I don't get it. I see teslas on the road almost daily here in the frozen north. I can only imagine there's more in warmer climes and where there's more luxury cars on the road. They have some of the highest customer satisfaction levels for any car. They flat out outperform the competition in many regards. He built a better mousetrap, but instead of a mousetrap it was a multi billion dollar project to launch some of the most complicated consumer hardware people can purchase into an extremely mature competitive environment.
Whether or not Tesla survives or wins in the car sector, other manufacturers have been forced to respond to the market disruption.
Calling him a failure seems like an ad hominem attack, really.
The 400' exemption in the FARs is *specifically* for hobbiest use. Commercial use is plainly not 'hobby' use. The National airspace system, and all the craft operating within it, and the FAAs authority to regulate its use do not magically start at 400 feet.
Anti-scientific 'ban everything' movements are the flipside of the pro-CO^2 believers. People who think they intuitively know more than those who study that field in particular who have research to back up their claims.
It's a failing of our education system that more people don't understand science, the concept. You don't need to understand all the branches of science. You just need to know that 'my kid complains of headaches at school' does not mean you can pin the blame on WiFi without any further tests.
If they went to an open format, tech wise, you'd see a couple things happen.
1) Aero recumbents would dominate. Not only would the playing field no longer be as level, from an equipment standpoint, but the benefits of drafting, and riding in a pack would be diminished or even eliminated. This would remove the entire 'rolling chessgame' aspect of the Tour, turning it into a giant series of individual time trials.
2) Riders already go fast enough on descents, they're hitting over 100 kilometers per hour coasting down some of the hills. If they were hitting 150 or more on those descents it would be even more insanely dangerous.
3) As it stands, the cream of the crop racing bikes are attainable for mere mortals. I can go out and buy a Trek Madone 5.9 SL and 'be like Lance' for around $4k USD. I can go out and buy a BMC Pro Machine like Landis rides for around double that. How much does Michael Schumacher's car cost? (Millions) How much does a racing level rowing shell cost? (around $6k for the shell alone) What would these bikes end up costing if they became extreme, one-off, aerodynamically faired bullets?
Hmmm... what's the alternative... what's the alternative... hmmm... how about conservation?
How about the a multi-pronged approach? Save a good fraction of the energy we currently use, and supplement existing production with a variety of more responsible alternatives?
Continue to pour money into fusion development, and eventually we'll get this problem licked. We do have to survive long enough, though.
And you know what? Some nations get away with slavery, and having political prisoners, and torture. Doesn't mean we should do it. It's not practical to enforce western regulations in many nations. While you can argue the exemption for China, it doesn't mean the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. How about sign up for Kyoto, then tell China that their most favored nation trading status is contingent upon their voluntary compliance with the accord?
Instead of trying to work things out, the Fed did the equivalent of quitting and taking their ball home. Well you know what? The rest of the world is going ahead with this anyway. At some point, US exports are going to get tariffs imposed by the WTO because of its overly lax environmental regulation, lack of compliance with international standards etc etc. THEN who will be responsible for the lost jobs?
If you want to really worry about shipping your jobs overseas, look at WalMart and the people who shop there. The place should be called WalMart's Chinese Market. 80% of their goods are manufactured there.
Working towards saving energy could save money in the long run, since energy is scarce. Often old, inefficient businesses just need a kick in the ass to get moving on becoming more green, and end up making more money. Plus, developing all the alternative energy sources plus the energy saving technologies could mean MORE jobs for Americans. Or is technological innovation not one of the strengths of the old US of A?
Real conservatives would want to SAVE our finite resources in case we need them later. Ill informed 'conservatives' are frightened of ANY change, even when it's necessary.
C'mon people, a hundred and some people died 9 or ten days ago and this thread's filled with all sorts of intellectual commentary such as:
'Das noogoodnick 0,0 coordinates are targeting torpedo at 127.0.0.1 and causing a bluescreen.'
The guys are DEAD. Even if it was some giant Russian cock-up, I don't think it's all that funny.
How amusing were all the morbid NASA jokes when the Challenger blew up?
"shouldn't you at least be helping to write XFree drivers?"
Hey, if they want to shoot themselves in the foot, they're allowed.
On the other hand, one wonders exactly how many of these cards they would actually sell simply due to a full suite of Linux drivers.
Just how big is the hardcore gamer/linuxgeek crossover? Obviously they're the most VOCAL ones on the internet, and so it seems like there's bunches of them. But I'd be willing to bet that a WAY disproportionate amount of them have web pages and are active on discussion boards etc.
The high end gaming card market is being driven by people running Windows. If ATI loses all of their potential Linux clients, how many would that add up to? Hundreds? Let's be honest here.
Writing and supporting a driver well is not all that cheap for them. Publishing the specs is.
I'd rather have a well written community based driver than a poorly written ATI one.
At this stage of the game, saying that electric or fuel cell based vehicles are a 'solution' is simply a fallacy. Electric vehicles AREN'T significantly more efficient in terms of energy usage. With signficant energy loss in electricity production, storage and use, you don't end up with any higher thermal efficiency than a simple gas engine. Not to mention the problem of transmission of that power. Up to 75% of the electricity generated by power stations can be lost over long distance high tension transmission lines. Right now, the most flexible part of our electricity supply happens to be fossil fuel powered production facilities. Any increase in demand for electricity will be supplied by coal plants and gas turbines. We certainly can't use much more hydro, since we've dammed everything up that we can in N.A. Nuclear power has it's own problems. Solar power just isn't economically viable at this point. So, while electric and fuel cell based cars are fantastic at reducing localized pollution problems (L.A. anyone?) they don't 'solve' the problem by any stretch of the imagination. Mass transit, on the other hand, is FANTASTIC. We've just got to wrap our heads around the fact that using a car to commute is ridiculous. There are many applications and situations where cars make more sense than buses, subways and trains, but the BULK of car usage is at 9am and 5pm, in gridlock and traffic jams on the major arteries in our cities. What's the point of that when public transit does the job much better? Greg
Interesting how some don't read the article...
on
Virtual War
·
· Score: 4
Just reading through the previous comments, I get the feeling that many are red herrings.
A "virtual war" in Ignatieff's work, is a fiction, invented by the American armed forces. It is not some Web based DDOS attack, or anything to do with the 'net. He is talking about how the armed forces want to portray themselves as powerful, and inflicting massive damages, without actually putting themselves at risk. Arguably, minimizing their involvement.
Once the smart bombs have blown up the wooden shacks and accidentally destroyed the embassies, and the 'bad guys' leave, the real work begins, with soldiers on the ground. *These* are the ones risking their lives.
IMO, it is not the one who inflicts the most physical damage who is making the greatest contribution, but the one who is willing to make the greatest sacrifice, take the greatest risk for the cause. I have infinitely more respect for infintry cum peace keepers than jet jockies and button pushers on warships. They seem to only die in accidents these days, not in fighting.
The guys in blue helmets, who deliver food, who go door to door looking for weapons stashes, and try to defuse disagreements on the street corner before they get messy are the ones who should be proud.
Killing a lot of people or destroying a lot of hardware is EASY. Any kook with a big enough bomb can do that. Terrorism is much more efficient at that than a military strike. What's hard is actually PURSUING THE GOAL of peace.
At some point, the bombing has to stop in any war, and when it does, what you do next is much more meaningful to determine how things work out in the end.
Military force *IS* a useful, and necessary, last resort. But it should *NOT* be considered a goal or ideal. It should NOT be the chosen path, just because it's easier to justify the deaths of a bunch of people who'll never get on TV than a few GI's on the ground.
I just get the feeling that the whole "We're a target! We must defend ourselves!" mentality ends up being self-fulfilling.
Why would people halfway around the world be motivated to blow up US embassies if it weren't for the strong arm tactics employed by the American government all over the world?
I'm just waiting for the first anthrax suitcase bomb to go off in NYC, killing 100,000 people.
There is simply no justification for a band to go after hundreds of thousands of its own fans, mostly kids, for the purpose of intimidation. Said Metallica's attorney Howard King: "I don't know if it's going to put a chill on the user end, but it certainly is going to show other artists what they can to do get their work out of Napster."
Excuse me? "no justification" for them asking Napster to ban people who are, by the very TERMS of the NAPSTER USER AGREEMENT, *ABUSING* the service by offering copywritten, illegal work for download?
I'm all for alternative distribution mediums, I'm all for *free* music, but only if the artists CHOOSE to distribute their works that way.
Who are YOU to tell an artist which distribution methods they're allowed to use, and how they are allowed to ask for payment?
If you're that upset with the concept of people selling albums, don't listen to their music, end of story. Stealing their music is *NOT* the way to get things to change.
I dislike record companies as much as the next guy, but the fact is, we live in a free market economy where they have the RIGHT to choose who consumes their product and HOW they consume it. As a consumer, you have the RIGHT to choose not to consume their product.
If more artists would simply circumvent the entire record company/record store/radio/TV music video paradigm of distribution, it would collapse. But they have a right to exist if they choose to.
Basically, my question is this. Are you, Jon Katz, a communist?
I myself am fairly left leaning and socialist, but I *also* beleive in a market based economy (not absolutely free, but somewhat free). I don't use communist as some sort of prejorative term, it's an honest question. If that is your actual view, I can respect that.
If on the other hand you're just spouting stuff which you think will stir up conversation which you don't actually beleive in, at least say so. Please be honest when playing the devil's advocate or you're just insulting our intelligence.
I usually lean towards the 'defend Jon' side of things, but you're SO off base here it's not even funny. Having almost ALL the facts wrong *really* erodes the basis of your argument.
You won't need to change any hardware. A dither was added to the clocks of the satellites which made *all* units less accurate, unless they had the special circuits to remove the inaccuracy from the signal (which was exclusively present in units for the US military). They've removed the dither, like they did during the Gulf War.
They did *THAT* because they ended up purchasing a bunch of civilian GPS units to equip soldiers in the desert since they didn't have enough military spec units. They reinstated it after most of the troops left, much to the disappointment of civilian GPS users.
While I'm sure the US military reserves the right to reinstate the dither in times of war, it means that the bulk of the time we now have ultra cheap, worldwide navigation.
It's not quite reliable enough for automatic landing of aircraft (differential GPS with ground based transmitters is necessary for that), but is good enough for MANY other applications.
I know that in a coal mine that my brother in law worked at, they had Loran navigation for the big trucks. On foggy days they could operate when they couldn't see the ground. Imagine driving up and down a mountain in a 300 tonne truck without seeing the road.
I think it's almost time for me to buy a GPS for my bike. Or maybe one that plugs in to my Palm Vx.
This is too damn cool.
I only wish it wasn't another example of a military spin-off technology. It could have been developed in the civilian arena with a little governmental support. I can understand how bitter it is for the USAF to swallow the entire cost of the constellation of satellites, only to see Radio Shack selling $100 units at good profits.
The REASON a serial rapist shouldn't be allowed to sell the rights to their life story for megabucks is out of respect for the rights of their VICTIMS, either dead or alive.
In my mind, a corporation does NOT have the same right to privacy as an individual. If Mitnick chooses to describe how he defeated the security on a particular site through his limited technical knowhow and superior social engineering skills, he's not besmirching the memory of someone's dead relative, or airing facts which will bring back horrific memories to a victim.
To me, there is a definite line between crimes committed against an individual, and crimes committed against a group. Financial damages are *not* to be equated to a violation of personal rights or freedoms, be it the right to life, freedom of speech etc etc. Human rights are *FAR* more important than the right to make, or for that matter, keep, a buck. If you don't recognize that, you can put a dollar value on a life.
All that being said, I do recognize that Mitnick's a criminal. I don't respect him, and in fact, think he's a big boob. He's a geeky loser (like a lot of my friends and I were in highschool) without the redeeming quality of even being a nice guy. What has he got going for him? He apparently is good at getting passwords out of people on the phone. That's not a whole lot in my books. But that does *NOT* in my mind excuse the improper actions of the government. Mitnick deserved to be punished, he deserved to serve some time, but this is *apparently* a violation of the concept of due process. His punishment has already been laid out. It is not the right of the gov't to extend the punishment in any way unless he commits more crimes.
Unless the restrictions were explicitly part of his sentencing, I don't understand how they can issue such a request.
I was aware of all the tech related restrictions, but SPEAKING about tech related subjects is off limits as well?
I would imagine that since these are public speaking engagements, it wouldn't be too hard to determine whether or not he was inciting people to commit crimes or anything like that.
Has anyone got any transcripts from any of these speeches? I'd be interested to find out what he's talking about.
Long and the short of it, I think the prosecutors are really scared of him because they don't understand him or his crimes.
I'm just waiting for someone to get arrested for making lock picks out of ice, and being refused the right to be in the presence of water. *sigh*
Untill you are willing to forgo your internet access because of the other abuses of that bandwith that are going on all around you, you sir, are a hipocrite, as you are asking your ISP to do something you are unwilling to do.
*sigh* You're making me think here, hard and long. That's a GOOD thing, but it's the middle of the work day, and it's distracting.:P
Ok, the difference between a 'FreeNet' and the regular net, in terms of why I feel I can justify my personal participation in the 'net, is that on the Internet there is a modicum of personal responsability. If I do something to hurt someone, violate them in some way, I can be held responsible to a certain degree. That's a concept which I hold fairly dearly. My actions, thoughts and feelings are *MINE*.
The degree of personal punishment pretty wide ranging, from imprisonment to account removal to reduced access to a particular resource.
If you were to extend the FreeNet concept into the real world, you have a place where noone can be held accountable for anything.
Just because I have the freedom to own a knife and use it to cut things, does not mean that I have the right to slash up my neighbour without danger of reprisal.
You keep pointing out the free exchange of information as a 'good'. I wholeheartedly agree with that in principle. But how meaningful is information which you've acquired with no way to back it up? It's like scribbling on the bathroom walls.
Being able to associate information with a source *is*, in my mind, critical when you decide to evaluate that information and choose to accept it or reject it.
There *is* a place for anonymity. In cases where someone's freedom is being abused by an oppressor, and they want to get the word out about that abuse, anonymity makes a great crutch. It's a tool.
But it *should* be a little difficult to do things %100 anonymously. Those who *need* the anonymity will ferret it out. When you make it this easy, all you're doing is making it simple for all those who *want* to be anonymous.
Greg (who's still thinking long'n'hard about all of this)
In higher level competition, their bags are examined, they give urine and sometimes blood samples.
This isn't a violation of privacy since the atheletes are *informed* that they will be held under scrutiny.
Obviously the comparison between professional level sports and an online game isn't perfectly natural.
What about a user moderation feature? People who obviously abuse the system can be labelled as such. They are free to play the game, just not with people who don't want to cheat.
Hmmm, the implementation would be difficult, and it would take a critical mass of players who moderated fairly (IE, not labelling someone a cheater just because they don't get along).
Oh, if you read what I said I was certainly not supporting censorship, just accountability. The frequency of people needing the level of protection that this network would afford from an opressive organization is exceedingly rare. (At least it's that rare for people who would have access to the internet)
What I support is a minimum level of accountability. Not *legal* accountability, with defamation suits and crap like that, just being able to attach an individual to the words.
When I speak publically, it is not anonymous. I am right there, moving my lips. I can think and say whatever I want, so long as I don't impinge on the rights of others. What this network does though is remove any and all accountability.
Freedom of speech means that anyone can attack you verbally. It should also mean that you have the right to defend yourself.
What if the attackers outnumber the attacked? In a system where sheer volume would be the rule of law, the underdog has absolutely no chance to refute anything said about them, since they'll never get heard.
That is a largely meaningless statement. You say that my freedom of speech ends when it interferes with your right to be free of "kiddy porn, rape movies, snuff films". Well, I say that your freedom to remove those things from the Net ends when it infringes on my right to free speech. One or the other is obviously going to have to take priority, and the real question is which is more important.
No, not my right to be free of them, but the rights of the victims. The act of producing an illegal movie can't be divorced from it's distribution. In fact, distributing erotic pictures and movies of minors who can't or haven't legally give their consent is, in my mind, unquestionably a violation of their rights.
It turns out that, in order to suport whistleblowers, freedom fighters, and the generally oppressed, it helps to create a system that doesn't let server operators know what they're carrying, and that doesn't allow anybody, server operator or otherwise, to remove anything. Once you have such a system, it's going to be used for things you don't like as well as for things you do like.
The opressed, whistleblowers and activists can generally contact someone who's sympathetic and out of harms way through PGP'd emails or some other method. This network will not give them any new killer tool to get their word out. This network is overkill for the sharing of thoughts, which is generally through text. On the other hand, it *COULD* make the lives of those sharing illegal multimedia files much easier. (As Napster made the sharing of.mp3s easier than using usenet or the web)
On the face of it, the distribution of the stuff you list does not, in itself, seem to harm anybody much... nobody is damaged by somebody else looking at a picture, especially if they don't even know about it. It may be that the production of the material harms somebody, but not the distribution.
You forget about the right of privacy of the victims. What if it was *you* as an eight year old child on Usenet? What if it was a daughter or son? What if it was your best friend getting assaulted in an.mpg? None of these people gave consent.
How are *you* damaged by Proctor & Gamble selling your personal details to American Express without your permission, even if you don't expressly know about it? Why is it ok for an individual to violate the right of privacy of another individual, and not a company?
What is the essential GOOD of anonymity? You claim not to be a utilitarian. Arguing that whistleblowers and so on won't come forward without an impenetrable shield of anonymity is a pretty utilitarian argument. Ideally, shouldn't people stand up for what they beleive in with or without the fear of reprisal?
Slashdot Mirror
Tool libraries and open use maker spaces: sharing economy
Traditional libraries: sharing economy
CopyLeft media, designs etc.: sharing economy
Open/Free software: sharing economy
Commercial taxi services with a phone app: Not SHARING
Short term home rental: Not SHARING
For crying out loud, the criteria is RIGHT there in the FREAKING NAME!
I don't get it. I see teslas on the road almost daily here in the frozen north. I can only imagine there's more in warmer climes and where there's more luxury cars on the road. They have some of the highest customer satisfaction levels for any car. They flat out outperform the competition in many regards. He built a better mousetrap, but instead of a mousetrap it was a multi billion dollar project to launch some of the most complicated consumer hardware people can purchase into an extremely mature competitive environment.
Whether or not Tesla survives or wins in the car sector, other manufacturers have been forced to respond to the market disruption.
Calling him a failure seems like an ad hominem attack, really.
While learning to fly full scale airplanes it was drilled into me over and over, it is *always* the pilot/operators responsibility.
You either screwed up, or failed to ensure you were using reliable equipment, or failed to account for uncertainties in how you operate it.
Running what is essentially hobby hardware (radios, speed controls, batteries etc.) over top of people is just plain irresponsible.
"Oh, but I haven't crashed before."
Yeah, until you do.
The 400' exemption in the FARs is *specifically* for hobbiest use. Commercial use is plainly not 'hobby' use. The National airspace system, and all the craft operating within it, and the FAAs authority to regulate its use do not magically start at 400 feet.
Does the golf channel realize that commercial use of UAVs is illegal?
Anti-scientific 'ban everything' movements are the flipside of the pro-CO^2 believers. People who think they intuitively know more than those who study that field in particular who have research to back up their claims.
It's a failing of our education system that more people don't understand science, the concept. You don't need to understand all the branches of science. You just need to know that 'my kid complains of headaches at school' does not mean you can pin the blame on WiFi without any further tests.
...as inputs for ALL our industries!
If we could wrap our heads around the idea of conservation, I think we'd be a lot better off.
Unfortunately, since we've defined consumption as economic success, preaching conservation ends up sounding like austerity.
If they went to an open format, tech wise, you'd see a couple things happen.
1) Aero recumbents would dominate. Not only would the playing field no longer be as level, from an equipment standpoint, but the benefits of drafting, and riding in a pack would be diminished or even eliminated. This would remove the entire 'rolling chessgame' aspect of the Tour, turning it into a giant series of individual time trials.
2) Riders already go fast enough on descents, they're hitting over 100 kilometers per hour coasting down some of the hills. If they were hitting 150 or more on those descents it would be even more insanely dangerous.
3) As it stands, the cream of the crop racing bikes are attainable for mere mortals. I can go out and buy a Trek Madone 5.9 SL and 'be like Lance' for around $4k USD. I can go out and buy a BMC Pro Machine like Landis rides for around double that. How much does Michael Schumacher's car cost? (Millions) How much does a racing level rowing shell cost? (around $6k for the shell alone) What would these bikes end up costing if they became extreme, one-off, aerodynamically faired bullets?
Hmmm... what's the alternative... what's the alternative... hmmm... how about conservation?
How about the a multi-pronged approach? Save a good fraction of the energy we currently use, and supplement existing production with a variety of more responsible alternatives?
Continue to pour money into fusion development, and eventually we'll get this problem licked. We do have to survive long enough, though.
-Greg
And you know what? Some nations get away with slavery, and having political prisoners, and torture. Doesn't mean we should do it. It's not practical to enforce western regulations in many nations. While you can argue the exemption for China, it doesn't mean the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. How about sign up for Kyoto, then tell China that their most favored nation trading status is contingent upon their voluntary compliance with the accord?
Instead of trying to work things out, the Fed did the equivalent of quitting and taking their ball home. Well you know what? The rest of the world is going ahead with this anyway. At some point, US exports are going to get tariffs imposed by the WTO because of its overly lax environmental regulation, lack of compliance with international standards etc etc. THEN who will be responsible for the lost jobs?
If you want to really worry about shipping your jobs overseas, look at WalMart and the people who shop there. The place should be called WalMart's Chinese Market. 80% of their goods are manufactured there.
Working towards saving energy could save money in the long run, since energy is scarce. Often old, inefficient businesses just need a kick in the ass to get moving on becoming more green, and end up making more money. Plus, developing all the alternative energy sources plus the energy saving technologies could mean MORE jobs for Americans. Or is technological innovation not one of the strengths of the old US of A?
Real conservatives would want to SAVE our finite resources in case we need them later. Ill informed 'conservatives' are frightened of ANY change, even when it's necessary.
-Greg
I think the author is confusing 'commuter aircraft' and 'passenger aircraft'. Passenger jets operate around 30 to 35,000 feet.
Just can't abide by misinformation. *grin*
-Greg
'Das noogoodnick 0,0 coordinates are targeting torpedo at 127.0.0.1 and causing a bluescreen.'
The guys are DEAD. Even if it was some giant Russian cock-up, I don't think it's all that funny.
How amusing were all the morbid NASA jokes when the Challenger blew up?
-Greg
Hey, if they want to shoot themselves in the foot, they're allowed.
On the other hand, one wonders exactly how many of these cards they would actually sell simply due to a full suite of Linux drivers.
Just how big is the hardcore gamer/linuxgeek crossover? Obviously they're the most VOCAL ones on the internet, and so it seems like there's bunches of them. But I'd be willing to bet that a WAY disproportionate amount of them have web pages and are active on discussion boards etc.
The high end gaming card market is being driven by people running Windows. If ATI loses all of their potential Linux clients, how many would that add up to? Hundreds? Let's be honest here.
Writing and supporting a driver well is not all that cheap for them. Publishing the specs is.
I'd rather have a well written community based driver than a poorly written ATI one.
Greg
At this stage of the game, saying that electric or fuel cell based vehicles are a 'solution' is simply a fallacy. Electric vehicles AREN'T significantly more efficient in terms of energy usage. With signficant energy loss in electricity production, storage and use, you don't end up with any higher thermal efficiency than a simple gas engine. Not to mention the problem of transmission of that power. Up to 75% of the electricity generated by power stations can be lost over long distance high tension transmission lines. Right now, the most flexible part of our electricity supply happens to be fossil fuel powered production facilities. Any increase in demand for electricity will be supplied by coal plants and gas turbines. We certainly can't use much more hydro, since we've dammed everything up that we can in N.A. Nuclear power has it's own problems. Solar power just isn't economically viable at this point. So, while electric and fuel cell based cars are fantastic at reducing localized pollution problems (L.A. anyone?) they don't 'solve' the problem by any stretch of the imagination. Mass transit, on the other hand, is FANTASTIC. We've just got to wrap our heads around the fact that using a car to commute is ridiculous. There are many applications and situations where cars make more sense than buses, subways and trains, but the BULK of car usage is at 9am and 5pm, in gridlock and traffic jams on the major arteries in our cities. What's the point of that when public transit does the job much better? Greg
A "virtual war" in Ignatieff's work, is a fiction, invented by the American armed forces. It is not some Web based DDOS attack, or anything to do with the 'net. He is talking about how the armed forces want to portray themselves as powerful, and inflicting massive damages, without actually putting themselves at risk. Arguably, minimizing their involvement.
Once the smart bombs have blown up the wooden shacks and accidentally destroyed the embassies, and the 'bad guys' leave, the real work begins, with soldiers on the ground. *These* are the ones risking their lives.
IMO, it is not the one who inflicts the most physical damage who is making the greatest contribution, but the one who is willing to make the greatest sacrifice, take the greatest risk for the cause. I have infinitely more respect for infintry cum peace keepers than jet jockies and button pushers on warships. They seem to only die in accidents these days, not in fighting.
The guys in blue helmets, who deliver food, who go door to door looking for weapons stashes, and try to defuse disagreements on the street corner before they get messy are the ones who should be proud.
Killing a lot of people or destroying a lot of hardware is EASY. Any kook with a big enough bomb can do that. Terrorism is much more efficient at that than a military strike. What's hard is actually PURSUING THE GOAL of peace.
At some point, the bombing has to stop in any war, and when it does, what you do next is much more meaningful to determine how things work out in the end.
Military force *IS* a useful, and necessary, last resort. But it should *NOT* be considered a goal or ideal. It should NOT be the chosen path, just because it's easier to justify the deaths of a bunch of people who'll never get on TV than a few GI's on the ground.
I'm from Canada. Can you tell?
Greg
I just get the feeling that the whole "We're a target! We must defend ourselves!" mentality ends up being self-fulfilling.
Why would people halfway around the world be motivated to blow up US embassies if it weren't for the strong arm tactics employed by the American government all over the world?
I'm just waiting for the first anthrax suitcase bomb to go off in NYC, killing 100,000 people.
*sigh*
Greg
Excuse me? "no justification" for them asking Napster to ban people who are, by the very TERMS of the NAPSTER USER AGREEMENT, *ABUSING* the service by offering copywritten, illegal work for download?
I'm all for alternative distribution mediums, I'm all for *free* music, but only if the artists CHOOSE to distribute their works that way.
Who are YOU to tell an artist which distribution methods they're allowed to use, and how they are allowed to ask for payment?
If you're that upset with the concept of people selling albums, don't listen to their music, end of story. Stealing their music is *NOT* the way to get things to change.
I dislike record companies as much as the next guy, but the fact is, we live in a free market economy where they have the RIGHT to choose who consumes their product and HOW they consume it. As a consumer, you have the RIGHT to choose not to consume their product.
If more artists would simply circumvent the entire record company/record store/radio/TV music video paradigm of distribution, it would collapse. But they have a right to exist if they choose to.
Basically, my question is this. Are you, Jon Katz, a communist?
I myself am fairly left leaning and socialist, but I *also* beleive in a market based economy (not absolutely free, but somewhat free). I don't use communist as some sort of prejorative term, it's an honest question. If that is your actual view, I can respect that.
If on the other hand you're just spouting stuff which you think will stir up conversation which you don't actually beleive in, at least say so. Please be honest when playing the devil's advocate or you're just insulting our intelligence.
I usually lean towards the 'defend Jon' side of things, but you're SO off base here it's not even funny. Having almost ALL the facts wrong *really* erodes the basis of your argument.
Greg
They did *THAT* because they ended up purchasing a bunch of civilian GPS units to equip soldiers in the desert since they didn't have enough military spec units. They reinstated it after most of the troops left, much to the disappointment of civilian GPS users.
Greg
It's not quite reliable enough for automatic landing of aircraft (differential GPS with ground based transmitters is necessary for that), but is good enough for MANY other applications.
I know that in a coal mine that my brother in law worked at, they had Loran navigation for the big trucks. On foggy days they could operate when they couldn't see the ground. Imagine driving up and down a mountain in a 300 tonne truck without seeing the road.
I think it's almost time for me to buy a GPS for my bike. Or maybe one that plugs in to my Palm Vx.
This is too damn cool.
I only wish it wasn't another example of a military spin-off technology. It could have been developed in the civilian arena with a little governmental support. I can understand how bitter it is for the USAF to swallow the entire cost of the constellation of satellites, only to see Radio Shack selling $100 units at good profits.
Greg
In my mind, a corporation does NOT have the same right to privacy as an individual. If Mitnick chooses to describe how he defeated the security on a particular site through his limited technical knowhow and superior social engineering skills, he's not besmirching the memory of someone's dead relative, or airing facts which will bring back horrific memories to a victim.
To me, there is a definite line between crimes committed against an individual, and crimes committed against a group. Financial damages are *not* to be equated to a violation of personal rights or freedoms, be it the right to life, freedom of speech etc etc. Human rights are *FAR* more important than the right to make, or for that matter, keep, a buck. If you don't recognize that, you can put a dollar value on a life.
All that being said, I do recognize that Mitnick's a criminal. I don't respect him, and in fact, think he's a big boob. He's a geeky loser (like a lot of my friends and I were in highschool) without the redeeming quality of even being a nice guy. What has he got going for him? He apparently is good at getting passwords out of people on the phone. That's not a whole lot in my books. But that does *NOT* in my mind excuse the improper actions of the government. Mitnick deserved to be punished, he deserved to serve some time, but this is *apparently* a violation of the concept of due process. His punishment has already been laid out. It is not the right of the gov't to extend the punishment in any way unless he commits more crimes.
Greg
I was aware of all the tech related restrictions, but SPEAKING about tech related subjects is off limits as well?
I would imagine that since these are public speaking engagements, it wouldn't be too hard to determine whether or not he was inciting people to commit crimes or anything like that.
Has anyone got any transcripts from any of these speeches? I'd be interested to find out what he's talking about.
Long and the short of it, I think the prosecutors are really scared of him because they don't understand him or his crimes.
I'm just waiting for someone to get arrested for making lock picks out of ice, and being refused the right to be in the presence of water. *sigh*
*sigh* You're making me think here, hard and long. That's a GOOD thing, but it's the middle of the work day, and it's distracting. :P
Ok, the difference between a 'FreeNet' and the regular net, in terms of why I feel I can justify my personal participation in the 'net, is that on the Internet there is a modicum of personal responsability. If I do something to hurt someone, violate them in some way, I can be held responsible to a certain degree. That's a concept which I hold fairly dearly. My actions, thoughts and feelings are *MINE*.
The degree of personal punishment pretty wide ranging, from imprisonment to account removal to reduced access to a particular resource.
If you were to extend the FreeNet concept into the real world, you have a place where noone can be held accountable for anything.
Just because I have the freedom to own a knife and use it to cut things, does not mean that I have the right to slash up my neighbour without danger of reprisal.
You keep pointing out the free exchange of information as a 'good'. I wholeheartedly agree with that in principle. But how meaningful is information which you've acquired with no way to back it up? It's like scribbling on the bathroom walls.
Being able to associate information with a source *is*, in my mind, critical when you decide to evaluate that information and choose to accept it or reject it.
There *is* a place for anonymity. In cases where someone's freedom is being abused by an oppressor, and they want to get the word out about that abuse, anonymity makes a great crutch. It's a tool.
But it *should* be a little difficult to do things %100 anonymously. Those who *need* the anonymity will ferret it out. When you make it this easy, all you're doing is making it simple for all those who *want* to be anonymous.
Greg (who's still thinking long'n'hard about all of this)
In higher level competition, their bags are examined, they give urine and sometimes blood samples.
This isn't a violation of privacy since the atheletes are *informed* that they will be held under scrutiny.
Obviously the comparison between professional level sports and an online game isn't perfectly natural.
What about a user moderation feature? People who obviously abuse the system can be labelled as such. They are free to play the game, just not with people who don't want to cheat.
Hmmm, the implementation would be difficult, and it would take a critical mass of players who moderated fairly (IE, not labelling someone a cheater just because they don't get along).
Just my ramblings...
Greg
What I support is a minimum level of accountability. Not *legal* accountability, with defamation suits and crap like that, just being able to attach an individual to the words.
When I speak publically, it is not anonymous. I am right there, moving my lips. I can think and say whatever I want, so long as I don't impinge on the rights of others. What this network does though is remove any and all accountability.
Freedom of speech means that anyone can attack you verbally. It should also mean that you have the right to defend yourself.
What if the attackers outnumber the attacked? In a system where sheer volume would be the rule of law, the underdog has absolutely no chance to refute anything said about them, since they'll never get heard.
Just some of my thoughts....
Greg
No, not my right to be free of them, but the rights of the victims. The act of producing an illegal movie can't be divorced from it's distribution. In fact, distributing erotic pictures and movies of minors who can't or haven't legally give their consent is, in my mind, unquestionably a violation of their rights.
The opressed, whistleblowers and activists can generally contact someone who's sympathetic and out of harms way through PGP'd emails or some other method. This network will not give them any new killer tool to get their word out. This network is overkill for the sharing of thoughts, which is generally through text. On the other hand, it *COULD* make the lives of those sharing illegal multimedia files much easier. (As Napster made the sharing of .mp3s easier than using usenet or the web)
You forget about the right of privacy of the victims. What if it was *you* as an eight year old child on Usenet? What if it was a daughter or son? What if it was your best friend getting assaulted in an .mpg? None of these people gave consent.
How are *you* damaged by Proctor & Gamble selling your personal details to American Express without your permission, even if you don't expressly know about it? Why is it ok for an individual to violate the right of privacy of another individual, and not a company?
What is the essential GOOD of anonymity? You claim not to be a utilitarian. Arguing that whistleblowers and so on won't come forward without an impenetrable shield of anonymity is a pretty utilitarian argument. Ideally, shouldn't people stand up for what they beleive in with or without the fear of reprisal?