Glad you guys are all so patriotic. When the end comes for millions of innocents it will great comfort for those left behind (yes, I'm way over the top here, but so are you guy).
I keep saying it over and over and no one responds. Will you give up anything to the government that will allow some reasonable means of assuring security? What are the alternatives?
I offer one possible piece to a solution and get dumped on by people wrapped in the flag. I getted modded a 2, when I have obviously sparked a lively debate. And yet not one of you has offered any ideas on how to prevent anonymity from being being put to bad uses.
If you will cede nothing, you will loose everything.
I chose 1993, because that was the fist WTC bombing.
2-26-1993, World Trade Center bombing -- 6 dead
4-19-1995, Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing -- 168 dead
Please, please, please quit quoting the constitution to me, and explain exactly how and under what circumstances it protects private anonymizer services.
You can't have every right under the sun.
If I think is is fun to kill people, I don't get to have this right as protected under the pursuit of happiness.
Well the flow of responses is as predicted, I expected this would be flamebait.
The general consensus seems to be
GOVERNMENT == BAD
Personal rights to do anything electronically and have it hidden and undecipherable == GOOD
Wake up.
You people are not helping. If you want to hold onto reasonable rights, you have to offer reasonable, effective alternatives that still allow us stop and catch the bad guys.
I choose not to believe the US government is essentially evil. I choose to believe the US government has improved its stance on human rights in general, effectively and steadily over the last 200 years. I choose to believe there are truly evil men out there that would do America harm. I believe the majority of you online rights complainers are spoiled pampered brats that have never had to sacrifice the least little thing in your lives, and don't understand that we have to help find solutions to the problems caused by unintended side-effect our electronic age has brought us.
I support strong private cryptography. But the world has become a very dangerous place (or we Americans have just awakened to this fact), so reasonably choices have to be made about how to monitor and police illegal activities, or perhaps more importantly, monitor and police dealings with those abroad.
If I choose to voluntarily use a governmantal anonymizer services, then scrutiny rightly falls on others that use some other means of anonymizing their activities.
The threat of terrorism is not the same now as it has always been, it has escalated in severity and consequences since 1993, both from sources internal and abroad.
When we loose a million citizens in a nuclear blast someday, they will have lost the most essential liberty of all, the right to life.
Choices will have to be made as to how best to prevent the free, unobserved activity of evil men. Quit inventing rights that didn't exist 200 years ago, and then pretending we are turning into Nazis if we have to modify them.
I will probably get flamed for this one, and I must admit my views on privacy and security are in flux right now.
It seems to me the government should offer a free anonymizer service, with the proviso that detection of verifiable illegal activities transacted through same would lead to the immediate disclosure of the sender's identity (or at least location) to the appropriate legal agency. Private anonymizer services should not be allowed (at least within US borders).
This would then be a way for whistle blowers and others not engaged in illegal activities to easily, and with better legal shielding, submit their disclosures or air their personal political views. Mailing death threats, circulating child pornography, arranging for killings, or setting up drug drops shouldn't have any kind of guarantee of hiding the sender's identity.
I can already hear the big sucking sound from civil libertarians -- "HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY TRUST THE GOVERNMENT WITH THIS?"
It would seem trusting private individuals with this isn't much better (and the government gets what they want eventually anyway). Perhaps using a private anonymizing service shouldn't imply that someone has something to hide, but in the minds of many, it does.
Being intractable on this issue will hurt the IT community more in the long run, because it closely associates it with the ability to conduct illicit and untraceable activities. I am more worried about being being prevented from using cryptography, or being forced to register the keys with a government agencies. Here is where the battle should be fought, because it will lead to the real government oversight of the flow of sensitive information.
Yes this probably comes as result of 9-11-2001. Stop burying your heads in the sand and telling yourselves the world isn't any different now.
This article is, as pointed out by many, a bit light on facts, sort of a RAH-RAH, YEA-YEA, GOOOOOOO TEAM SCIENCE!
It also seems to be a bit one sided in suggesting that a fusion device of the kind currently being investigated by UK scientists, will be very possibly be the breakthrough in fusion. Then again the article seems to be targeted to a UK audience. One sees these kind of cheerleading articles for science in the US as well. A much better article was posted to/. July 16, 2001, FusionGetsCloserWithMagnet icFieldCorrection
, from which one can extrapolate that an increase in computer power will translate into fusion energy gains as well.
Yes, Fusion has always been 10 years away (uhmmmm, ahhh, 20, 50, take your pick).
But there are a variety of reasons the quest to achieve Fusion Energy should be accelerated.
Relative Clean:
Relatively clean, abundant energy should be an end in itself. Yes, fusion will probably not be completely clean, but its by-products will in general be fewer and cleaner than fusion. Keep in mind that things like burning coal, puts tons of radioactive isotopes in the air every year. And should we ever cover thousands of square miles of real-estate with solar collectors to get our energy that way, then the complaints will be made about the environmental damage of covering thousands of square miles of land with solar collectors. Yes, the reactor vessel will become radioactive, but it won't be a kind of radioactivity that leads to critical mass or excessive heating concerns upon storage or disposal.
Safer Than Fusion:
Almost infinitely safer - nuff said.
By-Products harder to put to destructive ends:
Very few terrorists are going to be able to do anything with bottles of tritium, deuterium, or helium. I guess they could yank the plating off the inside of the reactor vessel, which should be plenty radioactive, but they couldn't make a bomb from it.
Drain oil money from the middle-east:
This one is less clear as a good motive. Making the whole region less able to support itself is not likely to bring stability or safety to the region. But in light of 9-11-2001, I will not argue strongly against it.
Remove dependence on foreign oil sources:
This isn't just good economic sense, it is good strategic sense. Osama bin Laden, probably thinks US reaction to 9-11-2001 would be restrained by its dependence on Middle-Eastern oil.
Economic damage from 9-11-2001 has been put at anywhere from 20-50 billion directly. Total in economic slowdown, increased spending to fight terrorism, and a 300 billion projected surplus that goes to zero or lower in the coming year alone -- might as well call 9-11-2001 the Trillion Dollar Attack, for the effect it may have over the next 5 year period.
While I don't favor driving the Middle-East into poverty, it may very well be that had the US not had to factor in energy concerns over the last three decades in its responses to events in the middle-east region, Osama bin Laden would most likely already have been neutralized, the World Trade Center Towers still standing.
Given all this, we need to line up the best minds in the fusion energy field (some of whom may be reading this) and ask questions like:
How much money to achieve practical, deployable fusion energy in a five year time frame?
A ten year time frame?
A twenty year time frame?
Likelyhood of success at projected funding levels?
Many will say these are unfair questions, but I'm guessing just such questions were asked at the inception of the Manhattan Project, and this must now be viewed with very much the same urgency.
If the best consensus answer comes back 100 billion dollars in five years, I say "Fine -- Time to Write The Check"
Fair Use is just one of coming casualties for the techno literati. I predict a campaign of demonization that will blame privacy advocates and hackers as the very reasons our rights have to be scaled back. The average American has very little understanding of cryptography or the good it does to protect their private transactions, but they are all ready in mass to surrender strong cryptography in order to fight terrorism. Put in back-doors and keys for the government and you have made keys that can be stolen enmass, causing a far greater problem than the one you were trying to solve.
You can't have strong cryptography on a mass produced product. The record companies are trying to use the DMCA as a club to get by with weak cryptography. The alternative would be to use strong cryptography, requiring a customized product for every person, and registration to acquire the key. I think it will actually come to this. It only hasn't yet, because: one -- it would be too expensive (currently); two -- the buying public would be too resistant. It is probably not an intended strategy (but then again maybe it is), but if they keep making their products crappy enough, with enough wailing about the hacker community, then they, the media companies, will probably be able to get the public to go along with registering every media purchase, and wrap it up in the American Flag and Apple Pie to boot.
Part sales are a case of Car Companies making lemons into lemonade.
If car manufactures could keep you from reselling your car, they could also prevent use of anyone else's parts in repair of same, and in fact could mandate that only their licensed dealers could be involved in the repair of. Instead of your car going to a junk-yard, it would be mandated to be returned to the manufacturer if you didn't pay a yearly maintenance fee (heck, you only lease cars, what the hell is a "sale" ?) Part of this maintenance fee would be yearly upgrades, where various parts of your car were yanked off, and replaced with this years upgraded parts, until eventually your car ground to a halt because it could no longer support the additional power burden of the new parts, or because of some basic incompatibility that creeps in over the upgrade cycle.
In the end, new cars would be astronomically expensive, used cars may or may not be available through authorized dealer channels, current owners would still repair their cars as long as possible to forestall having to get a new car (with features they don't want or need), with the car companies making even more outlandish profits on replacement parts and upgrades.
Given the opportunity, I'm sure Ford, GM, Dodge, etc., would love to have a no resale clause. Book publishers have not always been happy with the existence of libraries. Software companies treat us this way because we let them, and because they have deep pockets to engage in lobbying and filing lawsuits until they get their way.
It is true that software has a more ephemeral quality than other products of our modern civilization, but the trend is clear. The Music, Publishing, Broadcast, Cable and Movie industries are taking notes, and getting more viscous and devious in their pursuit of squeezing every possible dime of revenue from the public.
What make this all the more insidious and timely is the tracking and invasion of privacy most of these schemes require to enforce. Encryption is a bandaid that will never work without tracking and verification. If companies offered a good product at a fair price that we had complete control of how we wished to use these products, software pirates, cable tappers, CD rippers, would be seen as petty criminals instead of modern day robinhoods.
Mark my words in the wake of the WTC bombings, media companies of all types will jump on the band wagon of information tracking, where no individual may view or own any type of information without someone, somewhere, knowing what they are looking at.
I am new to the/. community. I was lucky enough to get a good mod on my first post and now I'm hooked. One topic looms above all others recently of course. In light of this, what other good, high visibility sites with similar moderation schemes are there, especially venues more appropriate for WTC attack posts? Once again I have waited for a slashdot headline close to topic, rather than go to older more on-topic headlines that few will read.
On with tonight's rant:
There is a lot of debate, analysis, planning, work, sacrifice and struggle ahead for America in its battle against global terrorism. The first few days, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 tragedy, I saw well reasoned debate, much of which I agreed with. America seemed to have the right attitude about rooting out the fanatical zealots that had wrought so much death, destruction, suffering, and which if unchecked will cause far more. Four or five days later I see we are dangerously off message. Everywhere I look now I see American flag waving, and often accompanied with the phrase "God Bless the USA."
Nationalism and religious extremism is what motivated these misguided men. We must not answer it with nationalism and extremism of our own. This must not become Our-God versus Their-God. Say that we have one of the best governmental systems in the world, if not the best, and I will not argue. Extend this to say we are right and just because God favors our form of government or vise versa, and you will be no better than they, using religion to guide us into acts of retribution instead of justice.
Am I saying not to retaliate? No. I think terrorism must be rooted out everywhere for the sake of a safer and most just world. We cannot stop at fighting Islamic extremists in middle-east locations. We must tell the IRA, no more. We must look within our own borders and stop soldiers of fortune, eager to engage in the fight for the sake of the fight. We must not turn a blind eye to the plight of lower Africa just because we have no pressing concerns there, not just because it is right, but also because one day we will have interests there.
We must make sure our governmental agencies are not funding terrorists for short-term goals by calling them freedom fighters. Perhaps they are, but if we support them covertly, we are no better than those we must now deal with. If a cause is just then America must not be secretive or indirect in its support. We may have to choose our fights, and these may from time to time involve the practicality of considering if American interests are at stake (we cannot be everywhere at one), but the first question must always be "is this just?" The second question must then always be "is this a just way to achiever our goals?"
I warrant if you where to burn an American flag in public at the moment, you risk being put in the hospital if not the morgue. My point is not the burning the American flag is a good thing to do, but that it is easy to do the absolute wrong thing for what you think are just reasons, in this case assaulting someone because they have disrespected a symbol you hold dear. Certainly, the terrorists that have fought and died think they are doing the right thing. Dismissing them as evil, and making their Holy War our Holy War will pull us down into a morass from which there is no escape.
War must from time to time be waged by freedom loving people, but don't do it in God's name and don't make the American flag a surrogate for God. God is not for war of any kind. Most of Christianity's most cherished biblical figures are martyrs that refused to fight. I do not advocate turning the other cheek in this case, but to persecute a war with God in the rallying cry will surely keep us from our most basic goal here -- to prevent religious fanaticism from motivating men to barbaric acts.
I must not being seeing the same news that you are seeing. In most cases I am seeing a balance of views, a call for calm and restraint. Our leaders are calling this a war - and I agree. Should they filter the word war out of their reports? People want to know the latest, even if there isn't any latest right now. What would you have the news organizations run stories on -- the fashion trends in Paris?
While in many cases I detest the endless human-interest stories one sees on slow news days, there is a place and time for them, if they are done well and unexploitively.
Not every bit of news will be as good, relevant or well done as every other bit of news. This is true of every human activity. But I think the vast majority of those reporting the news now, are trying to do their very best, under very hard circumstances, and are not doing so just to make rating points.
As an American I'm sorry if our trying to come together and make sense of the tragedy, and how to react to it, is off putting to you. The article you criticize spoke to me. It articulated in a clear way many of my own feelings, and made feel more connected to those around me in these troubling times. It is not banal to try to feel, and try to make others feel.
No matter what we do as Americans, someone will always be out there to tell us we are doing it wrong.
I am a news addict, I was before these recent tragic events, and now I have many fellow addicts because our drug has become much stronger.
Every morning I turn on CNN before climbing into the shower -- this is not just habit but compulsion. September 11, 2001 was no different. This morning I had the same thought I have almost every morning before I hit the TV on button I wish there were some real news on. I don't know why I feel compelled to check every morning, nothing much important ever seems to happen anymore.
Despite the repetition, the points good and bad, one fact sadly remains true: this is real news. This is why it is so addictive. It is not the endless banality and manufactured news, which is often just marketing in disguise.
Everyone seems sure that the recent terrorist events in New York and Washington D.C. are designed to send a message to the West, and yet no explicit message has been received from those who have perpetrated these outrages. We are left to infer what that message is. We are criticized for giving the impression that some of us hold all Islamic culture as implicate in recent events. It may be a very small radical portion of Islam directly involved in these events, it is not so small a portion that look to the radicals as heros, else they would be able to reign these dogs in. And so while all of Islam is not to blame, it is not necessarily the case that it is small minority of the Islamic world that also bares blame, if such blame is extended to support and encouragement. Do not read into this statement a call for retaliation on all of Islam, for while many are implicate, most are powerless, misled, and it would be cravenly to take out our frustrations out on them.
If our enemys would paint all Americans as implicated in America's actions and therefor legitimate targets, why should they howl if America exercised the same logic on their people? And yet this is exactly what we will not do, and this is why we are better than they, and this is why when we call to account, we will call only those most accountable, and with as little harm to the powerless as possible, as long as they do not put themselves in harms way to keep us from achieving our just objectives.
By failure to identify themselves and their motives and aims, those who commit these acts put all around them in peril. They seem not the least concerned that the innocent Islamic or oppressed Arabic people they claim to fight for, may in some way suffer greatly and unvoluntarily as side effect. How can the causes of those responsible be noble, if no one will take credit and pride in them? Shouldn't those responsible for sending operatives on suicide missions be equally ready to lay down their lives by taking credit for their actions? If their causes are just and noble, they will go on without them, strengthed in fact by their martyrdom, but perhaps they are not so sure of the continuation of their cause or of its nobility.
No one claims to be responsible, but many approve. And what is it they approve of? They themselves infer what the motives of the terrorists are, or assume they are the same grudges with America that they have.
Let's be realists here. Those radical elements that approve of September 11's terrorist actions, are most likely in league with the perpetrators to some degree (no wonder they can so clearly see the motives and aims, and lecture us in the West on what they are). They hide behind denial and share an inside joke with their evil brethren. Their silence and denial serves only one cynical purpose. When retaliation comes -- and it will -- they will moan and complain that the West has once again punished the innocent. Their brain washed idolizers will see some vast Zionist plot, and believe against all reason that those involved were not.
How can a cause be noble if its objects and aims are furthered, by its followers being led to believe in a lie? The incredible lie here being "nope, not us, huh-huh, must be some other rabid extremist groups that hate America and Americans just as much as us and for the same reasons"
When one studies a piece of abstract art, by necessity one creates ones own interpretation of what the composition means. In most cases the artist has deliberately created an ambiguity that allows the viewer to pour his own soul an meaning into the piece. In these sad recent events we are presented with an abstract piece of terrorism, because its practitioners, its artists, refuse to tell us what it means. They should not be surprised that our interpretation will not be what they intended.
Though there is no definitive link yet, let me ask a "what if."
What if, Osama bin Laden is truly the mastermind of recent terrorist events, and ruling Taliban officials in Afghanistan were aware of his activities, and communicated some of this knowledge of Pakistan, the Taliban's only true supporter of of any real consequence.
We would then have a nascent nuclear capable state in league with terrorists.
Would it then be time to take away their toys?
Re:The World is going to change
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
I voted for Gore (and no, I don't see a vast conspiracy in the result). To disagree about the price of bananas with a trade partner would hard refute my claim about that democratic partner feeling "oppressed." Please provide more relevant examples.
Re:The World is going to change
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
So we are in the wrong here. We cannot win. And we must remain cowed by every little nation with a grudge that would resort to terrorism. I do not accept this. I repeat my claim that the undemocratic nations you defend has "just different" have an inferior system of government. Inferior because in the long run they will fail to elevate the condition and freedoms of their people.
Re:The World is going to change
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Their culture is not just different, it is misguided and wrong, because as I have replied over and over, they are denied the benefit of building a society based on the free exchange of ideas. I do not believe in revenge or the taking of innocent life. I advocate finding those responsible and deal to them the fates they deserve, not to unnecessarily inflict suffering and death upon the powerless populace they claim to represent. If the leaders of your misunderstood and supposedly outwardly oppressed countries had at their disposal the power America has, is there any doubt that we would all be the enforced worshipers of the Islamic faith? I do not rail against Islam, but I rail against Islamic leaders who have no respect for religions and ways of life different than their own. If Islamic countries had the same freedoms we have, they would probably find our support of Israel is not has solid as they assume.
There is such a thing as right and wrong. Enough of the politically correct excusing of "just different."
Re:The World is going to change
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
To quote Winston Churchill, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." And I truly believe this. One only has to look at Africa's various dictatorships warring with another. The Middle East's Arab nations warring with one another (when not allied to fight Israel). Or the old Soviet Union and Chinese communist regimes on verge of nuclear conflict with one another to support the statement that is seems only democracies can get along. While Hitler may have been elected, Germany was by no measure a democracy with a free press during WWII. The very fact that you can freely express your opinions is clear sign of the freedom we enjoy. Other systems of government seem obliged to deny their citizens this kind of freedom of expression, the true fount of a free press, for fear of the societal changes it will lead to -- most likely democracy. I do not condemn the people that live under other systems, I condemn the systems and their leaders. With out access to unfiltered information or any real ability to affect their Nations course of action could the people be to blame?
Re:The World is going to change
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
I disagree most strongly. Had Osama bin Laden been removed from the world scene years ago, then the tragidies we have witnessed most likely would never have occurred, and he is only one man. You say a dozen will take his place perhaps? I say no, not if you not only rid the world of Osama bin Laden, but every viscous, fanatical killer you can identify. Perhaps we did not have the moral authority to do this before, but we have it now. Many Arabs that could not possible voice support for my statements, would none the less probably breath easier if the more volatile, extremist elements from there society where removed. To not find and bring those responsible to justice will be the trigger to escalation.
Those closed minded individuals you mention over 50 will not be around forever. If a free press exists in those societies, the younger generation will do what needs to be done eventually. Free press is the feed back loop that keeps a democracy in check. We can unite with other free societies and work towards applying pressure, sometimes economic, sometimes military intervention as needed in the case of those who meddle outside their borders, and harbor those who export terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
I keep saying it over and over and no one responds. Will you give up anything to the government that will allow some reasonable means of assuring security? What are the alternatives?
I offer one possible piece to a solution and get dumped on by people wrapped in the flag. I getted modded a 2, when I have obviously sparked a lively debate. And yet not one of you has offered any ideas on how to prevent anonymity from being being put to bad uses.
If you will cede nothing, you will loose everything.
2-26-1993, World Trade Center bombing -- 6 dead
4-19-1995, Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing -- 168 dead
Please, please, please quit quoting the constitution to me, and explain exactly how and under what circumstances it protects private anonymizer services.
You can't have every right under the sun.
If I think is is fun to kill people, I don't get to have this right as protected under the pursuit of happiness.
The general consensus seems to be
GOVERNMENT == BAD
Personal rights to do anything electronically and have it hidden and undecipherable == GOOD
Wake up.
You people are not helping. If you want to hold onto reasonable rights, you have to offer reasonable, effective alternatives that still allow us stop and catch the bad guys.
I choose not to believe the US government is essentially evil. I choose to believe the US government has improved its stance on human rights in general, effectively and steadily over the last 200 years. I choose to believe there are truly evil men out there that would do America harm. I believe the majority of you online rights complainers are spoiled pampered brats that have never had to sacrifice the least little thing in your lives, and don't understand that we have to help find solutions to the problems caused by unintended side-effect our electronic age has brought us.
If I choose to voluntarily use a governmantal anonymizer services, then scrutiny rightly falls on others that use some other means of anonymizing their activities.
Government oversite has improved. [insert inane cynical comment here]
Last time I checked it wasn't J. Edgar that shot Martin Luther King Jr.
While I don't approve of what the government did in the the sixties, apparently this monitoring didn't greatly curtail the civil rights movement.
When we loose a million citizens in a nuclear blast someday, they will have lost the most essential liberty of all, the right to life.
Choices will have to be made as to how best to prevent the free, unobserved activity of evil men. Quit inventing rights that didn't exist 200 years ago, and then pretending we are turning into Nazis if we have to modify them.
I am tired of seeing this quote trotted out on every privacy issue.
I doubt Franklin would have considered being able to use an electronic anonymizing service an "essential liberty"
I care about being able to speak my mind, not whether the government can monitor my activities if I come under justifiable suspicion.
It seems to me the government should offer a free anonymizer service, with the proviso that detection of verifiable illegal activities transacted through same would lead to the immediate disclosure of the sender's identity (or at least location) to the appropriate legal agency. Private anonymizer services should not be allowed (at least within US borders).
This would then be a way for whistle blowers and others not engaged in illegal activities to easily, and with better legal shielding, submit their disclosures or air their personal political views. Mailing death threats, circulating child pornography, arranging for killings, or setting up drug drops shouldn't have any kind of guarantee of hiding the sender's identity.
I can already hear the big sucking sound from civil libertarians -- "HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY TRUST THE GOVERNMENT WITH THIS?"
It would seem trusting private individuals with this isn't much better (and the government gets what they want eventually anyway). Perhaps using a private anonymizing service shouldn't imply that someone has something to hide, but in the minds of many, it does.
Being intractable on this issue will hurt the IT community more in the long run, because it closely associates it with the ability to conduct illicit and untraceable activities. I am more worried about being being prevented from using cryptography, or being forced to register the keys with a government agencies. Here is where the battle should be fought, because it will lead to the real government oversight of the flow of sensitive information.
Yes this probably comes as result of 9-11-2001. Stop burying your heads in the sand and telling yourselves the world isn't any different now.
Yes, that should say "Safer Than Fission" Hit the submit button too soon... Just the most obvious typo, sorry.
Yes, Fusion has always been 10 years away (uhmmmm, ahhh, 20, 50, take your pick). But there are a variety of reasons the quest to achieve Fusion Energy should be accelerated.
Economic damage from 9-11-2001 has been put at anywhere from 20-50 billion directly. Total in economic slowdown, increased spending to fight terrorism, and a 300 billion projected surplus that goes to zero or lower in the coming year alone -- might as well call 9-11-2001 the Trillion Dollar Attack, for the effect it may have over the next 5 year period.
While I don't favor driving the Middle-East into poverty, it may very well be that had the US not had to factor in energy concerns over the last three decades in its responses to events in the middle-east region, Osama bin Laden would most likely already have been neutralized, the World Trade Center Towers still standing.
Given all this, we need to line up the best minds in the fusion energy field (some of whom may be reading this) and ask questions like:
How much money to achieve practical, deployable fusion energy in a five year time frame?
A ten year time frame?
A twenty year time frame?
Likelyhood of success at projected funding levels?
Many will say these are unfair questions, but I'm guessing just such questions were asked at the inception of the Manhattan Project, and this must now be viewed with very much the same urgency.
If the best consensus answer comes back 100 billion dollars in five years, I say "Fine -- Time to Write The Check"
You can't have strong cryptography on a mass produced product. The record companies are trying to use the DMCA as a club to get by with weak cryptography. The alternative would be to use strong cryptography, requiring a customized product for every person, and registration to acquire the key. I think it will actually come to this. It only hasn't yet, because: one -- it would be too expensive (currently); two -- the buying public would be too resistant. It is probably not an intended strategy (but then again maybe it is), but if they keep making their products crappy enough, with enough wailing about the hacker community, then they, the media companies, will probably be able to get the public to go along with registering every media purchase, and wrap it up in the American Flag and Apple Pie to boot.
If car manufactures could keep you from reselling your car, they could also prevent use of anyone else's parts in repair of same, and in fact could mandate that only their licensed dealers could be involved in the repair of. Instead of your car going to a junk-yard, it would be mandated to be returned to the manufacturer if you didn't pay a yearly maintenance fee (heck, you only lease cars, what the hell is a "sale" ?) Part of this maintenance fee would be yearly upgrades, where various parts of your car were yanked off, and replaced with this years upgraded parts, until eventually your car ground to a halt because it could no longer support the additional power burden of the new parts, or because of some basic incompatibility that creeps in over the upgrade cycle.
In the end, new cars would be astronomically expensive, used cars may or may not be available through authorized dealer channels, current owners would still repair their cars as long as possible to forestall having to get a new car (with features they don't want or need), with the car companies making even more outlandish profits on replacement parts and upgrades.
It is true that software has a more ephemeral quality than other products of our modern civilization, but the trend is clear. The Music, Publishing, Broadcast, Cable and Movie industries are taking notes, and getting more viscous and devious in their pursuit of squeezing every possible dime of revenue from the public.
What make this all the more insidious and timely is the tracking and invasion of privacy most of these schemes require to enforce. Encryption is a bandaid that will never work without tracking and verification. If companies offered a good product at a fair price that we had complete control of how we wished to use these products, software pirates, cable tappers, CD rippers, would be seen as petty criminals instead of modern day robinhoods.
Mark my words in the wake of the WTC bombings, media companies of all types will jump on the band wagon of information tracking, where no individual may view or own any type of information without someone, somewhere, knowing what they are looking at.
It doesn't get much more Orwellian than this.
Thanks for pointing this out. I guess we should start compiling a list, and I'm afraid it's gonna get pretty big, pretty fast.
On with tonight's rant:
There is a lot of debate, analysis, planning, work, sacrifice and struggle ahead for America in its battle against global terrorism. The first few days, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 tragedy, I saw well reasoned debate, much of which I agreed with. America seemed to have the right attitude about rooting out the fanatical zealots that had wrought so much death, destruction, suffering, and which if unchecked will cause far more. Four or five days later I see we are dangerously off message. Everywhere I look now I see American flag waving, and often accompanied with the phrase "God Bless the USA."
Nationalism and religious extremism is what motivated these misguided men. We must not answer it with nationalism and extremism of our own. This must not become Our-God versus Their-God. Say that we have one of the best governmental systems in the world, if not the best, and I will not argue. Extend this to say we are right and just because God favors our form of government or vise versa, and you will be no better than they, using religion to guide us into acts of retribution instead of justice.
Am I saying not to retaliate? No. I think terrorism must be rooted out everywhere for the sake of a safer and most just world. We cannot stop at fighting Islamic extremists in middle-east locations. We must tell the IRA, no more. We must look within our own borders and stop soldiers of fortune, eager to engage in the fight for the sake of the fight. We must not turn a blind eye to the plight of lower Africa just because we have no pressing concerns there, not just because it is right, but also because one day we will have interests there.
We must make sure our governmental agencies are not funding terrorists for short-term goals by calling them freedom fighters. Perhaps they are, but if we support them covertly, we are no better than those we must now deal with. If a cause is just then America must not be secretive or indirect in its support. We may have to choose our fights, and these may from time to time involve the practicality of considering if American interests are at stake (we cannot be everywhere at one), but the first question must always be "is this just?" The second question must then always be "is this a just way to achiever our goals?"
I warrant if you where to burn an American flag in public at the moment, you risk being put in the hospital if not the morgue. My point is not the burning the American flag is a good thing to do, but that it is easy to do the absolute wrong thing for what you think are just reasons, in this case assaulting someone because they have disrespected a symbol you hold dear. Certainly, the terrorists that have fought and died think they are doing the right thing. Dismissing them as evil, and making their Holy War our Holy War will pull us down into a morass from which there is no escape.
War must from time to time be waged by freedom loving people, but don't do it in God's name and don't make the American flag a surrogate for God. God is not for war of any kind. Most of Christianity's most cherished biblical figures are martyrs that refused to fight. I do not advocate turning the other cheek in this case, but to persecute a war with God in the rallying cry will surely keep us from our most basic goal here -- to prevent religious fanaticism from motivating men to barbaric acts.
While in many cases I detest the endless human-interest stories one sees on slow news days, there is a place and time for them, if they are done well and unexploitively.
Not every bit of news will be as good, relevant or well done as every other bit of news. This is true of every human activity. But I think the vast majority of those reporting the news now, are trying to do their very best, under very hard circumstances, and are not doing so just to make rating points.
As an American I'm sorry if our trying to come together and make sense of the tragedy, and how to react to it, is off putting to you. The article you criticize spoke to me. It articulated in a clear way many of my own feelings, and made feel more connected to those around me in these troubling times. It is not banal to try to feel, and try to make others feel.
No matter what we do as Americans, someone will always be out there to tell us we are doing it wrong.
Every morning I turn on CNN before climbing into the shower -- this is not just habit but compulsion. September 11, 2001 was no different. This morning I had the same thought I have almost every morning before I hit the TV on button I wish there were some real news on. I don't know why I feel compelled to check every morning, nothing much important ever seems to happen anymore.
Despite the repetition, the points good and bad, one fact sadly remains true: this is real news. This is why it is so addictive. It is not the endless banality and manufactured news, which is often just marketing in disguise.
If our enemys would paint all Americans as implicated in America's actions and therefor legitimate targets, why should they howl if America exercised the same logic on their people? And yet this is exactly what we will not do, and this is why we are better than they, and this is why when we call to account, we will call only those most accountable, and with as little harm to the powerless as possible, as long as they do not put themselves in harms way to keep us from achieving our just objectives.
By failure to identify themselves and their motives and aims, those who commit these acts put all around them in peril. They seem not the least concerned that the innocent Islamic or oppressed Arabic people they claim to fight for, may in some way suffer greatly and unvoluntarily as side effect. How can the causes of those responsible be noble, if no one will take credit and pride in them? Shouldn't those responsible for sending operatives on suicide missions be equally ready to lay down their lives by taking credit for their actions? If their causes are just and noble, they will go on without them, strengthed in fact by their martyrdom, but perhaps they are not so sure of the continuation of their cause or of its nobility.
No one claims to be responsible, but many approve. And what is it they approve of? They themselves infer what the motives of the terrorists are, or assume they are the same grudges with America that they have.
Let's be realists here. Those radical elements that approve of September 11's terrorist actions, are most likely in league with the perpetrators to some degree (no wonder they can so clearly see the motives and aims, and lecture us in the West on what they are). They hide behind denial and share an inside joke with their evil brethren. Their silence and denial serves only one cynical purpose. When retaliation comes -- and it will -- they will moan and complain that the West has once again punished the innocent. Their brain washed idolizers will see some vast Zionist plot, and believe against all reason that those involved were not.
How can a cause be noble if its objects and aims are furthered, by its followers being led to believe in a lie? The incredible lie here being "nope, not us, huh-huh, must be some other rabid extremist groups that hate America and Americans just as much as us and for the same reasons"
When one studies a piece of abstract art, by necessity one creates ones own interpretation of what the composition means. In most cases the artist has deliberately created an ambiguity that allows the viewer to pour his own soul an meaning into the piece. In these sad recent events we are presented with an abstract piece of terrorism, because its practitioners, its artists, refuse to tell us what it means. They should not be surprised that our interpretation will not be what they intended.
What if, Osama bin Laden is truly the mastermind of recent terrorist events, and ruling Taliban officials in Afghanistan were aware of his activities, and communicated some of this knowledge of Pakistan, the Taliban's only true supporter of of any real consequence.
We would then have a nascent nuclear capable state in league with terrorists.
Would it then be time to take away their toys?
I voted for Gore (and no, I don't see a vast conspiracy in the result). To disagree about the price of bananas with a trade partner would hard refute my claim about that democratic partner feeling "oppressed." Please provide more relevant examples.
So we are in the wrong here. We cannot win. And we must remain cowed by every little nation with a grudge that would resort to terrorism. I do not accept this. I repeat my claim that the undemocratic nations you defend has "just different" have an inferior system of government. Inferior because in the long run they will fail to elevate the condition and freedoms of their people.
There is such a thing as right and wrong. Enough of the politically correct excusing of "just different."
To quote Winston Churchill, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." And I truly believe this. One only has to look at Africa's various dictatorships warring with another. The Middle East's Arab nations warring with one another (when not allied to fight Israel). Or the old Soviet Union and Chinese communist regimes on verge of nuclear conflict with one another to support the statement that is seems only democracies can get along. While Hitler may have been elected, Germany was by no measure a democracy with a free press during WWII. The very fact that you can freely express your opinions is clear sign of the freedom we enjoy. Other systems of government seem obliged to deny their citizens this kind of freedom of expression, the true fount of a free press, for fear of the societal changes it will lead to -- most likely democracy. I do not condemn the people that live under other systems, I condemn the systems and their leaders. With out access to unfiltered information or any real ability to affect their Nations course of action could the people be to blame?
I disagree most strongly. Had Osama bin Laden been removed from the world scene years ago, then the tragidies we have witnessed most likely would never have occurred, and he is only one man. You say a dozen will take his place perhaps? I say no, not if you not only rid the world of Osama bin Laden, but every viscous, fanatical killer you can identify. Perhaps we did not have the moral authority to do this before, but we have it now. Many Arabs that could not possible voice support for my statements, would none the less probably breath easier if the more volatile, extremist elements from there society where removed. To not find and bring those responsible to justice will be the trigger to escalation.
Those closed minded individuals you mention over 50 will not be around forever. If a free press exists in those societies, the younger generation will do what needs to be done eventually. Free press is the feed back loop that keeps a democracy in check. We can unite with other free societies and work towards applying pressure, sometimes economic, sometimes military intervention as needed in the case of those who meddle outside their borders, and harbor those who export terrorism.