Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if our universe was constantly interacting with other universives parallel to our own, particles would behave in a much more random way
I am but a physics novice, but I think the veracity of that statement depends upon the rules of their interaction, which we don't know. If there are particles in common between universes, maybe once universes diverge they do not interact with one another anymore, in which case, there may be no benefit to believing in them.
Your mention of determinism (e.g. Hawking's) also interests me in part because of its implications for what many believe is "free will". Of course, I acknowledge that this is not a physical argument which can be verified experimentally, and as such, you may deem it irrelevant. However, the fact that most governments and societies are based upon the notion of "free will", makes this interesting to consider. Is our government and society predestined to collapse if we discover that our universe is entirely deterministic?
Of course, as I indicated, this dilemma itself could be predetermined, so this reasoning does not really solve anything... in which case your response (or not) as well would be predetermined.:)
1) Of course, RedHat isn't a good counter-example, but Debian, et al. might be. btw: do you think Win98 still has bugs? Hopefully they patched them all.
2) Hmmm... now I'm confused. Did you miss the slashback? Or did I miss the slashbackback that took it back? Perhaps we shan't know till they actually release it.
MS Clarifies: No SP2 For Pirated XP Copies PingXao writes "Unlike earlier reports, this eWeek story says MS will not be allowing pirated versions of Windows XP to install SP2. They plan to release the update within a couple of months as everybody knows, but what's interesting is this quote from a MS spokesperson that supposedly explains their reasons for this approach: "... using genuine software is an important part of keeping systems secure and running smoothly because it means continued access to the latest security enhancements and product updates." Not that I blame them for not providing assistance to people who violate their copyrights, but I wonder if they actually paid someone to come up with that insightful explanation. Something like "We don't provide updates to pirates" would have done the trick. Why cloud the issue with talk about secure this and security that when the basis for the policy has absolutely nothing to do with security?"
As for the topic at hand, WTL was essentially free for windows development anyway and I'd be amazed if it is used for anything else. Also, I suspect MS feels it is or will soon be an ancient relic from the times before.NET development. All in all, I think it was a good move, both for them and for the windows development community. Sometimes everybody wins.
D'oh! If Sauron had remembered to embed an RFID chip in that damn ring when he first had it made, it would have saved him and many others thousands of years of "looking for lost jewelry" trouble.
I thought he did! The RFID chip just required an external power source... i.e. someone had to wear it.
That's an interesting point, especially as it applies to patents and not copyright. I think my sibling posters were mostly alluding to the NET act, which only applies to copyright. Here's a quick summary:
The 'No Electronic Theft' Act
On December 16, 1997, President Clinton signed HR 2265 -- the 'No Electronic Theft' Act -- into law. The act, sponsored by Representative Goodlatte (R-Virginia), was passed in the House on 11/4/97 and in the Senate on 11/13/97.
HR 2265 was viewed as "closing a loophole" in the criminal law. Under the old statutory scheme, people who intentionally distributed copied software over the Internet did not face criminal penalties if they did not profit from their actions.
The act was strongly backed by the software and entertainment industries but opposed by science and academic groups.
Of course, anyone can sue over anything civilly, which is apparently the course of action with these patent lawsuits. Perhaps a lawyer can chime in on the boundaries of patents -- e.g. is it illegal for me to build and use a mechanism which incidently infringes a patent? Can my family (or friends) then use that mechanism? Can I then give that mechanism away for free?
Just to clarify, the Halting Problem is undecidable, not impossible. i.e. There are many cases wherein one machine can compute whether another machine will halt.
Basically, from records found at the Iraqi oil ministry and elsewhere, there is evidence of corruption in the UN, France, Russia, Syria, etc. largely through the UN's "oil for food" program. While the UN security coucil has assigned a panel to investigate, the panel has limited power. If there really was corruption, hopefully, there is enough extant evidence on the Iraqi side to reveal it.
That was not the point to force the war.
Maybe, but repeated non-compliance was the technical "UN legal" point that the US used to force the war. I have my own doubts about why the war was started, but I believe there can be a highly positive outcome for Iraq and the US.
From what I've read, most prisoners at Guantanamo are living much better than they would in their own country (certain exceptions not withstanding). Of course, it does sadden me that the US has chosen to classify them as the limbo "enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war" or "enemy soldiers", though I can understand their reasoning for doing so. I feel that there should certainly be some formal (ideally public) due process, as is a constitutional necessity for US citizens.
There are many counts upon which I disagree with Bush, not limited to "due process", the USPA, etc. In hindsight, the start of the war with Iraq is also highly questionable, since we have not yet found where the WMD have gone (though we have found other military "contraband").
I think that whatever Iraq becomes (democracy paradise, religious dictatorship, etc) it will not be a friend of USA.
I think it is far too soon to make that judgement, and other than demotivating the very difficult struggle for Iraqi democracy and freedom, I see no purpose for that attitude.
Your sarcasm is welcome, but take note that the accused part are those that supposedly are given Iraq freedom, human rights and democracy
I simply ask that we also take note of the context of all Coalition action and not merely the actions of criminals. You yourself state that the war is not over, which implies some expectation of special circumstances.
I appreciate the civility of our discourse. Thanks.
I don't fear technology, I'm simply interested in its particular uses and implications. You're right that RFID cards should provide more security, due to difficulty of duplication and embedded secure data such as biometrics (fingerprint, iris, voice, handwriting, dna, etc) to link it to its owner.
Of course, in many cases, it is the free nature of the modern credit card that has made it so useful. Throughout my life, I've used other people's credit cards for a variety of legitimate purposes (in person, over the phone, over the internet, etc.). It'll be interesting to see how this changes as RFID cards become the norm.
Regarding your scenario, a user might have more than one RFID card, requiring differentiation (though physical separation might still not be necessary, depending upon the design) and if RFID cards are at some point duplicated, brief visual inspection of the card might be expected. Also, using a pin in public may be a better quick check than a signature, but is also easier to steal than a signature (assuming some verification is performed).
RFID-style tagging can be quite useful in aiding secure transactions. I'm certainly not inherently against them.
Of course the handful blogs are not representative but it is reasonable to assume that they are more US friendly then your average Iraqi
I'm not sure that is a reasonable assumption... especially considering that much of Europe (the other western world:)) strongly disagrees with the US Coalition. I also wonder how many and who in the former and current Iraq generally had access to such resources, though that may be unrelated.
Again, I feel the most important distinction for the Iraqis is that any such atrocities as prisoner torture are not tolerated by the Coalition. I do not believe the same could be said under Saddam. Iraq is in a state of great flux. To ignore this and apply the same standards that we do in a stable environment is misleading.
If we look at all the evil done by the Coalition without looking at the good they are doing, have done, and intend to do, I believe we will develop a distorted view which can only serve to falsely malign and thus hinder the entire effort. The bulk of the media (particularly Middle-East media) seems to present this lopsided attitude. It is a war of propaganda that the Coalition is losing.
Time will tell how much good Iraq will bring, which will be largely determined by the Iraqi's attitudes and efforts. One must decide whether to fight to encourage the good aspects and eliminate the bad, or to abandon the entire effort. AFAICT, abandoning Iraq to its own devices would be a disaster at this point and quite irresponsible of the US.
But Bush didn't let the UN experts end their mission.
Which mission over how many years? Part of the problem was that the "mission" was never ending because Saddam was not fully complying. Resolutions were passed which required teeth. Though I must admit the UN experts were doing an excellent job of investigating where Saddam allowed them to. It'll be interesting to hear how UN corruption investigations plays out in all of this.
Bush administration is doing nothing for human rights and democracy. If it would, prisoners would be given rights.
Nothing? So we are defining human rights by the "rights" of certain prisoners alone? -- we are defining human rights by the illegal actions of certain Coalition soldiers? Iraq is in flux -- look to any country after a war which significantly alters the political and social paradigm for what you can expect.
Of course, you're right that a year or two is much more than enough time for Iraq to become a bastion of freedom and democracy./sarcasm
At the very least, the Coalition has already effected a huge change, which will likely be better all around in the long term than the former status quo. Amazingly, Palestine might no longer be the sole focal point of the Arab world, upon which so much is contingent.
You seem to be implying that the Iraqi blogs you read are a random subset of Iraq, sufficient to be representative of the majority of Iraqis? Do you really believe that the "torture" committed by Coalition soldiers is on the same scale or extent as by Saddam? I fail to see the equivalence, particularly in prevalence.
Of course, I certainly don't mean to minimize their feelings or their right to express themselves; it is good that the Iraqis are worried about their future -- they should be. It's good to be concerned about and expose abuse by Coalition soldiers (or anyone), because, unlike under Saddam, that is illegal and will be not be tolerated.
btw: the phrase "honest tyrant" was kind of funny; I assume you meant that everyone knew he was "evil", which is somehow better than the US doing much good while making mistakes and having some bad apples who are dealt with?
Granted, Iraq is currently unstable so it might not be comparable yet, but perhaps you can tell me how commonplace it was for Iraqis (within Iraq) to publicly speak out against Saddam, compared to their ability to do so now against the US -- not promoting violence, of course, but reasonably expressing ideas for their future government and society or exposing crimes and abuses.
The "war" for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis is hardly over. I think it is far too early to give up on the dream of democracy in Iraq.
For years after almost any war there is instability. It's strange how people expect more from Iraq, or perhaps they simply expect more from the US?
WMD: They had them. They were to provide proof they destroyed them. They did not. Any argument regarding WMD is supplemental to the point of security and reasonable risk assessment.
At the very least, you are preemptively preaching pessimism at a crucial time. The Iraqis have not yet established their government (it will take many years to become reasonably stable) and I find it difficult to be upset that the US is attempting to mandate a long-lasting set of basic human rights and democracy in Iraq.
WMD? Sure, it was about that, but it's certainly not limited to that. The larger picture is terrorism and thus security... long term security, perhaps primarily for the US, but also for the region and, by extension, the world. Saddam was a relatively easy and uncooperative target with an insanely disproportionate penchant for "evil", including terrorism.
It's also about providing a better government for the Iraqis. i.e. this war will be worthwhile simply as a humanitarian effort to liberate the Iraqis (sad but relatively isolated cases of Coalition abuse not withstanding), though those who have lost loved ones may reasonably disagree.
If the US is successful, the paradigm shift in the region could be quite profound in a way unattainable by any other means for decades. Actually, I'm somewhat surprised these general facets aren't rather self-evident... or do people really believe that the US is just as bad as Saddam?
Thanks for linking to the source, cause my recollection of what happened was a bit different than your interpretation.
Here's the quote with more context:
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, R-Maine: I think that rather than calling CBS and asking for a delay in the airing of the pictures, it would have been far better if you, Mr. Secretary, with all respect, had come forward and told the world about these pictures and of your personal determination - a determination I know you have - to set matters right and to hold those responsible accountable.
RUMSFELD: Well, Senator Collins, I wish I had done that. I said that in my remarks.
I wish I knew - and we've got to find a better way to do it. But I wish I knew how you reach down into a criminal investigation when it is not just a criminal investigation, but it turns out to be something that is radioactive, something that has strategic impact in the world. And we don't have those procedures. They've never been designed.
We're functioning in a - with peacetime restraints, with legal requirements in a wartime situation, in the information age, where people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon.
Rumsfeld is answering a question pertaining to why he didn't publicly preempt the media by divulging the crimes and the photographs himself rather than delaying their release until after the investigation.
My interpretation is that in hindsight, he wishes he had, but that there were no extant military criminal procedures to do that, even though that would have been helpful in the court of public opinion. In the last paragraph (which you quote), Rumsfeld is summarizing the difficulty of managing traditional military protocol, including investigation (e.g. at the Pentagon) with the importance of US, Iraqi and, indeed, world public relations.
There is certainly a balance which must be struck between military (or even police) action and public divulgence. Consider if it turned out (as it has in many other cases) that the reports or the pictures were fake. Divulging the pictures or the charges prior to an investigation into their veracity can greatly mislead the public. Then again, acknowledging the possibility that they might be true may help.
I do not think it can be concluded that the solution Rumsfeld put forth is to "make new rules about cameras in the vicinity of sanctioned torture and rape". If anything, the context implies that the Senator's and Rumsfeld's solution is to develop procedures that will allow for some public divulgence prior to a completed criminal military investigation.
A sibling poster questioned the "against the law" portion. I suspect Rumsfeld may be referring to the Geneva convention or other military rules of which I am unfamiliar.
I haven't looked at the DMCA for a while, but IIRC (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), one of the insidious aspects of the DMCA is that it provides for a committee that can grant exemptions. Hence, any special interest who lobbies for a change in or abolishment of the DMCA can be exempted, thereby eliminating that threat to it.
I don't think your "DRM virus" would be protected under the DMCA since the spreading of the "virus" would probably break other laws. Of course, an effective and popular DRM virus might just focus people's attention upon whose "rights" and "security" DRM and "Trusted Computing" are intended to protect.
In the mean time, why don't they stick to suing people from actual copyright infringement, instead of "protecting" their works with stupidly restrictive schemes?
I suspect your question may have been rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway; they do it to maximize their profits. -- Copyrights and Patents are optimization problems: maximize progress.
These people giving their life to kill off a few Israeli's are exerting the only military influence that's stopping the Israeli's from just killing them off (which is a popular idea in Israel, you can tell by Sharon getting elected).
Are you kidding? You equate Sharon's election with Israel wanting the genocide of all Palestinians? You think that Palestinian bombers are preventing Israel from annihilating them?? Without the Palestinian terrorists, Israel would have no cause to retaliate and no need for walls. If Israel wanted to they could obliterate the Palestinians. That is obviously not their goal. Israel targets terrorists and their leaders.
I invite you to further investigate the history of British Mandated Palestine, as well as the Palestinian's current laws, culture, media, and education.
And you're right, it's a stupid thing to act moral when dealing with immoral people.
I certainly did NOT say that. It should be our goal to always act morally.
That does NOT mean you can just go over and kill them.
If that is basically the only way to prevent them from killing other innocents, then yes, it is reasonable and moral to stop them, by force if necessary.
Just think it. Who is the criminal ? The guy who sacrifices his own life in an act of desperation against a superior force. Or the pilot who pushes a button that fires a rocket to the middle of a street, 50 miles away, in HOPES of hitting a certain person ? Guess which one is the American soldier...
Your example presents insufficient context to judge criminality. Either case may be moral or immoral depending upon the circumstances. e.g. Why are they attacking? Are they targeting innocents? Will the death of the target eventually save lives?, etc.
Really? I always thought the 9/11 attack was a very simple plan with relatively few risks, entirely unlike a nuclear attack. Bringing in anything even related to a nuke would probably be complex and high risk from a variety of perspectives (working with them, getting them into the country, etc.). Nukes may have even been more expected and probably easier to detect than what did occur. Imagine the kind of holy hell that would arise if the US were nuked.
OTOH, the fact that Israel hasn't been hit by a nuke also suggests that the terrorists might not have any (or multiple) nukes.
Are you equating terrorism with fighting for freedom?
would I mind someone else doing that to me?
Ah, yes, the Golden Rule. I like it, too... it's usually a good guide. Some people believe all morality can come from this rule ("Do unto others as you would have done unto you"). The problems come when other people don't follow this rule or don't care about the same things you do.
Actually, the first thing I thought about is using it to break hardware based digital rights management (Trusted Computing? Palladium?) where the key is hidden in a chip on the motherboard and en/decryption is done internally.
The summary mentions "tamper-resistant systems", but I'm not yet sure this attack applies to such cases, as I haven't read it yet.:)
More and more places I go allow the customer to swipe their own card through the reader. On rare occassions, they want to actually inspect the card. I don't see how that would change with RFID.
What if you could just swipe the card against a portable pad, without it leaving your hand?
Well if you can use a portable device with RFID, why can't you use a portable device for magnetic strips?
I'd imagine the account number and expiration date are still on the outside of the RFID card along with the owner's signature, for offline or phone verification if necessary?
So has TRIPS or the Berne Convention been tested in court? At the very least, this clearly indicates that the EU is not currently bound by software patents (from US or otherwise).
I mostly agree with your reasoning, as it illustrates that many of the patents that have been granted haven't been that unique or special to warrant a patent (particularly as it applies to software). Of course, programmers do often look to papers or references for algorithms which, theoretically, may be patented.
Regarding "no secrets", in addition to the etymological derivation of "patent" (Latin for open) and its secondary definition (obvious; plain), I believe the original purpose of patents was to promote progress by discouraging secrets and thus encouraging the sharing of ideas.
I'm certainly not arguing that its current implementation is successful, simply that I agree with its original purpose. -- Copyrights and Patents are optimization problems: maximize progress.
Thanks for the details. My current concern is a bit broader than patents. I'm worried that the EU will go down a similar path of federalization as the US and I'm not sure it can be stopped. As I'm sure you know, the US was intended to be a loose alliance among states... a relatively independent group of united states, if you will. It only took about 150 years for that to change.
USians will tell you that it turns out that pretty much everything can fall under interstate commerce or common defense or federal government funding if you squint at it the right way.
If this cannot be prevented, then the UN or some world government may very well be inevitable, and if you think you have trouble being represented by the behemoth that is your state's or country's government, just wait til your country has to legally abide by and compromise with the democratic whims of dictators.
So I look upon the EU with hope for the world's future, much as the world has at times looked upon the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Your mention of determinism (e.g. Hawking's) also interests me in part because of its implications for what many believe is "free will". Of course, I acknowledge that this is not a physical argument which can be verified experimentally, and as such, you may deem it irrelevant. However, the fact that most governments and societies are based upon the notion of "free will", makes this interesting to consider. Is our government and society predestined to collapse if we discover that our universe is entirely deterministic?
Of course, as I indicated, this dilemma itself could be predetermined, so this reasoning does not really solve anything... in which case your response (or not) as well would be predetermined.
... the gang of the two handed salute. Puny man. We only need one hand to... errr... salute; for we are Vulcans. Prepare to be reset.
2) Hmmm... now I'm confused. Did you miss the slashback? Or did I miss the slashbackback that took it back? Perhaps we shan't know till they actually release it.As for the topic at hand, WTL was essentially free for windows development anyway and I'd be amazed if it is used for anything else. Also, I suspect MS feels it is or will soon be an ancient relic from the times before
Just to clarify, the Halting Problem is undecidable, not impossible.
i.e. There are many cases wherein one machine can compute whether another machine will halt.
Basically, from records found at the Iraqi oil ministry and elsewhere, there is evidence of corruption in the UN, France, Russia, Syria, etc. largely through the UN's "oil for food" program. While the UN security coucil has assigned a panel to investigate, the panel has limited power. If there really was corruption, hopefully, there is enough extant evidence on the Iraqi side to reveal it.Maybe, but repeated non-compliance was the technical "UN legal" point that the US used to force the war. I have my own doubts about why the war was started, but I believe there can be a highly positive outcome for Iraq and the US.
From what I've read, most prisoners at Guantanamo are living much better than they would in their own country (certain exceptions not withstanding). Of course, it does sadden me that the US has chosen to classify them as the limbo "enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war" or "enemy soldiers", though I can understand their reasoning for doing so. I feel that there should certainly be some formal (ideally public) due process, as is a constitutional necessity for US citizens.
There are many counts upon which I disagree with Bush, not limited to "due process", the USPA, etc. In hindsight, the start of the war with Iraq is also highly questionable, since we have not yet found where the WMD have gone (though we have found other military "contraband").I think it is far too soon to make that judgement, and other than demotivating the very difficult struggle for Iraqi democracy and freedom, I see no purpose for that attitude.I simply ask that we also take note of the context of all Coalition action and not merely the actions of criminals. You yourself state that the war is not over, which implies some expectation of special circumstances.
I appreciate the civility of our discourse. Thanks.
I don't fear technology, I'm simply interested in its particular uses and implications. You're right that RFID cards should provide more security, due to difficulty of duplication and embedded secure data such as biometrics (fingerprint, iris, voice, handwriting, dna, etc) to link it to its owner.
Of course, in many cases, it is the free nature of the modern credit card that has made it so useful. Throughout my life, I've used other people's credit cards for a variety of legitimate purposes (in person, over the phone, over the internet, etc.). It'll be interesting to see how this changes as RFID cards become the norm.
Regarding your scenario, a user might have more than one RFID card, requiring differentiation (though physical separation might still not be necessary, depending upon the design) and if RFID cards are at some point duplicated, brief visual inspection of the card might be expected. Also, using a pin in public may be a better quick check than a signature, but is also easier to steal than a signature (assuming some verification is performed).
RFID-style tagging can be quite useful in aiding secure transactions. I'm certainly not inherently against them.
Of course the handful blogs are not representative but it is reasonable to assume that they are more US friendly then your average Iraqi
:)) strongly disagrees with the US Coalition. I also wonder how many and who in the former and current Iraq generally had access to such resources, though that may be unrelated.
I'm not sure that is a reasonable assumption... especially considering that much of Europe (the other western world
Again, I feel the most important distinction for the Iraqis is that any such atrocities as prisoner torture are not tolerated by the Coalition. I do not believe the same could be said under Saddam. Iraq is in a state of great flux. To ignore this and apply the same standards that we do in a stable environment is misleading.
If we look at all the evil done by the Coalition without looking at the good they are doing, have done, and intend to do, I believe we will develop a distorted view which can only serve to falsely malign and thus hinder the entire effort. The bulk of the media (particularly Middle-East media) seems to present this lopsided attitude. It is a war of propaganda that the Coalition is losing.
Time will tell how much good Iraq will bring, which will be largely determined by the Iraqi's attitudes and efforts. One must decide whether to fight to encourage the good aspects and eliminate the bad, or to abandon the entire effort. AFAICT, abandoning Iraq to its own devices would be a disaster at this point and quite irresponsible of the US.
Of course, you're right that a year or two is much more than enough time for Iraq to become a bastion of freedom and democracy.
At the very least, the Coalition has already effected a huge change, which will likely be better all around in the long term than the former status quo. Amazingly, Palestine might no longer be the sole focal point of the Arab world, upon which so much is contingent.
You seem to be implying that the Iraqi blogs you read are a random subset of Iraq, sufficient to be representative of the majority of Iraqis? Do you really believe that the "torture" committed by Coalition soldiers is on the same scale or extent as by Saddam? I fail to see the equivalence, particularly in prevalence.
Of course, I certainly don't mean to minimize their feelings or their right to express themselves; it is good that the Iraqis are worried about their future -- they should be. It's good to be concerned about and expose abuse by Coalition soldiers (or anyone), because, unlike under Saddam, that is illegal and will be not be tolerated.
btw: the phrase "honest tyrant" was kind of funny; I assume you meant that everyone knew he was "evil", which is somehow better than the US doing much good while making mistakes and having some bad apples who are dealt with?
Granted, Iraq is currently unstable so it might not be comparable yet, but perhaps you can tell me how commonplace it was for Iraqis (within Iraq) to publicly speak out against Saddam, compared to their ability to do so now against the US -- not promoting violence, of course, but reasonably expressing ideas for their future government and society or exposing crimes and abuses.
The "war" for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis is hardly over. I think it is far too early to give up on the dream of democracy in Iraq.
cf. "Long term", particularly regarding "security".
For years after almost any war there is instability. It's strange how people expect more from Iraq, or perhaps they simply expect more from the US?
WMD: They had them. They were to provide proof they destroyed them. They did not. Any argument regarding WMD is supplemental to the point of security and reasonable risk assessment.
At the very least, you are preemptively preaching pessimism at a crucial time. The Iraqis have not yet established their government (it will take many years to become reasonably stable) and I find it difficult to be upset that the US is attempting to mandate a long-lasting set of basic human rights and democracy in Iraq.
WMD? Sure, it was about that, but it's certainly not limited to that. The larger picture is terrorism and thus security... long term security, perhaps primarily for the US, but also for the region and, by extension, the world. Saddam was a relatively easy and uncooperative target with an insanely disproportionate penchant for "evil", including terrorism.
It's also about providing a better government for the Iraqis. i.e. this war will be worthwhile simply as a humanitarian effort to liberate the Iraqis (sad but relatively isolated cases of Coalition abuse not withstanding), though those who have lost loved ones may reasonably disagree.
If the US is successful, the paradigm shift in the region could be quite profound in a way unattainable by any other means for decades. Actually, I'm somewhat surprised these general facets aren't rather self-evident... or do people really believe that the US is just as bad as Saddam?
Did you read it in context? Take a look at my other post which is sibling to yours.
If my military is abusing or torturing anyone, I have a right to know.
I agree, you do have a right to know; the salient question is, when?
Here's the quote with more context:Rumsfeld is answering a question pertaining to why he didn't publicly preempt the media by divulging the crimes and the photographs himself rather than delaying their release until after the investigation.
My interpretation is that in hindsight, he wishes he had, but that there were no extant military criminal procedures to do that, even though that would have been helpful in the court of public opinion. In the last paragraph (which you quote), Rumsfeld is summarizing the difficulty of managing traditional military protocol, including investigation (e.g. at the Pentagon) with the importance of US, Iraqi and, indeed, world public relations.
There is certainly a balance which must be struck between military (or even police) action and public divulgence. Consider if it turned out (as it has in many other cases) that the reports or the pictures were fake. Divulging the pictures or the charges prior to an investigation into their veracity can greatly mislead the public. Then again, acknowledging the possibility that they might be true may help.
I do not think it can be concluded that the solution Rumsfeld put forth is to "make new rules about cameras in the vicinity of sanctioned torture and rape". If anything, the context implies that the Senator's and Rumsfeld's solution is to develop procedures that will allow for some public divulgence prior to a completed criminal military investigation.
A sibling poster questioned the "against the law" portion. I suspect Rumsfeld may be referring to the Geneva convention or other military rules of which I am unfamiliar.
I haven't looked at the DMCA for a while, but IIRC (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), one of the insidious aspects of the DMCA is that it provides for a committee that can grant exemptions. Hence, any special interest who lobbies for a change in or abolishment of the DMCA can be exempted, thereby eliminating that threat to it.
I don't think your "DRM virus" would be protected under the DMCA since the spreading of the "virus" would probably break other laws. Of course, an effective and popular DRM virus might just focus people's attention upon whose "rights" and "security" DRM and "Trusted Computing" are intended to protect.
In the mean time, why don't they stick to suing people from actual copyright infringement, instead of "protecting" their works with stupidly restrictive schemes?
I suspect your question may have been rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway; they do it to maximize their profits.
--
Copyrights and Patents are optimization problems: maximize progress.
I agree. I voted for Boucher twice and I don't even live in Virginia!
I wish there were more like him... at least on this issue.
I invite you to further investigate the history of British Mandated Palestine, as well as the Palestinian's current laws, culture, media, and education.I certainly did NOT say that. It should be our goal to always act morally.If that is basically the only way to prevent them from killing other innocents, then yes, it is reasonable and moral to stop them, by force if necessary.Your example presents insufficient context to judge criminality. Either case may be moral or immoral depending upon the circumstances. e.g. Why are they attacking? Are they targeting innocents? Will the death of the target eventually save lives?, etc.
Are you trolling or are these truly your beliefs?
Really? I always thought the 9/11 attack was a very simple plan with relatively few risks, entirely unlike a nuclear attack. Bringing in anything even related to a nuke would probably be complex and high risk from a variety of perspectives (working with them, getting them into the country, etc.). Nukes may have even been more expected and probably easier to detect than what did occur. Imagine the kind of holy hell that would arise if the US were nuked.
OTOH, the fact that Israel hasn't been hit by a nuke also suggests that the terrorists might not have any (or multiple) nukes.
"terrorism" (aka "fight for freedom")
Are you equating terrorism with fighting for freedom?
would I mind someone else doing that to me?
Ah, yes, the Golden Rule. I like it, too... it's usually a good guide. Some people believe all morality can come from this rule ("Do unto others as you would have done unto you"). The problems come when other people don't follow this rule or don't care about the same things you do.
Actually, the first thing I thought about is using it to break hardware based digital rights management (Trusted Computing? Palladium?) where the key is hidden in a chip on the motherboard and en/decryption is done internally.
:)
The summary mentions "tamper-resistant systems", but I'm not yet sure this attack applies to such cases, as I haven't read it yet.
More and more places I go allow the customer to swipe their own card through the reader. On rare occassions, they want to actually inspect the card. I don't see how that would change with RFID.
What if you could just swipe the card against a portable pad, without it leaving your hand?
Well if you can use a portable device with RFID, why can't you use a portable device for magnetic strips?
I'd imagine the account number and expiration date are still on the outside of the RFID card along with the owner's signature, for offline or phone verification if necessary?
Wow. Thanks for the good info, guys.
So has TRIPS or the Berne Convention been tested in court? At the very least, this clearly indicates that the EU is not currently bound by software patents (from US or otherwise).
I mostly agree with your reasoning, as it illustrates that many of the patents that have been granted haven't been that unique or special to warrant a patent (particularly as it applies to software). Of course, programmers do often look to papers or references for algorithms which, theoretically, may be patented.
Regarding "no secrets", in addition to the etymological derivation of "patent" (Latin for open) and its secondary definition (obvious; plain), I believe the original purpose of patents was to promote progress by discouraging secrets and thus encouraging the sharing of ideas.
I'm certainly not arguing that its current implementation is successful, simply that I agree with its original purpose.
--
Copyrights and Patents are optimization problems: maximize progress.
Thanks for the details. My current concern is a bit broader than patents. I'm worried that the EU will go down a similar path of federalization as the US and I'm not sure it can be stopped. As I'm sure you know, the US was intended to be a loose alliance among states... a relatively independent group of united states, if you will. It only took about 150 years for that to change.
USians will tell you that it turns out that pretty much everything can fall under interstate commerce or common defense or federal government funding if you squint at it the right way.
If this cannot be prevented, then the UN or some world government may very well be inevitable, and if you think you have trouble being represented by the behemoth that is your state's or country's government, just wait til your country has to legally abide by and compromise with the democratic whims of dictators.
So I look upon the EU with hope for the world's future, much as the world has at times looked upon the US.
Boy, I'm feeling kinda rambunctious.