However, in this case, there is an avenue available: The Penny Arcade guys could represent their side of the case in court. Ergo, no censorship has taken place. That they don't have the money to do so is a different issue.
So if I tell you to stop talking under threat of me shooting you, I'm not really censoring you since you always have the option of dodging the bullet. That you can't dodge bullets is a different issue.
I'm sorry, but in the case of theory (they could fight it in court) versus reality (they don't have the resources to fight it, even if they would eventually win), reality is what determines if censorship is taking place.
The mentality that something being technically possible is equivalent to it being possible has been used in the past to remove peoples' rights. Literacy tests in the south were used to prevent blacks from voting, even though technically they still had that right. Just like that was found to be an illegal restriction on their right to vote because of the reality that virtually no blacks were allowed to vote, this is a case of censorship.
Or in short: Free speech that costs more than you can afford to exercise isn't free, is it?
Say something like "from the people who've whored out your childhood memories for twenty dollars and american mcgee" or otherwise indicate that you have some sort of critical point to make.
I don't like that, simply because it mandates form in order to qualify for protection as a parody. Why does it have to be like a bad political cartoon where everything is explicitly labeled just so that any retard can see that you're trying to make a statement? I can see the exact remark you are suggesting be plastered on the image in the image itself. Is it not satire if it isn't obvious?
I suppose in the future we'll all be required to put "This is a work of parody of Strawberry Shortcake (tm American Bumcrammers, all rights reserved) and American McGee's Alice (tm American McGee, all rights reserved) and of Gaming Culture in General (tm Electronic Arts, all rights reserved)" in minimum size 14 font just to avoid being insta-sued by legal webcrawlers.
No, the fundamental difference between a conservative and a liberal is that conservatives believe their own success is solely because of their strong character, and that anyone who is poor is so because they are lazy, incompetent, unambitious, or otherwise inferior.
Nine times out of ten, this is a result of a gross inexperience with reality. A sheltered life, if you will. Out in the real world, the evidence is more than adequate that wealth and competence, power and hard work, success and whatever quality it is you think poor people lack, are only occasionally related. You meet enough rich lazy idiots and enough poor people breaking their back trying to not be poor anymore, and you stop spouting that kind of foolishness. You see enough rich people actively working to better themselves at the expense of the poor. You spend some time in the real world, and realize the substantial obstacles to improving one's situation, and think "Gee, maybe it isn't entirely their fault after all. Maybe, were it not for luck or circumstance, that could be me."
Poor people are not poor because some rich person stepped all over them. In fact, thats the attitude that keeps them poor.
Not always, but often, yes, that is the attitude that keeps them poor.
Oh, wait, I don't think that's what you meant.:)
P.S. Don't come back at me with all the problems of liberalism. I know, but that's not what we're talking about.:)
No it doesn't, and you have completely failed to demonstrate that it does. You stream non sequitors together, quote Plato and then say "bottom line, all men are Socrates". It's nonsense.
You make no sense. If pointing that out is a personal attack, then so be it. You're still wrong.
You were being a literalist with regard to the law (and a poor quote of the law at that), not the definition of copy. But as usual, your rebuttle has little to do with the actual point, and thus only wastes time. Which I'm done doing.
When have you ever received the original software? All you ever get is copies.
And the copy you get you are free to do whatever you want with. You buy a book, you can sell that book to a used book store. You can't sell 50 copies of that book you made with a photocopier (or a printing press) without the copyright holder's permission. This is so basic, I don't believe you don't understand. Which leaves you being deliberately stupid, which is kinda annoying.
The law doesn't say that you can't distributes copies which you have made yourself. It says you can't distribute copies.
Look, if you were just being a literalist for the sake of your own amusement, you could have just said so.
Where does the GPL allow you to sell binaries without modifying them and without including the source code (or a written offer of the source code)?
It doesn't have to. If you have a copy of Red Hat Linux, you can sell that copy of Red Hat Linux however you like.
Which is either what you are doing, or you have an agreement with Microsoft (or obviously some other entity authorized to enter into such an agreement on MS' behalf).
It says you can't distribute copies by any method, which would of course include lending. However if you aren't making a copy, then you can lend.
Taking things outside of their contextual meanings seems to be a favorite passtime of yours, but it isn't a valid form of logic.
Modification and copying are things that end users do all the time.
Not as covered by copyright law, and therefore not as regards this discussion.
What good is the source code if you can't modify or copy it?
A good argument for why MS Shared Source isn't so great, but not very relevent since you can modify and copy the source under the GPL. What was your point?
So if according to me, agreeing to the GPL is required prior to using my software, that makes it true?
Um, no. Who said what MS says is actually true? They simply assert that you must agree to the license in order to use the software. Whether or not there is any legal truth to that is, as I said, a matter for the courts.
However, the GPL does not even claim to apply to use, so clearly they are different.
Installing involves copying and modification. So does running.
Actually, they don't. Those terms, as applied to copyright law (which is what we are talking about, since we're talking GPL) have consistantly been found to not include the act of installation or running. Which is simply a case of common sense being enforced in the courts without them being confused by the technology. You make a billion copies of a book whenever you open it, as the photons reflect off the page (and it is those copies that you actually read, since they are what impact your retina), but you aren't violating copyright.
The terms copying, modification, distribution all have meanings. You choose the most general meanings (as opposed to those codified in copyright law and case history) to make your points seem to have merit, but "seem" is about as far as you can get that way.
It forbids you from distributing binaries without distributing source code. That's something that I do all the time with Microsoft software, by reselling it.
Hm. Either 1) you're selling copies of the software that were purchased from someone else. In this case, you're simply selling things without modifying them, which you could do with GPL software anyway. Or 2) you're creating your own copies of the software, in which case you surely have a license agreement with its own terms and conditions.
Either way, I think your statement is disigenious in seeming to show that you have rights the GPL doesn't allow.
For instance the right to resell binaries without reselling the source.
This is not a right you normally have under copyright law, so that's a bad example.
Sure it does. It tells the End User how that End User is allowed to copy or modify the software.
You're acting like there is no distinction between End User and Distributor, turning End User into a meaningless synonym for "human". Yet the distinction exists as surely as copyright law exists. Those actions prohibited by copyright law are not the purvey of the End User. You can see this clearly in EULAs, which cover copyright-prohibited actions only in as much as to inform you that they are still prohibited, as the EULA is not a distribution license and contains no provisions for distribution. Oppositely, the GPL covers non-copyright-prohibited actions only in as much as to inform you that they are not covered as the GPL is not a Use license.
No, copyright law says you can't copy, modify, distribute, lend, or circumvent.
Why not? What are you violating if you get around having to click "I agree" for a Microsoft EULA that you're not violating by getting around having to click "I agree" for the GPL?
Um.... Because according to MS, agreeing to the MS EULA is required prior to using the software. The EULA is an agreement specifically covering use. In contrast, it is not required that you agree to the GPL before using the software, so a stupid little click-box that tries to make you agree before using the software is meaningless.
Whether the MS EULA has any meaning anyway is a matter for the courts.:)
Applying the GPL as an EULA does make it an EULA. The GPL is an agreement. As such it can be used in multiple different ways.
Sorry, but the GPL is not a fork. It's a legal document with specific legal language. Its language is that of a distribution license. It covers distribution, not use, and in fact specifically states such. Given that, it cannot be used as a EULA because it specifically disclaims being an EULA.
I mean, how can you even claim that it becomes a EULA when the supposed "EULA" states "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
I honestly don't remember, but I've seen it more than once.
Other posters mentioned that its probably the GPL being dropped into the "license" slot of an installer. While it may be nice to display the GPL to a user installing the program, putting the "I do/don't agree" buttons there is inappropriate since agreement isn't required, and implied by doing things the license allows you to. But programs not understanding that what they are presenting isn't a EULA doesn't make it a EULA.
He is working on military technology at this point. He's criticizing the the military. They contradict.
There are several things wrong with that. First, you make anything partially funded by the government a military technology (if the military buys canned sardines, canned sardines are military technology). Then, you make any military technology equivalent to all military technology (working on sardine cans is the same as working on nerve gasses). And finally, since all military technology is the same, you have to be for all of it or against all of it (you can't make sardine cans if you wouldn't make nerve gas).
Which is all well and wrong, but not as strange as your apparrent opinion that criticising an organization disqualifies you from working for it. That's a good recipe for a disfunctional organization. Though I guess we are talking about the military.
But should there be a compelling need to tighten up the security of my computer, as opposed to those that are part of the public's infrastructer, that's not the place for tax dollars. That's the place for my time, and or pocket book.
Developing OpenBSD helps the public infrastructure -and- your personal computer should you choose to use it, at no extra cost. So why is that not a good way to spend tax dollars? Tax dollars contributed by everyone, and the results benefit everyone. Not many tax expenditures can say that.
Anyway, as Erik Fish said, the money was just being wasted on BSD anyway.
That's not what he said; that's what you facetiously concluded for him. Obviously the loss of the hackathon is detrimental to the development process. Yes, it will continue anyway, but that isn't the same as the money being wasted.
secure operating system that the military could use... with relation to mines/bombs/etc.
No. With relation to computers. Email, Word documents, databases, and sure maybe the embedded cruise missle controller or two.
Theo said that he doesn't like the US Military. He disagrees with them and their mission. That's what he said. He at the same time wants the research wing of the same military to fund him. They are contradicting points.
No, he said he'd rather have the money spent on OpenBSD than on building bombs. And he happened to be working on OpenBSD. Sounds perfectly complementary to me. He might not be the best guy to pick to work on a self-healing minefield or something, but that wasn't what he was working on, was it?
So would you feel safer knowing they have free and unfettered access to software people are pretty sure is exceptionally secure, and difficult to penetrate without the human factor? Or would you feel safer knowing they use less than current versions software of somewhat ambigious security, where a comparitively tiny fraction of people know precisely how secure that software is, and precisely the circumstances under which it isn't?
First, if you feel noticeably more "safe" under either circumstance, then you are suffering from a severe overdose of fear. I suggest relaxing by reading some statistics regarding the odds of being killed by a terrorist attack versus, say, a Big Mac.
Second, if the terrorists are stuck with second-rate security that the feds can easily penetrate (which I'm presuming is the logic by which you'd feel more "safe"), then so are you. You want your government to do something to really make you more safe? How about using your tax dollars to make your own computer more secure to reduce the risk of having your identity stolen (or kiddie porn dropped on your hard drive).
Theo made clear that he doesn't agree with the idea that taxes (not even from DARPA, but just in general) go to making bombs. While, fine. But that doesn't jive with the stated goal of DARPA, which is to research militarily applicable stuff.
How is being against making bombs being against defense research? Theo was being funded to develop a secure operating system that the military could use. Obviously he wasn't against that idea. How does what he thinks about bomb building become relevent? He isn't making bombs. Yet the implication seems to be that if you don't fully support everything your government does, you aren't eligible for government money. Refrain from voicing criticism or holding alternative political views, because you will lose your funding.
From your argument, DARPA has no right to exclude neo-Nazi's who wish to research new torture methods from getting federal research funds.
Knocking down a straw man through absurdity. Not bad. We're not talking about researching torture, we're talking about developing OpenBSD. If a coder for OpenBSD was a neo-Nazi, would it matter? What if they were a Libertarian? Both have politics that may not mesh with DARPA, but why is that even relevent?
I mean, its only their opinions that whites are the master race, right?
What, and you don't think this opinion exists within DARPA?
No, dude. There isn't a single-channel board available for existing parts right now. All Opteron boards are dual-channel. If you want single-channel boards, wait until September (barring further delays;) ) and the launch of Athlon64.
The system all the review sites are using is the Newisys 2100, which uses both channels... of course. Why did you think they weren't using dual channel?
IMHO the biggest hurdle to overcome is the routing and content search protocols. If users could seamlessly take advantage of all the resources that the global internet has and the ones that their local or national free-net has then the free-net could grow organically from just a few connections.
Some ISPs allow sharing network connections over WAPs, or so I hear (Time Warner not being one of them). Particularly if this allows them to get more business, they might be the way to get access to the internet at large.
As to routing and search, I think FreeNet may be a good place to start, though it already assumes a reliable transport layer (AFAIK). I'm not sure if much has been done in the area of routing in the face of hostile hosts which would inevitably turn up as a way to sabotage the community net. Establishing that a node is a reliable router may be difficult.
I am quite worried about the possibility that such a movement would be squashed by claims of terrorism. It's been very effective in accomplishing whatever else the administration has wanted with no signs of "the masses" wising up. African-Americans are a minority, and it'll take a majority to keep freedom alive. Unless we can, as you say, quickly capture the mindshare of the masses.
These ideas are all still very amorphous in my head... I think the next step would be to see who else out there is thinking the same thing, and what they've done. Anyway, peace.:)
The moment that community wi-fi(or whatever) networks starts challenging corporate power they will be made illegal. Adding non-standard antennas to 802.11 equipment is already against FCC rules.
Ultimately, I fear you are right. The question is: can we make something that the people will resist being made illegal? Can we set up this network and make it good enough that your average internet user will want to keep it? Can we make it something that people will fight for, like they did for the ANWR? I think it is possible, but the window of opportunity may be small.
Highways were constructed by the government, but highways are expensive. You need to own land, and then pave that land. For the network we're talking about all you need is free spectrum, and equipment cheap enough for just about anyone to buy. It -can- be done, we just need to know exactly what it will take to do it.
We might have to forget about wirelines, since they cost a lot of money and you need permission to lay them down. But lasers could work. Might be a trick routing across the mountains (god damn mountains), but they do have pretty decent range, right?
Hey, that's great, except a patented idea that makes no money is still patented. Companies already patent bumloads of things that they never actually use because even if you don't use it, your competitor can't either (without licensing it from you). Patents are already being used more as a cudgel against competition than as a way to protect inventors; your idea would only make it worse.
There aren't going to be any easy, simple answers to these problems.
Slashdot Mirror
However, in this case, there is an avenue available: The Penny Arcade guys could represent their side of the case in court. Ergo, no censorship has taken place. That they don't have the money to do so is a different issue.
So if I tell you to stop talking under threat of me shooting you, I'm not really censoring you since you always have the option of dodging the bullet. That you can't dodge bullets is a different issue.
I'm sorry, but in the case of theory (they could fight it in court) versus reality (they don't have the resources to fight it, even if they would eventually win), reality is what determines if censorship is taking place.
The mentality that something being technically possible is equivalent to it being possible has been used in the past to remove peoples' rights. Literacy tests in the south were used to prevent blacks from voting, even though technically they still had that right. Just like that was found to be an illegal restriction on their right to vote because of the reality that virtually no blacks were allowed to vote, this is a case of censorship.
Or in short: Free speech that costs more than you can afford to exercise isn't free, is it?
Say something like "from the people who've whored out your childhood memories for twenty dollars and american mcgee" or otherwise indicate that you have some sort of critical point to make.
I don't like that, simply because it mandates form in order to qualify for protection as a parody. Why does it have to be like a bad political cartoon where everything is explicitly labeled just so that any retard can see that you're trying to make a statement? I can see the exact remark you are suggesting be plastered on the image in the image itself. Is it not satire if it isn't obvious?
I suppose in the future we'll all be required to put "This is a work of parody of Strawberry Shortcake (tm American Bumcrammers, all rights reserved) and American McGee's Alice (tm American McGee, all rights reserved) and of Gaming Culture in General (tm Electronic Arts, all rights reserved)" in minimum size 14 font just to avoid being insta-sued by legal webcrawlers.
No, the fundamental difference between a conservative and a liberal is that conservatives believe their own success is solely because of their strong character, and that anyone who is poor is so because they are lazy, incompetent, unambitious, or otherwise inferior.
:)
:)
Nine times out of ten, this is a result of a gross inexperience with reality. A sheltered life, if you will. Out in the real world, the evidence is more than adequate that wealth and competence, power and hard work, success and whatever quality it is you think poor people lack, are only occasionally related. You meet enough rich lazy idiots and enough poor people breaking their back trying to not be poor anymore, and you stop spouting that kind of foolishness. You see enough rich people actively working to better themselves at the expense of the poor. You spend some time in the real world, and realize the substantial obstacles to improving one's situation, and think "Gee, maybe it isn't entirely their fault after all. Maybe, were it not for luck or circumstance, that could be me."
Poor people are not poor because some rich person stepped all over them. In fact, thats the attitude that keeps them poor.
Not always, but often, yes, that is the attitude that keeps them poor.
Oh, wait, I don't think that's what you meant.
P.S. Don't come back at me with all the problems of liberalism. I know, but that's not what we're talking about.
for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage
NICE TRY.
HAND.
No it doesn't, and you have completely failed to demonstrate that it does. You stream non sequitors together, quote Plato and then say "bottom line, all men are Socrates". It's nonsense.
You make no sense. If pointing that out is a personal attack, then so be it. You're still wrong.
You were being a literalist with regard to the law (and a poor quote of the law at that), not the definition of copy. But as usual, your rebuttle has little to do with the actual point, and thus only wastes time. Which I'm done doing.
When have you ever received the original software? All you ever get is copies.
And the copy you get you are free to do whatever you want with. You buy a book, you can sell that book to a used book store. You can't sell 50 copies of that book you made with a photocopier (or a printing press) without the copyright holder's permission. This is so basic, I don't believe you don't understand. Which leaves you being deliberately stupid, which is kinda annoying.
The law doesn't say that you can't distributes copies which you have made yourself. It says you can't distribute copies.
Look, if you were just being a literalist for the sake of your own amusement, you could have just said so.
Where does the GPL allow you to sell binaries without modifying them and without including the source code (or a written offer of the source code)?
It doesn't have to. If you have a copy of Red Hat Linux, you can sell that copy of Red Hat Linux however you like.
Which is either what you are doing, or you have an agreement with Microsoft (or obviously some other entity authorized to enter into such an agreement on MS' behalf).
Copyright law does not say you cannot lend.
It says you can't distribute copies by any method, which would of course include lending. However if you aren't making a copy, then you can lend.
Taking things outside of their contextual meanings seems to be a favorite passtime of yours, but it isn't a valid form of logic.
Modification and copying are things that end users do all the time.
Not as covered by copyright law, and therefore not as regards this discussion.
What good is the source code if you can't modify or copy it?
A good argument for why MS Shared Source isn't so great, but not very relevent since you can modify and copy the source under the GPL. What was your point?
So if according to me, agreeing to the GPL is required prior to using my software, that makes it true?
Um, no. Who said what MS says is actually true? They simply assert that you must agree to the license in order to use the software. Whether or not there is any legal truth to that is, as I said, a matter for the courts.
However, the GPL does not even claim to apply to use, so clearly they are different.
Installing involves copying and modification. So does running.
Actually, they don't. Those terms, as applied to copyright law (which is what we are talking about, since we're talking GPL) have consistantly been found to not include the act of installation or running. Which is simply a case of common sense being enforced in the courts without them being confused by the technology. You make a billion copies of a book whenever you open it, as the photons reflect off the page (and it is those copies that you actually read, since they are what impact your retina), but you aren't violating copyright.
The terms copying, modification, distribution all have meanings. You choose the most general meanings (as opposed to those codified in copyright law and case history) to make your points seem to have merit, but "seem" is about as far as you can get that way.
By installing a program, you modify it.
No you don't.
It forbids you from distributing binaries without distributing source code. That's something that I do all the time with Microsoft software, by reselling it.
Hm.
Either 1) you're selling copies of the software that were purchased from someone else. In this case, you're simply selling things without modifying them, which you could do with GPL software anyway. Or 2) you're creating your own copies of the software, in which case you surely have a license agreement with its own terms and conditions.
Either way, I think your statement is disigenious in seeming to show that you have rights the GPL doesn't allow.
For instance the right to resell binaries without reselling the source.
This is not a right you normally have under copyright law, so that's a bad example.
Sure it does. It tells the End User how that End User is allowed to copy or modify the software.
You're acting like there is no distinction between End User and Distributor, turning End User into a meaningless synonym for "human". Yet the distinction exists as surely as copyright law exists. Those actions prohibited by copyright law are not the purvey of the End User. You can see this clearly in EULAs, which cover copyright-prohibited actions only in as much as to inform you that they are still prohibited, as the EULA is not a distribution license and contains no provisions for distribution. Oppositely, the GPL covers non-copyright-prohibited actions only in as much as to inform you that they are not covered as the GPL is not a Use license.
No, copyright law says you can't copy, modify, distribute, lend, or circumvent.
Copyright law does not say you cannot lend.
Why not? What are you violating if you get around having to click "I agree" for a Microsoft EULA that you're not violating by getting around having to click "I agree" for the GPL?
:)
Um.... Because according to MS, agreeing to the MS EULA is required prior to using the software. The EULA is an agreement specifically covering use. In contrast, it is not required that you agree to the GPL before using the software, so a stupid little click-box that tries to make you agree before using the software is meaningless.
Whether the MS EULA has any meaning anyway is a matter for the courts.
Applying the GPL as an EULA does make it an EULA. The GPL is an agreement. As such it can be used in multiple different ways.
Sorry, but the GPL is not a fork. It's a legal document with specific legal language. Its language is that of a distribution license. It covers distribution, not use, and in fact specifically states such. Given that, it cannot be used as a EULA because it specifically disclaims being an EULA.
I mean, how can you even claim that it becomes a EULA when the supposed "EULA" states "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
I honestly don't remember, but I've seen it more than once.
Other posters mentioned that its probably the GPL being dropped into the "license" slot of an installer. While it may be nice to display the GPL to a user installing the program, putting the "I do/don't agree" buttons there is inappropriate since agreement isn't required, and implied by doing things the license allows you to. But programs not understanding that what they are presenting isn't a EULA doesn't make it a EULA.
I've used many pieces of software which wouldn't allow me to use them without clicking "I Agree" to the GPL. How is that not an EULA?
:)
Because you're not violating anything if you get around having to click on that? Treating the GPL like an EULA doesn't make it an EULA.
BTW, what apps were these?
It does:
;)
One transfer of ownership allowed, no copying.
Next question?
Do you know the difference between distributing (making copies of) and transfering ownership (moving around one copy)?
The MS EULA does not dictate distribution terms (actually, it does -- it says you can't distribute.
He is working on military technology at this point. He's criticizing the the military. They contradict.
There are several things wrong with that. First, you make anything partially funded by the government a military technology (if the military buys canned sardines, canned sardines are military technology). Then, you make any military technology equivalent to all military technology (working on sardine cans is the same as working on nerve gasses). And finally, since all military technology is the same, you have to be for all of it or against all of it (you can't make sardine cans if you wouldn't make nerve gas).
Which is all well and wrong, but not as strange as your apparrent opinion that criticising an organization disqualifies you from working for it. That's a good recipe for a disfunctional organization. Though I guess we are talking about the military.
But should there be a compelling need to tighten up the security of my computer, as opposed to those that are part of the public's infrastructer, that's not the place for tax dollars. That's the place for my time, and or pocket book.
Developing OpenBSD helps the public infrastructure -and- your personal computer should you choose to use it, at no extra cost. So why is that not a good way to spend tax dollars? Tax dollars contributed by everyone, and the results benefit everyone. Not many tax expenditures can say that.
Anyway, as Erik Fish said, the money was just being wasted on BSD anyway.
That's not what he said; that's what you facetiously concluded for him. Obviously the loss of the hackathon is detrimental to the development process. Yes, it will continue anyway, but that isn't the same as the money being wasted.
secure operating system that the military could use... with relation to mines/bombs/etc.
No. With relation to computers. Email, Word documents, databases, and sure maybe the embedded cruise missle controller or two.
Theo said that he doesn't like the US Military. He disagrees with them and their mission. That's what he said. He at the same time wants the research wing of the same military to fund him. They are contradicting points.
No, he said he'd rather have the money spent on OpenBSD than on building bombs. And he happened to be working on OpenBSD. Sounds perfectly complementary to me. He might not be the best guy to pick to work on a self-healing minefield or something, but that wasn't what he was working on, was it?
So would you feel safer knowing they have free and unfettered access to software people are pretty sure is exceptionally secure, and difficult to penetrate without the human factor? Or would you feel safer knowing they use less than current versions software of somewhat ambigious security, where a comparitively tiny fraction of people know precisely how secure that software is, and precisely the circumstances under which it isn't?
First, if you feel noticeably more "safe" under either circumstance, then you are suffering from a severe overdose of fear. I suggest relaxing by reading some statistics regarding the odds of being killed by a terrorist attack versus, say, a Big Mac.
Second, if the terrorists are stuck with second-rate security that the feds can easily penetrate (which I'm presuming is the logic by which you'd feel more "safe"), then so are you. You want your government to do something to really make you more safe? How about using your tax dollars to make your own computer more secure to reduce the risk of having your identity stolen (or kiddie porn dropped on your hard drive).
Theo made clear that he doesn't agree with the idea that taxes (not even from DARPA, but just in general) go to making bombs. While, fine. But that doesn't jive with the stated goal of DARPA, which is to research militarily applicable stuff.
How is being against making bombs being against defense research? Theo was being funded to develop a secure operating system that the military could use. Obviously he wasn't against that idea. How does what he thinks about bomb building become relevent? He isn't making bombs. Yet the implication seems to be that if you don't fully support everything your government does, you aren't eligible for government money. Refrain from voicing criticism or holding alternative political views, because you will lose your funding.
From your argument, DARPA has no right to exclude neo-Nazi's who wish to research new torture methods from getting federal research funds.
Knocking down a straw man through absurdity. Not bad. We're not talking about researching torture, we're talking about developing OpenBSD. If a coder for OpenBSD was a neo-Nazi, would it matter? What if they were a Libertarian? Both have politics that may not mesh with DARPA, but why is that even relevent?
I mean, its only their opinions that whites are the master race, right?
What, and you don't think this opinion exists within DARPA?
No, dude. There isn't a single-channel board available for existing parts right now. All Opteron boards are dual-channel. If you want single-channel boards, wait until September (barring further delays ;) ) and the launch of Athlon64.
The system all the review sites are using is the Newisys 2100, which uses both channels... of course. Why did you think they weren't using dual channel?
IMHO the biggest hurdle to overcome is the routing and content search protocols. If users could seamlessly take advantage of all the resources that the global internet has and the ones that their local or national free-net has then the free-net could grow organically from just a few connections.
:)
Some ISPs allow sharing network connections over WAPs, or so I hear (Time Warner not being one of them). Particularly if this allows them to get more business, they might be the way to get access to the internet at large.
As to routing and search, I think FreeNet may be a good place to start, though it already assumes a reliable transport layer (AFAIK). I'm not sure if much has been done in the area of routing in the face of hostile hosts which would inevitably turn up as a way to sabotage the community net. Establishing that a node is a reliable router may be difficult.
I am quite worried about the possibility that such a movement would be squashed by claims of terrorism. It's been very effective in accomplishing whatever else the administration has wanted with no signs of "the masses" wising up. African-Americans are a minority, and it'll take a majority to keep freedom alive. Unless we can, as you say, quickly capture the mindshare of the masses.
These ideas are all still very amorphous in my head... I think the next step would be to see who else out there is thinking the same thing, and what they've done. Anyway, peace.
The moment that community wi-fi(or whatever) networks starts challenging corporate power they will be made illegal. Adding non-standard antennas to 802.11 equipment is already against FCC rules.
Ultimately, I fear you are right. The question is: can we make something that the people will resist being made illegal? Can we set up this network and make it good enough that your average internet user will want to keep it? Can we make it something that people will fight for, like they did for the ANWR? I think it is possible, but the window of opportunity may be small.
Highways were constructed by the government, but highways are expensive. You need to own land, and then pave that land. For the network we're talking about all you need is free spectrum, and equipment cheap enough for just about anyone to buy. It -can- be done, we just need to know exactly what it will take to do it.
We might have to forget about wirelines, since they cost a lot of money and you need permission to lay them down. But lasers could work. Might be a trick routing across the mountains (god damn mountains), but they do have pretty decent range, right?
Hey, that's great, except a patented idea that makes no money is still patented. Companies already patent bumloads of things that they never actually use because even if you don't use it, your competitor can't either (without licensing it from you). Patents are already being used more as a cudgel against competition than as a way to protect inventors; your idea would only make it worse.
There aren't going to be any easy, simple answers to these problems.