I propose an area of the Internet which is 100 percent advertising free. I've been looking for such a spot for quite a while, and haven't found it. Try and search for 'advertising' and 'free' and you'll only find more advertising.
The question is, anyone want to help me build an advertising-free zone of the Internet? It would consist of web material built by people who have no advertising, and would be recognizable by a specific tag in the URL, something that anyone who saw the URL would immediately know that it was an ad-free version of the information.
Hackers face life imprisonment under 'Anti-Terrorism' Act Justice Department proposal classifies most computer crimes as acts of terrorism.
By Kevin Poulsen
Sep 23 2001 11:00PM PT
Hackers, virus-writers and web site defacers would face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under legislation proposed by the Bush Administration that would classify most computer crimes as acts of terrorism.
The Justice Department is urging Congress to quickly approve its Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), a twenty-five page proposal that would expand the government's legal powers to conduct electronic surveillance, access business records, and detain suspected terrorists.
The proposal defines a list of "Federal terrorism offenses" that are subject to special treatment under law. The offenses include assassination of public officials, violence at international airports, some bombings and homicides, and politically-motivated manslaughter or torture.
Most of the terrorism offenses are violent crimes, or crimes involving chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. But the list also includes the provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that make it illegal to crack a computer for the purpose of obtaining anything of value, or to deliberately cause damage. Likewise, launching a malicious program that harms a system, like a virus, or making an extortionate threat to damage a computer are included in the definition of terrorism.
To date no terrorists are known to have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But several recent hacker cases would have qualified as "Federal terrorism offenses" under the Justice Department proposal, including the conviction of Patrick Gregory, a prolific web site defacer who called himself "MostHateD"; Kevin Mitnick, who plead guilty to penetrating corporate networks and downloading proprietary software; Jonathan "Gatsby" Bosanac, who received 18-months in custody for cracking telephone company computers; and Eric Burns, the Shoreline, Washington hacker who scrawled "Crystal, I love you" on a United States Information Agency web site in 1999. The 19-year-old was reportedly trying to impress a classmate with whom he was infatuated.
The Justice Department submitted the ATA to Congress late last week as a response to the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania that killed some 7,000 people.
As a "Federal terrorism offense," the five year statute of limitations for hacking would be abolished retroactively -- allowing computer crimes committed decades ago to be prosecuted today -- and the maximum prison term for a single conviction would be upped to life imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal justice system
Those convicted of providing "advice or assistance" to cyber crooks, or harboring or concealing a computer intruder, would face the same legal repercussions as an intruder. Computer intrusion would also become a predicate offense for the RICO statutes.
DNA samples would be collected from hackers upon conviction, and retroactively from those currently in custody or under federal supervision. The samples would go into the federal database that currently catalogs murderers and kidnappers.
Civil liberties groups have criticized the ATA for its dramatic expansion of surveillance authority, and other law enforcement powers.
But Attorney General John Ashcroft urged swift adoption of the measure Monday.
Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft defended the proposal's definition of terrorism. "I don't believe that our definition of terrorism is so broad," said Ashcroft. "It is broad enough to include things like assaults on computers, and assaults designed to change the purpose of government."
The Act is scheduled for mark-up by the committee Tuesday morning.
I think they succeed because they stay simple. I was glad to see the note to victims and survivors of the hit in New York, but saddened for the possibility that Google will take upon itself a role of news, commentary, or anything like that.
We don't need another portal. We need a fast, simple, comprehensive Google. They do continue to make improvements within those parameters, though, which is exciting. Hadn't seen images.google. I'll go look at it now. I usually use the AltaVista image searcher...
What gets me is how fast the dangol browser can sift through all that junkmail. Takes me an hour just to get past all the font declarations that I never even use.
I'm telling ya. Use Word->HTML for your encryption package, and ain't nobody can read it, unless they have a browser. Just save it as a.TXT file, even browsers will fail on that one...
Just use the back-door encryption method to send a file that's already encrypted without it. Then whoever intercepts it, decrypts it, only to find that it's encrypted even further.
Rinse. Lather. Repeat. I can envision a file that's encrypted forty-two times. Seems the only way to protect against this would be to make ALL ENCRYPTION except the backdoored stuff illegal. Whooh. Maybe we'll see that day, but it ain't here yet...
In fact, all I've ever heard regarding this are comments and remarks strikingly similar to FUD, propaganda and prejudices.
That is what I was responding to; that is the filter you set up before I even responded. Now let me return to the point I made earlier, since you did not catch it, so busy were you containing it in a FUD filter.
You missed the reason I spoke about 'everybody in America is descended from people who came here in hope of a better life.' I was not arguing on the level of detail you wish to resort to. I was putting forth a reason WHY Americans don't have to know where Sweden is on the map.
By responding that we do need to know where Sweden is on the map, or what her internal laws are, you have not shown that you understand my argument, but only put forth a defense of Sweden.
It is a weak defense, telling me that I cannot find you on a map and therefore I am an uninformed, unmotivated, and unnecessarily bold thinker. How will that attract me to know more about Sweden? In fact, it's liable to make me think Swedes are big prigs who can't see past the borders of their own country--precisely the same argument you're arguing against!
My point is, if you bring to me criticism of the United States, I will not disagree. Instead, I will point to what makes the United States beautiful and unique in world history. I will do so time after time after time. Eventually, you will realize you have no audience with me, and you will either stop pestering me with criticisms of the country I love, or you will go your own way.
In no case will I join you in criticising. The reason goes deep. If I tear down, instead of building up, then I am part of the problem. Whatever problem exists? It was created by people who looked at flaws instead of achievements.
I want no part of it, and left that kind of thinking behind when my grandfather immigrated from Sweden. Yeah, I can find Sweden on a map, but why study Sweden when I can barely comprehend the U.S. Constitution. Attract me to study Sweden; if you compel me, I'll only piss on you all the while I'm studying.
As for me attracting you to study America? That was the reason I mentioned the American dream. If it is meaningless to you, we don't care. We have work to do, to make it real. Harsh words? I've barely begun.
I found the code. Apparently, when you run it, normal law abiding citizens are only partially checked because the case statement portion of the code is not yet finished. Wouldya believe it, it's a PHP script!
Aye, but without light, what is darkness, but something which is not even darkness, for there is no light to make it dark?
Your definition of lack of lack is based on the syntax of English, or at the minimum, logic, neither of which can comprehend what exists when light doesn't.
By the way, did you know that logic is founded on faith? Check it out; the most fundamental axioms of logic, we accept them on faith.
Light and dark exist. The question is not whether they exist, nor what exists when they don't, but whether you represent one or the other.
I return that the original statement was impotent, using in my definition of impotent the fact that it stated a fact inarguable. The sky is up. The sun is shining. The sound is quiet. I see God. These are impotent facts; what makes them potent is what we do with them, what direction they're going...
I'm a former terrorist. Reformed by Jesus Christ, by the process of faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I have a criminal record that contains the word "terrorist" on it. Yet, I have no capacity to terrorize, since I am a servant of Jesus Christ. Not a fake one, but a real, true, breathing servant of God who shudders to comprehend the pain I used to bring into other people's lives. Perhaps you cannot comprehend what I'm saying, I'll use an analogy: Like an alcoholic who 'got the point' at AA, I know I'm a terrorist for life, but I also know that my fate rests in the hands of a forgiving Saviour. It is to him I appeal, and he has promised forgiveness, if my appeal is sincere, unwavering.
In a few weeks, when I go to the airport, I will not be able to fly. Yet I am not a terrorist. I am a _former_ terrorist, and would rather die than kill.
No big deal, you say. I did my crime, so let me do the time.
Actually, it is a big deal. God forgives me. But no computer ever will. Why should I accept the judgment of a computer when God promises more mercy?
The saddest part is that presently, I have my wits about me to think about this clearly; others in this same predicament might have no voice. Thus I must write, to help them.
I am keenly aware of liberties eroding into the hands of computers. A week ago, I could walk into any airport and fly. Perhaps next week, I won't be able to. Why? Because people are afraid of something I used to be, not what I am now.
So be it. Do you see my point?
As a former terrorist, I urge you all to consider what the meaning of forgiveness is. I rely on it daily; you don't, yet.
He said that because he watched a minister whipped to death in a public square, by a whip with metal bits in it. He watched the man bleeding from cuts to the bone, and it changed his life forever. He soon went on to make that famous speech.
1. You seem to have completely missed what Stallman was saying. His point wasn't the obvious fact which you responded to. To think that someone who thinks as much as Stallman would lay down such a simple contradiction as that is a little shallow on your part. Read it again.
Was he commenting on how we have failed to train check-in agents in discerning the condition of a man's soul? Was he commenting on the fact that computers can recognize faces already in their database, but cannot recognize terrorists who've never been on record? Aye, if this were his comment, then consider the unspoken power of his statement: The ONLY WAY TO RECOGNIZE SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER COMMITTED A CRIME IS TO PUT EVERYONE INTO THE DATABASE, INNOCENTS AND CRIMINALS ALIKE. This will happen, if we let it. Once you're in the database, how easy is it for a typo to make you a criminal. Nowadays, computers are still subservient to human dictation; come will the day that computers make judgments, and no one questions them. You think that it's bad when someone like Mummia Abu-Jamal is in prison because of injustice, wait 'til the day someone like him is in prison because a computer ID'd him wrong...
2. Your points are arguing Stallman's point, I don't understand why you disagree with him.
3. Your attempt to say "There is no need to vote or write letters because the Supreme Court will fix everything" is not stronger than Stallman's original statement.
Sorry, dude. You made less sense than Stallman. I'm still with Stallman on this one.
By declaring that my response will most likely be perceived as FUD, propaganda, or prejudice, before I even write it, you make me hesitant to respond. Will you actually consider the words I write, or disengage after the first sentence, declaring to others that it's just more FUD?
First, admitting that America is a decent democracy shows that you do not understand that this country was originally intended to be a republic. It is in a "democracy" phase now, but that will eventually be shown for the tyranny that our forefathers knew it would be, and which they specifically warned against. We'll return to
As a democracy, yes there are equals. As a republic, there are no nations in the world where fifty regionally-diverse states join together in such harmony. You have to consider that historically speaking, this 200-year-old republic is ancient; among other nation-states inspired to revolution by actions which first took place in America, look at your own European Union, modeled loosely on the success of the American Union.
Consider this. Well over ninety percent of all people who live in our country is descended from someone who left another country seeking a better place. This is one thing we ALL share in common, for though we are shamed by our import of slaves, even slaves have intermarried enough to bring the current generation within this statistic.
We Americans love happy endings as a result. Check this out: nearly every non-American movie I've seen had a bizarre and sad twist at the end of the movie. Well over ninety percent of the American movies I've seen have a happy ending. Why? Because we Americans are like little kids; we don't mind the violence, but we CANNOT tolerate the bad guys winning. It just won't sell in America.
The 'good guy' always wins, in America. It just takes time. What other country is so simplistically oriented toward the justice according to hope in a happy ending? I bet Australia comes closest, on close analysis...
I hold to it. America is still, to this day, and well into the future, the single broadest and loudest voice of hope in a world which is hopeless. I'm clear to admit that we share our lot in all the corruptions of the countries who make up our ancestry, but I'm also clear to say that America has BOUNDLESS and VAST quantities of hope, resilience, and an incredibly high standard of how to treat our neighbors.
It's not just a by-product of our deep natural resources, most of which we've reduced to nil. It came with people who followed the American Dream.
Yes, we have our flaws, but where in world history can you find anything even remotely similar to the Marshall Plan?
Truly, the broadest example of "love thy neighbor" ever seen in history. In a world FULL of paranoia, we gave our enemies billions to restructure their economies. With no questions asked. We saw that work needed to be done, and we did it, by God!
Yes, we currently have one of the highest per-capita prison populations in history, but that will not last forever. The task before us now is to dismantle the paranoia which was imported over from Eastern Europe during the first half of the 1900s, which blossomed into the Cold War, a war which has largely been won. You say we have taken over the world? Get behind me, you dissembler. We have done our best to KEEP from taking over the world. We have nothing stopping us from taking over the world, but our own common sense. In two wars, we've demonstrated that we have the ability to destroy all enemies, because we fight with all the hope of the world behind us. So forgive us for not knowing how to slow down when we've conquered our great foes.
We'll come to our senses. Give us time, and help us, for there is no doubt we will succeed at whatever we put ourselves to. This is a nation founded by Christians, tolerant of ALL religions. The God we trust in is the God of Israel, of COURSE we are friendly to the Israelis.
You may say we are evil, but what is the standard you're comparing us to? Give me a standard, and I'll show you how America has put forth exceedingly bright stars upon that standard. Ie, Show me Gandhi, and I'll show you Martin Luther King, Jr. Then when the show is over, I'll show you that Sweden's freedoms were purchased in America, in about 1776. And then you'll say I'm boasting, and I'll say I only did so when provoked.
If you're not trolling, then engage in the conversation without positing my earnest attempt to answer you as FUD before I even write.
Give us fifty years. You'll see that a few terrorists didn't take down this nation, but only made it stagger a little, before rebounding with more strength than before.
Spoken by one whose facts are inarguable, but also impotent.
The point is, do you walk in the light, or in the darkness? Geez, everybody knows there's light and darkness in the world. The question is, which is which?
Computers have no awareness of what you're going to do with the information you receive from them.
The problem is not with the accuracy or the ability of the computer,
But with the things people do with the information coming from a computer.
How much money would an advertiser pay to retrieve a database of people who flew in to Kansas City yesterday? A dollar per person? Am I to be sold for less than the slaves of 1835?
Keep me outta dem computers, please. Video games are fun, but advertisers will stop at nothing to pay for my soul in advance...
When there has been no virus released for ten consecutive years,
When there has been no hacked server for ten consecutive years,
When there has been no marketing of consumer information without their permission for ten consecutive years,
Then,
And only then,
Will I maybe consider allowing a computer to define whether I get on a plane or not. Until then, terrorists will just find a way around the computer, and we normal people will have manacles upon us.
Good heavens, if you don't want freedom, get out of the country! Those of us who want freedom are willing to think about our options before signing them away liberally.
I can't calculate PI to 1000 digits in my head, but I can forgive. Show me a computer who can forgive...
Check that again. What you seek is perfection. If you seek perfection, you won't find it on earth.
We work with what we have. And of all the nations we have, America is more the land of the free, with liberty, and justice for all, than any other. Has been ever since 1776. Yes, liberties are tilted toward the wealthy, but it's worse elsewhere.
You are complaining, sir. Please leave our country. You're welcome to migrate to Cuba, where complainers face a worse fate than Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Build up; there is no need to tear down.
Mumia is a respected journalist; have you read his writings? He preaches hate, and thus gets no compassion from me for his rhetoric; only for his need for freedom. When we live in the same century as Nelson Mandela and Gandhi, we don't need to think Mumia Abu-Jamal is respectible.
Yes, he should be free, but don't say that he is respectible just because he's in jail. Say it because he doesn't preach hate any more.
Judge the past with compassion; otherwise, in two hundred years, what young pseudopatriot will call _you_ a rich white slaveholder?
Slashdot Mirror
At last, someone from k5 said something that wasn't condescending.
Maybe I'll take a look at that site someday after all.
Uh. I would say to Salon's editors: you sold out.
Quality writing _can_ be done for free. -wp
I propose an area of the Internet which is 100 percent advertising free. I've been looking for such a spot for quite a while, and haven't found it. Try and search for 'advertising' and 'free' and you'll only find more advertising.
The question is, anyone want to help me build an advertising-free zone of the Internet? It would consist of web material built by people who have no advertising, and would be recognizable by a specific tag in the URL, something that anyone who saw the URL would immediately know that it was an ad-free version of the information.
jared@dctkc.com is where i'm at...
Hackers face life imprisonment under 'Anti-Terrorism' Act Justice Department proposal classifies most computer crimes as acts of terrorism.
By Kevin Poulsen
Sep 23 2001 11:00PM PT
Hackers, virus-writers and web site defacers would face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under legislation proposed by the Bush Administration that would classify most computer crimes as acts of terrorism.
The Justice Department is urging Congress to quickly approve its Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), a twenty-five page proposal that would expand the government's legal powers to conduct electronic surveillance, access business records, and detain suspected terrorists.
The proposal defines a list of "Federal terrorism offenses" that are subject to special treatment under law. The offenses include assassination of public officials, violence at international airports, some bombings and homicides, and politically-motivated manslaughter or torture.
Most of the terrorism offenses are violent crimes, or crimes involving chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. But the list also includes the provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that make it illegal to crack a computer for the purpose of obtaining anything of value, or to deliberately cause damage. Likewise, launching a malicious program that harms a system, like a virus, or making an extortionate threat to damage a computer are included in the definition of terrorism.
To date no terrorists are known to have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But several recent hacker cases would have qualified as "Federal terrorism offenses" under the Justice Department proposal, including the conviction of Patrick Gregory, a prolific web site defacer who called himself "MostHateD"; Kevin Mitnick, who plead guilty to penetrating corporate networks and downloading proprietary software; Jonathan "Gatsby" Bosanac, who received 18-months in custody for cracking telephone company computers; and Eric Burns, the Shoreline, Washington hacker who scrawled "Crystal, I love you" on a United States Information Agency web site in 1999. The 19-year-old was reportedly trying to impress a classmate with whom he was infatuated.
The Justice Department submitted the ATA to Congress late last week as a response to the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania that killed some 7,000 people.
As a "Federal terrorism offense," the five year statute of limitations for hacking would be abolished retroactively -- allowing computer crimes committed decades ago to be prosecuted today -- and the maximum prison term for a single conviction would be upped to life imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal justice system
Those convicted of providing "advice or assistance" to cyber crooks, or harboring or concealing a computer intruder, would face the same legal repercussions as an intruder. Computer intrusion would also become a predicate offense for the RICO statutes.
DNA samples would be collected from hackers upon conviction, and retroactively from those currently in custody or under federal supervision. The samples would go into the federal database that currently catalogs murderers and kidnappers.
Civil liberties groups have criticized the ATA for its dramatic expansion of surveillance authority, and other law enforcement powers.
But Attorney General John Ashcroft urged swift adoption of the measure Monday.
Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft defended the proposal's definition of terrorism. "I don't believe that our definition of terrorism is so broad," said Ashcroft. "It is broad enough to include things like assaults on computers, and assaults designed to change the purpose of government."
The Act is scheduled for mark-up by the committee Tuesday morning.
Because hackers know who crackers are, but attorney generals think they're both the same, that's why.
There are just way too many of us out here.
Put us all in prison, and prisons will be freer than out here.
The true hacker is absolutely, completely, devoted to freedom.
-wp
I think they succeed because they stay simple. I was glad to see the note to victims and survivors of the hit in New York, but saddened for the possibility that Google will take upon itself a role of news, commentary, or anything like that.
We don't need another portal. We need a fast, simple, comprehensive Google. They do continue to make improvements within those parameters, though, which is exciting. Hadn't seen images.google. I'll go look at it now. I usually use the AltaVista image searcher...
-wp
Export a typical text Word Document into HTML.
.TXT file, even browsers will fail on that one...
Try and read it in an ASCII editor.
Sufficiently encrypted.
What gets me is how fast the dangol browser can sift through all that junkmail. Takes me an hour just to get past all the font declarations that I never even use.
I'm telling ya. Use Word->HTML for your encryption package, and ain't nobody can read it, unless they have a browser. Just save it as a
Just use the back-door encryption method to send a file that's already encrypted without it. Then whoever intercepts it, decrypts it, only to find that it's encrypted even further.
Rinse. Lather. Repeat. I can envision a file that's encrypted forty-two times. Seems the only way to protect against this would be to make ALL ENCRYPTION except the backdoored stuff illegal. Whooh. Maybe we'll see that day, but it ain't here yet...
By the way, they promptly slapped him for saying that.
At his trial, Jesus said: "I always spoke in public; I did not speak in secret." (John 18:20)
That is what I was responding to; that is the filter you set up before I even responded. Now let me return to the point I made earlier, since you did not catch it, so busy were you containing it in a FUD filter.
You missed the reason I spoke about 'everybody in America is descended from people who came here in hope of a better life.' I was not arguing on the level of detail you wish to resort to. I was putting forth a reason WHY Americans don't have to know where Sweden is on the map.
By responding that we do need to know where Sweden is on the map, or what her internal laws are, you have not shown that you understand my argument, but only put forth a defense of Sweden.
It is a weak defense, telling me that I cannot find you on a map and therefore I am an uninformed, unmotivated, and unnecessarily bold thinker. How will that attract me to know more about Sweden? In fact, it's liable to make me think Swedes are big prigs who can't see past the borders of their own country--precisely the same argument you're arguing against!
My point is, if you bring to me criticism of the United States, I will not disagree. Instead, I will point to what makes the United States beautiful and unique in world history. I will do so time after time after time. Eventually, you will realize you have no audience with me, and you will either stop pestering me with criticisms of the country I love, or you will go your own way.
In no case will I join you in criticising. The reason goes deep. If I tear down, instead of building up, then I am part of the problem. Whatever problem exists? It was created by people who looked at flaws instead of achievements.
I want no part of it, and left that kind of thinking behind when my grandfather immigrated from Sweden. Yeah, I can find Sweden on a map, but why study Sweden when I can barely comprehend the U.S. Constitution. Attract me to study Sweden; if you compel me, I'll only piss on you all the while I'm studying.
As for me attracting you to study America? That was the reason I mentioned the American dream. If it is meaningless to you, we don't care. We have work to do, to make it real. Harsh words? I've barely begun.
I found the code. Apparently, when you run it, normal law abiding citizens are only partially checked because the case statement portion of the code is not yet finished. Wouldya believe it, it's a PHP script!
//case statement here...
//case statement here...
<?php
if (normal_law_abiding_citizens($someone)) {
protect_basic_civil_ liberties();
} elseif (deviants_and_those_who_need_to_be_watched()) {
unlink($someone);
}
function normal_law_abiding_citizens($me) {
return $this_person_is_innocent
}
function deviants_and_those_who_need_to_be_watched() {
return $this_person_is_guilty
}
function protect_basic_civil_liberties() {
$filename = "c:\\files\\usconstitution.txt";
$fd = fopen ($filename, "rb");
$contents = fread ($fd, filesize ($filename));
fclose ($fd);
echo "<table width=600><tr><td>$contents</td ></tr></table>";
}
?>
-water paradox
Actually, it has more to do with the fact that pressurized cabins + guns = not a good idea.
Didn't someone already point this out?
Aye, but without light, what is darkness, but something which is not even darkness, for there is no light to make it dark?
Your definition of lack of lack is based on the syntax of English, or at the minimum, logic, neither of which can comprehend what exists when light doesn't.
By the way, did you know that logic is founded on faith? Check it out; the most fundamental axioms of logic, we accept them on faith.
Light and dark exist. The question is not whether they exist, nor what exists when they don't, but whether you represent one or the other.
I return that the original statement was impotent, using in my definition of impotent the fact that it stated a fact inarguable. The sky is up. The sun is shining. The sound is quiet. I see God. These are impotent facts; what makes them potent is what we do with them, what direction they're going...
I'm a former terrorist. Reformed by Jesus Christ, by the process of faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.
I have a criminal record that contains the word "terrorist" on it. Yet, I have no capacity to terrorize, since I am a servant of Jesus Christ. Not a fake one, but a real, true, breathing servant of God who shudders to comprehend the pain I used to bring into other people's lives. Perhaps you cannot comprehend what I'm saying, I'll use an analogy: Like an alcoholic who 'got the point' at AA, I know I'm a terrorist for life, but I also know that my fate rests in the hands of a forgiving Saviour. It is to him I appeal, and he has promised forgiveness, if my appeal is sincere, unwavering.
In a few weeks, when I go to the airport, I will not be able to fly. Yet I am not a terrorist. I am a _former_ terrorist, and would rather die than kill.
No big deal, you say. I did my crime, so let me do the time.
Actually, it is a big deal. God forgives me. But no computer ever will. Why should I accept the judgment of a computer when God promises more mercy?
The saddest part is that presently, I have my wits about me to think about this clearly; others in this same predicament might have no voice. Thus I must write, to help them.
I am keenly aware of liberties eroding into the hands of computers. A week ago, I could walk into any airport and fly. Perhaps next week, I won't be able to. Why? Because people are afraid of something I used to be, not what I am now.
So be it. Do you see my point?
As a former terrorist, I urge you all to consider what the meaning of forgiveness is. I rely on it daily; you don't, yet.
Yet.
-wp
He said that because he watched a minister whipped to death in a public square, by a whip with metal bits in it. He watched the man bleeding from cuts to the bone, and it changed his life forever. He soon went on to make that famous speech.
The minister's offense?
He refused to get a license from the gov't.
-wp
1. You seem to have completely missed what Stallman was saying. His point wasn't the obvious fact which you responded to. To think that someone who thinks as much as Stallman would lay down such a simple contradiction as that is a little shallow on your part. Read it again.
Was he commenting on how we have failed to train check-in agents in discerning the condition of a man's soul? Was he commenting on the fact that computers can recognize faces already in their database, but cannot recognize terrorists who've never been on record? Aye, if this were his comment, then consider the unspoken power of his statement: The ONLY WAY TO RECOGNIZE SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER COMMITTED A CRIME IS TO PUT EVERYONE INTO THE DATABASE, INNOCENTS AND CRIMINALS ALIKE. This will happen, if we let it. Once you're in the database, how easy is it for a typo to make you a criminal. Nowadays, computers are still subservient to human dictation; come will the day that computers make judgments, and no one questions them. You think that it's bad when someone like Mummia Abu-Jamal is in prison because of injustice, wait 'til the day someone like him is in prison because a computer ID'd him wrong...
2. Your points are arguing Stallman's point, I don't understand why you disagree with him.
3. Your attempt to say "There is no need to vote or write letters because the Supreme Court will fix everything" is not stronger than Stallman's original statement.
Sorry, dude. You made less sense than Stallman. I'm still with Stallman on this one.
By declaring that my response will most likely be perceived as FUD, propaganda, or prejudice, before I even write it, you make me hesitant to respond. Will you actually consider the words I write, or disengage after the first sentence, declaring to others that it's just more FUD?
First, admitting that America is a decent democracy shows that you do not understand that this country was originally intended to be a republic. It is in a "democracy" phase now, but that will eventually be shown for the tyranny that our forefathers knew it would be, and which they specifically warned against. We'll return to
As a democracy, yes there are equals. As a republic, there are no nations in the world where fifty regionally-diverse states join together in such harmony. You have to consider that historically speaking, this 200-year-old republic is ancient; among other nation-states inspired to revolution by actions which first took place in America, look at your own European Union, modeled loosely on the success of the American Union.
Consider this. Well over ninety percent of all people who live in our country is descended from someone who left another country seeking a better place. This is one thing we ALL share in common, for though we are shamed by our import of slaves, even slaves have intermarried enough to bring the current generation within this statistic.
We Americans love happy endings as a result. Check this out: nearly every non-American movie I've seen had a bizarre and sad twist at the end of the movie. Well over ninety percent of the American movies I've seen have a happy ending. Why? Because we Americans are like little kids; we don't mind the violence, but we CANNOT tolerate the bad guys winning. It just won't sell in America.
The 'good guy' always wins, in America. It just takes time. What other country is so simplistically oriented toward the justice according to hope in a happy ending? I bet Australia comes closest, on close analysis...
I hold to it. America is still, to this day, and well into the future, the single broadest and loudest voice of hope in a world which is hopeless. I'm clear to admit that we share our lot in all the corruptions of the countries who make up our ancestry, but I'm also clear to say that America has BOUNDLESS and VAST quantities of hope, resilience, and an incredibly high standard of how to treat our neighbors.
It's not just a by-product of our deep natural resources, most of which we've reduced to nil. It came with people who followed the American Dream.
Yes, we have our flaws, but where in world history can you find anything even remotely similar to the Marshall Plan?
Truly, the broadest example of "love thy neighbor" ever seen in history. In a world FULL of paranoia, we gave our enemies billions to restructure their economies. With no questions asked. We saw that work needed to be done, and we did it, by God!
Yes, we currently have one of the highest per-capita prison populations in history, but that will not last forever. The task before us now is to dismantle the paranoia which was imported over from Eastern Europe during the first half of the 1900s, which blossomed into the Cold War, a war which has largely been won. You say we have taken over the world? Get behind me, you dissembler. We have done our best to KEEP from taking over the world. We have nothing stopping us from taking over the world, but our own common sense. In two wars, we've demonstrated that we have the ability to destroy all enemies, because we fight with all the hope of the world behind us. So forgive us for not knowing how to slow down when we've conquered our great foes.
We'll come to our senses. Give us time, and help us, for there is no doubt we will succeed at whatever we put ourselves to. This is a nation founded by Christians, tolerant of ALL religions. The God we trust in is the God of Israel, of COURSE we are friendly to the Israelis.
You may say we are evil, but what is the standard you're comparing us to? Give me a standard, and I'll show you how America has put forth exceedingly bright stars upon that standard. Ie, Show me Gandhi, and I'll show you Martin Luther King, Jr. Then when the show is over, I'll show you that Sweden's freedoms were purchased in America, in about 1776. And then you'll say I'm boasting, and I'll say I only did so when provoked.
If you're not trolling, then engage in the conversation without positing my earnest attempt to answer you as FUD before I even write.
Give us fifty years. You'll see that a few terrorists didn't take down this nation, but only made it stagger a little, before rebounding with more strength than before.
You asked.
Without light there is no darkness.
Without darkness there is no light.
Spoken by one whose facts are inarguable, but also impotent.
The point is, do you walk in the light, or in the darkness? Geez, everybody knows there's light and darkness in the world. The question is, which is which?
Computers have no awareness of what you're going to do with the information you receive from them.
The problem is not with the accuracy or the ability of the computer,
But with the things people do with the information coming from a computer.
How much money would an advertiser pay to retrieve a database of people who flew in to Kansas City yesterday? A dollar per person? Am I to be sold for less than the slaves of 1835?
Keep me outta dem computers, please. Video games are fun, but advertisers will stop at nothing to pay for my soul in advance...
When there has been no virus released for ten consecutive years,
When there has been no hacked server for ten consecutive years,
When there has been no marketing of consumer information without their permission for ten consecutive years,
Then,
And only then,
Will I maybe consider allowing a computer to define whether I get on a plane or not. Until then, terrorists will just find a way around the computer, and we normal people will have manacles upon us.
Good heavens, if you don't want freedom, get out of the country! Those of us who want freedom are willing to think about our options before signing them away liberally.
I can't calculate PI to 1000 digits in my head, but I can forgive. Show me a computer who can forgive...
Fuzzywig: What have you done to get them out of jail?
And, on the comment about grinning fool vs. subnormal chimp?
Ah, a superior dude. Sorry I forgot that really smart people who know how to call others chimps are in Slashdot conversations.
Oh. Sorry we woke you. Go back to sleep.
Check that again. What you seek is perfection. If you seek perfection, you won't find it on earth.
We work with what we have. And of all the nations we have, America is more the land of the free, with liberty, and justice for all, than any other. Has been ever since 1776. Yes, liberties are tilted toward the wealthy, but it's worse elsewhere.
You are complaining, sir. Please leave our country. You're welcome to migrate to Cuba, where complainers face a worse fate than Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Build up; there is no need to tear down.
Mumia is a respected journalist; have you read his writings? He preaches hate, and thus gets no compassion from me for his rhetoric; only for his need for freedom. When we live in the same century as Nelson Mandela and Gandhi, we don't need to think Mumia Abu-Jamal is respectible.
Yes, he should be free, but don't say that he is respectible just because he's in jail. Say it because he doesn't preach hate any more.
Judge the past with compassion; otherwise, in two hundred years, what young pseudopatriot will call _you_ a rich white slaveholder?
-WP