Say we get our offshore data haven (see Can Websites Go Offshore For Free Speech) declared to be an independant nation, we can write a few "custom" laws, eg "It is illegal to present or use foreign legal documents that contain the letters M.P.A.A.", then fine the MPAA for $$$ (plus $$$ per day violation) and demand they take steps to prevent their "legal filth" contaminating the haven:-)
>I'd be fascinated to see early automotive legislation, as a comparison.
All motorcars must at all times be preceeded by a man carrying a red flag.
When driving a motorcar, upon reaching an intersection you must honk the horn twice, and wait for any response. If no response is forthcoming, a large bell must be loudly rung. If no response is heard, a rifle shall be discharged into the air. If no answering report is heard, the driver may proceed across the intersection.
I'm not making that up. I can't remember where these were law (or for how long ), but there is a whole lot of similar examples at http://www.strangelaws.com/ (Some of which are still in the lawbooks:-)
We set up a haven on a rig in international waters. If we tow the rig to the right place, there is alreay a fibre optic backbone running across the pacific ocean (a loop, actually) and backbone crossing international waters in other places too (between New Zealand and Australia for example). Splicing into a fibre optic cable isn't easy, but it's a _lot_ easier than laying our own cable or launching a satellite. Best of all, due to the loop design (to keep the connection running if one part of the cable breaks), we can put in the splice without cutting off various countries.
Now - anyone here have an uncle with an old, disused open-sea rig lying around that we could, er.. borrow?
>what I think we need is to form a totally independent Net - something where the >governments keep their paws off, that regulates itself by technological means *only*.
Unacceptable. That we tech gods might rule this land is as abhorrant to lawyers as their underhandedness is to us. In their twisted world, it is wrong - morally repugnant that the god of corporate law should not walk unhindered by us into the land we have created, and rule there in our place, in perpetuity. It is only by the grace of the law god that we were permitted to set up a temporary reign as mere place-holders awaiting the Arrival of Law. That we dare to even consider calling ourselves something more is simply blasphemous.
(tongue out of cheek) I think the business people (and certainly the big corporations) unthinkingly side with the lawyers. Geeks and nerds and weird people are not trusted by mainstream society, and mainstream society believes the net is the latest fashion accessory, with all the consumer guarentees that that implies...
>we certainly need some plan in place for enforcing our laws
Why? The already-in-place system of extradition treaties seems perfectly acceptable. Unfortunately, the safeguards for justice in the system puts the corp's in the unfamiliar position of not being able to both have their cake and eat it:-) The US (or any country) should never be able to simply force its laws onto the peoples of other nations. If justice and the proper channels are inconvenient, my sympathy is limited:-)
On the other hand, if countries could just force their laws onto other countries, war would become redundant overnight... Hmmm... :-)
It's been at least 5 years since I used one, but at my old work, there was a black VCR-style box connected to the video, you hit a button and it prints out the frame onto a glossy photograph-like card. It sounds like the only thing different here is that they'll be cheap enough with today's technology that HP can market them at the domestic buyers.
I don't know how much it cost, but I have a vague impression that it was pretty cheap compared to normal equipment costs, which would probably have made it too expensive for a consumer model, as "normal equipment costs" was relative to somewhat pricey equipment:-)
>But we are not yet approaching the seriousness of a nuclear detonation.
Have a look into the (rare) cases of courts forcing classified documents into public - the nature of the dirty little secrets, and that they have nothing to do with national security and everything to do with concealing rank incompetence or underhanded tactics from the voting public. When anything remotely incriminating is simply classified in this way (and there are _plently_ of case of this sort of abuse of authority - it does look like standard pactise), I really would not expect a near-detonation accident to make its way to the public record without opposition - that's (partly) what "national secuirty" is for:-)
Which is not to say it must have happened, just that the public record is a poor indicator of _actual_ safety (and is _still_ an indicator of questionable safety:) I personablly find the evidence that isn't on public record to be far more convincing - and a far more complete picture:-)
Statements made by New Zealand are, I think (as has been demonstrated), considered worthy of concern - we seem to be talking about different levels of "concern". Military threat or action is extreme and rare and I think non-military threat and action (and dissolving military alliance) definitely constitutes "serious consequences", but I can see what you're talking about.
My understanding is that MP3.com violated copyright in assembling their mp3 database, but the principle of sending someone music that you know they own was not clearly indicted (though from the judges comments, they might go hand in hand). Is there any immediately obvious way to offer the mp3.com service without violating copyright via the database?
Why could mp3.com not re-brand itself as an internet radio station that plays music (music _requests_ to be more precise:-) to an audience? Mp3 is a lossy format, so Metallica's arguments that "you can't record high-quality masters off the radio" seem easily knocked down (and somewhat indicative of Metallica's lack of experience of the mp3 arena...). What is the big legal difference between a radio station and an MP3 broadcaster? I believe that radio stations are _encouraged_ to broadcast music (free advertising), and that streaming internet radio stations have been stood up in court. Presumably there are streaming players that will play an MP3 as you download it?
>And then they want detachable segments! That probably means electrical connectors (unless they put a radio transciever in each segment, >which makes it a networking nightmare). On every design project I've ever been on, connectors have been the single largest pain in the ass >(picking a microcontroller or transistor is easy compared to picking a connector). And not only is it a connector, it has to attach/detach (in >vacuum) under the supervision of a robotic (read dumb) brain.
I've seen robots that just use powerful magnets, thus they can be as dumb as a rock and still couple successfully - the poles of the magnets ensure that the coupling is orientated correctly to line up the connector plates, and the strength of them means the connectors only have to stumble into the vague area of the target to get a successful connection. A heavily geared motor gives sufficient strength to de-couple.
Sometimes, simple solutions work surprisingly well:-)
>Does anyone else here see the problem with sending an electrical generator into a gas line?
Not really - the risk of explosion comes from sparks, so you just build a solid-state snake that cannot spark. Eg, use brushless turbines. Having the whole thing running on 3V will _seriously_ decrease the possibility of generating enough heat for an explosion. Place the live sections inside a resin block, and so on. It'd be pretty safe.
Another thing - there would presumably be no oxygen in a gas line - can the gas even explode without some kind of leak?
>>??? The USA has internationally _earned_ itself the nickname "rogue superpower"
>False. China has declared that it considers the US so I seriously doubt China even really thinks that. The rest of the world certainly doesn't.
False. China may have capitalised on it by incorporating it into official declaration, but it didn't originate with China, and is representative of the views of a lot more than just China. This is simply Not What You Say in diplomatic circles (in fact, I'd suggest that only a country as powerful and stubborn as China would dare, or could get away with it without major repercussions. New Zealand, for example, would face serious consequences), so the lacks of use of this terms in diplomatic circles is expected - to tell you the truth, I had no idea until you mentioned China that any country had actually said it openly the USA's face. It's more of a consensus-behind-the-back sort of thing.
>> it stockpiles (and frequently uses) weapons of mass destruction and weapons of indiscriminant destruction
>False. The US has used, to the best of my knowledge, two weapons of mass destruction, in one incident, several decades ago.
False. In addition to the nuclear incidents you refer too, there has been chemical use, and more recently, either biological or nuclear, depending on which you consider covers the devastating indiscriminant effects of depleted uranium, now recognised by the UN as responsible for massed civilian deaths as cancer rates already far surpass seven times the norm and show no signs of doing anything but continued acceleration. This is not even delving into covert CIA practises inside other sovereign nations.
>Now, you imply that a nuclear device in the hands of the sort of country that might spy on the DoE is >not as dangerous to innocent people as one in the US's hands.
Any such implication was unintentional or your own interpretation. My point was specifically to question the assumption that nukes are _less_ dangerous in US hands.
>Oh, I understand the concerns with weapons stockpiling very well. What you neglect to mention is the >risks posed by all the other nuclear arsenals in the world. The US's arsenal, and the threat is >represents, is minor. Incosequential, you might say.
The people who operated the stockpile warn that an accidental launch is almost inevitable, and you call this an "inconsequential" risk? Suit yourself, but I disagree.
>But to compare Iraq and the US as equals is laughable. It's hardly even a comprehensible idea.
I was comparing foreign policy record (which I admit I could have made clearer), and in this respect, it's a very comprehensible idea. The method and means by which Kuwait was attacked were almost directly copied from a previous US adventure into sovereign soil. Back then, Iraq and the US were allies, but then, you don't hear much about those buddy days any more.
>>And I bet you'd think Iraq was "the wrong hands".
>and gives every indication that it would like to keep any weapons it can, build any more that it can, >and has no qualms on using them. Wonderful.
Yeah, kinda sounds like another country we were talking about doesn't it.
>If you want a doomsday scenario to hurt the maximum number of innocent people, driving the price of >oil up to, oh...say $60-70 a barrel for a prolonged period of time will do that very nicely.
Doomsday? Isn't that a little melodramatic? The thing really facing doomsday would be rampant consumer culture. The price of everything would double (or even triple) so people spend more of their money on food instead of disposable cellphones. People would have to walk or cycle instead filling the cardiac wards with diseases of sedentary lifestyles, filling the A&E wards with accident victims, filling the thoracic wards with respiratory illness, (and benzene-caused cancers if they eventuate). Sounds to me like a shock to the system that could conceivably make the whole thing stronger. My biggest regret might be that luxuries like powerful computers would probably move outside my means:-)
Hmmm - and the protectionists would leap for joy because the cost shipping something halfway around the world would form a natural tarrif, discouraging trade deficits:)
You seem to have missed my point (but you came close).
As I said: It is not clear to me that living with fewer rights is worse than living in a world where my free speech was purchased with the kind of weapons he is referring too. Read it carefully. You can talk about Jews all you like, but I'm talking about _my_ rights. You conveniently assume worst case rights-abuse (Hitler) and best-case price of force. In such a situation, it might be clear that the price _is_ worth it (and please note that such a situation is _not_ what I said - death by genocide hardly constitutes "living with fewer rights"). But that's not the only possible scenario. Let me be equally convenient in a counter example and suggest a world where the price of freedom was a nuclear war, from which you are the sole survivor, but the freedom you have gained is unlimited (no social responsibilities at all!). I think you would agree that this example is one where the freedom of speech is not worth the price payed.
IOW, it is not as simplistically black and white as would be nice - freedom of speech is _not_ worth any price. Freedom of speech is smallfry compared to other human rights and freedoms, and if the price of freedom of speech is the wholesale destruction of more important freedoms and rights, then I think it is foolish to blithely assume that nothing is too high a price. This is what I was talking about - hardly suggesting giving up without a fight at every maniac powergrab.
On a related note, you talk about the price of using force in defense. I'm not sure exactly how one could go about using nukes in defense - most nuclear strategies only seem to include First Strike, and Retaliation. Neither role defends a rat's ass. People turn to deterrence arguments if they want to make nukes look like a defensive weapon, wheras we are both talking about the actual _use_ of these weapons.
Repeating myself: you say "the fact that guns have to be used to defend your feedom". This is not a fact - freedom has been sucessfully defended via other means, and guns have proven themselves an unreliable guarantor of freedom. Guns might be the biggest way to protect freedom, but don't blindly assume they're the _only_ way to protect freedom, because they're not. US gun culture tends to blind us to alternatives.
Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions - I was not bashing the USA, your assumption that I loath it is also way off the mark, and you somehow seem to have decided that I disagree with keeping this technology under wraps, despite my indicating nothing of the sort.
I was bashing the dangerous (and, I think, silly) assumptions that "nukes are ok so long as they're in our hands", and "our hands are not the wrong hands" that was implicit in (though not the point of) the post.
There are differences between criticism, example, and insult. My examples of US behavour, and the attitute the world takes towards that behaviour were an attempt to illustrate why so much of the world considers the weapons to already be in the wrong hands - and via this to prompt some thinking that goes beyond moronic Hollywood "We're the Good Guys" and "it's OK for us to have these weapons".
Don't become yet another person whose response to anything that fails to glorify the USA is a kneejerk assumption of anti-americanism on behalf of the writer. That's an irrational cop-out. I agree my post was off topic, but the assumptions it was trying to address, IMHO, could do with some scrutiny.
First of all, I should apologise - my post came out a lot more caustic (and unclear) than I intended. I would go back and change it but...
Rephrasing: my point is that while the traditional US (and to lesser degree, western) response to a problem is to solve it with guns, there are other roads that have sucessfully led to free speech, and a lot of cases where having a military has led to oppression.
IOW, I think it's a big mistake to uncritically believe that free speech is dependent on how big your guns are. (And I thus have no real problem with the stance he took on weapons research and free speech.)
(OT: Even accepting your premise, it is not clear to me that living with fewer rights is worse than living in a world where my free speech was purchased with the kind of weapons he is referring to.)
But I'm not feeling very passionate about things today, so I'll apathetically leave now...:-)
> It's that the nukes and the knowledge to build them (especially the knowledge) >would be dangerous to an unfortunate degree in the wrong hands.
??? The USA has internationally _earned_ itself the nickname "rogue superpower", it stockpiles (and frequently uses) weapons of mass destruction and weapons of indiscriminant destruction, it has one of the worst records of initiating force in other countries, undermining democracies, propping up dictatorships with force, and worse, and you talk of "the wrong hands"?!?!
Presumably by "dangerious... in the wrong hands" you actually mean "dangerous to _me_ personally", rather than "dangerous to innocent people". (I'm guessing you have US citizenship to protect you from US weaponry).
When a US General (among many others) states that the reality of the US nuclear stockpile is that it is a miracle that an accidental launch has not _already_ occured, you might begin to see why countries object to weapons stockpiling. While the US can pretend to its citizens that it is somehow different from Iraq, its own actions frequently force the rest of the world to remain unconvinced. And I bet you'd think Iraq was "the wrong hands".
>Likewise, the objection to imperial units seems to arise soley from a portion of the group of people raised from childhood primarily on >metric units or without imperial units altogether...
Not so. Many people raised on imperial willingly desert it for metric, and those raised on imperial number among imperial's great critics. But the reverse flow is practically non-existent - nobody raised on metric abandons it in favour of imperial, (the closest you get to that are people forced to adopt imperial like in a post above)
Imperial has lots of critics in _all_ corners, whereas metric's only critics seem to be a minority from the groups raised on imperial.
Copying the words and swapping "metric" with "imperial" only results in making the statement false.
>No one really wants to be individuals. Being an individual means you are better than someone at some things. >The modern obsession with equality has been so pervasive...
You are confusing equality with sameness. It's the same fundamental misconception made in some of the more disastrous attempts at communism, and the same misconception held dear by libertarians as a justification for their cause. Sure, a lot of people in our society make this mistake, but it's their loss, and there _are_ still people whose individuality goes beyond clothes and hair. Besides which, people don't have to be different in every way conceivably possible - if I think that social philosophy is important and clothes are not important, who are you to say that I'm a clone because I just grab mass-marketed clothes off the shelf (thus saving me time and effort to be better spent developing unorthodox social concepts)
>Don't believe me? Ask yourself a few questions: Answers to these questions do not seem at all universal - in fact for some, I don't even know which answer you were expecting to get! Anyway, my answers:
> 1) Is any system of government other than democracy legitimate in the modern world; Yes. > 2) Is racism good? No > 3) Is anyone fundamentally better than you are? You need to be more specific - I could answer both yes and no depending on my understanding of what you're asking.
Furthermore - what are you trying to show? Just because with enough searching you found some questions that (you thought) humanity has finally reached some consensus on, you think this indicates a lack of individual thought? Some things are agreed upon because experience has found them to be unwaiveringly true - this has nothing to do with individual thinking.
For every one question you can find with an answer that people agree on, I can find two questions that people disagree over.
Yes, we're up sh|t creek, but you're paddling in the wrong direction:-)
>One thing I repeatedly saw in this article is the phrase 'get it'.
If you've read much of the mainstream reporting of the issue, you'd probably realise that it's justified - _most_ people don't "get it" because they think DeCSS is program that illgeally copies DVDs, that this is what it was designed to do, and that this is all it can do. From this false premise, their entire subsequent understanding of the issue is complete rubbish.
News coverage has usually been oversimplified and innacurate in this way. The majority of people are only aware of the issue as presented to them by the news. I don't think you can deny that very few people have a good grasp of the issues involved here, thus only a select few "get it".
I also (from memory) think you are mistaken when claiming that the MPAA was included with those who "don't get it". "Getting it" is _not_ used to mean "on our side", but it is used rather to indicate that he believes that it is difficult to not come on to his side when you do "get it" (ie have seen the issues beyond the simplified BS). The MPAA are an obvious exception - they "get it", but are unconcerned with any issues other than their vested interests, thus they are not "on our side" despite (presumably) "getting it".
I think the terminology is fine - a crucial problem in this issue is the degree of poor information and understanding. People like Garbus who really understand the ramifications "get it" in a way that the many quite clearly don't, regardless of which side his "getting it" causes him to take.
>Its these sort of people who are giving a bad name to the DeCss lot, and whos actions are only going to increase, which is >a shame for those of us who use it for its oringinal use.
You're missing a few things. If you're talking about lower bandwidths and codecs, then it's easier and quicker and less hardware intensive to _not_ use DeCSS. Furthermore, Hollywood is painting horror stories of unlimited copy generations, which could make them look somewhat foolish if all they could point too were online copies of even lesser quality than an old-fashioned VHS dub.
But yes, I share the fear that some pirate might actually believe Hollywood's lies and try to incorporate DeCSS into their piracy. It'll only take one discovered case. But given the nature of DeCSS, upon the first discovery of DeCSS being used for non-legitimate means, my first question would be "Was this activity carried out at the covert request of the MPAA to give them a leg to stand on?". Call me distrustful, but they've stooped to every other dirty trick so far, and I don't see them cleaning up their act anytime soon.
>What really sucks is that all school work is done in metric, but real world stuff is imperial.
That does sound bad, but it also sounds like a problem of location - for the majority of the planet, all the real-world stuff is done in metric. It sounds like you're caught in a pocket where the transition is still happening.
(I'm guessing you're from Canada, where I get the impression that they're trying to adopt metric, but the proximity and magnitude of trade with the oddball USA is makes it extremely difficult. (I say "oddball" because the USA doesn't use imperial, but rather it's own proprietary version derived from imperial:-) ))
But since USA exporters discovered that the rest of the world is not impressed with technologically backwards products requiring old-fashioned tools, metric is apparently already on par or preferred to imperial in the US manufacturing arena, so it looks like the USA is imperial largely just to humour its population (who, of all the stupidist reasons, sometimes even seem to dislike metric for largely patriotic reasons...) Anyway, this probably means it's just a matter of time (probably at least a generation though).
IOW, by the time you're dead, your woes will probably be over:-) Either that, or just move to another country. (But you should consider putting a better reason than that on your immigration application...:)
First of all, let me confirm that we are both under no illusions as to the intent and practises of most Napster users - but action against them could have wider application and consequences.
>In the case of Napster, making a copy is instantaneous (more or less, depending on your connection) >but the copying really does occur at the server end.
I think you may be wrong here, or at least, an argument otherwise can be presented: The server only allows the file to be _read_ - it sends a stream of data which at no time constitutes the file in question. If, however, that stream of data is recorded (ie accumulated into the RAM of the receiving machine, thus assembled into a copy which is then saved as a whole), then an illegal copy can be made. Everything done at the server end is within the right of the server owner - the file (eg your personal backup) is copied temporarily into RAM to be played. This is legitimate. It is then played to a non-commerical audience of one (be it to the owner via his sound system, or the Napster user (who could conceivably be the owner) via the internet), again - legitimate. It is only when the recipient records and saves a greater chunk of the streamed performance than is "fair use" that an illegal copy is made, and this happens neither at the server end, nor by the will of the server owner. (I realise that a download need not be streamed in the sense of being able to listen to it as it downloads, but they are all streamed in the more relevant sense of being a stream of data being read off a file instead of an actual copy of that file.)
>You could compare to the contrary case of a public library which provides copiers but warns that the >user is responsible for copies that they make. But no comparable warning is given to users when they >are downloading from another Napster user, so I think the burden of the law falls on those who serve >the files. IANAL, of course.
While I certainly think a warning should be given, it should be completely irrelevant to any legal proceedings. I tend to disagree with propositions that spread the liability beyond the offender - even the most sensible attempts seem to end up causing injustice, and what you suggest could end up meaning that the library becomes criminally responsible if their copyright warning note falls off the wall. When you are performing an action, it should be _your_ responsibility to know (or find out) whether you are entitled to perform that action. It should not be the responsibility of a tool maker or tool provider to explain the laws of the land to you, as _every_ tool can be abused and put to an illegal use, so providing that the tool has a legitimate use, I think the person who abuses the tool should take responsibility for their actions and not pass the buck. (Note: I consider safety warnings requirements to be something different and support them. I don't think the ability to (ab)use a tool in criminal activity really qualifies as a safety hazard).
Despite my holding these ideals, it surprises me that Napster does not have a token system in place to give them some legal respectability. (eg provide a tickbox next to files so people can indicate whether the file should not be downloaded by those who have not purchased the right to it. I doubt many would pay attention to the tickbox, but it would at least indicate that Napster was trying to help its users keep their actions above board).
Regarding whether Napster has a legitimate use, it seems clear that while it can be used for legitimate purposes, these were probably not the prime considerations in its design. I'm not sure where this should place Napster in the Big Picture Of Blame. Too much thinking is involved:-)
Other than all that. I think we pretty much agree:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Say we get our offshore data haven (see Can Websites Go Offshore For Free Speech) declared to be an independant nation, we can write a few "custom" laws, eg "It is illegal to present or use foreign legal documents that contain the letters M.P.A.A.", then fine the MPAA for $$$ (plus $$$ per day violation) and demand they take steps to prevent their "legal filth" contaminating the haven :-)
>I'd be fascinated to see early automotive legislation, as a comparison.
:-)
All motorcars must at all times be preceeded by a man carrying a red flag.
When driving a motorcar, upon reaching an intersection you must honk the horn twice, and wait for any response. If no response is forthcoming, a large bell must be loudly rung. If no response is heard, a rifle shall be discharged into the air. If no answering report is heard, the driver may proceed across the intersection.
I'm not making that up. I can't remember where these were law (or for how long ), but there is a whole lot of similar examples at
http://www.strangelaws.com/
(Some of which are still in the lawbooks
We set up a haven on a rig in international waters. If we tow the rig to the right place, there is alreay a fibre optic backbone running across the pacific ocean (a loop, actually) and backbone crossing international waters in other places too (between New Zealand and Australia for example).
Splicing into a fibre optic cable isn't easy, but it's a _lot_ easier than laying our own cable or launching a satellite. Best of all, due to the loop design (to keep the connection running if one part of the cable breaks), we can put in the splice without cutting off various countries.
Now - anyone here have an uncle with an old, disused open-sea rig lying around that we could, er.. borrow?
>what I think we need is to form a totally independent Net - something where the
>governments keep their paws off, that regulates itself by technological means *only*.
Unacceptable. That we tech gods might rule this land is as abhorrant to lawyers as their underhandedness is to us. In their twisted world, it is wrong - morally repugnant that the god of corporate law should not walk unhindered by us into the land we have created, and rule there in our place, in perpetuity. It is only by the grace of the law god that we were permitted to set up a temporary reign as mere place-holders awaiting the Arrival of Law. That we dare to even consider calling ourselves something more is simply blasphemous.
(tongue out of cheek) I think the business people (and certainly the big corporations) unthinkingly side with the lawyers. Geeks and nerds and weird people are not trusted by mainstream society, and mainstream society believes the net is the latest fashion accessory, with all the consumer guarentees that that implies...
>To paraphrase one of my favorite video game intros, "He who controls the Laws controls the Net -- and he who controlls the Net controlls
>the world!
Which video game is that?
>we certainly need some plan in place for enforcing our laws
:-) :-)
Why? The already-in-place system of extradition treaties seems perfectly acceptable. Unfortunately, the safeguards for justice in the system puts the corp's in the unfamiliar position of not being able to both have their cake and eat it
The US (or any country) should never be able to simply force its laws onto the peoples of other nations. If justice and the proper channels are inconvenient, my sympathy is limited
On the other hand, if countries could just force their laws onto other countries, war would become redundant overnight... Hmmm...
:-)
I notice they have e-mail and discussion forums on looking into technology from Science Fiction.
Our path is clear - we must all submit the concept:
"Lightsabres! Lightsabres! Lightsabres!"
and:
"We want lightsabres! Give us Lightsabres!"
_You_ can help Build a Better World.
It's been at least 5 years since I used one, but at my old work, there was a black VCR-style box connected to the video, you hit a button and it prints out the frame onto a glossy photograph-like card. It sounds like the only thing different here is that they'll be cheap enough with today's technology that HP can market them at the domestic buyers.
:-)
I don't know how much it cost, but I have a vague impression that it was pretty cheap compared to normal equipment costs, which would probably have made it too expensive for a consumer model, as "normal equipment costs" was relative to somewhat pricey equipment
>But we are not yet approaching the seriousness of a nuclear detonation.
:-)
:) :-)
Have a look into the (rare) cases of courts forcing classified documents into public - the nature of the dirty little secrets, and that they have nothing to do with national security and everything to do with concealing rank incompetence or underhanded tactics from the voting public. When anything remotely incriminating is simply classified in this way (and there are _plently_ of case of this sort of abuse of authority - it does look like standard pactise), I really would not expect a near-detonation accident to make its way to the public record without opposition - that's (partly) what "national secuirty" is for
Which is not to say it must have happened, just that the public record is a poor indicator of _actual_ safety (and is _still_ an indicator of questionable safety
I personablly find the evidence that isn't on public record to be far more convincing - and a far more complete picture
Statements made by New Zealand are, I think (as has been demonstrated), considered worthy of concern - we seem to be talking about different levels of "concern". Military threat or action is extreme and rare and I think non-military threat and action (and dissolving military alliance) definitely constitutes "serious consequences", but I can see what you're talking about.
My understanding is that MP3.com violated copyright in assembling their mp3 database, but the principle of sending someone music that you know they own was not clearly indicted (though from the judges comments, they might go hand in hand). Is there any immediately obvious way to offer the mp3.com service without violating copyright via the database?
:-) to an audience? Mp3 is a lossy format, so Metallica's arguments that "you can't record high-quality masters off the radio" seem easily knocked down (and somewhat indicative of Metallica's lack of experience of the mp3 arena...).
Why could mp3.com not re-brand itself as an internet radio station that plays music (music _requests_ to be more precise
What is the big legal difference between a radio station and an MP3 broadcaster? I believe that radio stations are _encouraged_ to broadcast music (free advertising), and that streaming internet radio stations have been stood up in court. Presumably there are streaming players that will play an MP3 as you download it?
>And then they want detachable segments! That probably means electrical connectors (unless they put a radio transciever in each segment,
:-)
>which makes it a networking nightmare). On every design project I've ever been on, connectors have been the single largest pain in the ass
>(picking a microcontroller or transistor is easy compared to picking a connector). And not only is it a connector, it has to attach/detach (in
>vacuum) under the supervision of a robotic (read dumb) brain.
I've seen robots that just use powerful magnets, thus they can be as dumb as a rock and still couple successfully - the poles of the magnets ensure that the coupling is orientated correctly to line up the connector plates, and the strength of them means the connectors only have to stumble into the vague area of the target to get a successful connection. A heavily geared motor gives sufficient strength to de-couple.
Sometimes, simple solutions work surprisingly well
>Does anyone else here see the problem with sending an electrical generator into a gas line?
Not really - the risk of explosion comes from sparks, so you just build a solid-state snake that cannot spark. Eg, use brushless turbines. Having the whole thing running on 3V will _seriously_ decrease the possibility of generating enough heat for an explosion. Place the live sections inside a resin block, and so on. It'd be pretty safe.
Another thing - there would presumably be no oxygen in a gas line - can the gas even explode without some kind of leak?
>>??? The USA has internationally _earned_ itself the nickname "rogue superpower"
:-)
:)
>False. China has declared that it considers the US so I seriously doubt China even really thinks that. The rest of the world certainly doesn't.
False. China may have capitalised on it by incorporating it into official declaration, but it didn't originate with China, and is representative of the views of a lot more than just China. This is simply Not What You Say in diplomatic circles (in fact, I'd suggest that only a country as powerful and stubborn as China would dare, or could get away with it without major repercussions. New Zealand, for example, would face serious consequences), so the lacks of use of this terms in diplomatic circles is expected - to tell you the truth, I had no idea until you mentioned China that any country had actually said it openly the USA's face. It's more of a consensus-behind-the-back sort of thing.
>> it stockpiles (and frequently uses) weapons of mass destruction and weapons of indiscriminant destruction
>False. The US has used, to the best of my knowledge, two weapons of mass destruction, in one incident, several decades ago.
False. In addition to the nuclear incidents you refer too, there has been chemical use, and more recently, either biological or nuclear, depending on which you consider covers the devastating indiscriminant effects of depleted uranium, now recognised by the UN as responsible for massed civilian deaths as cancer rates already far surpass seven times the norm and show no signs of doing anything but continued acceleration. This is not even delving into covert CIA practises inside other sovereign nations.
>Now, you imply that a nuclear device in the hands of the sort of country that might spy on the DoE is
>not as dangerous to innocent people as one in the US's hands.
Any such implication was unintentional or your own interpretation. My point was specifically to question the assumption that nukes are _less_ dangerous in US hands.
>Oh, I understand the concerns with weapons stockpiling very well. What you neglect to mention is the
>risks posed by all the other nuclear arsenals in the world. The US's arsenal, and the threat is
>represents, is minor. Incosequential, you might say.
The people who operated the stockpile warn that an accidental launch is almost inevitable, and you call this an "inconsequential" risk? Suit yourself, but I disagree.
>But to compare Iraq and the US as equals is laughable. It's hardly even a comprehensible idea.
I was comparing foreign policy record (which I admit I could have made clearer), and in this respect, it's a very comprehensible idea. The method and means by which Kuwait was attacked were almost directly copied from a previous US adventure into sovereign soil. Back then, Iraq and the US were allies, but then, you don't hear much about those buddy days any more.
>>And I bet you'd think Iraq was "the wrong hands".
>and gives every indication that it would like to keep any weapons it can, build any more that it can,
>and has no qualms on using them. Wonderful.
Yeah, kinda sounds like another country we were talking about doesn't it.
>If you want a doomsday scenario to hurt the maximum number of innocent people, driving the price of
>oil up to, oh...say $60-70 a barrel for a prolonged period of time will do that very nicely.
Doomsday? Isn't that a little melodramatic? The thing really facing doomsday would be rampant consumer culture. The price of everything would double (or even triple) so people spend more of their money on food instead of disposable cellphones. People would have to walk or cycle instead filling the cardiac wards with diseases of sedentary lifestyles, filling the A&E wards with accident victims, filling the thoracic wards with respiratory illness, (and benzene-caused cancers if they eventuate). Sounds to me like a shock to the system that could conceivably make the whole thing stronger. My biggest regret might be that luxuries like powerful computers would probably move outside my means
Hmmm - and the protectionists would leap for joy because the cost shipping something halfway around the world would form a natural tarrif, discouraging trade deficits
You're right - I have some quibbles and disagree with some of what you say, but we're mostly in agreement :-)
You seem to have missed my point (but you came close).
As I said: It is not clear to me that living with fewer rights is worse than living in a world where my free speech was purchased with the kind of weapons he is referring too. Read it carefully.
You can talk about Jews all you like, but I'm talking about _my_ rights. You conveniently assume worst case rights-abuse (Hitler) and best-case price of force. In such a situation, it might be clear that the price _is_ worth it (and please note that such a situation is _not_ what I said - death by genocide hardly constitutes "living with fewer rights"). But that's not the only possible scenario. Let me be equally convenient in a counter example and suggest a world where the price of freedom was a nuclear war, from which you are the sole survivor, but the freedom you have gained is unlimited (no social responsibilities at all!). I think you would agree that this example is one where the freedom of speech is not worth the price payed.
IOW, it is not as simplistically black and white as would be nice - freedom of speech is _not_ worth any price. Freedom of speech is smallfry compared to other human rights and freedoms, and if the price of freedom of speech is the wholesale destruction of more important freedoms and rights, then I think it is foolish to blithely assume that nothing is too high a price. This is what I was talking about - hardly suggesting giving up without a fight at every maniac powergrab.
On a related note, you talk about the price of using force in defense. I'm not sure exactly how one could go about using nukes in defense - most nuclear strategies only seem to include First Strike, and Retaliation. Neither role defends a rat's ass. People turn to deterrence arguments if they want to make nukes look like a defensive weapon, wheras we are both talking about the actual _use_ of these weapons.
Repeating myself: you say "the fact that guns have to be used to defend your feedom". This is not a fact - freedom has been sucessfully defended via other means, and guns have proven themselves an unreliable guarantor of freedom. Guns might be the biggest way to protect freedom, but don't blindly assume they're the _only_ way to protect freedom, because they're not. US gun culture tends to blind us to alternatives.
Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions - I was not bashing the USA, your assumption that I loath it is also way off the mark, and you somehow seem to have decided that I disagree with keeping this technology under wraps, despite my indicating nothing of the sort.
I was bashing the dangerous (and, I think, silly) assumptions that "nukes are ok so long as they're in our hands", and "our hands are not the wrong hands" that was implicit in (though not the point of) the post.
There are differences between criticism, example, and insult. My examples of US behavour, and the attitute the world takes towards that behaviour were an attempt to illustrate why so much of the world considers the weapons to already be in the wrong hands - and via this to prompt some thinking that goes beyond moronic Hollywood "We're the Good Guys" and "it's OK for us to have these weapons".
Don't become yet another person whose response to anything that fails to glorify the USA is a kneejerk assumption of anti-americanism on behalf of the writer. That's an irrational cop-out. I agree my post was off topic, but the assumptions it was trying to address, IMHO, could do with some scrutiny.
First of all, I should apologise - my post came out a lot more caustic (and unclear) than I intended. I would go back and change it but...
:-)
Rephrasing: my point is that while the traditional US (and to lesser degree, western) response to a problem is to solve it with guns, there are other roads that have sucessfully led to free speech, and a lot of cases where having a military has led to oppression.
IOW, I think it's a big mistake to uncritically believe that free speech is dependent on how big your guns are. (And I thus have no real problem with the stance he took on weapons research and free speech.)
(OT: Even accepting your premise, it is not clear to me that living with fewer rights is worse than living in a world where my free speech was purchased with the kind of weapons he is referring to.)
But I'm not feeling very passionate about things today, so I'll apathetically leave now...
>Uh dude: get a clue. Without the military (and by extension weapon research), you wouldn't have any free speech.
Wow, talk about brainwashing the citizens. The statement might even be true - if you only looked at a sample of one country...
> It's that the nukes and the knowledge to build them (especially the knowledge)
... in the wrong hands" you actually mean "dangerous to _me_ personally", rather than "dangerous to innocent people". (I'm guessing you have US citizenship to protect you from US weaponry).
>would be dangerous to an unfortunate degree in the wrong hands.
??? The USA has internationally _earned_ itself the nickname "rogue superpower", it stockpiles (and frequently uses) weapons of mass destruction and weapons of indiscriminant destruction, it has one of the worst records of initiating force in other countries, undermining democracies, propping up dictatorships with force, and worse, and you talk of "the wrong hands"?!?!
Presumably by "dangerious
When a US General (among many others) states that the reality of the US nuclear stockpile is that it is a miracle that an accidental launch has not _already_ occured, you might begin to see why countries object to weapons stockpiling.
While the US can pretend to its citizens that it is somehow different from Iraq, its own actions frequently force the rest of the world to remain unconvinced.
And I bet you'd think Iraq was "the wrong hands".
>Likewise, the objection to imperial units seems to arise soley from a portion of the group of people raised from childhood primarily on
>metric units or without imperial units altogether...
Not so. Many people raised on imperial willingly desert it for metric, and those raised on imperial number among imperial's great critics. But the reverse flow is practically non-existent - nobody raised on metric abandons it in favour of imperial, (the closest you get to that are people forced to adopt imperial like in a post above)
Imperial has lots of critics in _all_ corners, whereas metric's only critics seem to be a minority from the groups raised on imperial.
Copying the words and swapping "metric" with "imperial" only results in making the statement false.
>No one really wants to be individuals. Being an individual means you are better than someone at some things.
:-)
>The modern obsession with equality has been so pervasive...
You are confusing equality with sameness. It's the same fundamental misconception made in some of the more disastrous attempts at communism, and the same misconception held dear by libertarians as a justification for their cause. Sure, a lot of people in our society make this mistake, but it's their loss, and there _are_ still people whose individuality goes beyond clothes and hair. Besides which, people don't have to be different in every way conceivably possible - if I think that social philosophy is important and clothes are not important, who are you to say that I'm a clone because I just grab mass-marketed clothes off the shelf (thus saving me time and effort to be better spent developing unorthodox social concepts)
>Don't believe me? Ask yourself a few questions:
Answers to these questions do not seem at all universal - in fact for some, I don't even know which answer you were expecting to get! Anyway, my answers:
> 1) Is any system of government other than democracy legitimate in the modern world;
Yes.
> 2) Is racism good?
No
> 3) Is anyone fundamentally better than you are?
You need to be more specific - I could answer both yes and no depending on my understanding of what you're asking.
Furthermore - what are you trying to show? Just because with enough searching you found some questions that (you thought) humanity has finally reached some consensus on, you think this indicates a lack of individual thought? Some things are agreed upon because experience has found them to be unwaiveringly true - this has nothing to do with individual thinking.
For every one question you can find with an answer that people agree on, I can find two questions that people disagree over.
Yes, we're up sh|t creek, but you're paddling in the wrong direction
>One thing I repeatedly saw in this article is the phrase 'get it'.
If you've read much of the mainstream reporting of the issue, you'd probably realise that it's justified - _most_ people don't "get it" because they think DeCSS is program that illgeally copies DVDs, that this is what it was designed to do, and that this is all it can do. From this false premise, their entire subsequent understanding of the issue is complete rubbish.
News coverage has usually been oversimplified and innacurate in this way. The majority of people are only aware of the issue as presented to them by the news. I don't think you can deny that very few people have a good grasp of the issues involved here, thus only a select few "get it".
I also (from memory) think you are mistaken when claiming that the MPAA was included with those who "don't get it". "Getting it" is _not_ used to mean "on our side", but it is used rather to indicate that he believes that it is difficult to not come on to his side when you do "get it" (ie have seen the issues beyond the simplified BS). The MPAA are an obvious exception - they "get it", but are unconcerned with any issues other than their vested interests, thus they are not "on our side" despite (presumably) "getting it".
I think the terminology is fine - a crucial problem in this issue is the degree of poor information and understanding. People like Garbus who really understand the ramifications "get it" in a way that the many quite clearly don't, regardless of which side his "getting it" causes him to take.
>Its these sort of people who are giving a bad name to the DeCss lot, and whos actions are only going to increase, which is
>a shame for those of us who use it for its oringinal use.
You're missing a few things. If you're talking about lower bandwidths and codecs, then it's easier and quicker and less hardware intensive to _not_ use DeCSS. Furthermore, Hollywood is painting horror stories of unlimited copy generations, which could make them look somewhat foolish if all they could point too were online copies of even lesser quality than an old-fashioned VHS dub.
But yes, I share the fear that some pirate might actually believe Hollywood's lies and try to incorporate DeCSS into their piracy. It'll only take one discovered case. But given the nature of DeCSS, upon the first discovery of DeCSS being used for non-legitimate means, my first question would be "Was this activity carried out at the covert request of the MPAA to give them a leg to stand on?". Call me distrustful, but they've stooped to every other dirty trick so far, and I don't see them cleaning up their act anytime soon.
>What really sucks is that all school work is done in metric, but real world stuff is imperial.
:-) ))
:-) :)
That does sound bad, but it also sounds like a problem of location - for the majority of the planet, all the real-world stuff is done in metric. It sounds like you're caught in a pocket where the transition is still happening.
(I'm guessing you're from Canada, where I get the impression that they're trying to adopt metric, but the proximity and magnitude of trade with the oddball USA is makes it extremely difficult. (I say "oddball" because the USA doesn't use imperial, but rather it's own proprietary version derived from imperial
But since USA exporters discovered that the rest of the world is not impressed with technologically backwards products requiring old-fashioned tools, metric is apparently already on par or preferred to imperial in the US manufacturing arena, so it looks like the USA is imperial largely just to humour its population (who, of all the stupidist reasons, sometimes even seem to dislike metric for largely patriotic reasons...) Anyway, this probably means it's just a matter of time (probably at least a generation though).
IOW, by the time you're dead, your woes will probably be over
Either that, or just move to another country. (But you should consider putting a better reason than that on your immigration application...
First of all, let me confirm that we are both under no illusions as to the intent and practises of most Napster users - but action against them could have wider application and consequences.
:-)
:-)
>In the case of Napster, making a copy is instantaneous (more or less, depending on your connection)
>but the copying really does occur at the server end.
I think you may be wrong here, or at least, an argument otherwise can be presented: The server only allows the file to be _read_ - it sends a stream of data which at no time constitutes the file in question. If, however, that stream of data is recorded (ie accumulated into the RAM of the receiving machine, thus assembled into a copy which is then saved as a whole), then an illegal copy can be made. Everything done at the server end is within the right of the server owner - the file (eg your personal backup) is copied temporarily into RAM to be played. This is legitimate. It is then played to a non-commerical audience of one (be it to the owner via his sound system, or the Napster user (who could conceivably be the owner) via the internet), again - legitimate. It is only when the recipient records and saves a greater chunk of the streamed performance than is "fair use" that an illegal copy is made, and this happens neither at the server end, nor by the will of the server owner.
(I realise that a download need not be streamed in the sense of being able to listen to it as it downloads, but they are all streamed in the more relevant sense of being a stream of data being read off a file instead of an actual copy of that file.)
>You could compare to the contrary case of a public library which provides copiers but warns that the
>user is responsible for copies that they make. But no comparable warning is given to users when they
>are downloading from another Napster user, so I think the burden of the law falls on those who serve
>the files. IANAL, of course.
While I certainly think a warning should be given, it should be completely irrelevant to any legal proceedings. I tend to disagree with propositions that spread the liability beyond the offender - even the most sensible attempts seem to end up causing injustice, and what you suggest could end up meaning that the library becomes criminally responsible if their copyright warning note falls off the wall. When you are performing an action, it should be _your_ responsibility to know (or find out) whether you are entitled to perform that action. It should not be the responsibility of a tool maker or tool provider to explain the laws of the land to you, as _every_ tool can be abused and put to an illegal use, so providing that the tool has a legitimate use, I think the person who abuses the tool should take responsibility for their actions and not pass the buck. (Note: I consider safety warnings requirements to be something different and support them. I don't think the ability to (ab)use a tool in criminal activity really qualifies as a safety hazard).
Despite my holding these ideals, it surprises me that Napster does not have a token system in place to give them some legal respectability. (eg provide a tickbox next to files so people can indicate whether the file should not be downloaded by those who have not purchased the right to it. I doubt many would pay attention to the tickbox, but it would at least indicate that Napster was trying to help its users keep their actions above board).
Regarding whether Napster has a legitimate use, it seems clear that while it can be used for legitimate purposes, these were probably not the prime considerations in its design. I'm not sure where this should place Napster in the Big Picture Of Blame. Too much thinking is involved
Other than all that. I think we pretty much agree