LUG Pres Resigns Over Military Linux Use 1361
Joe Barr writes "NewsForge is carrying the news that the founder and president of Linux Users Los Angeles (LULA) has resigned because of his opposition to the war in Iraq and the U.S. Armed Forces' use of Linux."
Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
This person appears to have the thinking skills of a duck. He stops supporting Linux because the Military in using it,
but he still uses the internet which the military helped fund and currently uses.
Is he serious about his outrage or is he just being selective in his outrage and trying to play his leaving the LUG
into an opportunity to get a better job with one of the LA antiwar groups?
As a final note, having Iraq be free is important to our National Defence because, regardless of what those in DC say,
part of the war in Iraq is securing access to vital resources for the American Economy. In other words oil.
Worst excuse ever... (Score:2, Insightful)
Applaud (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if they are stupid.
Ain't America great!
What would he have done? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad they're starting a LUG in Baghdad and I'm glad Hussein is gone. I just don't think it had to cost maybe 20K Iraqi lives and how many Americans' so far.
He's glad Hussein is gone, but thought it cost too many lives? I wonder what "cheaper" plan he would have suggested that still got rid of Saddam. At least he's not one of those people who think Iraq was better off with Saddam in power. What are the mass grave numbers up to now? 300,000 bodies?
what a prick (Score:2, Insightful)
boo hoo.... bloody hippy...
Sounds strange, little hasty decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
ummmm..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you rather they use windows?
lets see...what else does the military use? (Score:3, Insightful)
Silly move dude.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux == Terrorist OS (Score:1, Insightful)
wrong move (Score:5, Insightful)
Its really just another way of saying, "Well things are going the way I want them to, so I'm gonna quit."
Don't give up, fight for what you believe in until you can't fight anymore because someone else stops you.
I understand that there is a human side of this, I know that there are probably a large number of people that know this guy and are going to say what a nice person he is. I have never met him, and I won't argue that, however I still feel as though his reasons for resigning are all the wrong ones and probably shouldn't make national news.
The whole point behind the licensing used for Linux is that anyone can take and make use of the same tools. Its the same concept that inspired PGP. You have to release something into the open so that everyone can use it. That means that the people that you don't want to use it have the same access to it as the people you do want to use it. The philosophy here is that at least the people that you do want to use it can.
Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like a publicity stunt to me. Doesn't make any logical sense. Just beacause someone is using a tool to help them do something you don't like , that doesn't inherently make the tool any worse, does it?
The article has an extensive interview with the former group's president where he goes on at length about his feelings about the Iraqi conflict. So it appears the stunt was successful.
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:1, Insightful)
troll? Goes on and on with well-reasoned points,
then tries to claim with a straight face that
baby, it's all about oil, and that's a good
thing? They're both patently false.
Stupid mods...
Re:What would he have done? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
I strongly sugges he also not only resigns as LUG president but stop's driving FORD,GM and Chrysler vehicles as they all make military components.. Oh wait! Toyota,Mazda,BMW,Mercedes,Porche,and Volvo ALSO make military components!
also he needs to never eat any HERSHEY products as they supply food to the troops over in IRAQ.
The fact this got news is depressing... a moron does something stupid for a stupid reason and it becomes newsworthy??
Non-discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)
John.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Insightful)
free is free (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy has every right to resign, of course; but hopefully his views ring hollow to the rest of the free software supporters. He is advocating that people with some control use their power to limit the freedoms of others. It's as anti-freedom as the Patriot Act. You can't honestly call your software "free" if you are picking and choosing who can use it. Just as in free speech where no one has the right to silence unpopular opinions only because they are unpopular, no one has the right to decide who can use Linux and who can't. Military, nuns, terrorists, martians: as long as you meet the terms of the GPL (or whatever free license), you can use it.
Re:What would he have done? (Score:2, Insightful)
How about not putting Hussein into power [google.com] in the first place?
At least he's not one of those people who think Iraq was better off with Saddam in power. What are the mass grave numbers up to now? 300,000 bodies?
Yea yea ....along with all of those Weapons of Mass Destruction... and what are our (USofA) mass grave numbers up to now? Think we have no blood on our hands?
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't use hammers or screwdrivers...they use those in the military.
I don't use computers or clothes or shoes or autos or medicine or
Ok, you get the picture...
Also, you'll notice that he says:
NewsForge: But what does this have to do with a Linux Users' Group? Or do you just feel your time can be of more benefit applied elsewhere?
Claiborne: Nothing directly, and I will still participate in the LUG, just let new leadership come to the fore.
And from the rest of the article, Claiborne really isn't saying he's quiting because the military uses Linux. I think he may have been going in that direction until he stopped and thought how silly that sounds.
The War and the use of Linux in the War are really not an issue. Linux is just a tool. Does the inventor/developer of the screwdriver (if he/she were alive today that is) not want their tools used in the war?
Claiborne seems a bit flakey to me...at least the article makes him seem that way. He may be the nicest guy in the world, but the NewsForge article paints him otherwise.
Well that's too bad because.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose that the next story will be someone quit because an abortion doctor uses linux.
Or maybe a Democrat?
How about a child porn website hosted on Linux?
You don't have to like free speech, but you do have to live with it...
Re:A reasonable decision (Score:3, Insightful)
That is what a military is for, in some sense. Better to blame the politicians in charge for their failures or directives. At least under the European style of government, the military does not take action (ie., start killing) until civilian governments order them to do so.
I find it impossible to blame the military as a whole for their actions. Bush, on the other hand, I can lay all sorts of blame on.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Insightful)
If he were the leader of some Chrysler fan group however, then you might have a point.
I'm glad he's gone (Score:2, Insightful)
Take your ball, and go play somewhere else you whiny little brat.
Can I get this in a 12' poster? Maybe a T-Shirt? [jmarler.com]
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Huh (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if the next stage will be a story about a homophobic coder being upset by gay people using his code. Or perhaps a rascist admin complaining about white people visiting her web site. Or maybe the Church of the Gavron the Great holding a nude protest because they've discovered that their sacred colour (white) is used on the /. homepage.
I think this story just proves that there are a lot of intolerant and stupid people in the world and some of them use linux.
skribe
Real reason ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Huh (Score:2, Insightful)
"I don't think you should do X" doesn't mean "I will force you not to do X". Not a big believer in freedom of speech?
The usual political naivety (Score:1, Insightful)
"I don't think that Linux should be used for killing and I don't really trust the Pentagon to abide by the GPL."
That's all it takes. One person has decided that he does not like the idea of supporting the Pentagon while it engages in what he considers an unjust and immoral war. He hopes that his stance will cause people to think about that instead of blindly accepting their "war masters" reasons and justifications.
He is to be applauded.
Leave your insults at the recruiters office.
cheers
front
Re:Don't blame the military. (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't agree with you more and am amazed that your post is currently marked "troll".
Members of the US military do not get to pick and choose their assignments.
The don't get a letter in the mail that says:
"Gee guys, we're going to war. Anyone who wants to help can, but feel free not to show up if you don't like it."
(Or at least everyone but Bush doesn't. For some reason no one cares that he deserted. You or I would go to jail.)
My point is: Don't blame some poor marine for the war they're fighting.
Unfortunately many people don't get it. Back when I was going to college in Ithaca, NY there were a number of protests in front of local military offices. One of the officers wrote a letter to the editor expressing pretty much this sentiment:
We (the military) did not choose to fight this war, your elected representatives did. You should be protesting in front of their offices, not mine. Why work at demoralizing people who've signed on to protect your life with theirs and have no choice, when you could protest those who actually made the decision?
In other news, thinking skills in short supply... (Score:1, Insightful)
Next, even if it had been a war, it's now over. Certainly there is a bunch of shit happening over there, but it's not exactly warfare. So, what exactly is this guy opposed to? This isn't the 1890s, guys. Our soldiers aren't over there raping the women and stealing everything they can find as war trophies. They're trying to keep some semblance of peace, and make sure that when we leave, the same fuckheads who ran that country into the ground (Saddam and his cronies) don't take over immediately. Would you rather these soldiers pack up and leave tomorrow?
Are you expecting some bright and shiny, miraculous UN coalition force to take over maybe? Did you forget that whenever such UN forces have any teeth, it's because US soldiers make up a majority of that force?
I was, and still am opposed to the idea of pre-emptively invading Iraq. Bush is worse than an idiot. But now that we're there, I can't fathom the idea of just leaving. We'd only be adding to the harm of the Iraqis, and then only some reactionary fools could feel good about themselves.
Finally, how the fuck does this have anything to do with linux? Why does this cretin think that his "resigning in protest" will have any effect, even that of some noble sacrifice? I hear stuff like this, and laugh at the boob that did it, and forget about it 10 minutes later. Never fails to amaze me how childish some people are.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Free use is the whole point of free (as in speech) software. If you have Free speech, that means the racists are free to decry blacks and the anti-semites are free to rail against Jews and a whole host of thoroughly unpleasant people are free to say thoroughtly unpleasant things. If you have Free software, anyone can use it. Ths US Government can use it to track target data and plan air strikes. The Chinese government can use it for firewalls that block access to web sites they oppose. Terrorist can use it to build clusters that run physics simulations to assist in building a nuclear bombs. The only way to stop it is to stop Free software, and it's doubtful that that would be even marginally effective.
And he is blaming the tool. A knife can be used to sever someone's bonds or to kill them. A baseball bat can be used to play a sport or to bash someone's head in. Linux can be used to fight a war or to enable a poverty-striken African village. You don't blame the knife or the bat or Linux if it's used in a manner you dislike. You blame the hand that wields the tool.
someone needs to tell it like it is (Score:5, Insightful)
Most hackers won't fit in clearly in one or the other group, but the tension is there.
Someone neutral, but with a reputation (perhaps mr. Perens, perhaps JWZ) needs to explain where RMS stands from and what he stands for, where ESR stands from and what he stands from and so on.
Because whenever RMS pulls his bohemian/hippie/rebel act on BusinessWeek or some people with radical politics try to get Linux associated with their (perfectly fine) stances, they hurt people who are investing money and careers in Business Linux.
We can't, and we shouldn't alienate the public image of Linux from the Free Software/Free Society crowd, but we can sabotage the Business Linux public image with a few well-planned stunts. Should we? I don't think so. When you choose to be against business or military or televangelist use of Linux, you are pretty much contradicting the Free Society stance, as well as the spirit of the GPL.
And, shit, nor IBM, nor some long-haired anti-war activist should be allowed to hijack the spirit behind Linux.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Jeffrey Dahmer used regular kitchen knives to cut up his victims. You didn't see kitchen knife manufacturers saying "This is terrible, we mustn't produce any more knives otherwise this could happen again." Sure, there's a connection that Jeffrey Dahmer couldn't have cut up his victims without a knife, but then he would have found some other way. Similarly here, if the Pentagon wasn't using Linux then they'd be using Windows. This would not have changed the thousands of deaths of Iraqis and the hundreds of deaths of servicemen, which is a factor that can only be laid on the shoulders of George Bush and his friends.
He's not even consistent - his idea of the best use of DoD funds was GPS, and he says "In the first Gulf War, even the Iraqis used American GPS to guide their missiles. Talk about your equal-opportunity technologies." So it's *good* news that the DoD funded a project which enemy forces used to kill Americans?! GPS was certainly a good use of money, but that's bcos it's benefitted millions of people around the world. But if GPS is a technology that's been used to kill ppl, he should be taking the same line as with Linux, if he's to be consistent in his arguments.
And if he can't manage a consistent moral argument, it's a damn good job he's no longer running the LUG. I for sure wouldn't trust someone to run things for my benefit if they've displayed what's either a double-standard or simply an inability to think logically.
As far as the Pentagon abiding by the GPL, well that depends on whether the Pentagon release their modified code to the world, which, let's be honest, is unlikely to happen. It's only a GPL violation if someone takes your code, modifies it and then distributes it as their own work. If someone takes your code, modifies it and then uses it internally within their organisation, that is specifically allowed by the GPL.
And as far as "realising the connection between technology and how it affects the world", man, we're talking the opinions of some self-important teenager here. This is so crass, I hardly know where to start.
Grab.
He is wrong on a few levels. (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, while I can respect the viewpoints of people who oppose the war, I have utter contempt for people who oppose "the military".
Let me put it this way: No matter where our troops are sent into, regardless of my agreement or disagreement with the actions they are in, I would want the members of our armed forces to have every possible advantage we can afford them to get their job done and done with as few casualities as possible. They aren't a legion of faceless oppressors, they are our brothers, sisters, our compatriots and fellow citizens, and are fully deserving of all the support our country can muster.
Nothing gets me angrier than when an addlepated fuckwit like this utter disgrace to humanity decides that "our military" is evil and must be opposed. You can oppose the president, you can oppose the policies of the government, and you can protest both, but don't antagonize a group of people I hold in the highest regard.
Re:what a prick (Score:3, Insightful)
Or have you fallen for that strcmp trap again ??
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually (as you pointed out,) one of the core concepts of the GPL is that you can't enforce such restrictions and have a GPL compatible license. By definition, how can you restrict something which is supposed to be free, as in freedom?
The major problem with things like this is the fact that the belief held by the majority/ones in power isn't always the right one. Usually there is no black and white right or wrong. In fact, enforcing your beliefs upon others is (in my opinion) often, but not always, worse than a live and let live style attitude towards stuff you don't understand.
PS. I'm totally not supportive of the war in Iraq, but you can't have your cake and eat it too, now can you?
Hipocracy: Pure and simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux, and the GPL primarily, are not for this woman, and those who hold her "you can use this software in any way you want except the ways I don't want you do" view. May I suggest hacking up FreeBSD and releasing it under a license that specifically prohibits government use. Or possibly Microsoft Windows, seeing as the management at Microsoft holds quite simmilar views about controlling what you, I, or anyone else can do with their software.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, yes, he was elected. As spelled in the Constitution, by representatives sent to Electorate College by all of the States of the Union.
One of the states had a problem determining, which group of representatives to send, but the problem was settled according to the laws of the land, and I'm much more inclined to trust handling of it to 9 wise people with decades of legal experience than an enraged geek, whose side happened to lose.
Not the entire reason (Score:2, Insightful)
2. You should not blame the military or get mad at them for using Linux. You should be happy. The military are just doing their job. If they can kill more effectively and cheaply using Linux then that saves the USA tax payers money. In the USA, the military are controlled by Civilians, namely the President - the Commander in Chief. So you should blame the politicians and the voters for vote for them.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, he played the liberal media bias well! He got a wide read thread on Slashdot so all the liberals can rally around it and cry "Oh, imoral! Oh, Veitnam!"
As far as protests go, this one is loud and emotional, and that's all protests need to be and typically are. The invalid and unsubstantiated claims to the "morality" of the war just add to the inconsistancies of his view of "Free, but not that free... just kinda free... for stuff I support." He says he doesn't think Linux should be used to kill people which does fly in the face of the GPL (as others have pointed out).
More interestingly, if he can claim the war is immoral, that means he has some absolute authority for morality. I'm too busy to provoke someone who supports him on this board to tell me what that definition of morality is and how they can support it. :D The only answer you will ever get, when you press issues and facts, is black helicopter conspiracy theories about how the president "knew about 9/11," "betrayed this country, he played on our fears," "was AWOL during his service," "snipes Iraqi civilians," "this is George Bush's Veitnam," and on and on and on it goes.
For those in a media vacuum, all of the above accusations came from elected "leaders" of our coutry. Guess how many of them are soundly based in reasion, thought, and reality?
None! (It must be a vast conspiracy...)
But they are so emotionally charged and so outrageous that they get air time (like this story) and folks in the intellectual elitest society of higher situational ethics and the vacuuous contradictory enlightenment of postmodern cotton candy thinking swallow these statements as gospel and run around repeating them until the mildly thoughtful person almost buys into them. And we wonder why the electoral college is still in place...
For the political scientist in all of us, this is the funniest/strangest election year in quiet a while.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
You think it takes a pansy ass baby to express dissent in a country where dissenters are regarded as unpatriotic and verging on the treasonous? I disagree. I think it takes a lot more bravery than it does to just go along with the herd -- even if he does happen to be wrong.
Also, it must be nice to have the ability to take and leave jobs at a whim for such stupid reasons in a job market as poor as this one.
What on earth makes you think that the president of a Linux User Group is a salaried position and not just a shitload of unpaid work?
Re:What would he have done? (Score:3, Insightful)
If, indeed, true, this fact only adds strengthens the argument for America's responsibility for Iraqies.
However, whether we actually "put him there" or merely helped him -- and how crucial the help was -- remains an unsettled debate...
do RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
I was opposed to this war, and I too agree that such actions would be silly.
However, after RTFA, I think we're taking one peripheral comment from the article and making it his central argument.
So let's be fair. He may be some egotistical maniac that doesn't like the fact that his leadership is no longer needed, or just a guy that is having second thoughts about Linux in general, and the Army's use of Linux is just one element of that.
Of course, we'd rather not admit we're a bunch of insular geeks, and would rather pounce on his silly pacifist beliefs which we use as a strawman argument. Come on people, we may disagree with what he says, but at least let's represent his argument fairly.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:0, Insightful)
I like the "well he was elected.... technically" argument for this. Well, here's another one for you then: "technically", your vote doesn't mean shit, and you might just as well shove that ballot slip up your ass as cast it. Since the electoral college is all that counts, "technically" going to vote is a complete waste of time.
Funny how stupid an argument can be while still being "technically" correct.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Insightful)
It is news on slashdot, because maybe the fact that it involves Linux will make some geeks question the Iraq situation.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
C) Well, there are two sub options to this. How do you define 'careful'? Take it slow, allow the Iraqi Republican Guard to react, and drag the war on probably more months, possibly resulting in even more deaths because the operation couldn't be hastened preventing the Republican Guard from entrenching in Urban population centers (You think it's a mess now? Imagine if the regular army survived in the cities, command structure and all)? Or do you define it as completely avoiding civilian centers altogether, thus eliminating many high-priority targets from the contest all together? I mean, let's face it. The US did a bang-up job of NOT killing civilians, given how densely populated Baghdad is.
D) Oust Saddam without invading. Hate to break it to you, but it works in other countries because they don't have a massive military. Iraq, pre Gulf War, had the fourth largest military in the world, behind only the US, UK, and Russia. Post Gulf War, it was still nothing to sneeze at.
E) Before we decided to impose sanctions, Saddam freely gassed the Kurds in the north, Shiites in the south, and Iranians to the east. After the sanctions, the Kurds were basically autonomous and their living conditions improved *greatly*. The Shiites, who still were controlled by Saddam, simply started getting killed by lack of food and medicine, rather than bullets and bombs and gasses and poisons.
F) For one thing, the regimes in those places collapsed due to total economic ruin. Iraq, on the other hand, sits atop the second largest proven oil reserve on the planet. The French, Germans, and Russians would not stop trading oil, as it was too profitable to each (Especially the Russians, who are cash strapped as it was).
I'd like to take this time to point out that many people will look at my response to F) and think: See! The War was about Oil! On the contrary. Oil is thrice removed from the equation. This war was about stability, Iraq being an unstable and powerful country is a dangerous mix. Iraq was powerful because they were rich. Iraq was rich because they had oil. It would be no different if they were rich from Industry, Oil, or some other natural resource. To see the damage a powerful unstable government can do, look at the mess the countries you listed in F) left. Nuclear Weapons for sale (Hell, a few years back, somebody in Miami Beach, Florida, USA was arrested for trying to sell a Russian Nuclear Warhead), Biological research either unguarded or up for sale to the highest bidder... I think you catch the drift.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Insightful)
C) Do you honestly think we're not being as careful as we could be? If we weren't, most of Iraq would be a smoking hole - instead, the major cities and institutions were repairably damaged instead of utterly destroyed.
D) How do you propose we do this? Ask nicely?
E) If we lift sanctions, that just gives Saddam more money and more power to oppress and slaughter his own people.
F) Peacable solution to the USSR? It took 40 YEARS of cold war and America plowing a huge percentage of our GDP into an arms and technology race to cause the USSR to implode economically. And you think SERBIA was a peaceful changeover? What about all that genocide and shooting and whatnot happening for years there?
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Under the UN sanctions Saddam was being given money that was specifically for food and medicines.
Instead Saddam bought Russian tanks and French weaponry.
Mystically people started dying due to disease and starvation.
Wonder how in the hell that happened? Oh no wait, I know, him and his cohorts stole *billions* on top of *billions* instead of giving it to his people.
But it's still my fault as a Westerner that Saddam has a fetish for tanks instead of penicillin and bread.
Re:What would he have done? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
C) Invade Iraq and not kill so many civilians by being much more careful
Invade and 'be more careful'? Do you have any idea how 'careful' we have been in comparison to other armed conflicts? Yes, mistakes happen. But far, far less than in previous wars.
Here's a combat dilemna for you:
You're flying along, and your threat radar picks up a signal from the ground. You're being targeted with a SAM radar. You assess the area, and discover it's in what appears to be a residential area.
Do you:
A) Shoot back and maybe kill some civilians that may or may not be in the area, or
B) Don't shoot back because civilians might get killed.
If you don't take out that SAM site, you may get shot down, or the transport plane bringing in food supplies an hour later might get shot down.
What do you do?
D) Oust Saddam without invading Iraq (we do it all the time in other countries)
How, exactly? Assassination? It's not like they had a valid election process that could be influenced.
E) Lift Sanctions. Before we decided to impose sanctions after the Kuwait invasion, Iraq was one of the more prosperous nations. People were fed.
How quickly we forget why those sanctions were put into place. To prevent Saddam from using his considerable oil wealth to buy and develop new weapons. The sanctions could have been removed at any time, had he complied. The choice was all his.
OBTW, it was UN sanctions, not US.
F) Find a relatively peacable solution to ousting the current regime. They do exist. For reference, see 1989: Germany, Poland, Soviet Union, Romania, Czechoslovakia and 2002 (?): Serbia.
Completely different situations. The fall of Communism in the former Warsaw Pact countries came about only after 40+ years of Cold War, and they fell apart due to internal pressures and the inevitable failings of Communism. That wasn't happening anytime soon in Iraq.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
A bomb that was set off, not by the US military, but by the sort of terrorists and miscreants they are fighting against. It's important to make that distinction.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this guy should not have resigned, he should instead have continued to advocate responsible uses, and ignored the bad uses. remember that all sorts of obnoxious people drive cars, eat food, watch TV..... You can't abstain from something just because some, in your opinion, bad guys also use it. If your abstention might force a change for the better, it might be different, and I would certainly advocate not using SCOundrel Unix right now, but that is a specific commercial product, not a free concept.
I also wonder why the military do not use BSD, or maybe some far-sighted person saw that it might allow a defence contractor to create a monopoly by keeping derived code to themselves? There could have been a contractual means of preventing that happening.
I would actually prefer BSD for this sort of thing (I am about to return to the defence industry, designing safety systems, not weapons) because the development model is more suitable (fewer releases, more closely controlled). Linux is great if you want, or need, to be at the leading edge, more often in military or industrial use a well-established version is more appropriate. My preference for this would have been OpenBSD, or NetBSD for embedded things, although I prefer Linux for general use.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to respectfully disagree with your hypothesis that some form of technology might be able to "solve" the social problem of violence, or any social problem for that matter. History has shown us that no amount of technology can change the general tendency of a human being to put himself and his desires above those of another. Sometimes upbringing or religious belief or something of that nature will allow a person to choose to sacrifice something for the better of his fellows, but no technology has ever done that. The reason for this is that violence and selfishness and greed and all the "bad" things (which is an interesting discussion in and of itself - "who defines good and bad?" as a previous poster in this thread put it) are internal to a person where technology can only affect the external. Technology won't stop a man from beating or ignoring a wife, won't stop a child from sneaking around behind parent's backs, won't stop people from wanting what other people have, won't stop people from abusing power.
The only way I can see technology doing this is if somehow we become inhuman cyborgs, programmable to do something decided by someone else, and completely lose our free will. While in one sense this might be considered good - "it will be impossible for people to murder or rape or steal or cheat or lie" it is a taking away of something which makes us human; it would be an empty victory (if you could even call it a victory).
If you have any examples of how technology has actually eliminated any human issues, I'd love to hear them; I'm not talking about preventing disease or things like that, but social problems such as poverty (sometimes people choose poverty, believe it or not), unrest, greed, or violence. Technology can give us better conditions for some things, and generally make us less affected by our environment, but technology does not make us less affected by our selves.
I wish that I could have a more optimistic outlook on this, but the world is not a place which breeds optimism on a broad scale. I wish that technology could "save humanity" but that's not what humanity needs. I believe that there is a possible salvation for people though - but it lies in the even more mock-target realm of religion, and even more so because I believe there is only one Way (rather than the popular belief that there are many ways - but how often is the popular belief the correct one?).
At any rate, I applaud the LULA ex-pres for acting on his stand, rather than just paying lip-service, although it is a somewhat impractical gesture (because it likely won't effect any change).
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US could have made a case for the war based on that principal, but they didn't. They had to use scare tactics and lying to try to make us do something out of fear instead of doing it because it was the right thing to do. That's why I'm mad.
Freedom #0 Baby (Score:4, Insightful)
Under the GPL everyone deserves freedom, even those that do things that many do not like. That's freedom people. While not perfect the alternative is much worse.
I'm thankful for the line "Free as in speech."
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Insightful)
He just doesn't agree with the loss of Iraqi/US soldiers for the cause of Oil, er... Weapons of Mass Destruction!!
You calling this guy a moron is quite ironic...
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
That quote reads more like he butted heads with other administrators/board members and decided to make his outrage as public as possible, without providing details.
"change and progress?"
"...country is doing in Iraq..."???
It's a [i]Linux User's Group[/i], bozo, not a political activist's group out to change American military policy. Get a grip!
Logical fallacy & an emotional appeal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, I see you are attacking the problem with utilitarian ethics. Consider this: The time and resources spent saving those '1000 children' in Iraq might have saved 10,000 children in north or central Africa. There are men far more evil than Saddam Hussein running around in the world today, and we collectively care little about them.
I'm sorry, but your emotional appeal is nothing more than a very weak justification. If the US actually cared about 'freedom and independance' it would not limit itself to helping strategically important countries while abandoning the useless places to misery and death.
===---===
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the answer? There is no answer. Anything can be used as a weapon. That paperweight on your desk: weapon. That water cooler in your office: did you see that commercial where it was a fighting robot?
People should be concerned with why their inventions are being commissioned, especially if they're being hired to design/implement weapons. But they should be far less concerned if they develop something with a significant peaceful use that also gets used by the military. Their word processors, their long underwear and even their music players will end up being used by soldiers at some point.
One more example that is near and dear to lots of us is file sharing. Should the inventors of file sharing be held responsible for its unlawful use? The answer to me is clearly they should not. Gnutella in particular was invented for lawful uses. If we don't thing these people should be responsible for the misuse of their product, why would we think free software makers should feel responsible if their software is misused by the military?
TW
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
At my campus in the UK there was a campus-wide boycott of Nestle products, because Nestle was involved in a milk powder controversy in Africa, which resulted in death of thousands. So you couldn't buy Nestle chocolate anywhere on campus. But you could buy Walls ice-cream (made by the same company). Similarly, there was a protest because the University owned stock in GEC/Marconi, who produce weapons (among many other things). Same people who called for the boycott were happily using their mobile phones, which use several of Marconi's patents.
Basically, in today's society you cannot effectively boycot ANYTHING without sentencing yourself to the very edge of society -- and the number of people willing to do that is way to small for such a boycott to be effective. So with every penny you spend on bread, water, electronics, or entertainment, you are effectively building weapons, putting people in danger through horrible business practice and lobbying for Draconian laws. Welcome to the brave new world!
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Insightful)
If they couldn't think about the situation in Iraq without a Linux tie-in I doubt whatever they think about it will be worth listening to.
Fuck that shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and there are tons more deployed Windows-based systems in the field then there are Linux (think about that for a second, which would YOU prefer?)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
There was an article in Discover Magazine a few years ago about the the electoral system that we use. As it turns out, your vote counts more in a system like this.
Let's assume that one guy is ahead by 10,000 votes. Your vote does not mean much at all.
However, in Florida, each and every vote was worth a LOT!!! Only a few votes either way in this state could swing the election! Maybe the next time, it will be YOUR state which is close, and YOUR vote will be worth it's weight in gold (I know, paper does not weigh much, it is a metaphor!)
The current system was set up by very wise people two centuries ago. I think that they knew what they were doing, even if there is grumbling from the masses occasionally.
Re:In other news, thinking skills in short supply. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. War, by definition, is a state of armed conflict. Therefore whenever and wherever a state of armed conflict exists, there is war. There is war in Iraq. There is war in Afghanistan. There is war in Madrid, in Gaza, in Damascus, in London.
Next, even if it had been a war, it's now over.
Also wrong, for obvious reasons. As of 9:40 EDT, the body-count in today's murder-bombings in Basrah is up to 68.
The absolute worst thing that can happen right now is for the world to slip into a state of complacency about this. This level of violent conflict is not acceptable. It's not tolerable. It's war, all-out war between those who want peace, liberty, and prosperity and those who want medieval theocracy.
The sooner we get ourselves onto a proper war footing, the sooner we'll be able to bring this conflict to an end and go back to living in a time when detonating a bomb in front of a police station is a tragedy of epic proportions, not just another fucking day at the office.
Well he should also stop support sex. (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell kind of logic is that?
He should boycott EVERY operating system since you will find an instance of each of them on some military systems nowadays, from Solaris to Windows to Linux to FreeBSD and OpenBSD.
That's NOTHING! (Score:1, Insightful)
I'll bet his brain has exploded by now.
Re:I'm amazed at the negitive responces... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you make a screwdriver, and someone uses it to take people's eyeballs out, should you be happy? Should you say "I'm glad that people are using my screwdriver, it's great that it is finding such different uses like taking stabbing people's eyeballs out"?
If someone uses something you're contributed to (Linux) for war and destruction do you HAVE to rejoice and express happiness because "we are making market penetration, linux is being taken seriously, yeah death to proprietary software w00t"?
Not talking about this particular guy here, but some posters can't fathom the idea that you might be offended by some uses of your creation.
Headline: US Military Refused Entry to Linux Club (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Non-discrimination (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point as usual (Score:3, Insightful)
Right sentiment-wrong associations (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike the ober-cool slacker types who dominate these threads, who view any kind of 'political stance' as being uncool and passe- I find great resonance with the feelings expressed by this former LUG president.
I don't really understand why he chose to to connect his anti-war sentiment to his status as president of a LUG in LA. After all resigning as a president of a LUG has no real impact on anything beyond the LUG itself. Although protest is not something which can and should be measured solely in terms of effectiveness. (If that were the case the RAF or Kazinsky would be THE appropriate forms of protest)
Most of the people who post on slashdot earn their living in the high-tech industry, or wish, or plan to do so. With the tumltuous events of the market over the past years many have been forced to become ultra-pragmatists-ie. too closely interweaving of ones ideals and ones willingness to work for the bread which one later eats is a self-punishing endeavor. Unless you like looking like a POW.
The FOSS movement was borne as a reaction against the propietary culture which established itself over the past 25 years. Many talented people really saw something wrong with the provisions of their contracts-ie. once you signed the dotted lign,that company 0w3nd your soul-all of your thoughts, ideas, creations and talent.
Those who constantly were forced to adapt to the ever changing market conditions went through a fairly understandable process of self-disassociation. And of course this is where the obercool- 'I wouldn't have a "political" stance even if you paid me' comes from. Those who persisted in interweaving their ideals and willingness to bring home the bread too closely suffered the consequences thereof in a highly personal way.
The market has changed a lot over the past years. Now many, many talented people find ways of inversting their private time in FOSS software development and an increasingly large number of people are actually getting paid to do so and *god forbid* actually enjoy what they are doing, not being mere programmer 'prostitutes', willing to turn a line of code for a dime(dollar adjusted for inflation).
Yet I specifically chose not to enter the high-tech industry in the mid-eighties because of the fact that %80 percent of the funding for the engineering department at the university I attended came from the pentagon. I was really, really pissed off that my tax payer money was being used by the contras to rape nuns and burn down villages in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatamala etc.
I knew then, that If I was successful in my pursuit of microprocessor design, as a carreer, that I, as a lowly engineer working at Motorola, would have nothing to say with how stuff I developed was going to be used-ie. if I design a microprocessor for small education computers and the execs in the company simply decide to modify my design and sell it to the pentagon as the ultra-microprocess for the newest ICBM's.
To this very day I have no regrets for the decision I made, fully aware of the fact that I would be earning more than 10 times what I am earning now.
But I hve no qualms in the free-usage aspect of FOSS development. Ultimately FOSS will break the back of the monopoly-based IP economy and usher our mega-corporations built thereon to the days of the dinosaurs. And this will profoundly impact the military-industrial complex, which has already been eclipsed by the more recent healthcare-industrial complex and the brand-spanking-new "security"-industrial complex.
But this development isn't going to happen in 3, 5 or 10 years-although it is already happening. I expect it will take at least two full generations before we really start seeing the *societal* effects of FOSS. In the meantime the military will make use of FOSS technology to further their own ends-remember the military and it's mandate by the State marks the real hallmark of propietary markets.
It was the mandate of the State which created modern "democratic" military structures which were de
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I happen to agree with the people who view Bush's election as flawed because of the supreme court desision. Here's the catch though, it would be just as flawed if Gore had won by the decision of the supreme court to support his cherry picked recounts of only a part of a state. That is the essence of the issue. What really pisses me off is when Gore supporters assume that him winning would have been "right", nope the supreme court's decision's only constant is that almost half of the people wouldn't like it.
As far as handing over the office because of a popular vote loss to the other candidate. A president who did that would be in my mind guilty of treason. The constitution must be followed, if it is allowed to be disregarded you start your way on the path to ignoring more and more of it and losing intent and ability for it to act as the charter by which we are governed. It has already been eroded on too many fronts. Blatant handing over of political offices by candidates to other candidates is a recipie for disaster.
The only thing the president can do and should be able to do is resign leaving the VP to assume the role of president, who can resign and give the role to the speaker of the house. Any other way is just plain wrong.
Oh and btw the LA LUG president is an idiot. If you believe in GPL software, you must BELIVE in GPL software. That means anyone can use it, even people you don't like.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Insightful)
[sarcasm]
The industrial military complex supports the use of, and advancement of, airplanes in their quest to be more efficient killing machines, therefore I will not support the airlines by flying. Afterall, those airlines use planes made by the same companies that make them for the military. I'd prefer to fly planes from companies that don't have all that advanced experience.
[/sarcasm]
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is true, and maybe his reaction/handling/publicizing of events should be criticized. But politics are not (and should not!) be monopoly of political parties/organizations, handled in parlaments, by politicians. And I'm not talking about corporate politics, but various grassroots efforts; media coverage (indirectly or directly affecting politics); individuals standing up to their principles in political issues. Thus, I would claim that while it's definitely not main agenda for LUGs, you can argue that it's not completely out of question members, or even groups themselves, could and should participate in politics, in appropriate ways. Say, demonstrating against DMCA, petitioning 'your' candiate to get it changed or something else that really does relate to core interests of LUGs.
It all depends on what really happened. If LUG offered help for army, and person who stepped down strongly objects army's war on Iraq, are you claiming he should just suck it up? What if it was RIAA that asked help in creating spyware? It'd still be wrong to get politically motivated and make a stink about it?
Main problem I usually see, WRT to voicing one's opinion, in context of groups, is that it's usually impossible to get consensus on what is their common opinion. In this case I'd guess most members (admins, whatever) weren't agreeing with the guy, and that being part of the reason he stepped down. And in those cases, it'd be wrong to imply LUG (for example) is, say, against war in Iraq; or even implying it should necessarily be.
Re:The underlying meaning of the GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
All other ethical considerations are outside the scope of the GPL and are supposed to be that way.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd like to know why everything is my fault as an American.
Probably because American foreign policy shows a preference for iron fisted tyrants over self-determination, democracy and freedom. A country with the likes of Pol Pot, Suharto, Saddam, etc. on its list of cronies shouldn't look for sympathy.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
My opinion
Re:I'm amazed at the negitive responces... (Score:2, Insightful)
How about moving? He wouldn't be supporting the US military at all were he living in, say, Switzerland. Hell, I'll even make it easier for him and pick an English-speaking country: Canada?
As much as I admire people making choices based on convinctions and conscience, and as much as I wish more people did, this guy can't really have thought things through or he'd realize:
Re:Logical fallacy & an emotional appeal. (Score:1, Insightful)
This thought probably didn't cross your mind, but if you replace the word "US" in your second paragraph with "United Nations" then it would probably be a much better example.
Oh Please. (Score:3, Insightful)
He started and was the president of a USER GROUP, for crying out loud. How on earth is that being forced to violate his own sense of what's right?
I mean, did he contribute to some application that was used to detonate a bomb, launch a missile, whatever? No. Again, he was the president of a user group.
He did this to make a personal political statement, nothing more, nothing less.
Smart guy (Score:3, Insightful)
What's not so smart, is his reasoning. From a filosophical point of view, you might argue that sometime you are morally responsible for what your "neutral" technology is used for. Like Einstein having moral problems with his theories being used for building nuclear bombs, regretting that he ever published them. And most pacifists would also have problems being a chief for the army, even if they do no killing themselves...and so on. You might agree on these stands or not, but the reasoning behind it is logical.
It is however absurd that promoting/programming Linux is a moral problem if the Army is using Linux. Should you stop working in the oil industry because the army uses fuel? Should you stop producing corn because this is a vital part of the army's food?
There have to be a much clearer link, and it has to matter.
But he got publicity for his view, right?
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Insightful)
The military does not decide what needs to be done, they decide how to implement someone else's decisions.
In regard to Iraq, I don't care if the Joint Chiefs take over command of operations directly, they are still executing the policy laid out by the Oval Office.
Just as a side note, this doesn't even cover the preposterous notion that we could have peace without a military. Lest someone point out that the discussion is not about the military at large, at a level higher than Iraq, it is. Someone, Russia or China are most likely, would roll right over us if we gave up on having a military.
Wow this shows the downsides of autism (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow it just goes to show you how head in the sand some people can be.
You can't understand this... (Score:2, Insightful)
After the destruction of Hiroshima, Einstein said "If I had known that my discovery (E=mc^2) will have such results, I would rather have sit happily in my room playing my violin".
Most of you making fun of him are under 20 kids and have never seen what "death and destruction" of war means... you don't know what killing 20000 people means and what a father feels like carrying his blood covered child to hospital after a bomber dropped a 5000 pound cluster bomb.
Saddam was a bad guy... but I'd say US didn't really stand upto our expectations. With all the super duper futuristic inventions, I think dropping over 350 tonns of cluster bombs was too much for "trying" to kill a bad guy... a single bullet would have done that job.
The AIM was to kill Saddam... after 350 tonnes (to you, that is more than 700,000 pounds) of cluster bombs, he still managed to be alive... those bombs killed MOSTLY civilians.
To understand it better, think like a terrorist has taken hostage YOUR family and the cops blow the building killing many of your family members AND manage to capture the terrorist who is mostly unhurt!!
(PS: Even if you can't get the point - the point of blowing up the building was supposed to be killing the terrorist... in the end if you blew up the innocent AND captured the bad guy alive, your purpose of blow up has gone TERRIBLY WRONG).
PS2: You guys are joking cuz it was not YOUR family members who were blown with 5000 pound bombs and DU shells over there in Iraq.
Re:In other news, thinking skills in short supply. (Score:3, Insightful)
The War of 1812; the Mexican-American War, 1846; the Spanish-American War, 1898; the First World War, 1917; the Second World War, 1941.
Those are the five formal declarations of war that have passed the Congress of the United States. There are some interesting omissions from that list, don't you think? The Civil War, for example, is not on that list. At no time was a declaration of war issued from the Congress regarding the little unpleasantness between 1861 and 1865. That nastiness on the Korean peninsula that started in 1950? Also conspicuously absent.
Between the non-wars of, for example, 1861-1865 and 1950-present and the formally declared wars cited above we have events that can best be described as "Congressionally authorized uses of military force." These include all instances in which the Congress of the United States has authorized the waging of war without a formal declaration of war. There are 11 such instances in our history: the undeclared war with France, 1798; the first Barbary War, 1801; the second Barbary War, 1815; the African slave war, 1820; the war with Paraguay, 1859; the first Lebanese civil war, 1958; the war in Vietnam, 1964; the second Lebanese civil war, 1982; the liberation of Kuwait, 1991; the Afghanistan war, 2001; and the liberation of Iraq, 2003.
Please define the differences, practical, ethical, or moral, between, for example, the Spanish-American War and the Civil War.
However, that doesn't stop all our politicians and the talking heads on the news from saying we are at war with several different things, such as drugs (inanimate objects), terrorism (acts of killing), or the one that grates on my nerve the most: "The War on Terror(tm)" Terror is a feeling, a state of mind...are they actually suggesting that they are going to fight a war against people being deathly afraid?
Your failure to understand the intricacies of the English language is not the problem here. If you lack the capacity to grasp the meanings of simple phrases, then obviously the problem lies with you yourself.
In other words, jackass, if you don't understand what the verbal shorthand "war on terror" means, then you need to stop complaining and crack a fucking newspaper once in a while. Join us here in the 21st century before opening your goddamn pie-hole.
Er... uhm... no. (Score:3, Insightful)
We need people that can undesratnd the implications of supporting freedom for you computer code and infrastructure. If this guy was not intellectually prepared to understand the consequences (which are pretty obvious btw) I see very little to applaud in such childish behaviour.
I hate the US intervention in Iraq but I would never dream to compromise my ideals of freedom. What applies to everybody also should apply to institutions commiting grave mistakes like the US goverment and Army, even during their worst moments like the ccurrent conflict.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:4, Insightful)
They did know what they were doing. They were creating an electoral system designed for a country which it took several days to send information across. This was done by each state electing representatives who would then go to the capital and select a president. Now, however, you are not voting for your representatives, you are voting for the people the representatives will vote for (since it is actually feasible for a presidential candidate to campaign in every state in the run up to the election), which makes the representatives somewhat pointless.
Re:I'm amazed at the negitive responces... (Score:3, Insightful)
How high is that horse you're up on?
I "discovered" Linux as a free Unix OS, and that was good. Then I read some of RMS's writings and decided that he made a lot of sense, and I began to love Linux for the freedom it gave me. As I grew more proficient and began writing my own GPLed (and BSDed) tools and distributing them, I was happy to share with the community. At no point, ever, have I though "wow, I'm really improving humanity!"
Your motives are your own. Judge yourself by them if you will, but remember that a lot of us are here for entirely different reasons.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Insightful)
The states select who will be president, not the people. You really need to read up on a representative republic.
The founding fathers abhorred the idea of a direct democracy. They considered it little more than mob rule, so they put a number of checks into the government to prevent direct democracy, including a limited franchise and the electoral college.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Electoral College Votes by State [fec.gov]
Population by State [census.gov]
Without the Electoral College a few things would happen.
1. The Dakotas, Vermont, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Idaho, Rhode Island, Maine, D.C., Alaska and Delaware would never see a candidate campaign in their state. They would be completely irrelevant. Carrying Virginia would completely invalidate losses in all of those states.
2. Every ticket would have a Texan, Californian, or New Yorker on the ticket. Politicians from the aforementioned states would be completely ignored. And before anyone nitpicks this one, historically candidates very rarely lose their home state.
Wyoming accounts for roughly 0.1% of the nation's total population, yet it makes up 0.5% of the Electoral College. California accounts for roughly 15% of the nation's total population, but only 10% of the Electoral College. It's not much, but ultimately the EC makes things a little fairer for the smaller states, which is exactly why it was created.
He's not "blaming the tool"... (Score:1, Insightful)
Claiborne never "blames the tool". He simply is stepping down from his position because something he feels passionate about is being used for something he does not support. Arguments such as "he might as well stop using hammers too" etc are reactionary and ill-founded. Claiborne does not spend his time at "hammer" meetings, furthering the development of hammers, promoting it's use etc. Even if he did, he would still not blame the hammer, he would step down from his position if all of the sudden the US army decided that their best method of attack would be to go and hammer Iraqi people to death.
Claiborne also mentions that he hopes that his move will "provoke discussion among the geeks", which it obviously is doing. The point is this - he's a large part of something that now has military application, and, being a non-supporter of the USA's current military actions and foreign presence, he's resigned his position. This is an entirely valid argument, and all those who are bashing him may want to look at themselves, and see if they have anything that they feel passionate about to remove themselves from if it begins to be used for something that's in the opposite direction of their values and goals, from their humanity.
Hey.. He's got a right Too!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going quit an cry because I don't like who's using my FREE software.
Hey... go work for Microsoft now why don't you... Instead of supplying the Military for the best software possible, lets give them something buggy, secretive, and who knows what else.
Let me step down and NO LONGER promote linux and other unix variations, because I let POLITICS get in the way!!!
Man, get OVER it!!!
Agree with whats going on or not... it doesn't matter. But by NOT promoting linux and playing with your undersized dink isn't going to do the community any good at all....
Hope you enjoyed your 2 seconds of fame... I didn't know your name before, but I do now... and I'll be sure never to hire you to help my corporation out! Maybe you'll leave because I hurt your feelings by making you try and meet a deadline!!!
grrrrrrrr.....
Open source means OPEN. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Linux is free to everyone, except the people we don't like this week." Nice principled stand there dickweed.
Open software means the US military gets to use it, Saddam Hussein's Master Torturer gets to use it, the Chicom Ministry of Nuclear Fucking Missiles gets to use it (Red Flag Linux, baby!), Arab slave traders get to use it, and your Aunt Maisy gets to use it. Open is OPEN, free for all.
Which to my mind brings the whole concept of Open Software into question. Maybe there are some people we don't want to have access to high powered computing resources, eh? Kim Jong Ill springs rather forcefully to mind.
On a more personal note, and as a non-US citizen I might add, I'd just like to emphasize my personal disdain for a man so STUPID that he wouldn't resign over the North Korean Army using Linux (you can bet your ass they do!) but he will over the US Army using it. That's got to be the pinacle of jackass behaviour.
Mr. Claiborne sir, you are a true blue Useful Idiot. Your disrespect for the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect your worthless ass is contemptible.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a fallacy of a false dilemna.
Working on nuclear missile guidance systems does not necessarily mean an abrogration of ethics. I personally, could work perfectly ethically on such a system in the United States since its values and ideologies are worth preserving, and a nuclear deterrant is a very effective tool in that arsenal.
The reason why proportional voting is bad. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why the Senate has 2 members per state. It is balanced against the House which is "proportionally" setup. It keeps big population centers from running over little ones.
The worst change the Constitution was making Senators elected by popular vote. It has essentially ruined the Senate.
Freeing the mind, not the body (Score:1, Insightful)
Here are the headlines:
"Free Software Advocate Opposes Freeing Humans"
"Bill Gates worse then Kim Jong Il states OSS Supporter"
"Tyrranical Monopoly worse than Tyrranical Dictator to LA Linux User"
"Anti-Gates but Pro-Saddam"
"Free Software Advocate Supports Brutal Dictator"
"OSS Activist Opposes Military using Freedom to Create Freedom"
"Tree shredders are OK for people but Proprietary Code is not"
"Vendor Lock-In worse than Children's Prison says LA Activist"
"Real Torture is Forced Upgrades, not Real Torture, says OSS Activist"
"Starving, Tortured Deserve Free Software, not Food, Freedom says LA Activist"
Should I continue or do you get the point?
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Insightful)
I realize what the electoral college does, and I think it's a reasonable topic to debate: is it more important to have a government that represents a consensus of the breadth of opinions across the states of the union or is it more important to have a government that represents the majority of the people? Our founders apparently thought it was the first, or at least that was the only way they could get the small states to buy into the deal. These days, the small states can mostly use the power they get through our representational system to prevent serious change to this system. But let's not throw the word "fair" around without thinking about what it means.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:5, Insightful)
And before anyone nitpicks this one, historically candidates very rarely lose their home state.
The biggest irony about the 2000 Election is that Al Gore lost in his home state, Tennessee. If he would have won there, Florida would not have been an issue. Gore would have had enough electoral votes even with Florida going to Bush.
As far as staying on topic, I feel it is bad form to resign because the Military is using Linux. Even if he believes that invading Iraq is wrong, our Soldiers deserve the best equipment possible. After all, it's not G.W.'s ass that is getting fragged over there, it is the the Men and Women that are in uniform that face the bombs and ambushes.
Linux is for slimebuckets too. (Score:1, Insightful)
I thought that the whole point of "free software" was "free to all".
Of course, "all" will sometimes include users who are slimebuckets, for example child pornographers and organized crime.
This reminds me of the 1st amendment of the US constitution: "free speech for all" means "free speech for slimebuckets" too.
How could he get to be president of a LUG and not understand this stuff?
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Insightful)
What's so bad about nuclear missile guidance systems? Has one ever been used in anger? The long answer is NO. Isn't the same technologies that would allow enough accuaracy for a Nuclear Missile warhead to have a yield reduced 75% to achieve nuetralization of an enemies nuclear missile, also alow a safer flight in a 747 in bad weather?
Re:Thank you for your honesty. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like speed limits, no one really obeys them because the cops don't enforce anything less than 10 over. But if they started cracking down on 5 over, no one is going to do 10 over. Same basic idea.
I don't care if we remain the dominant power in the world or not, but certainly I'm not going to support anything that will directly hurt our status. However, as it stands, we are the dominent power, and we are the world police whether we like it or not. If we don't start acting like it, no one will take us seriously when we're needed (Liberia)
Horseshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Utter and complete horseshit. Under the E.C. my viote gets thrown in the garbage because I don't vote with my state's 80% Republican bloc. So, my state tosses it's 3 E.C. votes in with the Republicans and my vote goes away.
Under a popular vote system my vote would be aggregated with all of the other people who vote like I do across the entire country. Under this system my vote might have made a difference. Under the current system it makes none.
And before you toss out that tired old saw about the E.C. balancing differences in power between states of different population levels remember that this a national election, not a state election. States are meaningless in this context. Only the vote of the individual citizen matters.
As for the argument that the E.C. keeps the cities from overrunning the rual areas, that's a load of festering hyena offal as well. NY City still runs roughshod over rual NY state. Why? Because NYC has all of the population and how NYC votes, the rest of the state follows due to the E.C. inhales all of thier votes. Under a popular vote all of the rual NY votes would be aggregated with the rual New Hampshire votes, rual Maine votes, rual Vermont votes, etc... and if voters in rual areas have similar opnions, their votes add up.
The E.C. was created by the landed gentry to keep the unwashed and uneducated masses away from the presidential elections. And that's exactly what it's used for now.
Re:Maine and Nebraska do proportional delegations (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF?
This guy must be in the press corp or something to get the facts this wrong.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Insightful)
What is the answer? There is no answer. Anything can be used as a weapon.
Perhaps the answer is that inanimate objects are in and of themselves incapable of moral or immoral behavior. A gun is no more intrinsically good or evil than a toaster, yet some attempt to ascribe a morality to a gun that simply isn't there.
I could load a gun, put it in the middle of my living room, and barring some outside influence, the gun will never fire (indeed its more likely to rust away before it fires on its own). The same is true of my toaster. Left to itself, it will never rise up and strike someone in the temple rendering them just as dead as they would be had I fired the aforementioned gun (again, its more likely to rust away before it kills or even cooks another piece of toast without user intervention).
Will my decision likely have consequences if my daughter should come across it and manage to fire it? Absolutely. Should I therefore keep such items away from my daughter to prevent accidents? I'd be comitting a vast crime of negligence if I didn't. However, that doesn't negate the fact that it is my decision to put the gun in the middle of the living room that is inherently wrong, not the gun itself.
It is only when I pick it up and use it as an extension of my will that the device becomes an instrument of good or evil. If I use the toaster for its specified purpose, a good outcome of toasted bread is the result. If I use the gun to defend my wife and daughter from a potential murderer/rapist then the outcome is good.
Conversely, if my wife starts nagging me and I pick up the toaster and hit her in the temple with it, then the toaster has become an instrument of evil. The same is all to frequently true of people with no impulse control who kill people with guns.
The point here is that Linux doesn't make wars on people, anymore than a gun makes me a killer. Both only act as a tool in the users hand. The outcome may be good or it may be bad, but the simple fact is that it is my decisions, and my reactions that are good or evil. I refuse to give that kind of control over to an inanimate object. Perhaps this guy needs to reevaluate his position as a rational thinking person or political idealogue who attempts to politicize Linux as apparently only acceptable for use by the Democratic Party or other left leaning organizations.
"a sword never kills anybody, its a tool in the killer's hand" - Seneca the Younger
Re:Maine and Nebraska do proportional delegations (Score:5, Insightful)
The people are an ass. Half of the US population doesn't even believe in evolution. Racist, genocidal leaders have been voted into office throughout the world (Milosevicz is just one off the top of my mind, Mussolini was another.) With our collapsing public education system, I see democracy being even less viable as a form of government for anything more than local concerns.
A semi-educated population can't support a democracy. There are 2 democracies in the Middle East: one is an ethnic-religious state and the other a theocracy.
Re:To the former President of LUG (Score:3, Insightful)
You had a reasonably coherent argument going until you got to this sentence.
If you honestly believe that the US has imperialist intentions I suggest you try removing the tin foil hat as it is interfering with your brain. If the US had imperialist intentions then please explain its actions after World War II in regards to Japan and Germany. If the US has imperialist intentions then please explain why Bush is so intent on a handover of control on June 30, apparently whether or not the Iraqis are ready. Please explain why Puerto Rico continues to have self-determination votes and places like the Marshall Islands are free to become independent countries instead of remaining US possessions.
The fact is that the US has the largest economy in the world, a very high standard of living, freedom and self-determination, and sees a path to world stability by encouraging poorer countries to try what has worked for us. Wouldn't you agree that when violence is abandoned in favor of democracy that stability ensues?
Further, GPS is rightly jammed for anti-American forces, why should we provide an enemy with accurate guidance capabilities during a time of war? As for civilian use, the navigation system in my Jeep works great with it. It is free for anyone in the world to use, subject only to the caveat that the signal might be degreaded during conflicts.
It seems in your world America is the root of all that is bad and wrong. I'd love to know where you live and how you came to this conclusion.
bush v. gore (Re:Blaming the tool again...) (Score:3, Insightful)
The kind of election problems that happened in Florida happen all the time - elections, especially ones with national significance, just haven't been close enough for it to matter.
On the subject of the popular vs. electoral vote, the Electoral College is doing exactly what it's designed to do - prevent the largest and most populous states from dominating the rest of the country. When they were writing the constitution, it was Pennsylvania and New York vs. Rhode Island, today it would be California, New York, Texas, and Florida vs everybody else.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that there are ethical considerations, when new technologies are developed, but I disagree with where to put the responsibility for ethical behavior. Your position indicates that the ethical considerations must be completely covered by the inventor, they alone must decide wether or not to proceed, and that the user has no responsibility to behave ethically with a device that has the potential to do harm. Do we not invent something because someone somewhere might possibly someday in the future use my invention for evil?
In my area a man was sentenced yesterday to 10 years in prison for running someone over with his car. Is the car a bad invention because of it? You don't think Henry Ford (I know he's not the inventor of the automobile) didn't see that potential and went ahead anyway? Is he one of the bad guys because he threw the burden of responsible behavior back to the user?
How about something closer to home? Alcohol destroys thousands of lives each year. Death, violence, abuse are some of the effects of alcohol. Are the people who produce these beverages to blame for all that? Many of us here are distrustful of government and nanny state policies to varying degrees, but isn't that the logical conclusion of your statement? If the devices themselves are inherently good or evil, wouldn't we be comitting a crime of negligence if we fail to outlaw devices deemed evil? And more importantly, who gets to decide then what gets invented and what doesn't? Those idiots in Washington? The bigger idiots in the EU and UN?
Does the inventor carry an ethical burden? Yes. Something that has absolutely no redeemable qualities ought not be invented. But we cannot see the future, and cannot see the potential good uses of what we consider evil devices. What if the pit of a nuclear bomb could be easily retrofitted to provide cheap, clean, reliable power to thousands of homes? Was the invention of the nuclear bomb worth it?
"Not even the wisest can see all ends." - Tolkein.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Many of the liberal responses that I read focused on how poor the reasoning was and how there was certain to be a huge backlash, regardless of how they personally agreed with the sentiments in Kennedy's opinion. I'm inclined to agree; the constitutional basis for the ruling was as bad as Roe v. Wade.
Regardless, the right brought this upon themselves. Sodomy laws are a ridiculous waste of law enforcement and an unconscionable invasion of personal privacy. These embody the very worst of large, intrusive government. As soon as Lawrence challenged the law, the Texas AG should have apologized and asked the legislature to revoke it. The Religious Right should have been campaigning all across the country to have similar laws erased from the books.
Why? Well, first of all, anyone who values personal liberty - and that includes RELIGIOUS liberty - should be on guard against a government that has the power to regulate our most private acts. And, more practically, if the Texas AG had chosen not to fight the law all the way to the Supreme Court, the SC would not have been able to write this new privacy right into the constitution. This is arguably what precipitated the current gay marriage crisis. Without these laws, homosexual conduct would be unregulated but also without constitutional protections, meaning that gays could go about their lives without the theocrats busting in on them in the bedroom, and the states wouldn't find themselves forced to recognize gay marriage.
So, by refusing to abandon a set of outdated, meddling, and immoral laws, the Right pulled us into a constitutional crisis over gay marriage which might otherwise have been years away. Fuck them.
Re:1960 was a very close election, too (Score:3, Insightful)
If Gore had lost the election fairly, that would be fine. But the felonious actions on part of the Secretary of State of Florida at the time, the person in charge of the election, who was also the head of the Bush campaign for Florida, Katherine Harris, pretty much guarantee me the right to bitch for all eternity.
What else will he quit using? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Insightful)
First read my whole statement [linuxbeach.org] not excerpts. Then respond.
NewsForge and Slashdot could have provided a link to the source but it seems in this case they elected not to give you full access.
My point is that there are times an issue must be raised in every quarter. The United States is massacuring people in Falluoja today. That makes this one of those times.
Re:The reason why proportional voting is bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. It's not about control of oil -- that's a red herring. Clearly, Bush wants the Iraqi people to run their own affairs. Oh, so long as it's not the majority of Iraqis that have that say (the Shi'ite majority, the ones that rebelled against Saddam but the U.S. effectively destroyed). No, that wouldn't be democratic. Instead, it should be a few elite that will benefit from playing junior partner to the U.S. and capital interests.
Hmm, that looks just like the democracy we have in the U.S. I guess it is about bringing them democracy -- our kind of democracy. I bet they're so excited.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're an idiot. An absolute, flaming loony that makes the entire anti-war crowd look bad. You're blaming a tool, specifically designed so that *anyone* can use it, for being used by the military, which, last I checked, is part of anyone. Linux is like uranium- it can be used for great good (nuclear power) or great evil (nuclear destruction). Is anyone attacking God for making uranium? Nobody sane. Is anybody attacking the makers of Linux for making Linux? Nobody sane. You, however, are.
Whatever the injustices the American military is inflicting on Iraq (and you grossly mischaracterize the brave men and women of the US Armed Forces, misused though they may be), that doesn't excuse your childish transference of hostility onto the tools they use. Hell, those tools may be saving the lives of Iraqis- if Linux is being used in targeting or information gathering software, it might have prevented bombs from hitting civilian areas or prevented troops from mistakenly attacking a school.
Quite honestly, I would urge you to shut the *fuck* up. You merely make it easier for those of us who have actually bothered to *think* about this matter to be mischaracterized as sharing the preteen geopolitical beliefs of people like you.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because you personally could work "perfectly ethically" on such a system, does not mean everyone could.
Are the ideologies of a country which kills innocent civilians for its own citizens' comfort really "worth preserving"?
"Falllacy" really?
Signed, not-so-proud US citizen.
Items in quotes were taken from parent.
The value of deterrence (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true. Remeber all those nuclear wars that we had back in the '80s? There was that Nena song about them, which kicked ass.
Signed, not-so-proud US citizen.
Yeah well, we're not so excited about you either.
Re:Blaming the tool again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you (in the US) should just put all ballots in one big bucket, draw one ballot and announce the candidate on that ballot to be the next president.