When a guy that has enough knowledge and comfort to actually install and run linux STILL didn't know all the esoteric reasons why you need a specific GPU or WiFi card, etc, how could you ever hope for a regular joe-user to know? The whole point of having Linux preinstalled on a complete system is so the average "joe-user" doesn't have to make hardware compatibility decisions to get a working system.
Or is the big hurdle here that you think the average joe-user is out modding their computers with new hardware and will be tripped up by compatibility problems?. That is not my understanding of joe-user, joe-user gets a computer and expects it to work out of the box, he doesn't install new hardware and doesn't install the OS from scratch and configure it to run his hardware. The most he will ever do is hook up a new printer or plug in a usb device before he gets the next computer.
So, the problem here is a chicken and egg problem not an inherent Linux problem. As long as linux is not preinstalled, then you are right about it not being ready for the average user, because the average user isn't going to be installing an OS from scratch, they are going to let Dell figure it out.
Whether or not this is a GOOD thing (i think it is, personally), users are accustom to something that Microsoft does that/. gives them no credit for: Ensuring hardware compatibility--usually "plug & play" style--for nearly anything that you can buy at Best Buy or Dell or CompUSA. You think Microsoft does this? Microsoft are not the ones developing the device drivers that ensure plug and play compatibility. They simply publish an api and hardware manufacturers publish drivers compatible with that api. And the reason there are so many devices that are compatible is simply because of their market position not anything to do with what they do differently. Again it is simply a chicken and egg problem to be solved by seeking wider adoption of the platform, not a flaw in Linux.
No, you are missing the point. Only a true geek would care if they are compiling from source or getting a binary. If it is made to be an intuitive download with the same number of clicks (or fewer) to install the software and get it working, then the user doesn't care what is going on behind that click.
Hell, I just use ubuntu's apt-get for most of my software needs. I don't really care how it gets the software, it just does, and then I click on it and use it. And it was also refreshing to be able to download some other software that wasn't available through apt-get and be able to just run it from the downloaded folder. Choice, flexibility and an excellent repository of free software... that is what Linux is about.
Perhaps you are correct in a few areas of technology and civilization, but it was a relatively few technologies that allowed the Europeans to be more productive and more potent in battle than the native peoples of the Americas at that time. But remember, the 16th century was a very different time than either the 17th or 18th centuries. European technology was not really that advanced, compared to what it would become through the enlightenment. Yes, firearms were available, but were not very efficient in battle for more than one or two shots at close range. Certainly effective as a weapon of terror, but it was probably the European horse which was a better weapon of war. And if we are going to talk about the horse as a type of technology, which given the centuries of selective breeding it is, then I would add that much of what Europeans came to eat and what allowed European population to grow in the coming centuries where actually the literal fruit of technology from the Americas: the fruits, vegetables and grain products that had been selectively bred for generations. Potatoes, tomatoes, corn, etc all allowed Europeans to diversify their food supply in ways that changed the world. Yes, it went the other way too, but to say that the Americas had nothing to offer is to ignore the importance of this contribution to the whole of humanity.
Except that everything you said is a big fat lie.
The solution is to nix net-neutrality legislation and allow the consumer and the producer to come to terms on need versus price. So, what you are proposing is something like a la carte cable for the internet. So the consumer pays for basic Internet and then has to pay extra (to the ISP) for "premium" content and services. Oh and by the way, what is considered "premium" is whatever the cable company decides is popular enough to squeeze big bucks from the consumer. Oh and they ca n effectively deny access to whatever service they think they should be getting a cut of just for being the middleman.
So, why not allow common carriers to charge different rates to ladies in a hurry with nice coats on? Or when you make a phone call maybe you should have to explain to the operator how important the call is so they can charge you more if it is urgent.
HTML is *not* a description language suitable for word processing in its current state, and it is unclear it can be made so without sacrificing device indepence. Tell that to over a 100 million websites. Yes, most of them are ugly, but so are most Word docs. The only thing inherently lacking in html/css is a standard way of making the collection of files (image, text/html, css) that make up a document into a compressed portable document. Something like a standard.htd extension put onto a zip compressed file that contains all of the files that make up a document. Though maybe there is something already out there like this that just needs more standard application support such as standard behavior when you choose "save as" from a web browser. And it seems that every other so called shortcoming would be better handled by a good browser/word processing application.
And while end-users don't understand that it's a practice that is abusive to consumers and the marketplace in general, they understand that if they don't upgrade, they will run into problems such as not being able to open documents critical to their business activities. Wait... uh... what? You think they do that on purpose? I mean think about all the new features that those new document formats support! Like ummm... fonts... err... umm... inserting an image or wait hold on, well don't you worry it is all very technical and complicated. Just rest assured that Microsoft isn't just trying to squeeze every last drop from its customers by extending a monopoly it lucked into 20 years ago!
Moderation and Meta moderation or rating system
on
Is Wikipedia Failing?
·
· Score: 1
Seems that what is lacking is an effective tiered rating system, seems that an article on many subjects will reach a critical mass of quality where any edits would take away from that quality. But editing is still allowed and more importantly it is only the latest edits that people see when they go to the article page. A solution to this particular problem is to have the rating effect which version of the page people see. This could lead to forking the article, but what other choice is there?
Linear iteration will not bring the best article to the top, because the best version of the article will be reached and then passed by in favor of newer poorer quality edits.
The problem is how to continue to allow edits, but that you could tag certain versions (like you might in a source code repository) as highest quality. Rather than an editorial board (though there may be some role for one) I would propose that each version of an article have a rating based upon popular vote, the one with the highest vote is the default version that people will see. Perhaps it could be the function of the editorial board to occasionally wipe out the vote tallies and let the best rise to the top again. Or actually, votes could just expire after 1 year or something which would allow new revisions a chance to be given proper notice. Potentially a lot of data to maintain, but it would be a built in quality control system rather than one which allows an authoritarian system to creep in which would eventually cause fatal stagnation.
The risk would be that with no certainty that a particular edit would ever be seen on the default article, then people would be less inclined to contribute. So, basically the system should be weighted towards maintaining the quality of long established articles which have reached some sort of threshold based on reader feedback, but have a mechanism that prevents complete stagnation.
And the unstructured discussion tab which is just another wiki without any threads or moderator rating like slashdot can get very unwieldy very fast.
I dislike it when people on the environmentalist bandwagon decide to define anything that humans do to effect the environment as "bad" and immoral, but letting nature take its course is somehow "good" and "moral". I do not see this magical divide between the actions of people and nature. It is human arrogance that sees ourselves as beholden to a different standard than the rest of the natural world.
We are natural and when we build our homes and lives no less moral or no more than a beaver building a damn, or a bunch of bees building a nest. The question should be what kind of world we want to live in and what we want to do in order to create it, not some sort of false moral choice between what is natural and what is not.
I don't deny global warming has been happening in the last hundred years or so, and will probably continue and that it is most likely caused by people burning oil, coal and natural gas. But the choice we face is what kind of world we want to live in and what we can and are willing to do in order to make it happen. The choice is not about "responsibility", but about what trade offs we are willing to effect a particular outcome. It is about balancing expectations about what we can do with what we cannot control. Some further global warming is certainly desirable and good, as we have benefited from some global warming already, but too much would bring about change that was too rapid for our civilization to adjust to without significant losses of our investments in infrastructure and would increase the possibility of wars when natural migration of human populations are blocked in unnatural ways.
So, to be clear my criticism is with the attitude that we are somehow more moral when we let nature take its "natural" course, rather than trying to make the best world we can with whatever means that we have. We should understand that whatever we do, nature will take its course.
anything to stop the people from acting responsibly? Acting responsibly is finding the most economical way for the most people to live on this planet together happily. Whatever way possible.
I have great respect for the idea of living humbly and trying to exist in a way that lets nature take its course, for better or worse. But people that sit smugly at their computers at the pinnacle of civilization surrounded by the comforts that are causing the stress on the environment in the first place, have little merit in my book when they suggest people should simply act "responsibly" to avoid the destruction of the environment. Unless you are living on 10 acres of your own land, drinking your own well water and sustaining yourself with the fruit of your own labor in a resource neutral way and paying the minimum of taxes (that would otherwise pay for others to be wasteful) and NOT connecting to the Internet, then you are part of the problem, just as I am.
You get what you pay for, but you never know what virus you are going to get. Better to get it for free with a faithful and honest Ubuntu.
Seriously, at some point when they start threatening you with being sent to prison in Siberia.... I think it is proving a bit too dangerous to be using Microsoft products. It just isn't remotely worth this type of bullshit.
California hate crime law from the DA's office.... threatening to use force to injure, intimidate, or interfere with another person who is exercising his or her constitutional rights. I really hate hate crime laws.
Suing lawyer gets $5 million And that would make me happy in this case, seriously, Sony should burn for this who cares if people get reimbursed for damages. The victims of hackers rarely get reimbursed. The "damage" isn't the problem, they purposefully hacked into millions of people's computers to harvest personal information for profit. $5 million dollar fine would at least be a start regardless who saw the money. Far better people have gone to jail for doing much less.
What this means is that there are circumstances when ISPs cannot isolate IP addys or individuals, then it's ok to sniff the whole pipe. Why not? Why should the cops have to pussyfoot around BS red tape just to do their jobs? It is called a wiretap for a reason. There is no technical reason why the actual wire or cable going to the actual house or business couldn't be tapped directly, by connecting some hardware to the line just as they used to. This new technique is about convenience not necessity.
Quite frankly, I want individual wiretaps to require at least some individual physical effort and expense so that police have to make the decision of whether it is worth it or not.
I don't really agree that the ordinary citizen has the right to all information out there. I don't understand why American citizens get butt hurt every time information is not open to them. There is classified information, and information that is available on a need to know basis all over the government. Being in the military there have been several times when I have done things without knowing why I am doing them, or why they are happening. It sucks, but you know what, I have come to accept that sometimes it is necessary. I think a perfect example of going too far is that the old Soviet Union era street maps of Moscow were purposefully made inaccurate to foil spies. Stands to reason, a warped reason, that the people who need to get someplace already know where they are going and that only spies, invaders or other "outsiders" would actually need a map.
That kind of paranoid thinking leads to real problems. A simple rule should be, that if it is visible from a public space, such as the publics' airspace, then it shouldn't be censored. Simple, direct and legal. Otherwise, what you often get is a population of citizens that is more ignorant than your enemy is.
Classified and need to know are very important when it comes to operational details of the military, such as tactics and capabilities, but when it comes to fixed buildings and locations, it is a good rule that if it is visible from an unprotected especially a public area then you shouldn't assume that you are fooling your enemy simply by censoring public discourse. In fact, it is a dangerous assumption to make.
As for whether it is a violation of my rights to keep this information away from me, no it wouldn't, but it would be a violation of freedom of expression to prevent someone from taking a picture in public. Such as from a bridge in New York or any number of other public places that supposedly do not allow pictures to be taken. I understand walking into a secure facility the need to leave your camera phone at the door, but on a public right of way (land or air) or from a public park preventing people from recording something that is visible (without any penetrating radar or otherwise intrusive detection) is a clear violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution.
Our Bill of Rights is really vague and doesn't have any bounds on the individuals. You hear a big up roar whenever the "state" or "government" tries to make some rules defining those bounds a bit better. We have different values.
You can drive a truck through the exceptions, and so they have.
How many times have you heard some politician in America accuse someone of "distorting the facts"? In China, Article 41, which at first says that people have a right to criticize the government, then goes on to say "but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited." This is a much higher bar to political speech than the US has. Can you imagine being practical to criticize an elected official if you had to verify all your facts even to the point of not being allowed any "distortions". Seems reasonable, until you are thrown into Jail because you rounded up the amount and said the national Debt was 9 trillion when really it was just 8.6 trillion, or you get thrown in jail because you are found to exaggerate the amount of corruption or mismanagement in government.
You want a world without negative political campaigns, you go ahead and find it in China. You want a world where people are afraid to speak their minds about their government, go to China.
Just read the whole thing, there is a little something for the authoritarian in everyone.
Look at Article 54, for instance:
Article 54
It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland; they must not commit acts detrimental to the security, honor and interests of the motherland. Even look at the parts you quoted from, such as Article 40 (with the important part bolded):
Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens' correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offenses, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law. So basically, in the guise of devising a legal protection on privacy, the government is given explicit authority to open people's mail "to meet the needs of state security" and to "censor correspondence". The only restriction on censorship is that they follow some sort of standard procedure as defined by a law.
A familiar pattern should emerge, eventually, as you read through the CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. First it talks about the rights of the people and then it gives the state broad authority to take away those rights to pursue some government interest such as "security" or "public order". In some cases taking away that right must be merely "lawful", so as long as they use some standard form or procedure then just about every so called right is subject to the whims of lawmakers, with no real grounds for judicial review.
Yes, there are some similar exceptions in the US Constitution, which US lawmakers regularly try to take advantage of, just as they do in China. But I do think that the exceptions in the Chinese Constitution are far broader in scope and more powers are explicitly delegated to the government which give it broader authority over people's lives.
Don't they mean purify humanity? Of course they do. I think this is the relevant quote:
Sure as I know anything I know this, they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, 10, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave. -Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity
Which is why DRM is quite useless. Come on -- if worse came to worse, people would play the music on the stereos and record it using digital recorders then run it through their favorite piece of audio manipulating software and have just about the same quality recording. The music industry cannot hope to stop the myriad of innovative ways of copying music and they are fooling themselves if they think they can make DRM "unbreakable." If this report is true, perhaps some in the industry are finally coming to their senses. I am old enough to remember kids making mix tapes with tape recorders held up to radio speakers. It was very important to be quiet while recording. And I have watched a few movies that were clearly video taped from a screen. Do I care that much about quality? Sometimes. But if the story is entertaining enough or the melody strong enough, then my brain can accept some lack of digital clarity and still appreciate the content. Unless of course they can DRM my brain, then DRM will never be able to exercise complete market control in order to squeeze every possible penny out of market demand. The harder they squeeze the more will slip through the cracks and the less people will want DRM encumbered music and video.
They can't. Before any device with a transmitter....enabled or disabled....is released, it must receive a FCC Type Acceptance. The reason this exists is so that the FCC can make sure that the iPhone does not mess with your HDTV and vice versa. That might be the reason, but it isn't reasonable. If Apple were willing to accept the risk of having to recall the devices if the design doesn't meet regulatory approval, then it should be none of the FCC's business if Apple ships a device incapable of transmitting without modification. Heck, I can modify a toaster to transmit a radio signal, doesn't mean it should need a FCC license.
I guess this is yet another reason why the FCC is evil.
However, Apple has now proven that they have the desire and technical ability to put out a pretty-looking widescreen iPod. Now they just need to put out one with a large hard drive. I suspect this year will see an iPod 6G with widescreen and a very large hard drive (hasn't the hard drive manufacturer hit 100 or 120GB now?). I wonder if they could release the iphone before fcc approval and just disable the phone software. Then release the phone enabling software as a patch when it is approved by the fcc. I am sure that there is enough demand for this device just for its other features, at least if there was an expectation that cingular service would be forthcoming. They could sell the iPhone for $699 then offer a $200 rebate when you sign up for service or just give it to you with a contract that begins when service is actually legally available.
Otherwise, they might have to delay a widescreen version of ipod till long after the iphone's release, because it will undercut the perceived value of the iphone. They are already saying that the iphone at $499 is a reduced price based on two years of service, so they can't just come out with something that looks just like the iphone and sell it for $499. Ah, but that could be the answer not the problem. Sell the ipod widescreen(basically just a disabled iphone) for $650-700 and then signing up for phone service later with a 2 year contract gives you a $150-200 rebate.
And I am sure this thing must be ready to use other cell phone provider's gsm networks, so in a year or two or whenever the exclusivity part of contract between Apple and Cingular expires then Apple could offer a software update which would unlock the phone to other providers. That alone could be an interesting business model for smartphones, instead of permanent locks on which GSM provider that a particular phone will support, once the contract expires then a new provider could pay the phone manufacturer (in this case Apple) to unlock your phone for a new provider. Speaking as a consumer the phones really shouldn't be locked in the first place, but if that is the way it has to be then at least you should have the option to switch providers, and still keep the hardware you have paid for, once your service contract has expired. At $599 I hate to think I would be buying something that would only have full functionality for 2 years if I decided to switch to a new phone service provider.
The USA already has this sort of capability... so why is China having this provocative ?
Or is it OK for the USA to have it but no one else ? I suppose it depends on who you consider the bad guys. I note that China has invaded fewer countries in the last 50 years than the USA has... so what is the answer to the question ? Since you are putting it in those terms, do you really want China to follow the US example? With a population 4 times bigger than the US and with advancing military technology the Chinese could do a lot more damage to the world than the US has in the last 50 years. And lets not forget about India, which is expected to have a larger population than China in the next few decades and has had just as much access to technology.
Let countries have all the military technology they want, but I think the US has shown pretty clearly that when you build up a military and invest so much in military technology then there is a lot of pressure to use it to do something "good", even when cooler heads keep us out of World Wars there will be pressure to apply military force to smaller countries. Bigger countries invading smaller or weaker countries has been how the two world wars of the last century really got started.
Building up the military is like building a bridge, once it is built there will a lot of people that want to cross it even if it goes nowhere.
Instead focus government funding on earth observation missions, asteroid hazard detection and deep space exploration. As for the moon and mars, get together at the UN and come up with a way to allow private individuals and corporations mining and other rights to the moon on a first to get there, first use basis. Divvy up the moon, Divvy up Mars, set aside some large areas to keep as reserves or to keep as they are. Don't dilly dally any longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Or is the big hurdle here that you think the average joe-user is out modding their computers with new hardware and will be tripped up by compatibility problems?. That is not my understanding of joe-user, joe-user gets a computer and expects it to work out of the box, he doesn't install new hardware and doesn't install the OS from scratch and configure it to run his hardware. The most he will ever do is hook up a new printer or plug in a usb device before he gets the next computer.
So, the problem here is a chicken and egg problem not an inherent Linux problem. As long as linux is not preinstalled, then you are right about it not being ready for the average user, because the average user isn't going to be installing an OS from scratch, they are going to let Dell figure it out. Whether or not this is a GOOD thing (i think it is, personally), users are accustom to something that Microsoft does that
No, you are missing the point. Only a true geek would care if they are compiling from source or getting a binary. If it is made to be an intuitive download with the same number of clicks (or fewer) to install the software and get it working, then the user doesn't care what is going on behind that click.
Hell, I just use ubuntu's apt-get for most of my software needs. I don't really care how it gets the software, it just does, and then I click on it and use it. And it was also refreshing to be able to download some other software that wasn't available through apt-get and be able to just run it from the downloaded folder. Choice, flexibility and an excellent repository of free software... that is what Linux is about.
Perhaps you are correct in a few areas of technology and civilization, but it was a relatively few technologies that allowed the Europeans to be more productive and more potent in battle than the native peoples of the Americas at that time. But remember, the 16th century was a very different time than either the 17th or 18th centuries. European technology was not really that advanced, compared to what it would become through the enlightenment. Yes, firearms were available, but were not very efficient in battle for more than one or two shots at close range. Certainly effective as a weapon of terror, but it was probably the European horse which was a better weapon of war. And if we are going to talk about the horse as a type of technology, which given the centuries of selective breeding it is, then I would add that much of what Europeans came to eat and what allowed European population to grow in the coming centuries where actually the literal fruit of technology from the Americas: the fruits, vegetables and grain products that had been selectively bred for generations. Potatoes, tomatoes, corn, etc all allowed Europeans to diversify their food supply in ways that changed the world. Yes, it went the other way too, but to say that the Americas had nothing to offer is to ignore the importance of this contribution to the whole of humanity.
So, why not allow common carriers to charge different rates to ladies in a hurry with nice coats on? Or when you make a phone call maybe you should have to explain to the operator how important the call is so they can charge you more if it is urgent.
Sounds like a panacea to me. Ya, right
Seems that what is lacking is an effective tiered rating system, seems that an article on many subjects will reach a critical mass of quality where any edits would take away from that quality. But editing is still allowed and more importantly it is only the latest edits that people see when they go to the article page. A solution to this particular problem is to have the rating effect which version of the page people see. This could lead to forking the article, but what other choice is there?
Linear iteration will not bring the best article to the top, because the best version of the article will be reached and then passed by in favor of newer poorer quality edits.
The problem is how to continue to allow edits, but that you could tag certain versions (like you might in a source code repository) as highest quality. Rather than an editorial board (though there may be some role for one) I would propose that each version of an article have a rating based upon popular vote, the one with the highest vote is the default version that people will see. Perhaps it could be the function of the editorial board to occasionally wipe out the vote tallies and let the best rise to the top again. Or actually, votes could just expire after 1 year or something which would allow new revisions a chance to be given proper notice. Potentially a lot of data to maintain, but it would be a built in quality control system rather than one which allows an authoritarian system to creep in which would eventually cause fatal stagnation.
The risk would be that with no certainty that a particular edit would ever be seen on the default article, then people would be less inclined to contribute. So, basically the system should be weighted towards maintaining the quality of long established articles which have reached some sort of threshold based on reader feedback, but have a mechanism that prevents complete stagnation.
And the unstructured discussion tab which is just another wiki without any threads or moderator rating like slashdot can get very unwieldy very fast.
I dislike it when people on the environmentalist bandwagon decide to define anything that humans do to effect the environment as "bad" and immoral, but letting nature take its course is somehow "good" and "moral". I do not see this magical divide between the actions of people and nature. It is human arrogance that sees ourselves as beholden to a different standard than the rest of the natural world.
We are natural and when we build our homes and lives no less moral or no more than a beaver building a damn, or a bunch of bees building a nest. The question should be what kind of world we want to live in and what we want to do in order to create it, not some sort of false moral choice between what is natural and what is not.
I don't deny global warming has been happening in the last hundred years or so, and will probably continue and that it is most likely caused by people burning oil, coal and natural gas. But the choice we face is what kind of world we want to live in and what we can and are willing to do in order to make it happen. The choice is not about "responsibility", but about what trade offs we are willing to effect a particular outcome. It is about balancing expectations about what we can do with what we cannot control. Some further global warming is certainly desirable and good, as we have benefited from some global warming already, but too much would bring about change that was too rapid for our civilization to adjust to without significant losses of our investments in infrastructure and would increase the possibility of wars when natural migration of human populations are blocked in unnatural ways.
So, to be clear my criticism is with the attitude that we are somehow more moral when we let nature take its "natural" course, rather than trying to make the best world we can with whatever means that we have. We should understand that whatever we do, nature will take its course.
I have great respect for the idea of living humbly and trying to exist in a way that lets nature take its course, for better or worse. But people that sit smugly at their computers at the pinnacle of civilization surrounded by the comforts that are causing the stress on the environment in the first place, have little merit in my book when they suggest people should simply act "responsibly" to avoid the destruction of the environment. Unless you are living on 10 acres of your own land, drinking your own well water and sustaining yourself with the fruit of your own labor in a resource neutral way and paying the minimum of taxes (that would otherwise pay for others to be wasteful) and NOT connecting to the Internet, then you are part of the problem, just as I am.
You get what you pay for, but you never know what virus you are going to get. Better to get it for free with a faithful and honest Ubuntu.
Seriously, at some point when they start threatening you with being sent to prison in Siberia.... I think it is proving a bit too dangerous to be using Microsoft products. It just isn't remotely worth this type of bullshit.
Quite frankly, I want individual wiretaps to require at least some individual physical effort and expense so that police have to make the decision of whether it is worth it or not.
That kind of paranoid thinking leads to real problems. A simple rule should be, that if it is visible from a public space, such as the publics' airspace, then it shouldn't be censored. Simple, direct and legal. Otherwise, what you often get is a population of citizens that is more ignorant than your enemy is.
Classified and need to know are very important when it comes to operational details of the military, such as tactics and capabilities, but when it comes to fixed buildings and locations, it is a good rule that if it is visible from an unprotected especially a public area then you shouldn't assume that you are fooling your enemy simply by censoring public discourse. In fact, it is a dangerous assumption to make.
As for whether it is a violation of my rights to keep this information away from me, no it wouldn't, but it would be a violation of freedom of expression to prevent someone from taking a picture in public. Such as from a bridge in New York or any number of other public places that supposedly do not allow pictures to be taken. I understand walking into a secure facility the need to leave your camera phone at the door, but on a public right of way (land or air) or from a public park preventing people from recording something that is visible (without any penetrating radar or otherwise intrusive detection) is a clear violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution.
Gotcha!
How many times have you heard some politician in America accuse someone of "distorting the facts"? In China, Article 41, which at first says that people have a right to criticize the government, then goes on to say "but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited." This is a much higher bar to political speech than the US has. Can you imagine being practical to criticize an elected official if you had to verify all your facts even to the point of not being allowed any "distortions". Seems reasonable, until you are thrown into Jail because you rounded up the amount and said the national Debt was 9 trillion when really it was just 8.6 trillion, or you get thrown in jail because you are found to exaggerate the amount of corruption or mismanagement in government.
You want a world without negative political campaigns, you go ahead and find it in China. You want a world where people are afraid to speak their minds about their government, go to China.
Just read the whole thing, there is a little something for the authoritarian in everyone.
Look at Article 54, for instance: Article 54
It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland; they must not commit acts detrimental to the security, honor and interests of the motherland. Even look at the parts you quoted from, such as Article 40 (with the important part bolded): Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens' correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offenses, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law. So basically, in the guise of devising a legal protection on privacy, the government is given explicit authority to open people's mail "to meet the needs of state security" and to "censor correspondence". The only restriction on censorship is that they follow some sort of standard procedure as defined by a law.
A familiar pattern should emerge, eventually, as you read through the CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. First it talks about the rights of the people and then it gives the state broad authority to take away those rights to pursue some government interest such as "security" or "public order". In some cases taking away that right must be merely "lawful", so as long as they use some standard form or procedure then just about every so called right is subject to the whims of lawmakers, with no real grounds for judicial review.
Yes, there are some similar exceptions in the US Constitution, which US lawmakers regularly try to take advantage of, just as they do in China. But I do think that the exceptions in the Chinese Constitution are far broader in scope and more powers are explicitly delegated to the government which give it broader authority over people's lives.
-Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity
I guess this is yet another reason why the FCC is evil.
Otherwise, they might have to delay a widescreen version of ipod till long after the iphone's release, because it will undercut the perceived value of the iphone. They are already saying that the iphone at $499 is a reduced price based on two years of service, so they can't just come out with something that looks just like the iphone and sell it for $499. Ah, but that could be the answer not the problem. Sell the ipod widescreen(basically just a disabled iphone) for $650-700 and then signing up for phone service later with a 2 year contract gives you a $150-200 rebate.
And I am sure this thing must be ready to use other cell phone provider's gsm networks, so in a year or two or whenever the exclusivity part of contract between Apple and Cingular expires then Apple could offer a software update which would unlock the phone to other providers. That alone could be an interesting business model for smartphones, instead of permanent locks on which GSM provider that a particular phone will support, once the contract expires then a new provider could pay the phone manufacturer (in this case Apple) to unlock your phone for a new provider. Speaking as a consumer the phones really shouldn't be locked in the first place, but if that is the way it has to be then at least you should have the option to switch providers, and still keep the hardware you have paid for, once your service contract has expired. At $599 I hate to think I would be buying something that would only have full functionality for 2 years if I decided to switch to a new phone service provider.
So you have been talking to the folks at the IETF have you?
Or is it OK for the USA to have it but no one else ? I suppose it depends on who you consider the bad guys. I note that China has invaded fewer countries in the last 50 years than the USA has
Let countries have all the military technology they want, but I think the US has shown pretty clearly that when you build up a military and invest so much in military technology then there is a lot of pressure to use it to do something "good", even when cooler heads keep us out of World Wars there will be pressure to apply military force to smaller countries. Bigger countries invading smaller or weaker countries has been how the two world wars of the last century really got started.
Building up the military is like building a bridge, once it is built there will a lot of people that want to cross it even if it goes nowhere.
Instead focus government funding on earth observation missions, asteroid hazard detection and deep space exploration. As for the moon and mars, get together at the UN and come up with a way to allow private individuals and corporations mining and other rights to the moon on a first to get there, first use basis. Divvy up the moon, Divvy up Mars, set aside some large areas to keep as reserves or to keep as they are. Don't dilly dally any longer.
exactly! ;)