Hah! In Australia now you can be "required" to give evidence, even if it be self-incriminating. No Bull. Refusing can get you jail.
The NCA (National Crime Authority) and the Australian Federal Police have this power. It is supposedly to tackle "organised crime" - (how much of that is there here anyway?)
Note Australia has a convict heritage (read: used to authoritarianism), and have done pretty well in staying on their masters' (the UK and now their federal government/UN/UKUSA ) good sides.
Australia doesn't seem to have much interest in technology (can't think of one big Australian hi-tech firm). Perhaps it really isn't important to them, because they don't have anything they consider worth hiding, or any causes they think are worth fighting for./. might just be getting itself worked up over something Australians couldn't care less about.
A nation of sheep, eh? Must be from.. oh, nevermind;-)
"If you tried to give a gun, or the sweeping freedom to own a gun that the Americans have, to a Brit we'd look puzzled and hand it back. You guys don't seem to understand that we don't want guns on our streets."
Ahah. So if you had a right to a gun, you still wouldn't need it and there would be no guns on your streets. In fact there would be no need for any gun restrictions, because of your natural aversion to guns.
Makes sense to me:-)
Maybe British Nazi-style gun laws exist solely as a lesson to the rest of the world. Maybe they are in place to control unruly elements of the population that fall outside the designation "Brit". Anyway that statement is illogical and unrealistic, seems to be a case of "right-think", ignorance or plain ethnocentricity.
Node OS on Cplant is near the same as for ASCI red, a "Puma Message Passing Operating System" (Red has Cougar, they're related). It makes sense to have a purpose built, small, (300K) and message optimised OS in the nodes for computation.
Avalon is the "real" Beowulf Linux supercomputer, with Linux on the nodes.
Maybe Cplant was using the word Beowulf for cachet. Then again I might be misunderstanding what a Beowulf is:-/ .
Hmm. I dispute your assertion that third world countries "got poor" because of colonialism and western civilisation.
I think these countries are on the whole richer and better off than they have ever been.
People in western countries tend to lament how poor the developing world is, but that's just comparison. Huge numbers of people now have health care, vaccination and reasonable nutrition, because of technology. They also may have political, legal, or social recourses that were previously not available (from protest marches to secularism) Western development is not a "Tragedy" for the third world.
Consider alternatives. Think what these societies would be if W.civ and Ind. development had never been evangelised (through colonialism, and later, more refined methods of western development aid and political pressure). Even the population explosion "disaster" could be equally claimed a triumph of technology and developent.
Hey, come on! Berlin is "innovative, bleeding, edge, way radical kewl stuff"
*grins*
We are talking about a development process. That is, piling new stuff on top of old stuff. Someone had to think of the old stuff, and the new stuff is continuously refined. In terms of programming, people have done it before. Switching words to make a point, programming has been done before.
Programmers almost always follow paths that have somewhat been explored. Linux is just laying down some nice thick tarmac on those paths, with a view to the future. (Please don't bring up POSIX here, I know the comeback).
In 300 years we will still be programming. We will just have refined our applications to a point where they won't look anything like the ones today. Linux 27.2.5. Well, actually, probably not. But some of Linux's refinements will probably inherit, and those would be to its credit.
It might actually be innovative and radical for those kids. It certainly provides an introduction to all sorts of internet and computing ideas and systems, and the social and political aspects are also exciting.
Remember those "punk kids" aren't as priviledged as researchers in corporations and institutes. Linux (&etc.) is the best they can get in terms of new technology and development. It is inclusive, unrestricted, and has open ended possibilities. If you don't like what it does you can change it yourself. That sounds pretty radical to me.
In your criticism of the US you are visiting the sins of the state on its citizens. This is a besides-the-point attack on aspects of the legal system. I won't defend capitol punishment and racial injustice, separate issue.
>You see, some rights we have to give up if we are going to live together in a working society.
Giving up rights or freedoms should ideally be a moral choice of an individual, not enforced by a majority. The corollary is noninterference with others. But, you suggest the US is dysfunctional? I think it functions very well.
Anyway you might argue for one supposed common good. I hold out for another common good. That's right. A common good of independent responsible citizenry rather than defenceless clients of the law.
>clearly examples of straw man arguments.
Banning the guns is the easy way out. Actually dealing with armed individuals is hard. Most people tend to dislike and ignore hard. The question is whether nations try to deal with it or ignore it. I say leave it to the people to sort out. Governments typically make a mess of whatever they touch.
>>Most of the violent deaths in the twentieth century were unarmed civilians.
>I would like to see some numbers, but either way civilian casualties of war is irrelevant to this discussion.
How about civilian casualities of 'civil unrest'. Like Indonesia - East Timor. Or Rwanda, Kosovo, Germany WW2.
>Lack of faith in humanity? Look, it is YOU who think that unless you have the threat of weapons to >back you up, people and goverments will immediately start to do the worst things possible to you.
No. I am being rational. Do the math and overcome the sqeamishness. I am arguing for equality. The weapons are not there to threaten, they are there to square the score.
One armed guy can shoot a lot of unarmed guys easy. He will be a little more circumspect if they are armed.
You are plainly too afraid to trust the people living around you every day with your life. Think they are going to shoot you? That shows no faith in your own people. See, we are both being paranoid. Its just I prefer to trust myself.
The murder figures are trivial compared to the results of genocide. Even if it never comes to that, what is the cost of oppression? I am arguing for a positive response, not a retreat from the fact of life that deadly weapons pose.
>childish
Well, the flame was kind of a bait, since this is the twilight of this particular thread. Childish with purpose;-). Thankyou for responding.
As for "Clowns" - well this isn't really a funny subject, but, I did laugh.
Speaking as an armed agent of the state, I am all for gun control. I already have all the guns I could ever need. I legally bought and confiscated them years ago. Additional gun control laws won't bother me in the least, but will help to ensure my safety while carrying out my 'business'. I FEAR armed citizens.
One of the advantages of being an agent is that I did not have to get my guns 'legally', so nobody (including my governors - the people of this land) knows what guns I have and where I have them so they will never be able to take them away from me.
Now that I hear about this enforced lack of privacy, I couldn't be happier. Soon I will have access to this fine technology too. Legally, of course. And since slashdot wants to remain a good law abiding website, I'll have all its data too. I'll soon know who you all are and where you all live. And thanks to your expressed beliefs, I now know which of you are for gun control too. Chances are, you gun control supporters don't own guns yourselves (especially you, Lars). You'll make things easier for me.
We are talking here about modern government and civil rights. And about how some of us seem to have more than others. And how the citizens of the UK just lost a bit more of their right to privacy.
Rights are funny things. A lot of people are against them. "Its too hard", "Let the government decide" "I don't want to think", "I don't want to be responsible". Giving up all your rights to a higher power might seem like a good idea, until you see what governments did with them in the past. Then you tend to want them back quickish.
Most of the violent deaths in the twentieth century were unarmed civilians. Your death row inmate is unarmed by force of his state.
Some guy posted below how he was afraid of gun rights because the ordinary people in the street didn't look capable of handling them. What a lack of faith in humanity this dude has. What cowardice. Its depressing.
The US is running the show? Very likely. Most of the people really fighting this stuff effectively (cryptography, lobbying) are in the US. It just so happens the US is the focal point. The UK tends to just generate colourful and (obviously) useless street protest.
Any way lets flame and call some names. You are a pussy. Your vaunted liberal education has taught you intolerance of people you don't understand. You desire security. Security is double-edged, a blanket that can be used to smother.
Deconstruct your belief system. Then do it again. I shall endeavor to do the same, anything else is laziness.
Privacy is good, having others see what you do is bad
Voluntary versus enforced disclosure, and consideration of individuals rights.
Open Source is good because it shares workload, improves access, improves code. Its not forced on anyone, (except possibly Microsoft in future, but that remains to be seen).
Also its not like information itself has rights:-). Its about the rights of the individual to their own information and to information others wish to (voluntarily) share.
Think liberation of information versus enforced freedom of information.
OK, I don't think it's good if the government or big corporations or crazy lunatics use information about me to harm me. But isn't that what laws are for?
Your faith in the law is touching. Read the previous post carefully.
But don't say that you are AFRAID, THEY are LISTENING! ROFL!
(A note about the enforcement against Microsoft: In this case there is kind of a contradition. "Enforced" Open Source is probably wrong. The government would be smarter to restrict the use of Microsoft products in its agencies, (on grounds of..umm.. expense, unreliability and a principled stand against monopoly).
...and develop new proprietary extensions to its now GPL'd original
doh! Can't believe I said that. How about linked extensions in conjunction with LGPL? Or a different license for the "new improved" version. Anyhow, the company is forced to innovate and stay on the edge (which is good).
The world needs a good common software base - on which anyone can build, and to which anyone can add. There has always been something like this - it used to be UNIX(tm) etc., now its really ANSI standards, IP and C/C++. As our systems get more complicated more effort is going to be needed to maintain them. This will be done best by free software for the common good.
An article on Daemonnews talks about how free software is like the bridges and roads - the infrastructure.
What effect will this have on software for profit? It will be beneficial! Think about the PC clone industry. All those cheap knockoffs grew it into a massive industry. Microsoft was just lucky to harness it.
I don't agree with *BSD licensing (for now)since there are companies (like Apple) who still think they can monopolise for a profit, and GPL stops this. GPL forces commonality and compatibility.
But think forward twenty years. If we have generally accepted compilers, APIs, networking and authentication protocols and media formats, the industry will be five times bigger and twenty times more useful than if everyone runs with proprietary stuff. This is because the basics will be bug-free and understood by everyone.
So what is needed is a good common base. Companies can invent stuff and plunk it on top, or develop specialist systems internally for their own use. And they will invest and employ since the possible payback (from this massive, common, clean, bug-free and savvy user base) will be immense. Don't fear for your jobs!
Say in this future world a company releases proprietary software (Is the future now?). If its good enough people will pay for it. Sure after a while a free alternative should appear - and the company might simply GPL its code to preempt this. But by that time it will have had the chance to built content, expertise, and develop new proprietary extensions to its now GPL'd original.
You trade the power to milk your users for a bigger and more dynamic market. Are the digerati afraid of change? bah!
The world really needs free software. It will simply make technology better. Of course techies love it - it is "The Right Thing To Do". Everyone has a chance to develop software (no licensing), competition is increased, ideas flow.
The problem I have with your first idea is that moderators should be kept as anonymous as possible (since the best ruler is the invisible one - like the old chinese guy said.) Also, given/.'s overpopulation of type A personalities, any "sure-thing" approach to getting moderatorship is going to create competition and maybe bad feeling. The problem with IRC ops is that you know who they are. In this game moderators are forced to keep quiet, which is kind of cool because they can't get any egoboo (except personally).
With CTaco appointing people for whatever reason there will be no way people can work for moderatorship. Working for this position of power will kill enjoyment and limit posting. Its not what slashdot is about. And its not dictatorship, more like a lottery election.
Has anyone else noticed how the posting has dropped off since this came in? I think people are afraid to post because they will be judged. Its just not as fun to post when you are going to be scored. Limiting how low you can go might bring back the jokes and lame impulsive posts for those who like those things.
The changes are good in my opinion (especially removing the moderator self-boost priviledge, thats interesting). Secret moderators elected by a mixture of lottery and merit, with no ability to lord it over other posters, and only overruled by the iron fist of the commander. Slashdot invents a new form of government!
Slashdot Mirror
Hah! In Australia now you can be "required" to give evidence, even if it be self-incriminating. No Bull. Refusing can get you jail.
The NCA (National Crime Authority) and the Australian Federal Police have this power. It is supposedly to tackle "organised crime" - (how much of that is there here anyway?)
Really down the toilet.
Note Australia has a convict heritage (read: used to authoritarianism), and have done pretty well in staying on their masters' (the UK and now their federal government/UN/UKUSA ) good sides.
/. might just be getting itself worked up over something Australians couldn't care less about.
.. oh, nevermind ;-)
Australia doesn't seem to have much interest in technology (can't think of one big Australian hi-tech firm). Perhaps it really isn't important to them, because they don't have anything they consider worth hiding, or any causes they think are worth fighting for.
A nation of sheep, eh? Must be from
"If you tried to give a gun, or the sweeping freedom to own a gun that the Americans have, to a Brit we'd look puzzled and hand it back. You guys don't seem to understand that we don't want guns on our streets."
:-)
Ahah. So if you had a right to a gun, you still wouldn't need it and there would be no guns on your streets. In fact there would be no need for any gun restrictions, because of your natural aversion to guns.
Makes sense to me
Maybe British Nazi-style gun laws exist solely as a lesson to the rest of the world. Maybe they are in place to control unruly elements of the population that fall outside the designation "Brit". Anyway that statement is illogical and unrealistic, seems to be a case of "right-think", ignorance or plain ethnocentricity.
Node OS on Cplant is near the same as for ASCI red, a "Puma Message Passing Operating System" (Red has Cougar, they're related). It makes sense to have a purpose built, small, (300K) and message optimised OS in the nodes for computation.
:-/ .
Avalon is the "real" Beowulf Linux supercomputer, with Linux on the nodes.
Maybe Cplant was using the word Beowulf for cachet. Then again I might be misunderstanding what a Beowulf is
Sideways!
And even more Sideways!
Sideways posts are the best entertainment here. Very nice guys!
Umm. Go GNU Sun! Go GNU!
:-)
Really, nobody can do much to pressure Sun to go GNU.
Except by stealing their market share with free software.
Guys, isn't this an obvious troll?
The trolls come from all directions these days,
pro/anti/Linux/Sun/Apple/BeOS/Intel/Katz/Taco.
Just remember, when you get angry at a post, probably that comment was a troll.
sigh.
Hmm. I dispute your assertion that third world countries "got poor" because of colonialism and western civilisation.
I think these countries are on the whole richer and better off than they have ever been.
People in western countries tend to lament how poor the developing world is, but that's just comparison. Huge numbers of people now have health care, vaccination and reasonable nutrition, because of technology. They also may have political, legal, or social recourses that were previously not available (from protest marches to secularism) Western development is not a "Tragedy" for the third world.
Consider alternatives. Think what these societies would be if W.civ and Ind. development had never been evangelised (through colonialism, and later, more refined methods of western development aid and political pressure). Even the population explosion "disaster" could be equally claimed a triumph of technology and developent.
So quit with the breast-beating!
Its just too easy these days :-)
Lazy and bored at home.
*grins*
We are talking about a development process. That is, piling new stuff on top of old stuff. Someone had to think of the old stuff, and the new stuff is continuously refined. In terms of programming, people have done it before. Switching words to make a point, programming has been done before.
Programmers almost always follow paths that have somewhat been explored. Linux is just laying down some nice thick tarmac on those paths, with a view to the future. (Please don't bring up POSIX here, I know the comeback).
In 300 years we will still be programming. We will just have refined our applications to a point where they won't look anything like the ones today. Linux 27.2.5. Well, actually, probably not. But some of Linux's refinements will probably inherit, and those would be to its credit.
It might actually be innovative and radical for those kids. It certainly provides an introduction to all sorts of internet and computing ideas and systems, and the social and political aspects are also exciting.
Remember those "punk kids" aren't as priviledged as researchers in corporations and institutes. Linux (&etc.) is the best they can get in terms of new technology and development. It is inclusive, unrestricted, and has open ended possibilities. If you don't like what it does you can change it yourself. That sounds pretty radical to me.
Agreed. Check the spin on this article, full of "we know what's good for you", and a 'respected expert' morality.
It gets like you read an article, then spend five minutes pulling those meme-tentacles out of your skull. And you probably miss a few.
The mass media pushes homogenisation and vapid morality, while attacking difference cluelessly.
Thanks for the wake up, jabber.
In your criticism of the US you are visiting the sins of the state on its citizens. This is a besides-the-point attack on aspects of the legal system. I won't defend capitol punishment and racial injustice, separate issue.
;-). Thankyou for responding.
>You see, some rights we have to give up if we are going to live together in a working society.
Giving up rights or freedoms should ideally be a moral choice of an individual, not enforced by a majority. The corollary is noninterference with others. But, you suggest the US is dysfunctional? I think it functions very well.
Anyway you might argue for one supposed common good. I hold out for another common good. That's right. A common good of independent responsible citizenry rather than defenceless clients of the law.
>clearly examples of straw man arguments.
Banning the guns is the easy way out. Actually dealing with armed individuals is hard. Most people tend to dislike and ignore hard. The question is whether nations try to deal with it or ignore it. I say leave it to the people to sort out. Governments typically make a mess of whatever they touch.
>>Most of the violent deaths in the twentieth century were unarmed civilians.
>I would like to see some numbers, but either way civilian casualties of war is irrelevant to this discussion.
How about civilian casualities of 'civil unrest'. Like Indonesia - East Timor. Or Rwanda, Kosovo, Germany WW2.
>Lack of faith in humanity? Look, it is YOU who think that unless you have the threat of weapons to
>back you up, people and goverments will immediately start to do the worst things possible to you.
No. I am being rational. Do the math and overcome the sqeamishness. I am arguing for equality. The weapons are not there to threaten, they are there to square the score.
One armed guy can shoot a lot of unarmed guys easy. He will be a little more circumspect if they are armed.
You are plainly too afraid to trust the people living around you every day with your life. Think they are going to shoot you? That shows no faith in your own people. See, we are both being paranoid. Its just I prefer to trust myself.
The murder figures are trivial compared to the results of genocide. Even if it never comes to that, what is the cost of oppression? I am arguing for a positive response, not a retreat from the fact of life that deadly weapons pose.
>childish
Well, the flame was kind of a bait, since this is the twilight of this particular thread. Childish with purpose
As for "Clowns" - well this isn't really a funny subject, but, I did laugh.
--MH
Guns have EVERYTHING to do with this.
Speaking as an armed agent of the state, I am all for gun control. I already have all the guns I could ever need. I legally bought and confiscated them years ago. Additional gun control laws won't bother me in the least, but will help to ensure my safety while carrying out my 'business'. I FEAR armed citizens.
One of the advantages of being an agent is that I did not have to get my guns 'legally', so nobody (including my governors - the people of this land) knows what guns I have and where I have them so they will never be able to take them away from me.
Now that I hear about this enforced lack of privacy, I couldn't be happier. Soon I will have access to this fine technology too. Legally, of course. And since slashdot wants to remain a good law abiding website, I'll have all its data too. I'll soon know who you all are and where you all live. And thanks to your expressed beliefs, I now know which of you are for gun control too. Chances are, you gun control supporters don't own guns yourselves (especially you, Lars). You'll make things easier for me.
Then I'll be able to do whatever I want with you.
Be seeing you.
Rough, but there you go.
Yawn. This is way offtopic, but:
We are talking here about modern government and civil rights. And about how some of us seem to have more than others. And how the citizens of the UK just lost a bit more of their right to privacy.
Rights are funny things. A lot of people are against them. "Its too hard", "Let the government decide" "I don't want to think", "I don't want to be responsible". Giving up all your rights to a higher power might seem like a good idea, until you see what governments did with them in the past. Then you tend to want them back quickish.
Most of the violent deaths in the twentieth century were unarmed civilians. Your death row inmate is unarmed by force of his state.
Some guy posted below how he was afraid of gun rights because the ordinary people in the street didn't look capable of handling them. What a lack of faith in humanity this dude has. What cowardice. Its depressing.
The US is running the show? Very likely. Most of the people really fighting this stuff effectively (cryptography, lobbying) are in the US. It just so happens the US is the focal point. The UK tends to just generate colourful and (obviously) useless street protest.
Any way lets flame and call some names. You are a pussy. Your vaunted liberal education has taught you intolerance of people you don't understand. You desire security. Security is double-edged, a blanket that can be used to smother.
Deconstruct your belief system. Then do it again.
I shall endeavor to do the same, anything else is laziness.
--MH
Voluntary versus enforced disclosure, and consideration of individuals rights.
Open Source is good because it shares workload, improves access, improves code. Its not forced on anyone, (except possibly Microsoft in future, but that remains to be seen).
Also its not like information itself has rights
Think liberation of information versus enforced freedom of information.
OK, I don't think it's good if the government or big corporations or crazy lunatics use information about me to harm me. But isn't that what laws are for?
Your faith in the law is touching. Read the previous post carefully.
But don't say that you are AFRAID, THEY are LISTENING! ROFL!
(A note about the enforcement against Microsoft: In this case there is kind of a contradition. "Enforced" Open Source is probably wrong. The government would be smarter to restrict the use of Microsoft products in its agencies, (on grounds of
--Ab Moloch
This sort of tension has always existed: Henry David Thoreau
But!
We have the technology! We have the talent! We are connected!
What still needs doing: GNU Encryption
Overall I'm still happy about the way stuff is going.
--MolochHorridus, juvenile rockthrower.
doh! Can't believe I said that. How about linked extensions in conjunction with LGPL? Or a different license for the "new improved" version. Anyhow, the company is forced to innovate and stay on the edge (which is good).
Lets look at this more generally.
The world needs a good common software base - on which anyone can build, and to which anyone can add. There has always been something like this - it used to be UNIX(tm) etc., now its really ANSI standards, IP and C/C++. As our systems get more complicated more effort is going to be needed to maintain them. This will be done best by free software for the common good.
An article on Daemonnews talks about how free software is like the bridges and roads - the infrastructure.
What effect will this have on software for profit? It will be beneficial! Think about the PC clone industry. All those cheap knockoffs grew it into a massive industry. Microsoft was just lucky to harness it.
I don't agree with *BSD licensing (for now)since there are companies (like Apple) who still think they can monopolise for a profit, and GPL stops this. GPL forces commonality and compatibility.
But think forward twenty years. If we have generally accepted compilers, APIs, networking and authentication protocols and media formats, the industry will be five times bigger and twenty times more useful than if everyone runs with proprietary stuff. This is because the basics will be bug-free and understood by everyone.
So what is needed is a good common base. Companies can invent stuff and plunk it on top, or develop specialist systems internally for their own use. And they will invest and employ since the possible payback (from this massive, common, clean, bug-free and savvy user base) will be immense. Don't fear for your jobs!
Say in this future world a company releases proprietary software (Is the future now?). If its good enough people will pay for it. Sure after a while a free alternative should appear - and the company might simply GPL its code to preempt this. But by that time it will have had the chance to built content, expertise, and develop new proprietary extensions to its now GPL'd original.
You trade the power to milk your users for a bigger and more dynamic market. Are the digerati afraid of change? bah!
The world really needs free software. It will simply make technology better. Of course techies love it - it is "The Right Thing To Do". Everyone has a chance to develop software (no licensing), competition is increased, ideas flow.
A response:
/.'s overpopulation of type A personalities, any "sure-thing" approach to getting moderatorship is going to create competition and maybe bad feeling. The problem with IRC ops is that you know who they are. In this game moderators are forced to keep quiet, which is kind of cool because they can't get any egoboo (except personally).
The problem I have with your first idea is that moderators should be kept as anonymous as possible (since the best ruler is the invisible one - like the old chinese guy said.) Also, given
With CTaco appointing people for whatever reason there will be no way people can work for moderatorship. Working for this position of power will kill enjoyment and limit posting. Its not what slashdot is about. And its not dictatorship, more like a lottery election.
Has anyone else noticed how the posting has dropped off since this came in? I think people are afraid to post because they will be judged. Its just not as fun to post when you are going to be scored. Limiting how low you can go might bring back the jokes and lame impulsive posts for those who like those things.
The changes are good in my opinion (especially removing the moderator self-boost priviledge, thats interesting). Secret moderators elected by a mixture of lottery and merit, with no ability to lord it over other posters, and only overruled by the iron fist of the commander. Slashdot invents a new form of government!