHO, credible claims that ATF's beef with Koresh started as a fundraiser. BTW - what in the HELL does the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms need OV-10 Broncos for!?
Anyway, while I am all for the concept of 'LAW ENFORCEMENT' (as lbergstr said), I think it is important to ask what law was broken here, who should be enforcing that law, and what methods should they use? Frankly, I would be less concerned about NSA fundraising activities than media stunts aimed at increasing NSA/FBI/CIA's power to intrude into our lives.
I predict Bill Clinton will propose to increase federal law enforcement agencies' power to crack down on 'Cyber-Terrorism' after next week's meeting. Then again, he may simply issue another "classified" executive order...
Why did Kaspersky issue this statement!? Follow the money...
Who stands to gain the most from hysteria about Linux virii? Anti-virus developers with suites for Linux, that's who.
...and there is no love lost between the Russians and Chinese. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt Kaspersky's feelings if people were to become more suspicious of Open Source projects/contributions originating in China... In fact, now that he's so deftly pointed the finger towards China as the source of these new Linux virii, wouldn't it be interesting if Moscow turned out to be the real source?
Something this brings up in my mind is how skewed our perceptions of Constitutional Rights have become in the US. The Bill of Rights was not written to outline rights that the federal and state governments would grant to all of us Citizens (after all, what they can grant, they can revoke). Rather, it was to outline a set of basic human rights that are inherent to us by virtue of being homo sapiens walking on the planet, and to affirm that these rights therefore pre-exist any government. OK, so the people who wrote those documents did not always live up to the standards they wrote down. That doesn't make the document, the statement of ideals and philosophy less valuable.
Kevin is 100% on target: if they can do it to him, they can do it to anyone. If you really stop and honestly consider the question, what is the difference between us and Kevin? Between us and the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX? Between us and the Weavers in Ruby Ridge, ID? At the risk of sounding alarmist, I'd say the difference is that they haven't come for you and me yet. Which is worth being alarmed about.
The sad fact is that we live in a de facto police state. When state and federal officials can openly and willingly flaunt the law, deny rights that they are sworn, duty-, & honor-bound to defend, from the very citizens they are employed by, in truth we do not have those rights. The lessons of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Kevin Mitnick seem clear: if you do not quietly submit, you will be killed or locked up as an example.
Sure, for the majority the gilding on the bars is nice enough to distract us from the fact that they are there. But they are there, nonetheless.
Remind me again, why should I not be concerned that they want to take all of our guns away?
I'll bet we'd be able to offer even more and better help to the EFF if we had a better grasp of the overall strategy they're using.
If you haven't already seen their press release, check it out here. BTW - there are a two links on that page to good info about their effort, including case documents to date.
what do you think law is about without legal philosophy?
An arbitrary set of rules that we must either live by or be prepared for the consequences of violating. I wish that we (in the U.S.) lived in a system where a sound and consistent philosphy prevailed.
In the absence of reasonable law the ciitzenry will select what they can live with and ignore the rest. That is a lesson of history.
An interesting point. History also shows that unreasonable law can be turned back upon the citizenry. How many millions have been slaughtered in the 20th century under the auspices of 'unreasonable' laws? Should we not work to change laws that are unreasonable? If you don't agree with a law, work to change it from within the system. Civil disobedience should be considered a tool to bring out when other actions within the system turn out to be ineffectual. But applied in a manner where others suffer the consequences, civil disobedience is irresponsible.
It is pointless to beat people up verbally for doing this.
My intent was to discourse, not to assault.
There is a large difference between fighting tyranny and ripping off other developers.
I agree wholeheartedly. Illegal use of software, in direct violation of its license, is a far cry from fighting tyrrany.
But a license violation is not a question of philosophy, unless you can get the judge to listen to arguments about whether the rule of law should prevail (fat chance!).
Many in the Open Source community seem to take pride in holding the moral high ground over closed/proprietary development efforts. As if to say "my code is so much better than yours that I'm willing to subject it to peer review -- and give it away for little or no money" implies and automatically confers some sort of moral superiority.
Well, I happen to agree that contributing to the welfare of a community is a noble undertaking. However, if 'members' of the community behave in dishonorable ways towards others, whether or not those others are part of the community, it reflects poorly on all of us. Not only that, but it sets a precedent within the community, and can begin to spread. If we can ignore the license restrictions of an application that 'had a [draconian] license forced onto it by the government', why can't we ignore the license of software that's 'too expensive', or software who's manufacturer 'is too rich', or who's author you've never met (so he'll never know the difference)? In other words, if the line is not exactly where the copyright holder's license says it is, then where is it, and when have we stepped across?
Judicious application of the Golden Rule (i.e., treat others as I would like to be treated) might give you a different perspective. Instead of proclaiming 'Everyone does it, why shouldn't I?!', try asking 'what if everyone did it, and it was my property being misappropriated?'
While it may be a gutsy move, and it is good timing, Sony have set themselves up in a great position to dominate the console game market with this thing. Not only because of points 1 and 2 above:
1. It's backwards compatible with old playstation games (as far as i know, if i'm wrong, let me know) 2. Playstation has a wide variety of games available, games that interest me, not some fucking hedgehog or fat italian guy jumping around, but quality stuff, like tony hawk's pro skater.
...but also because of the features they built into this thing! Not only does it have a smokin' fast cpu, mainboard, memory, and video hardware, but it will double as a CD player, DVD player, etc. Plus it has Firewire, USB, and PCMCIA ports! C'mon!
Sony has a shot at not only console gamers, but anyone who is on the fence between webtv or a PC. They all now have all the reasons I listed above for going the PSX2 route instead of PC or WebTV.
And don't kid yourselves, people. If Sony thought a stock split put them in a weaker position, they wouldn't have done it. Think Seven Samurai. They're totally committed to this move because they're totally convinced that this one swing of the blade will net them the heads of Nintendo and Sega!
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to the networks listed in other posts, this one has been running for about a year and a half now.
Did you mean http://www.mitretek.org/publications/ccjt/vol6-17. html (note the actual URL shouldn't have a space between the 'dot' and the 'html')?
9 -1&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.mitretek.org%2Fpubli cations%2Fccjt%2Fvol6-17.html&btnG=Google+Sear ch
...and the cached page:
9 -1&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.netgroupinc.com%2Fad ventures.html&btnG=Google+Search
BTW - don't know what their bandwidth can sustain, so here's the cached version:
http://216.239.33.100/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-885
Also, here are some related stories, by the 'wireless consultant' firm who actually built Post Falls' system:
http://www.netgroupinc.com/adventures.html
http://216.239.33.100/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-885
Hm. Good point.
Come to think of it, the original question that prompted my post was "why did the Johnson's go with NCC-1706 for the Exeter's hull number?"
The answer I came up with, based upon the 1975 SFTM, would seem to support the "true to form" label given to their efforts: the "period" reference materials listed Exeter as NCC-1706. Screw Paramount's decree of what's official and what isn't! ;-)
It doesn't really help that my source material, as cool as it is, raises more questions than it answers, though...
As for your other points of dogma, I've got to go with Kirk and the Old Religion. *8-)
Slightly more seriously, on the Kirk/Picard question, that's actually a tough one for me. I'll go with Kirk most of the time, because a) people usually ask the "...better Captain..." question, and b) they also usually have difficulty separating the actors' portrayal from the characters.
On point A, I think it would be difficult to say that Kirk the Captain was less than a tough, shrewd, and determined operator. Enterprise under his command was the only ship to complete its 5 year mission (ok, pulling from slightly post-TOS material here). And, for cryin' out loud, his first recorded mission resulted in new tactical study materials for Academy Cadets (The Corbomite Manuever). On the other hand, Picard was also very determined, and tough in his own way. But his way really was one of diplomacy and politics, as opposed to Kirk's sheer ballsy piracy (ala Captain Blood). And how many Enterprises has Picard lost!? In all the excitement I lost count...
As far as B goes, I don't care how many Shakespearean stage productions Bill has done, he'll never be the actor that Patrick is. Here's a fun idea: try to imaging Patrick Stewart's rendition of Kirk, and Bill Shatner's Picard.
Not sure what their source was for that info, but if anyone _is_ interested in canon...
The 1975 Ballantine, Franz Joseph edition (stardate 7511.01) Star Fleet Technical Manual lists four rounds of comissioning for the "Heavy Cruiser class", as follows:
14 MK-IX class:
- Constellation, NCC-1017 (class ship)
- Republic, NCC-1371
- Constitution, NCC-1700
- Enterprise, NCC-1701
- Farragut, NCC-1702
- Lexington, NCC-1703
- Yorktown, NCC-1704
- Excalibur, NCC-1705
- Exeter, NCC-1706
- Hood, NCC-1707
- Intrepid, NCC-1708
- Valiant, NCC-1709
- Kongo, NCC-1710
- Potempkin, NCC-1711
16 MK-IXa class:
- Bonhomme Richard, NCC-1712 (class ship)
- Monitor, NCC-1713
- Hornet, NCC-1714
- Merrimac, NCC-1715
- Endeavor, NCC-1716
- Defiance, NCC-1717
- Excelsior, NCC-1718
- Eagle, NCC-1719
- LaFayette, NCC-1720
- Wasp, NCC-1721
- El Dorado, NCC-1722
- Ari, NCC-1723
- Saratoga, NCC-1724
- Tori, NCC-1725
- Krieger, NCC-1726
- Essex, NCC-1727
4 replacements for Constitution class ships lost in the line of duty:
- Constellation II, NCC-1728
- Farragut II, NCC-1729
- Intrepid II, NCC-1730
- Valiant II, NCC-1731
111 MK-IXb class: hull numbers from NCC-1732 through NCC-1843
- Achernar, NCC-1732 (class ship)
- Tikopai, NCC-1800 (class ship)
One thing that bugs me about all this is the murky issue of what "class" all of these are supposed to be called: heavy cruiser, Constitution, or what?
The implication that I take from my source is as follows:
- the MK-IX run of ships are "Constitution class Heavy Cruisers"
- the MK-IXa run are "Bonhomme Richard class Heavy Cruisers"
-the MK-IXb run numbered NCC-1732 - NCC-1799 are "Achernar class Heavy Cruisers"
- the MK-IXb run numbered NCC-1800 - NCC-1843 are "Tikopai class Heavy Cruisers"
You obviously have not read the material I linked to earlier in this thread. Read the Federalist Papers (No. 39 specifically) to find out why the Founding Fathers thought it was important to distinguish between a Democracy(tm) and a Republic(tm) in the context of this brand new government they were forming. As far as I'm concerned, that is a far more legitimate source than any modern dictionary.
c ontributors/beeman/beeman.asp
I'll grant you that the difference comes down to a fine point. But that point is _very_ important. And you won't see the distinction in a dictionary, unless you pay close attention. You take issue with the fact that I didn't list all definitions of both words. I chose the two definitions that were the most similar to illustrate my point. You, apparently, did not get it. The point was that even the definitions of "republic" and "democracy" that are most similar are, in fact, different. The words are not interchangeable. To say that "all A are B" does not mean that "all B are A." There are democratic elements and principles in our system of government. However, according to other writings of some of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, it is proper to refer to our system as a Constitutional Republic. Here's a discussion about what Benjamin Franklin had to say about our form of government: http://www.constitutioncenter.org/resources/site_
The fact that you've decided to engage in name calling only weakens your argument. Did it ever occur to you that government-run schools might muddy the point that our representatives are our servants, that they are legally bound to serve the citizenry within strictly defined limits, rather than lucky individuals empowered to rule over us as they see fit? Doesn't it occur to you that government agencies have a vested interest in creating the notion that citizens only have entitlements granted by governmental authority? Doesn't it occur to you that as soon as the citizenry is convinced that government is something that happens to them, it becomes true? If not, then they've succeeded quite handily at indoctrinating you with this particular meme.
Definitions from dictionary.com and thin air (I see no URLs or other references to exact source material) are hardly compelling when compared to words written by co-authors of the U.S. system of government.
It is _not_ as simple as that. Read your friggin' history! And try more than 1 source for your definitions.
For example, www.m-w.com's definitions of Republic and Democracy are similar, with one critical difference (see if you can spot it):
Republic - 1b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
Democracy - 1b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of
representation usually involving periodically held free elections
If you can't see the difference, you're part of the problem.
I would direct you, sir, to learn your American civics.
The facts that we directly elect our representatives, and that various states utilize the voter initiative mechanism of legislation (in conflict with the designs of the founding fathers, btw), do not alter the fact that our system is properly referred to as a constitutional republic.
See the Federalist Papers (No. 39, to be specific) for a lengthy discussion of why it is proper to describe the government founded by our constitution as a republic: http://www.federalist.com/fedpapers/fed_39.html
If the previous sparks your interest, see http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/constit.html for a decent treatment of why voter initiatives are a step towards the "tyranny of the majority" that many of the founding fathers wanted to guard against with a republican, rather than democratic system.
Your argument might have more punch if you couched it in the correct terms. The United States of America is _not_ a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. The popular vote would probably be all that mattered if we did, in fact, live in a democracy. However, the Electoral College is a critical element distinguishing our republican form of government from a democracy.
News Flash - this just in:
According to my sources (who must remain nameless) LinuxOne will soon be announcing their new product line: Linux for Ordinary Users - Special Edition Revised (affectionately referred to as LOU-SER by LinuxOne insiders). This totally-new-from-the-ground-up distribution will incorporate state of the art, cutting edge user friendliness features, have rock solid stability, international character sets for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Israeli, Lakota Sioux, British-, Canadian-, Australian-, AND American-English users, and there will even be a Playstation2 version in Q1 of 2001!
B-)
Between your first statement and this one, I can't understand why you would think that Mixter is any more responsible for the actions of lamer miscreants than the admins of the sites that got hit. After all, as you say, these holes have been known about for 25+ years. Aren't the admins morally responsible for leaving open a means of disrupting their sites'?
Yaruar Wrote:
Your opinion, Yaruar, reflects the moral righteousness of a coward. Instead of addressing the behavior of the wrongdoers, you attack the actions of a toolmaker who 'made it possible'.
Your simile with weapons manufacturers is apt, but your conclusions are wrong. Tools in and of themselves, as inanimate objects, can be neither good nor evil. It is the intent of the tool user, and the actions performed by said tool user which are either good or evil. If 'evil' actions are socially unacceptable (thus codified into law), I say it is reasonable for a manufacturer to assume that the 'evil' uses of their tool will not outweigh the 'good' uses. The mere possiblity of wrongdoers misusing the tool for 'evil' does not invalidate the 'good' that is done with a tool. Neither does it make the manufacturer responsible for another individual's evil/bad/illegal actions.
Please explain how Mixter's good faith effort to inform the public of a security problem (by publicly posting his code, to enable testing for vulnerability) qualifies as a 'moral vacuum'? You accuse Mixter of being an egotistical hacker (spoken as a dirty word) because he supplied his tool to the public. I, on the other hand, say he did good, by publishing his tool(s), and rightly expecting the 'good guys' to use it to protect themselves before the 'bad guys' used it to hurt them.
As an aside:
Who is morally superior: 1) a woman lying in an alley, raped, beaten, and strangled by her own stockings, or 2) a woman explaining to the police how her attacker recieved that fatal gun shot wound to the chest? Evildoers will find tools to use for evil, whether they are firearms, knives, baseball/cricket bats, or a woman's silk stockings. Check the UK's (and Australia's for that matter) violent crime statistics after the complete (near-complete in Australia) ban on firearms ownership.
If you replace the word "all" in that statement with the word "most" or "many", Bob Metcalf would not be the only one to think that way. However, despite the visceral reaction the word may induce, I think it behooves us to give it some consideration. Because OSS Advocacy IS a political battle (Have you ever tried to sell an OSS solution to a pointy-haired manager?). AND because of the difference between Communism on paper and Communism in China, or Communism in the nation-state formerly known as the Soviet Union, or Communism in Kampuchea (Cambodia), or
My understanding is that the FBI's Charter has changed in the last ~5 years, so that they are no longer prohibited from conducting international operations. At the same time, the CIA's Charter was changed, so that they are no longer prohibited from conducting domestic operations.
Although Mongoose raised the point jokingly, it is not such an outlandish idea that NSA may have been involved in this as a fundraising effort. Anyone remember a little incident in Waco, Texas a few years ago...? You know, ATF, FBI, Army National Guard (Delta Force?). There have been, IMHO, credible claims that ATF's beef with Koresh started as a fundraiser. BTW - what in the HELL does the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms need OV-10 Broncos for!?
Anyway, while I am all for the concept of 'LAW ENFORCEMENT' (as lbergstr said), I think it is important to ask what law was broken here, who should be enforcing that law, and what methods should they use? Frankly, I would be less concerned about NSA fundraising activities than media stunts aimed at increasing NSA/FBI/CIA's power to intrude into our lives.
I predict Bill Clinton will propose to increase federal law enforcement agencies' power to crack down on 'Cyber-Terrorism' after next week's meeting. Then again, he may simply issue another "classified" executive order...
Question Authority
Why did Kaspersky issue this statement!? Follow the money...
...and there is no love lost between the Russians and Chinese. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt Kaspersky's feelings if people were to become more suspicious of Open Source projects/contributions originating in China... In fact, now that he's so deftly pointed the finger towards China as the source of these new Linux virii, wouldn't it be interesting if Moscow turned out to be the real source?
Who stands to gain the most from hysteria about Linux virii? Anti-virus developers with suites for Linux, that's who.
Something this brings up in my mind is how skewed our perceptions of Constitutional Rights have become in the US. The Bill of Rights was not written to outline rights that the federal and state governments would grant to all of us Citizens (after all, what they can grant, they can revoke). Rather, it was to outline a set of basic human rights that are inherent to us by virtue of being homo sapiens walking on the planet, and to affirm that these rights therefore pre-exist any government. OK, so the people who wrote those documents did not always live up to the standards they wrote down. That doesn't make the document, the statement of ideals and philosophy less valuable.
Kevin is 100% on target: if they can do it to him, they can do it to anyone. If you really stop and honestly consider the question, what is the difference between us and Kevin? Between us and the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX? Between us and the Weavers in Ruby Ridge, ID? At the risk of sounding alarmist, I'd say the difference is that they haven't come for you and me yet. Which is worth being alarmed about.
The sad fact is that we live in a de facto police state. When state and federal officials can openly and willingly flaunt the law, deny rights that they are sworn, duty-, & honor-bound to defend, from the very citizens they are employed by, in truth we do not have those rights. The lessons of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Kevin Mitnick seem clear: if you do not quietly submit, you will be killed or locked up as an example.
Sure, for the majority the gilding on the bars is nice enough to distract us from the fact that they are there. But they are there, nonetheless.
Remind me again, why should I not be concerned that they want to take all of our guns away?
What's your point?
I'll bet we'd be able to offer even more and better help to the EFF if we had a better grasp of the overall strategy they're using.
If you haven't already seen their press release, check it out here. BTW - there are a two links on that page to good info about their effort, including case documents to date.
And why not support them by joining?
DISCLAIMER: The preceding was not a paid advertisement for the EFF! *8-)
An arbitrary set of rules that we must either live by or be prepared for the consequences of violating. I wish that we (in the U.S.) lived in a system where a sound and consistent philosphy prevailed.
An interesting point. History also shows that unreasonable law can be turned back upon the citizenry. How many millions have been slaughtered in the 20th century under the auspices of 'unreasonable' laws? Should we not work to change laws that are unreasonable? If you don't agree with a law, work to change it from within the system. Civil disobedience should be considered a tool to bring out when other actions within the system turn out to be ineffectual. But applied in a manner where others suffer the consequences, civil disobedience is irresponsible.
My intent was to discourse, not to assault.
I agree wholeheartedly. Illegal use of software, in direct violation of its license, is a far cry from fighting tyrrany.
Perhaps there is a philosphical difference...
But a license violation is not a question of philosophy, unless you can get the judge to listen to arguments about whether the rule of law should prevail (fat chance!).
Many in the Open Source community seem to take pride in holding the moral high ground over closed/proprietary development efforts. As if to say "my code is so much better than yours that I'm willing to subject it to peer review -- and give it away for little or no money" implies and automatically confers some sort of moral superiority.
Well, I happen to agree that contributing to the welfare of a community is a noble undertaking. However, if 'members' of the community behave in dishonorable ways towards others, whether or not those others are part of the community, it reflects poorly on all of us. Not only that, but it sets a precedent within the community, and can begin to spread. If we can ignore the license restrictions of an application that 'had a [draconian] license forced onto it by the government', why can't we ignore the license of software that's 'too expensive', or software who's manufacturer 'is too rich', or who's author you've never met (so he'll never know the difference)? In other words, if the line is not exactly where the copyright holder's license says it is, then where is it, and when have we stepped across?
Judicious application of the Golden Rule (i.e., treat others as I would like to be treated) might give you a different perspective. Instead of proclaiming 'Everyone does it, why shouldn't I?!', try asking 'what if everyone did it, and it was my property being misappropriated?'
Sony has a shot at not only console gamers, but anyone who is on the fence between webtv or a PC. They all now have all the reasons I listed above for going the PSX2 route instead of PC or WebTV.
And don't kid yourselves, people. If Sony thought a stock split put them in a weaker position, they wouldn't have done it. Think Seven Samurai. They're totally committed to this move because they're totally convinced that this one swing of the blade will net them the heads of Nintendo and Sega!
Very Zen...