Look - MS has slightly different standards than the industry in lots of areas. The fact that MS mail handling, HTML generation and interpretation, and other things are not entirely compatible with the accepted (or official) standards is nothing new.
So, in this case, they're just using the MS standard for PRNG. The industry sees it as a pseudo random number generator. For MS, it's a predictable random number generator. Just because the rest of the industry hasn't caught up with Microsoft yet is no reason to assume MS is wrong. You Linux zealots just always assume your way is right.
And why would it matter whether I know the person? What I care about here is my nation. I want my nation to be just. You know, "Truth, Justice, and The American Way". I like being proud to be an American. And I am. But lately I'm a bit ashamed of our government.
They -want- all the heavy users to leave and leave them with only light users that pay full price. It's their dream situation.
Aye - but I'm their dream customer. Maybe an hour of SSH a week, maybe two hours of Google Videos a month, normal email volume, an hour of web surfing a day, and a little Warcraft. And I always buy the high bandwidth option. ISPs love me.
Comcast is 'throwing a spanner in the works of the Internet, hoping that this will somehow reduce bandwidth usage overall.'
Honestly, I have to give Comcast this point. I was thinking about signing up with Comcast, but now will be going with Copowi instead. That'll save Comcast some bandwidth.
First off, I'm not a fan of Greenpeace, and I do think that they targetted the iPhone because of the increased publicity it would bring.
However, Greenpeace did not admit that is what they are doing. The summary is incorrect.
If you think we just protest against Apple then look out for soon a report covering a wide range of manufacturers as we have done in 2006. While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers to remove toxic chemicals from their products.
What Greenpeace said is the opposite of what the summary claims they said. Greenpeace said that they recognize that their report on the iPhone did capture more headlines, but that they do, and have done, the same thing with other phones. Greenpeace is claiming that they did not focus on the iPhone in order to capture headlines, that it happened because the media is more interested in news relating to the iPhone. Which also makes perfect sense, because that is what their readers want to read about (not whether it's right or wrong for them to report what the people want to hear, but that is the way it is).
So again, I agree that Greenpeace almost certainly did focus on the issue in order to attract attention to the issue, and that that is their standard operating procedure, it is clearly false that they admitted to it.
MIT is cooperating with the state police in the investigation, according to a statement released by the MIT News Office this afternoon. "As reported to us by authorities, Ms. Simpson's actions were reckless and understandably created alarm at the airport," the statement continues.
Engineering students creating personal technology, wearing it at a job fair, then forgetting to take it off when picking up a friend at the airport is reckless? I would expect a bit more balanced response from what is supposed to be a respectable engineering school, particularly one with such a long and legendary history of hackery.
Don't get me wrong, I think the police reacted relatively appropriately. And I can understand people who are ignorant about electronics being terrified (that's the whole goal of terrorism, and some people have succumbed to it). But pressing charges? That is ridiculous, and the fact that MIT is not pointing that out is wrong. It sends a terrible message to their budding geeks about restricting technological exploration to officially authorized paths. If this is what MIT has come to, it's no surprise we're getting our asses kicked in technology.
First, he assumes that all elliptical galaxies have a point-of-view from which they appear circular. I don't think anyone has determined this to be the case, and he doesn't really have a way to get this from his data.
I'm curious - and not an astrophysicist. Would it be possible to determine this by checking the difference in red-shift between the stars on one side and those on the other? Or is the red shift over such a "small" distance drowned out by the difference in the types of stars?
When my girlfriend worked at wal-mart last year she made $8.50/hour, while the minimum wage was $5.15. Before that she worked for a small business downtown which paid her $5.50. Six years ago when I worked at wal-mart they paid me $7.50/hr.
Real data. I like that in a post.
So yes, wal-mart does usually pay significantly better than other retail businesses.
However, this statement is neither supported nor contradicted by your data. Your data indicates what the minimum wage is, but does not specify the typical pay rate at other retail businesses in the same economic area.
>> This, of course, comes with a huge disclaimer to the effect that I have no inside information as to the structure of the Vista kernel, and might be completely making all of this up.
> Yeah, I think that might be Microsoft's problem as well.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Wow - thank you for starting my day with a healthy belly laugh.:)
Alienware made its mark selling tricked-out computers to gamers, so it's telling that the company doesn't think its traditional geeky customer can handle CableCard without professional help.
Alienware made its name that way. Dell made its name by getting ultra-cheap components built in lots of a million, thus undercutting competitors on spec/price, but producing machines that are unsatisfactory to geeky customers. Frankly, if there is a person who used to buy Alienware gear who is now willing to buy a Dell, just because of the brand name, they need to seek professional help.
OK - everybody at once now, just shout out the answer: What is the most reactionary major news aggregator when it comes to open source?
If you said, "Slashdot", go get yourself a cookie.
Back? OK.
What were the two most popular tags on the MySQL story?
Let's jump in the wayback machine.....
Ahh yes, "misleading, badtitle."
Gee, yeah, there's a bunch of people bashing MySQL. No, this reactionary open source community said, "Nope, that's not right, MySQL is just limiting downloads of the premium product to their premium subscribers." Ferfucksake, if you're going to bash a community for doing something, at least have the decency to bash them for doing something they've actually done.
The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading. - Freeman Dyson
I don't know enough about the human involvement part yet to disagree with him (though I've been looking into it, and the research is compelling enough to keep me reading). But I have pored over the numbers on the temperature record, and when he says it is inconclusive, he is mistaken. I think he has not looked at the data very thoroughly, and that this fact is quickly demonstrated by his inaccurate statement that the effect has been greatest in the arctic.
I'd love to see original scientific research on the question on global warming, but it seems that everyone with an opinion on global warming is merely a pundit for either the right or the left.
only real knowledge of Linux is "if it's so good, why would you give it away for free"?"
While I can't help much with the advocacy side, I may be able to help you with this one.
If your manager went to business school, he probably took price theory. If he did that, the question above is very easy to answer. Just ask him, "In a free-market capitalist society, what is the efficient market price of a mass market good whose marginal cost of production is zero?"
WARNING: If he has not taken price theory (and even if he did but did not really "get" it) and you present this to him, chances are he will not understand. In that case, he may react much like a gorilla presented with a clear box full of fruit that is closed with a latch that he does not understand.
Price theory says that the efficient market price of any mass market good is equal to the marginal cost of production. The marginal cost of production is the difference in cost between producing the first unit and producing the second unit (it's a little more complex than this, because marginal cost tends to not be a straight line curve, but it is a flat straight line with operating systems, so it works). With something like an operating system, the marginal cost of production is zero - once you make the first copy, the second copy costs nothing to produce. Therefore, the efficient market price of operating systems is zero.
Theory of price asserts that the market price reflects interaction between two opposing considerations. On the one side are demand considerations based on marginal utility, while on the other side are supply considerations based on marginal cost. An equilibrium price is supposed to be at once equal to marginal utility (counted in units of income) from the buyer's side and marginal cost from the seller's side. Though this view is accepted by almost every economist, and it constitutes the core of mainstream economics, it has recently been challenged seriously.
In short, the more interesting question is, "Why would any corporation in a free market capitalist society pay for an operating system?" It makes sense to pay for service because the marginal cost of an hour of technical support is significantly non-zero. It does not make sense to pay for an operating system.
I loved Webvan. My friends loved Webvan. To this day, I think it was one of the best ideas to come out of the dot-com era, even though it was one of the first companies to go under when the bubble burst.
This time there's a minimum order of $50, and a small delivery charge for orders under $150. That solves a big chunk of Webvan's business model problem.
Roads also facilitate theft. Roads also have police to patrol and set up roadblocks if necessary, that sort of thing. But funds are appropriated for such services. If one is to mandate that measures be taken to prevent intellectual property theft, one should provide a plan for funding of such an endeavor. It's not a universities fault that students steal any more than it is a construction worker's fault of someone later uses a road to facilitate a crime because the road happens to go past a bank.
Well, the problem is that you are missing a fundamental point here. It's not a matter of funding police, because the pontificators in congress don't know how to solve the problem. Because it can't be solved. But they're not willing to accept that, because their employers (the MAFIAA) will not let them accept it. So they're between a rock and a hard place; problem is impossible to solve (at least in any economically efficient manner), but their employers are requiring them to solve it.
Solution? Write a law that requires the universities to solve the problem. Like magic, no more problem. They can tell their employers they've done their job, and they dump the messy "economically non-viable" problem in someone else's lap. It's a win/win solution.
An appeal that is clearly from the heart, and yet also supported by rational evidence. Very well written. Sorry I didn't get a chance to cap the score.
> > I also believe in fairly stiff penalties for breaking the law
> What if the law is immoral and unjust, oppressing my natural human right (god-given if you prefer) to freedom and self-ownership instead of protecting it?
I understand that reading all the way to the end of a sentence can be trying at times. I apologize for not limiting myself to sound bites, but unfortunately it is not possible to have a serious discussion about a complex topic in fragments. I will reproduce, below, my entire sentence. I understand that after 7 or 8 words it may start to get boring, particularly if you grew up with television instead of books, but I implore you - please read the entire sentence before ranting.
> > I also believe in fairly stiff penalties for breaking the law (though I would add that I feel that harsher penalties for real crimes should be balanced with reducing the breadth of behavior that the government restricts).
Or, to apply your reductionist approach to your post:
What if the law is... god-given... ?
I do not believe in god-given laws, because one's relationship with the metaphysical world is an entirely personal matter. It is neither subject to, nor the authority over, secular government. The two may conflict, in which case you will be punished by one and rewarded by the other. It is an unfortunate choice one has to make.
I support surveillance by law enforcement agencies. I also believe in fairly stiff penalties for breaking the law (though I would add that I feel that harsher penalties for real crimes should be balanced with reducing the breadth of behavior that the government restricts). However, I am opposed to the use of spyware on the suspect's property for such surveillance. Why this conundrum?
The problem is that technology is getting closer to us all the time. The barrier between man and machine is becoming much narrower. And that is a good thing. At the far end of the spectrum people have long been getting artificial hearing enhancers, and now we are starting on intelligent artificial eyes and limbs. People with epilepsy are getting electronics embedded in their brains. At the nearer end of the spectrum, a large percentage of the population now carries a small computer with them everywhere (their cell phone). The man/machine split is disappearing.
So what? Well, we have a problem developing if the government assumes that anything that does not have your genome is fair game for them to crack. Today it is the suspect's computer. This already poses a problem if the suspect is, for example, engaged in legitimate contracting for some corporation - should the government have the right to compromise the security of that corporation because one of their employees is breaking the law?
But what of the more tightly coupled technology? Should the government be allowed to plant a bug in my hearing aid? Should they be allowed to tap the signals coming from my artificial eyes? Should they be allowed to monitor the same brain activity patterns that my seizure mitigating device monitors?
The problem is that we are becoming more closely coupled with technology, and that is a good thing. We are the first species in history to actively engage in our own evolution. But if we cannot trust our technology, it creates a barrier to that evolutionary step. I have the right not to self-incriminate. But if a computer is part of me, where does the line get drawn?
So I presume you are against the police using spyware as a tool in all circumstances?
I am opposed to the police using my property to collect evidence against me. It is much akin to my support for the right to not self-incriminate. You want to use your stuff to conduct surveillance? Cool (as long as you have proper authority, etc). But my stuff is my stuff.
Why is this important? Because in order for technology to take an increasing role in our personal lives, we must be able to trust our technology as much as we trust ourselves. Technology takes on a hostile role towards us (as in the case DRM, spyware, botnets, etc) creates a barrier of distrust between us and the technology. It will forestall the merging of mind and machine. That is contrary to our best interest as a species.
Slashdot Mirror
Look - MS has slightly different standards than the industry in lots of areas. The fact that MS mail handling, HTML generation and interpretation, and other things are not entirely compatible with the accepted (or official) standards is nothing new.
So, in this case, they're just using the MS standard for PRNG. The industry sees it as a pseudo random number generator. For MS, it's a predictable random number generator. Just because the rest of the industry hasn't caught up with Microsoft yet is no reason to assume MS is wrong. You Linux zealots just always assume your way is right.
And this is happening to people you know? You're getting both sides of the story? They're being killed or kept indefinitely?
Haven't seen any examples of indefinite imprisonment yet today, but here's an innocent man who was shot seven times in the head by police in London:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/01/charles.menezes/?iref=mpstoryview
Granted, that's not the US, but given that the story on the verdict broke today, I figured the temporal relevance made it pertinent.
As for a good US example, here you go:
http://www.psychsound.com/2007/10/a_tale_of_two_decisions_or_how.html
And why would it matter whether I know the person? What I care about here is my nation. I want my nation to be just. You know, "Truth, Justice, and The American Way". I like being proud to be an American. And I am. But lately I'm a bit ashamed of our government.
They -want- all the heavy users to leave and leave them with only light users that pay full price. It's their dream situation.
Aye - but I'm their dream customer. Maybe an hour of SSH a week, maybe two hours of Google Videos a month, normal email volume, an hour of web surfing a day, and a little Warcraft. And I always buy the high bandwidth option. ISPs love me.
Comcast is 'throwing a spanner in the works of the Internet, hoping that this will somehow reduce bandwidth usage overall.'
Honestly, I have to give Comcast this point. I was thinking about signing up with Comcast, but now will be going with Copowi instead. That'll save Comcast some bandwidth.
First off, I'm not a fan of Greenpeace, and I do think that they targetted the iPhone because of the increased publicity it would bring.
However, Greenpeace did not admit that is what they are doing. The summary is incorrect.
If you think we just protest against Apple then look out for soon a report covering a wide range of manufacturers as we have done in 2006. While it might not make as many headlines as the iPhone it doesn't mean that we are not focusing on all manufacturers to remove toxic chemicals from their products.
What Greenpeace said is the opposite of what the summary claims they said. Greenpeace said that they recognize that their report on the iPhone did capture more headlines, but that they do, and have done, the same thing with other phones. Greenpeace is claiming that they did not focus on the iPhone in order to capture headlines, that it happened because the media is more interested in news relating to the iPhone. Which also makes perfect sense, because that is what their readers want to read about (not whether it's right or wrong for them to report what the people want to hear, but that is the way it is).
So again, I agree that Greenpeace almost certainly did focus on the issue in order to attract attention to the issue, and that that is their standard operating procedure, it is clearly false that they admitted to it.
Time for us to bring out the "Ministry of Silly Walks".
Just walk around goofy...
Haven't you heard? Intentionally acting abnormal is a Federal offense.
MIT is cooperating with the state police in the investigation, according to a statement released by the MIT News Office this afternoon. "As reported to us by authorities, Ms. Simpson's actions were reckless and understandably created alarm at the airport," the statement continues.
Engineering students creating personal technology, wearing it at a job fair, then forgetting to take it off when picking up a friend at the airport is reckless? I would expect a bit more balanced response from what is supposed to be a respectable engineering school, particularly one with such a long and legendary history of hackery.
Don't get me wrong, I think the police reacted relatively appropriately. And I can understand people who are ignorant about electronics being terrified (that's the whole goal of terrorism, and some people have succumbed to it). But pressing charges? That is ridiculous, and the fact that MIT is not pointing that out is wrong. It sends a terrible message to their budding geeks about restricting technological exploration to officially authorized paths. If this is what MIT has come to, it's no surprise we're getting our asses kicked in technology.
poisonous weed that has been used as a remedy for constipation
Sure, we all dislike being blocked up - but it's nothing to kill yourself over.
This phenomena has been heavily reported by the much maligned Frank Chu.
First, he assumes that all elliptical galaxies have a point-of-view from which they appear circular. I don't think anyone has determined this to be the case, and he doesn't really have a way to get this from his data.
I'm curious - and not an astrophysicist. Would it be possible to determine this by checking the difference in red-shift between the stars on one side and those on the other? Or is the red shift over such a "small" distance drowned out by the difference in the types of stars?
When my girlfriend worked at wal-mart last year she made $8.50/hour, while the minimum wage was $5.15. Before that she worked for a small business downtown which paid her $5.50. Six years ago when I worked at wal-mart they paid me $7.50/hr.
Real data. I like that in a post.
So yes, wal-mart does usually pay significantly better than other retail businesses.
However, this statement is neither supported nor contradicted by your data. Your data indicates what the minimum wage is, but does not specify the typical pay rate at other retail businesses in the same economic area.
>> This, of course, comes with a huge disclaimer to the effect that I have no inside information as to the structure of the Vista kernel, and might be completely making all of this up.
:)
> Yeah, I think that might be Microsoft's problem as well.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Wow - thank you for starting my day with a healthy belly laugh.
The prices in USA really scares me.
I am paying around $30 for 10Mbps, guaranteed, both directions. For around $50 I can get 100Mbps.
You think that's scary? You should try buying prescription drugs here.
Alienware made its mark selling tricked-out computers to gamers, so it's telling that the company doesn't think its traditional geeky customer can handle CableCard without professional help.
Alienware made its name that way. Dell made its name by getting ultra-cheap components built in lots of a million, thus undercutting competitors on spec/price, but producing machines that are unsatisfactory to geeky customers. Frankly, if there is a person who used to buy Alienware gear who is now willing to buy a Dell, just because of the brand name, they need to seek professional help.
WTF is this dork talking about?!?
OK - everybody at once now, just shout out the answer: What is the most reactionary major news aggregator when it comes to open source?
If you said, "Slashdot", go get yourself a cookie.
Back? OK.
What were the two most popular tags on the MySQL story?
Let's jump in the wayback machine.....
Ahh yes, "misleading, badtitle."
Gee, yeah, there's a bunch of people bashing MySQL. No, this reactionary open source community said, "Nope, that's not right, MySQL is just limiting downloads of the premium product to their premium subscribers." Ferfucksake, if you're going to bash a community for doing something, at least have the decency to bash them for doing something they've actually done.
Dumbass.
The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading. - Freeman Dyson
. html
. htmlo data.html
The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70N. - NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming
I don't know enough about the human involvement part yet to disagree with him (though I've been looking into it, and the research is compelling enough to keep me reading). But I have pored over the numbers on the temperature record, and when he says it is inconclusive, he is mistaken. I think he has not looked at the data very thoroughly, and that this fact is quickly demonstrated by his inaccurate statement that the effect has been greatest in the arctic.
More data here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pale
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
I'd love to see original scientific research on the question on global warming, but it seems that everyone with an opinion on global warming is merely a pundit for either the right or the left.
. htmlo data.html
The NOAA and CRU are the two best sources I've found for the raw data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/mpp/freedata.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pale
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain about the US court system now.
Oh, I think I can take a shot at that.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/12.html
only real knowledge of Linux is "if it's so good, why would you give it away for free"?"
While I can't help much with the advocacy side, I may be able to help you with this one.
If your manager went to business school, he probably took price theory. If he did that, the question above is very easy to answer. Just ask him, "In a free-market capitalist society, what is the efficient market price of a mass market good whose marginal cost of production is zero?"
WARNING: If he has not taken price theory (and even if he did but did not really "get" it) and you present this to him, chances are he will not understand. In that case, he may react much like a gorilla presented with a clear box full of fruit that is closed with a latch that he does not understand.
Price theory says that the efficient market price of any mass market good is equal to the marginal cost of production. The marginal cost of production is the difference in cost between producing the first unit and producing the second unit (it's a little more complex than this, because marginal cost tends to not be a straight line curve, but it is a flat straight line with operating systems, so it works). With something like an operating system, the marginal cost of production is zero - once you make the first copy, the second copy costs nothing to produce. Therefore, the efficient market price of operating systems is zero.
The following is from the Wikipedia entry for price.
Theory of price asserts that the market price reflects interaction between two opposing considerations. On the one side are demand considerations based on marginal utility, while on the other side are supply considerations based on marginal cost. An equilibrium price is supposed to be at once equal to marginal utility (counted in units of income) from the buyer's side and marginal cost from the seller's side. Though this view is accepted by almost every economist, and it constitutes the core of mainstream economics, it has recently been challenged seriously.
In short, the more interesting question is, "Why would any corporation in a free market capitalist society pay for an operating system?" It makes sense to pay for service because the marginal cost of an hour of technical support is significantly non-zero. It does not make sense to pay for an operating system.
I loved Webvan. My friends loved Webvan. To this day, I think it was one of the best ideas to come out of the dot-com era, even though it was one of the first companies to go under when the bubble burst.
Safeway / Vans are starting it up again.
http://shop.safeway.com/
This time there's a minimum order of $50, and a small
delivery charge for orders under $150. That solves a
big chunk of Webvan's business model problem.
Roads also facilitate theft. Roads also have police to patrol and set up roadblocks if necessary, that sort of thing. But funds are appropriated for such services. If one is to mandate that measures be taken to prevent intellectual property theft, one should provide a plan for funding of such an endeavor. It's not a universities fault that students steal any more than it is a construction worker's fault of someone later uses a road to facilitate a crime because the road happens to go past a bank.
Well, the problem is that you are missing a fundamental point here. It's not a matter of funding police, because the pontificators in congress don't know how to solve the problem. Because it can't be solved. But they're not willing to accept that, because their employers (the MAFIAA) will not let them accept it. So they're between a rock and a hard place; problem is impossible to solve (at least in any economically efficient manner), but their employers are requiring them to solve it.
Solution? Write a law that requires the universities to solve the problem. Like magic, no more problem. They can tell their employers they've done their job, and they dump the messy "economically non-viable" problem in someone else's lap. It's a win/win solution.
An appeal that is clearly from the heart, and yet also supported by rational evidence. Very well written. Sorry I didn't get a chance to cap the score.
> > I also believe in fairly stiff penalties for breaking the law
... god-given ... ?
> What if the law is immoral and unjust, oppressing my natural human right (god-given if you prefer) to freedom and self-ownership instead of protecting it?
I understand that reading all the way to the end of a sentence can be trying at times. I apologize for not limiting myself to sound bites, but unfortunately it is not possible to have a serious discussion about a complex topic in fragments. I will reproduce, below, my entire sentence. I understand that after 7 or 8 words it may start to get boring, particularly if you grew up with television instead of books, but I implore you - please read the entire sentence before ranting.
> > I also believe in fairly stiff penalties for breaking the law (though I would add that I feel that harsher penalties for real crimes should be balanced with reducing the breadth of behavior that the government restricts).
Or, to apply your reductionist approach to your post:
What if the law is
I do not believe in god-given laws, because one's relationship with the metaphysical world is an entirely personal matter. It is neither subject to, nor the authority over, secular government. The two may conflict, in which case you will be punished by one and rewarded by the other. It is an unfortunate choice one has to make.
I support surveillance by law enforcement agencies. I also believe in fairly stiff penalties for breaking the law (though I would add that I feel that harsher penalties for real crimes should be balanced with reducing the breadth of behavior that the government restricts). However, I am opposed to the use of spyware on the suspect's property for such surveillance. Why this conundrum?
The problem is that technology is getting closer to us all the time. The barrier between man and machine is becoming much narrower. And that is a good thing. At the far end of the spectrum people have long been getting artificial hearing enhancers, and now we are starting on intelligent artificial eyes and limbs. People with epilepsy are getting electronics embedded in their brains. At the nearer end of the spectrum, a large percentage of the population now carries a small computer with them everywhere (their cell phone). The man/machine split is disappearing.
So what? Well, we have a problem developing if the government assumes that anything that does not have your genome is fair game for them to crack. Today it is the suspect's computer. This already poses a problem if the suspect is, for example, engaged in legitimate contracting for some corporation - should the government have the right to compromise the security of that corporation because one of their employees is breaking the law?
But what of the more tightly coupled technology? Should the government be allowed to plant a bug in my hearing aid? Should they be allowed to tap the signals coming from my artificial eyes? Should they be allowed to monitor the same brain activity patterns that my seizure mitigating device monitors?
The problem is that we are becoming more closely coupled with technology, and that is a good thing. We are the first species in history to actively engage in our own evolution. But if we cannot trust our technology, it creates a barrier to that evolutionary step. I have the right not to self-incriminate. But if a computer is part of me, where does the line get drawn?
So I presume you are against the police using spyware as a tool in all circumstances?
I am opposed to the police using my property to collect evidence against me. It is much akin to my support for the right to not self-incriminate. You want to use your stuff to conduct surveillance? Cool (as long as you have proper authority, etc). But my stuff is my stuff.
Why is this important? Because in order for technology to take an increasing role in our personal lives, we must be able to trust our technology as much as we trust ourselves. Technology takes on a hostile role towards us (as in the case DRM, spyware, botnets, etc) creates a barrier of distrust between us and the technology. It will forestall the merging of mind and machine. That is contrary to our best interest as a species.