Slashdot Mirror
Bush And The Tech Nation
If recent statements by George W. Bush and his advisers give any indication, we're in for a bumpy flight. The new regime may signal a new era by walking away from the antitrust victory the Justice Department won against Microsoft last year. And that's just one of the questions about how the new administration, particularly its distinctly non-tech, old-school, ferociously ideological Attorney General-designate will view technology, morality and cyberspace.
The handful of Presidents recent enough to experience it have held distinctly different attitudes about online technology, especially the Net and the Web -- and those views have had demonstrable impact. There hasn't been a President yet who spent much time online, or whose life and work was shaped by it, even as it becomes more central to the lives of millions of people. Clinton, according to several profiles of him, barely used a computer at all.
"If you think the Clinton/Gore crowd struggled with technology, wait till you get a load of these people," a Washington Post reporter who covers tech issues told me last week. "They think the Net is another planet. There is absolutely nobody high up in this new administration who is familiar with the Net, and when they do hear about it, it's all hackers and perverts. It's going to be weird, I promise you."
It's not hard to believe.
The Reaganauts (and their Bush II successors) tended to see technology as an alien, menacing new reality -- especially in terms of moral danger and challenge to authority. They were particularly phobic about hacking and online porn. Ed Meese's Justice Department conducted an infamous series of raids on suspected hackers while repeatedly characterizing the Net as a haven for perverts and thieves.
Kevin Mitnick and his demonized colleagues scared the wits out of these people, who tried to make an example of him and others by funding federal computer law enforcement projects and by treating them as vicious criminals. Bush Sr. was, by many accounts, a technophobe who saw the Net as a curious playground for academics, hippies and errant teenagers.
The Clinton administration had a spotty record on copyright and certain free speech issues, but was more sophisticated. If nothing else, they grasped the business implications of the Net and Web, and decided to do nothing to impede the new global economy they envisioned and benefited from politically. Al Gore may have overstated his commitment to universal technology -- the administration sure didn't build any true info superhighway, or even try -- but they did get that the Net was an especially free environment that didn't need much regulation, and would grow and prosper on its own.
The Clinton people did plenty of posturing for phobic Boomer parents and right-wing Luddites. If they were sympathetic to the Net's business possibilities, their commitment to digital civil liberties was less consistent.
They paid lip service to a couple of blatantly-unconstitutional Communications Decency Acts, and promoted V-chips, TV and movie ratings systems, and the equally idiotic Clipper Chip, knowing the courts would laugh them down. They pandered a lot, and they probably knew better. It also didn't seem to bother them that corporations were agressively moving to control cyberspace, wantonly invading privacy and altering the free architecture of the Net in the process.
Further, because of the administration's close Hollywood ties, it backed the noxious Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to help rescue the record companies. In the context of the Net, this is a huge black mark against the outgoing administration, as was the FTC's rolling over for the hideously anti-competitive AOL/Time-Warner marger.
Still, the Clintonians came to have a comparatively sophisticated grasp of tech issues -- a number of Clinton cabinet appointees were online quite a bit -- and little real relish for undermining free speech. They really never seemed to fall the idea that games, movies and the Net were destroying the young and spawning violence. And they kept politics out of science.
The vibes from the Bush administrations seem to suggest otherwise. President Bush and his appointees have made clear that they do see technology primarily in moral terms -- as something children need protection from more than exposure to. Bush's HUD secretary has already ordered a safety review of the much safety-reviewed anti-abortion pill, RU-486. It will be interesting to see how they reconcile thise "pro-life" view with their policies towards the bio-tech industry, which is enthusiastically going about the business of altering (and pre-selecting) forms of human life in fertilization proceedures.
Crusaders like Bush-buddy William Bennett and Vice-President Cheney have long and loudly argued that the Net is rife with pornography and violent imagery, that it is addictive and obsessive, that popular culture promotes immorality and violence. The new Attorney General agrees. Predators and pornographers and rare acts of violence will be seized on and exploited. A key element of the reviving Net culture was is the idea that video games -- along with sexual imagery and a whole range of other things online -- are literally dangerous, even responsible for tragedies like Columbine. Look for the FBI to be given broader authority to track dangerous and illegal activities online and creater a "safer" environment in which businesses can operate.
Universal access to technology is not a Bush administration priority. Gore talked about it, but didn't do much. Only one fifth of kids in families with incomes of less than $20,000 had access to a home computer, compared with 91% of those in families with oncomes of more than $75,000, according to the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (study not yet online). Neither Gore nor Bush mentioned this issue during the presidential campaign, or in any of their debates. Bush's education reforms, both in Texas, and as outlined in Washington this week, centered on literary and standardized testing and accountability. They don't deal with technology, perhaps more educationally significant in the long run.
In the past, the likely new attorney general has been a leader of this brainless brigade, along with Bennett and Cheney (and the ex-Labor Secretary Designate Linda Chavez, who withdrew her nomination last week after a controversy involving an illegal immigrant working in her home). Attorney General Ashcroft was a leader in the Congressional movement to post the Ten Commandments in the country's public schools in response to the Columbine massacre. So was Cheney, and,his wife Lynn, former head of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
If the past culture wars are any indication, the new administration will make access to violent and "unsavory" imagery and information online a centerpiece of their law enforcement initiatives. It's been politically popular for years. They will also hammer entertainment companies, online and off, to generate more "wholesome" entertainment programming, especially for the young.
For them, cyberspace poses a threat to traditional moral values, since it empowers individuals -- especially younger ones -- to access information that once required approval by educators, religious leaders and parents. Now anyone with a modem can find his peers. Now wonder they don't like the idea.
Of course, there's been another twist involving the tech universe and this administration -- Bush got a ton of money from Silicon Valley business leaders, once presumed to be either apolitical or Democratic in orientation. Look for a Bush administration to go after dirty pictures and music-thieves while taking a more generous approach to corporate positions on telecommunications, antitrust and copyright.
Even so, the cabinet as formulated doesn't have a single representative from Silicon valley, or any technological industy. What does that mean for the tech world?
An example of the sort of issue digital civil libertarians will have to fight is the ongoing furor over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) placing of limitations on the number of general domains. This, say critics like the ACLU and others, threaten free speech for individual Net users and noncommercial organizations. This pro-business decision -- overseen by the U.S. Department of Commerce -- is a perfect example of the kind of issue this administration is likely to resolve on the side of commercial use, not individual users.
The good news: the new administration is unlikely to curb business or technological innovation and expansion. These are not antitrust gunslingers fighting for the right of the little guy to survive. They would never have brought suit against Microsoft, as several Bush administration executives have inferred.
The bad news: Digital civil liberties will be a hot political issue online. The social conservatives returning to power are highly selective about what sort of free speech stays free. Until the Reagan years, classic conservatives equated free speech with patriotism. But in the 80's, conservatism fused with religious and other moralistic ideologies. They absolutely dread the notion of a free and open Net, for all of the obvious reasons -- it's a dogma killer.
Ever since the social conservatives came to power -- and they are especially close to the Republican congress and this new administration -- libraries, schools, kids and coders have had to content with a wide array of challenges to their rights to a free and open Net. This is the crowd that supported legislation recently enacted by Congress requiring all public institutions that receive federal aid -- mostly schools and libraries -- to install blocking and filtering computer software to protect kids from the dangerous Web. Last month, supporters of such legislation controlled Congress. Now they control the White House, cabinet, and federal agencies as well.
What we can expect:
- Bush's campaign statements suggested he wasn't in agreement with the Justice Department's action against Microsoft, or with the court-ordered remedy of dividing the company and enforcing restrictions on its competitive practices. Ashcroft's Justice Department may drop the case or settle under terms more generous than Janet Reno's would agree to. Both Joel Klein, who prosecuted the case for the Justice Department, and David Boies, the attorney who skewered Bill Gates and worked for the Al Gore post-election, will be scarce now.
- Some Washington columnists, editorialists and insiders are already referring to the new administration as Bush, Inc., it's so pro-business. The Corporate Republic just got a lot more corporate.
- So, expect good times for conglomerates. Microsoft, AOL/Time-Warner, Disney, Sony all have good friends in this administration (as they did in the last one). Bush got so much money from these and other companies that he rejected matching federal funds for his campaign in order to avoid cumbersome federal regulations and disclosure rules, an electoral first. We may see a proliferation of government-supported legal challenges, patent and copyright suits, decency acts and other provisions designed to make life on the Net safe and profitable for big companies. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have been pleading for years for more money to go after hackers, crackers and script kiddies on the Net. They'll probably get it.
- Perhaps even more than the previous administration, the Bush team will be sympathetic to publishing, record and movie companies worried about copyright protection. Also to doctors, lawyers and othe well-lobbied professional groups who'd love to curb Websites offering specialized information that used to come, at considerable cost, from them.
- Good times, too, for de-centralized softare programs -- like Linux, Gnutella, freenet and other P2P systems. As government tightens copyright and intellectual property enforcement, which this administration has said it will do, the individualistic point-to-point, peer-to-peer programs already coming of age will become more popular, more necessary, perhaps quite political.
The movement away from top-down, agenda setting media entities has mushroomed online, from instant messaging services to the many thousands of individual Web pages given away for free by search engines and others to sites like this one, Everything2.com, the vines.com, freenet, Plastic.com that turn editorial space and story agendas over to readers and citizens. They are inherently political, consciously or not. The open media movement may accelerate rapidly, and for all sorts of reasons, one being they are much freeer and more open than mainstream media, and nearly impervious to the monitoring of government or other authority.
- The new President himself warned that under certain circumstances, the Net could turn a child's heart "dark." Look for the gaming culture to come under particular fire for promoting violence and other unwholesome behavior.
- Of course, there are certain types of technology the Bush camp will embrace, particularly the kind related to defense industries. Donald Rumsfeld, the new secretary of Defense, and Colin Powell, the new secretary of State, are both pushing for development and deployment of an anti-missile shield around the United States. Claiming the military has been weakened by Defense cuts and needs to be upgraded, they're going to commission the kinds of jazzy weapons systems any 16-year-old Doom player would drool over.
By and large, this is an administration unlikely to focus much on the Net or to pay much attention to the broader, more complex issues affecting Americans and technology in the coming years. If so, this will widen the chasm between younger, technologically-centered citizens and their government, a gap that's already big and getting bigger by the day. Politicians can always surprise us, true, but more often, and especially lately, they seem to play to our worst instincts.
I see 1st Ammendment rights coming under fire, but the tech. side doing well.
No government that approves the merger of AOL and Time Warner can possibly propose the breakup of Micorosft.
Sales of spell checking software will skyrocket!
--------------------------------------
...are especially welcome. Slashdot is getting widely read these days by journalists and some pols, and here's a genuine chance to get the agenda out that you think might be -- or ought to be -- on the table.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
It's Taco's right to ban you from his forum. The first ammendment only applies to the GOVERNMENT.
-Trucidation
I doubt the bush administration would drop the microsoft suit. it's a close senate and house, dropping something like that wouldn't be good. Bush has to pick his stuff very carefully. I do see the bush administration help in keeping the verdict of spliting them up from ever really happening. microsoft has enough money to keep it going for the foreseeable future.
I'm sick and tired of the right ranting about small government and then pulling shit like that. The only way to stop it is to vote for personal freedoms. Sadly only a few dozen people seem to have done that in the last election so we are stuck with the same old song...
--
They will try to enforce a ban on European sites, so that less content(imports) will come from abroad.
Pres. Bush loads up Linux Kernel 2.4 on his home PC, says "Where's my Ricky Martin MP3s? Where's my winamp? How come I can't get this so-called 'Stateful Inspection'. Damn strange firewalling syntax if you ask me" - Switches to OpenBSD.
Feds go to hunt down Jon Katz - "Goddamn he's annoying" One secret service agent is heard to say.
IBM bought by Microsoft for there OS/2 technology - Balmer says "Maybe Bill was right after all!" - Bush says "OK!"
Linus has another Kid, declares "Sex is good!" - Big slump in patches to 2.5 kernel, as geeks everywhere discover the wonderful world of sex.
If Bush is really going to carry out his mandates, most of which I don't agree with, then he will drop the case against Microsoft, something I do agree with.
Why? Because it's a waste of taxpayers money at best, and at worst it's a clumsy and dangerous artificial attempt at "making things right." The government tried to sue IBM for something like 20 years, and by the time they got ready to do so, the market had done the work it is supposed to do and IBM was on it's way out. What was the result? Millions of dollars in wasted legal fees.
Microsoft is already less important in many critical ways (data interchange formats, server and web server market share, etc.) and if any of us are ANY good at what we do then that trend will continue.
The estimates on the lifespan of this case are ten years, we've been through three. By the time any rememdies could be in place if they are still necessary then WE should be sued for letting Microsoft sit on a decaying monopoly and doing nothing about it. THAT's anti-competitive.
I hope that that "Al gore invented the internet" jokers choke on their own words. Hell, there's my prediction... Large parts of America slap their forehead and go "We elected a what?"!
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
Yeah right. What did he crack down on, the "naughty chat rooms" on AOL? The Gopher abuses? Back in the timeframe of 1988 to 1992, there wasn't much of an Internet to hack; back then, they were still calling it the "Information Superhighway". That was back when DOS and the 486 were king, and the Mac's popularity was in the usage of multimedia encyclopedias. Those were the bad old days, back when PCs only had one IDE channel, and it could only handle hard drives. I don't miss those days at all.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Of course, there is still the right to free speech, and I am definitely in favour of a right to information as well, but still it can't hurt to consider the moral, social etc. implications of technological development every now and then.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
- Investing "$400 million to create and maintain more than 2,000 community technology centers every year" (georgewbush.com, 9/23)
- a "five year extension of the Internet tax moratorium" (georgewbush.com, 9/23)
- Expanding efforts to bring government services onto the Internet (georgewbush.com, 9/23)
This is what I expect from him, although he is not off to a good start on the third point.Hey democracy lovers, add Quorum as a c
"It's the 21st centurion, and we must end ftps. Native Americans should be able to live in ranch houses and department buildings, not these ftps and wigwams."
here is a zdnet article from last September.
0 070,00.html
they also talk about Bush's Information Technology Steering Committee
see http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,263
And I suppose the NRA and pro-gun lobbies have absolutely NOTHING to do with the proliferation of guns in schools.
Parenting ought to belong to the realm of parents. If you're not willing to pay attention and respect to your children during their formative years and beyond, how can you possibly expect any government program or law to have any effect on them? If the parents themselves are giving up their responsibility to the government by saying "YOU MUST MAKE OUR CHILDREN RESPONSIBLE!" how can it possibly succeed? Children don't limit their learning to the few moral lessons that they are occassionally exposed to, they learn from every action (or inaction) of their parents, their community leaders and their heros.
If you want to fix these problems (which are the effect) you must deal with the underlying CAUSES, rather than trying to constantly invent new ways of battling the SYMPTOMS.
Cancer isn't cured by chemotherapy. It can be effective in TREATING cancer, but in order to be 100% effective, the cancer ITSELF must be REMOVED.
If we continue to come up with solutions to the SYMPTOMS of our societal illness, we will succeed only in changing the FORM in which these symptoms present themselves.
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
=(.\')=
So, then let's wait and see.
Mr Katz, would you be willing to return to your predictions say every year and see what has and what has not been done on this list?
My own predictions are that Bush will blow too much into defensive spending, not enough in education, California will be a major topic as that state continues to meltdown annd effects the rest of the nation, and the leadership that we've enjoyed on the world stage will face some serious challages (how's that for being vague!).
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
What does the secretary of Housing and Urban Development have to do with the RU-486 pill?
Proofreading Jon, it's not just for breakfast anymore.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
I can't possible make myself read 2 hours of katz again, so i read the the first few lines and a thought jumped in my head. Thought I'd share it with you, knowing that by know you're probably somewhat bored (you know why):
RU-486?
No, I'm Pentium.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
It doesn't have to be this way. Remember, we are the ones with the real knowledge, so we are the ones with the real power. We have an army, and we could bring down the governement. Everything that the country is built upon is dependant upon us hackers. The President is merely a figurehead. No matter how hard he tries, he'll never succeed in bringing down equality and democracy in America.
humor for the clinically insane
great comedy company.
One good thing will happen if Ashcroft is the Attorney General: he is known to be an advocate both of encryption and increased support/protection for personal privacy.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
One thing to mention... when I was in college, I had a professor of history who said that when she arrived in the US from India, she was amazed to see that the reins of power were calmly, peacefully handed over every four years, with no revolutions, etc., until she realized that they really don't change hands. If you think about other countries, she's right. The power shifts back and forth between two groups who are basically centrists.
I think perhaps the immigration controls will be tightened somewhat (less H1B visas, etc.) in a raw display of power. Other than that, I don't see any drastic changes, mostly because they would negatively affect the economy, which would forevermore be labelled George W. Bush's fault.
Just my $0.02.
Zaphod B
When duplication is outlawed, only outlaws will have
Plenty of geeks think MS should be punished, maybe even broken up. Plenty of geeks think that there is altogether too much pr0n on the net. Plenty of geeks have political that aren't knee-jerk liberal, but you would never know it from reading "official" /. posts.
There are a bunch of things I'm unhappy about, that doesn't mean I would do anything about them if I suddenly became President. The presidency of the US is first and foremost a "bully pulpit" and I would expect someone who believes as Bush believe (and as lots of other people believe) to talk loudly and often about the things he doesn't like, including the bad stuff on the net. But it's just talk. Does that mean he'll act to stomp on civil liberties?
Ridiculous. He'd have a way to go to match the previous administration, and so far he hasn't done anything.
Pick a random signature from http://winn.com/bs/signatures.html
Remember the movie Wargames? That came out in 1980, well before the Internet as we know it came to be. I believe that's the kind of hacking Katz was referring to.
---
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
I think one of the things Bush could do to overcome the lack of a popular mandate would be to get people all worked up over knee-jerk issues such as online pornography, hacking and copyright issues.
This worked well for McCarthy and Nixon. And even Dubya's dad with the Gulf war. Give people something to hate and they'll forgive your weaknesses.
I don't trust the bastard. Especially since his first actions as president have basically been a slap in the face to the moderates who got him elected.
Jon Sullivan
Jon Sullivan
www.jonsullivan.com
From the article:
Ed Meese's Justice Department conducted an infamous series of raids on suspected hackers while repeatedly characterizing the Net as a haven for perverts and thieves.
How was this worse than Janet Reno's Justice department cracking down on suspected DoS kiddees implementing carnivore, raiding the home of a hacker in a foriegn country (the deCSS author) subjegating free speech to the financial intrests of the big media conglomerates, and characterizing the internet as a haven for vandals, perverts, and kids who shoot up schools?
0 1 - just my two bits
But seriously, Bush has given an impression of political whore, who is willing to be ignorant enough just for the sake of winning.
Good bye, USA. You are not a super-nation anymore!
He should push for repeal of DMCA, have DoJ argue that it's unconstitutional. Why not? Hollywood and the record industry hate him and give lots of money to the Democrats. He could split off some civil libertarians and cut down on the revenue stream for the Democrats all at once.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
Hmm, I wonder whom Katz didn't vote for?
I didn't vote for either of the majors and don't expect much of a difference in the post-Clinton era. I don't see much civil liberty protection coming from either of the majors. I expect things will get worse with the anti-abortion nonsense though.
The one area of the Net that I expect the old guard politicians to embrace is online fundraising. Didn't John McCain raise US$500K in one day over the Net? Expect any new limitations to Net freedom to exclude online fundraising.
Bet on the fact that politicians will stop seeing the Net as a threat if it ever becomes a major source of campaign revenue.
As for the top people having had no contact with the net, that's mostly a function of their age. Many of the CEO-level people today came up in an environment where it was beneath them to even know how to type (I know of one 55-year-old guy who just assumed management of an organization, and his first act was to buy a dictating machine because he can't type and secretaries these days don't know shorthand). Those people are retiring now and dying out. Keep in mind that the lower-level folks, down where the policy recommendations come from, tend to be younger and will be much more familiar with the net.
hey calm down dude, Bush might sue you for corrupting the fragile little minds of innocent slahdotters. He probably sees you as a cult leader or something.
The trial against microsoft will go on forever and nothing will happen! (Kind of like it did under Clinton.) But Bush will be evil and conservative and nasty because of it! One thing is certain: under Bush, corporations will often make money, undermining the open source model through their existence.
How long until we no longer enjoy the freedoms we have come to take for granted, like the right to read crappy leftist propaganda from Jon Katz? Nobody knows....
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
Why is it everytime we hear of a game that is excessivly violent or is the cornerstone of the 3d gaming community (strictly in government and press related issues) they mention Doom? I mean really has nobody played Quake? If your going to use Doom as an example then you might as well use Wolfenstein 3d as an example. Lets get into the 21st century here. I mean you don't use 286 computers to give an example of todays processing power Anyhow that just pisses me off. As for this bush administration - 2 words - WE'RE FUCKED
This comment is NOT offtopic!
Juvenile, yes.
Unintelligent? Definitely.
Without any redeeming social value? Absolutely.
Which makes it completely appropriate for a Jon Katz article!
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
Today is the day that I erase Slashdot from my bookmarks.
Out of order? Fuck! Even in the future nothing works! - Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis) "Spaceballs"
Although his views on MS scare me, don't forget what administration was in power when DMCA was created. give him a chance. don't hang him until he puts his own head in the noose.
No. Really I do. Saw some sound bite on the news about how he's planning to rescind paying for other countries' healthcare if they have legal abortions.
Glad to know that in a country where church and state are supposedly divorced, someone who the majority (plurality?) of the country didn't vote for is free to enforce his myopic morals on other countries. Doubly glad knowing that it's OK for his mistresses to have abortions, just not other people's actual wives.
Laws on hacking are inexplicably awful (if i steal from a supermarket, am i not allowed in supermarket or anywhere that has foodstuffs in it for years afterwords i've repaid my debt to society with prison time?) and I really hope that he just makes them worse.
I'm just really hoping that he vomits up enough moral atrocities in his 4 years that people think twice before voting for one of the Big Two parties again. Bush could be the best thing that ever happened to this country.
I love that richkid cokewhore chimptwin bumbling mongoloid.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
This story from CNN.com is worth noting. Briefly, it mentions how very rich most of Bush's nominees are (even more so then I thought) and how this is likely to create more apathy among lower income people who feel that the government is filled with wealthy politicions who don't care about them.
Because the technology is being aligned to Dubya's morals. Remember, just because he was elected, that doesn't mean we're all protestant Christians who take the bible as literal truth.
0 1 - just my two bits
- - No new taxes on internet sales. Sound familiar?
and finally...- Microsoft will still be one company in 4 years time. One big, bloated, government contracting company.
- More coverage of the Presidential Daughters (cha-ching!)
- Not a chance in hell that hemp will be legalized. Got Nader?
- Roe v. Wade -- not gonna touch it with a 10-gallon hat.
- - A steady increase will be seen in sales of $3 crack.
--G BarrSapere Aude - Homer
Note that this says much less about tech and freedoms as it is an expression of Jon's political denomination. Perhaps, if the "Inventor of Internet" won the elections, a similar article would appear.
The above mentioned "Bad news" would be on our plate no matter which party would win. Some if them are going to happen, some not.
How can anyobdy seriously challenge moralism as such, while criticizing comming morals and substitutes his own moralism about liberties or morality of unbroken Microsoft? A bit contradictory.
For instance, I would wish for the net censoware at the school. If my kid wants to see some porn, let him do it at home, so that I can watch with him.
Read John Ashcroft's statements on privacy, security and encryption. Despite the issues the mainstream media is pushing on us, Ashcroft has some very interesting viewpoints on privacy and security that have yet to be reported here. You might be surprised,(I was) especially coming from the most likely, future chief law enforcement person in the nation.
:)
(Not sure, but I don't think Katz voted for Bush in 2000. Just a hunch.)
"The new regime may signal a new era by walking away from the antitrust victory the Justice Department won against Microsoft last year"
m l
Says Katz.
To quote a cnet article "Given the political and practical realities, the new administration is not going to tamper with the case in the short term," said Bill Kovacic, a professor at the George Washington University Law School."
I actually used to like Katz. I thought some of his Columbine-era stuff was pretty brilliant. But now he's just a scare-monger. He knows what scares geeks, and yells "fire" with no facts backing him up. Everything I've heard and read says that GW Bush does not particularly think MS should be broken up, but doesn't want to interfere with an issue that really isn't his deal. Katz comes in, thinks to himself, "Bush is a conservative, conservatives are pro-business. Dubya must be on the phone right now putting a stop the the Microsoft trial". It's just bad reporting. There are so many things GW has actually done and said for us to rag about. Don't make up stuff.
Here is the article I quoted above:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4288788.ht
-B
The scariest thing about Bush being elected is his proposal that he create a "Office of Faith Based Services". In my mind that kind of equates to an officially sanctioned religious entity.
The question this brings to mind is, when you tie the religious nature of Bush (either of them) and you realize that the Bushes see religion only a Christianity (everything else is a cult, how was that "A real American believes in God" or some such non-sense) with the idea that technology is an evil, terrible curse that we must protect our children from and fight at all costs, what exactly will the outcome be?
I see the possibility that this "Faith Based Services" office (or the United States Christianity Office) will be aligned with Bush's anti-technology propoganda and technologies that people enjoy will slowly be outlawed and gone after by the USCO (previously mentioned) police forces (let's face it, any office of power eventually gets some sort of police/security team). Now, when it hurts a company that is Bush friendly, they will probably be pulled back, but when it pisses off the common people (that are evil scum for even thinking of technology) I really doubt that Bush would lift his finger to stop the um, persecution (whoah! I mean arrests of these criminal elements) of these people (namely people like us slashdotters).
I don't know, I thought from the start that Bush Jr is just stupid enough to fuck the country into a bloody oblivion, and the more I hear of his "cabinet" choices, the more scary it seems. If this faith based services garbage goes through I just sort of see it quickly evolving into a KGB'esque police force with the ultimate authority to destroy the evil technology (like take people's laptops/computers and destroy their ability to use the Internet, or as they will put it, the Evil Diseased Hive of Villiany).
Bush is a wacko. And it seems we are about to find out just how much power the office of president really does grant. Bush will do everything he can to exploit that power for the "greater good" (or for better ways to make more people criminals).
Just out of curiosity, if we keep finding new things to make illegal (as I'm sure certain forms of Internet entertainment soon will be) and we make nearly everyone a criminal in the eyes of our precious government, isn't there a point where they can't possibly have the manpower to take out all of us evil scumbags that are trying to "disrupt" things by using technology (oh the horror!)? Just a thought.
I know the above seems like an extermist/alarmist position, but something tells me that Bush is one completely wacked dofus. He's got some major problems (mental), and it's only a matter of time before he goes completely off the deep end and takes the country with him. I'm no fan of Gore, but I would have rather seen him in power than George "dumb as I wanna be" W. Bush. But, we've made our bed, now all we can do is sit back and see what creeps out from under the blankets.
------------
Any of you see this interview that George had with Barbara Walters the night before George was sworn in? When asked directly if Russia was an enemy or friend, George said, "I don't know, I hope they're a friend." He hopes? Well doesn't he know?
When asked about the Cuba and Iraq situations he said for both "We'll keep the pressure on that situation." What does that mean? What kind of pressure?
If the above examples are any indication, the Net might survive the Bush administration out of ignorance!
Check out Althea for a stable IMAP email client for X. Now with SSL!
Given the penchant Bush has shown for campaigning (Back in Texas he spent the majority of his day out pressing the flesh rather than working) and his conservative bent I predict more CDA (Communications Decency Act) style legislation. Such legslation has the advantage of appealing to conservative groups and rallying people around simple concepts by appearing to solve complex problems with simple homolies (kiddie porn bad, bible good).
The fact that such legislation is terrible both in the short term and the long term is unimportant. If Bush is anything like his father the goal of his domestic agenda will be the maintenance of popularity more than anything else. If the legislation is struck down for being unconsititutional, who cares. The purpose of it is to maike points.
This is, perhaps an overly simply view but given Bush's past activities and recent ones (Sudden stoppage of all Federal Aid that may have something to do with Abortion) That appears to be the tack he will take with technology and free speech issues.
My prediction is that Bush will:
Irvu.
after all, IBM and AMD are two very powerful constituents in his state, and Orrin Hatch is quite a bit more powerful now.
it's amazing how obsessed right wing conservative men are with women's vaginas. well, not that amazing, i guess, when all things are considered.
i'm a little in favor of school vouchers...i actually think private schools could do a better job. well, not better than this high school. I definately would demand any voucher program force all teachers be CBEST certified (or some other reasonable standard), and that the school have some type of certification as well.
I'd hate to see tax dollars getting funneled off to a bunch of religious schools.
Err, my prediction is : more interference in our private lives, more taxes (they'll probably raise a bunch of fees to compensate for tax cuts, or some other revenue enhancing scheme, so we pay more overall). There will be another huge feed by right wingers in either the insurance or banking industries. Once again, the DOJ will be told to "look the other way" while Bush's cronies rob us blind.
But no sex scandals.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Many companies, consisting of people with bright ideas, sound business strategies, and clever products, were buried by Microsoft in such a rutheless fashion that Justice was forced, against their will seemingly, to take action.
It's not just about M$ being a monopoly, it's about blatant abuse of the rules of fair business. You can be as cynical as you want and say that every big company operates this way, but there's a huge difference between competing vigorously and taking out your competitors in a dark alleyway.
Microsoft has been hit hard by the Justice Department activity. It has taken their top people's attention away from important tasks, it has changed the public's opinion of them (which makes them less likely to blithely believe all claims of M$ technical superiority), and perhaps more importantly, it has sent the signal that illegal business practices will get you in serious hot water.
Come on, do you really think that Microsoft is just some company that makes software? They're a huge force in the business world, and for better or for worse, many many smaller businesses emulate their practices. We need to show all those other businesses that acting as Microsoft has is not something to be admired and repeated.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Jon, as always, please provide some verification for these wild, inflamatory statements you make.
I had a feeling you were going to say that.
Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
It becomes obvious from that you are unwilling to give Bush a chance. He has been in office 3 days, and you are already perdicting doom and gloom, even your good points are worded in such a way as to cast doupt on how good they are.
Bush has officially been in office for 3 days. It takes longer then that for it to become clear what he is really about. There will be "bad" things that he does, and "good" things. Of course there is always anouther side, and so I might like what you dislike and vis-versa.
I remember quite clearly all the doom the right wing spread about Clinton in office. Well, it didn't happen like that. Mind you to the right wingers things should be better today (by their definition, which isn't just christian fundamentalist) if their guy was in charge.
Clinton was one of the few democrats who supported NAFTA, a complete surprize to the right wing that supported NAFTA - they once thought of Clinton as too left wing to support it, much less be a leader in getting it adopted.
Clinton also raised taxes (in 1993 if I remember right), which was perdicted by the right wingers with much doom and gloom. There are several implications of a tax cut, some affect the ecconomy (which has done well), and some just a philosophy of what goverment should do. Perdicted by the right wingers with much doom and gloom.
Both sides are claiming a balanced budget under the Clinton years, with many giving credit to rebublicans having congress - gridlock making it difficult to spend more money as each side has their own ideas of where to spend it. (Never mind that if you take the socal security ficasco out there isn't a balanced budget)
Clinton signed the Communications Decency act, the DMCA, and several others. Who would have thought a democrat would restrict freedom like that?
At the very least this proves that polititions are not always friendly to their side. Most likely Bush will not be anything close to the worst president in history. He probably won't be impeached. I will gaurentiee that he will never be considered the best or worst president. (I know people who like Nixon despite that scandol, Slient Cal has his fans, FDR, Lincon, and all Washington have critics - those are the obvious canidates for worst/best, and there is no concensious)
So give the guy a chance. Support him when he is right (and he will be). Be an opponant when he is wrong (and he will be). Remember there are two sides of every issue, try to see the other side even if you disagree. Keep the discussion civil.
Holiday season is gone but the holiday mood seems to continue, because the editors out there were too lazy to edit and make the same info concise. It was too long, maybe someone got carried away with the style. Well if the guy can be lazy we aare are not far behind.
There's always sufficient, but not always at the right place nor for the right folks.
What amuses me most is that even fore-knowing these issues, Bush still got his share of votes EVEN ON SLASHDOT POLL!. Now, don't blame me. I was wishing hard it had been the other way. (BTW, I am among the 24% of non US citizens)
-><- no
1) He has stated numerous times that he trusts people. I think this makes a big difference in his beliefs on what the governent should and should not be involved in.
2) He knows one of the government's primary jobs is to provide defense for the nation. I am extraordinarily pleased that Bush has vowed to increase spending on the military. Yes, it will mean less social programs at home, but I'd rather have fewer social programs than having China, North Korea, or any other sufficiently armed country knocking on our door with nukes because they think they can beat on us without repercussions. Besides, the fewer money the feds have to spend on running people's lives in social programs (like Social Security), the more individual freedoms we are able to have.
3) Although I disagree with some of his agenda's, he is more trustworthy to do what he says. Gore reversed his opinions on things so many times it was beginning to make me sick to my stomach.
This is all meant to say that while I do not think that Bush was the best candidate for the Presidency (especially with respect to individual freedoms and the internet in particular), I do think he was the best choice for the nation as a whole. I'm sure their will be people that mod me down for my "pro-Bush" stance, but it's important to realize that you cannot have your cake and eat it to - so to speak. We all have to make compromises, and unfortunately, I chose the compromise that could potentially limit some of my freedoms in exchange for a stronger country overall. I think this is important because I am not voting out of selfishness for what I want, but rather what I thought would be best for *everyone*.
I don't like Republicans any more than Democrats, but I'm sick of the common stigmas presented here. Pro-Democrats people like to talk about how the Republicans "ignore the issues," but never talk about how the Democrats spend a crapload of money on programs that do didley. And Democrats like to give Clinton credit, yet a simple glance at the balance sheets will tell you when and why the "recovery" started (happened in mid-1994 -- wonder why? ;-).
I'm a voter registered "no party." And for good reasons. I vote mainly Libertarian, occassionally Republican, rarely Democrat. Let's face it, the federal government should not only stay out of most affairs, they can do little to affect them! I argue this against both sides, be it Republicans on "family values" or Democrats on "taxing the rich." Both are dead wrong.
Most Amercians live with the following ignorances that simple do NOT exist:
And there are many others. If you see things "my way"(TM), please respond and let it be known that you are sick of the stigmas of this whole Democrat v. Republican world.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
My guess is that if Bush and company try anything stupid, they're going to get smacked in the face b harsh reality, as will many other people.
Censorship? Good luck enforcing it, and you may just annoy some campaign contributors. Also, prepare for the Court Cases From Hell.
Moral Values? Why not stick a sign on your back reading "please investigate my past and humiliate me?" This is especially bad coming from a president with a background that includes alchohol and possible drug use and whose victory is in doubt.
Net Regulation? The Corporate Republic wants their money, and they won't like changes that affect that. Tech regulation is an ugly minefield.
Enforcement? Good luck - let's see people handle the complex logistical nightmare of the internet. Where's the money going to come from in the age where people are proposing tax cuts.
Finally, there's simply the backfire effect - anyone that gets pious and self-rigtheous ends up creating their own opposition. Twenty years ago, no one would suggest ending the drug war, but now I hear it in regular conversation.
Imagine such a political backfire happening in internet time . . .
Me, I expect some self-rigtheous posturing, some dumb new laws few people can enforce, and a lot of pussyfooting to avoid annoying people.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Is anyone else even slightly worried that Dubya will reverse the executive order legalizing export of encryption software from the United States? Crypto liberalization has been a great thing; I hate to see it taken away.
I think it's great that Jon can admit to this. Wait... wrong article. I guess Jon is still not smart enough to realize he doesn't know it all.
IHBT
The bad news: Digital civil liberties will be a hot political issue online. The social conservatives returning to power are highly selective about what sort of free speech stays free. Until the Reagan years, classic conservatives equated free speech with patriotism. But in the 80's, conservatism fused with religious and other moralistic ideologies. They absolutely dread the notion of a free and open Net, for all of the obvious reasons -- it's a dogma killer.
Bush I : Gore 0
take a triptonica to subthunk
I wonder what would've happened to technology if Nader had won the election instead... =\
Raccoo ]8)Q;
Here is my challenge. I am a christian, supporting some of the views of Bush. However, I am not perfect. I do things that some may view as immoral, or not perfect, or a whole host of other things (my girlfriend finds it disgusting that I am hacking a Billy Bass). But since when does my immorality become a part of public policy? I may not agree with abortion, but does that mean we should cut off funding for a group that does? I don't think so, especially if they might be doing valuable research to help those in distress.
Privacy is, of course, a genuine concern of mine. Being that this is the U.S., and that we are a free, democratic society, we have to accept the fact that we can catch 'em all. How many times have you been passed by someone doing 90 mph on the freeway, and wondered where the nearest police officer was at? Does that mean that because the police can not be everywhere, we should track everyone and automatically write them a ticket? How many times have you broken the law? Maybe it was speeding, maybe it was theft (accendantely taking a pen), maybe it was, heaven forbid, running two copies of NT at one time with only one license, or making a PEREFECTLY LEGAL COPY of your music that you own for your pleasure.
America is the great country, the one I pride myself to live in and be a part of. I love being a part of the technological revelution. In fact, I work as the webmaster for one of the largest counties in Florida. I see the stupidity (14 servers to run one web site that sees maybe 15,000 hits a day), the waste, the policies and decisions based on spur-of-the moment ideas, or because it is what they know. And while I can accept that to some degree, and realize that it will be there, it does not mean that I want that from our country's leader.
My immorality, my religion, and my programming are just that, mine. It is no one's business if I choose to engage in an activity that, while may be 'illegal', I find acceptable. Laws were designed to be challenged, that is the point of the judicial system. Instead of worrying about what kids are seeing, lets focus on the parents. Why limit those that are lucky to have internet access, such as people using it at a public library, to seeing the predetermined sites that are deemed 'moral' and 'acceptable'? Because I can afford 39.95 a month, does that give me more rights than someone who prefers the surroundings of a public area, such as a library? Not in this country, I think. Right?
Sorry for the ramble, but I am so sick of being told what is acceptable, what is right, what is moral. I am a web designer and programmer, and I get enough of that from Netscape and Microsoft. I don't want to deal with that in every aspect of my life. Just don't stay quiet, don't sit idlely by and watch this unravel. Be active, be strong, and be heard. Stand by your beliefs, and by your actions. I am proud to be a /. member for those very reasons. Let's keep this ours, and not a predetermined state of bliss.
Random Musings
-
-Be a man. Insult me without using an AC.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
After all, the victim is dead, he's not comming back, the trial is just a clumsy and dangerous artificial attempt at "making things right." Oh wait! That's right, we enforce the law to stop them from doing it again. Sheesh, hang your flamebait head in shame.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Crusaders like Bush-buddy William Bennett and Vice-President Cheney have long and loudly argued that the Net is rife with pornography and violent imagery,
And how is this false? About the only dot coms making any money are the ones selling porn. Why would anyone looking at the situation from the outside think anything different that what the Bush clan think? Hell, why would anyone from the inside think anything different?
Look for the FBI to be given broader authority to track dangerous and illegal activities online and creater a "safer" environment in which businesses can operate.
And how is tracking dangerous and illegal activities a disaster? If you mean that the FBI will be given leave to offend civil liberties, then say so. I personally think the FBI will be called out by civil liberty groups when they break the law.
Bush's education reforms, both in Texas, and as outlined in Washington this week, centered on literary and standardized testing and accountability. They don't deal with technology, perhaps more educationally significant in the long run.
Jon, are you stupid. How is giving a kid a computer more important than make damn sure that he can read. Yeah, that is just what we need; more kids who think they are journalist because they can use a spelling and grammar checker.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Agreed.
Open Source Software (OSS) -- you don't have to switch entirely over the Linux. Just try out various OSS programs for Windows -- keep your data out of proprietary application hands.
I'm sick of even "officiers" in my local LUGs, with users of 3+ years still running MS IE and Office (at meetings for God's sake!). God, could they please try StarOffice, or even the MS-IE-like KMelon browser? And there are many other application ports to Windows as well.
I write books and technical documentation just fine with LyX, which I switched to Word 97, from Word 95 and lost half my technical report styles. I had had enough of putting my data at risk with proprietary software. Never again, never again.
The people bitching the loudest are "so-called Linux advocates," who after years of running Linux for some niche purposes, haven't really spent a good 3 months using it as a serious desktop. They keep saying it is "not ready." I say BS! Get serious! Quit bitching.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
Come on; Bush Sr. was president for 4 years relatively early in the 'PC boom.' Clinton was president for 8 years when practically every teenager from a moderately wealthy family (read: time on his hands) had a computer with net access. Of course Clinton's administration busted more hackers than Bush Sr.'s; there were a lot more hackers to bust.
1) Massive migration of asylum-seeking US citizens to Cuba ? 2) Time to start the Foundation, as Asimov saw it. Don't need to go light years away. Just put it in Europe were we still have, umm, political responsibility. Wait for the collapse of American civilization, then restart. One large CVS should do.
Being a libertarian, I fear that the Bush administration will enforce restrictions, but Ashcroft seems to be a big advocate of privacy, and this is good for me. And after all, I live in Italy, so I care less than the rest of you. :)
Also, as one distant from and critical of the Major Media Machines, he may be less eager to inflict/enforce onerous copyright laws in an overzealous manner.
BTW, I didn't vote for Bush either. There is sometimes good in the positions of folks I don't generally support, and often bad in the ones I do.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Meanwhile utility rates soar and pensioners and other stockholders in PG&E are screwed out of dividends they rely on for income, Enron profits are up. This may seem isolated to California, but power is going to be a growing issue as natural gas prices climb.
"It's the economy, Stupid" Bushes apparent lack of interest in these matters, which will impact the economy, the welfare of the people, etc.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
In any case, I can't see how a Bush administration would be any worse for tech policy than the Clinton administration, which decided right away (in 1993) that criminal copyright infringement needed no profit motive, beginning the steady stream of fair use erosion since; or any worse than the administration of an Al Gore who has spoken at the Microsoft campus three times since 1996, hailing them as "great innovators" and as deserving champions of the new economy. (http://www.vote-smart.org for more.) Furthermore, "pro-business" necessarily means "anti-monopoly", and Ashcroft spoke out against Microsoft when he was on hte Senate Judiciary Committee.
I'm not saying that there's a lot to like about Bush (or Ashcroft). But blaming bad tech law on him -- or on any president -- is hiding your head in the sand and missing the point. Don't bitch about the president -- he is (with a few historical exceptions) little more than a cheerleader for the nation. Write your representatives, since THEY MAKE THE LAW. If you're in academia, make sure to list all of the initials after your name -- they might just make a difference. People need to know that if they support UCITA, then they won't get your vote.
You also need to educate others; if just the technoliterati complain, that's too small a fraction of the electorate to make a dent. We need to educate the general public to these issues to insure that Joe Six-Pack knows that shrink-wrapped software manufacturers may as well be "licensing" him a shrink-wrapped, steaming plate of fecal matter, to ensure that Joe knows that an electronic bnook is artificially, legally different from a dead-trees book. When Joe and all his friend write outraged letters, maybe your representation will think twice about being bought by media and software lobbies.
~wog
Without thinking too hard about it, I think copyright protection will become a hotter issue. Clinton/Gore was a friend to copyright protectionists, but Bush will be even a better buddy. At some point, the two sides will square off, and civil disobedience will be the order of the day. The question is whether Bush will pursue those evil copyright protection violators as criminals, or just let the media sic their lawyers on them.
Hey. Keep this in mind: HE WAS NOT ELECTED. All electoral college bullshit aside, more people voted for Gore.
TheNewWazoo
It's not old!
To me, one of the metrics of political ideology in a America (and perhaps the most important one) is the Left/Right one. Of the many issues that seperate the two, one large, overriding issue is how power and morality are controlled.
Overall, the Left moves in the direction of a lot of personal Liberty in the areas of Morality, but a lot of centralized power/money in the government. The Right, of course, moves in the direction of a lot of centralized control of the nation's Morality in the government, and a lot of personal freedom/liberty/power, thus reducing that of the government. Please don't argue this with me unless you are sure you know what you're talking about, I've researched extensively without listnening to anyone's propoganda.
My personal political ideology of choice is Libertarian. The gist of that view is that this country is founded upon the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" so long as you don't infringe on the same rights of another person. I feel that the Constitution was designed to protect these ideals. I feel that in respect to our current state, the Libertarian view would want us to reduce laws against drugs, gun ownership, crypto use, and many others - as wells get rid of the IRS and try to find some sane way for the reduced government to get the money it needs.
However, the Libertarian Party hs never produced a candidate I would call anything but ridiculuous, and the Republican party is far closer to my ideals than the Democrats, so I vote for them (in general... I will always vote against a complete loser, regardless of party).
I feel that it is vitally important that if we want our Hacker ways to get out to the world, we have to stop the concentration of power and money in the government. We also need to stop the execessive restrictions on our freedoms.
The reason that those in the Right direction of politics has made many bad decisions for the techies of world is because the individual people in power are ignorant of our thoughts. I fully believe that their ideology is the one we can benefit from the most... but they are still stuck in an old world. They'll come around and see what we have in common with them in time. If you leave the Left in power, they _will_ take your freedom to program, they will take your freedom to encrypt, and they will turn us into the world's newest socialist/fascist country if given enough rope to hang us with.
I believe too much of our community has been blinded by a Left that has been in power and infiltrating media organizations. CNN is their lapdog. Even if you are of Left ideology and don't much care, be realistic and realize that fact.
Please don't respond just to flame me, or to start some political science debate. This is my opinion, and I think I'm in the minority enough here that I can make a good one-sided rant without providing the other side's view - it has been expressed enough.
11*43+456^2
(And, just for the sake of argument,) I think Ashcroft probably does have an opinion on the Microsoft case; it's Bush who doesn't have a clue. :)
Bush's administration probably will drop the case against Microsoft, but he will do it because he doesn't care about anyone but the big businesses that bankrolled his election.
It may be true that Microsoft will lose it's dominance because of market forces anyway, but the fact that Bush will drop the case should scare us because he is disappointed that Gates might lose a few billion dollars; if that happens to many big businesses, who will pay for Bush's reelection campaign?
Hum I think he is not even smart enough to be evil. Being evil requires a minimum of intelligence. Bush is probably not evil, but his ignorance and stupidy will cause great evil (and let evil people like Ashcroft do their dirty work).
Anyone remember the movie "Los Angeles 2019" from John Carpenter ? A biggot (obviously republican) president has taken over America, suppresed civil liberties and imposed an heavy religious control over the country... Bush & Ashcroft are a bit early but will nicely make this scenario possible.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
The 'Net isn't ALL good. Many of those "doctors and lawyers" who would like to "curb" advice that used to "come from them at considerable cost" are actually doing a public service. I can't even count how many times I've heard from my father, a doctor, about how a cancer patient comes in all full of hope because of this "wonderful new treatment" they read about on the internet, which was actually written by a medtech at a small hospital hoping to get his name in the news and possibly make a quick buck. 90% of the people in the medical business are in it to help people, not to scam them. If accurate medical information was being spread over the internet, I know many doctors who would welcome it with open arms. It's the information that is harmful that must be attacked.
I boldly predict that nothing significant will change in the next four years from what it has been like in the last eight in the US. The presidential race was basically a tie and the president was untimately picked by judges and lawyers. Congress and the senate are just as divided. No matter who they picked for president, in such a close race there are valid arguments on BOTH sides questioning the validity of the election.
Because of the dead heat in government and questions of the legitimacy of the presidency, if Bush II does anything dramatic either way it will spell crisis. For at least two years he will tread lightly and swing wherever the polls say public opinion is going and hope that in 2002 more Republicans will be voted in. Until then (at the very least), things will idle on in the same directionless manner as they always have. I don't agree with Nader on everything, but he's right that Democrat or Republican, there is absolutely nothing different that matters between the two.
I personally think that such a close government will be good for the US--it will be harder for them to accomplish anything and the less the government does the better. The only thing that will change is the type of corporate whoring that will occur--the Clinton pandered to big recording and motion picture studios with the DMCA and looked the other way with the AOL-Time-Warner deal despite their hard-line stance against Microsoft. Bush is likely to be influenced by oil and heavy industry.
This will continue beyond four years (whether Bush is there or not) if Americans remain apathetic and ignorant of politics. As for Katz's assertion that Bush will bring politics and morality into the scientific realm, that is precisely how his own opinion is formed. Whether or not I share Bush's viewpoint, it is vitally important that science and technology be guided by morality. Unfortunately it has been under political influence for as long as I can remember already.
That pretty much sums up the way Gore dealt with every issue. By the time this election came around, many people had had enough of his sorry ass. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why he lost the election (and yes, he did lose -- the ongoing press/student recounts in Florida have not given him the victory everyone thought he had).
Free Hans!
Even if DoJ withdraws from the suit, there are still 20+ states in it. Just because the feds withdraw doesn't mean they will. And I doubt they will. Not without being hugely bought off by the fed govt.
Best Slashdot Co
why would a child be looking at porn in school? how is he gonna jerk off when there's a librarian in the midst? these stupid assumptions that children will use the internet connection at school for such activities are preposterous! are the faculty really so inadequate at monitoring children that they need software to help them?
Governments SHOULD be run by boring, rich old men. Perhaps the apathy felt by the lower income folks will inspire them to stop waiting for the next miracle hand-out and get on with their lives. Is it so much better to have an Office full of Beautiful People dazzling them with empty promises of miraculous hand-outs in return for their votes?
**>>BELCH
quite an alegation you make there. where'd you hear that, on the drudge report?
Jon, while I know you're pretty gloomy about the prospects of 'net freedom under Bush, I think you're forgetting two things.
First, the ultimate protector of free speech (the first principle of 'net freedom) is the Supreme Court. Even if Congress passes stupid laws abridging freedom, the Supreme Court can strike them down.
Second, Bush has stated that he will appoint justices who take a strict, constructionist view of the Constitution. In other words, freedom of speech means freedom of speech. None of this "except when it might offend people" crap...
The Constitution and a Supreme Court willing to enforce it are all the 'net really needs.
They seemed to be grasping more than implications 'round the West Wing
"You mean I can get pictures of Britney Spears nekkid? That there Inter-web-thingy is great!"
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
We still have a very long time to wait until those who grew up with the internet to come into power. Its slowly happening with the senator from seatle who made her money in the internet. Until it becomes possible for more than one or two companies to make money from the internet, there will be very few people who pay attention to the needs of the every day user.
"The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of the next" - Helen Keller
[Rapidly flowing off-topic...]
I am a Linux and Solaris user. I run two Linux boxen, a Sun, and one Windows machine at home. Why? Because you use the right tool for the job.
I won't run StarOffice, because it sucks. Granted, it works, but if I want to use an application with pretensions of being a window manager, I'll just use Windows, thanks. If I want to run a game, I don't care that it's ported to Linux at the moment. It runs fine on the winblows box that's sitting next to my Linux machine, and I don't have to wait three months. And yes, I have used StarOffice, I'm writing this in Mozilla, and I do use Linux as my primary desktop.
It doesn't make Linux any less useful or l33t (heh) to admit that Windows is better at some things. You can use a screwdriver to pound in nails, but doesn't a hammer work better?
Killing sacred cows since 1975
-30-
Call me a non-realist in a state of bliss, but I just don't see something like that happening. If not just because the world of technology is a lot different now then it was a decade ago when a different Bush was president, then most certainly because technology as a whole is embedded in our culture, our lifestyle, and our commerce.
________
wroooooooooong.
IBM settled with the government, and had to accept severe resrictions on their behavior (which was even worse than MS').
Sun, SGI, Microsoft and Apple would not have existed without that case.
Microsoft has refused to settle, even though the evidence is overwhelming.
IBM is doing fine today, and there is a lot of choice.
The last part of your post is also wrong...you imply the population is responsible for monopolies, which is backwards. The population can't opt out of a monopoly if there is no choice.
Example : if many employers force employees to log in from home, as part of their job, and have an exchange server, the choices are : use MS at work and home or starve. And that, my friend, is exactly what Bill Gates wants, and what the government must stop.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Yes, you're bang-on here.
If everyone would read the Constitution and learn a little economics, the world would be a much better place...
"Hear Hear" - you are correct. Democrats tend to want to limit our economic freedoms, and Republicans tend to want to limit the social ones. And it stumps me as to why people could lean either one of these two ways! Both are the first step in totalitarianism - the paths are different but they meet at the extremes. The fact that both parties have some sort of power helps to keep our government from going off the deep end, but if you value freedom at all Libertarian is the way to go. (At least Republican, because I tend to believe that economic freedom is more basic and required for social freedom).
A pilot, in those days, was the only unfettered and entirely independent human being that lived in the earth.-Mark Twain
Under Clinton/Gore, most techies thought they could achieve something, so they waited. Under Bush/Cheney, they will reroute around the damage, do cloning and genetic research in the UK, France, and other countries, and hackers will take no quarter.
The great Privacy Wars will start, as the idealistic Freemen start their CyberJihad against the Old Fogies of the Cheneyites, resulting in the sidelining of politics as a useful social class and the resurgance of Americans as those who fight against all odds for Freedom.
At first betrayed by the CipherMole Jon of the Katz, who shall rival Benedict Arnold in his duplicity when he takes a job as staff tech policy writer for the Bush/Cheney White House, the movement shall reorganize around a truer and cleaner Open Source Revolutionary Model and ultimately triumph.
Don't compile until you see the bytes of their i++ statements!
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Normally I like Katz articles. However, in this case he seems to have the same failing that many other posters here have - that because you understand technology, you have its best interests at heart.
He kind of struggles around this issue, noting that under Clinton we got the DMCA - "but at least they understood techology!" He cries. So what? Gore FULLY supported the Clipper chip (which Katz shrugs off as being obviosuly unconstitutional, so it didn't even matter that it was supported), do you think our personal privacy would have been in better shape under a Gore administration who knew technically how to take away our rights, of under a Bush administration who may not quite understand how best to keep them?
Bush has always been a strong advocate for personal privacy, and I expect that to continue. Perhaps corperations might have an easier time overall (though I'm not yet sure that's true) but at least there might be tougher laws about companies storing data about us.
Of course, I really wish Brown would have won but given the options, we have the next best thing to ensure some degree of electronic rights and privacy.
Also - one last dig. Look at this quote from the article:
They don't deal with technology, perhaps more educationally significant [than literacy] in the long run.
Now I'm a huge fan of technology in schools and education. But even I will admit that it's probably better that kids understand what all those squiggly lines are on the screen before they learn how to flash-update a bios.
Sure, we might see more huffing about "morality" on the internet - but what has that really done before? Also remember that we have a very balanced congress and house now, so any truly wacky proposials are unlikley to go anywhere.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Should you Vote?
The Last Days of Politics
Gee, Jon, why the sudden change to a heavy pro-Gore choice? Chances are he'd do much of this same stuff!
> Why the hell should I pay their abortions? I am not scared of their babies!
Take the good with the bad. I've pioneered a new cure for cancer that the FDA won't approve for some reason: cutting the heads off of cancer patients sure solves their cancer problem, but it causes a rash of new ones.
If you think the decision (if it's true...) to withold funding from other nations' healthcare is based on anything other than a moral "mandate", you're deluding yourself. I don't give a fuck if I disagree with the morals of another country. I'd sure as shit rather see them do all sorts of GODLESS things and have healthy babies than watch the piles of the dead mount. That our own country could use the extra health aid as badly as others whether or not anyone else wants to admit it or not is besides the point; it's nice to see some money actually helping people other than giant corporations.
Or am I missing something here? Can you can come up with a plausible reason (other than enforcement of personal beliefs on others) why the "less government"'s head is wasting more of my tax money re-researching RU-486 when the FDA's studies as well as decades of use in Europe has already shown its initial findings to be on the money? (cprm doesn't outlaw copyright, but it sure does seem to infringe on my rights...)
Anti-abortion, pro-execution.
God I love you, Bush.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
He talks about being a uniter. Traditionally the way politicans did this was to create something that distracted people away from politics and got them arguing over something else.
Thatcher did this in Britan by blowing a small diplomatic incident in the Falklands into a war. Before this she was deemed to be one of the worst prime ministers Britan had, and was about to lose an election so bad, the liberals would probably have been the second party.
I see this in Bush's missile shield plan. Who exactly is he trying to shield America from? USSR is split up; most of those countries don't have the money to keep thier people fed never mind developing and upkeeping ICBMs. China needs the US to keep money going into the country. It's a ploy to distract people from the more thorny issues.
Bush may well prove to be the bait and switch president.
...you missed the mark here:
:^)
IBM bought by Microsoft for there OS/2 technology - Balmer says "Maybe Bill was right after all!" - Bush says "OK!" - Funny, but very unlikely.
In 2000 Micro$oft's Revenue was only $23B (Income=$9B), while IBM's Revenue in 2000 was $88B. I suggest the following, possibly as funny, certainly more possible...bear in mind I didn't say likely, scenerio...
IBM buys Microsoft and halts all shipments of Windows to Dell and Gateway. IBM becomes the #1 PC manufacturer and supplier. The justice department thanks IBM for taking care of their Microsoft problem.
Ruger
And as to your comment about the president being just merely a cheerleader, he did assign people to very important roles (heh, 3(?) supreme court seats), and those people tend to have the same beliefs as him.... they will also have a lasting effect.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
When a truly enlightened dissident is faced with such a seemly insurmountable political foe as John Katz sees the new administration as being, they do the honorable thing and protest. Those truly devoted to the cause set themselves on fire ala Falun Gong. Please Jon set yourself on fire.
'Easy now.. Although Bush seems to exhibit some traits which certainly seem overly conservative, theres no reason to exacerbate this manner of thinking - one man alone is going to throw the country into an 'Orwellian state of censored media - and how do expect the Republican party to ever grow in this area, when you stereotype them as such? I'm a Libertarian, and had grave distaste with our government during the Reagan/Bush era - and the policies and attitude of our leaders. But that doesnt mean its going to happen that way again, and I dont see reason to get fearful that it will. Give the younger Bush a chance, and maybe some of the ideals you wish to be more pronounced will get more respect with this new establishment. I am optimistic about the new decade, and the younger Bush.
-- NeTMoNGeR
I predict that the 2nd ammendment will NOT come under attack. By the end of 2004 more americans than ever will own guns, and the murder-rate, while at a 40 year low, will start to climb again.
It's funny how a country of 60M like Great Britian has between 20-50 hand gun related deaths a year, yet in the U.S., a country of 280M, we average between 30-35K a year. It would be a shame if we "killed" the person who might have cured some cancers, diseases, advanced science, or even helped their neighbors out.
I don't see Bush taking an active role in direct technology issues. He has an energy crisis(indirect), and some good leadership in the next 2 years could cement his legacy 100x more than what Clinton did in 8 years. Money for Fusion research, grants for business and individuals to install Solar Panels to help economies of scale (the solar industry needs a slight "push" from the government, then prices should fall drastically), alternative fuels. If everyone had a solar panel or two to supplement electricity (especially in the Southwest where they have the energy problems and the best access to the suns direct rays) we would burn less coal and natural gas. Just a thought.
What legislation do you think will "allow the net to be used for profit making ventures?" From what I can see, any failure to make profits so far can be attributed to running businesses poorly or having bad business plans in the first place, and the biggest "theft" by far is the pump and dump by the venture capitalists, who neither need nor would be hindered by legislation. And those who got caught holding the bag have only themselves to blame for believing inflated claims and not knowing which way the wind blows.
Gee, it's nice to see you show your true colors; you talk a big capitalist game, but really what you want is more legislation to rig markets in favor of already big businesses.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I remembered a book called The Suicidal Corporation which I read a long time ago. It reviewed American history from the Indstrial Revolution through to today, noting how in an effort to get their way, large companies would often throw money at the government in an attempt to make their problems go away, and perhaps throw blockades up in front of their competition.
When I found that page (link above), at first I thought, This is exactly what's happening... the government wants to crack down on the types of media that get produced, that means cracking down on the media producers that just tossed all that money at Bush's campaign...
But then I thought about it and said, "No, not exactly..." I don't think Paul Weaver (the author of that book) ever anticipated a situation like this arising:
Between the two of them -- Bush and Industry -- I believe they will probably do more damage to the government and peoples' rights than anyone can predict. Pardon me if I sound like a hippie, but man -- corporate greed's gonna bring everyone down.
Otherwise, life goes on -- people will continue buying DVDs, for example, because they can get movies on disc and view them at home. I think my next one's going to be Fight Club.
---
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
Look, I used to be a registered Libertarian myself. I could never vote for a Republican, because I just don't ever see them actually taking action to increase personal freedoms... just the opposite. And regardless of their rhetoric.
Furthermore, it's amazing that you think CNN is a leftie lapdog. Did you see the live inauguration coverage this weekend? It's apparent they fawned over Bush's ceremony, dismissing and even muting out the protestors in DC during the parade footage.
Frankly, I've always thought that the critical weakness of the Left is its inability to really lie without shame. In this regard it will always be at a tactical disadvantage.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Jon, fellow /.ers,
Have you ever considered this: The US and the EU are already embroiled in trade wars over bananas and cattle treated with growth hormones. The EU has already started a separate antitrust investigation against Microsoft.
In the near future I see the following points of contention:
Is it not logical to assume that as the US economy continues to slump, and Europe continues to catch up, that the US Corporate Complex will start pushing the Bush Administration to put pressure on Europe to harmonize it's laws and regulations with the US, in order to secure more markets for US corps in the EU?
And do you really think that the EU is just going to roll over and say 'Yes of course we will sacrifice all that we care for for your profits'?
I predict at least one major trade conflict on these issues before the end of 2001
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Last time anybody tried anything radical as far as the internet, we all remember so well :
"On February 1, 1995, Senator James Exon (D-Neb.) attempted to do what had never been done before--regulate speech on the Internet.(3) Introducing the Communications Decency Amendment (CDA), Senator Exon declared a danger to society: Barbarian pornographers are at the gate and they are using the Internet to gain access to the youth of America. Senator Exon proclaimed:
The information superhighway should not become a red light district. This legislation will keep that from happening and extend the standards of decency which have protected telephone users to new telecommunications devices. "
It was struck down on several fronts. As everybody points out, Bush/Republicans are pro-business, and any type of censorship of the internet impacts a lot of businesses. I'd be willing to bet they are hands off. They will talk about morals, but beyond that, don't expect any type of censorship or anything like that Senator from Nebraska tried.
http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/cannon2.htm
if anybody is curious/doesn't remember.
A number of reasons for this:
1. Tech stocks are priced too high. Even now. Look, when I buy a stock, I expect a P/E (future) of between 12 and 30. Stocks with P/E of 60 or more are priced to the concept that they will explode geometrically, with nary a hiccup.
2. Tech CEOs gave equally to Dems and Republicans, unlike other industries which gave mostly to Republicans. For this reason they must pay. Even Bill G did this. No easy access to the gravy train for them.
3. The True West (California, Oregon, Washington) voted against Bush. They must pay, and Cheney will make sure they do. Never mind that they're 25 to 30 percent of the US population and create more than half the goods we export. They will suffer.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
For the most part I'll agree Fox News is fairly right-wing, and definitly on occasion crazed. But with about them being the only ones to take up that flag they have to make up for the other left-wing crap that is made up by all the other stations.
The public backlash of squashing the breakup would lead to Gore in 2004.
Bush can't abandon something that has received so much popular media attention, and has been so well received by the general public. Microsoft's high-tech opponents would also lend their own PR to the campaign to continue the breakup plans.
Money and lobbying is one thing - going against public opinion is another, and makes politicians think twice. Bush is a politician as much as anyone else; he wants to save his backside for the next election.
Besides - doesn't everyone realize that breaking up large companies like Microsoft actually creates far more value than it destroys? Gates is playing the public for suckers - he WANTS the breakup.
E.g. Standard Oil. AT&T and regional bells.
In both cases, the pieces came to represent market value far in excess of the assembled whole. When it comes to market cap of monopolistic companies, market value works opposite of Gestalt.
The only reason why Gates is fighting the breakup, is because of the sheep-mentality that investors have, thinking that one company is more valuable. They do not realize the truth, so unless Gates wants a market value collapse and shaken confidence in his leadership abilities, he will continue to hide his cards, pretend to fight the breakup, and just coast into his new, greater wealth.
Even AT&T is breaking itself up again, and already the parts are more valuable than when the company was one.
Remember one more thing: Gates is an incredibly cunning businessman, and has acted in precisely this two-faced manner before... he wants the breakup, and he knows how to make it happen while still making him look like the martyr.
happened in mid 1994? I would think that's the market's reaction to the predicted future president. look at how the market has reacted recently to the election. while the election was "on-hold" the market was still, and seems to have went down hill since. you could say that bush had inherited a "bad economy", but i would suggest that the economy went bad as a result of the incoming president.
While I'll admit that the potential for a trade war is there, I seriously doubt that events move so fast so that it materializes by the end of the year. But who knows what might happen in 2-3 years. That's when your predictions could become reality.
One of the reasons that Europe is behind us economically is the amount of government regulation in business. France, to ease unemployment, mandated 37 1/2 hour work days. While this will lower the percentage rate, it doesn't create a larger GDP because the same amount of hours are worked, it is now spread out over more people. I'll make the argument that companies will be more inefficient because they will have to spend more time training new employees, they will have to divide up work differently, and if you spend 15 hours in meetings every week, that only gives you 25 hours to do actual work. Now they have cut that down to 22 1/2 hours.
So yeah, watch the relations between Europe and the U.S. especially if they continue to push the idea that Depleted Uranium is causing lukemia (a topic for another time)
The new administration's Department of Justice doesn't have the power to unilaterally drop or settle the Microsoft antitrust case. To do either would require the consent of the state attorneys general participating in the case. As long as just one of those state attorneys general chooses to pursue the case, it will have to work its way through the entire appeals process. And there is every indication that several state AGs are ready, willing, and able to see the case through to its bitter end.
George UU. Bush's first technical challenge in office.
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
Grocery stores have COGS of around 50% of their gross receipts, so their Gross Margin is about 50%. After they pay their people, rent, etc., their net profit is about 2-3%. Online grocers that compete on price are doomed to failure, because there just isn't a lot of profit in the business.
Microsoft apparently makes a Net Profit of 24% of their receipts. This is indeed very high.
IANABMA,BIWOI (I Am Not An MBA, but I'm Working On It).
Dubya is off to a roaring start. His vision of high-tech social policy comes from the cleaners.
Gotta love the Republican hippocracy.
First came the Reagan drug policy. The ultimate in cost reduction. Nancy telling all the kids to"Just Say NO!" Oooo, like THAT was gonna work!
Now I guess women all over the third world will have to "Just say NO!" Or "NON!" or jabber whatever it is in the "patoi" they use for communication.
Or maybe we should teach them the virtues of blow jobs: "Just Say MFFF MFFF!"
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I am not scared of their babies!
You should be. They will breathe your air and eat your food. When they grow up they will need a place to live and try to eke out a living, so they will cut down rainforests. They will need water to drink and for irrigation, so they will drain aquifers. Maybe they will hear about how much better things are in your country, move there, and start doing your job for 1/4 the pay. Be afraid of their babies. Be very afraid.
There are too many people on this rock now, and revoking funds for population control (contraception too, not just abortions!) is the worst thing that could be done.
Ironically, Bush's policy will probably result in more abortions. Without readily available contraception (most of which is distributed by organizations that support legal abortion) third-world women will risk their lives obtaining unsafe, illegal abortions. Many will die in the process (complications from unsafe abortions are the leading cause of death for women of childbearing age in many parts of the world). How "pro-life" is that?
Well, I'm totally horrified. Not. Really, I don't expect much different at all, for the most part. I would say the big negative that Clinton Gore had, was that the media just gave them too much slack. And, that when Clinton could slip through crap like Carnivore and all that, without much of a peep. But, the media, being Big D Democrats for the most part, will be gunning for Bush. And, that this kind of stuff would be less likely to sneak in under the radar. Really, the web is mostly untouchable, politically. I mean, even napster, which is blatantly illegal, and has maybe 5% of the size or less -- I don't think the politicians even want to touch that. I attribute most of the whining to adolescent left-wing paranoia. And, that they've been feeding into each other's nuttiness, and buying into their own bullshit. Now, all the blacks will be now murdered and dragged behind pickup trucks, and women will be self-aborting their babies with bug zappers, now that Bush is elected. Right, so give me a break. Take a Valium, or smoke a refreshing marijuana cigarette, guys. That'll make it all better.
http://junglevision.com -- Shamus for Gameboy
What we are witnessing is the DEATH of common sense. People leap instead of look, they scream instead of ask, they avoid instead of understand. We are witnessing the end of the time where computers were considered something to marvel at as something nice, and entering the time where computers are to be viewed as liquid horror.
Common sense dictates that if I buy something, I own it.
Common sense dictates that if someone or some group(Microsoft) breaks laws they should be punished. Do the crime, do the time.
Common sense dictates that I should be able to watch what I want, when I want, in the privacy of my own home.
......
Basically what we are seeing is these simple common sense rules being taken and tossed as "irrelvant" in a technological society. Technology does not mean that basic common sense has to change.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
That idea is that if you do know something that you could post it, even better if you include a link to something. If not, and you still want to contribute, then weed through the posts and mod up the good ones.
As for JK, well, he's part of the medium. Can't begrudge him the right to dig for interesting ideas and repeat them.
It takes a lot of money to buy programmer's souls. Can you imagine the poor son of a bitch who had to code the paperclip?
How we know is more important than what we know.
You can knock Clinton and his administration for being anything but xenophobic. The racism that usually lies just under the surface of American administration was notably absent even in (dont take this as flamebait) in the south and midwest.
My cousins/friends in college/school in the south said it was amazing how people opened up as they grew up, mostly because of the Clinton administration and foreign policy.
The opening up of immigration (H1-B) to skilled workers has lead to an influx of educated professionals living and working in America, boosting the 'New Economy'.
I am afraid of prejudice, hate and intolerance returning being one part Bush era 'free-speech' that is not prosecuted or criticised.
To me, this could cause a huge slowdown in tech and computers in America especially after they cancel or fail to renew all the current visas
shooting is not too good for my enemies
All praise to Jon that we have the International Courts to help us in our battle for Intellectual Property, which is only the second highest in the Laws of the Katz. For, as Jon did say:
"These are my commandments, given unto you, that you may write of them in wordy prose and spread them unto the Geek UberNations of the World:
First, Thou shalt not attack Privacy, for those who have privacy are like unto me, and thus we must respect it, except where it is the privacy of mine enemies.
Second, Thou shalt respect Intellectual Property, for should they taketh my words and not pay me, I should have fewer booth babes, and this would displeaseth me. But, if they are Open Source, thou shouldst spreadeth them to the far corners of the earth, and even unto the skies, for such speech is like unto my speech, and not only shall it be wordy, but it shall be distribute with source code and annotations and FAQ as far as Geeks shall rule.
Third, thou shalt horde thy Karma, for unlike myself thou canst suffer a loss of karma for posting things, especially those posts which are like unto the Troll or do disparage me. For that way leadeth unto the Flamefest, and since I lose those, it displeaseth me.
Fourth, thou shalt buy Geek products, but weareth not false image of me, for it is a sin.
More commandments shall I give thee, but they waiteth upon my creation of a new thread."
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Well, I'm totally horrified. Not. Really, I don't expect much different at all, for the most part. I would say the big negative that Clinton Gore had, was that the media just gave them too much slack. And, that when Clinton could slip through crap like Carnivore and all that, without much of a peep. But, the media, being Big D Democrats for the most part, will be gunning for Bush. And, that this kind of stuff would be less likely to sneak in under the radar.
Really, the web is mostly untouchable, politically. I mean, even napster, which is blatantly illegal, and has maybe 5% of the size or less -- I don't think the politicians even want to touch that.
I attribute most of the whining to adolescent left-wing paranoia. And, that they've been feeding into each other's nuttiness, and buying into their own bullshit. Now, all the blacks will be now murdered and dragged behind pickup trucks, and women will be self-aborting their babies with bug zappers, now that Bush is elected. Right, so give me a break. Take a Valium, or smoke a refreshing marijuana cigarette, guys. That'll make it all better.
Same as before but with breaks.
http://junglevision.com -- Shamus for Gameboy
Why on earth would you predict that when the evidence indicates a correlation in precisely the opposite direction?
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
2) Newt Gingrich was for ditching crypto controls several years ago, wrote a very nice two page essay in Boardwatch Magazine (which I still have). Newt, while no longer in office, is about as pro-technology as you can get. Meanwhile, it took massive bribes--er, "contributions" from Silicon Valley to get the Clintonistas to finally back off on those crypto regs.
3) Larry Ellison, Scott McNealy, and various other tech $billionaires bribed the Clinton Administration into declaring war against their competitor Microsoft. Up until then, SV was largely apolitical. Now everyone knows that if they don't make their "contributions" to the Democratic Party, bad things might happen to them.
4) Read Nat Hentoff's (libertarian First Amendment advocate) syndicated columns for more interesting info.
I see President Bush promoting filtering software and parental supervision as a means of countering 'net porn, which, by golly, is all he's been doing.
And we right-wingers have been heavy users of the 'net to get our political message past the liberal media censors (National Review, Town Hall, Matt Drudge, etc). We probably wouldn't have won this past election without the 'net and most of us know it.
My children, who are still in grade school, do not have unsupervised access to the internet. I don't rely on blocking technology to protect them. I rely my supervision and the supervision of those other adults I trust.
Katz also says,
Again, I don't need government help to protect my kids from the dangerous web, but I see no inherent problem with folks not wanting to subsidize the viewing of material objectionable to them. The First Amendment protects your right to speak and listen. It does not create an obligation for someone else to pay for your net access so you can look at titties.The solution, at least for public schools, is not to have public schools.
Private schools and homeschoolers are educating rings around the public schools all over the country, and spending less money per child to do it.
Our society has become so diverse that we can't agree on a common set of values to instill in school. (And no, you can't be "value-neutral" in school. It is just not possible.)
The era of the usefulness of public schools is coming to an end.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
is hardly "a first," for a number of reasons, and Katz knows it. Wilful ignorance like that might be what makes you so infuriating to some folks, Jon. JMR Speaking ONLY for myself, of course...
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Wow! Katz has outdone himself on this one, once again proving he is a Leftist, Socialist, biased geek. Katz, who do you think has demonstratized the net? It is the left wing Liberals, whom, whithout thinking, have tried to prove that Doom (video games) caused Columbine and all the rest. Who enacted the useless Video Game ratings and content labels? Who was it that required Adult Check and the like for online pr0n? Guess who: Clinton. You are against your own party's beliefs, yet you negatively and severely bastardise an administration which has taken office just a couple days ago.
Your articles are biased. Back up, remove the hatred, ponder your useless thoughts and then start writing. A good writer and reporter is one who sees both sides and doesn't speculate on ends through non-existent means.
I agree. Things will get better. The old pimp-the-poor socialists are out and the lot of the poor will slowly improve.
There will always be hungry children, however, so long as there remain parents who refuse to work.
Hay thar.
Maybe, just maybe, the stock market has plummetted because people have finally realized that companies that just have ideas and not equity are not really worth anything.
> The Reaganauts (and their Bush II successors)
> tended to see technology as an alien, menacing
> new reality -- especially in terms of moral
> danger and challenge to authority.
Was this before or after Reagan mentioned the benefits of video games in training a whole new generation of high-tech soldiers? Maybe it was around when they wanted to dump a trillion dollars into uber-tech SDI?
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
After we put Katz to death in some painful and public way we can really rant about this. It's tangent time.
Like Katz admits, the Clinton era made quite a few major technology mistakes. Most every one involved siding with corporations instead of protecting rights. This is expected of any administration in this very new situation.
I'm not a Republican myself--I'm a centrist-indie--and I agree with the Democrats on about half of the many important issues, but the Republicans do deserve some defense.
1. Republicans are actually no more corporate than Democrats. They are bought at the same rate and in the same number.
This image starts, and should end, with la-sa Fair. (Spelling?) Clinton went as far as Republicans do--he did not become involved in labor and market disputes such as in Iron mining, etc. Going that far is a big mistake--it gave the R's their image--but it kept the economy strong through the Clinton years.
2. Republicans are not all Bible-reading moral crusaders. Those are just the loud ones... These people always seem to take attention away from rational justifications for policies and just make everyone look stupid.
3. Republicans follow Democrats in the way of censorship. It's my understanding that Democrats are for filtering the Internet in schools and libraries, rating or banning movies and music, stopping Napster, putting various chips into things, and setting the language that is "politically correct." Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore all but burn books themselves...
4. Morality and technology ARE by nature linked. Can you perform harmful experiments on unknowing subjects? Can you use my organs--while I'm still alive?! Is it the same with an unborn child's t-cells? A woman's eggs? These are REAL ethics questions and can't just be brushed off.
5. The Republicans are the straw man. When they say affirmative action is not effective and they may have more effective ideas, they are called racists. When they say abortion is actually murder-- and not anyone's right--they are against women's rights. When they say the numbers are on the side of the NRA they are called extremists of all kinds.
Agree or disagree with them, but PLEASE do it rationally! What I see are a lot of people that haven't seen what a good Republican believes.
I've met two really good Democrats in my time. They really made me want to be one. I've met four really good Republicans. (The numbers are by pure chance.) But the common Democrat is an irrational, self-righteous, arrogant and simple-minded fool. None of this is because of what they believe, but why.
Above the blind faith and bandwagon for their cause is the mystery of what anyone else believes and the ghost stories they tell of why. "If you don't believe this, you're wrong. You hate all the nice people and have some evil reason to go against what everyone knows is right." they say. They live their lives knowing only one way and comparing only to a cartoon of a shadow of a ghost story of any other thinking.
Yes, the common Republican is about the same, but that's not my audience. This is my big rant for today. Question your beliefs; keep them all if they find true. But most importantly, find as many alternative beliefs as you can. Question them. Study the numbers and experiments yourself. Make your own decisions. Believe any thing you want, but do so for a reason.
On the other hand I keep hearing horror stories about 60 hour work weeks in the US. What would you rather have?
Although I will admit that these regulations you mention can be cumbersome, they do come with benefits:
Now I must admit, I live in the Netherlands, and I do see the downside of government regulation. The bureaucratic idiocies we have to put up with can be quite staggering, but this is just a tradeoff we chose to make. Some, like you, would like less, some would like more, in the end we use the democratic process and if necessary the courts to end up with a workable compromise.
Thanks for the reasoned reply though, and if this turns up twice, sorry, but it seems that /. ate my first reply.
And as for the the depleted uranium issue, that's just some media throwing up a scare. Unfortunately it's not the quality newspapers that have the highest circulation, but I can assure you that most rational Europeans, although worried a little, would consider this almost a non-issue.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
I'd argue that this isn't as true as Katz believes it is. The net can match up white supremacists as easily as it can match up lonely quake-playing nerds.
Put another way: in the billion-channel universe, a person can choose exactly what information and people they want to seek out — and if my view of Western humanity is at all correct, it's unlikely that they'll seek out anything that doesn't reinforce what they already believe.
Of course, the net can potentially screw up the transmission of dogma across generations, by giving kids access to more diverse information sources. So I don't think Katz is completely off his nut, but he's simplifying a bit too much.
I am not worried about losing my life to Microsoft's market position.
So I guess I could argue that copyright cases are a waste of time, because the copy has already been made and any attempt to make things right is just a waste of time and money. You would probably agree that the enforcement of copyright is a waste legally, economically, and technically. Many people feel the same way about anti-trust laws.
I am sick of all of this regulation. Government is suppossed to prosecute and hunt down violent criminals, thiefs, perpetrators of fraud. Not regulate peaceful activities like commerce and medicine.
Stuart Eichert
Stuart Eichert
Microsoft is appealing the decision. The prosecution can choose not to contest the appeal, which I assume is what Bush will have them do.
This is of course completely against the interests of justice, but when has that ever stopped anyone?
-Wintermute
For the record, I wasn't specifically singling out the NRA as the cause of violence in schools. That would be just as ridiculous as saying "It's the games! It's the games!" I'm was trying to say that the NRA has at LEAST as much responsibility for fostering ideas about violence and weaponry as any video game, movie or internet site does. Singling out technology as the bad guy not only ignores the root cause of the problem -- leading to future problems -- but it also ignores pre-existing contributory factors (the NRA) in favor of new-fangled dangers (i.e. the internet, computer gaming).
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
=(.\')=
"Many companies, consisting of people with bright ideas, sound business strategies, and clever products, were buried by Microsoft in such a rutheless fashion that Justice was forced, against their will seemingly, to take action."
It is a romantic notion that the economy exists to reward the best idea, the hardest worker or the one who seems to deserve to suceed in any situation.
In my opinion the economy should and does reward those who deserve it the most, those who are the best competitors in whatever categories the market deems most important. If people are going to buy windows because they saw a good ad on TV, then so be it, they pay for that decision. Who are we to artificially benefit a company that can't advertise properly just because they are smart or have a good product?
We have laws that codify the relationships between entities and describe punishments for those who don't respect those laws. Those same laws should be used by Microsofts competitors just as they use them, and do it without the help of a technically clueless DOJ.
Of the current members, Rehnquist (age 75) will certainly retire. John Paul Stevens (80) is also widely expected to leave, with the possibility of Sandra Day O'Connor (70) and also Bader-Ginburg (67), who recently had cancer.
If we look at a report from the Institute for Justice (the thinking man's ACLU; give them money!), we find that the current court has a slight working majority that have voted fairly consistently for freedom: Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia, O'Conner, and Rehnquist all scoring above 50% voting the "right" way (according to the IJ).
Of the two fairly odds-on retirees, Rehnquist is the least good of the freedom bloc (he is the second worse judge on Free Speech and Association, otherwise solid), and Stevens is among the minority generally opposed to expanding liberty. Considering that both Scalia and Thomas are both above Rhenquist in the rankings, replacing these two judges with Thomas clones would be a large advance for liberty.
Of the female judges who might leave, O'Conner would be a mild loss (though again Scalia and Thomas rank ahead of her), and Bader-Ginsburg a gain, being the second most anti-liberty justice.
All in all, assuming the Bush team is capable of finding appointments like Thomas, the Bush administration should be a huge long-term benefit to American liberty in spite of whatever foolish laws they manage to pass. But note that neither Dems nor Republicans have shown much consistent ability to appoint judges that do what they expect.
However, with luck we may yet see the Supreme Court gradually return to the doctrine of enumerated powers and limited government, enforcing the constitutional limits on the federal government.
Ashcroft is a conservative southern Republican. He is Pro-life, anti-gun control, opposed affirmative action, etc. This does not make him an extremeist, it makes him a conservative southern Republican, part of the GOP's base. This temper tantrum with his appointment was rude an inconsiderate.
When he opposed the lawsuits in Mo., he was seen as a generous individual, by the left. Their dead candidate winning would probably have gotten screwy in court because you have to inhabit the state. However, Ashcroft let the Gov. appoint a Leftist replacement, and said nothing.
Ashcroft's record on racial appointments is tremendous. He opposed 1 or 28 minority appointments (and I'd like to see his rate of approving Clinton's white appointees, it must be less), did lots of things that were not anti-black is Mo.
Katz says NOTHING of Ashcrofts record other than he supports the 10 Commandments in public buildings. Oh No! Posting the 10 Commandments within a school was an expression of thought to me, why shouldn't it be allowed? (Most of the Congress, BOTH parties, voted that it should be allowed, and it wasn't a Law, it was a resolution expressing the will of the Congress, i.e. advice to the Courts).
Katz, you are welcome to be a DNC partisan warrior. You are welcome to believe what I want. But you are using your position on slashdot in an abusive manner. Many Slashdot readers do NOT get other news outlets (their other outlets are all techie too), to post slanderous and unfounded comments like you did is outrageous.
The only thing we know about Ashcroft, is on some Civil Liberties, he looks very libertarian and sides with us. He is one of the FEW Republicans in office to oppose Carnivore. He opposes restrictions on encryption. He is a BLESSing for high tech.
You were going to get a pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-affirmative action Attorney General. That's what happens when the pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-affirmative action party wins, don't whine about it when for 8 years the AG was anti-death penality and other left-wing ideas, those are the spoils of victory.
However, from the Right, he is the most tech friendly politician, he takes the anti-big-government thing seriously, INCLUDING limitations on the police state. Find another conservative that isn't trying to be so tough on crime that they throw away civil liberties.
Be happy with Ashcroft, you got a tech/civil liberties friendly Right winger when we all should have expected a pro-police-state Right winger.
Ashcroft cowrote and sponsored the repugnant, free speech chilling Metamphetimine anti-proliferation act which would have made talking about illegal drugs illegal. In addition to that THIS info has just surfaced. Basically Ashcroft told law enforcement officials he would look the otherway in asset forfeiture cases. This guy is a danger to ALL AMERICANS who are not Christian fundamentalists'. If you value freedom of speech this man must be stopped.
OK... as we speculate about what the new administration has up its sleeve, let's compare what we just survived in the last administration, and in classic Chicken-little fashion, ask ourselves one simple question: Is the sky really falling??
Nah.
Atty Gen - John Ashcroft: he's a moral guy (I think most people would agree, it's NOT a bad thing, as long as he doesn't foist it on others). He's also a major fan of privacy and crypto... kudos to him! Contrast that to Ole Janet Reno, who never seemed to tire of endless wiretaps and snoop-o-rama.
Pres. Bush - Who knows? Despite his Faux simplicity, he's a smart guy... and you know what's funny? For all that "mental lightweight" flack he endured, he got better grades than Gore. I suspect (speculation) that he's a "If it aint broke, don't fix it" type of guy... but who knows? We'll have to mark him down as an unknown quantity. Compare that to "Mr. Clipper Chip" Albert Gore... *shiver*
Seems to me that we dodged a bullet with these last eight years... C'mon, John, before you whip people into a frenzy about these new guys, at least give 'em a brief honeymoon period... we'll just have to give them time.
They'll declare themselves... they always do.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
As Anonymous Coward so aptly said: "Bush's crew is a bunch of technophobes and bigots." They are capable of making laws that reflect their general fundamentalist right-wing piggy mentalities; like passing a law giving "equal net time" to Southern red-neck preachers, and all paid for by Microsoft and AOL. I'm kidding...., or am I? They'd be capable of pulling off a modern version of book burning with their Microsoft-installed content and Website delete button. Don't even mention sex. Don't even mention anonymity and freedom of expression. I am sure that they are working on a way to exclude the Web from existing free-speech legislation and "minor constitutionalities." Of course they won't succeed, but they will try. The sad thing is that half the chumps in the USA are so morally and intellectually tight-assed and stupid, that they actually voted for that semi-illiterate red-neck, superstitious, oh so sinful but repentant, beady-eyed son of a moron.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
Sorry about the uranium issue, just letting off some steam.
60 hour work weeks? The IT people that I know who work that much
a) don't want to go home to their family
b) don't have a family to go home too
c) really like what they are doing (i.e. startup)
With so many tech positions opened in the U.S. it doesn't make sense to complain if you are working extra hours. Leave. Odds are you'll get more money and better hours.
About government regulations, I'll make the arguement that it's the regulations that cause the recessions. Many regulations are necessary though, I (personally) think Europe has too much. What I feel doesn't change the situation though.
What is/are EULA's? Is it similar to a labor contract? We have lots of labor contracts here, most of them are invalid if taken to a court of law. It's my lay-man's understanding that in the courts a labor contract = slavery, or something similar, so they are always shot down.
If you believed what they did, you'd do what they do.
I don't believe that an unborn child is a live human being but they do. Given what they believe they are doing what is the most logical thing for them to do.
You or I are no more or less qualified to determine at what point does a child become a human life mainly because we understand so little about consciousness and life. Arguing that it happens at the point of childbirth is just as ridiculous as pinning it at another time in the process is, though.
Mmmm.. Donuts
As much as you'd love to pick and choose what our government gets involved in, it's one way or the other. You can either have them get involved with everything, from copyright and copy protection to antitrust proceedings, or you can choose to have the government keep its hands off as much as possible.
First you grumble about the Bush administration and its likelyhood of abandoning the MS case. Then you whine about the government getting involved in such things as the DMCA and the CDA.
If you dislike what Microsoft does, make it your personal mission to make an impact in their bottom line. Don't rely on your mismanaged, out of touch government to "make things right". Vote with your dollars, and convince others to do likewise. Corporations don't own you. Remember, i the end they derive every last bit of their power from you, the individual.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
Can you provide a concrete example that conclusively demonstrates the assertation that CNN is "left-leaning?" This is a network, after all, that is home to conservatives like Robert Novak, Tucker Carlson, Rich Lowery, etc. Hell, this is a network that was home to Pat Buchanan, for Christ's sake. It has become clear to me that outraged shouts of "liberal media!" are a knee-jerk reaction from conservatives who cannot believe that respectable media outlets aren't reporting the same things that they heard on Rush Limbaugh or saw on the Drudge Report.
If you want to hear reports from a former friend of the neighbor of Hillary Clinton's hairdresser about how she once kicked a helpless, sickly dog in anger and then spit on the grave of Abraham Lincoln, you know where to find it. Most of us want a little bit more substance in our news.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
One other thing, specific to Christianity. Christ would definitely have been a Libertarian if he was around today. On many occasion he stated that he did not want to get into the politics of the time, and was there to lead people spiritually not politically (or militarily). According to the bible, you must remove the plank from your own eye BEFORE you point out the speck in your brother's.
I also agree that the Christian Coalition is out of order, both for religious reasons (see, hypocrisy again) and political ones (which are actually one and the same). I am on the front lines when it comes to legislating morality, I just wish others would do the same, instead of picking their favorite 'side' and then blindly charging the enemy... thus totally disregarding the fact that they are by their own definition, oppressive.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
...this administration won't concentrate on technology issues. AND THANK GOD FOR THAT! There are many problems in this country that require more attention than standardizing internet protocols, among them (first and foremost IMHO) education. JonKatz's position that technology education may be more important in the long run than "traditional" education smacks of someone whose entire reading of political coverage during the campaign came from newsforge.com. If he would wake up from his dreamworld in which the Microsoft trial is the most riveting and decisive decision in American history, he would realized that technology issues are largely irrelevant when compared with everything else.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Sorry to go off topic, but I have to ask: Is being moral wrong now? It seems to be wrong to be against things such as murder (abortion, punishing killers, etc.), having adulterous affairs, lying, treating democracy and capitalism as evils. If you badmouth the Liberals, ie., Socialists, you are cast out as an abomination...can we say communist, maybe even Der Furer? You know Hitler treated people as such and look what happened. In fact, Hitler was a Socialist. A lot of what Hitler started out doing runs parrallel with a few Clinton era strategies. Before bashing me, read a couple books about Hitler's beliefs and life. =] --This emoticon is not Copyright yet, is it?
This will be the four years that 'break the camels back'. The Ultraconservative, Pro-Business, Anti-Citizen policies of the Republican government will be the force that finally destroys the present power structure in the US of America. Violence in the streets, Massive Marches and Huge Rallies will force the following to occur (by the grace of $YOUR_DIETY)
Now, I invite you all to please 'Jump in with your own predictions'
He stopped funding to international family planning orgs that offer abortion... big difference. Frankly, I'm not for federally funding any overseas organization, so this is fine to me. Let their own governments do that. Then we can fund sending our young men and women over to die in their civil wars and border disputes.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
OOOooo! That's a bonus I hadn't thought of...
I personally think the "checks and balances" will be working better than ever this administration:
So, in short, I think US Federal Gov't, inc. will probably be less actively oppressive for the next four years. My opinion, anyway.
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Sorry for the other readers as this wanders off-topic. EULA's=End User License Agreements, you know, the things you agree to when you click 'Agree' on that friendly wizard when you install some software in the Windows world. In the Netherlands some of these wouldn't stand up as being unreasonably restrictive.
None have been tested in court though, AFAIK.
As for gov't regulations being the cause of recessions, the jury of economists is still not decided on that one yet. You're right though, sometimes the gov't does go overboard in it's zeal, but that's no different than in the US I presume
Once again thanks for a civil discussion, but I think we'd better stop before we completely go off-topic. I'll update my user info with my email adress in case you want to continue (I like discussion, why else would I read Slashdot?)
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Every1 bow down for it is our leader....KATZ!!!!!!!
~Help the space cows are comming for me....
I imagine Chimp wasn't happy about the recount. Seems that was stopped pretty effectively, doesn't it?
Your point seems to kind of gloss over the FACT that the US Supreme Court actively interfered in the post-election shenanigans to ensure that Bush would take office, whether or not he actually won the vote. Wanna place bets on when the Judicial branch will be calling in that particular favor, or whether they'll be asking it of W. directly or GHWB's CIA buddies instead?
Maybe you should remember that the Executive appoints the Judicial, and if the Chimp's cabinet appointees are any indication, we could be in for a heap of trouble. Chief Justice Jeb, anyone? Or maybe Chief Justice George, Sr?
Even those of us who slept through high-school government classes realize that we have witnessed an unprecedented theft of a presidential election, and that no one seems to have any clear idea what to do about it except bend over and grease up. If you paid attention in high school, you should know that this is not how it's supposed to work, and so you should be ashamed of yourself for writing anything that could even possibly be misconstrued as tolerant of what Rhenquist has done.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
I believe too much of our community has been blinded by a Left that has been in power and infiltrating media organizations. CNN is their lapdog. Even if you are of Left ideology and don't much care, be realistic and realize that fact.
CNN, on Nov. 3: [inspirational music] "Bush, the next president of the United States!"
All the major networks, Summer 2000: "John McCain, John McCain, George Bush, John McCain! What, there are democratic primaries going on too?"
--
Haven't you noticed that in poll after poll the American people were against the breakup of Microsoft?
m
http://www.businessweek.com/1998/18/b3576075.ht
11% Think MS should be broke up.
I don't know what it is with you weath haters, why did you have your heads in the sand? BOTH BUSH AND GORE stated during the campaign that they were against the breakup. For some reason many of you pretended like this wasn't true, but it was. This whole exercise was Clinton paying back the techno-whiner lobby of Ellison, McNealy, etc. It never had any future. It's not a good idea, and the people are against it. Go find another boogeyman.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said they Did Nothing. But did they do nothing because they understood it? Or is it really because they don't understand it any better than how you portray the current administration not understanding it?
It's very easy to look back at an administration in hindsight and say "Hey, they didn't screw it up. Yay!", and also to look forward at another administration, who hasn't even had the chance to prove themselves up to the task, and say "We're F**ked".
Your article reeeeeeks of your political bias. I'm sure that 4 or 8 years down the road, after Bush has left office, you'll reprimand him for his lack of action (or intervention) in the 'net, even if he has done the same as Clinton and decided to do nothing.
Poo on you Mr. Katz. Give the man a chance. At least let him screw up before you start spouting your drivel.
--
...the Reagan/Bush era had a similar cloud of gloom. I think we'll see a return to massive political activism and unrest against Bush, Inc. like we had in the 1980s. With the network economy they won't be able to keep things under the table as much, either; look at how much of a joke the whitehouse.gov site is already. Also, I predict we'll see a flowering of creative activity--music, film, literature, poetry and more--as a reaction to and an expression against the tyranny of the right-wing government trying to take away our rights while they line their pockets. There was some really meaningful writing, music, and art with substance from that time that still means a lot today. I think I'll go dust off my Meat Beat Manifesto and Dead Can Dance tapes. :)
"Technique is the differentiating force in all technologies."
"There is absolutely nobody high up in this new administration who is familiar with the Net, and when they do hear about it, it's all hackers and perverts."
Sounds like a pretty good assessment to me.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
Why are the Republicans pro Laissez-faire for business but when it comes to the Internet they want to get their gruby hands all over it and control it?
Impromptu free-verse brought to you by the local not-ashamed-to-admit-it liberal. Is it too much to ask for a President that believes in a little, insignificant thing like... oh... Science? Compassionate conservative might not be an oxymoron (it is, if you ask me), but I know one thing for sure: Bush is not it.
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
The "Religious Right" did NOT fuse with conservatism. It became a major faction within the Republican Party, which is generally conservative. Or, as I put it, just because the Borg have Assimilated some of us, does NOT mean we all have techno-implants. . .
BAD Prime Minister. . .no cakes with your Tea !!!
While I did bite the bullet and vote Dubya (I wanted to vote Harry Browne but Gore scared me too much), I think politicians from both parties are equally likely to regulate the net because they don't understand it. Typical knee-jerk government reaction. And to do this they will seize on cases of kiddie porn, violence, and copyright violations (aside: What's wrong with enforcing copyright laws? The Napster user with 1800 MP3's he doesn't own is the criminal, not the company or artist who wants to protect their copyright). The only way we as netizens (does anyone use that word anymore? I bet Katz does) can ward off the Feds is to be good. Don't give them a reason to regulate. Instead, show the Net for its virtues: freedom of speech, ease of communications, business benefits. There will always be bad apples, but if we don't do our best to police ourselves, Big Brother will.
A bunch of bitching, and few predictions. Get a clue, or use this one: Bush's appointment of Michael Powell as FCC chairman spells the end for DTV in its present incarnation. Powell's hands off, strict interpretation of the FCCs mandate will ensure that the FCC does not take a leadership role in the transition to digital television, and will throw the whole matter back into the lap of a deadlocked Congress. With the broadcasters, the cable companies, and the equipment manufactuers all at one another's throats, Congress will never be able to figure out which contributer to listen to, and the whole thing will stagnate to the public dismay and private delight of NBC, ABC, and CBS.
The problem is that the Republicans have sold out to the Christian Coalition. Really, maybe not selling out, but they are in bed with them. I personally can't wait to see another Republican like John McCain who doesnt give two shits about the moral majority. McCain said that the coalition had become a liability to the party. I personally want to see a Republican get elected who worries about business and has no moral agenda like these Christian bigots. This will be the closest thing to libertarian we will ever see.
Not necessarily. The leading proponent of reforming the drug laws is Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, a Republican. It was Republicans in Congress that initiated inquiries into Echelon, and Republicans have generally (although not always) opposed the encryption export controls. I agree that Republicans often are opposed to personal freedoms, but I don't see the Democrats being any better.
The Left, exemplified by Gore, cut a record amount of beauracratic regulations and gets no credit for it.
Please cite examples of this. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is at its highest level since World War II, and Gore's solution to every problem was even more spending and regulations.
Frankly, I've always thought that the critical weakness of the Left is its inability to really lie without shame.
Did you sleep through the entire campaign? The only reason Gore even came close was by blatantly lying about Bush's tax cuts (the "over half the benefit goes to the richest 1%" bull***t) and Social Security reforms (it's a "risky scheme" to invest in money market funds, far safer to hand it over to the government and hope that when you retire they'll give you some of it back by taxing the hell out of your grandchildren.)
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The reason that those in the Right direction of politics has made many bad decisions for the techies of world is because the individual people in power are ignorant of our thoughts. I fully believe that their ideology is the one we can benefit from the most... but they are still stuck in an old world. They'll come around and see what we have in common with them in time. If you leave the Left in power, they _will_ take your freedom to program, they will take your freedom to encrypt, and they will turn us into the world's newest socialist/fascist country if given enough rope to hang us with.
wow. yeah. definitely sounds like you've done your research. i like how you prove that LEFT == FASCISM/SOCIALISM == BAD.
oh wait. this is slashdot. nevermind.
fishfucekr.
what? LOGIC? NO!
thats all
"When I look back, my life is not a foreign country, it's more like a library book returned long ago." - ????
I think it's terribly obvious what Microsoft will have to do to appease an Ashcroft Justice Department: make the Ten Commandments a menu option in EVERY Windows(tm)(r)(c) menu and display them when starting up and shutting down. Napster will only have gospel music (and each song would remind listeners not to dance of suffer the wrath of The Lord(tm)(r)(c).) AOL would be inaccessable on Sundays, bringing the total up to four inaccessable days a week (the current average is only two, but AOLTW would throw an extra one in just to piss people off). love,adam modernempire.com
In a good percentage businesses its not even profitable unless they are making a 50% to 100% markup on the products they sell. But at the end of the financial they still only make about 5% net profit, because most of that gross profit goes on all the fixed & on gointg costs of running the business. Yet MS makes a Net profit of 24%, do you understand the difference. Their gross profit on those CDs they sell is definitly more than 90%, afterall whats the cost of producing & distributing a CD?. Those CDs that MS sell cost no more to make or sell than those blank CDs that are avaliable for less than a $1 each at retail. But ofcourse MS also has other costs they have to cover to, hence a gross profit of over 90% on items they sell, but a net profit of 24%.
That's easy, here's a few examples:
Gore initiated the National Performance Review. The 1993 report from his office asserts, "The answer for every problem cannot always be another program or more money. It is time to radically change the way the government operates--to shift from top-down bureaucracy to entrepreneurial government that empowers citizens and communities to change our country from the bottom up." I'm sure you'll dispute the $108 billion that its analysis shows to have been saved by the federal government. The report.
The Committee on Governmental Affairs of the US Senate filed a report in 2000 analyzing the Clinton administration's "Reinventing Government Initiative". Among its findings: "Substantial downsizing of the federal workforce has in fact occurred--but substantial issues remain. Federal civilian employment is now at 1.8 million, its lowest level since 1960. During the Clinton administration, it has dropped 19 percent. The reductions are unquestionably real." The report.
Did you sleep through the entire campaign? The only reason Gore even came close was by blatantly lying about Bush's tax cuts (the "over half the benefit goes to the richest 1%" bull***t) and Social Security reforms (it's a "risky scheme" to invest in money market funds, far safer to hand it over to the government and hope that when you retire they'll give you some of it back by taxing the hell out of your grandchildren.)
I wish I had slept through it! Come on, be serious with this stuff. Bush wants to cut taxes big time for the richest people, he's explicitly admitted that. And I can't believe anyone seriously would be willing to try the Social-Security-in-the-stock-market scheme. The whole point to Social Security is that it guarantees a certain payment, not some unknown speculative value! I suppose you need support for that as well... here's Al Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, on the subject:
Asked about the President's plan to put approximately one-quarter of Social Security funds into the stock market, Greenspan said, "Let me just say it's not so much a trade-off of benefits versus costs. I'm frankly just hard-pressed to find any benefits there are in doing it." -- WH Bulletin, 1/20/99
"There is really no strong evidence to suggest any positive aspects of moving Social Security funds into equities," Greenspan, the chief architect of the government's last major revisions to Social Security 16 years ago, told members of the House Ways and Means Committee. From the Washington Post.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
If the media were truly "left-leaning" media outlets would be more numerous and smaller. Instead, there are no more than SIX corporations deciding what's fit for the cattle to read. And what sort of content control do they exercise?
If the media were truly "left-leaning" we'd see more substantive coverage of left activism. Instead we get John Podesta babbling "These protesters don't believe that Bush is our next president! [bellylaugh] They don't believe it? Why, he'll be inaugurated as our forty-third president in about five hours here, and the weather is cold out today, and isn't that economy great? Back to you, Barbara..."
If the media were truly "left-leaning" they would report on war as the gruesome atrocity that it is, like they covered Vietnam. Unfortunately, if they are at all "left-leaning", they're far too "corporate" to let slip an opportunity to make weapons manufacturers rich. When was the last time you heard ANY death tolls from the media?
If the media were truly "left-leaning" they would actually report on (or at least editorialize against) the various acts of Congress and Executive Orders that shred away individual rights. Instead they broadcast scary, unrealistic, often cut-from-whole-cloth propaganda that curiously goes away as soon as whatever unconstitutional law passes.
If the corporate media were "left-leaning", we would have seen more reportage on conflicts of interest in the political sphere, such as the election fraud in Florida and who benefited. Unfortunately, if the media reports on such things, they lose their access to pre-digested news releases from such impartial officials as Barry McCaffrey or Oliver North.
If the corporate media did appear the least bit "left-leaning", it is only because one's television set is upside-down.
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
One word, propaganda. The media is owned by the Democrats. Just look at the
way they reported/acted before, during, and after the elections. Total bias
towards the Democrats. PROPAGANDA is alive and well in the US of A. Do not think
it was only a tool for Hitler or Stalin.
-cuteduo
Populus vult decipi. [The people like to be deceived.]
The US has not given money to groups outside the US who perform or endorse abortions since 1973.
Not true. The 1973 law bans U.S. money being spent on abortions. Bush's restriction -- the same one Reagan and Bush Sr. implemented, and Clinton repealed -- bans U.S. money going to any international group that performs abortions or gives information about them, regardless of where the U.S. funding is going. So the U.S. cannot fund a program to teach women in poor countries how to use birth control, if that program is sponsored by a group that also performs abortions. This is a big change, and will mean many of these groups will have to compromise their principles or lose funding.
Slash has nothing to do with Slashdot.
--SuperBug
It's not about him. It's about the beliefs of those who surround him. The wolves have been waiting to ravage anyone who gets in their way, and now the new keeper agrees with the wolves. If you lived in texas under HIS thumb, you'd understand for sure. The schools here are terrible. Most High School seniors can't even read on a 10th grade level. Texas is the land of big trucks and small minds. No one who's grown up here and gone to PUBLIC school has done all that well until very late in their life. Late 30's early 40's. But elsewhere, California, Washington state, Oregon, Iowa, etc, you're talking about Mid 20's early 30's for success. The younger and more successful we are as a whole, the better we perpetuate new ideas and culture. The elders are important for tradition and history and helping to perpetuate that. Together we are whole. But to be combining tradition and technology, that is a culture clash. This Bush is an example of that gap in our society. It is better to beware than be late to the punch.
--SuperBug
Ditto
--SuperBug
Even if this is true, so what? I couldn't care less about the number of people employed by the government. What I care about is how much of my money they spend. As I said previously spending is at the highest percentage of GDP since World War II and Gore's proposals would substantially increase it.
Bush wants to cut taxes big time for the richest people, he's explicitly admitted that.
Correct in a very narrow sense. You left out that he also wants to cut taxes for the poor and the middle class. He wants to cut taxes for everyone, without requiring them to jump through bureaucratic hoops to prove that they "need" to keep more of their own money. Gore's repeated statements that half of the benefit goes to the richest 1% is a flat-out lie. In fact, Bush's tax cuts actually make the tax structure more progressive, since the rich get a lesser percentage cut than the poor. Of course, from the liberal perspective the possibility that any rich person might in any way benefit automatically renders the plan unacceptable, regardless of its other merits.
And I can't believe anyone seriously would be willing to try the Social-Security-in-the-stock-market scheme.
I can't believe anyone wouldn't. Over the long term, stocks have consistently outperformed other investments. But if you're paranoid about stocks, there's always CDs, bonds, or money market funds, any of which would produce far greater benefits than Social Security promises and would not require huge taxes on future generations. (See Cato's Social Security Calculator to estimate how much you could make with privatization, or more directly, how much you are losing with the current system.) And you're conveniently forgetting that Bush's plan is voluntary; you would be free to continue to throw your money at Washington and hope they hand you some of it back, while I would be free to accumulate real assets instead of unenforceable promises from the government.
Asked about the President's plan to put approximately one-quarter of Social Security funds into the stock market, Greenspan said, "Let me just say it's not so much a trade-off of benefits versus costs. I'm frankly just hard-pressed to find any benefits there are in doing it."
Bzzt! Thanks you for playing. Greenspan was referring to Clinton's "scheme" to have the government directly invest Social Security money in the stock market. That was a horrible idea for too many reasons to count and it died a quick and well deserved death. For Greenspan's comments on real privatization, see http://www.senate.gov/~gramm/policy/grnspan.html, in which he is supportive of transitioning Social Security to a market based system.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Well, for one they do vote almost 90% democratic.
Hell, I do believe overall Texas is doing much better than Arkansas yet we somehow survived 8 years of Clintons presidency.
Your comparison is flawed.
Even if this is true, so what?
The "so what" is that this is largely the part that the executive branch has sway over, and the Democratic administration demonstrably worked to cut it down. Like I said, you're unwilling to give them credit for this project.
Gore's repeated statements that half of the benefit goes to the richest 1% is a flat-out lie.
Well, here's Jim Hines, University of Michigan Business School Professor attesting that the top 1% get 30% of the benefit, here . You can call the "half to 1%" phrase a flat-out lie if you must, but it's basically correct. Furthermore, your attempt at calling Bush's plan "progressive" is bewildering: the low tax bracket would go from 15 to 10 (a 5% reduction), while the high tax bracket goes from 39.6 to 33 (a 6.6% reduction). An extra cut for the most wealthy. That's documented here
For Greenspan's comments on real privatization, see http://www.senate.gov/~gramm/policy/grnspan.html
Your link doesn't have any comments by Greenspan on privatization at all! It's a PR piece out of Phil Gramm's office trying to make it look like Greenspan liked a proposal of his. The entirety of Greenspan's quote is this: "'Well, Senator, I react favorably to that sort of system,' responded Greenspan, adding, however, that he would want to see all the details before endorsing such a plan."
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
The first problem I see with your statements is that its to general. In the case of the /. issues brought up, you may be absolutely correct. But does this mean that the Right will fight for your freedom from "big government" etc? You stated that you like a Libertarian view, such as getting rid of the War on Drugs. However, just because the Right stands for freedom, will they change the WOD that they named a "War" themselves? The Right may love to support freedom for /., but they'll restrict it in other area perhaps even more. Same goes for centralized power/money...how do you define that? Is it the Republicans or the Democrats that want the who-know-how-much-itll-cost-really "missile shield"? Of couse Bush may support his tax cuts, but it doesn't mean the Democrats didn't support their tax (albeit a much mroe complicated one). Bush also would support more rights for corporations, infringing on that of persons. Mpre freedom for one means less freedom for another, and in this society that is ideally equally shared instead of unfairly balanced. I have no problem with centralized power if it is necessary to protect an indvidual's rights, rather than have less power, more freedom for some, and less for others. ANother thing is money- by paying of the national debt, for example, is the government taking away our freedoms? Alan Greespan had one thing in mind- delocalize power as much as you want, as long as you fix the national problems first. The Left that you mention is no different from the Right, but only in that the Right lies about what it wants more than anything else (and hence seems better. btw, please dont see this as me saying that the Left is better than the Right, I'm only trying to prove that both are evils and thus they should be evaluated on fairer grounds)
However, the Libertarian Party hs never produced a candidate I would call anything but ridiculuous, and the Republican party is far closer to my ideals than the Democrats, so I vote for them (in general... I will always vote against a complete loser, regardless of party)...The reason that those in the Right direction of politics has made many bad decisions for the techies of world is because the individual people in power are ignorant of our thoughts. I fully believe that their ideology is the one we can benefit from the most... but they are still stuck in an old world. They'll come around and see what we have in common with them in time. If you leave the Left in power, they _will_ take your freedom to program, they will take your freedom to encrypt, and they will turn us into the world's newest socialist/fascist country if given enough rope to hang us with.
This is where my main question for you lies- are you going to vote for a candidate who can do their job or who can't? I have no problem with idealogy in the end, as long as it works in favor of the Constitution and the common good. You yourself state that you don't want to vote libertarian because there is no qualified candidate. THen you state that you would vote Republicans for their thinking even though they make bad decisions. Where is the fine line between qualified or not qualified? The same goes for the "Left"- we are already a socialist nation (how else can Alan Greenspan toy with the Bank of the United States). I doubt the "Left" would put the military out on us. What exists are less extreme forms of both, and ideally there may be nothing wrong with either. However, the abuse of a socialist/facist framework can create evil connotations for both. But on the real issue, you must give the "Left" the same credit as the "Right". You are willing to believe the "Right" can change while the left can't. Those politicians are mostly in to save their own skins, and they'll bend on both sides just as easily. On the same note, look at Bush's voucher plans. Whether or not it may sound like a good idea, it is so expensive and detrimental to those who cannot recieve them (hence losing any advantages) that it cannot work. I'd rather vote for a candidate who at least has relatively good experiences versus a candidate who stresses what they want to do over how they're actually going to achieve something. Your argument that the Left is so evil may be true, but it doesn't exempt the Right from the same standards.
I can provide more examples if you wish me to, and would be glad to discuss this further (Sorry don't have much time to write a really long post)
Microsoft makes 24% profit on sales.
You realize, of course, that 24% is a puny profit, particularly so for a company that is considered by the DOJ to be a monopoly. Of course, it depends on whether that is gross profit or net profit. If it's gross profit,it's worse than puny, it's time to dump the board of directors.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I mean, how long does it take someone to download the main post at 56K? Good thing I've got DSL ...
/. and do nothing.
...
Basically, what Jon's saying is Ashcroft is a liar, we should phone our senators and congress members, and we should stop the right wing.
Damn, hate it when Jon's right.
Now, the problem is that most of us are lazy, and seem to think that Bush is a goofus, not realizing he's a vindictive bastard out to get back at us for deep-sixing his dad. So, it's highly unlikely we'll contact the US Senate Judiciary Committee and actually take our destiny in our own hands, because it's way easier just to post on
Me, I asked my two US Senators. In person.
Because the battle is not in some far off distant time, it's now. If we fight back for privacy, fight back for at least moderate appointments, Bush will be forced to back down just like Clinton was at the beginning of his first term.
Or you can just let them sell your private info to the highest bidder
Will in Seattle
Bush got so much money from these and other companies that he rejected matching federal funds for his campaign in order to avoid cumbersome federal regulations and disclosure rules, an electoral first. We may see a proliferation of government-supported legal challenges, patent and copyright suits, decency acts and other provisions designed to make life on the Net safe and profitable for big companies. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have been pleading for years for more money to go after hackers, crackers and script kiddies on the Net. They'll probably get it
:)
There'll be some sort of "common enemy" for those who are now fighting for the free speech on the Internet. This will surely be better, because we will all focus on single issues. Until now we've been scattered around and without a central organization (as the Net is) we got lost in thousands of small "act of freedom".
But now there are better things to do than waiting for freedom online. We must fight and stand together closer to the last Point of Freedom - all those organization which fighted during those years (don't even ask for an example.
They'll probably go and get the script kiddies.. and only the better will survive and perhaps become what will be the next generation of 'truly' hackers, as the term is supposed to mean - and not the meaning that has now.
And if everything goes wrong, well, we could still switch on BBSes.. pc and modems are still working under the same concept
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
I honestly don't understand why so many of my peers, and while you're not one of us, you're certainly in that group, are such a bunch of socialist left-leaning freaks. Yes, the Republicans can be uncomfortably too pro-business, yes some of them are a little morally pushy, but mark my words: the Republicans of the last twenty years have done far more to protect the principles this nation was founded on then the Democratics have ever been. As a former Marine, I know full too well what a bunch of sniveling, whiny cowards many leftist Dems are, but who do they turn to when they need military intervention or protection? Those of us on the right. I wonder why. They are so quick to gut the very branches that won our freedoms, without considering--until its far too late--just what it takes to *preserve* those freedoms. Contrary to your incredibly short-sighted assertion that Bush will hurt long-term education goals by not concentrating on tech, he will do exactly the opposite--he will *improve* our long-term prospects. What this country needs is not slavish devotion to all things geek, it needs a solid foundation in critical thinking, coupled with an accurate historical perspective. They will be taught that discipline and personal responsibility will enable to learn *any* field, and to succeed in it. That's something you'll never see in a self-perpetuating welfare state that can never be held accountable for its own actions, which is exactly what the Democrats have won us. Let me be clear: I'm a McCain supporter, I'm not pleased with Bush, either. But having actually have made a personal sacrifice, as every generation of my family has done, for the preservation of this great nation, I know all too well that the lesser of the two evils is most definitely Bush in contrast to Gore. I'm a geek, I am a registered Independent voter, and I have done my duty to serve my country. And I find it incredibly aggravating that the vast majority of leftist whiners are those who have never made that personal sacrifice for something greater than themselves, but are nonetheless not only entitled to the fruits of *our* sacrifice, but are also entitled to push *their* political agendas. I find it even more aggravating that biased writers like yourself (you most certainly do *not* deserve the title of a "journalist") participate in right wing bashing, instead of presenting all sides of the story. If you want to know what true unbiased reporting is, tune into the Fox News Network.
"Live Free or Die--the Only Way to Live" -- NH State Motto
The European Union are, I believe, planning a simillar action which could affect Microsoft almost as strongly.
The 'W' keys were all missing from the White House when GWB's aides moved in. It was a 'welcome' prank by the departing Clintonites...
---
If people were to read a little history they would see what our "Forefathers" were all about.
Lets look at them, the people that wrote our constitution and Declaratino of Independance were wealthy "property" owners (Land, people(slaves), etc..)
The ideas for our government came from:
Thomas Hobbes
John Locke
Baron de Montesquieu
Jean Jacques Rouseau
These fellows from the Enlightenment came up with the ideas that our forefathers used for our government. The one thing the above named didn't come up with was the electoral college.
It should be no surprise that our government is so pro corporation and anti-individualism.
Heck that same rich/powerful families that have basically run this country since the 1800's, STILL DO!
Can anyone name that last president or congress that REALLY gave a shit about the american public and actually did something for there common good? I sure the hell can't.
the common idea that all of the above named people from the Enlightenement had in common was the idea of the "Social Contract". This was that government was created out of consent by the people. People gave up some of their individual rights for some stability - government (laws - rules - regulations). The government was supposed to protect three things:
1) The lives of the people.
2) The liberty (freedoms) of the people.
3) The Property of the people.
But our forefathers changed the third one to "The pursuit of happiness".
The only reason for the people to revolt was if this "contract" was ever broken. HMMMM... How many of these has our governemnt borken in the last 20 years! - Our Current governemnt reminds me of some of the kings of England durring the 1600,1700,1800's. But English parliment was able to take some control of the situation back then.
I think the American people need to take a good hard look at this country and see where it is going. Things are not getting better - they are getting worse. It is time for people to get off their lazy dead ass butts! The only inteligent thing Bush has said so far was "Don't be a spectator" he is right. The American public need to wake up to Bush, Gore, Clinton and the rest of these people.
Nuff said? - Probably not....
The Truth is a Virus!!!
What the hell are you talking about? I know plenty of people in their 20's - 30's who probably make more than you. Let's look at California: The folks who came out of California schools are the same who are running most businesses out of the state with their 'deregulation' of electricity. Oops! Look what Cali schools taught them. Oregon, Iowa...corn and potatos? Texas also has a tradition of family and major innovation. Dell, Compaq, Imperial Sugar, Texas Instruments."
"HIS Thumb", as you put it, has grown business, child wellfare and income like no other. Oh, btw, do you live here, or are you being spoken through by Big Brother Clinton?
Ru-486.org
Research on RU-486
Also cytotec (the peptic ulcer med being used for forced labor in conjuction with RU-486) has been linked to 8 deaths (Story).
I love the assumption that everyone who is technically hip is by default pro-choice, what a sheltered world katz lives in.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I was half-asleep when I posted that one... I think SquadBoy made my point better below. Thanks.
(At least I finally got a mod of some form)
Quoth the zombie, braaaaaaaains
Give me a break.
By the way, your facts aren't even correct. When the election was on hold (because of some Gore protest), the market went down. Whenever it looked like things might move forward (Bush winning this or that legal victory), it would spike up. I witnessed this phenomenon with my own eyes as I watched one of the myriad court announcements go in favor of Bush and, at the bottom of the screen, watched NASDAQ climb 100 points or so within a minute of the announcement.
So, don't give me this crap about Bush causing a recession before he's even in there. It's bunk and you know it.
Then again, you're probably one of those people who try to give clinton the credit for the recovery that began a year and a half before he got into office, too. So maybe you don't know how much bunk you're spewing, who knows....
Hypocritical attacks and one sided judgments of reality will not help anything but makers of wooden pickets. Education is the key. Use FACTS, not lies, deceit, misrepresentations, technicalities, and ommisions. Plus, if you want to gain trust, you must stop acting like wild animals. If your cause is just, then you will not need to resort to terrorism in order to spread the word about your cause.
Also, remember that if you so painfully judge a non liberal or any other non-extremist as evil, then you must give facts. Then you must use this same list of facts to judge: A) Yourself B) Your organization C) Your 'leaders'
If you fail to do this, you are not just as bad as those whom you label as evil... you are much worse, for you are your own worst enemy (by your definition).
Like many others like you (read your editorial) you mention that you are tired of being labled, yet say it is because you know more than they do, and then go on to label and slander them. Arrogance, hypocracy and a complete lack of care or empathy for others. You will never be more than an annoying insect if you continue with that tactic.
As for "fight the power!"... well lets open up our history books and learn about Communism and other revolutions like it. People being oppressed by the elite. The elite who have everything, yet demand more, and fight to the death to preserve their "right" to have it. They kill and starve anyone who is not like them. Understandably, the commoners do not like this, and they tire of being oppressed and held back to serve the elite. They tire of the fact that the very laws and policies set forth by the elite do not apply to said elite. (See Federal Taxes) Plus they tire of not being able to speak out against it without being censored or silenced (imprisoned or worse)
Now, here comes along Comrade Joe, he rallies all the public in his favor promising reform and 'changes' and that he will 'level the playing ground'. He whips them into a frenzy of blood-lust by playing on their hate and violence, promising to "Make them pay!". What happens next is bloody and painful. Later (months, years, and decades even) you notice that the "party" that reformed the country enjoys amazing wealth and priveledge, they are above the laws they set forth, and are considered the only patriots of the country. Any one who notices this and tries to bring it up is usually imprisoned or shot.
So, you basically end up with the very same thing as before, but with even fewer rights and liberties. The moral of the story is that you must use tactics that have been proven to work, and more importantly you must not replace one evil with another one.
And if you think people like me aren't constantly labeled, judged, and snubbed... think again! It is most often by the very same people along side you with their pickets. The rest of the time, it is by those who you are protesting against. That is OK, I suppose, as our founding fathers had the very same problem... stuck in the middle between two extremist sides, watching each side hypocritically attack the other for the very same reasons that they defend (although of a different flavor)
As for your fear of violence arrupting, I share that fear. However, I realize that (like I said above) I must not advocate a replacement for one evil for another. I believe that policing your self and your organizations is the FIRST and most important step in any cause, as most problems in the world are usually a result of internal problems spilling outward. You obviously hate republicans and the current administration, but your listed reasons are the very same things that Democrats and Green party people do or advocate. To help reduce the risk of violence erupting, try reasoning with people. Don't be them but in your body. Don't attack them or even their beliefs. Like environmentalism, if you attack others as not caring or being nazis, yet hypocritally shout them down and advocate oppresive (and proven inneffective) measures, then you will alienate them from your cause, which SHOULD be protecting the environment. But from observation, I personally believe that the VAST majority of protesters are only concerned about the protests themselves, not the underlying 'cause'. Plus, many people out there are ignorant (not a bad word, btw) and merely require education. Angry, violent, swearing, rioting monkeys do not inspire a will to learn and grow, they inspire fear, anger, mistrust, and contempt.
Be a part of the solution to our problems, not the PROBLEM. Good day and end of long rant
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
Instead of trying to sound out terms that, for lack of ever having read a book, you're never seen in print before, how about getting a dictionary? Most will have even French-derived terms like "coup d'etat".
I see, so being off by nearly a factor of two "basically correct". I hope your job doesn't involve building bridges.
Furthermore, your attempt at calling Bush's plan "progressive" is bewildering: the low tax bracket would go from 15 to 10 (a 5% reduction), while the high tax bracket goes from 39.6 to 33 (a 6.6% reduction). An extra cut for the most wealthy.
Time for some remedial math. Let's take two taxpayers, Evil Rich Capitalist Exploiter A and Poor Victim of Republican Greed B. Suppose A makes $100,000/year and pays 39.6% in taxes, while B makes $20,000/year and pays 15%. Before Bush's tax cuts:
A's tax bill: $39,600
B's tax bill: $3,000
combined taxes: $42,600
percentage of total paid by A: 92.96%
After Bush's tax cuts, A pays 33% and B pays 10%. We now have:
A's tax bill: $33,000
B's tax bill: $2,000
combined taxes: $35,000
percentage of total paid by A: 94.29%
A pays more relative to B after the tax cuts, therefore they make the system more progressive. Your mistake is using absolute differences in tax percentages rather than relative differences. A's tax rate going from 39.6% to 33% means he pays 16.7% less in taxes. B's tax rate going from 15% to 10% means he pays 33.3% less, so B has a proportionally larger cut.
The entirety of Greenspan's quote is this: "'Well, Senator, I react favorably to that sort of system,' responded Greenspan, adding, however, that he would want to see all the details before endorsing such a plan."
Yes, exactly. Of course Greenspan would need to see details of a specific plan before he endorsed it; the point is that he supports the concept of private Social Security accounts, contrary to what you claimed with your misleading quote.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I don't know why I'm replying to an Anonymous Coward, but whenever I sense myopic opinions, I feel I must. Firstly, Republicans and Democrats are not conservatives and liberals -- if you want a Liberal Party, go to Canada. Both parties contain left, right, and center members. While the Republican national agenda has been mostly conservative, the party as a whole is not. The Republican Party favors less federal involvement in the economy, more states' rights, and a less powerful central government. The Democratic Party draws support from women, minorities, working class families, and the poor because it supports social programs to help those who need it. I personally am a liberal Democrat, for I am willing to sacrifice some of what I earn to help those who need. My political motivation is not what comes in and out of my pockets but what I feel is morally just. The Republicans in power favor taking away power from the federal government, but it doesn't go to the people; it goes to big business. You cannot tell me that Dick Cheney does not support these massive enterprises; he is part of one. Without government intervention in business, we would have Standard Oil/AOL/Time Warner/Microsoft/[insert big cigarette company], and the open source advocates would be rolling in their graves. In addition, I do not like the Republican right's supporting of prayer in schools. My United States Constitution still guarantees a separation of Church and State. Or how about the fact that instead of allowing women to have the right to choose what to do with their bodies, the Republicans want a national (increasing national government are we?) law prohibiting abortion. How is that for not imposing morals on the American people?
This election isn't going to affect just America either, as with most other country's national elections. The result of the US presidential carries ramifications all over the globe.
Personally, I think Bush has proved himself quite a paradox. Alternately oafish and brilliant. Mostly oafish towards the beginning of his campaign, now he seems to be getting into the swing of things. He's reported to be a smart man, and yet wasn't aware that there were European troops deployed in Bosnia. I suppose foreign affairs isn't his long suit, but i digress.
As an Australian I generally support Republicans (given that Gore was talking about a closed market economy while Bush was backing free trade my motives should be obvious). There are some policies that Bush is backing though that seem ludicrously shallow in their strategy.
One that i point out here is the deployment of the Nuclear Defense Shield. I realise that it might seem sensible to defend yourself against one of these. They're not nice. But this shield involves putting emplacements all over the world in order to work. One of these emplacements is going to be on Australian soil. Does it protect Australia? No. Does it suddenly shoot us into the Top Ten Targets for Terrorism? Yes.
I acknowledge that our government has obviously played a part in this deal. I'm not trying to make out that we're a victim at all. I'm pointing out though, that the new government's plan will be putting relatively peaceable and defenseless nations on the front line to save their own skin. Pretty un-American, right?
The stupid part is that this defensive net hasn't even been proved effective and it's going ahead costing billions of dollars and shaking the still-unsturdy Balance of Power. It is a short-sighted and ill thought out policy that treats the symptom rather than the cause.
I think Katz is right when he says that Bush is infatuated with Defense Technology spending...
"And now for something completely [similar]"
He said profit on sales, not net, you nong.
--
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
First off, your simplifying. But I'll get to that.
Secondly, just want to remind you who _did_ create the "great deficit". It was that nice Democratic Congress of 1982-1994. By lowering taxes, Reagan actually increased government income! Yet the Democrats saw fit to expand social programs greatly during his term ($3 for every new $1 in income). Look at the balance sheets.
The debt was only $1 Trillion as of 1986. By 1993 the debt had reached $4 Trillion. A lot that was racked up by the Democrat Congress during those periods -- others due to increased defense spending under Reagan (but that was only 20% of the federal income, some 6% of the GNP, which includes all R&D that is NOT defense related -- still only about 1/3rd of social spending!!!). Yes, _some_ was due to the Gulf War, but not all of it.
We were headed for a recession and the it was actually made it worse by raising taxes in 1991-1992. It was Congress stupid, NOT Bush! He got pressured into signing it because the media was raking him over the coals every time the government "ran out of money" because he refused to sign the budget. A lose-lose situation for Bush -- yet the Democrats were totally to blame! You do NOT raise taxes during a recession!
So, then came to Clinton. The Deficit was $400B. Yes, he did reduce it to $240B in 1993. But that's all he was going to do. According to the Clinton 1993 budget, he was going to let the deficit creep upto $600B by 2000, with a total debt of $7 Trillion! All he did was a one-time cut. By early 1994, the Democrats had already let the deficit back up over $300B!
I got ahold of these balance sheets and projects in 1993. It wasn't until mid-1994 that the media took interest. As such, Clinton had to stall some spending and actually "clean up his act." Well, American didn't wait long to vote most of his spending buddies out.
So yes, the Democrat Congress did start changing its ways -- largely because of Clinton. But under the Republican Congress, even more things got going. You can say it was the economy, but the same damn "Democrat" "Economic Recovery Plan" was Bush's plan that got "stalled" from being past until after the 1992 election.
Very akin to what happened to Hoover when the Democrats controlled Congress in 1932. FDR's "New Deal" wasn't really any different than what the Republicans had in Congress, already!
Again, you cannot blame a single entity for it all. Just understand a Republican Congress really knows how to tighten its budget unlike the Democrats. I seriously think the best US government is a Republican Congress and a Democrat President -- at least until we get more Libertarians in there. As such, I really didn't care who won the election.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Independent Author, Consultant and Trainer
I'm going to print this out and laugh when every single thing in Katz's article comes true.
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
The Clinton Legacy
NOTE: The below was copied from The Progressive Review - a rather LEFT-WING publicationBACK TO UNDERNEWS
Maintain a questioning attitude
I believe Juanita
Hell yeah :)