What? What the hell are they transmitting? Clearly not video because you can steam a dozen 1080p videos on youtube on a residential 12Mb/s data line.
I can only assume this is a mistake or they are not using compression for some reason. Possibly the video game industry can come to the rescue again. Pass on the net code to optimize this stuff. And as to the video... Possibly consider reducing the number of camera feeds being streamed or consider reducing resolution unless people are actually watching every single one of those cameras.
1. you could use small digging robots that could take the dirt away in little amounts at a time. Maybe it would take them years to dig something out but we have time.
2. We might also dig into the dirt a tiny little tunnel and then drag something inflatable in there... then inflate it... just an idea.
Anyway, I'd ask you to look at those strip mining operations around the world. We've dug these HUGE pits in the earth with fairly normal digging equipment. Some of these pits do use huge cranes or trucks. But most of them use fairly normal excavation equipment. Yet they dig these valley sized pits in the earth. How? Time. Lots of little loads over lots of time. Think of a little boy on the beach with his little plastic shovel and pale. If that little boy just sat there on the beach making a single sandcastle and there were no tide to knock it over... what could it build if left alone for 20 years... using nothing but he little shove, pale, and his bare hands?
That's what I'm talking about with the digging robots. They wouldn't be fast but they'd be persistent.
that's part of what I was thinking though I didn't know they had them on the moon. I had hoped there were caverns or something though. Anyway, human habitation on earth started out in caves... I'm not too proud to have it start on other worlds in the same place... all be it with electric lights and hopefully fewer fleas.
In response to the people saying that digging is hard. I know. But we can send some robots to do it beforehand.
I'm no expert but my amateurish day dreams on the subject go something like this:
We use our existing imaging of mars or the moon to pick out a good place to build a base. Whatever that is... we pick a good spot. Maybe an extinct volcano on mars because there should be lava tubes. So free tunnels that maybe go on for miles.
Then we send robots to survey the site and provide those robots with some simple digging and survey tools. Modern excavation equipment on earth could dig out a base in a couple weeks. Lets say these little robots because they're smaller and lighter do the same job but it just takes longer. Look at those giant pits in the earth our mining operations dig out. They're huge. But all the work was done with fairly normal excavators. How did they dig such huge holes? They just dug little holes in the same spot and over time they all added up to a giant hole. So same deal with the little robotic diggers. Maybe it takes them ten years to dig out a base. Are we in a rush?
Once we've got it surveyed and dug out we can send in some sort of construction robot that has some ability to "make" walls. Maybe it can break down certain elements found in Martian soil to make cement. Whatever... this is a problem for the chemists and engineers to work out but there has to be a way to make bricks or plaster or something on these worlds. Maybe you need some solar furnace that heats everything up and melts the rock together. Or maybe the the robot builds the way that ancient civilizations did... so precisely fitting the rocks together that they hold together WITHOUT mortar. Anyway, so maybe 20 or 30 years into the process with robots building everything we now have a walls and rooms under ground. None of it is pressurized but we have some robotic workers around that can add space or do further excavations.
Then we send in another wave of robots that actually make the place somewhat livable. Not perhaps all the fittings but they install the basic machinery and pressurize at least part of the base. Alternatively we could send some kind of additive manufacturing machine to mars that can just "make" most of the things the people will need. We'll need prospecting robots and some kind of refinery to turn the base Martian rock into useable feedstock. But theoretically we could send what amounts to a von neumann machine to mars to build everything we need. We're not that far from that sort of technology right now. And in any case we have lots of time to develop it. For now, we just need to pick out a site on mars or the moon to build the base, then send out some digging robots. Then we have ten to twenty years of time while we wait for that. And then we send out the robots that turn the dug out facility into something with actual walls and some basic construction. By then it's 40 years from now or something. If we don't have an additive manufacturing rig by then that can spit out usable material from Martian rock then we haven't been trying.
Okay... so now we've either shipped a lot of hardware to mars/moon or we send some 3d printer there to make it for us. And at that point we should start thinking about sending people. Not to visit... to live. Colonists.
The point of sending people to mars or the moon is not for science or because we can. Robots do the science just fine and because we can is a waste of resources. We do it to live there. To colonize.
Humans need to get off earth or we're going to die here. Some are resigned to that and we have a lot of time to develop a way off. But why wait. This is within our reach right now. Lets do it. Robots are going to do 99 percent of the work in any case and it will take a long time for them. that's fine.
Eventually we'll develop some kind of "seed" technology that lets us send a little robotic probe to a distant world... and that probe all by itself plants a seed of our industry on that world. It will have a tiny little fa
I'm always confused by base designs for other worlds that are invariably above ground. Why waste the protective features of just burying things?
I suppose it's difficult to dig a base into the earth but because there's very little atmosphere to speak of you have no real protection against radiation. And then there are questions of insulation. Put twenty feet of dirt between your habitat and the surface and all sorts of problems go away.
No problem with micro meteorites since they'd have to penetrate 20 feet of dirt to even touch your habitat.
No problem with radiation unless it can go through 20 feet of dirt. I know really hard radiation can... but that has to take most of the edge off it. And if needed you can always go deeper.
No problem with dust storms because it's all raging above you. I suppose a dune could position itself on top of your access shaft but there are some fairly cheap ways to make that manageable.
So on and so forth.
this goes double for the moon. For the love of god there's not even a weak atmosphere on the moon. No protection. Put the facility down twenty feet though and you can inflate your little habitat to your heart's content knowing that the whole place isn't going to get stabbed by a thousand micro meteorites or flash burned by a solar flare.
The only thing that really needs to be on the surface is an access shaft complete with airlocks. A communications array so you can broadcast to orbital relays or directly to earth. And some solar cells. Bury everything else.
If we build underground we might not even need those somewhat elaborate bubble walls they're talking about inflating. We might just be able to get by with something to harden the earth up and then maybe a spray on polymer to make sure the walls are airtight.
If people want to see the surface they can use one of the video feeds or climb up the ladder/take the elevator to the surface.
well... first, I don't know how they'd sue you for contraband on the machine since it isn't something the company has any stake in either way. Though I suppose they could blackmail you.
As to penalty, we need to show damages... or it has to be actually against the law. It might be against the law for all I know. THere are so many laws in this country that neither the lawyers nor the lawmakers really know what is going on anymore. They know the law as it is practiced and enforced of course but that doesn't mean there isn't some forgotten law buried in the stacks that somecrazyhow makes all this illegal already.
Anyway, there is a reason for putting backdoors into programs. Any programmer working on something does it because you don't like getting locked out of your own program. You want a fail safe. A "go to hell" plan that lets you get access no matter what because sometimes everything goes wrong and you need access now or you're going to get fired. So you put in a back door.
The problem with the backdoors is that they really really really shouldn't be secret. By all means, have them. But make them public and obvious. Idiots won't disable them and that's good because idiots are the ones that forget their passwords and need someone to ride to the rescue and use the backdoor to unlock all their stuff. Anyone halfway competent should be made aware of the backdoors during or immediately after installation... be given some means to easily disable them or change the authentication information used to access them so that they become THEIR backdoor rather then some fellow at the company.
Anyway... I think we'll all shift to linux at some point. Linux isn't ready yet for prime time despite what the linux gurus say. When you'd feel comfortable giving it to your grandmother is when it's ready. I'd feel comfortable giving windows or MacOS to my grandmother but I love her too much to subject her to linux. It has major polish issues. Ubuntu has come a long way to fix that but it needs to come the rest of the way.
When that happens I think some of these backdooring problems will be a problem of the past.
As to the burden to grasp a contract, it's a lot more complicated then that.
Contract law is very keen on context. The context of a contract is relevant as is the participants in the contract.
As to my knowledge of the matter, I have three contract lawyers in my family. They each either have or have retired from successful careers in major corporations such as Disney. In fact, one of them was sorta involved in the very work Disney went through to get Mickey's copyrights extended.
So while I personally can't claim to be an expert, it is an issue I've discussed at length people far more likely to have a clue then you. And each of them agreed that EULAs would be very hard to enforce on individuals. Specifically that while the gross nature of the EULA might be relevant that obscure passages and clauses in the EULA would likely be impossible to enforce. That is, the EULA might be able to protect the corporation from certain types of liability but they probably would not be able to grant the corporation the right to your data or other issues.
They also if you're interested were not happy about what happened with Mickey. Most lawyers are not aholes despite popular depictions. The problem is that the executives ordering them around are frequently aholes. At least according to them. And if the boss says "make this happen" it's your job to go out there and do it. So that's what they did. They were actually surprised they succeeded since they were pretty much convinced it was a waste of time.
Anyway, while of course they are strong on the point that it is generally upon the burden of the signer to know what they are signing... the law makes allowances for circumstances where that is unreasonable.
The term reasonable is very very very very important. Corporations generally do not have this protection. But individuals apparently can use it. Think of it like the special considerations a defendant is given if he decides to represent himself in court. He isn't required to comport himself with all the rules that a licensed lawyer is required to maintain. It is understood that the individual cannot reasonably be expected to be as good at the law or understand court procedure to the level of an actual lawyer. As such, he is held to a lower and more reasonable standard. Contract law has similar systems of addressing what is and is not reasonable.
If a signer could not reasonably understand a document before signing then it will not survive challenge in court. For example, if I don't speak english then its likely that any document I sign in English will be suspect unless there is some documentation that proves it was provided in an intelligible format. Perhaps the notary was fluent in spanish and simply explained every part of the document line by line to him and initialed as they went along.
The legality and enforceability of EULAs has been an issue for many years. How many times do you think a EULA has successfully been used against a consumer or individual on the basis of them clicking "OK"? Practically never.
But it's more complicated then that. Another issue courts care about is little things like showing damage. Whatever a EULA says it's very hard to actually show damages in a software case where a EULA would be relevant especially between a corporation and an individual. I mean, why are we arguing about something? Is it just for giggles? Are you having a good time? Because courts don't like that either. They like to deal with issues where there is some material grievance. Something that is actual in reality and not something totally made up. Because if they talk about made up stuff that's all they'll do. So they like to keep it to real things where real things happened to other real people in reality.
I am not a lawyer. I am certain I have misstated, overstated, understated, and miss-characterized various elements of what I have said out of my own personal ignorance. That said, I have consulted what a court would consider experts on this subject and it was their opinion that I base mine on.
What are you basing your opinion on? Because I keep seeing people reference a South Park episode and all things considered it lacks weight as a legal argument.
Well if the government is monkeying with the law then anything is possible. However, the problem then becomes how does country A trust the code if country B has backdoors in it?
We all want to be secure and really the NSA etc are going to get more milage out of learning how to do their jobs properly which will mean putting taps on things without the company's knowledge or cooperation. They should be able to do that. What happens when a company says no or it's a foreign country they need to tap that doesn't use any allied company? Best to develop these skills in their day to day operations rather then relying the manufacturer or developer to give them a back door. These guys are supposed to be hiring and training armies of hackers and little cyber warriors to do this stuff. If all they're doing is calling up the president and saying "can we have access pretty please" then any chump with a country could say that.
So not only is this a dumb move for the companies and bad for consumers but it also sets a bad precedent for the intelligence agencies in that they get fat and lazy using the backdoor rather then actually breaking in like a real intelligence agency. I don't care how they do it. Just do it that way instead. tell the president you're their mother and you need access to his global communications network so you can bring by milk and cookies. It doesn't matter. But don't actually tell them who you are and then ask nicely for access... even worse is if they show some sort of documented court writ demanding access. Dive in some dumpsters... whatever... but this is just bad on too many levels.
Look at what you quoted. I am aware that I just own a license. However, any court worth it's salt will look poorly on a corporation that interprets that as meaning it can insert spy code into my systems and undermine my security intentionally.
The issue here will be showing actual damages to a court.
If you bring this to court and can show material damage of some kind that is quantified. Then you could gut them like a fish.
I know many in the corporate world view EULAs as fostian bargains that everyone that uses their products are stupid enough to sign. These EULAs are actually enforcable between corporations however you'll have a very hard time holding small businesses or consumers to them because it would be very very very easy to argue that they can not REASONABLY be expected to read and understand such agreements. The term "reasonable" is very important in contract law.
If it can be shown that either party in a contract could not have been reasonably expected to understand something or read it then it won't be enforcable. For that reason EULAs aren't particularly effective against consumers especially as it regards little hidden details. They can of course be expected to know that they're not support to pirate software. But they are likely not being made aware of the foreture of rights or other little things they might try to sneak into the contract.
Being sneaky with a contract works between big corporations. They can trick each other because they are expected to read and understand everything. However, individuals and small operations are given special protection. Generally anything that goes over our heads or is even a little slippery tends to not do well in court.
And if you add a jury trial to it... they're screwed.
The legal system has a lot of problems but it's more sensible then you give it credit.
To everyone that's telling "oh you didn't buy it, you licensed it!" or "But you clicked OK on the EULA!" or any variation on that theme. I'm pretty confident I could effortlessly sue the silly pants off any company that did this to me... especially if I could show damages in court. What jury is going to sit there and say "oh, he clicked OK on the EULA..." From a legal standpoint, EULAs are almost worthless against consumers and I even question how effective they are against corporations. There are different legal standards here. A big corporation for example has a legal obligation to actually read everything to the last line and appreciate what all the various legal terms mean. One person that has no special legal knowledge can't be reasonably expected to sign such things.
The basis of legal contracts is that BOTH sides know, understand, and agree to the contract. If it can be demonstrated that either side could not be expected to reasonably know, understand, or agree to everything in a contract then the contract is invalid.
For example, if a blind man signs a 500 pages legal contract it's almost certainly invalid. To make such a contract valid there would have be documentation that made it clear throughout that the man read or understood the contract. That might mean having a notary read it and occasionally inital segments of the contract to signify that given portions had been communicated. Or it might mean giving the man a copy of the contract in braille or something.
The problem with EULAs is that no one reads them and worse no one can really be expected to read them. How many EULAs do you see in a day? I see about three on average and I think I've only read about two of them... and that was because I was bored.
EULAs mostly exist not to restrain consumers because they can't reasonably be applied to them. They exist to restrain other corporations who also use the software. Because other corporations don't have this protection. It's one of the big differences legally between small and large organizations. Small groups generally are given a lot of legal slack. Big companies have to make a point of dotting every i and crossing every t. They have to read all these EULAs. And while I bet they don't even do it, they would have a much harder time making the same legal argument in court that they simply don't have the reasonable expectation of reading or understanding such documents.
If Microsoft or Google did something that meant thousands of credit card numbers were stolen. Something where you could show damages. There is no EULA that would defend them. They'd get their silly pants sued off if it could be demonstrated that it was their fault.
Now if it was an issue of malware or something then they can probably successfully argue that end users have a responsibility to secure their systems and MS or Google didn't steal the numbers in any case or intentionally make them available. However, if MS and google intentionally used backdoors to get such information or sold the keys to those back doors to a third party that then used them to get the information. THEN those companies would be screwed sideways.
If the twentieth paragraph in the EULA says "oh by the way, we reserve the right to let third parties pilfer your data at will" it wouldn't stand in court.
If I were totally immoral... I mean... if I had the soul of a demon... then I really wouldn't worry about that from a strictly military perspective.
I'm pretty sure I could cow any other power into holding their fire so long as I left them alone. Some sort of alliance might spring up to counter us but by then it would be too late. The chinese have the throw weight to make fighting them difficult. But they'd have to sue for peace pretty fast because they rely on global trade even more then we rely on it. And the west collectively is a much larger and self reliant economic system. We could also continue trade with all minor powers that are under our sphere and of course we'd be chewing on the bones of the civilizations we had just eaten.
So... if I were totally immoral that wouldn't even begin to stop me.
The west had and probably still has the power to completely dominate the world by force. After WW2 especially it became very clear that just about any resistance was futile.
The world we have today... the one with global trade... freedom of information... and a continious attempt at mutual understanding is one we created intentionally. Are we totally successful? Of course not... it's not easy and as powerful as we are by force we can't change people's minds by force. So all our power is useless if people want to be stubborn. And the islamic world with whatever virtues it has... is also very stubborn. And not in the good head strong way... but in the pigheaded and foolish way.
I don't say any of this to diss them. I really do wish them the best. I want their children to grow up bright and strong. I want their economies to run smoothly and prosper. I just wish they'd stop embracing policies that ultimately endanger their own security without actually accomplishing anything of value for anyone anywhere in the world.
I mean what are the islamists doing for the world or themselves? Nothing good. They're hurting foreigners that wished them no ill prior to those incidents and wish them no ill outside of those incidents. And they're endangering their own security. And they're poisoning their economies. They're retarding the education and social evolution of their people. They're even making their governments less stable.
There is no good effect for anyone from these actions. It's universally bad. It's like taking a dump in the river and then being the first one to take a drink. What do they think they're doing?
Anyway... I stress the military aspect not because I'm some jingoistic blowhard but because I feel like too often it is glossed over that we're only having these discussions because we're too good to just kill them. And that isn't actually a universal moral given. Most of the countries we have problems with are already power mad on their tiny bit of power. Give them enough power to set the world on fire and they'd probably be the first ones to go running around spraying gasoline all over the place and laughing as they threw matches around.
That has to earn us some moral high ground in all this indifferent to whatever anyone thinks about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Were we half the monsters we're made out to be we'd be cracking the bones of their children between our teeth. We're not... QED.
I'm not a huge open source guru. I have nothing against it and I use open source software all the time. But I'm not a zealot on the subject. Still... this is unacceptable. If I buy a bit of software from apple or microsoft, it has to be understood that I control the security. I bought the OS. I bought the machine. I own that license. if they're going behind my back to sell my security to a third party... then I consider that a breach of contract and I'm really not amused.
If this is valid... and it hasn't been confirmed yet... then anyone that signed that agreement is untrustworthy.
Our ability to destroy every factory in a country of hte size of Iran or Pakistan surpasses our abilities in WW2. What exactly are they going to do about it? They can't even bury it under ground. We have bunker buster bombs that can reach 100s of feet under the ground through reinforced concrete.
And in any case, their people would start starving within a month once trade and agriculture were disrupted.
The rural areas would survive perhaps but they'd be unable to resist any mechanized force that was willing to kill them on sight.
I'm not advocating such military action. I'm merely pointing out that it was something and is something the west could technically do at any time. It won't do it. But it can do it.
Understand that distiction.
As to the oil... that is no concern. If the West attacked in that manner the oil could be claimed rapidly. Anything that stood in the way could be easily killed.
We have issues with insurgents because we make a point of not killing civilians. If that ceased to be an issue then the fields could probably be claimed untouched.
A few poison gas attacks and everything would cough it's lungs out in the area.
I am well aware this is a horrible concept and I really do want you to understand that I'm not advocating it. I am merely stressing the point often lost in these discussions that these people are protected by the restraint of my people. Not by any skill or power they have themselves but by the moral quams of my people. Nothing else really is holding us back.
That we do not strike these people and slaughter them to a man is a monument to our moral strength. How many of their nations do you think would be so strong in character given our physical strength? How many would you trust with our power?
And that is in part why we are uncomfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons. Because when push comes to shove they're immoral and might well use such power irresponsibly.
And even so they only maintain their position because of China. Their possible nuclear weapon is irrelevant. We know where their facilities are and they have no means of sending it anywhere that we cannot intercept before it does harm.
Launch it and it will be swatted from the sky. Smuggle it? Where an how... every ship that docks in that country is tracked and shadowed.
It's only value is as a last resort defense and the COST of that last resort is living in fear forever.
If north korea destroyed their nuclear program they'd be no less secure then they are now... and they might enjoy a solid meal every day and a good night sleep.
The weapon is almost worthless and vastly more expensive then is properly understood.
As to the insurgents, they're only an issue because we try to pacify their regions rather then hitting them with total war. Were Japanese or German insurgents a problem for allied forces? No. Because it would not be tolerated. The instant something like that became a problem, the whole region would be depopulated. Not killed... just moved.
The Islamists think we have treated with them very cruelly and harshly. But the reality is that there are few enemies in our history we have treated better.
Beyond that, I'm making a moral argument here. Something the islamists like to believe is that the west are demons. That we are immoral and blood thirsty. The problem with that is that if we were, they'd all be dead. So I make the military argument in part to stress the importance of the moral argument. It is the morality that defends the islamic world. OUR morality. There is no force of arms on earth that could stop us. We would roll over their military as if it weren't even there. What holds us back are certain political considerations and our own sense of revulsion at the very idea of such an act.
The insurgents if we were immoral wouldn't be a problem because we'd just shoot them all. Insurgents only get close because they pretend to be civilians. If you treat all civilians as hostiles then insurgents can't get close because disguising themselves as civilians is useless.
As to the future of war... keep in mind that every generation believes the next war will be like the last war. They're always shocked to find they're different.
Don't make assumptions... stick with what is strictly possible... not what someone will do or won't do... but rather what they can and cannot do...
The problem the islamists have is that the West is restrained by what they won't do not what they can't do... where as they are restrained not by what they won't do but what they can't do. They have morally justified using children to kill children. They have morally justified attacking innocent civilians in distant cities that have done them no injury. What did the people of New York do to the people of Afghanistan? Nothing. If anything they helped them against the Soviet invasion. And yet they justified the attack.
Where as the US in all it's righteous fury was restrained not by what it could not do... but by what it would not do even in its pain and rage.
The Islamic world is shielded by no art of their own making but by moral codes of the West's own value system. That system is not well understood by the islamic world. It has lines and layers. It is not a good idea to go spilling ink all over the system without at least grasping its significance.
The nukes are no defense and they will only deepen Iran's problems.
Iran's best move is to make itself non-threatening and move it's name off the strategic threat list.
Developing these weapons only ensures that the US and other powers take the gloves off and start playing dirty. The nukes might change the nature of the way we play but it will not change the end result.
And if Iran actually fired one of these nukes their people would be annihilated. There is nothing their people could do that would so seal their fate.
From a strategic and tactical perspective, Iran is undermining their own security.
So... the only thing we can do is topple their government and hold a knife to their throat there after so they'll behave? I really don't want to do that... but if we have no alternative... then we have no alternative.
One would think ground based telescopes would be just as good and more stealthy. These things are designed to look at distant stars. One would think they could get excellent resolution on a satellite.
Maybe I'm wrong... I won't claim to be an expert. It just seems we have a lot of hardware pointed skyward and collectively it should be able to keep tabs on anything in low earth orbit.
First, most of the muslim world doesn't see Iran as a natural ally. Islam is very factional. Think of it like the old division between catholic and protestant only worse because their fanatics are more wild eyed then a 15th century cardinal.
Second, the Arab princes are allies even if occasionally duplicitous ones. They are afraid of Iran and will help us bring it down so long as we're gentle about it.
Third, even if they did unite the whole muslim world against us that's not actually a very credible military force. When was the last time you bought something that said "made in "? Probably never because they have almost no industrial capacity. That means they have no ability to wage a modern war.
Oh sure, they can plant IEDs if you let them get close. But if you waged a WW2 type war against them none of that would work. Do you think we let german civilian hang out around our entrenchments during our invasion of germany? Every man, woman, and child had to keep their distance.
I stress this only to point out that if Iran got what you say they want... it would be the worst thing that has ever happened to Iran.
I don't know what they're thinking. It's possible that like the Japanese, they've misunderstood our nature. The Japanese through years of diplomatic negotiations came to believe that the US was weak willed. That we would always take the easy out to avoid war. They gathered this because we didn't respond to small provocations. We let it go. And that implied to them that we would respond uniformly in that manner. Osama Bin Ladin also came to a similar belief. In both cases, they miscalculated in that US responses changed radically after their respective attacks.
Why the change? Because in both cases they burned out their moral and diplomatic protection. This is what guards Iran. It isn't her soldiers or missiles. It is the US's own opinion of itself and the impression of other relevant nations. If Iran does something that poisons it's moral standing and diplomatic standing enough that an attack is justified in the US's opinion... it will happen.
This is what Iran must prevent. It isn't hard to do... But Iran appears to be going out of their way to make attacking them easier. It will be the end of their government. And all resistance will do is increase the suffering of their people.
clearly you're kidding... but the thing is that it forces our hand. We've been in a position to kill them all from the very start.That we don't is a matter of politics and morality.
But from a strictly military perspective we could wipe them out to the last screaming child.
Why poke that in the eye with a stick?
What Iran is doing slowly but surely is eroding their political and moral defenses that guard their nation from annihilation. Their military is irrelevant. It is no defense. It would be like clubbing baby seals either way. In fact, the death blow would look identical either way.
What defends Iran is the international outrage over doing such a thing unprovoked and the moral goodness of the American people to find such actions abhorrent.
What Iran is doing progressively is building justification for some sort of military action against them. And morally... they're slowly justifying some sort of strike as well. In effect, they're slowly raising the guillotine blade that when it falls... will at best strike off the head of their nation. At worst, there will be collateral damage.
Why is Iran doing this to itself? It's so needlessly self destructive. Just stop it. Behave yourself, the sanctions will come off, and we can all get along. Aggressive posturing, locking your people off from the world, and developing variants of nuclear technology best able to produce weapons grade material... what is the point of all this? Best case you'll get a bomb and then what? Hundreds of years of MAD as the rest of the world contains you? That sounds like loads of fun. If you just stopped all this we could normalize relations to everyone's benefit.
I hadn't thought of that. You're right of course. If the software will also identify the books and categorize them for you then by all means. Use that instead.
Absolutely the internet itself should not be placed as a human right. However, perhaps a more universal philosophical concept could be substituted such as perhaps a freedom to use technologies that facilitate other rights on the list.
Thus the freedom to use the internet is less a right then an implicit subordinate concept under the freedom of speech. It helps humans communicate and so we should be free to use it.
In this way we keep focus on the principle philosophical concepts while also adapting to new technological realities. The system will also dynamically adapt to new technologies as they come out. Perhaps in 200 years the internet will be meaningless. it would be silly to have it as a human right in that case. But if we say any technology that facilitates communication then that will have adapted automatically over time as well.
What you're saying makes perfect sense IF the card catalog is working and the books were previously put back in roughly the correct order. And I would of course see that as a good method once the library is organized.
But he seemed to imply the books are a mess. How are people going to check out the popular books if they can't even find them? And if the card catalog doesn't work then how do we know if they can find them? Maybe they're only checking out popular books that also happen to be on the first shelf or something?
So I totally get what you're saying and I agree BUT I think it has to be stressed that the library might be out of order and that changes things significantly.
Slashdot Mirror
What? What the hell are they transmitting? Clearly not video because you can steam a dozen 1080p videos on youtube on a residential 12Mb/s data line.
I can only assume this is a mistake or they are not using compression for some reason. Possibly the video game industry can come to the rescue again. Pass on the net code to optimize this stuff. And as to the video... Possibly consider reducing the number of camera feeds being streamed or consider reducing resolution unless people are actually watching every single one of those cameras.
As to bulldozers...
1. you could use small digging robots that could take the dirt away in little amounts at a time. Maybe it would take them years to dig something out but we have time.
2. We might also dig into the dirt a tiny little tunnel and then drag something inflatable in there... then inflate it... just an idea.
Anyway, I'd ask you to look at those strip mining operations around the world. We've dug these HUGE pits in the earth with fairly normal digging equipment. Some of these pits do use huge cranes or trucks. But most of them use fairly normal excavation equipment. Yet they dig these valley sized pits in the earth. How? Time. Lots of little loads over lots of time. Think of a little boy on the beach with his little plastic shovel and pale. If that little boy just sat there on the beach making a single sandcastle and there were no tide to knock it over... what could it build if left alone for 20 years... using nothing but he little shove, pale, and his bare hands?
That's what I'm talking about with the digging robots. They wouldn't be fast but they'd be persistent.
that's part of what I was thinking though I didn't know they had them on the moon. I had hoped there were caverns or something though. Anyway, human habitation on earth started out in caves... I'm not too proud to have it start on other worlds in the same place... all be it with electric lights and hopefully fewer fleas.
In response to the people saying that digging is hard. I know. But we can send some robots to do it beforehand.
I'm no expert but my amateurish day dreams on the subject go something like this:
We use our existing imaging of mars or the moon to pick out a good place to build a base. Whatever that is... we pick a good spot. Maybe an extinct volcano on mars because there should be lava tubes. So free tunnels that maybe go on for miles.
Then we send robots to survey the site and provide those robots with some simple digging and survey tools. Modern excavation equipment on earth could dig out a base in a couple weeks. Lets say these little robots because they're smaller and lighter do the same job but it just takes longer. Look at those giant pits in the earth our mining operations dig out. They're huge. But all the work was done with fairly normal excavators. How did they dig such huge holes? They just dug little holes in the same spot and over time they all added up to a giant hole. So same deal with the little robotic diggers. Maybe it takes them ten years to dig out a base. Are we in a rush?
Once we've got it surveyed and dug out we can send in some sort of construction robot that has some ability to "make" walls. Maybe it can break down certain elements found in Martian soil to make cement. Whatever... this is a problem for the chemists and engineers to work out but there has to be a way to make bricks or plaster or something on these worlds. Maybe you need some solar furnace that heats everything up and melts the rock together. Or maybe the the robot builds the way that ancient civilizations did... so precisely fitting the rocks together that they hold together WITHOUT mortar. Anyway, so maybe 20 or 30 years into the process with robots building everything we now have a walls and rooms under ground. None of it is pressurized but we have some robotic workers around that can add space or do further excavations.
Then we send in another wave of robots that actually make the place somewhat livable. Not perhaps all the fittings but they install the basic machinery and pressurize at least part of the base. Alternatively we could send some kind of additive manufacturing machine to mars that can just "make" most of the things the people will need. We'll need prospecting robots and some kind of refinery to turn the base Martian rock into useable feedstock. But theoretically we could send what amounts to a von neumann machine to mars to build everything we need. We're not that far from that sort of technology right now. And in any case we have lots of time to develop it. For now, we just need to pick out a site on mars or the moon to build the base, then send out some digging robots. Then we have ten to twenty years of time while we wait for that. And then we send out the robots that turn the dug out facility into something with actual walls and some basic construction. By then it's 40 years from now or something. If we don't have an additive manufacturing rig by then that can spit out usable material from Martian rock then we haven't been trying.
Okay... so now we've either shipped a lot of hardware to mars/moon or we send some 3d printer there to make it for us. And at that point we should start thinking about sending people. Not to visit... to live. Colonists.
The point of sending people to mars or the moon is not for science or because we can. Robots do the science just fine and because we can is a waste of resources. We do it to live there. To colonize.
Humans need to get off earth or we're going to die here. Some are resigned to that and we have a lot of time to develop a way off. But why wait. This is within our reach right now. Lets do it. Robots are going to do 99 percent of the work in any case and it will take a long time for them. that's fine.
Eventually we'll develop some kind of "seed" technology that lets us send a little robotic probe to a distant world... and that probe all by itself plants a seed of our industry on that world. It will have a tiny little fa
I'm always confused by base designs for other worlds that are invariably above ground. Why waste the protective features of just burying things?
I suppose it's difficult to dig a base into the earth but because there's very little atmosphere to speak of you have no real protection against radiation. And then there are questions of insulation. Put twenty feet of dirt between your habitat and the surface and all sorts of problems go away.
No problem with micro meteorites since they'd have to penetrate 20 feet of dirt to even touch your habitat.
No problem with radiation unless it can go through 20 feet of dirt. I know really hard radiation can... but that has to take most of the edge off it. And if needed you can always go deeper.
No problem with dust storms because it's all raging above you. I suppose a dune could position itself on top of your access shaft but there are some fairly cheap ways to make that manageable.
So on and so forth.
this goes double for the moon. For the love of god there's not even a weak atmosphere on the moon. No protection. Put the facility down twenty feet though and you can inflate your little habitat to your heart's content knowing that the whole place isn't going to get stabbed by a thousand micro meteorites or flash burned by a solar flare.
The only thing that really needs to be on the surface is an access shaft complete with airlocks. A communications array so you can broadcast to orbital relays or directly to earth. And some solar cells. Bury everything else.
If we build underground we might not even need those somewhat elaborate bubble walls they're talking about inflating. We might just be able to get by with something to harden the earth up and then maybe a spray on polymer to make sure the walls are airtight.
If people want to see the surface they can use one of the video feeds or climb up the ladder/take the elevator to the surface.
well... first, I don't know how they'd sue you for contraband on the machine since it isn't something the company has any stake in either way. Though I suppose they could blackmail you.
As to penalty, we need to show damages... or it has to be actually against the law. It might be against the law for all I know. THere are so many laws in this country that neither the lawyers nor the lawmakers really know what is going on anymore. They know the law as it is practiced and enforced of course but that doesn't mean there isn't some forgotten law buried in the stacks that somecrazyhow makes all this illegal already.
Anyway, there is a reason for putting backdoors into programs. Any programmer working on something does it because you don't like getting locked out of your own program. You want a fail safe. A "go to hell" plan that lets you get access no matter what because sometimes everything goes wrong and you need access now or you're going to get fired. So you put in a back door.
The problem with the backdoors is that they really really really shouldn't be secret. By all means, have them. But make them public and obvious. Idiots won't disable them and that's good because idiots are the ones that forget their passwords and need someone to ride to the rescue and use the backdoor to unlock all their stuff. Anyone halfway competent should be made aware of the backdoors during or immediately after installation... be given some means to easily disable them or change the authentication information used to access them so that they become THEIR backdoor rather then some fellow at the company.
Anyway... I think we'll all shift to linux at some point. Linux isn't ready yet for prime time despite what the linux gurus say. When you'd feel comfortable giving it to your grandmother is when it's ready. I'd feel comfortable giving windows or MacOS to my grandmother but I love her too much to subject her to linux. It has major polish issues. Ubuntu has come a long way to fix that but it needs to come the rest of the way.
When that happens I think some of these backdooring problems will be a problem of the past.
As to the burden to grasp a contract, it's a lot more complicated then that.
Contract law is very keen on context. The context of a contract is relevant as is the participants in the contract.
As to my knowledge of the matter, I have three contract lawyers in my family. They each either have or have retired from successful careers in major corporations such as Disney. In fact, one of them was sorta involved in the very work Disney went through to get Mickey's copyrights extended.
So while I personally can't claim to be an expert, it is an issue I've discussed at length people far more likely to have a clue then you. And each of them agreed that EULAs would be very hard to enforce on individuals. Specifically that while the gross nature of the EULA might be relevant that obscure passages and clauses in the EULA would likely be impossible to enforce. That is, the EULA might be able to protect the corporation from certain types of liability but they probably would not be able to grant the corporation the right to your data or other issues.
They also if you're interested were not happy about what happened with Mickey. Most lawyers are not aholes despite popular depictions. The problem is that the executives ordering them around are frequently aholes. At least according to them. And if the boss says "make this happen" it's your job to go out there and do it. So that's what they did. They were actually surprised they succeeded since they were pretty much convinced it was a waste of time.
Anyway, while of course they are strong on the point that it is generally upon the burden of the signer to know what they are signing... the law makes allowances for circumstances where that is unreasonable.
The term reasonable is very very very very important. Corporations generally do not have this protection. But individuals apparently can use it. Think of it like the special considerations a defendant is given if he decides to represent himself in court. He isn't required to comport himself with all the rules that a licensed lawyer is required to maintain. It is understood that the individual cannot reasonably be expected to be as good at the law or understand court procedure to the level of an actual lawyer. As such, he is held to a lower and more reasonable standard. Contract law has similar systems of addressing what is and is not reasonable.
If a signer could not reasonably understand a document before signing then it will not survive challenge in court. For example, if I don't speak english then its likely that any document I sign in English will be suspect unless there is some documentation that proves it was provided in an intelligible format. Perhaps the notary was fluent in spanish and simply explained every part of the document line by line to him and initialed as they went along.
The legality and enforceability of EULAs has been an issue for many years. How many times do you think a EULA has successfully been used against a consumer or individual on the basis of them clicking "OK"? Practically never.
But it's more complicated then that. Another issue courts care about is little things like showing damage. Whatever a EULA says it's very hard to actually show damages in a software case where a EULA would be relevant especially between a corporation and an individual. I mean, why are we arguing about something? Is it just for giggles? Are you having a good time? Because courts don't like that either. They like to deal with issues where there is some material grievance. Something that is actual in reality and not something totally made up. Because if they talk about made up stuff that's all they'll do. So they like to keep it to real things where real things happened to other real people in reality.
I am not a lawyer. I am certain I have misstated, overstated, understated, and miss-characterized various elements of what I have said out of my own personal ignorance. That said, I have consulted what a court would consider experts on this subject and it was their opinion that I base mine on.
What are you basing your opinion on? Because I keep seeing people reference a South Park episode and all things considered it lacks weight as a legal argument.
Well if the government is monkeying with the law then anything is possible. However, the problem then becomes how does country A trust the code if country B has backdoors in it?
We all want to be secure and really the NSA etc are going to get more milage out of learning how to do their jobs properly which will mean putting taps on things without the company's knowledge or cooperation. They should be able to do that. What happens when a company says no or it's a foreign country they need to tap that doesn't use any allied company? Best to develop these skills in their day to day operations rather then relying the manufacturer or developer to give them a back door. These guys are supposed to be hiring and training armies of hackers and little cyber warriors to do this stuff. If all they're doing is calling up the president and saying "can we have access pretty please" then any chump with a country could say that.
So not only is this a dumb move for the companies and bad for consumers but it also sets a bad precedent for the intelligence agencies in that they get fat and lazy using the backdoor rather then actually breaking in like a real intelligence agency. I don't care how they do it. Just do it that way instead. tell the president you're their mother and you need access to his global communications network so you can bring by milk and cookies. It doesn't matter. But don't actually tell them who you are and then ask nicely for access... even worse is if they show some sort of documented court writ demanding access. Dive in some dumpsters... whatever... but this is just bad on too many levels.
Look at what you quoted. I am aware that I just own a license. However, any court worth it's salt will look poorly on a corporation that interprets that as meaning it can insert spy code into my systems and undermine my security intentionally.
The issue here will be showing actual damages to a court.
If you bring this to court and can show material damage of some kind that is quantified. Then you could gut them like a fish.
I know many in the corporate world view EULAs as fostian bargains that everyone that uses their products are stupid enough to sign. These EULAs are actually enforcable between corporations however you'll have a very hard time holding small businesses or consumers to them because it would be very very very easy to argue that they can not REASONABLY be expected to read and understand such agreements. The term "reasonable" is very important in contract law.
If it can be shown that either party in a contract could not have been reasonably expected to understand something or read it then it won't be enforcable. For that reason EULAs aren't particularly effective against consumers especially as it regards little hidden details. They can of course be expected to know that they're not support to pirate software. But they are likely not being made aware of the foreture of rights or other little things they might try to sneak into the contract.
Being sneaky with a contract works between big corporations. They can trick each other because they are expected to read and understand everything. However, individuals and small operations are given special protection. Generally anything that goes over our heads or is even a little slippery tends to not do well in court.
And if you add a jury trial to it... they're screwed.
The legal system has a lot of problems but it's more sensible then you give it credit.
To everyone that's telling "oh you didn't buy it, you licensed it!" or "But you clicked OK on the EULA!" or any variation on that theme. I'm pretty confident I could effortlessly sue the silly pants off any company that did this to me... especially if I could show damages in court. What jury is going to sit there and say "oh, he clicked OK on the EULA..." From a legal standpoint, EULAs are almost worthless against consumers and I even question how effective they are against corporations. There are different legal standards here. A big corporation for example has a legal obligation to actually read everything to the last line and appreciate what all the various legal terms mean. One person that has no special legal knowledge can't be reasonably expected to sign such things.
The basis of legal contracts is that BOTH sides know, understand, and agree to the contract. If it can be demonstrated that either side could not be expected to reasonably know, understand, or agree to everything in a contract then the contract is invalid.
For example, if a blind man signs a 500 pages legal contract it's almost certainly invalid. To make such a contract valid there would have be documentation that made it clear throughout that the man read or understood the contract. That might mean having a notary read it and occasionally inital segments of the contract to signify that given portions had been communicated. Or it might mean giving the man a copy of the contract in braille or something.
The problem with EULAs is that no one reads them and worse no one can really be expected to read them. How many EULAs do you see in a day? I see about three on average and I think I've only read about two of them... and that was because I was bored.
EULAs mostly exist not to restrain consumers because they can't reasonably be applied to them. They exist to restrain other corporations who also use the software. Because other corporations don't have this protection. It's one of the big differences legally between small and large organizations. Small groups generally are given a lot of legal slack. Big companies have to make a point of dotting every i and crossing every t. They have to read all these EULAs. And while I bet they don't even do it, they would have a much harder time making the same legal argument in court that they simply don't have the reasonable expectation of reading or understanding such documents.
If Microsoft or Google did something that meant thousands of credit card numbers were stolen. Something where you could show damages. There is no EULA that would defend them. They'd get their silly pants sued off if it could be demonstrated that it was their fault.
Now if it was an issue of malware or something then they can probably successfully argue that end users have a responsibility to secure their systems and MS or Google didn't steal the numbers in any case or intentionally make them available. However, if MS and google intentionally used backdoors to get such information or sold the keys to those back doors to a third party that then used them to get the information. THEN those companies would be screwed sideways.
If the twentieth paragraph in the EULA says "oh by the way, we reserve the right to let third parties pilfer your data at will" it wouldn't stand in court.
If I were totally immoral... I mean... if I had the soul of a demon... then I really wouldn't worry about that from a strictly military perspective.
I'm pretty sure I could cow any other power into holding their fire so long as I left them alone. Some sort of alliance might spring up to counter us but by then it would be too late. The chinese have the throw weight to make fighting them difficult. But they'd have to sue for peace pretty fast because they rely on global trade even more then we rely on it. And the west collectively is a much larger and self reliant economic system. We could also continue trade with all minor powers that are under our sphere and of course we'd be chewing on the bones of the civilizations we had just eaten.
So... if I were totally immoral that wouldn't even begin to stop me.
The west had and probably still has the power to completely dominate the world by force. After WW2 especially it became very clear that just about any resistance was futile.
The world we have today... the one with global trade... freedom of information... and a continious attempt at mutual understanding is one we created intentionally. Are we totally successful? Of course not... it's not easy and as powerful as we are by force we can't change people's minds by force. So all our power is useless if people want to be stubborn. And the islamic world with whatever virtues it has... is also very stubborn. And not in the good head strong way... but in the pigheaded and foolish way.
I don't say any of this to diss them. I really do wish them the best. I want their children to grow up bright and strong. I want their economies to run smoothly and prosper. I just wish they'd stop embracing policies that ultimately endanger their own security without actually accomplishing anything of value for anyone anywhere in the world.
I mean what are the islamists doing for the world or themselves? Nothing good. They're hurting foreigners that wished them no ill prior to those incidents and wish them no ill outside of those incidents. And they're endangering their own security. And they're poisoning their economies. They're retarding the education and social evolution of their people. They're even making their governments less stable.
There is no good effect for anyone from these actions. It's universally bad. It's like taking a dump in the river and then being the first one to take a drink. What do they think they're doing?
Anyway... I stress the military aspect not because I'm some jingoistic blowhard but because I feel like too often it is glossed over that we're only having these discussions because we're too good to just kill them. And that isn't actually a universal moral given. Most of the countries we have problems with are already power mad on their tiny bit of power. Give them enough power to set the world on fire and they'd probably be the first ones to go running around spraying gasoline all over the place and laughing as they threw matches around.
That has to earn us some moral high ground in all this indifferent to whatever anyone thinks about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Were we half the monsters we're made out to be we'd be cracking the bones of their children between our teeth. We're not... QED.
I'm not a huge open source guru. I have nothing against it and I use open source software all the time. But I'm not a zealot on the subject. Still... this is unacceptable. If I buy a bit of software from apple or microsoft, it has to be understood that I control the security. I bought the OS. I bought the machine. I own that license. if they're going behind my back to sell my security to a third party... then I consider that a breach of contract and I'm really not amused.
If this is valid... and it hasn't been confirmed yet... then anyone that signed that agreement is untrustworthy.
Nothing else to say on the matter.
Our ability to destroy every factory in a country of hte size of Iran or Pakistan surpasses our abilities in WW2. What exactly are they going to do about it? They can't even bury it under ground. We have bunker buster bombs that can reach 100s of feet under the ground through reinforced concrete.
And in any case, their people would start starving within a month once trade and agriculture were disrupted.
The rural areas would survive perhaps but they'd be unable to resist any mechanized force that was willing to kill them on sight.
I'm not advocating such military action. I'm merely pointing out that it was something and is something the west could technically do at any time. It won't do it. But it can do it.
Understand that distiction.
As to the oil... that is no concern. If the West attacked in that manner the oil could be claimed rapidly. Anything that stood in the way could be easily killed.
We have issues with insurgents because we make a point of not killing civilians. If that ceased to be an issue then the fields could probably be claimed untouched.
A few poison gas attacks and everything would cough it's lungs out in the area.
I am well aware this is a horrible concept and I really do want you to understand that I'm not advocating it. I am merely stressing the point often lost in these discussions that these people are protected by the restraint of my people. Not by any skill or power they have themselves but by the moral quams of my people. Nothing else really is holding us back.
That we do not strike these people and slaughter them to a man is a monument to our moral strength. How many of their nations do you think would be so strong in character given our physical strength? How many would you trust with our power?
And that is in part why we are uncomfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons. Because when push comes to shove they're immoral and might well use such power irresponsibly.
The north koreans are starving.
And even so they only maintain their position because of China. Their possible nuclear weapon is irrelevant. We know where their facilities are and they have no means of sending it anywhere that we cannot intercept before it does harm.
Launch it and it will be swatted from the sky. Smuggle it? Where an how... every ship that docks in that country is tracked and shadowed.
It's only value is as a last resort defense and the COST of that last resort is living in fear forever.
If north korea destroyed their nuclear program they'd be no less secure then they are now... and they might enjoy a solid meal every day and a good night sleep.
The weapon is almost worthless and vastly more expensive then is properly understood.
As to the insurgents, they're only an issue because we try to pacify their regions rather then hitting them with total war. Were Japanese or German insurgents a problem for allied forces? No. Because it would not be tolerated. The instant something like that became a problem, the whole region would be depopulated. Not killed... just moved.
The Islamists think we have treated with them very cruelly and harshly. But the reality is that there are few enemies in our history we have treated better.
Beyond that, I'm making a moral argument here. Something the islamists like to believe is that the west are demons. That we are immoral and blood thirsty. The problem with that is that if we were, they'd all be dead. So I make the military argument in part to stress the importance of the moral argument. It is the morality that defends the islamic world. OUR morality. There is no force of arms on earth that could stop us. We would roll over their military as if it weren't even there. What holds us back are certain political considerations and our own sense of revulsion at the very idea of such an act.
The insurgents if we were immoral wouldn't be a problem because we'd just shoot them all. Insurgents only get close because they pretend to be civilians. If you treat all civilians as hostiles then insurgents can't get close because disguising themselves as civilians is useless.
As to the future of war... keep in mind that every generation believes the next war will be like the last war. They're always shocked to find they're different.
Don't make assumptions... stick with what is strictly possible... not what someone will do or won't do... but rather what they can and cannot do...
The problem the islamists have is that the West is restrained by what they won't do not what they can't do... where as they are restrained not by what they won't do but what they can't do. They have morally justified using children to kill children. They have morally justified attacking innocent civilians in distant cities that have done them no injury. What did the people of New York do to the people of Afghanistan? Nothing. If anything they helped them against the Soviet invasion. And yet they justified the attack.
Where as the US in all it's righteous fury was restrained not by what it could not do... but by what it would not do even in its pain and rage.
The Islamic world is shielded by no art of their own making but by moral codes of the West's own value system. That system is not well understood by the islamic world. It has lines and layers. It is not a good idea to go spilling ink all over the system without at least grasping its significance.
The nukes are no defense and they will only deepen Iran's problems.
Iran's best move is to make itself non-threatening and move it's name off the strategic threat list.
Developing these weapons only ensures that the US and other powers take the gloves off and start playing dirty. The nukes might change the nature of the way we play but it will not change the end result.
And if Iran actually fired one of these nukes their people would be annihilated. There is nothing their people could do that would so seal their fate.
From a strategic and tactical perspective, Iran is undermining their own security.
So... the only thing we can do is topple their government and hold a knife to their throat there after so they'll behave? I really don't want to do that... but if we have no alternative... then we have no alternative.
One would think ground based telescopes would be just as good and more stealthy. These things are designed to look at distant stars. One would think they could get excellent resolution on a satellite.
Maybe I'm wrong... I won't claim to be an expert. It just seems we have a lot of hardware pointed skyward and collectively it should be able to keep tabs on anything in low earth orbit.
It won't work.
First, most of the muslim world doesn't see Iran as a natural ally. Islam is very factional. Think of it like the old division between catholic and protestant only worse because their fanatics are more wild eyed then a 15th century cardinal.
Second, the Arab princes are allies even if occasionally duplicitous ones. They are afraid of Iran and will help us bring it down so long as we're gentle about it.
Third, even if they did unite the whole muslim world against us that's not actually a very credible military force. When was the last time you bought something that said "made in "? Probably never because they have almost no industrial capacity. That means they have no ability to wage a modern war.
Oh sure, they can plant IEDs if you let them get close. But if you waged a WW2 type war against them none of that would work. Do you think we let german civilian hang out around our entrenchments during our invasion of germany? Every man, woman, and child had to keep their distance.
I stress this only to point out that if Iran got what you say they want... it would be the worst thing that has ever happened to Iran.
I don't know what they're thinking. It's possible that like the Japanese, they've misunderstood our nature. The Japanese through years of diplomatic negotiations came to believe that the US was weak willed. That we would always take the easy out to avoid war. They gathered this because we didn't respond to small provocations. We let it go. And that implied to them that we would respond uniformly in that manner. Osama Bin Ladin also came to a similar belief. In both cases, they miscalculated in that US responses changed radically after their respective attacks.
Why the change? Because in both cases they burned out their moral and diplomatic protection. This is what guards Iran. It isn't her soldiers or missiles. It is the US's own opinion of itself and the impression of other relevant nations. If Iran does something that poisons it's moral standing and diplomatic standing enough that an attack is justified in the US's opinion... it will happen.
This is what Iran must prevent. It isn't hard to do... But Iran appears to be going out of their way to make attacking them easier. It will be the end of their government. And all resistance will do is increase the suffering of their people.
clearly you're kidding... but the thing is that it forces our hand. We've been in a position to kill them all from the very start.That we don't is a matter of politics and morality.
But from a strictly military perspective we could wipe them out to the last screaming child.
Why poke that in the eye with a stick?
What Iran is doing slowly but surely is eroding their political and moral defenses that guard their nation from annihilation. Their military is irrelevant. It is no defense. It would be like clubbing baby seals either way. In fact, the death blow would look identical either way.
What defends Iran is the international outrage over doing such a thing unprovoked and the moral goodness of the American people to find such actions abhorrent.
What Iran is doing progressively is building justification for some sort of military action against them. And morally... they're slowly justifying some sort of strike as well. In effect, they're slowly raising the guillotine blade that when it falls... will at best strike off the head of their nation. At worst, there will be collateral damage.
Why is Iran doing this to itself? It's so needlessly self destructive. Just stop it. Behave yourself, the sanctions will come off, and we can all get along. Aggressive posturing, locking your people off from the world, and developing variants of nuclear technology best able to produce weapons grade material... what is the point of all this? Best case you'll get a bomb and then what? Hundreds of years of MAD as the rest of the world contains you? That sounds like loads of fun. If you just stopped all this we could normalize relations to everyone's benefit.
I hadn't thought of that. You're right of course. If the software will also identify the books and categorize them for you then by all means. Use that instead.
Absolutely the internet itself should not be placed as a human right. However, perhaps a more universal philosophical concept could be substituted such as perhaps a freedom to use technologies that facilitate other rights on the list.
Thus the freedom to use the internet is less a right then an implicit subordinate concept under the freedom of speech. It helps humans communicate and so we should be free to use it.
In this way we keep focus on the principle philosophical concepts while also adapting to new technological realities. The system will also dynamically adapt to new technologies as they come out. Perhaps in 200 years the internet will be meaningless. it would be silly to have it as a human right in that case. But if we say any technology that facilitates communication then that will have adapted automatically over time as well.
that assumes the books aren't all out of order.
What you're saying makes perfect sense IF the card catalog is working and the books were previously put back in roughly the correct order. And I would of course see that as a good method once the library is organized.
But he seemed to imply the books are a mess. How are people going to check out the popular books if they can't even find them? And if the card catalog doesn't work then how do we know if they can find them? Maybe they're only checking out popular books that also happen to be on the first shelf or something?
So I totally get what you're saying and I agree BUT I think it has to be stressed that the library might be out of order and that changes things significantly.