Now, I do understand your argument of 'maybe later, when things will be cheaper', and it has some validity. But then again, one can not claim the drive for expanding the human presence in space is alive and kicking, when you completely halt (actual) human exploration. And, in fact, the argument used that it's not economical beneficial in regard to robotic probes is ALWAYS going to be true: when hardware/etc costs are going to be only a 10th of today in the future, it STILL will be far more expensive to send humans then to simply send robotic probes.
So the argument is mute, in the sense that, if you accept the premise, it's always going to be true. The real question thus becomes: what do you want to spend on human exploration, first steps or not? Clearly you seem to think the price is too high and a 'waste', while I think it's not. It does not follow, however, that my argumentation is false, while yours is the only correct viewpoint on the matter.
" If they were, I'd have a major problem, because I am both a professional scientist, and a devout Catholic."
Actually you do have a major problem, but, like all people who try to be a scientist and 'devout catholic', you chooose to ignore it. You do not see a problem, because you do not WANT to see there is one.
If you say you are a devout catholic, I'm assuming you believe in the basic tenets of the bible. Seen that they are so contradictory and absurd (an all-powerfull/all-knowing being, life after death, heaven and hell, creationism, etc.: all these things defy common sense) it is ludicrous to say there is no opposite viepoint. Science is ALL about making sense of the observable universe, according to well defined scientific principles. The answer of the devaut catholic?:
"It doesn't need to make sense."
Well, indeed, as a personal opinion, it doesn't. But a (real) scientist wants to get to the truth (as in: as close to the observable reality as possible). The dichotomy between the two, thus, resides in how you view your particular religion in the light of your science. Answer: you don't. You shun it. And you will never do it, because there is no rational or scientific basis for believing in God or heaven, nor creationism, etc.
People like you seperate their religion and their science - yet feel they don't contradict eachother - because you never actually used your capabilities as a scientist to research your beliefs. If you did, you would notice that that belief is irrational and unprovable; things your scientific mind SHOULD tell you to disregard it.
I mean, c'mon, if you had ANY other theory that would be absurd and untrue on the parts you can check, and completely improvable when taking only the esotheric parts, then, as a scientist, you would regard that theory as useless and disregard it. Yet, you don not do that, when it happens to be your own belief.
It's not that they aren't contradictory; it's that you fail as a scientist when it comes down to your own religious beliefs.
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner;-)
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
"Way to go with the straw man there. Most fiscal libertarians would say that it's simply not worth the cost of laying telecommunications cable to those areas.[...]"
Indeed, thus, as the parent poster said, capitalism failed (because the demand is not high enough for profit) and the state (city) had to step in.:-)
"Our country's problem with China regarding intellectual property is that they've been tolerating the mass production and sale of pirated goods (everything from music and films to birth control pills and brake pads, as the article put it)."
The USA's problem is that they try to enforce their view on the world to all countries, not only China. And since it's practically governed by corporations and big money, they are trying to impose the same IP-laws everywhere. A prime example is their efforts to introduce and lobby for softwarepatents in Europe. Lukily, europian institutions, and particulary the parliament, hasn't yielded in to corporate moneywaving, at least not to the same degree.
Alas, increasingly, even in europe, laws have been passed that restrict the rights of the individual more and more. Not only that, but the laws are more and more 'broad'; they hardly diferentiate anymore. Clearly there is a difference between private/family/non-commercial use and mass-counterfeting of medicines for commercial gain, with possible health security. While courts will generally be reasonable, the laws themselves increasingly become undifferentiated. Combined with the current tendency of obligatory minum sentences (whatever the court itself thinks reasonable in a given situation) this leads to many injustices.
"We are requesting that China does something about this. To state that the same law will be applied to "all others" is a classic slippery slope, and "everyone knows" is just incorrect."
It's not requesting, it's demanding, without little eye of local culture, customs or lawmaking. And it's not only with China.
I agree using terms like "all others" and "everyone knows" is not compelling evidence. Alas, history has shown us that, if you give new powers to lawenforcement for a specific purpose, they will always try to use this for area's it wasn't supposed to be used for. In a sense, they will abuse any additional rights given to them to the fullest extend possible, and as long they get away with it, they'll continue. the only thing stopping them from merely going the 'slippery slope' are the courts, but they are bound by the laws made by politicians that are often in the pocket of corporations, who like 'broad' laws, as I've already said. thus, laws that can be interpreted braodly, can be abused broadly, and almost invariably ARE being used out of the scope they were meant for. If you deny that, please look at all the recent 'anti-terrorism' laws, and tell me they haven't been misused for purposes that had nothing to do with terrorism. Can you?
"If I can summarize your position, it's that China shouldn't enforce laws against the most egregious offenders, because those same laws might be used against people who commit minor versions of the same crimes."
My position is, that every sovereign country should decide what and how to deal with breaking the law, and even IF laws are broken. The USA and corporations shouldn't meddle with it and try to impose laws that suit them.
"Is that correct? If so, would you apply that to other countries as well, and would you say that it applies to all areas of law? For example, in Afganistan, if they were to start chasing down the guys who are exporting heroin by the ton, does "everybody know" that they'll start busting people caught with a gram?"
If you make it illegal to have drugs, then consistency demands you also bust small dealers. In fact, in the USA it is EXACTLY that way; or do you think they let 1gram cocaine-carriers go? The amount of jail you get can be different, ofcourse, and that's a question of making differentiated laws (or leaving it up to the wisdom of the court).
Ofcourse, if you ask my personal opinion, I would legalise drugs-use, period. In fact, we're already doing that, since alcohol and nicotin are drugs too, scientiffically spoken. But people often have hysterical ideas about being rational about this, thanks to the FUD surrounding the 'war on drugs'.
"And now that this is happening, people are defendending them. Unbelievable."
First paragraph:
"If they would act specifically against mass-counterfeiting for commercial purposes then, certainly when health issues are at stake, it might have some validity, but everyone knows such laws will be used against all others as well, before you can blink your eye."
Well, I object a bit to your analogy comparing P2P progs to bacteria (which makes it a pejorative thing), but to some extend you have a point.
Ofcourse, the comparison is rather arbitrary, so I could as well say that the RIAA and consorts are the bacteria, and as long as innovation like P2P progs keeps going, they can stay one step ahead. And if P2P coders stay ahead of the curve, maybe *they* can rid the world of most hollywood interference. And clearly they will never eliminate all paying customers that pay for over-priced CDs, but if they make it easy and safe enough, people might rather prefer to download it.;-)
The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA and it's current USA puppet the bush-government (and a lot of senators and other so-called representatives of the people) is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it. If they would act specifically against mass-counterfeiting for commercial purposes then, certainly when health issues are at stake, it might have some validity, but everyone knows such laws will be used against all others as well, before you can blink your eye. And yet, it will go as with the war on drugs: something you can never beat, and something that is sustained with unvalid reasonings and making a lot of FUD.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music/movies. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain.
Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/ freenet/website/pages/fairshare.php?rev=1.1).
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
Well, not that it's entirely an only-OSS problem, of course.
But I completely agree with you on many aspects. I first tried the GIMP years ago, and I was dissapointed majorily. Ok, it was free, and the concept of OSS appeals to me, but ultimately, you want something that is easy to use. It was not as much the lack of features (which, btw, is almost gone; projects like OpenOffice, Linux and GIMP have catched up and have almost all the features of whatever proprietary thingy), but more the way it is presented.
The 'spread-out' windows are SO f- annoying, and I always wonder why it is so popular with OSS. When I compare that to PSP, and the relative ease by which you can do things, then the GIMP is seriously user-unfriendly. I wish, by god, they got rid of it, it's SUCH annoying crap. Like yourself, I just want one central window with the options available within that window, NOT a myriad of floating windows where you have to search through like in a labyrinth.
Why is it so difficult to see that one central place is better then a whole bunch of stupid and confusing little windows?
Luckily, this slowly gets through even thick skulls, and I'm rather pleased to see that GIMP2 has already a much more central-orientated look.
Crap, I made an elaborate post as an answer, klicked on submit (I thought) and the whole thing vanished. If you ever had the same: it's SO frustrating to see a post disapear into thin air, isn't it?
Ah well, I'm not going to repeat everything; we've covered most of it in the past. In essence, you're happy with irrational reasonings, and I'm not.
Let's just agree to disagree on this topic.:-)
And a happy new year and many more interesting discussions. (And I hope this time, the submit will work).
As I said, I agree with much of your comments. There can be little doubt the development/managing thingy with the Freenetproject is rather inefficient. There have been suggestions by me and others before, but it usually amounts to nothing. Guess there is already to much inertia. Still, I think it's possible that one day, they are going to have some breaktrhoughs that really makes it usuable for Joe Doe.
Indeed, there is no substantial difference, only a difference in degree. If there were, ISPs who use servers that don't log would be more morally wrong then those who do. In essence, every practise that improves privacy would be, if the reasoning is followed consistently.
"ISP's are common carriers, and they log a whole lot of stuff (much more than even I would want, and they have to keep it for much longer than I would want as well). In case of FreeNet, you are helping disguising the origin of data, and that's not what an ISP does in any way."
In fact, ISPs are not obliged to keep any logs, at least in some european countries. They are only required to keep logs for x time if they DO have logs. Apart from the JAP server I don't know if any regular ISP has decided not to use logs, or to what extend they are logged. But the question remains if that makes the morality of the case. Ultimately, by that definition, keeping track of someone is morally superior...a concept I very much doubt, frankly. If people would get implanted with a tracker-chip in the brain, from birth, imagine all the abuse one could prevent! Heck, connect it to sensory data and you can take any abuser out of society at any moment: all can be tracked, every crime reported, every criminal in jail. Some might think this would be utopia. I think differently.
But back to ISPs: do logs make the difference? If morality by proxy is possible, then that doesn't change much. If freenet is morally wrong, because people can abuse it, aren't ISPs morally wrong, because they provide services which makes it possible for Freenet to run? Somehow, with technicalities about logs or not, you do not go to the bottom of the question.
I mean, take the regular post: they don't keep tabs on who send what where, at least not on the individual level (and the you can always drop your post in another city). No doubt snailmail is used for illegal purposes too, and the originator can remain anonymous too...and it has been that way for hundreds of years.
Do you see people complaining about the postal office (in this regard;-)? Should the post feel morally wrong, because their service can be abused, and they do not keep tracks where exactly it originated? Why don't they demand that someone comes in person, with his ID, before handling his post? If they set up such a system to make it possible for people to send things anonymously, does that make them morally more wrong then when they didn't mean to obfuscate the origin?
As I said, there are myriads of tools and services to which this kind of reasoning could be applied, and posters that promote this reasoning should be consistent and drop the use of them all - if morality is the real issue, that is. I have no problem with people making up their own mind; everyone should be free to do just that. Run a node, or don't. But the reality should not fall victim to personal opinion: Freenet is not a 'haven for CP' and it's not 'promoting CP' neither. It's just a tool, and like every tool, it is neutral on itself and like evry tool, it can be abused, even when it's created for a good purpose. There really isn't something intrinsically different about Freenet, in this regard.
It's not that I don't understand what you're saying and of course I feel anyone has the right to decide what he runs or not on their puter, I think all agree on that (exept MS;-).
But I'm getting a bit pissed off by some that always use the same dead horse of "Freenet is a CP haven" (which it is not, as far as research has shown) and with how morally wrong it is, while that reasoning never seems to bother those posters when using an ISP or a hotspot or myriad of other tools. The morality issue is not intrinsically different then with other tools, it's just that the benefits versus the risks have to be determined. The risk is that of 'being' an ISP, and the benefit is that of promoting free speech.
If people make the conclusion it's not worth it, fine - see you when free speech will have become so suppressed even they get bothered by it, but it's not like Freenet involves totally new concepts (morally, I mean). A tool is a tool: it does not 'encourage' anything, and all tools can be abused, even when they are created for good purposes. Nothing new under the sun.
"A proper test would involve a thousand-node-network, at the very least. Where are you going to get that ?"
A slashdot for beta-testers?;-)
"Unfortunately, the smaller the chunk, the more of them you need to get to show a single freesite, and the more overhead there will be:(."
Yes, which was of my remarks as well. The smaller the chunk, the more, in comparison, the opverhead will be. But, if I remember correctly,; toad assured me he could reduce the overhead to a minimum, which would allow for considerably smaller chunks.
Anyway, thanks for your input. Maybe a tad too pessimistic (though god knows I'm too, sometimes), but there were many things I agreed with, in your post.
"Most people are not ISP's and do not want the take the responsibilities of being one."
True. But the question remains if they think ISPs should feel morally/ethitically compelled to close their services?
By putting it on the shoulders of others, one merely shove the question a bit further. If people think it's unethical, then they should think it's unethical of ISPs or hotspots as well...yet, they seem to have no trouble using it, or even sponsoring it (by paying for it).
I have difficulties seeing how this can not contain hypocrisy to some extend. If I know Nike is using childlabor and think that is unethical, then am I not being unethical too, when I buy shoes of Nike. Or, do I then say: "well, *I* am not using childlabour, but Nike, so it's not an issue anymore."?
Well, I think that's the easy way out. The reason ppl don't act on it is (in most cases) simply because they like the comfort it gives. If you really wanted to be ethically correct, you wouldn't buy shoes of Nike, and you wouldn't pay an ISP or a hotspot. But then again, you might have to buy more expensive shoes, or you might miss the comforts of the internet. So ethics, it seems, in most cases just go as far as your willing to go. In my view, it takes more stamina to support free speech, even if it has ethical drawbacks, then to invoke morals...but only till you lose the comfort one is used to.
So, what comfort does free speech represent for you? That is the real question, not some moral reasoning which is only used to the extend and untill it becomes obvious one shouldn't use the internet and other many tools for that matter, when applied consistently. The moral reasons given are absurd, in that view, because it only amounts to selfishness: what is one prepared to suffer for being morally correct (or what a person considers as such)? I guess many people would let Freenet drop, because it offers little extra comfort...unless you happen to have no freedom of speech, of course. If freenet were the only means to get 'online'...how many would drop their connection then? Not many, since the people complaining about it feel just happy using ISPs and hotspots nowadays.
Anyway, I'm not disputing the right of someone to decide whether or not he runs a node. But I wished the phony reasoning of it being a 'CP haven' and all the 'morality' about it would just be put in a correct perspective, instead of hyping it every time.
"I don't want to use freenet, because then I could potentially, although unknowingly, be hosting child porn on my server. I find that ethically disturbing. And so does plenty of other people it seems."
I see. And do you feel like people *should* find it ethically disturbing to run a freenetnode? Do you think ISPs should be held responsable for what other people do with their services? Do you think they should feel morally/ethically responsable because some people abuse their services?
"Or do you really think that because the ISP takes my money, and the ISP ferries freenet trafic, then my small contribution to my ISP is in effect more or less a direct, though tiny, contribution towards keeping freenet running? And in turn I should have ethical issues with that?"
I find your reasoning compelling. Maybe you *should* have ethical issues with it, indeed? If you believe in guilt by proxy, then you should, logically speaking.
"Nobody is talking about forbidding anything here, only about actively participating in potentially abusive behaviour, without any way of ever helping law enforcement to track down the perpetrators."
I think the term 'actively' is misleading, in the sense that it is no more actively involved then an ISP. As is the term 'in any way'. If you put tremendous effort and resources into it, you still could make out who send what. No anonymous system is absolute, not even Freenet. So, publically available hotspots make it next to impossible to know who send what (provided you don't repeatedly use the same hotspot when under surveillance or something), so it could be argumented that those hotspots make it possible or at least more easy to engage in potentially abusive behaviour while making it more difficult to track them, right?
I'm not saying Freenet couldn't possibly be misused, I'm only saying that that argument does not apply only to Freenet. And people using it should be consistent when using that argument... which I doubt they are.
"In the case of FreeNet, your own use of the tool can make you an accomplice to actively helping hiding the tracks of those abusers."
So does running a proxy-server. And lot of ISP's run proxyservers.
In fact, encryption helps hiding it too, though rather the content then the way it gets delivered.
Cybercafees and even more so hotspots make it almost impossible to track any abusers; by the same reasoning, they should be forbidden.
So you see, many tools DO help hiding the tracks of potential abusers, yet I don't see posters making the same hyped histeria about those. Calling it a 'haven for CP' is rather myth then reality, seen that the little research that has been done indicate it's no more then 4%, which I suspect is far less then on other distribution-applications.
I do agree it's unfortunate that a node is either in or out, but that's inherent to the freenetsystem; doing it otherwise would defeat the purpose of uncensored data in a robust system. However, it does not make you any more of an 'accomplish' then ISPs that are also used for illegal purposes by some users - at least in theory. legally, you are never certain untill the court says so, I guess. But morally, I do not think a freenetuser should feel more 'burdened' by the service he's providing then an ISP.
Of course, this view can be different for some, but as yet I have not seen a compelling reason why it would only count for Freenet, and not for a proxyserver or ISP or a myriad of other tools.
"And the comparison would be closer to valid if the colonists had stolen the tea for their own consumption, instead of destroying it."
Who can actually be sure non of the involved *did* take some tea for their own use?;-)
And would that make it less of a good (or bad) thing?
Civil disobedience often has a personal and sometimes even downright egotistical aspect. People are disobedient because they think they will get something out of it, at least potentially. "Personal enrichement" after all, does not has to be monetary wise per sé - as it is arbitrary to decide that 'money' (and saving it) is somehow less of a reason then, say, not paying taxes.
"...simply because distributors of such material feel safer in distributing it, means that more people will upload more. I think that counts as encouraging."
So, because they feel safer, the prog itself is 'encouraging' it, and can't be used? Proxies may feel more safe for them, encryption may make them feel more safe, heck, maybe the internet istelf! Should we not use any of those tools, then?
Come to think of it, digital camera's may make them feel more safe: no need to go to a photo-developer anymore! So the same argumentation is possible to say digital cameras and the like is 'encouraging' CP; yet, I think most would see the absurdity of it. It's as absurd to say Freenet 'encourages' it, however - unless you interpret 'encourage' in the broadest way, in which case you can forbid all tools, basically. I'm sure the RIAA will like a broad interpretation of 'encouraging', however, especially when INDUCE gets passed. Then they can sue every P2P application (and many others) in existence.
"The fact is that in reality, it actually is a haven for child porn, despite the honorable motives of the project and the fact that this impossible to avoid when you don't want to have any form of moderation or censorship or whatever you want to call it."
I think this is factual incorrect. There has been done a study about the content of Freenet (granted, some time ago) that showed the different categories such as warez etc. Childporn made out 4% of the total, if I remember correctly. That does not seem to indicate it is a 'haven' for childporn. I do not know of any studies of other systems, but I doubt this is much higher in % then any other system, such as kazaa. And as for the total amount, it probably is less (this could be due to the the fact performance is not very good, as yet, of course). My point is, the whole Freenet/CP issue is overrated; in reality it's not better or worse then any other system that can be used for distributing data.
"It is a downside of the system. You may think it is worth to pay this price for the benefits it offers, or you may think it is not worth it (like the grandparent). This has nothing to do with misunderstanding, just with a difference of opinions."
I agree it is a downside, but, as you correctly point out, it's impossible to be censor-free and yet censor bad things. While it may be a difference of opnion if it's worth it, I'm getting tired by the argument. I'm always wondering if the posters who have such big problems with it, stop using proxies, encryption, and the whole internet, for that matter. *EVERY* tool can be misused; if that were a reason to forgo the tool, then society as we know it would not exist. The argument thus, that it should not be used, because people can abuse it, has an inherent weakness in it, and I very much doubt the people who are using it as an argumentation are consistently 'not using' tools that can be misused... which makes it rather hypocritical as an argument against Freenet.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I do understand your argument of 'maybe later, when things will be cheaper', and it has some validity. But then again, one can not claim the drive for expanding the human presence in space is alive and kicking, when you completely halt (actual) human exploration. And, in fact, the argument used that it's not economical beneficial in regard to robotic probes is ALWAYS going to be true: when hardware/etc costs are going to be only a 10th of today in the future, it STILL will be far more expensive to send humans then to simply send robotic probes.
So the argument is mute, in the sense that, if you accept the premise, it's always going to be true. The real question thus becomes: what do you want to spend on human exploration, first steps or not? Clearly you seem to think the price is too high and a 'waste', while I think it's not. It does not follow, however, that my argumentation is false, while yours is the only correct viewpoint on the matter.
" If they were, I'd have a major problem, because I am both a professional scientist, and a devout Catholic."
Actually you do have a major problem, but, like all people who try to be a scientist and 'devout catholic', you chooose to ignore it. You do not see a problem, because you do not WANT to see there is one.
If you say you are a devout catholic, I'm assuming you believe in the basic tenets of the bible. Seen that they are so contradictory and absurd (an all-powerfull/all-knowing being, life after death, heaven and hell, creationism, etc.: all these things defy common sense) it is ludicrous to say there is no opposite viepoint. Science is ALL about making sense of the observable universe, according to well defined scientific principles. The answer of the devaut catholic?:
"It doesn't need to make sense."
Well, indeed, as a personal opinion, it doesn't. But a (real) scientist wants to get to the truth (as in: as close to the observable reality as possible). The dichotomy between the two, thus, resides in how you view your particular religion in the light of your science. Answer: you don't. You shun it. And you will never do it, because there is no rational or scientific basis for believing in God or heaven, nor creationism, etc.
People like you seperate their religion and their science - yet feel they don't contradict eachother - because you never actually used your capabilities as a scientist to research your beliefs. If you did, you would notice that that belief is irrational and unprovable; things your scientific mind SHOULD tell you to disregard it.
I mean, c'mon, if you had ANY other theory that would be absurd and untrue on the parts you can check, and completely improvable when taking only the esotheric parts, then, as a scientist, you would regard that theory as useless and disregard it. Yet, you don not do that, when it happens to be your own belief.
It's not that they aren't contradictory; it's that you fail as a scientist when it comes down to your own religious beliefs.
We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particulary human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
;-)
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
The reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.
A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
"Way to go with the straw man there. Most fiscal libertarians would say that it's simply not worth the cost of laying telecommunications cable to those areas.[...]"
:-)
Indeed, thus, as the parent poster said, capitalism failed (because the demand is not high enough for profit) and the state (city) had to step in.
"I heartily disagree."
:-)
Feel free to do so.
"Our country's problem with China regarding intellectual property is that they've been tolerating the mass production and sale of pirated goods (everything from music and films to birth control pills and brake pads, as the article put it)."
The USA's problem is that they try to enforce their view on the world to all countries, not only China. And since it's practically governed by corporations and big money, they are trying to impose the same IP-laws everywhere. A prime example is their efforts to introduce and lobby for softwarepatents in Europe. Lukily, europian institutions, and particulary the parliament, hasn't yielded in to corporate moneywaving, at least not to the same degree.
Alas, increasingly, even in europe, laws have been passed that restrict the rights of the individual more and more. Not only that, but the laws are more and more 'broad'; they hardly diferentiate anymore. Clearly there is a difference between private/family/non-commercial use and mass-counterfeting of medicines for commercial gain, with possible health security. While courts will generally be reasonable, the laws themselves increasingly become undifferentiated. Combined with the current tendency of obligatory minum sentences (whatever the court itself thinks reasonable in a given situation) this leads to many injustices.
"We are requesting that China does something about this. To state that the same law will be applied to "all others" is a classic slippery slope, and "everyone knows" is just incorrect."
It's not requesting, it's demanding, without little eye of local culture, customs or lawmaking. And it's not only with China.
I agree using terms like "all others" and "everyone knows" is not compelling evidence. Alas, history has shown us that, if you give new powers to lawenforcement for a specific purpose, they will always try to use this for area's it wasn't supposed to be used for. In a sense, they will abuse any additional rights given to them to the fullest extend possible, and as long they get away with it, they'll continue. the only thing stopping them from merely going the 'slippery slope' are the courts, but they are bound by the laws made by politicians that are often in the pocket of corporations, who like 'broad' laws, as I've already said. thus, laws that can be interpreted braodly, can be abused broadly, and almost invariably ARE being used out of the scope they were meant for. If you deny that, please look at all the recent 'anti-terrorism' laws, and tell me they haven't been misused for purposes that had nothing to do with terrorism. Can you?
"If I can summarize your position, it's that China shouldn't enforce laws against the most egregious offenders, because those same laws might be used against people who commit minor versions of the same crimes."
My position is, that every sovereign country should decide what and how to deal with breaking the law, and even IF laws are broken. The USA and corporations shouldn't meddle with it and try to impose laws that suit them.
"Is that correct? If so, would you apply that to other countries as well, and would you say that it applies to all areas of law? For example, in Afganistan, if they were to start chasing down the guys who are exporting heroin by the ton, does "everybody know" that they'll start busting people caught with a gram?"
If you make it illegal to have drugs, then consistency demands you also bust small dealers. In fact, in the USA it is EXACTLY that way; or do you think they let 1gram cocaine-carriers go? The amount of jail you get can be different, ofcourse, and that's a question of making differentiated laws (or leaving it up to the wisdom of the court).
Ofcourse, if you ask my personal opinion, I would legalise drugs-use, period. In fact, we're already doing that, since alcohol and nicotin are drugs too, scientiffically spoken. But people often have hysterical ideas about being rational about this, thanks to the FUD surrounding the 'war on drugs'.
"And now that this is happening, people are defendending them. Unbelievable."
First paragraph:
"If they would act specifically against mass-counterfeiting for commercial purposes then, certainly when health issues are at stake, it might have some validity, but everyone knows such laws will be used against all others as well, before you can blink your eye."
People sell everything, these days. Gues there is a 'need' for it...
Indeed.
;-)
Well, I object a bit to your analogy comparing P2P progs to bacteria (which makes it a pejorative thing), but to some extend you have a point.
Ofcourse, the comparison is rather arbitrary, so I could as well say that the RIAA and consorts are the bacteria, and as long as innovation like P2P progs keeps going, they can stay one step ahead. And if P2P coders stay ahead of the curve, maybe *they* can rid the world of most hollywood interference. And clearly they will never eliminate all paying customers that pay for over-priced CDs, but if they make it easy and safe enough, people might rather prefer to download it.
The IFPI/RIAA/MPAA and it's current USA puppet the bush-government (and a lot of senators and other so-called representatives of the people) is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it. If they would act specifically against mass-counterfeiting for commercial purposes then, certainly when health issues are at stake, it might have some validity, but everyone knows such laws will be used against all others as well, before you can blink your eye. And yet, it will go as with the war on drugs: something you can never beat, and something that is sustained with unvalid reasonings and making a lot of FUD.
/ freenet/website/pages/fairshare.php?rev=1.1).
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music/movies. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain.
Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare (http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
Well, not that it's entirely an only-OSS problem, of course.
But I completely agree with you on many aspects. I first tried the GIMP years ago, and I was dissapointed majorily. Ok, it was free, and the concept of OSS appeals to me, but ultimately, you want something that is easy to use. It was not as much the lack of features (which, btw, is almost gone; projects like OpenOffice, Linux and GIMP have catched up and have almost all the features of whatever proprietary thingy), but more the way it is presented.
The 'spread-out' windows are SO f- annoying, and I always wonder why it is so popular with OSS. When I compare that to PSP, and the relative ease by which you can do things, then the GIMP is seriously user-unfriendly. I wish, by god, they got rid of it, it's SUCH annoying crap. Like yourself, I just want one central window with the options available within that window, NOT a myriad of floating windows where you have to search through like in a labyrinth.
Why is it so difficult to see that one central place is better then a whole bunch of stupid and confusing little windows?
Luckily, this slowly gets through even thick skulls, and I'm rather pleased to see that GIMP2 has already a much more central-orientated look.
Hopefully, others will follow.
Luckily, at least on slashdot there aren't any real authority figures! ;-)
Crap, I made an elaborate post as an answer, klicked on submit (I thought) and the whole thing vanished. If you ever had the same: it's SO frustrating to see a post disapear into thin air, isn't it?
:-)
Ah well, I'm not going to repeat everything; we've covered most of it in the past. In essence, you're happy with irrational reasonings, and I'm not.
Let's just agree to disagree on this topic.
And a happy new year and many more interesting discussions. (And I hope this time, the submit will work).
true, true..
;-)
Well, actually it was known for 8 months
As I said, I agree with much of your comments. There can be little doubt the development/managing thingy with the Freenetproject is rather inefficient. There have been suggestions by me and others before, but it usually amounts to nothing. Guess there is already to much inertia. Still, I think it's possible that one day, they are going to have some breaktrhoughs that really makes it usuable for Joe Doe.
Indeed, there is no substantial difference, only a difference in degree. If there were, ISPs who use servers that don't log would be more morally wrong then those who do. In essence, every practise that improves privacy would be, if the reasoning is followed consistently.
:-)
Anyway, happy newyear, halo1!
"ISP's are common carriers, and they log a whole lot of stuff (much more than even I would want, and they have to keep it for much longer than I would want as well). In case of FreeNet, you are helping disguising the origin of data, and that's not what an ISP does in any way."
;-)? Should the post feel morally wrong, because their service can be abused, and they do not keep tracks where exactly it originated? Why don't they demand that someone comes in person, with his ID, before handling his post? If they set up such a system to make it possible for people to send things anonymously, does that make them morally more wrong then when they didn't mean to obfuscate the origin?
In fact, ISPs are not obliged to keep any logs, at least in some european countries. They are only required to keep logs for x time if they DO have logs. Apart from the JAP server I don't know if any regular ISP has decided not to use logs, or to what extend they are logged. But the question remains if that makes the morality of the case. Ultimately, by that definition, keeping track of someone is morally superior...a concept I very much doubt, frankly. If people would get implanted with a tracker-chip in the brain, from birth, imagine all the abuse one could prevent! Heck, connect it to sensory data and you can take any abuser out of society at any moment: all can be tracked, every crime reported, every criminal in jail. Some might think this would be utopia. I think differently.
But back to ISPs: do logs make the difference? If morality by proxy is possible, then that doesn't change much. If freenet is morally wrong, because people can abuse it, aren't ISPs morally wrong, because they provide services which makes it possible for Freenet to run? Somehow, with technicalities about logs or not, you do not go to the bottom of the question.
I mean, take the regular post: they don't keep tabs on who send what where, at least not on the individual level (and the you can always drop your post in another city). No doubt snailmail is used for illegal purposes too, and the originator can remain anonymous too...and it has been that way for hundreds of years.
Do you see people complaining about the postal office (in this regard
As I said, there are myriads of tools and services to which this kind of reasoning could be applied, and posters that promote this reasoning should be consistent and drop the use of them all - if morality is the real issue, that is. I have no problem with people making up their own mind; everyone should be free to do just that. Run a node, or don't. But the reality should not fall victim to personal opinion: Freenet is not a 'haven for CP' and it's not 'promoting CP' neither. It's just a tool, and like every tool, it is neutral on itself and like evry tool, it can be abused, even when it's created for a good purpose. There really isn't something intrinsically different about Freenet, in this regard.
LOL
;-).
Ok...have to go to one myself, in a while.
It's not that I don't understand what you're saying and of course I feel anyone has the right to decide what he runs or not on their puter, I think all agree on that (exept MS
But I'm getting a bit pissed off by some that always use the same dead horse of "Freenet is a CP haven" (which it is not, as far as research has shown) and with how morally wrong it is, while that reasoning never seems to bother those posters when using an ISP or a hotspot or myriad of other tools. The morality issue is not intrinsically different then with other tools, it's just that the benefits versus the risks have to be determined. The risk is that of 'being' an ISP, and the benefit is that of promoting free speech.
If people make the conclusion it's not worth it, fine - see you when free speech will have become so suppressed even they get bothered by it, but it's not like Freenet involves totally new concepts (morally, I mean). A tool is a tool: it does not 'encourage' anything, and all tools can be abused, even when they are created for good purposes. Nothing new under the sun.
"A proper test would involve a thousand-node-network, at the very least. Where are you going to get that ?"
;-)
:(."
A slashdot for beta-testers?
"Unfortunately, the smaller the chunk, the more of them you need to get to show a single freesite, and the more overhead there will be
Yes, which was of my remarks as well. The smaller the chunk, the more, in comparison, the opverhead will be. But, if I remember correctly,; toad assured me he could reduce the overhead to a minimum, which would allow for considerably smaller chunks.
Anyway, thanks for your input. Maybe a tad too pessimistic (though god knows I'm too, sometimes), but there were many things I agreed with, in your post.
"Most people are not ISP's and do not want the take the responsibilities of being one."
True. But the question remains if they think ISPs should feel morally/ethitically compelled to close their services?
By putting it on the shoulders of others, one merely shove the question a bit further. If people think it's unethical, then they should think it's unethical of ISPs or hotspots as well...yet, they seem to have no trouble using it, or even sponsoring it (by paying for it).
I have difficulties seeing how this can not contain hypocrisy to some extend. If I know Nike is using childlabor and think that is unethical, then am I not being unethical too, when I buy shoes of Nike. Or, do I then say: "well, *I* am not using childlabour, but Nike, so it's not an issue anymore."?
Well, I think that's the easy way out. The reason ppl don't act on it is (in most cases) simply because they like the comfort it gives. If you really wanted to be ethically correct, you wouldn't buy shoes of Nike, and you wouldn't pay an ISP or a hotspot. But then again, you might have to buy more expensive shoes, or you might miss the comforts of the internet. So ethics, it seems, in most cases just go as far as your willing to go. In my view, it takes more stamina to support free speech, even if it has ethical drawbacks, then to invoke morals...but only till you lose the comfort one is used to.
So, what comfort does free speech represent for you? That is the real question, not some moral reasoning which is only used to the extend and untill it becomes obvious one shouldn't use the internet and other many tools for that matter, when applied consistently. The moral reasons given are absurd, in that view, because it only amounts to selfishness: what is one prepared to suffer for being morally correct (or what a person considers as such)? I guess many people would let Freenet drop, because it offers little extra comfort...unless you happen to have no freedom of speech, of course. If freenet were the only means to get 'online'...how many would drop their connection then? Not many, since the people complaining about it feel just happy using ISPs and hotspots nowadays.
Anyway, I'm not disputing the right of someone to decide whether or not he runs a node. But I wished the phony reasoning of it being a 'CP haven' and all the 'morality' about it would just be put in a correct perspective, instead of hyping it every time.
"I don't want to use freenet, because then I could potentially, although unknowingly, be hosting child porn on my server. I find that ethically disturbing. And so does plenty of other people it seems."
I see. And do you feel like people *should* find it ethically disturbing to run a freenetnode? Do you think ISPs should be held responsable for what other people do with their services? Do you think they should feel morally/ethically responsable because some people abuse their services?
"Or do you really think that because the ISP takes my money, and the ISP ferries freenet trafic, then my small contribution to my ISP is in effect more or less a direct, though tiny, contribution towards keeping freenet running? And in turn I should have ethical issues with that?"
I find your reasoning compelling. Maybe you *should* have ethical issues with it, indeed? If you believe in guilt by proxy, then you should, logically speaking.
"I am not responsible for what other people do."
Exactly my point.
"Nobody is talking about forbidding anything here, only about actively participating in potentially abusive behaviour, without any way of ever helping law enforcement to track down the perpetrators."
I think the term 'actively' is misleading, in the sense that it is no more actively involved then an ISP. As is the term 'in any way'. If you put tremendous effort and resources into it, you still could make out who send what. No anonymous system is absolute, not even Freenet. So, publically available hotspots make it next to impossible to know who send what (provided you don't repeatedly use the same hotspot when under surveillance or something), so it could be argumented that those hotspots make it possible or at least more easy to engage in potentially abusive behaviour while making it more difficult to track them, right?
I'm not saying Freenet couldn't possibly be misused, I'm only saying that that argument does not apply only to Freenet. And people using it should be consistent when using that argument... which I doubt they are.
Then you don't want to use any ISPs neither?
Because, you know, those ISPs are used by a lot of people abusing their services. And it's not like they 'decide' about that, neither.
"In the case of FreeNet, your own use of the tool can make you an accomplice to actively helping hiding the tracks of those abusers."
So does running a proxy-server. And lot of ISP's run proxyservers.
In fact, encryption helps hiding it too, though rather the content then the way it gets delivered.
Cybercafees and even more so hotspots make it almost impossible to track any abusers; by the same reasoning, they should be forbidden.
So you see, many tools DO help hiding the tracks of potential abusers, yet I don't see posters making the same hyped histeria about those. Calling it a 'haven for CP' is rather myth then reality, seen that the little research that has been done indicate it's no more then 4%, which I suspect is far less then on other distribution-applications.
I do agree it's unfortunate that a node is either in or out, but that's inherent to the freenetsystem; doing it otherwise would defeat the purpose of uncensored data in a robust system. However, it does not make you any more of an 'accomplish' then ISPs that are also used for illegal purposes by some users - at least in theory. legally, you are never certain untill the court says so, I guess. But morally, I do not think a freenetuser should feel more 'burdened' by the service he's providing then an ISP.
Of course, this view can be different for some, but as yet I have not seen a compelling reason why it would only count for Freenet, and not for a proxyserver or ISP or a myriad of other tools.
"And the comparison would be closer to valid if the colonists had stolen the tea for their own consumption, instead of destroying it."
;-)
Who can actually be sure non of the involved *did* take some tea for their own use?
And would that make it less of a good (or bad) thing?
Civil disobedience often has a personal and sometimes even downright egotistical aspect. People are disobedient because they think they will get something out of it, at least potentially. "Personal enrichement" after all, does not has to be monetary wise per sé - as it is arbitrary to decide that 'money' (and saving it) is somehow less of a reason then, say, not paying taxes.
"...simply because distributors of such material feel safer in distributing it, means that more people will upload more. I think that counts as encouraging."
So, because they feel safer, the prog itself is 'encouraging' it, and can't be used? Proxies may feel more safe for them, encryption may make them feel more safe, heck, maybe the internet istelf! Should we not use any of those tools, then?
Come to think of it, digital camera's may make them feel more safe: no need to go to a photo-developer anymore! So the same argumentation is possible to say digital cameras and the like is 'encouraging' CP; yet, I think most would see the absurdity of it. It's as absurd to say Freenet 'encourages' it, however - unless you interpret 'encourage' in the broadest way, in which case you can forbid all tools, basically. I'm sure the RIAA will like a broad interpretation of 'encouraging', however, especially when INDUCE gets passed. Then they can sue every P2P application (and many others) in existence.
"The fact is that in reality, it actually is a haven for child porn, despite the honorable motives of the project and the fact that this impossible to avoid when you don't want to have any form of moderation or censorship or whatever you want to call it."
I think this is factual incorrect. There has been done a study about the content of Freenet (granted, some time ago) that showed the different categories such as warez etc. Childporn made out 4% of the total, if I remember correctly. That does not seem to indicate it is a 'haven' for childporn. I do not know of any studies of other systems, but I doubt this is much higher in % then any other system, such as kazaa. And as for the total amount, it probably is less (this could be due to the the fact performance is not very good, as yet, of course). My point is, the whole Freenet/CP issue is overrated; in reality it's not better or worse then any other system that can be used for distributing data.
"It is a downside of the system. You may think it is worth to pay this price for the benefits it offers, or you may think it is not worth it (like the grandparent). This has nothing to do with misunderstanding, just with a difference of opinions."
I agree it is a downside, but, as you correctly point out, it's impossible to be censor-free and yet censor bad things. While it may be a difference of opnion if it's worth it, I'm getting tired by the argument. I'm always wondering if the posters who have such big problems with it, stop using proxies, encryption, and the whole internet, for that matter. *EVERY* tool can be misused; if that were a reason to forgo the tool, then society as we know it would not exist. The argument thus, that it should not be used, because people can abuse it, has an inherent weakness in it, and I very much doubt the people who are using it as an argumentation are consistently 'not using' tools that can be misused... which makes it rather hypocritical as an argument against Freenet.