This is just an attempt to draw some media attention and get free exposure on the part of TI. It's not exactly a major news-flash to say, "Gee, we think wireless mobile internet is going to be a big thing in the future." Duh. However, the end of the desktop is a story. Predict that, and the media, like the mindless clones they are, will quote you like mad, and give you, your company and your products priceless exposure. Take it for what it is; a bunch of smoke with no fire. -Goliath
It seems to me that Mr. Katz has fallen into one of the great liberal intellectual traps. Obviously, his point is that freedom of speech is not an absolute. Only the most rabidly patriotic (or possibly just stupid) would argue with him. As an example of how the good old USA treats those who try to exercise their right of free speech, he gives us Jesse "The Mind" Ventura, Governor of Minnesota. The reaction which has raised Mr. Katz's ire, is that of several leaders within the Reform Party, of which Ventura is a part. Now... if Ventura's statements are protected under the Bill of Rights, as they obviously are, exactly what makes the views of these unnamed politicians invalid? Other than the fact that Mr. Katz disagrees with them, nothing. While arguing against censorship, he himself is covering some opinions under a blanket of acceptibility, and leaving others on the outside looking in. The Reform Party is not intended as a haven of complete free speech, nor are most other organizations. The Reform Party's business is to get it's members elected to high office. If they believe the statements of one of their member to be counterproductive, they have every right to take action. The same goes for Pat Buchanan and the Republican Party, though I would argue that in his case, long-term frustration with his extremist views are the real cause of tension, not one statement with the potential to embarass his party. As for the case of Peter Singer, obviously, his statements are also protected under the first amendment. Just as obviously, his ideas are controversial. For every person with an idea on one end of the spectrum, there will be a person at the other extreme end who will label the idea pure idiocy. This is his right, just as it is the right of the first person to propound the idea in the first place. Neither has the right to threaten or use force in the process of declaring his opinion, however. That Singer has in fact been threatened is tragic, and does indeed say something about our country. However, the overreactions of a few extremists is not a good indication of the overall environment of the country. Is Singer going to face official opposition because of his opinion? No. Will he be imprisoned or forced to recant? No. Would any attack on his person be regarded legally as a heinous act and prosecuted? Yes. Obviously, the nation has a problem with a few people who think violence is an acceptible response to a difference of opinion. I doubt anyone is going to rationally argue that we don't. However, to indict all of society based on this problem seems ludicrous. As ludicrous, in fact, as denying the right of free response to another's free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just an attempt to draw some media attention and get free exposure on the part of TI. It's not exactly a major news-flash to say, "Gee, we think wireless mobile internet is going to be a big thing in the future." Duh. However, the end of the desktop is a story. Predict that, and the media, like the mindless clones they are, will quote you like mad, and give you, your company and your products priceless exposure. Take it for what it is; a bunch of smoke with no fire.
-Goliath
It seems to me that Mr. Katz has fallen into one of the great liberal intellectual traps. Obviously, his point is that freedom of speech is not an absolute. Only the most rabidly patriotic (or possibly just stupid) would argue with him. As an example of how the good old USA treats those who try to exercise their right of free speech, he gives us Jesse "The Mind" Ventura, Governor of Minnesota. The reaction which has raised Mr. Katz's ire, is that of several leaders within the Reform Party, of which Ventura is a part. Now... if Ventura's statements are protected under the Bill of Rights, as they obviously are, exactly what makes the views of these unnamed politicians invalid? Other than the fact that Mr. Katz disagrees with them, nothing. While arguing against censorship, he himself is covering some opinions under a blanket of acceptibility, and leaving others on the outside looking in. The Reform Party is not intended as a haven of complete free speech, nor are most other organizations. The Reform Party's business is to get it's members elected to high office. If they believe the statements of one of their member to be counterproductive, they have every right to take action. The same goes for Pat Buchanan and the Republican Party, though I would argue that in his case, long-term frustration with his extremist views are the real cause of tension, not one statement with the potential to embarass his party. As for the case of Peter Singer, obviously, his statements are also protected under the first amendment. Just as obviously, his ideas are controversial. For every person with an idea on one end of the spectrum, there will be a person at the other extreme end who will label the idea pure idiocy. This is his right, just as it is the right of the first person to propound the idea in the first place. Neither has the right to threaten or use force in the process of declaring his opinion, however. That Singer has in fact been threatened is tragic, and does indeed say something about our country. However, the overreactions of a few extremists is not a good indication of the overall environment of the country. Is Singer going to face official opposition because of his opinion? No. Will he be imprisoned or forced to recant? No. Would any attack on his person be regarded legally as a heinous act and prosecuted? Yes. Obviously, the nation has a problem with a few people who think violence is an acceptible response to a difference of opinion. I doubt anyone is going to rationally argue that we don't. However, to indict all of society based on this problem seems ludicrous. As ludicrous, in fact, as denying the right of free response to another's free speech.