I fail to see any point you may have, even if true.
As long as people are still either a.) legally buying the content, or b.) choosing to not obtain it at all via any means, it still shouldn't be a problem, then, right?
Forget for a moment the RIAA, US copyright law, corporate media owners, and the like:
In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable for an owner of a work, or their duly specified agent, to protect that ownership, even when the work may be freely copied in an unlimited fashion, and to use the legal frameworks provided by the society in which it exists, to enforce or demand recompense for such ownership?
I suspect some people would honestly answer "No" to the above question. Fine; that represents a fundamentally different philosophical outlook on reward for one's work, if desired, and so on. I trust, therefore, that your disdain for such a system also means you're not a part of activity that would leave you on the receiving end of a legal suit from the RIAA.
As for this particular case: so the RIAA has long-established themselves as a bunch of shameless pricks. So what? Just because someone dies doesn't automatically invalidate a potentially valid legal claim. Sure tugs at the heartstrings, though, doesn't it?
Further, to those who would argue that all of the RIAA, industry, and/or legal activity on this front represent nothing more than a "failed business model", might I suggest something? If this has so utterly failed, why not develop the new model that replaces it? Hint: this won't be with the same commercial artists, so stop downloading and/or "sharing" their music instead of buying it. Don't consume that product, at all. Be a part of the solution to create and encourage the new artists, the new distribution channels, the new promotional channels, and the new studios and "labels" (yes, anything that gets sufficiently large and successful will have multiple layers of hierarchy, organization, and even bureaucracy), all of which will be required to support this new model to varying degrees.
But if you so heartily disagree with the current model, don't steal[1] (or otherwise consume) their goods, or enable others to do so.
Simple, isn't it?
[1] Oops, I meant "infringe on the copyright of". Still, the point stands. Isn't it fairly straightforward? Either legitimately buy it, or don't, and be ready for the consequences[2]. If you disagree with the "business model" or the legal issues surrounding it, don't be a part of it. And that includes not obtaining the content in question. Then all of a sudden, magically, the legal issues and artificial (or self-inflicted) fears of injury from a draconian legal system go away. Funny how that works!
[2] No one's arguing that the RIAA's model of figuring losses is valid, but it's equally (and massively) disingenuous, not to mention utterly ridiculous, to claim that nothing has been lost at all.
Um, I was exaggerating to make a point that it's not at all hard to point out California on a map, even with all political boundaries and names removed, especially for someone who lives there. Nice job, though, continuing the troll and insinuating that I don't know where California is, either. Bravo.
I believe that people can't name what states border California with all the names removed, but not that white collar professionals who *live there* can't locate the state itself on a map if the text is removed. I mean, all you have to do is freaking point at the entire west coast of North America and you've "found California". If true, there has to be more to it than that, but I'll concede that most people are morons, and when presented with a situation that is slightly unexpected, they can be fools. Also, I find no record of a person by that name, or with a similar spelling, at the CBS affiliate in San Francisco.
The fact of the matter is that there are MANY people who are trying to make things similar to this out to be some kind of a new occurrence, either implying our directly stating outright that this is something that has resulted from the current administration. I don't care how many fundamentalist idiots think they "have the ear" of the President. They simply don't.
"Faith-based initiatives", as architected by the administration, is not necessarily a bad idea. I'm not for blurring the lines between "Church" and "State" at all. But to not recognize that there are religious people out there who can ALSO do a great deal of good in communities, and do even more good when provided with assistance similar to what other non-profits and similar organizations get, is ignorant. Do a lot of these people want to use them as some kind of evangelical platform? I'm sure they do. Can "slippery slopes" exist? Sure. But to completely discount any value of the work of people who also happen to be affiliated with any number of religious organizations, some almost completely benign in nature from an evangelical standpoint, is foolish.
And as to the only other things I can even think of to which this might be referring:
Intelligent design - has NO place whatsoever in any course material on biological sciences, except as perhaps to note that ID is in fact NOT "science", and is merely a philosophical idea at best. But does it have a place in the "classroom"? Absolutely. In a religious studies class, or perhaps a philosophy class. But not a science class. This administration's position on ID is effectively neutral, which does allow some backwards elements to push ID as a real scientific alternative in science classrooms, when it's not. But this isn't something that's come from the top levels of government.
Human embryonic stem cell research - coming from the institution that currently licenses nearly ALL of the available US human embryonic stem cell lines, this is an important issue. But there's also nothing to say that human embryonic stem cells are a panacea, for anything. They are a hotbed because it involves destroying something that is technically "human life", from a scientific perspective, but is already part of a system that discards the embryos in the pursuit of a something that is societally accepted; namely, the creation of families. The problem is that there is not an endless supply, and it's all well and good to argue that they'd be thrown away anyway. Anyone who understands the basics of supply and demand knows that when research needs for new human embryonic stem cells exceeds supply, we have what I would hope would be a fairly hefty ethical dilemma on our hands: when, and at what stages, is it acceptable to end "human life" for the benefit of individuals or mankind at large? This question shouldn't be overlooked in the name of "research". Likewise, the intrinsic value of research and learning shouldn't be discounted for political goals.
In sum, I wasn't trolling. Everyone seems eager to blame everything on the "current administration", even though the summary doesn't say it. I'm sure that most of the other comments here (which I haven't even read yet), will be reflective of that. It's not trolling to point out that ignorant people are nothing new, particularly in the US. I'm not saying some of the environments that are enabled by SOME in the Republican party aren't to blame for certain aspects of this.
By the way, some people believe that the US (and indeed the West at large) needs to take a very aggressive foreign policy stance on things like militant Panislamic radicalism. Some people also believe that the problems in the mideast aren't a monster of the US's (or West's) creation exclusively, or even mostly. Some people understand that it's possible for a variety of conditions to exist such that a tyrannical, fascist philosophy will grow, like it has among some Islamic radicals similar to some beliefs in Christianity in the 11th century, and that the US i
...the idea among Americans that humans didn't "evolve" from earlier forms of animals isn't new, and definitely hasn't changed markedly since 2000.
I'd hope that would be obvious to most people. The figures are mostly unchanged for decades, so the assertion that this is because of "widespread fundamentalism" and the "politicization of science" seems to be somewhat of a politically motivated assertion in itself.
Note that about one third of Americans reject the concept of evolution. It's unfortunate that even if people do want to have a religious or spiritual belief, they can't reconcile it with fairly firmly established scientific truth.
Further note that "fundamentalist religions", as the study refers to them as, are also not new in the United States. A lot of people would like to think that these people have sprouted up from nowhere in the last 6 years, but that's simply not the case.
Apparently I'm smoking the same thing as our new Islamic Studies instructor.
That should read "University of Wisconsin - Madison" (I had typed "University of Wisconsin", then decided I'd better add "Madison", and apparently had difficulty properly executing that last step;-)
...are software licenses/"EULAs" enforceable, not enforceable, or what?
Also, the inclusion of a "no military use" provision presumes that ALL military activity activity, of any type, for any reason, is always negative or undesirable.
I'd hope most sane people are level-headed enough to realize the foolishness of that implied presumption.
And if we want to get into the "ethics" of miltary action, what if the killing of, say, 15,000 can be argued, very convincingly, to have most likely saved hundreds of thousands, or millions, more? How do you measure the benefits of something that has not occurred because it has been prevented? Is there ever any time when a proactive or premptive step can be accepted to have resulted in more overall good than harm, if the only thing that matters is human calculus and bodycounts?
Over what timeframes do you measure? Is there only moral relativism, in that since anyone holding any philosophy can always be argued to be doing what they themselves believe is the "right thing", no one has any moral authority to make a decision that may end lives to save more? Do nation-states and alliances have any value in the global political system? Can free Western nations decide to initiate defensive or offensive military actions to protect their interests, from which presumably the happiness, well-being, and continued existence of many hundreds or millions of people is created? Is any system of government worth protecting? These are very real questions that seem to be ignored. The cynics among us who believe that some particular nation's government is literally already a 1984-style police state in action, bent on ensuring its own power continues to grow at all costs[1], will not be able to answer any of these questions in a reasoned fashion.
Try not to read anything into what I'm saying or assume that I'm talking about a particular event. Just try to imagine a scenario where deadly force may need to be used to prevent more harm, i.e., there is a distinctly net positive effect.
It's all well and good to talk about doing no harm. Just keep in mind that it's sometimes necessary to "do harm" to prevent more of the same.
That's not a warmongering view, an American view, nor a Republican view. That's just a very simple fact of reality that would be discovered by an application of common sense. Anyone who might fall back on the refrain of "but we don't know what really would have happened otherwise, do we?" when presented with an example event is quite frankly choosing to delude themselves, and has chosen the path of willful ignorance under a very thin veil of righteousness.
[1] Completely off-topic aside: it is stunning to me how many well-educated, supposedly intelligent people have let their own political feelings cloud their view to the point of literally believing that 9/11 was a plot hatched out of the US government itself. So many of the claims are simply outrageous:
- The planes that hit the trade center towers were military aircraft made to look like commercial jetliners, but the trade center towers were also actually rigged with explosives; the planes hitting them was merely a diversion. It is apparently not plausible that commercial jetliners could cause the buildings to come down; steel doesn't need to get to its melting point to begin losing an incredibly significant amount of its integrity.
- WTC 7 was also rigged with explosives: it must have been, because the damage to it was only superficial. This ignores the fact that two over-100 story buildings collapsed within ridiculously close proximity, making the entire building structurally unsound. Also, why did WTC 7 need to be destroyed? If the whole idea was to rig buildings with explosives and then fly planes into them as a "diversion", making people incorrectly think that it was planes that brought them down, why would WTC 7 be a part of that conspiracy?
- Even though planes, either unmanned or perhaps the actual jetliners piloted by pa
Well, this is a DARPA proposal. DARPA's charge is to do some sometimes-outlandish research and propose unique solutions to military problems. They attempt to bridge the gap between a basic principle and a high-payoff, revolutionary application. Usually when DARPA is discussing or proposing something, it's far from anywhere near being implemented.
Also, from TFA:
It has been suggested that a nuclear airburst at high-altitude would significantly shorten the operational lifetime of Low Earth Orbiting satellites. Even a "small" detonation (~10-20 kilotons) occurring at altitudes of 125-300 km, could lead to the loss of 90% of all low-earth-orbit satellites within a month. In 2004 there were approximately 250 satellites operating in low-Earth orbit (LEO). These satellites fulfil a large number of roles, including communications, navigation, meteorology, military and science. In the event of a nuclear airburst at high-altitude, or an unusually intense natural injection, this large population of valuable satellites would be threatened. Due to the lifetime of the injected electrons, the manned space programme would need to be placed on hold for a year or more.
- This is a proposed system; not one that has been approved or even designed
- The system would protect hundreds of satellites in low earth orbit from solar storms (or high altitude nuclear detonations)
- Depending on how the system is designed and operated, neither of which have been done yet, it COULD have deleterious effects on certain other communication systems
- They say GPS could be affected, but they ignore the fact that GPS is critical to the US itself
- Certainly the international community should consider implications, and nowhere is it stated or shown that the US is ignoring any obligations, considering the fact that the same possible harmful, but temporary, effects would also be felt by the US
They specifically said it was exploitable on Linux and Windows. They chose Mac OS X because they said that Mac users had a "smug" attitude about security and wanted to show something like this could be done on Mac OS X as well.
So no, it's not speculation that exploitable on other platforms, because the presenters themselves said it was, and specifically said they ultimately chose to demo it on the Apple platform for the reason stated above.
On that note, though, I do agree that the reasoning to use a third-party wireless card in the MacBook was shaky. They said they used it so as not to draw attention to the fact that the internal wireless card in the MacBook is vulnerable, even though they specifically state that the internal card is vulnerable. So how does this do anything to not draw attention to that, given that now, everyone thinks this is an exploit affecting only MacBooks, and not even any other Apple products with the Atheros card, much less any other platform under the sun?
As for "why not demo it on multiple platforms", it sounds like this little exploit is not nearly as easy to set up and take advantage of as they imply. The above writeup also touches on the motives of the presenters as well ("if you watch those 'Get a Mac' commercials enough, it eventually makes you want to stab one of those users in the eye with a lit cigarette or something"). Yeah, no bias there!
So, do we still believe Darwin x86 is a dead/useless OS?
Yes.
Unless hobbyists want to run yet another BSD.
(Let me be clear: by this, I mean Darwin *as a bootable OS*, and not just on x86: on PowerPC as well. What benefits can you name to Apple and Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server customers from being able to run Darwin as a standalone, bootable OS?)
and that noone is interested in the XNU source?
I never said "no one" was interested in xnu source. I said that the majority of the utility of Darwin for people who use Darwin sources comes from the sources for individual components, and mostly NOT the kernel at that, and also not from the ability to build Darwin as a full bootable OS.
In other words, everything I said is still accurate, including my assertions that Apple had not made a decision to "close" the Intel xnu source, but rather just hadn't opened it yet and announced the direction going forward.
Then and now, I believe there could have been far better communication on Apple's part so it wouldn't have seemed like Intel xnu source releases were in limbo, as they essentially were for eight months.
The official announcement by Ernie Prabhakar of Apple is here:
From: Ernest Prabhakar prabhaka@apple.com Date: August 7, 2006 4:15:51 PM PDT To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com, fed-talk@lists.apple.com Subject: Apple Opens Up: Kernel, Mac OS Forge, iCal Server, Bonjour, Launchd
Hi all,
In conjunction with this week's Developer Conference, we have four great pieces of news for Open Source developers:
A. Intel Kernel Sources
As of today, we are posting buildable kernel sources for Intel-based Macs alongside the usual PowerPC (and other Intel) sources, starting with Mac OS X 10.4.7. We regret the delay in readying the new kernel for release, and thank you for your patience.
Mac OS Forge, a new community site hosted by Apple, is being created to support WebKit and other open source projects focused on Mac OS X, especially those looking to transition from OpenDarwin.org.
In order to encourage community participation, source code to the new iCal Server in Leopard Server is now available on Mac OS Forge under the Apache License.*
To further enable and encourage cross-platform adoption, the APSL** sources for Bonjour service discovery and Launchd process management are being re-released under the Apache License and hosted on Mac OS Forge:
Apple is more excited than ever about the power of Open Source development to create value for our (and your) products and customers. I'll be offline much of this week due to WWDC, but I look forward to working with all of you as we move forward to Leopard.
Sincerely, Ernest Prabhakar Open Source Product Manager, Apple WWDC 2006, Aug 7-11, San Francisco http://developer.apple.com/wwdc
No, there haven't been repercussions yet, but there may me (and may already have been internally and unofficially). And if this was indeed wrongful arrest/imprisonment, there may be other more serious ramifications. Now, I understand what you're saying: the guy was still arrested, and if he wants to pursue it, he's got to waste even MORE of his time, and possibly raise the ire of even more cops. Sure, I agree with all that. But the point is, we're all discussing this, and the details of what happened are out (more or less), yes? It wasn't brushed under the rug, and no one was silenced. Yes, a cop could probably walk up to me right now, arrest me for something, and there would be little I could do about it, immediately anyway. But I also have to believe that abuses of the system have mechanisms for recourse and methods via which they can be fixed, including my own ability to press for reform or to bring issues to light. I would imagine that if this was a totally bogus, unwarranted, and inappropriate arrest, there will be consequences for the officer(s) involved, however minor.
I have absolutely no doubt your comment will be quickly moderated up to +5, with a flurry of violent agreement.
But, to answer your questions honestly:
No, I don't "see" 1984 coming. All I see is a government availing itself of everything possible technologically to do what it believes is the right thing, with technology enabling the kind of massive, omnibus monitoring. Can this be abused? Of that I have no doubt. Do I simultaneously believe that, *at present*, it was done with the sole goal of attempting to protect the US and its interests, economic and otherwise, from a terrorist attack (versus thinking that, for example, the US attacked itself on 9/11, in part as an excuse to have wars and monitor its citizenry)? Absolutely. Should it be watched? Again, absolutely: there was not appropriate oversight, in my view. But I do believe some things should remain classified, period; else, a system of classification has no meaning or purpose.
I do NOT believe anything related to PATRIOT, Bush, or the War on Terror has ANYTHING to do with any type of environment, conditions, or policies in a local police agency in the context of arresting someone for taking pictures with a camera phone. If YOU think that, I guess that is your right. However, I see zero connection, but have no problem believing that people who think we're either headed for a police state, or indeed are already there, see an intense connection between the highest levels of federal government and a local, individual police officer's actions.
Indeed, and I'm glad at least one person here realizes it.
In fact, this guy's probably going to come out of this better than he came in, not to mention the officer(s) involved are probably ultimately going to be reprimanded.
Except for that we can "watch" the state, since it got covered by multiple news outlets, the details were revealed, the guy was released and not charged, and we're talking about it now.
Helpless to stop the endless barrage of stories and claims that we're living in an Orwellian 1984 totalitarian police state, when in fact nothing substantial has really changed in 50 years (save the technology, which goes both ways: it gives authorities more systems to abuse, and it gives citizens more vehicles to document and comment, e.g., ubiquitous cell phone cameras and blogs where nearly everyone believes that we already like in a police state).
What *really* scares me is that people genuinely, legitimately believe this, and believe that police and government are out to get them, and that they're all corrupt and only looking for ways to extend their power or line their pockets.
You can. The police were in the wrong here. That's why the guy was released and hasn't been charged with anything. He did nothing wrong. Just some local city cops pissed off that someone was taking pictures of them, and then overreacting. Nothing more, nothing less. No national conspiracy, no general "police vs citizen photographers" crisis.
This was a local police department, they were in the wrong, they guy was released, and hopefully the citizen and/or others who are concerned will press this so that the officer(s) involved are subject to some sort of corrective action.
This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.
It's an action of a local municipal police department, period. These inappropriate actions have been executed by people in positions of authority since the beginning of time. The point is we heard about it, it got covered, and hopefully it will be corrected. And hopefully the police department will issue a directive to think twice before they harass and/or arrest other citizens who aren't doing anything wrong from exercising their own rights.
First of all, this isn't even a "hybrid", since it only seems to feature an electric motor. (And how is this news?)
Second, I'm more interested in GM's next generation MY2008 GMT-900 full-size SUV platform (Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon, Yukon XL, Escalade, Escalade EXT): it will have a full/strong hybrid option, powered by both a 5.3L Vortec V8 featuring Displacement on Demand/Active Fuel Management, which can disable 2, 4, or 6 of the 8 cylinders as necessary, two 30kW electric motors and a continuously variable transmission (with the motors and transmission being in the same physical form factor as the conventional Hydramatic automatic transmission on non-hybrid models). These new SUVs will exceed the already-good fuel economy of the 2007 GMT-900 platform trucks which are already using active fuel management, pushing the city fuel economy to around 30mpg. Then is it still "wrong" to drive an SUV instead of an Accord? (*waits for chorus of "yes" for all kinds of ridiculous reasons* - please, bring out the safety and bumper height arguments too! Maybe all cars on the road can be identical, homogenous boxes that all look like Smarts!)
Being responsible doesn't always have to equate to sacrificing things that are genuinely useful. It can mean making the things people like better.
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see any point you may have, even if true.
As long as people are still either a.) legally buying the content, or b.) choosing to not obtain it at all via any means, it still shouldn't be a problem, then, right?
Forget for a moment the RIAA, US copyright law, corporate media owners, and the like:
In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable for an owner of a work, or their duly specified agent, to protect that ownership, even when the work may be freely copied in an unlimited fashion, and to use the legal frameworks provided by the society in which it exists, to enforce or demand recompense for such ownership?
I suspect some people would honestly answer "No" to the above question. Fine; that represents a fundamentally different philosophical outlook on reward for one's work, if desired, and so on. I trust, therefore, that your disdain for such a system also means you're not a part of activity that would leave you on the receiving end of a legal suit from the RIAA.
As for this particular case: so the RIAA has long-established themselves as a bunch of shameless pricks. So what? Just because someone dies doesn't automatically invalidate a potentially valid legal claim. Sure tugs at the heartstrings, though, doesn't it?
Further, to those who would argue that all of the RIAA, industry, and/or legal activity on this front represent nothing more than a "failed business model", might I suggest something? If this has so utterly failed, why not develop the new model that replaces it? Hint: this won't be with the same commercial artists, so stop downloading and/or "sharing" their music instead of buying it. Don't consume that product, at all. Be a part of the solution to create and encourage the new artists, the new distribution channels, the new promotional channels, and the new studios and "labels" (yes, anything that gets sufficiently large and successful will have multiple layers of hierarchy, organization, and even bureaucracy), all of which will be required to support this new model to varying degrees.
But if you so heartily disagree with the current model, don't steal[1] (or otherwise consume) their goods, or enable others to do so.
Simple, isn't it?
[1] Oops, I meant "infringe on the copyright of". Still, the point stands. Isn't it fairly straightforward? Either legitimately buy it, or don't, and be ready for the consequences[2]. If you disagree with the "business model" or the legal issues surrounding it, don't be a part of it. And that includes not obtaining the content in question. Then all of a sudden, magically, the legal issues and artificial (or self-inflicted) fears of injury from a draconian legal system go away. Funny how that works!
[2] No one's arguing that the RIAA's model of figuring losses is valid, but it's equally (and massively) disingenuous, not to mention utterly ridiculous, to claim that nothing has been lost at all.
Um, I was exaggerating to make a point that it's not at all hard to point out California on a map, even with all political boundaries and names removed, especially for someone who lives there. Nice job, though, continuing the troll and insinuating that I don't know where California is, either. Bravo.
I believe that people can't name what states border California with all the names removed, but not that white collar professionals who *live there* can't locate the state itself on a map if the text is removed. I mean, all you have to do is freaking point at the entire west coast of North America and you've "found California". If true, there has to be more to it than that, but I'll concede that most people are morons, and when presented with a situation that is slightly unexpected, they can be fools. Also, I find no record of a person by that name, or with a similar spelling, at the CBS affiliate in San Francisco.
I hope you're joking, but if you're not, I call total bullshit on both of these. (Just in case anyone else sees this and thinks it's true.)
How is what I said a troll?
The fact of the matter is that there are MANY people who are trying to make things similar to this out to be some kind of a new occurrence, either implying our directly stating outright that this is something that has resulted from the current administration. I don't care how many fundamentalist idiots think they "have the ear" of the President. They simply don't.
"Faith-based initiatives", as architected by the administration, is not necessarily a bad idea. I'm not for blurring the lines between "Church" and "State" at all. But to not recognize that there are religious people out there who can ALSO do a great deal of good in communities, and do even more good when provided with assistance similar to what other non-profits and similar organizations get, is ignorant. Do a lot of these people want to use them as some kind of evangelical platform? I'm sure they do. Can "slippery slopes" exist? Sure. But to completely discount any value of the work of people who also happen to be affiliated with any number of religious organizations, some almost completely benign in nature from an evangelical standpoint, is foolish.
And as to the only other things I can even think of to which this might be referring:
Intelligent design - has NO place whatsoever in any course material on biological sciences, except as perhaps to note that ID is in fact NOT "science", and is merely a philosophical idea at best. But does it have a place in the "classroom"? Absolutely. In a religious studies class, or perhaps a philosophy class. But not a science class. This administration's position on ID is effectively neutral, which does allow some backwards elements to push ID as a real scientific alternative in science classrooms, when it's not. But this isn't something that's come from the top levels of government.
Human embryonic stem cell research - coming from the institution that currently licenses nearly ALL of the available US human embryonic stem cell lines, this is an important issue. But there's also nothing to say that human embryonic stem cells are a panacea, for anything. They are a hotbed because it involves destroying something that is technically "human life", from a scientific perspective, but is already part of a system that discards the embryos in the pursuit of a something that is societally accepted; namely, the creation of families. The problem is that there is not an endless supply, and it's all well and good to argue that they'd be thrown away anyway. Anyone who understands the basics of supply and demand knows that when research needs for new human embryonic stem cells exceeds supply, we have what I would hope would be a fairly hefty ethical dilemma on our hands: when, and at what stages, is it acceptable to end "human life" for the benefit of individuals or mankind at large? This question shouldn't be overlooked in the name of "research". Likewise, the intrinsic value of research and learning shouldn't be discounted for political goals.
In sum, I wasn't trolling. Everyone seems eager to blame everything on the "current administration", even though the summary doesn't say it. I'm sure that most of the other comments here (which I haven't even read yet), will be reflective of that. It's not trolling to point out that ignorant people are nothing new, particularly in the US. I'm not saying some of the environments that are enabled by SOME in the Republican party aren't to blame for certain aspects of this.
By the way, some people believe that the US (and indeed the West at large) needs to take a very aggressive foreign policy stance on things like militant Panislamic radicalism. Some people also believe that the problems in the mideast aren't a monster of the US's (or West's) creation exclusively, or even mostly. Some people understand that it's possible for a variety of conditions to exist such that a tyrannical, fascist philosophy will grow, like it has among some Islamic radicals similar to some beliefs in Christianity in the 11th century, and that the US i
...the idea among Americans that humans didn't "evolve" from earlier forms of animals isn't new, and definitely hasn't changed markedly since 2000.
I'd hope that would be obvious to most people. The figures are mostly unchanged for decades, so the assertion that this is because of "widespread fundamentalism" and the "politicization of science" seems to be somewhat of a politically motivated assertion in itself.
Note that about one third of Americans reject the concept of evolution. It's unfortunate that even if people do want to have a religious or spiritual belief, they can't reconcile it with fairly firmly established scientific truth.
Further note that "fundamentalist religions", as the study refers to them as, are also not new in the United States. A lot of people would like to think that these people have sprouted up from nowhere in the last 6 years, but that's simply not the case.
Apparently I'm smoking the same thing as our new Islamic Studies instructor.
;-)
That should read "University of Wisconsin - Madison" (I had typed "University of Wisconsin", then decided I'd better add "Madison", and apparently had difficulty properly executing that last step
...are software licenses/"EULAs" enforceable, not enforceable, or what?
Also, the inclusion of a "no military use" provision presumes that ALL military activity activity, of any type, for any reason, is always negative or undesirable.
I'd hope most sane people are level-headed enough to realize the foolishness of that implied presumption.
And if we want to get into the "ethics" of miltary action, what if the killing of, say, 15,000 can be argued, very convincingly, to have most likely saved hundreds of thousands, or millions, more? How do you measure the benefits of something that has not occurred because it has been prevented? Is there ever any time when a proactive or premptive step can be accepted to have resulted in more overall good than harm, if the only thing that matters is human calculus and bodycounts?
Over what timeframes do you measure? Is there only moral relativism, in that since anyone holding any philosophy can always be argued to be doing what they themselves believe is the "right thing", no one has any moral authority to make a decision that may end lives to save more? Do nation-states and alliances have any value in the global political system? Can free Western nations decide to initiate defensive or offensive military actions to protect their interests, from which presumably the happiness, well-being, and continued existence of many hundreds or millions of people is created? Is any system of government worth protecting? These are very real questions that seem to be ignored. The cynics among us who believe that some particular nation's government is literally already a 1984-style police state in action, bent on ensuring its own power continues to grow at all costs[1], will not be able to answer any of these questions in a reasoned fashion.
Try not to read anything into what I'm saying or assume that I'm talking about a particular event. Just try to imagine a scenario where deadly force may need to be used to prevent more harm, i.e., there is a distinctly net positive effect.
It's all well and good to talk about doing no harm. Just keep in mind that it's sometimes necessary to "do harm" to prevent more of the same.
That's not a warmongering view, an American view, nor a Republican view. That's just a very simple fact of reality that would be discovered by an application of common sense. Anyone who might fall back on the refrain of "but we don't know what really would have happened otherwise, do we?" when presented with an example event is quite frankly choosing to delude themselves, and has chosen the path of willful ignorance under a very thin veil of righteousness.
[1] Completely off-topic aside: it is stunning to me how many well-educated, supposedly intelligent people have let their own political feelings cloud their view to the point of literally believing that 9/11 was a plot hatched out of the US government itself. So many of the claims are simply outrageous:
- The planes that hit the trade center towers were military aircraft made to look like commercial jetliners, but the trade center towers were also actually rigged with explosives; the planes hitting them was merely a diversion. It is apparently not plausible that commercial jetliners could cause the buildings to come down; steel doesn't need to get to its melting point to begin losing an incredibly significant amount of its integrity.
- WTC 7 was also rigged with explosives: it must have been, because the damage to it was only superficial. This ignores the fact that two over-100 story buildings collapsed within ridiculously close proximity, making the entire building structurally unsound. Also, why did WTC 7 need to be destroyed? If the whole idea was to rig buildings with explosives and then fly planes into them as a "diversion", making people incorrectly think that it was planes that brought them down, why would WTC 7 be a part of that conspiracy?
- Even though planes, either unmanned or perhaps the actual jetliners piloted by pa
Well, this is a DARPA proposal. DARPA's charge is to do some sometimes-outlandish research and propose unique solutions to military problems. They attempt to bridge the gap between a basic principle and a high-payoff, revolutionary application. Usually when DARPA is discussing or proposing something, it's far from anywhere near being implemented.
Also, from TFA:
It has been suggested that a nuclear airburst at high-altitude would significantly shorten the operational lifetime of Low Earth Orbiting satellites. Even a "small" detonation (~10-20 kilotons) occurring at altitudes of 125-300 km, could lead to the loss of 90% of all low-earth-orbit satellites within a month. In 2004 there were approximately 250 satellites operating in low-Earth orbit (LEO). These satellites fulfil a large number of roles, including communications, navigation, meteorology, military and science. In the event of a nuclear airburst at high-altitude, or an unusually intense natural injection, this large population of valuable satellites would be threatened. Due to the lifetime of the injected electrons, the manned space programme would need to be placed on hold for a year or more.
The idea here is risk vs. payoff.
- This is a proposed system; not one that has been approved or even designed
- The system would protect hundreds of satellites in low earth orbit from solar storms (or high altitude nuclear detonations)
- Depending on how the system is designed and operated, neither of which have been done yet, it COULD have deleterious effects on certain other communication systems
- They say GPS could be affected, but they ignore the fact that GPS is critical to the US itself
- Certainly the international community should consider implications, and nowhere is it stated or shown that the US is ignoring any obligations, considering the fact that the same possible harmful, but temporary, effects would also be felt by the US
They specifically said it was exploitable on Linux and Windows. They chose Mac OS X because they said that Mac users had a "smug" attitude about security and wanted to show something like this could be done on Mac OS X as well.
So no, it's not speculation that exploitable on other platforms, because the presenters themselves said it was, and specifically said they ultimately chose to demo it on the Apple platform for the reason stated above.
On that note, though, I do agree that the reasoning to use a third-party wireless card in the MacBook was shaky. They said they used it so as not to draw attention to the fact that the internal wireless card in the MacBook is vulnerable, even though they specifically state that the internal card is vulnerable. So how does this do anything to not draw attention to that, given that now, everyone thinks this is an exploit affecting only MacBooks, and not even any other Apple products with the Atheros card, much less any other platform under the sun?
John Gruber has a very good writeup on this issue here: http://daringfireball.net/2006/08/krebs_followup
As for "why not demo it on multiple platforms", it sounds like this little exploit is not nearly as easy to set up and take advantage of as they imply. The above writeup also touches on the motives of the presenters as well ("if you watch those 'Get a Mac' commercials enough, it eventually makes you want to stab one of those users in the eye with a lit cigarette or something"). Yeah, no bias there!
So, do we still believe Darwin x86 is a dead/useless OS?
Yes.
Unless hobbyists want to run yet another BSD.
(Let me be clear: by this, I mean Darwin *as a bootable OS*, and not just on x86: on PowerPC as well. What benefits can you name to Apple and Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server customers from being able to run Darwin as a standalone, bootable OS?)
and that noone is interested in the XNU source?
I never said "no one" was interested in xnu source. I said that the majority of the utility of Darwin for people who use Darwin sources comes from the sources for individual components, and mostly NOT the kernel at that, and also not from the ability to build Darwin as a full bootable OS.
In other words, everything I said is still accurate, including my assertions that Apple had not made a decision to "close" the Intel xnu source, but rather just hadn't opened it yet and announced the direction going forward.
Then and now, I believe there could have been far better communication on Apple's part so it wouldn't have seemed like Intel xnu source releases were in limbo, as they essentially were for eight months.
The official announcement by Ernie Prabhakar of Apple is here:
a lls/apsl/xnu-792.10.96.tar.gz
From: Ernest Prabhakar prabhaka@apple.com
Date: August 7, 2006 4:15:51 PM PDT
To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com, fed-talk@lists.apple.com
Subject: Apple Opens Up: Kernel, Mac OS Forge, iCal Server, Bonjour, Launchd
Hi all,
In conjunction with this week's Developer Conference, we have four great pieces of news for Open Source developers:
A. Intel Kernel Sources
As of today, we are posting buildable kernel sources for Intel-based Macs alongside the usual PowerPC (and other Intel) sources, starting with Mac OS X 10.4.7. We regret the delay in readying the new kernel for release, and thank you for your patience.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarb
B. New "Mac OS Forge" for Community Projects
Mac OS Forge, a new community site hosted by Apple, is being created to support WebKit and other open source projects focused on Mac OS X, especially those looking to transition from OpenDarwin.org.
http://www.macosforge.org/
C. New Open Source Calendaring Server
In order to encourage community participation, source code to the new iCal Server in Leopard Server is now available on Mac OS Forge under the Apache License.*
http://collaboration.macosforge.org/
D. Apache-Licensed Bonjour and Launchd sources
To further enable and encourage cross-platform adoption, the APSL** sources for Bonjour service discovery and Launchd process management are being re-released under the Apache License and hosted on Mac OS Forge:
http://bonjour.macosforge.org/
http://launchd.macosforge.org/
Apple is more excited than ever about the power of Open Source development to create value for our (and your) products and customers. I'll be offline much of this week due to WWDC, but I look forward to working with all of you as we move forward to Leopard.
Sincerely,
Ernest Prabhakar
Open Source Product Manager, Apple
WWDC 2006, Aug 7-11, San Francisco
http://developer.apple.com/wwdc
* Apache License, Version 2.0
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
** Apple Public Source License 2.0
http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/2.0.txt
And as always, Darwin and Darwin component sources are available here:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/
...how can Microsoft still be saying RTM by November with corporate available in December?
How can Vista possibly be ready on time?
You mean like this?
I didn't sign a "loyalty oath". I got a ticket through the (Democratic) mayor's office of Prairie du Chien, WI. She didn't sign a loyalty oath either.
I also didn't vote for Bush.
Yet, amazingly, there I was. At a Bush event. Taking pictures of the President. Without taking a "loyalty oath".
Do I get a cookie, or a pony, now? I hope it's a pony. I'd really prefer a pony.
No, there haven't been repercussions yet, but there may me (and may already have been internally and unofficially). And if this was indeed wrongful arrest/imprisonment, there may be other more serious ramifications. Now, I understand what you're saying: the guy was still arrested, and if he wants to pursue it, he's got to waste even MORE of his time, and possibly raise the ire of even more cops. Sure, I agree with all that. But the point is, we're all discussing this, and the details of what happened are out (more or less), yes? It wasn't brushed under the rug, and no one was silenced. Yes, a cop could probably walk up to me right now, arrest me for something, and there would be little I could do about it, immediately anyway. But I also have to believe that abuses of the system have mechanisms for recourse and methods via which they can be fixed, including my own ability to press for reform or to bring issues to light. I would imagine that if this was a totally bogus, unwarranted, and inappropriate arrest, there will be consequences for the officer(s) involved, however minor.
I have absolutely no doubt your comment will be quickly moderated up to +5, with a flurry of violent agreement.
But, to answer your questions honestly:
No, I don't "see" 1984 coming. All I see is a government availing itself of everything possible technologically to do what it believes is the right thing, with technology enabling the kind of massive, omnibus monitoring. Can this be abused? Of that I have no doubt. Do I simultaneously believe that, *at present*, it was done with the sole goal of attempting to protect the US and its interests, economic and otherwise, from a terrorist attack (versus thinking that, for example, the US attacked itself on 9/11, in part as an excuse to have wars and monitor its citizenry)? Absolutely. Should it be watched? Again, absolutely: there was not appropriate oversight, in my view. But I do believe some things should remain classified, period; else, a system of classification has no meaning or purpose.
I do NOT believe anything related to PATRIOT, Bush, or the War on Terror has ANYTHING to do with any type of environment, conditions, or policies in a local police agency in the context of arresting someone for taking pictures with a camera phone. If YOU think that, I guess that is your right. However, I see zero connection, but have no problem believing that people who think we're either headed for a police state, or indeed are already there, see an intense connection between the highest levels of federal government and a local, individual police officer's actions.
Indeed, and I'm glad at least one person here realizes it.
In fact, this guy's probably going to come out of this better than he came in, not to mention the officer(s) involved are probably ultimately going to be reprimanded.
Except for that we can "watch" the state, since it got covered by multiple news outlets, the details were revealed, the guy was released and not charged, and we're talking about it now.
Oops.
Does anybody else feel more helpless every day?
Yes, I do.
Helpless to stop the endless barrage of stories and claims that we're living in an Orwellian 1984 totalitarian police state, when in fact nothing substantial has really changed in 50 years (save the technology, which goes both ways: it gives authorities more systems to abuse, and it gives citizens more vehicles to document and comment, e.g., ubiquitous cell phone cameras and blogs where nearly everyone believes that we already like in a police state).
What *really* scares me is that people genuinely, legitimately believe this, and believe that police and government are out to get them, and that they're all corrupt and only looking for ways to extend their power or line their pockets.
You can. The police were in the wrong here. That's why the guy was released and hasn't been charged with anything. He did nothing wrong. Just some local city cops pissed off that someone was taking pictures of them, and then overreacting. Nothing more, nothing less. No national conspiracy, no general "police vs citizen photographers" crisis.
This was a local police department, they were in the wrong, they guy was released, and hopefully the citizen and/or others who are concerned will press this so that the officer(s) involved are subject to some sort of corrective action.
This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.
It's an action of a local municipal police department, period. These inappropriate actions have been executed by people in positions of authority since the beginning of time. The point is we heard about it, it got covered, and hopefully it will be corrected. And hopefully the police department will issue a directive to think twice before they harass and/or arrest other citizens who aren't doing anything wrong from exercising their own rights.
"Dear mom comma"
Dear aunt,
"Fix aunt"
Dear aunt, let's set
"Delete that"
Dear aunt, let's set
"Delete that"
Dear aunt, let's set
"Delete that"
Dear aunt, let's set so
"I think it's picking up a little bit of echo here...delete - select all"
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
*Manually selects all and deletes*
"Okay, I'm glad you're enjoying this"
*Laughter*
First of all, this isn't even a "hybrid", since it only seems to feature an electric motor. (And how is this news?)
Second, I'm more interested in GM's next generation MY2008 GMT-900 full-size SUV platform (Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon, Yukon XL, Escalade, Escalade EXT): it will have a full/strong hybrid option, powered by both a 5.3L Vortec V8 featuring Displacement on Demand/Active Fuel Management, which can disable 2, 4, or 6 of the 8 cylinders as necessary, two 30kW electric motors and a continuously variable transmission (with the motors and transmission being in the same physical form factor as the conventional Hydramatic automatic transmission on non-hybrid models). These new SUVs will exceed the already-good fuel economy of the 2007 GMT-900 platform trucks which are already using active fuel management, pushing the city fuel economy to around 30mpg. Then is it still "wrong" to drive an SUV instead of an Accord? (*waits for chorus of "yes" for all kinds of ridiculous reasons* - please, bring out the safety and bumper height arguments too! Maybe all cars on the road can be identical, homogenous boxes that all look like Smarts!)
Being responsible doesn't always have to equate to sacrificing things that are genuinely useful. It can mean making the things people like better.