I'm in the process of moving from the private to the public sector for opposite reasons. In the private sector you work to earn money for your company. Whatever's the most moulah-inducing wins. In an ideal world that would mean that it's what people want the most, but that's so heavily weighted by income it effectively means what the rich would like. In the public sector I can be motivated because I'm teaching and helping people learn, and that gives people far more freedom than anything else which I (personally) could do, which at the moment amounts to working on software to have a marginal effect on the speed of response of consumer electronics support queries.
Motivation and structure is where the public sector wins. Money and flexibility is where the private wins.
Much as I hate to say it, I think the US is probably right in its interpretation of the CWC with respect to riot-control and the placation of crowds. [I studied this a year or so ago, for an argument on usenet, so appologies if I'm rusty or wrong].
Riot-control agents certainly ARE covered by the CWC.
Article II.7 defines RCAs as Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.
Article I.5, however, prohibits the use of RCAs as a means of conducting warfare: 5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
So the use of these agents in war would almost certainly contravene the CWC.
However, domestic riot control is not covered at all by the CWC, not just with respect to RCAs, but with respect to anything at all. You could do whatever you like with chemicals of any kind for riot control, as far as I can tell, within the CWC as long as the 'weapons' could not be used in warfare. That is because of Article II.9(d) 9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means: (d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes..
So, the CWC does not protect any protesters at all from the use of anything for whatever paramilitary organisations want (including, but not exclusively the use of RCAs), but does protect military organisations from the use of RCAs as strongly as the use of other CWs.
Personally, I find the USes position in persueing this resarch unprinciplled, though at least partially legal and, let's be honest, the US has enough power just to ignore the CWC if it wants (it is causing a number of obstructions to inspection bodies as it is). My main problem with the use of neuroactive RCAs is that I find assault which affects will/volition to be more violent than assault which affects the body because will/volition/intent is closer to my sense of self.
The text for the convention is available online though it might be worth going to your local copyright library, and getting a copy of the text with commentary.
Much as I hate to say it, I think the US is probably right in its interpretation of the CWC with respect to riot-control and the placation of crowds. [I studied this a year or so ago, for an argument on usenet, so appologies if I'm rusty or wrong].
Riot-control agents certainly ARE covered by the CWC.
Article II.7 defines RCAs as Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which
disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.
Article I.5, however, prohibits the use of RCAs as a means of conducting warfare: 5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
So the use of these agents in war would almost certainly contravene the CWC.
However, domestic riot control is not covered at all by the CWC, not just with respect to RCAs, but with respect to anything at all. You could do whatever you like with chemicals of any kind for riot control, as far as I can tell, within the CWC as long as the 'weapons' could not be used in warfare. That is because of Article II.9(d) 9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means: (d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes..
So, the CWC does not protect any protesters at all from the use of anything for whatever paramilitary organisations want (including, but not exclusively the use of RCAs), but does protect military organisations from the use of RCAs as strongly as the use of other CWs.
Personally, I find the USes position in persueing this resarch unprinciplled, though at least partially legal and, let's be honest, the US has enough power just to ignore the CWC if it wants (it is causing a number of obstructions to inspection bodies as it is). My main problem with the use of neuroactive RCAs is that I find assault which affects will/volition to be more violent than assault which affects the body because will/volition/intent is closer to my sense of self.
The text for the convention is available online though it might be worth going to your local copyright library, and getting a copy of the text with commentary.
People who are unconvinced of the bogosity of this article could perhaps bear in mind a few novelties in the announcment. Firstly they claim to use a super-conducting dynamo. There is no mention of the mouse being immersed in a cryogen -- which would surely detract from its usefulness --, I would imagine that if anyone were to discover a room temperature superconductor, they would consider that more newsworthy than any application of it as a `kinetic' mouse. The energies involved just don't add up either. Consider that a mouse offers very little resistance to motion, if enough energy could be harvested from a dynamo attached to a mouse, and the mouse still be useable, then we wouldn't have the problems with laptop batteries we currently do.
Can I suggest that Compaq investigate another source of power? Wind-ups. Something like a wind-up would do their PR department no end of good.
This is a wonderful book. I've owned it for some months and read it end to end in one sitting. I'm not kidding. This seems to be the first `proper book' on the subject, something I've been looking for for about five years, and I've had to make do with terse survey papers. Buy it.:)
I agree. However, I was taking a worst case scenario. Even _if_ Linux were restricted to that small group of users, then it could still be a success. I don't think it is, but that's the worst case possibility. As I said, I think it has more potential than that, but as a card-carrying geek, I would, woukldn't I?
The article in Computing seems to assume a rather restricted definition of success. It used to be a commonly held belief that a computing utopia involved a whole menagerie of operating systems communicating through simple, standardised interfaces. Now it seems that the only acceptable definition of success is the business agenda of market share and world-pervasiveness.
I am a dedicated Linux user. However, I would be disappointed if that operating system came to completely dominate world markets. Whilst it is suited to me, it is not ideally designed for all computer users. For example, I revel in the freedom which X-windows gives me in separating mechanism from policy, for other people this `freedom' may be confusing and disorientating. It's not a patronising attitude, since the option to change systems always remains.
Above promoting one operating system or another, the real achievement of Linux is to be open, to implement existing standards cleanly and transparently, and to do so without a covert business agenda.
There are, believe it or not, people out here who judge the success of an operating system by its fitness to purpose of one particular user base. Linux may, or may not, only be well suited to a small set of geeks and systems administrators. This small group of people could well be a poor prospect from the point of view of marketeers and advertising revenue. But, for me at least, this does not mean that the operating system is not a success. Not everyone is after world domination. -- dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Slashdot Mirror
Those who can't think for themselves post aphorisms.
I'm in the process of moving from the private to the public sector for opposite reasons. In the private sector you work to earn money for your company. Whatever's the most moulah-inducing wins. In an ideal world that would mean that it's what people want the most, but that's so heavily weighted by income it effectively means what the rich would like. In the public sector I can be motivated because I'm teaching and helping people learn, and that gives people far more freedom than anything else which I (personally) could do, which at the moment amounts to working on software to have a marginal effect on the speed of response of consumer electronics support queries.
Motivation and structure is where the public sector wins. Money and flexibility is where the private wins.
Riot-control agents certainly ARE covered by the CWC.
Article II.7 defines RCAs as Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which
disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.
Article I.5, however, prohibits the use of RCAs as a means of conducting warfare: 5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
So the use of these agents in war would almost certainly contravene the CWC.
However, domestic riot control is not covered at all by the CWC, not just with respect to RCAs, but with respect to anything at all. You could do whatever you like with chemicals of any kind for riot control, as far as I can tell, within the CWC as long as the 'weapons' could not be used in warfare. That is because of Article II.9(d) 9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means: (d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes..
So, the CWC does not protect any protesters at all from the use of anything for whatever paramilitary organisations want (including, but not exclusively the use of RCAs), but does protect military organisations from the use of RCAs as strongly as the use of other CWs.
Personally, I find the USes position in persueing this resarch unprinciplled, though at least partially legal and, let's be honest, the US has enough power just to ignore the CWC if it wants (it is causing a number of obstructions to inspection bodies as it is). My main problem with the use of neuroactive RCAs is that I find assault which affects will/volition to be more violent than assault which affects the body because will/volition/intent is closer to my sense of self.
The text for the convention is available online though it might be worth going to your local copyright library, and getting a copy of the text with commentary.
Much as I hate to say it, I think the US is probably right in its interpretation of the CWC with respect to riot-control and the placation of crowds. [I studied this a year or so ago, for an argument on usenet, so appologies if I'm rusty or wrong]. Riot-control agents certainly ARE covered by the CWC. Article II.7 defines RCAs as Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure. Article I.5, however, prohibits the use of RCAs as a means of conducting warfare: 5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare. So the use of these agents in war would almost certainly contravene the CWC. However, domestic riot control is not covered at all by the CWC, not just with respect to RCAs, but with respect to anything at all. You could do whatever you like with chemicals of any kind for riot control, as far as I can tell, within the CWC as long as the 'weapons' could not be used in warfare. That is because of Article II.9(d) 9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means: (d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.. So, the CWC does not protect any protesters at all from the use of anything for whatever paramilitary organisations want (including, but not exclusively the use of RCAs), but does protect military organisations from the use of RCAs as strongly as the use of other CWs. Personally, I find the USes position in persueing this resarch unprinciplled, though at least partially legal and, let's be honest, the US has enough power just to ignore the CWC if it wants (it is causing a number of obstructions to inspection bodies as it is). My main problem with the use of neuroactive RCAs is that I find assault which affects will/volition to be more violent than assault which affects the body because will/volition/intent is closer to my sense of self. The text for the convention is available online though it might be worth going to your local copyright library, and getting a copy of the text with commentary.
People who are unconvinced of the bogosity of this article could perhaps bear in mind a few novelties in the announcment. Firstly they claim to use a super-conducting dynamo. There is no mention of the mouse being immersed in a cryogen -- which would surely detract from its usefulness --, I would imagine that if anyone were to discover a room temperature superconductor, they would consider that more newsworthy than any application of it as a `kinetic' mouse. The energies involved just don't add up either. Consider that a mouse offers very little resistance to motion, if enough energy could be harvested from a dynamo attached to a mouse, and the mouse still be useable, then we wouldn't have the problems with laptop batteries we currently do.
Can I suggest that Compaq investigate another source of power? Wind-ups. Something like a wind-up would do their PR department no end of good.
This is a wonderful book. I've owned it for some months and read it end to end in one sitting. I'm not kidding. This seems to be the first `proper book' on the subject, something I've been looking for for about five years, and I've had to make do with terse survey papers. Buy it. :)
I agree. However, I was taking a worst case scenario. Even _if_ Linux were restricted to that small group of users, then it could still be a success. I don't think it is, but that's the worst case possibility. As I said, I think it has more potential than that, but as a card-carrying geek, I would, woukldn't I?
The article in Computing seems to assume a rather restricted definition of success. It used to be a commonly held belief that a computing utopia involved a whole menagerie of operating systems communicating through simple, standardised interfaces. Now it seems that the only acceptable definition of success is the business agenda of market share and world-pervasiveness.
I am a dedicated Linux user. However, I would be disappointed if that operating system came to completely dominate world markets. Whilst it is suited to me, it is not ideally designed for all computer users. For example, I revel in the freedom which X-windows gives me in separating mechanism from policy, for other people this `freedom' may be confusing and disorientating. It's not a patronising attitude, since the option to change systems always remains.
Above promoting one operating system or another, the real achievement of Linux is to be open, to implement existing standards cleanly and transparently, and to do so without a covert business agenda.
There are, believe it or not, people out here who judge the success of an operating system by its fitness to purpose of one particular user base. Linux may, or may not, only be well suited to a small set of geeks and systems administrators. This small group of people could well be a poor prospect from the point of view of marketeers and advertising revenue. But, for me at least, this does not mean that the operating system is not a success. Not everyone is after world domination.
-- dans@chiark.greenend.org.uk