Re:Should GPL prohibit use of code to KILL people?
on
Linux in the Military
·
· Score: 1
Well then, I guess you have to accept the consequences for your actions. This is real life, and not everyone is going to cater to your every whim. Sure, be mad about it, be incensed...but place the blame where it lays.
On another note, your comparison of our military to saddam hussein is analogous to comparing an apple to an orange. Or, perhaps Sir Winston Churchill to Hitler.
The only justification happening here is that of the people responsible for a free software movement. Whether this software is for the enlightenment of man or cultural advancement is of no import. What is important is that when you support a movement for free anything, you have to deal with the repurcussions. this isnt a perfect world, and creating boogeymen to wash away the nightmare that something you created to be free might just be used for something horrible wont change a thing. Is the military not comprised of men, like you or I? Or does it change them into something else, perhaps the boogeymen you've created to soothe your conscience? If there is a distinction for you, then the problem isnt with what your software is used for, but instead the hypocrisy that was coded along into it. If this issue nettles you so deeply now, where were these implications then? Noone had the foresight to see this? Instead of preparing for this eventuality, it was cast aside. Time was wasted, time that could have been spent preparing for this, safeguarding. Shakespeare said " I have wasted time, and now doth time waste me."
Re:Should GPL prohibit use of code to KILL people?
on
Linux in the Military
·
· Score: 1
This is rediculous. prohibiting the military access to linux because, it MAY run a system that MIGHT fire something at someone else that could kill them. Of course it will, its a fantastic OS, and will probably take hold in any number of military uses. Does this make Linux evil? Does it make the military evil? What about the company that makes the standard issue socks for the military? Are they evil? I mean, they made the socks that enabled a soldier to run through cold or damp weather to go complete his objective. Or, how about the companies that supply the military with food? Are they evil? Dirty greedy whores that feed our baby killing war hounds? Look at it, without a ready supply of food..there wouldnt be anyone to even turn on those shiney new linux boxes to fire killing salvos of rockets at a school. The fact is, you can make anything be as evil...or as good as you like. For instance, wont those Linux boxes be used to run medical equipment? Coordinate disaster relief plans? Maybe they're being used to run systems that locate terrorist's bombs, or drugs, or any number of nasty nasty things that could ruin someone's day. The tool is only as evil or good as the person using it. If it were you or someone you love that could benefit from some of these other uses the military might have for linux, wouldnt that be something to be proud of? If the code you wrote, helped to save just ONE life...wouldnt that be worth it for you? You cant stop bad things from happening, you could get beaten to death with a teddy bear tomarrow...not very likely, but it could happen, and Im sure the teddy bear was never intended to be a weapon. The likelihood of it happening is probably about the same as our military going out and roughly oppressing some poor helpless nation, you know...just because they can. I think that if just one life was saved, then your efforts would be validated. Certainly, whoever it helped would think so.
I dont understand why everyone gets so paranoid whenever advances in gene therapy or biomedical are made public. All things considered, and any tactician will tell you this, the most efficient way to kill people is not with chemical weapons. Use a bomb, gun, knife, sharp stick...but chemical weapons? As a general rule, in order for a chemical weapon to be really effective, it has to have a pretty extended period ( in weapon terms ) to affect the victim (s). Compare this to a bomb, gun, or even a jug of detergent and fertilizer with a wick, and the only thing these weapons are good for is terror tactics. Can you imagine the sanctions against a group that used a bioengineered virus these days? I dont mean mustard gas, or even the lethal serin toxin that was used in the tokyo subway bombing, but a real bioengineered virus, 100% lethal and transmittable. On top of the environmental concerns ( your own population contracting it ) and having the technology and/or cash to handle a weapon of that magnitude, I dont think that you could handle the reprisals by the rest of the world. Even a superpower that decided on this course of action would invariably be discovered and I doubt they would have ( short of complete religious fanatacism ) the support of their population for long.
Slashdot Mirror
Well then, I guess you have to accept the consequences for your actions. This is real life, and not everyone is going to cater to your every whim. Sure, be mad about it, be incensed...but place the blame where it lays.
On another note, your comparison of our military to saddam hussein is analogous to comparing an apple to an orange. Or, perhaps Sir Winston Churchill to Hitler.
The only justification happening here is that of the people responsible for a free software movement. Whether this software is for the enlightenment of man or cultural advancement is of no import. What is important is that when you support a movement for free anything, you have to deal with the repurcussions. this isnt a perfect world, and creating boogeymen to wash away the nightmare that something you created to be free might just be used for something horrible wont change a thing. Is the military not comprised of men, like you or I? Or does it change them into something else, perhaps the boogeymen you've created to soothe your conscience? If there is a distinction for you, then the problem isnt with what your software is used for, but instead the hypocrisy that was coded along into it. If this issue nettles you so deeply now, where were these implications then? Noone had the foresight to see this? Instead of preparing for this eventuality, it was cast aside. Time was wasted, time that could have been spent preparing for this, safeguarding. Shakespeare said " I have wasted time, and now doth time waste me."
This is rediculous. prohibiting the military access to linux because, it MAY run a system that MIGHT fire something at someone else that could kill them. Of course it will, its a fantastic OS, and will probably take hold in any number of military uses. Does this make Linux evil? Does it make the military evil? What about the company that makes the standard issue socks for the military? Are they evil? I mean, they made the socks that enabled a soldier to run through cold or damp weather to go complete his objective. Or, how about the companies that supply the military with food? Are they evil? Dirty greedy whores that feed our baby killing war hounds? Look at it, without a ready supply of food..there wouldnt be anyone to even turn on those shiney new linux boxes to fire killing salvos of rockets at a school.
The fact is, you can make anything be as evil...or as good as you like. For instance, wont those Linux boxes be used to run medical equipment? Coordinate disaster relief plans? Maybe they're being used to run systems that locate terrorist's bombs, or drugs, or any number of nasty nasty things that could ruin someone's day.
The tool is only as evil or good as the person using it. If it were you or someone you love that could benefit from some of these other uses the military might have for linux, wouldnt that be something to be proud of? If the code you wrote, helped to save just ONE life...wouldnt that be worth it for you? You cant stop bad things from happening, you could get beaten to death with a teddy bear tomarrow...not very likely, but it could happen, and Im sure the teddy bear was never intended to be a weapon. The likelihood of it happening is probably about the same as our military going out and roughly oppressing some poor helpless nation, you know...just because they can.
I think that if just one life was saved, then your efforts would be validated. Certainly, whoever it helped would think so.
I dont understand why everyone gets so paranoid whenever advances in gene therapy or biomedical are made public. All things considered, and any tactician will tell you this, the most efficient way to kill people is not with chemical weapons. Use a bomb, gun, knife, sharp stick...but chemical weapons? As a general rule, in order for a chemical weapon to be really effective, it has to have a pretty extended period ( in weapon terms ) to affect the victim (s). Compare this to a bomb, gun, or even a jug of detergent and fertilizer with a wick, and the only thing these weapons are good for is terror tactics. Can you imagine the sanctions against a group that used a bioengineered virus these days? I dont mean mustard gas, or even the lethal serin toxin that was used in the tokyo subway bombing, but a real bioengineered virus, 100% lethal and transmittable. On top of the environmental concerns ( your own population contracting it ) and having the technology and/or cash to handle a weapon of that magnitude, I dont think that you could handle the reprisals by the rest of the world. Even a superpower that decided on this course of action would invariably be discovered and I doubt they would have ( short of complete religious fanatacism ) the support of their population for long.