If you follow the effect of their actions carefully, the company's main purpose seems to be to abuse its users. A case might be logically made that, for Microsoft, making a profit is secondary.
I can bash Microsoft with the best of them, but this just doesn't make sense. For a purpose that is secondary, Microsoft has done an unbelievably good job of making a profit.
No, in a publically held corporation, profit is the main purpose. Microsoft's profit-making methods might be offensive or maybe even illegal, but their purpose is indeed to make money for their shareholders (including first and foremost, BillG).
Who friggin' cares what the Founding Fathers would have wanted? It's not like the Constitution is divinely revealed wisdom. How about if instead we go by what people who are alive today want?
Which people alive today?
50% + 1? In that case, you have a pure democracy, with the risks that go with it. A bare majority can use the full force of government to destroy the rights of the minority.
Some elite group of people? Choose your poison: dictatorship, aristocracy, technocracy, plutocracy, or whatever other kind of "cracy" scheme suits you. In any case, the ones in power may destroy the rights of others at a whim.
How about a consensus, say 90% agreement? If you can get that, you can easily amend the Constitution to make it say whatever you want.
The US Founders were not superhumans, but they showed enough wisdom to set up a limited federal government, with checks and balances. They also built in an amendment process to allow the document to change over time, but made that process hard enough that changes would hopefully be carefully considered.
None of these high-tech methods of spying on citizens were available at the time the Bill of Rights were written. That, alone, should be enough to disqualify them as unreasonable since they were certainly not considered 'reasonable' -- or even considered at all -- in the language of the document.
I am as strict a constructionist as you will find when it comes to applying the Constitution. However, we must apply the meaning of the Constitution to our situation as it changes. Otherwise, we are at the mercy of arbitrary government in all those cases not forseen at the time of the writing of the Constitution (or one of its amendments).
For example, radio and television were unknown at the time the First Amendment was drafted. But that amendment clearly means that Congress shall not muck about with free speech on radio or television, just as they shall not in newspapers. (In practice, we have let them get by with fudging somewhat for broadcasters, on the theory that the airwaves are a public resource. Shame on us.)
Anyway, we can't automatically claim the Fourth Amendment protects against high-tech surveillance because the authors didn't know about it. Instead, we have to make our arguments based on the meaning of the amendment, as others have done on this thread and previous ones. If the situation has changes so much that we cannot apply the meaning of the amendment any more (or if the SCOTUS applies the meaning foolishly), then it is time to consider amending the Constitution again.
They just release a version of IE every time there is a "DDL problem" in the wild. The IE upgrade fixes bugs all over the system by replacing system DLLs. Cool, huh?
Hehe, I can just hear the discussion in a conference room in Redmond... "Screw the Netscape users!"
This creates an odd new reality for media online. Individual voices have never been freer, more numerous or outspoken -- witness the rise of instant messaging and inward-looking p2p forums. But they've also never been more marginalized or insignificant.
If many people patronize and spend money on "big media" products, who cares? That must be what they want...or one could say that is what they deserve.
It is a simple mathematical fact many, many sources of media mean that most of them will not be viewed by a significant fraction of the viewers. So what? My mom and dad will never be remotely interested in Slashdot. They read their local newspapers and watch some network news. Are they being victimized by big media?
The good news here is still (for the time being, anyway) that people interested in almost any arcane topic can find information and opinion about it. When something threatens to shut down individual voices, then gripe away. But don't bitch because the masses don't appreciate your pet "elite" media outlet. The market does not owe you eyes for your favorite content.
You see, this is the problem with Slashdot. Someone makes a good point, I answer and I'm called a Troll. Nice'n'fair.
I was referring to you saying you had been laughing at Americans for years, poking fun at the US Constitution, and calling America an "ickle baby." You do not see the trollishness, and just plain rudeness, in this?
I obviously don't care as much about this debate as you do, so I won't write a 400 line response.
Yet another mark of the troll...posting to a thread he does not care about. But anyway, perhaps others are listening, perhaps not.
You also do not care much about accuracy...from your latest post...
I never said it was legal to murder your family (but it is legal to murder criminals - who are someone else's family).
...and from the post I originally replied to...
Through this constitution you are allowed to have a gun and shoot your family [...]
How is that not saying it was legal to murder your family? I guess you could shoot them so that they don't die, but I doubt that is what you meant.
What I don't get about your constitution is that you keep banging on about guns, saying they are your constitutional right and that you will never get rid of them, but your constitution has been changed 8,000 times this week alone, highlighting the point that you can just AMMEND your constitution to not allow every redneck hick to have an assault rifle.
Here we go again. The US Constitution has been amended about 27 times (not sure about the exact number) in 200+ years. Someone in another branch of this thread is complaining about how hard the amendment process is. The US Constitution has worked remarkably well over time, to the extent that we Americans have insisted that our government abide by it.
Yes, we could amend our Constitution to remove its recognition of the right to keep and bear arms, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
We'll lose some, but come out ahead overall. Some = vietnam, racial segregation, inner-city violence, every fuckup in WW2, Kyoto, Overall = what, exactly? guns for all?
Your rights to freedom are nothing special at all. I have rights to do whatever I want to do. But, unlike you, I don't want to run around my house with an AK47.
To have an intelligent discussion of US liberty vs. that of another country, we will have to get specific. Did you have some country in mind?
If you wait for your kids to come to you with questions about sex you'll be waiting a looooong time.
My eight-year-old asked some simple questions a while back. She knew that babies came from Mom's tummy, and knew that both Mom and Dad contributed, but wondered how that contribution happened.
We told her the basic mechanics, along with what she was ready for in terms of our moral views on the subject. At her age there was not much drama...just a puzzling detail she couldn't figure out. I expect it to get way more "interesting" as she gets older.
I think we need a world government in place to check the power of multinationals
Great. Make "domination" by the multinationals easier by giving them one-stop lobbying!
Seriously, we as citizens of the world would be wise to oppose the concentration of national power into an international body just as US citizens would be wise to resist the transferring of state power (what state power is left) to the federal government.
First, let me say that I work with good folks from about a dozen European countries (and some more from Arkansas;-). Unlike many Americans, I have been over to Europe many times in the last few years. I am open to suggestions on what we Americans could do better.
But, when you or anyone else just gets pissy and insulting, you can kiss my American ass. Now that I got that out of the way...
The thing we have most fun with is your constitution you hold so dear. It's been through more changes than an epileptic's etch-a-sketch.
I was just maintaining on another branch of this thread that it is good our US Constitution is subject to change, via its formal amendment process. Is that what you mean? If so, I don't get the point. On the other hand, our US federal government has done many things over the years that are clearly unconstitutional to any reasonable (non-lawyer) person. I agree that is bad, and welcome any and all support in opposing it, be you American or not.
Through this constitution you are allowed to have a gun and shoot your family and then get annoyed when the police try and arrest you.
Yes, our Constitution recognizes the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms for legitimate use. Could you give me a reference to the part of the US Constitution that legitimizes murder (and later stupidity by being annoyed at the police for arresting a murderer)?
Most other nations got over this centuries ago, but as you're still a ickle baby, you've got some growing up to do first. Most countries called it reform. People realise the ideas they held on to for years are way out of date, and they drop them. Maybe if you didn't spend half an hour a day saluting the American flag, you'd realise it's not all that it's cracked up to be
I have European friends, but have never heard the term "ickle." Could you define? Anyway, call it reform if you like, but violating the rights of people is tyranny. Whether an idea goes "out of date" by the standards of a European troll is irrelevant to whether the idea is right or wrong.
(And all that liberty and freedom stuff you go on about as if you invented it? that's available off the shelves in Europe, most of Africa, large portions of Asia, and all of Australasia)
Anyone with just a bit of history knows that the US Founders were deeply influenced by several European thinkers. And even with the disturbing things our government has done over the years, when it comes to liberty, I'll stack the good old USA up against any country issue-by-issue. We'll lose some, but come out ahead overall.
They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment...
If you propose a wonderful advance in our laws and institutions that contradicts the Constitution, and it really is wonderful, then convince enough people to amend the Constitution.
By the way, I suspect the context "amendment" in Jefferson's quote was not that of formal amendment; I was just making a lucky play on words. But the principle stands...the Constitution is a flexible document that defines itself how it may evolve through amendment. We do not need to render the Constitution meaningless by reinterpreting it to fit the fashions of the day.
So, it's your opinion that social mores, etc., have only changed 26 times in the last 200+ years? The constitution is written in deliberately vague terms to permit flexibility. It's a set of guidelines, not a deatiled set of rules. If a document as rigid as you suggest were written, what would be the point of Congress?
The point is that the Constitution has a built-in mechanism for handling such changes, the amendment process.
The amendment process is difficult, and wisely so. The supreme law of the land should not be changed at the whim of current political fad. The basic foundation of our government should change only when a consensus can be reached that such a change is right.
It is true that there are parts of the Constitution that two fair-minded people can read, and disagree on the meaning. However, I maintain that this is often less an honest disagreement than one party so wanting the the Constitution to support his view (or the prevailing social mores) that he is willing to twist its plain meaning out of all recognition. (I have the commerce clause in mind in particular.)
If you think that the Constituion is a set of guidelines, rather than rules, I suggest you go back and read it again. There is section after section of details on how the federal government is to be structured, and what powers are granted the various branches of the federal government. And because the Founders didn't trust fallible people to stick to those powers expressly granted the government by the Constitution, there are many rules specifying things the government specifically may not do.
To the extent that we as a people insist on the government staying within the bounds of the Constitution, to that extent we will safeguard our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To the extent that we allow government to act outside the Constitution, to that extent we will be at the mercy of any arbitrary whims the Congress and President can get past some old people in robes.
Unlike that father, though, Scalia fails to alter his opinions -- even in the slightest -- based on either new information or the simple fact that people's beliefs have changed. Social mores and taboos do (and should) change as time goes on.
We have a mechanism for handling changes in belief, social mores, and taboos. It is called the amendment process.
To the extent that we allow prevailing wisdom to change the meaning of the Constitution over time, we might as well not have a constitution.
I'd like something like this. I think it actually gets the web closer to what it was originally envisioned as - a way of linking information together.
Ok, all you open source browser contributers out there...here is what I want...
Words in HTML pages are linked as in the M$ scheme, but I control where each link goes. Think of it as bookmarks on steroids. Furthermore, I'd want to be able to easily import published sets of "link targets" from sources I prefer. Pr0n fans could import from www.sexmeup.com, and prudes could import from www.noickystuff.org.
I could imagine a hierarchical system of link targets. First, see if I personally have specified a target for the word "foo." If not, check my imported lists, in a priority order I control. I would want these link targets to be visually different from normal links...maybe by color?
Oh, and one more thing...let me right-click on any word to look it up in the dictionary or thesaurus site of my choice.
Take a lesson from the evil empire: embrace and extend.
Often programmers told to scrap the project and
redo it with their new knowlege. Where do you
see engeneers do that?
In most cases, engineers have established procedures for building things that work. With certain dramatic historical exceptions, most bridges don't fall down. Can we say that about software?
"Software engineering" as it is commonly practiced is not "engineering" in the same sense as civil engineering, electrical engineering, etc.
First, the state of the art in software does not approach that in the world of things. Let's face it. We have been building things longer than we have been building software.
Second, as alluded to by the previous poster, software developers very often do not (or are not allowed to) apply the same level of discipline to a project as say, the builders of a physical structure. Again, there are some spectacular exceptions to this norm...think Challenger.
I rather be considered a code poet than lego code
designer and implementer.
Funny, but I have lately moved more toward the lego master picture of myself. I have been steeped in OO design and development the last few years, but have recently been exposed to some "component-oriented" techniques that go beyond the object-oriented approach I had used. I am currently looking for references to such pluggable, component-oriented development techniques, especially using Java. Post 'em if ya got 'em.
...at least for the web. I will read email at dialup speeds, but for web browsing, if I can't have broadband, I'd rather do without.
Far be it from me to disagree with the great Dvorak, but I have to believe even the non-geek crowd can be taught to crave bandwidth. DSL providers and cable operators are sure trying. Has anyone seen the cute (the first few times you see them) Roadrunner commercials? Beep-beep!
Oh well, I guess that wasn't my best effort lately...it cost me a karma point as "overrated." Your riposte was much more clever.
On a serious note, I really thought the firearms possession thing would bring out the RKBAers. Not quite the right forum, I guess.
Burn the heretic -razor- for questioning such holy rights as being allowed to carry the means to wipe out an entire room in seconds!!
I don't know what you mean by a "holy" right, but I do claim that the RKBA is a natural right, one that follows directly from the right to life. Of course, that does not imply a right to shoot even one innocent person, let alone a whole room full of them.
A good troll is really a work of art. Well done! Students...approach, so that you may learn...
I really fail to see how anyone can argue that age limits on violent and explicit material are anything other than a sane policy.
Notice how the author indirectly questions the sanity of those who would disagree with his conclusion.
Currently American culture, such as it is, tolerates violence as being an inevitable consequcne of allowing firearms to be possessed by people, [...]
To the gun nuts out there, this one is like a red flag to a bull. Claim guns cause violence, and imply that their possession should not be allowed...perhaps not the most subtle troll, but effective. (Note: No offense meant to gun nuts...I am one.)
These kinds of laws, whilst perhaps not being strictly Constituional, are very necessary.
This one will bring out the libertarians, and anyone else who gives a damn about living in a consitutional republic. And something about the wording (very necessary) makes me think Godwin's law will be triggered soon.
When the Constitution was drafted, if they'd have realised the threats that children face everyday, I'm sure they'd have realised that sometimes, freedom of speech is not an abolute concept.
Again, fightin' words to gun nuts, libertarians, and admirers of the rule of law. Yes, by all means, let's decide 200 years later what the Founders would have thought, instead of using that inconvenient amendment process to make whatever changes are needed to our Constitution.
Never mind that the Founders were not strangers to violence.
The best part of this troll is that it is difficult to tell whether the author is trolling on purpose, or really does believe the things he posted. Again, kudos to -razor-.
Slashdot Mirror
No, in a publically held corporation, profit is the main purpose. Microsoft's profit-making methods might be offensive or maybe even illegal, but their purpose is indeed to make money for their shareholders (including first and foremost, BillG).
No, I block that technology by wearing a suit made of aluminum foil! *grin*
50% + 1? In that case, you have a pure democracy, with the risks that go with it. A bare majority can use the full force of government to destroy the rights of the minority.
Some elite group of people? Choose your poison: dictatorship, aristocracy, technocracy, plutocracy, or whatever other kind of "cracy" scheme suits you. In any case, the ones in power may destroy the rights of others at a whim.
How about a consensus, say 90% agreement? If you can get that, you can easily amend the Constitution to make it say whatever you want.
The US Founders were not superhumans, but they showed enough wisdom to set up a limited federal government, with checks and balances. They also built in an amendment process to allow the document to change over time, but made that process hard enough that changes would hopefully be carefully considered.
For example, radio and television were unknown at the time the First Amendment was drafted. But that amendment clearly means that Congress shall not muck about with free speech on radio or television, just as they shall not in newspapers. (In practice, we have let them get by with fudging somewhat for broadcasters, on the theory that the airwaves are a public resource. Shame on us.)
Anyway, we can't automatically claim the Fourth Amendment protects against high-tech surveillance because the authors didn't know about it. Instead, we have to make our arguments based on the meaning of the amendment, as others have done on this thread and previous ones. If the situation has changes so much that we cannot apply the meaning of the amendment any more (or if the SCOTUS applies the meaning foolishly), then it is time to consider amending the Constitution again.
Hehe, I can just hear the discussion in a conference room in Redmond... "Screw the Netscape users!"
It is a simple mathematical fact many, many sources of media mean that most of them will not be viewed by a significant fraction of the viewers. So what? My mom and dad will never be remotely interested in Slashdot. They read their local newspapers and watch some network news. Are they being victimized by big media?
The good news here is still (for the time being, anyway) that people interested in almost any arcane topic can find information and opinion about it. When something threatens to shut down individual voices, then gripe away. But don't bitch because the masses don't appreciate your pet "elite" media outlet. The market does not owe you eyes for your favorite content.
I should have said that in my original post. Sorry for replying to myself.
Disclaimer: Iowa State University is one of my alma maters, so I am naturally biased.
A: I don't know, but they will call it Fortran.
You also do not care much about accuracy...from your latest post...
Yes, we could amend our Constitution to remove its recognition of the right to keep and bear arms, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
To have an intelligent discussion of US liberty vs. that of another country, we will have to get specific. Did you have some country in mind?We told her the basic mechanics, along with what she was ready for in terms of our moral views on the subject. At her age there was not much drama...just a puzzling detail she couldn't figure out. I expect it to get way more "interesting" as she gets older.
Seriously, we as citizens of the world would be wise to oppose the concentration of national power into an international body just as US citizens would be wise to resist the transferring of state power (what state power is left) to the federal government.
By the way, I suspect the context "amendment" in Jefferson's quote was not that of formal amendment; I was just making a lucky play on words. But the principle stands...the Constitution is a flexible document that defines itself how it may evolve through amendment. We do not need to render the Constitution meaningless by reinterpreting it to fit the fashions of the day.
The amendment process is difficult, and wisely so. The supreme law of the land should not be changed at the whim of current political fad. The basic foundation of our government should change only when a consensus can be reached that such a change is right.
It is true that there are parts of the Constitution that two fair-minded people can read, and disagree on the meaning. However, I maintain that this is often less an honest disagreement than one party so wanting the the Constitution to support his view (or the prevailing social mores) that he is willing to twist its plain meaning out of all recognition. (I have the commerce clause in mind in particular.)
If you think that the Constituion is a set of guidelines, rather than rules, I suggest you go back and read it again. There is section after section of details on how the federal government is to be structured, and what powers are granted the various branches of the federal government. And because the Founders didn't trust fallible people to stick to those powers expressly granted the government by the Constitution, there are many rules specifying things the government specifically may not do.
To the extent that we as a people insist on the government staying within the bounds of the Constitution, to that extent we will safeguard our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To the extent that we allow government to act outside the Constitution, to that extent we will be at the mercy of any arbitrary whims the Congress and President can get past some old people in robes.
To the extent that we allow prevailing wisdom to change the meaning of the Constitution over time, we might as well not have a constitution.
...you want it to wipe your butt, too?
Words in HTML pages are linked as in the M$ scheme, but I control where each link goes. Think of it as bookmarks on steroids. Furthermore, I'd want to be able to easily import published sets of "link targets" from sources I prefer. Pr0n fans could import from www.sexmeup.com, and prudes could import from www.noickystuff.org.
I could imagine a hierarchical system of link targets. First, see if I personally have specified a target for the word "foo." If not, check my imported lists, in a priority order I control. I would want these link targets to be visually different from normal links...maybe by color?
Oh, and one more thing...let me right-click on any word to look it up in the dictionary or thesaurus site of my choice.
Take a lesson from the evil empire: embrace and extend.
I watch Emeril over Iron Chef. (So sue me.)
I'd miss Battlebots. They don't go as fast as F1, but the chance to see flying metal parts is about the same. ;-)
"Software engineering" as it is commonly practiced is not "engineering" in the same sense as civil engineering, electrical engineering, etc.
First, the state of the art in software does not approach that in the world of things. Let's face it. We have been building things longer than we have been building software.
Second, as alluded to by the previous poster, software developers very often do not (or are not allowed to) apply the same level of discipline to a project as say, the builders of a physical structure. Again, there are some spectacular exceptions to this norm...think Challenger.
Funny, but I have lately moved more toward the lego master picture of myself. I have been steeped in OO design and development the last few years, but have recently been exposed to some "component-oriented" techniques that go beyond the object-oriented approach I had used. I am currently looking for references to such pluggable, component-oriented development techniques, especially using Java. Post 'em if ya got 'em.Far be it from me to disagree with the great Dvorak, but I have to believe even the non-geek crowd can be taught to crave bandwidth. DSL providers and cable operators are sure trying. Has anyone seen the cute (the first few times you see them) Roadrunner commercials? Beep-beep!
Very, very rude.
On a serious note, I really thought the firearms possession thing would bring out the RKBAers. Not quite the right forum, I guess.
I don't know what you mean by a "holy" right, but I do claim that the RKBA is a natural right, one that follows directly from the right to life. Of course, that does not imply a right to shoot even one innocent person, let alone a whole room full of them.The best part of this troll is that it is difficult to tell whether the author is trolling on purpose, or really does believe the things he posted. Again, kudos to -razor-.