Open Source Code And War 923
"Should Open Source developers help the U.S. prepare for war with Iraq?" Roblimo has a piece on NewsForge which addresses that question by showing a specific way that the U.S. military is using Free and Open Source software (in simulator-based training for Blackhawk helicopters), and letting one of the developers involved speak for himself. If software is Free, doesn't that already answer the question of who can use it?
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:1, Insightful)
open (Score:5, Insightful)
A double-edged sword... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a completely moot issue, but it is good for discussion I suppose. The thing that should not be seen is exclusion clauses from the GPL and other open source licenses. I would hate to see "This software may not be used for military purposes" because that will lead down a path that is more counter-productive. Would you rather have the military and government using open source software or Microsoft?
Code audits are important when using software for military purposes, to ensure that everything is accurate. Whether it's personnel tracking, mission tracking, or simulation software, accuracy is important. Maybe my view is just tainted because I'm finding myself leaning more toward the pro-War campaign...
This is a bunch of crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
Software is software, open source software shouldn't try to control who uses it (other than stopping someone else for breaking the GPL) or for what purpose.
Is there anything to discuss. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to write open source code becasue somebody may use it for evil.
I won't want to work for a corporation because they may exploit someone.
I don't want to sell hammers because someone could hit someone else with it.
Let's face it. If you are doing anything at all productive in society somebody can use that to their benifit in a way that you may not agree with.
Oh come on (Score:4, Insightful)
Non-issue ...
Anyone means anyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this faults the developers at all. This is like making knives; you can eat with it or you can butcher with it. The responsibility is up to the user.
Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
You can choose not to give it to your enemies, but what's to stop you from arbitrarily dciding that your enemies are everyone except a select few.
There is always a responsibility that goes along with any project you work on - but it will get done with or without you. Ask Oppenheimer or Feynman or Einstein.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Next guy doesn't like the military, the government, corporations or any incorporated businesses. So he restricts usage to all of them.
The next person doesn't like homosexuals or mexicans and restricts the usage from them.
Lets not start a vicious cycle, keep free software free for everyone. Period.
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right"
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:2, Insightful)
If you really want to retain that sort of control over the source, then you probably have to close the source.
Software licenses (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS is very clear on this, and for those who don't agree with him (which seems to be the latest fad) many others have to.
You should not keep let politics like this get in the way. There was a particular project that released there code under a license that was basically GPL'ed but with a line saying that it was not to be used by terrorists and not to be used to help kill people. RMS really disliked the license, and argued that such lines are impossible to define.
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, they say the same of Americans because they are highly intolerant of other cultures and religons.
I would know, I've been to Saudi Arabia and seen this intolerance first hand. Ever been to a shopping mall in SA? They typically have a government kiosk in the center which speaks of the US, Capitalism, and Christians in a most poisonous manner. Quite ironic considering their malls are populated with American brand stores (e.g. The Gap, Nike, etc.)
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Will you change your license if you happen to agree with a specific war? For example, what if a foreign country's military was actively killing your neighbors and/or family?
--sex [slashdot.org]
give me a break..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Example:
Opensource encryption software can be used to protect liberties and the prying eyes of big government. It can also be used to hide child porn or terrorist activities...
should we abolish the encryption software just because it can be used for evil?
I'd really hate to see a new modified license that restricts use of software based on political bias.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Humane Considerations (Score:5, Insightful)
The outcome of this war is certain. The only question is, how many Iraqis and how many Americans will die in the process? Good software is part of the key to preserving lives on both sides: the sooner the war ends, the fewer lives will be lost; and good software (along with good hardware and good training) will shorten the length of the war.
Finally, consider that the work on government programs won't be used only in Iraq. That's just where we need it at the moment. Should the US find itself fighting North Korea, the same software and hardware and training is going to save lives there as well.
I don't agree with the concept of invading Iraq. But I do believe in saving lives; and I think that contributing to government software efforts will help us toward that end.
And who uses Open Source is an issue now? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many web sites are serving child porn use this as their server?
How many IRC servers have anti-abortion protesters chatting about where to bomb or shoot next?
How many emacs clients have been used to write threatening letters?
Has email ever been used to perprate a crime of any kind?
How many people point to encryption, and state that even the bad guys should be allowed to use it, so privacy is maintained?
So, you disagree witha policy of the US, and now you're thinking about dropping the whole idea of free. How pleasant.
Politics and OSS software (a la Iraq war) (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's keep politics out of the code. "Once you go down that dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny...." or something like that.
open source doesn't mean gpl (Score:4, Insightful)
i'd be vaguely disturbed if something i wrote went toward killing people, but how you deal with that as a developer would be your choice. ultimately you can't control how people use your code once you release it. after all, the government could choose to ignore his "CUL (civil use license)" and who could stop them? who's to say that windows xp doesn't contain half the linux kernel in it? theft is one advantage of having the closed end of a closed source program.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interesting licensing idea.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It will become a mess if people start adding lines that match their own agendas. "People who kill cannot use this" "People who are gay.." "People who voted bush.." and so on.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:1, Insightful)
You'll have to define your terms.
If you address one, you implicitly exclude
the other. E.g., "The U.S. Army can't use
this" can be read to say "... but the Navy can."
Also, can NASA use your software?
Their flights are actually classified as
military operations according to the FAA.
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you have it all wrong. It's not that Americans believe every muslim is a terroist, rather it's Americans believe that every terrorist is a muslim. HUGE difference there and I still can't figure out why I don't see muslim leaders around the world standing up against terrorism.
Re:Interesting licensing idea.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes."
No, and that's probably because such a clause would be impossible to define. For example, let's say such a clause was added to Apache.
Would that mean that the Army couldn't host their website on Apache? Probably. Would that mean that Boeing couldn't host their website on Apache? They make both civilian and military products. What about steel importers, who don't know where their product goes? It is reasonable to consider that their product would be used in the war machine, but has significant peacetime uses as well.
Bottom line: if you want to keep control of your code, and be able to dictate what is done with it, you need to keep it closed source. When you Open a door, you don't get to decide who walks in; that's the very reason that doors were invented in the first place.
Open Source and Nations (Score:3, Insightful)
This would appear to some to make Open Source a security risk, but it isn't necessarily so. To play in the open source game, you have to be a contributor. So you need to be a nation that develops people with strong technical skills and keeps them. You also have to allow those people access to other people around the world in order to share ideas.
Saddam Hussein may get some benefit from Open Source, in that it gives him software that is free distributable. However, I would imagine it's rather difficult attracting and retaining technical talent in a regime as oppressive as his. In short, despots may be able to use Open Source software, but they'd have a hard time leveraging it fully without free and open communication with the rest of the world.
It's also further proof of the interdependence of developed countries upon each other.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:2, Insightful)
i lived there all through my childhood (8 years) and no i am neither a muslim nor is middle east my native. i have seen no such kiosk, ever in any mall.
Talk of a lack of freedom to speak, to assemble together peacefully , to practice ones own religion and Burkhas (Veils) for women -I would agree. Then again thats their culture, that is the way they have evolved. One cannot judge a culture qualitatively or through comparisons. More often than not , cultures are there in the first place because they serve the needs of the society in that area - the needs differ from place to place.
But wait... there is more... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I'm slow (Score:1, Insightful)
There hasn't been any proof given to the UN or provided by the US or any other contry that proves that Iraq has or is building weapons of mass distruction. I mean its been a while since Iraq has tried to do anything against it's neighbors or the US, so why are we going to war? It wasn't Iraq that caused the attack on the twin towers, it was Osama and his followers and we've done a good job shutting down most of his group, but what is the reason for going to war?
Anyone want to explain it for me?
-Goran
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:3, Insightful)
No - That's the way their manipulative rulers have caused it to evolve.
One cannot judge a culture qualitatively or through comparisons. More often than not , cultures are there in the first place because they serve the needs of the society in that area - the needs differ from place to place.
True, however do you not believe that humans everywhere should have certain fundamental rights? Such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble peacefully, or the freedom to elect their own leaders? I think they should.
A debate on this matter should happen. (Score:4, Insightful)
I have given a lot of thought about the issue of whether I want the military of any nation to use the software I create to mutilate the lives of other people. I obviously do not want this, and I would love to have a debate about having a software license that explicitly forbids this use.
As the previous poster pointed out, once you go down this path, some people might not like X, or Y, and impose further restrictions, but this is not too different from where we are today.
There is a line to be drawn, and I would very much like to hear people's opinions on what is an acceptable line to draw, and where to draw it.
As you might expect, I consider the war being promoted against Iraq to be immoral. The spin for this war has gone through a number of phases, and it has yet to click. Alarming how easily the population can be manipulated through fear.
Miguel.
Re:open (Score:5, Insightful)
Fill in the blank with:
Open Source software
Toilet paper
Footware
Small arms
Army cot
Clothing
Technology has no ethic.
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, seeing every city in the world with the same ideals that we honour in democratic nations would be nice. But we should also understand that Any change should come from within the country - not forced upon externally.
I would be the happiest to see American Culture as a whole being adopted throughout the world through its inherent power and influence (which is happening to a lots of places in the world btw) - not because of its military muscle.
Re:Typical OSS mushy thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny. I didn't get my business going and manage to create something successful until I told everyone else I wasn't going to keep doing everything the way everybody else was going to do it and that I was going to to it my way and the way I thought it should be done.
Within a year I had a steady income where the checks (and the dates they came in) was more reliable than some jobs I've had.
Sometimes the only way you can succeed is to do things exactly your way. I've never found success when I didn't put those two paths together.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:5, Insightful)
One might also have to define what one means by military. Do I voilate the clause by using your software while I go to college funded by my GI Bill benefits? If I work for a police station and martial law is declared, am I all of a sudden not allowed to use my software because the Army is in control? What if I develop a great software program that is then used as a weapon? Does that mean that the product is illegitmate because I used your source for a program that became a weapon somewhere down the line?
Using a military restriction seems more throuble than its worth. If your really against the military, there are other more productive things you can do.
PFC Gruhn
US Army, Fort Lewis
"Serve and Sustain"
Definition of Free software (Score:2, Insightful)
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [gnu.org]
Check the license for mention of war (Score:5, Insightful)
If a developer doesn't like war, then he better put that in the license. Short of that, he has nothing to complain about.
-B
Re:This is a bunch of crap. (Score:2, Insightful)
And gun makers aren't building killing machines they're just making things that propel lead at high speed? If you build things that kill - or parts of things that kill - are you partly responsible for the killing? It's the sort of dilemma that plagued people like Oppenheimer and Einstein. It's one of the classic dilemmas scientists face and a prime issue for Slashdot.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:2, Insightful)
Not all 'military projects' are bad. When I was in the army, I secured my country's borders (not primarily hunting illegal immigrants, but the facilitators that take all their money) and helped victims of natural catastrophes. Of course, there also are those 'military projects' that are about killing lots of humans. For good reasons, they are planned and conducted rather secretly and the people involved are making rather sure no one gets access to their computers. So, why do you think they would respect your little license terms?
And who decides which 'actions' are 'non-civil' and in which ways a software program could be 'related' to them? That whole idea is callow humbug.
I'd rather try making the world a little better and thus a less likely place to start wars by creating stuff like free software, not almost-free software.
I am soooo sick... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention which this won't be a war as we are used to thinking of them. Casualties in the Gulf War were very low, and I can't imagine this being much different. As you say, the military considers minimization of collateral damage to be a top priority. The concept of there being 100,000 civilian deaths (I've heard someone say it) is FUD.
Not to mention which, programmers aren't experts on military matters. This is scarcely better than Susan Sarandon et al spouting off about the war. Yes, they have a right to free speech, but I'm not exactly going to let a moron actor change my views easily. Nor a programmer, just because he won't let the military use his crappy program.
Re:open source doesn't mean gpl (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is a bunch of crap. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is a bunch of crap. (Score:3, Insightful)
It *would* be accurate if someone were writing open source missile guidance systems. In that case, you could agrue that you might want a missile guidance system for personal use either as a hobbiest (e.g. for model rocketry) or for hunting purposes (ok, that last one is meant to be funny, but you get the idea).
In fact, that argument currently does not fly in the U.S. You are simply not allowed to put a guidance system on any rocket without very special case permission from the military, which means that model rocketry types cannot make rockets that compensate for conditions, takeoff-and-land, etc.
However, if you're writing an OS, that's more like designing metal shop tools. Yes, those tools can be used to make guns, but I would disagree that we should restrict access to metal shop tools or that those who build them need concern themselves with how they are used. There is a level at which a tool is just a tool, and its function is not "dangerous enough" to restrict the freedom of making or using that tool.
Where you draw that line is, of course, a matter of debate, and you would be better off rhetorically focusing on that rather than specious search-and-replace arguments.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well you are certainly within your right to do so (assuming that a parent license does not prohibit further restrictions), but is that the best thing to do?
As other posters have mentioned, not only does restricting Government/military use of Open Source software encourage them to seek out closed-source options but have you considered a scenario where your country's military might need something you have created in an operation you do support?
The "military" doesn't just mean the infantry, armor and artillery types...it also includes some sectors of homeland defense and disaster relief. Some aspects of military research can directly benefit the public (bioterrorism defense research, for instance). And where exactly would the Coast Guard fit in?
Software can be used for both good and bad purposes. If a tool can do more good than harm, why place restrictions on where it could possibly do good?
Re:Check the license for mention of war (Score:2, Insightful)
BUT, you would want our troops to be well trained flying a helicopter if the U.S. or an ally were attacked some day, and needed it for defense eh?
Re:open (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Nobody actually submitted the story
2) Nobody is actually seriously taking the position that the military shouldn't be able to use Open Source software. The wording of the story lead me to think that's what the interview would lead, but even he doesn't take that position.
What gives?
-Bill
The Straw Men (Score:2, Insightful)
- The point is to disarm S. Hussein and Iraq
- We need to "keep the oil flowing"
- If you are against the invasion, you support S. Hussein
- If you support the UN, you do not have the will, courage, strength, etc. to confront S. Hussein
- We are doing it to stop the proliferation of WMD
- We are going to liberate the people of Iraq
- We are going to bring democracy to Iraq
- We have no "territorial ambitions," as G. Bush has claimed
- We are committed to fighting evil
- We are by definition fundamentally good, and thus most suited to decide on our own what regimes should be confronted and how to do it
- An overwhelmingly strong military and demonstrable willingness to use it are the best guarantors of peace
- The best way to dissuade authoritarian regimes from developing deterrent WMD arsenals is to threaten them with full-scale military invasion
- We will defeat asynchronous, decentralized, distributed religious fundamentalist terrorists with full-scale military confrontation
I could go on, but I don't have time. If you believe in the above points, then may the gods have mercy on all of us.Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:2, Insightful)
Better log off the Internet (descendant of DARPANet) Have fun doing nothing for the rest of your life.
Re:open (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but engineers do. This is why security people usually notify vendors in advance of the publication of a new security hole, to give them a chance to fix things.
There are also technologies that have no other purpose. You can argue that a nuclear warhead can someday deflect a meteor bound for earth, but the fact is that the Manhattan Project was launched for another specific purpose.
Advocates like to say "guns don't kill people", and they are right to that extent. However, body armor piercing bullets have no other objective, because bears don't wear body armor.
I'm not objecting to your point that many technologies are neutral. I'm also not commenting on the specific ethics of the examples I cite, rather just pointing out that they are not ethics neutral.
Re:No ... (Score:3, Insightful)
By omitting the ability for the military, and therein the government, to utilize your code you are causing more damage. The proprietary code is less easily auditable, thereby potentially more buggy causing more destruction. Also, what about the peace keeping portions of the military?
If you write something that can be used for military purposes, and forbid the government on your side from using it and gaining advantage, than what will stop the opposing force from using it without your consent? Fear of a lawsuit... don't think so
Why Iraq and not North Korea... (Score:3, Insightful)
China? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is a bunch of crap. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Using" a gun as intended does not require firing it in the vast majority of cases.
Re:On Socially Responsible Programming (Score:1, Insightful)
He talks about keeping power away from the government, and while the population has tried to do that over time, and the government has tried to take more and more, it has become obvious that the struggle will continue forever.
But when talks about "a socially responsible programmer not allowing his/her work to assist...." it makes no sense. If you really don't want your work to be used in ways you don't intend, then release it under a different license, or don't release it at all. Also as many others have stated, it is hard to have a clause so broad, such as "This Software cannot be used to kill", and expect it to be honored.
He also talks about "The founders of the U.S. expected us to exercise social responsibility with the ballot and the bullet", and that is exactly what is happening. Although some programmers might not be making software for helicopter simulation, or whatever it may be, they are still making software and in most cases DISTRIBUTING it freely - on the Internet which came from where? Oh Ok. Now this also does not take into effect that some programmers have no problem with how their software is being used.
ERS brings up some good points, that might have been valid a century ago, but to defend with "citizens arms if the vote fails". This simplistic view doesn't seem to consider the current global situation.
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:2, Insightful)
uhm call me dumb but.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd say do what your own convictions tell you to. If you feel that your contributions to a project are going towards a means that you don't like.. then don't contribute. But as a previous post said, Open source is open source. Anybody can use it. If you don't like that then don't do open source anymore. (or at least not in the project that is contributing to your moral conundrum.)
Re:Check the license for mention of war (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I've leaned more towards a Robert Frost-ish attitude with repsect to defense and the military: good fences make good neighbors. This day and age, a good fence is a capable offensive force. Used to be big walls and a moat and protecting a landbridge. Now it's helicopter and tank simulators.
Personally, I'm all for open source being used for military, as long as the author hasn't specifically proscribed such uses.
Where I think it gets more sticky is if a country like Iraq or Libya or N. Korea (or China?) were using stuff from freshmeat to aid their military. Could the developer be tried for treason? If they didn't explicitly say "Everyone but the following countries can use this software..." or "This software not to be used for military purposes", is that an omission of action which can land them in legal trouble? Remember that in the US you can be put to death for treason during wartime, and aiding the enemy is treason. It sounds far-fetched, but it might not be all that "unpossible" (apologies to George W. on that word).
-B
Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea... (Score:1, Insightful)
The weapon inspectors have very clearly said that it is *very* unlikely that Iraq has any kind of nuclear capacity.
It just seems that much of America just hear what it likes to hear.
If Iraq gives up any weapons of mass destruction they find, US officials say it proves they have kept them hidden and shall be attacked.
If Iraq continue keeping them hidden in fear of accusations of having WMD, they shall be attacked.
Anyone else smell a catch 22?
Re:open (Score:3, Insightful)
Even a weapon can be used in a "good" way depending on your view point. If you have a rock and the bad guy has a assault rifle to say you are in a very bad position would be an understatement. Now I am not advocating killing BUT I know for a fact that the world has bad people in it. Should we to simply stop providing the means to stop them because it involves very nasty things? To fight a devil you've got to be a devil yourself. The engineers know that a bomb can be used to both kill and protect, life is not black and white as some portray. Maybe if we could stop killing altogether it wouldn't be a problem, but that eutopian view goes upstream against the current of the primitive mind.
Re:I guess I'm slow (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US does have *proof* of what the US alleges, it should be brought to the attention of the allies. If whatever evidence the US can present isn't convincing enough to sway allies, then it isn't enough to go to war. Going to war without the support of the allies and against the desires of the allies is bad. *If* Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, they sure as hell can't do anything with them right now under the scrutiny of the world. The US can afford to be patient in this matter.
It is *really* hard to believe anything the US government puts out about this issue. It is clear, the US are going to attack very soon, disregarding the position of all of its allies, disregarding the protests of the people. Iraq *knows* this, and is now faced with two options:
1) Destroy the missles, make themselves look good and appease most of the U.N. In doing so, making themselves weaker, and the US will attack anyway, because they don't give a damn.
2) Keep the missles. Piss off more of UN. Face more opponents in a war. Come out looking bad and beaten.
They cannot win in this situation. Hussein requests a internationally televised debate between him and Bush. Bush refuses to take it seriously. Why the hell not? No matter what Bush thinks, he should at least give the *appearance* he is interested in letting both sides be known and letting the people see them. If Bush's convicitons are right, why should he fear a debate? He certainly cannot claim the matter is too insignificant, it is a very critical issue for the whole world.
Also, saying explicitly that no matter how many protest in the US, he will not be swayed is boneheaded. The president is supposed to represent and accomodate the will of the people. If 60% of the people protested and he refuses to be swayed, he wouldn't be fulfilling his duty.
And if it is truly about getting rid of a dangerous tyrant, why the *hell* are they ignoring N. Korea, saying they are innocuous? Even if Iraq has weapons, they lack the delivery capability. N. Korea seems to have the capability to strike US Soil, and they make it public knowledge and make repeated threats. The US response comes off as 'Oh that silly N. Korea, they're harmless, ignore their nukes and delivery capacity, now Iraq, they are dangerous, they *might* have a warhead.. somewhere.... maybe... let's go attack iraq and liberate the iraqi oil... err people!'
*Maybe* the US military has good reason and evidence for an assault, I wouldn't doubt it. But even if they do have right on their side, they sure as hell are not handling it in a manner that looks good in the eyes of the world. Don't withold evidence. At least *pretend* to participate some in peaceful approaches to the issue (i.e. debate). Act consistantly towards threats (don't ignore N. Korea if your sole justification for war is to pre-empt aggressive nations.)
I know, Saddam and his regime isn't good. I know they are likely lying about a lot of things. But the US *cannot* just pretend the rest of the world's opinion and view does not matter. Everyone knows that ultimately this is about getting oil so those SUVs can keep on wasting that gas. If they treated N. Korea the same way and at least appeared to participate in peaceful, diplomatic approaches, the US would look a lot better.
Re:open (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh well, on the bright side, Saddam was able to get in another twelve years of torturing and murdering innocent men, women, and children. But all good things must come to an end.
Re:open (Score:2, Insightful)
The Right To Keep and Bear Arms is about more than target shooting or hunting, or even about personal self-defense. The Second Amendment was put in place by our founding fathers to ensure that the People will always have the means to defend their Freedoms against would-be tyrants.
Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War (Score:2, Insightful)
why not? you guys did a great job of dallying while pakistan and north korea built the bomb. it's an open secret that isreal has the bomb and the u.s. continues to do nothing. seems like the us gov is good at dallying and doing nothing.
it would still be a just war if for anything for the sake of trying to resuce the Iraqi people
oh please. since when has the u.s. government cared about the lives of foreign civilians? do you not remember in 1984 when the un security council sought a resolution condemning iraq that it was blocked by the united states? how about in 1981 when the us state department took iraq off the list of nations that "sponsored terrorism"... conveniently this was done a few weeks after the iraqi invasion of longtime us-enemy iran. do you not remember in 1986 when the center for disease control and the american type culture collection sent anthrax and Clostridium botulinum strains to iraq? how about in 1988 when cdc/atcc *gave* iraq botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod? if there are bio weapons in iraq, remember where they came from: atlanta.
the us backed hussein for a decade because it was looking for someone to keep iran in line. no one gave a damn about the "iraqi people" from 1979 until last week. so why, all of a sudden, is it the united state's number one priority?
I think even the folks in France know I'm right
i think the people of france know that when the us ousts a government and puts in a new one, the new puppet has a bad habit of becoming a monster later on. remember noriega? remember (dare i say it) osama bin laden? the mujahadeen were called "the moral equivalent of the [us] founding fathers" by reagan back when they were fighting the soviets. oops. the difference between the us and france is that france understands history and is not blinded by ultranationalism.
Re:open (Score:5, Insightful)
You managed to completely miss the point. Once you invoke the Second Amendment as a moral justification to participate in the design of a "controversial" device, you've made an ethical decision on the technology. You've decided that ethical considerations in favor of the technology outweigh the potential abuses.
Therefore proving my point that technology is not independent of ethics. Engineers shouldn't go to work completely oblivious of the uses of the technology they develop.
As for the Second Amendment, most people don't think Iraq's armed forces stands a chance against the US. Do you think your "well-regulated militia" really stands a chance if the US Armed Forces can be turned on its citizens? (IOW, the real safeguard of your liberties comes from the Armed Forces siding with the people in such an event, not with an independent militia.)
Re:Humane Considerations (Score:3, Insightful)
The United States invaded a neighbor country, started a war, launched ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks against a non-combatant neighbor, and ultimately got it's butt kicked by a coalition of allies led by the Iraq. Consequently, the United States has been ordered to disarm by the United Nations, and has spent the past twelve years refusing to do so.
Nope. Doesn't work.
Re:This is a bunch of crap. (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny you should mention this!
And yet my (US) government regularly bombards me with "Anti-drug" or "infect-truth" commercials on radio and television which routinely accuse *me* of actively supporting terrorism when I purchase some joints, or accuse me of "helping to murder this family" (with picture of Mom, Dad, and Child face down on floor, etc)
I guess propeganda is only allowed to be one-way, right?
-dave-
Use BearShare [bearshare.com] for all your p2p and MP3 needs!
Come on guys... (Score:3, Insightful)
If on the other hand, your software is a political platform for your views and you think that's more important than Free Software (or Open Source Software, depending on your leaning), then go ahead and add the restrictions. I won't use your software since I find software that pretends to be Free while throwing in lots of additional random restrictions to be much more distasteful than straightforward, honest commercial software.
Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Tally ho.
Re:open (Score:5, Insightful)
So, how's that working out for you?
Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War (Score:5, Insightful)
The head of a popularly elected government decided to nationationalize Iranian oil. So we assasinated him and put the Shah back in power. When the students marched, he brought in soliders with machine guns to shoot them. We put this monster into power; why should be surprised that when his government is overthrown, the resulting government doesn't like us?
I've read about the current Iranian government. It's partially democratic, with elections open to all over 15, male or female. (Kuwait, which I assume you don't consider a monster, doesn't let women vote. Saudi Arabia doesn't let anyone vote.) It's not the most nice, liberal government in the world, but the governmental failings present themselves as voter apathy, not rebellions put down at gun point. It's probably optimistic, but I've defenitely got the impression that Iran will go totally democratic in the next decade, possibly without bloodshed.
Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War (Score:3, Insightful)
Destroying Stalin in 1945 was hardly an option - he was America's ally at that time, and no-one of any political persuasion thought there was any chance at all of fighting Russia just as WWII finally drew to an end.
Probably the "right" thing would have been for the US to follow the British line more, and deal more harshly with the Soviets and the iron curtain. Who though can blame them for not doing so. And who's to say they were wrong anyway - somehow the world got through the next 40 years with organizations like NATO never firing a shot in anger. Sure there was a lot of tension. But maybe the outcome was the best that could be hoped for.
Re:Anyone means anyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, someone can take a pen and write a solution to world hunger or they can take it and jab it in someone's jugular. Everything is a tool that depends on how you're wired. The gun, pen, and knife are not going to get up and hurt someone by themselves, they're neutral, so it's the human decision that is key. The individual is ultimately responsible for itself. And just because all of the above are human manufactured doesn't mean that we wouldn't hurt each other if they did not exist. Hurting each other is what humans do best, and rocks and sticks were around a lot longer than guns.
So will you write a piece of software to wipe out records at a hospital or to revolutionize hospital record-keeping? The ones and zeroes are all alike.