And besides, both are nothing more than factions of the same party.
Sigh... you are right.
I'm just angry and frustrated and the awful truth is that we elected these assholes because we wanted them. We all wanted our houses to go up in value and take the money and spend it. We all wanted poor people to own their own homes and we all know that the budget was a gimmick laden mess and the value of our real estate was a fraud. I'll give Obama credit for putting the wars and other expenses back onto the official budget so that we don't have "federal deficit, not counting the wars", a gimmick in its own right.
I mean, if you really wanted to benefit the American working man, you'd cut off the flow of imports to put him to work while simultaneously supporting the unions so that rich people won't just pocket monopolistic profits. It's a system that worked pretty well for the USA before...
I agree about Jerry Falwell, but I also think Reagan's decision to adopt free trade as part of his reform, and Clinton's decision to stick with it, is the real root cause of our present economic mess, and we will not fix it until we get rid of it.
The last eight years should be glaringly obvious as to why not
Oh really? Can you not see that the last eight years were a bunch of people on the left trying to peg Bush on the war while the real national crisis was a Fannie Mae house of cards that the American left created?
If there is no Fannie Mae, there are no mortgage backed securities and subprime loans, and no economic meltdown. But, those risks were worth it to the American left because they ultimately don't care if the private economy falters as they would nationalize it anyway.
The undercurrent of Obama's supporters is "finally, there was a systemic problem in free enterprise, so now we can get on with socialization". It doesn't matter to the left whether or not they destroy free enterprise because they do not believe in economic freedom. Where's the investigations into Fannie Mae? The WSJ called for them for nearly 20 years to deaf years! People have been arguing for years that you can't lend money to ghetto dwellers..but there's Dodd, Clinton and Frank all pushing the banks to lend to morons... because the banks were expendable, and people who own stock don't matter to the real American left wing, as wiping out private investors of their retirements will be another way to make them want to suck up to a heroic government.
If there was a genuine investigation of the last 8 years, half the Democrats in Congress ought to be executed. But when I come into power, I promise any Republican that there will be no trials, only murders, for what these people have done to this country.
Hey, 2000 years later, we're still talking about them. So, obviously that answer is YES. And indeed, the Constitution was defined by Madison to correct some of the flaws that lead to the Roman drive to Empire.
Liberals regard Warren G Harding as the worst President ever. He was the epitome of smoke filled room deals.. getting the Presidential nomination in one, and his own Presidency was just mired in scandal, from womanizing, conflicts of interests, and bribes. Were he around today, he'd be impeached a week after swearing the oath. But....
During his administration, he cut taxes, deregulated, and also cut spending to match, and the economy boomed. Unemployment fell to a record 1.9%, a record which STILL stands.
So I can vote for someone... who then becomes unquestionable.
That's a Republic, exactly that. You vote for the best and brightest to run the country within the allowed scope of their powers for some limited term, and they can do whatever they want, without harassment. Yeah, that is exactly what a Republic is.
What you are after is a genuine Democracy, where, steps towards giving the public all the information they want leads to some sort of a national voting on every issue. Dude, that's crazy. Mob rule is pretty stupid...
Just let the damn President and the elected officials do their job. In a Republic, they are elected with their powers to some extent take a bunch of shit from the mob during the daily grind in order to protect the rights of the minority. If there's a bit of a backroom give and take needed to make the system tick.
Ever since we have had all of these subpoenas and inquests into the Presidency, the country has had nothing but political infighting and a rather sharp decline. I mean, what has all of this conflict accomplished? Not a damn thing, but national ruin and a bunch of finger pointing and blogs dredging up email.
I'd say, take all the leaders of all the corporations, all the governors and mayors and senators and congressman, and the president, and lock these assholes into a room, throw away the tape recorders and transcribers and let them not come out until they have a real plan for economic recovery. Right now, there's just too many damned lawyers involved for anyone to communicate honestly and honesty is what is needed.
The problem is, today's presidents have more power than the constitution gave to them. Specifically, read the "war powers act". The constitution certainly gave the president no "war powers".
The thing is, the Founding Father's established the limited ability of the President to engage in military action without congressional consent. Washington did not require consent to declare martial law and put down the Whiskey rebellion, and Jefferson did not seek federal consent for the missions to Tripoli against the Barbary Pirates and undeclared naval war against the French.
As a matter of tradition too, even though they are not a "declaration of war" in the sense that they do not say "we the USA declare war", Bush the Junior did seek and did get congressional authorizations to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Even LBJ sought and got approval to invade Viet Nam with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. So... my question is, what did the War Powers Act actually change? Not much. Before the War Powers Act, the President had a certain discretion for quick and dirty military operations per his charge to defend the constitution and in his capacity as Commander in Chief, and after the war powers act, he has the same. Both parties know that a significant military adventure requires some form of consent by Congress, and abide by that.
I note with irony that as much as Jefferson railed against Federal Power and the power of the President, he did all sorts of stuff that he would have previously argued unconstitutional, giving both liberals and conservatives sufficient room to argue that he was really a liberal or a conservative, and he remains one of this country's most popular presidents. Now that, my friend, is some politician!
It's funny, but all I was arguing was that the very arguments we conservatives used to defend Bush should apply to Obama as well. Like, if Obama does something that we though Bush did that was ok, why should we be up in arms about it? If you agree that Dick Cheney was right about the Presidency needing to reassert itself over a pathetic Congress, then, that reassertion should apply to the left wing as well as the right, even though we may not agree with the results.
That anonymity, a form of secrecy is necessary for honest communications. If the President cannot communicate honestly, then he cannot do his job. Imagine if LBJ's tapes had been made public during his administration. Do you want to throw away the Civil Right's act because he's also tailing MLK? You can take a paranoic distrust of either people too far and you need to learn how to hope and how to trust. Let the public decisions an administration makes stand for themselves, right wing or left wing, and don't let yourself get trapped up needing to see every frank discussion that takes place behind the scenes. This is a Republic, not a Democracy, and you need to let leaders lead. If you don't like the way they lead, then run for office yourself.
I don't think people quite got what "YES WE CAN" really meant. They didn't read the "FUCK YOU OVER" at the end that was implied.
I've not exactly come out with enthusiastic support for Obama, but I think in this case the administration is doing the right thing. I do not believe the Presidency should be tracked to the extent that it is, because it undermines the ability of the President to do his or her job. Judge any President by how many bucks are in your pocket, and whether or not the country is at war. Keeping track of every little detail and responding to every subpoena only weakens the President. WE on the right wing hated the way the left continually harassed Bush, and although we know the left would never reciprocate on any showing of principal or good faith, we still must uphold our own conservative principal that two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the left screamed bloody murder about email and the Cheney energy task force does not entitle us to scream bloody murder about email and the stimulus package. These are petty debates and if we are to have a genuine democracy, we should judge programs more by their efficacy and trust that the Constitution was right in the powers it gave to the President, and not the far more limited powers imagined that he has today. If we are to live by a Hamiltonian Presidency, then we should die by it as well.
The biggest problem with Microsoft is not even really their openness any more. I mean, for a lot of developers, Windows is open "enough". What hurts Microsoft is the perception that if you do put together an application on Windows, sooner or later, Microsoft is going to take their giant Windows sack of cash and try and take that market from you.
For example, the unfairness of IE vs Navigator wasn't that IE was bundled with Windows at the consumer level - because consumers understand programs and installing them, but, it was because Microsoft held out a promise of developing on Windows, then sorta broke that friendly proposition with Netscape, and leveraged its Windows monopoly money to do it.
IE4 was better than Netscape Navigator, but it was reportedly funded with well over 500 million dollars in development costs and had the benefit of being essentially a scratch built application with the upfront knowledge that a fully scriptable object model was going to be the key to the modern browser. Microsoft engineers got to use Navigator as a functional requirement for what a browser should be.. and they made some important improvements to it at an architectural level. Consumers benefited, because IE was better, but Netscape was the one that did the more pioneering work of making a practical browser, bolting on a JavaScript parser, and adding SSL that really defined the browser as a workable platform for e-commerce.
This isn't the first time Microsoft has done this, and, unfortunately for Microsoft, this is now seemingly short sighted. Regardless of what you feel about Linux, there is no doubt that a lot of smart developers are deploying solutions on that platform, and are doing it largely because they are free of the worry of not having to be betrayed by the platform vendor. How many Windows applications are out there these days? It's not just that PC gaming is dead, its that how many applications and new genres of applications are being created and right now, I don't think its all that much. It's almost like, if Microsoft really wanted Windows to remain popular and grow, they should almost spin it off and lobby for federal legislation that bans the distributors of all operating systems from being in the desktop applications business. Windows could compete on its merits, and there are merits, and similarly, the rest of the Microsoft chain would not have to be tied to one operating system. Apple is at what, 10% of Windows right now? Linux is at 2%? That's -millions- of people. Why not have Visual Studio for Linux? Office for Mac is profitable, why pull the plug on it, just to save Windows? Why not have Microsoft games on Java cell phones, or even Sony Playstation for that matter? It's almost like there's more opportunities for two Microsoft's than one.
It seems to me that, if funding were available, one of the most useful things for astronomy then would be a set of ships sent to "opposite" orbits in the solar system, extremely far from the sun. Given today's technology, the farther you could get a pair of ships orbiting at an extreme distance from the sun - out past jupiter and farther, then, you could extend the range of your parallax measurements, which are fairly direct. You'll never obviously be able to get the whole universe, but you would be able to get more standard candles. Or, are there already enough stars within a thousand light years that you don't need that? A thousand light years is a pretty good chunk of space.
Geographically? Perhaps Norway is not. I think they would all say that Norway is a Scandinavian country. But when people think of European history and culture, they tend to include Norway and Sweden. Indeed, geographical Sweden, on the same peninsula, is often hailed in the USA by the American left as a successful example of a European welfare state. From a historical perspective too, when we discuss the "European theater in World War II", we usually include the Battle for and subsequent German occupation of Norway.
Apple shouldn't open up anything. Openness adds a good third party market in some ways, but it also adds a lot of junk. Apple's filtering benefits the consumer that doesn't want to have a lot of crap in their eco-system. If you want a more open platform, you could use Android, or a Windows Mobile powered phone. SO, there are choices in the marketplace.
So no, I don't have to like them at all. American Express is the worst... a shitty bank getting bailed out with my tax dollars sending jobs off to India. Fuck all these people. IT's entirely rational to hate an economic rival.
No, you have to do these things because the people that designed your operating system did a crappy job.
No, that's retarded. If there were no hackers, or a sufficiently reduced number of them, then, I would not need to pay for all this security at all.
Is it a good idea to walk around a dark parking lot at night shouting about how much money is in your wallet as long as there is a security camera watching over you
First off, if, the death penalty were used sufficiently, the likelihood of being assailed would be diminished. Why do we still have any murderers alive? Secondly, if I had a gun, I could shoot the attacker, and that brings me to my third point, in an anonymous internet, I do not know who the attacker is. There's a difference between being responsible for one's own security and making it easier for thieves - its like when stupid liberals have laws that say you cannot defend your house from a burglar and have to call the police.
And no amount of laws passed in the U.S. are going to stop those Russians from attacking your PC. Giving up your own freedom because you are convinced it is the only way to fix things makes you no safe
Stop it with your two cent half witted sloganing of absolutes that aren't true. Absolutes can always be deflated by a contrary extreme? Do you say that police states can't make you safer? Sure they can. I mean, you can argue against this logic all you want, but I guarantee you that after the holocaust very few people were ever mugged by a jew.
But I'm not advocating a police state. I just want lawless nations chopped off of the internet. I can't get attacked from Russia if the wire is unplugged.
They aren't wrong, but I'm sick of doing anti-virus updates, tired of all the malware, and I don't care anymore if they take my name so I can have an internet where I don't have to worry if downloading some EXE will screw up my machine.
It's a nice idea. But I'm just fed up with the crime.
The right way to approach this, as a matter of design, would be not to embed a Turing-complete language in a file format that doesn't need it.....You're comparing with a web browser. A web browser is qualitatively different
Actually, if you are going to be a purist about it, Javascript in a web browser is considered to be a security problem because it is a Turing machine. Active X, Flash, any sort of Turing machine in a web browser is always a client security problem and the safest way to deal with any of it is to block it. But users accept that the security risk is there, and now we have hoards of Russian botnets.
Society has spoken. End users are more interested in running code than they are either in anonymity and its time the internet change to reflect it. Security loopholes in any program are merely a reflection of the fact that the people choose features over the cost of having to be their own digital sheriffs, and its time to go hire real internet sheriffs, and go git those varmits.
You left a big one out. You really want to say is that you want to use other people's internet properties without them knowing it. You want to touch other people's real estate online, without any accountability. Yours is not the only interest involved and for that reason, you cannot claim absolute rights.
AS a practical matter, your insistence on anonymity as a right costs a lot of other people a lot of money that you do not appear to want to pay. They have to pay more for the security, the downtime, the loss of flexibility that goes with having systems where users are unaccountable. If there were no costs associated with anonymity, I'd sure, fine, its a good idea. But the cost of anonymity means I have to have anti-virus software, can't run as admin all the time, can't use certain techniques to access a SQL database from a web page.. all these things cost me time and money, and I'm not sure I wouldn't be willing to just give up a name in exchange for using my computer without having to worry that some asshole from Russia is going to turn me into a botnet.
I mean yeah, you can trot out "he who trades freedom for security deserves neither", but that same person who said that also presided over a constitutional convention that produced a government charged with providing some security for the people so that they can prosper in peace.
Wikipedia isn't enlightment, its censorship of the masses censored by the people that run it. It's useful sometimes, but to say that "chilling effect" matters is ridiculous.
I mean, seriously, what is it that you want to say, but you feel like you can't say in person? What, you don't like black people? There's web sites for that. You don't like white people? sites for that. Or women, or dogs, or you like to engage in some kind of gay stuff? There's sites out there just like that.
No, without the ability to speak anonymously, things that are "objectionable" or "taboo" will never be spoken as no one will want their name associated with it, even if its not illegal.
That's crazy talk. In America, people that say things that are objectionable and taboo wind up making millions of dollars. Anymore, people just don't give a damn what anyone says. My wife and I were talking about the Beatles had to make clever drug references in their songs and there was a huge controversy when they did it, and now, no one even cares.
At issue is the ability to be anonymous on the internet which is necessary for freedom of speech. This is nothing less than an attack on the first amendment and it should be classified as unconstitutional.
Anonymity is not necessary for free speech. You should be accountable to your fellow man for what you say. Words are actionable things.
It's not just ideology that the whole media loves Obama because he's promising them big bucks by a crack down on file sharing and piracy. Republicans are stupidly trying to curry Hollywoods favor but its just not going to happen. Republicans should instead take a stand for civil liberties while simultaneously extinguishing their enemies and just oppose any sort of DRM. But they are stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
And besides, both are nothing more than factions of the same party.
Sigh... you are right.
I'm just angry and frustrated and the awful truth is that we elected these assholes because we wanted them. We all wanted our houses to go up in value and take the money and spend it. We all wanted poor people to own their own homes and we all know that the budget was a gimmick laden mess and the value of our real estate was a fraud. I'll give Obama credit for putting the wars and other expenses back onto the official budget so that we don't have "federal deficit, not counting the wars", a gimmick in its own right.
I mean, if you really wanted to benefit the American working man, you'd cut off the flow of imports to put him to work while simultaneously supporting the unions so that rich people won't just pocket monopolistic profits. It's a system that worked pretty well for the USA before...
I agree about Jerry Falwell, but I also think Reagan's decision to adopt free trade as part of his reform, and Clinton's decision to stick with it, is the real root cause of our present economic mess, and we will not fix it until we get rid of it.
The last eight years should be glaringly obvious as to why not
Oh really? Can you not see that the last eight years were a bunch of people on the left trying to peg Bush on the war while the real national crisis was a Fannie Mae house of cards that the American left created?
If there is no Fannie Mae, there are no mortgage backed securities and subprime loans, and no economic meltdown. But, those risks were worth it to the American left because they ultimately don't care if the private economy falters as they would nationalize it anyway.
The undercurrent of Obama's supporters is "finally, there was a systemic problem in free enterprise, so now we can get on with socialization". It doesn't matter to the left whether or not they destroy free enterprise because they do not believe in economic freedom. Where's the investigations into Fannie Mae? The WSJ called for them for nearly 20 years to deaf years! People have been arguing for years that you can't lend money to ghetto dwellers..but there's Dodd, Clinton and Frank all pushing the banks to lend to morons... because the banks were expendable, and people who own stock don't matter to the real American left wing, as wiping out private investors of their retirements will be another way to make them want to suck up to a heroic government.
If there was a genuine investigation of the last 8 years, half the Democrats in Congress ought to be executed. But when I come into power, I promise any Republican that there will be no trials, only murders, for what these people have done to this country.
Being president should not be a job to aspire towards
My point is that you get the Presidents you pay for.
Republics work? Where? Rome?
Hey, 2000 years later, we're still talking about them. So, obviously that answer is YES. And indeed, the Constitution was defined by Madison to correct some of the flaws that lead to the Roman drive to Empire.
Liberals regard Warren G Harding as the worst President ever. He was the epitome of smoke filled room deals .. getting the Presidential nomination in one, and his own Presidency was just mired in scandal, from womanizing, conflicts of interests, and bribes. Were he around today, he'd be impeached a week after swearing the oath. But....
During his administration, he cut taxes, deregulated, and also cut spending to match, and the economy boomed. Unemployment fell to a record 1.9%, a record which STILL stands.
So I can vote for someone ... who then becomes unquestionable.
That's a Republic, exactly that. You vote for the best and brightest to run the country within the allowed scope of their powers for some limited term, and they can do whatever they want, without harassment. Yeah, that is exactly what a Republic is.
What you are after is a genuine Democracy, where, steps towards giving the public all the information they want leads to some sort of a national voting on every issue. Dude, that's crazy. Mob rule is pretty stupid...
Just let the damn President and the elected officials do their job. In a Republic, they are elected with their powers to some extent take a bunch of shit from the mob during the daily grind in order to protect the rights of the minority. If there's a bit of a backroom give and take needed to make the system tick.
Ever since we have had all of these subpoenas and inquests into the Presidency, the country has had nothing but political infighting and a rather sharp decline. I mean, what has all of this conflict accomplished? Not a damn thing, but national ruin and a bunch of finger pointing and blogs dredging up email.
I'd say, take all the leaders of all the corporations, all the governors and mayors and senators and congressman, and the president, and lock these assholes into a room, throw away the tape recorders and transcribers and let them not come out until they have a real plan for economic recovery. Right now, there's just too many damned lawyers involved for anyone to communicate honestly and honesty is what is needed.
Republics work.
The problem is, today's presidents have more power than the constitution gave to them. Specifically, read the "war powers act". The constitution certainly gave the president no "war powers".
The thing is, the Founding Father's established the limited ability of the President to engage in military action without congressional consent. Washington did not require consent to declare martial law and put down the Whiskey rebellion, and Jefferson did not seek federal consent for the missions to Tripoli against the Barbary Pirates and undeclared naval war against the French.
As a matter of tradition too, even though they are not a "declaration of war" in the sense that they do not say "we the USA declare war", Bush the Junior did seek and did get congressional authorizations to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Even LBJ sought and got approval to invade Viet Nam with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. So... my question is, what did the War Powers Act actually change? Not much. Before the War Powers Act, the President had a certain discretion for quick and dirty military operations per his charge to defend the constitution and in his capacity as Commander in Chief, and after the war powers act, he has the same. Both parties know that a significant military adventure requires some form of consent by Congress, and abide by that.
I note with irony that as much as Jefferson railed against Federal Power and the power of the President, he did all sorts of stuff that he would have previously argued unconstitutional, giving both liberals and conservatives sufficient room to argue that he was really a liberal or a conservative, and he remains one of this country's most popular presidents. Now that, my friend, is some politician!
It's funny, but all I was arguing was that the very arguments we conservatives used to defend Bush should apply to Obama as well. Like, if Obama does something that we though Bush did that was ok, why should we be up in arms about it? If you agree that Dick Cheney was right about the Presidency needing to reassert itself over a pathetic Congress, then, that reassertion should apply to the left wing as well as the right, even though we may not agree with the results.
That anonymity, a form of secrecy is necessary for honest communications. If the President cannot communicate honestly, then he cannot do his job. Imagine if LBJ's tapes had been made public during his administration. Do you want to throw away the Civil Right's act because he's also tailing MLK? You can take a paranoic distrust of either people too far and you need to learn how to hope and how to trust. Let the public decisions an administration makes stand for themselves, right wing or left wing, and don't let yourself get trapped up needing to see every frank discussion that takes place behind the scenes. This is a Republic, not a Democracy, and you need to let leaders lead. If you don't like the way they lead, then run for office yourself.
I don't think people quite got what "YES WE CAN" really meant. They didn't read the "FUCK YOU OVER" at the end that was implied.
I've not exactly come out with enthusiastic support for Obama, but I think in this case the administration is doing the right thing. I do not believe the Presidency should be tracked to the extent that it is, because it undermines the ability of the President to do his or her job. Judge any President by how many bucks are in your pocket, and whether or not the country is at war. Keeping track of every little detail and responding to every subpoena only weakens the President. WE on the right wing hated the way the left continually harassed Bush, and although we know the left would never reciprocate on any showing of principal or good faith, we still must uphold our own conservative principal that two wrongs do not make a right. Just because the left screamed bloody murder about email and the Cheney energy task force does not entitle us to scream bloody murder about email and the stimulus package. These are petty debates and if we are to have a genuine democracy, we should judge programs more by their efficacy and trust that the Constitution was right in the powers it gave to the President, and not the far more limited powers imagined that he has today. If we are to live by a Hamiltonian Presidency, then we should die by it as well.
The biggest problem with Microsoft is not even really their openness any more. I mean, for a lot of developers, Windows is open "enough". What hurts Microsoft is the perception that if you do put together an application on Windows, sooner or later, Microsoft is going to take their giant Windows sack of cash and try and take that market from you.
For example, the unfairness of IE vs Navigator wasn't that IE was bundled with Windows at the consumer level - because consumers understand programs and installing them, but, it was because Microsoft held out a promise of developing on Windows, then sorta broke that friendly proposition with Netscape, and leveraged its Windows monopoly money to do it.
IE4 was better than Netscape Navigator, but it was reportedly funded with well over 500 million dollars in development costs and had the benefit of being essentially a scratch built application with the upfront knowledge that a fully scriptable object model was going to be the key to the modern browser. Microsoft engineers got to use Navigator as a functional requirement for what a browser should be.. and they made some important improvements to it at an architectural level. Consumers benefited, because IE was better, but Netscape was the one that did the more pioneering work of making a practical browser, bolting on a JavaScript parser, and adding SSL that really defined the browser as a workable platform for e-commerce.
This isn't the first time Microsoft has done this, and, unfortunately for Microsoft, this is now seemingly short sighted. Regardless of what you feel about Linux, there is no doubt that a lot of smart developers are deploying solutions on that platform, and are doing it largely because they are free of the worry of not having to be betrayed by the platform vendor. How many Windows applications are out there these days? It's not just that PC gaming is dead, its that how many applications and new genres of applications are being created and right now, I don't think its all that much. It's almost like, if Microsoft really wanted Windows to remain popular and grow, they should almost spin it off and lobby for federal legislation that bans the distributors of all operating systems from being in the desktop applications business. Windows could compete on its merits, and there are merits, and similarly, the rest of the Microsoft chain would not have to be tied to one operating system. Apple is at what, 10% of Windows right now? Linux is at 2%? That's -millions- of people. Why not have Visual Studio for Linux? Office for Mac is profitable, why pull the plug on it, just to save Windows? Why not have Microsoft games on Java cell phones, or even Sony Playstation for that matter? It's almost like there's more opportunities for two Microsoft's than one.
That's enormously interesting.
It seems to me that, if funding were available, one of the most useful things for astronomy then would be a set of ships sent to "opposite" orbits in the solar system, extremely far from the sun. Given today's technology, the farther you could get a pair of ships orbiting at an extreme distance from the sun - out past jupiter and farther, then, you could extend the range of your parallax measurements, which are fairly direct. You'll never obviously be able to get the whole universe, but you would be able to get more standard candles. Or, are there already enough stars within a thousand light years that you don't need that? A thousand light years is a pretty good chunk of space.
Geographically? Perhaps Norway is not. I think they would all say that Norway is a Scandinavian country. But when people think of European history and culture, they tend to include Norway and Sweden. Indeed, geographical Sweden, on the same peninsula, is often hailed in the USA by the American left as a successful example of a European welfare state. From a historical perspective too, when we discuss the "European theater in World War II", we usually include the Battle for and subsequent German occupation of Norway.
So yeah, Norway is "European".
Apple shouldn't open up anything. Openness adds a good third party market in some ways, but it also adds a lot of junk. Apple's filtering benefits the consumer that doesn't want to have a lot of crap in their eco-system. If you want a more open platform, you could use Android, or a Windows Mobile powered phone. SO, there are choices in the marketplace.
So no, I don't have to like them at all. American Express is the worst... a shitty bank getting bailed out with my tax dollars sending jobs off to India. Fuck all these people. IT's entirely rational to hate an economic rival.
No, you have to do these things because the people that designed your operating system did a crappy job.
No, that's retarded. If there were no hackers, or a sufficiently reduced number of them, then, I would not need to pay for all this security at all.
Is it a good idea to walk around a dark parking lot at night shouting about how much money is in your wallet as long as there is a security camera watching over you
First off, if, the death penalty were used sufficiently, the likelihood of being assailed would be diminished. Why do we still have any murderers alive? Secondly, if I had a gun, I could shoot the attacker, and that brings me to my third point, in an anonymous internet, I do not know who the attacker is. There's a difference between being responsible for one's own security and making it easier for thieves - its like when stupid liberals have laws that say you cannot defend your house from a burglar and have to call the police.
And no amount of laws passed in the U.S. are going to stop those Russians from attacking your PC. Giving up your own freedom because you are convinced it is the only way to fix things makes you no safe
Stop it with your two cent half witted sloganing of absolutes that aren't true. Absolutes can always be deflated by a contrary extreme? Do you say that police states can't make you safer? Sure they can. I mean, you can argue against this logic all you want, but I guarantee you that after the holocaust very few people were ever mugged by a jew.
But I'm not advocating a police state. I just want lawless nations chopped off of the internet. I can't get attacked from Russia if the wire is unplugged.
Some Norwegian guys == all of Europe
A press release on Wired == Big Media
Getting rid IE is good and all, but does like Slashdot hire out to India to write their article summaries? The retardation is growing daily.
Why are all of these reasons wrong to you?
They aren't wrong, but I'm sick of doing anti-virus updates, tired of all the malware, and I don't care anymore if they take my name so I can have an internet where I don't have to worry if downloading some EXE will screw up my machine.
It's a nice idea. But I'm just fed up with the crime.
The right way to approach this, as a matter of design, would be not to embed a Turing-complete language in a file format that doesn't need it.....You're comparing with a web browser. A web browser is qualitatively different
Actually, if you are going to be a purist about it, Javascript in a web browser is considered to be a security problem because it is a Turing machine. Active X, Flash, any sort of Turing machine in a web browser is always a client security problem and the safest way to deal with any of it is to block it. But users accept that the security risk is there, and now we have hoards of Russian botnets.
Society has spoken. End users are more interested in running code than they are either in anonymity and its time the internet change to reflect it. Security loopholes in any program are merely a reflection of the fact that the people choose features over the cost of having to be their own digital sheriffs, and its time to go hire real internet sheriffs, and go git those varmits.
You left a big one out. You really want to say is that you want to use other people's internet properties without them knowing it. You want to touch other people's real estate online, without any accountability. Yours is not the only interest involved and for that reason, you cannot claim absolute rights.
AS a practical matter, your insistence on anonymity as a right costs a lot of other people a lot of money that you do not appear to want to pay. They have to pay more for the security, the downtime, the loss of flexibility that goes with having systems where users are unaccountable. If there were no costs associated with anonymity, I'd sure, fine, its a good idea. But the cost of anonymity means I have to have anti-virus software, can't run as admin all the time, can't use certain techniques to access a SQL database from a web page.. all these things cost me time and money, and I'm not sure I wouldn't be willing to just give up a name in exchange for using my computer without having to worry that some asshole from Russia is going to turn me into a botnet.
I mean yeah, you can trot out "he who trades freedom for security deserves neither", but that same person who said that also presided over a constitutional convention that produced a government charged with providing some security for the people so that they can prosper in peace.
Wikipedia isn't enlightment, its censorship of the masses censored by the people that run it. It's useful sometimes, but to say that "chilling effect" matters is ridiculous.
I mean, seriously, what is it that you want to say, but you feel like you can't say in person? What, you don't like black people? There's web sites for that. You don't like white people? sites for that. Or women, or dogs, or you like to engage in some kind of gay stuff? There's sites out there just like that.
What are you afraid to say? You can say it now...
No, without the ability to speak anonymously, things that are "objectionable" or "taboo" will never be spoken as no one will want their name associated with it, even if its not illegal.
That's crazy talk. In America, people that say things that are objectionable and taboo wind up making millions of dollars. Anymore, people just don't give a damn what anyone says. My wife and I were talking about the Beatles had to make clever drug references in their songs and there was a huge controversy when they did it, and now, no one even cares.
Seriously, nice post, nice work by the engineer. Inspiring, and learned something new. FPGA... who wouldn't want to try one himself or herself?
At issue is the ability to be anonymous on the internet which is necessary for freedom of speech. This is nothing less than an attack on the first amendment and it should be classified as unconstitutional.
Anonymity is not necessary for free speech. You should be accountable to your fellow man for what you say. Words are actionable things.
It's not just ideology that the whole media loves Obama because he's promising them big bucks by a crack down on file sharing and piracy. Republicans are stupidly trying to curry Hollywoods favor but its just not going to happen. Republicans should instead take a stand for civil liberties while simultaneously extinguishing their enemies and just oppose any sort of DRM. But they are stupid.