Even if this plot is real, and in a sense I wish it is because otherwise it's a sad day for our democracies, it's not normal that the agencies that have foiled it can brush public scrutiny with the now-usual "it's a secret, trust us" statement.
What this means in effect, is that the authorities are free to manipulate public opinion and whip up hysteria without any fear of scrutiny or contradiction.
Even if you don't believe that this is what they are doing, it is clearly worrying that they could do it so easily.
Who in the mainstream media is willing to express scepticism about these claims? And if our media refuses to be sceptical, then how how can it be described as 'free"?
2. If the UK really is under threat of "imminent attack" and there really is credible intelligence on which to base that belief, then shouldn't the PM be in the UK and not on a Caribbean beach?
One cannot be certain at this early stage that this is a mere PR exercise - but neither is it appropriate to suspend scepticism entirely. Especially given the track record of this goverment.
"Gates' game is given away by the fact that his Foundation has invested $200 million in the very drug companies stopping the shipment of low-cost AIDS drugs to Africa.
"[He] says his plan is to reach one million people with medicine by the end of the decade. Another way to read it: he's locking in a trade system that will effectively block the delivery of medicine to over 20 million."
This generally artificial tension is being produced as a convenient cover for the disaster that is Iraq and gives Bushco the ability to walk away from their mess and blame it on civil war.
Actually, the purpose of an 'divide-and-conquer' strategy is two-fold:
1. To weaken the local resistance movement and thus prolong a financially lucrative occupation 2. To provide cover not for withdrawal, but for more effective asset-stripping and resistance-crushing
"Open source means you can read the source, much like an "open book exam" means you can read the book... By my definition, even Windows is Open Source."
Actually, the term Open Source has a clear technical definition, which is available on the OSI website:
In my opinion it is not as successful a definition as the 'four freedoms' used by the FSF, but Open Source is a less misleading term than Free Software for most people.
For one, it has the advantage of actually sounding like a technical term.
For those who nevertheless prefer to use the code under the GPL, we assure you that Real has no plans to pursue any abiding GPL licensee of the Helix DNA Client software
Why should the community trust the good intentions of Real?
The point is that independent software developers should not be subject to the "goodwill" of predatory corporations.
Do people really still not get this? Or are these bland assurances as deceitful as they appear?
In case you're still not getting it...
What happens when Real decides it doesn't want to play nice any more?
It's strange that moderns tend to promote the idea that a person controls everthing except their own actions, when it has been known since ancient times that the reverse is true.
Or maybe not that strange, if one considers that an oligarchic society will naturally tend to a slave mentality.
I reckon Socrates was mostly right about these matters.
What do you think happens when you heat and soften the trusses on an exoskelital building? (I'll tell you because you obviously don't know.) The trusses sag and fail causing the outside, load bearing members buckle without their lateral stabilization, the top falls, and the whole thing comes crashing inward.
Since this is something that you claim to "know", perhaps you could point to one other example of a fire causing a building to collapse in such a fashion.
And if this never happened anywhere else ever, you might want to ask why it happened three times on 9/11.
You keep making these unfounded assertions as if they somehow contradicted the facts contained in my original post.
I shall point those facts out again, in case you have forgotten them:
1. Mossadegh was a democratically elected leader 2. The Iranian parliament voted to nationalise the oil industry 3. The west found this unacceptable and decided to replace the democratically elected government with a dictator of their choosing
As I said before, these facts are important to understanding the current 'paranoia' of the Iranian authorities.
Name-calling and baseless assertions (no matter how forcefully they are made) do not change the facts. Nor are they helpful in understanding why things are the way they are.
You are referring to Iran's brief brush with Stalinism, when the "one man, one vote, one election" dictator Muhammad Mussadegh sought to make Iran's oil wealth his personal property
Despite your ludicrous slur, it remains a fact that Mossadegh was a democratically elected leader and that the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry.
While the Shah and the US had some agreement [...] he wasn't the US's puppet. He tended to jerk the US around more than the US jerked his strings.
Not a good puppet perhaps, but a puppet nonetheless.
It is amusing that you call the democratically elected Mossadegh a 'dictator', and describe the US-installed despot as 'very enlightened'.
Ah, so this is the free and tolerant Islamic society we hear so much about!
Iran was a relatively free and tolerant country up until the government decided to nationalise the oil industry. This was too much for the West to tolerate. The democratic leader Muhammad Mussadegh was overthrown by the CIA and replaced with a Western puppet dictator.
These are essential facts for understanding why the current Iranian government is so 'paranoid'.
Slashdot Mirror
* The investigation has been "critical" for about 2 weeks.
If there was a critical threat to the UK, how come the PM flew out on holiday two days ago?
I can only assume that Tony Blair at least wasn't particularly concerned about this "imminent threat" .
Even if this plot is real, and in a sense I wish it is because otherwise it's a sad day for our democracies, it's not normal that the agencies that have foiled it can brush public scrutiny with the now-usual "it's a secret, trust us" statement.
What this means in effect, is that the authorities are free to manipulate public opinion and whip up hysteria without any fear of scrutiny or contradiction.
Even if you don't believe that this is what they are doing, it is clearly worrying that they could do it so easily.
Who in the mainstream media is willing to express scepticism about these claims? And if our media refuses to be sceptical, then how how can it be described as 'free"?
Some points:
1. The British authorities have a record of attempting to conjure 'terrorist threats' out of nothing in order to increase public support for unpopular foreign and domestic policy decisions.
2. If the UK really is under threat of "imminent attack" and there really is credible intelligence on which to base that belief, then shouldn't the PM be in the UK and not on a Caribbean beach?
One cannot be certain at this early stage that this is a mere PR exercise - but neither is it appropriate to suspend scepticism entirely. Especially given the track record of this goverment.
He didn't want the code that he and so many others poured their hearts and souls into to be stolen and closed like the Cedega situation.
And that is exactly why the GPL is being updated.
Make no mistake - RMS may be driven by ethics, but the GPL is a practical solution to a practical problem.
But the free kernel was the keystone to that arch
Actually, the GPL is the keystone.
I want to know how to stop caring now.
Focus on what is within your power; dismiss everything everything else.
You'll be a lot more effective and a lot less miserable if you can master this technique.
"Gates' game is given away by the fact that his Foundation has invested $200 million in the very drug companies stopping the shipment of low-cost AIDS drugs to Africa.
"[He] says his plan is to reach one million people with medicine by the end of the decade. Another way to read it: he's locking in a trade system that will effectively block the delivery of medicine to over 20 million."
Killing Africans for profit and PR
That's why Free Bandwidth (community-based mesh networks) will soon be as important as Free Software.
This generally artificial tension is being produced as a convenient cover for the disaster that is Iraq and gives Bushco the ability to walk away from their mess and blame it on civil war.
Actually, the purpose of an 'divide-and-conquer' strategy is two-fold:
1. To weaken the local resistance movement and thus prolong a financially lucrative occupation
2. To provide cover not for withdrawal, but for more effective asset-stripping and resistance-crushing
It is an important but often overlooked fact that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were planned before 9/11.
s p?recno=10ctg=policy
6 6.stm
3 54269.stm
http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.a
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/15503
http://www.sundayherald.com/39221
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
"Nobody wants the Patent Wars, it is a doomsday device"
More importantly, the big patent holders don't want patent wars before software patents are properly established in Europe.
"Open source means you can read the source, much like an "open book exam" means you can read the book... By my definition, even Windows is Open Source."
Actually, the term Open Source has a clear technical definition, which is available on the OSI website:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
In my opinion it is not as successful a definition as the 'four freedoms' used by the FSF, but Open Source is a less misleading term than Free Software for most people.
For one, it has the advantage of actually sounding like a technical term.
The only time you should waste the resources on solely developing a technology is when it puts you ahead of your competitors.
Which implies, interestingly, that almost all software developed for the public sector should be Open Source.
Perhaps now it will finally compell change to the (broken) patent system.
The obvious problem is that Intellectual Ventures will be controlled by its wealthiest investors.
It will certainly not be allowed to undermine the patent system, since that would not serve the interests of its owners.
It is most likely to target their competition - ie, Free and Open Source Software.
For those who nevertheless prefer to use the code under the GPL, we assure you that Real has no plans to pursue any abiding GPL licensee of the Helix DNA Client software
Why should the community trust the good intentions of Real?
The point is that independent software developers should not be subject to the "goodwill" of predatory corporations.
Do people really still not get this? Or are these bland assurances as deceitful as they appear?
In case you're still not getting it...
What happens when Real decides it doesn't want to play nice any more?
It's been said many times, but it bears repeating:
Child Porn is the root password to the US Constitution.
Terrorism is the alternate password.
It's strange that moderns tend to promote the idea that a person controls everthing except their own actions, when it has been known since ancient times that the reverse is true.
Or maybe not that strange, if one considers that an oligarchic society will naturally tend to a slave mentality.
I reckon Socrates was mostly right about these matters.
Wouldn't it be better to look at the reasons for terrorism and do something about that, than to always try to "fight a war" against it?
Better for whom?
Better for us, or better for the ruling elites?
Might it not be better for the elites that we always "fighting a war"?
Yes, the firefighters heard noises that sounded like explosions. But I'm not interested in hearsay--
The firefighters' evidence is clearly not "hearsay".
It is the first-hand testimony of expert witnesses.
I want to hear from the people who eye-witnessed demolition charges and equipment set that morning.
Why are you assuming that charges would be visible to the public?
Until then I'm not buying it.
There are plenty of people who will never buy it.
What do you think happens when you heat and soften the trusses on an exoskelital building? (I'll tell you because you obviously don't know.) The trusses sag and fail causing the outside, load bearing members buckle without their lateral stabilization, the top falls, and the whole thing comes crashing inward.
Since this is something that you claim to "know", perhaps you could point to one other example of a fire causing a building to collapse in such a fashion.
And if this never happened anywhere else ever, you might want to ask why it happened three times on 9/11.
You keep making these unfounded assertions as if they somehow contradicted the facts contained in my original post.
I shall point those facts out again, in case you have forgotten them:
1. Mossadegh was a democratically elected leader
2. The Iranian parliament voted to nationalise the oil industry
3. The west found this unacceptable and decided to replace the democratically elected government with a dictator of their choosing
As I said before, these facts are important to understanding the current 'paranoia' of the Iranian authorities.
Name-calling and baseless assertions (no matter how forcefully they are made) do not change the facts. Nor are they helpful in understanding why things are the way they are.
You are referring to Iran's brief brush with Stalinism, when the "one man, one vote, one election" dictator Muhammad Mussadegh sought to make Iran's oil wealth his personal property
Despite your ludicrous slur, it remains a fact that Mossadegh was a democratically elected leader and that the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry.
While the Shah and the US had some agreement [...] he wasn't the US's puppet. He tended to jerk the US around more than the US jerked his strings.
Not a good puppet perhaps, but a puppet nonetheless.
It is amusing that you call the democratically elected Mossadegh a 'dictator', and describe the US-installed despot as 'very enlightened'.
Ah, so this is the free and tolerant Islamic society we hear so much about!
Iran was a relatively free and tolerant country up until the government decided to nationalise the oil industry. This was too much for the West to tolerate. The democratic leader Muhammad Mussadegh was overthrown by the CIA and replaced with a Western puppet dictator.
These are essential facts for understanding why the current Iranian government is so 'paranoid'.
Like atomic weapons, patents such as these are primarily useful as threats and PR tools.
They won't use the "nuclear option" until they get software patents in Europe.
Here's what would happen if they use the nuclear option too soon:
1. It would drive the EU further into Free Software adoption.
2. The adverse economic impact on the US compared to Europe would create very bad PR.
3. It would make the possibility of getting software patents passed in Europe almost nil.
why is open source high on your list of what makes something good?
Some reasons why people like open source (aka Free Software):
- Lack of vendor lock-in
- Enhanced customisability
- Enhanced scalability
- Reduced licensing costs