Nice idea. Very illegal. People go to jail for this type of action.
What you are essentially saying is it's okay to go spread lies with the intent of manipulating the stock market. You openly confessed on a public forum. A disclaimer of 'opinion' will not protect you from the attorny general.
I hate what SCO has done as much as the next guy, but I seriously suggest people refrain from this type of behaviour.
BTW, 'hellish' is relative term. I would harldy compare a truely hellish life to what you are facing from SCO. Try living on a trash heap in India. That, my friend, is hellish.
Yes, they are neat and an engineering marvel. But damn it, there are more of us 'poorer' bi-peds who actually need the sidewalks.
Maybe if there were a seg-lane like a bike lane on the road, then great. But those things are just too damn bulky to allow for both walkers and segway enthusiasts share the sidewalk.
I am glad to see a city do this. I hope Boston follows suit. There are just too many pedestrians walking around in our crowded cities for these things.
Just my thoughts.
Re:I am sure I am not the only one bothered by thi
on
Human-Mouse Hybrids?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"IMHO, we lost control of everything when commercialization of research took over as the motive"
Absolutely. I worked in science for about ten years (in a field that genomic/protein research has all but taken over) and watched in horror as the investment dollars took over research.
Scientists today are not asking themselves why am I doing this but how much can I get for doing this? Then come the spin doctors (PR, marketing, bean counters, etc.) who hype the science as the greatest thing for humanity ever. Egads.
Doomsday? Probably. It appears we are playing with matches next to a giant bale of very dry hay.
As Samuel L. Jackson said in Jurrasic Park (hated the movie), 'hang on to your butts'.
Okay, I hate spam as much as you or you or even you. I know the mess it creates, the inboxes it fills. Etc.
However, what about junk mail that ends up in my mailbox every single day (you remember, the paper kind)? Use your credit card and start receiving catalogs from every single retailer on the planet.
If we are going to slam the spammers, we should slam the junk mailers as well. But unfortunately the USPS stands to lose entirely too much money if unsolicited traditional mail were to be regulated.
As for the angry crowd remarks, hey guys, it's not like he is raping children or anything like that. Spam is a real economic problem, personal nuisance, etc. but it is not threatening the fabric of our society in any way shape or form. I find politicians to be just as annoying as spam but you don't see me ranting how we should storm their homes.
If we are to condemn the spammers, we should condemn the junk mailers too. This includes the latest ten pounds of catalogs sitting in my mailbox as I write this.
Too bad you had a poor experience with the FreeBSD installer. I have had no problems at all but that's just my experience.
You are dead on about the package system. Truly head and shoulders above RPM (please, it's just my opinion). The ports section of FreeBSD is a work of art. There is a great program (pkgdb) that manages ports wonderfully. You can easily check to see if your installed packages are up to date and what you need to fix if they are not.
It's funny. I have been able to moderate for some time now but I never did. Now when I want to, I don't have the ability. Go figure.
How can anyone in their right mind score this as "funny"?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news to this guy, but FreeBSD is far from dead. It lives on in Mac OS X (at least parts of it). Moreover, BSDi was purchased by Wind River (yes, that Wind River). They will eventually producte an embedded version of BSD.
Why can't people just get the facts straight?
I don't like to reply to flamebait/troll trash but this just got my goat.
Agreed. It was short sighted. We were very naive back then and thought those who attended the talks were there just to learn about the technique.
We were not that upset with those who copied the products and techniques for commercial gain. It was other scientists who actually tried to patent the various tools that 'got our goat'.
It was a bit annoying to hear various laboratories around the world claiming they pioneered this particular technique when you know damn well they had nothing to do with it. But, science is much different today than it was just ten years ago.
I didn't know Cornell was in the business of making CPU's.
Having worked in the scientific industry for over ten years, I can attest to the 'morally challenged' ways Universities operate. I was astonished at how ruthless the business 'partnership' departments operate. On more than one occassion were were requested (never did it) to pay all the patent costs (which btw can be quite expensive) and then pay royalties after the fact. All the time the researchers had full (and free) access to our facilities including a machine shop and engineering staff.
More often than not we turned them down. There were some Universities that did operate in a more equitable fashion. In fact, a not-to-be-named-but-very-famous school actually allowed the researcher to accept royalties directly for a product we developed jointly. This gadget ended up being invaluable in a particular research field. There is long and very discouraging story that follows but that is for another time (we didn't patent the gadget as it was an extremely important technique and its benefit to our science was great. Oh well.).
Cornell is just acting like a corporation. Sadly, that is how most places of research are heading. I wonder if the researcher will see any of the 100 million?
It's an interesting thought to have MS Office ported to other platforms (Linux, *BSD, etc.). But, it is up to Microsoft what platforms they want Office to run on. Thankfully.
First, it's their product. Not mine, not yours, not . They can do what they want to with their product (freedom is sort of an ambigious term here on/.). That is a good thing.
Second, does Unix really need Office? Probably not. I don't think a Unix Office Suite is going to convince Mom and Dad to go purchase a Sun workstation or install FreeBSD on their latest Intel box. Moreover, businesses certainly would not rush to replace their wintel systems just because Office is suddenly available for Unix.
Lastly, who really cares? Unless you NEED office, what's the point? StarOffice works fine for most office funtionality. I say let things happen naturally.
Honesltly, I think Mac OSX is going to be huge. It's the first time in my computing career I have actually considered purchasing a mac. I like the architecture but the old Mac OS's turned me off completely. I played with OS X for a little while last week. While I still don't like the GUI, the functionality and performance definitely caught my attention. Now I have to consider another platform for my little world here.
Having had Vitts in New England, I can tell you first hand Verizon is no good. They use the government sanctioned monopoly to rule the land.
Someone posted MS is more powerful than Verizon. I would argue Verizon is much more powerful than MS. Verizon has the government on their side.
Everything has been said before so I don't need to describe what happened here in New England.
My only real gripe is that I cannot string wires up on the telephone poles and create a network. That is illegal. Verizon can do it, but I cannot. I cannot open a central switching office. That's illegal too. Not exactly fair competition, is it?
I agree with your assertion regarding ethics and business practices. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as justice (another mythical term created by humans).
You should reword your statement to "all of the time" rather than "most of the time".
How's this for 'justice': MS will be able to write off their legal fees. That's a kick in the teeth.
I was not questioning ethics. I merely wanted to point out that RMS is not a good choice if you want GNOME to be a product (which many of the companies that donated a lot of money to the GNOME Foundation will want).
Actually, most 'successful' companies have blurred the ethical boundries at one point or another. It depends on whose ethics you choose to listen to. Even our charitable organizations have crossed those lines.
I think I can appreciate what GNU is all about. In fact, I have for many years.
I never mentioned those who contribute to GNOME. Their intentions are admirable and they perform a great service to the computing world.
Personally, I use Open Source software daily. I contribute and advocate constantly.
Your assertions that businesses just make deals is, I think, somewhat off target. Businesses make products. MS makes a product, IBM makes a product, Sun makes a product, etc. Are they a bit 'slimy'? Sure, they sometimes are 'ethically challenged'. But, they have a goal. Make money.
There are many reasons why 'Free Software' has succeeded (if you wish to call it a success at the moment). But, that is a whole seperate issue. Email me and I will gladly reply.
Anyway, as a businessman, I do appreciate what FSF and GNOME are all about. Everything depends on the goal of GNOME. If it is to be a product, then RMS is a bad choice for leadership. It's not as clear cut as it used to be anymore. Sadly, I don't see it getting any better.
BTW, didn't a bunch of businesses contribute millions to the GNOME foundation? Just asking.
But, if you read the post, I basically said if GNOME wants to develop 'free' software then RMS is a good choice. But if there are product intentions, then he is far from the right candidate. I am sure the backing GNOME received from many companies would vanish if RMS started to call the shots.
One quick question: if GNOME is not a company, why do they need a 'Board of Directors'? Why not a technical team and let the users deal with marketing and the rest of the normal business functions? Of course GNOME is a product just as Linux is a product. That may be sad to some (including yours truly), but it is reality.
Personally, I support Open Source projects. I have for many years and will continue to do so.
Interesting take on keeping the board on their toes.
However, most companies don't succeed with this type of leadership. If Gnome is to be successcul, they will need a board of like minded, energetic people to lead them. Do you think there was anyone on Microsquish's board who said "hey, I think we are doing the wrong thing here?".
If the goal of Gnome is to simply encourage 'free' software, then RMS is a good choice. But if they want to be successful as a product, then RMS would simply cause to much dissention to be effective.
Personally, as a businessman, I would never, ever have RMS on a board. He is quite good at pontificating his views, but he is absolutely horrible at seeing other sides of arguments. It's his way or the highway. Can you imagine the board meetings? He would drive everyone else crazy.
My biggest complaint is with Mr. Stallman is the hypocrisy in his definition of 'free'. Freedom = Choice. Mr. Stallman thinks freedom = his way.
Excellent. I think you may have stumbled upon the old 'cult of personality' thing by cracking a joke.
I had a long and detailed 'discussion' with Mr. Stallman not too long ago. It started by his now infamous 'unelected president' comment. The man simply cannot and will not see the merit of anyone elses opinion (or the lack of logic in his own arguments). It is absolutely amazing that he is an idol for some. But, everyone needs a hero and there are many insecure people out there.
I should someday post our email conversations to illustrate the lack of reason shown by Mr. Stallman. His blatant anti-everything-that-may-resemble-conservatism attitude is funny at best, shocking at worst. If we are to be free, should we be able to do what we want with our computers? Nope, I guess not.
Mr. Stallman is wonderful at advocating his own, warped sense of how the world should be and if given the opportunity, he would without a doubt be a proponent of limiting other peoples rights/freedoms in order to get his way. He is in essense no different than those he so vehemently opposes. He is just coming from a different side.
Actually, I am a vegetarian (not a vegan). Last I checked I am pretty healthy.
But, I don't begrudge those who hunt. It's a decision every individual makes (kill or no kill). I believe in compassion, but I don't force anyone else to follow that credo.
There are legitmate uses for guns that are not about killing. Skeet shooting and target shooting. Fun activities.
I hate to chime in so late, but you make a point that needs to be further examined.
Yes, the Second Amendment was written over two hundred years ago. So was the concept if illegal search and seizure. Freedom of speech, et al.
If you advocate being rational about guns, doesn't it make sense to be rational about crypto? Let's face it, back then a weapon of mass destruction was a cannon. Big whoop. Now, we have small nuclear devices spread all over the planet with some pretty scary people in charge. That is much more dangerous to society than a cannon.
Good points. But historically speaking, they really were not 'terrorist' acts.
Cambodia and Laos were 'hiding' NVA (that has finally been proven since the end of the 'military police action'). It's kind of like what GW is threatening the nations that harbor terrorists with. If they harbor them, they get attacked.
I do agree it was excessive though. Hopefully you have brought to light some of our hypocritical foreign policies to some people.
Heck, Israel's prime minister (Sharon) could easily be indited on war crimes for the massacre of innocent refugees. But I digress.
Unfortunately we have a tendency to look through blinders and not face the truth of some of our own transgressions. But, make no mistake about this; we need to do something to those responsible for the horrific acts of 11 September. There is NO excuse for doing something that evil on innocent people. There were women and children both in the planes and in the buildings. No matter what the cause, there is no justification for what happened.
Here is one that talks a bit about using 'stenography' which is different. But they do mention intercepting encrypted emails.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/100801/pla te frm.asp
Here is another. This one describes how bin Laden himself has abandoned internet communication, but his underlings still use cryptography.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/BUSINESS/asia/09/13/hk.b in ladenlowtech/index.html
There are numerous other articles if you really want to see them. I remember seeing a very in depth article on the BBC about this very topic about two or three years ago. But I just did a search and nothing came up.
"Weapons are meant for killing, cryto is meant for privacy"
This will be the last time I post this. Nothing in itself is meant for anything. It's the intent of the user that defines the use of the technology. A gun can be used for killing or it can be used for simple target shooting. In fact, some guns make great pipes. Crypto can be used for keeping message private but it can also be used for plotting sinister activities therefore making it a tool to carry out an evil deed. It's all about the users intent.
BTW, I agree with everything you say. But we must make the distinction between purpose and use.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice idea. Very illegal. People go to jail for this type of action.
What you are essentially saying is it's okay to go spread lies with the intent of manipulating the stock market. You openly confessed on a public forum. A disclaimer of 'opinion' will not protect you from the attorny general.
I hate what SCO has done as much as the next guy, but I seriously suggest people refrain from this type of behaviour.
BTW, 'hellish' is relative term. I would harldy compare a truely hellish life to what you are facing from SCO. Try living on a trash heap in India. That, my friend, is hellish.
Yes, they are neat and an engineering marvel. But damn it, there are more of us 'poorer' bi-peds who actually need the sidewalks.
Maybe if there were a seg-lane like a bike lane on the road, then great. But those things are just too damn bulky to allow for both walkers and segway enthusiasts share the sidewalk.
I am glad to see a city do this. I hope Boston follows suit. There are just too many pedestrians walking around in our crowded cities for these things.
Just my thoughts.
"IMHO, we lost control of everything when commercialization of research took over as the motive"
Absolutely. I worked in science for about ten years (in a field that genomic/protein research has all but taken over) and watched in horror as the investment dollars took over research.
Scientists today are not asking themselves why am I doing this but how much can I get for doing this? Then come the spin doctors (PR, marketing, bean counters, etc.) who hype the science as the greatest thing for humanity ever. Egads.
Doomsday? Probably. It appears we are playing with matches next to a giant bale of very dry hay.
As Samuel L. Jackson said in Jurrasic Park (hated the movie), 'hang on to your butts'.
Okay, I hate spam as much as you or you or even you. I know the mess it creates, the inboxes it fills. Etc.
However, what about junk mail that ends up in my mailbox every single day (you remember, the paper kind)? Use your credit card and start receiving catalogs from every single retailer on the planet.
If we are going to slam the spammers, we should slam the junk mailers as well. But unfortunately the USPS stands to lose entirely too much money if unsolicited traditional mail were to be regulated.
As for the angry crowd remarks, hey guys, it's not like he is raping children or anything like that. Spam is a real economic problem, personal nuisance, etc. but it is not threatening the fabric of our society in any way shape or form. I find politicians to be just as annoying as spam but you don't see me ranting how we should storm their homes.
If we are to condemn the spammers, we should condemn the junk mailers too. This includes the latest ten pounds of catalogs sitting in my mailbox as I write this.
-Donald
On a sportfishing boat in the Azores. Got to wire several very large Blue Marlin (900+ lbs).
Get this: I am thirty-six. If I were you, find an adventure job and have at it!
Excellent. Can't believe this hasn't been scored funny.
I guess the kids who prowl around here would not remember Mr. Rambus anyway.
Very funny. Thanks for that.
Too bad you had a poor experience with the FreeBSD installer. I have had no problems at all but that's just my experience.
You are dead on about the package system. Truly head and shoulders above RPM (please, it's just my opinion). The ports section of FreeBSD is a work of art. There is a great program (pkgdb) that manages ports wonderfully. You can easily check to see if your installed packages are up to date and what you need to fix if they are not.
-Donald
It's funny. I have been able to moderate for some time now but I never did. Now when I want to, I don't have the ability. Go figure.
How can anyone in their right mind score this as "funny"?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news to this guy, but FreeBSD is far from dead. It lives on in Mac OS X (at least parts of it). Moreover, BSDi was purchased by Wind River (yes, that Wind River). They will eventually producte an embedded version of BSD.
Why can't people just get the facts straight?
I don't like to reply to flamebait/troll trash but this just got my goat.
Agreed. It was short sighted. We were very naive back then and thought those who attended the talks were there just to learn about the technique.
We were not that upset with those who copied the products and techniques for commercial gain. It was other scientists who actually tried to patent the various tools that 'got our goat'.
It was a bit annoying to hear various laboratories around the world claiming they pioneered this particular technique when you know damn well they had nothing to do with it. But, science is much different today than it was just ten years ago.
Excellent.
I didn't know Cornell was in the business of making CPU's.
Having worked in the scientific industry for over ten years, I can attest to the 'morally challenged' ways Universities operate. I was astonished at how ruthless the business 'partnership' departments operate. On more than one occassion were were requested (never did it) to pay all the patent costs (which btw can be quite expensive) and then pay royalties after the fact. All the time the researchers had full (and free) access to our facilities including a machine shop and engineering staff.
More often than not we turned them down. There were some Universities that did operate in a more equitable fashion. In fact, a not-to-be-named-but-very-famous school actually allowed the researcher to accept royalties directly for a product we developed jointly. This gadget ended up being invaluable in a particular research field. There is long and very discouraging story that follows but that is for another time (we didn't patent the gadget as it was an extremely important technique and its benefit to our science was great. Oh well.).
Cornell is just acting like a corporation. Sadly, that is how most places of research are heading. I wonder if the researcher will see any of the 100 million?
-Fred
It's an interesting thought to have MS Office ported to other platforms (Linux, *BSD, etc.). But, it is up to Microsoft what platforms they want Office to run on. Thankfully.
/.). That is a good thing.
First, it's their product. Not mine, not yours, not . They can do what they want to with their product (freedom is sort of an ambigious term here on
Second, does Unix really need Office? Probably not. I don't think a Unix Office Suite is going to convince Mom and Dad to go purchase a Sun workstation or install FreeBSD on their latest Intel box. Moreover, businesses certainly would not rush to replace their wintel systems just because Office is suddenly available for Unix.
Lastly, who really cares? Unless you NEED office, what's the point? StarOffice works fine for most office funtionality. I say let things happen naturally.
Honesltly, I think Mac OSX is going to be huge. It's the first time in my computing career I have actually considered purchasing a mac. I like the architecture but the old Mac OS's turned me off completely. I played with OS X for a little while last week. While I still don't like the GUI, the functionality and performance definitely caught my attention. Now I have to consider another platform for my little world here.
Just my rant for the day.
Having had Vitts in New England, I can tell you first hand Verizon is no good. They use the government sanctioned monopoly to rule the land.
Someone posted MS is more powerful than Verizon. I would argue Verizon is much more powerful than MS. Verizon has the government on their side.
Everything has been said before so I don't need to describe what happened here in New England.
My only real gripe is that I cannot string wires up on the telephone poles and create a network. That is illegal. Verizon can do it, but I cannot. I cannot open a central switching office. That's illegal too. Not exactly fair competition, is it?
Again, a classic case of 1000 lb. gorilla.
-Donald
I agree with your assertion regarding ethics and business practices. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as justice (another mythical term created by humans).
You should reword your statement to "all of the time" rather than "most of the time".
How's this for 'justice': MS will be able to write off their legal fees. That's a kick in the teeth.
I was not questioning ethics. I merely wanted to point out that RMS is not a good choice if you want GNOME to be a product (which many of the companies that donated a lot of money to the GNOME Foundation will want).
Actually, most 'successful' companies have blurred the ethical boundries at one point or another. It depends on whose ethics you choose to listen to. Even our charitable organizations have crossed those lines.
I think I can appreciate what GNU is all about. In fact, I have for many years.
I never mentioned those who contribute to GNOME. Their intentions are admirable and they perform a great service to the computing world.
Personally, I use Open Source software daily. I contribute and advocate constantly.
Your assertions that businesses just make deals is, I think, somewhat off target. Businesses make products. MS makes a product, IBM makes a product, Sun makes a product, etc. Are they a bit 'slimy'? Sure, they sometimes are 'ethically challenged'. But, they have a goal. Make money.
There are many reasons why 'Free Software' has succeeded (if you wish to call it a success at the moment). But, that is a whole seperate issue. Email me and I will gladly reply.
Anyway, as a businessman, I do appreciate what FSF and GNOME are all about. Everything depends on the goal of GNOME. If it is to be a product, then RMS is a bad choice for leadership. It's not as clear cut as it used to be anymore. Sadly, I don't see it getting any better.
BTW, didn't a bunch of businesses contribute millions to the GNOME foundation? Just asking.
I understand. Success is a vague term.
But, if you read the post, I basically said if GNOME wants to develop 'free' software then RMS is a good choice. But if there are product intentions, then he is far from the right candidate. I am sure the backing GNOME received from many companies would vanish if RMS started to call the shots.
One quick question: if GNOME is not a company, why do they need a 'Board of Directors'? Why not a technical team and let the users deal with marketing and the rest of the normal business functions? Of course GNOME is a product just as Linux is a product. That may be sad to some (including yours truly), but it is reality.
Personally, I support Open Source projects. I have for many years and will continue to do so.
Read the post. I said "if the goal is to promote free software, then RMS is a good choice".
Sheesh.
Interesting take on keeping the board on their toes.
However, most companies don't succeed with this type of leadership. If Gnome is to be successcul, they will need a board of like minded, energetic people to lead them. Do you think there was anyone on Microsquish's board who said "hey, I think we are doing the wrong thing here?".
If the goal of Gnome is to simply encourage 'free' software, then RMS is a good choice. But if they want to be successful as a product, then RMS would simply cause to much dissention to be effective.
Personally, as a businessman, I would never, ever have RMS on a board. He is quite good at pontificating his views, but he is absolutely horrible at seeing other sides of arguments. It's his way or the highway. Can you imagine the board meetings? He would drive everyone else crazy.
My biggest complaint is with Mr. Stallman is the hypocrisy in his definition of 'free'. Freedom = Choice. Mr. Stallman thinks freedom = his way.
But, I could be wrong.
Excellent. I think you may have stumbled upon the old 'cult of personality' thing by cracking a joke.
I had a long and detailed 'discussion' with Mr. Stallman not too long ago. It started by his now infamous 'unelected president' comment. The man simply cannot and will not see the merit of anyone elses opinion (or the lack of logic in his own arguments). It is absolutely amazing that he is an idol for some. But, everyone needs a hero and there are many insecure people out there.
I should someday post our email conversations to illustrate the lack of reason shown by Mr. Stallman. His blatant anti-everything-that-may-resemble-conservatism attitude is funny at best, shocking at worst. If we are to be free, should we be able to do what we want with our computers? Nope, I guess not.
Mr. Stallman is wonderful at advocating his own, warped sense of how the world should be and if given the opportunity, he would without a doubt be a proponent of limiting other peoples rights/freedoms in order to get his way. He is in essense no different than those he so vehemently opposes. He is just coming from a different side.
Actually, I am a vegetarian (not a vegan). Last I checked I am pretty healthy.
But, I don't begrudge those who hunt. It's a decision every individual makes (kill or no kill). I believe in compassion, but I don't force anyone else to follow that credo.
There are legitmate uses for guns that are not about killing. Skeet shooting and target shooting. Fun activities.
Oops, spelled steganography wrong. Sorry!
I hate to chime in so late, but you make a point that needs to be further examined.
Yes, the Second Amendment was written over two hundred years ago. So was the concept if illegal search and seizure. Freedom of speech, et al.
If you advocate being rational about guns, doesn't it make sense to be rational about crypto? Let's face it, back then a weapon of mass destruction was a cannon. Big whoop. Now, we have small nuclear devices spread all over the planet with some pretty scary people in charge. That is much more dangerous to society than a cannon.
Just a thought.
Good points. But historically speaking, they really were not 'terrorist' acts.
Cambodia and Laos were 'hiding' NVA (that has finally been proven since the end of the 'military police action'). It's kind of like what GW is threatening the nations that harbor terrorists with. If they harbor them, they get attacked.
I do agree it was excessive though. Hopefully you have brought to light some of our hypocritical foreign policies to some people.
Heck, Israel's prime minister (Sharon) could easily be indited on war crimes for the massacre of innocent refugees. But I digress.
Unfortunately we have a tendency to look through blinders and not face the truth of some of our own transgressions. But, make no mistake about this; we need to do something to those responsible for the horrific acts of 11 September. There is NO excuse for doing something that evil on innocent people. There were women and children both in the planes and in the buildings. No matter what the cause, there is no justification for what happened.
Here is one that talks a bit about using 'stenography' which is different. But they do mention intercepting encrypted emails.
a te frm.asp
b in ladenlowtech/index.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/100801/pl
Here is another. This one describes how bin Laden himself has abandoned internet communication, but his underlings still use cryptography.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/BUSINESS/asia/09/13/hk.
There are numerous other articles if you really want to see them. I remember seeing a very in depth article on the BBC about this very topic about two or three years ago. But I just did a search and nothing came up.
Well, I love everyone so I guess I cannot listen.
You are right about the Tedster and RMS. It's amazing what the cult of personality can do for someone's popularity.
"Weapons are meant for killing, cryto is meant for privacy"
This will be the last time I post this. Nothing in itself is meant for anything. It's the intent of the user that defines the use of the technology. A gun can be used for killing or it can be used for simple target shooting. In fact, some guns make great pipes. Crypto can be used for keeping message private but it can also be used for plotting sinister activities therefore making it a tool to carry out an evil deed. It's all about the users intent.
BTW, I agree with everything you say. But we must make the distinction between purpose and use.