Precisely. The Big Boys mentioned in the article are probably more opposed to this than anything else:
The early draft bill would require the technology industry to come to its own decision on a copy-protection standard within 18 months, or else have the government step in to mandate a solution.
It seems to me that what they're really worried about is the timetable, and being forced by the government into using a certain copy-protection scheme. They want 90% of what's in the current bill. They certainly want this:
The bill would bar the sale of any "interactive digital device" that did not have the anti-piracy technology built in. It would also be illegal to remove or disable the security technology as well as to remove the piracy protections from a song, movie or other piece of content.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit if a bill harsher to the consumer and gentler to the Big Companies started was already starting to float around (behind closed doors, naturally).
This comment copy-protected (altough some researchers have told me that it can be defeated by cut-and-paste),
But that industry says it will not put a stranglehold on the download sector, and is planning to work together with a new, legitimate Napster that will launch before the end of the year.
Is it me, or does this quote sound like a little kid saying: "No, mommy. I won't eat all the cookies. I'll share some with my little brother."
I mean, come on. How naive do they think people are? Everybody knows that given the chance, they'll monopolize the download sector and crush (through illegal use of the legal process) legitimate services.
I say kudos (the congratulation, not the candy) to the EU for putting a halt to MusicNet and Pressplay until it can be assured that the download sector is a competative one.
This quote brought to you by MoronCo. Industries, the leading source of stupidity on the internet,
Is this true? Does the RIAA allow us to make backup copies of our media? I was under the impression that making any copy of my audio CDs was verboten, whether onto eighth-inch tape, CD media, mp3, ogg, or whatever.
I can just see the/. article five years from now:
RIAA PROPOSES MIND WIPES Posted by CmdrTaco on Oct 12, 2006. From the song-stuck-in-the-head-dept.
Anonymous Coward writes: "The RIAA is pushing legislation that would allow them to randomly scan people's heads, to insure that they have not illegally memorized copyrighted material. Those who are caught will have the songs removed from memory. The RIAA, under this legislation, would not be responsible for collateral damage including permanent, total amnesia. One RIAA spokesman says: 'How are we expected to make a reasonable living if anyone can simply play back a song in their heads from memory? I can't see how it can be done. This legislation only insures that copyrighted material is not pirated, nothing else.'"
You know, I wouln't actually be surprised if they tried it,
The potential for saving endangered species is certainly interesting; however it would require vast ranges of DNA sample to provide any genetic diversity. This would require immediate action and plenty of funding, which in this field may be hard to come by.
Jurassic Park thought: Since the baby mouflon (I think that's right, I'm too lazy to check) was "created" using the egg of a domestic sheep and carried in a domestic sheep, it might be possible to clone long-extinct species. Obviously, this would be for research purposes only (to study anatomy and behavior, which are all but impossible with fossils) because there simply wouldn't be enough genetic material to even think about resurrecting the species (Besides, I'm not too keen on a T-Rex hunting in the woods outside Seattle. It might eat the Sasquatch).
I'll be surprised as Hell (can Hell be surprised?) if anyone actually reads this comment,
It establishes a level playing field. Big studios like Universal have to go through the same legal hoops as everyone else. From the article: "'This decision means record companies aren't in total control of how music will be exploited on the Net,' said Whitney Broussard, a music lawyer at Selverne Mandelbaum & Mintz. 'They are going to be on the same footing as other Webcasters, and they will have to negotiate publishing rights as well.'
Universal is being hung up, as it were, by its own petard. The same legal hurdles that hurt MP3.com and Napster apply to Universal. From the article: "Like Napster's service, the labels' offerings must win publishers' go-ahead if they are to avoid legal disputes." Also from the article: "Universal spokesman Bob Bernstein said the company 'disagrees with the court's opinion, and we intend to appeal.'" So, what does this mean, you ask? If Universal wins, the rules are rolled back and sites like MP3.com can go back to business without interference from the big boys. If they lose, they are forced into, gasp, fair market practices.
This isn't about taking a shot at a big company. It's about the rules being the same for everyone, and big studios not getting any extra help from the courts. So/. is being consistent. Consistently in favor of fair trade, with the big companies getting no more breaks than the small.
There are those who are evil. They desire nothing other than to prey upon their fellow human beings.
There are those who are good. They do nothing but help fellow human beings.
And then there's the rest of us, the other 99.999%, who are somewhere in the middle. They are neither angels nor devils. They live their lives, usually never harming anyone else, but not particularly going out of their way to do good for anyone else either.
But the actual tools used are neither. They just are.
Are we to infringe on the privacy of the 99.999% because the.001% might use crypto for malicious intents? And what does it do? Those malicious messsages will still find their way to their destinations. That cannot be prevented. You can stop an item, a thing from being carried abroad; but you cannot stop an idea. You cannot stop thought. And this being the case, banning crypto or leaving backdoors is pointless. All it does it take away privacy.
It does seem to be a bit much. OSI's list of approved licences is now at 26. In a few years, it may take longer to figure out which licence to use than to actually write the code itself!
I think that a Dynamic Open Source License (DOSI) could solve a lot of problems, but if not done right it could also turn into an unwieldy mess (imagine filtering through ten or twenty pages whorth of checkboxes).
But then again, I am an idiot, and really have.no idea what I'm talking about 99.999% of the time,
Jesus, I wonder how long before this "feature" makes it into other MS products
Then, it'll show up in MS Word
New Document - MS Word 2002 _________________________ Microsoft Sucks [Typing this statement has violated your EULA. MS Windows will now contact Microsoft headquarters to inform them of the infraction. Expect MS Storm Troopers within the next hour. -- Emperor Gates]
Shouldn't internet access be provided, subsidized, or regulated by the gov't as is any essential utility?
I think the biggest problem would be in convincing governments (especially at a federal level) that internet service is an essential utility. Those who are unfamiliar with the internet and/or those whom for the internet is not essential may not see the need for regulation. Never mind convincing them that broadband is essential.
But I think you're right. The only way to insure access to the entire country, and to insure uniform, quality service is for some government regulation to be imposed. Companies that offer this service will fight regulation tooth and nail, but it may ultimately be in their best interest.
As far as municipal networks go, I think there are too many problems with censorship. With the line being owned and operated by the government, they would argue that they should be able to control the content being carried over it. I'll settle for a slower service that's unfiltered than a faster service that is filtered. I'd hate to be doing a research paper on, say Nazi Germany, and get held up because anything with the word "Nazi" in it gets filtered out (of course, there are bigger issues than this; it's just what came to mind).
Noticing that my comments are getting longer, but aren't really saying any more,
Bush has turned this man into a scapegoat, a punching bag for 300 million angry americans to get their agression out on. Bush has asked for the death of this man, without fair trial.
If I am mistaken, feel free to correct me, but as far as I know Bush has neither claimed Osama Bin Laden was guilty or called for his death. He has, however, stated that those responsible for the acts would be brought to justice. This is different from calling for a man's death. This is calling for a man to be brought to trial. On the second not, Osama Bin Laden has been declared the "prime suspect" because informatin so far leads back to his organization.
But the Bush administration could not allow him to be 'innocent', they would have to admit that this attack was actually performed by 18 individuals who hate the US as a direct result of Bush administration policies in the middle east!
Again, correct me if I am wrong, but these acts were carried out by extremists, by radicals, whose world view is twisted. Such is my understanding: The attack traces to two factors: Desert Storm and Israel. On the former: Groups like Osama Bin Laden's were deeply angered by U.S. involvement, and the placement of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, Islam's holy land. They objected to the Saudi government asking the U.S. for help and protection, and would not dare attack Saudi Arabia. On the latter: These extremists hate the U.S. because we (try to) play the role of moderator between the Israelis and the Palistinians. They view this as a unilateral backing of Israel, a country they want wiped off the map.
As far as I know, the culprits are already dead, they were on the planes. There's nobody left to kill. It wasn't a 'declaration of war', it was a group of angry individuals doing what they thought was best for their people.
The point here is that an attack as well planned, and well carried out required a strong organization backing it up. The attacks were years in the making, allowing the hijackers to learn security details about the airports, get flight training, and coordinate their efforts to happen at the same time. It is extremely unlikely (virtually impossible) that 18 individuals put this plan together and carried it out successfully. These people were extremely well organized, well trained, and well prepared. It is not a stretch to look for a larger organization. One such organization capaple of pulling this off is Bin Laden's. Oh, by the way, Osama Bin Laden, three years ago, openly declared war on the United States, calling for muslims to kill U.S. citizens. Not much of a stretch to suspect him.
It's good that we now have a more balanced, more complete picture of what happened to Scott and his men. It's overly simplistic to say that he was unprepared and didn't belong there. He ran against conditions he didn't expect (granted, he should have been better prepared for the worst case scenario).
The man (and the rest of the team) made mistakes, and got caught in a bad situation. But to either to deride him or glorify him makes it to simple. He was a man, trying to do something that had never been done before. In the end he failed: He was beaten to the South Pole and never made it out of Antartica. But he TRIED. And that's more than a lot of other people did (including those who derided him).
Not all heroes are successes; not every mission that falls short is a failure.
Wondering how (or if) I'll be remembered in a hundred years,
Stand on the side of continued complete freedom and invite the terrorists in with open arms. Or give up a few freedoms and help stop the next attack before it starts.
There are better ways to protect the safety of American citizens than forcing them to give up their freedoms. With no other reference, I will use the recent tragedy as an example. Facial recognition technology, which could certainly impose on privacy, may not have done much to prevent the attacks. It is only effective when the terrorists attempting to take over a plane already have their image on file. In such a well-planned attack as this, all the terrorist organization would have to do is send a relatively new recruit who Western authorities have not connected to terrorism yet. On the other hand, increasing security both at airports and in the air can be done without sacrificing freedoms. Add air marshals to flights to act as on-board security. Expand weapons searched beyond guns, bombs, and knives to include other potential weapons. Also, expand weapons searches beyond passengers to include airport support staff. Institute background checks before hiring airport staff. Install thicker, stronger security doors between the cockpit and the cabin.
While all these things are specific to the airline industry, I believe they make my point. There are ways to increase security without hampering civil liberties.
Another point: the best way to track the movements and intentions of a terrorist organization is not to scan the communications (phone, e-mail) of ordinary American (or European, etc) citizens. Nay, my good sir, the best way to gather this information is to infiltrate the organization (for the intelligence impaired, plant a spy). Human intelligence (used in this context to mean information gathered by spies) has been ditched in recent years in favor of electronic surveillance (which has civil liberties issues, obviously). Better information can be gathered, with little to no expense to American civil liberties, by taking better advantage of the CIA's human intelligence capabilities. Also, it might be a good idea to allow the CIA to assassinate terrorist leaders (which requires Congressional action, I believe).
The founders of this nation were willing to die for their ideals, for their liberties. Have we become so comfortable, so lazy and complacent, that we would sacrifice these freedoms for percieved safety?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
So, I say to you, cowardly one, either realize your folly, or move to Afghanistan and lead a miserable (but "safe"), controlled (but "safe") life dictated entirely by the government (but "safe").
Not willing to give up my freedom, even if others are,
I don't get this. I just don't see how the two are inter-connected. Someone help me out, because I must be an idiot. How does this:
The Jewish group B'nai Brith Canada is calling for stricter regulation of hate-related material on the Internet following Tuesday's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
fit with this:
However, last year the CSIS issued a report in which it warned that "computers, modems and the Internet are enhancing the operational capabilities of terrorist organizations." The report cautioned, "Terrorists have improved their use of advanced technologies to protect and expedite lines of communication and funding, both nationally and internationally; this has increased the chances that planning for the next terrorist attack may not be detected."
Here's my question: How do these connect? My understanding is this: Hate groups want their filth seen by as many people as possible, so they put it up in the open. Terrorist groups, execpt possibly in the area of recruiting, would want to stay as secretive as possible. You don't post your plans to a message board where it can be plainly seen by anyone . Even in the recruiting aspect, wouldn't publicly posting recruitments be counter-productive? "To join (Known Terrorist Group), meet at the corner of The Feds are Waiting For You Avenue and You Idiot Street in Montreal." Wouldn't this just make certain movents of the groups more traceable, even under current law? (There would certainly be probable cause).
As far as terrorist communication via the internet goes, wouldn't most communications be done via direct e-mail? And tracking these communications would require serious privacy violations. (On a lighter note, it would be strange if a terrorist group was brought down because it got caught spamming)
So, in summary, here's my point. I don't see how restricting speech (as despicable as most agree that it is) has any effect on a terrorist organization. This may be just because I am an idiot, so feel free to explain it to me.
Confused and waiting for someone smart to explain it all to me,
What damn reason do we need new space suits for. The arguments here sound cosmetic.
The new spacesuits are being designed with Mars in mind. The old EVA spacesuits weigh 300 pounds in Earth gravity, and would weigh 114 pounds on Mars. Not exactly easy to work in. Not only that, but the current spacesuit would be prone to lock-ups in a Martian environment. The mechanical joints of the suit (required because the air pressure makes bending the suit impossible otherwise) could easily be fouled by Martian dust. This is not a problem in space, and not really a problem on the moon.
And if you want a skin tight suit that will withstand a crack from a washer going 20,000 miles an hour forget it
A: Like I said, the new suits are designed with Mars in mind (where washers going 20 KMPH isn't exaclty a problem), and B: This is a problem already addressed by NASA on current spacewalks. Missions are planned to avoid floating debris (NORAD currently tracks all objects in Earth orbit 1 cm in diameter or larger), and the space shuttle itself is used as a shield against debris any smaller.
So, yeah, the new spacesuits are needed if we have any plans of going to Mars.
And in response to this:
Yeah. I wish I had some beta XP style suit with many new features so that I could die in cold space all alone.
Unlike Micro$oft, NASA actually tests things before going into full production.
From the article: Further probes, including spectroanalyses, are necessary to prove that the spots contain materials that are capable of photosynthesis.
While the observations of the changing dark spots and the conditions under the ice suggest the possibility of life, nothing can be said for sure until more tests are conducted.
This new evidence does raise some intruiging new possibilities, but it's too early to speculate that it may represent primitive Martian life.
Wondering how "Where is the bathroom?" translates into Martian,
Fork in the Road
on
eBay Beats DMCA
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
While this victory by eBay is an important one, only time will tell why. Hopefully, it will help copyright law and enforcement get back to a more reasonable path. But, it could have the opposite effect. The MPAA and RIAA may donate some money to some influential congressmen (read: bribe) and add some more quasi-constitutional teeth to the monster known as the DMCA (God that sounds corny).
But do they supply Barry White records and mood lighting?
Three quarters of the way to the insane asylum,
Re:Preview of what's to come...
on
Internet2 Update
·
· Score: 2
And in a few years, it will be opened up to the public.
While I agree Internet2 technology will be open to the public, it won't be available in a few years. A few decades is more realistic. Hell, most people still can't get the full benefits of the current infrastructure. About 95% of Internet users are connected by 56K (or lower) modems. The infrastructure for DSL and cable (1 - 10 Mbps) is by no means complete, never mind one for 100+ Mbps. From the article: "Right now about 95 percent of U.S. netizens access the Internet using 56K modems; upgrading the public infrastructure to achieve 10,000 times that level of performance could take decades."
While I would love to surf Internet2: Revenge of the Nerds, I realistically won't be able to for quite a while.
Apologizing in advance if I sound like a whiny bitch,
Just as long as this "slap on the wrist" is hard enough to keep Micro$oft in line in the future.
Note to pessimists: I don't think there's a chance in hell of Micro$oft falling into line either, so don't reply to this effect. ___________________________
They've cleaned up their image enough to get away with what they've done in the past.
Does this mean that if a serial killer walks into court showered, shaved, and in a clean suit he gets a lighter sentence?
Suing M$ for time lost and emotional stress resulting from system crashes,
Seriously -- practices like this are becoming far too acceptable by the general public. Why? Does it start at home? Are we as a society raising drones who refuse to question authority or take an active role in something as running this city/county/country (i.e. voting)?
The answer is simple: expansion (and simplification) of media and resulting simplification of public perception. Today, more than ever, the problems of society are covered in mass media (often in simplistic fashion). There is a perception that morality in this country is falling apart, but really we're just more aware of problems that were already there. Crime rates are declining, but today more than ever people are afraid. And when people are scared, they are willing to sacrifice some of their basic freedoms to allay their fears. If technique X infringes on right Y, but catches Z criminals, it suddenly becomes O.K.
Extended out, continuing to sacrifice basic rights for (percieved) safety, you arrive at an Orwellian state.
SUCKS, don't it?
Out of intelligent things to say and searching for good marijuana,
The Supreme Court decision actually has very little to do with Carnivore.
Yes, it does very much have to do with Carnivore. Did you read the article? Didn't this stand out?:
Unlike other court-ordered electronic surveillance tools, Carnivore, as it is still widely known, gives law enforcers access to the communications of all the service provider's customers, critics have charged.
The way Carnivore works, it scans all traffic from an ISP, not just the individual the warrant was issued for. Therefore, it is unreasonable search. It's kind of like saying... "Well, we know there's a murderer on this street, so let's search every house along it." And that certainly is intrusive, and illegal.
Carnivore is illegal, and must be eliminated. I just pray it doesn't get a second life as a black-budget project in the NSA or CIA.
Scanning government documents for signs of intelligence,
The problem (for the oil companies) is that it will be too efficient. The oil industry rakes in billions because we use so much oil to do so little. How can they keep up their insane profits (which Bush is doing everything in his power to protect) if people use oil for 10 times as many applications but use 10 times less (because of efficiency)? That's why big oil (and its lap dog, President Bush) will try to stop this type of technology. It's profitable, but not profitable enough.
The thing is, though, that this technology is absolutely necessary. Current predictions show that oil production will drop of drastically beginning in 2010 (because of dwindling reserves). If we don't start switching to cleaner, more efficient systems now, we'll be fucked. And not three generations from now, but soon.
Bush wants to keep the economy humming on oil, but what happens when we start running low? That's where this comes in. So I hope and pray that this gets developed, and more importantly, implemented.
Wondering why in the hell you read this entire comment,
But if Yahoo does win, will it be a temporary victory? Only to be erased by the Hague convention? Or will the leaders of this country break years of precedent by doing something that...gasp...makes sense?
I hope that Yahoo does win, and that it does stick. We cannot allow foriegn laws to dictate American behavior (In other words, local stupidity must always override global stupidity).
Reminding the public that there is a law on the books banning whaling in Oklahoma,
Are we going post rants every single time someone defends their copyright? Do we really want to live in a world without intellectual property?
The problem isn't really with a company protecting their copyrights. They are well within their rights to do so. The problem is... drumroll... the copyright laws themselves. IP laws are so restrictive that companies are able to do things like this. You can't really blame IPIX, they're just taking advantage of bad laws. The question is, do copyright laws ever get fixed, or do we spend the rest of our lives bitching?
Obviously its the latter, so bitch away.
Hoping they won't sue me for swiveling my head and creating panoramic views of my bathroom,
Slashdot Mirror
This comment copy-protected (altough some researchers have told me that it can be defeated by cut-and-paste),
But that industry says it will not put a stranglehold on the download sector, and is planning to work together with a new, legitimate Napster that will launch before the end of the year.
Is it me, or does this quote sound like a little kid saying: "No, mommy. I won't eat all the cookies. I'll share some with my little brother."
I mean, come on. How naive do they think people are? Everybody knows that given the chance, they'll monopolize the download sector and crush (through illegal use of the legal process) legitimate services.
I say kudos (the congratulation, not the candy) to the EU for putting a halt to MusicNet and Pressplay until it can be assured that the download sector is a competative one.
This quote brought to you by MoronCo. Industries, the leading source of stupidity on the internet,
Is this true? Does the RIAA allow us to make backup copies of our media? I was under the impression that making any copy of my audio CDs was verboten, whether onto eighth-inch tape, CD media, mp3, ogg, or whatever.
/. article five years from now:
I can just see the
RIAA PROPOSES MIND WIPES
Posted by CmdrTaco on Oct 12, 2006.
From the song-stuck-in-the-head-dept.
Anonymous Coward writes: "The RIAA is pushing legislation that would allow them to randomly scan people's heads, to insure that they have not illegally memorized copyrighted material. Those who are caught will have the songs removed from memory. The RIAA, under this legislation, would not be responsible for collateral damage including permanent, total amnesia. One RIAA spokesman says: 'How are we expected to make a reasonable living if anyone can simply play back a song in their heads from memory? I can't see how it can be done. This legislation only insures that copyrighted material is not pirated, nothing else.'"
You know, I wouln't actually be surprised if they tried it,
The potential for saving endangered species is certainly interesting; however it would require vast ranges of DNA sample to provide any genetic diversity. This would require immediate action and plenty of funding, which in this field may be hard to come by.
Jurassic Park thought: Since the baby mouflon (I think that's right, I'm too lazy to check) was "created" using the egg of a domestic sheep and carried in a domestic sheep, it might be possible to clone long-extinct species. Obviously, this would be for research purposes only (to study anatomy and behavior, which are all but impossible with fossils) because there simply wouldn't be enough genetic material to even think about resurrecting the species (Besides, I'm not too keen on a T-Rex hunting in the woods outside Seattle. It might eat the Sasquatch).
I'll be surprised as Hell (can Hell be surprised?) if anyone actually reads this comment,
- It establishes a level playing field. Big studios like Universal have to go through the same legal hoops as everyone else. From the article: "'This decision means record companies aren't in total control of how music will be exploited on the Net,' said Whitney Broussard, a music lawyer at Selverne Mandelbaum & Mintz. 'They are going to be on the same footing as other Webcasters, and they will have to negotiate publishing rights as well.'
- Universal is being hung up, as it were, by its own petard. The same legal hurdles that hurt MP3.com and Napster apply to Universal. From the article: "Like Napster's service, the labels' offerings must win publishers' go-ahead if they are to avoid legal disputes." Also from the article: "Universal spokesman Bob Bernstein said the company 'disagrees with the court's opinion, and we intend to appeal.'"
This isn't about taking a shot at a big company. It's about the rules being the same for everyone, and big studios not getting any extra help from the courts. SoSo, what does this mean, you ask? If Universal wins, the rules are rolled back and sites like MP3.com can go back to business without interference from the big boys. If they lose, they are forced into, gasp, fair market practices.
Consistently stupid,
There are those who are evil. They desire nothing other than to prey upon their fellow human beings.
.001% might use crypto for malicious intents? And what does it do? Those malicious messsages will still find their way to their destinations. That cannot be prevented. You can stop an item, a thing from being carried abroad; but you cannot stop an idea. You cannot stop thought. And this being the case, banning crypto or leaving backdoors is pointless. All it does it take away privacy.
There are those who are good. They do nothing but help fellow human beings.
And then there's the rest of us, the other 99.999%, who are somewhere in the middle. They are neither angels nor devils. They live their lives, usually never harming anyone else, but not particularly going out of their way to do good for anyone else either.
But the actual tools used are neither. They just are.
Are we to infringe on the privacy of the 99.999% because the
Having used up my brainpower for the day,
It does seem to be a bit much. OSI's list of approved licences is now at 26. In a few years, it may take longer to figure out which licence to use than to actually write the code itself!
.no idea what I'm talking about 99.999% of the time,
I think that a Dynamic Open Source License (DOSI) could solve a lot of problems, but if not done right it could also turn into an unwieldy mess (imagine filtering through ten or twenty pages whorth of checkboxes).
But then again, I am an idiot, and really have
Jesus, I wonder how long before this "feature" makes it into other MS products
Then, it'll show up in MS Word
New Document - MS Word 2002
_________________________
Microsoft Sucks [Typing this statement has violated your EULA. MS Windows will now contact Microsoft headquarters to inform them of the infraction. Expect MS Storm Troopers within the next hour. -- Emperor Gates]
I'm as mad as Hell and I can't take it anymore,
Shouldn't internet access be provided, subsidized, or regulated by the gov't as is any essential utility?
I think the biggest problem would be in convincing governments (especially at a federal level) that internet service is an essential utility. Those who are unfamiliar with the internet and/or those whom for the internet is not essential may not see the need for regulation. Never mind convincing them that broadband is essential.
But I think you're right. The only way to insure access to the entire country, and to insure uniform, quality service is for some government regulation to be imposed. Companies that offer this service will fight regulation tooth and nail, but it may ultimately be in their best interest.
As far as municipal networks go, I think there are too many problems with censorship. With the line being owned and operated by the government, they would argue that they should be able to control the content being carried over it. I'll settle for a slower service that's unfiltered than a faster service that is filtered. I'd hate to be doing a research paper on, say Nazi Germany, and get held up because anything with the word "Nazi" in it gets filtered out (of course, there are bigger issues than this; it's just what came to mind).
Noticing that my comments are getting longer, but aren't really saying any more,
Bush has turned this man into a scapegoat, a punching bag for 300 million angry americans to get their agression out on. Bush has asked for the death of this man, without fair trial.
If I am mistaken, feel free to correct me, but as far as I know Bush has neither claimed Osama Bin Laden was guilty or called for his death. He has, however, stated that those responsible for the acts would be brought to justice. This is different from calling for a man's death. This is calling for a man to be brought to trial. On the second not, Osama Bin Laden has been declared the "prime suspect" because informatin so far leads back to his organization.
But the Bush administration could not allow him to be 'innocent', they would have to admit that this attack was actually performed by 18 individuals who hate the US as a direct result of Bush administration policies in the middle east!
Again, correct me if I am wrong, but these acts were carried out by extremists, by radicals, whose world view is twisted. Such is my understanding: The attack traces to two factors: Desert Storm and Israel. On the former: Groups like Osama Bin Laden's were deeply angered by U.S. involvement, and the placement of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, Islam's holy land. They objected to the Saudi government asking the U.S. for help and protection, and would not dare attack Saudi Arabia. On the latter: These extremists hate the U.S. because we (try to) play the role of moderator between the Israelis and the Palistinians. They view this as a unilateral backing of Israel, a country they want wiped off the map.
As far as I know, the culprits are already dead, they were on the planes. There's nobody left to kill. It wasn't a 'declaration of war', it was a group of angry individuals doing what they thought was best for their people.
The point here is that an attack as well planned, and well carried out required a strong organization backing it up. The attacks were years in the making, allowing the hijackers to learn security details about the airports, get flight training, and coordinate their efforts to happen at the same time. It is extremely unlikely (virtually impossible) that 18 individuals put this plan together and carried it out successfully. These people were extremely well organized, well trained, and well prepared. It is not a stretch to look for a larger organization. One such organization capaple of pulling this off is Bin Laden's. Oh, by the way, Osama Bin Laden, three years ago, openly declared war on the United States, calling for muslims to kill U.S. citizens. Not much of a stretch to suspect him.
Tired of ranting and ready to go to sleep,
It's good that we now have a more balanced, more complete picture of what happened to Scott and his men. It's overly simplistic to say that he was unprepared and didn't belong there. He ran against conditions he didn't expect (granted, he should have been better prepared for the worst case scenario).
The man (and the rest of the team) made mistakes, and got caught in a bad situation. But to either to deride him or glorify him makes it to simple. He was a man, trying to do something that had never been done before. In the end he failed: He was beaten to the South Pole and never made it out of Antartica. But he TRIED. And that's more than a lot of other people did (including those who derided him).
Not all heroes are successes; not every mission that falls short is a failure.
Wondering how (or if) I'll be remembered in a hundred years,
Stand on the side of continued complete freedom and invite the terrorists in with open arms. Or give up a few freedoms and help stop the next attack before it starts.
There are better ways to protect the safety of American citizens than forcing them to give up their freedoms. With no other reference, I will use the recent tragedy as an example. Facial recognition technology, which could certainly impose on privacy, may not have done much to prevent the attacks. It is only effective when the terrorists attempting to take over a plane already have their image on file. In such a well-planned attack as this, all the terrorist organization would have to do is send a relatively new recruit who Western authorities have not connected to terrorism yet. On the other hand, increasing security both at airports and in the air can be done without sacrificing freedoms. Add air marshals to flights to act as on-board security. Expand weapons searched beyond guns, bombs, and knives to include other potential weapons. Also, expand weapons searches beyond passengers to include airport support staff. Institute background checks before hiring airport staff. Install thicker, stronger security doors between the cockpit and the cabin.
While all these things are specific to the airline industry, I believe they make my point. There are ways to increase security without hampering civil liberties.
Another point: the best way to track the movements and intentions of a terrorist organization is not to scan the communications (phone, e-mail) of ordinary American (or European, etc) citizens. Nay, my good sir, the best way to gather this information is to infiltrate the organization (for the intelligence impaired, plant a spy). Human intelligence (used in this context to mean information gathered by spies) has been ditched in recent years in favor of electronic surveillance (which has civil liberties issues, obviously). Better information can be gathered, with little to no expense to American civil liberties, by taking better advantage of the CIA's human intelligence capabilities. Also, it might be a good idea to allow the CIA to assassinate terrorist leaders (which requires Congressional action, I believe).
The founders of this nation were willing to die for their ideals, for their liberties. Have we become so comfortable, so lazy and complacent, that we would sacrifice these freedoms for percieved safety?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
So, I say to you, cowardly one, either realize your folly, or move to Afghanistan and lead a miserable (but "safe"), controlled (but "safe") life dictated entirely by the government (but "safe").
Not willing to give up my freedom, even if others are,
I don't get this. I just don't see how the two are inter-connected. Someone help me out, because I must be an idiot. How does this:
The Jewish group B'nai Brith Canada is calling for stricter regulation of hate-related material on the Internet following Tuesday's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
fit with this:
However, last year the CSIS issued a report in which it warned that "computers, modems and the Internet are enhancing the operational capabilities of terrorist organizations." The report cautioned, "Terrorists have improved their use of advanced technologies to protect and expedite lines of communication and funding, both nationally and internationally; this has increased the chances that planning for the next terrorist attack may not be detected."
Here's my question: How do these connect? My understanding is this: Hate groups want their filth seen by as many people as possible, so they put it up in the open. Terrorist groups, execpt possibly in the area of recruiting, would want to stay as secretive as possible. You don't post your plans to a message board where it can be plainly seen by anyone . Even in the recruiting aspect, wouldn't publicly posting recruitments be counter-productive? "To join (Known Terrorist Group), meet at the corner of The Feds are Waiting For You Avenue and You Idiot Street in Montreal." Wouldn't this just make certain movents of the groups more traceable, even under current law? (There would certainly be probable cause).
As far as terrorist communication via the internet goes, wouldn't most communications be done via direct e-mail? And tracking these communications would require serious privacy violations. (On a lighter note, it would be strange if a terrorist group was brought down because it got caught spamming)
So, in summary, here's my point. I don't see how restricting speech (as despicable as most agree that it is) has any effect on a terrorist organization. This may be just because I am an idiot, so feel free to explain it to me.
Confused and waiting for someone smart to explain it all to me,
What damn reason do we need new space suits for. The arguments here sound cosmetic.
The new spacesuits are being designed with Mars in mind. The old EVA spacesuits weigh 300 pounds in Earth gravity, and would weigh 114 pounds on Mars. Not exactly easy to work in. Not only that, but the current spacesuit would be prone to lock-ups in a Martian environment. The mechanical joints of the suit (required because the air pressure makes bending the suit impossible otherwise) could easily be fouled by Martian dust. This is not a problem in space, and not really a problem on the moon.
And if you want a skin tight suit that will withstand a crack from a washer going 20,000 miles an hour forget it
A: Like I said, the new suits are designed with Mars in mind (where washers going 20 KMPH isn't exaclty a problem), and B: This is a problem already addressed by NASA on current spacewalks. Missions are planned to avoid floating debris (NORAD currently tracks all objects in Earth orbit 1 cm in diameter or larger), and the space shuttle itself is used as a shield against debris any smaller.
So, yeah, the new spacesuits are needed if we have any plans of going to Mars.
And in response to this:
Yeah. I wish I had some beta XP style suit with many new features so that I could die in cold space all alone.
Unlike Micro$oft, NASA actually tests things before going into full production.
Praying for the victims at the WTC and Pentagon,
Introducing the Intel Paramecium II processor, harnessing the power of millions of ciliates for your computing needs.
From the article: Further probes, including spectroanalyses, are necessary to prove that the spots contain materials that are capable of photosynthesis.
While the observations of the changing dark spots and the conditions under the ice suggest the possibility of life, nothing can be said for sure until more tests are conducted.
This new evidence does raise some intruiging new possibilities, but it's too early to speculate that it may represent primitive Martian life.
Wondering how "Where is the bathroom?" translates into Martian,
While this victory by eBay is an important one, only time will tell why. Hopefully, it will help copyright law and enforcement get back to a more reasonable path. But, it could have the opposite effect. The MPAA and RIAA may donate some money to some influential congressmen (read: bribe) and add some more quasi-constitutional teeth to the monster known as the DMCA (God that sounds corny).
Just waking up and still a bit cranky,
But do they supply Barry White records and mood lighting?
Three quarters of the way to the insane asylum,
And in a few years, it will be opened up to the public.
While I agree Internet2 technology will be open to the public, it won't be available in a few years. A few decades is more realistic. Hell, most people still can't get the full benefits of the current infrastructure. About 95% of Internet users are connected by 56K (or lower) modems. The infrastructure for DSL and cable (1 - 10 Mbps) is by no means complete, never mind one for 100+ Mbps. From the article: "Right now about 95 percent of U.S. netizens access the Internet using 56K modems; upgrading the public infrastructure to achieve 10,000 times that level of performance could take decades."
While I would love to surf Internet2: Revenge of the Nerds, I realistically won't be able to for quite a while.
Apologizing in advance if I sound like a whiny bitch,
Just as long as this "slap on the wrist" is hard enough to keep Micro$oft in line in the future.
Note to pessimists: I don't think there's a chance in hell of Micro$oft falling into line either, so don't reply to this effect.
___________________________
They've cleaned up their image enough to get away with what they've done in the past.
Does this mean that if a serial killer walks into court showered, shaved, and in a clean suit he gets a lighter sentence?
Suing M$ for time lost and emotional stress resulting from system crashes,
Seriously -- practices like this are becoming far too acceptable by the general public. Why? Does it start at home? Are we as a society raising drones who refuse to question authority or take an active role in something as running this city/county/country (i.e. voting)?
The answer is simple: expansion (and simplification) of media and resulting simplification of public perception. Today, more than ever, the problems of society are covered in mass media (often in simplistic fashion). There is a perception that morality in this country is falling apart, but really we're just more aware of problems that were already there. Crime rates are declining, but today more than ever people are afraid. And when people are scared, they are willing to sacrifice some of their basic freedoms to allay their fears. If technique X infringes on right Y, but catches Z criminals, it suddenly becomes O.K.
Extended out, continuing to sacrifice basic rights for (percieved) safety, you arrive at an Orwellian state.
SUCKS, don't it?
Out of intelligent things to say and searching for good marijuana,
The Supreme Court decision actually has very little to do with Carnivore.
... "Well, we know there's a murderer on this street, so let's search every house along it." And that certainly is intrusive, and illegal.
Yes, it does very much have to do with Carnivore. Did you read the article? Didn't this stand out?:
Unlike other court-ordered electronic surveillance tools, Carnivore, as it is still widely known, gives law enforcers access to the communications of all the service provider's customers, critics have charged.
The way Carnivore works, it scans all traffic from an ISP, not just the individual the warrant was issued for. Therefore, it is unreasonable search. It's kind of like saying
Carnivore is illegal, and must be eliminated. I just pray it doesn't get a second life as a black-budget project in the NSA or CIA.
Scanning government documents for signs of intelligence,
The problem (for the oil companies) is that it will be too efficient. The oil industry rakes in billions because we use so much oil to do so little. How can they keep up their insane profits (which Bush is doing everything in his power to protect) if people use oil for 10 times as many applications but use 10 times less (because of efficiency)? That's why big oil (and its lap dog, President Bush) will try to stop this type of technology. It's profitable, but not profitable enough.
The thing is, though, that this technology is absolutely necessary. Current predictions show that oil production will drop of drastically beginning in 2010 (because of dwindling reserves). If we don't start switching to cleaner, more efficient systems now, we'll be fucked. And not three generations from now, but soon.
Bush wants to keep the economy humming on oil, but what happens when we start running low? That's where this comes in. So I hope and pray that this gets developed, and more importantly, implemented.
Wondering why in the hell you read this entire comment,
But if Yahoo does win, will it be a temporary victory? Only to be erased by the Hague convention? Or will the leaders of this country break years of precedent by doing something that...gasp...makes sense?
I hope that Yahoo does win, and that it does stick. We cannot allow foriegn laws to dictate American behavior (In other words, local stupidity must always override global stupidity).
Reminding the public that there is a law on the books banning whaling in Oklahoma,
Are we going post rants every single time someone defends their copyright? Do we really want to live in a world without intellectual property?
... drumroll ... the copyright laws themselves. IP laws are so restrictive that companies are able to do things like this. You can't really blame IPIX, they're just taking advantage of bad laws. The question is, do copyright laws ever get fixed, or do we spend the rest of our lives bitching?
The problem isn't really with a company protecting their copyrights. They are well within their rights to do so. The problem is
Obviously its the latter, so bitch away.
Hoping they won't sue me for swiveling my head and creating panoramic views of my bathroom,