Please respond to the following statements by saying whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neith disagree nor agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagre:
1) Forbidding the sale of knives would be helpful in preventing a repeat of last week's terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington
2) Forbidding training of pilots would be helpful in preventing a repeat of last week's terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington
3) Forbidding immigration of arabs to the United States would be helpful in preventing a repeat of last week's terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington
4) Requiring that all airline passengers be handcuffed to their seats would be helpful in preventing a repeat of last week's terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington
5) Modifying building codes to require all new buildings to be made out of titanium would be helpful in preventing a repeat of last week's terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington
I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should let these people go unpunished. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't hunt down the sources that feed these "feral dogs" and wipe them out. What I'm getting at is, how valuable are our freedoms and our liberties to us? Are they things we will throw away out of fear for our lives or will we hold on to them even if it means some risk.
I do not with to exalt what these people have done but I think ultimately a lot of the outcome of this is going to be tied to moral fortitude. Who's willing to fight the hardest, and what are they fighting for? They are fighting for some twisted interpetation of a religious doctrine. What are we fighting for? National soveriegnty? Personal safety?
Personally I think the only thing that makes us american boils down to the rights and liberties set forth in the constitution. To destroy that, in an effort to weed out terrorists, destroys ourselves. Are we willing to sacrifce, not just for protection of a sovereign nation, but also for protection of the principals which allowed it to thrive?
These terrorists were willing to die for their beliefs. Are we willing to die for ours? If safety is the sacrifice we make for the rights we hold dear, then that's effectively the choice we are making. It isn't to say that we shouldn't do something, but maybe we need to draw the line and say, that we'd rather be blown into oblivion than to lose those liberties and rights we cherish.
Personally I feel that we need to draw that line, to be willing to take that risk. Granted I say this from a perspective of not having lost anybody close to the attacks, so I might not sing the same tune if I was there. But I don't know, what do others think?
The polarization of the political system is an illusion created by media representations of our system. Does the press write stories about how "middle of the road" some politician's stance is? No. We hear constant discussion of extreme right wing people wanting to axe wellfare, and give guns to every man woman and child. We hear discussion of extreme left wing people wanting to turn us into a giant socialist state. While all these are true in a certain context they are false in a broader one (and certainly meaningless in others but I digress).
When you talk to real people in the world you get a much better sense that we aren't so polarized. We all care about our personal liberties, we all care about safety, we call care about having a good government. Sometimes we may disagree on what those things mean, but overall I think most people aren't as polarized as we've been lead to believe.
We are constantly seeing opinion polls about people's stances on issues, and the very nature of these polls leads to an apparent polarization. Polls, in order to be statisically useful, must limit the possible answers to a question, such as, "are you for or against a woman's right to choose?"
This is yes or now, 1 or 0, left or right. Really, most people have much more subtle opinions. Where's the room in this question for somebody who believes that women need to have a right to choose, but only because there exist no adequate alternatives (fully subsidized day care, college education, etc). That perhaps given a better alternative, the right to have an abortion would be rendered somewhat irrelevant.
The problem isn't that we are a polar society, but rather we choose to frame our perceptions in terms of binary questions. Why? because it's easier that way. I think if we got beyond trying to measure things statistically using simplistic questions we'd rediscover the fact this this nation isn't as polarized as some would like us to believe.
Okay now THAT was funny. I'd shower you in moderator points if I had them.
Allow me to disagree with your disagreeing :)
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If Osama Bin Laden was assasinated tomorrow, what country would be assumed to be responsible? The U.S. of course. Hell, if the Israelis did it we'd still get blamed. The people who think Bin Laden might have a point are just going to get further evidence that maybe he's right after witnessing further agression by the U.S. Furthermore, since it's not like he was even given a trial, we haven't really presented proof that he really is behind this. If he doesn't get a chance to defend himself against accusations, how do we know he isn't just a scape goat?
Political dissidents, you say? Nonsense. We would be going after *known* terrorists, people with quite a few claimed terrorist attacks on their records, not some guy who just opposes his country's government.
We'd be going after *known* terrorists? How do they become *known*? By killing people. So by then it is too late. So then how do we stop them from getting to that point? We have to infiltrate organizations who *might* harbor terrorists. And hey, while we are there, why don't we do a bit to keep them quiet. It's a very slippery slope when the government starts lashing out secretly. If there's no oversight, no judge, what's to stop them from infiltrating more benign organizations?
Well, I guess you *could* try them and put them in prison. But what do you do when, a few months later, 10 guys carrying concealed plastic containers walk into the Empire State building and threaten to release Serin gas (or Anthrax or whatever) all over Manhattan unless you let bin Laden or whoever is currently in jail walk away free? Not much you can do, eh?
So we kill him. And then 10 guys carrying concealed plastic contaners walk into the empire state build and release serin gas (or antrhax or whatever) all over Manhattan. The only way to defuse their fanaticism is to show to the world in a fair way what he has done and how it is truely a blight on humanity. The most fanatical won't be convinced by this, but then shooting him won't convince them either (and it may convince less radical elements that the United States is just a VERY large rogue nation).
No, these guys *must* die. And they must die in such a way as to discourage others from becoming terrorists: quietly and anonymously.
Yes because we all know that people who aren't afraid to die are likey to be afraid that we will kill them.... uh, okay, sure:).
Okay, so we go out and infiltrate terrorist organizations, and then assasinate their leaders. A beautiful plan. Oh wait except that people who aren't afraid to die aren't too concerned about being assasinated and would be happy to be made a martyr. Oh and also, what is a terrorist really? Just a political dissident with a bomb, right? So we better infiltrate dissident groups too. And hey, maybe they say a few things they shouldn't about the government. Wouldn't that be a terrible shame if all the dissenters started having accidents?
*sigh*
Assasination isn't the answer folks. Open trials, clear evidence, long long long prison sentances. Those are the answers. Reveal them for what they are in the stark light of truth and the lock them away.
I mean, if you want to get picky about it there are a hell of a lot of organizations and people that are making use of this situation to their benefit. The Red Cross comes to mind as a good example, which, after all is said and done, will probably have far more money than it started with. Before you flame me for bashing on the Red Cross, believe me, I don't see that as being a bad thing. I think they should take advantage of the situation because what they do is really a good thing and having a little extra cash in the coffers and blood in the bank will be good for them.
RMS is simply reiterating the fears of many others here, and frankly I suspect it wouldn't even get airplay here if it wasn't RMS. Does he say anything new? No. Does he say it in a way that others aren't? No. Is he using this situation to some political benefit, perhaps, but in the end, what he's seeking to promote here is good, so who cares? If one more person writes their congressman because RMS said it, aren't we all better off?
If JBoss is merely taking the existing Sun implementation and packaging it with their software is this a problem? I mean, the SCSL and all that applies to MODIFYING their code, right? To quote the license:
2. License to Distribute Software. In addition to the license granted in Section 1 (Software Internal Use and Development License Grant) of these Supplemental Terms, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including but not limited to Section 3 (Java Technology Restrictions), Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to reproduce and distribute the Software in binary form only, provided that you (i) distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as part of your Programs, (ii) do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software, (iii) do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (iv) only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (v) agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.
I grabbed this section of the license from Sun's JNDI license. It seems that as long as you use their code as is you may simply redistribute their binaries which is what appears to be happening with JBoss. JBoss has lots of code that wraps these various packages and ties them all together, but as long as they are not actually modifiying Sun's code then they SHOULD be in the clear.
The problem is that if people start adding little clauses like that everything can spin out of control. You decide to take RT linux and make your own modifications and then you add a rule saying that in addition to the GPL, people must mail you a postcard. If a product is GPL, then it's GPL, and you know what you are getting into.
If you don't enforce the GPL here, when do you do it? There's no blurry line in the GPL that let's some things slide, it says, no additional clauses, end of story. If he doesn't like it, tough, go modify a different OS.
First of all, most major companiess of the world sell products and have operations in the United States. This makes them subject to US law or makes them at the very least subject to wanting to be in the government's good graces.
Foreign governments tend to make treaties for laws that are mutually beneficial (Berne convention, etc). Those in power stand to benefit from having the ability to eaves drop on the people they govern so there's no reason to believe they won't be willing to make mutual treaties to enforce eachother's laws in this regard.
Those who choose to use illegal forms of crypto will stand out against the background noise of thousands of legitimately encrypted messages. It will make them much easier to track down and given the illegality of using that cryptography, you can prosecute them at will (whether they did anything truely criminal or not).
Okay, basically what it boils down to is this, those who are responsible should be dealt with. If Bin Laden was acting on his own in a midwest city, fine, go arrest his ass and put him in prison.
If it was Bin Laden acting out of a foriegn nation without their support (basically they let him be there but weren't actually funding him, helping him plan this, etc), then we should simply ask that government to hand him over. If they refuse, to do that (or at the very least hand him over to an international court), skip to the next paragraph.
If it was Bin Laden being sponsored by a foreign government, then that government has committed an act of undeclared war and we should deal with them as such. Historically speaking that means bomb them til they surrender, then go in and reconstruct their government as we see fit (see Japan and Germany for reference material). Note: focus of attack should be squarely on government and military. After we have torn them down, and this is the most important part, we should fund reconstruction of the country (buying good will and perhaps a future stable ally ).
I make a point of mentioning a reconstruction effort because WW2 was in large part created by not doing that with Germany during WW1 (IMHO). They were in bad financial shape which is what allowed a dictator like Hitler to come to power. By building them up financially (perhaps leaving it even better than we started), we burn out one more holes for terrorists to hide in.
Perhaps what we need to do is just invest in their country. Turn it into Starbuck's land. Overwhelm them with everything they hate about our country. Drown them in VCR's and Satellite TV. Turn them into TV addled zombies like we are so that they will fear death. Hell, make them fear not being home in time to watch the new episode of Friends.
While there is a certain amount of complexity involved in this, I wouldn't say that this is beyond Bin Laden's capabilities. Remember that a few years back they managed a coordinated attack on two embassies in Africa within minutes of eachother. So they definitely are capable of the logistics necessary to pull off this kind of attack. Let's look at what is really required to pull this off:
1) Terrorists with the ability to fly an airplane, a skill that can be readily obtained at any number of places given money to pay for it (and certainly Bin Laden has cash).
2) Knives. Knives are VERY easy to get onto a plane. I have more than once wondered why nobody questioned my bringing of a pocket knife, etc, on board. When I heard about what happened my first assumption was that it had been done with knives (not good for taking on counter-terrorists, but if you don't plan to ever land the plane they are very effective).
Now, given that, the actual hard part is setting up the terrorist cells to pull this off and plan the operation. It was probably executed by four seperate cells opeating independently but with a coordinated schedule. It's likely that each cell had NO IDEA that other planes were involved. Somebody centrally plans where to strike, which planes to take, and then just issues orders to the cells.
Don't get me wrong, Iraq is definitely on the top of a short list of suspects, but I don't think Bin Laden can be reasonably rules out given his history. At the same time, I agree that we shouldn't leap to conclusions.
The one problem I can see with having virtual items being sold for real currency is that ultimately the market for items in the on-line world is very malleable. The value of items is ultimately dependent on their scarcity and when the scarcity of an item is as simple as a changed parameter in a computer system, I can see real problems developing.
A couple examples of what could go wrong:
1) Somebody buys an item for $1000 figuring that it's going to go up in value. A few days later, the game designers decide to make that item very common. Can the game designers be held liable for financial losses incurred by that person's failed speculation?
2) In a permutation on item 1, what if the developers had made that change intentionally to destroy the market for those items?
3) What if a game designer adds a powerful item so that they can corner the market, selling them off for a handsome profit?
4) What if a bug in the system accidentally causes a fluctuation in the scarcity of a particular item (making it much easier to come by)?
When building a bridge, you have the contract before you start construction. With software, there is always the worry that a competitor will get a product out before you. BINGO! I cannot recall at any point in my 4 year career as a software developer that any given project had concrete and immutable goals before beginning of development. On the best projects we'd have good documentation of requirements, etc, but EVERY time those requirements would change.
To compare software design to bridge building or most feats of industrial or civil engineering are ludicrous. To put it in perspective imagine this scenario:
The city planning commitee has contracted to have a bridge built. Original bridge specifications called for four lanes of traffic. The city planning commitee now has decided it must have 8 lanes and the bridge is already halfway done. Do you think the bridge builders are going to stop construction and re-engineer on the fly? If they did, you can bet that bridge would collapse. No, they won't do that, they'll build the bridge, collect their check and go home.
That sort of scenarios ALWAYS happens in software. Why? Because everybody knows they can get away with bugs, that patches can be released, that ultimately getting it right the first time isn't 100% critical. So they don't worry about it, and why should they? It would be inordinately expensive and arduous to design all software to the tolerances associated with civil engineering, and it would provide questionable benefit in the end.
The big problem with software engineering principles is that we keep trying to find physical world metaphors for the way software should be designed and they all fail. Why? Because the physical is, for the most part, immutable. So how can you apply those same design methodologies to something that is infinitely mutable? The simple answer is, you cannot. Sure, some aspects may be adaptable, but ultimately accepting that building software is completely unlike building a bridge will make life much much easier.
What really worries me is that the best proceses in the world screw up ocassionally. Let's say for the moment that they have 99.99% accuracy in identifying accurately those who are shoplifters. That means that for every 10,000 people who visit Borders, one will be falsely harassed as a suspected shoplifter.
Beyond the issue of mistakes, it's disturbing to consider the possible future of this technology. Their databases will be filled with people they thought were shopilifting, or people accused of shopilifting later found innocent, and people who were convicted but have since reformed. One of the biggest hurdles to overcome as a convicted criminal is getting beyong the image of being a convicted criminal, and being locked out of stores isn't going to help that.
Think for a moment how many stores you visit that use video cameras. Now just imagine if all of them had facial recognition technology. I mean why wouldn't they use it? It reduces shrink problems, and overall costs will drop exponentially making the technology viable for even the smallest stores. Hook these up to a police database, and think of what happens...
You, a convicted criminal are now out of prison ready to straighten up and fly right. You go to the local liquor store, a camera identifies and tags you as a criminal. The manager asks you to leave. So you go to the grocery store and get the same treatment. How can you really get on with your life if nobody will let you be a part of society again?
I dunno, I begin to think that maybe you accept a certain amount of entropy in the system. That you, as a business plan for a certain portion of your stock getting stolen and a certain portion of money going to pay for security, etc. Maybe there's a certain point of diminshing returns where the cost for our society is not worth the economic efficiencies of it.
The open source community uses source forge because it provides free hosting and tools to open source projects. The software could be very proprietary and it wouldn't make a difference to the community at large. It's the cost of bandwidth, hardware, etc, that is the important thing there, not the open-sourceness of the underlying software.
I realized after posting this that all the points I intended to make didn't actually get made:).
First of all, expanding funding for education is something I think should go well beyond grade school and high school, but that college educations should also be taken care of. Also, any sort of continuing education, job re-training, etc, should be funded.
As for determining the commitment of students, what I would propose is having schools that provide different tiers of education to different skill levels and require minimal GPA's to remain in particular level. Thus, a very gifted child could excel to their potential and a non-gifted child could fall back to a level where they can get the support they need. And let's be clear on this, I mean actual support to try to move all kids ahead, not just maintain status quo.
Furthermore, if we had a decent publicly funded medical system, we wouldn't have to use schools as treatment facilities for troubled children. They could seek real counseling from qualified mental health professionals. But that's an entirely different tirade.
Also, I agree with people's statements that big money isn't the answer, but how about we start with just reasonable distribution of the money that is available? You've got schools that can barely afford building upkeep let alone skilled instructors, and you've got school districts who can afford sprawling campuses in the best parts of town. When I think of more money, admittedly I'm thinking of those schools falling apart at the seams from lack of funding.
Also, I agree that one of the biggest problems that funding isn't going to solve is this country's general lack of respect for education. Smart==elite and elite is above other people which is frowned on by our society of equality. At least that's my best guess as to why that mentality exists.
The important difference at private schools that allows them to pay less is that they are able to control their student population. Teachers are willing to take lower pay if it means that they will only have to deal with intelligent and reasonably motivated students. They know that if there is a student with a behavioral problem that they won't have to tolerate them because that student HAS to be there.
Interesting... So what about any Source Forge code wirtten by external developers who did so under the terms of the GPL? Unless they signed over the copyright to VA, then VA can't do this (unless those developers agree to it and license them the code under a different license).
Actually though I suspect this isn't an issue which leads me to a significant realization about the poor implemtnations of open source based businesses we've seen come out of the recent hype. What are the advantages of open source?
1) Many eyes to find many bugs
2) Large collaborative effort distributing cost of development
Now, if Source Forge was all code written by people in-house, why is it open source? There is absolutely no business justification for this within their business model. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm glad they do it, hopefully out of a sense of community, not just a PR thing. But the result is that they are getting ALL of the drawbacks of open source and none of the benefits. No wonder VA is having financial problems and no wonder they have to make a proprietary version.
People keep thinking that open source can't make money. That's only because we keep seeing a lot of companies make the same serious mistake, trying to develop an open source project in a proprietary development style then just opening the code.
If you look at successful open source projects and companies who are making money off it, their approach is entirely different. RedHat actually gets it! They subsidize some of the cost of developing linux, but not all of it by any stretch. They release new products by taking existing open source projects, branding them, and then throwing some developers at it (see also RedHat's new Postgres database).
Hopefully VA and the rest will soon learn that you can't set out and build an open source project overnight. It is something that has to grow organically by a bunch of geeks recognizing a common usefulness of a piece of software. If you try to force it, fronting proprietary development costs, and then just saying it's open source, your company will fail because it is not a sustainable model. Doesn't mean anything is wrong with open source, just means these people aren't doing it right.
I just don't get how our system is supposed to work. We are cutting funding to education (or at least not expanding it to meet demand), we are cutting back on wellfare, and we are doing everything we can to automate low skill tasks.
So basically you have to have a job to live. But the low skill jobs are being automated because it's cheaper than paying you. So you can either go on wellfare or you can try to get an education to get a better job up the food chain. In order to get the eduation, you apparently have to have money (or at the least live in an area where there is money so that the schools have decent funding). And I'm guessing that if this is a situation you find yourself in you probably don't live in a rich suburb.
I'm sorry that all the rich people aren't filthy rich enough yet, but for god's sake, why don't we fund a decent education system. I think it's reasonable to set standards that insure the school system doesn't waste its time on people who don't care. But at the same time, people who want to learn should not have to pay a dime for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Encryption isn't running for re-election :)
Please respond to the following statements by saying whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neith disagree nor agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagre:
1) Forbidding the sale of knives would be helpful in preventing a repeat of last week's terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington
2) Forbidding training of pilots would be helpful in preventing a repeat of last week's terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington
3) Forbidding immigration of arabs to the United States would be helpful in preventing a repeat of last week's terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington
4) Requiring that all airline passengers be handcuffed to their seats would be helpful in preventing a repeat of last week's terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington
5) Modifying building codes to require all new buildings to be made out of titanium would be helpful in preventing a repeat of last week's terrorist attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington
I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should let these people go unpunished. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't hunt down the sources that feed these "feral dogs" and wipe them out. What I'm getting at is, how valuable are our freedoms and our liberties to us? Are they things we will throw away out of fear for our lives or will we hold on to them even if it means some risk.
I do not with to exalt what these people have done but I think ultimately a lot of the outcome of this is going to be tied to moral fortitude. Who's willing to fight the hardest, and what are they fighting for? They are fighting for some twisted interpetation of a religious doctrine. What are we fighting for? National soveriegnty? Personal safety?
Personally I think the only thing that makes us american boils down to the rights and liberties set forth in the constitution. To destroy that, in an effort to weed out terrorists, destroys ourselves. Are we willing to sacrifce, not just for protection of a sovereign nation, but also for protection of the principals which allowed it to thrive?
These terrorists were willing to die for their beliefs. Are we willing to die for ours? If safety is the sacrifice we make for the rights we hold dear, then that's effectively the choice we are making. It isn't to say that we shouldn't do something, but maybe we need to draw the line and say, that we'd rather be blown into oblivion than to lose those liberties and rights we cherish.
Personally I feel that we need to draw that line, to be willing to take that risk. Granted I say this from a perspective of not having lost anybody close to the attacks, so I might not sing the same tune if I was there. But I don't know, what do others think?
The polarization of the political system is an illusion created by media representations of our system. Does the press write stories about how "middle of the road" some politician's stance is? No. We hear constant discussion of extreme right wing people wanting to axe wellfare, and give guns to every man woman and child. We hear discussion of extreme left wing people wanting to turn us into a giant socialist state. While all these are true in a certain context they are false in a broader one (and certainly meaningless in others but I digress).
When you talk to real people in the world you get a much better sense that we aren't so polarized. We all care about our personal liberties, we all care about safety, we call care about having a good government. Sometimes we may disagree on what those things mean, but overall I think most people aren't as polarized as we've been lead to believe.
We are constantly seeing opinion polls about people's stances on issues, and the very nature of these polls leads to an apparent polarization. Polls, in order to be statisically useful, must limit the possible answers to a question, such as, "are you for or against a woman's right to choose?"
This is yes or now, 1 or 0, left or right. Really, most people have much more subtle opinions. Where's the room in this question for somebody who believes that women need to have a right to choose, but only because there exist no adequate alternatives (fully subsidized day care, college education, etc). That perhaps given a better alternative, the right to have an abortion would be rendered somewhat irrelevant.
The problem isn't that we are a polar society, but rather we choose to frame our perceptions in terms of binary questions. Why? because it's easier that way. I think if we got beyond trying to measure things statistically using simplistic questions we'd rediscover the fact this this nation isn't as polarized as some would like us to believe.
Okay now THAT was funny. I'd shower you in moderator points if I had them.
If Osama Bin Laden was assasinated tomorrow, what country would be assumed to be responsible? The U.S. of course. Hell, if the Israelis did it we'd still get blamed. The people who think Bin Laden might have a point are just going to get further evidence that maybe he's right after witnessing further agression by the U.S. Furthermore, since it's not like he was even given a trial, we haven't really presented proof that he really is behind this. If he doesn't get a chance to defend himself against accusations, how do we know he isn't just a scape goat?
:).
Political dissidents, you say? Nonsense. We would be going after *known* terrorists, people with quite a few claimed terrorist attacks on their records, not some guy who just opposes his country's government.
We'd be going after *known* terrorists? How do they become *known*? By killing people. So by then it is too late. So then how do we stop them from getting to that point? We have to infiltrate organizations who *might* harbor terrorists. And hey, while we are there, why don't we do a bit to keep them quiet. It's a very slippery slope when the government starts lashing out secretly. If there's no oversight, no judge, what's to stop them from infiltrating more benign organizations?
Well, I guess you *could* try them and put them in prison. But what do you do when, a few months later, 10 guys carrying concealed plastic containers walk into the Empire State building and threaten to release Serin gas (or Anthrax or whatever) all over Manhattan unless you let bin Laden or whoever is currently in jail walk away free? Not much you can do, eh?
So we kill him. And then 10 guys carrying concealed plastic contaners walk into the empire state build and release serin gas (or antrhax or whatever) all over Manhattan. The only way to defuse their fanaticism is to show to the world in a fair way what he has done and how it is truely a blight on humanity. The most fanatical won't be convinced by this, but then shooting him won't convince them either (and it may convince less radical elements that the United States is just a VERY large rogue nation).
No, these guys *must* die. And they must die in such a way as to discourage others from becoming terrorists: quietly and anonymously.
Yes because we all know that people who aren't afraid to die are likey to be afraid that we will kill them.... uh, okay, sure
Okay, so we go out and infiltrate terrorist organizations, and then assasinate their leaders. A beautiful plan. Oh wait except that people who aren't afraid to die aren't too concerned about being assasinated and would be happy to be made a martyr. Oh and also, what is a terrorist really? Just a political dissident with a bomb, right? So we better infiltrate dissident groups too. And hey, maybe they say a few things they shouldn't about the government. Wouldn't that be a terrible shame if all the dissenters started having accidents?
*sigh*
Assasination isn't the answer folks. Open trials, clear evidence, long long long prison sentances. Those are the answers. Reveal them for what they are in the stark light of truth and the lock them away.
First hits here were at 8:33 Central
I mean, if you want to get picky about it there are a hell of a lot of organizations and people that are making use of this situation to their benefit. The Red Cross comes to mind as a good example, which, after all is said and done, will probably have far more money than it started with. Before you flame me for bashing on the Red Cross, believe me, I don't see that as being a bad thing. I think they should take advantage of the situation because what they do is really a good thing and having a little extra cash in the coffers and blood in the bank will be good for them.
RMS is simply reiterating the fears of many others here, and frankly I suspect it wouldn't even get airplay here if it wasn't RMS. Does he say anything new? No. Does he say it in a way that others aren't? No. Is he using this situation to some political benefit, perhaps, but in the end, what he's seeking to promote here is good, so who cares? If one more person writes their congressman because RMS said it, aren't we all better off?
If JBoss is merely taking the existing Sun implementation and packaging it with their software is this a problem? I mean, the SCSL and all that applies to MODIFYING their code, right? To quote the license:
2. License to Distribute Software. In addition to the license granted in Section 1 (Software Internal Use and Development License Grant) of these Supplemental Terms, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including but not limited to Section 3 (Java Technology Restrictions), Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to reproduce and distribute the Software in binary form only, provided that you (i) distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as part of your Programs, (ii) do not distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of the Software, (iii) do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (iv) only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (v) agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software.
I grabbed this section of the license from Sun's JNDI license. It seems that as long as you use their code as is you may simply redistribute their binaries which is what appears to be happening with JBoss. JBoss has lots of code that wraps these various packages and ties them all together, but as long as they are not actually modifiying Sun's code then they SHOULD be in the clear.
The problem is that if people start adding little clauses like that everything can spin out of control. You decide to take RT linux and make your own modifications and then you add a rule saying that in addition to the GPL, people must mail you a postcard. If a product is GPL, then it's GPL, and you know what you are getting into.
If you don't enforce the GPL here, when do you do it? There's no blurry line in the GPL that let's some things slide, it says, no additional clauses, end of story. If he doesn't like it, tough, go modify a different OS.
First of all, most major companiess of the world sell products and have operations in the United States. This makes them subject to US law or makes them at the very least subject to wanting to be in the government's good graces.
Foreign governments tend to make treaties for laws that are mutually beneficial (Berne convention, etc). Those in power stand to benefit from having the ability to eaves drop on the people they govern so there's no reason to believe they won't be willing to make mutual treaties to enforce eachother's laws in this regard.
Those who choose to use illegal forms of crypto will stand out against the background noise of thousands of legitimately encrypted messages. It will make them much easier to track down and given the illegality of using that cryptography, you can prosecute them at will (whether they did anything truely criminal or not).
Okay, basically what it boils down to is this, those who are responsible should be dealt with. If Bin Laden was acting on his own in a midwest city, fine, go arrest his ass and put him in prison.
If it was Bin Laden acting out of a foriegn nation without their support (basically they let him be there but weren't actually funding him, helping him plan this, etc), then we should simply ask that government to hand him over. If they refuse, to do that (or at the very least hand him over to an international court), skip to the next paragraph.
If it was Bin Laden being sponsored by a foreign government, then that government has committed an act of undeclared war and we should deal with them as such. Historically speaking that means bomb them til they surrender, then go in and reconstruct their government as we see fit (see Japan and Germany for reference material). Note: focus of attack should be squarely on government and military. After we have torn them down, and this is the most important part, we should fund reconstruction of the country (buying good will and perhaps a future stable ally ).
I make a point of mentioning a reconstruction effort because WW2 was in large part created by not doing that with Germany during WW1 (IMHO). They were in bad financial shape which is what allowed a dictator like Hitler to come to power. By building them up financially (perhaps leaving it even better than we started), we burn out one more holes for terrorists to hide in.
Perhaps what we need to do is just invest in their country. Turn it into Starbuck's land. Overwhelm them with everything they hate about our country. Drown them in VCR's and Satellite TV. Turn them into TV addled zombies like we are so that they will fear death. Hell, make them fear not being home in time to watch the new episode of Friends.
While there is a certain amount of complexity involved in this, I wouldn't say that this is beyond Bin Laden's capabilities. Remember that a few years back they managed a coordinated attack on two embassies in Africa within minutes of eachother. So they definitely are capable of the logistics necessary to pull off this kind of attack. Let's look at what is really required to pull this off:
1) Terrorists with the ability to fly an airplane, a skill that can be readily obtained at any number of places given money to pay for it (and certainly Bin Laden has cash).
2) Knives. Knives are VERY easy to get onto a plane. I have more than once wondered why nobody questioned my bringing of a pocket knife, etc, on board. When I heard about what happened my first assumption was that it had been done with knives (not good for taking on counter-terrorists, but if you don't plan to ever land the plane they are very effective).
Now, given that, the actual hard part is setting up the terrorist cells to pull this off and plan the operation. It was probably executed by four seperate cells opeating independently but with a coordinated schedule. It's likely that each cell had NO IDEA that other planes were involved. Somebody centrally plans where to strike, which planes to take, and then just issues orders to the cells.
Don't get me wrong, Iraq is definitely on the top of a short list of suspects, but I don't think Bin Laden can be reasonably rules out given his history. At the same time, I agree that we shouldn't leap to conclusions.
The one problem I can see with having virtual items being sold for real currency is that ultimately the market for items in the on-line world is very malleable. The value of items is ultimately dependent on their scarcity and when the scarcity of an item is as simple as a changed parameter in a computer system, I can see real problems developing.
A couple examples of what could go wrong:
1) Somebody buys an item for $1000 figuring that it's going to go up in value. A few days later, the game designers decide to make that item very common. Can the game designers be held liable for financial losses incurred by that person's failed speculation?
2) In a permutation on item 1, what if the developers had made that change intentionally to destroy the market for those items?
3) What if a game designer adds a powerful item so that they can corner the market, selling them off for a handsome profit?
4) What if a bug in the system accidentally causes a fluctuation in the scarcity of a particular item (making it much easier to come by)?
When building a bridge, you have the contract before you start construction. With software, there is always the worry that a competitor will get a product out before you.
BINGO! I cannot recall at any point in my 4 year career as a software developer that any given project had concrete and immutable goals before beginning of development. On the best projects we'd have good documentation of requirements, etc, but EVERY time those requirements would change.
To compare software design to bridge building or most feats of industrial or civil engineering are ludicrous. To put it in perspective imagine this scenario:
The city planning commitee has contracted to have a bridge built. Original bridge specifications called for four lanes of traffic. The city planning commitee now has decided it must have 8 lanes and the bridge is already halfway done. Do you think the bridge builders are going to stop construction and re-engineer on the fly? If they did, you can bet that bridge would collapse. No, they won't do that, they'll build the bridge, collect their check and go home.
That sort of scenarios ALWAYS happens in software. Why? Because everybody knows they can get away with bugs, that patches can be released, that ultimately getting it right the first time isn't 100% critical. So they don't worry about it, and why should they? It would be inordinately expensive and arduous to design all software to the tolerances associated with civil engineering, and it would provide questionable benefit in the end.
The big problem with software engineering principles is that we keep trying to find physical world metaphors for the way software should be designed and they all fail. Why? Because the physical is, for the most part, immutable. So how can you apply those same design methodologies to something that is infinitely mutable? The simple answer is, you cannot. Sure, some aspects may be adaptable, but ultimately accepting that building software is completely unlike building a bridge will make life much much easier.
That microsoft controls >90% of the market for operating systems? Could it be that they want to have a leg up on AMD? Gee, why would they do that?
:)
What really worries me is that the best proceses in the world screw up ocassionally. Let's say for the moment that they have 99.99% accuracy in identifying accurately those who are shoplifters. That means that for every 10,000 people who visit Borders, one will be falsely harassed as a suspected shoplifter.
Beyond the issue of mistakes, it's disturbing to consider the possible future of this technology. Their databases will be filled with people they thought were shopilifting, or people accused of shopilifting later found innocent, and people who were convicted but have since reformed. One of the biggest hurdles to overcome as a convicted criminal is getting beyong the image of being a convicted criminal, and being locked out of stores isn't going to help that.
Think for a moment how many stores you visit that use video cameras. Now just imagine if all of them had facial recognition technology. I mean why wouldn't they use it? It reduces shrink problems, and overall costs will drop exponentially making the technology viable for even the smallest stores. Hook these up to a police database, and think of what happens...
You, a convicted criminal are now out of prison ready to straighten up and fly right. You go to the local liquor store, a camera identifies and tags you as a criminal. The manager asks you to leave. So you go to the grocery store and get the same treatment. How can you really get on with your life if nobody will let you be a part of society again?
I dunno, I begin to think that maybe you accept a certain amount of entropy in the system. That you, as a business plan for a certain portion of your stock getting stolen and a certain portion of money going to pay for security, etc. Maybe there's a certain point of diminshing returns where the cost for our society is not worth the economic efficiencies of it.
The open source community uses source forge because it provides free hosting and tools to open source projects. The software could be very proprietary and it wouldn't make a difference to the community at large. It's the cost of bandwidth, hardware, etc, that is the important thing there, not the open-sourceness of the underlying software.
I realized after posting this that all the points I intended to make didn't actually get made :).
First of all, expanding funding for education is something I think should go well beyond grade school and high school, but that college educations should also be taken care of. Also, any sort of continuing education, job re-training, etc, should be funded.
As for determining the commitment of students, what I would propose is having schools that provide different tiers of education to different skill levels and require minimal GPA's to remain in particular level. Thus, a very gifted child could excel to their potential and a non-gifted child could fall back to a level where they can get the support they need. And let's be clear on this, I mean actual support to try to move all kids ahead, not just maintain status quo.
Furthermore, if we had a decent publicly funded medical system, we wouldn't have to use schools as treatment facilities for troubled children. They could seek real counseling from qualified mental health professionals. But that's an entirely different tirade.
Also, I agree with people's statements that big money isn't the answer, but how about we start with just reasonable distribution of the money that is available? You've got schools that can barely afford building upkeep let alone skilled instructors, and you've got school districts who can afford sprawling campuses in the best parts of town. When I think of more money, admittedly I'm thinking of those schools falling apart at the seams from lack of funding.
Also, I agree that one of the biggest problems that funding isn't going to solve is this country's general lack of respect for education. Smart==elite and elite is above other people which is frowned on by our society of equality. At least that's my best guess as to why that mentality exists.
The important difference at private schools that allows them to pay less is that they are able to control their student population. Teachers are willing to take lower pay if it means that they will only have to deal with intelligent and reasonably motivated students. They know that if there is a student with a behavioral problem that they won't have to tolerate them because that student HAS to be there.
Interesting... So what about any Source Forge code wirtten by external developers who did so under the terms of the GPL? Unless they signed over the copyright to VA, then VA can't do this (unless those developers agree to it and license them the code under a different license).
Actually though I suspect this isn't an issue which leads me to a significant realization about the poor implemtnations of open source based businesses we've seen come out of the recent hype. What are the advantages of open source?
1) Many eyes to find many bugs
2) Large collaborative effort distributing cost of development
Now, if Source Forge was all code written by people in-house, why is it open source? There is absolutely no business justification for this within their business model. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm glad they do it, hopefully out of a sense of community, not just a PR thing. But the result is that they are getting ALL of the drawbacks of open source and none of the benefits. No wonder VA is having financial problems and no wonder they have to make a proprietary version.
People keep thinking that open source can't make money. That's only because we keep seeing a lot of companies make the same serious mistake, trying to develop an open source project in a proprietary development style then just opening the code.
If you look at successful open source projects and companies who are making money off it, their approach is entirely different. RedHat actually gets it! They subsidize some of the cost of developing linux, but not all of it by any stretch. They release new products by taking existing open source projects, branding them, and then throwing some developers at it (see also RedHat's new Postgres database).
Hopefully VA and the rest will soon learn that you can't set out and build an open source project overnight. It is something that has to grow organically by a bunch of geeks recognizing a common usefulness of a piece of software. If you try to force it, fronting proprietary development costs, and then just saying it's open source, your company will fail because it is not a sustainable model. Doesn't mean anything is wrong with open source, just means these people aren't doing it right.
I just don't get how our system is supposed to work. We are cutting funding to education (or at least not expanding it to meet demand), we are cutting back on wellfare, and we are doing everything we can to automate low skill tasks.
So basically you have to have a job to live. But the low skill jobs are being automated because it's cheaper than paying you. So you can either go on wellfare or you can try to get an education to get a better job up the food chain. In order to get the eduation, you apparently have to have money (or at the least live in an area where there is money so that the schools have decent funding). And I'm guessing that if this is a situation you find yourself in you probably don't live in a rich suburb.
I'm sorry that all the rich people aren't filthy rich enough yet, but for god's sake, why don't we fund a decent education system. I think it's reasonable to set standards that insure the school system doesn't waste its time on people who don't care. But at the same time, people who want to learn should not have to pay a dime for it.