Unfortunately, they do not support attacks on countries, justified by the war on terrorism, based on a combination of manufactured and inadequate evidence.
Especially when those attacks might jeopardize lucrative weapons sales, and Iraqi oil contracts with a French company whose biggest shareholder happens to the son-in-law of the Prime Minister.
But I'm sure all of that had absolutely nothing to do with the French government's brave and principled stand against enforcing UN resolutions.
That certainly is an interesting perspective, but it is clearly not a perspective shared by the U.S. Consitution:
"Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
So, the government is granted the power to legally secure these rights on behalf of the creators for a limited time. The language used here is completely different from that used when discussing inherent natural rights as recognized in the Bill of Rights. That's because copyright is not an inherent natural right. It's exactly what it says it is: a means of encouraging the creation of new works by granting a temporary monopoly on something which by nature is infinitely reproducible and infinitely transferrable. After the limited term of the copyright expires the government has no further role; the writing and inventions revert to their natural state, where there is no exclusivity granted by law. I don't know how it can be made any clearer.
It's absolutely absurd to claim that a set limit on copyright terms - as mandated by the Consitution and as embodied in the copyright law contemporary to the writing of the Consitution - is itself unconsitutional. Not only is there no such conflict to be found in the Constitution, but I think the folks who wrote both documents had a pretty clear understanding of the scope of 4th Amendment protections and the proper purpose of copyright.
I agree. If I'm looking for something with the intent of buying, then a text ad might be exactly what I want to see. I prefer text ads and I'm more likely to patronize a seller that uses them.
Eat your spinach! Don't forget the documentation.
on
Securing Your Network?
·
· Score: 1
Whatever sort of arrangement you decide on, I hope you're taking the time to document it properly. Troubleshooting or modifying multi-layered, redundant configurations (security or otherwise) can get really confusing, even if you're the one who designed it in the first place.
Take time along the way to write down how everything is configured, why it's configured that way, and any unusual exceptions or special cases. Include "obvious" stuff, too.
After everything is in place, go back and and make sure everything is still accurate, make any necessary updates, and write up an additional summary. And be sure and make notes of later configuration changes with all the same information.
It's not nearly as much fun as playing around with stuff, but it's really vital in any kind of real-world environment. If you don't do this, then someone will inevitably screw it all up the moment you turn your back, or later decide that it should be tossed out or replaced because it can't be reliably maintained. (And they may be right.)
So basicaly the cops need a court order, private lobyist groups don't. Somehow this doesn't sound right, does it?
In this case it probably isn't right for a lot of reasons, but there are plenty of things that you and I can do legally that law enforcement agencies can't do. By extension, private businesses and other private entities, which are really just a lot of "you and I's" can do some of those things, too.
"We shouldn't be playing God," they say. But aren't we already? Haven't we been playing God since we started artificially extending peoples' lives through drugs and machines? Aren't contraceptive drugs "Playing God?" Aren't C-section births "Playing God?"
All of the examples you cite involve treating known defects, injuries, illnesses, and complications. Or they're preventative measures, like birth control and vaccination, which can be undertaken voluntarily and with a through understanding of the risks and benefits involved.
Why do people accept all of those unnatural interventions, but draw the line at the next logical improvement of life?
Begging the question. Your argument presupposes that genetic modification is, in fact, a "logial improvement".
And that's what I find objectionable. The assumption that genetically modified humans would be inherently better than their non-modified brethren. That's nonsense, just as the presupposition that such people would be tainted and somehow less than human is also nonsense.
I pose an even more interesting question. What is the difference between a woman that has breast implants to achieve a huge bust as opposed to a baby that was DNA modified to be predisposed to big breasts?
Does that mean that manipulative surgery is ok but DNA modification isn't?
No, in means that a consentual medical procedure is ok, but a nonconsentual medical procedure isn't. It doesn't really matter whether it's done with a scapel or via genetic tampering.
The obvious difference is that the woman who chose to have breast implants chose to make that modification to herself. The baby who was genetically modified to someday have big breasts did not choose any such thing.
Re:And it seems like everyone has pet software..
on
Too Much Free Software
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Your bloat is my feature. Integrated software packages have the advantage of offering a broad set of standard functionality for everyone. If I sit down at my co-worker's PC in another department, or send them a file for review, I don't have to be concerned about whether they have, say, the pivot-table module installed in their spreadsheet, I know they do. Everybody does.
Likewise, when the IT department sets up machines with a standard configuration they give everyone the maximum possible functionality. Why do otherwise? In practical terms drive space is cheap, memory is cheap, fast (enough) CPUs are cheap, but time and tech support spent on unique configurations are expensive.
Yes, I suppose it could be made sufficiently fast and painless, with enough work. But I think that effort could be better spent improving functionality and usability of what we've already got.
It's not as much of a stretch as you might assume. The PATRIOT act includes measures intended to make it easier for law enforcement to cut off sources of funding and money laundering for terrorist groups. Gambling and organized crime have been close partners for a long, long time. International organized crime and terrorist groups have likewise become quite friendly, taking advantage of illegal arms trading, drugs, and other similar means to raising money and supply their paramillitary needs.
Apparently some people redefine "fundementalist" as "anyone who attends church regularly", which is complete nonsense. It's a pretty big stretch to label Bush a Christian fundementalist, or even an evangelical.
Well, do you think he would have set the oil fields on fire if we hadn't attacked?
Yeah, yeah, and when armed felons shoot at police officers it's really not their fault, because we clearly drove them to do it by trying to arrest them. "There now! See what you went and made me do?"
Saddam singlehandedly destroyed one of the largest wetlands in the area, just to ruin an indigenous ethnic group he didn't like. I don't recall protesting environmentalists doing much to stop that particular ecological catastrophe.
Ok, the inspectors can't find weapons of mass destruction. The US accuses Saddam of hiding them. Now in early phases of the war special ops have been going on to find and disable weapons of mass destruction. If we truly knew where they were, why the hell did we not share the intelligence with the inspectors?
Because the UN inspectors were a very bad security risk. Their communications were monitored by the Iraqi government, they were driven around by Iraqi informants, and it's quite likely that their movements and plans were often known well in advance. We shared a great deal with them, but you don't give your most sensitive intelligence data to people who can't keep secrets. (All assuming that we actually had the current data then, anyway.)
The US government funded Taliban and Saddam a couple of decades ago...
The Taliban did not exist "a couple decades ago". The Afghani resistance groups the US did support were viewed as the best of a bad lot, especially when compared to the alternatives of allowing the Soviet Union to keep Afghanistan or going in ourselves and risking escalation to nuclear war.
Likewise with Saddam. Given a choice between a radical Iranian theocracy and somewhat-less-radical Iraqi dictatorship, Iraq was seen as a less dangerous choice. Things change.
Sometimes you just have bad people versus worse people. And sometimes the very best you can do is to prevent the worse people from winning, and thereby gain some time to improve your options. Or you can hide in the corner and hope it all goes away, but somehow that never seems to work.
If I were a board member I wouldn't want any part of such an arrangement. And if I were an IT Admin or an instructor in such an institution I'd be outraged that such a thing would even be considered.
Decisions about what software are used in teaching and administrative tasks should be left to the people who actually use the software. Making sweeping decisions based on the whims of a wealthy patron is not in the best interests of any institution.
I think it'd be great for college students to use computers apart from Microsoft, but I'm told that the board will look at the decision in terms of cost, not for benefit to the students.
What benefit to students is that, exactly?There's nothing to prevent the college from using open source or non-MS products wherever they want to, if they think it would benefit the students or the instutition as a whole.
The reward money (like all such reward money) was offered as a means of encouraging people to give useful information. If the people you're enticing don't think they'll get the money, then they won't give the information. It also provides an alternate source so as to avoid compromising their Echelon-based intelligence.
And, of course, they may also have needed more specific information before attempting to capture him, in addition to his location. Like who was with him, how they were armed, etc.
With books all you can really index are the titles and the authors - and crossovers are rare. You could still list the characters appearing in a book but due to the majority being one of appearances it's usefulness is definately restricted.
No playing six degrees with books. and no thinking "I really like that character. What else have they been in?"
That depends on the type of books and characters. Many works of fiction are part of a series with recurring characters, feature real people in fictional of fictionalized situations, or exist within a "shared universe" with contributions by many authors.
Serialized works and short stories would also benefit from a character index. (For example, how many of Asimov's Robot stories featured references to Susan Calvin?)
And, of course, there are non-fiction works, where the "characters" are real people. The benefits of a comprehensive cross-reference are obvious there, I think.
ANYONE who works in the offices (especially student workers) can get this information. Admissions? Financial aid? All of these people could find enough info out about you to get a credit card in your name or go down to Circuit City and buy a big screen.
Sure, and anyone who works in the IT department could do the same, or worse. Student employees do worry me, but generally people entrusted with access to that sort of sensitive information are ethical enough not to abuse their access. If they aren't inherently honest then the possibility of losing their job and trashing their career tends to keep them in line.
OTOH, with a huge, anonymous breach like this one it's pretty much a given that the person who stole the data intends to abuse it. And if they're smart it'll be very hard to catch them when they do.
Just as bad, they're often used as ID's for faculty and staff, too. That means that someone in your position, someone less honest than yourself, could obtain access to administrative systems in the name of a faculty member and do all sorts of nasty things. And, of course, it means that they could use the SSN and the other associated information in the system for all sorts of unauthorized purposes.
Yep, autogenerated ID keys and user-defined passwords are the only way to go. Schools may need the SSN for their own administrative and financial reporting purposes, but there's no excuse for exposing it to the world. Only laziness and many years of bad habits.
OK, so I can see how a university might come to use SSNs as an identifier. They're unique and everyone already has one. Easy.
If you proceed from those mistaken conceptions then yes, it makes sense. Unfortunately they're wrong. SSNs are not necessarily unique, nor does everyone have one.
But even leaving those exceptions aside, as an ID number they're a terrible choice. Unlike a credit-card number, for example, there's no reliable way to verify that the SSN you give really belongs to you, or even that it's a valid number at all.
If an online vendor like Amazon or Dell required an SSN as a login or password then they'd be laughed out of the industry. It's dumb and entirely unnecessary.
I work in education, and I made a nuisance of myself about this issue until people finally realized the dangers involved. Schools are notoriously slow to change their management practices, and they've been sliding by on this issue for a long, long time. It's about time they were held to the same standards for online security and conduct as everyone else.
If your school or college requires an SSN then I suggest you bring this incident to their attention. Then remind them of the strict privacy laws surrounding educational records, and suggest they change their ways before it's too late.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that any gamer who has ever bought any sequel, or any generic first-person shooter (or any game that fits easily into a "genre") is a part of the problem.
Be careful, that limb looks pretty fragile. If a gamer likes a particular game and wants more of the same, or something similar to it, then there's nothing at all wrong with that.
At various points in time gamers (and game companies) have been particularly enamored with first-person shooters, flight simulators, platformers, mazes, puzzles, RPGs, wargames, god-games, side-shooters, sports simulations, and lots of other categories I don't have time to type. There have been good original games, bad original games, good sequels, and bad sequels.
And as a result, excellent representatives of all those genres are available right now for anyone to play who wants to. Ultimately people will enjoy them or not based on the merits of the individual games.
I suppose you're right. Maybe it's more a matter of knowing that you can choose to do those things, if you want to.
I must note, however, that it requires those few square feet of land or the sunny window. In the forest these are free for the taking and building. In the city they must be aquired with money. If one has no money. ..
Maybe less money than initiative. Even apartment dwellers usually have access to a common area with some dirt, or a vacant lot. But being a lifelong rural/suburbanite maybe I'm underestimating the effort required.
The citified poor have been reduced to a state of utter dependency where even their God given abilites to fare for themselves are, for the most part, denied.
I think it's less a matter of where you live than how you were raised to live. For example, anyone with a few square feet of land (or a sunny window and a couple plastic buckets) can raise vegetables and herbs for almost no money. And making meals from scratch, even if you end up buying all the ingredients, is far more frugal and healthy than buying prepared foods or eating out all the time.
Re:The future? Just like the past should be...
on
More on Columbia
·
· Score: 1
For the most part this is not true. The military has poured vasts amount of *money* into certain areas (notably airplanes, their involvment in the others is actually miniscule).
No argument there. Most millitary R&D is done in the private sector, but it's still paid for by the millitary, developed in conjunction with the millitary, and created to millitary specifications.
Airplanes, rockets, satellite imaging and communications, GPS, radar, nuclear power, materials science, and many other modern technologies owe much to millitary initiatives.
Once the millitary applications have paid the bills and provided the incentive to create something, then the technology rapidly trickles down into private industry and, directly or indirectly, to us ordinary consumers.
Re:The future? Just like the past should be...
on
More on Columbia
·
· Score: 1
All of which were invented and developed in the public sector.
Obviously the people who are actual or potential customers of Mandrake don't consider it to be much of a loss, or the company wouldn't be in this position.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, they do not support attacks on countries, justified by the war on terrorism, based on a combination of manufactured and inadequate evidence.
Especially when those attacks might jeopardize lucrative weapons sales, and Iraqi oil contracts with a French company whose biggest shareholder happens to the son-in-law of the Prime Minister.
But I'm sure all of that had absolutely nothing to do with the French government's brave and principled stand against enforcing UN resolutions.
So, the government is granted the power to legally secure these rights on behalf of the creators for a limited time. The language used here is completely different from that used when discussing inherent natural rights as recognized in the Bill of Rights. That's because copyright is not an inherent natural right. It's exactly what it says it is: a means of encouraging the creation of new works by granting a temporary monopoly on something which by nature is infinitely reproducible and infinitely transferrable. After the limited term of the copyright expires the government has no further role; the writing and inventions revert to their natural state, where there is no exclusivity granted by law. I don't know how it can be made any clearer.
It's absolutely absurd to claim that a set limit on copyright terms - as mandated by the Consitution and as embodied in the copyright law contemporary to the writing of the Consitution - is itself unconsitutional. Not only is there no such conflict to be found in the Constitution, but I think the folks who wrote both documents had a pretty clear understanding of the scope of 4th Amendment protections and the proper purpose of copyright.
I agree. If I'm looking for something with the intent of buying, then a text ad might be exactly what I want to see. I prefer text ads and I'm more likely to patronize a seller that uses them.
Whatever sort of arrangement you decide on, I hope you're taking the time to document it properly. Troubleshooting or modifying multi-layered, redundant configurations (security or otherwise) can get really confusing, even if you're the one who designed it in the first place.
Take time along the way to write down how everything is configured, why it's configured that way, and any unusual exceptions or special cases. Include "obvious" stuff, too.
After everything is in place, go back and and make sure everything is still accurate, make any necessary updates, and write up an additional summary. And be sure and make notes of later configuration changes with all the same information.
It's not nearly as much fun as playing around with stuff, but it's really vital in any kind of real-world environment. If you don't do this, then someone will inevitably screw it all up the moment you turn your back, or later decide that it should be tossed out or replaced because it can't be reliably maintained. (And they may be right.)
So basicaly the cops need a court order, private lobyist groups don't. Somehow this doesn't sound right, does it?
In this case it probably isn't right for a lot of reasons, but there are plenty of things that you and I can do legally that law enforcement agencies can't do. By extension, private businesses and other private entities, which are really just a lot of "you and I's" can do some of those things, too.
"We shouldn't be playing God," they say. But aren't we already? Haven't we been playing God since we started artificially extending peoples' lives through drugs and machines? Aren't contraceptive drugs "Playing God?" Aren't C-section births "Playing God?"
All of the examples you cite involve treating known defects, injuries, illnesses, and complications. Or they're preventative measures, like birth control and vaccination, which can be undertaken voluntarily and with a through understanding of the risks and benefits involved.
Why do people accept all of those unnatural interventions, but draw the line at the next logical improvement of life?
Begging the question. Your argument presupposes that genetic modification is, in fact, a "logial improvement".
And that's what I find objectionable. The assumption that genetically modified humans would be inherently better than their non-modified brethren. That's nonsense, just as the presupposition that such people would be tainted and somehow less than human is also nonsense.
I pose an even more interesting question. What is the difference between a woman that has breast implants to achieve a huge bust as opposed to a baby that was DNA modified to be predisposed to big breasts?
Does that mean that manipulative surgery is ok but DNA modification isn't?
No, in means that a consentual medical procedure is ok, but a nonconsentual medical procedure isn't. It doesn't really matter whether it's done with a scapel or via genetic tampering.
The obvious difference is that the woman who chose to have breast implants chose to make that modification to herself. The baby who was genetically modified to someday have big breasts did not choose any such thing.
Your bloat is my feature. Integrated software packages have the advantage of offering a broad set of standard functionality for everyone. If I sit down at my co-worker's PC in another department, or send them a file for review, I don't have to be concerned about whether they have, say, the pivot-table module installed in their spreadsheet, I know they do. Everybody does.
Likewise, when the IT department sets up machines with a standard configuration they give everyone the maximum possible functionality. Why do otherwise? In practical terms drive space is cheap, memory is cheap, fast (enough) CPUs are cheap, but time and tech support spent on unique configurations are expensive.
Yes, I suppose it could be made sufficiently fast and painless, with enough work. But I think that effort could be better spent improving functionality and usability of what we've already got.
It's not as much of a stretch as you might assume. The PATRIOT act includes measures intended to make it easier for law enforcement to cut off sources of funding and money laundering for terrorist groups. Gambling and organized crime have been close partners for a long, long time. International organized crime and terrorist groups have likewise become quite friendly, taking advantage of illegal arms trading, drugs, and other similar means to raising money and supply their paramillitary needs.
Apparently some people redefine "fundementalist" as "anyone who attends church regularly", which is complete nonsense. It's a pretty big stretch to label Bush a Christian fundementalist, or even an evangelical.
Well, do you think he would have set the oil fields on fire if we hadn't attacked?
Yeah, yeah, and when armed felons shoot at police officers it's really not their fault, because we clearly drove them to do it by trying to arrest them. "There now! See what you went and made me do?"
Saddam singlehandedly destroyed one of the largest wetlands in the area, just to ruin an indigenous ethnic group he didn't like. I don't recall protesting environmentalists doing much to stop that particular ecological catastrophe.
Ok, the inspectors can't find weapons of mass destruction. The US accuses Saddam of hiding them. Now in early phases of the war special ops have been going on to find and disable weapons of mass destruction. If we truly knew where they were, why the hell did we not share the intelligence with the inspectors?
Because the UN inspectors were a very bad security risk. Their communications were monitored by the Iraqi government, they were driven around by Iraqi informants, and it's quite likely that their movements and plans were often known well in advance. We shared a great deal with them, but you don't give your most sensitive intelligence data to people who can't keep secrets. (All assuming that we actually had the current data then, anyway.)
The US government funded Taliban and Saddam a couple of decades ago...
The Taliban did not exist "a couple decades ago". The Afghani resistance groups the US did support were viewed as the best of a bad lot, especially when compared to the alternatives of allowing the Soviet Union to keep Afghanistan or going in ourselves and risking escalation to nuclear war.
Likewise with Saddam. Given a choice between a radical Iranian theocracy and somewhat-less-radical Iraqi dictatorship, Iraq was seen as a less dangerous choice. Things change.
Sometimes you just have bad people versus worse people. And sometimes the very best you can do is to prevent the worse people from winning, and thereby gain some time to improve your options. Or you can hide in the corner and hope it all goes away, but somehow that never seems to work.
If I were a board member I wouldn't want any part of such an arrangement. And if I were an IT Admin or an instructor in such an institution I'd be outraged that such a thing would even be considered.
Decisions about what software are used in teaching and administrative tasks should be left to the people who actually use the software. Making sweeping decisions based on the whims of a wealthy patron is not in the best interests of any institution.
I think it'd be great for college students to use computers apart from Microsoft, but I'm told that the board will look at the decision in terms of cost, not for benefit to the students.
What benefit to students is that, exactly?There's nothing to prevent the college from using open source or non-MS products wherever they want to, if they think it would benefit the students or the instutition as a whole.
The reward money (like all such reward money) was offered as a means of encouraging people to give useful information. If the people you're enticing don't think they'll get the money, then they won't give the information. It also provides an alternate source so as to avoid compromising their Echelon-based intelligence.
And, of course, they may also have needed more specific information before attempting to capture him, in addition to his location. Like who was with him, how they were armed, etc.
With books all you can really index are the titles and the authors - and crossovers are rare.
You could still list the characters appearing in a book but due to the majority being one of appearances it's usefulness is definately restricted.
No playing six degrees with books. and no thinking "I really like that character. What else have they been in?"
That depends on the type of books and characters. Many works of fiction are part of a series with recurring characters, feature real people in fictional of fictionalized situations, or exist within a "shared universe" with contributions by many authors.
Serialized works and short stories would also benefit from a character index. (For example, how many of Asimov's Robot stories featured references to Susan Calvin?)
And, of course, there are non-fiction works, where the "characters" are real people. The benefits of a comprehensive cross-reference are obvious there, I think.
ANYONE who works in the offices (especially student workers) can get this information. Admissions? Financial aid? All of these people could find enough info out about you to get a credit card in your name or go down to Circuit City and buy a big screen.
Sure, and anyone who works in the IT department could do the same, or worse. Student employees do worry me, but generally people entrusted with access to that sort of sensitive information are ethical enough not to abuse their access. If they aren't inherently honest then the possibility of losing their job and trashing their career tends to keep them in line.
OTOH, with a huge, anonymous breach like this one it's pretty much a given that the person who stole the data intends to abuse it. And if they're smart it'll be very hard to catch them when they do.
Just as bad, they're often used as ID's for faculty and staff, too. That means that someone in your position, someone less honest than yourself, could obtain access to administrative systems in the name of a faculty member and do all sorts of nasty things. And, of course, it means that they could use the SSN and the other associated information in the system for all sorts of unauthorized purposes.
Yep, autogenerated ID keys and user-defined passwords are the only way to go. Schools may need the SSN for their own administrative and financial reporting purposes, but there's no excuse for exposing it to the world. Only laziness and many years of bad habits.
OK, so I can see how a university might come to use SSNs as an identifier. They're unique and everyone already has one. Easy.
If you proceed from those mistaken conceptions then yes, it makes sense. Unfortunately they're wrong. SSNs are not necessarily unique, nor does everyone have one.
But even leaving those exceptions aside, as an ID number they're a terrible choice. Unlike a credit-card number, for example, there's no reliable way to verify that the SSN you give really belongs to you, or even that it's a valid number at all.
If an online vendor like Amazon or Dell required an SSN as a login or password then they'd be laughed out of the industry. It's dumb and entirely unnecessary.
I work in education, and I made a nuisance of myself about this issue until people finally realized the dangers involved. Schools are notoriously slow to change their management practices, and they've been sliding by on this issue for a long, long time. It's about time they were held to the same standards for online security and conduct as everyone else.
If your school or college requires an SSN then I suggest you bring this incident to their attention. Then remind them of the strict privacy laws surrounding educational records, and suggest they change their ways before it's too late.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that any gamer who has ever bought any sequel, or any generic first-person shooter (or any game that fits easily into a "genre") is a part of the problem.
Be careful, that limb looks pretty fragile. If a gamer likes a particular game and wants more of the same, or something similar to it, then there's nothing at all wrong with that.
At various points in time gamers (and game companies) have been particularly enamored with first-person shooters, flight simulators, platformers, mazes, puzzles, RPGs, wargames, god-games, side-shooters, sports simulations, and lots of other categories I don't have time to type. There have been good original games, bad original games, good sequels, and bad sequels.
And as a result, excellent representatives of all those genres are available right now for anyone to play who wants to. Ultimately people will enjoy them or not based on the merits of the individual games.
I suppose you're right. Maybe it's more a matter of knowing that you can choose to do those things, if you want to.
.
I must note, however, that it requires those few square feet of land or the sunny window. In the forest these are free for the taking and building. In the city they must be aquired with money. If one has no money. .
Maybe less money than initiative. Even apartment dwellers usually have access to a common area with some dirt, or a vacant lot. But being a lifelong rural/suburbanite maybe I'm underestimating the effort required.
The citified poor have been reduced to a state of utter dependency where even their God given abilites to fare for themselves are, for the most part, denied.
I think it's less a matter of where you live than how you were raised to live. For example, anyone with a few square feet of land (or a sunny window and a couple plastic buckets) can raise vegetables and herbs for almost no money. And making meals from scratch, even if you end up buying all the ingredients, is far more frugal and healthy than buying prepared foods or eating out all the time.
For the most part this is not true. The military has poured vasts amount of *money* into certain areas (notably airplanes, their involvment in the others is actually miniscule).
No argument there. Most millitary R&D is done in the private sector, but it's still paid for by the millitary, developed in conjunction with the millitary, and created to millitary specifications.
Airplanes, rockets, satellite imaging and communications, GPS, radar, nuclear power, materials science, and many other modern technologies owe much to millitary initiatives.
Once the millitary applications have paid the bills and provided the incentive to create something, then the technology rapidly trickles down into private industry and, directly or indirectly, to us ordinary consumers.
All of which were invented and developed in the public sector.
And by the millitary.
Obviously the people who are actual or potential customers of Mandrake don't consider it to be much of a loss, or the company wouldn't be in this position.