Actually, in the early 80-ties, a group of Norwegians started making Kon-tiki personal computers. A rather weird OS, but nevertheless, I can still remember the days where we only had Kon-tiki-machines in school. I think about 1987, Thor Heyerdahl successfully sued the makers of the Kon-tiki PCs for something. Perhaps trademark infringement or something. They then started to use the name "Tiki". For a few years, they continued making their own breed of PCs, before it pretty much collapsed and around 1990, they started doing IBM clones. I can remember the 20 MHz 386 SX boxes we had at school, about that time.
In his older years, Heyerdahl also developed the rather obnoxious habit of threatening with lawsuits against anybody who might disagree with him. He was a big childhood hero of mine, but he pretty much ruined that with a threat directed at a website I edit.
So, if he had lived, he would certainly have sued these people, and BTW, I should probably stop here, so that I don't risk a lawsuit myself.
Hehe, I'm surprised he didn't link his CV from that page... That looks like a desperate attempt to get a job at Google to me...:-)
I mean, with the recent moves in the direction of blogs at Google, they might just be thinking that "if we make an RSS search engine, we may get a good job at Google". But then, Google may not notice... But now they will...:-) It's pretty clever, actually.
It's going to be funny to see that cease&desist...
I think it is also very different from the Lindows issue, given that windows is a rather common word, Google isn't...
Well, of course, this are just guidelines, but AFAIK, Galileo never whined about being suppressed. He had a really big mouth, and undoubtedly he was suppressed, but he never whined about it.
The other point is more interesting, but it should be noted that in Galileo's time, most of the establishment had allready realized that the laws they knew were inadequate. This was probably one of Tycho Brahe's most significant contributions, especially the comet of 1578. In 1610, when Galileo first pointed his telescope towards the stars, a leading authority, whose name evade me at the moment (could be Christopher Clavius?), said that Ptolemy's system had proved inadequate, and that astronomers had to look elsewhere for their wisdom.
So, it is rather different, because everyone knew that the old laws of nature had failed, but they didn't know what to use instead, untill Newton.
You know, if today's crackpots had half the spine of Galileo they would probably have been duly noticed too...
As others have pointed out, it is a difference between working in isolation and working alone. "In isolation" means that you take no or very little input from the community, and that's never healthy. Einstein was on his own, but he always took a lot of input and gave a lot of output. Also, he brilliantly solved widely acknowledged outstanding problems. Today's crackpots seldom do that.
There are a few problems with science today, that has mainly to do with evaluation of science (naive bibliometry), with getting "prestigous", stuff like that. There's also a bit more truth in the "Physicist's Bill of Rights" than I like, but nevertheless, the guidelines proposed can work quite well as an operational aid, I think.
Well, "knowledge" is the key word here. Black-hats may have been exploiting this without bragging about it, and without the compromised admins realizing how they got compromised.
We don't know that either.
Disclosing might force people to change MTA's in a hurry, but I guess many sysadmins would just wait for the patch, a mail system is too important to shut down. So, I'm undecided as to if it was a Good Thing[tm] to keep it secret for that long, but I don't think it is a clearcut case where obscurity worked.
And I really don't like idea of having US DoHS know about it before I do (not being a US citizen)...:-)
I don't think that anyone is reading this except for us, and this is starting to reach the point of rehash. I know where you're coming from, you know where I'm coming from. I'm ready to wrap it up.
Yep, but it sure is interesting to try your arguments against someone, that's why I was continuing...:-)
But OK, I'll just point out a couple of things where you are plain wrong:
Bush has not threatened and will not threaten any country with invasion that is not harboring or supporting terrorists.
Accused of supporting terrorists. That means anybody. He can accuse anybody, and nuke anybody. Unless there is an external body that exists to evaluate the evidence, nobody is safe.
Physics labs use tiny amounts of extremely radioactive sources to deliberately cause small nuclear reactions for study. This produces small amounts of intensely radioactive fission products that escape into the lab environment and wind up in the corners. Industrial uranium enrichment uses large amounts of barely radioactive natural uranium, and produces no highly radioactive fission products. They are not comparable.
Nope, you get radioactive dust from weak sources too. Besides, if there really was industrial facilities on the scale you're talking about, they wouldn't be that hard to discover.
1) Kicked the weapons inspectors out of the country
He didn't. That's plain revisionism. That's one of the worst lies that has been told by the Bush administrations. Just look in your sources from 1998, and you'll see it. They were withdrawn. You'll see that all formal sources today also use the word withdrawn. There's a pretty good PBS interview with Scott Ritter that highlights this. Another lie is that there has been no inspections in Iraq since 1998. IAEA has had annual inspections in Iraq, in january every year. Iraq would have to build entirely new facilities. It is possible that they could do that, though, and that's why IAEA called for a new, intrusive inspections regime.
Millions of Europeans have taken to the streets to protect Hussein and Iraq I can't find a single protest sign calling for Iraq to disarm, or stop using chemical weapons on the Kurds, or stop murdering dissidents. You think we don't see those signs at your protests? Do you think we don't know how little Europeans care about the Iraqi people?
Oh, come on, that just silly. Look, I've come to appreciate you're insights, but this is just below what I've come to expect from you.
If you had looked, you would have seen me with a sign saying that in 1984, when you gave Hussein all the support he needed. US hasn't got any deeper moral authority at all, it is not about the Iraqi people, it is about your own sense of security.
Besides, if you had really looked, you would have found exciled Kurd dissident leaders in the crowd. You would also find many exciled Iraqis in the crowd. I don't think you looked very well... (But I agree that the "peace in our time"-sign was rather stupid...)
Actually, he has stated that he will not hesitate to use them against any country that uses them against us first.
Even before that. You know, Rumsfeldt and his companions have been out to get Saddam for a very long time. But obviously, the message has been more pronounced since his election.
He said that either your are with us, or you are with the terrorists. This isn't a threat, it's an observation.
I'm not with Bush, but I'm not with the terrorists. This are the words of a religious fanatic. These are the words of someone who is incapable of seeing other solutions than his own. The post-911 actions, I would claim, has had no effect on terrorism whatsoever.
Unfortunately for you, most Americans support Bush, and I think that he is going to be reelected in the next election cycle.
See, told you so, you're unable to get rid of him!;-)
You see it as a message. I see it as a piece of reality that hasn't changed since 1945.
I think you need to read up on the history, purpose and workings of the anti-prolifiration framework. There can't be any doubt whatsoever that Bush' policy has completely changed the fundamental playing field and given a new incitament to acquire nukes.
It's an active form of recruiting that is very successful.
OK, I have to pass on this one. Nevertheless, you have to address to root issues, why are people becoming suicide bombers in the first place.
I'll have to defer to you on that... I don't know what we are doing there. Hopefully a success in Iraq will result in a wholesale change in U.S. diplomatic strategy.
Please, don't have a wait-and-see attitude on this. I'm telling you, you are committing exactly the same mistakes over again that helped Saddam to power. And, the wait-and-see attitude is what made people turn the blind eye.
A U235 weapon can be created without any radioactive evidence.
That I must dispute. Even though an U bomb is easy to make, it is still a lot of metallurgy involved, and during that process, it is impossible not to leave any trace. Just go to any physics lab where there has been tiny radioactive sources involved. Fix a filter on your vacuum cleaner, and go around sucking in the corners. But don't tell ma about your findings...:-)
If Hussein were really complying with Res. 1441, the inspectors would be busy monitoring the destruction of thousands of missiles and weapons systems, and thousands of gallons of biological and chemical agents per day.
No, if that happened, there would be attack underway allready. Just think about the unthinkable for a moment: What if it was true: He didn't have any WMDs right now. How could he possibly prove that he didn't? It is in fact impossible. So, the problem is that Bush can point his finger at anybody, me included, and bomb me without any evidence whatsoever. I find that extremely disconcerting.
In fact, I think it is quite unlikely that Saddam has any big stores of WMDs now. Instead, he has probably researched how to make them in a shortest possible time if need be.
And finally, by all evidence, the inspectors have been compromised.
Really, I can't see this evidence stand up more than any of the other "evidence" that Powell presented. I mean, you'd think that he would actually present the best available evidence before the security council, but he presented stuff that fell apart on first look.
OTOH, it would be extremely bad if the inspectors had been compromised, so a close look is required.
The best explanation as to why they are doing this seems to be that the inspectors see their primary role not as disarming Iraq, but in preventing war.
You're seeing this very differently from what I do. I see an equal amount of lies on both sides. Obviously, Iraq is not responding very well, it's a dictator we're talking about, but OTOH, the Bush administration is not very much less deceptive, they're trying to stage a war, and they will do anything to get that war, but they have to create an illusion of playing by international rules.
Internal revolutions rarely turn out well. They tend to result in a power struggle that is won by the most ruthless of the internal factions.
There are many examples to the contrary. Bolivia, South Africa, most of Eastern Europe, Guatemala.
OK, look at this way: The Bush administration is clearly attacking the american public. First, it is not difficult to argue that he is not your elected leader. First, he stole the election. Them he has robbed you of many of your civil rights, he has established military tribunals, and he can keep anybody in detention indefinately without a court hearing. He has established "Total Information Awareness", which is unprecendented in it's scope, STASI would have been jealous. In addition, he is a significant threat to world peace and sits on the biggest arsenal of WMDs, and he has stated he will not hesitate to use them against any target. OK, I say this partly tongue in cheek, but only partly (especially TIA, that's the most significant step towards a totalitarian state any democratic country has ever done, IMNSHO): You are clearly incapable of dealing with Bush yourself. Now tell me, why shouldn't we, the rest of the world go to war and overthrowing him, to liberate the US?
Far more then if the U.S. stands by and does nothing.
Again, as I said, the other option is not to stand by and do nothing. The other option is to use those $50 billion for something good.
Up until that speech, the message was "disarm Hussein." That speech was, "Bring democracy to the Arab world."
Bush has been trying to say that to Europe for a long time. Perhaps your news are differently angled than what we hear here. And the reaction has always been "yeah, sure".
You know, Clinton tried the same thing in Kosovo, the idea isn't actually new...
I will agree that the U.S. has been very liberally handing out the rope for the U.N. to hang itself, but the problem is that the U.N. has gone from being pro-democratic to being pro-terrorist and pro-dictatorship.
Again, I see this very differently. There are many things that are wrong with the UN, but this isn't it.
It can also mean that you're defending yourself, or preventing greater violence, or liberating a people from a tyrant.
Then, it has been because you have failed to take precautions in time. If US use violence now, it is because they failed to take the chance to pressure Saddam out of office in early 80-ties, and so on. Of course, I'm not saying it is easy. Using violence (or force) is easy, and there has not been a war in my lifetime that could not have been avoided if cards have been played better in advance. Nor has there been any situation where I have used force where I realize afterwards that I could have don things very differently.
This theory seems especially popular with dictators and corrupt governments, but I don't buy it.
I look upon your government as one of those now (there are differences, of course), so what standards apply?
OK, you may reject it, but the Security Council is intended to be that authority. OK, so the US can do whatever they like, but they are partly playing with the UN, so that means that they are partly recognizing this authority.
Well, of course, for US, it doesn't really matter, because the US can nuke anybody who doesn't want to play ball back to the stone age, and Bush has stated that he doesn't mind doing so, but for smaller countries, that is not really an option. We have to cooperate.
As I said, either you believe that he's sincere,
No, no, no. Sincerety has nothing to do with it. Sincerety is (-1, Overrated). If you buckle up in a plane and hear "uhm, hi, this is not your captain speaking. Captain is sick, but I sincerely believe I can fly this plane, though I never been in one before", you're probably going to be screaming in terror...:-)
That's how I'm looking at this moron of yours. He can still be sincere and yet dead wrong. I believe he is sincere when he says that the only way to ensure disarmament is to remove Saddam. And I think he is sincere when he thinks that he will put in some sort of democracy. But, he is lying when he talking about all the "evidence" they have, that's a smokescrean for attacking. If any such thing as a "preemtive attack" was legitimate, there is no reason why Saddam (and pretty much any other nation that has a beef with the US) should not attack the US right now, it would have been legimate. Neither is there any legitimicy in international law to remove a regime, simply because it would be no reason why the rest of the world should not remove Bush. So, he needs this smokescrean of "disarmament" to forward the war. There is an old debate, I think it was actually on CNN, but I read it on the web, but Google has failed my now; anyway, it was between Scott Ritter, and another prominent member of the UNSCOM team. This other guy's opinion has really mattered a lot in the policy of the Bush administration, but unfortunately I can't remember his name. But it is extremely interesting to read in the light of current events.
Undoubtedly, he has some excellent people around there, who is actually able to move around the SC and have them give up the principle of burden of proof.
Yet, he is going so terribly wrong, is that he has the mind of a religious fanatic, who can't see colors, only that "either you are with us or you are against us". Someone with a world-view like that is an extremely dangerous man.
Unfortunately, USians are the only ones who legitimately can get rid of him.
Hmmmm, Poindexter is probably going to read this.:-) I'll have a problem getting a visa to the US next time. But then, I don't think I'll be going before you guys have fixed your administration...
Thanks for the comments. I would tend to agree with your initial sentiments, so I shall try to keep this short. But I find it quite natural that we go along on a tangent in this situation.
I don't think that we disagree fundamentally on Bush, however, I think it is a bit naive to think that Bush' primary motivation is US security. It clearly more complex than that. The first point is that Iraq is hardly no threat to the US, and the connection to terrorists are speculation at best.
Certainly, 9/11 has opened the eyes for possible threats to US turf as it shattered the illusion of being protected. However, North Korea is arguably a far greater threat to US security than Iraq. After the US left the non-profilaration (uhm, difficult word that) treaty, and now treating North Korea far better than Iraq, one may speculate that it is because North Korea now has posesses some deterrence. The message to the world is thus: Get nukes as fast as you can! That's a very bad message to send.
Thus, while I agree that Bush sees removing Saddam as a way to rid the world of evil and therefore enhance US security, US security is not the main point, there is also a strong, and I would say, rather irrational element of assuming "World Leadership".
I can't see how funding terrorism plays a vital role for suicide bombers. They would have found ways to blow themselves up regardless of financial support. I think the role money plays in terrorism is greatly exaggerated.
While a prosperous Iraq may incite revolutions in other countries, it is also quite likely to have the opposite effect. Remember that many of these countries have been extremely rich, yet have oppressive regimes, and seeing US as an evil force from outside is going to make oppression stronger.
We're not doing that this time.
Yes, you do. You give "just a little support" to the regimes of Uzbekistan and Kirgistan. It's deja-vu all over again...
With nuclear weapons, you don't look for the smoking gun. You look for the cocked gun.
I guess you're pointing to something like this?
Well, for one thing, we need to keep nukes separate from biological and chemical weapons. The argument is totally flawed, because it wouldn't be hard at all to detect nukes if they had them, radioactive dust would remain at the sites where experiments were conducted, easily detectable. Actually, I know quite a lot about nukes, and I would be a lot more concerned with terroists setting off a nuke in a US harbor they built inside a container in a ship than Saddam building nukes. It is not difficult to build nukes, but using them for military purposes is a very complex matter.
I don't know that much about biological and chemical weapons, but lets note one thing: There's nothing you can do with bombs that you can't do with inspectors in a fast helicopter. You could look for similar things, and contrary to Bush' propaganda, it would be extremely difficult to hide this stuff if you are to have any hope of using them in battle: WMDs are actually very dangerous, and the problem with them is not making them, but rather making sure you don't get killed in the process or that they backfire on your own troops...
You're one of the few people using this argument who actually elaborates on the idea.
Yes, I'm afraid I haven't seen much commentary on this, and I consider this a huge weakness for the peace movement. All in all, I do feel a bit alienated by the peace movement. For example I regard the "depleted uranium" craze as a complete panic with no basis in reality. It is hard to argue that in the peace movement. People have completely focus.
If there's one thing that Hussein has proven over and over again, it's that he will stop at nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent a civilian revolution. Mass killings.
True, but this is actually nothing new. There has been regimes that have done this before and still been overthrown by popular uprising. Mass killings is the rule rather than the exception when it comes to dictators.
Why is it immoral and bad for the U.S. to wipe out Hussein, his administration, and his personal army using overwhelming, tightly targeted military force, but it's supposed to be ok to "encourage" the practically unarmed Iraqi people to rise up in what would be undoubtedly a spectacularly bloody, horrific revolution?
I'm not sweeping it under the rug that these questions are extremely complex. To attempt an answer, it is extremely important for a people to have their own destiny in their own hands. Allthough Saddam may not be very popular, it doesn't necessarily mean that foreign soldiers are very welcome, and you're not the onces to decide.
However, given that it is in fact a non-urgent situation, these things need careful consideration. We really don't need the lies and the misinformation of the Bush administration in this discussion. However, a thoughtful Elie Wiesel does make a great impression.
As far as "bombs down the chimney", that's a danger, and some Iraqi civilians are probably going to be killed. I think that the number will be very small, however, because of the types of weapons we are using now. 15 years ago, Kosovo era,
Uhm, that's more like 5 years ago, not 15 years. 12 years is the previous Iraq war. Besides, they said the same thing then, and while it certainly has improved, I'm not so sure intelligence has improved one bit, and bad intelligence is probably more important in bombing the wrong people than bad technology.
I have high hopes for Iran, but I think that their chances improve with Iraq defeated.
My thoughts are exactly the opposite. I think that with Iraq defeated, the theocracy is going to tighten their grip, and effectively make the situation a whole lot worse. Then, there's going to be another war.
Note that in Iran, even the theocrats are letting a lot slip through the cracks. I think that with the rest of the world encouraging Iran to cooperate on all levels, like the CERN collaboration, the support for the theocratics is going to be diminish. They will be so marginlized, a lot of formal power doesn't mean anything, because they will have nobody to enforce. Only if they can convince a lot of people that they do have an enemy, it is possible for the theocrats to retain power. And right now, the US is that enemy. If the US seize to be that enemy, there will be a lot more room for improvement in Iran. And when that happens, Saddam will find his own power diminishing the same way.
I think that the key reason comes down the Marshall plan.
I agree. The world should, and I'm sure, is very thankful for that. The US should not interprete strong European opposition as unthankfulness, a true friend will not shut up when he thinks his friend is wrong.
Agreed. The frustrating part about the anti-war movement is that so much of it amounts to looking the other way.
There I cannot agree with the characterization of the peace movement. I have always been deeply concerned with the situation in many trouble zones, and I believe many in the peace movement are. But they are not getting heard. The pro-war only sees what they are supposed to see, what is on CNN, and what the guns are pointing at at the time. I can't point to any war, even WWII, where the US got some very bad allies. It seems like you have to get bad allies to fight a war, thus looking the other way. Saudi Arabia is an example, Uzbekistan and Kirgistan are another two, and these things are happening right now.
As for Bush recent speech, it wasn't really anything new there, as far as I can see. It was clearly addressing European opposition. But I don't think it was very interesting.
To end, I realize that we're in a hell of a situation. At this point, the US can't do anything but going to war. There is no way back, and there hasn't been since res 1441. So, I don't know what is worse, that the Security Council votes against the war, and is destroyed by the US going to war anyway, the negative impacts of the war, and so on, or OTOH, that the Security Council votes for a war, thus making it clear that the only thing that counts is arms arsenal. Either way, the US has very likely destroyed the UN.
Allthough I see that the best way to keep the UN a bit more intact is to have a vote for the war, I just can't see how a war that is based on raw abuse of power, propaganda, lies and misinformation on US part can possibly come to any good. If we had actually discussed it sensibly and then come to the conclusion that a war is the best solution, then it would have been different. But then, one of my favorite one-liners is "Violence is always the last resort of the incompetent" (Isaac Asimov). I think it is quite unlikely that a rational discussion can have war as outcome...
Most importantly, the world has given up the principle of "the burden of the proof is on the claimnant". I really can't think of any justice system or science that can work without that principle. When Rumsfeld says so clearly that this principle is the main obstacle to his plans, I get extremely skeptical, and when he uses the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", well, I've heard that before from UFO buffs, and I suspect his evidence is on that level. Carl Sagans Balooney Detection Kit should make bells go off.
Bush, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld ruling the world is like handing power to the UFO buffs. Sure, they can make headlines, but that doesn't mean there's anything at all in what they say. And I don't want them to rule...
I think everybody can find a sport that suits you, if you just look around. I was bullied relatively mildly in school, it didn't really bother me too much, but I was clearly kind of an outcast.
At age 11, some of my friends took me to play soccer. That was definately not my sport. Besides, I couldn't run. I was the worst runner in class, at any distance. I was not a talent for anything of that sort.
The year thereafter, I started running orienteering. I still couldn't run, but they taught me. That winter, I trained a lot and when the spring came I was not anymore the worst runner in my class, but the best. At distances longer than half a mile, nobody could outpace me.
Of course, I was still an outcast. Running around in the woods is not what most kids would spend their time doing. Besides, orienteering tends to attract the most intelligent ones, I heard one survey of US orienteers, that indicated 27% of them have master's or above. So I just went to the opposite extreme...:-) But I liked it a lot, still do, I had found home. Eventually, it did earn me some respect. I think they had a hard time dealing with it.
When/. editors are prone to making this mistake, why do people pretend it is going to be possible to explain this to Joe Average or PHBs?
I've said it before, we're about to discover that "open source" was a mistake, the battle of the words is important, and we should give it a lot more thought.
I realize that "Free Software" is not much better, but for those of use speaking Real Languages[tm], which is making the distinction between beer and speech clear, abandoning "Open Source" is, I think, a good idea.
Oh well. I just gotta say something. There is this thing about the "we gotta do something" rhetoric that just makes it clear that there is something that has to be said. You put forward some of this rhetoric, so I'm responding to you, not because it is very bad, but because everybody knows you should reply to a highly moderated comment to be heard on/.:-)
Ok, that's the introduction, here we go:
First, let me state that the alternative to war is not to do nothing. It is to do things more constructively, build rather than destroy.
Let me also state that I'm not in the "it's the oil" crowd. I think Bush honestly believes that he is on a God-given mission as the World Leader to save the world. But I didn't elect this moron, and neither did you. Unelected leaders are dangerous, regardless of who didn't elect them...:-) Especially when they're fanatically religious...
First, a bit of history: US officials visited Saddam in 1984, to restablish diplomatic ties, as Saddam was in a war with Iran, this was a great opportunity, and these officials saw no reason why they shouldn't establish diplomatic relations. Well, of course they knew that Saddam had been a despot since he seized power in 1979, and they knew full well that he had used chemical weapons against his own population as well as in the war against Iran.
But, what the heck, this war against Iran, that had to be supported, regardless of some puny WMDs. The delegation leader's name was Donald Rumsfeld. Yep, these guys are old pals. Cool, eh?
Where were you when Amnesty reported that Saddam Hussein tortured and murdered unknown tens of thousands of Iraqis when your current defence-head shook hands with him?
The problem with Saddam had been much easier to solve if the US had put some pressure on Saddam in 1984, rather than supporting the dictator. The US gave him the position he now has. And guess what, dictators sometimes have their own agenda. Who would have thought?
OK, so you can argue that old mistakes are no reason to stand down now.
True. But you have to realize that you have to do things differently than you did before.
Well, what happened in Kosovo, that's an example of the success of intervention? Well, I don't know about the murder rates right now, but the number of killings before and after the bombings were pretty much the same. No real improvement. Strengthen democracy? They can't even elect a president now, because everybody thinks that the whole thing stinks and nobody shows up at the elections. Yep, we'll just bomb some more in 50 years when tensions rise again. Slobo was thrown out? Sure, but at the 11th attempt. With Slobo in power, Yugoslavs tried to throw him from power over and over again. The silence from the rest of the world was overwhelming. Nobody cared, nobody listened. Half a million of the elite who were at the forefront in trying to overthrow him left the country in dispair. If they had been given just a little support, the whole catastrophy may have been avoided. As it is now, it is just a matter when the region explodes again.
If Saddam had actually had WMDs that were a threat, then urgent action may have been needed. But the evidence put forward by US administration sucks badly. It consistently falls apart on examination. Besides, it is backed by blatant lies and misinformation, that has no other purpose than scaring people. Such as "given enough high-grade uranium, Saddam can makes nukes within six months". Well, yeah, I'm a physicist, and I can do that too, but I wouldn't need six months!
At the same time, the same mistakes are committed over and over again. There are some of republics of central asia that are not democratic at all. In fact, they are highly oppressive. Even, it may be getting worse while we're watching. But, because they're now "allies", we're looking the other way, instead of supporting those working for democracy. It's the same story over again. It is the same reason why the US supported Iraq and Saddam, why they now support the oppressive regimes in particulary Uzbekistan and Kirgistan. They're only making it worse. Are you looking the other way now, because you president says that you should? Then please don't come shouting for bombs in 20 years from now!
It is time to think things over, and take a different path.
There is a huge, well-educated middle class in Iraq, and they are the key to overthrowing Saddam.
Making sure that these people can start thinking about politics again rather than worrying about getting food on the table or a US bomb down their chimney is probably the best thing you can do to forward democracy in Iraq. They allready have to worry about Saddam's agents, so removing a couple of worries can only be a good thing. The problem is, Saddam knows it, and his power is now so well established, supporting those is going to be really, really difficult.
There's another path. Iran has made huge progress lately, pretty much in spite of US efforts. Most of the Iranian population is really young, and they don't want to take any more bullshit from the old moronic fundamentalists.
There is also a bunch of forward-thinking academics, who is not afraid to challenge the theocracy, and many internationally minded scientists.
Empowering these people in Iran is very likely going to light that candle of democracy in the region that Bush is talking about. Without bombs, without a war. Without USians becoming subject of hate all over the world. Without sacrificing human rights, like pretty much every US intervention has done in the past. It is going to bring about change made the people themselves, it is going to empower people in the entire region, possibly in the entire world to bring about change. It is what can make tyrants tremble.
You know, there are success stories when it comes to peaceful transitions, take Guatemala for example, Bolivia had also an extremely corrupt and violent government but popular uprising did the trick there. To some extent, the wide attention that South Africa got helped the transition there. Military action is not, and has never been the only way. But looking the other way, has never helped.
You're going to spend something like $50 billion on war, very likely. Imagine what you can do with those money, if you instead make an investment in empowering the people who wants to see change?
Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Let me put it this way: It is my opinion that in the seminal Nature article entitled something like "A flat universe from CMB anisotropy measured by BOOMERANG", the titled is not justified by the data presented, and serves as an excellent example of my point. There is not yet evidence that universe is flat.
Yep, true, but the point is that inflation came up because the universe appeared quite flat, and now, they're running around in circles, because they want so badly the universe to be flat, that they interprete all data in light of that. That's not good.
Yep, that's right. If the sphere is just really, really big, it is very hard to tell if it is flat or the sphere is really, really big...:-)
But, I feel that the whole flatness thing is getting out of hand. Inflationists need the universe to be really, really flat, or else they would have gone through all the trouble of inflation theory for nothing...:-)
So, what happens, is that every time a new study comes out that doesn't make a flat universe, very improbable, they claim a new victory for inflation. But, to date, there isn't really a study that can be claimed to support the idea that the universe is flat, not even this one. It is just that a flat universe is still pretty consistent with data. But, a flat universe is a line in the diagram, and to claim that this line is correct, you need more proof than that. I think it is time to go looking for reasons that the universe isn't as flat as expected...
As for the shape of the earth, that's an exaggerated myth. The circumference of the earth was measured by Eratostenes long BC, and was generally accepted by scientists throughout the middle ages, the renessance included. It was only in a short period about 300 AD that leading priests contended that the earth was flat. Damn, I should translate my Norwegian language article on this...:-)
Yup, but you see where I'm going: ESR didn't understand that his top selling argument was an argument that he tried to set himself apart from....
When insisting on business reason, the best business reason is freedom...
Exactly the point...:-)
Uhm, yeah, good point... Anyway, the thing I was trying to get at was if you would have to distribute the whole FDL if the FDL text itself is longer than the work... Really, I was just using the HOWTO as an example that many should be able to recognize...:-)
In reading the Cathedral and the Bazaar, and other Eric Raymond works, it became clear to me that the best argument for Open Source was that software is fundamentally a service, not a product.
I agree that this is probably the brightest point of "CatB", and that it is an extremely important insight.
However, I do not see it is a reason why you would choose either model. Partly I see it as more of an analysis, "why can free software by profitable", and partly a "howto survive in the free software market". You can also think of it as "howto survive in the post-scarcity society".
Also, allthough ESR has said many insightful things about when it makes business sense to keep things closed, and when it makes business sense to open up, "service" vs. "product" does not alone say anything about which model is superior, or more importantly, if either model can kill the other.
Their response will be somewhere along the lines of "crazy damned communist geek." Again, I agree, but I don't think this "software as a model for society" argument is going to change any minds that it hasn't already. If anything, it will simply paint the entire OSS movement as a bunch of neo-hippies.
Well, that was not my point. On the contrary. My point is that freedom is so good for business, the freedom argument can stand perfectly well on its own. I think many of those decision-makers who have allready embraced free software are fully aware of this, and it'll do a lot of good if we stop believing that anyone who believes in freedom is necessarily some kind of wacko, because there are many examples to the contrary.
I think the best route is to keep hammering on the differences.
Absolutely, but never underestimate the power of controlling the vocabulary! "Open Source" is too easily hi-jacked, and MS will probably be successful in doing that. That's what I fear, anyway.
That was not the intention. What I doubt is that the ones who can reap benefits from seeing the code will be the ones who make the significant decisions. For the huge majority of decision-makers, merely seeing the source is enough to make them think "open source". Those who are able to e.g. modify IIS, are a tiny minority.
"Open Source" has become a buzzword, no more, no less. But, a powerful buzzword it is, and Microsoft is going to take advantage of it.
If I have understood Norwegian law, what "inalienable rights" means correctly, the right to attribution can't be signed away in contract. This seems to be incompatible with the GPL.
What are your thoughts on such quirks of various copy right laws of various countries?
I made a one-page excerpt from the GPG Keysigning Party HOWTO, printed ten copies and handed them out at a keysigning party.
Did I violate the FDL? (If I did, I must apologize to V. Alex Brennen.)
What I've come to think about is that it seems the FDL requires that the full license text accompanies every copy. When you're making single-page excerpts, it is of course very inconvenient to include a four-page license... But is it really necessary to include the whole license, or is it sufficient to include a short copyright notice referencing the FDL?
Hm, the last time I uttered that Microsoft's Shared source is going to be indistinguishable from open source to most people, I was modded funny, and I love that of course.
I have a deep respect for many of those who coined the term "Open Source", especially Bruce Perens.
But, I think we're about to find out that "Open Source" was a mistake.
Microsoft will clearly claim that their "shared source" encompasses all the benefits of open source, and for those who do not allready understand what Open Source is all about (which is to say, most people), it will be a compelling argument.
We can go "uh, no, you see, it is about, free, and I mean free as in speech, not beer, uh, if you know what I mean". And they don't. And they won't read this paper. When they can see the source, the source is open enough to them. What more could you ask?
I attended one of ESR's talks, and while it took me a long time to realize, ESR's top selling point ("you can always take development in-house"), is not a simple pragmatic argument. It is an argument based on freedom.
The top selling argument for Open Source, for Linux and for all the rest of it, is, and will remain, an argument of freedom. Not only freedom for individuals, but freedom for corporations too!
It is about politics. It is about creating a society where freedom benefits everyone, individuals and corporations alike, the whole society.
I realize, of course that "Free Software" is not a good term either, but for those of us who speak a Real Language[tm], the term "Open Source" should be abandoned, and terms like "Software Libré" or "Fri programvare" should be used instead.
No, it is not. It is a social and economic problem.
Spammers do not have the social intelligence to see that what they are doing is destructive.
Spammers, at least some of them, are making money.
That's why you can't come up with a technical solution, because it isn't a technical problem.
Making it impossible to forge headers is not going to solve any of the problems above. It will only make it easier to report spam to ISPs, but it will not pressure them more to whack the spammers.
You can take technical measures to shift the cost onto the spammer, but if you do that, you must consider the side-effects.
Frankly, I think laws are the solution. But given clueless legislators, we have to write the law.
This approach is not novel at all, on the contrary, it has been tried and it has failed miserably.
Look, this is how it has worked:
Spammers get opt-out-list from agency
Spammers send spam to the opt-out-list, because the addresses on the opt-out-list are confirmed living.
Oh, so that failed. New approach: The agency keeps the opt-out list, spammers never see it. Here's how it works.
Spammers send their e-mail lists to agency.
Agency washes spammers list, removing the addresses on the opt-out-list.
Agency sends washed list back to spammers.
Spammers compare washed lists with original non-washed lists, to identify the confirmed living addresses on the opt-out-list.
Spammers send spam to whoever it wants, possibly giving priority to confirmed living addresses.
Uh, so that failed too! Wow. OK, next thing, we have laws. If spammers do this after having had their lists washed we will throw them in jail! Yep, sure. OK, here's how it works:
Spammers send their lists for washing like above, gets washed lists back.
Spammers sell the confirmed living address obtained by the above procedure to another spammer,
who moves off-shore, or to another state, whatever.
Spammers send spam to addresses on the opt-out-list.
Now, you can't touch them, and even if you could, you would still have to prove that the transaction took place, and even if you could do that, the spammer sending e-mail could say "uh, I didn't know, I was defrauded" and the spammer selling the addresses could say "hey, I didn't spam, did I?"
Entering your address on a spam-opt-out-list is going to get you more spam, not less.
The web was never intended to be a browser-only environment. From the start, it was intended to be a medium that would be useful for a wide varity of user agents, crawling for info and presenting compiled and digested information to the user.
This was not ever realized, I believed mostly because of overpaid "web designers".
But the Semantic Web would require many funny user agents for all kinds of things.
Clearly, if this kind of thinking is allowed to persist in corporate headquarters, it will kill the Semantic Web before it gets started.
I wonder what Tim Berners-Lee thinks about this...
Slashdot Mirror
In his older years, Heyerdahl also developed the rather obnoxious habit of threatening with lawsuits against anybody who might disagree with him. He was a big childhood hero of mine, but he pretty much ruined that with a threat directed at a website I edit.
So, if he had lived, he would certainly have sued these people, and BTW, I should probably stop here, so that I don't risk a lawsuit myself.
I mean, with the recent moves in the direction of blogs at Google, they might just be thinking that "if we make an RSS search engine, we may get a good job at Google". But then, Google may not notice... But now they will... :-) It's pretty clever, actually.
It's going to be funny to see that cease&desist...
I think it is also very different from the Lindows issue, given that windows is a rather common word, Google isn't...
By setting human rights first. Always.
The other point is more interesting, but it should be noted that in Galileo's time, most of the establishment had allready realized that the laws they knew were inadequate. This was probably one of Tycho Brahe's most significant contributions, especially the comet of 1578. In 1610, when Galileo first pointed his telescope towards the stars, a leading authority, whose name evade me at the moment (could be Christopher Clavius?), said that Ptolemy's system had proved inadequate, and that astronomers had to look elsewhere for their wisdom.
So, it is rather different, because everyone knew that the old laws of nature had failed, but they didn't know what to use instead, untill Newton.
You know, if today's crackpots had half the spine of Galileo they would probably have been duly noticed too...
As others have pointed out, it is a difference between working in isolation and working alone. "In isolation" means that you take no or very little input from the community, and that's never healthy. Einstein was on his own, but he always took a lot of input and gave a lot of output. Also, he brilliantly solved widely acknowledged outstanding problems. Today's crackpots seldom do that.
There are a few problems with science today, that has mainly to do with evaluation of science (naive bibliometry), with getting "prestigous", stuff like that. There's also a bit more truth in the "Physicist's Bill of Rights" than I like, but nevertheless, the guidelines proposed can work quite well as an operational aid, I think.
Well, "knowledge" is the key word here. Black-hats may have been exploiting this without bragging about it, and without the compromised admins realizing how they got compromised.
We don't know that either.
Disclosing might force people to change MTA's in a hurry, but I guess many sysadmins would just wait for the patch, a mail system is too important to shut down. So, I'm undecided as to if it was a Good Thing[tm] to keep it secret for that long, but I don't think it is a clearcut case where obscurity worked.
And I really don't like idea of having US DoHS know about it before I do (not being a US citizen)... :-)
Yep, but it sure is interesting to try your arguments against someone, that's why I was continuing... :-)
But OK, I'll just point out a couple of things where you are plain wrong:
Accused of supporting terrorists. That means anybody. He can accuse anybody, and nuke anybody. Unless there is an external body that exists to evaluate the evidence, nobody is safe.
Nope, you get radioactive dust from weak sources too. Besides, if there really was industrial facilities on the scale you're talking about, they wouldn't be that hard to discover.
He didn't. That's plain revisionism. That's one of the worst lies that has been told by the Bush administrations. Just look in your sources from 1998, and you'll see it. They were withdrawn. You'll see that all formal sources today also use the word withdrawn. There's a pretty good PBS interview with Scott Ritter that highlights this. Another lie is that there has been no inspections in Iraq since 1998. IAEA has had annual inspections in Iraq, in january every year. Iraq would have to build entirely new facilities. It is possible that they could do that, though, and that's why IAEA called for a new, intrusive inspections regime.
Oh, come on, that just silly. Look, I've come to appreciate you're insights, but this is just below what I've come to expect from you.
If you had looked, you would have seen me with a sign saying that in 1984, when you gave Hussein all the support he needed. US hasn't got any deeper moral authority at all, it is not about the Iraqi people, it is about your own sense of security.
Besides, if you had really looked, you would have found exciled Kurd dissident leaders in the crowd. You would also find many exciled Iraqis in the crowd. I don't think you looked very well... (But I agree that the "peace in our time"-sign was rather stupid...)
No, there is specifically a first strike policy.
Even before that. You know, Rumsfeldt and his companions have been out to get Saddam for a very long time. But obviously, the message has been more pronounced since his election.
I'm not with Bush, but I'm not with the terrorists. This are the words of a religious fanatic. These are the words of someone who is incapable of seeing other solutions than his own. The post-911 actions, I would claim, has had no effect on terrorism whatsoever.
See, told you so, you're unable to get rid of him! ;-)
I think you need to read up on the history, purpose and workings of the anti-prolifiration framework. There can't be any doubt whatsoever that Bush' policy has completely changed the fundamental playing field and given a new incitament to acquire nukes.
OK, I have to pass on this one. Nevertheless, you have to address to root issues, why are people becoming suicide bombers in the first place.
Please, don't have a wait-and-see attitude on this. I'm telling you, you are committing exactly the same mistakes over again that helped Saddam to power. And, the wait-and-see attitude is what made people turn the blind eye.
That I must dispute. Even though an U bomb is easy to make, it is still a lot of metallurgy involved, and during that process, it is impossible not to leave any trace. Just go to any physics lab where there has been tiny radioactive sources involved. Fix a filter on your vacuum cleaner, and go around sucking in the corners. But don't tell ma about your findings... :-)
No, if that happened, there would be attack underway allready. Just think about the unthinkable for a moment: What if it was true: He didn't have any WMDs right now. How could he possibly prove that he didn't? It is in fact impossible. So, the problem is that Bush can point his finger at anybody, me included, and bomb me without any evidence whatsoever. I find that extremely disconcerting.
In fact, I think it is quite unlikely that Saddam has any big stores of WMDs now. Instead, he has probably researched how to make them in a shortest possible time if need be.
Really, I can't see this evidence stand up more than any of the other "evidence" that Powell presented. I mean, you'd think that he would actually present the best available evidence before the security council, but he presented stuff that fell apart on first look.
OTOH, it would be extremely bad if the inspectors had been compromised, so a close look is required.
You're seeing this very differently from what I do. I see an equal amount of lies on both sides. Obviously, Iraq is not responding very well, it's a dictator we're talking about, but OTOH, the Bush administration is not very much less deceptive, they're trying to stage a war, and they will do anything to get that war, but they have to create an illusion of playing by international rules.
There are many examples to the contrary. Bolivia, South Africa, most of Eastern Europe, Guatemala.
OK, look at this way: The Bush administration is clearly attacking the american public. First, it is not difficult to argue that he is not your elected leader. First, he stole the election. Them he has robbed you of many of your civil rights, he has established military tribunals, and he can keep anybody in detention indefinately without a court hearing. He has established "Total Information Awareness", which is unprecendented in it's scope, STASI would have been jealous. In addition, he is a significant threat to world peace and sits on the biggest arsenal of WMDs, and he has stated he will not hesitate to use them against any target. OK, I say this partly tongue in cheek, but only partly (especially TIA, that's the most significant step towards a totalitarian state any democratic country has ever done, IMNSHO): You are clearly incapable of dealing with Bush yourself. Now tell me, why shouldn't we, the rest of the world go to war and overthrowing him, to liberate the US?
Again, as I said, the other option is not to stand by and do nothing. The other option is to use those $50 billion for something good.
Bush has been trying to say that to Europe for a long time. Perhaps your news are differently angled than what we hear here. And the reaction has always been "yeah, sure".
You know, Clinton tried the same thing in Kosovo, the idea isn't actually new...
Again, I see this very differently. There are many things that are wrong with the UN, but this isn't it.
Then, it has been because you have failed to take precautions in time. If US use violence now, it is because they failed to take the chance to pressure Saddam out of office in early 80-ties, and so on. Of course, I'm not saying it is easy. Using violence (or force) is easy, and there has not been a war in my lifetime that could not have been avoided if cards have been played better in advance. Nor has there been any situation where I have used force where I realize afterwards that I could have don things very differently.
I look upon your government as one of those now (there are differences, of course), so what standards apply?
OK, you may reject it, but the Security Council is intended to be that authority. OK, so the US can do whatever they like, but they are partly playing with the UN, so that means that they are partly recognizing this authority.
Well, of course, for US, it doesn't really matter, because the US can nuke anybody who doesn't want to play ball back to the stone age, and Bush has stated that he doesn't mind doing so, but for smaller countries, that is not really an option. We have to cooperate.
No, no, no. Sincerety has nothing to do with it. Sincerety is (-1, Overrated). If you buckle up in a plane and hear "uhm, hi, this is not your captain speaking. Captain is sick, but I sincerely believe I can fly this plane, though I never been in one before", you're probably going to be screaming in terror... :-)
That's how I'm looking at this moron of yours. He can still be sincere and yet dead wrong. I believe he is sincere when he says that the only way to ensure disarmament is to remove Saddam. And I think he is sincere when he thinks that he will put in some sort of democracy. But, he is lying when he talking about all the "evidence" they have, that's a smokescrean for attacking. If any such thing as a "preemtive attack" was legitimate, there is no reason why Saddam (and pretty much any other nation that has a beef with the US) should not attack the US right now, it would have been legimate. Neither is there any legitimicy in international law to remove a regime, simply because it would be no reason why the rest of the world should not remove Bush. So, he needs this smokescrean of "disarmament" to forward the war. There is an old debate, I think it was actually on CNN, but I read it on the web, but Google has failed my now; anyway, it was between Scott Ritter, and another prominent member of the UNSCOM team. This other guy's opinion has really mattered a lot in the policy of the Bush administration, but unfortunately I can't remember his name. But it is extremely interesting to read in the light of current events.
Undoubtedly, he has some excellent people around there, who is actually able to move around the SC and have them give up the principle of burden of proof.
Yet, he is going so terribly wrong, is that he has the mind of a religious fanatic, who can't see colors, only that "either you are with us or you are against us". Someone with a world-view like that is an extremely dangerous man.
Unfortunately, USians are the only ones who legitimately can get rid of him.
Hmmmm, Poindexter is probably going to read this. :-) I'll have a problem getting a visa to the US next time. But then, I don't think I'll be going before you guys have fixed your administration...
I don't think that we disagree fundamentally on Bush, however, I think it is a bit naive to think that Bush' primary motivation is US security. It clearly more complex than that. The first point is that Iraq is hardly no threat to the US, and the connection to terrorists are speculation at best. Certainly, 9/11 has opened the eyes for possible threats to US turf as it shattered the illusion of being protected. However, North Korea is arguably a far greater threat to US security than Iraq. After the US left the non-profilaration (uhm, difficult word that) treaty, and now treating North Korea far better than Iraq, one may speculate that it is because North Korea now has posesses some deterrence. The message to the world is thus: Get nukes as fast as you can! That's a very bad message to send.
Thus, while I agree that Bush sees removing Saddam as a way to rid the world of evil and therefore enhance US security, US security is not the main point, there is also a strong, and I would say, rather irrational element of assuming "World Leadership".
I can't see how funding terrorism plays a vital role for suicide bombers. They would have found ways to blow themselves up regardless of financial support. I think the role money plays in terrorism is greatly exaggerated.
While a prosperous Iraq may incite revolutions in other countries, it is also quite likely to have the opposite effect. Remember that many of these countries have been extremely rich, yet have oppressive regimes, and seeing US as an evil force from outside is going to make oppression stronger.
Yes, you do. You give "just a little support" to the regimes of Uzbekistan and Kirgistan. It's deja-vu all over again...
I guess you're pointing to something like this? Well, for one thing, we need to keep nukes separate from biological and chemical weapons. The argument is totally flawed, because it wouldn't be hard at all to detect nukes if they had them, radioactive dust would remain at the sites where experiments were conducted, easily detectable. Actually, I know quite a lot about nukes, and I would be a lot more concerned with terroists setting off a nuke in a US harbor they built inside a container in a ship than Saddam building nukes. It is not difficult to build nukes, but using them for military purposes is a very complex matter.
I don't know that much about biological and chemical weapons, but lets note one thing: There's nothing you can do with bombs that you can't do with inspectors in a fast helicopter. You could look for similar things, and contrary to Bush' propaganda, it would be extremely difficult to hide this stuff if you are to have any hope of using them in battle: WMDs are actually very dangerous, and the problem with them is not making them, but rather making sure you don't get killed in the process or that they backfire on your own troops...
Yes, I'm afraid I haven't seen much commentary on this, and I consider this a huge weakness for the peace movement. All in all, I do feel a bit alienated by the peace movement. For example I regard the "depleted uranium" craze as a complete panic with no basis in reality. It is hard to argue that in the peace movement. People have completely focus.
True, but this is actually nothing new. There has been regimes that have done this before and still been overthrown by popular uprising. Mass killings is the rule rather than the exception when it comes to dictators.
I'm not sweeping it under the rug that these questions are extremely complex. To attempt an answer, it is extremely important for a people to have their own destiny in their own hands. Allthough Saddam may not be very popular, it doesn't necessarily mean that foreign soldiers are very welcome, and you're not the onces to decide.
However, given that it is in fact a non-urgent situation, these things need careful consideration. We really don't need the lies and the misinformation of the Bush administration in this discussion. However, a thoughtful Elie Wiesel does make a great impression.
Uhm, that's more like 5 years ago, not 15 years. 12 years is the previous Iraq war. Besides, they said the same thing then, and while it certainly has improved, I'm not so sure intelligence has improved one bit, and bad intelligence is probably more important in bombing the wrong people than bad technology.
My thoughts are exactly the opposite. I think that with Iraq defeated, the theocracy is going to tighten their grip, and effectively make the situation a whole lot worse. Then, there's going to be another war.
Note that in Iran, even the theocrats are letting a lot slip through the cracks. I think that with the rest of the world encouraging Iran to cooperate on all levels, like the CERN collaboration, the support for the theocratics is going to be diminish. They will be so marginlized, a lot of formal power doesn't mean anything, because they will have nobody to enforce. Only if they can convince a lot of people that they do have an enemy, it is possible for the theocrats to retain power. And right now, the US is that enemy. If the US seize to be that enemy, there will be a lot more room for improvement in Iran. And when that happens, Saddam will find his own power diminishing the same way.
I agree. The world should, and I'm sure, is very thankful for that. The US should not interprete strong European opposition as unthankfulness, a true friend will not shut up when he thinks his friend is wrong.
There I cannot agree with the characterization of the peace movement. I have always been deeply concerned with the situation in many trouble zones, and I believe many in the peace movement are. But they are not getting heard. The pro-war only sees what they are supposed to see, what is on CNN, and what the guns are pointing at at the time. I can't point to any war, even WWII, where the US got some very bad allies. It seems like you have to get bad allies to fight a war, thus looking the other way. Saudi Arabia is an example, Uzbekistan and Kirgistan are another two, and these things are happening right now.
As for Bush recent speech, it wasn't really anything new there, as far as I can see. It was clearly addressing European opposition. But I don't think it was very interesting.
To end, I realize that we're in a hell of a situation. At this point, the US can't do anything but going to war. There is no way back, and there hasn't been since res 1441. So, I don't know what is worse, that the Security Council votes against the war, and is destroyed by the US going to war anyway, the negative impacts of the war, and so on, or OTOH, that the Security Council votes for a war, thus making it clear that the only thing that counts is arms arsenal. Either way, the US has very likely destroyed the UN.
Allthough I see that the best way to keep the UN a bit more intact is to have a vote for the war, I just can't see how a war that is based on raw abuse of power, propaganda, lies and misinformation on US part can possibly come to any good. If we had actually discussed it sensibly and then come to the conclusion that a war is the best solution, then it would have been different. But then, one of my favorite one-liners is "Violence is always the last resort of the incompetent" (Isaac Asimov). I think it is quite unlikely that a rational discussion can have war as outcome...
Most importantly, the world has given up the principle of "the burden of the proof is on the claimnant". I really can't think of any justice system or science that can work without that principle. When Rumsfeld says so clearly that this principle is the main obstacle to his plans, I get extremely skeptical, and when he uses the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", well, I've heard that before from UFO buffs, and I suspect his evidence is on that level. Carl Sagans Balooney Detection Kit should make bells go off.
Bush, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld ruling the world is like handing power to the UFO buffs. Sure, they can make headlines, but that doesn't mean there's anything at all in what they say. And I don't want them to rule...
At age 11, some of my friends took me to play soccer. That was definately not my sport. Besides, I couldn't run. I was the worst runner in class, at any distance. I was not a talent for anything of that sort.
The year thereafter, I started running orienteering. I still couldn't run, but they taught me. That winter, I trained a lot and when the spring came I was not anymore the worst runner in my class, but the best. At distances longer than half a mile, nobody could outpace me.
Of course, I was still an outcast. Running around in the woods is not what most kids would spend their time doing. Besides, orienteering tends to attract the most intelligent ones, I heard one survey of US orienteers, that indicated 27% of them have master's or above. So I just went to the opposite extreme... :-) But I liked it a lot, still do, I had found home. Eventually, it did earn me some respect. I think they had a hard time dealing with it.
I've said it before, we're about to discover that "open source" was a mistake, the battle of the words is important, and we should give it a lot more thought.
I realize that "Free Software" is not much better, but for those of use speaking Real Languages[tm], which is making the distinction between beer and speech clear, abandoning "Open Source" is, I think, a good idea.
Ok, that's the introduction, here we go:
First, let me state that the alternative to war is not to do nothing. It is to do things more constructively, build rather than destroy.
Let me also state that I'm not in the "it's the oil" crowd. I think Bush honestly believes that he is on a God-given mission as the World Leader to save the world. But I didn't elect this moron, and neither did you. Unelected leaders are dangerous, regardless of who didn't elect them... :-) Especially when they're fanatically religious...
First, a bit of history: US officials visited Saddam in 1984, to restablish diplomatic ties, as Saddam was in a war with Iran, this was a great opportunity, and these officials saw no reason why they shouldn't establish diplomatic relations. Well, of course they knew that Saddam had been a despot since he seized power in 1979, and they knew full well that he had used chemical weapons against his own population as well as in the war against Iran.
But, what the heck, this war against Iran, that had to be supported, regardless of some puny WMDs. The delegation leader's name was Donald Rumsfeld. Yep, these guys are old pals. Cool, eh?
Where were you when Amnesty reported that Saddam Hussein tortured and murdered unknown tens of thousands of Iraqis when your current defence-head shook hands with him?
The problem with Saddam had been much easier to solve if the US had put some pressure on Saddam in 1984, rather than supporting the dictator. The US gave him the position he now has. And guess what, dictators sometimes have their own agenda. Who would have thought?
OK, so you can argue that old mistakes are no reason to stand down now.
True. But you have to realize that you have to do things differently than you did before.
Well, what happened in Kosovo, that's an example of the success of intervention? Well, I don't know about the murder rates right now, but the number of killings before and after the bombings were pretty much the same. No real improvement. Strengthen democracy? They can't even elect a president now, because everybody thinks that the whole thing stinks and nobody shows up at the elections. Yep, we'll just bomb some more in 50 years when tensions rise again. Slobo was thrown out? Sure, but at the 11th attempt. With Slobo in power, Yugoslavs tried to throw him from power over and over again. The silence from the rest of the world was overwhelming. Nobody cared, nobody listened. Half a million of the elite who were at the forefront in trying to overthrow him left the country in dispair. If they had been given just a little support, the whole catastrophy may have been avoided. As it is now, it is just a matter when the region explodes again.
If Saddam had actually had WMDs that were a threat, then urgent action may have been needed. But the evidence put forward by US administration sucks badly. It consistently falls apart on examination. Besides, it is backed by blatant lies and misinformation, that has no other purpose than scaring people. Such as "given enough high-grade uranium, Saddam can makes nukes within six months". Well, yeah, I'm a physicist, and I can do that too, but I wouldn't need six months!
At the same time, the same mistakes are committed over and over again. There are some of republics of central asia that are not democratic at all. In fact, they are highly oppressive. Even, it may be getting worse while we're watching. But, because they're now "allies", we're looking the other way, instead of supporting those working for democracy. It's the same story over again. It is the same reason why the US supported Iraq and Saddam, why they now support the oppressive regimes in particulary Uzbekistan and Kirgistan. They're only making it worse. Are you looking the other way now, because you president says that you should? Then please don't come shouting for bombs in 20 years from now!
It is time to think things over, and take a different path.
There is a huge, well-educated middle class in Iraq, and they are the key to overthrowing Saddam. Making sure that these people can start thinking about politics again rather than worrying about getting food on the table or a US bomb down their chimney is probably the best thing you can do to forward democracy in Iraq. They allready have to worry about Saddam's agents, so removing a couple of worries can only be a good thing. The problem is, Saddam knows it, and his power is now so well established, supporting those is going to be really, really difficult.
There's another path. Iran has made huge progress lately, pretty much in spite of US efforts. Most of the Iranian population is really young, and they don't want to take any more bullshit from the old moronic fundamentalists.
There is also a bunch of forward-thinking academics, who is not afraid to challenge the theocracy, and many internationally minded scientists.
Not long ago, Iran joined CERN. Yep, that's the european nuclear research organization. Those who are thinking "nuclear, iran, scary!" are missing the point, and need to RSFH (read some f* history).
Empowering these people in Iran is very likely going to light that candle of democracy in the region that Bush is talking about. Without bombs, without a war. Without USians becoming subject of hate all over the world. Without sacrificing human rights, like pretty much every US intervention has done in the past. It is going to bring about change made the people themselves, it is going to empower people in the entire region, possibly in the entire world to bring about change. It is what can make tyrants tremble.
You know, there are success stories when it comes to peaceful transitions, take Guatemala for example, Bolivia had also an extremely corrupt and violent government but popular uprising did the trick there. To some extent, the wide attention that South Africa got helped the transition there. Military action is not, and has never been the only way. But looking the other way, has never helped.
You're going to spend something like $50 billion on war, very likely. Imagine what you can do with those money, if you instead make an investment in empowering the people who wants to see change?
Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Let me put it this way: It is my opinion that in the seminal Nature article entitled something like "A flat universe from CMB anisotropy measured by BOOMERANG", the titled is not justified by the data presented, and serves as an excellent example of my point. There is not yet evidence that universe is flat.
Yep, true, but the point is that inflation came up because the universe appeared quite flat, and now, they're running around in circles, because they want so badly the universe to be flat, that they interprete all data in light of that. That's not good.
But, I feel that the whole flatness thing is getting out of hand. Inflationists need the universe to be really, really flat, or else they would have gone through all the trouble of inflation theory for nothing... :-)
So, what happens, is that every time a new study comes out that doesn't make a flat universe, very improbable, they claim a new victory for inflation. But, to date, there isn't really a study that can be claimed to support the idea that the universe is flat, not even this one. It is just that a flat universe is still pretty consistent with data. But, a flat universe is a line in the diagram, and to claim that this line is correct, you need more proof than that. I think it is time to go looking for reasons that the universe isn't as flat as expected...
As for the shape of the earth, that's an exaggerated myth. The circumference of the earth was measured by Eratostenes long BC, and was generally accepted by scientists throughout the middle ages, the renessance included. It was only in a short period about 300 AD that leading priests contended that the earth was flat. Damn, I should translate my Norwegian language article on this... :-)
Yup, but you see where I'm going: ESR didn't understand that his top selling argument was an argument that he tried to set himself apart from.... When insisting on business reason, the best business reason is freedom... Exactly the point... :-)
Uhm, yeah, good point... Anyway, the thing I was trying to get at was if you would have to distribute the whole FDL if the FDL text itself is longer than the work... Really, I was just using the HOWTO as an example that many should be able to recognize... :-)
I agree that this is probably the brightest point of "CatB", and that it is an extremely important insight.
However, I do not see it is a reason why you would choose either model. Partly I see it as more of an analysis, "why can free software by profitable", and partly a "howto survive in the free software market". You can also think of it as "howto survive in the post-scarcity society".
Also, allthough ESR has said many insightful things about when it makes business sense to keep things closed, and when it makes business sense to open up, "service" vs. "product" does not alone say anything about which model is superior, or more importantly, if either model can kill the other.
Well, that was not my point. On the contrary. My point is that freedom is so good for business, the freedom argument can stand perfectly well on its own. I think many of those decision-makers who have allready embraced free software are fully aware of this, and it'll do a lot of good if we stop believing that anyone who believes in freedom is necessarily some kind of wacko, because there are many examples to the contrary.
Absolutely, but never underestimate the power of controlling the vocabulary! "Open Source" is too easily hi-jacked, and MS will probably be successful in doing that. That's what I fear, anyway.
That was not the intention. What I doubt is that the ones who can reap benefits from seeing the code will be the ones who make the significant decisions. For the huge majority of decision-makers, merely seeing the source is enough to make them think "open source". Those who are able to e.g. modify IIS, are a tiny minority.
"Open Source" has become a buzzword, no more, no less. But, a powerful buzzword it is, and Microsoft is going to take advantage of it.
What are your thoughts on such quirks of various copy right laws of various countries?
Did I violate the FDL? (If I did, I must apologize to V. Alex Brennen.)
What I've come to think about is that it seems the FDL requires that the full license text accompanies every copy. When you're making single-page excerpts, it is of course very inconvenient to include a four-page license... But is it really necessary to include the whole license, or is it sufficient to include a short copyright notice referencing the FDL?
I have a deep respect for many of those who coined the term "Open Source", especially Bruce Perens.
But, I think we're about to find out that "Open Source" was a mistake.
Microsoft will clearly claim that their "shared source" encompasses all the benefits of open source, and for those who do not allready understand what Open Source is all about (which is to say, most people), it will be a compelling argument.
We can go "uh, no, you see, it is about, free, and I mean free as in speech, not beer, uh, if you know what I mean". And they don't. And they won't read this paper. When they can see the source, the source is open enough to them. What more could you ask?
I attended one of ESR's talks, and while it took me a long time to realize, ESR's top selling point ("you can always take development in-house"), is not a simple pragmatic argument. It is an argument based on freedom.
The top selling argument for Open Source, for Linux and for all the rest of it, is, and will remain, an argument of freedom. Not only freedom for individuals, but freedom for corporations too!
It is about politics. It is about creating a society where freedom benefits everyone, individuals and corporations alike, the whole society.
I realize, of course that "Free Software" is not a good term either, but for those of us who speak a Real Language[tm], the term "Open Source" should be abandoned, and terms like "Software Libré" or "Fri programvare" should be used instead.
No, it is not. It is a social and economic problem.
That's why you can't come up with a technical solution, because it isn't a technical problem.
Making it impossible to forge headers is not going to solve any of the problems above. It will only make it easier to report spam to ISPs, but it will not pressure them more to whack the spammers.
You can take technical measures to shift the cost onto the spammer, but if you do that, you must consider the side-effects.
Frankly, I think laws are the solution. But given clueless legislators, we have to write the law.
Look, this is how it has worked:
Oh, so that failed. New approach: The agency keeps the opt-out list, spammers never see it. Here's how it works.
Uh, so that failed too! Wow. OK, next thing, we have laws. If spammers do this after having had their lists washed we will throw them in jail! Yep, sure. OK, here's how it works:
Now, you can't touch them, and even if you could, you would still have to prove that the transaction took place, and even if you could do that, the spammer sending e-mail could say "uh, I didn't know, I was defrauded" and the spammer selling the addresses could say "hey, I didn't spam, did I?"
Entering your address on a spam-opt-out-list is going to get you more spam, not less.
Anybody remember Murkowski? Nice try.
This was not ever realized, I believed mostly because of overpaid "web designers".
But the Semantic Web would require many funny user agents for all kinds of things.
Clearly, if this kind of thinking is allowed to persist in corporate headquarters, it will kill the Semantic Web before it gets started.
I wonder what Tim Berners-Lee thinks about this...