As others have said, so what if a new motherboard is needed - they're obsolete about as fast as a CPU chip, anyway. Another post indicates that PCI eXpress is a reasonably open standard.
But the IP/lock-in aspects still bother me. Intel behaved like a spanked puppy for a few years after their Rambus fiasco, but lately they seem to be back at those games, again.
They've taken steps to ensure that Banias/Centrino only sells with their chipset. It's only a logo program, but it probably carries a heavy enough advertising kickback behind it to have the force of law. The Itanium is *the most proprietary* CPU on the planet, or at least a contender for the crown. No second sources, no cross-licensing on any of the IP.
So in this light, anyone want to bet that Tejas is not tied to Grantsdale?
Assuming it is, the net effects are questionable. It appears that Intel is driving compatibility away from the CPU pins, and out to the motherboard plug interface. I seriously doubt they have the capability to push it any further than that. In the long run, this probably opens the market niche for AMD and Via C3, because it's closing the market for low-cost chipset providers to service Intel CPUs.
The prime value of manned space flight currently is in engaging young imaginations. I'm sure we do get more scientific value, more cheaply, from unmanned probes. But kids want to be astronauts when they grow up, not mission monitors for unmanned probes. Obviously most such kids don't become astronauts, but at least some stay in the field, and end up working on unmanned scientific missions.
The astronauts are a bait for luring kids into the science and engineering professions.
As they mature, the unmanned missions will become more interesting and motivation. Within my memory, only Sputnik and Sojourner grabbed attention near that of astronauts, with Laika and Voyager (and possibly a Lunar surveyer) following right behind.
They told us almost a year (IIRC) ago, on April 1, 2002, that they used a bunch of pigeons. Now they apply for a patent on a sofware algorithm. Where are the pigeons!
I recently used this same formula in picking a new radio station, except in reverse. I don't like the idea of getting mired in the 70's, no matter how good I thought some of the stuff was at the time, and still may think it is.
I found a radio station that plays mostly stuff I've never heard. Some of it I like, some of it I really like, and some of it goes the opposite direction. But I spend my commute bouncing between radio stations, anyway. You can only listen to NPR for so long before hearing about what Dubya's up to, so it's time to go back to the local BBC echo or music. On a really bad day it gets down to Howard Stern.
The American Civil Liberties Union The Free Software Foundation
Yet another scary aspect to this... Imagine that some organization that you've long felt to be a worthy charity suddenly becomes reclassified as a "Terrorist Organization." This may happen two ways, either it really was, and you weren't aware, or it really isn't, but it's politically expedient for it to be reclassified as such. In either case, you can get stripped of your citizenship and put in a dog kennel on Cuba.
OK. We ran timesharing on my Radio Shack CoCo with 64k and OS/9. (The MicroWare OS/9, a Unix clone of long ago, not the new Mac thing.) One user on the console, one user on the bit-banger serial port. Not much throughput, but never criticize a dog for misspelling a word. Later I got the hardware serial port, and that might have made the exercise almost meaningful.
You miss the real slippery slope, as well as the fact that we're already well down it. It comes down to one key question:
Does the ISP provide connectivity or content?
If the former, the ISP is responsible only for officially hosted content. Content hosted for users is covered through some sort of Acceptable Usage Practices agreement. But beyond that, the ISP is a pipe, and has no control over the content that flows on that pipe. Someone brought up the issue of the telephone companies screening out terrorist conversations. We all know that's absurd, because the telephone is clearly defined as a carrier, not a content provider.
We are well down the slippery slope of considering the ISP to be a content provider. In this case, the ISP becomes responsible for: -Any email out of that domain, possibly even incoming. (SPAM?) -Any content accessable from that domain, be it over web, usenet, finger, gopher, ftp, etc. -Usenet postings out of that domain.
The moment the ISP ceases to be a carrier anything becomes possible - like Scientology lawsuits to suppress information or root out evil emailers.
Fearfully, one end of this trend is to turn the Internet into Jack Valenti's dream - another distribution medium. Imagine an Internet of big, legally bonded "haves" and ISP/GeoCities-hosted "have-nots". It looks kind of like cable TV, with the big/syndicated networks and the community channels. The ISP/Geocities pages let us delude ourselves into thinking it's still the Internet.
Without a sponsor to put up the bond bucks/. goes right down the tubes. Decide yourself whether that particular part is good or bad.
OK, so we need another pointer to http://www.ussubs.com/lead.html if you want to see a "plush sub". Plus they even offer underwater habitats, and cite a submarine as the safest place to be in these days of international terrorism. But I can't see much evidence of their actually having sold any of these neat selling points.
Sending things to the Sun is awfully difficult. I don't have the numbers handy, but I've heard that it's in the same realm as sending things into interstellar space. (That would make sense if the Earth's orbit is halfway to solar escape velocity.) One of these days I need to brush off the old T=0.5*m*v**2 and U=mgh, etc. It came up on the recent asteroid thread, and I've had my wonderings about the equivalent T and U of shuttle orbits.
Any sort of asteroid diversion is going to need to be measured in years, if not decades. I haven't done the math, as you have at least dabbled in. I'm going to have to play with some of your numbers, just for the interest, and to get a quantitative sense.
Nor am I so naive as to think of anything like shipping a Saturn V up there, or anything equivalent. We would need to talk explosives, as you have, or ion engines or mass drivers, and we need the years or decades in advance.
I'm far more concerned that we begin serious thought about this type of problem. Different solutions apply to different sized objects, and different lead times will be needed, as well. For most of these potential impacts, no amount of will and determination can make up for early action.
But in reality, if anything big hits, it's going to be a real problem for civilization, and at that point it becomes a question of whether cave men, Morlocks, or some emergent species takes over.
My point was that some objects out there are barely solid, and attempting to drive them away with explosives or rockets just may not work. Still, the more time to plan, the better. Perhaps dispersal is still a decent idea for some less-solid objects, but at the proper distance and off-center, to minimize the amount of buckshot that hits the Earth. Timing might still be important, to make sure the thing doesn't re-condense, or turn into a string-of-pearls like Shoemaker-Levy.
If it's strong enough, perhaps like a nickel-iron object, perhaps the best way to deflect it is with explosives.
If it's weak enough, perhaps explosives could blast it to smithereens, all small enough to burn up in the atmosphere. This would also indicate that it's time to get together and work up an exception to the "no nukes in space" treaty.
If it's somewhere in between, then it's time to ship some sort of rocket engine up there to move it. In that case we have to question just how much thrust it can structurally take before it breaks into pieces, leaving our engine shooting off into nowhere.
Since the public domain died back in the 1920's, and since this is about digital content, it stands to reason that pretty much all of the content that LOC is talking of preserving will be covered by some sort of copyright, and an increasing portion will be protected by some sort of DRM. What will the LOC stand be on this?
Since the LOC seems to hold some of the strings over implementation of the DMCA, they can obviously craft a loophole for themselves. But it will be interesting to see what that loophole is, and how it will work. Will they simply leave the stuff under DRM, and have their own copy of keys, or will they manage to have an unprotected copy?
Do we really hold corporations to such low standards?
Do you hold your friends or family to such low standards? Do you hold other members of your community to such low standards? Do you hold your elected officials and their appointees to such low standards?
This came up during the hearings for Edwin Meese for Attorney General. The Attorney General is the highest Officer of the Law in the land. For him to merely say, "I have been convicted of no crimes." is not ANY sort of endorsement for the office. It's barely a qualification.
When we rant against the poor and welfare, we argue that putting a safety net under these people will encourage them to fall into it, and not try to better themselves.
Isn't the law really an ethical and moral safety net? So is it any wonder that *some* sink to the net, just like some poor do with welfare? But the real problem comes when we EXPECT people and corporations to sink to the net, take for granted that they will, and dont' see a problem with that situation.
Businesses are a member of the community, too. I'd expect them to behave as ethically and civilly as any person. With a business, I only have my words and money as tools to 'encourage better behavior.'
It's shared, because it's the culture MS engendered around their software. Now that MS is being forced to become more security conscious, the software community they fostered, along with its sloppy habits, have become a hindrance.
For years, features and fast development were up-front priorities on Windows, and security hadn't hit the radar screen. This encouraged sloppy programming, to get flashy new stuff out the door quickly. Somewhere in there, compatibility rose in the priorty scheme, as MS became a victim of its own success. Once upon a time, breaking old software was a way to encourage new software purchase. Now, breaking old software discourages new platform purchases, so compatibility has become necessary.
So old software, written in the days when security wasn't even an afterthought has to run on the new platform, or the new platform won't sell. At the same time, the new platform must be more secure.
Not an easy problem. Someone mentioned sudo, but I guess that's got the commie pinko GPL on it.
illegal in all states and most of Europe
on
U.S. Endorses ENUM
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I can quite readily agree with your point of view. I honestly don't know enough about the Nike case to have my own judgement on it, I was just disturbed by other aspects of the news piece. I certainly won't argue that perhaps personal rights are being overexercised in the US today, but I feel that the balance is against personal responsibility, not corporate rights.
I just have this ugly feeling that we're about to see a new field which will come to be commonly called "editorial advertising." It will look enough like advertising to help sell a product, but at the same time will look enough like "opinion" to pass a "freedom of commercial speech" muster. On its own, this wouldn't necessarily be bad, but why would they need new protections if the ad would have passed truth in advertising?
IMHO, it will be like the emergence of soft money after campaign reform laws limited hard money.
A few weeks back NPR had an article on this topic, centered around a court case in California involving Nike, sweatshop allegations, and Nike's "our act is now clean" ad campaign.
I don't remember all of the details, but the news article left the impression that the court is chomping at the bit to have a case that allows them to examine the merits of 'individual speech' vs 'commercial speech.' It left me with the feeling that the concept of 'truth in advertising' is about to be gutted in favor of 'freedom of commercial speech.'
If one must whore some karma, one might also try google with "ipv6 howto" and you'd find:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Linux+IPv6-HOWTO/
and similar copies rising right to the top of the list. If I could ever get all the other nice things on my plate done, this would be another nice one to add.
You're neglecting the well-worn phrase, "network effects."
Linux already is superior to Windows in the server arena, in price and performance. There were issues of SMP and TCP scalability, but somehow when those were surpassed, there was no notice given. Now the scalability chase is against Unix, and Windows no longer enters the discussion. AFAIK, server administration is pretty much a non-issue, as well.
The places where Linux is lacking in the server arena are squarely related to the quirks of serving Windows clients. In other words, Microsoft is using the Windows desktop monopoly to carve and hold a place in the server arena.
Look at the desktop, for a moment. Whether or not Linux is "there yet" is subject to debate, but it is already clearly far beyond where Windows was when it took over the desktop. From what I've seen, the single biggest argument against Linux on the desktop is that it doesn't have 100% compatible MS Office capability. In other words, Microsoft is using the MS Office monopoly to hold onto it's Windows desktop monopoly.
You're not attempting to sell one platform. You're attempting to sell against a set of platforms, all reinforcing each other. Two of those platforms, Windows desktop and MS Office, are effectively monopolies. (Windows is a monopoly legally, too.)
This is what the European case is about. The network, not the platforms.
Perhaps you should be looking at whether more people order air conditioning in their SUVs than their grandparents did. I remember the days of my youth with 475 AC. (4 windows, 75MpH) I'm not sure how to quantify the AC my grand/great-grandparents used on the California trip in their covered wagon.
Let's face it, Grandma doesn't know squat about trust, in this context. She probably doesn't even know that the concept is important. We're doing well to make sure that Grandma looks for the little lock in the corner of the browser whenever she enters private information.
As for trust, Grandma trusts whoever set up the computer for her, and it effectively means that she trusts Microsoft and/or Netscape (or maybe Opera) for putting those little locks on her browser.
Are there any legal issues to violating the chain of trust implied by that little lock in the corner? Obviously if money is stolen, there are laws in place. But what about the trust, itself?
Me too, and for pretty much the same points as you, though I'll put a lot of other similar motivations in on the Bush side.
As for Hussein, IMHO he's a thug - a fairly bright thug, but still a thug. He's nowhere near a Hitler-Class Evil Genius.
Also IMHO, we now have a case of two wrongs, and it's almost impossible to figure out how to do the right thing. It's entirely possible that war with Iraq is necessary, but there has been so doggone much smoke cast about by now that it's impossible to see clearly. The pro-war camp may well be right, but I suspect for the wrong reasons. The anti-war camp probably has the right reasons, but I suspect that they're probably wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
As others have said, so what if a new motherboard is needed - they're obsolete about as fast as a CPU chip, anyway. Another post indicates that PCI eXpress is a reasonably open standard.
But the IP/lock-in aspects still bother me. Intel behaved like a spanked puppy for a few years after their Rambus fiasco, but lately they seem to be back at those games, again.
They've taken steps to ensure that Banias/Centrino only sells with their chipset. It's only a logo program, but it probably carries a heavy enough advertising kickback behind it to have the force of law.
The Itanium is *the most proprietary* CPU on the planet, or at least a contender for the crown. No second sources, no cross-licensing on any of the IP.
So in this light, anyone want to bet that Tejas is not tied to Grantsdale?
Assuming it is, the net effects are questionable. It appears that Intel is driving compatibility away from the CPU pins, and out to the motherboard plug interface. I seriously doubt they have the capability to push it any further than that. In the long run, this probably opens the market niche for AMD and Via C3, because it's closing the market for low-cost chipset providers to service Intel CPUs.
The prime value of manned space flight currently is in engaging young imaginations. I'm sure we do get more scientific value, more cheaply, from unmanned probes. But kids want to be astronauts when they grow up, not mission monitors for unmanned probes. Obviously most such kids don't become astronauts, but at least some stay in the field, and end up working on unmanned scientific missions.
The astronauts are a bait for luring kids into the science and engineering professions.
As they mature, the unmanned missions will become more interesting and motivation. Within my memory, only Sputnik and Sojourner grabbed attention near that of astronauts, with Laika and Voyager (and possibly a Lunar surveyer) following right behind.
They told us almost a year (IIRC) ago, on April 1, 2002, that they used a bunch of pigeons. Now they apply for a patent on a sofware algorithm. Where are the pigeons!
I recently used this same formula in picking a new radio station, except in reverse. I don't like the idea of getting mired in the 70's, no matter how good I thought some of the stuff was at the time, and still may think it is.
I found a radio station that plays mostly stuff I've never heard. Some of it I like, some of it I really like, and some of it goes the opposite direction. But I spend my commute bouncing between radio stations, anyway. You can only listen to NPR for so long before hearing about what Dubya's up to, so it's time to go back to the local BBC echo or music. On a really bad day it gets down to Howard Stern.
The American Civil Liberties Union
The Free Software Foundation
Yet another scary aspect to this... Imagine that some organization that you've long felt to be a worthy charity suddenly becomes reclassified as a "Terrorist Organization." This may happen two ways, either it really was, and you weren't aware, or it really isn't, but it's politically expedient for it to be reclassified as such. In either case, you can get stripped of your citizenship and put in a dog kennel on Cuba.
OK. We ran timesharing on my Radio Shack CoCo with 64k and OS/9. (The MicroWare OS/9, a Unix clone of long ago, not the new Mac thing.) One user on the console, one user on the bit-banger serial port. Not much throughput, but never criticize a dog for misspelling a word. Later I got the hardware serial port, and that might have made the exercise almost meaningful.
You miss the real slippery slope, as well as the fact that we're already well down it. It comes down to one key question:
/. goes right down the tubes. Decide yourself whether that particular part is good or bad.
Does the ISP provide connectivity or content?
If the former, the ISP is responsible only for officially hosted content. Content hosted for users is covered through some sort of Acceptable Usage Practices agreement. But beyond that, the ISP is a pipe, and has no control over the content that flows on that pipe. Someone brought up the issue of the telephone companies screening out terrorist conversations. We all know that's absurd, because the telephone is clearly defined as a carrier, not a content provider.
We are well down the slippery slope of considering the ISP to be a content provider. In this case, the ISP becomes responsible for:
-Any email out of that domain, possibly even incoming. (SPAM?)
-Any content accessable from that domain, be it over web, usenet, finger, gopher, ftp, etc.
-Usenet postings out of that domain.
The moment the ISP ceases to be a carrier anything becomes possible - like Scientology lawsuits to suppress information or root out evil emailers.
Fearfully, one end of this trend is to turn the Internet into Jack Valenti's dream - another distribution medium. Imagine an Internet of big, legally bonded "haves" and ISP/GeoCities-hosted "have-nots". It looks kind of like cable TV, with the big/syndicated networks and the community channels. The ISP/Geocities pages let us delude ourselves into thinking it's still the Internet.
Without a sponsor to put up the bond bucks
OK, so we need another pointer to http://www.ussubs.com/lead.html if you want to see a "plush sub". Plus they even offer underwater habitats, and cite a submarine as the safest place to be in these days of international terrorism. But I can't see much evidence of their actually having sold any of these neat selling points.
No such thing as straight when calculating orbits. You need to kill the inherited velocity of Earth's orbit.
Slingshotting has it's merits, though.
Sending things to the Sun is awfully difficult. I don't have the numbers handy, but I've heard that it's in the same realm as sending things into interstellar space. (That would make sense if the Earth's orbit is halfway to solar escape velocity.) One of these days I need to brush off the old T=0.5*m*v**2 and U=mgh, etc. It came up on the recent asteroid thread, and I've had my wonderings about the equivalent T and U of shuttle orbits.
Any sort of asteroid diversion is going to need to be measured in years, if not decades. I haven't done the math, as you have at least dabbled in. I'm going to have to play with some of your numbers, just for the interest, and to get a quantitative sense.
Nor am I so naive as to think of anything like shipping a Saturn V up there, or anything equivalent. We would need to talk explosives, as you have, or ion engines or mass drivers, and we need the years or decades in advance.
I'm far more concerned that we begin serious thought about this type of problem. Different solutions apply to different sized objects, and different lead times will be needed, as well. For most of these potential impacts, no amount of will and determination can make up for early action.
Certainly unsettling points.
But in reality, if anything big hits, it's going to be a real problem for civilization, and at that point it becomes a question of whether cave men, Morlocks, or some emergent species takes over.
My point was that some objects out there are barely solid, and attempting to drive them away with explosives or rockets just may not work. Still, the more time to plan, the better. Perhaps dispersal is still a decent idea for some less-solid objects, but at the proper distance and off-center, to minimize the amount of buckshot that hits the Earth. Timing might still be important, to make sure the thing doesn't re-condense, or turn into a string-of-pearls like Shoemaker-Levy.
Principally, how physically strong is the object.
If it's strong enough, perhaps like a nickel-iron object, perhaps the best way to deflect it is with explosives.
If it's weak enough, perhaps explosives could blast it to smithereens, all small enough to burn up in the atmosphere. This would also indicate that it's time to get together and work up an exception to the "no nukes in space" treaty.
If it's somewhere in between, then it's time to ship some sort of rocket engine up there to move it. In that case we have to question just how much thrust it can structurally take before it breaks into pieces, leaving our engine shooting off into nowhere.
Since the public domain died back in the 1920's, and since this is about digital content, it stands to reason that pretty much all of the content that LOC is talking of preserving will be covered by some sort of copyright, and an increasing portion will be protected by some sort of DRM. What will the LOC stand be on this?
Since the LOC seems to hold some of the strings over implementation of the DMCA, they can obviously craft a loophole for themselves. But it will be interesting to see what that loophole is, and how it will work. Will they simply leave the stuff under DRM, and have their own copy of keys, or will they manage to have an unprotected copy?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Do we really hold corporations to such low standards?
Do you hold your friends or family to such low standards?
Do you hold other members of your community to such low standards?
Do you hold your elected officials and their appointees to such low standards?
This came up during the hearings for Edwin Meese for Attorney General. The Attorney General is the highest Officer of the Law in the land. For him to merely say, "I have been convicted of no crimes." is not ANY sort of endorsement for the office. It's barely a qualification.
When we rant against the poor and welfare, we argue that putting a safety net under these people will encourage them to fall into it, and not try to better themselves.
Isn't the law really an ethical and moral safety net? So is it any wonder that *some* sink to the net, just like some poor do with welfare? But the real problem comes when we EXPECT people and corporations to sink to the net, take for granted that they will, and dont' see a problem with that situation.
Businesses are a member of the community, too. I'd expect them to behave as ethically and civilly as any person. With a business, I only have my words and money as tools to 'encourage better behavior.'
It's shared, because it's the culture MS engendered around their software. Now that MS is being forced to become more security conscious, the software community they fostered, along with its sloppy habits, have become a hindrance.
For years, features and fast development were up-front priorities on Windows, and security hadn't hit the radar screen. This encouraged sloppy programming, to get flashy new stuff out the door quickly. Somewhere in there, compatibility rose in the priorty scheme, as MS became a victim of its own success. Once upon a time, breaking old software was a way to encourage new software purchase. Now, breaking old software discourages new platform purchases, so compatibility has become necessary.
So old software, written in the days when security wasn't even an afterthought has to run on the new platform, or the new platform won't sell. At the same time, the new platform must be more secure.
Not an easy problem.
Someone mentioned sudo, but I guess that's got the commie pinko GPL on it.
but what about Nigeria?
I can quite readily agree with your point of view. I honestly don't know enough about the Nike case to have my own judgement on it, I was just disturbed by other aspects of the news piece. I certainly won't argue that perhaps personal rights are being overexercised in the US today, but I feel that the balance is against personal responsibility, not corporate rights.
I just have this ugly feeling that we're about to see a new field which will come to be commonly called "editorial advertising." It will look enough like advertising to help sell a product, but at the same time will look enough like "opinion" to pass a "freedom of commercial speech" muster. On its own, this wouldn't necessarily be bad, but why would they need new protections if the ad would have passed truth in advertising?
IMHO, it will be like the emergence of soft money after campaign reform laws limited hard money.
A few weeks back NPR had an article on this topic, centered around a court case in California involving Nike, sweatshop allegations, and Nike's "our act is now clean" ad campaign.
I don't remember all of the details, but the news article left the impression that the court is chomping at the bit to have a case that allows them to examine the merits of 'individual speech' vs 'commercial speech.' It left me with the feeling that the concept of 'truth in advertising' is about to be gutted in favor of 'freedom of commercial speech.'
If one must whore some karma, one might also try google with "ipv6 howto" and you'd find:
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Linux+IPv6-HOWTO/
and similar copies rising right to the top of the list. If I could ever get all the other nice things on my plate done, this would be another nice one to add.
Testosterone supplements
and
$9.95 miniature RC cars
to name the two most recent, most frequent.
You're neglecting the well-worn phrase, "network effects."
Linux already is superior to Windows in the server arena, in price and performance. There were issues of SMP and TCP scalability, but somehow when those were surpassed, there was no notice given. Now the scalability chase is against Unix, and Windows no longer enters the discussion. AFAIK, server administration is pretty much a non-issue, as well.
The places where Linux is lacking in the server arena are squarely related to the quirks of serving Windows clients. In other words, Microsoft is using the Windows desktop monopoly to carve and hold a place in the server arena.
Look at the desktop, for a moment. Whether or not Linux is "there yet" is subject to debate, but it is already clearly far beyond where Windows was when it took over the desktop. From what I've seen, the single biggest argument against Linux on the desktop is that it doesn't have 100% compatible MS Office capability. In other words, Microsoft is using the MS Office monopoly to hold onto it's Windows desktop monopoly.
You're not attempting to sell one platform. You're attempting to sell against a set of platforms, all reinforcing each other. Two of those platforms, Windows desktop and MS Office, are effectively monopolies. (Windows is a monopoly legally, too.)
This is what the European case is about. The network, not the platforms.
You're getting cause and effect backward.
Perhaps you should be looking at whether more people order air conditioning in their SUVs than their grandparents did. I remember the days of my youth with 475 AC. (4 windows, 75MpH) I'm not sure how to quantify the AC my grand/great-grandparents used on the California trip in their covered wagon.
Let's face it, Grandma doesn't know squat about trust, in this context. She probably doesn't even know that the concept is important. We're doing well to make sure that Grandma looks for the little lock in the corner of the browser whenever she enters private information.
As for trust, Grandma trusts whoever set up the computer for her, and it effectively means that she trusts Microsoft and/or Netscape (or maybe Opera) for putting those little locks on her browser.
Are there any legal issues to violating the chain of trust implied by that little lock in the corner? Obviously if money is stolen, there are laws in place. But what about the trust, itself?
Me too, and for pretty much the same points as you, though I'll put a lot of other similar motivations in on the Bush side.
As for Hussein, IMHO he's a thug - a fairly bright thug, but still a thug. He's nowhere near a Hitler-Class Evil Genius.
Also IMHO, we now have a case of two wrongs, and it's almost impossible to figure out how to do the right thing. It's entirely possible that war with Iraq is necessary, but there has been so doggone much smoke cast about by now that it's impossible to see clearly. The pro-war camp may well be right, but I suspect for the wrong reasons. The anti-war camp probably has the right reasons, but I suspect that they're probably wrong.