That's funny...I thought those first few amendments commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights did define some of my rights. Hmm...maybe I'm thinking of another country.
IMHO the logic is faulty that says corporations have rights. I realize that it's pretty debatable, and it's one of the excuses that people use to justify corporations donating money to politicians (which I also think is bad), but right or wrong, I don't like it:)
Um. I don't know about that.... Cars would probably never have been made safer if the government had not intervened.
The free market thing only works if there are viable alternatives to the product or policy. And I mean really viable, not just out there (case in point, Windows..most people hate it, but most people use it).
It seems to me there are far more cases of the government 'interfering' on behalf of the people than there are cases where a boycott was successful.
Even if the bill passed, which it probably won't because of some federal commerce law somewhere, you'd still be able to buy a PIII. The bill doesn't outlaw the chip, it just says they can't be made or sold in the state (note: you can still buy them, just not in the state...internet is probably the best place to find 'em cheap anyway), and that the government will not be using them. I don't really see how it hurts the individual. Maybe it hurts the people that want to physically drive to store to buy computer hardware...
Please quote the bit in the constitution that covers Rights of Corporations.
I don't think there is one. Corporations don't have rights like you and I do. If they did they would have killed us all off long ago. Seems like far too many people think there is some sort of constitutional protection for corporations.
Intel cannot make any chip it wants to make. I'm sure the exploding chip or the heroin chip would be outlawed. Az CAN pass any bill it wants to, as long as it doesn't interfere with federal law.
Even if it's silly, isn't this still a good thing? It seems to me that the point is to send a message to corporations saying that this state respects and will try to defend its resident's privacy. Far too often a state will bend over backwards to please corporations (tax breaks, free loans, etc.) and ignore the damage it might be doing to the residents. Sure, the bill is chock full ignorance, but at least it's voicing an opinion. They might be dumb, but if you can influence your political representatives you can really get your message across.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out www.be.com
They've got quite a bit of info about what makes this OS unique.
This will lead to subcutaneaous (sp?) serialized tracking implants.
Ok, maybe not, but every time you give up a little of your privacy, you make it easier for the next guy to ask you to give up more.
That's funny...I thought those first few amendments commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights did define some of my rights. Hmm...maybe I'm thinking of another country.
:)
IMHO the logic is faulty that says corporations have rights. I realize that it's pretty debatable, and it's one of the excuses that people use to justify corporations donating money to politicians (which I also think is bad), but right or wrong, I don't like it
Um. I don't know about that....
Cars would probably never have been made safer if the government had not intervened.
The free market thing only works if there are viable alternatives to the product or policy. And I mean really viable, not just out there (case in point, Windows..most people hate it, but most people use it).
It seems to me there are far more cases of the government 'interfering' on behalf of the people than there are cases where a boycott was successful.
Even if the bill passed, which it probably won't because of some federal commerce law somewhere, you'd still be able to buy a PIII. The bill doesn't outlaw the chip, it just says they can't be made or sold in the state (note: you can still buy them, just not in the state...internet is probably the best place to find 'em cheap anyway), and that the government will not be using them.
I don't really see how it hurts the individual. Maybe it hurts the people that want to physically drive to store to buy computer hardware...
Who's paranoid?
>It is a horrendous violation of Intel's right
Please quote the bit in the constitution that covers Rights of Corporations.
I don't think there is one. Corporations don't have rights like you and I do. If they did they would have killed us all off long ago. Seems like far too many people think there is some sort of constitutional protection for corporations.
Intel cannot make any chip it wants to make. I'm sure the exploding chip or the heroin chip would be outlawed. Az CAN pass any bill it wants to, as long as it doesn't interfere with federal law.
Even if it's silly, isn't this still a good thing? It seems to me that the point is to send a message to corporations saying that this state respects and will try to defend its resident's privacy. Far too often a state will bend over backwards to please corporations (tax breaks, free loans, etc.) and ignore the damage it might be doing to the residents. Sure, the bill is chock full ignorance, but at least it's voicing an opinion. They might be dumb, but if you can influence your political representatives you can really get your message across.