Total BS. I'm an agnostic. I have not yet experienced anything or seen any compelling evidence which leads me to conclude that a god does, in fact, exist.

However, 'no proof' does not equal 'proof of nothing'. I maintain that there may well be things operating in the universe beyond my current ability to understand. Should I--by means not yet revealed to me--come to understand some of these things, my position may change one way or the other.

For me, agnosticism is about following the evidence, about applying rational thought process, about discarding that which is without merit and considering that which has merit. It is absolutely not considering "arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect".

Leonard Peikoff apparently had it exactly wrong on agnostics.

I'm not sure about this. Arguably, the intent behind something like Zoomify isn't to "protect a copyright work" but to provide a display that allows the user access to the hi res photo, i.e. most people would interpret the intent of the software as allowing access to the images rather than restricting access.

Stitching tiles together is a completely different scenario then, say, intentionally bypassing a login prompt. Many (most?) wouldn't consider the former 'bypassing a security measure' while the latter most certainly is doing so.

While IANAL, in my layman's reading of the law and understanding of the software, I don't think the DMCA would apply in this case.

Ah - ok. I see what you're getting at. One of the goals of organizations like Al Queada is to overthrow the more secular of the Sunni governments in favor of a more religious one. And they are happy to exploit whomever they can in that endeavor. Continuing violence between Sunnis and Shias is a common way to discredit the capabilities of the governments. It seems disingenuous to me--to pick a fight and then claim that the government is ineffective because it couldn't stop you--but it does seem to yield recruits.

Really, many of the mideast problems date back to (like so many other issues) then 1919 Treaty of Versailles - where the western powers made boundaries based on their own objectives rather than boundaries that reflected the tribal and religious concentrations of the populations. (See the apocryphal story of Winston's Hiccup for a good example.)

Iraq happens to be where the Shia and Sunni worlds collide. They do have a larger Shia popuation, which means that the Iranian influence there is huge. I'm actually quite curious to see how the Iranian unrest plays out in Iraq, since most of the Shia Militia groups are directly or indirectly supported by Iranian elements.

Well - we're off into tangential territory to the article, so this will all probable get modded offtopic. That's ok - the US presence in Iraq is relevant to the US ability to affect any change in Iran, so it's not too far offtopic. :)

First off, I generally support the idea you're getting at - the appearance and perception of imperialism doesn't help the US in the slightest. Furthermore, the entire war premise was on dubious grounds to begin with (and "dubious" is a generous description of it.)

That being said - accuracy is important. Forming opinions about what's going on based on an understanding of the facts is much more useful than forming opinions based on kneejerk reactions to the crappy media reporting we get.

 

Repeating this question over and over again doesn't really hep anything. You claim that the text of the agreement leaves room to interpret what we still "own" places or have made permanent structures. This is incorrect:

From the agreement: (Article Two - Definition of Terms)

 

and later (Article 5 - Ownership of Property)

 

and even later (Article 24 - Withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq

 

So you claim that the bases are permanent, but the agreement clearly states that they are owned by Iraq, not the US. You claim that we aren't withdrawing combat forces, pointing to the Victory Base Complex as your sole example. You claim we aren't leaving when the agreement clearly states a specific end date when all forces will be gone.

As far as as the Victory Base Complex goes - where do you suggest soldiers go as they depart the country? Maybe to the airfield where they will fly out? Might it make sense to stage all the units at the large base next to the airfield? Also - it's way off on the western edge of the city, which has urban sprawl that's now reached it. One side of VBC is against the city, while the other side faces the open desert. The Iraqi Government has specifically said that while it's status as "outside the city" is uncertain for the purposes of this agreement it will be defined as such. You seem to imply that such a position is tantamount to keeping combat soldiers in every city in the country. Your position is hyperbole at best and downright false at worst.

Where is your source of information? Who is telling you that we aren't abiding by the terms of the agreement? I'll tell you. I'm in Baghdad right now, I can see with my own eyes the how the pullout is going. I read the orders that define where we can and can't go, I see how tightly restricted our operations are. The "drawdown" has had an extremely marked effect. I know that from your perspective I'm merely some internet asshat, but I'm here, on the ground, in Baghdad and I can see it playing out before my eyes.

As far as the oil ownership goes - a couple of comments: ExxonMobil is American, Shell is Dutch, British Petroleum is British (who would have guessed?), and Total is French. Additionally, from the article you linked as your source - these are small, short term contracts between the Iraqi government and the companies in question - i.e. the Iraqi government set these contracts up, not the US Government. How, pray tell, does this indicate that "we own the oil"?

I know I'm probably appearing as a war apologist here which really couldn't be farther from the truth. I just want to see the public discourse centered around facts not emotionally laden hyperbole and fabrications.

Should we have invaded Iraq? I doubt it.
Should we withdraw? Yes.
Are we in-fact withdrawing? Yes.

The globalsecurity article you link has no information later than 2005. In the intervening 4 years - the US Government has:

1. Signed an agreement reaffirming the sovereignty of Iraq
2. Asserted Iraqi ownership over *every* military installation in use by US forces
3. Handed control of many of the US Operated facilities over to the Iraqis for control (here, here, and here, for example)
4. Handed security of the "Green Zone" over to Iraqi control
5. Removed the vast majority of all combat forces outside of the limits of all major cities

Additionally, your assertion that "we own" the oil fields now points to an article explaining how the Iraqi Ministry of Oil is negotiating contracts from companies that lost to nationalization when Saddam was in power. I'm not sure how that means "we own" anything. The Iraqi government is contracting with corporations to extract the oil resources. Sounds like Iraq exercising its own sovereignty to me.

I agree with you in principle - that the last 6 years have made it easy for extremists to find recruits, but you're fundamentally wrong about the demographics. Al Quaeda is Sunni, Saudi Arabia is Sunni, the vast majority of the Islamic world is Sunni. The Shia are the majority in Iran, and the population is pretty mixed in Iraq. They spend more time and effort fighting each other than they do fighting the US. This Sunni/Shia tension was held in check in Iraq by Saddam, whose propaganda machine was able to successfully frame the conflict as "Persian vs. Arab" so the ethnic Arabs who were Shia tended to side w/ the other Arabs even though they were Sunni rather than the Persians (Iran). Lately, however, that hasn't been the case. Both sides are anxiously awaiting the US withdrawal so that they can a) claim credit for it; and b) commence the wholesale slaughter of each other. Anyway - enough of a tangent. If people really want to understand the region, they're going to have to understand the Sunni/Shia tensions first. Mislabeling the Saudis as "Shia" goes against those efforts.

The "spirit of copyright" is not a red herring. There are a large number of people who are becoming more and more concerned about the vast amount of our shared culture that is being locked away from us. A large and expansive public domain is a good thing and I, for one, find it disturbing how few works are allowed into public domain anymore.

Hey - I'm all for finding ways to ensure there are incentives for the creation of new work. I want to see artists rewarded for their labor. I don't want to see the shared fabric of our collective culture held off-limits by a few corporations with a profit motive. Without the ability to use, discuss freely, and transform cultural artifacts we lose the ability to participate in culture. I don't like the direction that path leads - where the vast majority of our society is a passive consumer of culture which is 'owned' by someone else who dictates how we can experience it.

While there are some who jump on the bandwagon because they simply want things without having to pay for it, there are definitely others who feel this is an important struggle to retain the ability to participate in our own culture.

I'm reminded of the introduction to my much-beloved edition of Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card; he says something to the effect of (paraphrasing) "The story isn't something that I create on my own. The story grows and transforms with each reader and ultimately the story is what is created in that interaction." I really believe that to be the case. The 'culture' created there has as much to do with the people experiencing the artwork as it does with the creator. We are in danger of losing this aspect of our collective interaction with art.

Of course - all criminals are law abiding and politely decline to acquire any weapons from the black market.

Because all the criminals are now disarmed and in compliance with the law, of course they pose no threat to law-abiding citizens - so it's totally OK to disarm them... they can sleep secure in the knowledge that the police are the only ones who have any guns.

Wait... what? *Criminal* means someone who ignores laws and does what they want anyway? But then my entire argument falls apart!

Shows like CSI or Law & Order aren't out there to tell us about crime statistics. They are there to provide entertainment through compelling storytelling and dramatic situations. Since when do common or everyday scenarios grab our attention? The call girl murdered by the serial killer is way more interesting than the man killed in a fight over a girl. So of course it's overrepresented in our entertainment options.

I've read through all these posts with fanciful and far fetched analogies. Most of them aren't terribly close to the issue at hand. (Billboard placement, really?) As near as I can tell, it's more like this:

There are 5 pages of widget makers listed in the yellow pages. I make widgets too, and I want to--in addition to the free listing in the directory--take out advertisements as well. So I buy four 1" by 3" ad slots, and for an extra fee I can chose where they appear. I place one of them on the same page my listing is on, and then I place the other three on the pages where my three largest competitors appear in the directory.

In case it's not clear to anyone - Google is the phone book in this. No one has asserted that the advertisers (buyers of AdSense keywords) are paying to have search results altered. The assertion is that they are paying to have their *advertisement* appear alongside a competitor's *directory listing*.

I don't really see how the complainant has much of a leg to stand on. The "sponsored links" are separated out from the search results, put inside a separate block and labeled as such. It would be pretty hard to claim that they were misdirecting consumers, or even allowing their clients to misdirect consumers.

And I'm not even sure it's wrong! (Although a particularly cogent argument may sway my opinion). A search term for a competitor or a competing product sure as hell is a good indicator that someone might be interested in what I have to sell as well. It doesn't mean that I'm somehow taking over their trademark. Ultimately I think Google should (and probably will) prevail in this.

Some possible weaknesses in my position:

1) Does Google sell exclusive use of the word? Can more than one party buy the same adsense word? If they sell the word to one and only one party - then there may be some fault in that they are denying the legitimate trademark owner the ability to advertise with his own trademark.

2) This is - ultimately - a relatively new area for law to cover. What exactly is Google selling? If the court finds that Google's product here is essentially the creation of an association in the public perception, then I can see that beginning to legitimately tread on a traditional trademark.

3) Brand dilution. Advertising my competing product with an association to a more popular competitor's product runs the risk of turning the keyword from a trademark into a generic term. If the public perception of the keyword is thereby expanded to include the class of products, then it does in fact harm the trademark. However - I'm not sure Google would have liability in this case. I suspect it'd be the party that bought the keyword instead.

(Standard disclaimers apply - IANAL, opinions only my own, etc.)

I'm an Army LT currently deployed. I've seen this in action and have a good idea what it's capable of. The best analogy is that it's basically a customized version of Google Maps with the following:
    - access to newer imagery
    - customized route & search tools
    - user submitted reporting
    - automatically imports historical reports

There are no special pelican cases and 5 year old rubberized hardware. It won't tie in to your BFT in your vehicle (at least not for years and years to come). You simply fire up your SIPR computer (the classified computer on a closed network - for those who don't know) and go to a specific web address and log in.

It's not a tool for the guy on the ground. SGT Snuffy isn't going to stop his fire team on patrol and consult TIGR. However, his LT may use it to plan routes and get a sense for historical activity before writing the operations order.

Without going into great depth discussing the limitations and capabilities of a tool being used to plan and conduct current operations, there are a few points that have been brought up in discussion I'd like to address:

1) The comment about "customized for military networks," simply means that they've made it a distributed system - you login to the TIGR server closest to you which reduces latency. The SIPR network uses encrypted satellite and various line-of-sight hardware to communicate - and bandwidth is at a premium.

2) The "Wiki" comparisons are... weak. The majority of TIGR's utility comes because it automatically imports from the master database of event reports. Users can create their own reports but these are typically too inconsistent to be useful. The reports that work their way through the standard reporting system are slower, but create a much more consistent and useful data set.

3) It's still got a ways to go. The UI is clunky, the search tools are really cool, but making operation graphics leaves something to be desired. The imagery is no better or worse than the imagery set available on the version of Google Earth we've got running over here. In fact - I prefer to use Google Earth plus a homebrew data import process (excel plus some macros to generate the kml files) rather than TIGR. But this tool is a HUGE step in the right direction. I'm sure down the road - all soldiers and marines will have ipod like devices mounted on their forearm with real-time location updates and historical activity represented as well as locations of other friendly units. TIGR is a baby step in the right direction.

And yes - none of us can figure out where the hell the "I" comes from. My guess is that "TGR" was being pronounced as "Tigger" which brings to mind children's books, not bad-ass soldiers. So they came up with a way to fix that at the expense of a nonsensical acronym.