Gates and Security

An anonymous reader writes "Orwell was wrong about Big Brother! Microsoft founder and chairman Bill Gates told a homeland-security conference on Wednesday afternoon that Orwell's dystopian vision of the future, in which Big Brother used technology as a form of social control, 'didn't come true, and I don't believe it will.'" Other tidbits about this security conference: Gates had his own troubles with security (Drudge is copy-and-pasting from a subscriber-only Roll Call story). Gates is apparently trying to sell interoperability to HomeSec. Meanwhile, Microsoft viruses continue unchecked.

Comments

Gates and Security

[bytes256]

Gates are definitely a good first step for security, if additional security is required, I would also recommend a pirhana infested moat and barbed wire fences.

Re:Gates and Security

[WIAKywbfatw]

Gates are all well and good but what if your developers have left you with secret backdoors?

Re:Gates and Security

[Phroggy]

Gates are definitely a good first step for security, if additional security is required, I would also recommend a pirhana infested moat and barbed wire fences.

In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?

Re:Gates and Security

[drinkypoo]

psst this would be funnier if you had said "engineers". This message brought to you by the slightly-more-literate-than-thou department :P

Re:Gates and Security

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do all the lowest ID people contribute the most cliché replies?

Someone with a low ID, please reply and prove me wrong!

Re:Gates and Security

[Oloryn]

In a world without walls

I would think the existence of Perl is proof this is not a world without walls.

Re:Gates and Security

[KlomDark]

Um, cause we've seen it all already? :)

Too many years of slasdhdot does bad things to your mind. :)

Re:Gates and Security

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn it, yet another fucking unfunny post by a low ID user.

Re:Gates and Security

[Phroggy]

This isn't even remotely funny, however it was posted by someone with a low ID who was trying to be funny so it was good enough.

Actually the reason it got modded up so high is probably not because of my low UID, but rather because everybody on Slashdot thinks it's funny to make fun of Microsoft, even if it's a really lame comment. To be honest, I didn't think mine was worthy of +5 either.

If you really want to be a karma whore, just subscribe - then you'll get to see articles before anyone can post to them. Reload the front page until you see one with a red bar, read the article, compose an insightful comment in a text editor, reload until the red bar turns green, and copy & paste as soon as you can. Guaranteed to get modded up to +5 in about 15 minutes.

Re:Gates and Security

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, you are absolved.

Orwell's version...

[BrokenHalo]

didn't come true, but Gates' mathods of assimilation are more insidious.

Re:Orwell's version...

[Baikala]

..or more subtle he may say

Re:Orwell's version...

[jazman_777]

didn't come true...

The future isn't over yet. There's still plenty of time.

Re:Orwell's version...

[gilesjuk]

Combine the visions of the Disney, FBI, RIAA, Microsoft, stupid senators and SCO, makes Big Brother seem bearable in comparison :)

Re:Orwell's version...

[Calyth]

Didn't come true?
Watch the government rhetoric and their action and you know that this IS the future.

Re:Orwell's version...

[Lord_Dweomer]

Combine the visions of the Disney, FBI, RIAA, Microsoft, stupid senators and SCO, makes Big Brother seem bearable in comparison :)"

Wrong, because if you were to truly combine their visions.....the government would not be an organization, but a tool used by them to enforce their 'laws' and take the publics attention away from them. Ie. "We didn't make it so you can't use your computer the way you wanted, the government did for security purposes."

Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill's a serious threat to democracy now that he's finally old enough that politicians listen to his money.

Buy guns and prepare for the first Corporate War...

Re:Dangerous

[jmccay]

And then, with his ID presumably in his pocket, the billionaire huddled with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to discuss tech policy.

This is the part that bothers me. I wonder what technology policies he will try to get passed. Maybe some old stuff Microsft said...like OSS is UnAmerican and Insecure?

Big Brother?

[SystematicPsycho]

I thought Bill Gates got voted off the planet, is he still here?

Re:Big Brother?

[superdan2k]

Yeah, well, the White House leaned on the courts to overturn that one, too. Funny how being rich will help you out like that...

The Lottery: a $1 investment in the chance of a Get Out of Jail Free card.

Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

1984 was not a book that tried to predict the future. It was a description of life under a totalitarian government, such as those of the old Eastern Europe. Many defectors from these regimes commented to Orwell on how accurate his portrayal was.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

well, what do you expect from a harvard dropout?

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

1984 was not a book that tried to predict the future.

Then why did he timestamp it?

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Both 1984 and Animal Farm were an attempt to highlight the evils that Stalin & the Soviet Union were inflicting on its people in the name of "communism". While Orwell supported the concept of Communism, he was appalled at the way in which it was being bent and twisted into Stalinism, and in particular the historical revisionism of the Soviet revolution E.g. labelling Trotsky as an enemy of the people.

1984 was a scare story, essentially in an attempt to show people what had happened and what would continue to happen if Stalinism was allowed to continue in the name of Communism. As you say, he was pretty damn close to the truth.

That said, many people (Myself included) would say that what we see now from our own, non-Communist Governments approximates pretty closely to the totalitarian regimes of 20th century communist states, and uses a few tricks that are used by INGSOC & Big Brother throughout 1984.

He might not have been trying to predict the future, but it does sometimes seem that the future is trying its hardest to copy Orwells imagination..

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Floody]

Then why did he timestamp it?

He didn't. The novel's setting was in some future time, however it was not intended to be specific but rather allegorical for all totalitarian regimes. In order to come up with this completely arbitrary future time period, Orwell simply reversed the last two digits of the year he wrote it: 1948.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, many people (Myself included) would say that what we see now from our own, non-Communist Governments approximates pretty closely to the totalitarian regimes of 20th century communist states, and uses a few tricks that are used by INGSOC & Big Brother throughout 1984.

That's so untrue! For example, a modern government would never attempt to control the language to prevent meaningful debate of international terrorism or the liberation of Iraq.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, many people (Myself included) would say that what we see now from our own, non-Communist Governments approximates pretty closely to the totalitarian regimes of 20th century communist states, and uses a few tricks that are used by INGSOC & Big Brother throughout 1984.

Oh bullshiat. If democratic governments were like that you would've been hauled away for those comments. Don't be a fucking idiot and compare democracies and communist dictatorships. It's apples and oranges you fuckhead.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh really? And what about "political correctness"?

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[deadsaijinx*]

I think if they could they would. But they lack the means to do so.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[pmz]

it does sometimes seem that the future is trying its hardest to copy Orwells imagination..

If 1984 was a fictional account of real history, then it would be more accurate to say that we may see history repeat itself, again.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[KludgeGrrl]

Right now he's getting a great deal of play in the media for his prescience, not becuse 1984 came true, but because he helped create a vocabulary (thoughtcrime, Big Brother etc...) that can be used to view current events in a new (disturbing) way.

For example, check out Google News through truespeak filter at berkeley (or any news site, just replace the second http address).

His language casts a new light on what's going on, for issues of computer privacy to foreign and domestic policy...

True fans can sheck out Students for an Orwellian Society which continues in the vein. (And, to be clear, it's satire guys, satire)

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Simon Hibbs]

According to Andrei Sakharov, although the books were supposedly illegal in the USSR, they were actualy printed by the communist party in small quantities and circulated to select members, not as warnings but essentialy as 'how-to' manuals.

Simon Hibbs

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[j0e_average]

Gates is doubleplus ungood. Changing status of Gates to unperson. Meanwhile, production up 5.6%. Chocolate rations increased by 20g weekly. And our brothers have won a smashing victory over our enemies in Eastasia (or is it Eurasia?)...

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[mjmalone]

Both 1984 and Animal Farm were an attempt to highlight the evils that Stalin & the Soviet Union were inflicting on its people in the name of "communism".

Actually from what I understand Animal Farm was written before the evils of the Soviet Union were recognized and it was only in retrospect that people connected the two.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

If the red mist is making it hard for you to read, I'll just point this out again for you

That said, many people (Myself included) would say that what we see now from our own, non-Communist Governments approximates pretty closely to the totalitarian regimes of 20th century communist states, and uses a few tricks that are used by INGSOC & Big Brother throughout 1984.

Specifically, those tricks are

1. Attempts to control the language and use of language (Political Correctness, using meaningless phrases to describe the mechanics of war etc.)
2. Increased servailence of the population (Use of CCTV cameras, PATRIOT act, T.I.A)
3. Distraction of the population (Orweel invented the 2 Minute Hate for this, but we have a more generic Hate of the Week; the Dixie Chicks, Micheal Moore, an NYT journalist, CNN, the French..take your pick and hate them irrationally)
4. The attempt to keep the population docile through the use of entertainment (Orwell had pulp novel machines & porn generators, we have Holywood & American Idol for that)

I never said we were living in an Orwellian nightmare, or that Bush was Big Brother. Orwell was not trying to predict the future and Big Brother does not exist. We are still free to dislike the Government, we are still free to think what we like, we are still free to post comments such as this one, and for the most part we still live in a Democracy. Thats all good.

All I am trying to point out is that some parts of 1984 have made their ways into our lives, and we should be damn sure that we don't end up with even more of it.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[technofeab]

I can appreciate the frustration that many feel concerning the poor quality and shallowness of modern governance.

However, I believe that it is a GROSS over-exaggeration to say that our non-Communist governments approximate the totalitarian regimes of the past.

If we do indeed lack some fundamental rights, it is due to our own laziness. We seem to demand so many things of our government. Yet, simultaneously, we are too damned lazy to get off our asses and work for those things that we want.

Those victimized by Statin and his ilk suffered under the yolk of oppression imposed by a militarisitic police state.

However, we suffer only under the yolk of our own ignorance, laziness, shallowness, etc. You get the idea.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Animal Farm was written in 1945 and was intended as a direct attack on the Soviet Union at the time. Cite.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Animal Farm was turned down by something like 14 publishers at the time because the UK didn't want to offend our then friends, the Russians.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, I never said that our current forms of Democractic Government approximate" the totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century, only that our current "leaders" are aparently using some of the tricks that Orwell highlighted in Animal Farm and 1984. Indeed I would argue that we are nowhere near the evils of INGSOC & Big Brother.

See my other post for a little clarification on this point.

By the way, who says that we are not attempting to change things? You seems to forget that politics is a lenghty process, especially when the majority is apparently too apathetic to do anything about the current situation. It is an uphill battle all the way.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

You FEEL like it's a democracy because you've been TOLD it's a democracy.

You hear News from the press but really it's the 'what they want you to hear' kind of news.

How come the so-called PRESS is all over the news when it comes to Iraq and finding clues to WMD's when, right here in the US, There is no coverage of how BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS are being taken away by the misnamed PATRIOT Act ?

Or how come Americans never got to see Iraqi people being shot by American soldiers during the invasion when every body else in the world saw ?

Or how, I never saw on the CNN's from page Greenspan's initial objections to the Bush administration's plan on tax cuts for the rich ?

But really you shouldn't pay attention to any of that. Those car chases and that dog rescued by the firemen from some rooftop is more interesting. Nothing for you to see here.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[u-235-sentinel]

Goes to show you. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Sad. Gates is old enough that politicians listen to his money however young enough that he doesn't have a clue of what life was like back when.

Personally I'm still laughing over his 640K is plenty comment.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[ratamacue]

While Orwell supported the concept of Communism, he was appalled at the way in which it was being bent and twisted into Stalinism

There is no way that it can't. Commumism is, by definition, force. In order to implement it, you need force -- otherwise it wouldn't be communism.

So just in case any of you were thinking "gee, wouldn't communism be great, if they could just figure out a way to implement it without oppressing the people", drop that thought right now. It's impossible by the definition of communism.

There is no such thing as voluntary communism, because communism is rooted in force (involuntary association). If you eliminate the force, you eliminate the communism.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the banner slogans from 1984:

"War is Peace"
"Freedom is Slavery"
"Ignorance is Strength"

Orwell was frightningly accurate in his portrayal...

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words: you don't know what you're talking about.
Read lots of different books, talk to lots of different people, come back in 10 years and let us know what you've found out.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Ellen Ripley]

If we do indeed lack some fundamental rights, it is due to our own laziness. We seem to demand so many things of our government.

Agreed, sort of. It's important to keep the pronouns straight.

I demand nothing of my government except that it mind it's own business. I'm not opposed to the basic idea of government, but my participation is not voluntary and so I'm getting a bad deal. I want my participation to be voluntary so that I can put the forcibly removed 15-20% of my paycheck into medical and dental care. I want government to provide a basic minimum of services (the primary service I expect is providing a nexus for the administration of common property, like land and air), not to control a broad swath of public life. I think I speak for a lot of slashdotters when I say that government is at best a necessary evil, something I put up with rather than genuinely like.

But this is not what "we", in the sense of most people, want. Most people do want government to be more involved. There are studies that show that most people are pro-government. They think the measures to "combat terrorism" are a good idea. They think that free speech rights are a little too broad. They take it for granted that the purpose of government is to take care of people. The desires of the majority are 'obviously' correct. (Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Zeitgeist.) The problem isn't government, it's these vast numbers of people who support government. Those people won't get the long-term picture until it's the short-term picture; they will support government until it's an immediate problem for them.

As always, the only profound solution is education. Until most people understand at a gut-level that government is the atomic-bomb of social engineering, a powerful and dangerous weapon that needs to operated with attention, caution and deliberation, they and "we" -- the smaller "we", the slashdot-type "we" that prefers freedom to comfort and security -- are going to remain under the feet of government.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, actually... 1984 was nothing to do with Stalinism IIRC. Although Animal Farm /was/ to do with this, it was also a warning about chasing power for powers sake - whether this be under a communist regime, global corporatism or even an unchecked democratic government.

Orwell was worried about the gradual erosion of rights that people were prepared to accept in Britain, and this doesn't seem to have changed much. In fact, it seems to be even worse at the moment in the US than it is in the UK, so Orwell's writings are a warning for us all.

I suspect if you view Orwell as only a commentator on communism, you miss part of the message he actually wanted to deliver.

See:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/art /o rwell_04.shtml

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[davebooth]

...we suffer only under the yolk...

You got egg on your face...

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, that was awesome!

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[kin_korn_karn]

"Ignorance is Strength" has already been adopted by the American people.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[HiThere]

I had heard that 1984 was specifically about Spanish Fascism before WWII. The source wasn't a highly trustworthy one (he's too fond of put-ons), but I never questioned this one.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those victimized by Statin and his ilk suffered under the yolk of oppression imposed by a militarisitic police state.

Those victimized by Ashcroft and his ilk sufferrd under the oppression imposed by a frightened and reactionary body of lawmakers.

I agree that we are partly to blame for the things that happened after 9/11. However, I challenge you to tell me how we are supposed to make any difference anymore.

The 1984-esque tactics that control the media paint anyone who wishes to see political change as either a rioter or a pissant left wing hippie. Turn on the news and you will hear a sound bite about a few dozen violent protesters at a rally of thousands and then watch them talk abou t increasing security and making such rallies illegal. Oh, and they can make them illegal, it was used in DC, they 'paraded without a license' or somesuch bull$h1t and used it as an excuse to detain hundreds of people.

Voting will never solve anything, as your options consist of a corporate-owned whore or a corporate-owned slut. Tell me that two parties, both owned by the same money, represent real choice. Now, go read all about the latest legislation on /. that will give law enforcement more power, the media conglomerates more power, then watch how it never gets covered or debated on the evening news.

Finally, the courts are just as crooked as the lawmakers. We saw the DMCA-testing DeCSS case, and we watched the Judge presiding say in his final statement that Congress fucked up that law, but it was not his place to say Congress was in the wrong. Riiiiiiiiight, checks and balances.

Fuck you all, enjoy your new totalitarianism. It's sugar coated and you don't get arrested if you dance their dance, but you're not free.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[technofeab]

HA HA....oh well. I guess I should have previewed before posting :)

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise the same can be said for any other government. It is the inherent role of government to "force" people to give up things in order to serve the common good. Oddly enough Communism isn't a government, is a economic system. You cannot compare communism and democracy as they are fundamentally different.

One can however compare communism and capitalism of which the idea of the success of the free market has been largely proven wrong and rules made to govern it. Though again as in largely any system, it is based upon an ideological system ergo leads to the fundamental flaw in all ideology, that humans will behave in the best interest of both themselves and the best interest of mankind.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Planesdragon]

It's impossible by the definition of communism.

What twisted definition of communism are you using? Communism is no more defined as an exercise in force than capitalism is an exersise is democracy.

There have been numerous instances of small-scale communism in the USA since our founding. In fact, I'd say that the ONLY way communism could ever work is if it's all voluntary... which would require the communes to start, peacefully, in a nation that doesn't have to go to war to get food.

We fought the cold war against totolitarian athiest governments who wanted to make the entire world just like them. The fact that they claimed to be / attempted to be communist is, really, an afterthought.

(Communism has been shown to be horribly easy to corrupt--but, as I wager Orwell would agree, socialism is an idea that no more automatically heads towards totalinarism than democracy heads towards anarchy.)

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[danila]

It's not the repressions that we are talking about, it's the mechanisms that are used by governments. Strange that no one mentioned rewriting history as one of the tools. It's true that many photos were re-edited in 1930s in USSR to remove people who were considered "enemies of the people" and executed. It did happen that a 30+ people photo gradually changed to Stalin and just a couple of others. That's exactly what Orwell was writing about in 1984.

But even if USA doesn't stick to 1984 to the letter, it does things in the same spirit. Just consider USA friendship (and sponsoring) with Taliban and Saddam. Does the White House admit it? No, they behave just like the USA have always been at war with Oceania^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Iraq. I bet that if the government could re-edit old newspapers, they would do it happily.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[3Bees]

AAAAHHHH!!!! It's happening here too!! When my sister read Animal Farm in school they told her the same thing; read the book as an historical allegory. Be warned!! Avoid this reading at all costs!! The book (and 1984 too) will lose all art and relevance if you do such!

Yes, they were inspired by Orwell's dissillusionment with Stalinist SSR, but they were not strict allegories! They dealt with the nature of political power and the tools of oppression and control. They were inspired (nearly) as much by what he saw in Franco's Spain as by Stalist USSR.

Reading these two novels as strict historical allegory does them a tremendous disservice.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Within the pages of "1984" itself, towards the start, Orwell leaves the exact date "1984" rather ambiguous. This specifically points to Orwell not giving an "exact" future date for his book.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[geekee]

The book was written in 1948. He reversed the last 2 digits.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[danila]

As another poster already suggested, you probably, "don't know what you're talking about". Here is just a brief summary of what communism actually is:

Next social formation after capitalism

Social equality (no classes)

Means of production belong to the public

Thanks to the development of science and technology, the production capacities will greatly increase

The work will become the first necessity for the people, not by force, but voluntary

"Communism is an advanced society of free and conscientious workers" (KPSS programme, 1972)

You might be very frightened of communism, but it might actually happen in the US (and in other countries) in several decades simply because of scientific and technological development. That would be the best outcome, however it is possible the the society will jump straight to the individualistic post-human world.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

1984 was nothing to do with Stalinism IIRC. Although Animal Farm /was/ to do with this

Yes, 1984 was not a direct attack on Stalinism but was based within a Communist style framework E.g. INGSOC is "English Socialism", the "prols" are the down troden Prolitariate, compare the Inner and the Outer parties to the power structures within 1940's Soviet Union. While it is a warning on taking power for powers sake, that is pretty much what Stalin was doing.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[fermion]

I agree. Speculative fiction is not written to predict the future. It is written to talk about the present in a non threatening way, much like satire. By setting the story in a time and place that is not now, people will not be so defensive while reading it. The motivation is, however, to discuss philosophical concerns in a an effort to prevent a perceived gloomy future.

The future these books, though, often do come true, mostly because the government and high minded literature pseudo intellectuals get together and discredit such fiction as trash. What is even more frightening is how much more simpler the dreaded effects are caused in reality. For example, in Fahrenheit 451 it took a walls covered in televisions to produce mind control. In reality, a single 20 to 40 inch set in every home is all that is needed.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[geekee]

"That said, many people (Myself included) would say that what we see now from our own, non-Communist Governments approximates pretty closely to the totalitarian regimes of 20th century communist states, and uses a few tricks that are used by INGSOC & Big Brother throughout 1984."

I disagree. A govt. that has as its principle freedom of an individual, including free press, cannot turn into a 1984 state. This is because that type of state needs to control information. This is how they rewrite history, through information control. In a demcracy with a free press, however, leaders don't have the ability to make up facts to make their reign look better than it really is. The best example of a 1984-style regeme is that of N. Korea. Not a cooincidence that this is also a Communist country. Communism places the collective above the individual, and therefore, has no problem abusing individuals and trampling over their rights in order to improve the collective. Of course the collective is most improved when the current leadership remains in power and has more wealth and privilege. It's only natural.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[JesterXXV]

I challenge you to tell me how we are supposed to make any difference anymore.

By fucking caring, that's how. By spreading the understanding to those around you (if you are in the U.S.) that they live in a fucking bubble, which seems to be growing smaller every day. By living your life as if you have choices (of music, of movies, of religions, of beliefs, hell, of operating systems) besides those which society shoves down our throats. By not being fucking complacent, only then will things even begin to change.

Voting will never solve anything, as your options consist of a corporate-owned whore or a corporate-owned slut.

There's plenty of options. There are only two that are really shoved down our throats, and most likely the one elected will be one of them. BUT - if third-party (fourth-? fifth-?) candidates get significant amounts of votes, people will pay attention. They will see new names, new choices creeping into their field of vision.

I LOVE my country. I love the Constitution and rights it grants me. I love the ideals that the founders had in mind.

But I HATE what my country has become. I hate the laws that have created and the loopholes left gaping which circumvent my Constitution. I hate the ideals that my society expresses.

This world is not static; it is either evolving or devolving. It is up to us to care which direction it goes.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[kin_korn_karn]

Those victimized by Statin and his ilk suffered under the yolk of oppression imposed by a militarisitic police state.

I believe you have egg on your face.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[zeugma-amp]

Damn. I never have modpoints when I need them.

The parent post is right on target with his comments as most people will see historical allegory as a bit of cold, dead, history already confined in the dustbins of our collective memories. If more people thought about history and the implications of cause/effect and actions/reactions, we might be able to avoid some past horrors that have visited our little planet.

Historical fiction can be a useful tool in personalizing the past in a way that the traditional who-did-what-to-whom-and-when model is difficult to achieve.

Communism is an evil philosophy that will have no result but death and destruction anywhere it is tried except in limited, completely voluntary settings.

Our shortsightedness is to our ultimate detriment.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[geekee]

"You hear News from the press but really it's the 'what they want you to hear' kind of news."

The fallacy in your argument is that you fail to define "they". In 1984 the govt. controlled the press, and even rewrote history. In the 1st world, the press is independent of the govt., and reports news it thinks people are interested in. If you don't like the news being reported, you even have the option of starting your own news agency. What do you propose? Force people to read news that YOU find interesting?

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

It sould also be noted that the main character *guessed* that the year was 1984. He didn't really know. History had been rewritten so much that it didn't really matter. 1984 was as good as any other number.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[LostCluster]

You're right. We're not a democracy. We're a representative republic for most issues. That is, we don't bother to ask every person in America about every issue, we instead democratically select representatives who gather in Washington, D.C. to debate almost everything. Some of the issues they talk about are huge, but most of the routine things just slip by without getting the public's attention.

We select our president in the same way. We say we're voting for the president, but what we're really doing is voting for which panel of people our state will send to the Electoral College. Those people were selected by the campaign of the person whose name appears on the ballot, so it's rather certain (and contractually required) that they're going to vote for the people they're expected to, but they still have to gather and count the votes just to make sure we're doing it right. This crazy system allows a candidate who got less of the popular vote than another to pull out an upset, but is there to assure that the winning candidate must have supporters spread into many states and not just a few... the difference between getting 51% of California's vote and 98% of California's vote is wiped off the scorecard.

As for the mainstream media reporting "what they want you to hear" news, it's actually "what you want to hear" news. People like to watch car chases, and most of them don't really understand what Alan Greenspan does anyway. The beautiful thing about America is that you're not limited to one official news provider. You've got ABC, CBS, NBC/MSNBC/CNBC, Fox News, and CNN/CNN Headline/CNNfn for mainstream news, but they're not the only options. Matt Drudge is free to post whatever he wants about stories that he thinks the media is ignoring. I highly recommend against you getting all of your news just from Slashdot, but if that's your wish nobody can stop you. The mainstream media just get their status because they are the sources that most of the people listen to... if more people came to Slashdot than watched Peter Jennings, then Slashdot would instantly become considered a mainstream media source. But they don't, the average person considers this place "too geeky" for them.

You know what, we even let you over-paranoid people post things on the Internet... so nobody's censoring you. Just don't take to to hard when you get modded -1 Troll.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[JesterXXV]

I cannot comprehend how communism would incur social equality. The government (made up of people) will have control over everyone else (who also happen to people). Ergo, those involved in the government will NOT be socially equal to the common folk.

Admittedly, I have not read much about communism, but it seems to me that at no point in history has it ever really worked.

If you think I'm wrong, please explain. I'm more than willing to change my mind if certain issues can be cleared up.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I find it odd that you know all these things dispite the fact that you say that none of us to. The FACT is that we DO hear, and read, and see these things. The government is NOT censoring or controlling the news that we see (if anything, it's corporations... thank God the Senate has some sense).

For what it's worth, there are plenty of other news sources besides ABC, CBS, NBA, CNN, FOX, and all those other big stations. Newspapers, believe it or not, still discuss these things and (because they don't have to cram things into a half our or so) publish well though out editorials from every point of view.

The truth is, we all know what's going on and it's because we have a free press. We can see Al Jezeera. We have the internet. We have many sources of news. Just because you're unhappy with a few doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

The reason they didn't show it on CNN and FOX was because they didn't want people to turn off thier TVs or change the channel. Not because the US Gov told them to (or even asked... though it did ask).

Get a thicker umbrella. The sky's falling.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just thought it usefull to mention that the comment about 'difference between getting 51% of California's vote and 98% of California's vote is wiped off the scorecard' isn't compleatly true. Not that it isn't in California, but states have different requirements on how the Electroal college votes. Some states are 'winner takes all', others are partitioned so... if one canidate gets 2/3 of the vote, one gets 1/12, and and a third gets 3/12, then the electoral members vote in that partition.

Depends on the state... adds an interesting twist to the campaign.

Not sure about Cali, but the comment certaintly isn't extensible.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

You hear News from the press but really it's the 'what they want you to hear' kind of news.

You're partially right. What the press gives you is not what the government wants you to hear, but what you want to hear ("you" taken figuratively in this sense, not you in particular).

There is no control over the media in the US by the government inasmuch as the government can legally prevent the media from reporting a story. Unfortunately, media news has now become a popularity contest. They shell out only the news that they believe their viewers want to hear, so the ratings stay up and they come back for more. People prefer to hear about how America is great and our soldiers are wonderful. The other side of the story does not sell as much.

Print media tends not to be quite as bad. Time Magazine, for instance, seems to at least make an effort to represent the other side. In truth, if you want a well-rounded news experience, you have to do some of your own digging.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[bluesky74656]

we are still free to post comments such as this one

Easy for you to say, Mr. Anonymous Coward!

(It's a joke, and a bad one at that)

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

BUT - if third-party (fourth-? fifth-?) candidates get significant amounts of votes, people will pay attention.

Yes, they will blame the third-party for throwing the vote. I do recall, shortly after the Florida-Bush debacle, many Democrats screaming bloody murder at anyone who voted for Nader, claiming that by voting for him they were voting for Bush. They would say 'if every Nader vote in Florida had been a Gore vote, we just might have a different administration today.'

Of course, any media who was slightly Democrat-loving ran something similar to the above. We see the two parties who are 'the choice' and who have fingers in lots of pies routinely try to convince people that any other choice is WRONG.

Don't just blame the laws, see the bigger picture. There's a reason people make 1984 references constatntly. There is a war of ideology out there, except that the goal is to secure one's own personal power and finance, not run a brutal repressive regieme.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

mod up double plus good.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[slowtech]

"Of course the collective is most improved when the current leadership remains in power and has more wealth and privilege. It's only natural. "

Of course. Tax breaks for the wealthy improve the economy and create jobs. Allowing media conglomerates to grow unchecked increases efficiency, eliminates waste, and creates jobs. War must be wages in the name of peace. And it creates jobs. It is all very clear.

No free country could ever be controlled by a wealthy and privileged few. Impossible. Really, unthinkable. No one even mentions it on TV.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[WankersRevenge]

if you read the book (no, this isn't meant to be a jab, just a small detail), you'd see that the protaganist - Winston Something (I forget) - knows its the year 1984, but also realizes in the same thought, it could be any year. He admits he doesn't know since the party controls everything. As far as he knows, its been 1984 for years. Very Matrixy.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Gallowglass]

You wrote: We say we're voting for the president, but what we're really doing is voting for which panel of people our state will send to the Electoral College. Those people were selected by the campaign of the person whose name appears on the ballot, so it's rather certain (and contractually required) that they're going to vote for the people they're expected to, but they still have to gather and count the votes just to make sure we're doing it right.

It may be contractually required in some states (but not in all), but if the College elector doesn't vote the way he's "contractually required" to, nothing happens to him.

I read some apologist say that nothing happens to these people "because they didn't make any difference to the results." From which I conclude that incompetent criminals (such as people who try to rob a bank but don't get any money) should not be charged either.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The fallacy in your argument is that you fail to define "they".

Is it really so hard to imagine that Bush, Cheney, and Rupert Murdoch are golf buddies?

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[rbullo]

I love the Constitution and rights it grants me. [...] I hate the laws that have created and the loopholes left gaping which circumvent my Constitution.

Perhaps you would be intrested in my sig.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

A govt. that has as its principle freedom of an individual, including free press, cannot turn into a 1984 state.

True, but can you name one country whose government has freedom of its population as a principle? If you think the US then you are naive. Drive whithout a seat belt and you'll get a ticket. Sure, you won't be put to jail (as long as you can pay) but I mean it's my life why the fuck the government care?

As for freedom of press... First, the press is free as long as it respect the law, second, the press is in the hand of very few (very powerful) people and third free speech is not very helpful if no one listen to you. Think.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[danila]

Social equality should have come because control over means of production is eliminated. The government that was built over 1917-1920s - the Soviets - was actually democractic. Unfortunately for us all, Stalin came to power (despite Lenin's repeated warnings) and basically murdered everybody (or at least everybody who could potentially have been a threat to him). Thus a totalitarian and authoritarian state was developed. At the same time, nomenclatura emerged, which was basically a new class of government workers. A really unfortunate and unintended result.

Social equality can work to some extent in truly democratic countries (where you don't have oligarchy, families and even dynasties of politicians, legalised bribes, etc.). So we cannot be sure at this stage that it can't work in communism.

As per your next comment about communism's poor track record, the main problem is that it wasn't tried that much. There have been only a couple examples of governments really taking the ideology seriously (only to some extent) and they all have achieved surprisingly good results, given the conditions in which they started.

Speaking specifically of the problems that they faced, the biggest one, I believe, was the lack of feedback and freedom. And that wasn't a failure of communism, but a characteristic result of Stalin's dictatorship.

Please also note that the prerequisites to the communism are advanced science and technology, and well educated and well brought up population. Advanced management information systems also come handy. Today we would have much better chances if we try communism once again.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

The end-goal target of pure Marxism is the dismantling of all Government, leaving a form of Socialist Anarchy. What should have happened in the USSR is that once the revolution had been stabalised and control of the state put in the hands of the workers, the entire Government should have disbanded, leaving no one but society in charge.

It turns out Lenin & Stalin had other ideas.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[benjamindees]

You should read The Communist Manifesto to understand that Marx was initiating a study of the effects of Capitalism, not a new, totalitarian political philosophy. The conclusion was that Communism (not totalitarian, government-controlled, oppress-the-masses-for-the-good-of-the-leaders Communism, but equality-as-a-result-of-great-societal-wealth Communism) would eventually arise as a result of the massive productivity gains of the Industrial Revolution.

The problem was, that didn't have a chance to occur. People like Stalin used the economic inevitability of Communism to justify replacing the existing government with a totalitarian regime before the economic gains that would bring about Communism were realized. They called this regime "Communist" in order to garner favour with the masses. The Chinese did the same thing in Tibet.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[davie]

You're delusional.

If I own a "means of production" how exactly will it become the property of "the public" without violence? I will not voluntarily surrender my property, so "the public" (a.k.a. "the mob", a.k.a. "you and your fellow criminals") will have to steal it from me.

That you use the term "free" to describe the condition of people living under a regime that would not allow them to exercise their freedoms to own property and to dispose of it however they wish (including demanding something of equal or greater value in exchange for it) shows that you "don't know what you're talking about".

Communism is and always has been a stinking pile of quasi-political bullshit sold to uneducated blue-collar grunts by the mega-rich in order to motivate them to take actions that snuff out potential competition from "the middle class"; it is nothing more than a criminal mentality with a national anthem.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[benjamindees]

What happens to your argument when "the means of production" is a coal mine? or, a forest? or, cold fusion?

What if your "means of production" doesn't have to be taken, but merely copied? Do you "own" your ideas as well?

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[ratamacue]

What people are mistakingly calling "voluntary communism" is, in fact, an example of free market economics. You see, profit has nothing to do with it. The notion of working together has nothing to do with it. Social advancement has nothing to do with it! The key is FORCE, and whether or not it has been invoked as the political solution.

There are exactly 2 modes of interaction that people may engage in: voluntary, or involuntary. Communism is an example of involuntary interaction, or force. Capitalism, or free market economics, is an example of voluntary interaction.

Communism is dependent on force, because force is the foundation of communism. For all the people who think that communism can be "achieved" through voluntary association, I'd like to see you prove it. Tell me, what exactly happens when a member of the communist society refuses to support the machine?

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[The Analog Kid]

Actually I saw on PBS or some other channel about the Patriot Act and yesterday on the radio a station that is state-wide was talking about the RIAA suing uploaders.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[pmiller396]

I don't know what you're talking about ....

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Seraphim_72]

...and in fact 1984 is the year that the main character guesses it is....because in reality know one knows what yearit is.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Planesdragon]

What people are mistakingly calling "voluntary communism" is, in fact, an example of free market economics.

*blink, blink*

"Communism isn't communism, it's capitalsm."

Tell me, what exactly happens when a member of the communist society refuses to support the machine?

Ideally, they leave the society. In fact, if the participants CAN'T leave the society, it's totalitarism, not socialism/communism.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hating the French is never irrational.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[fupeg]

Wow, this is such an elitist/arrogant/I'm-smarter-than-you/my-shit-don' t-smell post, even by Slashdot standards. This sounds like the kind of stuff that high schoolers or college freshmen say after a riveting philosophy class.

I want government to provide a basic minimum of services

but I thought you said ...

I demand nothing of my government except that it mind it's own business

but the truth comes out ...

I want my participation to be voluntary so that I can put the forcibly removed 15-20% of my paycheck

So the true reason behind your elitism, other than arrogance, is greed.

I think I speak for a lot of slashdotters

Stick to speaking for yourself please.

Until most people understand at a gut-level that government is the atomic-bomb of social engineering

That's right, everybody needs to be as smart as you right?

I think you'd be interested in an active government if somebody was trying to rob your house.
Or blow up your office building.
Or hack your bank account.
Or if you didn't have any freeways to drive on to get to work.
Or if your house was flooded.
Or if you lost your job and for some reason nobody seemed to realize how smart you were and give you a new one.
Or if you were a scientist and wanted to research something completely impractical.
Or if you had a smart child but couldn't afford to send them to college (where maybe they could become as smart as you).

By trivializing what the government is responsible for, you show your own ignorance (despite the fact that you are clearly smarter than "the masses.") I'm not defending any characteristic of the American government, but before you propose a solution, make sure you understand the problem.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[LostCluster]

Maine and Nebraska are the only two states to NOT play by the winner take all rules. All of the other 48 do.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the reason behind the states allowing electoral vote shifts was to avoid contractual obligation to continually vote for the same person to avoid electoral college deadlocks. If there wasn't an ability to switch and there was no one person having the clear majority needed to elect a president there would now be a requirement for additional elections.I think you'd agree that'd be very time consuming and money wasting. God knows, we waste enough time and money on those pompous bufoons now.

Some states limit the number of ballots their electoral votes must go to the people's chosen candidate to try and effect some resolution to the election and in the process possibly geting something that state needs.

If you live in a state that has an objectionable policy towards electoral vote dissemination, you will find it much easier to change the state based law than a federal constitutional amendment.

Just my two cents.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[metamatic]

Actually, the US media are largely controlled by big corporations. The corporations only report what people are interested in so long as it coincides with their interests.

Whenever the interests of the corporate owners (or advertisers) are threatened, the press will quietly ignore stories. Just read a few years of "Project Censored" and compare news coverage from The Guardian and the BBC (say) with CNN and the New York Times.

Or watch the movie "The Insider", for one example.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[metamatic]

The beauty of the US system is that the press is controlled without overt government interference, by marginalizing alternative viewpoints and ensuring that large corporations (whose selfish interests coincide with those of the government) control all significant press outlets.

Try watching "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky And The Media". Try not to be put off by the name 'Chomsky'; for obvious reasons the corporate media like to program the gullible to believe he's a lunatic whose theories are unsupported by fact. Hell, read his books and check the referenced sources yourself... I'd like to believe people reading this web site are smart enough to examine the facts and make up their own minds.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[smugfunt]

In order to come up with this completely arbitrary future time period, Orwell simply reversed the last two digits of the year he wrote it: 1948.

Orwell originally called it 1948, his publisher made him change it.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Eric Damron]

The problem with the US government is that it has forgotten its place. It is suppose to be for the people by the people. If we draw a triangle the people should be on top and the government beneath them but the government places itself on top.

Rather than being a tool for the people to use the government thinks that it should be the master over the people. This was not what was intended.

A problem arises when you have a government that needs to collect money to function but doesn't have power to do so. So, the people give the government the authority to forcibly collect taxes and everything goes down hill from there.

We all know that we should be more involved in our government but who has the time or the energy? So we are paying the price for our inattention. It is human nature to try to control. The lack of constant scrutiny by all of us has allowed the people in our government to grab more and more control. This equates to less and less freedom for us all.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're all wrong. Orwell started writing it with an expected finish date in 1948. He ran long writing it, so he reversed the 48 to set the book in the future.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Sanction]

Ahh, a free press? Take a look at the serious stories aired in other countries, and then at the minor fluff that is reported in our own. Just because the press is free in theory provides no protection, it must be aggressively free in practice.

And yes, it is pretty irrelevant which system a country claims to adhere to. I doubt your average totalitarian dictator much cares about political philosophy. Communism, in your world, tramples the individual to improve the collective. Capitalism, then, must trample the individual to improve the owners of capital.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Sanction]

Or the question could be how "your property", which is really just state recognition at some point of the theft of it from the original user, will be protected without "force".

Capitalism is, and always has been, a philosophy born of a group of robber barons seeking to legitimize their theft of property from the people at large.

See, it's not all so obvious, is it?

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[danila]

There are several important points here. One, in early XX century most of the property owned by capitalists was basically "stolen". That's where the slogan "steal the stolen" comes from. And if you read any history textbook, you will understand that it was to a large extent true. We may bash Nike and Microsoft for unethical business practices today, but compared to capitalists of the XIX century, they are saints. I can almost see the halo above Gates' head. And knowing labour theory of value, you might understand what was the mechanism for this first theft. So, stealing from capitalists wasn't necessarily an immoral thing to do.
Second, this violence was a temporarily thing. Once the means of productions are safe in the hands of the people, no more stealing is needed.
And three, as I say below, other property (not plants and factories) was OK.

Until very recently you (assuming you are American) lived under a regime that would not allow people to exercise their freedoms to fuck other consenting adults in the ass. Not really a "free" country, is it? But seriously, communism allowed private property for things other than means of production (although excessive material wealth was frowned upon). Right to own clothes might be a basic right, right to own a nuclear power plant or a railroad is not. Different societies recognise different sets of freedoms. That doesn't make communism evil, does it?

Your last paragraph is a good example of FUD spread by American government for decades. It's not your fault that you succumbed to it. Marxism was (and still is) one of the greatest socio-economic theories explaining human history. It provided a very accurate explanation for the economic situation of the XIX-early XX century. Your comments only serve to show your ignorance.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[benzapp]

As always, the only profound solution is education. Until most people understand at a gut-level that government is the atomic-bomb of social engineering, a powerful and dangerous weapon that needs to operated with attention, caution and deliberation, they and "we" -- the smaller "we", the slashdot-type "we" that prefers freedom to comfort and security -- are going to remain under the feet of government.

Its funny you say education is the solution to this problem in society, given that many would argue education is the PROBLEM. Some would argue education exists for no other reason than to manipulate societies. The world was certainly a very different, and more free place, before compulsory education imprisoned our youth for nearly 20 years of their lives...

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Sanction]

Who knows, probably the same thing that happens when a member of a Capitalist society refuses to pretend that just because the state has declared that certain theives are "owners", they can deny the use of non-personal property to the public.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

"They" are Jews in the United States. Media there is nothing more than a Jewish propoganda machine.

It is true there are alternative news sources, but for the average person they are difficult or impossible to find. The internet has changed this somewhat but not enough to affect vast social change.

It is fallacy to assume that the handful of media companies in the US represent the views of all nearly 300 million citizens...

The US is also somewhat unusual in that the right of free speach is still somewhat vigorously defended. In most other western nations, Jews have enacted laws which further their cause of enslavement of all gentiles.

Try to make the claim I have made above in most European countries and you will go to jail. Try to suggest the Holocaust was a lie created by the Jewish media empire and you will go to jail, even in the wonderful nation of Canada so loved on this site.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[gwbuhl]

Check out William Gibson's Op/Ed in the New York time. Basically, he revises Orwell's vision for today.

www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/opinion/25GIBS.html

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Ellen Ripley]

I'm not defending any characteristic of the American government...

Then what are you defending? From your post, it seems that you're pro-government and anti-education.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

All this time, I thought "they" were alien Reptoids living in tunnels under the White House.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Guppy06]

"You FEEL like it's a democracy because you've been TOLD it's a democracy."

Actually, I feel like it's a democratically representative federal republic, and I know this because I've read the United States Constitution, am registered to vote, have voted often, and even had my name on the ballot last year. Heck, I even saw the effects of my meagar campaigning in the election turn-outs.

And beyond that, I've had a true dialog with my elected representatives (if only at the local level) and have seen the effects of said dalog played out in the writing of laws.

While you don't come right out and say it, you seem to believe that exactly the opposite is true. Why is this? Do you "feel" it's not a democracy because of what someone else "told" you?

"You hear News from the press but really it's the 'what they want you to hear' kind of news."

But I hear my news from a collection of various "thems" and know what their angles are.

"How come the so-called PRESS is all over the news when it comes to Iraq and finding clues to WMD's when, right here in the US"

Why do you seem to be limiting your definition of "press" to only those organizations talking about international relations? Heck, I can think of a few newspapers I read where that information doesn't even make the front page, simply because they don't focus on international politics.

"There is no coverage of how BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS are being taken away by the misnamed PATRIOT Act ?"

I seem to hear about that every few days on "All Things Considered" on NPR on my drive home from work. Recently, there was an article on the faild attempt to overturn CIPA in the federal courts. Today, the big news was the USSC overturning Texas' (and other states') anti-sodomy laws.

"Or how come Americans never got to see Iraqi people being shot by American soldiers during the invasion when every body else in the world saw ?"

Maybe because most US news organizations opted for the "embeded" option? And where is your evidence of deliberate government censorship of those pictures you claim "everybody else in the world saw?" Is there some PRC-esque jamming going on in the US that I'm not aware of?

"Or how, I never saw on the CNN's from page Greenspan's initial objections to the Bush administration's plan on tax cuts for the rich ?"

Perhaps if you got your news from something other than CNN once in a while... Or are we to believe that there is a government minder holding a gun to your head, forcing you to watch it?

"Those car chases and that dog rescued by the firemen from some rooftop is more interesting."

So sayeth Nielson. Whether or not 200 million people can be wrong doesn't matter much when those 200 million also happen to be paying customers. However, I fail to see how this equates with government-sponsored censorship. The only government sponsorship I see of television programs comes on PBS, and it tends to be the antithesis of the kind of television you're complaining about.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[jez9999]

And what happens when a member of the society doesn't wish to leave the society, but wishes to stay and cause havoc, and generally be a nuisance? Do you use police to discipline them? If so, the Police are no longer equal, as they have more force.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[jez9999]

Perhaps you would be intrested in my sig.

Are you an amateur or something?


YOU are visitor

Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a01a8'

Object required: '' /Default.asp, line 66

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[that _evil _gleek]

Except, that to Orwell, Communism and Fascism are two of sides of the same
totalitarian coin. So he's talking about both. The theme is anti-totalitarianism.
And anti-propaganda, anti-doublespeak. Also, how Europe's decision to appease, and tolerate the Nazi's, just because they're weren't Commies was a huge mistake.
[from article, (or essay ... ) that he wrote... ]
Both 1984 and Animal Farm contain elements of both. Didn't the pigs have an SS unit?
He blurs them on purpose, and his point is the leaders know that is a lie, they don't care, so ignore the lies, look at the behavior, and the results, and you'll see its the same.
I think Orwell, sympathized maybe with the anti-elitist, anti-exploitation elements of Marx's works... but I wouldn't go so far as calling him a Communist. Nazi sympathizers tried to attack him as that.. but I wouldn't call him a Communist. Orwell didn't like the idea of "getting in bed with "any totalitarian government, and since Nazi sympathizers were always saying things like "Well, they're not Communists," they didn't get along.

Oh, yeah, and to anyone who read my other reply on this topic.. I shouldn' have used qoutes at the bottom, I was paraphrasing there.. that's not a qoute.

And one more thing... wouldn't 1 vendor just make it easier to write the next worm?
Or will "you can trust us" computing fix everything automagically? I'm wondering if the reason he can't see anti-totalitarianism in Orwell, is because of totalitarism in himself...
Ditto anti-progaganda, anti-doublespeak.
Yeah... and its about technology... whats this thing I'm using here? he's trying to make his opponents out to be the UNIbomber or something...
ITS PROPAGANDA. ITS STRAWMAN. In this, very common, and very devious tool of the propagandist, the propagandist decides to argue not against his opponent's actual point, but instead attributes another (logically weaker) point to his opponent and attacks that instead... then claims victory. It's like,hey, look I knocked over this cardboard cutout of a famous boxer.. look what I can do... But, anyone can beat a paper-tiger, a cardboard cutout, or a "strawman."
When people compare Bill to an Orwellian villian its because of the propaganda,
tossed around, just, so easily... and calling Orwell anti-tech, when he's all about
anti-totalitarism, anti-propaganda, is STRAWMAN and is itself, propaganda.
Wow, and I almost missed it. And what really worries me now , is why did
I buy OFFICE X? Why am I'm using explorer? I read Orwell long before I knew anything about M$ or Bill Gates.
Just another reason, why I vow never to consider myself too good to code.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[B1ackDragon]

I read 1984 for the first time as the whole Iraq thing came to fruition, as a part of the "war on terror" thing.

I have to be honest, it scared me quite a bit to read it at that particualar time. I noticed all of the things you mentioned in the above. The scariest part for me though, was the idea of the government (or governments) creating a war that could never be won. Hey, war on terror, yeah that fits the description.

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave national emergency... Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."

-- General Douglas MacArthur, 1957

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[gangien]

as opposed to what other country? The fact is, every other country is just as stupid and dumb as we are. We happened to stand out for the moment because our country is the richest and has overwhelming military might. It's kind of like being a politicean, they get nit picked for not knowing some little detail, and look like an idiot. Well the fact is everyone would look like an idiot if asked the proper questions, and the media wants this to happen so they try to find out what said person doesn't know to humialate them and make a story.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Edward Scissorhands]

make sure you understand the problem

I understand the problem. It is you.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Planesdragon]

And what happens when a member of the society doesn't wish to leave the society, but wishes to stay and cause havoc, and generally be a nuisance? Do you use police to discipline them? If so, the Police are no longer equal, as they have more force.

Using government authorized force to maintain civil order is not a unique part of Communism/Socialism. It's an element of every part of society--including anarchism, which just shifts the use of force to the individual.

If someone doesn't want to leave but wants to cause havoc, then the society is well within their rights to discipline / expell the troublemaker. The right-wing answer of "if you don't like it, leave" should apply.

And giving police the authority to use force doesn't make them "unequal." Socialism should be a purely economic equality--everyone gets a "middle class" allotment of land and goods, and everyone works in some way or another.

Saying the police are "no longer equal" is a straw-man agrument. Communism doesn't require its participants to be equal--they just need to be honest and generous. (A lesser socialism, which could even be based upon a capitalist economy, would provide all with an acceptable standard of living, automate as many tasks as possible, and give rewards to those who do more.)

The problem with communism isn't by design, and it isn't how it responds to criminals. Communism's downfall is its revolutionary ideals, it's unnecessary atheist zealotry, and it's vulnerability to corruption and domination by a tyrant.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the concerns Blair/Orwell had was based on the experiences he and his wife had in Britian during WWII. She worked for the government during the war and had first hand experience of the government's censoring - she did some of it.

Re:Orwell's vision was true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Best signature I saw a while ago on a USENET post

" NSA: 1984 - we are behind schedule."

this is what it takes

[L. VeGas]

Put bars on Windows and locks on Gates.

Then I'll feel secure.

Re:this is what it takes

[wass]

No no, look at it from the optimistic vantage point instead.

In a world without walls, there's no need for Windows.
In a world without fences, there's no need for Gates.

Re:this is what it takes

[YetAnotherDave]

well, spending any time working with windows makes me want to go to the bar...

Re:this is what it takes

[Anonymous Coward]

True, and in a zoo without walls, the penguins would esape, mate with the gnu's and just generally cause trouble. And we would'nt want that not would we children?

Re:this is what it takes

[FroMan]

In a world without walls, there's no need for Windows.

Or doors. Granted a whole lot of people will be without homes if we don't have walls.

In a world without fences, there's no need for Gates.

Here we have the problem of the neighbors dog coming over and tearing up your lawn.

So, your premise that we do not need wall or fences is kind of bad.

Obviously

[Bame Flait]

Additionally, Mr. Gates is also expected to call upon renowned informaticist Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf to support his arguments.

Re:Obviously

[LostCluster]

Hey, the man is good at doing his job. Most of Saddam's mouthpieces now say that they never liked the man, but they were just doing their jobs of spreading the information his government wanted spread. Telling lies to the American media isn't exactly a war crime, in fact it's a very American thing to do... a lot of Americans lie in front of media cameras on a daily basis, they include lawyers and executives among others.

Re:Obviously

[Sanction]

Lying to spread information the government wanted to be beleived...were you talking about the Iraqi government or ours?

Some choice quotes

[Surak]

"[Palladium/Trustworthy Computing] can make our country more secure and prevent the nightmare vision of George Orwell at the same time," Gates said.

Wow. He said that with a straight face? I'd HATE to have played poker with this guy in college. No wonder he cleaned up the table.

Referring to the disparate radio systems scattered among first responders at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, Gates said effective command and control cannot arise from cracked communications.

His words served as a segue into his description of a new Microsoft Corp. application, called Regional Automated Information Network, which allows three local law enforcement agencies in Washington state to share records.

The new pilot, which Microsoft officials said started last November, combines Microsoft Windows Server 2003, Microsoft Visual Studio .NET and Microsoft SQL Server 2000 in a desktop portal and Extensible Markup Language-based query engine that lets 17 jurisdictions electronically search each other's records management systems.

Hmmm...shouldn't have any problems with cracked communication there. :)

Re:Some choice quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another example of Microsoft innovation. They've had that in Ohio for YEARS. It is called LEADS.

Re:Some choice quotes

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Of course, the problem with these law enforcement databases is not that they can exchange information, it's that the information in them is suspect, libelous, our outright wrong.

My mother was working on on such system for tracking survielance calls. You would see observations like "Sounds black" or "Probable Prostitute". The place was run by Ex-law enforcement types, and they really thought these sorts of things were appropriate to store in a database.

If I have learned anything running databases at my current job, and for a volunteer organization, its that bad data is like a disease. You get folks who don't understand what goes where, or what is appropriate to store, you find yourself doing a whole lot of cleaning up later.

On one form we ask volunteers for Emergency Medical information and Allergies. I had to explicitly instruct people to stop submitting hayfever or dairy products we only want to know what to tell the Paramedic if you are unconcious.

Re:Some choice quotes

[mblase]

His words served as a segue into his description of a new Microsoft Corp. application, called Regional Automated Information Network

I guess he's not content with Seattle getting too much R.A.I.N., so since he can't fix it, he wants to share it with the entire country....

Re:Some choice quotes

[Imperator]

That's why I go out of my way to make sure incorrect information about me is entered into various databases. For example, I am now registered with literally upwards of 50 frequent flyer programs, all with variations on my information. (As long as I don't try to fly on those numbers, I'm pretty sure I'm not breaking the law, though IANAL.) But there are lots of easy ways to get fake data about you into those databases, and the net result is that it's harder to figure out what information about you is real.

Re:Some choice quotes

[morcheeba]

Oh, I wish the people at the pentagon's new program for a database that will contain "raw, non-validated" reports of "anomalous activities" understood this principle. I guess they want to be buried in a mountain of data so that when something bad happens, they can claim that they knew something about it. Argh!!

Re:Some choice quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, since we are supposedly in a technical and not political forum here:

Explain to me why not:
a) A system with memory that even kernelmode processes can't see.
b) Encrypted input (via usb) to the security kernel and encrypted output to the graphics card
c) A protocol by which the code-identity (hash of the executable) of processes running in palladium (not windows) can be remotely determined

Can be used to build a trusted chat/filesharing app that the government can't read unless they break strong crypto (RSA and AES).

So, if we are all playing at being engineers let's see some engineering answers, not political bullshit masquerading as engineering.

Re:Some choice quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the problem with these law enforcement databases is not that they can exchange information

This is indeed a problem, if some law enforcement agencies are allowed to exchange information with other (non-US) law enforcement agencies which use torture to obtain their information. In other words, "scrupulous" databases exchanging information with "unscrupulous" databases allows the operators of the scrupulous database to get information whose procurement may involve serious human rights violations. The problem is described in the book "The end of anonymity" (German original title: "Das ende der Anonymitaet"), by the German Heise Verlag publisher.

Re:Microsoft viruses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows IS the virus!

Similar story at CNN Europe

[Jon Abbott]

CNN Europe recently ran a similar story about Orwell's dystopian vision, and whether or not it has "come true" or not by now... Not much of the story is new for us that like to wear tin foil hats though... :^)

Re:Similar story at CNN Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

A fundamental theme of 1984 was doublespeak and its use to confuse the public about the policy intent of the state. Let's consider a few recent items from the US Federal government. Note that while this may look like Bush bashing, I could go further back into history and find an assortment of similar cases from Democratic administrations. I am currently confining myself to only the most recent and obvious items of interest.

Tax cuts to "stimulate the economy": Intended to starve entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and public schools that it would be political suicide to challenge directly.

Clear Skies Act: Reduces restrictions on air pollution.

Healthy Forest Act: Cuts down profitable old growth forest.

PATRIOT Act: In the name of security, takes away civil liberties that are fundamental to the nation to which we are "patriotic".

FCC Deregulation: Ostensibly to allow media outlets to compete in the newly diverse environment, though the only outcome would be increased concentration of control of media outlets, which invariably raises barriers to competition.

The only places where I see significant diversion between 21st c. US and Orwell's vision are:

1) I don't recall corporate interests being the prime movers behind the policies of the state in 1984 (though it has been 20 years since I read it).

2) I am technically free to sound off this point of view for a marginalized, largely politically insignificant audience.

Re:Similar story at CNN Europe

[crazyphilman]

The thing about Orwell is, he was following a premise to a logical end in an effort to show the possible results of the premise (premise being, that a government decides to totally control every aspect of their citizens lives, even going so far as to try and control their thoughts through a redefinition of their language). People often forget that 1984 was written in 1948, on the heels of WWII, in which several governments had embarked on exactly this process -- totalitarianism -- and had demonstrated a great deal of power in molding their citizen's lives.

Bill Gates, and many other similar people (defined in my view as "people with a vested interest in creating systems with which the government can increase its control over us") like to point out that "Orwell's predictions didn't come true". They do this because if they say it often enough, people may believe it (which ironically is one of the mind-control techniques in 1984).

It's propaganda, and untrue, because after all, a number of governments in the past have used the techniques Orwell discussed, and today, even the US government uses them. Consider how it likes to redefine language; for example, calling hackers terrorists, thus redefining terrorist in a vague way while retaining the original negative overtones and successfully painting hackers as equivalent to people who blow up buses... Or "unlawful combatants" instead of "POWS", to permit them to flagrantly violate Geneva conventions while simultaneously complaining about the treatment of US troops. But, it doesn't stop there: what about framing things as bad, sinful or "unamerican" in a purely political ploy to bully someone into stopping some activity? What about the government's continuous attempts at creating a surveillance society? England currently has video cameras on almost every public street in London. If you travel there, you are *always* under surveillance. It hasn't caught on in the US yet, but it's just a matter of time before it does.

The problem with people contending that Orwell's "predictions" haven't come true is that the TRUTH is, they haven't come true YET. And, there are signs that the process by which they MAY come true has already begun. If we permit people like Bill Gates to persuade us that we are "safe", and not at risk, we may become complacent, and before we know it, we'll end up starring in our very own version of 1984. The only thing that has prevented it so far has been the risk of massive public outcry and voter rejection.

You don't have to wear a "tin foil hat" to understand where this situation could lead. You only have to consider it and form your own opinions about the matter, rejecting the propaganda being thrown around.

Re:Similar story at CNN Europe

[aborchers]

England currently has video cameras on almost every public street in London. If you travel there, you are *always* under surveillance. It hasn't caught on in the US yet, but it's just a matter of time before it does.

They're slowly softening us up.

It's starting with traffic intersections. Most of the major intersections I drive through every day now have cameras installed for photographing red light runners.

Less obvious are all the cameras belonging to private businesses. These are not run by a central authority, but their recordings are immediately siezed in the course of any investigation by law enforcement.

Re:Similar story at CNN Europe

[crazyphilman]

Also, here in New York, the state government tracks all sorts of personal movement. If you use a subway card, your movements are recorded; if you use EasyPass, your movements into and out of NYC, and around the state via toll roads, are recorded on a large Digital Unix server. I had a conversation once with one of the engineers who built the system. He said that whenever you passed through a toll on a New York State Highway, your front license plate, your rear license plate, your VIN plate on your dashboard, and your face are all recorded. The two license plates are compared, and then, they are compared to the VIN number to see if they match up. If they don't, the system has the capacity to react to that, although I don't know if they've enabled that part. The original motivation for this was the World Trade Center bombing, and the Oklahoma City bombing, way back when. They wanted to track vehicle traffic in and out of NYC.

During WWII, the Germans controlled traffic via checkpoints every few miles. You had to show papers to proceed. It was a large part of totalitarian control -- control of personal movement is control of liberty.

Interesting, isn't it?

Re:Similar story at CNN Europe

[aborchers]

Interesting, isn't it?

Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out what they're using those "American Idol" phone calls for... :-)

Re:Similar story at CNN Europe

[benjamindees]

2) I am technically free to sound off this point of view for a marginalized, largely politically insignificant audience.

As long as you do it anonymously, lest you become 'marginalized' as well.

Re:Similar story at CNN Europe

[cyberformer]

1) There's no real difference between a monopolistic corporation that controls every aspect of life and a totalitarian state. Sure, CEOs talk of "enterprise", but it's just as meaningless as Stalin's talk of "equality". Socialism is state-owned corporations, modern America is a corporate-owned state.

2) In 1984, most of the people (the "proles") are technically free. It's only a relatively powerful subset that the party bothers to exert absolute control over.

Check this one out

[Anonymous Coward]

Check this Inquirer article out:

here.

Rather bashful of Gates...

Re:Check this one out

[bytes256]

Rather bashful of Gates...

Awwwwwwwww did they make Billy Willy blush?

Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[garcia]

"This technology can make our country more secure and prevent the nightmare vision of George Orwell at the same time," Gates said. "Orwell didn't anticipate how technology can be used to protect privacy. The fact that technology can protect both security and privacy by protecting the computer systems and the information on them is a positive thing."

Dear Mr. Bullshit Artist Premiere:

Explain to me how the technology you are pushing for will protect my privacy? Your current pushes seem to be towards forwarding my information about EVERYTHING on my computer (including what hardware I am using when XP shuts itself off), stopping me from running what I want in my fucking house, on my fucking computer, and forcing me to "sign" draconian agreements to use software YOU force me to use.

So, not only is my privacy signed away, my freedom to use software *I* want to use is toast, and you get to dictate the OS of the future by allowing companies to see the "benefits" of developing for your shit.

Once your pushes for these "protection schemes" goes away I will again feel a bit safer running your systems.

Please refrain from future attempts at dictating to me what I can and can't do with software and hardware I purchased.

Thanks for listening,

Re:Microsoft viruses?

[jasonsfa98]

MS Windows is a virus:

Here's what viruses do:

1. They replicate quickly - okay, Windows does that.

2. Viruses use up valuable system resources, slowing down the system as they do so - okay, Windows does that.

3. Viruses will, from time to time, trash your hard disk - okay, Windows does that too.

4. Viruses are usually carried, unknown to the user, along with valuable programs and systems. Sigh... Windows does that, too.

5. Viruses will occasionally make the user suspect their system is too slow (see 2) and the user will buy new hardware. Yup, that's with Windows, too.

Until now it seems Windows is a virus...but there are fundamental differences:

Viruses are well supported by their authors, are running on most systems, their program code is fast, compact and efficient and they tend to become more sophisticated as they mature.

So Windows is not a virus.

It's a bug.

From someone else ...

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that I have to read the BBC to get some of the news that don't make the cut in US media isn't really worrysome? Or that most US radios won't play more than a dozen songs all day long? Or the fact that several laws and regulations are enacted without the public being aware of them? Cases in point: DMCA, UCITA, new FCC rules, etc.

Maybe there's no Big Brother, but I'm convinced there's a Big Brotherhood.

Re:Really?

[Radon Knight]

> Maybe there's no Big Brother, but I'm convinced there's
> a Big Brotherhood.

You might consider reading Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent. It's an interesting account of how market forces in the mass media can serve to generate an implicit propaganda machine for the government. It's implicit because there is no single person in charge of saying "print this!" or "don't print that!", but the convergence of big business and mass media and corporate interests can all lead to generate a similar sort of phenomenon.

Re:Really?

[Scrameustache]

The fact that I have to read the BBC to get some of the news that don't make the cut in US media isn't really worrysome?

What worries me is that you think that the BBC is viable alternative to US news when they are both subject to the propaganda of their joint militaries going at war together...

They both have "security" issues they'll want to edit out of the news, as well as "morale" booster they'll want to *cough*JessicaLynch*cough* insert in the "news".

Re:Really?

[Fascist Christ]

... there's a Big Brotherhood.

That's right! And they worship the great leaders of the United States who stood for what really matters! You know: Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Hamilton ...

Re:Really?

[roman_mir]

You also might considering reading works of M. Foucault on the suggestiveness of power. Power is suggestive, meaning that a specific agenda can be pushed onto a society though almost invisible means, where the opinion of society is formed through suggestions passed in the media such as TV, radio, newspapers...

1984

[Waab]

Gates told the Homeland Security folks all about how Palladium and other 'secure computing' initiatives will actually prevent the kind of scenario presented in Orwell's classic.

When asked by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge exactly how Palladium "relates to that one really neat Super Bowl commercial, the one with the running and throwing the hammer at the tv", Gates got a little red in the face and mumbled something about how that was the "wrong company."

Re:1984

[TedTschopp]

ok, maybe its the time of day. Perhaps it's a lack of sleep. I don't care, that was perhaps the funniest thing I have read on this site.

Ted

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Mod this guy up. For humor at least

Re:1984

[LostCluster]

Palladium's intent is to create a system where information is trapped within the system, and any transfer of that infomation is properly documented. It's a great thing in a goverment situations where an accurate audit trail is something some people are always trying to get while others are trying to destroy it. (We can't comment on how well Palladium works because it's not done being made...)

Of course, Palladium is the enemy of anybody who calls non-accountabilty by it's more positve name, anonymity. Nothing's anonymous in Palladium's world, which pretty much indicates that there are some people who don't want to go anywhere near Palladium. As long as Palladium isn't forced on anybody, we're still okay, and there's been no talk of that.

Somehow, I think AMD and nVidia will always choose to offer non-Palladium hardware, and Linux will always be there. As long as non-Palladium computing still exists, we're still okay. Intel and Microsoft can leave that market if they wish, they most likely won't be missed anyway.

Remember, in Orwell's universe the government was unaccountable yet the the individual's every move was monitored and recorded. Maybe we actually want Palladium in our government's computers, because our system is based on the government's every move being accounted for and the individual only being monitored when there is a reasonable suspicion of a crime.

Orwell's vision not happening? NOT!

[gordona]

If anyone cares who doubts that we don't live in Orwellian times, listen to Democracy Now (www.democracynow.org), Wednesdays broadcast should surely convince you. You can get it at: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/06/2 5/1353213.

What else do you expect?

[Motherfucking Shit]

Microsoft founder and chairman Bill Gates told a homeland-security conference on Wednesday afternoon that Orwell's dystopian vision of the future, in which Big Brother used technology as a form of social control, 'didn't come true, and I don't believe it will.'"

Does anyone expect Bill Gates to say "Yes, Big Brother is coming alive and we're helping to make it happen?" Or "Total Information Awareness will really take hold once Longhorn is released to consumers?"

Let's get real. Microsoft may be innocent in terms of Orwellian observations, or they may be a massive conspirator in making such surveillance happen. Microsoft may be a willing participant in the Magic Lantern conspiracy, or they may be a virulent detractor to such a program. The truth is that none of us will ever really know for sure until it's too late.

Do I think Bill himself hates the idea of an Orwellian technological see-all-evil? Yes, I do - the man is human, after all, and quite the philanthropist to boot. Do I trust his company to follow up? No, I don't.

BillG can say what he likes. It doesn't make me any more confident.

Re:What else do you expect?

[teamhasnoi]

I agree with you 100%, Mr. Shit. I think you hit that nail on the head, Motherfucking. May I call you Motherfucking?

I would also add that someone like Bill would most likely be able to 'exclude' himself from such T.I.A. databases to some extent.

The status symbol of the future will be how *little* information can be found on you.

Sadly, every database is misused at some time or another. I don't expect that it will be much different with ones that contain the details of lives.

Can anyone here say that they would not be tempted to look through the T.I.A. database if they had a chance? You wont get caught, because good ol' boy Poindexter will build that in.

Keep up the good work, Motherfucking Shit. You are a credit to your post.

Re:What else do you expect?

[dnaSpyDir]

Do I think Bill himself hates the idea of an Orwellian technological see-all-evil? Yes, I do - the man is human, after all, and quite the philanthropist to boot. Do I trust his company to follow up? No, I don't.

Oh really now... i think SchoolNet Nambia would disagree. billg is a savy businessman and profiteer who is shrouded in apparent philanthropy, nothing more.

Re:What else do you expect?

[borgasm]

I'd like to see them install Magic Lantern on my Gentoo box....

If they get around my pinhole cameras, I will also be impressed....

Re:What else do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using doublespeak to refute an Orwellian future. How ironic!!

Re:What else do you expect?

[whereiswaldo]

...didn't come true, and I don't believe it will

Perhaps what he is really saying is:

"As long as Linux continues on its current growth path, there is no hope in hell of Orwell's predictions coming true. We've got a lot of work to do in this area." ;)

Course not - Windows is too easy to hack

[Ra5pu7in]

Gates is right that it didn't come true ... yet. Windows, as the base OS of such a system is so weak it couldn't possibly hold up to the underground attacks it would face.

hmmm, hairs on end.

[MadJo]

"We're working with a variety of hardware and software partners to provide this level of protection against future viruses, threats from hackers or anyone seeking to acquire personal information or digital property with malicious intent," Gates said.
and who desides what digital property would be with malicious intent?
And what do they mean with malicious intent?

Hamre said that critics of TIA, who have worried that it may lead to the creation of a computerised dossier on every American, are misinformed. "They've engineered privacy into it... We need people to shoulder their honest responsibilities for oversight."
And who will guarantee this privacy, when they collect just about any information they can find on you?

Just some questions that arise from reading this material.
BTW, I think it is funny how Microsoft is able to destroy a nice name (Palladium) into an unpronouncable acronym (NGNCB).

Viruses as Control over Big Brother?

[Bonker]

Microsoft is doing what corporations do-- They make money by whatever means they can. If that means setting up Orwelling controls for overzealous LEOs, then so be it. Is Microsoft doing that? Probably not intentionally, but they're putting the infrstructure in place to make it happen regardless.

Reading about Sobig.E this morning made me start to think about the positive effects of viruses and computer problems.

One of the most changing impacts is that anyone who spends any time around computers at all gains a healthy respect of what kind of effort is needed to keep your personal information on your computer and out of the hands of malicious crackers. I upset my mother deeply a few months ago when I demonstrated to her that her computer was infected by one of the CodeRed variants. It was most disturbing for her to have me read the contents of her 'My Documents' directory off to her over the phone. She immediately installed firewall software and the kind of virus scanning software I recommended.

It's becoming more and more likely for people to want to protect themselves and their computers from informational damage, wether it comes from malicious information vandals or belligerant, mammoth-like corporations.

Re:Viruses as Control over Big Brother?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>It was most disturbing for her to have me read the contents of her 'My Documents' directory off to her over the phone. She immediately installed firewall software and the kind of virus scanning software I recommended.

You're telling her to treat the symptom and not the cause. Better advice would have been "get a Mac".

Re:Viruses as Control over Big Brother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, it'd be cheaper to install Gentoo.

Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Hrm, some time ago this would be called a conspiracy theory. He's got a lot of anti-terror advocates backing this statement. Those advocates are probably hindered by the opinion of anti-terror laws bringing us to a orwellian-alike state.
So yah, I guess Bill's selling here and helping the anti-terror advocates in their campaign.

Neat

[Jonsey]

It's a troll article, almost.

More On Topic, 1984 is/was not a vision of the future, but (to me) a warning.

My local paper did a report about it yesterday (or the day before) on what would have been Orwell's 100th birthday. As a warning of what could happen if technology controls us, 1984 is wonderful.

Re:Microsoft viruses?

[Baikala]

What was that program that Will Smith uploaded to the alien mothership to put the system on it's knees?

you're right, it was an image of windows 98.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[goldspider]

"...and forcing me to "sign" draconian agreements to use software YOU force me to use."

So are you saying that jack-booted thugs are forcing you to install and use Windows? Or are you suggesting that quality alternatives to windows like Linux and *BSD are failures?

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Anonymous Coward]

TROLL? How the fuck is speaking the truth a troll?

Gates+Security=Oxymoron

[the_webmaestro]

That's why I only run Windows in a Virtual Machine... (the software for which Virtual PC happens to be owned by M$ double-d'oh!)... but is that my fault? $#!t! Does he have to buy^H^H^Hinfect everything?!

Come on Michael ...

[SuperDuG]

Blaming Bill Gates for Microsoft Worms is about the same as blaiming Henry Ford for drunk driving deaths.

I'm not big fan of MS, but do you have to MS troll right there on the front page? Give the guy a little break, he's a gek that made it big and let the money get to him. He _was_ one of us back in the day, and I think a million billion dollars later I might change my core values.

Re:Come on Michael ...

[Daniel Phillips]

Blaming Bill Gates for Microsoft Worms is about the same as blaiming Henry Ford for drunk driving deaths.

Just replace "drunk driving" by "exploding gastanks" and your analogy will work fine.

Re:Come on Michael ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Give the guy a little break, he's a gek that made it big and let the money get to him.

Bill Gates was never and never will be a geek. He's a good businessman (although ethically lost) and a huge dork, but he is not a geek.

Also, if Ford sold cars with a fully stocked bar in the glovebox you can bet they'd be sued for causing drunk driving. MS needed to focus on security 20 years ago, around the same time they were too busy using sleazy business tactics to shut out the competition.

Re:Come on Michael ...

[Anonymous Coward]

He _was_ one of us back in the day, and I think a million billion dollars later I might change my core values.

Are you kidding me? If I was a billionaire, that's when I would be more likely to be charitable. After all, I woluld be pretty well off and able to afford anything I want.

Greed. That's why many rich people suck, it's not the money.

Re: Come on Michael ...

[Black Parrot]

> Blaming Bill Gates for Microsoft Worms is about the same as blaiming Henry Ford for drunk driving deaths.

No, it's more like blaming Ford's executives for their SUV rollover deaths.

A perfectly reasonable assignment of blame, if you think the execs are aware of the problem and won't make the decisions necessary to fix it.

Re:Come on Michael ...

[Lord_Slepnir]

It works fine, because we all know that people in Microsoft know about the openings in Windows security and decide to not fix them deliberatly.

Re:Come on Michael ...

[lynx_user_abroad]

Blaming Bill Gates for Microsoft Worms is about the same as blaiming Henry Ford for drunk driving deaths.

No, it would be more like blaming Henry Ford for selling unsafe Pinto's (or more generally any car without seatbelts) because making them safe would cost too much and cut into sales.

A better analogy would be blaming Bill Gates for Microsoft remote exploits as about the same as blaiming Henry Ford for drunk driving deaths.

Feel better now? (-:

Re:Come on Michael ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Every year, Bill Gates donates more to charity than any single other person on the planet. I'm not supporting him, but it's a fact.

Re:Come on Michael ...

[dnaSpyDir]

Give the guy a little break, he's a gek that made it big and let the money get to him.

no he wasn't. have you not read the infamous Open Letter to Hobbiests .

at the risk of sounding redundant, billg is a savy businessman and profiteer. nothing more. he is not for community, openess, or sharing in any way that would threaten his empire. he is about profits, nothing more. and anything that threatens profits must be expunged.

i also disagree about "a million billion dollars" changing one's core values. i believe "core values" are a constant, but money makes forcing them on others a real possibility. this is what lobbiests do, and with great success i might add.

Re:Come on Michael ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nononono Windows 2K and more don't crash by themself anymore so shut the hell up. Go smoke you crack in your Lunix hippy house and stop posting thank you.

Re:Come on Michael ...

[Anonymous Coward]

OI, so you're saying that Ford *deliberately* put the shoddy gas tanks out there?

Isn't that libel?

Re:Come on Michael ...

[Edmund Blackadder]

Everone should know that if you put in scripting capabilities into a data file format, you will enable people to pass viruses through it (something that was impossible before).

That is just common snese.

It is also knowledge that people usually do not exchange executables that often (unless they are warez kids), but do exchange data files (such as emails and word documents) very often, so allowing viruses to infect data files greatly increases the risk of viruses.

So yeah the people at Ms should have known they were causing great security risks.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is forcing you to use Microsoft products? There are plenty of open source solutions to most of the tasks your average computer user wants to perform so there's no reason you have to go with Microsoft.

Disconnect from reality

[revscat]

Microsoft founder and chairman Bill Gates told a homeland-security conference on Wednesday afternoon that Orwell's dystopian vision of the future, in which Big Brother used technology as a form of social control, "didn't come true, and I don't believe it will."

Is it just me, or is the view when you're worth bookoo bagallions just a little bit different than from when you have to worry about finances more? Maybe it's just me, but it seems that Gates, being in the stratosphere as far as powerful men are concerned, doesn't have to concern himself with Orwellian government because he is above the fray.

"Class warfare" and yadda-yadda, but having that much money and influence simply has to affect how you view the world. This is a classic example of this in play. *I* worry about government intrusiveness and civil liberties because I am almost completely powerless - as an individual - to prevent it. Sure I got a couple of guns, but what good would that do against a government?

Re:Disconnect from reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me, or is the view when you're worth bookoo bagallions just a little bit different ...

I was thinking the same thing when I watched George
Bush talking about how telemarketing calls are
annoying. I really wonder how many he gets.

Re:Disconnect from reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the trip his father (#41) made when touring a grocery store? He saw people in lines at the checkout and was very curious about what the people were doing (scanning prices). He was very fascinated because he'd never thought something like that could happen.

Re:Disconnect from reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure I got a couple of guns, but what good would that do against a government?

How do you think America gained independence?
It wasn't because they asked nicely.

Re:Disconnect from reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to democracy!

Favorite quote from the link

[deadsaijinx*]

"The present reality is a middle-aged man with a worried expression and a big butt."

Viruses unchecked?

[Dot.Com.CEO]

I mean, buy an antivirus, how bad can it be. Download it off kazaa, for fuck's sake! Blaming Windows and Microsoft for viruses is stupid, if you have to blame someone blame stupid users without current antiviruses. Or, here's a novel idea: blame the people who write the viruses! I know, makes the mind explode...

Re:Viruses unchecked?

[Drakin]

Why download it off kazaa? There's a perfectly functional, free antivirus program for windows out there. AVG Anti Virus. http://www.grisoft.com/

Re:Viruses unchecked?

[griffjon]

Um, or download AVG from grisoft.com for free, and aget a lower memory-footprint, and fewer clutter-things than McAfee or Norton.

No need to get illegal here for inferior products.

Re:Viruses unchecked?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we blame the ONLY company who builds into all of their applications (and media file formats) the ability to automatically execute vb scripts? I know, makes the mind explode.

Re:Viruses unchecked?

[daaan]

This reminds me of the day that a client of mine decided that she needed to update her A/V, so she downloaded a cracked version of MacAffee and installed it.

I get the phone call about 30 minutes later that her computer is "acting weird", so I head over to take a look.

Turns out that the download itself had been infected with some worm/word macro/whaterver virus, and her suddenly pristine machine now had half a dozen or so viruses, and was emailing ILOVEYOU to everyone on the block.

She saved about $50 CDN by downloading it, and then wound up spending about $400 to have me clean up after that mess.

Yeah, downloading pirated A/V is a GREAT idea.

Re:Viruses unchecked?

[Dot.Com.CEO]

I think everyone who so far has responded to my message has missed my point completely. I was not advocating the use of pirate software, I was merely pointing out the wide availability of such software for people who are obviously too cheap to buy them. Also, for people who think AVG is great, well, I suggest you download a trial of McAfee and see how many viruses you already have. I used to swear by AVG until I decided to follow the advice of a friend who is in the know and install McAfee. I apparently had 10 infected files (don't remember the virus...).

Re:Viruses unchecked?

[mibus]

No need to get illegal here for inferior products.

Which is a much shorter (+ better) way of saying what I tell my friends when they whinge about me not running Windows.

ie. You're doing something that is illegal and can make you have to pay $$$ in fines, for software that I have for free. And doesn't crash as often. etc.

But no, everyone "needs" MSN Messenger Plus Sounds and MSN Messenger 6 etc.

Some people I know have valid reasons (mostly gamers)... most don't.

It was pretty funny... I had to spend about ten minutes explaining to one friend how I could keep MSN Messenger logs without MSN Plus. ("It's only a shortcoming in their client that makes you need MSN Plus" was my final 'solution' :-)

Re:Viruses unchecked?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you weren't advocating the use of pirated software, why would you recommend that someone gets it off of Kazaa? why not recomment norton.com. or macaffee.com?

Re:Slashdot moderation

[Baikala]

Some people do yoga, some people take prozac... slashdoters flame microsoft.
Diferent people deal with stress in diferent ways.

Re:Orwell's vision not happening? NOT!

[slackr]

This is so true. When I read 1984, the privacy concerns paled in my mind in comparison with the government's control of information and by extension its absolute power over knowledge. Sure the 24-hour surveillance was scary, but what about not being able to trust the thoughts, beliefs and "facts" inside your own head? Sound like any Fox News shows you've seen recently?

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[MrBoombasticfantasti]

stopping me from running what I want in my fucking house, on my fucking computer, and forcing me to "sign" draconian agreements to use software YOU force me to use.

I'm not normally one to point out the bloody obvious, but you don't have to use that software. There are plenty alternative operating systems and applications.

If you want to just do your home-office, browsy things, just get a Mac. If you want to tinker with your computer, get GNU/Linux. And if you value your privacy, just get OpenBSD.

Bottom line is, don't sit-'n-sulk (tm), but take arms against this sea of troubles!

Quoting Shakespeare? Me?

I'm Comfortable With The Road Ahead...

[deadlinegrunt]

After all I don't like being able to think for myself either. As long as we have people, corporations, and organizations that are so corrupt, immoral, and indifferent to anything other than money alone, I know my best interest will be served by these groups.

Thankfully the powers that be have the attitude, "This place would be okay if it weren't for all the damn people." My confidence in them stands unwaivering.

Mess with my liberties all you like but just don't mess with my food...

Re: I'm Comfortable With The Road Ahead...

[Black Parrot]

The version without the internet?

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Anonymous Coward]

yes.

Promethues Deception?

[Glove d'OJ]

Is it just me, or does Gates' desire to control sound a bit like the Prometheans in Robert Ludlum's Prometheus Deception. Oddly enough, the fictional huge software company is mentioned as a once-competitor to Microsoft...

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Orwell didn't anticipate how technology can be used to protect privacy."

No, he didn't. Orwell anticipated how technology could be used to violate privacy and control a population. What does Mr. Gates think the Telescreens and Memory Holes are for? How does he not equate them to an abuse of technology by a totalitarian regime?

I'm fairly certain that anyone who's sat through the last decade of modern warfair is fairly well versed in the concept of propoganda, both against the enemy and your own population? Most people would consider that an abuse of technology in an attempt to control.

Microsoft will protect only those with the power and the money to give to Microsoft. The rest of us Prols will have to take it "for our own good" of course. Think of it as the seperation between the "Inner" and the "Outer" parties..

talking out of two sides of his mouth.

[wwest4]

> "Orwell was an alarmist"

and

> Gates applauded increased information sharing
> between government agencies.

Regardless of the technology involved: if inter-agency information sharing continues unabated, then U.S. lovers of the democratic republic are screwed out of it officially. This is simple to see, and Gates is not stupid. Clearly, he loves the promise of federal $ more than he fears totalitarianism. That's probably went without saying before the sales pitch to HomeSec.

microsoft and viruses

[palewhitemale]

everybody knows that there are indeed viruses for windows and that many of the microsoft apps for other OSs, most notably IE for OSX have had vulnerabilities. I've been wondering lately, are there any serious virus threats for systems other than windows?

-pale

Freakin' lasers

[truthsearch]

Don't forget the freakin' sharks with freakin' laser beams attached to their freakin' heads. They've killed many an un-named henchmen.

Re:Freakin' lasers

[bytes256]

Well what else would I put in my swimming pool?

*Pets kitty and laughs maniacally*

He's saying it *didn't* come true?

[gosand]

Gates told a homeland-security conference on Wednesday afternoon that Orwell's dystopian vision of the future, in which Big Brother used technology as a form of social control, "didn't come true, and I don't believe it will."

So he is saying that technology is not used as a form of social control? Here in the US, our society (as it were) is controlled by corporations. OK, maybe not for the people living in shacks in Montana, but for everyone else, there isn't much of a society to speak of outside of what technology provides. Music, television, video games, etc. But I guess there are still the good old methods of control being used, like lies, FUD, misplaced patriotism, and threats of WMD.

they're not "microsoft viruses"

[Anonymous Coward]

ms didn't write them. i know this is slurdot, but could you keep the kneejerk bashing down to a dullroar. thx.

Re: Oxymoron

[Black Parrot]

> Is it just me, or have 'Gates and Security' become another oxymoron term, like 'Microsoft Works'?

For Gates and other MS execs, "security" is just another marketing buzzword.

And that's exactly what they're selling.

Viruses abound?

[3.5 stripes]

Microsoft bought an AV company to combat that (RAV), and people got pissed about that.

Can you guys make up your minds?

Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

the 163 worldwide OSX and Linux users go unnoticed by virus kiddies...

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[garcia]

I am saying that due to the widespread use of Windows (and development of applications made SOLELY for Windows that are REQUIRED for everyday use) we are FORCED to use it.

I would love to say that there are acceptable amounts of quality software available for "free" OSs, but there's not.

Until the day comes when we can run all software regardless of OS we are going to continue to be forced to use Windows software.

Not EVERYONE can just drop Windows.

Re:Orwell's vision not happening? NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

ack! too...many...negatives...difficulty...parsing...

all well and good

[Anonymous Coward]

He's right. What he doesn't mention is what happens after the gov makes their technology embedded and required by law with no oversight. Then makes our use of technology to protect "our" privacy illegal.

If only criminals have guns... and the goverment isn't a ever a criminal, then they can always have guns without a balance.

Vice President Gates

[jpnews]

It's interesting to see Gates becoming more involved, on an official basis, with the U.S. Federal Government. He's a guy who's always been a politician of sorts, and he's certainly rich enough (and has made enough other people rich, as well) that his support could, theoretically, make or break a modern political campaign.

Now, I don't see Gates reforming his reputation enough to be a plausible candidate himself- well, not for anything more important than Vice President, anyway. But you've got to wonder about a guy whose dream has always been power, money, and more of both. Where else can he go?

Don't answer that, please.

Re:Vice President Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

Where else can he go?

To Hell?

Re:Vice President Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD UP REPLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1) shit in my face.
2) ???

3) profit!

Re:Vice President Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, I don't see Gates reforming his reputation enough to be a plausible candidate himself- well, not for anything more important than Vice President, anyway. But you've got to wonder about a guy whose dream has always been power, money, and more of both. Where else can he go?

He's chairman of Microsoft. You know, Microsoft? If he wants money and power then why the hell would he throw that in to join the US Governement, at any level? Maybe a Supreme Court Justice if that was possible, but president or something similar? WHY?

Trust vs. Security

[lynx_user_abroad]

I guess Gates still doesn't get it, or maybe it get's it and he's just hoping nobody calls him on it.

The concepts of trust and security are often used together, but it's important to realize they are at different ends of the spectrum.

If I ask you to trust me, what I'm really doing is asking you to remove some of the security you may have against actions I take.

Security can be a product; you may want to sell it, and I may want to buy it. But trust is a relationship. I will trust you only if I choose to, and no amount of price cuts will have an effect on that. Anyone who tries to sell trust clearly has other intentions in mind.

Also, you can build a fortress of security on top of a foundation of trust, but it makes no sense offer a fortress of security as a replacement for that foundation of trust, which is what many who offer "security" are really trying to sell. The trust has to be there first, or you have nothing to build the security upon.

I don't know if Microsoft will ever recover enough community trust to make any security they offer worthwhile, but I certainly wouldn't want to accept the "security" they offer without a foundation of trust to place it on.

Re:Trust vs. Security

[Unfallen]

Yes, I've always thought this was a confused issue too.

However, in some extreme-point-haired-management kind of way, trust and security have now become such cliched buzzwords that they have lost any significant meaning they once meant, at least in politics. Most staements involving trust or security are generally (ok, IMHO :) regarded as an excuse to carry out some action, without any real rationale being given.

My own personal paranoia aside though, paradoxically security as a social process has had completely the opposite effect. By promoting "security" as a product, or perhaps as an effect of pushing "fear" as one, those that choose to believe in the hype generated by its rolling machinations of fear tend to not feel any more "secure" in their new promised land. Rather, quite the opposite. Nor do they "trust" anyone or anything any more.

Furthermore, you cannot "buy trust". Anyone that believes they are secure because they have "bought" security and trustworthiness from elsewhere deserves all they get, when it does eventually come.

Re:Trust vs. Security

[sweatyboatman]

very nice point. it's important to note when words are undergoing redefinition to suit a political agenda.

This is what happens when the people who are dictating the language of a discussion are really trying to sell a product. Their usage is determined by what sounds the best and the phrases to which their focus groups responded most positively.

It's in their interest to muddy the semantic waters and cloud the issues, especially if they're covered in dirt already. And it's in our interest to examine the words they use to avoid any subtle collusion of meaning.

Re:Trust vs. Security

[lynx_user_abroad]

My own personal paranoia aside though, paradoxically security as a social process has had completely the opposite effect.

Security does exist. It's not entirely a marketdroid's wet dream. But security always takes a point of view. Security has an attitude.

When Microsoft adds security to it's products (at least when it actually does add security, and it's not just vapor hype) it is always adding security from the Microsoft point of view. The security they add is always aimed at addressing things Microsoft perceives as a vulnerability, and as such, will only benefit others to the extent they share Microsoft's interests. The more closely you are tied into the "Microsoft Way" of doing things, the more applicable the security fix will likely be for you.

But it's important to keep in mind Microsoft's prime (only?) motivation: profit. They will not release a "security enhancement" which has the effect of reducing their profitibility no matter how much more "secure" it makes their product by any definition you and I might use. (Or at least they better not. If they do, I know a truckload of lawyers ready to file a shareholder lawsuit against them for it.)

On the other hand, the more closely you are tied into the "Microsoft Way" the more likely you are to be creating profit for Microsoft, rather than yourself. (It's not always a bad strategy, Intel has done quite well with this tactic.) And nobody want's to be the Netscape, Sun, or other company that finds itself with a different "security point of view". Remember "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run?" That was a Microsoft security issue.

If the "security" someone is offering doesn't secure the things you find valuable, it's likely because the person offering that security has a different perspective on what he considers to be the greatest threat. This explains both Ashcroft's push for TIA (Is he more concerned that the U.S. Government will be overthrown, or that the Republican Administration will be overthrown?), as well as the insistence of "daily Windows viruses and worms are not a grave enough threat to consider replacing Windows with another platform" by those who's job security depends on not replacing Windows with another platform.

Re:Trust vs. Security

[lynx_user_abroad]

it's important to note when words are undergoing redefinition to suit a political agenda.

We've seen this in action during the War in Iraq. Originally, "Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons" were the target of the search. Later, that definition was broadened into "Banned weapons", then the still more general "weapons of mass destruction". Currently, even those words have been lost, and everything now refers to "WMD's". It wouldn't surprise me if, within the next 6 weeks, we start seeing the "WMD" acronym re-defined to stand for something other than "Weapons", "Mass", and "Destruction".

Re:Trust vs. Security

[Asprin]

I agree, and the words "security" and "trust" should be deprecated from the language because their meanings have been diluted and degenerated to the point of uselessness.

Ten different experts will give you ten different definitions for each, all missing the critical issue: security isn't a switch you can turn on and off - it's a result, a scoreboard, for all those hundreds of tiny little decisions that go into the process of making, following and re-making your security policy.

You can never say you are "secure" in the general sense, just like you can never say your network is (**shudder**) "rock solid". (That's another word that, for me, usually red flags as "ignorable" everything the speaker is saying.)

Re:Trust vs. Security

[nicodaemos]

This is what happens when the people who are dictating the language of a discussion are really trying to sell a product. Their usage is determined by what sounds the best and the phrases to which their focus groups responded most positively.

Have you ever noticed that suburban residential developments and streets are often named after the things that they destroyed and replaced? How often have you seen an Elm street that was created by chopping down all of the Elm trees. Or a ShadyBrook development that has no trees, streams or shade. It's almost as if the name serves as a memorial or reminder of what was destroyed.

Understanding that some people (marketroids) in this world use memorial names really helps when trying to parse their message. Using this as a guide, what does Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing mean to you?

That's their job

[mobileskimo]

Gates applauded increased information sharing between government agencies. He cited current law-enforcement efforts to share criminal databases, but predicted that, "unless this system is properly connected to the entire Homeland Security command structure, the potential will not be fully realised."

I have no doubt that interconnecting information makes for more efficient gathering. But I'm not so sure efficient gathering is what I want agents to be doing, rather than due diligence and thorough gathering...

Sounds like agents are getting lazy and don't want to do the leg work to dig up information in different systems. Nice, now we will train them to look in only one place. Isn't that convenient.

Well, duh

[T40 Dude]

"didn't come true, and I don't believe it will" Problem is, that Bill didn't also believe that the Internet would come true !

Re:Well, duh

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

The Road Ahead, Now Including the Internet!!!

Hard to respect the prognosticating skills of a person who, in his book predicting the future, failed to see what was already shaping up to be the biggest sea change in his field since he entered it.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[deadsaijinx*]

Gates has built an empire and a monopoly. Therefore, most people use Windows. In order for data to be transfered between your computers and others, you must be able to run the same programs as others or those that share a data format. For many people, alternatives are still not capable of this. And for many people, Linux and BSD are not polished enough. Though many people here might enjoy the constant hacking and configing required to get linux running, most people would rather just install it and forget it. Plus, there are far more polished products for windows than there are polished, or even functional projects for linux.

1984 didn't come true?

[I start fires]

Whew! I was worried!

We can go back to munching on our Freedom Fries (Victory coffee anyone?).

Forget Iraq, we've always been at war with Syria.

Better remember not to disagree with the president, that's doubleplusungood!

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[greentree]

Your current pushes seem to be towards forwarding my information about EVERYTHING on my computer (including what hardware I am using when XP shuts itself off)

wah? are you talking about windows xp? the product id? nothing is sent to microsoft. the product id was used to prevent 'causual copying' and widespread use of product keys. it generated by your current hardware setup and the product key. nothing is sent during activation and there are many ways to get around the WPA. also, things like service pack 1a check for mainly two product ids that have been "blacklisted". what happens when xp shuts itself off? umm, beats me...

Which Reminds Me...

[tds67]

Hamre said that critics of TIA, who have worried that it may lead to the creation of a computerised dossier on every American, are misinformed.

Of course we are. I would write more, but I'm off to pay $8.00 to get a copy of my credit history dossier from the local credit bureau, because in the past year I've been harassed by two different attorneys representing banks that claim that I owe them money, even though I've never belonged to either bank. The attorney letters always state right off the bat that a negative entry has been placed on my credit history dossier, and that I need to contact them to get it removed. So much for being innocent before being proved guilty.

Reminds me of a poster I had 10 years ago

[stox]

A picture of an all seeing eye, with the caption "1984, we're behind schedule. National Security Agency"

Big Brotherhood

[Fred Tourette]

"Maybe there's no Big Brother, but I'm convinced there's a Big Brotherhood."

Amen. You should copyright that before Clear Channel does (just to keep you from being able to use it).

protects privacy by protecting computers?

[ph43thon]

I have a hard time figuring how, as Bill says, securing computers that contain private information protects our privacy. I am sure that any organization or government that compulsively collects private info will keep it very secure so they will always have access to it. What good did it do a person to know that the KGB and Stalin had their private info in a "very safe location"?

He acts on the false assumption that there will always be a reasonably non-nefarious type running the government. It may be fine now having "Total Info Awaremen" or very secure databases of private info.. assuming you don't feel threatened by our current government.. But, just as soon as the wind changes and some other political movement takes place.. the "not so nice" people will find this information infrastructure (Infostructure, for word geeks) to be very useful.

But I'm sure everything will be fine in my lifetime.

p

Philanthropist, no

[truthsearch]

I really don't like it when people say he's "quite the philanthropist." It's quite the opposite. My father's a CPA and one of the first things he tells a rich client is to give a lot to charity for tax purposes. If someone makes $100,000/yr and gives away $5,000 that's 5% going to charity. If Bill G's assets are (let's just say) increasing by $1 billion per year, giving away $10,000,000 is only 1% going to charity. So giving $50 million to charity may seem like a lot, but it's a very small portion of what he's got.

But much more important are where the so-called charity is going. Most of it goes into the trust his wife manages. Do you know what that charity does with their assets under management? The money that's in holding and not going out to good use is put into investments - tax-free investments in companies who are Microsoft's allies. I can't find the link at the moment, but the "charitable" Bill G is using his donations to fund companies to help Microsoft and put competition out of business. Also, much of the donations are for Microsoft software to be put into school systems. There's a lot more going on than cash going to poor starving children.

Re:Philanthropist, no

[CuriousGeorge113]

On Bill Gates wealth . . .

Remember that much of his estimated wealth is based on the value of his stock & assets, not neccessarily how much COH (Cash on hand) he actually has.

For instance, say I have $2k in the bank, but I also own a $20,000 car (paid, no debt). That would make my net worth $22,000; even though I only have $2,000 to play with.

So while I agree that Bill is definately giving small potatos comparativly, and this is not meant as an excuse of any sorts, he dosen't have as much "cash" as most people think. Just stocks & assets.

Re:Philanthropist, no

[DASHSL0T]

The link you are looking for I believe is this:

http://www.lindows.com/lindows_michaelsminutes_a rc hives.php?id=65

Re:Philanthropist, no

[donutello]

My father's a CPA and one of the first things he tells a rich client is to give a lot to charity for tax purposes.

Either your dad is a really bad CPA or you are a complete and utter moron who doesn't understand what he is doing or why.

There is no tax advantage to giving money to charity. The only tax "advantage" is that it is treated as if you never earned the money in the first place. So instead of paying taxes on the money you gave away it is as if you never earned it at all. Regardless of your income, given any $100, you're better off keeping it than giving it away to charity.

Re:Philanthropist, no

[drinkypoo]

Actually, that's a URL. This is a link.

Re:Philanthropist, no

[danila]

Of course, he doesn't have a lot of cash, it's not profitable to keep it. But I don't think most of his wealth is in assets like a car either. Most of it is probably stock, mostly MS shares. Stock is pretty liquid and he doesn't need it to drive to work. He can give MS shares to charity and everyone would be happy.

Re:Philanthropist, no

[truthsearch]

When you're rich it doesn't work this way. You're referring to the simple lines on the 1040 tax form. The rich set up charitable trusts. The money they donate goes on that line of the 1040. The trust, a non-profit entity, can do many things with that money, and the owner can also use it to his advantage. I can take a lunch, in the name of the trust, and treat is as an expense rather than out-of-pocket. Therefore the trust is paying for it with my money which I did not pay taxes on. Donating to the Red Cross or whoever does nothing for us tax-wise, correct. But when you're wealthy you can easily use quite a few loopholes.

Re:Philanthropist, no

[ptr2void]

What the heck is a CPA anyway? Sorry, I am no native speaker...

Re:Philanthropist, no

[gmhowell]

CPA=Certified Public Accountant.

Re:Philanthropist, no

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's financial statements are on the internet, I recall linked from Microsoft's site. The Foundation makes money via interest and donations every year. Calling it a charity is as much Newspeak as Gates' speech.

Re:Philanthropist, no

[Poeir]

Ah, I see you've played URLy-linky before.

Re:Philanthropist, no

[ptr2void]

Thanks!

Does Gates Read?

[linuxislandsucks]

from my recollections of Orwell it was never direct control but indirect conrol in incremental steps..

Did Gates actually read the book or cliff notes version?

Re:Does Gates Read?

[LostCluster]

from my recollections of Orwell it was never direct control but indirect conrol in incremental steps..

The technology never directly controled people, Big Brother controled the people. The problem was, Big Brother used technology in such a way to mask his/its own identity (It's never clear if Big Brother is one person or a group of people, or where the descisions are coming from.) while sending comands to the rest of the Party, and forbid Party members from having any contact with non-Party members.

Re:Does Gates Read?

[qtp]

There's no certainty that there is an actual Big Brother. Orwell leaves the possibility open that there is only The Party.

Well then...

[siskbc]

...you just have to fill that backdoor, then, don't you? I hear that's Gates' specialty.

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

And just like that, hatred of Microsoft is shown to be what it truly is, simple expression of masculine insecurity.

Re:Well then...

[pi radians]

...you just have to fill that backdoor, then, don't you? I hear that's Gates' specialty.

I don't get it....

... but I hear that Ballmer does, all the time.

/rimshot

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

And just like that, hatred of Microsoft is shown to be what it truly is, simple expression of masculine insecurity.

Goddam, lighten up. You can be quite secure and still appreciate a good backdoor gag. Sheesh.

Re:Well then...

[el-spectre]

yeah, so can your mom...

(sorry, cheap shot... too easy not to go for it.)

Re:Well then...

[realdpk]

The joke made enough sense without describing what Ballmer gets so graphically...

/rimshot

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can give it to her up the backdoor AND make her gag, then you, sir, mave a 30-foot long penis. Not to mention very twisty to make it through the small intestine

Re:Well then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Betcha can't fill this backdoor, bucko!

"Glasnost"

[geek4ever]

I love how the Harvard Crimson uses the word "Glastnost" (meaning Openness) Normally when you hear this word, it is hand in hand with the fall of the USSR....

Gates Rolls US Gov't

[Anonymous Coward]

1)Gates proposes interopability for homeland security 2)"Interopability can only be achieved by purchasing Microsoft products which fit together seemlessly." 3)Gates undoubtedly hints Linux is inherently incompatible with Windows AND because Linux is being used by so many foreign governments AND the source code is open to anyone to dissect, this leaves anyone running it unsecure because enemies have an insider's view of its vulnerabilities. Microsoft produces closed code, so it's less vulnerable to unauthorized users. 3)Homeland Security needs to ask themselves, "Just how stupid does this guy think we are?" Quick Analysis: Microsoft's stock is sitting still, the PC (hardware) market is stilling still as well (so there are no new copies of XP being sold) Server 2003 is out and they need some quick $$$ and bravado for their marketing department, they keep looking over their shoulders to see how close Linux is (one of these times they're going to do this in front of a tree) - including all of the non-US countries looking to toss MS out the door in favor of Linux, and Microsoft's attempt to play Brer Rabbit ("Please don't throw me in the briar patch!") by punishing themselves for the DOJ in giving away millions of copies of Windows and other software, seemingly taking a profit hit, but knowing full well that when these kids get out of school, they'll be brainwashed to favor MS.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[pmz]

So are you saying that jack-booted thugs are forcing you to install and use Windows?

Peer-pressure, despite its subtlty, is much more dangerous than any "jack-booted thug" will ever be.

Sounds like Orwell wrote it

[lysium]

War is Peace, Love is Hate, Ignorance is Strenth......Gates and Security?

--------

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Chewie]

Well now, to be fair, you're not *forced*. It certainly feels that way, but you have performed a cost-benefit analysis (however extensive), and determined that the benefits of not using MS products (moral superiority, stability, security, etc.) are not enough to compensate for the costs (trying to find a job that will pay the bills and does not use MS products). So, while it does feel like force, it's the way we perceive that tradeoff that shapes our actions.

Also, this is heavily influenced by a convicted monopolist that has done virtually nothing to comply with court orders to encourage competition, but it is possible to escape. Just not easy.

1984

[budalite]

If '1984' had used any other title, it would have had no more effect than any other SF effort like, say, 'TH-1138'. I had to read '1984' in HS (back in the '60's) and I wasn't very impressed with it then, either. I think the '1984' environment is just about as like as say, um, the Matrix or 'Soylent Green' quiche or conservatives giving up their gun collections.

Gibson said it DID come true yesterday...

[jeblucas]

William Gibson wrote an editorial in the New York Times REGISTRATION REQUIRED yesterday about 1984 and did not agree overly with Gates' assessment of, "didn't come true, and I don't believe it will."

He thinks not only DID it come true, it's worse than Orwell thought! His best thought: "It is becoming unprecedentedly difficult for anyone, anyone at all, to keep a secret."

Check it out--it's worth creating the bogus ID for.

Re:Gibson said it DID come true yesterday...

[BWJones]

Yes, I read that article. I would add that for the common-man or other (non-U.S., or U.K.) governments it is getting harder to keep a secret. However, at the same time, the U.S. and U.K. governments are making significant efforts to keep secrets by concealing their actions and plans making government less accessible to the people and repealing more individual rights making these countries somewhat more secure (I guess) but less trustworthy.

Re:Gibson said it DID come true yesterday...

[Anonymous Coward]

registration free link - courtesy of google.
(To parent: you know, it's not all that hard to spend just an extra minute to provide such a link for the people here; saves a lot of them a lot of time...)

Re:Gibson said it DID come true yesterday...

[FurryFeet]

His best thought: "It is becoming unprecedentedly difficult for anyone, anyone at all, to keep a secret."

Check it out--it's worth creating the bogus ID for.

The irony is just delicious... :)

Re:Gibson said it DID come true yesterday...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gibson is an ultra-tard. He has been rebuked time and time again right here on slash. Why now is his latest tirade being held up as a truth? Because it doesn't agree with slashes most hated man?

Why does that not suprise me.

Wah wah evil bill gates alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its their software not your software. If you do not like their terms do not use it. Better yet use Linux! Its FREE!

Re:Oxymoron

[jackdoodle]

Bill's new motto: "DRM Macht Frei".

Re:Oxymoron

[dnaSpyDir]

now that's funny shit jackdoodle

If I ever meet Michael Sims in real life...

[Keith Russell]

Gates and Orwell: No matter how insidious you feel Microsoft's plans may be, they are nothing without force of law, and that can only come from the government. It's our duty to be vigilant, but this is just paranoid.

Gates and HomeSec: I agree wholeheartedly that Open Source systems are the only way to ensure the transparency our civil liberties require. In any other post, this would be an interesting point of debate. Too bad Michael chose to included it with the following trolls.

Gates and White House Security: Bill Gates visits the White House, but forgets his wallet in the car. This is front-page news for Slashdot? Sad. Truly sad.

"Meanwhile, Microsoft viruses continue unchecked.": Never before in my life has one sentence on a web page made me want to put my fist through a monitor. For those who didn't RTFA, Harvard got hit with Bugbear.b on 6 June 2003. Yet another worm that spreads by exploiting unpatched known vulnerabilities, inattentive admins, and clueless users.

You know, I have to say that this post is the most meaningless and shallow of all of Michael's weekly anti-Microsoft trolls. Stated without bias, these would be interesting topics for debate. (Except the wallet story. That would be too trivial for even the Inquirer.)

Instead, we get a rotten apple with a bully pulpit.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Anonymous Coward]

what the fuck are you talking about? There are programs written SOLELY for Windows. You cannot use them on other platforms.

Thus you have absolutely NO fucking choice but to use Windows.

It's because of the monopoly set up by MS over the years.

Jesus, get a fucking clue.

"1984 won't come true"

[fstanchina]

Gates... Big Brother... Ahahahaha!

Oh, shit.

You forgot that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or are you suggesting that quality alternatives to windows like Linux and *BSD are failures?

You forgot that *BSD is dying and Linux, while 'not dead yet', is just "viral".

Apple's iSight camera has a closeable lens

[Jon Abbott]

I'm sure other web cameras have this feature as well, but Apple iSight web camera has a closeable lens... A nice touch, given the current state of affairs we are living in right now (one that B.Ga claims doesn't exist)...

Re:HOW THE FUCK IS THIS OFFTOPIC?

[BrokenHalo]

Just for the record: I personally could not care less that my post was modded down. I hit the karma cap long ago, and I have never had any interest in claiming karma-bonuses.

A little too subtle

[fireboy1919]

For all you people who missed it (especially the moderator who marked it as "insightful" rather than "funny"), that was irony.

Calling the dictatorships in the middle east "international terrorists" is an attempt at thought control.

So is calling our actions there "liberation."

Thinking about it, you can easily see that the issue is not so cut and dried as "good guys" versus "axis of evil."

Recognize, analyze and decide for yourself, and such things will have no power over you. Otherwise, you may be violently for or against the things that you would do better to think about logically, as I believe that many of both the strong pacifists and strong agressors in this past war have been before even seeing the facts.

Re:A little too subtle

[ATMAvatar]

I'll trade you a pack of victory cigarettes for some of your freedom fries :)

Re:A little too subtle

[kmac06]

Calling the dictatorships in the middle east "international terrorists" is accurate. Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush (version 1.0). He also manufactured WMD (whether or not they are still there is irrelevant, there are numerous reports throughout the 90s that showed they were). Iraq = terrorists. Iran isn't much better.

Calling our actions there "liberation" is also accurate. What else would you call ousting a regime that tortured and raped citizens?

When politicians make speeches, they try to persuade you to see their point of view (*gasp*). At this level its not even propaganda. Its propaganda when the government controls a media outlet, and only says what they approve (and as much as you would like to believe it, Fox News is not controlled by the White House). Its thought control when government controls the ONLY media outlets (a la Iraq, until we "liberated" them). Speeches != thought control.

Re:A little too subtle

[andrewjjenkins]

That offer is doubleplusungood.

Re:A little too subtle

[Anonymous Coward]

> Its propaganda when the government controls a media outlet...

Such as, for example, when Attorney General Janet Reno effectively ordered the TV studios to "tone down" the shows "Law & Order", and "Murder, She Wrote"? That incident led to a protest by Michael Moriarty, and his eventual resignation and renouncement of his American citizenship.

It's fairly obvious what the Clinton White House didn't like about "Murder, She Wrote", and the early years of "Law & Order". Both shows were promoting the idea of _justice_.

Re:A little too subtle

[Richard_at_work]

Calling the dictatorships in the middle east "international terrorists" is accurate. Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush (version 1.0). He also manufactured WMD (whether or not they are still there is irrelevant, there are numerous reports throughout the 90s that showed they were). Iraq = terrorists. Iran isn't much better.

By the same vein the CIA has tried to assassinate many a foreign national and leader. Also by the same vein the US has manufacturered and use WOMD. Also going one further, the US uses economic and military threat as means to ends. Does this make them terrorists? You cant say that one is and the other isnt when they have used the same methods.

I will agree that we liberated iraq, but only because the people under his rule were suffering, not because of the excuses we used to go there. It IS important that we find the weapons that we said were there, and it is important that we find them in the condition that we claimed they were there, IE ready for use in 45 minutes. If we do not find anything then we invaded a sovereign foreign country on false pretenses.

It looks very likely that Iran will be next, with all the dirt throwing the US and its allies have been doing over the past few weeks. "You are harbouring iraqi people we want." "The weapons we are searching for are being smuggled over your borders." "You are now interfering in iraqi internal politics." Where is the evidence for these accusations? Granted Iran expelled a number of iraqis when it was pointed out to them, but the other two? Give it a rest.

Re:A little too subtle

[kmac06]

You cant say that one is and the other isnt when they have used the same methods.

Yes, you can. That's like saying that criminals should be allowed to carry guns because the police can.

Some people don't like to admit it, but there is no such thing as moral relativism. You are trying to say that there is no difference between Saddam possessing a nuke, and the US possessing a nuke. Yes, the United States is the only country to use a nuclear weapon, but we used it responsibly and continue to use our power responsibly. Saddam would try and drop it on DC.

As far as finding the WMD, yes it is important that we find them eventually. No rush. (Though I agree it would probably be a bad idea to invade Iran before finding 'em)

Re:A little too subtle

[NiceGeek]

Remember, terrorists are what the big army calls the little army.

Re:A little too subtle

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, you can. That's like saying that criminals should be allowed to carry guns because the police can."

Yeah? who died and made Bush the police?

Re:A little too subtle

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Yes, you can. That's like saying that criminals should be allowed to carry guns because the police can.

No, it's like saying no one should be allowed to rob banks, civilian or police, and anyone who does is a criminal.

Re:A little too subtle

[kmac06]

The UN, now that you ask. They aren't doing their job, because nations like France are too interested in their lucrative oil contracts.

Re:A little too subtle

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm...how exactly is this post overrated? God damn /. is so fucking liberal...This post is modded down, and one posted below it on the same topic is +5.

Re:A little too subtle

[anichan]

Recognize, analyze and decide for yourself, and such things will have no power over you.

Ah yes, that, however, is far easier said that done. If one thinks about where they get their news from, it is almost always based on some government reports. One has to be incredibly pro-active in order to get both (more acurately, n) sides of a story.

Good luck with your quest for the truth. <g>

Re:A little too subtle

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, you can. That's like saying that criminals should be allowed to carry guns because the police can."

Strange analogy you've chosen. In the US at least, ciminals are allowed to carry guns. In fact, it's a constitutional right which most Republicans seem eager to defend. Not saying that I disagree with them, actually. That is one issue I fully support the Republican side of.

What matters is how those guns are used. And frankly, if somebody uses a gun to commit a crime then they should be thrown in jail, regardless if they are "police" or not. But even calling the US the "police" really doesn't make any sense. The US is more of a self-appointed vigilante.

Iraq has used chemical weapons in the past, but that was long ago and it was never given as the reason we were invading. Invading now was entirely arbitrary, and makes me seriously question the motivations of the people in charge.

Re:A little too subtle

[Eric Damron]

"Some people don't like to admit it, but there is no such thing as moral relativism. You are trying to say that there is no difference between Saddam possessing a nuke, and the US possessing a nuke. Yes, the United States is the only country to use a nuclear weapon, but we used it responsibly and continue to use our power responsibly. Saddam would try and drop it on DC."

I don't understand that reasoning. By your example there is such a thing as moral relativism. You appear to be saying that both countries have WMD but is okay for the US but not for Iraq.

The truth is that right and wrong are irrelevant in the face of overwhelming power.

Re:A little too subtle

[Kchuck]

"Yes, the United States is the only country to use a nuclear weapon, but we used it responsibly and continue to use our power responsibly.".

Would the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, during the mid 1940's, think the US used the A-bomb responsibly?

Re:A little too subtle

[perimorph]

Yes, the United States is the only country to use a nuclear weapon, but we used it responsibly

If I recall correctly, didn't we have intelligence that the Japanese would have surrendered soon even without the use of an atomic bomb? And were they given time to arrange a surrender before we dropped another one? I strongly suspect using it had more to do with the U.S. giving a clear message of "Don't mess with us again" than it did about being the only way to end WW2.

Don't get me wrong, the U.S. is certainly nowhere near the worst government in the world.. But we mustn't ignore slavery, forced relocation of native citizens, the DMCA, and the recent holding of U.S. citizens without being charged with a crime, among many other not-very-good things.

Re:A little too subtle

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is no real proof that Japan was about to surrender. If you study Japan historically you will find that they more than likely would have killed millions of our troops in an invasion attempt, my Grandfather among them most likely and I wouldn't be sitting here typing this today. So, I'm glad they dropped the atomic weapons on the Japanese. It's a little thing called self-preservation.

Re:A little too subtle

[wampus]

Would the civilians of Tokyo or Dresden be glad that the US didn't nuke them? I doubt it, because more of them died as a result of conventional weapons than died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Re:A little too subtle

[timeOday]

Calling the dictatorships in the middle east "international terrorists" is an attempt at thought control.

So is calling our actions there "liberation."

Perhaps you could elucidate the distinction between "thought control" and simple persuasion.

Good luck persuading the two sides of the abortion debate to call themselves "Anti-Choice" and "Anti-Life."

Re:A little too subtle

[kmac06]

I've never heard of this intelligence your talking about. From what I understand, the Japanese were prepared to fight until the last man (or woman or child) was killed. Judging from what I know about historical Japan, this seems accurate.

I'm guessing this is the same intelligence that suggested FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and Bush knew about 9/11.

Re:A little too subtle

[ichimunki]

It is reponsible to drop a nuclear bomb on, not one, but two crowded cities full of civilians, including women and children? Approx. 200,000 people are reported to have died either directly or indirectly as a result of those bombs being dropped. Many more suffered long term health effects from the radiation. If that's your idea of responsible use, I'd shudder to think what you consider out of bounds.

Re:A little too subtle

[kmac06]

There really was no such thing as a Japanes civilian. If we hadn't done that, they most likely would have fought till every last man (or woman or child). Only by showing our ability to completely and utterly annihilate them would they surrender.

Of course it would have been nice if we could use modern weapons to do tactical strikes on all of their ships and factories of war, but it just wasn't feasible with the technology we had.

Re:A little too subtle

[thoromyr]

Give your reasoning I would agree that we liberated Iraq if what were are now doing were not oppression. thoromyr

Re:A little too subtle

[perimorph]

You're right, I was somewhat mistaken. The U.S. government came to the conclusion I mentioned after the war, and as with most government conclusions, it's debatable.

Re:A little too subtle

[ichimunki]

Oh, I see, there was no such thing as a Japanese civilian. I never knew that before. I suppose then it's justified to kill more of them with two quick attacks than they ever killed of our soldiers in the whole rest of the war. Thanks for simplifying this matter so well. Before I thought killing lots of people was a complicated moral issue. Apparently if they're not "really" civilians then worrying about killing them is just relativism.

Re:A little too subtle

[Anonymous Coward]

continue to use our power responsibly

Like during the Iran/Iraq war ... say we're neutral, then supply weapons illegally to Iran until we get caught, then support Saddam Hussein so we don't look pro-Iranian ... is it any wonder the region is so screwed up ??

Re:A little too subtle

[Guppy06]

"Calling the dictatorships in the middle east "international terrorists" is an attempt at thought control."

Um... huh? When did the definitions of "international" and "terrorst" get changed?

Did Sadam have a history of using "terror" (including, but not limited to, deliberately attacking civillian targets) to try to influence other people? Yes. Hence, he's a terrorist.

Did he apply this to countries outside his own borders? Yes. Hence, he's an international terrorist.

Where's the disconnect here?

"So is calling our actions there "liberation."

First off, it's not done yet. But even if it were, it would seem the Iraqis now have the ability to vocally protest their rulers that they didn't have before. Is the ability to organize and hold anti-government protests no longer considered a "liberty?" If it is, then how is granting this to people not "liberating" them?

(As an aside, for an example of what can happen when the US immediately pulls out of a country after liberating it from an oppresive government, see Cuba. Compare it to the Philippenes and Puerto Rico.)

"Thinking about it, you can easily see that the issue is not so cut and dried as "good guys" versus "axis of evil.""

But is it necesary for you to use some of the same "definition changing" tactics you accuse your antagonists of using to prove your point?

Re:A little too subtle

[Guppy06]

"By the same vein the CIA has tried to assassinate many a foreign national and leader"

I wouldn't call attempts to assassinate a chief of state (including the US president) "terrorism" because they are also commanders-in-chief of the military, making them valid military targets.

"Also by the same vein the US has manufacturered and use WOMD."

But we have not used them against our own civillian populace. And even when we did use them on someone else's civillian populace, those weapons were primarily meant to take out military targets.

"Also going one further, the US uses economic and military threat as means to ends"

There's a difference between the threat of force and the actual use of force. Gunboat diplomacy is still diplomacy.

And I fail to see how international economic measures can be called "terrorism" when they are invariably used against a country's government and not necesarily on the local populace.

"You cant say that one is and the other isnt when they have used the same methods."

I fail to see how they are the same methods.

"not because of the excuses we used to go there."

The "excuses" you mention were more for the UN than the US populace. The one and only true rule at the UN is that you can't slaughter your neighbors people, while tyrants slaughtering people within your own borders are given carte blanche to keep on doing what they do. Try and name one instance of intranational genocide since 1945 that the UN acted against.

Liberating someone else's people, no matter the reasons (be they selfish or altruistic), is a big no-no as far as the international community in general and the UN in particular are concerned. I don't believe either the president or anybody from the State Department ever used the word "liberation" before the UN while attempting to justify this recent war, and it's because they knew better.

"If we do not find anything then we invaded a sovereign foreign country on false pretenses."

So even attempting to liberate a people is a "false pretense?" Driving another nail into the coffin of altruism, I see...

"It looks very likely that Iran will be next,"

HAH!

The US is trying VERY hard not to touch Iran in any way, shape or form, especially in light of the recent student protests. If some in the State Department even happens to mention the word "Iran" in passing, they know that this will give credence to the religious hard-liners cries of "collaborationists" and ultimately hurt the students' movement. Yes, the US would like to see a more free Iran, but the best way this can be accomplished is to let the various internal movements run their course, and the best we can do to help them (like it or not) is to ignore it.

""The weapons we are searching for are being smuggled over your borders.""

One I haven't heard, but...

""You are now interfering in iraqi internal politics.""

Iranian-backed and -funded Shia groups (originally assembled to fight the Baath regime) are magically apearing within Iraq's borders and attempting to have their weight felt in any new government. What would you call that?

Re:A little too subtle

[jez9999]

Al Jazeera is reportedly starting an English version of their news channel soon. After watching a documentary on how they reported during the war, I think watching that might be a good starting point.

Re:A little too subtle

[WIAKywbfatw]

There really was no such thing as a Japanes civilian. If we hadn't done that, they most likely would have fought till every last man (or woman or child).

1. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that children, even infants, are capable of presenting a threat to soldiers.

Do you know how silly that sounds? A new-born baby isn't a civilian but a combatant? Are you completely stupid?

2. The Geneva Convention defines who is a combatant and who isn't.

Non-combatant men, women and children aren't legitimate targets. Treating them as such isn't very civilised, no matter what you might say.

3. If nukes had to be dropped, they didn't have to be dropped on civilian populations.

The US deliberately targetted two cities with its nuclear strikes against Japan. Clearly, they could have just as easily hit military targets or areas that weren't as heavily populated. Either of these two options would have had just the same effect - showing the Japanese government that they could be totally destroyed if necessary, and that immediate surrender was the sane only option.

It must be nice to be able to not only ignore the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated needlessly but also believe that the massacre of hundreds of thousands was a good thing. Ironically, 1984 gave us a word that describes twisting of facts in ones head like this perfectly: doublethink.

Re:A little too subtle

[Kchuck]

Point was, the US is not above using nukes against a civilian population. Hardly heroes.

Re:A little too subtle

[WIAKywbfatw]

1. As someone has said elsewhere already in another post, terrorist is what the big army calls the small army. For example:

i) The French Resistance during World War Two (WWII) were regarded by the Nazis as terrorists.
ii) Irish republican terrorists regard themselves as freedom fighters.

Clearly, resistance/freedom fighters and terrorists are interchangeable, depending on your political worldview. One man's terrorist truly is another man's freedom fighter.

2. Saddam Hussein wasn't an international terrorist.

He may have started the Iran-Iraq War (with US backing, I might just add), invaded Kuwait (which, as he claimed, was historically part of Iraq before the region was divided up after WWII by the British), and launched Scud missiles at Israel (during the Gulf War) but all of those acts were carried out by one nation upon another in open war.

As despicable as you might have found them, these were all acts of war, and acts of war aren't terrorism.

By your definition, the US is guilty of many acts of terrorism, the latest invasion of Iraq being the latest in a long line of unwanted incursions into other sovereign states.

3. The people of Iraq aren't free.

US forces committing house-to-house searches, stripping people of personal firearms (in Iraq, virtually every household has at least two rifles), restricting travel and firing upon civilian vehicles that fail to observe strict checkpoint procedures, former Ba'ath party members being banned from any official posts (including judges and doctors, who by law had to be members of that party to have served previously), etc is what you call free?

So, the people in Iraq live in conditions that no American would ever have to (there are at least three violations of the US constitution in the last paragraph), yet to you they are free?

Well, it's nice to know that double standards aren't dead.

4. When did the US ever "liberate" Cuba, as you suggest?

I remember the US backing the Bay of Pigs fiasco, supporting Fidel Castro's political enemies in their attempt to overthrow him, but when did the US ever "free" Cuba?

Unilateral US intervention in other countries, especially in Latin America, has been a disaster in almost every case. Want some examples? Here are three:

1953: US overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran and installs the Shah as a dictator. Widescale human rights abuses take become commonplace.

1954: US overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala and installs Castillo Armas in power as a dictator. Between 1954 and 1990, the US-backed military regimes murdered almost 200,000 civilians and widescale human rights abuses take become commonplace.

1973: US stages coup in Chile. Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende assassinated after US President Richard Nixon orders CIA not to let Allende take office. US-backed dictator General Augusto Pinochet installed in power as a dictator. Thousands of Allende supporters killed and widescale human rights abuses take become commonplace.

And, while we're at it, how was the US intervention in the Philippines beneficial to its people? What was so good about the US-backed dictator Ferdinand Marcos? The mass infringement of civil liberties? The corruption? The widescale human rights abuses? The open assassinations of political opponents?

And I haven't even mentioned the 4 million South East Asians that were killed by US forces during the Vietnam War.

I'm sorry, buy you have a seriously fucked-up view of how much "good" the US has done around the world and how "beneficial" its been to the countries and the people concerned. Consider yourself fortunate that nobody's been that "good" to you and do yourself a favour by reading a book or doing some online research before you start spouting rubbish about "definition changing".

Re:A little too subtle

[Guppy06]

"The French Resistance during World War Two (WWII) were regarded by the Nazis as terrorists."

When they targeted civillian collaborationists, they were. When they targeted German soldiers, they weren't. The poster you mention can think whatever they want, but the word "terrorist" has a very specific meaning with reguards to the international rules of warfare.

"Irish republican terrorists regard themselves as freedom fighters."

Again, when they target Protestant/Ulster civillians, they were. When they targeted the Royal Army, they weren't. The targeting of police is a gray area.

"He may have started the Iran-Iraq War (with US backing, I might just add), invaded Kuwait (which, as he claimed, was historically part of Iraq before the region was divided up after WWII by the British), and launched Scud missiles at Israel (during the Gulf War) but all of those acts were carried out by one nation upon another in open war."

"Open war" still has its rules, rules that have effectively been around for centuries. Specifically, the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Accords have been around in one form or another since the 1920's, but I can't think of any the Baath regime didn't violate. Deliberately targeting civillian targets, genocide, forced migrations of ethnic groups...

And as for the Scuds you mentioned, Iraq was at war with Israel only in Sadam's mind. Israeli forces were decidedly absent in that particular coalition. And those missiles weren't exactly pointed at Israeli airfields.

"The people of Iraq aren't free."

Debatable. And, as I said before, the process isn't over. But I fail to see how they are not more free than they were this time last year.

"When did the US ever "liberate" Cuba, as you suggest?"

If your grasp of history went back before 1938 you'd know about this little period back in the 1890's called "The Spanish-American War." We went to war with Spain specifically to to liberate Cuba from oppresive Spanish rule. Just how oppressive it was is open to debate, but note that "concentration camps" isn't a concept first thought in the 1940's. Congress' war declaration specifically stated that our goal was the liberation (and not occupation) of Cuba, and the United States abandoned Cuba almost as quickly as we declared war to begin with, lest someone might think of Cuba as "American territory." Because the US didn't take the time to do things right, independent Cuba has been ruled by a series of strongmen up to and including Castro. Personally, this is not something I'd like to see repeated with Iraq.

You'd think mentioning the Philippines and Puerto Rico in the same breath as Cuba would be a big tip-off to what I was talking about. Silly me.

"but when did the US ever "free" Cuba?"

June 10, 1898. Remember the Maine?

"And, while we're at it, how was the US intervention in the Philippines beneficial to its people?"

Aguinaldo would probably agree with you there, but I'd have to say that the Philippines are at least a little better off than Cuba right now.

"And I haven't even mentioned the 4 million South East Asians that were killed by US forces during the Vietnam War."

How does that compare to the number killed by Pol Pot? Good thing the peace movement got us out of Cambodia, hm?

And it's rather amusing that you would bring up Vietnam right now. First, you fault the US for violating Iraq's national integrity, but then you fault the US for trying to protect the integrity of South Vietnam?

Re:A little too subtle

[maeriou]

June 10, 1898. Remember the Maine? the Maine was determined to have been an internal engine explosion.

Re:A little too subtle

[1u3hr]

Calling the dictatorships in the middle east "international terrorists" is accurate. Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush (version 1.0). He also manufactured WMD (whether or not they are still there is irrelevant, there are numerous reports throughout the 90s that showed they were). Iraq = terrorists

Recall GWB moved the war forward a couple of days when he ordered the strike on the house where Saddam was reported to be staying. I.E, he tried to assassinate him. As for the WMD, well how many months has the US been in control of Iraq and not found the slightest evidence of them? Saddam was an evil dictator, he oppressed his own people, and went to war with his neighbours. But that's not "terrorism". Certainly, it wasn't terrorism against the US, and years of frantic digging have failed to find any evidence linking Saddam with any terrorists who operated against the US. He's not an idiot, he has a very strong sense of self-preservation and knew that attacking the US in any way would get him nothing but grief -- attacking Israel gets him points with the fundamantalists; though he could care less about religion personally.

Re:A little too subtle

[1u3hr]

Yes, the United States is the only country to use a nuclear weapon, but we used it responsibly and continue to use our power responsibly. Saddam would try and drop it on DC.

For God's sake, Americans are so fucking full of themselves.

Why on earth would Saddam have dropped a bomb on DC? 15 minutes later Baghdad is toast. If he had ambitions in that direction, he DID have bio war capacity, and could have unleashed smallpox and killed millions with a good chance of getting away with it -- but he didn't. America used their bomb "responsibly"? You destroyed two cities full of civilians. It was revenge.

Re:A little too subtle

[Anonymous Coward]

The "excuses" you mention were more for the UN than the US populace. The one and only true rule at the UN is that you can't slaughter your neighbors people, while tyrants slaughtering people within your own borders are given carte blanche to keep on doing what they do. Try and name one instance of intranational genocide since 1945 that the UN acted against.

Jugoslavia?

Re:A little too subtle

[Guppy06]

Oh, you mean like in Srebenica? Or are you thinking of NATOs unilateral attacks?

Re:A little too subtle

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. Dick Cheney through Halliburton was making money hand over foot dealing in Iraqi oil. Hell, Reagan and Rumsfeld continued to provide assistance to Iraq even after Saddam allegedly gassed his own people.

BTW, where did our precious army run to first in Iraq? The oil ministry and the oil fields. They weren't exactly scrambling to all the sites where these scary WMD's could be. If you're going to accuse another country of self-interest, look at your own country in the mirror first.

Re:A little too subtle

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... huh? When did the definitions of "international" and "terrorst" get changed?
Did Sadam have a history of using "terror" (including, but not limited to, deliberately attacking civillian targets) to try to influence other people? Yes. Hence, he's a terrorist.

First of all, there's no internationally agreed upon definition of the the term "terrorist", if you go by the UN.

Second, you could easily apply your definition of terrorist to the US if you count all those right-wing paramilitary death squads the CIA funded back in the 80's. As far as I can remember, they killed tens of thousands of civilian targets, I would imagine to influence them into backing governments favorable to US corporate interests.

Even now, the US engages in terrorist-like activities (i.e. funding and arming a repressive regime in Algeria, spraying Agent Green in Columbia which kills off everything it touches, plant and animal). Look your own country in the face.

First off, it's not done yet. But even if it were, it would seem the Iraqis now have the ability to vocally protest their rulers that they didn't have before. Is the ability to organize and hold anti-government protests no longer considered a "liberty?" If it is, then how is granting this to people not "liberating" them?

Exchanging one tyrant for another is not "liberation". By many accounts, US and British troops have opened fire on unarmed civilians protesting in Iraq, hence they are no better off than they were before Saddam was ousted since he like to shoot them also. Bullets and death are apolitical, no?

The sky is falling!

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Meanwhile, Microsoft viruses continue unchecked

I love the panicked tone of Michael's commentary. First, MS hasn't written any viruses that I'm aware of. Second, assuming he means that viruses targeting Windows "remain unchecked", I'd have to disagree. My virus scanner does a great job of stopping any virus that may show up in my inbox.

I suppose it's tough being the most popular OS...

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Cyno]

peer pressure and religion, being part of a group, caring what everyone thinks about you and your decisions. I think its all part of the same thing..

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Anonymous Coward]

you probably never heard of someting called Standard s or Open Data formats. Or vendor lock-in.

Fucking idiot.

A little over the top, methinks...

[Leomania]

Sorry, I can't help but feel that this is overstated. Isn't it more reasonable to say that you choose to use Windows rather than face the alternative? I would assume the alternatives would be to not do things the same way you do them today under Windows, or to use software on another operating system that's not as full-featured as that running under Windows. Perhaps taking an anti-Microsoft stance at work would require that you seek another job (although licensing applies to you differently as an employee than as an individual user, so perhaps that would be a bit extreme).

If your situation truly requires you to use Windows (and I mean this in terms of "you'll use your livelihood if you don't use Windows"), I still believe you're in the minority. I would think it more reasonable to say that most people would need to learn how to use a new OS and applications but find it to be too much trouble. Whether you consider that simply a judgement call ("I don't think Microsoft's licensing is all that draconian") or just plain apathy is up to you. But I just don't believe the overwhelming majority of us are truly "forced" to use Windows.

My situation: I use Windows 2000 at work, on one system at home, but run Linux on four other systems plus Mac OS X on an old 8500. And many of my Windows applications are open-source programs such as OpenOffice, Mozilla, Privoxy, Vim, etc. so I interoperate with Windows users pretty well. No, not perfectly, but certainly close enough. I could stop using Windows at work and not miss it, including VPN access from home.

My experience (and that of many of my friends) leads me to believe that even if you fit into the category of being truly "forced" to use Windows, your situation is more the exception than the rule.

- Leo

Re:A little over the top, methinks...

[greentree]

Mac OS X on an old 8500

yyyyyikes! no critique here, i am just curious! so far whenever i encounter mac os x + an "older" computer i imagine a macintosh endlessly chugging away. what exactly are the specs of this 8500. one time i curiously booted into mac os x on an old 333 mhz imac with 196 mb of ram and had to sit through probably more than ten minutes of chugging before i could restart the computer again. i know pretty much nothing about the mac os x (besides the fact that i badly desire an 11 inch powerbook model :), so plz elaborate.

Re:A little over the top, methinks...

[Anonymous Coward]

I could stop using Windows at work and not miss it, including VPN access from home.

You know there are at least two commercial VPN solutions for Linux, right? For Nortel, there's Netlock. Cisco also has a VPN client available for Linux (as well as Mac and Solaris, among others).

Re:Orwell's vision not happening? NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, 1992 called and wants its slang back.

No, no signs at all...

[arcanumas]

Slogan of the Party is "War is Peace , Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strengh."

Freedom ,as in GPL, is called viral and will enslave cosumers while the EULA keeps us free.
Also, ignorance is strength (for Microsoft) becasue only if you are ignorant will you be using Microsoft products (just look at how Miscrosoft is treating it's consumers. Like idiots)

The biggest crime you can commit in Orwellian society it that of thought. Because thought leads to challenging the authorities eventually.
The party was able to know what you are thinking by monitoring your every activity. Even when the main hero believed that his inner thoughts were unknown to them becasue he behaved well in camera, it is revieled that they knew what he was thinking long ago. They methods were impossible to overcome. The Palladium Project combined with spyware (which is already a problem) will permit MS to effectively spy on us. And ofcourse, if you don't smile while being spied on, you are an enemy of the party (Recent stories were companies challenged he EULA and were attacked by MS)

In Orwellian society everyone is encouraged to betray anyone not loyal to the party. even a small child his father (and indeed they do). At least here (greece) the BSA was (and may still be) giving 3 thousand Euro for naming an illegal user of Microsoft products.

In Orwellian Society all history is erased. There is no past. They don't just kill you, you never existed.
Well , we have yet to see this (the scariest of all) but over-relieance to one vendor (MS) , whith no alternatives (with is "unamerican" -> against big Brother), DMCA forbidding replication of knowledge (and self-destructing books). I would say we are on the right track.

Apart from the Technological part , however, the scariest of all is the political aspect. Parallelizing the ideas of the Party to the actions taken by G.W Bush. Presenting a fictional threat makes it very easy to gather the support of people and deprive us of freedom.

State of the Control of the State

[Unfallen]

"This technology can make our country more secure and prevent the nightmare vision of George Orwell at the same time," Gates said.

Blah blah yes it can but Orwell wasn't questioning the technology, he was writing about its use by the state. Technology's just a tool, any visionary realises that in primary school. The technology doesn't prevent a tendency away from trust, towards control of a populace, that's the job of people. Maybe if Billy was ranting on about how he was setting up technology focus groups to teach misuse of data, then he might have a point, but he's not.

To be fair, it's a difficult position. On one hand, all the little government agencies need to be responsible for something nationwide, and the general populace is way too lazy to bother abut protecting themselves, so something needs to get a handle on it. On the other hand... well, there'd be a good bit of ol-fashioned choir-preaching going on if I went on about state mis-use of data. Fortunately, being the largest home-user software house and one of the largest corporate influences fits Microsoft into both camps at once - hey, if it gets them money, then it must be good.

Yes, there's a hell of a long way to go in terms of getting users to respect their own privacy, and to respect the importances and influences of the gargantuan amount of data that is accessible these days.

However, what we really need for this is more education, not more technology. The latter is useless without the former. People will still be vulnerable if they don't understand what the system's doing, and the new wave of privacy technology isn't designed to do that. Just as the only secure machine is an off one, so the most private individual is a dead one.

Networking is ubiquitous, it affects us all, and as such we all take responsibility, not place it into the hands of a few people out to cash in on it. The sooner we realise that as a society, the better.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[AsparagusChallenge]

Not EVERYONE can just drop Windows.

Yes, everyone can.

It'd be costly, of course, but freedom is not "free of charge". It has to be earned.

You entirely missed your OWN point

[Anonymous Coward]

1984 and Animal Farm were not warnings against COMMUNISM or what would happen with COMMUNISM + TOTALITARIANISM. They were warnings against TOTALITARIANISM. The points he raises are applicable to any ECONOMIC model because the ECONOMIC model != the GOVERNMENT model. (i.e. you can have laissez-faire capitalism under an authoritarian state, and a very rigidly controlled/interventionist economy run by a democracy.)

This seems to be what you want to say, but you seem to have a neurotic fear of communism that prevents you from doing so. (Re: your constant references to "in the name of communism", blah blah.)

Re:You entirely missed your OWN point

[Anonymous Coward]

COMMUNISM + TOTALITARIANISM

Right. Otherwise known as Stalinism. Which is exactly what I said.

How do you get from "in the name of Communism" (Which is exactly what Stalin claimed he was doing throughout his purges) to "neurotic fear of Communism"? Seriously, thats some fucked up shit. You could almost be a Politician with that sort of "reasoning".

god has spoken

[Izago909]

Gates says it so it MUST be true. Now all fall in line and pay you licensing fee for living, and we shall call reproduction value added.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[u-235-sentinel]

ummm.. more like the PC he bought probably came with Windoze preloaded. Highly unlikely Linux/BSD are failures. I'm still running them after all :D

Probably why I build my systems instead of purchasing a computer from anyone.

Another famous quote

[Anonymous Coward]

640K ought to be enough for anybody.
- Bill Gates

Orwell was wrong about Big Brother!
- Bill Gates

Beware the eggs!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those victimized by Statin and his ilk suffered under the yolk of oppression imposed by a militarisitic police state.

However, we suffer only under the yolk of our own ignorance, laziness, shallowness, etc. You get the idea.

Well, at least we're just suffering under the yolk... Could you imagine suffering under the whole egg?

I think you mean yoke.

Re:Beware the eggs!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least we're just suffering under the yolk... Could you imagine suffering under the whole egg?

You're right, thank god we're not also dying under the yolk/yoke.

I think you mean to say, "Well, at least we're suffering under just the yolk."

Arrg Windows and Viruses

[tomstdenis]

Stop drawing this parallel.

The reason windows gets infected with virii is because windows users are complete and utter fucking morons.

I routinely get 100s of virii sent to my email box a day [the price I pay for posting my email address in usenet] and I've never been infected once despite the fact I used to use MSIE for everything for the longest time [I use Moz in WinXP now].

This connection that windows is inherently vulnerable is just pathetic. Idiot linux users running as root can do just as much damage.

Tom

Re:Arrg Windows and Viruses

[pair-a-noyd]

"Idiot linux users running as root can do just as much damage."

Not really, those idiots usually trash their install beyond repair and have to start over from square one, thus negating any previous stupidity. By the time they manage to get the system running without trashing it they will have learned not to run as root.

Your argument just doesn't hold water..
Sorry, try again..

Re:Arrg Windows and Viruses

[tomstdenis]

Gah?

You can run as not root?

Holy shit!

Re:Arrg Windows and Viruses

[pair-a-noyd]

Yeah, and how many Window$ users use the auto-login feature and accept the DEFAULT user of Administrator with NO PASSWORD????

Many, many millions I would bet..

Re:Arrg Windows and Viruses

[tomstdenis]

Gah?

Ok I still don't follow this. My original point was that stupid people get most of the virii. I've ran win95,98,2k,xp and I've never had a virus.

My point is if you migrate stupid windows users to linux they'll still get virii. Maybe the virii won't own the system but will be able to run as the user and still mass email itself out.

How many windows virii make any use of privileged code anyways? Most read *your* address book and then spam people. You can do the same in linux without being root. So really I don't see the "oh insecure windows".

More like insecure ISP for forwarding executable attachments.

Tom

WOW! Imagine That!

[w3weasel]

The gov asks Billy what is best for their PC's and Billy advises a substantial deposit into his bank account.

While I would hope that anyone advising the government would have our best interests at heart, I have to admit, if they were to ask me what was best, I would say that a substantial deposit into MY account would ensure national safety... hey, I'm only human!

Say what?

[fudgefactor7]

Calling the Bugbear virus a "Microsoft virus" is stupid. It's a user virus...especially since there's been a fix for how long now? Users are to blame for idiocy, regardless of the OS.

HomeSec?

[MagPulse]

HomeSec sounds like it's straight out of Orwell's NewSpeak dictionary. Did the poster just make it up or is the Department of Homeland Security actually calling itself that?

Re:HomeSec?

[Pave Low]

Michael Sims is a known liar, and cybersquatter. It should be no surprise he uses newspeak and distorts facts to support his own lamebrained, paranoid theories.

See michael and the rest of the slashdot editors abuse their power. Here's how they do it. michael in particular is a cybersquatter (m4d pr0pz to RealWorldStuff for the link), and a CUNT.

Re:HomeSec?

[Dolly_Llama]

I agree the "homeland" security is very orwellian sounding, but HOMESEC sounds more like a navalism.

The navy is the worst offender when it comes to truncated words, offices and departments in particular.

Consider / Compare:

OPNAVINST - Naval Operations Instruction

DESRON - Destroyer Squadron

COMSURFLANT - Commander, Suface Forces Atlantic.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Anonymous Coward]

quality alternatives to windows like Linux and *BSD are failures?

Yes.

If Gates is serious......

[mormop]

He's more of an arsehole than most give him credit for.

Look back through history and it's littered with good ideas put to nefarious uses. The problem is that no matter how well meaning technolgists are you are still left with the problem that cabinet level politicians are, generally speaking, not the most trustworthy and ethical persons on the planet.

For example, nuclear power. Possible clean and long lasting fuel source (if it was done properly), could improve everone's lot. First practical use - frying people and destroying whole cities and then threatening to destroy the planet from then on. Luckily the balance in power during the cold war means we are still here.

Example 2 - Gunpowder. use it to make pretty patterns in the sky, then adapt it to shoot lead balls through people and blow things up.

Give politicians the tools and they will always pour money into discovering the best way to use it to their own advantage whether it's for kicking the shit out of foreigners or keeping the populace in check at home.

The only trouble is that with computers and IT in general there's no mushroom cloud to let you know it's going on if they do it in secret Remember how long the governments involved denied Echelon's existence before finally owing up.

Re:If Gates is serious......

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the first practical use of nuclear power unfortunately city busting because it's much easier to have a runaway reaction than a controlled one?

From 1985: Palladium

[mcp33p4n75]

I love Bill Gates.

Re:Slashdot moderation

[loadquo]

So you're saying in some way slashdoters need Microsoft in order to relieve stress? So what would we geeks do without Microsoft, could we cope not having anyone to rail against, bitch and flame. Oh wait there would still be bush right?

The Devil Himself

[Anonymous Coward]

Gates told a homeland-security conference on Wednesday afternoon that Orwell's dystopian vision of the future, in which Big Brother used technology as a form of social control, "didn't come true, and I don't believe it will."

"The Greatest Trick the Devil Ever Pulled Was Convincing The World He Didn't Exist"

Doublespeak is alive and well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Force isn't always defined as blunt force trauma to the head, and slashdotters need to realize that the law doesn't always make it a requirement in answering the question "Were you forced?" i.e. coercion. Casting the dispute as a cost-benifit is being disengenious. And not only smacks of the kind of doubletalk one expects from repressive regimes, but does a disservice by obscuring a very real phenomenon. "Force" can be just as hidden as wife beating, child molestation, and racism. And while force as used in this discussion will not result (directly) in anyones death, emotional scaring. Neither does it benifit the individual, nor society for force is more times than not executed to gain an advantage that one would otherwise wouldn't have through fair and equitable means. One can "escape" a lot of things, but one must never make excuses for the situations that one's escaping from. For they never should exist in the first place.

It's a willing descent.

[twitter]

Orwell predicted people would willing ebrace control. The only thing he got wrong was the requirement for nuclear warfare as a trigger. People, it seems, can be hyped up to pitch by blowing up a few buildings. Orwell only felt that would be usefull to keep the fevered pitch, not create it. Yet here we sit, filled with xenophobia, with the specialist warfare and readilly adopting all forms of spyware with less and less control. Gates has targeted the "obvious" groups, school teachers, union leaders, proffesional politicians, the military, like a true desciple of Orwell. The scary thing is not his intention, it's all the help he's getting.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[tshak]

Dear Mr. Uninformed,

In cryptography we have algorithms termed "one-way hashes". What this means is that the information is not reverseable. As inconvenient and stupid as XP activiation is, all that get's sent to MS is a non-unique hash of basic hardware. The IP in which you activated (unless you activated via telephone) is not a part of this hash, nor is it ever recorded by MS.

Please refrain from future attempts at dictating to me what I can and can't do with software and hardware I purchased.


Again, I wish XP didn't have activation, but let's be reasonable. It's illegal to buy one copy of XP and put it on 3 machines. Use FreeBSD or Linux if you don't want to pay for an OS.

The Link

[DongleFondle]

While many see Bill and wife donating millions to select charities, the link is there if you follow the money.

Take Gate's million dollar donations to the medical efforts of treating AIDS patients in African countries, for instance. Currently, medical treatment for AIDS is extrememly expensive, to the point of unavailability, in most African countries. The American Medical "drug cartels" have effectively obtained patents on these AIDS medications, making it illegal for medical companies in Africa to produce and sell them. This medical intellectual property is protected by the WTO's TRIPs (Trade Related Intellectual Property) Agreement. In order for the millions suffering in these 3rd world countries to obtain the medical treatments, it requires huge money donations that simply then channeled back into the IP holders (one might also not Gate's million dollar stock investments in these drug companies). These huge "donations" are simply protecting the WTO's TRIP's aggrement to protect intellectual property from public decree. Because if anything is going to break the TRIP's agreement it wont be a bunch of geeks on slashdot raving about the unfair RI** anti-piracy practices, it will be the AIDS issue in 3rd world countries.

And suddenly, the link is clear. Gate's "contributions" are mearly protecting his empire which is built on and would crumble without de facto protection of intellectual property rights for corporations. And at what expense to those suffering from AIDS and without treatment?

For further reading on the subject see Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."

Re:The Link

[Anonymous Coward]

I will notify all AIDS foundations that their work is worthless, and to instead focus on Intellectual Property law reform.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please refrain from future attempts at dictating to me what I can and can't do with software and hardware I purchased.

You can't buy Bill Gates' software, you can only lease it, under very specific terms. (Stop trying to tell the man how to market his software.)

If you don't want to lease software, then *buy* (or acquire for free, legally) software you can legally tinker with. The choices are staggering.

And Orwell was blacklisted for it

[Anonymous Coward]

by the liberal twerps in Hollwood who did all the other blacklisting, too. Orwell criticized Communism thoroughly. So did Elie Kazan, Hollywood hated him, too, even at his lifetime achievement award at the Oscars he was thoroughly booed.

The hatred directed at Matt Drudge is not new.

Re:And Orwell was blacklisted for it

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree:

Have you seen Michael Moriarity in anything lately? He was fired from Law & Order for stating that maybe setting children on fire wasn't such a good idea.

Have you seen Andy Garcia in anything lately, besides a Best Buy commercial? He stated that pointing machine guns at 6 year old kids wasn't a good thing to do.

the rest of the comment (as I see it)

[pergamon]

'didn't come true, and I don't believe it will.'

...until everyone switches to Palladium

First People's Demorcatic Republic.

[twitter]

God made Eve and said, "You may now select your wife."

Gates made Palladium and said, "You may now select your software."

People have always wanted to control the personal thoughts of their subjects. Microsoft will give them the ability to know those thoughts. Once your thoughts are known, you will be punnished. Morality (good) will be redefined to conformity and obedience.

twitter@starbright:~ ispell
ERROR 1069 - dictonary is untrusted. Please only use Microsoft approved software on this computer for your iportant work.
done: ispell

Ironic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look: as a Linux user and open source developer, I like to bash Microsoft just as much as anyone. Their business practices are at best unethical, and at worst, flagrantly illegal. Over the past few years I have come to rely (in part) on Slashdot for its irreverant and challenging views on the Microsoft Monopoly. Say what you will about Slashdot's editors (poor spelling and grammar, blatant editorializing on a so-called news site, etc), but I really have come to believe that Slashdot represents an important and much-needed voice among today's corporate hype-driven media.

Until now, that is. While helping my 16-year-old son (also an avid Slashdot reader) do research for a term paper on technology and journalism, I stumbled across some information that made me change my views about Slashdot completely. In a nutshell: Slashdot, and more accurately, its parent company VA Software, has deep and mutually influential ties to the Microsoft Corporation. In fact, Slashdot's own editors are paid (albeit indirectly) out of the coffers of Microsoft.

Yes. It's hard to believe. At first I couldn't believe it. But a few simple Google searches and 45 minutes' research on Lexis-Nexis (as well as a couple of phone calls to a friend of mine at the SEC) revealed the following:

• Three of the eight directors [vasoftware.com] at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company Vulcan Ventures [paulallen.com].
• Most (>80%) of Murberry's funding, including compensation for its directors, comes directly from Microsoft Corporation.
• In 1998, VA Software (parent company of OSDN, which is the parent company of Slashdot) receieved an investement of $3.8M from Murberry-Slocomb.
• The 1998 annual report for VA Software actually mentions this, and goes on in detail about how this infusion of capital has helpled them maintain and operate OSDN.

At first I was more amused than shocked; I mean, the technology industry is notoriously incestuous and its leaders, even those who are in competition, often sit on the same boards and are members of the same organizations. So what if a few board members of Slashdot's parent company are also directors of a company funded by Microsoft? Well, it gets more interesting.

As it turns out, in May of 1999, VA Software submitted to the SEC Form 5506-D, Application for Direct Non-Ownership Subsidization. [sec.gov] This is the form that a corporation will submit to the SEC when it wants to directly fund a subsidiary from its own parent corporation. (It's basically a tax shelter for companies with a lot of subsidiaries) The application was approved in July 1999. The applicant name? OSDN. In other words, Form 5506-D basically eliminated the middleman between OSDN and Murberry-Slocomb. Following the money, I now saw that OSDN was being funded directly from an infusion of captal that Murberry-Slocomb has received from Microsoft!

Weird. I know. But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea. I'm not the custodian of any privileged information. A look at VA Software's web site and a Google search is all anyone needs to find the same information that I found. Are Slashdot's staff being paid through Microsoft? I sincerely hope not. But the facts are there and it sure looks like it. More importantly, what does this mean for the future of Slashdot? Can any grain of objectivity or journalistic ethics be preserved? What happens when the company you are bashing, nay, the very company that you preach the loudest against, Microsoft, i

Re:Ironic.

[merbywerby]

suddenly I flash back to the matrix reloaded

"Its just another system of control"

there is no Matrix it's Microsoft

pie in the face

[scubacuda]

...didn't come true, and I don't believe it will...

For that comment, he deserves another pie in the face by Noel Godin.

orwell & huxley

[ralphus]

Everyone always mentions orwell when talking about future societies and the impact of technology. Orwell was wrong, I agree with Gates. He painted quite a scary picture of a future controlled by big brother, but guess what... People don't like to be controlled if they know that they are, people would rebel in a orwellian state and there would be a state of bloody utter chaos and government ruling by a iron fist.

Huxley, however, painted a much scarier picture of a future society that is already coming partially true today. The best kind of servitude is that where the servant loves to serve the will of the master and knows no better, but a drone is a drone is a drone. In Huxley's world, all that the government and the powers that be have to do to retain control and shape things in the way they want is to use basic psychological principles such as someone responds better towards reward than punishment, placate them with their soma, touchie-feelies, etc, and they will want no more, or not think outside the system.

I highly suggest you check out Brave New World Revisited It is a collection of essays Huxley wrote on the topics of Brave New World, later in his life. I think you will be frightened and suprised.

Description from website:

In 1958, Aldous Huxley wrote what might be called a sequel to his novel Brave New World, published in 1932, but it was a sequel that did not revisit the story or the characters, or re-enter the world of the novel. Instead, he revisited that world in a set of 12 essays. Taking a second look at specific aspects of the future Huxley imagined in Brave New World, Huxley meditated on how his fantasy seemed to be turning into reality, frighteningly and much more quickly than he had ever dreamed.

That he had been so prophetic in 1931 about the dystopian future gave Huxley no comfort. He was a far more serious man in 1958 -- at the age of 64 -- and the world was a very different place, transformed by the catastrophe of World War II, the advent of nuclear weapons and the grip of the Cold War. Looking behind the Iron Curtain, where people were not free but dominated by totalitarian power, Huxley could only bow to the grim prophecy of his friend (and, briefly, his student at Eton) George Orwell in the novel 1984. In the free world, however, the situation seemed even more to be one for despair. For it seemed to Huxley that people were well on their way to giving up their freedom and the sanctity of their individualism, in exchange for the illusions of comfort and sensory pleasure -- just as they had in Brave New World.

Huxley heard, in 1958, a world full of the noise of what he called singing commercials, flooding the mass media, much like the hypnopaedia that shaped conscious thought in the world of the novel. He saw people everywhere in greater numbers taking tranquilizer drugs, to surrender to the unacceptable aspects of modern life -- not unlike the drug called soma that everyone takes in the novel. The power of propaganda, he believed, had been validated by the rise of Hitler, and the postwar world was using it effectively to manipulate the masses. Overpopulation was already a critical issue in 1958, and Huxley saw the emergence of an overpopulated world in which the chaos was, more and more, being countered by centralized control -- closer, it seemed, to the future of Brave New World, where the ultimate controlling capitalist of Huxley's early years, Henry Ford, had become the equivalent of God.

In the end, Brave New World Revisited despairs of what has come to pass, primarily modern humankinds willingness to surrender freedom for pleasure. Huxley quotes from the episode of the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov -- "For nothing," the Inquisitor insists, "has ever been more insupportable for a man or a human society than freedom." Huxley worried that the cry of "Give me liberty or give me death" could easily be replaced by "Give me television and hamburgers, but

Re:orwell & huxley

[that _evil _gleek]

Orwell was wrong?
Can I point out that, maybe, some people, just don't know what they are talking about, and haven't really read the book? I would NOT blame Orwell for that. Anyone who thinks Orwell was anti-tech, over anti-totalitarianism, simply missed, the theme...the overriding, re-occuring theme... In /all/ his works, not just his novels...

Either Gates hasn't read the book either, or he's playing at "strawman." Which is , ironically enough, a favored propaganda techinique of any of Orwellian villian...

A totalitarian goverment /would/ use technology --- in fact ,they did -- they made many
cruel devices for their inhumane purposes ---thats history, not speculation. Nazi's
-- do I have to give examples? Stalin used Pavlov's science. It's a no-brainer... It was done. And, of course, while a fairytale has talking animals, and science fiction has technology, don't confuse elements of the genre, with the theme.
How people use technology, depends on them. How much power you want to give them, depends on how far you're prepared to trust them... Orwell is much more about, trust, than tech.... there isn't any tech at all in _Animal_Farm, and it's a different genre, but. it's the same theme.

I guess /my/ take on Orwell and 1984 is:" if you didn't get it as a fairy tale, here it is again as SCIFI Are you you getting it, yet? Do I need to do it again in another genre? See how the Facists and the Commies are just two sides of the same totalitarian coin. See the how its all a scam?" That's the theme. THAT's ORWELL. If the message was this what /technology will do/.. then yeah.. BUT it's NOT. It is: this is what totalitarians do. It's this is how totalitarian goverments behave, these are the lies they tell you, this is the hell you'd have to live in, if the country you lived went totalitarian-istic, you'd don't want it, whatever the flavor is, be it fascism or communism. Orwell says "don't pretend they're different, judge them by their actions and you will realize, that communism, and fascism, are really the same thing, a scam, and a lie." May not seem like a big deal to say that now, but part of the reason Europe decided to appease Hitler was because of fear of the Communism -- I'm with Orwell, that was a mistake that cost many people their lives because there's no real difference, just sucks in 2 different flavors, And Orwell was one the first people to recognize this, and to publicly say so. [ And, perhaps with more subtlety than I ] And, he didn't just write novels, you know. You did know that right? Somehow, I think "those people", and "everyone" didn't.

I, mostly magree with you, about Huxley, but I couldn't just let you slander Orwell,
even indirectly, he's a personal hero of mine, and I don't have many.
Also, Orwell has elites who are considered "more equal", who just exploit everyone else, and know /exactly/ what they were doing, and how wrong it is, but they just don't care, but in A_Brave_New _World.. no-one was, really , free regardless of rank.. they had all been "conditioned", and while it varied, they seemed, to some extent, to be victims, except for the hero -- the wildman. But, I don't agree with you about the chances of successful revolt from inside a totalitarian regime w/o outside help. Name one since the invention of the machine-gun. They're especially bad, when on helicopters, which is why the Kurds didn't have a chance when we made the mistake of letting Iraq fly helicopters after the gulf-war. Unless what you meant was that the people would rebel, there would be some chaos, then the rebels would be killed, game-over.

And what are they going to say next? Was _Animal_Farm_ anti-glue? "Oh yeah, that scary guy from the glue-factory, it's an anti-glue theme." *shudder*

Re:orwell & huxley

[mcp33p4n75]

Everyone always mentions orwell when talking about future societies and the impact of technology. Orwell was wrong, I agree with Gates. He painted quite a scary picture of a future controlled by big brother, but guess what... People don't like to be controlled if they know that they are, people would rebel in a orwellian state and there would be a state of bloody utter chaos and government ruling by a iron fist.

The people in 1984 thought that things were getting better and the government was good. They didn't know they were being controlled. They just rallied up against whatever enemy Oceania constructed, be it Eurasia or Emmanuel Goldstein (not the guy in hackers ;). This isn't too hard to believe... just look at the patriotism/nationalism in the US since 9/11. People just shout and yell and think everything Bush says is true (the majority). The people that oppose a war with Iraq (or the Patriot Act, whatever) just piss and moan (as perceived by the majority through the media).

The difference between America and 1984 is that Oceania also controlled the resistance, The Brotherhood. If you remember, Winston and Julia sought out O'Brien in order to join the resistance. It turned out to be a sting. Soon they were sent to the Ministry of Love for re-education. No matter what they tried to do, the system was always a step ahead.

Anyway, this manipulation is only possible through a centralization of power by technology. The people were mind-controlled by the media and training, and also by constant observation (monitor dissenters). The technology could also determine who was going to rebel. The only thing i can see to prevent 1984 is what Gibson talked about in his article: the democratic/decentralized use of technology, or basically, privacy. Then people are able to think, organize, and rebel against the state. If not, we're probably screwed.

Re:orwell & huxley

[Jardine]

The point in 1984 is that the citizen's spirits were crushed so badly that even if a single person decided to rebel, it would not spread because the people would not have the will to join the rebellion.

Organizing a rebellion of multiple people would also be impossible. Let's say you have 3 people in your group of rebels. If one of them blinks an eye at the wrong time or has the wrong expression on their face for a split second, they will be watched closely from then on. Since they would meet with you at some point, you would be watched as well. Then all of you get to take a nice visit to Room 101.

Brave New World really is the more appealing society. Given the choice between oppression enforced with artificial misery or oprression enforced with artificial happiness, I think I'll go with the artificial happiness. The other thing about Brave New World is that people who do not fit into the system are not forced to fit in. They are shipped to an island (Iceland if I'm remembering correctly) and allowed to think their thoughts.

Re:orwell & huxley

[Jardine]

Emmanuel Goldstein (not the guy in hackers ;)

I'm pretty sure that the character in the movie was an homage to the character in the book. Either directly from the book or indirectly through the editor of 2600, Emmanual Goldstein (I believe his real name is Eric).

Privacy in the digital age.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would recommend this book.

Privacy in the digital age is possible, but as the scale tilts more, and more one way. More effort is required to move it back to the centered position.

True story

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I once went to the white house with my wife and mother-in-law. My mother-in-law used her Citibank Visa with her photo on it as her picture ID. We got in. This is pre-911, of course, but still makes me laugh.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[HiThere]

What he's saying is that you don't need to use those programs.

Perhaps you need what those programs can do for you, in which case you need to either find an alternative or build it.

OTOH, this is under the assumption that you are a free agent. I.e., you won't starve to death, and nobody that depends on you will starve to death, if it takes you a bit of time to get the adaptation. Or that you'll be able to find another job, if the current one insists on MSWindles and only MSWind. That tends to be my assumption, too, as you haven't specified any particular program on which you are dependant, or claimed that you or your loved will die without it. Vague claims tend to result in lowered urgency being attributed, even when you use expletives. (Those don't really add anything.)

OTOH, many modern versions of MSWind will run inside of VMWare. So if you *really must*, for some unknown reason, use MSWind, then you can. And you can so set things up that the programs are isolated from external communication, and thus are secure. (You didn't cite cost as a reason, so I'm assuming that the license will cause you no trouble.)

That said, I admit that I am held to Win95 by the inability to translate a proprietary file structure into a more publically accessible format. It's a music composition program, and it doesn't run on Win98. Currently I'm getting an adapted version of WineX that I hope will enable it to run on Linux, but hope is all that I can claim... But recent versions of MSWindles are no help at all. For my needs they are merely expensive pieces of garbage. (I must admit, however, that I didn't check out Win2000 or XP. Since it wouldn't switch from Win95 to Win98, I presume that it is unuseable with the later versions of the OS, and the more recent licenses appear to me to render it unsuitable for any purposes whatsoever.)

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[HiThere]

You might consider OpenOffice.org.

You didn't mention any particular program as the limitation, so I'm assuming that this will solve your problem. If you had a more specific "question", then I might have a more specific answer.

Just replace Governement by Microsoft ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Orwell just goofed a bit in his predictions. Just
replace government with Microsoft and you have
big brother.

Microsoft Virus Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's an idea. A Harvard student could sue Harvard for breach of privacy. How? Because it is widely known that Windows is insecure, whereas if they had used Macintosh, Linux, SunOS, Solaris, and others, they wouldn't have been vulnerable to virii on such a large scale. Using Windows was negligent, and hence they are responsible for the breach of privacy.

Just one lawsuit like this could kill Microsoft if it was successful. No business would run an OS that would open them up to liability!

Weee!

Re:Microsoft Virus Lawsuit

[jasonsfa98]

By using computers supplied by the college I am sure the student give's up those rights, along with the rights to legal action.

What part of the Antitrust trial did you miss?

[Kjella]

"...and forcing me to "sign" draconian agreements to use software YOU force me to use."

So are you saying that jack-booted thugs are forcing you to install and use Windows? Or are you suggesting that quality alternatives to windows like Linux and *BSD are failures?

Legally, a monopoly or "trust" exists when an individual or firm can explicitly force competitors out of business by slashing prices, buying up and hoarding supplies, bribery or intimidation (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914). A federal judge ruled that Microsoft has indeed engaged in many such practices on the basis of its monopoly power in the computer operating systems market.

While being slightly more subtle than the jack-booted thugs, the result is the same. Microsoft has been abusing its power to prevent quality alternatives from succeeding. While Linux and *BSD are improving, there is also a considerable amount of customer lock-in stifling competition. And so with no realistic alternatives, you have no choice but to sign said draconian agreements.

Kjella

Re:What part of the Antitrust trial did you miss?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's mainly the lack of top shelf applications on linux that stops people from adopting. Star Office is now good enough to compete with MS office. But for everyday apps, linux is still a long way from catching up to MS's lineup.

It's a chicken and the egg problem. Users won't buy Linux until the top applications run on it and companies won't make the apps until there is a large linux desktop user base.

The bottom line is that MS has a monopoly and it's very hard to break, even without MS's anti-competitive practices.

It may make sense to THEM

[PetoskeyGuy]

"This technology can make our country more secure and prevent the nightmare vision of George Orwell at the same time," Gates said.

Of course were all going to sit here and point out to ourselves it doesn't make sense. But remember he was speaking to CONGRESS. The same people who believe in lowering taxes and raising spending will lower the national debt. Listening to confirmed software monopolist talking about what they should do about their future software plans.

When he said he doesn't think it's come true and doesn't think it will, perhaps he means he'll never acheive the total control he's always dreamed of, what with Linux the constitution on such standing in the way.

You have to remember to take everything out of context.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I don't see any thugs around here. Draw your own conclusion Mr. smarty pants.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[4of12]

So are you saying that jack-booted thugs are forcing you to install and use Windows?

In most corporations the jack-booted thugs smile when they tell you that the uniform corporate standard for computing is Windows.

Strictly speaking you are correct.

Of course, you are "free" to refuse, just as you're "free" to quit working for the corporation and "free" to live without a paycheck.

And, yes, anticipating the argument, the employer is "free" to negotiate an employment contract with employees that require various things, such as using Windows, or to piss in a cup every month, or to wear RFID badges.

The bottom line is that the majority of people are in the position of choosing between accepting significant constraints on how they live their lives, or living in poverty. Some of the trade-offs are reasonable and expected; others are drifting more toward Orwell's 1984.

Your narrow minded skeptisism makes me sick

[tshak]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. BillG, on is biggest philanthropist of all time - period. First, how dare you judge someone who has what's considered the one of the best charities in the world. I don't care how much you hate Windows, or MS, you have to be (excuse the language) one arrogant prick to hold your point of view. Yes, his charity has investments. Guess what, that's what smart charities do. If BillG got sued for all the money he's worth, that charity will be in business indefinitely without any additional income, while still being able to donate on a regular basis to different causes. And although the charity has donated computers with Windows, it's larger focus is on AIDS research and the like.

If Bill G's assets are (let's just say) increasing by $1 billion per year, giving away $10,000,000 is only 1% going to charity.

Gates donates over $1B a year. That's a lot more than 30% of his income - the max amount that the IRS allows him to deduct (it's usually 50%) because of his involvement in his own charities.

Re:Microsoft viruses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, not funny and wrong. Keep up the good work.

It wasn't Will Smith, it was Jeff Goldblum.

Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Orwell was wrong about Big Brother!

Well, of course he was, his name isn't Big Brother, it's Bill.

bill is not big brother...

[geoff lane]

...but he might well run the shop where big brother bought his equipment.

There always needs to be a balance

[LostCluster]

With all of the products marketed as must-haves for proper security, nobody seems to remember that security and trust must co-exist for things to work.

Total security is rarely useful. Total security is locking the only keys to the safe inside the same safe. No robber will ever get in, the problem is, the people should have access can't get in either.

People get concerned whenever a backdoor is placed in a software package by a vendor, however, we all drive cars with security backdoors. If you lock your keys in the car, and you're locked out, you can call AAA. Their truck operators know how to unlock your door without the key from the outside, and they effectively break into your car for you to let you back at your keys. Of course, this back door is secured by the fact that you have to identify yourself as a paying AAA member before the driver is even dispatched, which leaves a nice clear paper trail that can be traced back if this service is ever abused by car thieves.

When assigning security settings on a company server, the idea of giving everybody the minimum security you need to is incorrect. The correct answer is to give them exactly the resources they need to get their job done. There are some things that should be sent up to a higher level for approval, things that a low-level employee just shouldn't be allowed to do. However, system designers have to be careful that the approval events are not time consuming and don't happen too often, otherwise the employee will spend more time seeking authorizations than doing their original job, and that often translates into a delay that customers feel as well.

The only way to have a 100% assurance that a system will never be hacked is to just not build it. Of course, that isn't too useful so that isn't usually an option. Once you give any user any access to the system, you're taking a risk. That even includes yourself, as you could either screw up or turn evil from the point of view of your employer someday. The more people you let in, the more risks you end up taking. You can't elimiante the risk, you can only put controls in to limit it.

In the end, the operators of a business have to decide how much risk tolerance they have with their investment. If they want no risk, they should pack their money up and put it in an FDIC-insured bank. No risk in that, but also very little reward. The company that trusts its employees, and finds that trust to be well-placed gets the highest rewards, but risks the penalties for the occasional mistaken trust mounting up.

It's all about the balance. Too little security is fatal, but too much security can kill a business as well...

Re:There always needs to be a balance

[ONU CS Geek]

Now, this is probably a little bit off-topic as well, but...

Just about *anyone* can get the same pick set used by AAA, including the little "bar under glass thingie" that can be used to push the little power unlock button--thus disarming most factory-installed theft devices. I know this--I've got one sitting in the back of my car, and I'm nowhere near a cop (who also uses them--ever lock your baby in a car? Call a cop--they'll unlock your car) or anyone else who needs a set.

There's always room for "Evil," however, you need to find ways to reduce the amount of Evil or bad things that someone can do to or with your system. You "Jail" your processes, you limit database access by most users (for example, when I create web-based applications, there are two seperate sides, user and admin, and each user side has it's own database login, which can only do what it's needed to do, and the admin login can do a little more than what is needed, after it checks to see if you have the credentials to do it), and you try to keep yourself away from trouble in general. It all really depends on your programming tastes, style, and how much active thought you place into securing your data, your personell (only giving them the information they 'need to know' to do their job, as well as the RIGHT TOOLS to do their job), and your applications.

Sorry for ranting if I offended anyone--insomonia is making me a little grumpy.

Re:There always needs to be a balance

[pmz]

Of course, this back door is secured by the fact that you have to identify yourself as a paying AAA member before the driver is even dispatched, which leaves a nice clear paper trail that can be traced back if this service is ever abused by car thieves.

Ha. Guess you never heard of the "cash transaction". $75. No receipt. No questions asked.

rant about stupid stuff in Crimson article

[The Toad]

Maybe I'll get modded down for being "offtopic" since I'm not making a joke about Bill Gates, but I was bothered by several things in the Crimson article.

First, they leave their administrative assistants' computers (which are used to access to confidential data) apparently unprotected from viruses or their definitions are not updated regularly. Auto-updates are trivial to set up. At the campus where I work, which is *much* larger than Harvard, the default campus-wide policy is updates *every* *hour* for windows boxes. I require all systems for which I am responsible to have current antivirus software with that update policy.

Then, when asked about the situation, their comp services person seemed to think they're doing a pretty good job. They leaked confidential data! This was a failure due to his department's negligence. They only "encourage" their staff to install antivirus software and post virus announcements on a web site. That seems very irresponsible to me. It is their responsiblity to protect sensitive systems. They failed to do so even though the resources to do so are readily available.

At the end of the article they have a quote from the Dean, a comp sci prof, saying that people should use Macs to avoid viruses. Holy shit, batman! Harvard is apparently run by complete retards! How about some *real* and *useful* advice? Like install and update your antivirus software... don't normally run stuff as an admin user... don't indiscriminately open e-mail attachments... and patch patch patch those vulnerabilities!

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[crazyphilman]

It doesn't sound like using Linux or FreeBSD even occurred to him. I think plenty of people have a giant blind spot when it comes to Free Software. At work, several other developers make fun of me for running Linux and FreeBSD at home (they're really, really pro-Microsoft). They're Visual Basic-only guys; I'm a long-time Unix fan, who can do Perl, Java, C/C++, *and* Visual Basic. But they consider ME to be silly and foolish! I'm turning into a running gag with them. Whenever I'm about to make a suggestion, one of them says, "Let me guess... FreeBSD?" Then they laugh. Sigh...

You can't help them; they'll NEVER listen to you. I gave up a long time ago; I just let them make fun of me. It isn't worth arguing about.

Wrong

[SPYvSPY]

Janet Reno has no authority to order TV studios to do anything. If they complied, they did it voluntarily, on her advice. It would be different if Congress passed a law that gave the Justice Department (or, more likely, another agency) the authority to regulate television content. You say she "effectively ordered" them to comply, which is the same as saying that she asked them to do it and she was very persuasive. Or are you implying that she blackmailed them, or used other illegal means of coercion?

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Janet Reno was the Attorney General of the United States. She had no business to be "advising" the TV studios about their programming in the first place -- it was a violation of her office, and possibly of the law. Sheesh, I remember when people got upset just because Richard Nixon stated a personal opinion about some shows he didn't like. But this was actual pressure from the White House, and it came with the threat of consequences! Do some research.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you know that the Clinton administration was exempt from both the law, and all moral judgement?

Trading nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions? Hiding evidence in a murder investigation? Being in illegal posession of FBI profiles? Possible rape? Using the FBI to plant false stories and destroy someone's reputation? It's all okay.

Re:Wrong

[Sanction]

But it never has to be as explicit as blackmail. It just has to become known that media orgs that don't comply may have a lot of trouble at license renewal time, or when they apply to aquire a company, etc. The reason governments like to make sure everyone is violating some law or another is to give them the power of selective enforcement as a "motivational tool".

Laws enacted without public knowledge?

[SPYvSPY]

Please provide proof for your claim that the cited laws (and others to which you allude) were passed without public knowledge. I seem to recall a fuckload of discussion right here on this website about those same laws. Also, the fact that the public can't be bothered to learn about new laws is not Congress' fault, BTW.

Sorry your numbers are wrong

[Nazmun]

Billy G might be giving one entity 50 mil but he also has the gates foundation which has 21 billion and gives at the minimum 1 billion (5% is required by the goverment). I doubt Bill Gates is making $1 billion a year anymore. That was in the 90's when he also didn't give much to charities.

I DID drop Windows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not EVERYONE can just drop Windows.

Notice I said Windows, not Windows apps. And it was fairly easy too. RedHat 9 OS, crossover office with MSOffice 2000 and Lotus Notes, plus a couple of non-supported apps.
I know you're speaking of more than just the OS, but truthfully, start by ridding yourself of the OS, and the apps will follow (I now regularly send out docs created in OpenOffice - I really only use MSWord to read - erm - troublesome docs).

With Malicious Intent?

[Gen. Fault]

"We're working with a variety of hardware and software partners to provide this level of protection against future viruses, threats from hackers or anyone seeking to acquire personal information or digital property with malicious intent," Gates said

Is it just me? Or is software really BAD at determining intent? How does Billy know what my intent is when I access information, and whether that intent is malicious?

Re:Google link

[jeblucas]

Thanks for the smarmy remark you AC shithead. I ~read~ the paper yesterday, so going to the nytimes.com site at all was the extra minute I invested.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's something like this:

Your employer tells you to use Windows. If you refuse, you're told to leave, and the 'thugs' will escort you out.

You then need to look for another job, and LOTS of employers will require you to submit a resume in '.doc' format. Refuse, and you won't get hired. Without a job, and unless you're independently wealthy, you won't be able to pay your mortgage or rent. Eventually, the 'thugs' will force you out of your house.

National Security!

[kbs]

Ah, you're talking Stalinism, not Communism. Never has there been a true Marxist state; certainly not North Korea.

Our country can become a 1984-based state; Or perhaps something more akin to Farenheit 451. You just need to look at the way our Executive branch can arbitrarily label people as "Enemy Combatants" and then suddenly these people no longer have "due process."

The USA is NOT a democracy......

[InOverMyFeet]

and never has been. We are a representative republic. The Founding Fathers had no intention of allowing the general populace to run the country. Now this form of government may be flawed but it's not a democracy. Point being that the general populace is too easily swayed by a slick talker spewing misinfomation. Or someone posting to /. using all caps and bold letters.

As for the news, you're going to have to turn the channel from MTV and search for a more unbiased source. There's plenty of information out there and readily available. Go find it. If CNN ran a story that your mom had been killed in a car accident would you go get your suit out of the back of the closet? No, you'd probably do some checking to confirm.

As for your civil rights....the courts ruled yesterday that you could continue having anal sex with your dad (or the people that modded your post up +3 Insightful). Now you don't have to worry about getting caught.

If you think the USA is such a shitty place to live then I invite you to pack up and go infest some other country. I'm sick and tired of tree-huggers like your self using /. as a forum for your liberal views. Why don't you attend your next city council meeting and say this shit. Or write your congressman. Or better yet, get off your lazy ass and vote.

Re:The USA is NOT a democracy......

[Anonymous Coward]

He never said he didn't vote. Ah, nevermind, just another potshot. What was the point of your post again? If it was an attempt at a rebuttal, it's one of the worst I've ever seen. Tip: try thinking about issues before you flame off. His point was that since most people do not ever turn to "alternative news sources", that their opinions are based solely on the shock stories that they get pumped everyday through the mainstream media. There, I spelled it out for you.

On the worth of MS Stock

[Tony]

Stock is pretty liquid and he doesn't need it to drive to work. He can give MS shares to charity and everyone would be happy.

Although I won't quibble with BG's worth and real wealth, I will argue with the perceived worth of MS stock.

Remember, Enron's stock was worth quite a bit before the fall; look at it now, valueless. Microsoft is following a lot of the same accounting practices that inflated the worth of Enron stock.

Now, Enron also practiced explicitly illegal acts (from screwing the state of California to endorsing state-led murder in northern Africa), and so far MS has only been quasi-illegal (shifting reported income from one reporting period to the next to "flatten out" perceived growth, thereby maintaining stock value). However, Microsoft's real worth is questionable, as their true monetary profit is shrouded in slieght-of-hand accounting (reporting employee's stock options as income, for instance).

Although it isn't guaranteed to happen, there is a good chance that Microsoft will not be able to continue to ride the artificial economic wave. They have been quite adept so far; but if the stock starts to deflate, they could loose almost their entire worth. Granted, that will still leave them with a lot of resources, but if that happens, Microsoft (and Bill Gates) will no longer be the dominant players. (Think IBM in the '80s.)

This could happen overnight, as witnessed by Enron, Worldcom, or dozens of other companies over the last 100 years.

Re:On the worth of MS Stock

[danila]

Yep, you are right. My point was that Gates today IS rich (50+ bn $) and he gives a very small amount to charity (1% probably). That he might lose all that overnight doesn't change the fact that he is not giving much today while he still can.

Fear works both ways.

[Erris]

It was most disturbing for her [Bonker's Mother] to have me read the contents of her 'My Documents' directory off to her over the phone. She immediately installed firewall software and the kind of virus scanning software I recommended.

So, did you recomend free software, or did you simply gimp up her Windoze box with eXPensive software that won't really protect her?

... setting up Orwelling controls for overzealous LEOs ... . Is Microsoft doing that? Probably not intentionally,...

Microsoft has always been about control at your expense. That's what closed source is all about, you keep the user dependent on you and your "product". Microsoft has taken that control a few steps further with their OS by screwing other closed source companies. The registry was the first step towards Paladium, but they already had effectively blocked all others on their OS by control of that OS, even before the registry. Paladium will make sure that alternate software does not run at all, even a complete replacement for M$ crap. Windoze updater will insure that anything can be crushed instantly, not just software but whole social movements. Palladium + M$ is distributed Carnivore. You know that's how it's going to be used and so does Bill Gates. It's insane.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not reading what he said correctly.

He's saying that it is not MS products, but 3rd party apps that work only on Windows that he needs. IOW, if the 3rd party apps were available on Linux, he'd switch.

But MS has a monopoly on the desktop and it's not cost effective for the 3rd party software makers to make a linux version until there are a lot more users.

Some more ...

[bezuwork's friend]

Combine the visions of the Disney, FBI, RIAA, Microsoft, stupid senators and SCO, makes Big Brother seem bearable in comparison :)

RFID (also on /. frontpage), Ashcroft, the Dept. of Homeland Security, Poindexter, TIA, ...

Let's not forget...

[filmsmith]

keeping the King of England out of your face!

reality distortion

[Erris]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that Gates, being in the stratosphere as far as powerful men are concerned, doesn't have to concern himself with Orwellian government because he is above the fray.

It's not money so much as the fact that he flipped off the DoJ and got away with it. Government wants M$s invasive powers. What is Carnivore next to Palladium? Nothing. Gates is working for the state, they let him off so he could do their bidding.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Chewie]

Right. I understand that. However, that doesn't change the analysis of "I want to do this" vs "I don't want to run Windows". I personally know several people who *refuse* to run MS products. It's a matter of principle for them, and they do it despite the fact that things might be easier if they had access to Win32 programs. They get by all right.

I agree that OS lock-in shouldn't happen. If you look at my original post, I admit that MS has been ruled to have a monopoly by the courts. I personally think vendors should provide alternate OS ports of their products.

However, if you say, "My job makes me run Windows," what you are saying is, "To maintain my current income levels and economic stability (i.e. to keep my job), my employer requires me to run Windows." "But I don't want to run Windows! What can I do?" Well, you have three options: 1) Suck it up and run Windows. Give up your hopes and dreams and relegate yourself to a crappy OS. 2) Quit your job. 3) Try to exert some pressure from within the company to introduce alternatives. If you've got a third-party Windows-only app, Wine may work for you. May not, but it's open source. Chip in and help.

My position is this: Personally, I don't like MS, their software, or their business tactics. If it were *easy* for me to abandon Windows, I would. In a heartbeat. However, I've done my own analysis, and discovered that the (perhaps temporary, perhaps permanent) income reduction is too big for me, personally, to rationalize taking a hard-line stand. I could quit my job if running Windows bothered me enough. Wouldn't be the most intelligent decision I could make, but it's an option.

This has gotten way more involved than I wanted it to. I'm just saying that there are alternatives out there. It may be working at McDonald's, it may be doing something by hand rather than on a computer, but there are alternatives. You may not deem it an acceptable alternative, but there are alternatives. That's all. Choose your own fate, take responsibility for your life, or stop complaining without taking action.

Bill Gates, dissin' dystopia

[Zhe Mappel]

Arguments about Orwell's vision have ranged back and forth for over half a century, but seldom have bean counting billionaires been consulted for their opinion. Smothering markets and twisting buyers' arms are properly seen as better skills for advancement in either big business or the mob than for understanding society or literature. Of course, in the age of the MBA president, you might say that bean counting has replaced any more nuanced or enlightened lens for looking at our problems - and when society turns to the savagery of corporate conservatism for answers, I'd have to agree. We're living in a time when the official line is that *only* billionaires understand us.

That said, Gates is uniquely placed, in a way, to offer his 2 zillion cents. Sitting atop his pile, having broken markets, governments and the law itself on the anvil of his net worth, while simultaneously having been the single largest source of the world's computer security problems, he has helped to bring about the conditions for our further slide into Orwellian social control. That's because Microsoft's decades of slothful security have taught society to view PCs in a state of perpetual tremulous FUD. Marrying that fear to the trauma stoked endlessly by government in its post-911 efforts to brutalize democratic sensibilities is kind of an inevitable career move for Gates (and not only because he can't peddle operating systems like before). After you've taught everyone to fear, what do you do for an encore?

Teach them obedience. Orwell understood that.

Calling it the biggest technological and cultural challenge the country has faced, Microsoft Corp. chairman Bill Gates said that communications interoperability must top the Homeland Security Department's to-do list.

Actually, the biggest technological and cultural challenge our republic has faced is seeing if it can survive the Homeland Security Department - the Room 101 that our excited billionaires are building.

Gibson is missing a few things.

[Erris]

His assumption that all of us will share equal power and access to data, " this is something that corporations, nongovernmental organizations and individuals do as well, with greater and greater frequency." is flawed because it assumes we will all have software freedom. If Paladium goes through, that won't be true at all. As A. Smith asked, "How are you going to make a phone call when you don't have a mouth?" When you can't run your software because M$ did not authorize it, and you can go to jail for modding your xbox into something useful, you know that the new toys are not for you. The new Super DMCAs being pushed throught state legislatures will enable ISP to make it a crime to use the software of your choice when connecting to their network and your old hardware will be useless or get you put in jail.

"And that's the truth".

[tchdab1]

Gates said Orwell's vision "'didn't come true, and I don't believe it will.' Later that day 6 reporters who did not get the quote correct were summarily fired, their offices trashed, their families left homeless and their co-workers interviewed.

YHBT

[Anonymous Coward]

YHL

HAND

Allowed HTML: Bold! Italic?

Anchors! ... And many, many more!

Then OTOH...

[Gorimek]

True, but the other side of it is that Bill has so much more to lose. I'm sure the government would really, really like to get hold of his billions, and will do that if they get a chance.

So to summarize, he has both much less and much more to worry about than you and me.

Re:Then OTOH...

[cyberformer]

Bill benefits more from the government than anyone else. The government protects property rights, and he has more property than anyone. It also enforces copyright, and he makes more from copyright than anyone. It gives those little pieces of paper that show pictures of dead presidents their value, and he has more of them than anyone.

Fortunately for Bill, he has more say in government than anyone. American politicians (especially Republicans, but Democrats too) do whatever corporations want, and Bill has more stock than anyone.

"Big Brother Inside"-for real this time

[alizard]

Looks like he sees the 1984 vision not coming true as a problem and feels that updating it is the solution.

It is obvious that his intention is to build "Big Brother" into our computers.

willingness to work with the federal government on combating terrorism and to tout his company's Trustworthy Computing initiative and its controversial next-generation secure computing base,"

Why do kids need to be taught to spy on their parents when the never-sleeping eye of Microsoft will be on them all the time? Gates' vision of the worldwide network of informers, being built into our computers by MS assisted by Intel, etc. is technologically realizable.

However, it depends on our buying their products. "Security" is one of the main reasons foriegn governments and major corporations both in and out of the US are switching to *nix.

Do we have an Open Source mole inside MS giving Chairman Bill bad advice? (VBG)

Intent?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article: "We're working with a variety of hardware and software partners to provide this level of protection against future viruses, threats from hackers or anyone seeking to acquire personal information or digital property with malicious intent," Gates said.

How will this technology divine what someone's "intent" is, without doing a considerable amount of thought-policing?

Now you can buy the meaning of the word "Intent"

[Procyon114]

"May I be of assistance?"

...to act as a Gates interpreter? I'm guessing that what he means when he says, to paraphrase, that M$ is working to provide protection against threats from anyone seeking to acquire digital property with malicious intent is...drumroll, please...that...Bill...opposes...with fervent passion...FILE SHARING!!! File sharing is evil, it's downright unMicrosoftican.

Oh yeah, and Linux is bad too. If the federal government would only eliminate 'n' and 'x' from the alphabet, then users would be unable to spell Linux, and thus, unable to use Linux. Sound familiar?

Palladium

[moncyb]

I think the point of this thread was M$ Palladium will force you to use M$ products to interoperate with any other M$ product. Unless you think it's possible to crack the encryption and you have no problem going to jail under the DMCA.

Without some DMCA violating program where someone stole the crypto keys from M$, Linux/Macs/whatever will not be able to read the DRM content from Palladium or work with any Palladium protocols.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mistaken, relax. Gates et all are working to remove your liberties and freedoms, not (primarily) your privacy. Oh look! Season's closer of Friends! Gotta go now....

Ari Fleischer is available

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead and concern yourself with the powerless and irrelevant as far as Mr. al-Sahaf is concerned.

Perhaps you should reconsider your attack target for the 'humor' you attempted. Substitute Mr. Fleischer for Mr al-Sahaf, and maybe your comment deserves a chuckle.

Making fun of the powerless and irrelevant is trivially easy, thuggish, and pathetic. Step up to the challenge of being funny by taking on people who matter!

Worse

[commodoresloat]

What if they have Windows?

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[BigRedFish]

So are you saying that jack-booted thugs are forcing you to install and use Windows?

Install and use, no... Forcing me to purchase Windows whether I want it or not just to get quality x86 boxes from a respectable vendor, YES.

Totalitarian/Orwellian/Amerika

[Dinosaur Jr.]

Found this on some random site that looks to hit pretty close to the truth...

The 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.
Americans refer to it as: Property Taxes The United Nations refer to it as: "Bio Spheres" - At present the U.N. owns over half a billion acres of U.S. land which is completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
ASK YOURSELF THIS
Can your government take your land if you don't pay your "rent"?
The answer is "YES"
So do you really own property or do you
lease it from the government?

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans also refer to this tax as: Income Tax

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Americans refer to it as: Estate, Income and Inheritance Taxes

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans refer to it as: Government Seizures & Tax Liens

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans refer to it as: The Federal Reserve

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Americans refer to it as: The FCC and D.O.T.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans refer to it as: The Department of Agriculture, The Desert Entry Act and Corporate Capacity

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans refer to it as: The Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Americans refer to it as: Planning and Zoning and Super Corporate Farms (Executive orders 11647 & 11731) "...URBANIZATION..."

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans refer to it as: Public School, The Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based Education.

Re:Totalitarian/Orwellian/Amerika

[pair-a-noyd]

Every one of these items has been instituted in the USA.
The communists took control of the USSA already.
Senator Joseph McCarthy was right.

Minitrue doubleplus ungood

[pair-a-noyd]

When Gate$ starts talking about 1984, "Homeland Security(TM)" AKA INGSOC and Window$ AKA INGSOCOS
in the same speech it is doubleplus spooky.
However, you need to crossreference this speech to your B vocabulary dictionaries for the true meaning..

Gates on Linux: "Items one comma five comma seven approved fullwise stop suggestion contained item six doubleplus ridiculous verging crimethink cancel stop unproceed constructionwise antegetting plusfull estimates Linuxmachinery overheads stop end message."

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html#cri methink

Free Software foundation = Goldsteins Brotherhood

[101percent]

Confuse-us say, "Here are some links for you..."

The GNU GPL and the American Way by Richard M. Stallman

The GNU GPL and the American Dream by Bradley M. Khun

Can you trust your computer? by Richard M. Stallman

I know you, yes you have probably read these already, but someone else probably hasn't. Don't worry, there is still room for Anonymous Cowards to troll. Personally I consider these seminal works, but of course YMMV.

Enjoy!

Hehe, thought crimes

[Angry Pixie]

'didn't come true, and I don't believe it will.'

... And we have never been at war with Eurasia. ... And we have always been at war with Oceania.

Why don't you go to Nazi Germany...

[composer777]

where you belong. Most fascist countries actually like it when dissidents leave. You would be right at home there, and you could tell anyone that didn't like it to leave without getting your ass kicked, since you would have the law on your side.

Re:Why don't you go to Nazi Germany...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's already in the 21st Century's version of Nazi Germany - the US is the single most disgusting, vile, backward example of how civilisation failed to appear in a population of people.

You live in a tightly controlled fascist police state, dictated to by a moron who you didn't even vote into office. Your media is controlled, your rights are curtailed, you're worked to death compared to the rest of the world and you all LOVE IT because you've been spoon-fed since birth that you're the highest form of civilisation the world has ever seen.

NO ONE wants to be like you, NO ONE wants to be near you, NO ONE wants your way of life.

The so-called 'American Empire' is in decay caused by a disgusting emphasis on materialism and greed. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Deliberately? Well, yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former pinto owner (it never exploded into flames, btw) I followed this pretty closely at the time. Yes, Ford management was aware that unprotected gas tanks would rupture and catch fire more than (more expensive) protected tanks. They did a cost/benefit analysis and decided to go with the cheaper, unprotected tanks (and not to recall older cars). So they: 1) knew about the problem, 2) studied the problem, and 3) decided to do nothing to fix the problem. That's a deliberate act in my book.

... and Bradbury as well

[BlakeStone]

I agree with the parent; people try to fight overhanded attempts at control, but subtle approaches that play on their fears and desires seem much more effective. Ray Bradbury also agreed, in Fahrenheit 451. I know, most of us here have probably read it already, but if you haven't (I hadn't, until this past spring) check it out & see if you don't notice any similarities between his America and ours.

In Fahrenheit, censorship is not a government program, but an implicit social choice. People don't think about issues because they're complicated, or unpleasant. Instead, they demand constant entertainment. I shouldn't be too critical, since I'm hardly the most well-informed citizen, but just think of how many people like listening to music stations all the time, rather than something informative like NPR, just because it's easier for them.

Though I see shades of Brave New World and 1984 today, I see Fahrenheit much more clearly(and am more frightened of it), because it's so much simpler.

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like a prize bunch of wankers to me

The real reason for this...

[duck_prime]

"Ignorance is Strength" has already been adopted by the American people.

Well, we were running out of choices...

"Black is White" has already been adopted by Michael Jackson.

PETA got "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

And my brother's fraternity has a death-lock on "No animal shall drink alcohol to excess."

MS provides US Govt's Orwellian Database?

[Aureal]

People are harbouring misgivings about Palladium et al and so in a effort to allay their fears and general suspicions, Bill Gates utters what to me are hollow words indeed.

A controlling body such as the American political administration would covet very highly the ability to keep an extremely detailed and up-to-the-minute database on whomever they so wished and considering the size of the population in the United States of America today, keeping such close tabs on that amount of people would be a daunting, if not impossible, task. Since the introduction of the IBM compatible personal computer (PC) a few short decades ago, it and its spinoffs (PDA's etc) have become more of a necessity in the daily life for those people who live in a civilized urban or city environment and less of a luxury/novelty/curiosity item as they used to be. Now, loaded onto the vast majority of these computers worldwide is one of Microsoft's Windows operating systems. Here then is the perfect opportunity for said administration - in close collaboration with one of their major campaign sponsors mind you - to keep under close scrutiny millions of Americans with a degree of precision that would have been considered impossible only two decades ago. Microsoft's Palladium software will become all pervasive. It will become mandatory to have it installed on all practically all consumer computing devices which are capable of running an operating system (gaming consoles, PDA's, laptops, watches, mobile phones, home entertainment systems, car stereo systems etc) and furthermore, this trusted (trusted by whom exactly?) operating system will quietly, constantly and discreetly be feeding information into either one, huge database or numerous databases.

Of course, this is all speculation, but we all know how absolute power corrupts and one only has to look at the history of mankind to see that there are few - if any - exceptions to the rule. United States Presidents come and go but the underlying administration/power structure remains and quite frankly, it is probably as Machiavellian as any government can possibly be (although they are unfortunately not alone in this regard) - irrespective of whom is currently occupying the Whitehouse. Once the Uinted States government has declared that all non-TCPA compliant computing devices and untrusted operating systems (i.e. not Palladium) are illegal (using the PATRIOT Act to bolster it of course), then the rest of the civilized world will surely follow. If anyone or any country appears to be intending to "break ranks" as it were, then Microsoft - with the full support of the current U.S. government it seems (as the adage goes; "birds of a feather flock together") - will do its utmost to prevent such a rebellion. For instance, a few months ago, Microsoft managed to arrange to have the US ambassador to Peru petition the Peruvian government on Microsoft's behalf shortly after Peru stated their positive stance with regards to the use of open source software and earlier this week, Craig Mundie from Microsoft met with the Brazilian Minister for Education. That to me alone is a cause for concern. Sure. Banks may do it (although I've never heard of a bank arranging to have their country's Ambassador do their bidding) - but they're banks - not software companies.

As I said before, this is all pure speculation - but nevertheless, after looking at their past track record, I would not put it past them.

The Best Story About Gates and Security

[Master of Transhuman]

was the one about the hacker breaking into Microsoft, obtaining Gate's credit card, and ordering him a case of Viagra with his own card!

a Republic not a democracy

[sallgeud]

1. Don't be to quick to judge others hatreds as irrational.

2. And contrary to popular belief, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a Republic (yes, big R). To be more specific a representative republic.

Infact... our founding fathers feared a democracy, as do I. Because it is the idea of democracy that leads to the destruction of rights we hold dear, to accommodate the laziness of others.

To quote James Madison:
".. democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

If we were truly a democracy, Lincoln could never have freed the slaves. The right to certain forms of speech would be banned... remember they tried to stop Twisted Sister and then 2 Live Crew; and just think how harmless they seem today; there will always be something. The right to bear arms (no wait, we're already losing that one too). And without going down the entire list of the first 10 in the bill of rights, I could just say that if we had been a democracy through all of this, that none of it [Bill of Rights] would apply today.

Democracy is mob rule... I believe our military used to train solders that democracy was mobocracy. And the problem with politics today is that everyone tries to meet some common ground, to compromise their beliefs for the vote or for the satisfaction of the majority. Compromise is weakness. The problem with voters is that we no longer vote for the person we feel most confident to make decisions for our sake, we instead vote for the person who tells us what we want. A Senator or Representative is not in Washington to act as a proxy for democracy, and when tough decisions arise in which they know in their minds or their hearts they are making the right decision, they should never bow down to the will of their constituents. ... I feel like I need to say: and in conclusion, remember that compromise is a sign of weakness and democracy leads to communism, which leads to red things, which don't really go with my skin, so lets avoid that if we can.

Re:a Republic not a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be to quick to judge others hatreds as irrational.

Really? What else would you say that recent Anti-French feelings are? Remember, hate is a pretty damn strong term, and you had better have good reasons for using it. As far as I can see, there are no good reasons; just rhetoric. That I would certainly call irrational.

we don't live in a democracy

Democratic Republic. Democracy is a process used by the Republic. Get over it; while not pure "Democracy" you clearly understood what I was saying. If your only argument is semantic then I don't care; semantic arguments are only useful when you have nothing else.

an oxymoron!

[pair-a-noyd]

Gate$ and $ecurity.
Like Military Intelligence..

Please stop...

[fz00]

you're going to make me piss myself!

Re:How is that bad data?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

The problem is, a database is supposed to be a collection of facts. That someone is and african american is fine, if you have the photographs, or eye-witness accounts to prove it. That someone is a prostitute is ok, if they have a recent history of convictions for prostitution.

But if you take those two adjectives, and you use them to describe someone based soley on intercepted communications is wrong. I'm not talking about from a "bigotry" perspective, I'm talking about from a pure scientific reasoning perspective.

Listen to your typical "Yo", and you will find Whites, asians, and/or hispanics that have the same speech patterns as an urban hoodlum. The color of their skin doesn't enter into it. Frankly the only "black" pattern of speach I have noticed is that many are baritone or bases. Most of the males in my family (Caucasians, mind you) are ALSO baritones and bases. You can infer culture about grammatical patterns, but you cannot determine skin color.

As far as prostitution goes, what if someone has a smart-alec kid who changes the answering machine message one day? What if you happen to catch an amorous couple role playing over the phone? If that was not complicated enough, even if you have a prostitute, is she the street-walking drug huffing type, or the high-priced corporate concubine, or the Hollywood Hiede with a regular stable of influential patrons?

In short, a database is a collection of facts. Conclusions are ALWAYS left up to an individual to decide. Placing conclusions formulated by an individual into a database pollutes the value of that database as an information source, and has historically lead to problems in application.

Neither do you.

[Anonymous Coward]

The word nigger is unambiguous and will work quite well.

A bullet in your hollow head is also unambiguous and will work even better. Cocksucker.

Can't have it both ways

[HiggsBison]

On one form we ask volunteers for Emergency Medical information and Allergies. I had to explicitly instruct people to stop submitting hayfever or dairy products we only want to know what to tell the Paramedic if you are unconcious.

Most people aren't MDs. You can't complain that people who have no medical training shouldn't pretend that they know what they're talking about, and complain that they should know what you are talking about.

Ok, I realize you didn't say that exactly, but (fnord newsflash fnord) non-medics DON'T know much about medicine.

Most blood-banks ask if you have allergies to any medications.

The yolk's on you?

[leonbrooks]

Those victimized by Statin and his ilk suffered under the yolk of oppression imposed by a militarisitic police state.

The pie that Bill Gates caught with his face had egg in the recipe. Does that count as "the yolk of oppression"? (-:

For the linguisticly-impaired: yolk == yellow part of egg, yoke == load-bearing collar, joke == above paragraph, yokel == naive local ("a rustic; bumpkin").

Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...

[crazyphilman]

An A/C said, "sounds like a prize bunch of wankers to me"

Thanks... It's true. I have a sense of humor about it, though -- aside from their annoying habit of making fun of my unix efforts, they're okay generally; I mean, they're not evil or anything. Really, I kind of feel sorry for them. What's funny is, they don't understand that they're the ones who are limiting themselves. It's like they're on foot, and making fun of the people zipping past in cars, you know? Air conditioned cars. In August. With CD players. ;)