Its intellectual property and reverse engineering not just copyright. Also a violation of term of service according to EULA. Think you need to read beyond the briefing on/.
The letter didn't allege a EULA violation. It didn't even bring the EULA into it-- in fact, Apple never mentions whether a EULA applies to the people in question.
From my reading of the letter (and the response), it appears that this was a straight accusation of (potential) contributory copyright violation, and nothing more. As to "it's not just copyright", there was no mention of a patent or trademark violation. Therefore, it is simply a question of copyright, no matter how broadly the notion of copyright is being drawn here.
Yikes. Normally I wouldn't respond to this-- my intention was not to get into a discussion of moral relativism. In fact, when I said these companies were involved in "bad things" above, I actually included the quotes. I suppose I should have put them around the word "immoral", just to avoid this sort of response.
The whole purpose of the post was to demonstrate the difference in behavior between two groups of people, both of whom stand accused-- by some-- of doing "bad things"; namely, the people who write file sharing programs, and the companies who are trying to sell net-filtering software to SA.
People will certainly disagree as to whether both sets of actions are right or wrong. For the purpose of the comparison, however, I assumed that both actions were wrong, or "immoral". Given that assumption, I believe that the net-filtering companies' direct involvement in their actions makes their act more severe-- had they simply produced legitimate net-filtering software that some third-party used for an "immoral" purpose, I think the companies could reasonably avoid blame.
Now, it so happens that I personally believe that an autocratic regime imposing its will on an un-democratically represented people is a bad thing. And I'm not going to move much from that view. As far as I'm concerned, there's a simple solution for those Saudis who don't want to be shocked by pornography or Western ideas: don't buy a computer. Or install your own net-filtering software on it.
I find it amusing that a certain percentage of the Saudi population has no problem sending their children to Western universities, where they can be potentially inundated by pornography and Western thought, while that same section of the population works so hard to prevent their less fortunate countrymen from accessing the same information.
When it comes to the DMCA, Katz correctly argues that a tool must be separated from its use when it comes to the law. The fact that some people use the tool Sklyarov's company wrote to infringe copyrights should not mean that the tool should be outlawed and its authors jailed.
Why, then, is it different now? A company writes software that can be used either for "good" or "bad" purposes, and all of a sudden it's wrong? What is Katz trying to say?
In this case, the companies writing the tools are actively trying to get their tools used for this purpose. They're seeking contracts with the Saudi government to support or even operate a system that has mass-censorship as its purpose, and they know it.
So the solution to your dilemma is: a company shouldn't be blamed if people use their net-censoring software to do "bad things"-- and certainly, the software should not be outlawed. On the other hand, if a company is actively supporting an particular immoral use of their tool they should be credited with at least some complicity in that particular incidence of wrongdoing.
Now, this sort of behavior isn't against the law. For better or for worse, the corporations are legitimately doing what corporations do-- trying to improve their balance sheets-- and the Saudi government is just doing what oppressive governments do.
Now all that said, even if it were possible to prosecute the American companies involved, I still don't think that would be a proper reaction to the situation. And I really don't think that would be a good enough excuse for the government to ban distribution of the tool, and ride roughshod over anybody's First Amendment rights.
they can fight for it, just like the US did, after all, a people that gives up freedoms for security deserve neither. The Saudis have the power to change, *IF* they want to change, thats *their* option...
Paraphrased: "I don't believe people should enjoy the rights I enjoy unless they risk their lives for them-- in a way we'll never have to, of course. Bye now, I'm off to the mall."
Ignoring the silliness of the comment, do you really want to encourage a rebellion in Saudi Arabia? Does it make sense for us to say to them "hey guys, the only way out of this is to start a civil war" when that outcome is very much against our own interests?
I'm curious, though. What would the US's role in a Saudi insurrection be, exactly? SA is an ally, we have troops there, and the people rebelling might not exactly share our view of the world. Would the US stay out of such a situation, or would we feel compelled to intercede on behalf of the monarchy? Even if such a situation doesn't come to pass, one might argue that just by being there, and supporting the Kingdom politically and militarily, we're significantly reducing the Saudi people's ability to rebel and create a free government (I mean, really... don't you think the fathers of the American revolution might have thought twice had they been facing the threat of massive air strikes from an international coalition?)
Anyway, it's amusing at best to hear somebody casually recommending that unarmed, or lightly armed civilians throw themselves in front of a well armed military force, when people in this country can barely be troubled to go to the voting booth.
Personally I think even the Red Hat solution is poor. After all, they're saying that these poor schools just don't know how to spend the money, so we'll pick for them. Wouldn't a better solution be to just give the money directly to the schools in question so they can spend it where it's needed?
Don't take things so seriously. Of course Microsoft is unlikely to take Red Hat up on their offer. Red Hat is simply pointing out that if the paper money MS is donating in software is converted into actual hardware, there would be five times as many computers on kids' desks.
Of course it'd be better if the schools got cash. But Red Hat's machine-for-machine comparison is a great way to illustrate the high cost MS is "charging" for its software. Take it as a thought-experiment and nothing more.
'Come, come, Mr Clarke,' said the people at the Patent Office. 'We're a serious outfit, we haven't got time to waste on fantastic ideas like this.' Years later, when the first satellite (with which Arthur was actively involved) actually went up, and the nations were queuing to get their own satellites up, Arthur went back to the Patent Office. 'But, Mr Clarke,' they said, 'the satellite already exists. You should have come to us earlier.'
It's worth pointing out that Clarke's original concept involved three enormous manned space-stations in geostationary orbit, not the relatively small solid-state devices we have now. Really, Clarke's idea came down to a lot of foresight and some clever geometry. He solved a problem that nobody had even though to consider at the time.
All I can say is a) Clarke's a very clever guy who deserves an enormous amount of credit for his inventiveness, and b) thank god he wasn't able to patent that idea. As clever as he was for being the first one to have it, let's face it... If you need to send a signal over the horizon, it's not going to take long for you to hit upon the idea of geosync sattelites (assuming you have the resources to put them up.)
I can't precisely say that the solution is "obvious", but I do think a lot of communications companies would have found themselves unnecessarily shelling out to Clarke, regardless of his actual contribution to their efforts.
It seems to me that those who are in favor of this stem-cell research and so forth should really take a look at the long term effects of what could happen.
...
We know exactly what will happen, the scientists in a few years will run out of things to research in stem cells, and focus energy on the challenge of cloning humans and things.
I appreciate your concerns, and I recognize that you're not advocating any particular solution. Unfortunately, if such thoughts are ever going to be more than idle musings, we will at some point have to come up with a plan of action. If your concern is the reproductive cloning of human beings, then why not simply pass a law preventing the implantation of a cloned embryo into a womb? If such a law is effective, you don't need to worry about bored scientists cloning people for fun, because presumably they'll be prevented by the law.
The alternative being proposed by many Americans (and representatives) is a complete ban on all cloning. I don't see why it's necessary to outlaw therapeutic cloning in order to stop reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning has an enormous potential to cure disease and do good for people, without a single cloned baby ever being born. If you're worried about nasty scientists making cloned babies, a law against implantation will serve your purposes nicely, without taking an incredible potential resource away from humanity.
What I don't particularly understand is the notion that an immediate ban (even if such a thing could be done worldwide) is the only way to protect humanity from this technology. It's very possible that our fear of cloning is completely irrational, like earlier generations' fear of fast-moving trains or electricity. If that's not the case, and cloning-- reproductive or therapeutic-- turns out to be a dangerous thing down the road, why can't we deal with it then? I understand what you're saying-- that actions have consequences. But that's true of everything we do in this world; if we don't know what the consequences are, it's hard to do much about them. Even worse, this isn't a situation where we can impose a temporary ban, then sort the situation out down the road... The only way this situation will ever be resolved is when the technology is developed and used.
In any case, outlawing the technology now won't make it go away. Even if such a ban had ever been successful, the cat is too far out of the bag on this one. The techniques exist to make a cloned human today... It may not be safe, of course, but that never stopped anyone. You can bet that outlawing therapeutic cloning research isn't going to make the process any safer when somebody does try it.
So again, the problem with your admonition-- "think about the consequences"-- is that we simply can't predict all of the long-term consequences. Who could have imagined the consequences of the development of organ transplantation techniques, or General Relativity? We do know that there is a strong potential that some forms of cloning might do great good for humanity. I personally can't balance the potentials and unknowns and advocate any measures that would prevent therepeutic cloning research. Your decision might be different.
And the absence of a solution-- at least, some explicit effort to limit such research-- leads us right back to where we are. This sort of research will continue, and we'll deal with the problems as they occur.
I'm arguing that there are better areas to focus our engergies - studies that will actually further society.
We're talking about therapeutic cloning here, not reproductive cloning. No humans will be made from this embryo. But let's face it-- preventing this research won't do a damn thing to stop reproductive cloning. There are a ton of great reasons for therapeutic cloning, all of which have enormous benefits to society. On a purely objective level, you have to balance those potential benefits against the primary objections: the "destruction of embryos is wrong" argument, and the "this is a slippery slope to reproductive human cloning a la A Brave New World" concerns.
The objection to the destruction of human embryos is an understandable reaction, but it's debatable at best. Clearly, embryos don't suffer in any way that we recognize-- they have no nervous system. Destroying a cloned embryo doesn't even destroy a unique combination of DNA-- it simply destroys one special cell out of a billion non-unique cells in the donor's body. A cloned embryo certainly has the ability to become a person, but then so does every cell in my body if I insert it into an egg cell. Does trimming my toenails equate to the destruction of millions of potential lives? Meanwhile, thousands of conventionally fertilized, "unique" embryos are incinerated every day by fertility clinics, but this destruction goes unmentioned (because, presumably, babymaking advances society.)
The slippery slope argument has us believe that creating a cloned embryo sets us on an unavoidable path to human cloning, and all sorts of horrors beyond. Therefore we must blanket-outlaw all cloning of human beings, regardless of the consequences. This assumes three things, of course:
One: cloned human babies can't be created if Congress bans all cloning research, including therapeutic cloning.
Two: if reproductive cloning does come to pass, it will somehow lead to monsters or second-class human beings
Three, that a cloned human is in some way "less" than a non-clone.
Reproductive cloning can't happen if we ban therapeutic cloning. This is ridiculous, of course. The cat is way out of the bag, and has been since Dolly. When ACT cloned this embryo, they stipulated that it wouldn't be implanted in a womb. Somebody less "scrupulous"-- perhaps outside of the reach of our laws-- could easily replicate ACT's work, and proceed with implantation. Outlawing continued work on therapeutic cloning now isn't going to make that possibility any less real. If you really feel that cloned human beings are dangerous, then make it illegal to implant them into the womb-- don't screw us all by outlawing therapeutic cloning.
If reproductive cloning does come to pass, it will somehow lead to monsters or second-class human beings. It would seem to me that allowing some non-reproductive cloning research actually reduces the chance of some horrible reproductive-cloning accident. We probably should outlaw reproductive cloning, given the potential birth defects we already see in animals. But if somebody somewhere's going to try it despite such laws, outlawing therapeutic cloning is only going to make their attempt less well-guided, and more likely to end in disaster. As to the "second-class" citizens worry... Well, as far as I know we outlawed slavery and indentured servitude years ago. If we're so unethical as to create (expensive) cloned human beings just to enslave them or raid them for organs, then there'd be nothing to stop us from doing it to non-clones. I can only hope that we're better than that, or there's little hope for us.
A cloned human is in some way "less" than a non-clone. A lot of the fear comes from the religious belief that life (and therefore the soul) arrive at the moment of conception. Given that there are millions of indentical twin "clones" walking around, thinking for themselves, and otherwise having souls, this belief seems somewhat questionable (yet is rarely brought up.) However, if the religious argument is left out, the main fear seems to be that we will allow the creation of clones with limited rights (see above.)
There's also some rather silly fear that cloning will take over from "conventional" reproduction and destroy the American Way of Life (tm), or that people will unethically begin to clone my DNA without my permission. Again, if the law is the only thing protecting us from such things, then let's write laws that specifically protect us from those possibilites, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
So to get back to your point, I must question your whole premise that this sort of therepeutic cloning won't "further society". I doubt that you could find a single area of research that has more potential to "further society" than this one-- that is, cure disease, increase quality of living, create new resources as yet unimagined.
In fact, if "furthering society" is primary goal, I would imagine that billions of research dollars would be redirected into this area. Why are we spending millions developing acne medications when instead we could be developing a technology with the potential to repair spinal cord damage and repair damaged heart tissue?
Yes, there's some possibility that it could lead to reproductive cloning, and if that's not a useful area of research than I imagine we won't pursue it too far. And of course there are going to be those who object to any sort of cloning, but there are millions of lives that could be saved and improved by this technology. I find it hard to believe that we should hold those people hostage just because some people selectively object to certain aspects of the research.
Sounds like Stem Cell research, if so then this is old and was covered relentlessly during the debate before Bush made his stand on the issue.
It's not old. Stem Cell research in the past has involved embryos that were created in the old-fashioned egg-and-sperm-in-test-tube way. Generally in infertility clinics. That involves creating a "new" human life (or at least, a new combination of DNA that could become a unique human), then turning it into stem cells. The stem cells in question will then contain this DNA, which might cause the body to reject them if they're implanted into a recipient.
This technique involves creating a cloned cell, from an individual's own DNA. There's no conception, no unique DNA (essentially, the embryo is as unique a "life" as the cells in my big toe). And the stem cells derived from it can be implanted into the donor without the worry of rejection.
This is really the future of stem cell research. Bush's proposed solution is to prevent the use of existing (non-cloned, leftover from fertility research) embryos for stem cell research (instead the leftovers will be destroyed in an incinerator.)
Unfortunately, there's no Federal law on the creation of cloned embryos, and no real notion of whether a cloned embryo has special rights as a unique person-- it is after all, the donor's DNA, which has been activated and made to divide.
The R&D for writing software is not free. Salaries that were paid towards selling a future product are not free.
That's idiotic. R&D costs and salaries are fixed expenditures. The money's already been spent developing the OS, and it was not spent for the benefit of disadvantaged children. Microsoft pays exactly the same amount regardless of how many copies they sell or gave away. What you might argue is that by giving away all of this software, they could be depriving themselves of sales, and that would be a legitimate revenue loss. Given that MS is targetting the poorest schools in the nation (those where 70% of the students are on free lunch plans, and probably don't have budgets for MS software, it's fairly unlikely that they're depriving themselves of anything.
I've seen copies of Red Hat for $20 on store shelves, so while that is 1/15th the cost of Windows XP Pro, it is still fourty times what you say they should be charging.
Redhat does exactly what MS is offering to do here, every day. They give their stuff away free. For those who feel that a package is worth $50, they offer the option, but by no means require anyone to buy it. I've never seen Redhat claiming that they've "given away billions of dollars in free software", by multiplying the free downloads by the package price. And certainly, Redhat has never tried to settle a legal case-- one in which they appear to be in the wrong to the tune of billions of dollars-- through such "paper money" BS.
Example of US scientist being locked up for publishing their research?
No US scientists have been locked up for publishing their research. Many are at risk for such criminal action, and face the prospect that they could go to jail under the current law, if they publish their research.
To make the possibility excruciatingly clear, the US gov't has locked up a Skylarov, a Russian programmer/researcher under these laws. Some have attempted to argue that his case is "different" because he sold his information (outside of the US, incidentally), or because he's not a US citizen. This does not change the fact that under US law he would be equally vulnerable were he a respected US academic doing legitimate encryption research for no financial gain.
Given all of this, it seems somewhat mindless to demand that a few US scientists get themselves tossed in jail-- or sued out of existence-- before we start taking the problem seriously. Most researchers have no desire to run the risk, and have instead chosen to withdraw their findings and keep their heads down. I'm not sure why this is a position you would defend.
Fortunately for us, groups like Al Queda are political creatures. Their politics may be bizarre, their means may be sickening, but they generally have a goal and are committed to fighting towards it. Now, there are obviously groups who could care less about the message of their actions, the religious nuts in Japan being one good example. But I don't think Al Queda is one of those groups.
It strikes me that launching a potential global epidemic is a poor way to gain support for your movement. I would imagine that it'd only be a matter of time before Smallpox epidemics broke out in Islamic nations-- and at that point, sympathy for Al Queda would evaporate. It's very depressing, but nothing would bring the Muslim world together with the US (against Al Queda) than images of hospital wards full of sick and dying Americans and Iranians/Pakistanis/Saudis.
That's no guarantee that Al Queda won't do it as a last, desperate measure... But I'd like to think that they know the potential consequences.
This is all aside from the fact that Smallpox is somewhat harder to come by than Anthrax-- if the source of the virus was traced to Iraq, it would be a very bad day for Saddam Hussein.
Pre-9-11 we would never have the White House Press Secretary talking to the press for almost an hour about a "routine" plane crash, it just goes to show what we're going to be looking forward to.
The explosion of TWA flight 800 killed 230 people, with no damage to residential areas or ground casualties. I would say that was anything but "routine". This plane carried more than 250 passengers and crew, not including those killed on the ground. TWA 800 has inspired dozens of investigations. I have no idea whether the White House held a press conference upon learning of TWA 800, but I would imagine that it's very likely... Given that several federal agencies were involved, and there was speculation that Navy ships might have been at fault.
So... I'm surprised at your implication that pre-9/11 this wouldn't have been a big deal. It's certainly a bigger deal, considering that it's the third plane to crash in New York in 8 weeks or so, and we're concerned about the possibility of terrorism. It would be more relevant to point out that NY wouldn't have closed its bridges and tunnels because of a plane crash prior to 9/11.
Plane crashes in major American cities aren't routine at all. Whether this is a terrorist attack or not (and it's looking like not), it has implications for AA, the economy and cities like New York.
I have to say it's a hell of a bad run of luck for AA, though. And the aviation industry in general... I always thought it was a little bit nuts to have jets flying low above dense areas of the city.
though they can listen to anything you discuss with your lawyer, AND "leak" it to the team prosecuting you, it still would NOT be admissable in court
Of course it wouldn't. That doesn't mean the listeners can't use the information against you in other ways-- for instance, as a lead in an investigation that eventually digs up other-- admissable-- evidence. It's a prosecutor's dream, having somebody leaking you transcripts of the defendant's conversations with their lawyer. Or imagine trying to come to a plea agreement, with somebody listening in? It's like playing poker with a mirror on the ceiling.
Of course, the defendant and his lawyer will know that they're being monitored. Which will have the effect of stifling attorney-client communication, and seriously damaging the clients' ability to defend himself. Then, as another poster mentioned, you'll have two classes of defendant, with differing abilities to make a case-- those who can afford bail, and those who can't.
Another problem: legitimacy of evidence. The Fifth amendment gives an individual the right to remain silent if he/she believes the testimony might be self-incriminating. If the cops force an individual to talk, they ultimately forfeit not only the testimony, but any evidence that results. This law is troublesome because it becomes very difficult to determine what evidence is the result of the recorded testimony, and what is just happenstance (eg, did a cop find the murder weapon in an alley by chance, or was the discovery the result of testimony recorded by the eavesdroppers?) I would actually imagine that this is going to be a messy thing for both sides of the case. There are reasons why cops don't bug people's houses without a warrant, chief among them that they risk having legitimate evidence supressed based on the possibility that it was the result of the illegal bugging.
I have no idea how this is going to work out. Who is the organization doing the listening? What if the organization doing the eavesdropping uses the tapes to find evidence pertaining to the case-- will they be content with the fact that it's all going to be inadmissable? Will the recordings they make be available to the courts and defendant in order to determine whether evidence collected might have resulted from a leak in the "firewall"? And can we really trust this system to work?
In a nutshell, there's a lot of reason to panic. And it bugs me that people don't realize this; it's a lot more than a baby step in the wrong direction, and the safeguards provided are not terribly strong.
Incidentally, one should not assume that Ashcroft has a great interest in creating constitutional policy. I get the impression that he's adopting something of an "act first, let the courts sort it out later" attitude to a lot of issues. Any information gathered between the time this policy takes effect and the day a court slaps an injunction on him will still be useful-- the courts can't "undo" the damage caused, as it will likely be intangible.
I'm not worried. Congress would probably never think of allowing this, and the Supreme Court would basically be asking for a revolution if they allowed such a thing.
First of all, I think that Congress probably would allow this, or at least, they wouldn't go out of their way to prevent it (ie, pass a law that might be seen as "protecting" terrorists or criminals.) Which leaves the Judiciary in charge. The courts have done an excellent job of proving unreliable, but I hope that this mess won't stand.
Or, arrest individual, bug the room, and listen in on their strategy meetings. Which pretty well screws up the balance between prosecution and defense in the court system.
The DOJ claims that there will be a "firewall" between the prosecution and the listening teams. Bet you anything we start hearing about leaks in that wall, if this crap is allowed to stand.
The idea his advances is that all matter is constantly switching in and out of existence, and that is how objects move. The reason that matter appears to be attracted to other matter is that, according to the rules of probability, each piece of matter will inherently appear closer to massive objects the next time it comes back into existence.
It's hard to make any sort of statements on a book I haven't read... But that Gravity quote seemed sort of silly. It doesn't actually explain why matter inherently comes back into existence closer to large objects. Of course, there might be a lot more to the argument-- I wish more of it had been posted.
One might as well say that at an extraordinarily small scale, matter and energy actually consist of swarms of tiny carrier pigeons whose mating instincts are responsible for what we see as the peculiar behavior of the universe. Since nobody can really determine whether this is true or not, and the net result is that the explanation is as good as any other... Well, we should keep it in mind, I suppose, in case we ever find some way to prove or disprove it. But isn't there some old quote about a stampede of Zebras?
God is omniscient => God can predict the behaviour of a person => the behavior of a person is predictable
Predictable by God, who is outside of the constraints of the physical universe. While the soul may be completely predictable to God, it is assumed to be unpredictable by us-- or, that is, the tools of the physical universe.
Slashdot Mirror
My mistake-- the license agreement was mentioned. It was not the primary charge, however, nor was there any evidence that a EULA was agreed to.
The letter didn't allege a EULA violation. It didn't even bring the EULA into it-- in fact, Apple never mentions whether a EULA applies to the people in question.
From my reading of the letter (and the response), it appears that this was a straight accusation of (potential) contributory copyright violation, and nothing more. As to "it's not just copyright", there was no mention of a patent or trademark violation. Therefore, it is simply a question of copyright, no matter how broadly the notion of copyright is being drawn here.
I don't think paper mail is the way to go right now-- there's no guarantee anyone's going to take a chance on opening it. Email also gets the shaft.
A good middle solution is a faxed letter, if you can find a fax number for your Representative.
The whole purpose of the post was to demonstrate the difference in behavior between two groups of people, both of whom stand accused-- by some-- of doing "bad things"; namely, the people who write file sharing programs, and the companies who are trying to sell net-filtering software to SA.
People will certainly disagree as to whether both sets of actions are right or wrong. For the purpose of the comparison, however, I assumed that both actions were wrong, or "immoral". Given that assumption, I believe that the net-filtering companies' direct involvement in their actions makes their act more severe-- had they simply produced legitimate net-filtering software that some third-party used for an "immoral" purpose, I think the companies could reasonably avoid blame.
Now, it so happens that I personally believe that an autocratic regime imposing its will on an un-democratically represented people is a bad thing. And I'm not going to move much from that view. As far as I'm concerned, there's a simple solution for those Saudis who don't want to be shocked by pornography or Western ideas: don't buy a computer. Or install your own net-filtering software on it.
I find it amusing that a certain percentage of the Saudi population has no problem sending their children to Western universities, where they can be potentially inundated by pornography and Western thought, while that same section of the population works so hard to prevent their less fortunate countrymen from accessing the same information.
Why, then, is it different now? A company writes software that can be used either for "good" or "bad" purposes, and all of a sudden it's wrong? What is Katz trying to say?
In this case, the companies writing the tools are actively trying to get their tools used for this purpose. They're seeking contracts with the Saudi government to support or even operate a system that has mass-censorship as its purpose, and they know it.
So the solution to your dilemma is: a company shouldn't be blamed if people use their net-censoring software to do "bad things"-- and certainly, the software should not be outlawed. On the other hand, if a company is actively supporting an particular immoral use of their tool they should be credited with at least some complicity in that particular incidence of wrongdoing.
Now, this sort of behavior isn't against the law. For better or for worse, the corporations are legitimately doing what corporations do-- trying to improve their balance sheets-- and the Saudi government is just doing what oppressive governments do.
Now all that said, even if it were possible to prosecute the American companies involved, I still don't think that would be a proper reaction to the situation. And I really don't think that would be a good enough excuse for the government to ban distribution of the tool, and ride roughshod over anybody's First Amendment rights.
Paraphrased: "I don't believe people should enjoy the rights I enjoy unless they risk their lives for them-- in a way we'll never have to, of course. Bye now, I'm off to the mall."
Ignoring the silliness of the comment, do you really want to encourage a rebellion in Saudi Arabia? Does it make sense for us to say to them "hey guys, the only way out of this is to start a civil war" when that outcome is very much against our own interests?
I'm curious, though. What would the US's role in a Saudi insurrection be, exactly? SA is an ally, we have troops there, and the people rebelling might not exactly share our view of the world. Would the US stay out of such a situation, or would we feel compelled to intercede on behalf of the monarchy? Even if such a situation doesn't come to pass, one might argue that just by being there, and supporting the Kingdom politically and militarily, we're significantly reducing the Saudi people's ability to rebel and create a free government (I mean, really... don't you think the fathers of the American revolution might have thought twice had they been facing the threat of massive air strikes from an international coalition?)
Anyway, it's amusing at best to hear somebody casually recommending that unarmed, or lightly armed civilians throw themselves in front of a well armed military force, when people in this country can barely be troubled to go to the voting booth.
Presuming he had patented it right off the bat. He could have sat on it for a few more years.
Don't take things so seriously. Of course Microsoft is unlikely to take Red Hat up on their offer. Red Hat is simply pointing out that if the paper money MS is donating in software is converted into actual hardware, there would be five times as many computers on kids' desks.
Of course it'd be better if the schools got cash. But Red Hat's machine-for-machine comparison is a great way to illustrate the high cost MS is "charging" for its software. Take it as a thought-experiment and nothing more.
So if MS doesn't actually pay out $550 million, and the stockholders don't see it... Where does the money go? Forgive my financial ignorance.
It's worth pointing out that Clarke's original concept involved three enormous manned space-stations in geostationary orbit, not the relatively small solid-state devices we have now. Really, Clarke's idea came down to a lot of foresight and some clever geometry. He solved a problem that nobody had even though to consider at the time.
All I can say is a) Clarke's a very clever guy who deserves an enormous amount of credit for his inventiveness, and b) thank god he wasn't able to patent that idea. As clever as he was for being the first one to have it, let's face it... If you need to send a signal over the horizon, it's not going to take long for you to hit upon the idea of geosync sattelites (assuming you have the resources to put them up.)
I can't precisely say that the solution is "obvious", but I do think a lot of communications companies would have found themselves unnecessarily shelling out to Clarke, regardless of his actual contribution to their efforts.
We know exactly what will happen, the scientists in a few years will run out of things to research in stem cells, and focus energy on the challenge of cloning humans and things.
I appreciate your concerns, and I recognize that you're not advocating any particular solution. Unfortunately, if such thoughts are ever going to be more than idle musings, we will at some point have to come up with a plan of action. If your concern is the reproductive cloning of human beings, then why not simply pass a law preventing the implantation of a cloned embryo into a womb? If such a law is effective, you don't need to worry about bored scientists cloning people for fun, because presumably they'll be prevented by the law.
The alternative being proposed by many Americans (and representatives) is a complete ban on all cloning. I don't see why it's necessary to outlaw therapeutic cloning in order to stop reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning has an enormous potential to cure disease and do good for people, without a single cloned baby ever being born. If you're worried about nasty scientists making cloned babies, a law against implantation will serve your purposes nicely, without taking an incredible potential resource away from humanity.
What I don't particularly understand is the notion that an immediate ban (even if such a thing could be done worldwide) is the only way to protect humanity from this technology. It's very possible that our fear of cloning is completely irrational, like earlier generations' fear of fast-moving trains or electricity. If that's not the case, and cloning-- reproductive or therapeutic-- turns out to be a dangerous thing down the road, why can't we deal with it then? I understand what you're saying-- that actions have consequences. But that's true of everything we do in this world; if we don't know what the consequences are, it's hard to do much about them. Even worse, this isn't a situation where we can impose a temporary ban, then sort the situation out down the road... The only way this situation will ever be resolved is when the technology is developed and used.
In any case, outlawing the technology now won't make it go away. Even if such a ban had ever been successful, the cat is too far out of the bag on this one. The techniques exist to make a cloned human today... It may not be safe, of course, but that never stopped anyone. You can bet that outlawing therapeutic cloning research isn't going to make the process any safer when somebody does try it.
So again, the problem with your admonition-- "think about the consequences"-- is that we simply can't predict all of the long-term consequences. Who could have imagined the consequences of the development of organ transplantation techniques, or General Relativity? We do know that there is a strong potential that some forms of cloning might do great good for humanity. I personally can't balance the potentials and unknowns and advocate any measures that would prevent therepeutic cloning research. Your decision might be different.
And the absence of a solution-- at least, some explicit effort to limit such research-- leads us right back to where we are. This sort of research will continue, and we'll deal with the problems as they occur.
We're talking about therapeutic cloning here, not reproductive cloning. No humans will be made from this embryo. But let's face it-- preventing this research won't do a damn thing to stop reproductive cloning. There are a ton of great reasons for therapeutic cloning, all of which have enormous benefits to society. On a purely objective level, you have to balance those potential benefits against the primary objections: the "destruction of embryos is wrong" argument, and the "this is a slippery slope to reproductive human cloning a la A Brave New World" concerns.
The objection to the destruction of human embryos is an understandable reaction, but it's debatable at best. Clearly, embryos don't suffer in any way that we recognize-- they have no nervous system. Destroying a cloned embryo doesn't even destroy a unique combination of DNA-- it simply destroys one special cell out of a billion non-unique cells in the donor's body. A cloned embryo certainly has the ability to become a person, but then so does every cell in my body if I insert it into an egg cell. Does trimming my toenails equate to the destruction of millions of potential lives? Meanwhile, thousands of conventionally fertilized, "unique" embryos are incinerated every day by fertility clinics, but this destruction goes unmentioned (because, presumably, babymaking advances society.)
The slippery slope argument has us believe that creating a cloned embryo sets us on an unavoidable path to human cloning, and all sorts of horrors beyond. Therefore we must blanket-outlaw all cloning of human beings, regardless of the consequences. This assumes three things, of course:
One: cloned human babies can't be created if Congress bans all cloning research, including therapeutic cloning.
Two: if reproductive cloning does come to pass, it will somehow lead to monsters or second-class human beings
Three, that a cloned human is in some way "less" than a non-clone.
Reproductive cloning can't happen if we ban therapeutic cloning. This is ridiculous, of course. The cat is way out of the bag, and has been since Dolly. When ACT cloned this embryo, they stipulated that it wouldn't be implanted in a womb. Somebody less "scrupulous"-- perhaps outside of the reach of our laws-- could easily replicate ACT's work, and proceed with implantation. Outlawing continued work on therapeutic cloning now isn't going to make that possibility any less real. If you really feel that cloned human beings are dangerous, then make it illegal to implant them into the womb-- don't screw us all by outlawing therapeutic cloning.
If reproductive cloning does come to pass, it will somehow lead to monsters or second-class human beings. It would seem to me that allowing some non-reproductive cloning research actually reduces the chance of some horrible reproductive-cloning accident. We probably should outlaw reproductive cloning, given the potential birth defects we already see in animals. But if somebody somewhere's going to try it despite such laws, outlawing therapeutic cloning is only going to make their attempt less well-guided, and more likely to end in disaster. As to the "second-class" citizens worry... Well, as far as I know we outlawed slavery and indentured servitude years ago. If we're so unethical as to create (expensive) cloned human beings just to enslave them or raid them for organs, then there'd be nothing to stop us from doing it to non-clones. I can only hope that we're better than that, or there's little hope for us.
A cloned human is in some way "less" than a non-clone. A lot of the fear comes from the religious belief that life (and therefore the soul) arrive at the moment of conception. Given that there are millions of indentical twin "clones" walking around, thinking for themselves, and otherwise having souls, this belief seems somewhat questionable (yet is rarely brought up.) However, if the religious argument is left out, the main fear seems to be that we will allow the creation of clones with limited rights (see above.)
There's also some rather silly fear that cloning will take over from "conventional" reproduction and destroy the American Way of Life (tm), or that people will unethically begin to clone my DNA without my permission. Again, if the law is the only thing protecting us from such things, then let's write laws that specifically protect us from those possibilites, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
So to get back to your point, I must question your whole premise that this sort of therepeutic cloning won't "further society". I doubt that you could find a single area of research that has more potential to "further society" than this one-- that is, cure disease, increase quality of living, create new resources as yet unimagined.
In fact, if "furthering society" is primary goal, I would imagine that billions of research dollars would be redirected into this area. Why are we spending millions developing acne medications when instead we could be developing a technology with the potential to repair spinal cord damage and repair damaged heart tissue?
Yes, there's some possibility that it could lead to reproductive cloning, and if that's not a useful area of research than I imagine we won't pursue it too far. And of course there are going to be those who object to any sort of cloning, but there are millions of lives that could be saved and improved by this technology. I find it hard to believe that we should hold those people hostage just because some people selectively object to certain aspects of the research.
It's not old. Stem Cell research in the past has involved embryos that were created in the old-fashioned egg-and-sperm-in-test-tube way. Generally in infertility clinics. That involves creating a "new" human life (or at least, a new combination of DNA that could become a unique human), then turning it into stem cells. The stem cells in question will then contain this DNA, which might cause the body to reject them if they're implanted into a recipient.
This technique involves creating a cloned cell, from an individual's own DNA. There's no conception, no unique DNA (essentially, the embryo is as unique a "life" as the cells in my big toe). And the stem cells derived from it can be implanted into the donor without the worry of rejection.
This is really the future of stem cell research. Bush's proposed solution is to prevent the use of existing (non-cloned, leftover from fertility research) embryos for stem cell research (instead the leftovers will be destroyed in an incinerator.)
Unfortunately, there's no Federal law on the creation of cloned embryos, and no real notion of whether a cloned embryo has special rights as a unique person-- it is after all, the donor's DNA, which has been activated and made to divide.
That's idiotic. R&D costs and salaries are fixed expenditures. The money's already been spent developing the OS, and it was not spent for the benefit of disadvantaged children. Microsoft pays exactly the same amount regardless of how many copies they sell or gave away. What you might argue is that by giving away all of this software, they could be depriving themselves of sales, and that would be a legitimate revenue loss. Given that MS is targetting the poorest schools in the nation (those where 70% of the students are on free lunch plans, and probably don't have budgets for MS software, it's fairly unlikely that they're depriving themselves of anything.
I've seen copies of Red Hat for $20 on store shelves, so while that is 1/15th the cost of Windows XP Pro, it is still fourty times what you say they should be charging.
Redhat does exactly what MS is offering to do here, every day. They give their stuff away free. For those who feel that a package is worth $50, they offer the option, but by no means require anyone to buy it. I've never seen Redhat claiming that they've "given away billions of dollars in free software", by multiplying the free downloads by the package price. And certainly, Redhat has never tried to settle a legal case-- one in which they appear to be in the wrong to the tune of billions of dollars-- through such "paper money" BS.
No US scientists have been locked up for publishing their research. Many are at risk for such criminal action, and face the prospect that they could go to jail under the current law, if they publish their research.
To make the possibility excruciatingly clear, the US gov't has locked up a Skylarov, a Russian programmer/researcher under these laws. Some have attempted to argue that his case is "different" because he sold his information (outside of the US, incidentally), or because he's not a US citizen. This does not change the fact that under US law he would be equally vulnerable were he a respected US academic doing legitimate encryption research for no financial gain.
Given all of this, it seems somewhat mindless to demand that a few US scientists get themselves tossed in jail-- or sued out of existence-- before we start taking the problem seriously. Most researchers have no desire to run the risk, and have instead chosen to withdraw their findings and keep their heads down. I'm not sure why this is a position you would defend.
It strikes me that launching a potential global epidemic is a poor way to gain support for your movement. I would imagine that it'd only be a matter of time before Smallpox epidemics broke out in Islamic nations-- and at that point, sympathy for Al Queda would evaporate. It's very depressing, but nothing would bring the Muslim world together with the US (against Al Queda) than images of hospital wards full of sick and dying Americans and Iranians/Pakistanis/Saudis.
That's no guarantee that Al Queda won't do it as a last, desperate measure... But I'd like to think that they know the potential consequences.
This is all aside from the fact that Smallpox is somewhat harder to come by than Anthrax-- if the source of the virus was traced to Iraq, it would be a very bad day for Saddam Hussein.
The explosion of TWA flight 800 killed 230 people, with no damage to residential areas or ground casualties. I would say that was anything but "routine". This plane carried more than 250 passengers and crew, not including those killed on the ground. TWA 800 has inspired dozens of investigations. I have no idea whether the White House held a press conference upon learning of TWA 800, but I would imagine that it's very likely... Given that several federal agencies were involved, and there was speculation that Navy ships might have been at fault.
So... I'm surprised at your implication that pre-9/11 this wouldn't have been a big deal. It's certainly a bigger deal, considering that it's the third plane to crash in New York in 8 weeks or so, and we're concerned about the possibility of terrorism. It would be more relevant to point out that NY wouldn't have closed its bridges and tunnels because of a plane crash prior to 9/11.
I have to say it's a hell of a bad run of luck for AA, though. And the aviation industry in general... I always thought it was a little bit nuts to have jets flying low above dense areas of the city.
246 passengers, plus 9 crew.
Of course it wouldn't. That doesn't mean the listeners can't use the information against you in other ways-- for instance, as a lead in an investigation that eventually digs up other-- admissable-- evidence. It's a prosecutor's dream, having somebody leaking you transcripts of the defendant's conversations with their lawyer. Or imagine trying to come to a plea agreement, with somebody listening in? It's like playing poker with a mirror on the ceiling.
Of course, the defendant and his lawyer will know that they're being monitored. Which will have the effect of stifling attorney-client communication, and seriously damaging the clients' ability to defend himself. Then, as another poster mentioned, you'll have two classes of defendant, with differing abilities to make a case-- those who can afford bail, and those who can't.
Another problem: legitimacy of evidence. The Fifth amendment gives an individual the right to remain silent if he/she believes the testimony might be self-incriminating. If the cops force an individual to talk, they ultimately forfeit not only the testimony, but any evidence that results. This law is troublesome because it becomes very difficult to determine what evidence is the result of the recorded testimony, and what is just happenstance (eg, did a cop find the murder weapon in an alley by chance, or was the discovery the result of testimony recorded by the eavesdroppers?) I would actually imagine that this is going to be a messy thing for both sides of the case. There are reasons why cops don't bug people's houses without a warrant, chief among them that they risk having legitimate evidence supressed based on the possibility that it was the result of the illegal bugging.
I have no idea how this is going to work out. Who is the organization doing the listening? What if the organization doing the eavesdropping uses the tapes to find evidence pertaining to the case-- will they be content with the fact that it's all going to be inadmissable? Will the recordings they make be available to the courts and defendant in order to determine whether evidence collected might have resulted from a leak in the "firewall"? And can we really trust this system to work?
In a nutshell, there's a lot of reason to panic. And it bugs me that people don't realize this; it's a lot more than a baby step in the wrong direction, and the safeguards provided are not terribly strong.
Incidentally, one should not assume that Ashcroft has a great interest in creating constitutional policy. I get the impression that he's adopting something of an "act first, let the courts sort it out later" attitude to a lot of issues. Any information gathered between the time this policy takes effect and the day a court slaps an injunction on him will still be useful-- the courts can't "undo" the damage caused, as it will likely be intangible.
First of all, I think that Congress probably would allow this, or at least, they wouldn't go out of their way to prevent it (ie, pass a law that might be seen as "protecting" terrorists or criminals.) Which leaves the Judiciary in charge. The courts have done an excellent job of proving unreliable, but I hope that this mess won't stand.
The DOJ claims that there will be a "firewall" between the prosecution and the listening teams. Bet you anything we start hearing about leaks in that wall, if this crap is allowed to stand.
Though that strategy looks downright effective compared to yelling at "grownups" who've seen the error of their ways.
Except, to be honest, I don't think anybody really can comprehend 11-dimensional space very deeply :)
It is a great book, though.
It's hard to make any sort of statements on a book I haven't read... But that Gravity quote seemed sort of silly. It doesn't actually explain why matter inherently comes back into existence closer to large objects. Of course, there might be a lot more to the argument-- I wish more of it had been posted.
One might as well say that at an extraordinarily small scale, matter and energy actually consist of swarms of tiny carrier pigeons whose mating instincts are responsible for what we see as the peculiar behavior of the universe. Since nobody can really determine whether this is true or not, and the net result is that the explanation is as good as any other... Well, we should keep it in mind, I suppose, in case we ever find some way to prove or disprove it. But isn't there some old quote about a stampede of Zebras?
Predictable by God, who is outside of the constraints of the physical universe. While the soul may be completely predictable to God, it is assumed to be unpredictable by us-- or, that is, the tools of the physical universe.