The point is not to make everything in the future emulated, it's simply to get the games that current windows gamers use playable on Linux, where possible.. Yes, I want, and will pay for, Linux native games. But hey, where games aren't around that are Linux native, I think it's worth my money per month to get games I play regularly working without rebooting all the time. Cedega gives us something NOW to get a group of people gaming, who can then push for native new releases. And then, at least, there are SOME figures a business can analyse and say "Yes, there are indeed some Linux gamers out there. It may be worth supporting the platform". Without numbers, many businesses will simply say "We don't think there's a market. Do you know of any that use Linux as a gaming platform? No? Oh well then, lets ignore it". It's a start. A hack. A temporary solution. But for now, it'll do for me until I get the chance to be offered a choice to pay for a linux version.
Advertising is all about following a line that's a lie, but has a fragment of truth in it (such as basing the comparison on different hardware for an OS comparison). It's not an outright lie, in which case, the agency would be slammed, and lose face. The distortion of the truth is directly proportional to the depth of the pocket of the commissioning company. By the time your agency has the clout to advertise for microsoft, you'll be able to take a few extra liberties (and the experience to know just how far you can go to get a mere slap on the wrist). After all, if you've shown that you'll sell your integrity for a message that on the whole succeeds at doing what your sponsoring company wishes (generating a particular perception within the target market), and only generate invisible ripples, you'll keep the account. Which is worth big money. And perhaps draw other similar big hitters to you. It really is a fine line, and it's sometimes deliberately crossed. But just often enough that it stays in the realms of fines and wrist slaps, not increased regulation.
As for pressuring the government to regulate the industry, nobody in industry wants advertising regulated more heavily, as that's what generates their income. Most people don't know that the advertising is misleading, or wrong (otherwise it'd fail, and thus not do it's job, and so the hiring companies would take their money elsewhere), and the few people that pick up on it aren't enough to make a big enough splash to get heard in the first place. Don't expect the Media to pick up on that one, as Advertising is one of the things that pays their bills too..
I used to work in an advertising company. Oddly, the one that held the Microsoft account in 1995, when MS released Windows 95. At that time, there were a few 'jinks' planned for the release that were not, strictly speaking, legal. They knew that they'd get their wrists slapped, perhaps fined heavily. The company take on it? They knew they may get caught up for it, and slapped hard. But these jinks would get the 'message' across in a spectacular way. Nobody looked too hard at the slapdown and retractions, because they simply avoided the limelight. They had to look apologetic to the right people in private, and it was all forgotten. But people at large simply remembered the original advertising stunt.
In this, it's the same thing again. They knew they'd be held up by the ASA, and torn down a strip, and forced to stop the advertisement. However, they also know that the tech-unsure IT Managers and CIOs and so on will probably see it, and start saying "See, this Linux thing isn't so cheap after all! Stay with MS". Advertising like that is meant to stay in the head along with the words 'survey' and masquerade as fact, so that in a future discussion that's on the subject, they won't say "I saw an advert that said Linux is more expensive than Windows", they'll say "I saw a SURVEY that showed how windows was cheaper to run than Linux". Damage already done. Although the lie has been caught it's already spread, masquerading as fact. They've earned their money, MS will pay any required fines (they've probably already been built into the pitch before it was released), and MS will be smiling all the way as the flung mud sticks, as it always does.
The thing that the senators and businesses in the US seem to be forgetting is that the Asian bloc is now starting to gain foothold in the markets. China, for one, is starting to roll into tech markets, with all it's own internal infrastructure. Entirely self sufficient. What the acts will mean is that the US ability to innovate, and distribute information effectively enough to research and develop at the rate required to compete with the new and upcoming countries (India, China etc.) will be seriously impared. All the devices and mechanisms will be so tied up with 'legality enforcement' parts, and the ability to litigate under the existing legal system will mean most of the time that should be R&D will be spent on 'negotiations' to agree that certain areas may be used (for certain sums of money of course) by other people.
Meanwhile, the rest of the unencumbered world will be advancing apace, using a smaller set of laws, and a greater set of freedoms. The US is showing all the signs of a 'falling empire'. In it's heyday, it had simple laws (relatively) that allowed it to adapt quickly to the way the world was moving. It advanced to become pre-eminent. Then it sat down, and tried to tie everything up to maintain itself. Internal politics and interests fought over shares of the pie. And now laws are flowing like water, and researchers are being required to look more to internal information, and ways to work around the intrusive legal mechanisms. This is a huge brake on development and innovation.
One that won't be shared by a good deal of the upcoming countries. At least not in the same way.
Now, if the world would remain static, and things would 'always be this way', then the laws, although draconian and oppressive in their implementation, would make some modicum of sense for the corporate entities to persue. However, when there is going to be competition arising from areas that are NOT bound by those laws that have been bought, then it's the equivalent of long term commercial suicide.
If the US decides to stick to it's laws and carry on down this route, it stands an uncomfortably large chance of ending up on the wrong side of a built in firewall, preventing a lot of the international information from ever entering it's networks, due to legal reasons that nobody else can be bothered to work around. Once it's cut out from the international flows, it'll start the slide into being a collapsing empire. Trashed economy, no effective R&D, and generally falling behind the times.
Given the chance, most people out there are decent and honest. Hamstringing the country's ability to develop, just to try and catch a few people who may (or may not) influence a company's net profits by a tiny fraction of a percent is a dangerous game. One day, if these laws go ahead, those clamouring corporations may just realise how they've managed to sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Actually, Britain was against it. 75% of Brits were against it, and several of the Cabinet resigned over Blair forcing the issue and taking the country into war, as they believe the premise of starting it (weapons of mass destruction) were erroneous. It's since been proven that the anticipated WMD did not exist, thus showing that the naysayers were in fact correct. The documented "evidence" of WMD was in fact a fraud, and a bad one at that, which was overhyped, and basic authenticating not performed (and when it was, it was ignored) by UK and US intelligence.
Basically, what you seem to be saying is "We do what we want, including invading other countries that we have no reason to invade, and don't care what anyone thinks of that". The fact that someone else may be right doesn't enter into it. Wonderful. If you ever get set on by a gang, and beaten into being a cripple, I'm sure you'll fully appreciate their reasoning that they don't give a crap what you think, and as they had big sticks, it makes it all ok, and nobody should do anything about it. After all, they count, their friends count, and other people with big sticks watching them count. But you? Hell, who cares about that?
And interesting you mention the 'average american doesn't give a rats' about things. I've spent a goodly deal of time travelling the states, and met a goodly number of "Average Americans", most who I still call good friends. They gave a rats. And they seem to consider themselves just "Average Americans". They take the view I do. We're pissed at the politicians for being overweeningly arrogant, we honour the soldiers who've been put in a position they should never have to have been put in, and try to make the best of it all round that they can, while keeping as many people alive as possible, and quietly seethe that the gross stupidity of politicians seeking to make names for themselves have destabilised sections of the world that were nowhere near this dangerous before they tinkered and toyed, making the world a far more dangerous place than it should have been.
After having travelled a fair bit of the world, and seen how it works, I sometimes wish I could go back to the nice safe insular view you hold to. Sadly, once you open your eyes, and actually see how things really work.. It's a lot starker, and a lot more interesting than you think.
Yeesh, that's the biggest troll I've heard in a long time.
I'm wondering whether you're really pulling people's chains, or whether you're actually that nuts.
I think your politicians actually understand that if the US really pissed of the rest of the world, it would escalate. Fine, so the US has more firepower than any single other country. Fine, that makes the world just a slightly hotter cinder once the 30 minute war is over.
Great.
You wonder why people are willing to die to make America hurt (terrorst action)?
Listen to yourself. Have you ever been out of the US? Have you ever looked to see how the world works, and the balances that make it work?
I'd bet you don't. Otherwise, you'd not be so cavalier about saying the rest of the world doesn't matter, and working out just how the hell you're going to be able to stop China steamrollering it's way into being the next economic superpower (and probably military too).
I find it kinda funny that you dismiss the French so lightly. After all, it was French intervention that saved the rebellion that was the American war of Independance.
Anyhow, That's the level of me biting on that troll.
You mean, like the US thought it was well within it's rights to arrest Sklyarov for selling Russian software that just happened to be purchasable within the US?
That's the the die that's shaped kinda like a rugby ball, except with only three curved sides.. You read the number rolled along the bottom of the two sides that aren't on the table?
You mean just like the US and it's DMCA laws have never had anyone from another country arrested for their company doing business inside the US? *Cough* Sklyarov *Cough* Perhaps if the Eastern bloc just held to it's ideals, the US would just capitulate, and let people pirate the software they wanted in the first place, to be able to benefit from all the extra freedoms that the software allowed (i.e. backups and such things allowed in the civilized world).
Do I think that this arresting of people is a good idea? Jeez, no. I'm sympathetic with MS on this one. However, I've worked with a few companies with international dealings. And there were representatives hired in each country that had to vet the software we produced and try to catch all the larger 'gotchas' that would land us in trouble. One would think that MS with it's huge coffers could afford to hire such people. Looks like they're starting to, which is a good thing. Being multinational is always a pain. There's always so much more to consider, which means you have to. But I still disagree with arresting of individuals. That's just silly.
Hmm.. I've done 40 odd upgrades from SP 2/3 to SP 4 on a variety of custom builds.. And these are all home machines that I've built along the way for friends and their families.. Hardware varies, motherboards vary wildly, and no two are alike (well, one or two are similar, but there's always the odd difference to tweak it for the requirement). To date: Zero bombs on the upgrades. Not saying they never do happen, or they can't happen.. Just in my experience, it's been pretty solid. And no, I'm no MS apologist. I use Linux/FreeBSD where I can, and Windows where I can't (such as playing games not working under WineX, using iTunes and such).. Credit where it's due.. MS did ok with SP4. It's certainly worked for me, given the constraints you mentioned.
Heh.. I'd say 99% of mod chips are installed so that people can play the new releases before the issuing company decides that it wants to release it over here in the UK. Yeah, I've got consoles (XBox, PS2 & Game Cube). Yep, my PS2's modded. No, I don't play pirate games. I got it so I could order any game from any site online I chose and have it work. My DVD player is multi region, and will play most disks (including VCD and CDr/w and MP3 CDs). Again, I have no "Pirate" movies, music or anything. Hell, I don't even have any pirate software! But every single item I have will LET me play them, for the simple reason I've had to circumvent the original restrictions to let me use them transparently. It really is like banning CD writers, because they can be used for infringement of copyright. The business model used by the console companies is that they can hike prices in certain regions of the world, while pandering to the markets that expect cheap prices. I'm wondering how long that law will last over here, as most places that mod will carry on doing so. And as soon as a case is brought, it'll be pushed to light that the chips are mainly sold to play imported games (also part of many businesses here). This is exactly what was done with early DVD players. They all had to conform to the spec. The lawyers got hurled at the chippers, who got hauled through the courts, until the bulk of consumers got wind of the fact they couldn't play those nice movies they bought on holiday because of an artificial restriction. Complaints were made, and then the issue fell into the background, because the 'masses' simply weren't prepared to accept the restriction. Companies fell into line, and produced the multi region players, which dominate the UK market. Consoles are still at about the place that DVD players were about 4 years ago. But heading that way.. And as soon as 'everyone has one', they'll start querying just WHY they can't play a game they've bought in their travels. They'll hunt down the people that sell the mods. The black market will thrive for a time, until it becomes common knowledge that everyone does it, and the police will just look the other way. Then it'll get done commercially, and if the console maker raises a big hue and cry about it, it'll hit the big media. With all that negative PR, and a section of the market knowing that they can only play 'restricted versions' of games, that console will take a hit in the wars. All it takes is one manufacturer to be a little relaxed about the release bands, and have a universal game acceptance (not pirated, but universal region), and it'll probably then be enough to win them that round of the console wars in the face of all the others providing a 'limited service'.. Big PR and advertising right there. But, people WILL continue to mod, to get the service and flexibility they expect. And to have a device that works anywhere, simply because that's just how things were meant to be. I don't expect my car not to work if I shipped it to France, or the US.. Why on earth shouldn't a bit of software I bought in the US work over here in the UK? As soon as that's explained to me satisfactorily, I'll say there's a good reason for banning mod chips. Until that day, I'll quite happily remain an outlaw, and join the ranks of the accused "Pirates" without ever pirating a thing.
One good argument. Keeping it in the open. As soon as you drive it underground, the people that REALLY want it will find a way to distribute it. Charge more for getting the 'goods' to the 'consumers' and it becomes another string to the bow of organised crime. Drugs. Prostitution. Alcohol in prohibition.. Think it got rid of the problem? Or did it simply make a lot of money for just the kind of people you really didn't want the laws to be making money for? Whoever thinks that simply filtering child porn websites is a quick fix is smoking something strange, and hasn't thought about the effect it'll have (i.e. driving it underground, and the police being then less able to track potential paedophiles as other methods of distribution are found).
The antitrust legislations have also come down hard on the EU companies. About the only one in 2004 from the US so far is Microsoft. Basically, they're showing that they have teeth to ALL who trade in the EU, both native and foreign. If MS had been based in the EU, they'd have been defanged harshly at the initial hearing (unlike in the US where they got given a slap on the wrist, told to be good boys, and let loose to cause havoc again). The reason Linux has been getting used in Governments is to help stop frequent virus infections, use an OS which they can tailor themselves, and isn't locked in to one vendor saying what they can and cannot do with it, and charging extortionate prices for that. Even if they used Windows to run Government offices, they'd still need local contractors to run the machines.. If the offices believe they save money, then it's a fair bet in the long run that they will. And it certainly stops the 'single point of failure' that a single vendor solution presents.
So, people who design alleyways with locked boxes with small holes in them that can be used to push items in, and maybe back out again is a good sign that they should be sued into the ground? Hmm.. Now, a house is a box (sorta), often locked. And let me think. Small slot for pushing things in.. Letterbox ring any bells to you?
Now, you say it's a crime to have a client that stops external parties knowing what you're sharing, unless it's part of the transaction? Whoah.. Bet you'd be happy if it became illegal to stop the postman riffling through your mail to see what you may be sharing with your friends.
No idea how that post made it to +5 interesting, because it's got more holes in it than a tea bag. It reminds me more of the viewpoint of the old Spanish Inquisition than any modern one. They're doing something I don't understand. They must be guilty of misdeeds. Punish them!
It may come as a complete surprise, but, like the phone, a peer to peer client is simply a means of transferring information. That is what it was designed to do. That is what it does.
If you say it's music only that's being shared, what about all the starting bands that no longer have to be tied into a ridiculously unfair contract (I know of artists that have had record companies sit on their albums and refuse to publish simply because the artists in question didn't want to redo the music on it to fit into the pop 'Beat Beat' music style more) to obtain distribution.
I'm not saying anything in this post that hasn't been said a thousand times on/. when I mention that it's a new tech, with huge potential for the sharing and transmission of data (which is a good thing, unless you feel like living in a world where nobody is allowed to share any info that's not been 'approved' by board and committee.. Hello 1984).. Yet, you, for entirely spurious reasons, dictate that it's evil, and a tool of only criminals..
Yeesh, I'm glad you're not in a position to legislate, otherwise there'd be things like the making it illegal to check what a children's net filter is like without going to jail, or use a non-branded printer cartridge in your printer without being in violation of something..
It would be best, in that if nobody else had an opinion, and nobody else would be allowed to say "That's wrong, you're not allowed to", then things would be peaceful. Strange thing is, that people tend to dislike such warmongering posturing. It tends to start wars. Starting wars is bad. I understand the policy of protecting the self, but stating in diplomatic circles that the use of force is justified, because someone decides to embargo you... That's just nuts.
Whoah.. Some serious, serious issues you have there..
The Arab oil embargo could have seriously crippled the American economy. That alone is reason enough to go to war.
Let me get this straight. Someone doesn't want to sell it's own country's resources to the US, and you claim that it's grounds to go to war? That sounds remarkably like bullying to me.
I'd bet you'd be the first to scream blue murder if you'd ever heard that a middle eastern country had plans say, to detonate something in a big city in the US, because you refused to sell them something such as weapons, or high tech computing devices (necessary to kick start their high tech industy)..
Ever heard of diplomacy, and actually having to play nicely with others (say please and thank you instead of "Give me or else")?
Personally, I pay taxes to the government to make sure education, sanitation, medical care etc. are up to a reasonable standard..
Defence is a good one (that's why we have military, to make sure we're not attacked).
I'd be a little miffed, if it was revealed that they were playing silly buggers planning pre-emptive strikes for no reason.
Yes, one decade's ally is another decade's foe. But in 10 years, that expensive invasion plan is worthless, as the situations is entirely different.
"Being prepared" is having a solid defence, with retaliation scenarios drawn up. Not drawing up plans to go to war, causing international incidents. That would cost a lot more than the taxes you pay..
I'd have to place a vote for the PS2 game Primal. The story was fun, and gameplay was tops.. It seemed like a story with game wrapped around it. Musically, it was great to listen to, atmospheric, and just a joy to play.
That would pretty much be necessary. Just because the kernel is developed elsewhere, if it contains infringing code, it would most likely not be legal to use that kernel in a place where FAT was protected by law. Putting FAT into the kernel if you're required to pay for it would be a very bad move. The patch, however, would pretty much be simple. Odds on, someone would produce an 'auto' app that'll install it automatically if you clickc an icon from the very early days.
Yes, a lot of new knowledge has been provided by the West in the last 500 years. If you discount Russia (East) and Japan (East), who have come up with their fair share, then the west has been the main innovator. Actually, most of this has been from Europe (with America really appearing in the sights within the last hundred years or so). However, paying for the training of offshore people to do the low grade work that has been previously done onshore is a tad dangerous. All the 'high level' people that understand what the game's about have come up through the ranks of those junior positions to slowly acheive where they are. The premise of offshoring seems to be "Well, we'll set up the whole of our operations abroad, where it's cheap, and automagically, when we need them, experienced people will join the organisation as we need them.". Except, due to most work at the lower levels being done offshore, thus most training being done there, the experience for the higher level jobs will be required to be performed offshore. The setup then becomes one of having a shell company in the west, populated by a few suits with little technical knowledge, asking for a product from the real company investment (in workers and experience) in, say, India.
Now, with having few people trained (nobody can get a job in the west, so why study?), and no experience being gained (no job), then the raw ability to innovate in that area vanishes. Lo and behold, the country that HAS the skills forms their own industries, and makes new products derived from their EXPERIENCE in the old (western initiated) ones.
With sufficient saturation of skill base, and lack of draconian legal restriction, new innovation is pretty much guaranteed. That's how the US managed to kick start it's high tech lead (the "Brain Drain" is still well remembered).
To put this in perspective, the Eastern Countries led development in technology for several thousand years. Only in about the last 500 has it lagged behind (except for Japan which is still at the forefront). Now, after a period of 'sleeping', the East is beginning to fire up it's technology engine, and get in the 'Innovation' mode. Definately not good for Western companies longterm, who are taking the short term view of a quick buck now. And that buck, ten years down the line will most likely vanish into an eastern company who does exactly the same thing for a quarter the price or less.
Your reference to steam engines misses much of the point. Nobody here is crying out about losing jobs on a defunt system. The point is, that if, once the planes and cars developed WERE actually all made in the 'third world', and all it's engineers and manufacturing were based there when the industry was in it's infancy, then the west would not be where it is now. India would have the great roads, and the most advanced cars around would be of Indian manufacture. The west would now be playing catchup to the more established Indian markets.
The sad truth is that, these days, companies are run by accountants and lawyers. These are exactly the people who look at what the money does, and NOT at what happens to the world around. Nobody seems to care about 10, or 20 years down the road. As long as the cash is on the table NOW, and LOTS of it, all is good.
Your premises seem to assume that the world is generally static, and moving one part of an ecosystem and transplanting it to another area en masse will make no difference to either one. Read up on a good many disasters that have occurred that way. Computing (and society) mirror nature very closely. The big industries are playing a very dangerous game.
I think it was subjective with the 2nd and 3rd.. Personally, I think they were great.:) There was a lot of philosophy going on in the background, and a lot to chew over, and debate what you through really was going on.:) Not many movies these days play on consequence (to whit, setting off EMP pulse in the docking bay), or the fine line in some battles (the docking bay battle swung back and forth so many times, it made gripping viewing). I can see there'd be quite a few people for who this Matrix 2 & 3 wasn't quite their cup of tea.. Same as Final Fantasy wasn't everyone's idea of a good movie.. Personally, I loved 'em.:) But, as is the nature of art, it wasn't made to please everyone. Perhaps it didn't, but I've got the feeling it'll fit in that cult niche for a goodly many years to come. But, like I said. Purely subjective.:) Perhaps if they'd followed a path you were happy with, I'd have felt they sold themselves short, or something.:)
That one gets my vote.:) Quietly, unassumingly scary. Not many movies get me on the edge of my seat, but The Ring did just that.:) I was pondering not seeing it, as I thought it'd be a standard 'blood and guts' horror, which I find both boring, and irritating. It's anything but. True psychological horror.:)
Ok, so it's a case of you're against dictators. Except when you're not. And you may not like the moral consequences of choosing something illegal, except you choose it in the first place, knowing that. Note also, that I have never said in my previous statements that I'm not doing anything about my beliefs. Please don't judge me by your choices. And certainly don't make a statement of fact that I am for something just because you are (indicating that you know where I spend my time and money), when, in reality, you don't have a clue.
Personally, I think you misunderstand the power of speech, words and information. Without free speech, you can't educate. Without education, you're at the mercy of those who would tie you up in propaganda and lies.
I do get the impression that you're one of those that doesn't actually listen to a debate, but walks in with all guns blazing, shouting people down and putting fingers in the ears and saying 'la la la' when someone else tries to make a point. Well, in this case anyway.
You're not going to listen to a single point I try to make, and take it on board, and to date, you've actually not tried to make any point at all. If you have something interesting to say, I'll read. If you just resort to the previous childishness, then, I'll merely take it as the flamebait it is, and studiously ignore it. Personally, I'd really rather read something you put some real, rational thought into that made me sit back and think on. An alternate viewpoint is always good to chew over, when it's well thought on and presented. Several times over the years, I've been persuaded on here to alter my perceptions due to well presented and thought out rationales. Do yourself justice and write one of them, rather than relying on cheap and childish insults and knee jerk reactions. Your posting history says you can do it.. Please do..
I'm sorry, I don't know where you're getting that rather blinkered view that "You cannot be anti-invasion and anti-Saddam"
What happened to the ages old methods of insurgency, funding internal dissention, assassination and a whole host of other, quiet methods.
What happened to actually invading on the correct premise! Hell, what do you think would have happened if the US had said "We're invading Iraq because Saddam is guilty of human rights violations", which is what it's being spun as now, with the lack of discovery of WMD.
Personally, I destest the concept of the acts that Saddam's been performing. Yes, he needed to be held accountable.
There again, there are a goodly many dictators of this style around the world currently. All happily sitting in power.
Do you advocate invading them? Do you understand the consequences of doing this?
Bush was NOT in favour of having one less dictator. He was acting on flawed intelligence (and both he and Blair were warned the intelligence was flawed, but they chose to ignore it and use it as a key document). The whole basis of the war was a forged document. They understood that this was a good possibility, but still went with it on the advice of the gung ho military advisors.
False data leads to invasion of a sovereign nation. Wonderful. Puts great amount of trust in the guys at the top.
And now, the initial fallacy has been carefully swept under the carpet. People are carefully not mentioning WMD, and trying to make out that Saddam was responsible for all the terrorist attacks (incidentally, I'm wondering if that counts the "terrorist attacks" that were committed on US troops that were "defending Iraqis" while in the war, with the Iraqi military forces being branded terrorists.
So, yes, you can say something, even if you're not willing/able to do something about it. After all, there's supposed to be free speech. Or are you saying that should be quashed in the interests of patriotism to a country that's not native to a LOT of slashdot readers?
By your statement that if you've not done something about it, you're in favour of it, I would assume you're also backing North Kora, many African dictators that use exactly the same modus operandi, the spread of aids, disease, poverty and general nastiness. No? Well, what have you done about it? Nothing? Well, please retract your argument.
Bush certainly doesn't come out on top. In fact, he's widely destested outside the US. You read way too much of your internal news. He was not in favour of toppling one more dictator. He was after a political grab, and a high profile.
With a lot of spin, media manipulation, and some sheer luck, it seems he may have made it. The guy's clever, I'll give him that.
But you certainly seem to have fallen, hook, line and sinker for all the propaganda out there.
I really do suggest that you compose arguments which are reasoned (my own may not be entirely correct, but at least I have points I may attempt to defend, or conceed in light of better information), rather than knee jerk "You can't do that! You can't say that!", with no basis in fact, or reason.
Odd you say that. Very odd. In essence, what you're saying is "Lie to me. Make me happy, keep me in ignorance of any danger I may be in. Just let me feel safe." If you read the article, you'd know that this came about because a lot of (ill informed, but opinionated) people (who'd been told "You're safe. Be happy.") said "You can't build a cruise missile at home". In the arguments, he said "Yes I can.". They said, in time honoured fashion, "Prove it!". So he did. Now people who previously didn't know the truth, do in fact know. Many politicians who had no clue this was possible, or an issue now know. If they're doing their job right, they should now be looking into ways of tightening up security on parts availability, or end user vetting, or some such. By saying 'Some such', I acknowledge I don't have the answer. But at least I have the question, and that's the place all answers start from. Personally, I would say that it's a very foolish thing to state that the truth shouldn't be presented for analysis in this day of institutional misinformation and misdirection. Note also, that he kept his government informed of his project, but they neglected to do anything about it until he presented a request for space for testing safely, and a US politician mentioned in an official statement that the project was "unhelpful". If you honestly don't believe that those who wish to do damage haven't thought of this, or aren't able to do this already.. Then perhaps you've listened to a few too many ill informed people telling you 'You're safe'.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is not to make everything in the future emulated, it's simply to get the games that current windows gamers use playable on Linux, where possible..
Yes, I want, and will pay for, Linux native games.
But hey, where games aren't around that are Linux native, I think it's worth my money per month to get games I play regularly working without rebooting all the time.
Cedega gives us something NOW to get a group of people gaming, who can then push for native new releases.
And then, at least, there are SOME figures a business can analyse and say "Yes, there are indeed some Linux gamers out there. It may be worth supporting the platform".
Without numbers, many businesses will simply say "We don't think there's a market. Do you know of any that use Linux as a gaming platform? No? Oh well then, lets ignore it".
It's a start. A hack. A temporary solution.
But for now, it'll do for me until I get the chance to be offered a choice to pay for a linux version.
Advertising is all about following a line that's a lie, but has a fragment of truth in it (such as basing the comparison on different hardware for an OS comparison).
It's not an outright lie, in which case, the agency would be slammed, and lose face.
The distortion of the truth is directly proportional to the depth of the pocket of the commissioning company. By the time your agency has the clout to advertise for microsoft, you'll be able to take a few extra liberties (and the experience to know just how far you can go to get a mere slap on the wrist).
After all, if you've shown that you'll sell your integrity for a message that on the whole succeeds at doing what your sponsoring company wishes (generating a particular perception within the target market), and only generate invisible ripples, you'll keep the account. Which is worth big money.
And perhaps draw other similar big hitters to you.
It really is a fine line, and it's sometimes deliberately crossed. But just often enough that it stays in the realms of fines and wrist slaps, not increased regulation.
As for pressuring the government to regulate the industry, nobody in industry wants advertising regulated more heavily, as that's what generates their income.
Most people don't know that the advertising is misleading, or wrong (otherwise it'd fail, and thus not do it's job, and so the hiring companies would take their money elsewhere), and the few people that pick up on it aren't enough to make a big enough splash to get heard in the first place.
Don't expect the Media to pick up on that one, as Advertising is one of the things that pays their bills too..
I used to work in an advertising company. Oddly, the one that held the Microsoft account in 1995, when MS released Windows 95.
At that time, there were a few 'jinks' planned for the release that were not, strictly speaking, legal.
They knew that they'd get their wrists slapped, perhaps fined heavily.
The company take on it? They knew they may get caught up for it, and slapped hard. But these jinks would get the 'message' across in a spectacular way.
Nobody looked too hard at the slapdown and retractions, because they simply avoided the limelight. They had to look apologetic to the right people in private, and it was all forgotten.
But people at large simply remembered the original advertising stunt.
In this, it's the same thing again. They knew they'd be held up by the ASA, and torn down a strip, and forced to stop the advertisement.
However, they also know that the tech-unsure IT Managers and CIOs and so on will probably see it, and start saying "See, this Linux thing isn't so cheap after all! Stay with MS".
Advertising like that is meant to stay in the head along with the words 'survey' and masquerade as fact, so that in a future discussion that's on the subject, they won't say "I saw an advert that said Linux is more expensive than Windows", they'll say "I saw a SURVEY that showed how windows was cheaper to run than Linux".
Damage already done. Although the lie has been caught it's already spread, masquerading as fact.
They've earned their money, MS will pay any required fines (they've probably already been built into the pitch before it was released), and MS will be smiling all the way as the flung mud sticks, as it always does.
The thing that the senators and businesses in the US seem to be forgetting is that the Asian bloc is now starting to gain foothold in the markets.
China, for one, is starting to roll into tech markets, with all it's own internal infrastructure. Entirely self sufficient.
What the acts will mean is that the US ability to innovate, and distribute information effectively enough to research and develop at the rate required to compete with the new and upcoming countries (India, China etc.) will be seriously impared.
All the devices and mechanisms will be so tied up with 'legality enforcement' parts, and the ability to litigate under the existing legal system will mean most of the time that should be R&D will be spent on 'negotiations' to agree that certain areas may be used (for certain sums of money of course) by other people.
Meanwhile, the rest of the unencumbered world will be advancing apace, using a smaller set of laws, and a greater set of freedoms.
The US is showing all the signs of a 'falling empire'. In it's heyday, it had simple laws (relatively) that allowed it to adapt quickly to the way the world was moving. It advanced to become pre-eminent. Then it sat down, and tried to tie everything up to maintain itself. Internal politics and interests fought over shares of the pie.
And now laws are flowing like water, and researchers are being required to look more to internal information, and ways to work around the intrusive legal mechanisms.
This is a huge brake on development and innovation.
One that won't be shared by a good deal of the upcoming countries. At least not in the same way.
Now, if the world would remain static, and things would 'always be this way', then the laws, although draconian and oppressive in their implementation, would make some modicum of sense for the corporate entities to persue.
However, when there is going to be competition arising from areas that are NOT bound by those laws that have been bought, then it's the equivalent of long term commercial suicide.
If the US decides to stick to it's laws and carry on down this route, it stands an uncomfortably large chance of ending up on the wrong side of a built in firewall, preventing a lot of the international information from ever entering it's networks, due to legal reasons that nobody else can be bothered to work around.
Once it's cut out from the international flows, it'll start the slide into being a collapsing empire. Trashed economy, no effective R&D, and generally falling behind the times.
Given the chance, most people out there are decent and honest. Hamstringing the country's ability to develop, just to try and catch a few people who may (or may not) influence a company's net profits by a tiny fraction of a percent is a dangerous game. One day, if these laws go ahead, those clamouring corporations may just realise how they've managed to sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Actually, Britain was against it. 75% of Brits were against it, and several of the Cabinet resigned over Blair forcing the issue and taking the country into war, as they believe the premise of starting it (weapons of mass destruction) were erroneous.
It's since been proven that the anticipated WMD did not exist, thus showing that the naysayers were in fact correct.
The documented "evidence" of WMD was in fact a fraud, and a bad one at that, which was overhyped, and basic authenticating not performed (and when it was, it was ignored) by UK and US intelligence.
Basically, what you seem to be saying is "We do what we want, including invading other countries that we have no reason to invade, and don't care what anyone thinks of that". The fact that someone else may be right doesn't enter into it.
Wonderful.
If you ever get set on by a gang, and beaten into being a cripple, I'm sure you'll fully appreciate their reasoning that they don't give a crap what you think, and as they had big sticks, it makes it all ok, and nobody should do anything about it.
After all, they count, their friends count, and other people with big sticks watching them count. But you? Hell, who cares about that?
And interesting you mention the 'average american doesn't give a rats' about things. I've spent a goodly deal of time travelling the states, and met a goodly number of "Average Americans", most who I still call good friends. They gave a rats.
And they seem to consider themselves just "Average Americans".
They take the view I do. We're pissed at the politicians for being overweeningly arrogant, we honour the soldiers who've been put in a position they should never have to have been put in, and try to make the best of it all round that they can, while keeping as many people alive as possible, and quietly seethe that the gross stupidity of politicians seeking to make names for themselves have destabilised sections of the world that were nowhere near this dangerous before they tinkered and toyed, making the world a far more dangerous place than it should have been.
After having travelled a fair bit of the world, and seen how it works, I sometimes wish I could go back to the nice safe insular view you hold to.
Sadly, once you open your eyes, and actually see how things really work.. It's a lot starker, and a lot more interesting than you think.
Yeesh, that's the biggest troll I've heard in a long time. I'm wondering whether you're really pulling people's chains, or whether you're actually that nuts. I think your politicians actually understand that if the US really pissed of the rest of the world, it would escalate. Fine, so the US has more firepower than any single other country. Fine, that makes the world just a slightly hotter cinder once the 30 minute war is over. Great. You wonder why people are willing to die to make America hurt (terrorst action)? Listen to yourself. Have you ever been out of the US? Have you ever looked to see how the world works, and the balances that make it work? I'd bet you don't. Otherwise, you'd not be so cavalier about saying the rest of the world doesn't matter, and working out just how the hell you're going to be able to stop China steamrollering it's way into being the next economic superpower (and probably military too). I find it kinda funny that you dismiss the French so lightly. After all, it was French intervention that saved the rebellion that was the American war of Independance. Anyhow, That's the level of me biting on that troll.
You mean, like the US thought it was well within it's rights to arrest Sklyarov for selling Russian software that just happened to be purchasable within the US?
That's the the die that's shaped kinda like a rugby ball, except with only three curved sides.. You read the number rolled along the bottom of the two sides that aren't on the table?
You mean just like the US and it's DMCA laws have never had anyone from another country arrested for their company doing business inside the US?
*Cough* Sklyarov *Cough*
Perhaps if the Eastern bloc just held to it's ideals, the US would just capitulate, and let people pirate the software they wanted in the first place, to be able to benefit from all the extra freedoms that the software allowed (i.e. backups and such things allowed in the civilized world).
Do I think that this arresting of people is a good idea? Jeez, no. I'm sympathetic with MS on this one. However, I've worked with a few companies with international dealings. And there were representatives hired in each country that had to vet the software we produced and try to catch all the larger 'gotchas' that would land us in trouble.
One would think that MS with it's huge coffers could afford to hire such people. Looks like they're starting to, which is a good thing.
Being multinational is always a pain. There's always so much more to consider, which means you have to.
But I still disagree with arresting of individuals. That's just silly.
Hmm.. I've done 40 odd upgrades from SP 2/3 to SP 4 on a variety of custom builds.. And these are all home machines that I've built along the way for friends and their families.. Hardware varies, motherboards vary wildly, and no two are alike (well, one or two are similar, but there's always the odd difference to tweak it for the requirement).
To date: Zero bombs on the upgrades.
Not saying they never do happen, or they can't happen.. Just in my experience, it's been pretty solid.
And no, I'm no MS apologist. I use Linux/FreeBSD where I can, and Windows where I can't (such as playing games not working under WineX, using iTunes and such)..
Credit where it's due.. MS did ok with SP4.
It's certainly worked for me, given the constraints you mentioned.
Heh.. I'd say 99% of mod chips are installed so that people can play the new releases before the issuing company decides that it wants to release it over here in the UK.
Yeah, I've got consoles (XBox, PS2 & Game Cube). Yep, my PS2's modded.
No, I don't play pirate games. I got it so I could order any game from any site online I chose and have it work.
My DVD player is multi region, and will play most disks (including VCD and CDr/w and MP3 CDs).
Again, I have no "Pirate" movies, music or anything.
Hell, I don't even have any pirate software!
But every single item I have will LET me play them, for the simple reason I've had to circumvent the original restrictions to let me use them transparently.
It really is like banning CD writers, because they can be used for infringement of copyright.
The business model used by the console companies is that they can hike prices in certain regions of the world, while pandering to the markets that expect cheap prices.
I'm wondering how long that law will last over here, as most places that mod will carry on doing so. And as soon as a case is brought, it'll be pushed to light that the chips are mainly sold to play imported games (also part of many businesses here).
This is exactly what was done with early DVD players. They all had to conform to the spec. The lawyers got hurled at the chippers, who got hauled through the courts, until the bulk of consumers got wind of the fact they couldn't play those nice movies they bought on holiday because of an artificial restriction. Complaints were made, and then the issue fell into the background, because the 'masses' simply weren't prepared to accept the restriction. Companies fell into line, and produced the multi region players, which dominate the UK market.
Consoles are still at about the place that DVD players were about 4 years ago. But heading that way.. And as soon as 'everyone has one', they'll start querying just WHY they can't play a game they've bought in their travels.
They'll hunt down the people that sell the mods.
The black market will thrive for a time, until it becomes common knowledge that everyone does it, and the police will just look the other way. Then it'll get done commercially, and if the console maker raises a big hue and cry about it, it'll hit the big media.
With all that negative PR, and a section of the market knowing that they can only play 'restricted versions' of games, that console will take a hit in the wars.
All it takes is one manufacturer to be a little relaxed about the release bands, and have a universal game acceptance (not pirated, but universal region), and it'll probably then be enough to win them that round of the console wars in the face of all the others providing a 'limited service'.. Big PR and advertising right there.
But, people WILL continue to mod, to get the service and flexibility they expect. And to have a device that works anywhere, simply because that's just how things were meant to be.
I don't expect my car not to work if I shipped it to France, or the US.. Why on earth shouldn't a bit of software I bought in the US work over here in the UK?
As soon as that's explained to me satisfactorily, I'll say there's a good reason for banning mod chips.
Until that day, I'll quite happily remain an outlaw, and join the ranks of the accused "Pirates" without ever pirating a thing.
As opposed to humans, who usually exhibit more of their base states when excited.
One good argument.
Keeping it in the open.
As soon as you drive it underground, the people that REALLY want it will find a way to distribute it. Charge more for getting the 'goods' to the 'consumers' and it becomes another string to the bow of organised crime.
Drugs. Prostitution. Alcohol in prohibition..
Think it got rid of the problem? Or did it simply make a lot of money for just the kind of people you really didn't want the laws to be making money for?
Whoever thinks that simply filtering child porn websites is a quick fix is smoking something strange, and hasn't thought about the effect it'll have (i.e. driving it underground, and the police being then less able to track potential paedophiles as other methods of distribution are found).
The antitrust legislations have also come down hard on the EU companies. About the only one in 2004 from the US so far is Microsoft.
Basically, they're showing that they have teeth to ALL who trade in the EU, both native and foreign.
If MS had been based in the EU, they'd have been defanged harshly at the initial hearing (unlike in the US where they got given a slap on the wrist, told to be good boys, and let loose to cause havoc again).
The reason Linux has been getting used in Governments is to help stop frequent virus infections, use an OS which they can tailor themselves, and isn't locked in to one vendor saying what they can and cannot do with it, and charging extortionate prices for that.
Even if they used Windows to run Government offices, they'd still need local contractors to run the machines..
If the offices believe they save money, then it's a fair bet in the long run that they will.
And it certainly stops the 'single point of failure' that a single vendor solution presents.
So, people who design alleyways with locked boxes with small holes in them that can be used to push items in, and maybe back out again is a good sign that they should be sued into the ground?
/. when I mention that it's a new tech, with huge potential for the sharing and transmission of data (which is a good thing, unless you feel like living in a world where nobody is allowed to share any info that's not been 'approved' by board and committee.. Hello 1984)..
Hmm.. Now, a house is a box (sorta), often locked.
And let me think. Small slot for pushing things in..
Letterbox ring any bells to you?
Now, you say it's a crime to have a client that stops external parties knowing what you're sharing, unless it's part of the transaction?
Whoah.. Bet you'd be happy if it became illegal to stop the postman riffling through your mail to see what you may be sharing with your friends.
No idea how that post made it to +5 interesting, because it's got more holes in it than a tea bag.
It reminds me more of the viewpoint of the old Spanish Inquisition than any modern one.
They're doing something I don't understand. They must be guilty of misdeeds. Punish them!
It may come as a complete surprise, but, like the phone, a peer to peer client is simply a means of transferring information.
That is what it was designed to do. That is what it does.
If you say it's music only that's being shared, what about all the starting bands that no longer have to be tied into a ridiculously unfair contract (I know of artists that have had record companies sit on their albums and refuse to publish simply because the artists in question didn't want to redo the music on it to fit into the pop 'Beat Beat' music style more) to obtain distribution.
I'm not saying anything in this post that hasn't been said a thousand times on
Yet, you, for entirely spurious reasons, dictate that it's evil, and a tool of only criminals..
Yeesh, I'm glad you're not in a position to legislate, otherwise there'd be things like the making it illegal to check what a children's net filter is like without going to jail, or use a non-branded printer cartridge in your printer without being in violation of something..
It would be best, in that if nobody else had an opinion, and nobody else would be allowed to say "That's wrong, you're not allowed to", then things would be peaceful.
Strange thing is, that people tend to dislike such warmongering posturing.
It tends to start wars.
Starting wars is bad.
I understand the policy of protecting the self, but stating in diplomatic circles that the use of force is justified, because someone decides to embargo you...
That's just nuts.
Whoah.. Some serious, serious issues you have there..
The Arab oil embargo could have seriously crippled the American economy. That alone is reason enough to go to war.
Let me get this straight. Someone doesn't want to sell it's own country's resources to the US, and you claim that it's grounds to go to war? That sounds remarkably like bullying to me.
I'd bet you'd be the first to scream blue murder if you'd ever heard that a middle eastern country had plans say, to detonate something in a big city in the US, because you refused to sell them something such as weapons, or high tech computing devices (necessary to kick start their high tech industy)..
Ever heard of diplomacy, and actually having to play nicely with others (say please and thank you instead of "Give me or else")?
Personally, I pay taxes to the government to make sure education, sanitation, medical care etc. are up to a reasonable standard..
Defence is a good one (that's why we have military, to make sure we're not attacked).
I'd be a little miffed, if it was revealed that they were playing silly buggers planning pre-emptive strikes for no reason.
Yes, one decade's ally is another decade's foe. But in 10 years, that expensive invasion plan is worthless, as the situations is entirely different.
"Being prepared" is having a solid defence, with retaliation scenarios drawn up. Not drawing up plans to go to war, causing international incidents. That would cost a lot more than the taxes you pay..
I'd have to place a vote for the PS2 game Primal.
The story was fun, and gameplay was tops..
It seemed like a story with game wrapped around it.
Musically, it was great to listen to, atmospheric, and just a joy to play.
That would pretty much be necessary.
Just because the kernel is developed elsewhere, if it contains infringing code, it would most likely not be legal to use that kernel in a place where FAT was protected by law.
Putting FAT into the kernel if you're required to pay for it would be a very bad move.
The patch, however, would pretty much be simple.
Odds on, someone would produce an 'auto' app that'll install it automatically if you clickc an icon from the very early days.
Yes, a lot of new knowledge has been provided by the West in the last 500 years. If you discount Russia (East) and Japan (East), who have come up with their fair share, then the west has been the main innovator. Actually, most of this has been from Europe (with America really appearing in the sights within the last hundred years or so).
However, paying for the training of offshore people to do the low grade work that has been previously done onshore is a tad dangerous.
All the 'high level' people that understand what the game's about have come up through the ranks of those junior positions to slowly acheive where they are.
The premise of offshoring seems to be "Well, we'll set up the whole of our operations abroad, where it's cheap, and automagically, when we need them, experienced people will join the organisation as we need them.". Except, due to most work at the lower levels being done offshore, thus most training being done there, the experience for the higher level jobs will be required to be performed offshore.
The setup then becomes one of having a shell company in the west, populated by a few suits with little technical knowledge, asking for a product from the real company investment (in workers and experience) in, say, India.
Now, with having few people trained (nobody can get a job in the west, so why study?), and no experience being gained (no job), then the raw ability to innovate in that area vanishes.
Lo and behold, the country that HAS the skills forms their own industries, and makes new products derived from their EXPERIENCE in the old (western initiated) ones.
With sufficient saturation of skill base, and lack of draconian legal restriction, new innovation is pretty much guaranteed. That's how the US managed to kick start it's high tech lead (the "Brain Drain" is still well remembered).
To put this in perspective, the Eastern Countries led development in technology for several thousand years. Only in about the last 500 has it lagged behind (except for Japan which is still at the forefront).
Now, after a period of 'sleeping', the East is beginning to fire up it's technology engine, and get in the 'Innovation' mode.
Definately not good for Western companies longterm, who are taking the short term view of a quick buck now.
And that buck, ten years down the line will most likely vanish into an eastern company who does exactly the same thing for a quarter the price or less.
Your reference to steam engines misses much of the point. Nobody here is crying out about losing jobs on a defunt system.
The point is, that if, once the planes and cars developed WERE actually all made in the 'third world', and all it's engineers and manufacturing were based there when the industry was in it's infancy, then the west would not be where it is now.
India would have the great roads, and the most advanced cars around would be of Indian manufacture. The west would now be playing catchup to the more established Indian markets.
The sad truth is that, these days, companies are run by accountants and lawyers. These are exactly the people who look at what the money does, and NOT at what happens to the world around.
Nobody seems to care about 10, or 20 years down the road. As long as the cash is on the table NOW, and LOTS of it, all is good.
Your premises seem to assume that the world is generally static, and moving one part of an ecosystem and transplanting it to another area en masse will make no difference to either one.
Read up on a good many disasters that have occurred that way.
Computing (and society) mirror nature very closely. The big industries are playing a very dangerous game.
I think it was subjective with the 2nd and 3rd.. :) :) :) :) Perhaps if they'd followed a path you were happy with, I'd have felt they sold themselves short, or something. :)
Personally, I think they were great.
There was a lot of philosophy going on in the background, and a lot to chew over, and debate what you through really was going on.
Not many movies these days play on consequence (to whit, setting off EMP pulse in the docking bay), or the fine line in some battles (the docking bay battle swung back and forth so many times, it made gripping viewing).
I can see there'd be quite a few people for who this Matrix 2 & 3 wasn't quite their cup of tea..
Same as Final Fantasy wasn't everyone's idea of a good movie..
Personally, I loved 'em.
But, as is the nature of art, it wasn't made to please everyone. Perhaps it didn't, but I've got the feeling it'll fit in that cult niche for a goodly many years to come.
But, like I said. Purely subjective.
That one gets my vote. :) Quietly, unassumingly scary. :) :)
Not many movies get me on the edge of my seat, but The Ring did just that.
I was pondering not seeing it, as I thought it'd be a standard 'blood and guts' horror, which I find both boring, and irritating.
It's anything but. True psychological horror.
Ok, so it's a case of you're against dictators. Except when you're not.
And you may not like the moral consequences of choosing something illegal, except you choose it in the first place, knowing that.
Note also, that I have never said in my previous statements that I'm not doing anything about my beliefs. Please don't judge me by your choices. And certainly don't make a statement of fact that I am for something just because you are (indicating that you know where I spend my time and money), when, in reality, you don't have a clue.
Personally, I think you misunderstand the power of speech, words and information. Without free speech, you can't educate. Without education, you're at the mercy of those who would tie you up in propaganda and lies.
I do get the impression that you're one of those that doesn't actually listen to a debate, but walks in with all guns blazing, shouting people down and putting fingers in the ears and saying 'la la la' when someone else tries to make a point. Well, in this case anyway.
You're not going to listen to a single point I try to make, and take it on board, and to date, you've actually not tried to make any point at all.
If you have something interesting to say, I'll read. If you just resort to the previous childishness, then, I'll merely take it as the flamebait it is, and studiously ignore it.
Personally, I'd really rather read something you put some real, rational thought into that made me sit back and think on.
An alternate viewpoint is always good to chew over, when it's well thought on and presented. Several times over the years, I've been persuaded on here to alter my perceptions due to well presented and thought out rationales.
Do yourself justice and write one of them, rather than relying on cheap and childish insults and knee jerk reactions. Your posting history says you can do it.. Please do..
I'm sorry, I don't know where you're getting that rather blinkered view that "You cannot be anti-invasion and anti-Saddam"
What happened to the ages old methods of insurgency, funding internal dissention, assassination and a whole host of other, quiet methods.
What happened to actually invading on the correct premise! Hell, what do you think would have happened if the US had said "We're invading Iraq because Saddam is guilty of human rights violations", which is what it's being spun as now, with the lack of discovery of WMD.
Personally, I destest the concept of the acts that Saddam's been performing. Yes, he needed to be held accountable.
There again, there are a goodly many dictators of this style around the world currently. All happily sitting in power.
Do you advocate invading them? Do you understand the consequences of doing this?
Bush was NOT in favour of having one less dictator. He was acting on flawed intelligence (and both he and Blair were warned the intelligence was flawed, but they chose to ignore it and use it as a key document). The whole basis of the war was a forged document. They understood that this was a good possibility, but still went with it on the advice of the gung ho military advisors.
False data leads to invasion of a sovereign nation. Wonderful. Puts great amount of trust in the guys at the top.
And now, the initial fallacy has been carefully swept under the carpet. People are carefully not mentioning WMD, and trying to make out that Saddam was responsible for all the terrorist attacks (incidentally, I'm wondering if that counts the "terrorist attacks" that were committed on US troops that were "defending Iraqis" while in the war, with the Iraqi military forces being branded terrorists.
So, yes, you can say something, even if you're not willing/able to do something about it. After all, there's supposed to be free speech. Or are you saying that should be quashed in the interests of patriotism to a country that's not native to a LOT of slashdot readers?
By your statement that if you've not done something about it, you're in favour of it, I would assume you're also backing North Kora, many African dictators that use exactly the same modus operandi, the spread of aids, disease, poverty and general nastiness. No? Well, what have you done about it? Nothing? Well, please retract your argument.
Bush certainly doesn't come out on top. In fact, he's widely destested outside the US. You read way too much of your internal news. He was not in favour of toppling one more dictator. He was after a political grab, and a high profile.
With a lot of spin, media manipulation, and some sheer luck, it seems he may have made it. The guy's clever, I'll give him that.
But you certainly seem to have fallen, hook, line and sinker for all the propaganda out there.
I really do suggest that you compose arguments which are reasoned (my own may not be entirely correct, but at least I have points I may attempt to defend, or conceed in light of better information), rather than knee jerk "You can't do that! You can't say that!", with no basis in fact, or reason.
Odd you say that. Very odd.
In essence, what you're saying is "Lie to me. Make me happy, keep me in ignorance of any danger I may be in. Just let me feel safe."
If you read the article, you'd know that this came about because a lot of (ill informed, but opinionated) people (who'd been told "You're safe. Be happy.") said "You can't build a cruise missile at home".
In the arguments, he said "Yes I can.". They said, in time honoured fashion, "Prove it!".
So he did.
Now people who previously didn't know the truth, do in fact know. Many politicians who had no clue this was possible, or an issue now know.
If they're doing their job right, they should now be looking into ways of tightening up security on parts availability, or end user vetting, or some such. By saying 'Some such', I acknowledge I don't have the answer. But at least I have the question, and that's the place all answers start from.
Personally, I would say that it's a very foolish thing to state that the truth shouldn't be presented for analysis in this day of institutional misinformation and misdirection.
Note also, that he kept his government informed of his project, but they neglected to do anything about it until he presented a request for space for testing safely, and a US politician mentioned in an official statement that the project was "unhelpful".
If you honestly don't believe that those who wish to do damage haven't thought of this, or aren't able to do this already.. Then perhaps you've listened to a few too many ill informed people telling you 'You're safe'.