The ONLY way I can find out is to have the issue brought before a court.
And this is different to...? Any law with any freedom of interpretation has the same problems. I don't know whether I can post details of a reverse-engineering system on a website yet, because the DMCA hasn't been tested in court.
It is not justice for a monopoly to never know when any of its actions will subsequently be declared illegal.
(a) Microsoft can have a fair idea. The law bans abuse of monopoly power. Leveraging one monopoly (an OS monopoly) to create a monopoly in another area where you currently do not have one (say, a Browser monopoly) is illegal. This is pretty standard law, and Microsoft always knew it. The concept of abuse of monopoly power can also be easily applied by looking at the effect of Microsoft's actions. Are Microsoft doing something that relies on everyone owning windows, and will it result in a Microsoft monopoly of another market? If so, it's illegal. Simple.
(b) Look at it from Netscape's point of view. True, they don't have to worry about breaking the antitrust laws. But they do have to worry about being put out of business with no chance to compete. And not because they make an inferior product. Just because someone moves the goalposts on them. Surely leaving Netscape, and everyone else in this position, is just as (if not more) injust than leaving Microsoft in legal limbo.
The purpose of the antitrust law is to maintain balance in the marketplace. As long as microsoft are still raking in massive profits, and expanding, I can't see that the legal uncertainty they may face will lead to any injustice for microsoft.
I thought the nature of Design schools such as the Bauhaus was to teach the beauty of functionality. A Bauhaus chair isn't beautiful because of ornamentation - rather the opposite, because it was designed to best fulfil its function, and NOT as ornamentation.
I guess the point of this is that good design and skillful execution CAN BE the artistic statement. Many modern artists seek to reduce objects to their basic form - IMHO this is how three lines on a canvas can be considered art.
As an example of this, I would point to Tetris - no pretty pictures, no clever sound, just blocks stacked on top of each other. I'd put it forward as one of the best examples of the 'art' of the videogame. An utterly original, captivating and popular concept made out of stacking blocks atop one another. Mondrian, for one, would love it.
Re:Let me be the first to say "Duuuuuhhhh"
on
Are Videogames Art?
·
· Score: 1
Certainly, Q3 is more focused on providing entertainment than investigating the human condition
True, but watch 16 of the best LANners in a city of 1 million playing RailMatch (Railguns only) Quake 3 on The Longest Yard.
IANAL, but in Oz the consumer law states that every consumer product has an implied warranty of 'fitness for purpose', i.e. it does what it's meant to do.
Cds that don't play on a common type of CD player could certainly be in breach of this warranty, and thus the cost could be recovered. Unfortunately, we can't sue 'em for fraud, though:)
I agree, though in defence of the 'trite Hollywood bollocks thing' I reckon it will have an effect on the freedom of speech issue.
All of the power of the MPAA, RIAA, etc. is in monopolies. They control distribution of art, all the members get fat little profits, nobody rocks the boat. They use said monopoly power to crush any threats to their position (remember digital tapes, anyone?).
In summary, they're all bloody Micro$oft$. And they're also the ones trying to squash the first amendment in the name of their intellectual property.
But what happens to them when their exclusive licence agreements - their sweet little monopolies - aren't there anymore? Open competition. And this is just speculation, but once the market fragments, the MPAA and RIAA won't have near as much money and power as they used to. And when they lose their money and power, congress won't be quite as willing to listen to them as they used to.
So, although I agree that freedom of speech is the issue here, freedom of commerce is another one. And freedom of commerce will, in this case, diminish those groups that aim to restrict freedom of speech.
Free speech wins against all but other constitutional laws, from what I can gather of the decision.
But wait, there's more...
The first amendment wins against other constitutional laws as well. The judges quoted precedent that the first amendment takes precedence over the sixth amendment (the right to a fair trial), under certain circumstances
It seemed to imply that there is only ONE thing that can override the first amendment, and that is grave national security threats (troop movements in wars, things like that). IANAL, but if everyone followed this precedent, DMCA would be dead in the water.
Yes, as long as we retain our sovereignty and don't turn that over to a multi-national body. I think it would dangerous to allow a multi-national organization like the U.N. to have final say in matters of law and of military over the U.S.
Ahahahahahahahahaha...
Sorry - I think you've got your organisations the wrong way round. the U.S. can't be controlled by the U.N. - it's RUNNING the frigging U.N. It always has. Have you ever seen any sign of the U.S. government bowing to the U.N. on an issue where it had a disagreeing view?
In Australia, I'm more worried about the U.S. using the U.N. and the World Trade Organisation to shove U.S. law down our throats (the first amendment tastes kinda nice, but the Sonny Bono clause sticks in my throat). Not that our government can't make a mess of things well enough on their own.
As long as we have an elected government that controls the military, we don't have to worry too much about the power of other countries, and other multi-national organizations.
Go to opensecrets.org, and find out how much those multi-national organisations pay your senators.
Whatever. I'm sure that the freedoms that the Red Chinese brought to North Korea are better than the freedoms the South Koreans have. I know that the South Vietnamese are much happier now that Ho Chi Mihn managed to unify Vietnam into a free Communist country. And I am sure that the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot would have eventually made Cambodia (oops, I mean The People's Republic of Kampuchea) a freer and better place if we had just left him alone.
Your argument appears to be:
1. US government treats some people like shit.
(You're at least not rebutting this point)
2. Communist governments treat EVERYONE like shit.
3. Therefore, it's fine that we treat some people like shit.
No-one's been arguing that the USA's worse than communism. It just that America has been calling itself 'Defender of Freedom' for years - and we're pointing out that it's not quite as good as we say.
Heck, if we thought the US was that bad, we wouldn't criticise it. We don't criticize China here, because it's not worth the effort. We criticize America in the hope that it can change.
do you think enough understanding would have prevented Hitler from attempting world domination? I doubt it--ask Neville Chamberlain.
How about asking the people who wrote the Treaty of Versailles? The people who agreed to Germany's surrender only if they could strip it of all it's resources, industry, and money, leaving a country so utterly destitute that they'd vote in a failed artist doing a bad Charlie Chaplin impersonation and his cross-dressing opium junkie friend to run their country.
Compare that with Japan, and Germany post-WWII. In both cases, America stepped in and helped to get the country back on its feet. In both cases, now staunch allies of America.
I'm not apologising for Hitler here, but just pointing out that very few situations just come down to 'he's a nutter - we'll just have to bomb him.' Here and now, we may have to bomb him. But if we don't want to spend the rest of our lives bombing terrorists, maybe we should look at eliminating the support for them in these countries - by not trying to screw them over for a change.
Thanks for this, rossjudson. I'm 6/7 months into a phD which is currently heading towards swarm robotics as a subject. I'd heard of the ant trail stuff, but I hadn't seen the particle swarm idea before now. Looks really cool. Thanks.
There's a lot of talk here about Sony stifling innovation and programming of AIBO. I ought to set the record straight here (assuming I haven't missed someone already doing it).
Not only do SONY want people to add functionality to AIBO, they sponsor a competition for it - the Sony Legged Robot Soccer league in Robocup. Go to http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~robocup2001 or http://www.robocup.org for an description.
You just have to buy licences to use their SDK.
True, it's not open source, but you can't say that Sony aren't letting people hack AIBO.
I've just reduced the value of your music to zero, because I can spread it far and wide.
Completely wrong. Your music has more value the more and more people hear it.
This is what divides the artist from the filthy grabass. It's also what divides the scientist from the filthy grabass - where would science be if discoveries could be copyrighted? I'm producing research (with any luck), I publish it, and I won't make a cent from anyone who uses it.
Children, while many people who make children's programming don't realise this, are not stupid.
Disney never realized this. How many Disney short cartoons do you remember? (personally, 2 or 3).
Now how many Warner Bros. short cartoons do you remember (200, 300...). The Warner Bros. cartoons were always written so adults would find them funny - and so, kids found them funny.
Though then I remember the Warner Bros. cartoon where two mice were discussing the advantages of free-market capitalism. That was some wierd shit there.
The cards also would be instantly checked against a new national database. That database would base would link existing criminal and immigration data to screen out potential terrorists.
But AFAIK, none of the terrorists HAD criminal records. They were perfectly good citizens as far as anyone knew up until getting on those planes. So criminal data's no good.
Ah, but they did just emigrate from Afghanistan, or Iraq. That would show up on the immigration data.
So what this suggests to me, is that if you've just immigrated from Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd be allowing another thirty minutes at the airport, to deal with all those 'are you a terrorist' questions. Because that's the only thing that separated all those terrorists from the rest of the travellers.
It'd be good to see a policy from the US that didn't assume that terrorists have a big flashing sign on their forehead that says "I AM A TERRORIST." Because that's how I think they're planning on telling Osama Bin Laden from all the other robed, bearded guys carrying AK47s in Afghanistan.
Game skins for Bin-Laden
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 1
Yes... but when is the Counterstrike skin coming out?
I guess this might be considered a little close to the bone...
Re:The next thing, translated
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 1
Take off every zig for infinite justice - oh, sorry muslims - for great justice.
In 2001 AD, war was beginning...
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 4, Funny
What's next? Will we see someone in Pakistan waving a picture of Bin Laden, and underneath...
"Someone set us up the bomb."
But then, all Afghanistan's base belong to U.S. now.
I can just hear the trial proceedings now.. Judge: You may cross-examine the witness. Defence Lawyer: So, how important is innovation to Windows XP? Bill: Innovation is very important... Prosecution Lawyer: Objection - Troll! Judge: Sustained. The jury is instructed to mod that comment down.
Err, as far as I can tell, all Microsoft is doing is pissing off customers [cnet.com]. Some are even considering leaving the Microsoft desktop...
I love this bit...
But in recent years, companies have been upgrading less frequently, compelling Microsoft to adjust its licensing program accordingly.
Oh - people don't want to buy our new software. How about we include genuine innovation and enhancement, so people are interested in buying it? Nah, let's just make the licences even more restricitve, turn out the same old crap, and then wonder why people don't like us. I wonder if they have a sign up in the coding department: "The beatings will continue until morale improves...."
"When you come up with a solution, maybe people will be more willing to listen."
This comment has come up a few times in the past few weeks, as a response to people who suggest that violence will not help. My problem with this argument is that it assumes that we already have a solution - i.e. the bombing of afghanistan.
I would like someone to prove to me that this is a solution, because I think that this is not entirely certain. Part of the reason this argument is offered is the classic politicians' syllogism. For those who do not know what a syllogism is, here is an example:
All dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog.
The following is the politician's syllogism:
We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do this.
As they say, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. Violence is bloody easy to do - hell, APES do it. But fixing the genuine problems, so that the cycle of violence doesn't continue - that's a lot trickier.
In Vietnam, the US (with other countries' aid) bombed Vietnam (both North AND South) back to the stone age. The initial purpose of this was to prevent Vietnam from becoming communist. Guess what? Vietnam ended up communist and depopulated. Did all the bombing, all the sacrifices made by American and Australian soldiers, actually fix the situation? No.
In Desert Storm, the violence did do part of the job. It drove Saddam out of Kuwait. But because they didn't go all the way to Baghdad, Saddam is still there, the sanctions stay up, and the area is still in a pretty bad way.
Heck, weren't all the terrorists LIVING in the USA? Didn't a large section of the plot develop in Hamburg? Bombing Afghanistan's may eliminate the head of the network, but there are many more in other countries who may well continue on his work. And bombing Afghanistan, while an understandable move, isn't a complete solution. It isn't even close.
If you live in the US please contact your congressmen and tell them that you support the creation of the NLC.
If you are in Europe, especially Germany, please contact your representatives and tell them that you support Tesla (the competing design for the NLC, the European design).
If you live in Japan, either NLC or Tesla.
Why bother with this? Just interrupt the UN during a general assembly meeting (hack into the video feed), and announce that you have a super-collider that will create a mini black hole and destroy the earth unless they pay you (raise little finger to mouth) 100.... billion dollars....
You also just described research degrees... as far as I can tell so far (6 months into a PhD..). You base your work on other people's previous work... you just acknowledge that previous work. The difference is that when there isn't a book on what you're doing, it's a good thing - you've just found your thesis subject.
And you do have to deal with tech support calls.. from students.
Kind of funny, when academia is the original model of the continual development of a single body of work, and they spend their time trying to stop students doing similar. This gets really tricky with languages like MIRANDA and PROLOG, where there are very few ways of solving simple problems. Hell, half my assignments in these languages were sets of one line programs - how much originality can you show in one line?
You can find out what congressman are being paid by industry at http://www.opensecrets.org
(Gee.. and we get in a snit in Australia 'cos some liberal party group in Queensland tries to get out of paying $1000 in tax - that's about a nickel in american dollars)
Hang on.... is anyone thinking the same thing I am - that "digital device" means a hell of a lot more than just computers.
A digital device is ANYTHING that relies on high & low voltages to store 1's and 0's. So anything using a single Field-Effect Transistor to store data is covered by this bill.
Computer manufacturers are actually one of the smaller groups to be affected by this. It also covers everything that uses a microprocessor, no matter how small. That means your microwave, your fridge, hell there are probably even toasters that could now be illegal circumvention devices. Your car, your air-conditioner - the list goes on.
Which means that this law will screw over not only IBM, but Ford & General Motors, McDonnell Douglas, Grumman, Boeing - every single maker of anything that relies on microprocessors. Hell, they're all digital devices. I'm surprised these companies, and ones such as motorola and national semiconductors - who'll probably be bankrupted by this - haven't started crying blue murder over this.
Slashdot Mirror
The ONLY way I can find out is to have the issue brought before a court.
And this is different to...? Any law with any freedom of interpretation has the same problems. I don't know whether I can post details of a reverse-engineering system on a website yet, because the DMCA hasn't been tested in court.
It is not justice for a monopoly to never know when any of its actions will subsequently be declared illegal.
(a) Microsoft can have a fair idea. The law bans abuse of monopoly power. Leveraging one monopoly (an OS monopoly) to create a monopoly in another area where you currently do not have one (say, a Browser monopoly) is illegal. This is pretty standard law, and Microsoft always knew it. The concept of abuse of monopoly power can also be easily applied by looking at the effect of Microsoft's actions. Are Microsoft doing something that relies on everyone owning windows, and will it result in a Microsoft monopoly of another market? If so, it's illegal. Simple.
(b) Look at it from Netscape's point of view. True, they don't have to worry about breaking the antitrust laws. But they do have to worry about being put out of business with no chance to compete. And not because they make an inferior product. Just because someone moves the goalposts on them. Surely leaving Netscape, and everyone else in this position, is just as (if not more) injust than leaving Microsoft in legal limbo.
The purpose of the antitrust law is to maintain balance in the marketplace. As long as microsoft are still raking in massive profits, and expanding, I can't see that the legal uncertainty they may face will lead to any injustice for microsoft.
One of the top local entrants (and my Uni's entrants) have their page at:
:).
http://www.unisa.edu.au/solarcar/default.htm
They came 2nd in the 2001 sunrace from Sydney to Adelaide. I get to see their car drive past my office some days...
I thought the nature of Design schools such as the Bauhaus was to teach the beauty of functionality. A Bauhaus chair isn't beautiful because of ornamentation - rather the opposite, because it was designed to best fulfil its function, and NOT as ornamentation.
I guess the point of this is that good design and skillful execution CAN BE the artistic statement. Many modern artists seek to reduce objects to their basic form - IMHO this is how three lines on a canvas can be considered art.
As an example of this, I would point to Tetris - no pretty pictures, no clever sound, just blocks stacked on top of each other. I'd put it forward as one of the best examples of the 'art' of the videogame. An utterly original, captivating and popular concept made out of stacking blocks atop one another. Mondrian, for one, would love it.
Certainly, Q3 is more focused on providing entertainment than investigating the human condition
True, but watch 16 of the best LANners in a city of 1 million playing RailMatch (Railguns only) Quake 3 on The Longest Yard.
It's a fscking Ballet.
IANAL, but in Oz the consumer law states that every consumer product has an implied warranty of 'fitness for purpose', i.e. it does what it's meant to do.
Cds that don't play on a common type of CD player could certainly be in breach of this warranty, and thus the cost could be recovered. Unfortunately, we can't sue 'em for fraud, though :)
I agree, though in defence of the 'trite Hollywood bollocks thing' I reckon it will have an effect on the freedom of speech issue.
All of the power of the MPAA, RIAA, etc. is in monopolies. They control distribution of art, all the members get fat little profits, nobody rocks the boat. They use said monopoly power to crush any threats to their position (remember digital tapes, anyone?).
In summary, they're all bloody Micro$oft$. And they're also the ones trying to squash the first amendment in the name of their intellectual property.
But what happens to them when their exclusive licence agreements - their sweet little monopolies - aren't there anymore? Open competition. And this is just speculation, but once the market fragments, the MPAA and RIAA won't have near as much money and power as they used to. And when they lose their money and power, congress won't be quite as willing to listen to them as they used to.
So, although I agree that freedom of speech is the issue here, freedom of commerce is another one. And freedom of commerce will, in this case, diminish those groups that aim to restrict freedom of speech.
Free speech wins against all but other constitutional laws, from what I can gather of the decision.
But wait, there's more...
The first amendment wins against other constitutional laws as well. The judges quoted precedent that the first amendment takes precedence over the sixth amendment (the right to a fair trial), under certain circumstances
It seemed to imply that there is only ONE thing that can override the first amendment, and that is grave national security threats (troop movements in wars, things like that). IANAL, but if everyone followed this precedent, DMCA would be dead in the water.
Here's hoping.
Yes, as long as we retain our sovereignty and don't turn that over to a multi-national body. I think it would dangerous to allow a multi-national organization like the U.N. to have final say in matters of law and of military over the U.S.
Ahahahahahahahahaha...
Sorry - I think you've got your organisations the wrong way round. the U.S. can't be controlled by the U.N. - it's RUNNING the frigging U.N. It always has. Have you ever seen any sign of the U.S. government bowing to the U.N. on an issue where it had a disagreeing view?
In Australia, I'm more worried about the U.S. using the U.N. and the World Trade Organisation to shove U.S. law down our throats (the first amendment tastes kinda nice, but the Sonny Bono clause sticks in my throat). Not that our government can't make a mess of things well enough on their own.
As long as we have an elected government that controls the military, we don't have to worry too much about the power of other countries, and other multi-national organizations.
Go to opensecrets.org, and find out how much those multi-national organisations pay your senators.
Whatever. I'm sure that the freedoms that the Red Chinese brought to North Korea are better than the freedoms the South Koreans have. I know that the South Vietnamese are much happier now that Ho Chi Mihn managed to unify Vietnam into a free Communist country. And I am sure that the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot would have eventually made Cambodia (oops, I mean The People's Republic of Kampuchea) a freer and better place if we had just left him alone.
Your argument appears to be:
1. US government treats some people like shit. (You're at least not rebutting this point)
2. Communist governments treat EVERYONE like shit.
3. Therefore, it's fine that we treat some people like shit.
No-one's been arguing that the USA's worse than communism. It just that America has been calling itself 'Defender of Freedom' for years - and we're pointing out that it's not quite as good as we say.
Heck, if we thought the US was that bad, we wouldn't criticise it. We don't criticize China here, because it's not worth the effort. We criticize America in the hope that it can change.
do you think enough understanding would have prevented Hitler from attempting world domination? I doubt it--ask Neville Chamberlain.
How about asking the people who wrote the Treaty of Versailles? The people who agreed to Germany's surrender only if they could strip it of all it's resources, industry, and money, leaving a country so utterly destitute that they'd vote in a failed artist doing a bad Charlie Chaplin impersonation and his cross-dressing opium junkie friend to run their country.
Compare that with Japan, and Germany post-WWII. In both cases, America stepped in and helped to get the country back on its feet. In both cases, now staunch allies of America.
I'm not apologising for Hitler here, but just pointing out that very few situations just come down to 'he's a nutter - we'll just have to bomb him.' Here and now, we may have to bomb him. But if we don't want to spend the rest of our lives bombing terrorists, maybe we should look at eliminating the support for them in these countries - by not trying to screw them over for a change.
Thanks for this, rossjudson. I'm 6/7 months into a phD which is currently heading towards swarm robotics as a subject. I'd heard of the ant trail stuff, but I hadn't seen the particle swarm idea before now. Looks really cool. Thanks.
There's a lot of talk here about Sony stifling innovation and programming of AIBO. I ought to set the record straight here (assuming I haven't missed someone already doing it).
Not only do SONY want people to add functionality to AIBO, they sponsor a competition for it - the Sony Legged Robot Soccer league in Robocup. Go to http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~robocup2001 or http://www.robocup.org for an description.
You just have to buy licences to use their SDK. True, it's not open source, but you can't say that Sony aren't letting people hack AIBO.
I've just reduced the value of your music to zero, because I can spread it far and wide.
Completely wrong. Your music has more value the more and more people hear it.
This is what divides the artist from the filthy grabass. It's also what divides the scientist from the filthy grabass - where would science be if discoveries could be copyrighted? I'm producing research (with any luck), I publish it, and I won't make a cent from anyone who uses it.
And that will make me proud.
Children, while many people who make children's programming don't realise this, are not stupid.
Disney never realized this. How many Disney short cartoons do you remember? (personally, 2 or 3).
Now how many Warner Bros. short cartoons do you remember (200, 300...). The Warner Bros. cartoons were always written so adults would find them funny - and so, kids found them funny.
Though then I remember the Warner Bros. cartoon where two mice were discussing the advantages of free-market capitalism. That was some wierd shit there.
The cards also would be instantly checked against a new national database. That database would base would link existing criminal and immigration data to screen out potential terrorists.
But AFAIK, none of the terrorists HAD criminal records. They were perfectly good citizens as far as anyone knew up until getting on those planes. So criminal data's no good.
Ah, but they did just emigrate from Afghanistan, or Iraq. That would show up on the immigration data.
So what this suggests to me, is that if you've just immigrated from Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd be allowing another thirty minutes at the airport, to deal with all those 'are you a terrorist' questions. Because that's the only thing that separated all those terrorists from the rest of the travellers.
It'd be good to see a policy from the US that didn't assume that terrorists have a big flashing sign on their forehead that says "I AM A TERRORIST." Because that's how I think they're planning on telling Osama Bin Laden from all the other robed, bearded guys carrying AK47s in Afghanistan.
Yes... but when is the Counterstrike skin coming out?
I guess this might be considered a little close to the bone...
Take off every zig for infinite justice - oh, sorry muslims - for great justice.
What's next? Will we see someone in Pakistan waving a picture of Bin Laden, and underneath...
"Someone set us up the bomb."
But then, all Afghanistan's base belong to U.S. now.
Ya lets hope s/he is as smart as Slashdot.
I can just hear the trial proceedings now..Judge: You may cross-examine the witness.
Defence Lawyer: So, how important is innovation to Windows XP?
Bill: Innovation is very important...
Prosecution Lawyer: Objection - Troll!
Judge: Sustained. The jury is instructed to mod that comment down.
Err, as far as I can tell, all Microsoft is doing is pissing off customers [cnet.com]. Some are even considering leaving the Microsoft desktop...
I love this bit...
But in recent years, companies have been upgrading less frequently, compelling Microsoft to adjust its licensing program accordingly.
Oh - people don't want to buy our new software. How about we include genuine innovation and enhancement, so people are interested in buying it? Nah, let's just make the licences even more restricitve, turn out the same old crap, and then wonder why people don't like us. I wonder if they have a sign up in the coding department: "The beatings will continue until morale improves...."
"When you come up with a solution, maybe people will be more willing to listen."
This comment has come up a few times in the past few weeks, as a response to people who suggest that violence will not help. My problem with this argument is that it assumes that we already have a solution - i.e. the bombing of afghanistan.
I would like someone to prove to me that this is a solution, because I think that this is not entirely certain. Part of the reason this argument is offered is the classic politicians' syllogism. For those who do not know what a syllogism is, here is an example:
All dogs have four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog.
The following is the politician's syllogism:
We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do this.
As they say, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. Violence is bloody easy to do - hell, APES do it. But fixing the genuine problems, so that the cycle of violence doesn't continue - that's a lot trickier.
In Vietnam, the US (with other countries' aid) bombed Vietnam (both North AND South) back to the stone age. The initial purpose of this was to prevent Vietnam from becoming communist. Guess what? Vietnam ended up communist and depopulated. Did all the bombing, all the sacrifices made by American and Australian soldiers, actually fix the situation? No.
In Desert Storm, the violence did do part of the job. It drove Saddam out of Kuwait. But because they didn't go all the way to Baghdad, Saddam is still there, the sanctions stay up, and the area is still in a pretty bad way.
Heck, weren't all the terrorists LIVING in the USA? Didn't a large section of the plot develop in Hamburg? Bombing Afghanistan's may eliminate the head of the network, but there are many more in other countries who may well continue on his work. And bombing Afghanistan, while an understandable move, isn't a complete solution. It isn't even close.
If you live in the US please contact your congressmen and tell them that you support the creation of the NLC.
If you are in Europe, especially Germany, please contact your representatives and tell them that you support Tesla (the competing design for the NLC, the European design).
If you live in Japan, either NLC or Tesla.
Why bother with this? Just interrupt the UN during a general assembly meeting (hack into the video feed), and announce that you have a super-collider that will create a mini black hole and destroy the earth unless they pay you (raise little finger to mouth) 100.... billion dollars....
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You also just described research degrees... as far as I can tell so far (6 months into a PhD..). You base your work on other people's previous work... you just acknowledge that previous work. The difference is that when there isn't a book on what you're doing, it's a good thing - you've just found your thesis subject.
And you do have to deal with tech support calls.. from students.
Kind of funny, when academia is the original model of the continual development of a single body of work, and they spend their time trying to stop students doing similar. This gets really tricky with languages like MIRANDA and PROLOG, where there are very few ways of solving simple problems. Hell, half my assignments in these languages were sets of one line programs - how much originality can you show in one line?
You can find out what congressman are being paid by industry at http://www.opensecrets.org
(Gee.. and we get in a snit in Australia 'cos some liberal party group in Queensland tries to get out of paying $1000 in tax - that's about a nickel in american dollars)
Hang on.... is anyone thinking the same thing I am - that "digital device" means a hell of a lot more than just computers.
A digital device is ANYTHING that relies on high & low voltages to store 1's and 0's. So anything using a single Field-Effect Transistor to store data is covered by this bill.
Computer manufacturers are actually one of the smaller groups to be affected by this. It also covers everything that uses a microprocessor, no matter how small. That means your microwave, your fridge, hell there are probably even toasters that could now be illegal circumvention devices. Your car, your air-conditioner - the list goes on.
Which means that this law will screw over not only IBM, but Ford & General Motors, McDonnell Douglas, Grumman, Boeing - every single maker of anything that relies on microprocessors. Hell, they're all digital devices. I'm surprised these companies, and ones such as motorola and national semiconductors - who'll probably be bankrupted by this - haven't started crying blue murder over this.