Wow. That's like the Iraqi Information Minister saying that Rummy is going to look as strange as the Iraqi Information Minister when this is all over...or...something.
Or as strange as Rummy having investments in China's Red Flag Linux (look it up).
Under Saddam any Iraqi who wanted a job in his Stalinist centrally planned economy (about half the work force) had to support him and the Baath Party.
But now they are liberated. They have a new boss. They can say anthing they want. Right?
There are thousands of research projects that are funded by the military even though they have no discernable military application (and even if they did, the results are published and available to anyone in the world).
I have benefited from these myself (quantum field theories in two-dimensional spacetime).
Academics have long been uncomfortable with accepting funding channeled through the military (rather than relatively independent civilian agencies) because of the potential to reward supporters and punish critics of the military industrial complex.
I am appalled at the number of people posting here who are OK with this.
The problem is that the world needs to stop being so obsessed with America and get on with the business of minding their own business,...
Are you aware of how many countries live under regimes propped up by US military aid and CIA "internal security" advisors? You spend billions on it, especially in resource rich countries.
These people would love you to go away and mind your own business. Of course it's good business for you to keep these countries under your thumb.
I find it ironic and interesting that the same people in one breath accuse America on the one hand of being isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world, and on the other hand of being too involved and too present in the world.
It's not really a contradiction - the American people are kept ignorant of what their government and corporations are doing around the world.
For example, how many Americans are aware of how Sadaam came to power in Iraq? (Hint: It was hoped he would kill lots of Commies and leftists and liberals, etc.)
If the thing already has sound on it when it crosses the border into Canada, no tarrif can be levied. The user may then choose to keep or erase the "beep" that came with it.
Plus, if it's a Canadian "beep" then you should get a slice of the levy money when it's distributed to the "rights owners".
Section 42 creates a criminal offence (aimed at wholesale commercial "piracy") while section 80 is just a definition of infringment - the copyright owner can sue the infringer for damages in civil court.
Note that 42(c) says "distributes infringing copies" while (a), (b), (d) and (e) say "copy" (singular).
Re:OK, let's kill soldiers instead.
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
After all, the Germans only wanted the Sudetenland, it's not like they would have tried to exterminate the rest of Europe, huh?
After all, the Israelis only wanted the little patch of land they were given in 1946, it's not like they would have tried to exterminate the rest of Palestine, huh?
Neville Chamberlain... Appeasement
I think you have the analogy backwards. The Arab and other Islamic countries of the Mideast have not been much of a threat to the rest of the world (perhaps to each other but that's none of your business) in recent decades but they have been the victims of many interventions and agressions from outside (including your current allies, the Russians). You installed the Saudi monarchy back in the '30s and propped them up ever since. Ditto the Shahs in Iran (until they were overthrown) and Saddam in Iraq (until he turned against you). And of course "freedom fighter" Osama who instantly became a "terrorist" when he left the employ of the CIA.
The terrorist's game plan is to bait you into doing exactly what you are doing: draw a battle line between you and your allies and everyone else in the region. They believe your only allies are the Israelis and a few kings and dictators who cling to power with the help of your military aid and protection. What do you think?
Re:OK, let's kill soldiers instead.
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
The message we're sending now is different:
"If you have a beef with us, and don't use diplomacy to address that beef, you will be exterminated, and your beef will go unaddressed. Your followers will also be exterminated, and be unable to carry on the cause. The only way to live long enough to have your grievance aired is to negotiate with us."
The big beef in the Arab and Islamic world is that you've been meddling in their affairs for decades. They would like you to stay on your own side of the world and mind your own business. Is that negociable?
Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. "It was worth it," he said. "Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union," he said.
I remember sore fingers from fiddling with the nuts and slot-head screws. The screwdriver they supplied didn't even have a proper handle, the shaft is just bent into a loop. (I just brought my No. 5 set in to take a look at it. Tried to sell it in a garage sale a while ago but there was no interest. Free to good home, I guess)
If they had used hex-head screws (bolts?) and supplied decent socket drivers with U-joints and extensions they might still be popular.
There's a theory going around that the whole Bin Laden thing is a setup
The suggestion is that he is not really the big cheeze in the terrorist network, just the bait placed to sucker the US into an expensive and futile land war in Afganistan while the real masterminds operating in Europe and the US carry on their dirty work.
If they make it complicated and time-consuming and expensive to use secure methods then people won't bother. Will that make us more vulnerable to "Cyber-terrorism" ?
Osama, the Taliban, and plenty of islamic fundamentalists hate the US way of life - life, liberty, free speech, and the right to believe whatever you want to believe. Islamic terrorists believe its their Allah appointed duty to annhilate their enemies,
This is the official Bush line (and all you'll hear through your patriotic corporate media) but you're living in a dream world if you believe it.
Ask anyone in the Arab or Islamic world what they have against the US. 99.9% of them won't give a damn how you live your lives in America. They WILL give you a long list of injustices they believe you have committed against them in their part of the world.
I think it's time you wake up and realize the world has an organized religious suicide cult on it's hands. I think it's also time you wake up and realize that the lone super power is always going to be the object of disdain.
His point is, the silly article suggests that the motivation for this attack was "the spread of American values - individualistic, democratic, materialistic and, yes, in many ways crass and exploitative American values" and "American cultural predominance".
I don't think it was disapproval of Pizza Huts and Britney Spears that drove these people to suicide attacks. There are serious historical grievances that supporters of Bush's "Crusade" (his word) would rather play down.
One definition of "Crusade" is:
"Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims."
During the Soviet invasion of Afganistan the muslim hill tribes were depicted as heroic freedom fighters, holding off the Red Army with only ancient single shot rifles. But they made every shot count.
The US helped them out by sending billions worth of modern weapons. The aid was funneled through certain murky Saudi organizations including our friend Bin Laden. They probably still have lots of Stinger missiles left over - they don't belive in wasting ammunition.
CNN doesn't like to talk about this sort of thing, it would seem unpatriotic.
Instead of doing that, however, I decide to market and sell keys that can break into every Ford. Now, don't you see what's wrong with that? I could have taken the high road, but instead I tried to make a buck. This is pretty much what Dmitry did.
No. He assigned the rights to a company, which may have marketed the product illegally.
You could sell your invention to a company with the intention that it would be marketed to legitimate users such as locksmiths. But suppose the company screws up and sells some to crooks - does that make you a criminal?
If you are correct, it might turn out that California can't apply its laws to other US states but they can still try to apply them to foreign countries.
Won't they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was personally involved in the marketing and distribution of the company's products? He could say that employing a US agent was a blunder by the Marketing Dept. which had nothing to do with his job as a programmer.
I don't see how they can make a case against Dimitry personally unless they construct come kind of conspiracy theory, which will be difficult since they cannot compel testimony or evidence from Russia and of course he can take advantage of the US Fifth Amendment.
What disturbs me most is that nobody seems to know exactly what he is supposed to have done within US jurisdiction that is illegal. I don't know much about the US legal system - how long can they hold him without making more specific charges? He cannot even begin to prepare a defence until then.
Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. At heart, your argument ("but... but... what if...?") amounts to a demand that we all move back into the caves, just to be safe.
I am merely suggesting that the usual standards of civil liability should apply - if a judge decides there is a preponderance of evidence that your actions have caused damage then you should have to pay.
Re:Stupidity is Self Curing
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
At a minimum, it's going to take irrefutable proof of anthropogenic contributions to global warming and undeniable evidence of consequential harm. We don't have that right now, and we won't for a long time, if ever. Will it be too late then? Maybe.
I have often seen this sort of statement from people who consider themselves reasonable and responsible. Funny thing is, I have never seen any of these "responsible" people willing to assume liability for damages in case it is too late. Are you?
I don't care if it's legal in Canada or not, it's still stealing! This is just one more example of something the media will 'attribute' to OSS and Linux.
Suppose you lived in an apartment overlooking a baseball park and you could watch the games for free out your window while most people had to pay-per-view. Are you stealing? "The media" would say so since they have a vested interest in pay-per-view.
How about if you took videos of the game from your window and put them on your website. I'll bet "the media" have already bought laws making that illegal.
Are you old enough to remember when people would say "It's a free country" and they weren't being sarcastic?
Slashdot Mirror
If you were a poet and sold your stuff to artsy
magazines would you worry about zoning or
business licences?
Why should a software author be
treated differently?
Call up your local authorities and say
"I'm an author, do I need a permit?"
FLAWED (Free legal advice, worth every dime.)
Wow. That's like the Iraqi Information Minister saying that Rummy is going to look as strange as the Iraqi Information Minister when this is all over...or...something.
Or as strange as Rummy having investments in China's Red Flag Linux (look it up).
Under Saddam any Iraqi who wanted a job in his
Stalinist centrally planned economy (about
half the work force) had to
support him and the Baath Party.
But now they are liberated. They have a new boss.
They can say anthing they want. Right?
There are thousands of research projects that are
funded by the military even though they have
no discernable military application (and even
if they did, the results are published and
available to anyone in the world).
I have benefited from these myself
(quantum field theories in two-dimensional spacetime).
Academics have long been uncomfortable with
accepting funding channeled through the
military (rather than relatively independent
civilian agencies) because of the potential
to reward supporters and punish critics
of the military industrial complex.
I am appalled at the number of people posting
here who are OK with this.
http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous
The problem is that the world needs to stop being so obsessed with America and get on with the business of minding their own business,...
Are you aware of how many countries live under regimes propped up by US military aid and CIA "internal security" advisors? You spend billions on it, especially in resource rich countries.
These people would love you to go away and mind your own business. Of course it's good business for you to keep these countries under your thumb.
I find it ironic and interesting that the same people in one breath accuse America on the one hand of being isolated and ignorant of the rest of the world, and on the other hand of being too involved and too present in the world.
It's not really a contradiction - the American people are kept ignorant of what their government and corporations are doing around the world.
For example, how many Americans are aware of how Sadaam came to power in Iraq? (Hint: It was hoped he would kill lots of Commies and leftists and liberals, etc.)
If the thing already has sound on it when it crosses the border into Canada, no tarrif can be levied.
The user may then choose to keep or erase the "beep" that came with it.
Plus, if it's a Canadian "beep" then you should get a slice of the levy money when it's distributed to the "rights owners".
Section 42 creates a criminal offence (aimed at wholesale commercial "piracy") while section 80 is just a definition of infringment - the copyright owner can sue the infringer for damages in civil court.
Note that 42(c) says "distributes infringing copies" while (a), (b), (d) and (e) say "copy" (singular).
After all, the Germans only wanted the Sudetenland, it's not like they would have tried to exterminate the rest of Europe, huh?
... Appeasement
After all, the Israelis only wanted the little patch of land they were given in 1946, it's not like they would have tried to exterminate the rest of Palestine, huh?
Neville Chamberlain
I think you have the analogy backwards. The Arab and other Islamic countries of the Mideast have not been much of a threat to the rest of the world (perhaps to each other but that's none of your business) in recent decades but they have been the victims of many interventions and agressions from outside (including your current allies, the Russians). You installed the Saudi monarchy back in the '30s and propped them up ever since. Ditto the Shahs in Iran (until they were overthrown) and Saddam in Iraq (until he turned against you). And of course "freedom fighter" Osama who instantly became a "terrorist" when he left the employ of the CIA.
The terrorist's game plan is to bait you into doing exactly what you are doing: draw a battle line between you and your allies and everyone else in the region. They believe your only allies are the Israelis and a few kings and dictators who cling to power with the help of your military aid and protection. What do you think?
The message we're sending now is different:
"If you have a beef with us, and don't use diplomacy to address that beef, you will be exterminated, and your beef will go unaddressed. Your followers will also be exterminated, and be unable to carry on the cause. The only way to live long enough to have your grievance aired is to negotiate with us."
The big beef in the Arab and Islamic world is that you've been meddling in their affairs for decades. They would like you to stay on your own side of the world and mind your own business. Is that negociable?
Simple facts: They hate us because we're powerful, wealthy, intelligent, educated, and yes, free.
No, they hate you because you keep invading them to secure your supply of cheap oil.
Here's another Hatch quote:
Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. "It was worth it," he said. "Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union," he said.
From:
"Bin Laden comes home to roost"
I remember sore fingers from fiddling with the nuts and slot-head screws. The screwdriver they supplied didn't even have a proper handle, the shaft is just bent into a loop. (I just brought my No. 5 set in to take a look at it. Tried to sell it in a garage sale a while ago but there was no interest. Free to good home, I guess)
If they had used hex-head screws (bolts?) and supplied decent socket drivers with U-joints and extensions they might still be popular.
OK, I give up, it 's not my theory, I was just passing it on.
Go ahead, spend many billions and how many lives going after one symbolic figurehead leader and a few local Afgani sword carriers.
The real masterminds in their offices in Cairo and Hamburg will be overjoyed (if this theory turns out to be correct).
Everyone knows that's what's really going on...
Because Bush and CNN told them what's going on.
ps: it's "cheese"
Thanks for pointing that out.
norther Minnesota
You can't get much norther than Minnesota.
There's a theory going around that the whole Bin Laden thing is a setup
The suggestion is that he is not really the big cheeze in the terrorist network, just the bait placed to sucker the US into an expensive and futile land war in Afganistan while the real masterminds operating in Europe and the US carry on their dirty work.
If they make it complicated and time-consuming and expensive to use secure methods then people won't bother. Will that make us more vulnerable to "Cyber-terrorism" ?
Osama, the Taliban, and plenty of islamic fundamentalists hate the US way of life - life, liberty, free speech, and the right to believe whatever you want to believe. Islamic terrorists believe its their Allah appointed duty to annhilate their enemies,
This is the official Bush line (and all you'll hear through your patriotic corporate media) but you're living in a dream world if you believe it.
Ask anyone in the Arab or Islamic world what they have against the US. 99.9% of them won't give a damn how you live your lives in America. They WILL give you a long list of injustices they believe you have committed against them in their part of the world.
I think it's time you wake up and realize the world has an organized religious suicide cult on it's hands. I think it's also time you wake up and realize that the lone super power is always going to be the object of disdain.
His point is, the silly article suggests that the motivation for this attack was "the spread of American values - individualistic, democratic, materialistic and, yes, in many ways crass and exploitative American values" and "American cultural predominance".
I don't think it was disapproval of Pizza Huts and Britney Spears that drove these people to suicide attacks. There are serious historical grievances that supporters of Bush's "Crusade" (his word) would rather play down.
One definition of "Crusade" is:
"Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims."
KNOWING more will somehow help
During the Soviet invasion of Afganistan the muslim hill tribes were depicted as heroic freedom fighters, holding off the Red Army with only ancient single shot rifles. But they made every shot count.
The US helped them out by sending billions worth of modern weapons. The aid was funneled through certain murky Saudi organizations including our friend Bin Laden. They probably still have lots of Stinger missiles left over - they don't belive in wasting ammunition.
CNN doesn't like to talk about this sort of thing, it would seem unpatriotic.
Instead of doing that, however, I decide to market and sell keys that can break into every Ford. Now, don't you see what's wrong with that? I could have taken the high road, but instead I tried to make a buck. This is pretty much what Dmitry did.
No. He assigned the rights to a company, which may have marketed the product illegally.
You could sell your invention to a company with the intention that it would be marketed to legitimate users such as locksmiths. But suppose the company screws up and sells some to crooks - does that make you a criminal?
If you are correct, it might turn out that California can't apply its laws to other US states but they can still try to apply them to foreign countries.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Won't they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was personally involved in the marketing and distribution of the company's products? He could say that employing a US agent was a blunder by the Marketing Dept. which had nothing to do with his job as a programmer.
I don't see how they can make a case against Dimitry personally unless they construct come kind of conspiracy theory, which will be difficult since they cannot compel testimony or evidence from Russia and of course he can take advantage of the US Fifth Amendment.
What disturbs me most is that nobody seems to know exactly what he is supposed to have done within US jurisdiction that is illegal. I don't know much about the US legal system - how long can they hold him without making more specific charges? He cannot even begin to prepare a defence until then.
Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. At heart, your argument ("but... but... what if...?") amounts to a demand that we all move back into the caves, just to be safe.
I am merely suggesting that the usual standards of civil liability should apply - if a judge decides there is a preponderance of evidence that your actions have caused damage then you should have to pay.
At a minimum, it's going to take irrefutable proof of anthropogenic contributions to global warming and undeniable evidence of consequential harm. We don't have that right now, and we won't for a long time, if ever. Will it be too late then? Maybe.
I have often seen this sort of statement from people who consider themselves reasonable and responsible. Funny thing is, I have never seen any of these "responsible" people willing to assume liability for damages in case it is too late. Are you?
If so, sign here:
_______________________
I don't care if it's legal in Canada or not, it's still stealing! This is just one more example of something the media will 'attribute' to OSS and Linux.
Suppose you lived in an apartment overlooking a baseball park and you could watch the games for free out your window while most people had to pay-per-view. Are you stealing? "The media" would say so since they have a vested interest in pay-per-view.
How about if you took videos of the game from your window and put them on your website. I'll bet "the media" have already bought laws making that illegal.
Are you old enough to remember when people would say "It's a free country" and they weren't being sarcastic?
After listening to my new (years ago) system:
"It's OK if all you want to do is listen to music".