[Battlemesh] New name for the Battlemesh?

[Caleb James DeLisle]

I recall reading a paper a few years ago called "The Mesh and The Net", this paper described The 
Mesh as the military communications layer and The Net as the commercial communications layer. Lots 
of "the future from the eyes of the past" in that paper. Suffice to say, the word Mesh does indeed 
mean something to military folks.

Thanks,
Caleb

On 04/02/2020 13:09, Vincent Wiemann wrote:
> Hi yanosz,
> 
> On 04.02.20 12:02, yanosz wrote:
>>> as long as mesh technology is mostly promoted by military suppliers, I like the name as it brings awareness.
>>> Battlemesh is a good place to share ideas and I would miss the military people.
>>
>> You misunderstood the origin - there is no military reference. It can be
>> understood regarding rap music, where artists perform in a given setting.
> 
> I didn't think that a reference to the military was intended, but it's funny that people from the military milieu do.
> Some people even think the B.A.T.M.A.N. logo is a reference to drones...
> About 1/10th of the people I talked to did have a military or aerospace background.
> People researching on submarine and satellite communications, upgrading field telephones, building radar and WLAN locating mechanisms,
> building own radio boards, using transverters for using another spectrum, communicating in underground facilities,
> communicating over long distances with cross-polarized omni antennas...
> The reality is that WLAN and mesh technology are used for battlefield communication and that is open knowledge
> and it's naive and even dangerous to think these people don't attend Battlemesh.
> 
> Thus I think it's good to be aware and there is no reason to change the name, as it doesn't change anything.
> It's better to be paranoid than naive and it's better when these people get in touch with people with critical thinking...
> 
>> Typically hitting civilians, mines effectively violate the Geneva treaty
>> and are understood to be a war crime.
> 
> Yes, that sucks. I totally agree with you...
> 
>>> You should keep in mind that only Russia, China and the USA have a good alternative to mesh technology (satellites).
>>
>> These countries are the prominent for not being subject to international
>> jurisdiction and cannot be made responsible for war crimes.
> 
> Thus I think the rest of the world should at least have a good mesh system without any backdoors.
> 
>>> Would it be better to have "satellite mines"?
>>
>> I don't see, in what way a decision based on ethics could prefer one way
>> for committing war crimes over another.
> 
> Holding the balance of power is everything one can do for peace. One needs to increase the costs of war on both sides.
> Everything else leads to a one-world government restricting the freedom of the people in the long-run.
> If we could somehow discourage the US government from using smart meshed land or sea mines, the best thing that could
> happen is that they switch to satellite communication and the worst thing that they use primitive mines which can't be defused just by sending a radio signal.
> 
>>> What's worse? Having open access to and knowledge of military technology or building flawed systems in secret which decide
>>> on war or peace?
>>
>> It's worse to hand over decision on war in peace to technology.
> 
> Yes, but it has already been done (nuclear bombs) and there is no way back.
> The modern battlefield needs battlefield management and communication systems.
> Every country has them today. At least since Xiang Li sold cracked versions of AGI systems' battlefield management system for
> $1000 on CRACK99. For using battlefield management systems one needs a battlefield communication system.
> And these need to be deployable in an idiot-proof way. That's where mesh comes into play.
> 
> Best,
> 
> CodeFetch
> _______________________________________________
> Battlemesh mailing list
> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
> https://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/battlemesh
>