It is not legitimate nor ethically defensible to protect our own government, or any other government for that matter, that has done something "embarrassing" or flat-out wrong. It is not acceptable to keep it under wraps if some commandos during WWII massacred anyone. That most assuredly SHOULD be known, the sooner the better. Same for ANY other government or government organization, be they friend or foe.
The only valid information for classification are those things that TRULY protect methods and capabilities, military weaknesses, and the like. To avoid embarrassment, lawsuit, or other form of punishment is NOT defensible. Period. You screw up, no matter the time, place, or reason, then it should be made known and anything that needs to be done to make it right should happen. Period.
If, for the sake of this discussion, that the Kecksburg incident involved a "secret" military test vehicle using nuclear power/propulsion and the use or crash of this vehicle exposed any member of the public (or military, without their knowledge) then that needs to be made known and needs to be "paid" for. Classification can NEVER, should NEVER, be used to protect anyone from embarrassment or lawsuit.
Yeah, right. Sure, certain things need to be classified to hide capabilities, methods, etc. Some things are classified to avoid liability or embarrassment or as a matter of course and for no good reason. Worse, some things REMAIN classified for no good reason. For instance, there is NO valid reason for ANYTHING to remain classified if it predates, say, the 1970s. No valid reason. There is no capability, no method, not technology, that is sooo advanced that it hasn't been vastly surpassed in subsequent decades in the civilian sector. There is no valid reason to hide Cold War-associated files. The Cold War is OVER. Done. No valid reason, other than covering butts that don't deserve to be covered (any longer, at least).
My take is that something DID occur in Kecksburg, but it wasn't alien-based. More likely this was some form of military test vehicle or satellite. There was some suggestion that it might have been a crashed Soviet COSMOS satellite (nuc powered) but there were no such satellites in orbit and over the area at the correct time for an errant crash.
This was what, 1965? Height of the Cold-War, also at the height of the Apollo program. It could have been a NASA test vehicle, complete with simian occupants (to explain the so-called scream/screech some reported after the military arrived).
It would be invalid, as far as I'm concerned, for there to be continued secrecy about ANY vehicles tested by NASA or the military at any point up to at least the 1970s. NOTHING that predates this is worthy of secrecy as any and all technology associated with it is pathetically outdated by now. There may be ethical/public health-related reasons why the military might be interested in keeping a lock on anything like an old black project (radiation leakage/exposure to the general public, etc) but even this is illegitimate, unethical (take your freakin' medicine for endangering citizens), and indefensible.
I hope the Sci-Fi Channel comes out with something for their troubles. It wont be extraterrestrial in origin but it will likely be interesting. And perhaps damning to those who deserve to be damned.
But you are blind to the real agenda: kill off whistleblowers, the only true heros in the corporate/government world. A person with actual ethics and morals would spill the beans on M$ illegalities (or DOJ unethical behavior, or Administration illegal behavior). M$ seeks to make this impossible as all internal emails will be unprintable, unforwardable, uncopyable.
There is no legitimate purpose for this other than to kill the ability of people of ethics standing in the way of unethical behavior. M$ wants to get away with murder (and the DOJ and Administration would be all over this too - no damn undesired leaks, just the officially OK'd leaks about CIA operatives for political gain).
I WILL start carrying a small digital camera with me whenever such nonsense becomes commonplace in any organization. M$ will NOT stop me from being a whistleblower should I ever come across any unethical/illegal activities within ANY organization I am a part of.
Erm, no. Because microsnot throws EVERYTHING into the kernel proper (thus, IE is now an inextractable part of the OS itself), it is well and royally screwed when vulnerabilities come out. It is a technicality but nonetheless, a vulnerability in OpenSSH is NOT a vulnerability in linux. It can be simply patched with a small file that wont break anything else unintentionally. Because of the all-encompassing nature of the M$ system, a vulnerability in whatever is a true vulnerability affecting the OS itself and any patch for it endangers the stability and useability of the entire system.
There was outcry from me because of the bigger picture and on simple liberty/privacy grounds. If it is OK to arrest homosexuals for taking part in completely consensual sexual activity between legal age adults, then it is OK to do this to anyone else too. It is not the place of police or government or one's neighbors, for that matter, to dictate what one may or may not do in the privacy of one's own home, one's own bedroom. What takes place between consenting adults is, for ALL practical purposes, no one's business but those directly involved.
One can and should expect protected privacy in their own homes, in their sexual behavior, their reading or viewing preferences, etc. It's nobody's business and any law trying to make it someone else's business is wrong and corrupt.
Fortunately, since most of these ridiculous and morally corrupt laws are not enforced (except for convenience in Texas), they should have been dropped from the books a LONG time ago. If there was a clause requiring full enforcement of the law within, say, 5 years of passing the law, the public outcry from convicted "criminals" who broke the law (and their libertarian-minded, liberty-loving supporters) would have risen full force to drive the law out of the books, and those attempting to enforce them, out of office. Forcing enforcement would make real people feel the consequences of the stupid and indefensible laws and failure to enforce these laws because those in power know what the ultimate outcome would be would likely be enough to prevent such laws in the first place.
I think laws should (perhaps) automatically be subject to a rule that if they are not enforced over x period of time, then they are no longer on the books (they expire). Now, you might think that this would spur a host of ridiculous arrests by the criminals that are our government, and you are likely correct, dependent on the leader's moralistic bent. Those laws against oral sex, sodomy, premarital/extramarital sex, etc, would be enforced in some idiot districts as an attempt to keep them on the books, but the outcry would well up and immediate squelch the enforcement and effectively kill those laws.
Re:Except there is no constitutonal right to priva
on
Trusted Computing
·
· Score: 1
It does exist and is the basis for several rights. Without privacy as a defacto Consitutional right, there is NO reasonable basis to "being secure in their persons" or "protected from illegal search and seizure". If you have no privacy, there can be no objection to me or anyone else searching through your life for whatever reason strikes my fancy (curiosity). Same for government. If you have no right to privacy, there can be no argument against me or anyone else violating the "security of your person" (which doesn't mean/imply right of self-defense which is also not specifically enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights..it doesn't NEED to be stated as it is a natural and human right which is bigger than Constitutional Right).
Many Rights that are specifically enumerated are rendered baseless without an implied and understood right to privacy. I have found that most people who like to say there is no Constitutional right to privacy use this as code to say: It is my business what a woman does in the privacy of her life and with her body and that, damnit, she WILL be a baby incubator whether she likes it or not! My way or the highway!
There is also no Right to Bear Arms, per se. There IS a right to Bear Arms within the context of a "well regulated militia" (which most assuredly does NOT mean a bunch of yahoos getting together in the woods of Michigan and declaring themselves a "militia" so they can fight the "godless gov'mnt and coloreds").
Fess up, what you mean when you say "no right to privacy" is "women are men's property and their bodies to be controlled by the god-fearin' folk."
Re:Article is a bit off base in places
on
Trusted Computing
·
· Score: 1
If you read carefully, you will see that he doesn't mention things like firewalling and NAT as things that were specifically produced to erode freedom. They both came about for viable reasons but their implementation is the problem, particularly when tied to the many other developments cited - some of which are specifically intended to hurt users for the benefit of corporations and other bastards.
Also, indicating that most people don't want to setup or run web pages is not relevant. What is relevant, and what he is addressing, is the fact that users often cannot do this, even if they wanted to, from their own machines. Their corporate ISPs have conflict of interest by also running hosting services, then provide restrictive rules as ISPs to ensure that anyone wanting to serve anything either simply cannot or must use their hosting service (for a small additional fee, of course). Everyone's computer is fully capable of doing all this stuff...but it just isn't permitted by their ISP (mainly because it would hurt their hosting income).
Tie NAT/firewalling and restrictions on use of computers for servers of whatever type, sometimes for "reasonable" purposes, and you have ready-made restrictions. It becomes easy to then extend those restrictions a little bit at a time for other seemingly valid and "helpful" reasons and viola, you are restricted out of your freedom and "happy" for it!
No more spam! Great day! It just means that I also lose my anonymity in the bargain, that everything I send is logged and specifically and easily tied to me no matter what I might try to do to regain anonymity. It means that everything I buy, read, download is logged and specifically tied to me. But at least I don't get spam anymore because those same restrictions and losses of freedom restrict spammers to the point of inviability. So, to get the "benefits" of Trusted Computing" and a "Trusted Internet" I have to be subject to the most restrictive and imposing rules possible because that is what it takes to stop the spammers. No thanks, I'll take the spammers to all that corporate and government control of what I say, see, do, buy, etc.
Don't lose sight of the fact that he is NOT claiming all these various things (firewalling, NAT, etc) were specifically designed to limit our freedom - that is just the fallout of their actual use vs intended use. The most restrictive use of these technologies become policy rather than option. Same holds true for ALL the other things he mentions, except that some of them are specifically intended from the get-go, inspite of protestation to the contrary (M$ and Palladium crap for instance), to serve for the benefit of the corporation, all the while selling it to the masses as being something good for them individually. The cost for the good to each individual is far outweighed by the evil main intent: corporate control of information, its dissemination and use. No more whistleblowers! Good for corporations and governments but bad for citizens and society. No more "piracy" or "theft"! Good for corporations but bad for fair use, research, interoperability, etc.
The crap motto "In God We Trust" has NOT always been on our money. That too was added VERY late, during the anti-commie hysteria. It should go if you want to keep to historic principals. Keep your god to yourself, it has no hold on me and attempts to enshrine her or codify her into laws invalidate those laws for me as the very basis for such laws is nonsensical bull poop.
You can opt out of the God crap. You do NOT have to put your hand on a bible, nor do you have to say "So help me God." I have refused and anyone else can too. You can swear any of the oaths and not mention "God" - it doesn't make it any less binding.
about the lack of a linux client (even an unsupported one, I mean, c'mon...idsoftware sure has no problem with this on EVERYTHING they release) are irrelevant now as there wont even be a windoze client available.
And yet, idSoftware CONSISTENTLY produces equally good linux clients for all their games within rather short order of the doze release. As I understand it, the linux client for Doom 3 will be coincident with the doze client...AND idSoftware makes money on their games. There is no real "loss" from their doing linux ports. They produce their games the RIGHT way so that it is virtually a mere recompile away from being a linux game. No pain, no muss, and no loss. You can include a linux client on the same CD as the doze client. You can do it ala idSoftware and make it "officially" unsupported (yet id game clients are pretty damn fine even being "unsupported").
You lose IF you do these two things ala linux client: 1) release it months AFTER releasing the doze game version, and 2) attempt to sell this late version in the stores. Gamers are impatient and given that there has never been a solid timetable for release of linux games, generally just "when they're ready" or worse, no official word at all, gamers simply assume nothing is forthcoming and buy the doze version. The alternative doesn't work either...they may be willing to wait a few weeks for a linux client but after that, fuhk it, buy the new, hot game NOW and play it NOW. This situation has described the pathetic attempts at commercial linux games up til now (with very few exceptions). idSoftware has finally gotten it right. Instead of selling a separate linux client, they release the doze game and provide a linux client for download. Simple, painless, works.
Modded to "interesting"? A bit of a stretch. Shall I reference any one of the other "interesting" or bizarro websites out there and also get modded "interesting"?
Hell, I'll pretend to come from the future and give you answers to all your questions too, only I go better - I'll claim to be from 2131 and be an independence activist for the Mars colonies.
I absolutely reject the entire idea. I buy blank CDs, certainly, but I simply do not burn music. I do not listen to music on my PC, nor do I watch movies on my PC. I have a nice stereo and DVD player connected to nice TV for that stuff. My computer is for games and doing "computer stuff" (writing documents, web browsing, prepping presentations, etc) and I burn files and software backups on my CDs. I will NOT pay money to RIAA/MPAA for something I don't do/use. Blank CDs are NOT automatically substrate for song ripping. This is the ultimate flaw in the whole taxation on blank CD, DVD, or player bullcrap
So don't trust it. Use GnuPG. Drop-in compatibility with PGP but OSS. I use it with Kmail and with kpg for generic file or document encryption. Easy as a coot. But then, none of my main email recipients use xPG or anything like it. They don't even KNOW about message encryption. If my recipients aren't using it, then it largely goes unused except between a select few who know and can use xPG.
Ah, the fun begins. The polics and firemen increase in NY is demanded, even required, as a response to 9/11 and for "homeland (in)security". The states (like NY) come out and "do their duty" by going for more cops and firemen to now cover their mandates under "homeland security". The Fed Gov, under the feeble-minded, AWOL, drunk Shrub DOESN'T pony up its promised money (yep, a spending increase demanded for homeland security but handed off to the states as an UNFUNDED MANDATE). The states go into debt OR they fail to meet their homeland security requirements. They can either hike up taxes on regular people, all the while the Fed cuts taxes on those least in need of more money in their pockets...and less likely to do anything beneficial with it... The Fed hikes up the one and only form of spending that Conservatives/Republicans love, nay, LUST - military spending. If there is no reason for a huge-ass military spending increase, by gawd, they'll CREATE one by invading some wild-ass, inoffensive (to our direct security) country (Iraq).
As a bonus, CUT social safety nets - which in fact, saved the US from a true and utter collapse into either communism or fascism after the big stock market crash and economic failure of unregulated capitalism in the 20s - at the same time. So, the superwealthy crony friends of those in office get lots of pointless money, the middle class and poor get laid off, or have their overtime pay threatened, see their real income drop year after year, see their schools fall apart, and then get to look at a full-on, directed collapse of one of the things they were counting on when they could finally retire...Social Security, which is being gutted/borrowed from to pay for Iraq and more military adventures. Add to this loveliness the utter degredation of the only planet we have by pushing for major deforestation, elimination of as many species as possible, increasing the amount of water and air pollution as much as possible, and you get a real, nice Republican "paradise". Sign me up!
Yes, they are nasty (nastier than is generally admitted by the powers that be) but they are NOT radioactive. They are nasty as in heavy metal toxicity. The soldiers that work/fight in areas nailed by depleted uranium shells are not informed nor protected from this toxicity and neither are local civilians.
On the other hand, the weapons are virtually indispensible because they have penetrating power unlike any other munition form, capable of piercing the best armor. A big plus on the battle field. In any case, depleted uranium weapons are NOT illegal. There are many who WANT them to be banned because of their nasty toxic side effects but wanting it to be so doesn't make it so. An official UN declaration declaring depleted uranium munitions would be required to make them, in fact, banned weapons.
This is one of those situations that I believe will ultimately go against the desires of the US military powers that be simply because the health costs to our own soldiers will build. The health costs to innocent civilians in battle zones will build. Ultimately, no matter what the utility of depleted uranium munitions, they will end up having to be dropped - but only after many lawsuits ala Agent Orange.
You can be a perfectly moral and upstanding scientist AND still support the fact that the military is a necessity. You can be a perfectly moral and upstanding military member and simply enjoy science. I fall into both camps. I am a scientist AND I am in the military. Would I do defense-based research? Certainly. The result of a scientific enterprise is no less valid or interesting simpy due to the source of the funding and the result may well be useful and necessary. Perhaps I would be helping to reduce casualities on all sides of a conflict or, at the very least, helping to make sure my compatriots will come home from the next brushfire intact.
Oh the shame! I should seek to force our military men and women (and myself) to use old, outdated, obsolescent weapons and defenses, thus ensuring a large dead body count in future battles. Afterall, it is self evident that any and all of our (USA) soldiers are monsters and robotons. They aren't your neighbors, brothers, sisters, fathers, uncles, etc. They only seek to kill, kill, kill without mercy and so seek the most monstrous ways of doing this killing possible. OF COURSE it would be "wrong" to help ensure that our military will succeed in future military endeavors. As a scientist, I should instead seek to make their lives miserable and short and make defending the Constitutions and Bill of Rights extremely precarious due to lack of good military tools.
And don't get me started on how there is not a lick of military-based research that ultimately helps society as a whole quite apart from its original intended military focus. There is NEVER any benefit outside the military.
Grow up. Splitting the atom (for instance) has both benign and ugly uses and these uses cannot be fully separated. Simply because one of the first uses was to blow stuff up doesn't make the contribution of the scientists that permitted it wrong. This holds true on virtually ALL military-funded research.
No one. NO ONE can "check their code to ensure it isn't infringing" on ANYTHING. There is not a giant, all-encompassing database of copyright code out there to check against. You can't run a source code check vs windoze code to make sure you aren't using M$ code, SCO can't check to make sure they haven't used IBM code, etc. It is IMPOSSIBLE to, a priori, vett code to make sure it isn't already copyrighted.
The other option, a "warranty", is also nonexistent, as already has been pointed out numerous times. No one gives a warranty that that their code will work, that it doesn't infringe on ANYTHING. This is utter nonsense, top to bottom.
Three things that would be a nice replacement for passwords in every day life. Of the three, the easiest/nicest would probably have to be access card. We are beginning to use them in the military - our new IDs act as our access card. The biometric data on the card need not be intrusive (certainly less so than military ID cards) for common use. States could standardize on using a common driver's license with a chip on it with no more information stored in it than is on a normal driver's license. This and a single pin number would suffice.
Quicker and/or easier...computers come with a card reader and you can just purchase or get a dedicated access card when you get a new computer/reader. Each card could simply contain some generic, unique data in it that combined with a pin is all you need. If using a standard card/data system then all corporations, schools, etc, could adopt it. One card, or just a few, no more onerous than carrying around several credit cards, insurance cards, etc. The only thing you need to memorize is one or two pins. Tied to public key (no M$ DRM server-type nonsense), best to use PGP/GPG to keep it open and universal, and you are set.
When there is a perfectly good one already available...Linux? If they need something more, just start an OSS project to add what they think it lacks. Cheap, fast, and targeted. Reduce redundant development, build off past successful development.
Good! We can now call for the arrest of exit pollers. Those bastards call the election by counting votes as they occur (and some dumb schmuck comes out and spills all). You find out that you're stuck with GWB in Oregon before the polls are open for 2 hours because ass clowns in the East blab about their vote. Why have a secret ballot if ya'll are gonna come right out and say "I done voted for the guy like me in smarts, Dubya"? We can just skip the polls in the West since you buttnuggets in the Eastern-ward locales are so loose lipped.
sort of "linux certified" hardware, particularly if others follow HP's lead, is that it might finally mean 802.11g for linux. Hope for this rather than the vendor simply making "linux certified" boxes gimped with 802.11b.
I generally go with the full distro (Mandrake) every other one or so, so the inclusion of Mandrake "lite" isn't of much interest to me. It is the "certification" that is of interest...being confident that the laptop I buy from them will actually work with linux without too much dicking around.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not legitimate nor ethically defensible to protect our own government, or any other government for that matter, that has done something "embarrassing" or flat-out wrong. It is not acceptable to keep it under wraps if some commandos during WWII massacred anyone. That most assuredly SHOULD be known, the sooner the better. Same for ANY other government or government organization, be they friend or foe.
The only valid information for classification are those things that TRULY protect methods and capabilities, military weaknesses, and the like. To avoid embarrassment, lawsuit, or other form of punishment is NOT defensible. Period. You screw up, no matter the time, place, or reason, then it should be made known and anything that needs to be done to make it right should happen. Period.
If, for the sake of this discussion, that the Kecksburg incident involved a "secret" military test vehicle using nuclear power/propulsion and the use or crash of this vehicle exposed any member of the public (or military, without their knowledge) then that needs to be made known and needs to be "paid" for. Classification can NEVER, should NEVER, be used to protect anyone from embarrassment or lawsuit.
Yeah, right. Sure, certain things need to be classified to hide capabilities, methods, etc. Some things are classified to avoid liability or embarrassment or as a matter of course and for no good reason. Worse, some things REMAIN classified for no good reason. For instance, there is NO valid reason for ANYTHING to remain classified if it predates, say, the 1970s. No valid reason. There is no capability, no method, not technology, that is sooo advanced that it hasn't been vastly surpassed in subsequent decades in the civilian sector. There is no valid reason to hide Cold War-associated files. The Cold War is OVER. Done. No valid reason, other than covering butts that don't deserve to be covered (any longer, at least).
My take is that something DID occur in Kecksburg, but it wasn't alien-based. More likely this was some form of military test vehicle or satellite. There was some suggestion that it might have been a crashed Soviet COSMOS satellite (nuc powered) but there were no such satellites in orbit and over the area at the correct time for an errant crash.
This was what, 1965? Height of the Cold-War, also at the height of the Apollo program. It could have been a NASA test vehicle, complete with simian occupants (to explain the so-called scream/screech some reported after the military arrived).
It would be invalid, as far as I'm concerned, for there to be continued secrecy about ANY vehicles tested by NASA or the military at any point up to at least the 1970s. NOTHING that predates this is worthy of secrecy as any and all technology associated with it is pathetically outdated by now. There may be ethical/public health-related reasons why the military might be interested in keeping a lock on anything like an old black project (radiation leakage/exposure to the general public, etc) but even this is illegitimate, unethical (take your freakin' medicine for endangering citizens), and indefensible.
I hope the Sci-Fi Channel comes out with something for their troubles. It wont be extraterrestrial in origin but it will likely be interesting. And perhaps damning to those who deserve to be damned.
But you are blind to the real agenda: kill off whistleblowers, the only true heros in the corporate/government world. A person with actual ethics and morals would spill the beans on M$ illegalities (or DOJ unethical behavior, or Administration illegal behavior). M$ seeks to make this impossible as all internal emails will be unprintable, unforwardable, uncopyable.
There is no legitimate purpose for this other than to kill the ability of people of ethics standing in the way of unethical behavior. M$ wants to get away with murder (and the DOJ and Administration would be all over this too - no damn undesired leaks, just the officially OK'd leaks about CIA operatives for political gain).
I WILL start carrying a small digital camera with me whenever such nonsense becomes commonplace in any organization. M$ will NOT stop me from being a whistleblower should I ever come across any unethical/illegal activities within ANY organization I am a part of.
Erm, no. Because microsnot throws EVERYTHING into the kernel proper (thus, IE is now an inextractable part of the OS itself), it is well and royally screwed when vulnerabilities come out. It is a technicality but nonetheless, a vulnerability in OpenSSH is NOT a vulnerability in linux. It can be simply patched with a small file that wont break anything else unintentionally. Because of the all-encompassing nature of the M$ system, a vulnerability in whatever is a true vulnerability affecting the OS itself and any patch for it endangers the stability and useability of the entire system.
There was outcry from me because of the bigger picture and on simple liberty/privacy grounds. If it is OK to arrest homosexuals for taking part in completely consensual sexual activity between legal age adults, then it is OK to do this to anyone else too. It is not the place of police or government or one's neighbors, for that matter, to dictate what one may or may not do in the privacy of one's own home, one's own bedroom. What takes place between consenting adults is, for ALL practical purposes, no one's business but those directly involved.
One can and should expect protected privacy in their own homes, in their sexual behavior, their reading or viewing preferences, etc. It's nobody's business and any law trying to make it someone else's business is wrong and corrupt.
Fortunately, since most of these ridiculous and morally corrupt laws are not enforced (except for convenience in Texas), they should have been dropped from the books a LONG time ago. If there was a clause requiring full enforcement of the law within, say, 5 years of passing the law, the public outcry from convicted "criminals" who broke the law (and their libertarian-minded, liberty-loving supporters) would have risen full force to drive the law out of the books, and those attempting to enforce them, out of office. Forcing enforcement would make real people feel the consequences of the stupid and indefensible laws and failure to enforce these laws because those in power know what the ultimate outcome would be would likely be enough to prevent such laws in the first place.
I think laws should (perhaps) automatically be subject to a rule that if they are not enforced over x period of time, then they are no longer on the books (they expire). Now, you might think that this would spur a host of ridiculous arrests by the criminals that are our government, and you are likely correct, dependent on the leader's moralistic bent. Those laws against oral sex, sodomy, premarital/extramarital sex, etc, would be enforced in some idiot districts as an attempt to keep them on the books, but the outcry would well up and immediate squelch the enforcement and effectively kill those laws.
It does exist and is the basis for several rights. Without privacy as a defacto Consitutional right, there is NO reasonable basis to "being secure in their persons" or "protected from illegal search and seizure". If you have no privacy, there can be no objection to me or anyone else searching through your life for whatever reason strikes my fancy (curiosity). Same for government. If you have no right to privacy, there can be no argument against me or anyone else violating the "security of your person" (which doesn't mean/imply right of self-defense which is also not specifically enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights..it doesn't NEED to be stated as it is a natural and human right which is bigger than Constitutional Right).
Many Rights that are specifically enumerated are rendered baseless without an implied and understood right to privacy. I have found that most people who like to say there is no Constitutional right to privacy use this as code to say: It is my business what a woman does in the privacy of her life and with her body and that, damnit, she WILL be a baby incubator whether she likes it or not! My way or the highway!
There is also no Right to Bear Arms, per se. There IS a right to Bear Arms within the context of a "well regulated militia" (which most assuredly does NOT mean a bunch of yahoos getting together in the woods of Michigan and declaring themselves a "militia" so they can fight the "godless gov'mnt and coloreds").
Fess up, what you mean when you say "no right to privacy" is "women are men's property and their bodies to be controlled by the god-fearin' folk."
If you read carefully, you will see that he doesn't mention things like firewalling and NAT as things that were specifically produced to erode freedom. They both came about for viable reasons but their implementation is the problem, particularly when tied to the many other developments cited - some of which are specifically intended to hurt users for the benefit of corporations and other bastards.
Also, indicating that most people don't want to setup or run web pages is not relevant. What is relevant, and what he is addressing, is the fact that users often cannot do this, even if they wanted to, from their own machines. Their corporate ISPs have conflict of interest by also running hosting services, then provide restrictive rules as ISPs to ensure that anyone wanting to serve anything either simply cannot or must use their hosting service (for a small additional fee, of course). Everyone's computer is fully capable of doing all this stuff...but it just isn't permitted by their ISP (mainly because it would hurt their hosting income).
Tie NAT/firewalling and restrictions on use of computers for servers of whatever type, sometimes for "reasonable" purposes, and you have ready-made restrictions. It becomes easy to then extend those restrictions a little bit at a time for other seemingly valid and "helpful" reasons and viola, you are restricted out of your freedom and "happy" for it!
No more spam! Great day! It just means that I also lose my anonymity in the bargain, that everything I send is logged and specifically and easily tied to me no matter what I might try to do to regain anonymity. It means that everything I buy, read, download is logged and specifically tied to me. But at least I don't get spam anymore because those same restrictions and losses of freedom restrict spammers to the point of inviability. So, to get the "benefits" of Trusted Computing" and a "Trusted Internet" I have to be subject to the most restrictive and imposing rules possible because that is what it takes to stop the spammers. No thanks, I'll take the spammers to all that corporate and government control of what I say, see, do, buy, etc.
Don't lose sight of the fact that he is NOT claiming all these various things (firewalling, NAT, etc) were specifically designed to limit our freedom - that is just the fallout of their actual use vs intended use. The most restrictive use of these technologies become policy rather than option. Same holds true for ALL the other things he mentions, except that some of them are specifically intended from the get-go, inspite of protestation to the contrary (M$ and Palladium crap for instance), to serve for the benefit of the corporation, all the while selling it to the masses as being something good for them individually. The cost for the good to each individual is far outweighed by the evil main intent: corporate control of information, its dissemination and use. No more whistleblowers! Good for corporations and governments but bad for citizens and society. No more "piracy" or "theft"! Good for corporations but bad for fair use, research, interoperability, etc.
The crap motto "In God We Trust" has NOT always been on our money. That too was added VERY late, during the anti-commie hysteria. It should go if you want to keep to historic principals. Keep your god to yourself, it has no hold on me and attempts to enshrine her or codify her into laws invalidate those laws for me as the very basis for such laws is nonsensical bull poop.
You can opt out of the God crap. You do NOT have to put your hand on a bible, nor do you have to say "So help me God." I have refused and anyone else can too. You can swear any of the oaths and not mention "God" - it doesn't make it any less binding.
about the lack of a linux client (even an unsupported one, I mean, c'mon...idsoftware sure has no problem with this on EVERYTHING they release) are irrelevant now as there wont even be a windoze client available.
And yet, idSoftware CONSISTENTLY produces equally good linux clients for all their games within rather short order of the doze release. As I understand it, the linux client for Doom 3 will be coincident with the doze client...AND idSoftware makes money on their games. There is no real "loss" from their doing linux ports. They produce their games the RIGHT way so that it is virtually a mere recompile away from being a linux game. No pain, no muss, and no loss. You can include a linux client on the same CD as the doze client. You can do it ala idSoftware and make it "officially" unsupported (yet id game clients are pretty damn fine even being "unsupported").
You lose IF you do these two things ala linux client: 1) release it months AFTER releasing the doze game version, and 2) attempt to sell this late version in the stores. Gamers are impatient and given that there has never been a solid timetable for release of linux games, generally just "when they're ready" or worse, no official word at all, gamers simply assume nothing is forthcoming and buy the doze version. The alternative doesn't work either...they may be willing to wait a few weeks for a linux client but after that, fuhk it, buy the new, hot game NOW and play it NOW. This situation has described the pathetic attempts at commercial linux games up til now (with very few exceptions). idSoftware has finally gotten it right. Instead of selling a separate linux client, they release the doze game and provide a linux client for download. Simple, painless, works.
Modded to "interesting"? A bit of a stretch. Shall I reference any one of the other "interesting" or bizarro websites out there and also get modded "interesting"?
Hell, I'll pretend to come from the future and give you answers to all your questions too, only I go better - I'll claim to be from 2131 and be an independence activist for the Mars colonies.
Jeez...you're just ASKING for it. You actually even turn it on?!
I absolutely reject the entire idea. I buy blank CDs, certainly, but I simply do not burn music. I do not listen to music on my PC, nor do I watch movies on my PC. I have a nice stereo and DVD player connected to nice TV for that stuff. My computer is for games and doing "computer stuff" (writing documents, web browsing, prepping presentations, etc) and I burn files and software backups on my CDs. I will NOT pay money to RIAA/MPAA for something I don't do/use. Blank CDs are NOT automatically substrate for song ripping. This is the ultimate flaw in the whole taxation on blank CD, DVD, or player bullcrap
So don't trust it. Use GnuPG. Drop-in compatibility with PGP but OSS. I use it with Kmail and with kpg for generic file or document encryption. Easy as a coot. But then, none of my main email recipients use xPG or anything like it. They don't even KNOW about message encryption. If my recipients aren't using it, then it largely goes unused except between a select few who know and can use xPG.
Ah, the fun begins. The polics and firemen increase in NY is demanded, even required, as a response to 9/11 and for "homeland (in)security". The states (like NY) come out and "do their duty" by going for more cops and firemen to now cover their mandates under "homeland security". The Fed Gov, under the feeble-minded, AWOL, drunk Shrub DOESN'T pony up its promised money (yep, a spending increase demanded for homeland security but handed off to the states as an UNFUNDED MANDATE). The states go into debt OR they fail to meet their homeland security requirements. They can either hike up taxes on regular people, all the while the Fed cuts taxes on those least in need of more money in their pockets...and less likely to do anything beneficial with it... The Fed hikes up the one and only form of spending that Conservatives/Republicans love, nay, LUST - military spending. If there is no reason for a huge-ass military spending increase, by gawd, they'll CREATE one by invading some wild-ass, inoffensive (to our direct security) country (Iraq).
As a bonus, CUT social safety nets - which in fact, saved the US from a true and utter collapse into either communism or fascism after the big stock market crash and economic failure of unregulated capitalism in the 20s - at the same time. So, the superwealthy crony friends of those in office get lots of pointless money, the middle class and poor get laid off, or have their overtime pay threatened, see their real income drop year after year, see their schools fall apart, and then get to look at a full-on, directed collapse of one of the things they were counting on when they could finally retire...Social Security, which is being gutted/borrowed from to pay for Iraq and more military adventures. Add to this loveliness the utter degredation of the only planet we have by pushing for major deforestation, elimination of as many species as possible, increasing the amount of water and air pollution as much as possible, and you get a real, nice Republican "paradise". Sign me up!
Yes, they are nasty (nastier than is generally admitted by the powers that be) but they are NOT radioactive. They are nasty as in heavy metal toxicity. The soldiers that work/fight in areas nailed by depleted uranium shells are not informed nor protected from this toxicity and neither are local civilians.
On the other hand, the weapons are virtually indispensible because they have penetrating power unlike any other munition form, capable of piercing the best armor. A big plus on the battle field. In any case, depleted uranium weapons are NOT illegal. There are many who WANT them to be banned because of their nasty toxic side effects but wanting it to be so doesn't make it so. An official UN declaration declaring depleted uranium munitions would be required to make them, in fact, banned weapons.
This is one of those situations that I believe will ultimately go against the desires of the US military powers that be simply because the health costs to our own soldiers will build. The health costs to innocent civilians in battle zones will build. Ultimately, no matter what the utility of depleted uranium munitions, they will end up having to be dropped - but only after many lawsuits ala Agent Orange.
You can be a perfectly moral and upstanding scientist AND still support the fact that the military is a necessity. You can be a perfectly moral and upstanding military member and simply enjoy science. I fall into both camps. I am a scientist AND I am in the military. Would I do defense-based research? Certainly. The result of a scientific enterprise is no less valid or interesting simpy due to the source of the funding and the result may well be useful and necessary. Perhaps I would be helping to reduce casualities on all sides of a conflict or, at the very least, helping to make sure my compatriots will come home from the next brushfire intact.
Oh the shame! I should seek to force our military men and women (and myself) to use old, outdated, obsolescent weapons and defenses, thus ensuring a large dead body count in future battles. Afterall, it is self evident that any and all of our (USA) soldiers are monsters and robotons. They aren't your neighbors, brothers, sisters, fathers, uncles, etc. They only seek to kill, kill, kill without mercy and so seek the most monstrous ways of doing this killing possible. OF COURSE it would be "wrong" to help ensure that our military will succeed in future military endeavors. As a scientist, I should instead seek to make their lives miserable and short and make defending the Constitutions and Bill of Rights extremely precarious due to lack of good military tools.
And don't get me started on how there is not a lick of military-based research that ultimately helps society as a whole quite apart from its original intended military focus. There is NEVER any benefit outside the military.
Grow up. Splitting the atom (for instance) has both benign and ugly uses and these uses cannot be fully separated. Simply because one of the first uses was to blow stuff up doesn't make the contribution of the scientists that permitted it wrong. This holds true on virtually ALL military-funded research.
No one. NO ONE can "check their code to ensure it isn't infringing" on ANYTHING. There is not a giant, all-encompassing database of copyright code out there to check against. You can't run a source code check vs windoze code to make sure you aren't using M$ code, SCO can't check to make sure they haven't used IBM code, etc. It is IMPOSSIBLE to, a priori, vett code to make sure it isn't already copyrighted.
The other option, a "warranty", is also nonexistent, as already has been pointed out numerous times. No one gives a warranty that that their code will work, that it doesn't infringe on ANYTHING. This is utter nonsense, top to bottom.
Three things that would be a nice replacement for passwords in every day life. Of the three, the easiest/nicest would probably have to be access card. We are beginning to use them in the military - our new IDs act as our access card. The biometric data on the card need not be intrusive (certainly less so than military ID cards) for common use. States could standardize on using a common driver's license with a chip on it with no more information stored in it than is on a normal driver's license. This and a single pin number would suffice.
Quicker and/or easier...computers come with a card reader and you can just purchase or get a dedicated access card when you get a new computer/reader. Each card could simply contain some generic, unique data in it that combined with a pin is all you need. If using a standard card/data system then all corporations, schools, etc, could adopt it. One card, or just a few, no more onerous than carrying around several credit cards, insurance cards, etc. The only thing you need to memorize is one or two pins. Tied to public key (no M$ DRM server-type nonsense), best to use PGP/GPG to keep it open and universal, and you are set.
When there is a perfectly good one already available...Linux? If they need something more, just start an OSS project to add what they think it lacks. Cheap, fast, and targeted. Reduce redundant development, build off past successful development.
Good! We can now call for the arrest of exit pollers. Those bastards call the election by counting votes as they occur (and some dumb schmuck comes out and spills all). You find out that you're stuck with GWB in Oregon before the polls are open for 2 hours because ass clowns in the East blab about their vote. Why have a secret ballot if ya'll are gonna come right out and say "I done voted for the guy like me in smarts, Dubya"? We can just skip the polls in the West since you buttnuggets in the Eastern-ward locales are so loose lipped.
sort of "linux certified" hardware, particularly if others follow HP's lead, is that it might finally mean 802.11g for linux. Hope for this rather than the vendor simply making "linux certified" boxes gimped with 802.11b.
I generally go with the full distro (Mandrake) every other one or so, so the inclusion of Mandrake "lite" isn't of much interest to me. It is the "certification" that is of interest...being confident that the laptop I buy from them will actually work with linux without too much dicking around.
I want friggin' 802.11g damnit!