The only advantage would be not having to lead your target or take wind into account. Beyond that, it would be needlessly complex and heavy. Kinetic energy weapons (using ballistic projectiles) are superior in every other way. They shoot through smoke, are rugged, easy to clean, light, rather simple.
The only good laser weapon I could see is the tetanizing laser, particularly for use in peacekeeping and crowd control (and for use by law enforcement). It paralyzes the target (or stuns or kills) depending on the energy applied. Police could have stun/paralysis grade tetanizing lasers and military could use the broader powerm variety during CERTAIN military ops, still leaving an ability to use lethal force if called for. It is not useful in combat, though. It would be useful to soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq within cities - it would allow for stopping the irregulars/terrorists without causing civilian death if you miss your target.
Well...if you are French then you should rephrase that to be, "I think I'll go out in the street and surrender to any and all passersby."
Re:Anti-aircraft fire & F-117 Stealth detectio
on
Updates on War in Iraq
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I state it as "fact" because it is as close to fact as you can get. It was on CNN last evening with CNN military advisors (retired military) stating point blank that it was a "golden bb" in the moonlight allowing the fighter to be visable.
Simply knowing the route of an aircraft doesn't make it very easy or likely that you will be able to shoot it down with small arms or AAA fire. SEEING a plane, whether you gained intel on its route or not increases the odds of a hit immeasureably.
Through all of Desert Storm, with the Iraqi's spraying FAR more ordinance into the air than the Serbs managed, they didn't have much luck hitting aircraft - and they had knowledge that the aircraft were there (they took looks with radar VERY briefly to get a general bead) and they could clearly hear them as well. I was there and thus have first-hand experience in that regard (Desert Storm, not Bosnia).
The moon is virtually full. The F-117 and any other plane can be seen under such conditions. Moonlight is what allowed the Serbs to down an F-117 during that campaign several years back. They can't see it that well on radar (until it gets real close) but you can see it well in moonlight and then all it takes is a lucky shot.
I honestly believe that you missed one of M$'s intentions with shared source...to pollute developers so that they become valid targets for M$ copyright/patent police (and by extension, linux). You pollute developers by exposing them to closed but "shared" M$ source and then if/when that developer works on linux - pounce and shut them down. They saw "the code" so they will be "illegally" using that code in some way in their OSS/linux project. Just the threat of legal attack would be enough to avert some developers from going/continuing the linux/oss path.
You don't prove negatives. Surely you realise this? Surely you can see the interesting aspect of seeing what freenet is ACTUALLY being used for vs what its intended/claimed use is for? Is this such a threatening idea? What do you fear? You must fear something to be vehemently against such a study.
As for due process, it is clear that it serves well for the nonguilty. How many have been turned off death row lately because they were proven innocent? Not everyone accused of a crime committed said crime. In any case, the situation is different. No one is seeking to punish/imprison people simply because they use freenet. All I am interested in, what I'd wager MANY people would be interested in is a sampling of the content of freenet just to see what it is actually being used for. This isn't talking about getting people, it is about an objective look at activity/use. Such studies are conducted all the time. Recall the study a couple years ago focused on gnutella? All it did was show how gnutella was actually used vs what its creators hoped. Most people were leeching off gnutella and few were contributing. Period. It didn't indict any people, it didn't shut down (or even attempt to shut down) gnutella. It merely described the objective use of gnutella and highlighted the undeniable problem that such a system suffers.
Gnutella is still here, still used, still even useful, but its problems are not magically gone nor transformed, they just are. Why is freenet fearful about a similar look? It has nothing to do with who put what on, since that is presumably not available anyway. The actual detailed content of the files isn't critical either, just a description (accurate) of what is there. A simple descriptive name for the files is all that is of interest. This is evil and threatening? Since when is general knowledge threatening?
Freenet cheerleaders like to espouse how great their toy is. How it enhances the good of freedom. They downplay the bad and highlight the supposed good above all else. Such claims are crap without data to back it up. The claim is hollow without data to back it up. If the freenet is so great, then it wouldn't be a problem to show how great by providing a cross-section of the actual content, the actual real-life use of the net. No, names/IDs are not important, the content is. Let's see the real, unvarnished content of the freenet so we can all glory in how great and freedom-saving it is. Let's see examples of the produce of all the great minds fighting for liberty on the freenet.
Make a claim about how great freenet is, how it is "good" because it protects freedom...well, let's SEE how good it is, how protective of freedom, how valuable an asset it can be.
Just "pulling out" wont stop pregnancy (nor in this case, transmission of STDs). Retromission doesn't work. Use a condom and stay IN spiderman. In any case, I don't want to hear any more about his sexual practices.
I beg to differ. Freedom is NOT mostly used by criminals for crime. It is exploited, sure, but on the whole, our society (US, Britain, choose your democracy) isn't MOSTLY criminals taking advantage of freedom. MOST free people are not criminals and are not interested in crime. They do not commit crimes. I am free and have no desire or urge to be a criminal, thank you. I assume the same is true of you though your statement could suggest otherwise.
I defy you to prove me wrong about my gut feeling about freenet. PROVE that it is actually MOSTLY used legitimately (by this I mean for things OTHER than what MOST people in any democracy would agree is criminal or immoral at the very best). I really want hard data to show that the actual benefit of freenet outweighs the cost (50:50 mix is pathetic but at this early stage perhaps excusable. A MAJORITY of use for illegal/immoral pursuits argues that it is merely a tool for criminals and pervs by and large and of no real substantive value). One free speech hero in a background of hundreds or thousands of murderous terrorists and pedophiles and true swindlers does NOT argue for freenet being a good thing.
Free speech is not primarily abused by criminals. Most gun ownership is also aboveboard and legal (though of questionable real value). Most freedom of association is not primarily the domain of criminals. Most freedoms are in fact practiced by fully legit, upright, good people. They far and away outnumber the few criminals. I would bet the same could NOT be said for freenet no matter what hyperbole or sloganeering you use. If tool X is vastly and overwhelmingly used by criminals for criminal purposes, then it is not a truly defensible tool for joe and jane blow to possess. Sure, they may be the lone individual in the vast wilderness that use tool x for fully legal or good purposes, but it doesn't outweigh the vast numbers who use it for ill ends. This fact makes tool x illegitimate and arguably subject to restriction. I am not saying this fits freenet, but I am putting forth the argument that just because, in theory, freenet could be use for good ends by good people, that doesn't outweigh the ill ends by bad people if the latter is an overwhelming majority. Freenet is not in and of itself a good thing just because of what it could do. It is only legitimately judged based upon what it ACTUALLY does (is used for). Present an objective, random sample, statistically relevant, of the content of the freenet. I bet such a publication of stats would be screamed about by any and all freenet advocates simply because it would likely present a realistic picture of what their pet project is REALLy being used for...NOT the betterment of the world, not even the betterment of a nasty regime (on the whole). It is likely being used to further nefarious ends by nefarious, ammoral individuals (on the whole). It is irrelevant whether or not this characterizes YOU. YOU could be pure as driven snow, but the "company you keep" is of great importance in judging the value of freenet.
In some places, fortunately, it would be illegal in an oblique way, to film certain illegal activity and nothing more. If you don't report it you could be in legal trouble. If you don't try to help the victim to stop the perp in some way, you could be in trouble. If you film someone doing something disgusting with a child, you are NOT a passive and innocent bystander, you are implicated in the crime and get to do time. You shouldn't just be there filming the child porn event, you should be taking steps to STOP it and save the child. Anything less makes you equally culpable and as guilty as the perv actually DOING the act.
I don't go with the "freedom is a boon for criminals" line. I am simply not impressed with the overblown self-importance of the "freenet". To me, its partisans are like the French and Germans with regard to their stands on Iraq at the UN. They are NOT actually arguing from a moral standpoint for not going against Saddam (it is not moral to take the stand that they would not support military action under "any" circumstances...ANY?! NOT ANY!? - but I digress). They are using the convenient fiction that their stand is principled on solid morals when in fact what they are so stridently against is the US and other (few) "coalition" partners finding the evidence that both countries have been violating UN sanctions against Iraq from the beginning, that Chirac and Saddam are practically buddies, that Germany and France have made a financial killing in selling items to Iraq that are NOT for peaceful and legal purposes. Just so you know, by the way, I have not been supportive of Bush in this whole debacle either but the French and German hippocrits make me wanna puke every bit as much as Bush's fumbling.
I see Freenet partisans as speaking of the greatness of free speech, etc, while conveniently ignoring what it is LIKELY to be used the most for (not a minority of the use, the MAJORITY of the use): illegal (not grey area illegal, REAL illegal - kiddie porn and terrorist communication). They brush that off as minor when it is in fact major, overblowing the great use it will have for those under restrictive regimes.
I would LOVE to see a full and honest breakdown of the actual content of freenet. Not blurry reference to great, articulate, useful supporters of legitimate liberty, but actual, hard data to show what freenet is REALLY being used for. A nice truly legitimate, statistically sound random sampling of the full content of freenet. I'd bet my left nut that the vast majority of it is not high-minded freedom's spirit. I'd bet it is loaded with 90% inane, blatently and unambiguously illegal, crap.
I am a wet blanket in this regard. Freenet could have some good intent, and perhaps the developers REALLY buy their arguments, but the reality is not their idealistic utopian fantasy. the reality is likely quite inane and ugly. It is just reality and I insist that they be forced to face reality to some extent rather than just their dream world of free butterflies doing good all over.
Thank you Joe Sixpack for your interest! My family and friends lack your exquisite taste and class and like my films/movies (or so I tell myself) and even like my music. Unfortunately, now not only have I lost my net connection for "illegally" disseminating music and movies, but they also lost theirs because they were "obviously pirates" downloading mp3s and movie files to which they "had no right".
I am having to use my neighbor's computer right now to reply to you. Hopefully they wont get taken out for helping a criminal such as myself.
One of the biggest problems here is that it appears you want free speech without ANY consequences for whatever you say/do in the name of "free speech". You WANT to be able to yell "Fire!" in a crowded disco and not eat shit for the deaths you cause from the stampede. You WANT to say "Kill the president" and not eat the legitimate shit you should eat for such "speech". There is no recognized fully free speech anywhere on the planet. There are SOME things that are not said without consequences, and rightly so. Fine, say it, but eat the full load of shit for saying it as you should and quit trying to hide (not YOU, the generic, broad you) behind the convenient cry of "free speech". Free speech is NOT intended to mean free to say ANYTHING in ANY way. For ANY society to work, even free societies, there are (and HAVE to be) widely recognized limits. Your "property rights" are legitimately limited in extent. You "right to bear arms (and bare breasts)" is also limited. You "freedom of speech" is simply not unlimited and never was intended to be by any Founding Father.
I CAN say that GW Bush is an IDIOT. A freakin' moron who nearly flunked out of college but got by exclusively on his daddy's money and connections. Oh and he's a low-rate criminal in the sense that he went AWOL from the Guard.
I assure you that there will be no FBI at my door at any time for saying these facts. So THAT example of restricted speech is a nonstarter. The other items in your litany are a little better - the Apple thing made a stupid sense during the Cold War when we were legitimately trying to keep the Soviets from catching up technologically for "free", so to speak, even though it was ultimately doomed to failure since PCs were becoming too ubuquitous to control. CSS? I've downloaded it several times (still can without problem) both before and AFTER the court debacle. I didn't need/don't need freenet to get it. The encryption thing is similar to the Apple computer/PC thing. "Good intentioned" but doomed and silly to implement. The DMCA nonsense is still being blown through the courts and will be fixed sooner or later. Reverse engineering is explicitly allowed by other laws/rules in any case and it is still going on. Freenet isn't really denting this, certainly not at this point. I want to play dvds in linux? I download xine or mplayer rather than dicking with CSS (which I have nonetheless...just in case).
E-books, what a STUPID concept. In any case, you can get around that nonsense too without freenet. Every little bit helps but lets not overblow the importance or freenet. I guess if I was stupid enough to buy an e-book then I would find a means, even without freenet, to read MY book...and I wouldn't end up in jail.
OK. So a hacker group has done this...for what purpose, hacking? (in the bad sense rather than in the benign code hacker sense). What important and regime-changing literature has been published and widely read? It doesn't count worth a damn if a small group of hackers make it and use it amongst themselves. This is merely masturbation. If it is IMPORTANT than IMPORTANT things are being disseminated and actually read outside a small hacker circle...and it is having a measureable effect.
Is it? Having any measureable effect? Is it leading to regime change?
OK, so where is all the important info then that is getting published in Time, Newsweek, etc, or talked about on CNN...or ANY UN human rights organization citing freenet documents (lacking attribution of course, and thus unconfirmable - but that's another problem) as a source or using "evidence" pulled off freenet? There isn't any. It just isn't a big deal worldwide and given the problems with it, it isn't ever going to replace the regular net.
No doubt then that there may be a few kids here and there, computer geeks usually, in China using freenet to post their inane and totally unimportant (in the big scheme) rantings or political utopian dreams and poetry, but it just isn't a major factor in anything...unless there is hard evidence somewhere for you to present to the contrary.
I'll bet that one of the "best" files on the freenet (other than kiddie porn pics) are things like "anarchist's cookbook" or "turner diaries". Real important, useful, stuff like that. Then, how would anyone know since there is no search mechanism, no way to find anything unless you are part of a kiddie porn ring who give each other the details of where the nekkid pics of the neighbor's little boy are.
Do the wider Chinese populace have any interest in, or access to, anything useful on freenet produced by the local Chinese teenagers you mention? How would they find it and what, exactly, would it do for them? They get to read inane things like "Falung Gong Rocks!" or "Xing's head is shaped like my left nut!"
Depends doesn't it, on the nature of the porn? If it involves pictures, then money or not, the CHILD was hurt in the making of the pictures or film. Money is NOT the delimiter of whether harm was done. The CHILD is hurt and that is all that matters.
It has NEVER EVER been the case, nor the INTENDED case with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights that ALL speech be protected. Freedom of Speech comes from the start with restrictions. It has never been, nor ever will, nor ever should be OK to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie house, etc. Child porn is NOT protected speech nor should it EVER be, under no banner about Rights is it legitimate. Advocating murder is not protected speech, inciting riots with "speech" is also not protected (nor has it ever been).
Me thinks what you want is anarchy, which cannot work and doesn't work. It is a state that people as a whole will not tolerate for long. Free speech is great until you get into black areas (advocating murder, inciting riots/violence, inducing panic vis a vis "Fire!" in a movie theater, etc). Then it is rightly punishable and not protected in any way, shape, or form. Never has been, never will be.
That's funny. So why can't China or Your-favorite-regime simply block/ban downloading freenet itself? It could also simply block the appropriate ports. Or track who is using the thing in-country and assume they are guilty of something and just take em down.
Though freenet COULD be a boon as you say in THEORY, in fact it is a particular boon to child pornographers and pedophiles but you have to break a few eggs eh? What's a few dozen/hundred/thousand child molesters when you could have a hundred or so people (and terrorists of course) publishing complaints about this or that government?
Personally, just SAYING it is a boon for those under the thumb of nasty regimes are just words until you can back that up with FACTS. DATA. Anything else is dookie and heresay.
Does this mean that if I am downloading the latest distro release from (distro) that I get screwed because I was downloading a whole lot of "stuff" and thus must be "pirating"?
Heavy downloading cannot be the switch that cuts off a user or set of users. Also, what if you are in on a collaborative project of some kind? Into multimedia development? You could end up with lots of back-and-forth file swapping.
Any flag setoff for cutting off a user at the ISP had better be pretty robust so that it doesn't nail innocent net users (who are using the net for its INTENDED PURPOSE afterall). How do you do that? Ban mp3 downloads/transfers? What if they are MY mp3s? Or MY videos? Maybe I'm an amateur film maker or in a garage band.
P2P cannot be killed without gutting one of the primary reasons for the internet's very existence. It was NOT designed just to distribute commercial products properly paid for. That is a tack-on that came well AFTER file sharing/data sharing.
Whereas I would agree with your points overall, I do believe that Eugenia has some valid points:
Menus can/should be improved in KDE wrt to their organization and content. Some of this is handled very well by distros (I like Mandrake's KDE menu organization) but some of it is KDE widget/QT widget problems.
There IS seemingly a lot of bloat in KDE that adversely affects speed. If it can be trimmed to gain speed then by all means please do so. The most "painful" part for me in using KDE, which I love, is the initial startup - it takes freakin' forever, though this is also largely affected by CPU and RAM. On my laptop it is really ugh. On my top-of-the-line desktop it is still slow but certainly more bearable.
Basically, her advice/critiques based on valid and well-established UI rules are OK but the subjective preference crap is...crap. The default theme upon install SHOULD be easy on the most eyes possible and the menu organization should likewise be tight, but beyond those generalities, there are no hard rules.
Sore points on which I do agree with here beyond the UI usability stuff is regarding Mozilla and OpenOffice/StarOffice. Damn things are ugly and totally out of whack with any theme you choose whether in Gnome or KDE. Bad programmers! Bad! I don't want apps coming up with a UI totally out of left field. I have a theme selected (the default blue-everything crap that every distro and their mothers goes with BLOWS) and I want all apps to obey it. The colors, the window decorations, the buttons. No outliers, no freaks, not tards...or at least give me an easy means of fixing the broken default look/feel and make it fit with my correct look/feel.
Really, what the f*ck does Mozilla go with? The "classic" Netscape look SUCKS and the prettier blue theme is a major improvement but it still blows because it doesn't fit with ANY theme in Gnome or KDE.
Somewhat less nasty is the look/feel of Gtk/Gnome apps in KDE (vice versa, I suppose, but I don't really use Gnome so I cannot comment) with their 'wrong' theme/look. No, no, no. Get it together and agree on cross-DE theme support. It just grabs my groin to start an app and have it look totally different than my properly themed apps. The only things worse than Gtk apps in KDE are: Mozilla, OO/SO, and ANY Motif/lesstif app of any sort. Ghastly!
It is true that usability judgements are polluted by experience. I haven't used Windoze for anything but brief periods for a long, long time. I do occassionally have to boot it up for an app or two that wine cannot yet handle. As a result, I find windoze to NOT be "intuitive". I find windoze to be difficult to navigate and deal with. On the other hand, I find KDE to be a comfortable breeze - I use it every day and have done so for years.
I run into even worse usability problems than I run into with windoze when I take up with MacOS on a work system (I haven't gotten to play with OS X yet so I cannot comment on it). People have often claimed MacOS was a better-designed UI, much easier to use, than windoze (or by extension, KDE, Gnome, etc) but I don't see it. I have more trouble navigating around MacOS than I do with windoze while I have none with KDE (Gnome is similar to windoze to me on ease-of-use but again, this is due to lack of experience using it). I am certain that if I spent a long time working almost exclusively on MacOS I would find it easy - but that is just common sense. Otherwise, I see nothing to windoze or MacOS (not OS X - no comment possible) that is automatically "better" or "intuitive" in any degree greater than KDE or Gnome.
That sort of subjective nonsense IS nonsense. There ARE certain UI rules that should be followed, however, but when you start getting into completely personal preference and subjective opinion territory beyond the extremes ("ugly" icons, "ugly" buttons, "ugly" colors) then you are full of dookie and have no authority.
The KDE menu being confusing depends on your distro (apparently). I use Mandrake on my home systems but at university, I am provided with a Redhat system. I have no priviledges on the school system - none.
I am a longtime KDE user and I love it/work well with it ON MANDRAKE. The default DE on the university system is KDE but in the context of Redhat's setup, it is the bane of my existence, especially given that I have NO priviledges. The KDE menu is FILLED with a mishmash of every frickin' app in existence without any ryme or reason. On my Mandrake systems, the KDE menu is a pleasure to navigate with apps nicely and properly packed into their appropriate submenus. Well organized for the most part.
On the university system, I can't find anything in kmenu because too much is there and all jumbled together. No WONDER Redhat users might think that KDE is just a mess or poorly layed out (intentional KDE sabotage by Redhat to serve their Gnome bias?). If I was to be introduced to KDE (3.0.3 - a recent incarnation) by Redhat, I would think it was a mess. Because of the mess that Redhat made of the KDE menu I rarely use it at all, opting to open a konsole instead and do a manual search for apps as I need them: start entering the name of the desired app and hit tab to see if it exists or is otherwise visable to the system.
I tried to clean up the KDE menu but am unable to do even that due to the user restrictions (madness!). The KDE menu is not confusing by default, it can be by FAULT of the distributor, however.
Nope, XFree is an app. You can use linux without XFree but cannot use XFree without linux to permit it to run on the hardware/system. The kernel (the OS proper) is doing its job. XFree is doing its job through the OS, with some blur wrt 3D acceleration getting direct hardware access, but it is still limited hardware access. You would have a more stable system in any case, if the OS (the kernel) retained at least a super-slim layer between the video card and XFree.
In any case, in no way can XFree (even with DRI) be considered an OS. It is an app. A dispensible/optional app.
How about this: your OS is an OS, not an app. Your OS is a service provider between hardware and apps. Apps do things like play media files, browse the web, etc.
There you go. Keep your OS an OS. Everything else is unneeded, undesired, and merely designed to widen monopoly to include the means of info distribution, what info is distributed, and who gets to access info.
Sorry, this isn't a place for M$ (or any company) to control.
Slashdot Mirror
The only advantage would be not having to lead your target or take wind into account. Beyond that, it would be needlessly complex and heavy. Kinetic energy weapons (using ballistic projectiles) are superior in every other way. They shoot through smoke, are rugged, easy to clean, light, rather simple.
The only good laser weapon I could see is the tetanizing laser, particularly for use in peacekeeping and crowd control (and for use by law enforcement). It paralyzes the target (or stuns or kills) depending on the energy applied. Police could have stun/paralysis grade tetanizing lasers and military could use the broader powerm variety during CERTAIN military ops, still leaving an ability to use lethal force if called for. It is not useful in combat, though. It would be useful to soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq within cities - it would allow for stopping the irregulars/terrorists without causing civilian death if you miss your target.
Well...if you are French then you should rephrase that to be, "I think I'll go out in the street and surrender to any and all passersby."
I state it as "fact" because it is as close to fact as you can get. It was on CNN last evening with CNN military advisors (retired military) stating point blank that it was a "golden bb" in the moonlight allowing the fighter to be visable.
Simply knowing the route of an aircraft doesn't make it very easy or likely that you will be able to shoot it down with small arms or AAA fire. SEEING a plane, whether you gained intel on its route or not increases the odds of a hit immeasureably.
Through all of Desert Storm, with the Iraqi's spraying FAR more ordinance into the air than the Serbs managed, they didn't have much luck hitting aircraft - and they had knowledge that the aircraft were there (they took looks with radar VERY briefly to get a general bead) and they could clearly hear them as well. I was there and thus have first-hand experience in that regard (Desert Storm, not Bosnia).
The moon is virtually full. The F-117 and any other plane can be seen under such conditions. Moonlight is what allowed the Serbs to down an F-117 during that campaign several years back. They can't see it that well on radar (until it gets real close) but you can see it well in moonlight and then all it takes is a lucky shot.
I honestly believe that you missed one of M$'s intentions with shared source...to pollute developers so that they become valid targets for M$ copyright/patent police (and by extension, linux). You pollute developers by exposing them to closed but "shared" M$ source and then if/when that developer works on linux - pounce and shut them down. They saw "the code" so they will be "illegally" using that code in some way in their OSS/linux project. Just the threat of legal attack would be enough to avert some developers from going/continuing the linux/oss path.
You don't prove negatives. Surely you realise this? Surely you can see the interesting aspect of seeing what freenet is ACTUALLY being used for vs what its intended/claimed use is for? Is this such a threatening idea? What do you fear? You must fear something to be vehemently against such a study.
As for due process, it is clear that it serves well for the nonguilty. How many have been turned off death row lately because they were proven innocent? Not everyone accused of a crime committed said crime. In any case, the situation is different. No one is seeking to punish/imprison people simply because they use freenet. All I am interested in, what I'd wager MANY people would be interested in is a sampling of the content of freenet just to see what it is actually being used for. This isn't talking about getting people, it is about an objective look at activity/use. Such studies are conducted all the time. Recall the study a couple years ago focused on gnutella? All it did was show how gnutella was actually used vs what its creators hoped. Most people were leeching off gnutella and few were contributing. Period. It didn't indict any people, it didn't shut down (or even attempt to shut down) gnutella. It merely described the objective use of gnutella and highlighted the undeniable problem that such a system suffers.
Gnutella is still here, still used, still even useful, but its problems are not magically gone nor transformed, they just are. Why is freenet fearful about a similar look? It has nothing to do with who put what on, since that is presumably not available anyway. The actual detailed content of the files isn't critical either, just a description (accurate) of what is there. A simple descriptive name for the files is all that is of interest. This is evil and threatening? Since when is general knowledge threatening?
Freenet cheerleaders like to espouse how great their toy is. How it enhances the good of freedom. They downplay the bad and highlight the supposed good above all else. Such claims are crap without data to back it up. The claim is hollow without data to back it up. If the freenet is so great, then it wouldn't be a problem to show how great by providing a cross-section of the actual content, the actual real-life use of the net. No, names/IDs are not important, the content is. Let's see the real, unvarnished content of the freenet so we can all glory in how great and freedom-saving it is. Let's see examples of the produce of all the great minds fighting for liberty on the freenet.
Make a claim about how great freenet is, how it is "good" because it protects freedom...well, let's SEE how good it is, how protective of freedom, how valuable an asset it can be.
Just "pulling out" wont stop pregnancy (nor in this case, transmission of STDs). Retromission doesn't work. Use a condom and stay IN spiderman. In any case, I don't want to hear any more about his sexual practices.
I beg to differ. Freedom is NOT mostly used by criminals for crime. It is exploited, sure, but on the whole, our society (US, Britain, choose your democracy) isn't MOSTLY criminals taking advantage of freedom. MOST free people are not criminals and are not interested in crime. They do not commit crimes. I am free and have no desire or urge to be a criminal, thank you. I assume the same is true of you though your statement could suggest otherwise.
I defy you to prove me wrong about my gut feeling about freenet. PROVE that it is actually MOSTLY used legitimately (by this I mean for things OTHER than what MOST people in any democracy would agree is criminal or immoral at the very best). I really want hard data to show that the actual benefit of freenet outweighs the cost (50:50 mix is pathetic but at this early stage perhaps excusable. A MAJORITY of use for illegal/immoral pursuits argues that it is merely a tool for criminals and pervs by and large and of no real substantive value). One free speech hero in a background of hundreds or thousands of murderous terrorists and pedophiles and true swindlers does NOT argue for freenet being a good thing.
Free speech is not primarily abused by criminals. Most gun ownership is also aboveboard and legal (though of questionable real value). Most freedom of association is not primarily the domain of criminals. Most freedoms are in fact practiced by fully legit, upright, good people. They far and away outnumber the few criminals. I would bet the same could NOT be said for freenet no matter what hyperbole or sloganeering you use. If tool X is vastly and overwhelmingly used by criminals for criminal purposes, then it is not a truly defensible tool for joe and jane blow to possess. Sure, they may be the lone individual in the vast wilderness that use tool x for fully legal or good purposes, but it doesn't outweigh the vast numbers who use it for ill ends. This fact makes tool x illegitimate and arguably subject to restriction. I am not saying this fits freenet, but I am putting forth the argument that just because, in theory, freenet could be use for good ends by good people, that doesn't outweigh the ill ends by bad people if the latter is an overwhelming majority. Freenet is not in and of itself a good thing just because of what it could do. It is only legitimately judged based upon what it ACTUALLY does (is used for). Present an objective, random sample, statistically relevant, of the content of the freenet. I bet such a publication of stats would be screamed about by any and all freenet advocates simply because it would likely present a realistic picture of what their pet project is REALLy being used for...NOT the betterment of the world, not even the betterment of a nasty regime (on the whole). It is likely being used to further nefarious ends by nefarious, ammoral individuals (on the whole). It is irrelevant whether or not this characterizes YOU. YOU could be pure as driven snow, but the "company you keep" is of great importance in judging the value of freenet.
In some places, fortunately, it would be illegal in an oblique way, to film certain illegal activity and nothing more. If you don't report it you could be in legal trouble. If you don't try to help the victim to stop the perp in some way, you could be in trouble. If you film someone doing something disgusting with a child, you are NOT a passive and innocent bystander, you are implicated in the crime and get to do time. You shouldn't just be there filming the child porn event, you should be taking steps to STOP it and save the child. Anything less makes you equally culpable and as guilty as the perv actually DOING the act.
I don't go with the "freedom is a boon for criminals" line. I am simply not impressed with the overblown self-importance of the "freenet". To me, its partisans are like the French and Germans with regard to their stands on Iraq at the UN. They are NOT actually arguing from a moral standpoint for not going against Saddam (it is not moral to take the stand that they would not support military action under "any" circumstances...ANY?! NOT ANY!? - but I digress). They are using the convenient fiction that their stand is principled on solid morals when in fact what they are so stridently against is the US and other (few) "coalition" partners finding the evidence that both countries have been violating UN sanctions against Iraq from the beginning, that Chirac and Saddam are practically buddies, that Germany and France have made a financial killing in selling items to Iraq that are NOT for peaceful and legal purposes. Just so you know, by the way, I have not been supportive of Bush in this whole debacle either but the French and German hippocrits make me wanna puke every bit as much as Bush's fumbling.
I see Freenet partisans as speaking of the greatness of free speech, etc, while conveniently ignoring what it is LIKELY to be used the most for (not a minority of the use, the MAJORITY of the use): illegal (not grey area illegal, REAL illegal - kiddie porn and terrorist communication). They brush that off as minor when it is in fact major, overblowing the great use it will have for those under restrictive regimes.
I would LOVE to see a full and honest breakdown of the actual content of freenet. Not blurry reference to great, articulate, useful supporters of legitimate liberty, but actual, hard data to show what freenet is REALLY being used for. A nice truly legitimate, statistically sound random sampling of the full content of freenet. I'd bet my left nut that the vast majority of it is not high-minded freedom's spirit. I'd bet it is loaded with 90% inane, blatently and unambiguously illegal, crap.
I am a wet blanket in this regard. Freenet could have some good intent, and perhaps the developers REALLY buy their arguments, but the reality is not their idealistic utopian fantasy. the reality is likely quite inane and ugly. It is just reality and I insist that they be forced to face reality to some extent rather than just their dream world of free butterflies doing good all over.
Thank you Joe Sixpack for your interest! My family and friends lack your exquisite taste and class and like my films/movies (or so I tell myself) and even like my music. Unfortunately, now not only have I lost my net connection for "illegally" disseminating music and movies, but they also lost theirs because they were "obviously pirates" downloading mp3s and movie files to which they "had no right".
I am having to use my neighbor's computer right now to reply to you. Hopefully they wont get taken out for helping a criminal such as myself.
Sincerely, John Sixpack
One of the biggest problems here is that it appears you want free speech without ANY consequences for whatever you say/do in the name of "free speech". You WANT to be able to yell "Fire!" in a crowded disco and not eat shit for the deaths you cause from the stampede. You WANT to say "Kill the president" and not eat the legitimate shit you should eat for such "speech". There is no recognized fully free speech anywhere on the planet. There are SOME things that are not said without consequences, and rightly so. Fine, say it, but eat the full load of shit for saying it as you should and quit trying to hide (not YOU, the generic, broad you) behind the convenient cry of "free speech". Free speech is NOT intended to mean free to say ANYTHING in ANY way. For ANY society to work, even free societies, there are (and HAVE to be) widely recognized limits. Your "property rights" are legitimately limited in extent. You "right to bear arms (and bare breasts)" is also limited. You "freedom of speech" is simply not unlimited and never was intended to be by any Founding Father.
I CAN say that GW Bush is an IDIOT. A freakin' moron who nearly flunked out of college but got by exclusively on his daddy's money and connections. Oh and he's a low-rate criminal in the sense that he went AWOL from the Guard.
I assure you that there will be no FBI at my door at any time for saying these facts. So THAT example of restricted speech is a nonstarter. The other items in your litany are a little better - the Apple thing made a stupid sense during the Cold War when we were legitimately trying to keep the Soviets from catching up technologically for "free", so to speak, even though it was ultimately doomed to failure since PCs were becoming too ubuquitous to control. CSS? I've downloaded it several times (still can without problem) both before and AFTER the court debacle. I didn't need/don't need freenet to get it. The encryption thing is similar to the Apple computer/PC thing. "Good intentioned" but doomed and silly to implement. The DMCA nonsense is still being blown through the courts and will be fixed sooner or later. Reverse engineering is explicitly allowed by other laws/rules in any case and it is still going on. Freenet isn't really denting this, certainly not at this point. I want to play dvds in linux? I download xine or mplayer rather than dicking with CSS (which I have nonetheless...just in case).
E-books, what a STUPID concept. In any case, you can get around that nonsense too without freenet. Every little bit helps but lets not overblow the importance or freenet. I guess if I was stupid enough to buy an e-book then I would find a means, even without freenet, to read MY book...and I wouldn't end up in jail.
OK. So a hacker group has done this...for what purpose, hacking? (in the bad sense rather than in the benign code hacker sense). What important and regime-changing literature has been published and widely read? It doesn't count worth a damn if a small group of hackers make it and use it amongst themselves. This is merely masturbation. If it is IMPORTANT than IMPORTANT things are being disseminated and actually read outside a small hacker circle...and it is having a measureable effect.
Is it? Having any measureable effect? Is it leading to regime change?
OK, so where is all the important info then that is getting published in Time, Newsweek, etc, or talked about on CNN...or ANY UN human rights organization citing freenet documents (lacking attribution of course, and thus unconfirmable - but that's another problem) as a source or using "evidence" pulled off freenet? There isn't any. It just isn't a big deal worldwide and given the problems with it, it isn't ever going to replace the regular net.
No doubt then that there may be a few kids here and there, computer geeks usually, in China using freenet to post their inane and totally unimportant (in the big scheme) rantings or political utopian dreams and poetry, but it just isn't a major factor in anything...unless there is hard evidence somewhere for you to present to the contrary.
I'll bet that one of the "best" files on the freenet (other than kiddie porn pics) are things like "anarchist's cookbook" or "turner diaries". Real important, useful, stuff like that. Then, how would anyone know since there is no search mechanism, no way to find anything unless you are part of a kiddie porn ring who give each other the details of where the nekkid pics of the neighbor's little boy are.
Do the wider Chinese populace have any interest in, or access to, anything useful on freenet produced by the local Chinese teenagers you mention? How would they find it and what, exactly, would it do for them? They get to read inane things like "Falung Gong Rocks!" or "Xing's head is shaped like my left nut!"
Depends doesn't it, on the nature of the porn? If it involves pictures, then money or not, the CHILD was hurt in the making of the pictures or film. Money is NOT the delimiter of whether harm was done. The CHILD is hurt and that is all that matters.
It has NEVER EVER been the case, nor the INTENDED case with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights that ALL speech be protected. Freedom of Speech comes from the start with restrictions. It has never been, nor ever will, nor ever should be OK to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie house, etc. Child porn is NOT protected speech nor should it EVER be, under no banner about Rights is it legitimate. Advocating murder is not protected speech, inciting riots with "speech" is also not protected (nor has it ever been).
Me thinks what you want is anarchy, which cannot work and doesn't work. It is a state that people as a whole will not tolerate for long. Free speech is great until you get into black areas (advocating murder, inciting riots/violence, inducing panic vis a vis "Fire!" in a movie theater, etc). Then it is rightly punishable and not protected in any way, shape, or form. Never has been, never will be.
That's funny. So why can't China or Your-favorite-regime simply block/ban downloading freenet itself? It could also simply block the appropriate ports. Or track who is using the thing in-country and assume they are guilty of something and just take em down.
Though freenet COULD be a boon as you say in THEORY, in fact it is a particular boon to child pornographers and pedophiles but you have to break a few eggs eh? What's a few dozen/hundred/thousand child molesters when you could have a hundred or so people (and terrorists of course) publishing complaints about this or that government?
Personally, just SAYING it is a boon for those under the thumb of nasty regimes are just words until you can back that up with FACTS. DATA. Anything else is dookie and heresay.
Does this mean that if I am downloading the latest distro release from (distro) that I get screwed because I was downloading a whole lot of "stuff" and thus must be "pirating"?
Heavy downloading cannot be the switch that cuts off a user or set of users. Also, what if you are in on a collaborative project of some kind? Into multimedia development? You could end up with lots of back-and-forth file swapping.
Any flag setoff for cutting off a user at the ISP had better be pretty robust so that it doesn't nail innocent net users (who are using the net for its INTENDED PURPOSE afterall). How do you do that? Ban mp3 downloads/transfers? What if they are MY mp3s? Or MY videos? Maybe I'm an amateur film maker or in a garage band.
P2P cannot be killed without gutting one of the primary reasons for the internet's very existence. It was NOT designed just to distribute commercial products properly paid for. That is a tack-on that came well AFTER file sharing/data sharing.
Whereas I would agree with your points overall, I do believe that Eugenia has some valid points:
Menus can/should be improved in KDE wrt to their organization and content. Some of this is handled very well by distros (I like Mandrake's KDE menu organization) but some of it is KDE widget/QT widget problems.
There IS seemingly a lot of bloat in KDE that adversely affects speed. If it can be trimmed to gain speed then by all means please do so. The most "painful" part for me in using KDE, which I love, is the initial startup - it takes freakin' forever, though this is also largely affected by CPU and RAM. On my laptop it is really ugh. On my top-of-the-line desktop it is still slow but certainly more bearable.
Basically, her advice/critiques based on valid and well-established UI rules are OK but the subjective preference crap is...crap. The default theme upon install SHOULD be easy on the most eyes possible and the menu organization should likewise be tight, but beyond those generalities, there are no hard rules.
Sore points on which I do agree with here beyond the UI usability stuff is regarding Mozilla and OpenOffice/StarOffice. Damn things are ugly and totally out of whack with any theme you choose whether in Gnome or KDE. Bad programmers! Bad! I don't want apps coming up with a UI totally out of left field. I have a theme selected (the default blue-everything crap that every distro and their mothers goes with BLOWS) and I want all apps to obey it. The colors, the window decorations, the buttons. No outliers, no freaks, not tards...or at least give me an easy means of fixing the broken default look/feel and make it fit with my correct look/feel.
Really, what the f*ck does Mozilla go with? The "classic" Netscape look SUCKS and the prettier blue theme is a major improvement but it still blows because it doesn't fit with ANY theme in Gnome or KDE.
Somewhat less nasty is the look/feel of Gtk/Gnome apps in KDE (vice versa, I suppose, but I don't really use Gnome so I cannot comment) with their 'wrong' theme/look. No, no, no. Get it together and agree on cross-DE theme support. It just grabs my groin to start an app and have it look totally different than my properly themed apps. The only things worse than Gtk apps in KDE are: Mozilla, OO/SO, and ANY Motif/lesstif app of any sort. Ghastly!
It is true that usability judgements are polluted by experience. I haven't used Windoze for anything but brief periods for a long, long time. I do occassionally have to boot it up for an app or two that wine cannot yet handle. As a result, I find windoze to NOT be "intuitive". I find windoze to be difficult to navigate and deal with. On the other hand, I find KDE to be a comfortable breeze - I use it every day and have done so for years.
I run into even worse usability problems than I run into with windoze when I take up with MacOS on a work system (I haven't gotten to play with OS X yet so I cannot comment on it). People have often claimed MacOS was a better-designed UI, much easier to use, than windoze (or by extension, KDE, Gnome, etc) but I don't see it. I have more trouble navigating around MacOS than I do with windoze while I have none with KDE (Gnome is similar to windoze to me on ease-of-use but again, this is due to lack of experience using it). I am certain that if I spent a long time working almost exclusively on MacOS I would find it easy - but that is just common sense. Otherwise, I see nothing to windoze or MacOS (not OS X - no comment possible) that is automatically "better" or "intuitive" in any degree greater than KDE or Gnome.
That sort of subjective nonsense IS nonsense. There ARE certain UI rules that should be followed, however, but when you start getting into completely personal preference and subjective opinion territory beyond the extremes ("ugly" icons, "ugly" buttons, "ugly" colors) then you are full of dookie and have no authority.
The KDE menu being confusing depends on your distro (apparently). I use Mandrake on my home systems but at university, I am provided with a Redhat system. I have no priviledges on the school system - none.
I am a longtime KDE user and I love it/work well with it ON MANDRAKE . The default DE on the university system is KDE but in the context of Redhat's setup, it is the bane of my existence, especially given that I have NO priviledges. The KDE menu is FILLED with a mishmash of every frickin' app in existence without any ryme or reason. On my Mandrake systems, the KDE menu is a pleasure to navigate with apps nicely and properly packed into their appropriate submenus. Well organized for the most part.
On the university system, I can't find anything in kmenu because too much is there and all jumbled together. No WONDER Redhat users might think that KDE is just a mess or poorly layed out (intentional KDE sabotage by Redhat to serve their Gnome bias?). If I was to be introduced to KDE (3.0.3 - a recent incarnation) by Redhat, I would think it was a mess. Because of the mess that Redhat made of the KDE menu I rarely use it at all, opting to open a konsole instead and do a manual search for apps as I need them: start entering the name of the desired app and hit tab to see if it exists or is otherwise visable to the system.
I tried to clean up the KDE menu but am unable to do even that due to the user restrictions (madness!). The KDE menu is not confusing by default, it can be by FAULT of the distributor, however.
Nope, XFree is an app. You can use linux without XFree but cannot use XFree without linux to permit it to run on the hardware/system. The kernel (the OS proper) is doing its job. XFree is doing its job through the OS, with some blur wrt 3D acceleration getting direct hardware access, but it is still limited hardware access. You would have a more stable system in any case, if the OS (the kernel) retained at least a super-slim layer between the video card and XFree.
In any case, in no way can XFree (even with DRI) be considered an OS. It is an app. A dispensible/optional app.
How about this: your OS is an OS, not an app. Your OS is a service provider between hardware and apps. Apps do things like play media files, browse the web, etc.
There you go. Keep your OS an OS. Everything else is unneeded, undesired, and merely designed to widen monopoly to include the means of info distribution, what info is distributed, and who gets to access info.
Sorry, this isn't a place for M$ (or any company) to control.