The point is that the author of the post I was responding to was trying to make the claim that:
"Free market" forces don't deal with Tyrants, and they shouldn't.
As if the 'free market' has morals and doesn't deal with tyrants. I was and am calling that complete horse manure.
Interesting how you never bothered to read that much of my post or the post I was responding to, yet I was the one whose post was modded as 'troll'. But that's right wing ideologues for you, they just support their own, never regarding things such as 'logic' or 'facts'.
The bottom line is that the free market not only does not have morals, but commonly deals with tyrants of all stripes. Any claim to the contrary is ludicrous, especially in light of the fact that G.W. Bush's tyranny was arguably financed by China's tyranny. It doesn't matter what percentage of American debt that China holds. We were borrowing and spending significant amounts of China's money while actively engaging in our own tyranny. The one argument you seem to have found with my post is moot, and totally missing the point.
Have I spelled it out in enough detail for you?
There is a difference in price on equipment, obviously, but the "huge difference" in price on media exists only in your head.
As you said, the largest difference is in the player, but you're trying to tell me it wouldn't be expensive to replace a moderate collection of DVD's with BD's? And there was huge difference in price until the last few months, and even now:
http://www.amazon.com/Gran-Torino-Widescreen-Clint-Eastwood/dp/B001KVZ6F2
That looks like a $9 difference, which is far from small. Is 1/3 more not a large difference where you come from?
I'll try to stick with your most egregiously wrong statements to keep this fairly brief.
"Free market" forces don't deal with Tyrants, and they shouldn't.
They don't? Since when? Even when there are sanctions against a government, trade still occurs. And let's not forget who loaned Bush / America the money for the foreign policy debacle that was Iraq, as well as the bank bailout after all those 'free market' idiots enabled the bankers to play roulette with our money... China (or are you arguing that China is not a tyranny?)
You probably wouldn't be able to call the leader a "tyrant" or a "despot" either. It would be more like "benevolent ruler"
We have reasonably free market, yet Bush was clearly a tyrant. What else can you call someone who starts a war of choice and tries to legalize torture?
To flip the whole thing around, you can't have complete liberty if you don't have the freedom to trade. If you aren't free to trade to whoever you want, whenever you want, then you aren't completely free.
So far as I know, there is no place on earth that does not place SOME kind of rules and regulations on trade. Please show me these 'free' people. And demonstrate reasonably that they have absolutely no restrictions. For what it's worth, I'll agree that tyrannies commonly controlled trade ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.
It's not a free market if the government prevents individuals from competing.
This is the huge straw man argument of closet republicans (Libertarians), neocons, and every other corporate apologist. So far as I know, Rearden Steel never existed, and I have never heard of an instance where the American government tried to force a company to give technology to their competitor, although I could conceive of it happening in a limited number of special cases in WW2, since there were 2 military juggernauts threatening to take over the world. Since I'm not speaking German or Japanese, I'd say that it was a good move if it happened then.
If you want to see slavery (which occurs based on the morals head of society, and has nothing to do with the market) on a mass scale, go take a look at the USSR and their Communism...
This is the second biggest straw man argument of the corporate apologists and economic anarchists. First and foremost, It is not Socialism that made the USSR bad, it was CORRUPTION (not to mention having a paranoid sociopath like Stalin in charge for so long). No matter WHAT system you have in place, corruption will topple empires period. Did socialism open the door to corruption? Possibly, but in the long run corruption plus corporate domination (I wouldn't even call it a free market, since the corporations own 90% or the Republicants and 40% of the Democraps) has the potential to do as much if not more damage, and ultimately fall as hard if not harder.
Pot and kettle here. Of course L4t3r4lu5 was mistaken when thinking that he is watching movies that are 1920x1200, when DVD has a resolution of 720x480. But is that any more wrong than comparing digital 720x480 with analog 330x480? Especially when you have tracking issues, magnetic issues, and base material issues like stretching? Try playing a 5 year old VHS tape next to a 5 year old DVD...
My opinion is closer to L4t3r4lu5's in that HD / Blue Ray have many issues, including the fact that production standards (including makeup) are not in line with the quality of the output, and so you see flaws you would not normally see. Not to mention the huge price premium.on equipment and media for the privilege of seeing those imperfections. However nature shows are freaking brilliant, although I am curious as to exactly how high of definition the human eye can discern once you take out the placebo effect.
When it comes to Blue-ray, I think it is more proprietary crap being shoved down our throats. Sony may have won the PR game, but that's not saying much considering what America fell for from the Bush administration during the same time period. I personally resist proprietary crap as long and hard as possible. Hopefully Blue-ray will eventually go the way of their memory stick.
I might accept traffic tickets and bad checks as potential indicators of trustworthiness... but carnal knowledge is listed as a class C offense (with D being the worst), along with sodomy. Carnal knowledge commonly refers to sexual acts in general (knowledge of the flesh). Sodomy commonly refers to anal and oral sex (legal in most states, should be legal in all states (providing there is mutual consent, of course)), and much less commonly bestiality. While I think that it is absolutely ludicrous to think that either of those things indicate trustworthiness (Many people have carnal knowledge of their spouse on a regular basis, likely including our President, the majority of our armed forces and intelligence agencies, as well as Senate members of intelligence subcommittees... a significant amount of those same people also likely engage in sodomy as well). This is really humorous in light of J Edgar Hoover and his rumored sexual proclivities... especially since this is the sort of thing I could see him creating.
There are several other questionable things on the matrix, which should likely be reviewed and changed just in the name of efficacy. Many of the other things I see on that chart seem quite reasonable in assessing the risk of a security breach, if nothing else from a standpoint that it is better to err on the side of caution.
In regards to JPL and HSPD #12, I think the major national security issue is related to the fact that while a disturbing amount of countries have the ability to construct a nuclear device, one of the big tricks is getting that device to detonate far enough away from said country to do more damage to the target then to said country. The other big trick is sending said weapon to another continent. ICBM's require advanced propulsion as well as satellite technology. Whether or not such measures at JPL are effective, considering how many loopholes corporations use to export sensitive technology to boycotted nations is another argument entirely...and then there's the amount of publicly available information as well. Again, from the standpoint that it is better to err on the side of caution, it seems reasonable to require security checks on JPL employees.
Where this is potentially dangerous in my opinion is if these types of security checks are considered unconstitutional for JPL employees, they will be considered as such for other government contractors...which could conceivably pose even more significant risk.
Ultimately, I hope we use this situation as an opportunity to modernize and revamp the security clearance process without causing undue security risks. I believe a review of the efficacy of the varied suitability matrix in determining security risk would have been sufficient, but if it has to happen under the auspices of Constitutionality, so be it, as long as it is done in a timely fashion and does not break the process of Government security clearance screening.
Funny, you are for the most part preaching to the choir. I agree that for the most part the obvious security holes we know about have been addressed, and in some cases with a very heavy hand. On the other hand, to ignore the fact that planes can be used as weapons that create much more death and destruction than most other attacks would be stupid. While the liquid explosive scare was laughable when you think of someone attempting to execute some touchy chemistry that produces noxious fumes either in their seat or in the plane bathroom; it becomes less so when you consider the airport bathroom as a potential location for the necessary reactions.
I am personally not worried about dying in a terrorist attack at all. No one should be. Better chance of getting struck by lightning, never mind car accidents, etc.
That said, I still must say that YES, IMO planes have the potential for the higher casualty rate as well as more press coverage than a bus, especially considering the bus depots I've been in had nowhere near as many people going through them as the airports I've been through. Buses are not filled with jet fuel either. Nor could they build up anywhere near as much impetus as a plane.
I am slightly unsure concerning subways, as I have never been in one. I could surmise, especially considering the Sarin gas attack, that unless they somehow managed to get tons of ANFO or some other destructive and/or poisonous materials in undetected, it would be hard to match the destruction of sheer impetus and jet fuel.
I agree that the terrorists are trying to destroy our freedoms and turn our government into the monster that their propaganda claims it to be. The irony is not lost on me that that is exactly what the Bush administration attempted to do by turning 9/11 into their Reichstag fire, used to justify the Patriot act, an aggressive unjust war, and the suspension of Constitutional and Human Rights for those deemed 'enemy combatants', etc.,etc.,etc.
Thus comes my lack of opposition to a camera in an airport bathroom: 1. There IS a credible threat(however slim), as well as warranted fears. 2. Hopefully this kind of thing will placate those that unreasonably fear attacks, as well as those that would prey upon such fears. Refusal to compromise often leaves you with no position at all. 3. Allowing some types of surveillance in potentially warranted situations at little risk to our personal liberties also creates test cases to be fought in court, rather than trying to oppose such things after they place cameras in our homes.
I feel like I'm locked in a Monty Python sketch, except this guy isn't even contradicting me, just spouting some foul refuse. Again, just because some idiots fell for some email hoax encouraging a ban on 'dihydrogen monoxide' (water) does NOT mean that all materiel safety issues are baseless. And I think it is completely ignorant and irresponsible to make such an allusion, as you are obviously doing.
IF what you say is true, his eyes likely glazed over because he already knew the information and warned the Bush administration multiple times with no equivocation, and even included several action plans, as this 2001 memo clearly documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf
That very memo (one of many) may possibly even include some of what those 'smart security folks' said.
Funny how despite numerous warnings and plans of action from various intelligence organizations, the Executive branch, whose job it is to coordinate that information and put plans into action, not only did not put any of the plans into motion, or for that matter do ANYTHING to respond to the security threats or obviously increased chatter... In fact, even after the Taliban destroyed many priceless world treasures and were actively aiding and abetting Osama, the Bush administration gave them MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Religious extremists tend to sympathize with one another.
Anyway, as a supporter of revolutions of higher expectations I must commend Obama for yet again attempting to break out of the beltway bubble for real solutions to real problems. Yes, he is up against bureaucracy, the party of no (Republicants), and the back stabbing Democratic party, but we have the best government on earth and an intelligent, wise, and ambitious leader who is determined to help us help ourselves.
If the media industry had caught on the track earlier and offered music at a reasonable price without any crippling DRM they would have been better off in sales. There are people willing to pay for it, if they can get it. Going torrent works for some, but some of us wants a reliable and legal source for our media.
Millions and millions of people think the music industry sells music at a reasonable price. Where do you think the music industry got all of its money?
If you don't think the price is reasonable, then don't buy it and wait till it plays on the radio or something. The world doesn't revolve around you. You don't get to set the price at which other people sell their stuff.
Millions of flies can't be wrong, eh? They got all their money through monopolistic practices, screwing the artists, price fixing, selling music on crap media, and selling the same thing over and over again.
For what it's worth, I agree with not purchasing crap. I saw someone on this discussion call a 320 kbps mp3 'high quality'. MP3 is so lossy, if they ever get a true music expert on the stand, all MP3's and other lossy compression should be considered a relatively 'low quality reproduction', and thus covered by fair usage under precedent from the betamax case. I wouldn't pay more than a few cents apiece for a song compressed using lossy compression, and I refuse to purchase media with ANY kind of active DRM after purchasing some PC games online and going through nightmarish hoops to install my own game on my own computer. I encourage everyone I know to adopt similar standards. Luckily, there have been viable alternatives, but at some point those alternatives will not exist, which will take our choice away.
I don't think there is ANYONE who wants to see their favorite artists deprived of payment for their performances. Unfortunately, because of corporate monopolies and collusion, with the exception of a few attempts such as Eddie Vedder's attempt to compete with ticketmaster or the Eagles releasing their own album (unfortunately through exclusivity agreement with Walmart), 90% of the money generated by the artists goes to paper and pencil pushers and their colluding companies. The robber barons are back in full force, they're just hiding behind the veneer of corporations.
Finally, I personally refuse to purchase any online music that is not lossless (see FLAC), DRM free, and accompanied by a license enabling me to download any song I purchased from the copyright holder in the case of catastrophic data failure as long as I live. I assert my right to fair usage of the CD's that I do purchase, including the right to back up media using lossless or no compression, and to even give my immediate friends and family low quality copies. I encourage others to do the same.
Hey! Don't let things like legal precedent and facts enter into the conversation! You might upset the corporate apologists and other tools.
I have no problem with businesses making their terms available and attempting to cover their liabilities, but I think it has gotten way out of hand. My opinion is that the whole concept of overwhelming consumers with literal pages of fine print in TOS's and EULA's, and then requiring them to accept the terms in order to use their product or service is clearly a deceptive trade practice, even before you talk about changing them with or without notice. Unfortunately corporations have virtually limitless legal and monetary resources to support these practices. Consumers' best hope is for high profile cases dealing with the most egregious abuses and / or class action suits.
I know, eh?? For fucks sake, they haven't even banned dihydrogen monoxide yet!! Bunch of anti-science weirdos, if you ask me...
Ban dihydrogen monoxide? Gee, that is SO original. Pretty sad how the same tired old crap gets brought up over and over, yet adds nothing to the discussion. I mean, from your post you are saying that all potential material safety dangers are akin to this laughable e-mail hoax, right? That seems quite an indefensible stance to me.
I disagree with the comparison of an airport bathroom with a street corner. Despite being someone who disagrees with the majority of fear mongering and removal of civil liberties in the wake of 9/11, the airport is the one place where I am willing to give up some privacy and convenience to gain more security. I flew approximately 40 times in 2003, and with the exception of one idiot TSA worker, had no problems with screenings, etc. In this case, if your TRULY worried about someone seeing your flaccid junk, then zip up before stepping back.
First off, if they had the ability and were just refusing due to "company policy", then both the first person in line who had the ability to make a reasonable decision to override the bill is at fault (and everyone else up the chain of command), AND the company is at fault for not realizing that there may be emergency situations such as this that arise. It's not like no one has ever conceived of this situation before.
If they were completely unable to do so, as in if the system is limited so that the only way the phone could be turned back on was if the bill was paid, and if there was no way to credit the account, then it is all on the company and the person responsible for the software. As someone who worked in technical support and customer service, I have had authorization and discretion to give $50 credit, in a company that needed the money a whole lot more than Verizon does. In this case, $20 could have saved this customer, possibly got more customers from the police that they helped, and possibly most importantly, would have received the good will of the community and good press, instead of this bad press. I can personally say that this just adds to the many other reasons I will never be a Verizon customer again.
While Lincoln MAY have said this, he is not the author. It is a proverb. And, like much of our "common knowledge" (which all too often includes urban myth) it is not necessarily true.
It's called "due process".
In a nutshell:
Do they have the right to inspect your equipment? Probably.
Do they have the right or authority to circumvent Constitutional protections and the due process thereof? Not a chance in hell.
Yeah, imagine the sheer audacity of these serfs for wanting something as worthless as freedom of speech. You know if an employee is talking about their company, they are surely doing so in the interest of denigrating and abusing their employer!
(HEAVY sarcasm, in case you're like the folks who think Colbert really is a neo-con)
If I thought like you two, I would have to change my name to Stanley.
When did 'denigration' and 'abuse' enter into this? Any 'denigration' or 'abuse' can be addressed by slander and defamation laws. The post clearly said 'negative'. A corporation could easily consider the TRUTH to be 'negative'. While they (corporations) have a definite right to protect certain proprietary and confidential information, they have NO right to cover up immoral and / or illegal acts. It is not only the right, but the responsibility of a member of a free society to question authority.
As long as you have a choice, yes, you have that right. However, when one corporation gets away with something, then others follow suit. When virtually all the corporations have the same draconian policy, then your choice, along with your right, gets taken from you.
I, for one, refuse to be a sheep or a tool.
* - I originally posted this anonymously, and as a result my reply was hidden. That is an answer to the people who say 'just post anonymously'. Even/. seems to frown on anonymity.
Slashdot Mirror
"Free market" forces don't deal with Tyrants, and they shouldn't.
As if the 'free market' has morals and doesn't deal with tyrants. I was and am calling that complete horse manure. Interesting how you never bothered to read that much of my post or the post I was responding to, yet I was the one whose post was modded as 'troll'. But that's right wing ideologues for you, they just support their own, never regarding things such as 'logic' or 'facts'. The bottom line is that the free market not only does not have morals, but commonly deals with tyrants of all stripes. Any claim to the contrary is ludicrous, especially in light of the fact that G.W. Bush's tyranny was arguably financed by China's tyranny. It doesn't matter what percentage of American debt that China holds. We were borrowing and spending significant amounts of China's money while actively engaging in our own tyranny. The one argument you seem to have found with my post is moot, and totally missing the point. Have I spelled it out in enough detail for you?
There is a difference in price on equipment, obviously, but the "huge difference" in price on media exists only in your head.
As you said, the largest difference is in the player, but you're trying to tell me it wouldn't be expensive to replace a moderate collection of DVD's with BD's? And there was huge difference in price until the last few months, and even now: http://www.amazon.com/Gran-Torino-Widescreen-Clint-Eastwood/dp/B001KVZ6F2 That looks like a $9 difference, which is far from small. Is 1/3 more not a large difference where you come from?
Meh. So I took a very small amount of poetic license to prove my point. Compared to right wing rhetoric it was a solid fact.
I'll try to stick with your most egregiously wrong statements to keep this fairly brief.
"Free market" forces don't deal with Tyrants, and they shouldn't.
They don't? Since when? Even when there are sanctions against a government, trade still occurs. And let's not forget who loaned Bush / America the money for the foreign policy debacle that was Iraq, as well as the bank bailout after all those 'free market' idiots enabled the bankers to play roulette with our money... China (or are you arguing that China is not a tyranny?)
You probably wouldn't be able to call the leader a "tyrant" or a "despot" either. It would be more like "benevolent ruler"
We have reasonably free market, yet Bush was clearly a tyrant. What else can you call someone who starts a war of choice and tries to legalize torture?
To flip the whole thing around, you can't have complete liberty if you don't have the freedom to trade. If you aren't free to trade to whoever you want, whenever you want, then you aren't completely free.
So far as I know, there is no place on earth that does not place SOME kind of rules and regulations on trade. Please show me these 'free' people. And demonstrate reasonably that they have absolutely no restrictions. For what it's worth, I'll agree that tyrannies commonly controlled trade ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.
It's not a free market if the government prevents individuals from competing.
This is the huge straw man argument of closet republicans (Libertarians), neocons, and every other corporate apologist. So far as I know, Rearden Steel never existed, and I have never heard of an instance where the American government tried to force a company to give technology to their competitor, although I could conceive of it happening in a limited number of special cases in WW2, since there were 2 military juggernauts threatening to take over the world. Since I'm not speaking German or Japanese, I'd say that it was a good move if it happened then.
If you want to see slavery (which occurs based on the morals head of society, and has nothing to do with the market) on a mass scale, go take a look at the USSR and their Communism...
This is the second biggest straw man argument of the corporate apologists and economic anarchists. First and foremost, It is not Socialism that made the USSR bad, it was CORRUPTION (not to mention having a paranoid sociopath like Stalin in charge for so long). No matter WHAT system you have in place, corruption will topple empires period. Did socialism open the door to corruption? Possibly, but in the long run corruption plus corporate domination (I wouldn't even call it a free market, since the corporations own 90% or the Republicants and 40% of the Democraps) has the potential to do as much if not more damage, and ultimately fall as hard if not harder.
Pot and kettle here. Of course L4t3r4lu5 was mistaken when thinking that he is watching movies that are 1920x1200, when DVD has a resolution of 720x480. But is that any more wrong than comparing digital 720x480 with analog 330x480? Especially when you have tracking issues, magnetic issues, and base material issues like stretching? Try playing a 5 year old VHS tape next to a 5 year old DVD...
My opinion is closer to L4t3r4lu5's in that HD / Blue Ray have many issues, including the fact that production standards (including makeup) are not in line with the quality of the output, and so you see flaws you would not normally see. Not to mention the huge price premium.on equipment and media for the privilege of seeing those imperfections. However nature shows are freaking brilliant, although I am curious as to exactly how high of definition the human eye can discern once you take out the placebo effect.
When it comes to Blue-ray, I think it is more proprietary crap being shoved down our throats. Sony may have won the PR game, but that's not saying much considering what America fell for from the Bush administration during the same time period. I personally resist proprietary crap as long and hard as possible. Hopefully Blue-ray will eventually go the way of their memory stick.
That's the exception that proves the rule.
So you're saying the vote would be public? That's a FAIL too.
I might accept traffic tickets and bad checks as potential indicators of trustworthiness... but carnal knowledge is listed as a class C offense (with D being the worst), along with sodomy. Carnal knowledge commonly refers to sexual acts in general (knowledge of the flesh). Sodomy commonly refers to anal and oral sex (legal in most states, should be legal in all states (providing there is mutual consent, of course)), and much less commonly bestiality. While I think that it is absolutely ludicrous to think that either of those things indicate trustworthiness (Many people have carnal knowledge of their spouse on a regular basis, likely including our President, the majority of our armed forces and intelligence agencies, as well as Senate members of intelligence subcommittees... a significant amount of those same people also likely engage in sodomy as well). This is really humorous in light of J Edgar Hoover and his rumored sexual proclivities... especially since this is the sort of thing I could see him creating.
There are several other questionable things on the matrix, which should likely be reviewed and changed just in the name of efficacy. Many of the other things I see on that chart seem quite reasonable in assessing the risk of a security breach, if nothing else from a standpoint that it is better to err on the side of caution.
In regards to JPL and HSPD #12, I think the major national security issue is related to the fact that while a disturbing amount of countries have the ability to construct a nuclear device, one of the big tricks is getting that device to detonate far enough away from said country to do more damage to the target then to said country. The other big trick is sending said weapon to another continent. ICBM's require advanced propulsion as well as satellite technology. Whether or not such measures at JPL are effective, considering how many loopholes corporations use to export sensitive technology to boycotted nations is another argument entirely...and then there's the amount of publicly available information as well. Again, from the standpoint that it is better to err on the side of caution, it seems reasonable to require security checks on JPL employees.
Where this is potentially dangerous in my opinion is if these types of security checks are considered unconstitutional for JPL employees, they will be considered as such for other government contractors...which could conceivably pose even more significant risk.
Ultimately, I hope we use this situation as an opportunity to modernize and revamp the security clearance process without causing undue security risks. I believe a review of the efficacy of the varied suitability matrix in determining security risk would have been sufficient, but if it has to happen under the auspices of Constitutionality, so be it, as long as it is done in a timely fashion and does not break the process of Government security clearance screening.
You are correct. I feel pretty stupid. German was even spoken by my grandparents... I guess I shouldn't have tried spelling in it without checking.
Funny, you are for the most part preaching to the choir. I agree that for the most part the obvious security holes we know about have been addressed, and in some cases with a very heavy hand. On the other hand, to ignore the fact that planes can be used as weapons that create much more death and destruction than most other attacks would be stupid. While the liquid explosive scare was laughable when you think of someone attempting to execute some touchy chemistry that produces noxious fumes either in their seat or in the plane bathroom; it becomes less so when you consider the airport bathroom as a potential location for the necessary reactions.
I am personally not worried about dying in a terrorist attack at all. No one should be. Better chance of getting struck by lightning, never mind car accidents, etc.
That said, I still must say that YES, IMO planes have the potential for the higher casualty rate as well as more press coverage than a bus, especially considering the bus depots I've been in had nowhere near as many people going through them as the airports I've been through. Buses are not filled with jet fuel either. Nor could they build up anywhere near as much impetus as a plane.
I am slightly unsure concerning subways, as I have never been in one. I could surmise, especially considering the Sarin gas attack, that unless they somehow managed to get tons of ANFO or some other destructive and/or poisonous materials in undetected, it would be hard to match the destruction of sheer impetus and jet fuel.
I agree that the terrorists are trying to destroy our freedoms and turn our government into the monster that their propaganda claims it to be. The irony is not lost on me that that is exactly what the Bush administration attempted to do by turning 9/11 into their Reichstag fire, used to justify the Patriot act, an aggressive unjust war, and the suspension of Constitutional and Human Rights for those deemed 'enemy combatants', etc.,etc.,etc.
Thus comes my lack of opposition to a camera in an airport bathroom:
1. There IS a credible threat(however slim), as well as warranted fears.
2. Hopefully this kind of thing will placate those that unreasonably fear attacks, as well as those that would prey upon such fears. Refusal to compromise often leaves you with no position at all.
3. Allowing some types of surveillance in potentially warranted situations at little risk to our personal liberties also creates test cases to be fought in court, rather than trying to oppose such things after they place cameras in our homes.
I feel like I'm locked in a Monty Python sketch, except this guy isn't even contradicting me, just spouting some foul refuse. Again, just because some idiots fell for some email hoax encouraging a ban on 'dihydrogen monoxide' (water) does NOT mean that all materiel safety issues are baseless. And I think it is completely ignorant and irresponsible to make such an allusion, as you are obviously doing.
IF what you say is true, his eyes likely glazed over because he already knew the information and warned the Bush administration multiple times with no equivocation, and even included several action plans, as this 2001 memo clearly documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf
That very memo (one of many) may possibly even include some of what those 'smart security folks' said.
Funny how despite numerous warnings and plans of action from various intelligence organizations, the Executive branch, whose job it is to coordinate that information and put plans into action, not only did not put any of the plans into motion, or for that matter do ANYTHING to respond to the security threats or obviously increased chatter... In fact, even after the Taliban destroyed many priceless world treasures and were actively aiding and abetting Osama, the Bush administration gave them MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Religious extremists tend to sympathize with one another.
Anyway, as a supporter of revolutions of higher expectations I must commend Obama for yet again attempting to break out of the beltway bubble for real solutions to real problems. Yes, he is up against bureaucracy, the party of no (Republicants), and the back stabbing Democratic party, but we have the best government on earth and an intelligent, wise, and ambitious leader who is determined to help us help ourselves.
Almost seems like the author has never heard of slugs or counterfeit coins. The only way to eliminate those two would be body cavity searches. Next...
What if you are German, or want to find German sites containing information on the number six (sex)?
Millions and millions of people think the music industry sells music at a reasonable price. Where do you think the music industry got all of its money?
If you don't think the price is reasonable, then don't buy it and wait till it plays on the radio or something. The world doesn't revolve around you. You don't get to set the price at which other people sell their stuff.
Millions of flies can't be wrong, eh? They got all their money through monopolistic practices, screwing the artists, price fixing, selling music on crap media, and selling the same thing over and over again. For what it's worth, I agree with not purchasing crap. I saw someone on this discussion call a 320 kbps mp3 'high quality'. MP3 is so lossy, if they ever get a true music expert on the stand, all MP3's and other lossy compression should be considered a relatively 'low quality reproduction', and thus covered by fair usage under precedent from the betamax case. I wouldn't pay more than a few cents apiece for a song compressed using lossy compression, and I refuse to purchase media with ANY kind of active DRM after purchasing some PC games online and going through nightmarish hoops to install my own game on my own computer. I encourage everyone I know to adopt similar standards. Luckily, there have been viable alternatives, but at some point those alternatives will not exist, which will take our choice away. I don't think there is ANYONE who wants to see their favorite artists deprived of payment for their performances. Unfortunately, because of corporate monopolies and collusion, with the exception of a few attempts such as Eddie Vedder's attempt to compete with ticketmaster or the Eagles releasing their own album (unfortunately through exclusivity agreement with Walmart), 90% of the money generated by the artists goes to paper and pencil pushers and their colluding companies. The robber barons are back in full force, they're just hiding behind the veneer of corporations. Finally, I personally refuse to purchase any online music that is not lossless (see FLAC), DRM free, and accompanied by a license enabling me to download any song I purchased from the copyright holder in the case of catastrophic data failure as long as I live. I assert my right to fair usage of the CD's that I do purchase, including the right to back up media using lossless or no compression, and to even give my immediate friends and family low quality copies. I encourage others to do the same.
Hey! Don't let things like legal precedent and facts enter into the conversation! You might upset the corporate apologists and other tools. I have no problem with businesses making their terms available and attempting to cover their liabilities, but I think it has gotten way out of hand. My opinion is that the whole concept of overwhelming consumers with literal pages of fine print in TOS's and EULA's, and then requiring them to accept the terms in order to use their product or service is clearly a deceptive trade practice, even before you talk about changing them with or without notice. Unfortunately corporations have virtually limitless legal and monetary resources to support these practices. Consumers' best hope is for high profile cases dealing with the most egregious abuses and / or class action suits.
I know, eh?? For fucks sake, they haven't even banned dihydrogen monoxide yet!! Bunch of anti-science weirdos, if you ask me ...
Ban dihydrogen monoxide? Gee, that is SO original. Pretty sad how the same tired old crap gets brought up over and over, yet adds nothing to the discussion. I mean, from your post you are saying that all potential material safety dangers are akin to this laughable e-mail hoax, right? That seems quite an indefensible stance to me.
I disagree with the comparison of an airport bathroom with a street corner. Despite being someone who disagrees with the majority of fear mongering and removal of civil liberties in the wake of 9/11, the airport is the one place where I am willing to give up some privacy and convenience to gain more security. I flew approximately 40 times in 2003, and with the exception of one idiot TSA worker, had no problems with screenings, etc. In this case, if your TRULY worried about someone seeing your flaccid junk, then zip up before stepping back.
First off, if they had the ability and were just refusing due to "company policy", then both the first person in line who had the ability to make a reasonable decision to override the bill is at fault (and everyone else up the chain of command), AND the company is at fault for not realizing that there may be emergency situations such as this that arise. It's not like no one has ever conceived of this situation before. If they were completely unable to do so, as in if the system is limited so that the only way the phone could be turned back on was if the bill was paid, and if there was no way to credit the account, then it is all on the company and the person responsible for the software. As someone who worked in technical support and customer service, I have had authorization and discretion to give $50 credit, in a company that needed the money a whole lot more than Verizon does. In this case, $20 could have saved this customer, possibly got more customers from the police that they helped, and possibly most importantly, would have received the good will of the community and good press, instead of this bad press. I can personally say that this just adds to the many other reasons I will never be a Verizon customer again.
While Lincoln MAY have said this, he is not the author. It is a proverb. And, like much of our "common knowledge" (which all too often includes urban myth) it is not necessarily true.
It's called "due process". In a nutshell: Do they have the right to inspect your equipment? Probably. Do they have the right or authority to circumvent Constitutional protections and the due process thereof? Not a chance in hell.
Yeah, imagine the sheer audacity of these serfs for wanting something as worthless as freedom of speech. You know if an employee is talking about their company, they are surely doing so in the interest of denigrating and abusing their employer! (HEAVY sarcasm, in case you're like the folks who think Colbert really is a neo-con) If I thought like you two, I would have to change my name to Stanley.
When did 'denigration' and 'abuse' enter into this? Any 'denigration' or 'abuse' can be addressed by slander and defamation laws. The post clearly said 'negative'. A corporation could easily consider the TRUTH to be 'negative'. While they (corporations) have a definite right to protect certain proprietary and confidential information, they have NO right to cover up immoral and / or illegal acts. It is not only the right, but the responsibility of a member of a free society to question authority. As long as you have a choice, yes, you have that right. However, when one corporation gets away with something, then others follow suit. When virtually all the corporations have the same draconian policy, then your choice, along with your right, gets taken from you. I, for one, refuse to be a sheep or a tool. * - I originally posted this anonymously, and as a result my reply was hidden. That is an answer to the people who say 'just post anonymously'. Even /. seems to frown on anonymity.