A voluntary participation in the pledge might be OK, but the fact that it's mandatory in most schools (at least at the elementary level) suggests not patriotism, but indoctrination. I'd venture to say that most kids who endure this ritual every day (as I did) have no idea of the implications involved.
Of course, its clear that some things (like your sexual activities within the realm of safe, i.e. excluding rape/S&M) are not absolutely moral or immoral. In that situation, you must concede to the tyranny of the majority.
I totally disagree with this. The mere prospect of tyranny of the majority is not a hallmark of a free society. Those who penned the U.S. Constitution understood this well, and provided sufficient means to make sure this doesn't happen: it's the concept of individual rights - that is, rights that benefit us all equally and concurrently. This, I'd posit, is the basis for one's religious freedom - no matter what the 'majority' thinks I should believe, I have the right to believe what I do without fear of discrimination of reprisal by those who believe differently.
Back in 1992, several states experienced an odd surge in "family values" oriented religious groups . They were pushing an amendment to state constitutions (in at least one case) that would make it illegal to formulate laws that would in any way benefit one particular class of individuals (those not of a heterosexual orientation). In other words, it would render null and void any laws which prevent discrimination based on this attribute of one's character. The tyranny of the majority spoke loud and clear (in at least one case), by voting in favor of this amendment. After its passage, an injunction was sought (and granted), and as you may recall, this amendment was eventually declared unconstutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. So, at least in this case, tyranny of the majority was NOT an option, nor is it an option in any society who claims to be free.
Perhaps 'fault tolerance' wasn't an appropriate term. I was looking for a way to describe having to deal with a wide range of variables without grinding to a screeching halt.
the capital system is, by definition, and efficient market. all company news is built into the current stock price,
No, no, no...in Worldcom's case, the 'company info' that was built into the stock price was completely false. This led to a stock price that was way out of line with its true value- not because investors made an educated choice based on accurate information, but because they were misled.
To be fair, compilers are much less fault tolerant than the average software app. You either do things 100% "it's" way, or your app doesn't get compiled. And, how long the upgrade cycle for the average compiler?
Consider this portion of the article: The DMCA has been used to threaten suspected copyright violators, but questions about what constitutes legal sharing and illegal piracy continue to dilute the law's power.
This suggests that the DMCA isn't even clear. The proposed legislation would allow the RIAA to make that determination, which is clearly not within its jurisdiction. The RIAA is a professional association, not an extension of the government.
Just the same, I wish all those who are proponents of illegal file sharing would pull their heads and realize that they can do far more damage to the RIAA if they just stop buying its product.
I actually intended it as kind of a joke, but there is some truth behind it. As I recall, when the subject of Eschelon came up in Congress a while back, there was a threat to withhold funding until a reasonable disclosure of its scope and purpose was produced. When you get in to partisan politics, anything is possible - but unfortunately, often succumbs to a good round of mutual back-scratching.
Morality aside, did you ever stop to think what might happen if someone merely disagrees with something that you deem perfectly 'moral'? You could be the most moral, most (self)righteous person on earth, and you'll still find others that are just as moral and (self)righteous as you are, but disagree with you. Get ready for the same kind of judgement, because it certainly won't be confined to the hedonists.
It's NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE! With respect to the government, it's about whether or not there exists a reasonable cause to track what you're doing, PERIOD. No cause, no track. Sheesh...ever heard of the 4th Amendment?
Corporate abuse of information is a different matter. Here's the problem with corporations collecting information on what you do or what you buy: interpretation - it's an entirely subjective process that could have significant implications for you that you'd never even know about. Was there *really* a legitimate reason you were turned down for that loan? For that last job? For that last health insurance policy? Or, could it be the result of a composite score assigned to you based on an overall profile that has been established from all of the information that has been collected about you?
What if, upon accepting the services of an attorney, you agree that any and all documents produced will become your property? Obviously, the likelihood that this would ever happen is next to none, but I do think it illustrates the futility in some sense. I think companies should be able to protect their trade secrets (and their methodologies), but I also don't think it's reasonable to expect people to trivialize and/or marginalize the value offered by their collective experience. The attorney wouldn't blink an eye before showing you the door- so why is it reasonable to expect anything different from an experienced programmer?
Interestingly, this is kind of what crossed my mind as I was watching the show. Right now, there are three large companies that, for a price, will make available information about people - Equifax, TRW, and Experian. They represent central repositories of information, and that's the key here. There's only ONE retinal scan (in theory), that will represent who you are. There's nothing to update, nothing to keep current...once it's there, it's there. So...fast forward a decade, and think about how tempting it would be to build a central repository of everyone's ID - it might be that by this point in time, they'll have figured out how to do retinal scans as you walk by some kind of device that's (relatively) hidden from view. Any time you walk into an establishment equipped with a scanner, they can know at minimum, who you are, and potentially, a great deal of other information - all without having said a word.
It's my opinion that my mere presence does not convey a right to know who I am- whether or not I reveal anything about my identity should be my choice, and mine alone.
Let me point out that 9/11 isn't just "a terrorist attack." It's not a bomb strapped to someone's chest that, upon detonation, kills a few and injures a few. We're talking about something that was planned for two or more years, required the coordination of at least 20 individuals with planning and support by others, and resulted in unparalleled devastation (on our own soil, perpetrated by a foreign interest). On top of that, there were various clues that were ignored, which had nothing to do with Eschelon. So, I ask again, what's wrong with this picture?
It's absurd to think that such a huge company that has control of such a huge share of the market with software that has such huge security concerns, can come up with something that actually *is* secure. If this takes hold, all I can say is that the OEM's will be getting my business, NOT Dell, HP, or any of the other major players that are going to incorporate this nonsense into hardware.
Just the same, I especially liked this passage:
Controls your information after you send it . Palladium is being offered to the studios and record labels as a way to distribute music and film with "digital rights management" (DRM). This could allow users to exercise "fair use" (like making personal copies of a CD) and publishers could at least start releasing works that cut a compromise between free and locked-down. But a more interesting possibility is that Palladium could help introduce DRM to business and just plain people. "It's a funny thing," says Bill Gates. "We came at this thinking about music, but then we realized that e-mail and documents were far more interesting domains." For instance, Palladium might allow you to send out e-mail so that no one (or only certain people) can copy it or forward it to others. Or you could create Word documents that could be read only in the next week. In all cases, it would be the user, not Microsoft, who sets these policies.
I started reading, and I thought..."it's obvious where this guy is heading - protect the commercial interests, screw the consumer." Then I read a little further, and noticed Bubba's comments on 'ordinary people' - but does it mention that nasty P-word (Privacy)???? No way. It talks about being able to place constraints on EMAIL! Oh happy day! And guess what...this isn't about ordinary people, because ordinary people usually don't have any reason to put such constraints on their e-mail...but corporate executives *cough*gates*cough* certainly do.
Overall, I think this whole thing is a crock, being masqueraded as something we need. Even if we do need it, I'd argue that the last person we need it from is Billy.
It would seem to me that the Echelon system has worked well at its intended purpose since its inception, that is, collecting and sorting through reams upon reams of data.
We have Eschelon, and we have 9/11. What's wrong with this picture?
If consumers somehow manage to develop a spine, the RIAA won't even *have* money for payoffs. That's the beauty of the market - no matter how much the RIAA screams and throws a fit, no matter now many bribes pass under (or over) the table - in the form of campaign contributions, of course - the fed still can't force anyone to buy the crap they call music.
Further, Lawrence Tribe (a Constitutional scholar) suggested on last night's Nightline that what the government is doing may very well consitute an unreasonable search (skirting the Fourth Amendment) If the government is out to 'protect' me, who was it 'protecting' during J. Edgar Hoover's reign (COINTELPRO), when the very kinds of abuses that every American should fear, were actually occurring?
Apple is often touted to "have got it right the first time".
Whom ever said this wasn't thinking clearly. Case in point: For the longest time, Apple forced users to engage a combination of mouse/keyboard for interaction - even for data-heavy applications that didn't need much mouse-based interaction. In fact, I'd claim that this little oversight made ordinarily productive tasks into something with a high annoyance factor. I'd also claim that having to restart your computer (thus completely interrupting your workflow) in order to implement certain changes to the operating environment, was (and still is) rediculous.
No standards, nothing you can count on. I don't know how many slick curvy shiny little apps I've tried where you're randomly stabbing at everything on the screen because you don't know what's a control and what's just window dressing (e.g., Kai).
Oh man...I'd forgotten all about Kai's magic. Uh...MESS, is more like it. What's more, I remember getting lambasted in a forum once for criticising his methodology. On one hand, I can appreciate his philosophy, but on the other, it is completely and totally impractical. He seemed to have forgotten that people actually do need to get work done.
Works both ways...do you think that a t3rr0rlst would be stupid enough to put the kind of revealing information in their e-mail that will flag Carneyvore, or reveal anything substantive in the logs retained by ISPs? Hasn't it been stated that one of the methods used consisted of common phrases that had secondary meanings to those using them? Who knows what "Let's do a picnic tomorrow" could actually mean? Hell, they could throw someone for an even bigger loop be creating a diversion - one dude's subject might read... "I love women's laced panties", and the text that follows (about said subject) could mean ANYTHING based on a prior system set up those engaged in the communication. Those reading it will probably be patting themselves on the back knowing that they've discovered a poor sap's preference for women's underwear.
You're right - it isn't fair. But there's precedent. This very thing happened with the telcos already, to the tune of some $500 million that was handed out BY the FBI, to the telcos, in order to defray the cost of upgrading equipment in a manner necessary to comply with CALEA. One unintended consequence is that now the telcos have implemented MORE than was granted by the FCC (based on what the FBI and other law enforcement agencies had requested), fearing that they may be forced to add this extra functionality at some point in the future. All it takes now is a switch to activate the new goodies.
Slashdot Mirror
A voluntary participation in the pledge might be OK, but the fact that it's mandatory in most schools (at least at the elementary level) suggests not patriotism, but indoctrination. I'd venture to say that most kids who endure this ritual every day (as I did) have no idea of the implications involved.
Of course, its clear that some things (like your sexual activities within the realm of safe, i.e. excluding rape/S&M) are not absolutely moral or immoral. In that situation, you must concede to the tyranny of the majority.
I totally disagree with this. The mere prospect of tyranny of the majority is not a hallmark of a free society. Those who penned the U.S. Constitution understood this well, and provided sufficient means to make sure this doesn't happen: it's the concept of individual rights - that is, rights that benefit us all equally and concurrently. This, I'd posit, is the basis for one's religious freedom - no matter what the 'majority' thinks I should believe, I have the right to believe what I do without fear of discrimination of reprisal by those who believe differently.
Back in 1992, several states experienced an odd surge in "family values" oriented religious groups . They were pushing an amendment to state constitutions (in at least one case) that would make it illegal to formulate laws that would in any way benefit one particular class of individuals (those not of a heterosexual orientation). In other words, it would render null and void any laws which prevent discrimination based on this attribute of one's character. The tyranny of the majority spoke loud and clear (in at least one case), by voting in favor of this amendment. After its passage, an injunction was sought (and granted), and as you may recall, this amendment was eventually declared unconstutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. So, at least in this case, tyranny of the majority was NOT an option, nor is it an option in any society who claims to be free.
Perhaps 'fault tolerance' wasn't an appropriate term. I was looking for a way to describe having to deal with a wide range of variables without grinding to a screeching halt.
the capital system is, by definition, and efficient market. all company news is built into the current stock price,
No, no, no...in Worldcom's case, the 'company info' that was built into the stock price was completely false. This led to a stock price that was way out of line with its true value- not because investors made an educated choice based on accurate information, but because they were misled.
To be fair, compilers are much less fault tolerant than the average software app. You either do things 100% "it's" way, or your app doesn't get compiled. And, how long the upgrade cycle for the average compiler?
Consider this portion of the article:
The DMCA has been used to threaten suspected copyright violators, but questions about what constitutes legal sharing and illegal piracy continue to dilute the law's power.
This suggests that the DMCA isn't even clear. The proposed legislation would allow the RIAA to make that determination, which is clearly not within its jurisdiction. The RIAA is a professional association, not an extension of the government.
Just the same, I wish all those who are proponents of illegal file sharing would pull their heads and realize that they can do far more damage to the RIAA if they just stop buying its product.
NSA Agent to FBI Agent...
"Well, as we suspected, they do eat."
I actually intended it as kind of a joke, but there is some truth behind it. As I recall, when the subject of Eschelon came up in Congress a while back, there was a threat to withhold funding until a reasonable disclosure of its scope and purpose was produced. When you get in to partisan politics, anything is possible - but unfortunately, often succumbs to a good round of mutual back-scratching.
Morality aside, did you ever stop to think what might happen if someone merely disagrees with something that you deem perfectly 'moral'? You could be the most moral, most (self)righteous person on earth, and you'll still find others that are just as moral and (self)righteous as you are, but disagree with you. Get ready for the same kind of judgement, because it certainly won't be confined to the hedonists.
It's NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE! With respect to the government, it's about whether or not there exists a reasonable cause to track what you're doing, PERIOD. No cause, no track. Sheesh...ever heard of the 4th Amendment?
Corporate abuse of information is a different matter. Here's the problem with corporations collecting information on what you do or what you buy: interpretation - it's an entirely subjective process that could have significant implications for you that you'd never even know about. Was there *really* a legitimate reason you were turned down for that loan? For that last job? For that last health insurance policy? Or, could it be the result of a composite score assigned to you based on an overall profile that has been established from all of the information that has been collected about you?
What if, upon accepting the services of an attorney, you agree that any and all documents produced will become your property? Obviously, the likelihood that this would ever happen is next to none, but I do think it illustrates the futility in some sense. I think companies should be able to protect their trade secrets (and their methodologies), but I also don't think it's reasonable to expect people to trivialize and/or marginalize the value offered by their collective experience. The attorney wouldn't blink an eye before showing you the door- so why is it reasonable to expect anything different from an experienced programmer?
Interestingly, this is kind of what crossed my mind as I was watching the show. Right now, there are three large companies that, for a price, will make available information about people - Equifax, TRW, and Experian. They represent central repositories of information, and that's the key here. There's only ONE retinal scan (in theory), that will represent who you are. There's nothing to update, nothing to keep current...once it's there, it's there. So...fast forward a decade, and think about how tempting it would be to build a central repository of everyone's ID - it might be that by this point in time, they'll have figured out how to do retinal scans as you walk by some kind of device that's (relatively) hidden from view. Any time you walk into an establishment equipped with a scanner, they can know at minimum, who you are, and potentially, a great deal of other information - all without having said a word.
It's my opinion that my mere presence does not convey a right to know who I am- whether or not I reveal anything about my identity should be my choice, and mine alone.
Your eloquence is quite moving.
Let me point out that 9/11 isn't just "a terrorist attack." It's not a bomb strapped to someone's chest that, upon detonation, kills a few and injures a few. We're talking about something that was planned for two or more years, required the coordination of at least 20 individuals with planning and support by others, and resulted in unparalleled devastation (on our own soil, perpetrated by a foreign interest). On top of that, there were various clues that were ignored, which had nothing to do with Eschelon. So, I ask again, what's wrong with this picture?
It's absurd to think that such a huge company that has control of such a huge share of the market with software that has such huge security concerns, can come up with something that actually *is* secure. If this takes hold, all I can say is that the OEM's will be getting my business, NOT Dell, HP, or any of the other major players that are going to incorporate this nonsense into hardware.
Just the same, I especially liked this passage:
Controls your information after you send it . Palladium is being offered to the studios and record labels as a way to distribute music and film with "digital rights management" (DRM). This could allow users to exercise "fair use" (like making personal copies of a CD) and publishers could at least start releasing works that cut a compromise between free and locked-down. But a more interesting possibility is that Palladium could help introduce DRM to business and just plain people. "It's a funny thing," says Bill Gates. "We came at this thinking about music, but then we realized that e-mail and documents were far more interesting domains." For instance, Palladium might allow you to send out e-mail so that no one (or only certain people) can copy it or forward it to others. Or you could create Word documents that could be read only in the next week. In all cases, it would be the user, not Microsoft, who sets these policies.
I started reading, and I thought..."it's obvious where this guy is heading - protect the commercial interests, screw the consumer." Then I read a little further, and noticed Bubba's comments on 'ordinary people' - but does it mention that nasty P-word (Privacy)???? No way. It talks about being able to place constraints on EMAIL! Oh happy day! And guess what...this isn't about ordinary people, because ordinary people usually don't have any reason to put such constraints on their e-mail...but corporate executives *cough*gates*cough* certainly do.
Overall, I think this whole thing is a crock, being masqueraded as something we need. Even if we do need it, I'd argue that the last person we need it from is Billy.
Please explain to me why this wouldn't be a violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
It would seem to me that the Echelon system has worked well at its intended purpose since its inception, that is, collecting and sorting through reams upon reams of data.
We have Eschelon, and we have 9/11. What's wrong with this picture?
McCarthy. J. Edgar Hoover. COINTELPRO. The list goes on and on. And you ask why people are crying out for oversight?
How about continued funding?
If consumers somehow manage to develop a spine, the RIAA won't even *have* money for payoffs. That's the beauty of the market - no matter how much the RIAA screams and throws a fit, no matter now many bribes pass under (or over) the table - in the form of campaign contributions, of course - the fed still can't force anyone to buy the crap they call music.
I think the RIAA is mad because it may now have to come up with more independent promoters *cough* payola *cough*.
Check this out:
m
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0108/p1s4-usju.ht
Further, Lawrence Tribe (a Constitutional scholar) suggested on last night's Nightline that what the government is doing may very well consitute an unreasonable search (skirting the Fourth Amendment) If the government is out to 'protect' me, who was it 'protecting' during J. Edgar Hoover's reign (COINTELPRO), when the very kinds of abuses that every American should fear, were actually occurring?
Apple is often touted to "have got it right the first time".
Whom ever said this wasn't thinking clearly. Case in point: For the longest time, Apple forced users to engage a combination of mouse/keyboard for interaction - even for data-heavy applications that didn't need much mouse-based interaction. In fact, I'd claim that this little oversight made ordinarily productive tasks into something with a high annoyance factor. I'd also claim that having to restart your computer (thus completely interrupting your workflow) in order to implement certain changes to the operating environment, was (and still is) rediculous.
No standards, nothing you can count on. I don't know how many slick curvy shiny little apps I've tried where you're randomly stabbing at everything on the screen because you don't know what's a control and what's just window dressing (e.g., Kai).
Oh man...I'd forgotten all about Kai's magic. Uh...MESS, is more like it. What's more, I remember getting lambasted in a forum once for criticising his methodology. On one hand, I can appreciate his philosophy, but on the other, it is completely and totally impractical. He seemed to have forgotten that people actually do need to get work done.
Works both ways...do you think that a t3rr0rlst would be stupid enough to put the kind of revealing information in their e-mail that will flag Carneyvore, or reveal anything substantive in the logs retained by ISPs? Hasn't it been stated that one of the methods used consisted of common phrases that had secondary meanings to those using them? Who knows what "Let's do a picnic tomorrow" could actually mean? Hell, they could throw someone for an even bigger loop be creating a diversion - one dude's subject might read
You're right - it isn't fair. But there's precedent. This very thing happened with the telcos already, to the tune of some $500 million that was handed out BY the FBI, to the telcos, in order to defray the cost of upgrading equipment in a manner necessary to comply with CALEA. One unintended consequence is that now the telcos have implemented MORE than was granted by the FCC (based on what the FBI and other law enforcement agencies had requested), fearing that they may be forced to add this extra functionality at some point in the future. All it takes now is a switch to activate the new goodies.