I have honestly NEVER seen a program on any flavor of Windows run from a single executable file. My long running gripe with Windows is that even the installer has to use an installer. I can't imagine anything other than the most simplest widget working in the way you described. Your ignorance of Windows is paramount. Try running an application from Sysinternals or Nirosoft (they are all single executables). And yes, it is easy enough for me to unpack most executables and run them without "installing" them (which is what I prefer to do most of the time). The installation issue is a vendor issue. That is, vendors decide how stupid and lame their uninstallers run, and they choose how much of their programs they wish to uninstall. If there are any bugs in the installation software, then you should blame the software vendors (Microsoft is just one of many software vendors that offer "installer" packages for programmers). Oh, and BTW, I spent over three years and big time bucks learning how to program in Windows, so I do know a bit about how programs work. That being said, it is actually easier to create a single executable to run in Windows than having to setup an installer software package, or screw around with registry entries (which a LOT of lame ass programmers and companies like to do) etc.
Yeah, I'm willing to hate Microsoft for their arrogance and shit-for-brains technology as much as anybody else, but I'm not willing to just casually blame Microsoft for every asshat thing that a Complainer may, well, complain about.
Are you denying that nearly every family member in the history of computing hasn't dumped their two year old XP machine because it just started bogging down? I am not denying anything. If you have proof of this I would be interested in hearing about it. BTW, I do have professional experience in Windows tech support as well as personal experience dealing with family and friends, so I'm not just saying things through the seat-of-my-pants.
Why is there an article today on the front page of CNN that helps explain why your computer slows down with age? You should give a URL reference (I could not find this article on the front page). I would agree however that a person's computer may slow down with age, do to many things that are not inherent with the operating system itself. Enlighten me please; I am the last person in the world to call myself an expert (there are just too many details to know). In many respects I am very, very open to changing my opinion, but the thing is; you have to prove yourself to be correct. So please enlighten me; how does Windows XP "bog down" your system over time?
degraded performance over time is a fault of the OS as well, so there's no alibi for XP there either. You are being presumptuous at the least. Unless you have some knowledge that millions of XP users and countless professionals and news sites haven't heard about, then I would say you are in the wrong here.
I've used Vista on a laptop with Intel graphics and it runs just fine.
It's just image composition, Intel chips can manage that.
What exactly is the difference on a high-end graphics card? In terms of graphics cards; if you can run Windows Aero then their really shouldn't be any noticeable difference (as only modern graphics cards will be able to support Aero [like those supporting Pixel Shader 2.0]). If you wanna play games, then that's another story (and a wholly different topic), but for just running Windows Aero in a desktop environment then you should be good-to-go.
And although not usually apparent to me when I search for technical details on Google (I can presume Web sites don't heavily reference these sources); http://channel9.msdn.com/ and the M$ programmer blogs are a wealth of technical information (http://blogs.technet.com/default.aspx), though it may be easier to use http://www.google.com/microsoft.html to search for these Microsoft blogs:P
Really? Could you explain what the "American empire" even is... I took his use of the term "American empire" from a more rhetorical perspective than your historical perspective. America certainly doesn't have (much) of a geographical empire these days, but they do have an economic empire. This I can see slowly disintegrating before my vary eyes; 1) Outsourcing (having shell companies in the US while companies like M$ slowly move their operations to India etc). 2) Flags of opportunity. Basing companies and / or their financial instruments in tax havens. 3) Selling the rope that will hang US. Some of the biggest companies in the world are in the US, and they will always find ways to sell military and technological knowledge to foreign hostiles. 4) Corporate corruption. Now it's the housing crises. Not too recently Enron and many other companies screwed themselves, their investors and their employees. I still do not see any trends that this is reversing. 5) Pork Belly Politics. I couldn't find a ready resource for this term, but I think it is of American origin, and too-well established in the American political/economic system. 6) Military industrial complex. I'm using this term vaguely here. But too much of the US economy is based on either policing or over-throwing other countries or policing and putting in jail it's own citizens. There is a vast economy in the US that is just based on jails and policing, and there is a tendency to make more laws and give harsher sentences. There will be a time perhaps, when there will be a limit to how many people Americans can tolerate being in jail (hopelfuly it won't get to the point were a security guard, police officer or paid informant doesn't, for example, arrest a cousin for downloading a song).
In respects to the term "empire", I as a Canadian know for a fact that the US has an incredible amount of control over Canada and Canadian businesses and politicians. For example, Canadian politicians almost always let the US indulge themselves in unfair "free trade" practices. The idea being that a smaller piece of a big pie is better than trying to get a fair slice (and spending years, or decades in court like in the softwood lumber B$... argh. Let's not get on a tangent here). Militarily, when Canada said they wouldn't support the US missile shield, the US basically said that's OK, we'll send missiles, etc over your country if need be... and what are you going to do about it?... And the having to have a passport for a Canadian to go to the US... and going through anal-re tentative customs officers.... blah, I won't bother thank you very much (I know I'm starting to get personal here, but if even your friends start thinking of you as an enemy, then imagine how your true enemies will think of you and treat you).
In many respects, America is very analogous to ancient Rome; it died through the greed and incompetence of it's ruling elite, and was ultimately (in the end) over-run through simple immigration that could not be stopped. This is a simplistic one sentence generalization to be sure.
To be succinct. I do no mean to sound anti-US (I have many US friends... mainly through IRC and more casually through Slashdot). I do however find the the US political system highly frustrating, especially since it so often over-bearingly and inappropriately affects Canadians in many respects.
At first, Win2k did not run quite a lot of "home" stuff... Perhaps you should be more specific. I bought a Dell with W2K SP1 on it and I ran a lot of applications including games, Office, etc. It actually sounds to me like you are talking about pre-NT 4 SP4 rather than W2K.
In general I think you are being too general (in most of your posts here).
I'll buy into multi-screen setups when there is an OS/driver combination that actually supports them without random issues. As a former tech support person I find this comment offensive. With that kind of attitude there would be no need for tech support. And yes, techies want to feel needed.
There is a difference. MS rely on the guidance of marketing analyst PT Barnum ("There's a sucker born every minute"). In the days of ME, this was a fair analysis - most ME users had never seen a computer before. Not only you could sell them most anything, they had no one to turn to who knew better until win2k came out, and then the migration path was obvious. Points of contention: - Microsoft did not need marketing people to sell ME. Most people bought it de facto when they bought a new computer. - Nobody except for me and businesses bought W2K. I think the switch for M$ switching to an NT-based system for their consumer model was a result primarily of two things: 1) More advanced hardware at the time that could better handle NT-based systems (like XP) 2) They were leveraging their already existing (tried-and-true) technology to the consumer masses
Unfortunately for MS, virtually the entire world's population now has Windows experience. It was not a great experience. Oh really? Windows 95/98 were pretty good in their day. I wouldn't say they were perfect, but these operating systems did do their job and were much easier to use and understand than Linux or BSD, and they had the popular support of developers that Macs and others didn't (I had a Mac in the early 90's btw, and will say that Apple lost out big time because of its Greed; licensing bullshit and relatively high prices). And speaking of XP, it works quite fine as well; it's not as powerful or as customizable as a Linux system, but for those ignorant masses that you speak of it gets the job done.
Do to some comments about my use of the word "high end" I will add these points: - I perhaps should have used the word "modern" (computer) instead of the word "high end". - While Vista was being developed (and for many years), it was likely developed on what was then considered "high end" computers.
For how many years have slashdot 'experts' been predicting the 'downfall' of windows? I Don't know. Things are different now than they were in the past. People (especially school age kids) are more educated about things like computers and operating systems; we have the Internet now, and just about every computer-related news and information site has articles about Linux. Also, Linux distributions are only becoming more stable and easier to use; there is no great paradigm shift to switching operating systems any more. I am no expert, but I too predict that Windows will decline over the next few years. For Windows die-hards, I can see ReactOS becoming a free alternative for people who have dozens of Windows applications they still want to run (or just Wine on Linux perhaps).
Who knows, Windows may still be the dominant operating system 20 years from now (if they don't make things any worse for themselves), but they will likely never be as significant as they were in the 1990's (the golden years for M$) and probably much less so than they are now.
Rubbish. Vista runs fine on the modern-day machines it was "designed for".
Sure. That's why Microsoft is fighting a class-action suit against customers who disagree withe your assessment.
Not quite. Vista was designed to run on high end machines, however Vista was marketed to be able to run on not-so high end machines.
I agree with all your points. The point about the sample possibly being "misrepresentative" is a matter for debate, and by that I mean we don't really know how representative it is (to an average bank account user). I have already taken for granted that my point is not scientific (but more philosophical in nature). I do wonder how representative this anecdotal evidence is however. It is just a thought that I wanted to pass on to other readers.
...but the vast majority of people who work for a living have to have the cash on hand Ever look at discarded bank slips from ATM's? I have on occasion, and if it is any indication, most people rarely have more than $1000 dollars in their bank accounts. Or are you assuming the average person is a (relatively) high paid professional that doesn't have a mortgage, car, kids, etc? And people who do have any amount of money probably don't keep it in a bank account but in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, treasury bills, etc.
From the title:
Your Identity Is Worth Less Than $15 Wrong! My identity is priceless. And try telling some-one that (their identity is worth $15.00) who can't get a security clearance, a car loan, a job, etc. because their "identity" has been abused by some asshat junkie.
My bank account, however, is another matter; nothing gained nothing lost:P
you are buying the right to listen to it for as long as you live. Correction: you are buying the right to listen to [music] as long as the DRM lives, and media that it is produced on, and the companies that maintain the licenses, etc.
With regards to taxing products and services I am in agreement with you; if you sell something, then it would make sense that it would be taxed.
The question with most people would seem to be if there are any additional (and burdensome) taxes added just because the product or service is distributed through the Internet. For wont of being able to RTFA (I tried) I am sure there is probably some FUD to be seen. That being said, if the product is DRM'ed, then I would NEVER assume you can use if "for as long as you live".
Does that mean that, in California, we'd actually own the music files, and would not be able to be prosecuted for shifting those files, breaking the encryption, etc? No. You don't get to own the music, and you don't get to own the license to listen to the music. You don't get to own anything. What you do get when "purchasing" a song is the right to listen to it whenever the license agreement and DRM software says you can.
I'll add one important factor that I missed. The laws in question are concerned with search data (and search engines), and not published data. In that respect, the WayBackEngine, or any Website could be affected; which seems quite ridiculous (and extremely over-reaching).
I will be tactful in saying that there is some logic to your question (a bit naive from my perspective, I must admit), but I think such questions should be asked. Sometimes the best of us miss the obvious.
How does this affect Google Groups, which archives the last ~20 years of Usenet messages? Doubtful it would have an effect, as: (1) It would be making a law retro-active (with respect to historical documents) (2) It is implicit in usenet that this information is being published and is made public (Ignorance is no excuse, one could say). Usenet is a public forum.
IANAL of course, so who knows, but common sense and common knowledge of the way laws are enforced in the West leads me to believe that usenet should not be affected by data retention laws. I will emphasize; publishing to usenet means publishing your IP, email address, etc (however real they may be). The issues presented here are for people who do not intend (or even know) that their personal details will be kept. The significant difference being that in usenet you publish, but when doing a Web search their is no intent to publish.
I had to explain to my wife (back when she was my GF) that, while I am working, I am in "autistic mode" and should never, ever be interrupted... Sounds pretty much like what Jack Nicholson told his wife in The Shining.
At the moment politicians can't even agree on what constitutes genocide!!!
Uh, not true:
The law and how people (esp. politicians interpret the law are two very different things. Rwanda is fresh in my mind so I mentioned it in the example. More recently the way politicians interpret torture is also up for political debate.
You seem to belong to that group of people who thing that fundamental parts of sane legal systems should be torn up... As I've stated, there may be countries that may not have sane legal systems (including Western democracies). IANAL, nor am I a constitutional expert. As I've stated in a previous post, my opinions are not absolute on this issue. I think in extreme cases then perhaps extreme measures should be taken. I'll keep an open mind about this this. It is just a "modest proposal" as I've stated in a previous post.
Don't discredit yourself because you think out of the "box" so to speak. In many respects I am not discrediting myself; I am just making an observation. As a very, very young child I was always doubting people (and myself for that matter). I think that is both a product of my genes and my somewhat unique upbringing (environment that is... where there were many, many contradictory forces at play)... I will only give a hint at them (like old-world traditional values vs. new world Western values)... that's just a very small hint of the contradictions I faced when growing up, and I think helped forge my personality. I was ALWAYS examining and questioning reality, and the way people think of things. And I was always able to anticipate the way people would react to my own behavior. Perhaps this was a defensive mechanism that started my thinking of Logic on a vary conscious level at a VERY, VERY young age. I know that I will always ask myself "what can go wrong" whenever some politician has a Utopian plan to improve society, or a Manager has some cheese-cake feel-good idea that looks good on the surface. People, and in my experience, almost ALL people will only look at the surface of their ideas and will only think of people who question them as being Cynics.
I've always thought of the concept of "thinking outside the box" as a very good and idealistic concept, but taken in reality; people who truly think-outside-the-box will ultimately be outsiders, and therefore be on the shortlist for being fired or "laid-off".
In many respects, you've (unintentionally) hit a 'nerve' with me, and so I have deleted the last few paragraphs of my reply (I felt in many ways I was starting to get too personal and less objective). I appreciate your comment very much. Thanks.
If there is no law against it then in what sense is it an "abuse"? I personally hate the term "abuse" because it is vague. I use it colloquially (and so I added the quotes). My arguments are theoretical in nature, and I do not have a particularly strong opinion on the matter of retro-active laws, so I am saying that I am more open to persuasive arguments on this topic than on some issues that I have put more thought towards.
At the extreme end of things, I can think of countries (like Rwanda) that probably have no laws against genocide, but whose citizens actively participated in genocide. Referring back to my previous posts (for some perspective), I am most interested in retro-active laws being enforced against (capital "L" Leaders and capital "A" Assholes) as opposed to Sheeple.... meh (and I say this half sarcastically).
I have no respect for arrogance. Arrogance combined with power I have less respect for. Arrogance combined with power and combined with corruption I have even less respect for. If a law could discriminate between these things, then YES, I will agree with a retro-active law to punish abusive authority. If we could actually have a legal and prestigious definition for legal authority then I think that will be great. At the moment politicians can't even agree on what constitutes genocide!!! But that argument of "genocide" is largely based on the willingness of politicians (and countries and their citizens) to commit troops, lives (and deaths), and ultimately one of the most important factors in enforcing law (and particularly International Law): money, and more specifically Taxes.
So while most asshats are worried about their taxes being increased; people die. So I do make a Modest Proposal (in the Swiftian sense if you will)... that if it is possible, we change the laws so that the otherwise powerful and uniquely immune people be appropriately punished for what they do.
How was he able to change the ownership title of the homes As I stated, I was unable to find a reference on Google. The details are very vague in my mind, so I am loath to state them. The story however was significant enough for me that I will probably never forget it. FYI, I heard of this story on the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), I think probably on one of their news magazine type shows (like the 5th Estate or Market Place, etc). I don't usually post 'evidence' of things I cannot prove (give references for). I do realize this makes my argument rather weak (since I can't prove what I am saying), but I did find it personally significant enough to state. You will have to take my word for it.
IIRC, this person got access to documents or persons who could change these documents. I'm vague on the details because I just cannot remember them. I was (am) hoping somebody with more information would read my post and give more information.
The fact is, in my experience dealing with managers, politicians, and other professionals (as a truly asswipe nobody as I am), I have noticed an extreme lack of intelligence or concern with what could possibly go wrong with their rather simplistic systems, laws, beliefs, etc.
Yes, to the Manager I will always be one of those people who has a "bad" attitude because I am intelligent enough to notice the discrepancies between logic and practice. Don't get me wrong; my tact is pleasant outside of slashdot, but my logic is deviant (outside of the statistical boundaries of average). For this reason, nobody average enough to become a Manager (a person with any degree of power), will ever likely 'get it'.
As long as carrying an RFID tag is 100% opt-in and semi-passive Don't count on it. In places like the US, they are sometimes mandatory, assuming that having a certain job is not "100% opt-in". But really, it all depends on how prevalent they become. I can imagine that they will eventually become prevalent in places like the US based on their previous history on privacy matters; I'm thinking of the seemingly arbitrary and ubiquitous use of drug testing in the US, among other issues. Companies that you would expect to have no interest or relevance in drug testing (like Best Buy) make it a common practice. This seems to be taken for granted (from the perspective of a more privacy conscious country like Canada).
If you have nothing to hide or be afraid of, so the argument goes, I suppose you shouldn't oppose such measures. With me at least, it is the potential that is the concern. If it can be abused, then (eventually) it will be. Get a country like the US or Britain (the British are one of the most spied-upon people in the 'free' world) accustomed to the fact that spying on themselves is for their own good, and you will have a true modern democracy: subservient and very culturally and politically monotheistic except in the most shallowest of interpretations.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'm willing to hate Microsoft for their arrogance and shit-for-brains technology as much as anybody else, but I'm not willing to just casually blame Microsoft for every asshat thing that a Complainer may, well, complain about.
It's just image composition, Intel chips can manage that.
What exactly is the difference on a high-end graphics card? In terms of graphics cards; if you can run Windows Aero then their really shouldn't be any noticeable difference (as only modern graphics cards will be able to support Aero [like those supporting Pixel Shader 2.0]). If you wanna play games, then that's another story (and a wholly different topic), but for just running Windows Aero in a desktop environment then you should be good-to-go.
For more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Aero#Requirements
And although not usually apparent to me when I search for technical details on Google (I can presume Web sites don't heavily reference these sources); http://channel9.msdn.com/ and the M$ programmer blogs are a wealth of technical information (http://blogs.technet.com/default.aspx), though it may be easier to use http://www.google.com/microsoft.html to search for these Microsoft blogs
1) Outsourcing (having shell companies in the US while companies like M$ slowly move their operations to India etc).
2) Flags of opportunity. Basing companies and / or their financial instruments in tax havens.
3) Selling the rope that will hang US. Some of the biggest companies in the world are in the US, and they will always find ways to sell military and technological knowledge to foreign hostiles.
4) Corporate corruption. Now it's the housing crises. Not too recently Enron and many other companies screwed themselves, their investors and their employees. I still do not see any trends that this is reversing.
5) Pork Belly Politics. I couldn't find a ready resource for this term, but I think it is of American origin, and too-well established in the American political/economic system.
6) Military industrial complex. I'm using this term vaguely here. But too much of the US economy is based on either policing or over-throwing other countries or policing and putting in jail it's own citizens. There is a vast economy in the US that is just based on jails and policing, and there is a tendency to make more laws and give harsher sentences. There will be a time perhaps, when there will be a limit to how many people Americans can tolerate being in jail (hopelfuly it won't get to the point were a security guard, police officer or paid informant doesn't, for example, arrest a cousin for downloading a song).
In respects to the term "empire", I as a Canadian know for a fact that the US has an incredible amount of control over Canada and Canadian businesses and politicians. For example, Canadian politicians almost always let the US indulge themselves in unfair "free trade" practices. The idea being that a smaller piece of a big pie is better than trying to get a fair slice (and spending years, or decades in court like in the softwood lumber B$... argh. Let's not get on a tangent here). Militarily, when Canada said they wouldn't support the US missile shield, the US basically said that's OK, we'll send missiles, etc over your country if need be... and what are you going to do about it?... And the having to have a passport for a Canadian to go to the US... and going through anal-re tentative customs officers.... blah, I won't bother thank you very much (I know I'm starting to get personal here, but if even your friends start thinking of you as an enemy, then imagine how your true enemies will think of you and treat you).
In many respects, America is very analogous to ancient Rome; it died through the greed and incompetence of it's ruling elite, and was ultimately (in the end) over-run through simple immigration that could not be stopped. This is a simplistic one sentence generalization to be sure.
To be succinct. I do no mean to sound anti-US (I have many US friends... mainly through IRC and more casually through Slashdot). I do however find the the US political system highly frustrating, especially since it so often over-bearingly and inappropriately affects Canadians in many respects.
In general I think you are being too general (in most of your posts here).
- Microsoft did not need marketing people to sell ME. Most people bought it de facto when they bought a new computer.
- Nobody except for me and businesses bought W2K. I think the switch for M$ switching to an NT-based system for their consumer model was a result primarily of two things:
1) More advanced hardware at the time that could better handle NT-based systems (like XP)
2) They were leveraging their already existing (tried-and-true) technology to the consumer masses Unfortunately for MS, virtually the entire world's population now has Windows experience. It was not a great experience. Oh really? Windows 95/98 were pretty good in their day. I wouldn't say they were perfect, but these operating systems did do their job and were much easier to use and understand than Linux or BSD, and they had the popular support of developers that Macs and others didn't (I had a Mac in the early 90's btw, and will say that Apple lost out big time because of its Greed; licensing bullshit and relatively high prices). And speaking of XP, it works quite fine as well; it's not as powerful or as customizable as a Linux system, but for those ignorant masses that you speak of it gets the job done.
Do to some comments about my use of the word "high end" I will add these points:
- I perhaps should have used the word "modern" (computer) instead of the word "high end".
- While Vista was being developed (and for many years), it was likely developed on what was then considered "high end" computers.
Who knows, Windows may still be the dominant operating system 20 years from now (if they don't make things any worse for themselves), but they will likely never be as significant as they were in the 1990's (the golden years for M$) and probably much less so than they are now.
Not quite. Vista was designed to run on high end machines, however Vista was marketed to be able to run on not-so high end machines.
I agree with all your points. The point about the sample possibly being "misrepresentative" is a matter for debate, and by that I mean we don't really know how representative it is (to an average bank account user). I have already taken for granted that my point is not scientific (but more philosophical in nature). I do wonder how representative this anecdotal evidence is however. It is just a thought that I wanted to pass on to other readers.
Best regards,
UTW
...but the vast majority of people who work for a living have to have the cash on hand Ever look at discarded bank slips from ATM's? I have on occasion, and if it is any indication, most people rarely have more than $1000 dollars in their bank accounts. Or are you assuming the average person is a (relatively) high paid professional that doesn't have a mortgage, car, kids, etc? And people who do have any amount of money probably don't keep it in a bank account but in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, treasury bills, etc.My bank account, however, is another matter; nothing gained nothing lost
With regards to taxing products and services I am in agreement with you; if you sell something, then it would make sense that it would be taxed.
The question with most people would seem to be if there are any additional (and burdensome) taxes added just because the product or service is distributed through the Internet. For wont of being able to RTFA (I tried) I am sure there is probably some FUD to be seen. That being said, if the product is DRM'ed, then I would NEVER assume you can use if "for as long as you live".
You get what you pay for.
Buyer beware.
I'll add one important factor that I missed. The laws in question are concerned with search data (and search engines), and not published data. In that respect, the WayBackEngine, or any Website could be affected; which seems quite ridiculous (and extremely over-reaching).
I will be tactful in saying that there is some logic to your question (a bit naive from my perspective, I must admit), but I think such questions should be asked. Sometimes the best of us miss the obvious.
Best regards,
UTW
(1) It would be making a law retro-active (with respect to historical documents)
(2) It is implicit in usenet that this information is being published and is made public (Ignorance is no excuse, one could say). Usenet is a public forum.
IANAL of course, so who knows, but common sense and common knowledge of the way laws are enforced in the West leads me to believe that usenet should not be affected by data retention laws. I will emphasize; publishing to usenet means publishing your IP, email address, etc (however real they may be). The issues presented here are for people who do not intend (or even know) that their personal details will be kept. The significant difference being that in usenet you publish, but when doing a Web search their is no intent to publish.
The law and how people (esp. politicians interpret the law are two very different things. Rwanda is fresh in my mind so I mentioned it in the example. More recently the way politicians interpret torture is also up for political debate. You seem to belong to that group of people who thing that fundamental parts of sane legal systems should be torn up... As I've stated, there may be countries that may not have sane legal systems (including Western democracies). IANAL, nor am I a constitutional expert. As I've stated in a previous post, my opinions are not absolute on this issue. I think in extreme cases then perhaps extreme measures should be taken. I'll keep an open mind about this this. It is just a "modest proposal" as I've stated in a previous post.
Best regards,
UTW
I've always thought of the concept of "thinking outside the box" as a very good and idealistic concept, but taken in reality; people who truly think-outside-the-box will ultimately be outsiders, and therefore be on the shortlist for being fired or "laid-off".
In many respects, you've (unintentionally) hit a 'nerve' with me, and so I have deleted the last few paragraphs of my reply (I felt in many ways I was starting to get too personal and less objective). I appreciate your comment very much. Thanks.
Best regards,
UTW
At the extreme end of things, I can think of countries (like Rwanda) that probably have no laws against genocide, but whose citizens actively participated in genocide. Referring back to my previous posts (for some perspective), I am most interested in retro-active laws being enforced against (capital "L" Leaders and capital "A" Assholes) as opposed to Sheeple.... meh (and I say this half sarcastically).
I have no respect for arrogance. Arrogance combined with power I have less respect for. Arrogance combined with power and combined with corruption I have even less respect for. If a law could discriminate between these things, then YES, I will agree with a retro-active law to punish abusive authority. If we could actually have a legal and prestigious definition for legal authority then I think that will be great. At the moment politicians can't even agree on what constitutes genocide!!! But that argument of "genocide" is largely based on the willingness of politicians (and countries and their citizens) to commit troops, lives (and deaths), and ultimately one of the most important factors in enforcing law (and particularly International Law): money, and more specifically Taxes.
So while most asshats are worried about their taxes being increased; people die. So I do make a Modest Proposal (in the Swiftian sense if you will)... that if it is possible, we change the laws so that the otherwise powerful and uniquely immune people be appropriately punished for what they do.
IIRC, this person got access to documents or persons who could change these documents. I'm vague on the details because I just cannot remember them. I was (am) hoping somebody with more information would read my post and give more information.
My sincere apologies,
UTW
The fact is, in my experience dealing with managers, politicians, and other professionals (as a truly asswipe nobody as I am), I have noticed an extreme lack of intelligence or concern with what could possibly go wrong with their rather simplistic systems, laws, beliefs, etc.
Yes, to the Manager I will always be one of those people who has a "bad" attitude because I am intelligent enough to notice the discrepancies between logic and practice. Don't get me wrong; my tact is pleasant outside of slashdot, but my logic is deviant (outside of the statistical boundaries of average). For this reason, nobody average enough to become a Manager (a person with any degree of power), will ever likely 'get it'.
If you have nothing to hide or be afraid of, so the argument goes, I suppose you shouldn't oppose such measures. With me at least, it is the potential that is the concern. If it can be abused, then (eventually) it will be. Get a country like the US or Britain (the British are one of the most spied-upon people in the 'free' world) accustomed to the fact that spying on themselves is for their own good, and you will have a true modern democracy: subservient and very culturally and politically monotheistic except in the most shallowest of interpretations.