Re: Actually...
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 2, Redundant
bombing and retaliation will not bring that about.
that will only escalate the violence such that more
people will die on both sides.
This argument is crap. It's a classic pyramid scheme. Unless both sides have infinite resources, "escalating the violence" is a process with a finite duration.
I'm worried that we aren't escalating the violence enough. We are faced with a choice: suffer perpetual attack from a culture that cannot accept peaceful coexistence or destroy it.
You are postulating that the enemy can never be destroyed. You are wrong. That argument would have lost WWII, where we faced a much tougher set of opponents.
The Taliban has 45,000 soldiers, entrenched in bunkers, willing to die in suicide attacks. At Okin awa, the Japanese had 100,000 soldiers, entrenched in bunkers, willing to die in suicide attacks. We defeated the Japanese Empire at Okinawa, we will defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. But not with token bombing raids.
Re: Bombing Sicily to get rid of the Mafia
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 2
The only reasons we seem to be surprised at how much we're hated out there is that we don't take the time to learn what our country has done over there, what past attitudes have been, past policies, past responses. Everyone knows America isn't well-liked in certain areas of the world... but precious few man-on-the-street Joe Average Citizens can tell you -why-. That, in a nutshell, is what the problem is.
We are hated because a faction of the Islamic world has been raised in a mental pressure cooker to believe that anyone different from them is evil. They can't accept Israel because Jews are unacceptable to them. They can't accept a US presence in Saudia Arabia -- why? because we're not like them, of course. We believe that there is nothing wrong with Christians, Jews, and Muslims living near each other, be it in Manhatten or in Riyad.
We don't believe in ethnic, religious, cultural tolerance they don't. They hate us because we respect "the individual" which means respecting people who choose not to be like them. That principle, also called freedom, is directly opposed to their principle of Islamic uniformity.
I disagree with Katz. This is nothing new. The Christians tried it during the Crusades, Hitler tried it in Germany. Countless others tried it. As Bush said, they will follow its path all the way to history's unmarked graveyard of discarded lies.
The only thing I am worried about is people who think that there is anything that we DON'T understand. The "we need to understand" people are in denial. The enemy's world-view does not allow peaceful coexistence with people who believe in individual rights. They place their culture above its members, which they demonstrate by suicide attacks. When confronted with such a fundamentally different world-view we have three choices: (1) adopt their culture (2) destroy their culture (3) accept ongoing conflict.
I don't think any of these are considered forks; everyone understands that this way pacthes get more testing, "crosstalk" between the different flavors is a given.
Well, I disagree -- they are ALL forks. Any time you create a patch you are forking. The open source development model relies on perpetual fork and merge to accomplish its development. Most projects are forked this way into a development and a stable branch. I call this a "constructive fork". The AC kernels are perpetually different, but importantly they are generally about the same "distance" away, and "crosstalk" as you call it keeps it that way.
As the "distance" increases, tension increases, and if it isn't resolved it will divide the development camp. If the crosstalk stops, and the idea of eventual merge is abandoned, you have a "true" fork. Developers have to pick sides, and the split can become permanent.
I think the AC kernels have always been the former kind of constructive fork. If he never adopts the new VM, then his kernel will begins to diverge since developing for two VM's is hard. In this way, a small perterbation can become a full blown deviation that divides developer resources. I really doubt that the VM issue will divide the linux kernel team permanently. As AC's kernel gets farther away from the main line, the tension on everyone will increase. Eventually, I predict, the team will force one solution, but there is no guarantee.
You're copyright most certain does go to the party that pays for the work.
It appears you didn't read the case. That was the precise issue before the Court in CCNV v. Reid. They wrote:
The Copyright Act of 1976 provides that copyright ownership "vests initially in the author or authors of the work." 17 U.S.C. s 201(a). As a general rule, the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection. s 102.
Why you refuse to see that a freelance sculpture is the same as freelance software is beyond me. There is a list of types of work that can be work for hire (see below). Software, like sculpture, is not one of them. Independent contractors who create software retain the copyright unless it is explicitly signed over. That's the law. See for example, this resource if you need to hear it from a lawyer.
At least, that is what everything I have ever read or heard implies.
Well, then you are reading or hearing the wrong thing. In particular, you could try THE LAW ITSELF (gasp), which is discussed in the case I cited. 17 USC 101:
* A ''work made for hire'' is -
* (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
* (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
Dictionaries have followed the Cold War misuse of the term, yes, as said misuse was and is widespread, but that doesn't change the term's actual meaning.
I agree dictionaries do not "change" a term's meaning. But they do "define" it. I simply refuse to adopt your incorrect word usages. Go play your word games someplace else.
Just out of curiosity, why didn't you respond to this part: I argued why OSS was capitalist. My arguement applies equally well if the workers own the copyright or if it's a work for hire owned by a company. The fact that the latter occurs proves OSS is not "true socialism" according to your definition.
Instead, you accused me of "red-baiting" for asking you what term you would apply when the FSF and not "the workers" own GPL copyrights. Of course, you didn't answer the question because you'd have to admit that either free software is socialist by my original meaning (which you call Stalinist) or that it's not socialist at all, but is in fact capitalist. I, of course, do NOT consider RMS to be a Stalin-like figure but rather one very successful IP investor in the software arena.
If I understand this correctly, FT made a contract with Mosfet to pay him to code specific software. He performed his part of the bargain, but they breached the contract.
Now THEY claim that they are going to sue!? If anything, HE should be suing THEM. Given their bad faith threats he'd have a good chance at getting more than actual damages.
By the way, it sounds a whole lot like he's an independent contractor instead of an employee, so unless their contract is written and explicitly signs the copyright over, even if they do pay him, he still owns the copyright. See CCNV v Reid.
Well you can define those terms that way if you want to. Stalin considered himself a socialist, so I consider him a socialist. I think Stalin's definition is definition that dictionaries use.
Generally, "the workers" are the government when this is tried in practice, so there no distinction among "real world" socialism. Your citations agree that "true socialism" (as you call it) "on a national level has never been tried anywhere in the world."
I'm afraid that if you want to speak about ficticious forms of government, then it's you that will have to pick new terminolgy.
I argued why OSS was capitalist. My arguement applies equally well if the workers own the copyright or if it's a work for hire owned by a company. The fact that the latter occurs proves OSS is not "true socialism" according to your definition. By the way, I wonder what you think about the fact that the FSF often is given outright copyright ownership for GPL works. Would this make free software an act of "Stalinism" with RMS as dictator in your view?
This is something that I think that the OSS movement underemphasizes due to the socialist image that is so feared in the software industry.
OSS is a very socialist movement. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's been made into a bad thing by decades of 'red scare' propoganda and negative indoctrination by the companies who stand to be hurt by a less capitalist system of software development.
OSS isn't socialist at all. Socialism is a system where private property is owned by "the government" and its use is allocated by legislative decree. OSS is private property. The copyright is NOT given to the government and NOT given to the public domain. It is retained by the author as a private individual. This is done out of rational self interest that would make a die hard capitalist (like me or ESR) proud.
When someone releases code, say under the GPL, they are making an offer for trade. The trade is that I give you complete access to my intellectual property and in return any derivitive IP you develop and distribute is thrown into the pool, so that I get access to it and together we make the same offer again. I make a speculative investment with the goal of gaining access to the IP of others for free. Its a form of direct barter and is based on the recognition that IP value has actual tangilble use value, not just a value because it provides an exclusive right to sell.
Think of software development as a service. In order to control my computer, I need someone to provide that service. I can do it entirely myself, or I can pay someone else large amounts of money, or I can do a little bit of it myself and use that as barter to get a "force multiplier". OSS is about option three.
This model explains why companies that throw their software out under an open source licence but don't adopt the open source development model don't get the same return on investment.
band together to resist these laws. there's power in numbers, join the ACLU [aclu.org]
What laws are you talking about? This is nothing more than a trade.
All trade involves each side giving up something it has a right to. Employment is just another form of trade and when it is "at will", either side can terminate the employment relationship at any time for (almost) any reason. You can quit if you don't like the searches, or you can voluntarily agree to allow yourself to be searched and they can voluntarily agree to pay you.
If the employer (who may be the US government) deals with items that are potentially useful to terrorists, I think it would be negligent for such a company to not implement security measures that stop such material from walking out the front door. That means they can do one of three things: A) not do business at all B) do business safely, with inspections of employees C) do business unsafely and risk liability damages is something happens.
They are probably being responsible by choosing B.
2 guys on the CIA watch list took flight lessons under their own names, made airline reservations on the internet which they paid for with their own credit cards. Then they walked in wearing T-shirts with the words "I AM A TERRORIST, DON'T LET ME HIJACK YOUR AIRPLANE" and were let on the plane.
I think the open source community needs to insist that everything be encrypted by default. Examples:
by default apache should use https instead of http
fork the email protocol so it *only* uses PGP/GPG and retrieves the public key of the recipient
telnetd and ftpd should be removed from all open source distros
Perhaps LUG's could even offer certificate signing. I really would like to have an parallel email protocol that only allowed signed and encrypted emails.
I wonder if BW Taylor beats his/her partner. After all, "I wonder if" is a far cry from...
That's a perfect example to distinguish. You have no reason to wonder about this since it is completely mundane that I don't.
Read the other comments. Intercepting system calls is not hard, and others have done it. This sort of posting betrays more of the ignorance of the poster than anything else.
The answer to a question is irrelevent to assessing the merits of the question. Generally one asks a question precisely because one doesn't know the answer or the reasoning behind it, and pretty much you never learn anything usefull UNLESS you ask questions you don't know the answer to.
If the guy did all the work originally and obeyed the GPL licence, then he should be proud of it and glad to know that some people find that a surprising accomplishment.
I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here.
It seems like a fair question. "I wonder if..." is a far cry from a "suggest[ion] that...".
To completely implement a system capable of behaving like Linux without violating the licence would take an enormous amount of work. It certainly IS possible and could be done with a determined effort, but if somebody shows up out of the blue claiming they've done it, I think it is a fair question to wonder if they did it fairly, and if so, how.
I didn't interpret his statement as alleging a GPL violation. It just does seem surprising that one could do it without an open source licence as a force multiplier. Sometimes things are surprising because they are really high quality work and sometimes they are surprising because they ripped somebody off. It's healthy skepticism to probe which.
The EFF position is summarized by this statement: Specifically, any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients.
That statement is false. The right to speak does not include the right to have the attention of the listener. Would the EFF say that the mailroom at NBC that opens and filters Tom Brokaw's mail violates the right of the sender to reach Tom Brokaw? Hiring an ISP that uses blacklists is no different than having a mail room screen your snailmail.
The listener is free to delete an email without reading it that arrives at his box. He is free to automate this process. He is free to automate this process dynamically by using information from a blacklist or any other method he chooses including rolling dice, racial profiling, or astrology. He is free to choose an ISP that automates this process for him. He is free to choose an ISP that automates this process for him by using dynamic information from a blacklist. These freedoms are inherent in the first amendment's right to receive information. What is not OK is for the government to mandate a filtering process, since this violates the listener's right to receive speech as well as the right of the sender to communicate with a willing listener.
The right to free speech exercised by sending email is a right to attempt to attract the attention of the listener through that particular medium. It is not a right to obtain that attention (which would essentially be a right to involuntary servitude). The scenario that the EFF rightly fears is that the sender and recipient want the email to get through, but the ISP filters it in a way unknown to the recipient. The proper way to avoid this is to eliminate deceptive trade practices on the part of the ISP. All that is required is for the ISP to state it's filtering policy up front and adhere to it.
Reselling software is a first sale right. A EULA that takes this away is misuse of copyright. Trying to enforce that EULA should be an antitrust violation. Somebody should sue.
Plaintiffs' Claim Does Not Admit of Conclusive Relief, As The Applicability of the DMCA to Their Conduct Is Contingent on The Precise Papers They Intend to Publish, Which Plaintiffs Have Not Yet Articulated.
Funny, in another Court they argue that the DMCA is not content based, but hear they argue that you have to see the content to make the decision. Which is it, DOJ?
Not to quibble, but a motion to dismiss is different from a motion for summary judgement.
A case will be dismissed when the plaintiff fails to state a claim for which the court can provide a remedy. Basically, you apply the law to the set of facts claimed by the plaintiff.
Summary judgement is appropriate when the application of the law to the set of facts agreed to by the parties resolves the dispute.
Motions for summary judgement will be denied if the outcome depends on a triable fact. Generally, the district court makes findings of fact as the result of hearing the testimony and evidence. Then the case is decided by applying the law to the district court's findings of fact. Those findings of fact are subjected to an 'abuse of discretion' standard, which is a very forgiving standard.
Re:The reach of the internet ... How this started
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 2
The Fox News article says:
"Reuters spokeswoman Felicia Cosby said the photos were authentic."
"Associated Press spokesman Jack Stokes said the AP photographs were also untouched."
The doctored photo is the one with Bert and Bin Laden, but that was incorporated into the poster. If you see an image of the poster without Bert, it's because the poster was doctored to remove Bert.
So far, the US/UK forces have blown up some airports Uh, no. We struck anti-aircraft defences at airports. We are purposefully leaving the airports themselves intact.
The US really should update its maps. I'm sure the Chinese would help pay for some. Iraq and Libya would probably chip in some cash, too, given the number of civilians killed by "stray" missiles, fired in anger by US pilots, in both countries. Your idea about the US needing better maps is really absurd. Basing some opinion on the fuzz in your navel is pretty uninspiring. Stop making things up. Do you have any evidence that US pilots fire "in anger", or are you just spewing home-brewed drivel?
The first problem is that the military are unbelievably dumb.
This sounds like self-congratulatory chest thumping to me. Name calling and saying a whole group of people are "dumb" is just a form of bigotry, really.
The second problem is that even the "smart" technology is far from "smart".
All that "smart" refers to is GPS guided. Typically, the blast radius is greater than the error bar. Ocassionally, something malfunctions or is interfered with. Your boo-hoo'ing about collateral damage is really boring. You can complain all you want, but nobody really cares. It's war, that's expected. If anything, you should congratulate the military on impoving its accuracy with technology. We try to minimize it, keeping in mind that our own civilians die if we do nothing.
The third problem is that this kind of war depersonalises it. Death and destruction at the push of a button, with no understanding or compassion. Reminds me a lot of Davros, from the television series "Doctor Who", or the Cybermen. The violin music is overwhelming. The only understanding I want is the kind where I understand that they aren't able to support their evil beliefs with action.
I'm so sick of hearing about how we need "understanding". What the hell is so hard to understand: Al Qaeda wants to kill anybody differnt than them. We are supposedly infidels and they have declared jihad against us. Peaceful coexistence IS NOT AN OPTION, because THEY SO CHOOSE. I think you should turn off your science fiction and pay attention to the real world, because somebody is trying to kill you because you aren't a muslim extremist like them.
First of all, forget all the doomsday scenarios. The US could conquer the bunker bound Taliban pretty easily with direct ground forces. The closest military precedent for this is the battle of Okinawa in WWII. The US defeated 100,000 Japanese troops who had hunkered down in the mountains in caves, tunnels and bunkers that they had taken a very long time to reinforce. The Japs were more fanatical (yes, more) than the Taliban in terms of their willingness to die for their cause. The total cost to US lives was 12,000 dead.
With this as a benchmark, 40,000 Taliban/Al Qaeda troops can be defeated by conventional direct ground troup assualt with approximately 4800 US troops lost. The goal of all the technology is to reduce that 4800 number. It will do this dramatically. The ways technology will help us are:
Precision bombing of air defenses to establish complete airspace dominance enabling rapid strike helicopter based special operations
Satelite, drone, and "webcam" style recon to identify tactical targets and track troop and operative movements
Precision heavy munitions: large 5,000 "bunker buster" bombs
Precision tactical light munitions: smaller payloads such as precision mortar used tactically against troops
"Painting" targets for aerial bombing by ground based forces allows attack without giving up position
Night vision gives a decisive tactical superiority in guerilla fighting
Communication monitoring, jamming, and even psych ops style transmitting & disinformation
In the end, it WILL still come down to special forces breaking down doors suddenly and killing at close range. Techology will assure that this is done against weaker immobilized opponents, that it comes rapidly with less warning, and that it occurs under conditions highly favorable to our troops.
Laughable. You didn't really respond to any of my points other than to say that air superiority isn't useful because of the geography: a 'natural bunker'.
You should study the battle of Okinawa, because it is very similar. The Japanese started with 100,000 troops in heavily fortified bunkers, tunnels and caves in mountainous terrain. (Sound familiar) They were fanatics, willing to die in suicide attacks (I'm not so sure that this is true of the rank and file Taliban fighter, but for the Japanese, this is now a historical fact). The final result: 12,000 American and 100,000 Japanese died and the US controlled Okinawa after three months.
Merely getting comparable results in Afghanistan would yeild all 40,000 Taliban forces killed with 4800 American casualites. For the reasons I enumerated in the original post, the US would do much better in 2001 Afghanistan than they did in 1945 against the Japanese. The enemy is similar in terms of military capability, but our forces have progressed greatly. No 5,000 lb. bunker busters existed in Okinawa.
In a guerilla war, uncontested airspace is exploited with helicopters which ofter basically the only means of rapid troop movement. Basically, we'll be able to move and they won't. Combine this with night vision and precision tactical munitions and you'll see the Taliban get an ass kicking for the ages.
Of course he will survive this. Iraq was basically destroyed yet that dumbass is still running around over there.
We defined victory then as kicking him out of Kuwait. Rightly or wrongly, we made the decision to do just what we said we would do. As a result, we have very great credibility with moderate Arab states now.
We absolutely could have toppled Saddam, but had we done so we might not be able to use bases in Saudi Arabia and Oman right now.
Slashdot Mirror
bombing and retaliation will not bring that about.
that will only escalate the violence such that more
people will die on both sides.
This argument is crap. It's a classic pyramid scheme. Unless both sides have infinite resources, "escalating the violence" is a process with a finite duration.
I'm worried that we aren't escalating the violence enough. We are faced with a choice: suffer perpetual attack from a culture that cannot accept peaceful coexistence or destroy it.
You are postulating that the enemy can never be destroyed. You are wrong. That argument would have lost WWII, where we faced a much tougher set of opponents.
The Taliban has 45,000 soldiers, entrenched in bunkers, willing to die in suicide attacks. At Okin awa, the Japanese had 100,000 soldiers, entrenched in bunkers, willing to die in suicide attacks. We defeated the Japanese Empire at Okinawa, we will defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. But not with token bombing raids.
That's why we aren't targeting the Afghans.
The only reasons we seem to be surprised at how much we're hated out there is that we don't take the time to learn what our country has done over there, what past attitudes have been, past policies, past responses. Everyone knows America isn't well-liked in certain areas of the world... but precious few man-on-the-street Joe Average Citizens can tell you -why-. That, in a nutshell, is what the problem is.
We are hated because a faction of the Islamic world has been raised in a mental pressure cooker to believe that anyone different from them is evil. They can't accept Israel because Jews are unacceptable to them. They can't accept a US presence in Saudia Arabia -- why? because we're not like them, of course. We believe that there is nothing wrong with Christians, Jews, and Muslims living near each other, be it in Manhatten or in Riyad.
We don't believe in ethnic, religious, cultural tolerance they don't. They hate us because we respect "the individual" which means respecting people who choose not to be like them. That principle, also called freedom, is directly opposed to their principle of Islamic uniformity.
I disagree with Katz. This is nothing new. The Christians tried it during the Crusades, Hitler tried it in Germany. Countless others tried it. As Bush said, they will follow its path all the way to history's unmarked graveyard of discarded lies.
The only thing I am worried about is people who think that there is anything that we DON'T understand. The "we need to understand" people are in denial. The enemy's world-view does not allow peaceful coexistence with people who believe in individual rights. They place their culture above its members, which they demonstrate by suicide attacks. When confronted with such a fundamentally different world-view we have three choices: (1) adopt their culture (2) destroy their culture (3) accept ongoing conflict.
I fear we will choose (3) instead of (2).
I don't think any of these are considered forks; everyone understands that this way pacthes get more testing, "crosstalk" between the different flavors is a given.
Well, I disagree -- they are ALL forks. Any time you create a patch you are forking. The open source development model relies on perpetual fork and merge to accomplish its development. Most projects are forked this way into a development and a stable branch. I call this a "constructive fork". The AC kernels are perpetually different, but importantly they are generally about the same "distance" away, and "crosstalk" as you call it keeps it that way.
As the "distance" increases, tension increases, and if it isn't resolved it will divide the development camp. If the crosstalk stops, and the idea of eventual merge is abandoned, you have a "true" fork. Developers have to pick sides, and the split can become permanent.
I think the AC kernels have always been the former kind of constructive fork. If he never adopts the new VM, then his kernel will begins to diverge since developing for two VM's is hard. In this way, a small perterbation can become a full blown deviation that divides developer resources. I really doubt that the VM issue will divide the linux kernel team permanently. As AC's kernel gets farther away from the main line, the tension on everyone will increase. Eventually, I predict, the team will force one solution, but there is no guarantee.
It appears you didn't read the case. That was the precise issue before the Court in CCNV v. Reid. They wrote:
Why you refuse to see that a freelance sculpture is the same as freelance software is beyond me. There is a list of types of work that can be work for hire (see below). Software, like sculpture, is not one of them. Independent contractors who create software retain the copyright unless it is explicitly signed over. That's the law. See for example, this resource if you need to hear it from a lawyer.
At least, that is what everything I have ever read or heard implies.
Well, then you are reading or hearing the wrong thing. In particular, you could try THE LAW ITSELF (gasp), which is discussed in the case I cited. 17 USC 101:
* A ''work made for hire'' is -
* (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
* (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
I am planning to submit the anti-DMCA petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/nixdmca/petition.htm l
Please have a look and sign it!
Dictionaries have followed the Cold War misuse of the term, yes, as said misuse was and is widespread, but that doesn't change the term's actual meaning.
I agree dictionaries do not "change" a term's meaning. But they do "define" it. I simply refuse to adopt your incorrect word usages. Go play your word games someplace else.
Just out of curiosity, why didn't you respond to this part: I argued why OSS was capitalist. My arguement applies equally well if the workers own the copyright or if it's a work for hire owned by a company. The fact that the latter occurs proves OSS is not "true socialism" according to your definition.
Instead, you accused me of "red-baiting" for asking you what term you would apply when the FSF and not "the workers" own GPL copyrights. Of course, you didn't answer the question because you'd have to admit that either free software is socialist by my original meaning (which you call Stalinist) or that it's not socialist at all, but is in fact capitalist. I, of course, do NOT consider RMS to be a Stalin-like figure but rather one very successful IP investor in the software arena.
If I understand this correctly, FT made a contract with Mosfet to pay him to code specific software. He performed his part of the bargain, but they breached the contract.
Now THEY claim that they are going to sue!? If anything, HE should be suing THEM. Given their bad faith threats he'd have a good chance at getting more than actual damages.
By the way, it sounds a whole lot like he's an independent contractor instead of an employee, so unless their contract is written and explicitly signs the copyright over, even if they do pay him, he still owns the copyright. See CCNV v Reid.
Well you can define those terms that way if you want to. Stalin considered himself a socialist, so I consider him a socialist. I think Stalin's definition is definition that dictionaries use.
Generally, "the workers" are the government when this is tried in practice, so there no distinction among "real world" socialism. Your citations agree that "true socialism" (as you call it) "on a national level has never been tried anywhere in the world."
I'm afraid that if you want to speak about ficticious forms of government, then it's you that will have to pick new terminolgy.
I argued why OSS was capitalist. My arguement applies equally well if the workers own the copyright or if it's a work for hire owned by a company. The fact that the latter occurs proves OSS is not "true socialism" according to your definition. By the way, I wonder what you think about the fact that the FSF often is given outright copyright ownership for GPL works. Would this make free software an act of "Stalinism" with RMS as dictator in your view?
This is something that I think that the OSS movement underemphasizes due to the socialist image that is so feared in the software industry.
OSS is a very socialist movement. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's been made into a bad thing by decades of 'red scare' propoganda and negative indoctrination by the companies who stand to be hurt by a less capitalist system of software development.
OSS isn't socialist at all. Socialism is a system where private property is owned by "the government" and its use is allocated by legislative decree. OSS is private property. The copyright is NOT given to the government and NOT given to the public domain. It is retained by the author as a private individual. This is done out of rational self interest that would make a die hard capitalist (like me or ESR) proud.
When someone releases code, say under the GPL, they are making an offer for trade. The trade is that I give you complete access to my intellectual property and in return any derivitive IP you develop and distribute is thrown into the pool, so that I get access to it and together we make the same offer again. I make a speculative investment with the goal of gaining access to the IP of others for free. Its a form of direct barter and is based on the recognition that IP value has actual tangilble use value, not just a value because it provides an exclusive right to sell.
Think of software development as a service. In order to control my computer, I need someone to provide that service. I can do it entirely myself, or I can pay someone else large amounts of money, or I can do a little bit of it myself and use that as barter to get a "force multiplier". OSS is about option three.
This model explains why companies that throw their software out under an open source licence but don't adopt the open source development model don't get the same return on investment.
band together to resist these laws. there's power in numbers, join the ACLU [aclu.org]
What laws are you talking about? This is nothing more than a trade.
All trade involves each side giving up something it has a right to. Employment is just another form of trade and when it is "at will", either side can terminate the employment relationship at any time for (almost) any reason. You can quit if you don't like the searches, or you can voluntarily agree to allow yourself to be searched and they can voluntarily agree to pay you.
If the employer (who may be the US government) deals with items that are potentially useful to terrorists, I think it would be negligent for such a company to not implement security measures that stop such material from walking out the front door. That means they can do one of three things: A) not do business at all B) do business safely, with inspections of employees C) do business unsafely and risk liability damages is something happens.
They are probably being responsible by choosing B.
2 guys on the CIA watch list took flight lessons under their own names, made airline reservations on the internet which they paid for with their own credit cards. Then they walked in wearing T-shirts with the words "I AM A TERRORIST, DON'T LET ME HIJACK YOUR AIRPLANE" and were let on the plane.
Pull your head out of your ass.
Just out of curiosity, what are the open source technologies for animation?
- by default apache should use https instead of http
- fork the email protocol so it *only* uses PGP/GPG and retrieves the public key of the recipient
- telnetd and ftpd should be removed from all open source distros
Perhaps LUG's could even offer certificate signing. I really would like to have an parallel email protocol that only allowed signed and encrypted emails.I wonder if BW Taylor beats his/her partner. After all, "I wonder if" is a far cry from...
That's a perfect example to distinguish. You have no reason to wonder about this since it is completely mundane that I don't.
Read the other comments. Intercepting system calls is not hard, and others have done it. This sort of posting betrays more of the ignorance of the poster than anything else.
The answer to a question is irrelevent to assessing the merits of the question. Generally one asks a question precisely because one doesn't know the answer or the reasoning behind it, and pretty much you never learn anything usefull UNLESS you ask questions you don't know the answer to.
If the guy did all the work originally and obeyed the GPL licence, then he should be proud of it and glad to know that some people find that a surprising accomplishment.
I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here.
..." is a far cry from a "suggest[ion] that...".
It seems like a fair question. "I wonder if
To completely implement a system capable of behaving like Linux without violating the licence would take an enormous amount of work. It certainly IS possible and could be done with a determined effort, but if somebody shows up out of the blue claiming they've done it, I think it is a fair question to wonder if they did it fairly, and if so, how.
I didn't interpret his statement as alleging a GPL violation. It just does seem surprising that one could do it without an open source licence as a force multiplier. Sometimes things are surprising because they are really high quality work and sometimes they are surprising because they ripped somebody off. It's healthy skepticism to probe which.
The EFF position is summarized by this statement: Specifically, any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients.
That statement is false. The right to speak does not include the right to have the attention of the listener. Would the EFF say that the mailroom at NBC that opens and filters Tom Brokaw's mail violates the right of the sender to reach Tom Brokaw? Hiring an ISP that uses blacklists is no different than having a mail room screen your snailmail.
The listener is free to delete an email without reading it that arrives at his box. He is free to automate this process. He is free to automate this process dynamically by using information from a blacklist or any other method he chooses including rolling dice, racial profiling, or astrology. He is free to choose an ISP that automates this process for him. He is free to choose an ISP that automates this process for him by using dynamic information from a blacklist. These freedoms are inherent in the first amendment's right to receive information. What is not OK is for the government to mandate a filtering process, since this violates the listener's right to receive speech as well as the right of the sender to communicate with a willing listener.
The right to free speech exercised by sending email is a right to attempt to attract the attention of the listener through that particular medium. It is not a right to obtain that attention (which would essentially be a right to involuntary servitude). The scenario that the EFF rightly fears is that the sender and recipient want the email to get through, but the ISP filters it in a way unknown to the recipient. The proper way to avoid this is to eliminate deceptive trade practices on the part of the ISP. All that is required is for the ISP to state it's filtering policy up front and adhere to it.
Reselling software is a first sale right. A EULA that takes this away is misuse of copyright. Trying to enforce that EULA should be an antitrust violation. Somebody should sue.
Plaintiffs' Claim Does Not Admit of Conclusive Relief, As The Applicability of the DMCA to Their Conduct Is Contingent on The Precise Papers They Intend to Publish, Which Plaintiffs Have Not Yet Articulated.
Funny, in another Court they argue that the DMCA is not content based, but hear they argue that you have to see the content to make the decision. Which is it, DOJ?
Not to quibble, but a motion to dismiss is different from a motion for summary judgement.
A case will be dismissed when the plaintiff fails to state a claim for which the court can provide a remedy. Basically, you apply the law to the set of facts claimed by the plaintiff.
Summary judgement is appropriate when the application of the law to the set of facts agreed to by the parties resolves the dispute.
Motions for summary judgement will be denied if the outcome depends on a triable fact. Generally, the district court makes findings of fact as the result of hearing the testimony and evidence. Then the case is decided by applying the law to the district court's findings of fact. Those findings of fact are subjected to an 'abuse of discretion' standard, which is a very forgiving standard.
The doctored photo is the one with Bert and Bin Laden, but that was incorporated into the poster. If you see an image of the poster without Bert, it's because the poster was doctored to remove Bert.
So far, the US/UK forces have blown up some airports
Uh, no. We struck anti-aircraft defences at airports. We are purposefully leaving the airports themselves intact.
The US really should update its maps. I'm sure the Chinese would help pay for some. Iraq and Libya would probably chip in some cash, too, given the number of civilians killed by "stray" missiles, fired in anger by US pilots, in both countries.
Your idea about the US needing better maps is really absurd. Basing some opinion on the fuzz in your navel is pretty uninspiring. Stop making things up. Do you have any evidence that US pilots fire "in anger", or are you just spewing home-brewed drivel?
The first problem is that the military are unbelievably dumb.
This sounds like self-congratulatory chest thumping to me. Name calling and saying a whole group of people are "dumb" is just a form of bigotry, really.
The second problem is that even the "smart" technology is far from "smart".
All that "smart" refers to is GPS guided. Typically, the blast radius is greater than the error bar. Ocassionally, something malfunctions or is interfered with. Your boo-hoo'ing about collateral damage is really boring. You can complain all you want, but nobody really cares. It's war, that's expected. If anything, you should congratulate the military on impoving its accuracy with technology. We try to minimize it, keeping in mind that our own civilians die if we do nothing.
The third problem is that this kind of war depersonalises it. Death and destruction at the push of a button, with no understanding or compassion. Reminds me a lot of Davros, from the television series "Doctor Who", or the Cybermen.
The violin music is overwhelming. The only understanding I want is the kind where I understand that they aren't able to support their evil beliefs with action.
I'm so sick of hearing about how we need "understanding". What the hell is so hard to understand: Al Qaeda wants to kill anybody differnt than them. We are supposedly infidels and they have declared jihad against us. Peaceful coexistence IS NOT AN OPTION, because THEY SO CHOOSE. I think you should turn off your science fiction and pay attention to the real world, because somebody is trying to kill you because you aren't a muslim extremist like them.
With this as a benchmark, 40,000 Taliban/Al Qaeda troops can be defeated by conventional direct ground troup assualt with approximately 4800 US troops lost. The goal of all the technology is to reduce that 4800 number. It will do this dramatically. The ways technology will help us are:
- Precision bombing of air defenses to establish complete airspace dominance enabling rapid strike helicopter based special operations
- Satelite, drone, and "webcam" style recon to identify tactical targets and track troop and operative movements
- Precision heavy munitions: large 5,000 "bunker buster" bombs
- Precision tactical light munitions: smaller payloads such as precision mortar used tactically against troops
- "Painting" targets for aerial bombing by ground based forces allows attack without giving up position
- Night vision gives a decisive tactical superiority in guerilla fighting
- Communication monitoring, jamming, and even psych ops style transmitting & disinformation
In the end, it WILL still come down to special forces breaking down doors suddenly and killing at close range. Techology will assure that this is done against weaker immobilized opponents, that it comes rapidly with less warning, and that it occurs under conditions highly favorable to our troops.Laughable. You didn't really respond to any of my points other than to say that air superiority isn't useful because of the geography: a 'natural bunker'.
You should study the battle of Okinawa, because it is very similar. The Japanese started with 100,000 troops in heavily fortified bunkers, tunnels and caves in mountainous terrain. (Sound familiar) They were fanatics, willing to die in suicide attacks (I'm not so sure that this is true of the rank and file Taliban fighter, but for the Japanese, this is now a historical fact). The final result: 12,000 American and 100,000 Japanese died and the US controlled Okinawa after three months.
Merely getting comparable results in Afghanistan would yeild all 40,000 Taliban forces killed with 4800 American casualites. For the reasons I enumerated in the original post, the US would do much better in 2001 Afghanistan than they did in 1945 against the Japanese. The enemy is similar in terms of military capability, but our forces have progressed greatly. No 5,000 lb. bunker busters existed in Okinawa.
In a guerilla war, uncontested airspace is exploited with helicopters which ofter basically the only means of rapid troop movement. Basically, we'll be able to move and they won't. Combine this with night vision and precision tactical munitions and you'll see the Taliban get an ass kicking for the ages.
Of course he will survive this. Iraq was basically destroyed yet that dumbass is still running around over there.
We defined victory then as kicking him out of Kuwait. Rightly or wrongly, we made the decision to do just what we said we would do. As a result, we have very great credibility with moderate Arab states now.
We absolutely could have toppled Saddam, but had we done so we might not be able to use bases in Saudi Arabia and Oman right now.