As a former member of the U.S. Army and a veteran of the first Gulf War, I am well aware that armies are designed to go places and break things. In Basic Training we were taught how to shoot and use a bayonet, not how to distribute food off the back of a pickup truck.
That said, the U.S. military is not full of bloodthirsty killers. Sure, you may occasionally run into the REMF yahoo who is eager to "go to war" but any soldier, sailor, airman or Marine with time under his or her belt will know the sobering facts of war: deployment away from ones' family and the potential loss of life.
These guys also are well aware of the fact that you don't earn the trust and favor of the people you are trying to liberate by killing indiscriminately....which is the key motivation behind the development of smart munitions such as cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs.
And these are the weapons that can be more accurately guided (not just at the bad guys but away from the innocents) by the kind of flying robot discussed earlier. If nothing else, it can give a squad leader a birds-eye-view of the area so he can avoid taking his people into an ambush or getting civilians caught in a crossfire.
Believe it or not, the military does do things besides blow up stuff.
Probably the first use the military would consider for these does not involve combat, but rather reconnaissance. An earlier post jokingly advised putting an X10 cam on one of these, but such a capability is exactly what would benefit both peacekeepers and police forces in urban areas. Much cheaper than a UAV, these things could hover over rooftops to see areas held by insurgents to avoid further bloodshed.
Modified flying bots could also be used to detect mines, explosive residue, and chemical or biological agents.
So perhaps before you jump on the soldiers-are-babykillers bandwagon, you should consider how the military can (and does) leverage cutting edge technology to save lives.
I rely on the Net to provide me with a great amount of information, but I don't rely on it exclusively for any matters more important than just satisfying my curiosity.
As with other media, some Internet sources of information may be biased. Different websites may still rely on the same, possibly flawed, information. Others may intentionally attempt to spread false information.
And even when I can get accurate information, I may not be able to get all the data I need....or even if I can, I may not know exactly what to do with that information (think WebMD).
In short, the Net is a great tool for research but it is far from being a one-stop source of information. Thorough research will still require access to offline data in the form of subject matter experts and publications not available in electronic form.
There's a massive difference between developing the capability to knock enemy space platforms out of orbit during a war, and actively destroying everything without a U.S. flag on it during peacetime.
Fortunately even if a source code is free i can add to the free license that the code mustnt be used in any military projects or projects related to non-civil actions at all. And i will do that from this point in time!
Well you are certainly within your right to do so (assuming that a parent license does not prohibit further restrictions), but is that the best thing to do?
As other posters have mentioned, not only does restricting Government/military use of Open Source software encourage them to seek out closed-source options but have you considered a scenario where your country's military might need something you have created in an operation you do support?
The "military" doesn't just mean the infantry, armor and artillery types...it also includes some sectors of homeland defense and disaster relief. Some aspects of military research can directly benefit the public (bioterrorism defense research, for instance). And where exactly would the Coast Guard fit in?
Software can be used for both good and bad purposes. If a tool can do more good than harm, why place restrictions on where it could possibly do good?
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.
Do I feel you miss out alot. What wars has USA been involved in since ww2 that has been about protcting the freedom? Helping Saddam to attack Iran and gasing kurds during the 80-ies was hardly about freedom.
a) The U.S. had nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons on villages in Iraq. That was all Saddam, baby. b) In the 80s, Iraq appeared to be the lesser of two evils. Iran was a known sponsor of terrorism, home to Islamic extremism, and a self-described enemy of the "Great Satan" of the West.
Training Usama and his bandit friends was definately not about freedom.
Again, the lesser of the two evils. It appeared to make more sense to support the mujahadin in Afghanistan than let the Soviet Union claim another satellite state.
If there was a failing here, it was that we didn't finish the job by continuing to help Afghanistan after the USSR pulled out.
Helping France in it's efford to keep South Vietnam wasn't either.
A decade without the Soviet Union and everybody seems to forget what a menace Communism was (and is). Do you think that Vietnam under a Communist regime was more supportive of individual freedoms than one supported by the West? Please.
Go do some research on Stalin and Pol Pot.
Training Death squads compareable with SS in nazi germany didn't offer freedom for people, it helped US companies affraid of losing markets.
Huh?
While North Korea was a fucked up country even back at the Korea war, so was (and still is) South Korea, that was only about influense and not about securing rights of democrasy.
Spoken like a true puppet. Again, the spectre of the Soviet Union doesn't seem so awful when we've got a decade or so without it under our belts.
But it's not worth much as long as US forces attacks other countries and deprives them of their rights.
Like Afghanistan? Sure, you had plenty of rights there under the Taliban...assuming that you a) wore a beard, b) were Islamic, c) were a man and d) didn't oppose the government.
Like Iraq? Yes, another example of an enlightened society; a dictatorship whose leader has incited two wars, tortured his own people, resisted the will of the UN for years and diverts funds intended for food and medical supplies so he can build another palace.
I would have figured that the discovery of volcanoes on Jupiter's moon Io would have surpassed this...or perhaps one of a dozen things from the Voyager I or II missions.
The fact that the parent was modded as (-1, Flamebait) just further illustrates the one of the problems with the/. moderation system.
The poster took issue with the statement "if 1.5 billion people say they say they are gonna do it, they will", and in a short and civil post argued why 1.5 billion people aren't saying jack.
Or, in other words: A dozen people are saying that they're going to do it, the few thousand that report to them aren't going to disagree, and the hundreds of millions who are subject to the laws and restrictions enforced and enacted by those thousands dare not resist.
If you disagree, reply. Squashing ACs who are trying to add to the discussion merely illustrates your stupidity.
I really would like China to revisit the site. If for nothing else than historical value.
Boy, if a bunch of Chinese astronauts (or Taikonauts, or whatever they're being called now) tromping all over the Apollo 11 site doesn't get the American public all riled up about space again, nothing will.
Personally, I would prefer if the Chinese stayed a good distance away from all of the Apollo sites. They're historic areas, likely to survive for many thousands of years left undisturbed, and there's plenty of real estate left for them to play in.
Re:China has a parlement and is half capitalistic.
on
China Plans Moonbase
·
· Score: 2, Informative
China is not ruled by a dictator, it's ruled by a group of people and has a parlement, just like we do. Furthermore, China is not communist, half of their economy these days is capitalistic.
What's the other half? Creamy nougat?
The U.S.S.R., prior to it's implosion, wasn't ruled by a dictator either.
But if you're thinking that experimentation with capitalism in Hong Kong and a few other isolated areas constitutes something other than communism, you are sadly mistaken. China still exhibits all of the characteristics of a repressive and dangerously agressive communist nation, led by an elite few.
I went down to the courthouse with my fiancee today to get a marriage license.
Along with our new marriage license, which cost us $45 (damn the man!!), we were given free samples of Tide, Bounty napkins, Secret deoderant, Folger's coffee, an ad for custom checks, and an AOL cd (1000 hours free!).
Heh. My wife and I also got this sort of "gift bag" when we got our license...and we celebrated our fifth anniversary last Friday.
Makes you wonder how long this has been going on, huh?
MS will come in, and for two weeks, there will be NO computers to use. Classes are disrupted, administrators must show the licenses for every piece of software for every computer. Even if they are 100% in compliance, it will still cost them TONS of cash.
Now if the school wanted to get pissy, they could easily get parents riled up over this: "your kids can't use the school computers because Microsoft made us hand them all over!"
Wonder how that tactic would go over in Redmond's PR department.
Re:Even when using MM products, it's not always id
on
Flash and Open Source
·
· Score: 1
This was for an intranet site, so we did have the luxury of dictating which plug-ins users must have.
It's funny... most of the bitching in here is how Flash needs a plugin to run (though that plugin is installed in 98% of the browsers).
The W3C alternative that people on this site cream their pants over... requires a plugin.
You have a valid point. However, here are two things to consider:
Just because a large percentage of web browsers have a Flash plug-in installed doesn't mean that they have the most current plug-in installed. If you're using Flash 5 and the majority of your users have the Flash 3 plug-in...they're still going to have to install a plug-in. Again.
With a solution like SVG, you can easily look under the hood and see how the graphics are being generated. You can quickly build other products to build SVG graphics on-the-fly (as I have, using ColdFusion) instead of having to take an eternity to kludge something together which may be broken when Macromedia comes out with Flash 7. When presented with the option of having to spend thousands more on development as opposed to a minor inconvenience to the user, most clients will choose the latter.
The best solution, of course, is to have SVG handled natively by the browser. I'm not holding my breath.
Even when using MM products, it's not always ideal
on
Flash and Open Source
·
· Score: 1
Amongst other things, I develop site backends with Macromedia (formerly Allaire) ColdFusion. Several months ago, I needed to add a dynamic (and interactive) Gantt chart to a client's site.
My options were Flash, SVG, or Java. At first glance, SVG was the least appealing choice: I know Java, and Macromedia has several applications which allow for ColdFusion-Flash development. Yet when I looked at the development time for a Java applet as well as the cost, poor documentation and kludgey implementation of a CF-Flash workaround from Macromedia, SVG came out on top. And the price couldn't be beat.
Within a day I had ColdFusion to dynamically generating the SVG chart from data in SQL Server 2000. I had nice crisp lines, vibrant color, mouseovers and interactive features.
As other posters have said, Flash isn't an awful choice -- but it has been primarily used for fluff.
Slashdot Mirror
As a former member of the U.S. Army and a veteran of the first Gulf War, I am well aware that armies are designed to go places and break things. In Basic Training we were taught how to shoot and use a bayonet, not how to distribute food off the back of a pickup truck.
That said, the U.S. military is not full of bloodthirsty killers. Sure, you may occasionally run into the REMF yahoo who is eager to "go to war" but any soldier, sailor, airman or Marine with time under his or her belt will know the sobering facts of war: deployment away from ones' family and the potential loss of life.
These guys also are well aware of the fact that you don't earn the trust and favor of the people you are trying to liberate by killing indiscriminately....which is the key motivation behind the development of smart munitions such as cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs.
And these are the weapons that can be more accurately guided (not just at the bad guys but away from the innocents) by the kind of flying robot discussed earlier. If nothing else, it can give a squad leader a birds-eye-view of the area so he can avoid taking his people into an ambush or getting civilians caught in a crossfire.
Believe it or not, the military does do things besides blow up stuff.
Probably the first use the military would consider for these does not involve combat, but rather reconnaissance. An earlier post jokingly advised putting an X10 cam on one of these, but such a capability is exactly what would benefit both peacekeepers and police forces in urban areas. Much cheaper than a UAV, these things could hover over rooftops to see areas held by insurgents to avoid further bloodshed.
Modified flying bots could also be used to detect mines, explosive residue, and chemical or biological agents.
So perhaps before you jump on the soldiers-are-babykillers bandwagon, you should consider how the military can (and does) leverage cutting edge technology to save lives.
That'll teach you, Pyro! On the upside, maybe this will introduce GWJ to a whole new audience...
I rely on the Net to provide me with a great amount of information, but I don't rely on it exclusively for any matters more important than just satisfying my curiosity.
As with other media, some Internet sources of information may be biased. Different websites may still rely on the same, possibly flawed, information. Others may intentionally attempt to spread false information.
And even when I can get accurate information, I may not be able to get all the data I need....or even if I can, I may not know exactly what to do with that information (think WebMD).
In short, the Net is a great tool for research but it is far from being a one-stop source of information. Thorough research will still require access to offline data in the form of subject matter experts and publications not available in electronic form.
There's a massive difference between developing the capability to knock enemy space platforms out of orbit during a war, and actively destroying everything without a U.S. flag on it during peacetime.
...to Dukekatana. ;)
Well you are certainly within your right to do so (assuming that a parent license does not prohibit further restrictions), but is that the best thing to do?
As other posters have mentioned, not only does restricting Government/military use of Open Source software encourage them to seek out closed-source options but have you considered a scenario where your country's military might need something you have created in an operation you do support?
The "military" doesn't just mean the infantry, armor and artillery types...it also includes some sectors of homeland defense and disaster relief. Some aspects of military research can directly benefit the public (bioterrorism defense research, for instance). And where exactly would the Coast Guard fit in?
Software can be used for both good and bad purposes. If a tool can do more good than harm, why place restrictions on where it could possibly do good?
Could you kick Captain Picard's ass?
Oh, wait, wrong discussion...
a) The U.S. had nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons on villages in Iraq. That was all Saddam, baby.
b) In the 80s, Iraq appeared to be the lesser of two evils. Iran was a known sponsor of terrorism, home to Islamic extremism, and a self-described enemy of the "Great Satan" of the West.
Again, the lesser of the two evils. It appeared to make more sense to support the mujahadin in Afghanistan than let the Soviet Union claim another satellite state.
If there was a failing here, it was that we didn't finish the job by continuing to help Afghanistan after the USSR pulled out.
A decade without the Soviet Union and everybody seems to forget what a menace Communism was (and is). Do you think that Vietnam under a Communist regime was more supportive of individual freedoms than one supported by the West? Please.
Go do some research on Stalin and Pol Pot.
Huh?
Spoken like a true puppet. Again, the spectre of the Soviet Union doesn't seem so awful when we've got a decade or so without it under our belts.
Like Afghanistan? Sure, you had plenty of rights there under the Taliban...assuming that you a) wore a beard, b) were Islamic, c) were a man and d) didn't oppose the government.
Like Iraq? Yes, another example of an enlightened society; a dictatorship whose leader has incited two wars, tortured his own people, resisted the will of the UN for years and diverts funds intended for food and medical supplies so he can build another palace.
Spot on, Sparky. Great post.
I would have figured that the discovery of volcanoes on Jupiter's moon Io would have surpassed this...or perhaps one of a dozen things from the Voyager I or II missions.
Well, maybe Warcraft III....
What more do you need?
The fact that the parent was modded as (-1, Flamebait) just further illustrates the one of the problems with the /. moderation system.
The poster took issue with the statement "if 1.5 billion people say they say they are gonna do it, they will", and in a short and civil post argued why 1.5 billion people aren't saying jack.
Or, in other words:
A dozen people are saying that they're going to do it, the few thousand that report to them aren't going to disagree, and the hundreds of millions who are subject to the laws and restrictions enforced and enacted by those thousands dare not resist.
If you disagree, reply. Squashing ACs who are trying to add to the discussion merely illustrates your stupidity.
Boy, if a bunch of Chinese astronauts (or Taikonauts, or whatever they're being called now) tromping all over the Apollo 11 site doesn't get the American public all riled up about space again, nothing will.
Personally, I would prefer if the Chinese stayed a good distance away from all of the Apollo sites. They're historic areas, likely to survive for many thousands of years left undisturbed, and there's plenty of real estate left for them to play in.
What's the other half? Creamy nougat?
The U.S.S.R., prior to it's implosion, wasn't ruled by a dictator either.
But if you're thinking that experimentation with capitalism in Hong Kong and a few other isolated areas constitutes something other than communism, you are sadly mistaken. China still exhibits all of the characteristics of a repressive and dangerously agressive communist nation, led by an elite few.
Heh. My wife and I also got this sort of "gift bag" when we got our license...and we celebrated our fifth anniversary last Friday.
Makes you wonder how long this has been going on, huh?
Which may be why so many of them eagerly try to justify their activities.
*shrug*
Just a thought.
I'm still waiting for a "what about the children?!?" moment.
Hmm. Then again, I probably shouldn't hold my breath.
Does Andersen Consulting have offices in the Northwest? ;)
Now if the school wanted to get pissy, they could easily get parents riled up over this: "your kids can't use the school computers because Microsoft made us hand them all over!"
Wonder how that tactic would go over in Redmond's PR department.
This was for an intranet site, so we did have the luxury of dictating which plug-ins users must have.
You have a valid point. However, here are two things to consider:
The best solution, of course, is to have SVG handled natively by the browser. I'm not holding my breath.
Amongst other things, I develop site backends with Macromedia (formerly Allaire) ColdFusion. Several months ago, I needed to add a dynamic (and interactive) Gantt chart to a client's site.
My options were Flash, SVG, or Java. At first glance, SVG was the least appealing choice: I know Java, and Macromedia has several applications which allow for ColdFusion-Flash development. Yet when I looked at the development time for a Java applet as well as the cost, poor documentation and kludgey implementation of a CF-Flash workaround from Macromedia, SVG came out on top. And the price couldn't be beat.
Within a day I had ColdFusion to dynamically generating the SVG chart from data in SQL Server 2000. I had nice crisp lines, vibrant color, mouseovers and interactive features.
As other posters have said, Flash isn't an awful choice -- but it has been primarily used for fluff.