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!
--------------------------------------
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...
--
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
- 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
Everything you had to say in your column is the speculation of a journalist in the trenches, one with no more insight into the minds of the Bush team than any other journalist who might be reading this.
Rather than an informed prediction of what is soon to come, your column seems to be an attempt to drum up hysteria about the worst-case scenario. Perhaps you hope that by rousing up the activist spirits of the typical Slashdot reader, we will all be more prepared to throw our cabbages should Bush displease us. That is a reasonable goal, but at least be honest about it if that is what you are trying to do.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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
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
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.
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
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
Who's morals get to be the standard?
Remember, if the morals aren't mine, then they suck. (repeat 6 billion times)
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
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
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
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.
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
Well my predictions are that This, rubberhose and this will all be very usefull for those of use who don't want to conform in the next few years. Also brush up on PGP, GNUPG, and any other cyrpto schemes that you think might be cool. Privacy is key. Also key is throwing out the numbers on violence among say football players vs. Unreal players. (I'll have to look those numbers up.) They will try alot of thing but mostly due to the situation in Congress they won't do alot. Mostly if you are interested in security or anything that is not "normal" use crypto lots of it and watch them squirm.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
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
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.)
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.
Well, if you haven't figured it out, the majority in America prefer to be reactionary. They prefer quick fixes to the visible symptoms, without really caring about going after the root cause.
Solve crime by throwing people in jail quicker and longer. (But don't bother trying to figure out what makes them turn to crime) Solve drugs by locking people up all the time. Ban abortion. (But don't try and figure out how to make it so people don't get as many unwanted pregnancies) And if violence in schools seems to come from the outcasts, go after the outcasts (and never figure out what makes them so angry in the first place).
Solving problems is not the way of this country.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
"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
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
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.
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
Ask Steve Jackson Games about that.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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.
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
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.
Why should the wealth of his appointies affect him? Clinton had a lot fo millionairs in his cabinet, and that didn't seem to affect his popularity. Or maybe it did, Clinton got less votes then bush did.
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
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
So, is Russia a friend? n Tarditionally they were not. Now they are an unknown. We hope they are a friend, but their goverment isn't exactly stable.
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.
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
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
Yeah, sorry about the rant... just needed a forum to express my views.
I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
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!
I'm sure you'll be more than happy to elucidate exactly what's going on in Putin's mind.
Frankly, things are getting a bit too interesting over there. Consider, for instance, NTV -- the only major private television network in Russia, apparently. Gusinksy, NTV's CEO is currently being held in, IIRC, Spain, under embezzlement charges; in the current situation, it rather looks like Gazprom, the Government-dominated gas company, will end up with the lion's share of NTV.
A former spook with what could amount to a state television network? Interesting. But there's more.
They're still opposing the sanctions on Iraq, they've been active trying to regain influence via arms trading, they're defaulting on loan payments while not being particularly cooperative with embezzlement and corruption issues of their own (such as the official who was recently apprehended by the FBI, on a Swiss warrant), and so forth.
You can safely bet that they'll continue trying to regain stature, opposing U.S. and NATO policy wherever convenient, and always looking out for their own interests -- which are often NOT coincident with our own.
The President, therefore, cannot be sure that they are really a friendly state.
As for Cuba and Iraq, have you not heard of sanctions, for instance? Helms-Burton, the no-fly zone (over northern and southern parts of Iraq), and so forth? Aarrrrgh. You must not read newspapers at ALL...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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
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.
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.
what case? What are you talking about? The "case" is over. Are they going to drop the appeal? Good! Are you trying to tell us that on his first week in office dubya is gunna stand up on national television and sign a pardon for Microsoft? Please tell me in what, actual, legal, constitutional way Bush's administration is going to reverse the wheels of justice that have declared Microsoft to be a monopoly that has violated anti-trust laws?
How we know is more important than what we know.
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...
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
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
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.
It's merely a symbolic gesture. The US has not given money to groups outside the US who perform or endorse abortions since 1973. The media is falsly implying that this gesture actually has an effect. It does not.
'Uniting not Dividing' means bringing the two sides together on issues where there is some common ground. It doesn't mean ignoring controversial issues or pandering to the left.
One side or another is going to see this as a 'slap in the face', it's logical and expected that Bush did this because it goes along with his beliefs.
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
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?
I fail to see why trying to align technology to moral standards should a bad thing...
When you do it, it's not a bad thing.
When I do it, it's not a bad thing.
When you do it, and try to force me to adopt those same moral standards, it's a bad thing.
When the government (or Microsoft) does it, it's a very bad thing, because they're quite capable of forcing people to do their bidding.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Why does the server-to-server transaction need to be encrypted? If the mail is not encrypted by the user before it ever gets to the mail server, then it is still insecure during several steps in each journey. I agree that it would help protect the public transmission of the data, but encrypted servers may do more to slow the adoption of user level encryption than they would actually help protect privacy.
I do not have a signature
I'm pro-choice, but I see no reason why having other people pay for your abortion is a "basic right".
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
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'?
"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.
Even if they don't contest the appeal the judge (remember that guy who has worked all his life to get a place on the bench where he can forefill his duty to his fellow countrymen) will still laugh at it and throw it out. For god sake, Microsoft still claims that they are not a monopoly cause "someone could replace us tomorrow."
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
I solemnly agree. You are preaching to the quire. However we seem to believe that the free market is kind of important and regulating the free market to make sure it stays free in face of the tactics that companies like Microsoft use is something that libertarian theory never dealt with. At least we dont use the police to regulate the free market. Then we truely know we're in trouble.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
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
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'
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
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?"
--
Hardly. I don't want my tax dollars funding the sucking of brains out of unborn children in Nairobi.
Yet let me point out a flaw in your commie-liberal b/s. If I killed a three month pregnant woman I would be charged with double homicide. Sure I support a woman's right to choose. I support her right to keep her panties on and her legs closed. She wouldn't get pregnant then.
Everything you had to say in your column is ... speculation
Speculation perhaps, but hardly guesswork. We're talking about people with decades of public record behind them (except for Bush of course). Along with the party platform and reams of rhetoric (and who has the time to read all that... oh right, journalists... it's their job) I think it's pretty easy to draw some VERY educated guesses about what direction this administration will go.
- StaticLimit
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.
>I would go so far as to say that morals are the source of the problems that they cause
Eek! Im turning into dubya!
that should read "morals are the source of the problems they condemn."
--- Hey, Jesus is coming! Everyone look busy
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
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.
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)
You are assuming that medical advice is completely and absolutely unbiased and objective, which it it is neither.
Just now in the newspaper I read that wine (in moderate amounts of course) does not help fight heart disease, contradicting many report in the contrary. I have heard as many reports claiming that mobile phones are harmful to your health as other claiming exactly the oposite and recently in the UK there has been a debate about the triple vaccine, some people claiming it can cause autism and other nasty stuff and some others claiming that that is just bollocks.
So now tell us: from these opossing, contradictory points of view, which side would you "attack" (meaning prosecut? ban? forbid?).
The only thing that protects us is as much information as we can posibly get about any topic. For example the favourable reports about safety of mobile phones usualy (but not always) come from studies supported by mobile phone companies. Mmmm... Or in the case of the vaccine, the study that lasted the longest and the involved more people says it is safe. Nevertheless there are valid points in the opossite camp (there are still a few children getting ill after vaccination, and we don't really now how safe mobile phones are because we don't have enoug evidence yet).
Our knowledge about anything could not grow without letting everybody (even the charlatans) put their point forward).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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...
---
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.
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