Same reason Steve Jobs has ranted against DRM, yet Apple enjoys their lock-in due to DRM.
Unfortunately, I forgot the logic behind this, but I'm sure someone will chime in. iTunes would drop DRM from every song they sell if the labels would let them.
I've used Vista on multiple computers. When it works, it works great (although often annoying, but aside from UAC, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here). When it doesn't work, it's absolutely *horrible*.
If you genuinely think that Windows Vista is the worst OS ever (and you've actually used it, and aren't just parroting the groupthink), you should just be thankful you've never been exposed to worse ones. That's all. No one said it was the worst OS ever. By misrepresenting the argument of others, you're doing worse than "just parroting groupthink".
The post you were replying to read, "When will Microsoft simply get the fact that a flashy desktop DOES NOT COMPENSATE FOR A SHITTY OS." [emphasis his]
How about those people that fall for the "Nigerian" scams? It is their own "poor judgement, ignorance, or even stupidity" that cost them as well as their greed.
I dont have pitty for these people, do you? Yes, I do have sympathy (sympathy is the term being used in this thread, not pity) for them.
Sure, you and I know about these scams, but many people don't know about them, or how to tell the difference between something fake and something legit.
The only way I'd have no sympathy would be if they *knew* about these scams and still fell for them, or if they were trying to scam the scammer, and failed.
In the 40's, Washington had at least two magnitude 7 or greater quakes. Alaska has had well over half a dozen magnitude 8+ quakes during the 20th century, including one 9.2 in 1964. Oregon had a 6.8 in 1910 and a 6.0 in 1993.
However, Alaska, Washington and Oregon all have faults capable of creating earthquakes larger than is possible in California.
For some context, no fault on the planet can create a 10.0. Alaska can have (and did have less than 50 years ago) greater than 9.0. California tops out at around 7.9-8.1. Oregon and Washington both have faults capable of reaching or exceeding 8.5.
I can see you put a lot of thought into that reply. An odd criticism given your original post was just a regurgitated platitude.
No, it's not ok. But I'm certainly not going to be offering any sympathy to anyone who was stupid enough to pay for one. So, you are saying you have no sympathy for victims of fraud?
There's nothing wrong with criticizing the good sense of people who fall prey to a scam, but I find it difficult to come up with a non-contrived situation where the poor judgement, ignorance, or even stupidity, of someone who falls prey to fraud or a scam is sufficiently damnable as to justify the crime committed by the fraudster/scammer. How can you have no sympathy for an unjustified crime?
It seems to me either they deserved what happened and deserve no sympathy, or they don't deserve what happened and thus deserve at least some sympathy.
5.2 is big enough to be widely felt, and to cause some minor damage, pretty much no matter where you live.
Where do you live where 5.2 is of no significance? California? Oregon, Washington and Alaska all have earthquakes stronger than is even *possible* for the entire state of California, so don't go making a big deal about your next 8.0.
For a few ideological zealots, closed source drivers are as good as, or worse than, no drivers. For "many users", closed source drivers make the product work and thus are fine. Perhaps, but for "most users", closed source drivers are better than no driver, but nowhere near as good as open source drivers.
Why? Are these users zealots? No. While they are not zealots, they're still more likely to prefer open source over closed source, just on basic principle. And, more pragmatically, open source video drivers tend to be included and "just work" on most mainstream Linux distros, while closed source drivers are rarely included, and due to being closed source, place technical restrictions on the user with regards to kernel and X.org versions, as well as making upgrades to any affected software more involved.
I suspect it's because glossy models sell better. People see them on the shelves, "oooooh, shiny!" and buy them without regard for actual useability. They sell better because they look better? Oh, the injustice of it all!
Glare-type displays have better colors unter some conditions (dark environment), but will often be pretty bad. Their primary advantage is that they are cheaper to manufacture. The only difference between a matte and glossy display is the coating on the plastic sheet laid atop of it. It doesn't seem likely that the coating is going to alter the price of the LCD significantly.
You present it as fact, but that assertion is in fact only your opinion. Close. I present it as a definition, because that's what it is. The idea of free will is that you get to make a conscious choice.
To illustrate what I mean, imagine our will exists entirely in the subconscious, and that by the time we're aware of our choices, we cannot alter them. In such a case, we'd still have a will (after all, we still make choices and act upon them), but that will is not free, because we are not free to consciously control it. The notion of freedom (in this context) is meaningless if it exists entirely outside the realm of the conscious mind.
Some (if not most) decision are made subconsciously. The 'free' part may only consist of an ability to override subconscious decisions. I suspect that you're quite right. But still, it's the ability to consciously alter our choices that constitutes free will.
And then again, the conscious/subconscious terms (AFAIK) originate with Freud and are only a model, and not a very usefull one at that, in my opinion. You're probably thinking more about the id, ego, super-ego, which constitute a psychological model which is of questionable validity. The idea of conscious and subconscious (while originating around the time of Freud, and being critical to his psychological theory) is fairly well established.
In order to discard the notion of a conscious vs subconscious would seem to require either showing that we are either consciously aware of everything that goes on in our minds, or that we are not consciously aware of anything that goes on in our minds. Neither of which seem even remotely defensible.
But who says the unconscious decision process isn't an exercise of free will? The big assumption in the article is that free will cannot exist in the subconscious. If it happens in the subconscious, then it *can't* be free will, it's merely will.
The *free* means you are making a conscious decision.
Your analogy is flawed in that there's an implicit agreement between you and your government, whereas there isn't one between you and the voluntary lawn-mower. I generally agree with the rest of your post, however.
The government, for example, provides and maintains roads for us to drive on. I never explicitly agree to pay for them, but I am obligated to. The government also makes laws which prevent me from doing things on the road that makes them harder to maintain, or less useful.
The distinction I'm trying to make is that it's not out of place for the government to provide us with services we haven't (individually) asked for, and to demand payment for, and make laws regarding (although it generally does need to be something we've collectively asked for). What's out of line (and I think you'll agree) is when the public sphere begins to impose itself into our private lives. The more the government decides to offer services for the individual, the less mandatory they should become. (i.e., they can run a street sweeper down your road, and tow your car if you've left it in the street (after reasonable warning), but although they may offer to mow your lawn, they can't force it on you (assuming no mitigating circumstances, like it being a significant hazard to your neighbors).
Not when it affects those in society. Ie, if you overdose and cannot afford health insurance, are rushed to the ER and tax payer money pays for your treatment and recovery, then it is our business. I'd say that's the cost of liberty. Sad is the day when people say, "freedom costs too much, and it doesn't involve anything *I* want to do anyway, so let's ban it."
if you think dial up modems are obsolete, you evidently have never lived in a rural area in north america. Are there seriously any American cities that has cable TV and/or POTS phone service but does not offer cable internet or DSL? The number can't be that large.
Or, more apt, what percentage of the US population lives in an area without DSL or cable internet coverage? I'll bet it's smaller than the percentage that use FireWire.
You are a car mechanic wondering why people don't change their own oil. Synaptic is far more advanced and capable than the Windows installer, but it's harder for the average user. All those configuration options are wonderful for you, but overwhelming for the average user. Those "one-button installs" are nothing of the sort, as they invariably ask questions that most users won't even comprehend, even if the default answer is the right one (i.e., they will ask "Where to install?" with the default option "/usr/local/bin/" (or similar). Just seeing "/usr/local/bin/" is enough to throw off the average user).
That's not to say Linux, and especially Ubuntu, isn't becoming more and more usable for the average user, it still has a long way to go.
You'll notice people never say, "I know nothing about computers, but I run Ubuntu" or "my dad/mom/grandparent/etc. just installed Ubuntu on their own", it's always, "I built them a PC and installed and maintain Ubuntu for them". Remove the PC enthusiast from the picture, and Ubuntu is absolutely *not* and option, while Windows and Mac are.
But freedom as a feature is the only feature that allows all the other features too What you are referring to is analogous to an axiom--i.e., the most fundamental, irreducible aspect of something. In order to use a computer, there are multiple such "axioms", not just freedom. You also need hardware, software and a motive force (electricity in modern computers).
But that freedom does not need to be in the GNU-style freedom-for-freedom's-sake sense. You just need to be free enough to operate the computer. For example, in order to operate the software on an elevator, you don't need to be free to copy, modify, view, etc., the source code. You just need the freedom to press the floor button for your floor.
So in this example, while freedom is a fundamental requirement, the necessary level of freedom is quite minimal. Likewise, the freedoms offered by Apple are sufficient for the needs and wants of most people.
But I view a computer as a tool and nothing more. A fun tool, but a tool. This is one of those things that people say, but I don't think truly represents what computers mean for them. I strongly suspect you have a much stronger emotional attachment to specific computers and software than that statement implies.
To imply, as I think GGP did, that freedom somehow prevents one from having needed features and functions is absurd. The implication is that freedom somehow precludes featureful functionally complete software. That's so beyond absurd I don't know where to start. I followed this thread upwards to try to find what you are talking about. I can't find it, could you please quote for some context?
As far as glitz goes, I guess some people feel a need for things to be pretty in order for them to be able to use it. If that's what it really takes, more power to them, I guess. People like to enjoy looking at things they spend a lot of time looking at. I think it's unfair for you to call it "glitz" (or previously, "fluff"), when it's really just aesthetics. You may decry aesthetics as unnecessary or unimportant to you (similar to your above "it's a tool" comment), but I suggest that your sense of aesthetics is merely different, not absent. You may, for example, prefer more minimal interfaces (wasting fewer pixels) or one more technically stylized (evoking drafting or mechanical diagrams). Or perhaps a bland interface. The specifics don't really matter so much as the fact that there are interface aesthetics that you prefer over others, which is really what all the glitz and fluff are about. It's just that your preferred glitz and fluff is different.
But I don't see many people complaining that their hammer is not particularly attractive. meh.;-) Hammers are fairly unimportant tools to most people. But if you were to make a hammer that was pink with little ponies, hearts and rainbows all over it, but was just as capable as a standard hammer, more people would choose the standard hammer (although there would definitely be a minority of people who would choose the pink hammer on the idea that it's the least likely to be stolen--which interestingly, points to the "glitz" being a feature, which is what I've been trying to point out from the get go).
True, without needed features/functions you don't have jack. But once you get needed features and functions the rest is fluff. The thing is, though, for most people, Linux does not have the needed features. Both usability as well as aesthetics are features which Linux come up short on.
For example, I'm sure you can do any of the editing iPhoto allows on Linux using nothing but free command line utilities. In fact, I'm sure those command line utilities can actually do much more than iPhoto can. However, those utilities, however technically superior they are, are absolutely worthless to the vast majority of users.
Of course, on Linux there are GUI photo editors, but they still suffer from UI and usability issues, as well as general aesthetics, when it comes to most users.
Freedom, just like usability and aesthetics, is nothing more than a type of feature. To turn the tables on you:
"True, without needed freedoms you don't have jack. But once you get the needed freedom the rest is fluff."
Most Mac software provides all the freedom most people need. So, with Mac OS X, for most people, they get all the freedom they need and want, all the usability they need and want, and all the aesthetics they need and want. With Linux, they get all the freedom they need and want, a lot of the usability they need, and some of the aesthetics they want.
There are, of course, plenty of Linux users for whom Linux's usability and aesthetics not only match what they want, but match it better than OS X does, and there are those for whom the freedom afforded by OS X is insufficient. These users are a small minority, but fortunately for them, Linux (and *BSD, etc.) exist.
You appear to be in that minority, which is fine, but you seem to be overreaching with regards to the extent to which your experience applies to the computer using populace as a whole.
Scientific experiments that aren't surrounded by uncertainty and doubt are not much use in removing uncertainty, are they? Well, that's the UD of FUD, but this whole episode centers really around the F.
While the whole point of any experiment is to generally know the unknown, to clarify the doubt, there are still expected ranges of outcomes. For example, while you might not know what will happen if you feed your adult dog Puppy Chow, you can be fairly confident it's not going to turn him into a cat.
Likewise, while the people at CERN may not know if they'll get mini black holes, they can be fairly sure the sorts of dangers they pose, which are "none".
My understanding of the LHC is that it doesn't do anything that doesn't already happen on Earth already. The main difference is that instead of the mini black holes being created by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere where we can't study them, they are happening right inside of a controlled scientific device, which is the ideal place to study them.
Am I to believe that the energies and particles involved are beyond what happens on/in the sun, or when the Earth is bombarded by radiation from space, or inside of an H-bomb explosion? If so, that's quite amazing.
You're begging the question. No I am not. You have misused that phrase Yes, you are. You are saying, "properly run studies are properly run". I'm saying money can cause studies to be improperly run. Begging the question is when your answer assumes the thing under contention.
Even worse, even a properly run study can be affected by money. Or, more specifically, can be affected by unconscious bias, and unconscious bias can be introduced by money, or even mere association (where it's not the check from Company A that affects you, just the increased familiarity with Company A that can come with the check).
No, they cannot. Again, this stem from your ignorance regarding the research process, they can affect the interpretation of data, but not whether it is done correctly. Yes, they can. They can directly lead the research astray (give false information, or outright bribe them to lie). When you say this cannot be done, when it most certainly can, you look a fool.
Please educate yourself on this subject, you're not well versed enough to even ask the correct questions, much less engage in an intelligent discussion. Yes, and your continual barrage of unsupported assertions and logical fallacies are ever so impressive.
Laws are neither good nor evil. It's a persons perspective that attaches good and evil. It is also worth bearing in mind how laws are created and how they are enforced. In short, the law is not there to protect you but to cage you. Almost. Good and Evil are subjective concepts, which means they can potentially apply to anything that interacts with people. There have definitely been both good and evil laws.
'User Privacy?'
There is no such thing as privacy the sooner people understand this the sooner you can see what a childish concept it is. It's absurd to say something doesn't exist when it actually does. Do *you* have anything that you've kept private? If you do, how can you possibly say it doesn't exist?
'You are in prison and don't know it.'
The size of the cage is limited by the size of your mind. If you wish to be caged then you will be. I'm not even sure what to make of this one. How is merely "thinking" going to change the "cage"? The only way I can think is via Orwellian "the cage is freedom" style self-delusion.
So you approach the study with a critical mindset. Which is exactly what you should be doing with any study. Therefore, the funding source is irrelevant. Simply taking on a critical mindset is insufficient to root out subconscious biases, let out outright fraud.
Again, I bring up Vioxx and Iraq's WMDs. When someone has a bias or an agenda, time and again it's been shown that research can be skewed, tainted, or outright falsified.
Humans are quite fallible. Science understands this, and has generated mechanisms by which we can mitigate these flaws. These mechanisms require a certain level of vigilance on the part of those involved. By ignoring the influence money can have is to weaken the very mechanisms that make science work so well.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, I forgot the logic behind this, but I'm sure someone will chime in. iTunes would drop DRM from every song they sell if the labels would let them.
The post you were replying to read, "When will Microsoft simply get the fact that a flashy desktop DOES NOT COMPENSATE FOR A SHITTY OS." [emphasis his]
I'm not sure how ripping on System 7 demonstrates that Vista doesn't suck.
I dont have pitty for these people, do you? Yes, I do have sympathy (sympathy is the term being used in this thread, not pity) for them.
Sure, you and I know about these scams, but many people don't know about them, or how to tell the difference between something fake and something legit.
The only way I'd have no sympathy would be if they *knew* about these scams and still fell for them, or if they were trying to scam the scammer, and failed.
In the 40's, Washington had at least two magnitude 7 or greater quakes. Alaska has had well over half a dozen magnitude 8+ quakes during the 20th century, including one 9.2 in 1964. Oregon had a 6.8 in 1910 and a 6.0 in 1993.
The above information is taken from:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/
and
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/state_largest.php
However, Alaska, Washington and Oregon all have faults capable of creating earthquakes larger than is possible in California.
For some context, no fault on the planet can create a 10.0. Alaska can have (and did have less than 50 years ago) greater than 9.0. California tops out at around 7.9-8.1. Oregon and Washington both have faults capable of reaching or exceeding 8.5.
There's nothing wrong with criticizing the good sense of people who fall prey to a scam, but I find it difficult to come up with a non-contrived situation where the poor judgement, ignorance, or even stupidity, of someone who falls prey to fraud or a scam is sufficiently damnable as to justify the crime committed by the fraudster/scammer. How can you have no sympathy for an unjustified crime?
It seems to me either they deserved what happened and deserve no sympathy, or they don't deserve what happened and thus deserve at least some sympathy.
5.2 is big enough to be widely felt, and to cause some minor damage, pretty much no matter where you live.
Where do you live where 5.2 is of no significance? California? Oregon, Washington and Alaska all have earthquakes stronger than is even *possible* for the entire state of California, so don't go making a big deal about your next 8.0.
And don't let's even bring up Yellowstone...
Foreshocks only become foreshocks once the main quake happens.
Or, put differently, to know these are foreshocks before the main quake happens requires a level of earthquake prediction we do not yet have.
So, it's OK then?
Why? Are these users zealots? No. While they are not zealots, they're still more likely to prefer open source over closed source, just on basic principle. And, more pragmatically, open source video drivers tend to be included and "just work" on most mainstream Linux distros, while closed source drivers are rarely included, and due to being closed source, place technical restrictions on the user with regards to kernel and X.org versions, as well as making upgrades to any affected software more involved.
To illustrate what I mean, imagine our will exists entirely in the subconscious, and that by the time we're aware of our choices, we cannot alter them. In such a case, we'd still have a will (after all, we still make choices and act upon them), but that will is not free, because we are not free to consciously control it. The notion of freedom (in this context) is meaningless if it exists entirely outside the realm of the conscious mind. Some (if not most) decision are made subconsciously. The 'free' part may only consist of an ability to override subconscious decisions. I suspect that you're quite right. But still, it's the ability to consciously alter our choices that constitutes free will. And then again, the conscious/subconscious terms (AFAIK) originate with Freud and are only a model, and not a very usefull one at that, in my opinion. You're probably thinking more about the id, ego, super-ego, which constitute a psychological model which is of questionable validity. The idea of conscious and subconscious (while originating around the time of Freud, and being critical to his psychological theory) is fairly well established.
In order to discard the notion of a conscious vs subconscious would seem to require either showing that we are either consciously aware of everything that goes on in our minds, or that we are not consciously aware of anything that goes on in our minds. Neither of which seem even remotely defensible.
The *free* means you are making a conscious decision.
Your analogy is flawed in that there's an implicit agreement between you and your government, whereas there isn't one between you and the voluntary lawn-mower. I generally agree with the rest of your post, however.
The government, for example, provides and maintains roads for us to drive on. I never explicitly agree to pay for them, but I am obligated to. The government also makes laws which prevent me from doing things on the road that makes them harder to maintain, or less useful.
The distinction I'm trying to make is that it's not out of place for the government to provide us with services we haven't (individually) asked for, and to demand payment for, and make laws regarding (although it generally does need to be something we've collectively asked for). What's out of line (and I think you'll agree) is when the public sphere begins to impose itself into our private lives. The more the government decides to offer services for the individual, the less mandatory they should become. (i.e., they can run a street sweeper down your road, and tow your car if you've left it in the street (after reasonable warning), but although they may offer to mow your lawn, they can't force it on you (assuming no mitigating circumstances, like it being a significant hazard to your neighbors).
Or, more apt, what percentage of the US population lives in an area without DSL or cable internet coverage? I'll bet it's smaller than the percentage that use FireWire.
WiFi is the new modem.
You are a car mechanic wondering why people don't change their own oil. Synaptic is far more advanced and capable than the Windows installer, but it's harder for the average user. All those configuration options are wonderful for you, but overwhelming for the average user. Those "one-button installs" are nothing of the sort, as they invariably ask questions that most users won't even comprehend, even if the default answer is the right one (i.e., they will ask "Where to install?" with the default option "/usr/local/bin/" (or similar). Just seeing "/usr/local/bin/" is enough to throw off the average user).
That's not to say Linux, and especially Ubuntu, isn't becoming more and more usable for the average user, it still has a long way to go.
You'll notice people never say, "I know nothing about computers, but I run Ubuntu" or "my dad/mom/grandparent/etc. just installed Ubuntu on their own", it's always, "I built them a PC and installed and maintain Ubuntu for them". Remove the PC enthusiast from the picture, and Ubuntu is absolutely *not* and option, while Windows and Mac are.
But that freedom does not need to be in the GNU-style freedom-for-freedom's-sake sense. You just need to be free enough to operate the computer. For example, in order to operate the software on an elevator, you don't need to be free to copy, modify, view, etc., the source code. You just need the freedom to press the floor button for your floor.
So in this example, while freedom is a fundamental requirement, the necessary level of freedom is quite minimal. Likewise, the freedoms offered by Apple are sufficient for the needs and wants of most people. But I view a computer as a tool and nothing more. A fun tool, but a tool. This is one of those things that people say, but I don't think truly represents what computers mean for them. I strongly suspect you have a much stronger emotional attachment to specific computers and software than that statement implies. To imply, as I think GGP did, that freedom somehow prevents one from having needed features and functions is absurd. The implication is that freedom somehow precludes featureful functionally complete software. That's so beyond absurd I don't know where to start. I followed this thread upwards to try to find what you are talking about. I can't find it, could you please quote for some context? As far as glitz goes, I guess some people feel a need for things to be pretty in order for them to be able to use it. If that's what it really takes, more power to them, I guess. People like to enjoy looking at things they spend a lot of time looking at. I think it's unfair for you to call it "glitz" (or previously, "fluff"), when it's really just aesthetics. You may decry aesthetics as unnecessary or unimportant to you (similar to your above "it's a tool" comment), but I suggest that your sense of aesthetics is merely different, not absent. You may, for example, prefer more minimal interfaces (wasting fewer pixels) or one more technically stylized (evoking drafting or mechanical diagrams). Or perhaps a bland interface. The specifics don't really matter so much as the fact that there are interface aesthetics that you prefer over others, which is really what all the glitz and fluff are about. It's just that your preferred glitz and fluff is different. But I don't see many people complaining that their hammer is not particularly attractive. meh.
For example, I'm sure you can do any of the editing iPhoto allows on Linux using nothing but free command line utilities. In fact, I'm sure those command line utilities can actually do much more than iPhoto can. However, those utilities, however technically superior they are, are absolutely worthless to the vast majority of users.
Of course, on Linux there are GUI photo editors, but they still suffer from UI and usability issues, as well as general aesthetics, when it comes to most users.
Freedom, just like usability and aesthetics, is nothing more than a type of feature. To turn the tables on you:
"True, without needed freedoms you don't have jack. But once you get the needed freedom the rest is fluff."
Most Mac software provides all the freedom most people need. So, with Mac OS X, for most people, they get all the freedom they need and want, all the usability they need and want, and all the aesthetics they need and want. With Linux, they get all the freedom they need and want, a lot of the usability they need, and some of the aesthetics they want.
There are, of course, plenty of Linux users for whom Linux's usability and aesthetics not only match what they want, but match it better than OS X does, and there are those for whom the freedom afforded by OS X is insufficient. These users are a small minority, but fortunately for them, Linux (and *BSD, etc.) exist.
You appear to be in that minority, which is fine, but you seem to be overreaching with regards to the extent to which your experience applies to the computer using populace as a whole.
While the whole point of any experiment is to generally know the unknown, to clarify the doubt, there are still expected ranges of outcomes. For example, while you might not know what will happen if you feed your adult dog Puppy Chow, you can be fairly confident it's not going to turn him into a cat.
Likewise, while the people at CERN may not know if they'll get mini black holes, they can be fairly sure the sorts of dangers they pose, which are "none".
My understanding of the LHC is that it doesn't do anything that doesn't already happen on Earth already. The main difference is that instead of the mini black holes being created by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere where we can't study them, they are happening right inside of a controlled scientific device, which is the ideal place to study them.
Am I to believe that the energies and particles involved are beyond what happens on/in the sun, or when the Earth is bombarded by radiation from space, or inside of an H-bomb explosion? If so, that's quite amazing.
Even worse, even a properly run study can be affected by money. Or, more specifically, can be affected by unconscious bias, and unconscious bias can be introduced by money, or even mere association (where it's not the check from Company A that affects you, just the increased familiarity with Company A that can come with the check). No, they cannot. Again, this stem from your ignorance regarding the research process, they can affect the interpretation of data, but not whether it is done correctly. Yes, they can. They can directly lead the research astray (give false information, or outright bribe them to lie). When you say this cannot be done, when it most certainly can, you look a fool. Please educate yourself on this subject, you're not well versed enough to even ask the correct questions, much less engage in an intelligent discussion. Yes, and your continual barrage of unsupported assertions and logical fallacies are ever so impressive.
Laws are neither good nor evil. It's a persons perspective that attaches good and evil. It is also worth bearing in mind how laws are created and how they are enforced. In short, the law is not there to protect you but to cage you. Almost. Good and Evil are subjective concepts, which means they can potentially apply to anything that interacts with people. There have definitely been both good and evil laws. 'User Privacy?'
There is no such thing as privacy the sooner people understand this the sooner you can see what a childish concept it is. It's absurd to say something doesn't exist when it actually does. Do *you* have anything that you've kept private? If you do, how can you possibly say it doesn't exist? 'You are in prison and don't know it.'
The size of the cage is limited by the size of your mind. If you wish to be caged then you will be. I'm not even sure what to make of this one. How is merely "thinking" going to change the "cage"? The only way I can think is via Orwellian "the cage is freedom" style self-delusion.
Again, I bring up Vioxx and Iraq's WMDs. When someone has a bias or an agenda, time and again it's been shown that research can be skewed, tainted, or outright falsified.
Humans are quite fallible. Science understands this, and has generated mechanisms by which we can mitigate these flaws. These mechanisms require a certain level of vigilance on the part of those involved. By ignoring the influence money can have is to weaken the very mechanisms that make science work so well.