I eventually found an article referenced to by the lawofwar.org site. The official US policy seems to be that shotguns are legal if used with the right ammunition. It was interesting to note that German policy still claimed that shotguns were illegal (though one of those links also note that German military recently began adopting shotguns in their arsonal).
There have been US documents that refer to shotguns as illegal, so it may be possible that the material I was being taught came from that. Of course, I also may have not remembered it properly. It was quite awhile ago.
In any case, our AC seems to be correct. The US does not consider shotguns illegal and has considerable legal precident to defend this belief.
Iconography is not inherently more understandable. It is more understandable when the icons used are well known and useful. Warchalking marks fall into neither of these. They are not (and most likely never will be) well known, and for most people, they are of no use.
One is not going to immediately understand all symbology one encounters. But ignorance of a symbol system does not immediately negate that system's value or usefulness. How much of the public understands HAZMAT placards (including the NFPA Diamond) that they see on trucks and cargo transportation systems around them on a regular basis? Yet this is a very useful system that is, by Federal regulation, widely used.
Fine, fine. But as you pointed out - what good are these Warchalking symbols if nobody understands them? You will find that as a meme, Warchalking has already made pretty good headway. It has gone from an odd, and somewhat obscure idea on a website to being referrenced to in numerous world-class publications and at least one public statement from a US Federal agency. The meme is being spread - whether it takes hold and survives will probably depend on how useful people find it.
I mean, I'm the kind of person who could benefit from an intentionally open network, but you know what? I'm never going to take the time to learn yet another "standard" written by someone who felt the need to make things much more complex than is necessary. However, if I was in the city, and I saw a sign that said "If you'd like to use my wireless node, the info is: blah blah blah", that'd be easy to use, obvious, and useful to even those who aren't inherently technical people.
This leads in to our next point - how useful is the Warchalking symbol system? Sure - one can advertise one's node via the various websites out there and posting a sign on a physical public bulletin board. But that would assume that those who could use your node already know about the website and had the forethought to jot down the information in advance. And public bulletinboards are rare enough in their own right. You might attract the ire of the local city if you stuck pieces of paper to the sides of buildings. You could write out "If you'd like to use my wireless node..." in chalk but that requires a LOT more effort to write and is not as easy to understand quickly if somebody is walking by.
A chalk symbol is a non-damaging way of marking information that is both easy to mark and quick to understand if the individual has taken the time to learn the basic symbology.
One final observation - I find it odd that you refuse to learn something that you claim you could benefit from. And then you claim the system is complex. I would suggest you actually take a look at the system you are criticizing. You may find it a lot less complex than you imagine. But be careful, you may loose the ignorance you seem place so much pride in.
I can't help but wonder if some of this is self-inflicted. As various corporate entities capture the ISP market and begin to play fast and loose with content control, they have began to give up the "common carrier" stance that has been the ISP's protection in the past. Once an ISP is no longer a common carrier, they are immediately liable for any kind of traffic coming through their network.
The only reservation I have on this point is that I'm not sure all the parties involved have taken steps that could be considered abandoning common carrier status. For example, while I'm sure I remember seeing AT&T Broadband taking such actions, I don't remember seeing anything from UUNET that would expose them to this kind of action.
Of course, previous establishment of common carrier status for ISPs was under a slightly different political climate. The attitude towards the Net has changed. New deals have been done in business and politics. All bets could very well be off.
Since then there has been constant meddling in the politics of the region. The establishment of Israel in 1948 being just one of the most obvious.
But isn't, say, formation of Saudi Arabia the same form of meddling as the formation of Isreal? Its an interesting point especially since a lot of conflict in the area is often justified by supposed historical claims to territory.
Even here is using slippery definitions. Many "terrorist organisations" are militias. Anyway if the definition were than simple then an Israeli settler who killed a Palestinan civilian would be called an "illegal terrorist".
Assuming the usual qualifiers of self-defense, etc. don't apply... I believe you'd be looking at an act of "murder" rather than "terrorism".
Soldiers don't always wear uniform.
They do if they wish to be considered soldiers according to international law.
Also you still see an attack on a military base (yes The Pentagon most definitly qualifies) or on a bus filled with soldiers given the same treatment by the news media as an attack on an obviously civilian target.
I agree that the Pentagon would have been a valid military target... if this recent attack had not included a civilian aircraft full of civilians at the time. Otherwise, yes... the news does get caught up in politics and propoganda.
a) An Israeli government that still goes against US policy. If memory serves, the US has criticized --
True - but then, I think these criticisms have been over the last decade or so. Fairly recent in terms of the modern unrest in the Middle East.
If the US were fervently isolationist, at least with regards to the Middle East, it would probably get less grief. And if the US were isolationist and made fewer (if any?) enemies there, I doubt that the US would even/need/ a foothold beyond the Turks allowing the base at Incelrik.
Good point - I had forgotten about Turkey. And you make an excellent point about how much grief the US gets over support of Isreal (especially the current hard-line government).
Still, that area of the world holds an increadable amount of sway over the world economy. There's a lot of power there. The US could not afford to be isolationist and not have some ability to influence the area... or bring military power to bear.
Shotguns are NOT prohibited. The fact of the matter is that the Germans DID file a complaint about America's very effective "trench brooms" in World War I, however, they were NEVER prohibited from warfare.
I remember during some of my first lectures on the Rules of Warfare and the Geneva Convention that shotguns were mentioned. I found it odd that they were "prohibited". But my memory may be a bit fuzzy on that so I poked around a bit.
Also, much that isn't clearly harmful to the US still gets labeled as terrorism -- from a completely amoral point of view, for instance, it might be preferable to stand aside and let the Islamists wipe out the Israelis if they'll leave us alone other than selling cheap oil, but the US doesn't mince words regarding them... If all the US cared about was money, as some critics charge, that would be exactly what we'd do -- just like certain nations openly care more about cheap Iraqi oil than getting rid of a threat to the whole Middle East. It's a moral issue.
Perhapse. But then... the US also had a hand in creating the Isreali state. And Isreal has given the US one of its ownly footholds in the region. Although... recently, we've gained others.
We are kind of hanging out in Saudi Arabia like Uncle Eddie - the uncle that drops by, crashes on the couch, and then just doesn't go home. And, of course, Kuwait is thrilled to death with our presence in their country.
It might be worth noting that we've been a bit tougher with Isreal recently than we have in the past (is it because we don't need them as badly anymore?). And while I won't completely abandon the idea of "terrorism" being a moral issue... I can't buy that supporting Isreal has been entirely without any bennifit to the US.
Unfortunately, I can't read the language.:) I'll have to dig around a bit and see if I can find something in English about it.
It might be worthwhile to point out that, according to what you've said, this seems to be theoretical at this point. Accusing the US of state-sponsored terrorism on this account seems a bit premature.
The reason I bring up espionage is that it sounds very cloak-and-dagger. I would suspect if you go back through the Coldwar era, you'll find assassinations performed by military personel as a part of counter-intelligence operations.
And while I can't say that I would expect the international community to condone assassination, I find it hard to equate an assassin's bullet with, say, the bombing of a crowded shopping area. But then, a key part of this discussion is morality... and that's not easy when dealing with this sort of nasty business.
My current beef is the authorization for US personnel to enter a different territory - out of uniform - and kill suspected (not charged, not convicted) terrrorists and people suspected of aiding terrorism. This without the consent or even knowledge of the local government.
From my perspective, this is no different from the acts justifiably condemned as state-supported terrorism by other countries.
Interesting points. I would assume that you have read / seen reports of this happening or you wouldn't have brought it up (or is this yet more PATRIOT Act in action?). Do you have any links?
Also... this sounds like something along the lines of espionage. Are the more violent aspects of espionage at the same level as state-supported terrorism?
Very interesting. Thanks for the heads-up. Found a BBC article referring to this. I'll have to dig around a bit more. If you (or anybody else) has more links, I'd appreciate them.
One small point... I believe this funding comes from US civilians, not the government. But then, I believe the US policy towards Saudi Arabia recently has more to do with suspected private funding to terrorist organizations than Saudi government support (I could be wrong).
Oh, it sounds good to set up these little questions, but actually every single one is answered by well-defined law.
Certainly. I didn't ask them with no previous knowledge of what the answers might be. Many of these points were covered by my formal military education. This doesn't make me an expert in international law - but I am familiar with a few of its points (and at least understand what the US Military policy was during the late 80s to mid 90s).
Usually, in international affairs, there is no defining jurisdiction -- and therefore, the action is not "OK"
Actually - I'm willing to argue that point. I suspect that in these times international law simply does not apply. For example, how does international law handle spying? Certainly, the US has laws against spying. I'm sure all other countries do too. But are we rounding up all the former Coldwar agents of the KGB, CIA, MI5, etc for a massive international tribunal? No.
Also note that some of the questions I put forth have both international and domestic components. Granted - its natural to focus on the international aspect since the parent story is an international issue.
When you undermine the idea of international law, you make everyone into vigilantes. As a die-hard American patriot, it pains me to see my country turning into a "rogue state".
I completely agree. The current administration is fast trading in whatever moral highground the US might have had for the sake of expedience. It makes it far more difficult to justify US involvement in international affairs. And it endangers our own people as those who ask to step in "harms way" are less likely to be treated according to international law if they are captured (this is already tenuious situation as it is). And, as you pointed out, these actions potentially undo generations of history and sacrifice.
But the USA defines Al Quaeda killing US soldiers (by surprise) as "terrorism", and the USA killing iraqi/afghan/chinese/iranian (airline shot down) civilians as "military action" or "collateral damage".
First - let me point out that I find the current political environment around the term "terrorism" extremely distateful. And furthermore, I am not here to defend US action or claim that the US is always on moral highground. Having said that...
You've made an interesting point about Al Quaeda. Do they have a set military uniform? Do they commit these acts while wearing this uniform? And even then - is a country affiliation also required by international law? I would have to agree that, all other issues accounted for (and that covers a LOT of additional ground), Al Quaeda has targeted some valid military targets.
As for US killing... that would have to go on a case-by-case basis. The Iranian airline would have to be, at best, a tragic mistake.
I'm not sure about your reference to the Chinese.
I would assume the Iraqi and Afghan references are from the "Gulf War" and the recent conflict in Afghanistan. Afghan deaths have been attributed to military targets by the US military - denial of this is either propoganda or evidence of US military screwups. I suspect the same can be said for deaths of civilians during hostilities with Iraq (coupled with some very questionable propoganda out of Iraq - the 'baby milk factory' video being a prime example).
Of course, the point I was making is that the same action can have different legal and moral labels according to situation and perspective. In short, it is not always "a crime is a crime is a crime".
I wasn't really expecting to play the game out... well, OK... the "terrorism" bit is too charged these days to not exect comment. So going further on this is probably OT. But it still is interesting. So here goes.
When is spying on someone legal vs. illegal?
In a different country than your agency, never.
Well... if you get caught spying on a country, you're breaking their laws certainly. But just being a spy isn't always illegal. We're not running around arresting all the former agents of the CIA, KGB,MI5, Mossad, etc.
When is wiretapping someone legal vs. illegal?
In a different country than your agency, never.
We're back to spying. But this is also a domestic issue. The difference in that case is usually a court order.
When is killing someone legal vs illegal?
When is destroying other's property legal vs. illegal?
When can you use a shotgun on another person and when is it illegal?
Unless you can show self-defense, never.
Actually, I would say you're missing a major point here - act of war. Granted, there are limits even then. The shotgun comes in to play there.
Are glass bullets ever legal?
No. Neither are plastic bullets. The reason they're outlawed in the vast majority of all countries (and by the Geneva convention) is that they make it extraordinarily difficult to treat a wound.
I believe you'll find the Geneva convention covers lots of nasty devices. I mentioned glass bullets because they are particularly nasty. But so are chemical weapons. Shotguns are also prohibited. But you'll note that shotguns and chemical weapons show up prominently in many nations military training.
There are catches to the Geneva convention. First, it only applies when there is an official delaration of war (I believe the last formal delcaration by the US was WWII). And secondly, if one side ignores the Geneva convetion, everybody is free to ignore it. Gets nasty quickly - and its all "legal".
When is it a "military operation" and when is it "terrorism"?
When it's in the interest of the US it's the former, and if it isn't, it's the latter - according to the US anyway.
OK. I should probably be ashamed to have included this because its such a touchy subject at this time. However... I couldn't resist.
Terrorism is a very valid tactic used in warfare. It is otherwise known as psycological warfare. Where it falls in to the "illegal" definition, and the one most commonly associated by the public, is when targets are civilians or the act is done by civilians.
And this is where things get especially dicey. A civilian target can also be a valid military target (ie: factories, communcations centers, a civilian structure housing anti-aircraft artillary, etc). And how do you ensure those commiting these acts are, in fact, combatants? Usually the difference between a combatant/soldier and a spy/criminal/non-combatant is a military uniform. Most acts of terrorism in the news over the past few decades have been either against civilian targets or commited by individuals in civilian garb.
Of course... this is just touching on the subject. This particular definition is hard enough to nail down with all the mitigating factors that existed before the current political climate. Further obfuscation of the issue by seizing it for political purposes is short-sighted to say the least. But I'll stop before this becomes a bit long rant.;)
Anyway - the point is... its not all black and white.
A crime, is a crime, is a crime, and should be solved officially. Stealing data is just a normal crime, also if it is done by FBI.
Crime and morility is a lot of fun, eh? Let's play some more.
When is spying on someone legal vs. illegal?
Or a variation on that...
When is wiretapping someone legal vs. illegal?
When is killing someone legal vs illegal?
When is destroying other's property legal vs. illegal?
When can you use a shotgun on another person and when is it illegal?
Are glass bullets ever legal?
When is it "taking a prisoner" and when is it "kidnapping"?
When is it a "military operation" and when is it "terrorism"?
Sometimes it is difficult to put a single label on the same action in all situations. And thus enters politics, propoganda, extremists, and general disagreements.
[hippie_stereotype] Woa... like, bad karma man...;)
I can see the temptation to look at the issue in this manner. After all, cash income is lifeblood to a corporation. It is power. Begin to staunch that cash flow and you begin to limit the power of a force that has... frankly... began direct attacks against Open Source and its future.
But then - you also take the focus away from the real issue. Microsoft's success is not the issue. It is their tactics. And it is the end user, their work, and their data that is at the basis of the Open Source movement.
An Open Source Office suite should be about providing the needed functionality of business as well as a standard data format that can be read by any software. On any platform. It should be about giving control of a business' data back to the owner. And once they have control of their data again, they will be free to make their own decisions on what platforms or software (and the merits of software upgrades) they wish to run - not just what works with the lock-in strategy of Microsoft's flagship product.
If Microsoft wanted to change its spots and play along, more power to them. They will have to eventually. Commodity hardware put IBM where they are now. Commodity software will do the same for Microsoft.
Of course - I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here.
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, there is going to be interest from webmasters in software that prevents people from blocking ads. People who run websites do have real costs (such as bandwidth), and if they so desire, they do have the right to attempt and deny access (or whatever) to people who block site ads.
OK. I can agree with your "live and let live" philosophy. And I agree with supporting a site by allowing ad views. But I think this kind of software ignores the basic problem.
If the advertisement is so intrusive that it causes a large percentage of your user-base to go out of their way to avoid the advertisement... don't use the advertisement. Granted - there's the Type A geek who hates all ads and demands total control. But the majority of users are non-technical and docile... completely happy to go with whatever is default and works. Driving THESE people to install anti-ad software is a symptom of a broken system. Attempting to defeat the anti-ad software simply adds to the problem.
Personally, I filter out annoyances; flash animation, stupid java tricks, tracking cookies, etc. Anything that doesn't fall in to those categories (granted - sometimes that gets slim) makes it through and gets views. I'm hoping that someone somewhere notes that their altra-intensive-multimedia-flash-o-rama banner doesn't generate the views that their simpler, less intrusive version does. And they'll stop.
Yea. I know - good chuckle. That's about the time I wake up and remind myself that marketing works on an entirely different planet than I do. Instead of looking at problem, they develop pop-ups and anti-ad software.
Already there. Witness the wonders of Open Source. Netscape does its thing. I use Mozilla. Or Galeon. No skin off my nose.
However, I'm interested in this story. Not because it causes me personal anguish. But there was some theorizing not long ago that AOL would eventually have its hand in disabling anti-popup and anti-adbanner/image features prominent in Mozilla. Sure enough, there it is.
This knowledge also prepares me for recommendations to family, friends, and clients / coworkers. I now know another (apparently to-be) difference between Netscape7 and Mozilla.
And what if someone insists on using Netscape7 but wants this missing functionality? This discussion has shown how to... repair... the feature.
Bottom line: Sites need revenue and will fight to get it. Think twice before blocking ads at a site you like.
Here's another bottom line: if your revenue model upsets your customers, expect to loose revenue as customers go elsewhere or circumvent what annoys them.
And if you work for NASA... they will help you file a patent under your own name. Even if it was something you developed as part of your job. Of course, NASA gets a royalty-free licence to use the patented technology. But the inventor gets to exploit the patent if it has commercial application.
One nice little perk to being a NASA engineer (assuming you're not a contractor hired by Boing, Lockheed/Martin, Northrup/Grumman, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
I eventually found an article referenced to by the lawofwar.org site. The official US policy seems to be that shotguns are legal if used with the right ammunition. It was interesting to note that German policy still claimed that shotguns were illegal (though one of those links also note that German military recently began adopting shotguns in their arsonal).
There have been US documents that refer to shotguns as illegal, so it may be possible that the material I was being taught came from that. Of course, I also may have not remembered it properly. It was quite awhile ago.
In any case, our AC seems to be correct. The US does not consider shotguns illegal and has considerable legal precident to defend this belief.
Just off the top of my head:
NSA
IBM
NASA
Cisco Systems
If someone's sole interest in Linux is ruined by big organizations' (corporate or otherwise) interest in it... they haven't been keeping good score.
One is not going to immediately understand all symbology one encounters. But ignorance of a symbol system does not immediately negate that system's value or usefulness. How much of the public understands HAZMAT placards (including the NFPA Diamond) that they see on trucks and cargo transportation systems around them on a regular basis? Yet this is a very useful system that is, by Federal regulation, widely used.
Fine, fine. But as you pointed out - what good are these Warchalking symbols if nobody understands them? You will find that as a meme, Warchalking has already made pretty good headway. It has gone from an odd, and somewhat obscure idea on a website to being referrenced to in numerous world-class publications and at least one public statement from a US Federal agency. The meme is being spread - whether it takes hold and survives will probably depend on how useful people find it.
This leads in to our next point - how useful is the Warchalking symbol system? Sure - one can advertise one's node via the various websites out there and posting a sign on a physical public bulletin board. But that would assume that those who could use your node already know about the website and had the forethought to jot down the information in advance. And public bulletinboards are rare enough in their own right. You might attract the ire of the local city if you stuck pieces of paper to the sides of buildings. You could write out "If you'd like to use my wireless node..." in chalk but that requires a LOT more effort to write and is not as easy to understand quickly if somebody is walking by.
A chalk symbol is a non-damaging way of marking information that is both easy to mark and quick to understand if the individual has taken the time to learn the basic symbology.
One final observation - I find it odd that you refuse to learn something that you claim you could benefit from. And then you claim the system is complex. I would suggest you actually take a look at the system you are criticizing. You may find it a lot less complex than you imagine. But be careful, you may loose the ignorance you seem place so much pride in.
Hey... fine... you can be the first lined up against the wall to be shot. I'd hate to cut in line. ;)
Oh yea. You did it now. Like the unholy union of Microsoft and Starbucks beget Slate... you've opened to door to AYBABTU/Step-Profit hybrids.
Step1: Collect Base
Step2: ???
Step3: All your base are belong to us!
I can't help but wonder if some of this is self-inflicted. As various corporate entities capture the ISP market and begin to play fast and loose with content control, they have began to give up the "common carrier" stance that has been the ISP's protection in the past. Once an ISP is no longer a common carrier, they are immediately liable for any kind of traffic coming through their network.
The only reservation I have on this point is that I'm not sure all the parties involved have taken steps that could be considered abandoning common carrier status. For example, while I'm sure I remember seeing AT&T Broadband taking such actions, I don't remember seeing anything from UUNET that would expose them to this kind of action.
Of course, previous establishment of common carrier status for ISPs was under a slightly different political climate. The attitude towards the Net has changed. New deals have been done in business and politics. All bets could very well be off.
But isn't, say, formation of Saudi Arabia the same form of meddling as the formation of Isreal? Its an interesting point especially since a lot of conflict in the area is often justified by supposed historical claims to territory.
Assuming the usual qualifiers of self-defense, etc. don't apply... I believe you'd be looking at an act of "murder" rather than "terrorism".
They do if they wish to be considered soldiers according to international law.
I agree that the Pentagon would have been a valid military target... if this recent attack had not included a civilian aircraft full of civilians at the time. Otherwise, yes... the news does get caught up in politics and propoganda.
True - but then, I think these criticisms have been over the last decade or so. Fairly recent in terms of the modern unrest in the Middle East.
Good point - I had forgotten about Turkey. And you make an excellent point about how much grief the US gets over support of Isreal (especially the current hard-line government).
Still, that area of the world holds an increadable amount of sway over the world economy. There's a lot of power there. The US could not afford to be isolationist and not have some ability to influence the area... or bring military power to bear.
I remember during some of my first lectures on the Rules of Warfare and the Geneva Convention that shotguns were mentioned. I found it odd that they were "prohibited". But my memory may be a bit fuzzy on that so I poked around a bit.
According to this source:
Shotguns are also mentioned here and it implies some level of restriction... but I wasn't really able to figure out exactly what.
Perhapse. But then... the US also had a hand in creating the Isreali state. And Isreal has given the US one of its ownly footholds in the region. Although... recently, we've gained others.
We are kind of hanging out in Saudi Arabia like Uncle Eddie - the uncle that drops by, crashes on the couch, and then just doesn't go home. And, of course, Kuwait is thrilled to death with our presence in their country.
It might be worth noting that we've been a bit tougher with Isreal recently than we have in the past (is it because we don't need them as badly anymore?). And while I won't completely abandon the idea of "terrorism" being a moral issue... I can't buy that supporting Isreal has been entirely without any bennifit to the US.
Unfortunately, I can't read the language. :) I'll have to dig around a bit and see if I can find something in English about it.
It might be worthwhile to point out that, according to what you've said, this seems to be theoretical at this point. Accusing the US of state-sponsored terrorism on this account seems a bit premature.
The reason I bring up espionage is that it sounds very cloak-and-dagger. I would suspect if you go back through the Coldwar era, you'll find assassinations performed by military personel as a part of counter-intelligence operations.
And while I can't say that I would expect the international community to condone assassination, I find it hard to equate an assassin's bullet with, say, the bombing of a crowded shopping area. But then, a key part of this discussion is morality... and that's not easy when dealing with this sort of nasty business.
Interesting points. I would assume that you have read / seen reports of this happening or you wouldn't have brought it up (or is this yet more PATRIOT Act in action?). Do you have any links?
Also... this sounds like something along the lines of espionage. Are the more violent aspects of espionage at the same level as state-supported terrorism?
Very interesting. Thanks for the heads-up. Found a BBC article referring to this. I'll have to dig around a bit more. If you (or anybody else) has more links, I'd appreciate them.
One small point... I believe this funding comes from US civilians, not the government. But then, I believe the US policy towards Saudi Arabia recently has more to do with suspected private funding to terrorist organizations than Saudi government support (I could be wrong).
Certainly. I didn't ask them with no previous knowledge of what the answers might be. Many of these points were covered by my formal military education. This doesn't make me an expert in international law - but I am familiar with a few of its points (and at least understand what the US Military policy was during the late 80s to mid 90s).
Actually - I'm willing to argue that point. I suspect that in these times international law simply does not apply. For example, how does international law handle spying? Certainly, the US has laws against spying. I'm sure all other countries do too. But are we rounding up all the former Coldwar agents of the KGB, CIA, MI5, etc for a massive international tribunal? No.
Also note that some of the questions I put forth have both international and domestic components. Granted - its natural to focus on the international aspect since the parent story is an international issue.
I completely agree. The current administration is fast trading in whatever moral highground the US might have had for the sake of expedience. It makes it far more difficult to justify US involvement in international affairs. And it endangers our own people as those who ask to step in "harms way" are less likely to be treated according to international law if they are captured (this is already tenuious situation as it is). And, as you pointed out, these actions potentially undo generations of history and sacrifice.
First - let me point out that I find the current political environment around the term "terrorism" extremely distateful. And furthermore, I am not here to defend US action or claim that the US is always on moral highground. Having said that...
You've made an interesting point about Al Quaeda. Do they have a set military uniform? Do they commit these acts while wearing this uniform? And even then - is a country affiliation also required by international law? I would have to agree that, all other issues accounted for (and that covers a LOT of additional ground), Al Quaeda has targeted some valid military targets.
As for US killing... that would have to go on a case-by-case basis. The Iranian airline would have to be, at best, a tragic mistake.
I'm not sure about your reference to the Chinese.
I would assume the Iraqi and Afghan references are from the "Gulf War" and the recent conflict in Afghanistan. Afghan deaths have been attributed to military targets by the US military - denial of this is either propoganda or evidence of US military screwups. I suspect the same can be said for deaths of civilians during hostilities with Iraq (coupled with some very questionable propoganda out of Iraq - the 'baby milk factory' video being a prime example).
Of course, the point I was making is that the same action can have different legal and moral labels according to situation and perspective. In short, it is not always "a crime is a crime is a crime".
I wasn't really expecting to play the game out... well, OK... the "terrorism" bit is too charged these days to not exect comment. So going further on this is probably OT. But it still is interesting. So here goes.
Well... if you get caught spying on a country, you're breaking their laws certainly. But just being a spy isn't always illegal. We're not running around arresting all the former agents of the CIA, KGB,MI5, Mossad, etc.
We're back to spying. But this is also a domestic issue. The difference in that case is usually a court order.
Actually, I would say you're missing a major point here - act of war. Granted, there are limits even then. The shotgun comes in to play there.
I believe you'll find the Geneva convention covers lots of nasty devices. I mentioned glass bullets because they are particularly nasty. But so are chemical weapons. Shotguns are also prohibited. But you'll note that shotguns and chemical weapons show up prominently in many nations military training.
There are catches to the Geneva convention. First, it only applies when there is an official delaration of war (I believe the last formal delcaration by the US was WWII). And secondly, if one side ignores the Geneva convetion, everybody is free to ignore it. Gets nasty quickly - and its all "legal".
OK. I should probably be ashamed to have included this because its such a touchy subject at this time. However... I couldn't resist.
Terrorism is a very valid tactic used in warfare. It is otherwise known as psycological warfare. Where it falls in to the "illegal" definition, and the one most commonly associated by the public, is when targets are civilians or the act is done by civilians.
And this is where things get especially dicey. A civilian target can also be a valid military target (ie: factories, communcations centers, a civilian structure housing anti-aircraft artillary, etc). And how do you ensure those commiting these acts are, in fact, combatants? Usually the difference between a combatant/soldier and a spy/criminal/non-combatant is a military uniform. Most acts of terrorism in the news over the past few decades have been either against civilian targets or commited by individuals in civilian garb.
Of course... this is just touching on the subject. This particular definition is hard enough to nail down with all the mitigating factors that existed before the current political climate. Further obfuscation of the issue by seizing it for political purposes is short-sighted to say the least. But I'll stop before this becomes a bit long rant.
Anyway - the point is... its not all black and white.
Crime and morility is a lot of fun, eh? Let's play some more.
When is spying on someone legal vs. illegal?
Or a variation on that...
When is wiretapping someone legal vs. illegal?
When is killing someone legal vs illegal?
When is destroying other's property legal vs. illegal?
When can you use a shotgun on another person and when is it illegal?
Are glass bullets ever legal?
When is it "taking a prisoner" and when is it "kidnapping"?
When is it a "military operation" and when is it "terrorism"?
Sometimes it is difficult to put a single label on the same action in all situations. And thus enters politics, propoganda, extremists, and general disagreements.
[hippie_stereotype] Woa... like, bad karma man... ;)
I can see the temptation to look at the issue in this manner. After all, cash income is lifeblood to a corporation. It is power. Begin to staunch that cash flow and you begin to limit the power of a force that has... frankly... began direct attacks against Open Source and its future.
But then - you also take the focus away from the real issue. Microsoft's success is not the issue. It is their tactics. And it is the end user, their work, and their data that is at the basis of the Open Source movement.
An Open Source Office suite should be about providing the needed functionality of business as well as a standard data format that can be read by any software. On any platform. It should be about giving control of a business' data back to the owner. And once they have control of their data again, they will be free to make their own decisions on what platforms or software (and the merits of software upgrades) they wish to run - not just what works with the lock-in strategy of Microsoft's flagship product.
If Microsoft wanted to change its spots and play along, more power to them. They will have to eventually. Commodity hardware put IBM where they are now. Commodity software will do the same for Microsoft.
Of course - I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here.
OK. I can agree with your "live and let live" philosophy. And I agree with supporting a site by allowing ad views. But I think this kind of software ignores the basic problem.
If the advertisement is so intrusive that it causes a large percentage of your user-base to go out of their way to avoid the advertisement... don't use the advertisement. Granted - there's the Type A geek who hates all ads and demands total control. But the majority of users are non-technical and docile... completely happy to go with whatever is default and works. Driving THESE people to install anti-ad software is a symptom of a broken system. Attempting to defeat the anti-ad software simply adds to the problem.
Personally, I filter out annoyances; flash animation, stupid java tricks, tracking cookies, etc. Anything that doesn't fall in to those categories (granted - sometimes that gets slim) makes it through and gets views. I'm hoping that someone somewhere notes that their altra-intensive-multimedia-flash-o-rama banner doesn't generate the views that their simpler, less intrusive version does. And they'll stop.
Yea. I know - good chuckle. That's about the time I wake up and remind myself that marketing works on an entirely different planet than I do. Instead of looking at problem, they develop pop-ups and anti-ad software.
Already there. Witness the wonders of Open Source. Netscape does its thing. I use Mozilla. Or Galeon. No skin off my nose.
However, I'm interested in this story. Not because it causes me personal anguish. But there was some theorizing not long ago that AOL would eventually have its hand in disabling anti-popup and anti-adbanner/image features prominent in Mozilla. Sure enough, there it is.
This knowledge also prepares me for recommendations to family, friends, and clients / coworkers. I now know another (apparently to-be) difference between Netscape7 and Mozilla.
And what if someone insists on using Netscape7 but wants this missing functionality? This discussion has shown how to... repair... the feature.
Its all good.
You don't suppose that was the JOKE, do you? (gasp). ;)
Here's another bottom line: if your revenue model upsets your customers, expect to loose revenue as customers go elsewhere or circumvent what annoys them.
Hey. Even AOL is learning this bold new concept.
And if you work for NASA... they will help you file a patent under your own name. Even if it was something you developed as part of your job. Of course, NASA gets a royalty-free licence to use the patented technology. But the inventor gets to exploit the patent if it has commercial application.
One nice little perk to being a NASA engineer (assuming you're not a contractor hired by Boing, Lockheed/Martin, Northrup/Grumman, etc).
Don't kid yourself - Microsoft is reaping what it has sewed in the IT industry for decades now; distrust.