US pressure did get Musharraf to crack down a bit on the madrasas in Pakistan, so there's probably a/little/ less indoctrination going on there. The training camps have also been disrupted somewhat, so even those that hate the US will have a somewhat harder time learning to express that hate in assorted nasty ways.
As for how to piss off a religious extremist, all you have to do is not obey their every command.
Hussein is a bit erratic. For instance, I don't see any particular rational benefit from his attempt to assassinate the elder George Bush, when the latter (as a private citizen and former president) visited Kuwait. That smells simply like trying to fulfill a grudge.
Also, during the Desert Storm, he did in fact launch Scud missiles into Israel, for no apparent reason other than to try to stir up trouble and cause a broader Arab-Israeli conflict.
As to his possible behavior during a hypothetical US invasion, if one occurs he has little to lose by stirring up trouble, since it's unlikely that the US would compromise by offering anything better than arrest and trial. I suppose that he might hope for exile, but I doubt it.
AMD already announced support -- they're cooperating in the design process, as well. AMD and a company called Wave were even working on DRM/before/ Microsoft talked to them, according to one article that popped up. Do a Google search.
For the panel, I would recommend Theo de Raadt, Richard M. Stallman, Eric Raymond, Alan Cox and Hans Reiser. Peace and harmony for all!
Re:Wrong - China can't get away with it
on
Upcoming Cyberwars
·
· Score: 1
You're a lot more certain about such intervention than I am, then. While the US/could/ send an aircraft carrier battle group, which would certainly interfere with any invasion, there might be a significant domestic faction that would suggest that Taiwan/isn't/ the United States' problem, and that as long as its an invasion with intent to make a "special administrative district" instead of an attempt to slaughter or enslave, that the US should stay out. That would probably be the PRC's line, as well -- and would they/believe/ that the US would hit, say, Beijing over a small island far away?
Remember that the US need not show disapproval by military force -- it basically grimaces, for instance, at Russian tactics in Chechyna, but leaves Moscow untouched. It occasionally gives diplomatic wrist slaps to Israel, and (this administration) has extended nought but a cold shoulder to Arafat. Cuba, it stares at and embargos, but hasn't actually tried to hit since the Bay of Pigs mess. China? Perhaps a resolution condemning the invasion.
For instance, if an armed robber draws a firearm and turns towards a policeman, the only reliable "defense" is for the policeman to shoot first.
As for nuclear weapons, the fact that they are historically and currently essentially unstoppable except by diplomacy ensured that the two superpowers limited their mutual antagonisms. It also deterred a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe, which was generally seen as covered by the American nuclear umbrella, and thus could afford to spend less on their own militaries.
And in the case of Iraq, the ruler has managed to completely throttle any internal opposition through a combination of a pretty good intelligence service and a ruthless military that has seen fit to use whatever weapons are it its disposal, including the deliberate massacre of unarmed civilians. The situation will likely continue until either (a) Iraq is invaded, or (b) an assassination attempt actually succeeds, because it's not in Saddam's interests to step down under practically any terms that can morally be offered. What was once a prosperous, thriving nation is now the personal fiefdom of a dictator.
Re:Our interest in Taiwan
on
Upcoming Cyberwars
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Germany invaded major countries like Poland and France, and thoroughly occupied them in addition to consuming various smaller countries as, basically, stepping stones. Care? Well, the Czechs know how much the rest of Western Europe really cared, until the UK, Switzerland and Spain were basically all that weren't assimilated by Italy or Germany.
Russia, for its part, invaded Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Finland... and the world, generally speaking, didn't do a damn thing about them.
The US invaded Grenada -- nobody lifted a finger. The US invaded Panama and implemented some regime change -- again, nobody interfered. The USSR and Cuba funded and trained Marxist revolutionaries all over Latin America and Africa, and nobody but the US really gave a damn.
How much outside intervention have we seen in Jammu and Kashmir? None.
How much outside intervention have we seen when the Turks invade Iraq? Basically none.
If you got the power, or you're not threatening THEM immediately, most of the world won't care. Like Chamberlain, they'll happily sign over a third party's land to somebody else if it doesn't hurt their short-term interests.
California -- you've got an open primary system, right? And wasn't Gov. Davis pretty much openly campaigning for Bob Simon, thinking him to be an easier opponent than the other Republican (Riordan?)?
(Most...) Politicians want your votes, not your money -- money is just the means.
If politicians/knew/ that a stand on a given issue would make or break their election, because people were voting on it as a matter of principal instead of simply party affiliation or personal reasons (which can be pretty bizarre -- one Pennsylvanian Democrat was quoted as saying that he'd vote for Bob Casey Jr. in the primary, since Bob Casey Sr. had commuted his sentence...), do you really think the money would matter?
If "what someone else said about you" must be revealed to the subject/victim, and the sayer is legally liable for correcting any mistakes plus damages incurred, then is there a problem?
Reputations matter. So do references. Do you expect a bank to grant you a substantial loan if you refuse to provide references such as an employer or business partner?
In a libertarian system, there wouldn't be that many government officials to bribe, and they'd have minimal regulatory power so it wouldn't be very interesting to bribe them.
A dedicated Randian would rather shut down and leave instead of pay a bribe or in any other way acknowledge a "looter's" power over them -- because they'll operate only on their own terms and not live for anybody but themselves.
And as for money=speech, it wasn't just these folks that said so, it was stated by none other than the US Supreme Court in _Buckley v. Vallejo_.
Many, if not all, policies and service agreements include a clause that essentially means "We can change or terminate this policy whenever and however we feel like it."
Why do you think one business model would work for both?
Open-source software companies, for instance, may/give away/ the software, but they'll (try to...) sell service contracts, better documentation, or proprietary software bundled in. A company like IBM can afford to fund some Linux devs, if they think that the investment will bring in more business through selling servers with an OS that their customers will want.
However, take a movie. What do you buy with a movie?
In a real (physical) theater, there are pretty much always snacks and drinks for sale, combined with a policy that says "don't bring your own", because that's where they hope to make their money. If, instead, you buy the equipment for a good home theater, you send your money to the supermarket (for the popcorn, drinks, et al) and to the appliance store (for the AV gear) -- but if you download the movie, then the content creator gets nada (since the studios generally aren't in the business of food or electronics... with the possible exception of Seagram, but I'm probably out of date on that one).
You're not going to buy tech support for a movie. "Hello? I just saw _Road to Perdition_, and I was interested in knowing whether you could help me repair a problem with my Thomson submachinegun."
A movie isn't necessarily going to induce/any/ other purchases. I don't know about you, but I have/never/ bought a book (written from the movie, not the other way around), article of clothing, toy, poster, soundtrack, or other movie merchandise product as far as I can remember, so no studio is making very much from me (basically, ticket price and however much it costs an advertiser to place a product in front of my eyeball). If I had broadband and used it to freely infringe on their movies, they'd be making only the product-placement money, which doesn't always make sense (e.g. a can of Coke seem out of place in a B5 movie).
As others have noted, that's an implementation issue.
Well, two of them, really.
(1) The determination of what is "obvious" may be nontrivial. Consulting experts on every application would perhaps be too expensive, which means that "obvious" may be argued mainly in court.
This begs for legal reforms -- e.g. courts awarding "reasonable" court costs, along with harsher sanctions against those who bring frivolous suits.
(2) The use of "submarine" patents. One wonders how much publicity is attached to patents... inadvertent infringement (independent uncontaminated development) should probably result in, at worst, low-cost compulsory licensing if it has been ongoing for a significant time, and the infringement was just as public as the patent (e.g. public implementation of the patented algorithm, with just neither party bothering to check for a considerable time).
I'd be more worried about questions regarding associating with foreign nationals -- especially for people with college degrees. Graduate school, in particular, pretty much guarantees that a LOT of your friends and other associates will be foreign nats.
Every time you get killed, drop and give yourself twenty-five?
(And if you laugh at ordinary push-ups, or you just get killed/very/ rarely, raise your feet by setting them on a chair first, so your back is closer to level when rigid.)
Maybe they want people who already know what the limits of what they can and cannot do are, and how law enforcement generally operates.
That way, the new guy doesn't bollux up an investigation by committing some mistake which a defense attorney can present as a violation of his client's rights and grounds for dismissal. They'd also likely have a better grounding in who and what you're dealing with, on the other side -- and it won't just be against stereotypical "black hats" getting their rocks off by DOSing some high-profile.com, either.
At least, that's one possible explanation. Another is just that they cut-and-pasted requirements from their other divisions without being overly concerned about it. I'm not a Fed, so I wouldn't know.
Does that require either centralization (which attracts lawyers and introduces a single point of failure) or trust (P2P propagation of votes, which might be spoofable by a small conspiracy)?
Hmmmm. One might also wonder what sharks would make of it -- if memory serves, sharks have some sensitivity to electric fields, and use it to help locate their prey.
I find it funny how many Slashdotters are so off that instead of refuting arguments, they post ad hominem attacks.
As for theft -- it is not theft in the traditional sense. However, it is certainly a violation of an implicit agreement -- to abide by all the laws and specified restrictions upon entering a transaction as a citizen and a consumer. Much as working in this country generally introduces a coincident requirement to file a tax return (save for those whose total earnings are very low indeed), purchasing a work includes an acceptance of the copyright restrictions as they are unless explicitly waived by the copyright holder.
If you don't accept them, you can either (1) not purchase the work and not procure it in any fashion, or (2) take the civil disobedience route, buy one, publicly infringe on it, and summon and surrender to the authorities to arrest and fine/imprison you, or (3) go write your politicians and do something constructive about it. Otherwise, you're no better than an oathbreaker.
Let's say a Slashdot poster posts a bogus analogy as a strawman. How should one respond?
Libraries are/not/ P2P networks. Libraries maintain a strictly limited number of copies of works,/each/ purchased legitimately (and, in the case of journals, they often pay a much higher charge than an individual would). Libraries do/not/ create infringing duplicates, nor do they distribute them.
Contrast that with P2P businesses trying to make money of of mass copyright infringement.
Certainly not. If a system gives statuatory anybody to use anybody else's art without permission, then there's nothing preventing MIT from releasing its own competing comic book starring hundreds of Ms. Fiores clones -- which would certainly cause damage. Hell, letting everybody use it would cause damage even if they didn't use it for comic books -- it'd be diluted to the point where Mr. Lai becomes only one in a crowd.
Either that, or MIT should drop the pretense of caring about honesty and publicly acknowledge that it'd rather look after its own interests, copyrights, fairness and morality be damned.
Slashdot Mirror
US pressure did get Musharraf to crack down a bit on the madrasas in Pakistan, so there's probably a /little/ less indoctrination going on there. The training camps have also been disrupted somewhat, so even those that hate the US will have a somewhat harder time learning to express that hate in assorted nasty ways.
As for how to piss off a religious extremist, all you have to do is not obey their every command.
Hussein is a bit erratic. For instance, I don't see any particular rational benefit from his attempt to assassinate the elder George Bush, when the latter (as a private citizen and former president) visited Kuwait. That smells simply like trying to fulfill a grudge.
Also, during the Desert Storm, he did in fact launch Scud missiles into Israel, for no apparent reason other than to try to stir up trouble and cause a broader Arab-Israeli conflict.
As to his possible behavior during a hypothetical US invasion, if one occurs he has little to lose by stirring up trouble, since it's unlikely that the US would compromise by offering anything better than arrest and trial. I suppose that he might hope for exile, but I doubt it.
Did it work reliably in San Francisco?
AMD already announced support -- they're cooperating in the design process, as well. AMD and a company called Wave were even working on DRM /before/ Microsoft talked to them, according to one article that popped up. Do a Google search.
If you like "The Stranger", you might also like "The Fall" (also by Camus) and perhaps get yourself a collection of Kafka or Dostoevsky.
For the panel, I would recommend Theo de Raadt, Richard M. Stallman, Eric Raymond, Alan Cox and Hans Reiser. Peace and harmony for all!
You're a lot more certain about such intervention than I am, then. While the US /could/ send an aircraft carrier battle group, which would certainly interfere with any invasion, there might be a significant domestic faction that would suggest that Taiwan /isn't/ the United States' problem, and that as long as its an invasion with intent to make a "special administrative district" instead of an attempt to slaughter or enslave, that the US should stay out. That would probably be the PRC's line, as well -- and would they /believe/ that the US would hit, say, Beijing over a small island far away?
Remember that the US need not show disapproval by military force -- it basically grimaces, for instance, at Russian tactics in Chechyna, but leaves Moscow untouched. It occasionally gives diplomatic wrist slaps to Israel, and (this administration) has extended nought but a cold shoulder to Arafat. Cuba, it stares at and embargos, but hasn't actually tried to hit since the Bay of Pigs mess. China? Perhaps a resolution condemning the invasion.
Defense often requires attack.
For instance, if an armed robber draws a firearm and turns towards a policeman, the only reliable "defense" is for the policeman to shoot first.
As for nuclear weapons, the fact that they are historically and currently essentially unstoppable except by diplomacy ensured that the two superpowers limited their mutual antagonisms. It also deterred a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe, which was generally seen as covered by the American nuclear umbrella, and thus could afford to spend less on their own militaries.
And in the case of Iraq, the ruler has managed to completely throttle any internal opposition through a combination of a pretty good intelligence service and a ruthless military that has seen fit to use whatever weapons are it its disposal, including the deliberate massacre of unarmed civilians. The situation will likely continue until either (a) Iraq is invaded, or (b) an assassination attempt actually succeeds, because it's not in Saddam's interests to step down under practically any terms that can morally be offered. What was once a prosperous, thriving nation is now the personal fiefdom of a dictator.
Germany invaded major countries like Poland and France, and thoroughly occupied them in addition to consuming various smaller countries as, basically, stepping stones. Care? Well, the Czechs know how much the rest of Western Europe really cared, until the UK, Switzerland and Spain were basically all that weren't assimilated by Italy or Germany.
Russia, for its part, invaded Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Finland... and the world, generally speaking, didn't do a damn thing about them.
The US invaded Grenada -- nobody lifted a finger. The US invaded Panama and implemented some regime change -- again, nobody interfered. The USSR and Cuba funded and trained Marxist revolutionaries all over Latin America and Africa, and nobody but the US really gave a damn.
How much outside intervention have we seen in Jammu and Kashmir? None.
How much outside intervention have we seen when the Turks invade Iraq? Basically none.
If you got the power, or you're not threatening THEM immediately, most of the world won't care. Like Chamberlain, they'll happily sign over a third party's land to somebody else if it doesn't hurt their short-term interests.
California -- you've got an open primary system, right? And wasn't Gov. Davis pretty much openly campaigning for Bob Simon, thinking him to be an easier opponent than the other Republican (Riordan?)?
Word.
(Most...) Politicians want your votes, not your money -- money is just the means.
/knew/ that a stand on a given issue would make or break their election, because people were voting on it as a matter of principal instead of simply party affiliation or personal reasons (which can be pretty bizarre -- one Pennsylvanian Democrat was quoted as saying that he'd vote for Bob Casey Jr. in the primary, since Bob Casey Sr. had commuted his sentence...), do you really think the money would matter?
If politicians
If "what someone else said about you" must be revealed to the subject/victim, and the sayer is legally liable for correcting any mistakes plus damages incurred, then is there a problem?
Reputations matter. So do references. Do you expect a bank to grant you a substantial loan if you refuse to provide references such as an employer or business partner?
In a libertarian system, there wouldn't be that many government officials to bribe, and they'd have minimal regulatory power so it wouldn't be very interesting to bribe them.
A dedicated Randian would rather shut down and leave instead of pay a bribe or in any other way acknowledge a "looter's" power over them -- because they'll operate only on their own terms and not live for anybody but themselves.
And as for money=speech, it wasn't just these folks that said so, it was stated by none other than the US Supreme Court in _Buckley v. Vallejo_.
Many, if not all, policies and service agreements include a clause that essentially means "We can change or terminate this policy whenever and however we feel like it."
Bear that in mind.
Why do you think one business model would work for both?
/give away/ the software, but they'll (try to...) sell service contracts, better documentation, or proprietary software bundled in. A company like IBM can afford to fund some Linux devs, if they think that the investment will bring in more business through selling servers with an OS that their customers will want.
/any/ other purchases. I don't know about you, but I have /never/ bought a book (written from the movie, not the other way around), article of clothing, toy, poster, soundtrack, or other movie merchandise product as far as I can remember, so no studio is making very much from me (basically, ticket price and however much it costs an advertiser to place a product in front of my eyeball). If I had broadband and used it to freely infringe on their movies, they'd be making only the product-placement money, which doesn't always make sense (e.g. a can of Coke seem out of place in a B5 movie).
Open-source software companies, for instance, may
However, take a movie. What do you buy with a movie?
In a real (physical) theater, there are pretty much always snacks and drinks for sale, combined with a policy that says "don't bring your own", because that's where they hope to make their money. If, instead, you buy the equipment for a good home theater, you send your money to the supermarket (for the popcorn, drinks, et al) and to the appliance store (for the AV gear) -- but if you download the movie, then the content creator gets nada (since the studios generally aren't in the business of food or electronics... with the possible exception of Seagram, but I'm probably out of date on that one).
You're not going to buy tech support for a movie. "Hello? I just saw _Road to Perdition_, and I was interested in knowing whether you could help me repair a problem with my Thomson submachinegun."
A movie isn't necessarily going to induce
As others have noted, that's an implementation issue.
Well, two of them, really.
(1) The determination of what is "obvious" may be nontrivial. Consulting experts on every application would perhaps be too expensive, which means that "obvious" may be argued mainly in court.
This begs for legal reforms -- e.g. courts awarding "reasonable" court costs, along with harsher sanctions against those who bring frivolous suits.
(2) The use of "submarine" patents. One wonders how much publicity is attached to patents... inadvertent infringement (independent uncontaminated development) should probably result in, at worst, low-cost compulsory licensing if it has been ongoing for a significant time, and the infringement was just as public as the patent (e.g. public implementation of the patented algorithm, with just neither party bothering to check for a considerable time).
I'd be more worried about questions regarding associating with foreign nationals -- especially for people with college degrees. Graduate school, in particular, pretty much guarantees that a LOT of your friends and other associates will be foreign nats.
Every time you get killed, drop and give yourself twenty-five?
/very/ rarely, raise your feet by setting them on a chair first, so your back is closer to level when rigid.)
(And if you laugh at ordinary push-ups, or you just get killed
Maybe they want people who already know what the limits of what they can and cannot do are, and how law enforcement generally operates.
.com, either.
That way, the new guy doesn't bollux up an investigation by committing some mistake which a defense attorney can present as a violation of his client's rights and grounds for dismissal. They'd also likely have a better grounding in who and what you're dealing with, on the other side -- and it won't just be against stereotypical "black hats" getting their rocks off by DOSing some high-profile
At least, that's one possible explanation. Another is just that they cut-and-pasted requirements from their other divisions without being overly concerned about it. I'm not a Fed, so I wouldn't know.
Does that require either centralization (which attracts lawyers and introduces a single point of failure) or trust (P2P propagation of votes, which might be spoofable by a small conspiracy)?
Hmmmm. One might also wonder what sharks would make of it -- if memory serves, sharks have some sensitivity to electric fields, and use it to help locate their prey.
I find it funny how many Slashdotters are so off that instead of refuting arguments, they post ad hominem attacks.
As for theft -- it is not theft in the traditional sense. However, it is certainly a violation of an implicit agreement -- to abide by all the laws and specified restrictions upon entering a transaction as a citizen and a consumer. Much as working in this country generally introduces a coincident requirement to file a tax return (save for those whose total earnings are very low indeed), purchasing a work includes an acceptance of the copyright restrictions as they are unless explicitly waived by the copyright holder.
If you don't accept them, you can either (1) not purchase the work and not procure it in any fashion, or (2) take the civil disobedience route, buy one, publicly infringe on it, and summon and surrender to the authorities to arrest and fine/imprison you, or (3) go write your politicians and do something constructive about it. Otherwise, you're no better than an oathbreaker.
Let's say a Slashdot poster posts a bogus analogy as a strawman. How should one respond?
/not/ P2P networks. Libraries maintain a strictly limited number of copies of works, /each/ purchased legitimately (and, in the case of journals, they often pay a much higher charge than an individual would). Libraries do /not/ create infringing duplicates, nor do they distribute them.
Libraries are
Contrast that with P2P businesses trying to make money of of mass copyright infringement.
So how is your post relevant?
Certainly not. If a system gives statuatory anybody to use anybody else's art without permission, then there's nothing preventing MIT from releasing its own competing comic book starring hundreds of Ms. Fiores clones -- which would certainly cause damage. Hell, letting everybody use it would cause damage even if they didn't use it for comic books -- it'd be diluted to the point where Mr. Lai becomes only one in a crowd.
There's a principle at stake here.
Yup. Somebody should go down for this.
Either that, or MIT should drop the pretense of caring about honesty and publicly acknowledge that it'd rather look after its own interests, copyrights, fairness and morality be damned.