You have your facts wrong, did you also go to public school?
I thought the same about Lincoln and FDR during my many years in brainwashing at the hands of public education.
Numerous books out there show that the problems that Lincoln and FDR tried to fix were directly caused by government intervention and mistakes 10-20 years beforehand.
Even worse, what we thought the wars they fought were about was actually untrue. They just used those reasons to get the public to rally behind them.
The damage those two traitors of the Constitution created back then has manifested itself in an aweful place to live in today.
Make sure you do all three. I know personally that all my representatives read their faxes. E-mail has worked too (I do get a response from every e-mail, every time).
The second thing to do is ALWAYS visit your rep during their visits to your state if they have an open forum for constituents. Get them to remember you by name.
The third thing to do is try to visit Washington once per session and take advantage of their constituent coffee or breakfast forum. You'd be surprised how thankful and how strong such a visit is.
Lastly, and definitely the most important, is to vote Libertarian each and every time you can in a Congressional or Senate election. Each and every Libertarian is vehemently against many of the things that./'ers are against: they advocate total personal privacy, abolishing the current copyright laws to the Constitutional definition (7+7 years maximum, ending Intellectual Property ideas), and all Libertarians want to end the limited liability that goes along with becoming a corporation -- this means that CEOs and other officers will be held personally responsible for their actions governing the company.
Also, Libertarians want to make Congress so weak, campaign donations by large corporations and the rich won't do anything because Congress won't have the power to enact any subsidies.
As a hardcore free-market driven Libertarian, every problem I see posted on slashdot (and other sites) that has to do with the government intervening or not intervening seems like its caused directly because we've allowed government to get too involved in our lives and our businesses.
Does it ever occur to anyone that reducing the size of government to that of the Constitutional limited variety would really help us? We're talking about through copyright extensions out (100 years + the life of the author???) back to the basic 7+7 years maximum. We're talking about dropping the idea of intellectual property. We're talking about getting rid of "Limited Liability" for corporations, so that shareholders can hold CEOs and other officers liable for corporate errors and misjudgements.
It shocks me that people totally ignore this. How is it for the lobbiests? Are any lobbiests out there looking to REDUCE the size of government and the intervention that comes from it?
There IS a party who wants to help everyone
on
Slashdot in Politics?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Its called the Libertarian party.
This is a group who wants to repeal copyright law to its basic elements of 7+7 years maximum.
This is a group who wants total freedom of speech, bar none.
This is a group who wants to repeal laws that give corporations limited liability, so that CEOs and other officers are guilty for crimes committed that break the law.
This is a group who wants the government out of our lives, entirely. Full privacy, full ownership of your land property.
This is a group that believes that the only reason "big business" got there is because of government subsidies -- and they're right.
This is a group that wants each and every person in this country to be responsible for their actions, bar none. If you do something stupid, you will learn by paying the consequences, and no public organization will help you. Private organizations will help, but those kind of systems will watch your recovery closely, and shut you off if you keep screwing up.
This is a group that wants non-violent crimes repealed. We want to let two adults do what they want with each other, as long as they hurt no one else.
This is a group that wants to let you do business with any person in any country, with no tariffs, embargoes, or other limitations.
This is a group that wants to get rid of the income tax and all other taxes that eat up 50% of your income each and every day. This will double your available income so you can decide what to do with it.
This is the only group who has NEVER changed their position in the 30 years they have been together.
This is a group who has ONE Congress in office for many years (Congressman Ron Paul, http://house.gov/paul ) a guy who has voted the Libertarian way each and every time. A guy who has never been corrupted by the political system, because he stands by his beliefs, and always has. The proof is there that the philosophy WORKS.
Lastly... This is a group that got 1.7 million votes in Congress in the 2000 election. No other third party in HISTORY has ever even broken 1 million votes.
http://lp.org/ Go there today. Make a difference. Kick the careerists out.
The Constitution _was_ intended to be an everlasting document.
Congress' powers have been made larger and larger over the years through an invalid Supreme Court system. Almost all our federal representatives take an oath to uphold the Constitution.
If you break an oath, isn't that treason?
I'm not saying get rid of campaign finance limits _first_, I'm saying force Congress to be Constitutional, and then it won't matter what campaign finance limits there are. It's very important to see that NOTHING Congress has done in the past 100 years has helped in ANY situation. The laws of the Constitution are clear, our Ninth Amendment says clearly that whatever ISN'T in the Constitution is delegated to the people or the states.
So why do we let the Government continue? Because they have always used words like "protect the children" or "save us from ourselves." If you disagree with their bad laws, then you want to "harm the children" or "harm others" and no one wants to go up against that fight.
Making campaign finance limits will only prevent third parties from having any chance of getting elected. This has been proven again and again.
The only thing to do to prevent problems like this is to hold our federal government to its Constitutional limits. There is only ONE political party that believes in a limited federal system, and that is the Libertarian party.
Remember: If we have new campaign finance laws, the two party system will reign supreme, and incumbents will pass the baton on to the person they like the best. No good for us, real good for those in office.
Every campaign finance law that has taken effect to limit donations has increased donations because back doors are always placed in the legislation.
I am a Libertarian. This is the #1 reason to vote Libertarian and ONLY Libertarian in each and every election -- our primary concern is making the Federal government as Constitutional as powerful.
What does this mean? It means we won't set limits on campaign finances or soft money donations. Hell, none of us even care where the money comes from, because we know its used for no good.
I know that sounds contradictory, if you let people donate as much as they want, they'll always get what they want, right?
Wrong. Our goal is to limit Congress' power entirely, taking them out of the corporate subsidizing that they've illegally done for so long.
Once Congress is limited to only making laws that are Constitutional, no corporation will WANT to give them money because, guess what?, that money will not do them anything.
Congress won't have the power to pass stupid laws.
Free enterprise and trade will reign supreme.
No matter what the Democrats or Republicans offer the tech crowd, NEITHER side can promise to stay out entirely. Neither side is a free speech advocate. Many libertarians even want copyright to be as it was in the Constitutions - 7+7 years, and then public domain.
Totally wrong. Libertarians such as myself don't want to be isolationist citizens, we just want our government to stop caring for other countries.
Let our citizens decide if they want to buy or trade with other countries, any countries.
Stop giving money to other countries' governments, which only harbor war, and only help keep dictators in power.
Bring all our troops home. Stop selling weapons to any other countries.
Leave NATO and the UN.
By lifting embargoes, and letting American citizens and corporations buy or trade with anyone anywhere, we'll only INCREASE our worth while decreasing terrorist acts.
Check out my website and click on 09-11-2001 for more info on my views...
I don't believe fighting back will work. History has proven that the big country can not fight guerilla warfare battles and succeed. One reason we won our fight against England 250 years ago is because WE were the terrorists.
I say get out of funding wars (on one side, or on both sides) and bring peace back to American soil.
I've been involved in helping stores cut back loss, and let me tell you that 70% of the theft that has occured after I've installed cameras has been by employees, and a lot of the time in those cases, management.
I still don't see the problem with this. I'm for any business enacting any policy they please within the confines of their store.
If you don't want to be watched, don't go there, and make it a habit to write letters about it to advertisers and distributors.
I don't mind it a bit, since I haven't done anything wrong. If they want to watch me closer because they think I'm a thief, good for them.
If the thieves stop going to those stores because they bet profiles, maybe prices will drop.
If you want privacy, go get some acreage of land in the mountains and stay out of civilization. I don't see ANY privacy loss if you're as much at fault for entering THEIR private property.
Its cameras on the street that worry me, but we get videotaped by ATMs and banks and at the McDonald's and the convenient store, whats so wrong with filtering those images so security can do a better job?
This is totally incorrect. What we need is FULL government deregulation of the phone industry.
At this point in time, the government STILL regulates the industry. There are still price caps, still difficulties in setting up an infrastructure.
If the gov't keeps price caps up, it will be near impossible for ANY company to set up infrastructure. Because of this, the costs for companies WITH current infrastructure are low (the bells) but for others are high (the competitors).
The bells lobbied VERY hard (check www.opensecrets.org and see your local bell chairpeople) to make sure it stays this way. People believe that the gov't is staying out of the phone business, but they are 100% not.
If the gov't had stayed out in the first place, there would never have been this kind of trouble. What really troubles me though is that everyone believes having a phone or DSL is a right, not a priviledge. You get what you pay for.
I wish they never gave away free installs, free hardware, etc etc. 768k of ADSL should have cost, no matter what, $300 to install, $200 for hardware, and $100-$150 a month. Then we'd have people STILL happy to have the speed and good service. But free hardware, free install, $50 a month? Where's the profit so they can branch out?
Will SDMI lead to the death of the DMCA, or did the DMCA lead to the death of SDMI?
Eventually, these large companies will have to realize that the DMCA won't work correctly. Are you still boycotting Adobe? I am.
I'm glad Felton got held up originally. It brought to light that the DMCA is terrible, terrible thought control, and it HAS helped me be evangelical to the laymen.
I still don't think the EFF has done diddley to help him really.
I'd much rather see people e-mailing the REAL Lawyers who help those burned by unconstitutional laws, the Institute for Justice.
Here's a law team that really pushes the envelope on laws that are obviously unconstitutional, AND they have a long list of cases not only where they have won their client's cases, BUT THEY HAVE CHANGED THE LAWS! How's that for freedom?
I started out eons ago. My first real nice one was the original Apple Newton, then I progressed through them all. Newton 100, 110, 120, 200, 2000, 2100, etc.
From there went to the Philips Nino, then tried a few H/PC's (too big) and now I have the Ipaq with the PC Card sleeve, the Sierra Wireless Aircard 300, and numerous other goodies.
With my history in place, I still have a problem with a lot of data input. Even a simple work order takes 10 seconds on a PC, 2 minutes on a handheld.
I have the foldable keyboard. I've tried graffiti and every form of text input. T9 is decent (had it on my Nokia phone, loved it there) but its still too slow.
We need a breakthrough for data input. I don't want voice rec, I don't want shortcut words. I want a real, new, never before seen way to do it. Someone who invents a GOOD input method will be a billionaire.
Oh, I'm actually happy with WinCE 3.0. i know that's flamebait on/., but it actually has worked perfectly for me ever since I got the Ipaq. Never crashed on me yet, and the amount of stuff I do on my Ipaq is quite amazing. I seriously wirelessly web browse almost 2 hours a day with it. Even read/. from there.
Also, I want faster web access. CPDP is slowish, and some of the faster wireless formats are looking to go bankrupt.
And the more I think about it, so is anyone who thinks we DON'T opt-in.
When you open ANY account, in the fine print its basically opting you in. If you don't want to opt-in, DON'T OPEN THE ACCOUNT.
If you want to opt-in with the account and immediately opt-out, then say so to whomever is opening the account and force them to acknowledge that you're opting out. They can say "It's a requirement to opt-in to have this account" and you can EASILY say "Ok, I don't want the account."
BOOM. No more worries. YOU OPTED IN WHEN YOU OPENED THE ACCOUNT. Read the fine print.
You opted into the credit reporting agencies also when you opened an account. No one repors without you ALLOWING THEM by opening the account and accepting the terms and limitations.
Actually, most libertarians are self-eco-conscious. We want to make money ourselves, and do with it as we please, and only distribute it to the have-nots if we want to and how we want to. We don't want the government telling us who should have our money.
In no way do I want to retreat from the evils of modern society! I was Devil's Advocating the idea that if people want their privacy, its readily available - by relieving ourselves of modern day capabilities. I find it funny that computer geeks want privacy at all when 99% of them don't even GPG their e-mails each and every time.
I still use my same password from my BBS days for a LOT of stuff I shouldn't. It's just SO hard for me not to type basic1992 whenever prompted for a password.
Hmm. Interesting that you said you read my previous posts. It doesn't seem that way.
People are born to this planet for other reasons, then why do they get credit cards, car loans, home loans, why do they try to "save big money" by using frequent shopper cards or enter raffles or drawings to win items that they weren't put on this planet to really need?
People are born to this planet to browse the Internet and enter free lottories, right? They're born to this planet to buy buy buy as much as they can as quickly as they can.
How about the idea getting family land and living on it through all your generations so your kids don't each need a mortgage? That idea is long gone. What we were born to this planet to do and what we really do rarely coincide, depending on your beliefs.
I am not even REMOTELY part of the problem. You having your 7 credit cards with an average of $8,000 in debt per capita are part of the problem. YOU wanting more and more for less and less work art part of the problem. Not me.
The businesses are doing what is within the law for them to do.
The Libertarians want to change that. Right now, I can log on to the Internet and see how much money "big business" gives to both side of the political system. We want to get rid of the bipartisan imbalanced system where NOTHING can get done.
Big Business wants to help its shareholders, which may number in the millions. When a big business gives $5,000,000 to a candidate, its really giving maybe $5 per shareholder, isn't it? How is that unfair?
If you want to counter big business, get your own PAC together and counter it by giving your own donations. Oh, don't have enough people to form a PAC? Then I guess not enough people agree with you enough to give up a few dollars to fight so called "big business."
In America, we do vote with our dollars. But the PACs aren't voting with billions for one group, they are voting with a few dollars per member. Why is that bad?
And that is EXACTLY what I said in my post. We (the 'weak') have the Internet. The best form of Government for us is to boycott or ban companies we don't like, VIA the Internet, to show that we indeed are all powerful as a group of "one."
Thomas Hobbes was right but could NEVER have foresaw the Internet and the power that it gives us as individuals within a group. If you know of a company who doesn't comply with their posted privacy statement, then tell others! Get the word out. Form a team, a group, a society of people with like interests and let them know.
Don't bother doing it through the Republicrats or Democricans in office. With this very illegal bipartisan system, nothing can get done anyway. So might as well take the power of the Internet and go, man, go.
Bingo. And in return for these wonderful priviledges, you give up some privacy. Big f'ing deal, right?
You're one of few though who don't carry a huge balance, don't care really what the cc company does with the information, as long as you get your priviledges.
I don't think the privacy breaches are that bad even. If you get something good out of it, then who cares?
Umm, why do I need to rent a car, or a movie? If you're renting someone else's expensive goods, then why shouldn't they know more about you, to trust you, etc?
You CAN pay cash for nearly everything. Don't get a car loan, save up $400 a month for 5 years, and then go buy a car cash, and while you drive that car for 5 years, save up another $20,000 (plus interest) to buy your next car.
I provide as little information as possible. You can even get a credit card, by the way, without giving ANY information if you are willing to get it fully secured. I have a few friends who have secured cards with no real information on them, sure they'll never get their security deposit back, but hey, $1000 or whatever it is for 10-20 years of use on a secured card isn't such a bad penalty to pay so you don't have your real info out there.
If you want the quality of life you're living now, with credit lines, movie rental abilities, etc, then yes, you'll give up some privacy. If you really want privacy, there are MANY MANY ways to find it, and some of them are pretty sane.
No, "idiots like" me pay attention to the privacy guidelines we receive in the mail or get online.
"Idiots like" me don't have a frequent buyer's discount card to any grocery stores (I bet you do) so no one knows what I buy.
"Idiots like" me pay cash for as much as we can, including but not limited to what we drive, what we eat, what we watch (movies, etc) because we know that the credit card company is giving us the card in exchange for a nice interest rate and the right to do what they please with the information we give them freely.
"Idiots like" me don't give out our SS# to colleges we attend, don't list it on our driver's license, and check our credit reports (all 3) at least every quarter and find who is looking into our records.
"Idiots like" me understand that is because of IDIOTS LIKE YOU that we get great rates on loans, good deals at the grocery store (I use the cashier's frequent buyer card when I shop) and low prices all around BECAUSE business know more about us and can target their expensive advertising towards those who rely on it.
I personally don't rely on advertising, don't care for coupons or credit cards, don't like to write checks. All the bank SHOULD know about you is "Withdrew $100 from ATM on 6/12/01" and "Deposited check from company on 6/9/01." If you do more with THEIR credit card and THEIR ATM card and THEIR checking account number, is it their fault if you freely gave them information?
Where's the problem? It's a free market, companies should be able to do what they want to do, and if you don't like it, don't use that company. Find a small family run FDIC insured bank, or better yet, a credit union that promises not to do it. If they do share, then leave.
Sure, big business is tough to fight, but that's why we have the Internet, to share this information. Do you work at a bank that says they respect privacy but is brokering out your information? Then post it, anonymously, to some forum where others can find out and then ignore the bank.
Its quite simple. You pick the companies you do business with, knowing full well now that they CAN share your data. So don't give them any data. Oh, too bad, maybe you can't use your credit card now to run up a 50,000 debt you'll never pay. Boo-hoo.
Or better yet, invest out of the country in smaller privately insured banks. There are huge insurance companies out there insuring lesser known foreign banks up to $500,000 per account (more than the FDIC) and you can sometimes get away with very little personal information posted to open such an account.
Do your research, stop trying to control "big business."
I've found that a standard 'form letter' has worked for me in the past. I've probably won back some lost clients because of security issues.
Generally, my letters have been written to whomever accepted the bids for the original contract, along with a repeated thank you for allowing our company to bid on the project.
We hope we can be of use in the future on similiar projects, and want to be kept abreast of any upcoming work that will be taking bids.
On another note, we would like to mention that we review the your website as it currently stands, and have found some serious security issues and risks that go beyond being "potential problems."
If you would be interested in hiring our security team to show you the current security breaches and issues, we would be happy to draft up a competitive bid package for the consulting time and documentation time needed to review all the security problems as your system currently stands.
Then go on to say how security is as important to your firm as the end product, and that it is quite possible the reason your bid package on the original contract was higher than the winner was because of differences in opinions about Internet security.
Don't be afraid to blast their price, not their service. If you get a follow call (I've gotten them more than 75% of the time!) you can explain that many websites on the Internet have security issues, that you are well versed with how to handle them, and many companies haven't taken the time because the chance of getting hacked SEEMS slim, while in reality it is not.
I've lost some clients who have returned to the bid winner to clarify security issues and have gotten some of them fixed (without us telling them specifically what the problems are). Even if you don't get the contract, you may end up with more lucrative time and material work pointing out the bugs in the code. I prefer T&M at full rate rather than contract at discount rate anyway. Plus, there's no warranty involved in T&M consulting.
Good luck!
Slashdot Mirror
You have your facts wrong, did you also go to public school?
I thought the same about Lincoln and FDR during my many years in brainwashing at the hands of public education.
Numerous books out there show that the problems that Lincoln and FDR tried to fix were directly caused by government intervention and mistakes 10-20 years beforehand.
Even worse, what we thought the wars they fought were about was actually untrue. They just used those reasons to get the public to rally behind them.
The damage those two traitors of the Constitution created back then has manifested itself in an aweful place to live in today.
Make sure you do all three. I know personally that all my representatives read their faxes. E-mail has worked too (I do get a response from every e-mail, every time).
./'ers are against: they advocate total personal privacy, abolishing the current copyright laws to the Constitutional definition (7+7 years maximum, ending Intellectual Property ideas), and all Libertarians want to end the limited liability that goes along with becoming a corporation -- this means that CEOs and other officers will be held personally responsible for their actions governing the company.
The second thing to do is ALWAYS visit your rep during their visits to your state if they have an open forum for constituents. Get them to remember you by name.
The third thing to do is try to visit Washington once per session and take advantage of their constituent coffee or breakfast forum. You'd be surprised how thankful and how strong such a visit is.
Lastly, and definitely the most important, is to vote Libertarian each and every time you can in a Congressional or Senate election. Each and every Libertarian is vehemently against many of the things that
Also, Libertarians want to make Congress so weak, campaign donations by large corporations and the rich won't do anything because Congress won't have the power to enact any subsidies.
As a hardcore free-market driven Libertarian, every problem I see posted on slashdot (and other sites) that has to do with the government intervening or not intervening seems like its caused directly because we've allowed government to get too involved in our lives and our businesses.
Does it ever occur to anyone that reducing the size of government to that of the Constitutional limited variety would really help us? We're talking about through copyright extensions out (100 years + the life of the author???) back to the basic 7+7 years maximum. We're talking about dropping the idea of intellectual property. We're talking about getting rid of "Limited Liability" for corporations, so that shareholders can hold CEOs and other officers liable for corporate errors and misjudgements.
It shocks me that people totally ignore this. How is it for the lobbiests? Are any lobbiests out there looking to REDUCE the size of government and the intervention that comes from it?
Its called the Libertarian party.
This is a group who wants to repeal copyright law to its basic elements of 7+7 years maximum.
This is a group who wants total freedom of speech, bar none.
This is a group who wants to repeal laws that give corporations limited liability, so that CEOs and other officers are guilty for crimes committed that break the law.
This is a group who wants the government out of our lives, entirely. Full privacy, full ownership of your land property.
This is a group that believes that the only reason "big business" got there is because of government subsidies -- and they're right.
This is a group that wants each and every person in this country to be responsible for their actions, bar none. If you do something stupid, you will learn by paying the consequences, and no public organization will help you. Private organizations will help, but those kind of systems will watch your recovery closely, and shut you off if you keep screwing up.
This is a group that wants non-violent crimes repealed. We want to let two adults do what they want with each other, as long as they hurt no one else.
This is a group that wants to let you do business with any person in any country, with no tariffs, embargoes, or other limitations.
This is a group that wants to get rid of the income tax and all other taxes that eat up 50% of your income each and every day. This will double your available income so you can decide what to do with it.
This is the only group who has NEVER changed their position in the 30 years they have been together.
This is a group who has ONE Congress in office for many years (Congressman Ron Paul, http://house.gov/paul ) a guy who has voted the Libertarian way each and every time. A guy who has never been corrupted by the political system, because he stands by his beliefs, and always has. The proof is there that the philosophy WORKS.
Lastly... This is a group that got 1.7 million votes in Congress in the 2000 election. No other third party in HISTORY has ever even broken 1 million votes.
http://lp.org/ Go there today. Make a difference. Kick the careerists out.
The Constitution _was_ intended to be an everlasting document.
Congress' powers have been made larger and larger over the years through an invalid Supreme Court system. Almost all our federal representatives take an oath to uphold the Constitution.
If you break an oath, isn't that treason?
I'm not saying get rid of campaign finance limits _first_, I'm saying force Congress to be Constitutional, and then it won't matter what campaign finance limits there are. It's very important to see that NOTHING Congress has done in the past 100 years has helped in ANY situation. The laws of the Constitution are clear, our Ninth Amendment says clearly that whatever ISN'T in the Constitution is delegated to the people or the states.
So why do we let the Government continue? Because they have always used words like "protect the children" or "save us from ourselves." If you disagree with their bad laws, then you want to "harm the children" or "harm others" and no one wants to go up against that fight.
Campaign Finance IS NOT THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.
Making campaign finance limits will only prevent third parties from having any chance of getting elected. This has been proven again and again.
The only thing to do to prevent problems like this is to hold our federal government to its Constitutional limits. There is only ONE political party that believes in a limited federal system, and that is the Libertarian party.
Remember: If we have new campaign finance laws, the two party system will reign supreme, and incumbents will pass the baton on to the person they like the best. No good for us, real good for those in office.
Every campaign finance law that has taken effect to limit donations has increased donations because back doors are always placed in the legislation.
(cross posted to newsforge)
I am a Libertarian. This is the #1 reason to vote Libertarian and ONLY Libertarian in each and every election -- our primary concern is making the Federal government as Constitutional as powerful.
What does this mean? It means we won't set limits on campaign finances or soft money donations. Hell, none of us even care where the money comes from, because we know its used for no good.
I know that sounds contradictory, if you let people donate as much as they want, they'll always get what they want, right?
Wrong. Our goal is to limit Congress' power entirely, taking them out of the corporate subsidizing that they've illegally done for so long.
Once Congress is limited to only making laws that are Constitutional, no corporation will WANT to give them money because, guess what?, that money will not do them anything.
Congress won't have the power to pass stupid laws.
Free enterprise and trade will reign supreme.
No matter what the Democrats or Republicans offer the tech crowd, NEITHER side can promise to stay out entirely. Neither side is a free speech advocate. Many libertarians even want copyright to be as it was in the Constitutions - 7+7 years, and then public domain.
Power to the people, the only way.
Sincerely,
dada
Your Friendly Lake County, IL Libertarian
http://dng.nu/dada
Totally wrong. Libertarians such as myself don't want to be isolationist citizens, we just want our government to stop caring for other countries.
Let our citizens decide if they want to buy or trade with other countries, any countries.
Stop giving money to other countries' governments, which only harbor war, and only help keep dictators in power.
Bring all our troops home. Stop selling weapons to any other countries.
Leave NATO and the UN.
By lifting embargoes, and letting American citizens and corporations buy or trade with anyone anywhere, we'll only INCREASE our worth while decreasing terrorist acts.
Check out my website and click on 09-11-2001 for more info on my views...
Click on 09-11-2001
I don't believe fighting back will work. History has proven that the big country can not fight guerilla warfare battles and succeed. One reason we won our fight against England 250 years ago is because WE were the terrorists.
I say get out of funding wars (on one side, or on both sides) and bring peace back to American soil.
I've been involved in helping stores cut back loss, and let me tell you that 70% of the theft that has occured after I've installed cameras has been by employees, and a lot of the time in those cases, management.
I still don't see the problem with this. I'm for any business enacting any policy they please within the confines of their store.
If you don't want to be watched, don't go there, and make it a habit to write letters about it to advertisers and distributors.
I don't mind it a bit, since I haven't done anything wrong. If they want to watch me closer because they think I'm a thief, good for them.
If the thieves stop going to those stores because they bet profiles, maybe prices will drop.
If you want privacy, go get some acreage of land in the mountains and stay out of civilization. I don't see ANY privacy loss if you're as much at fault for entering THEIR private property.
Its cameras on the street that worry me, but we get videotaped by ATMs and banks and at the McDonald's and the convenient store, whats so wrong with filtering those images so security can do a better job?
This is totally incorrect. What we need is FULL government deregulation of the phone industry.
At this point in time, the government STILL regulates the industry. There are still price caps, still difficulties in setting up an infrastructure.
If the gov't keeps price caps up, it will be near impossible for ANY company to set up infrastructure. Because of this, the costs for companies WITH current infrastructure are low (the bells) but for others are high (the competitors).
The bells lobbied VERY hard (check www.opensecrets.org and see your local bell chairpeople) to make sure it stays this way. People believe that the gov't is staying out of the phone business, but they are 100% not.
If the gov't had stayed out in the first place, there would never have been this kind of trouble. What really troubles me though is that everyone believes having a phone or DSL is a right, not a priviledge. You get what you pay for.
I wish they never gave away free installs, free hardware, etc etc. 768k of ADSL should have cost, no matter what, $300 to install, $200 for hardware, and $100-$150 a month. Then we'd have people STILL happy to have the speed and good service. But free hardware, free install, $50 a month? Where's the profit so they can branch out?
Will SDMI lead to the death of the DMCA, or did the DMCA lead to the death of SDMI?
Eventually, these large companies will have to realize that the DMCA won't work correctly. Are you still boycotting Adobe? I am.
I'm glad Felton got held up originally. It brought to light that the DMCA is terrible, terrible thought control, and it HAS helped me be evangelical to the laymen.
I still don't think the EFF has done diddley to help him really.
I'd much rather see people e-mailing the REAL Lawyers who help those burned by unconstitutional laws, the Institute for Justice.
Here's a law team that really pushes the envelope on laws that are obviously unconstitutional, AND they have a long list of cases not only where they have won their client's cases, BUT THEY HAVE CHANGED THE LAWS! How's that for freedom?
I started out eons ago. My first real nice one was the original Apple Newton, then I progressed through them all. Newton 100, 110, 120, 200, 2000, 2100, etc.
/., but it actually has worked perfectly for me ever since I got the Ipaq. Never crashed on me yet, and the amount of stuff I do on my Ipaq is quite amazing. I seriously wirelessly web browse almost 2 hours a day with it. Even read /. from there.
From there went to the Philips Nino, then tried a few H/PC's (too big) and now I have the Ipaq with the PC Card sleeve, the Sierra Wireless Aircard 300, and numerous other goodies.
With my history in place, I still have a problem with a lot of data input. Even a simple work order takes 10 seconds on a PC, 2 minutes on a handheld.
I have the foldable keyboard. I've tried graffiti and every form of text input. T9 is decent (had it on my Nokia phone, loved it there) but its still too slow.
We need a breakthrough for data input. I don't want voice rec, I don't want shortcut words. I want a real, new, never before seen way to do it. Someone who invents a GOOD input method will be a billionaire.
Oh, I'm actually happy with WinCE 3.0. i know that's flamebait on
Also, I want faster web access. CPDP is slowish, and some of the faster wireless formats are looking to go bankrupt.
You're absolutely wrong.
And the more I think about it, so is anyone who thinks we DON'T opt-in.
When you open ANY account, in the fine print its basically opting you in. If you don't want to opt-in, DON'T OPEN THE ACCOUNT.
If you want to opt-in with the account and immediately opt-out, then say so to whomever is opening the account and force them to acknowledge that you're opting out. They can say "It's a requirement to opt-in to have this account" and you can EASILY say "Ok, I don't want the account."
BOOM. No more worries. YOU OPTED IN WHEN YOU OPENED THE ACCOUNT. Read the fine print.
You opted into the credit reporting agencies also when you opened an account. No one repors without you ALLOWING THEM by opening the account and accepting the terms and limitations.
Actually, most libertarians are self-eco-conscious. We want to make money ourselves, and do with it as we please, and only distribute it to the have-nots if we want to and how we want to. We don't want the government telling us who should have our money.
In no way do I want to retreat from the evils of modern society! I was Devil's Advocating the idea that if people want their privacy, its readily available - by relieving ourselves of modern day capabilities. I find it funny that computer geeks want privacy at all when 99% of them don't even GPG their e-mails each and every time.
I still use my same password from my BBS days for a LOT of stuff I shouldn't. It's just SO hard for me not to type basic1992 whenever prompted for a password.
Hmm. Interesting that you said you read my previous posts. It doesn't seem that way.
People are born to this planet for other reasons, then why do they get credit cards, car loans, home loans, why do they try to "save big money" by using frequent shopper cards or enter raffles or drawings to win items that they weren't put on this planet to really need?
People are born to this planet to browse the Internet and enter free lottories, right? They're born to this planet to buy buy buy as much as they can as quickly as they can.
How about the idea getting family land and living on it through all your generations so your kids don't each need a mortgage? That idea is long gone. What we were born to this planet to do and what we really do rarely coincide, depending on your beliefs.
I am not even REMOTELY part of the problem. You having your 7 credit cards with an average of $8,000 in debt per capita are part of the problem. YOU wanting more and more for less and less work art part of the problem. Not me.
No, wait.
The businesses are doing what is within the law for them to do.
The Libertarians want to change that. Right now, I can log on to the Internet and see how much money "big business" gives to both side of the political system. We want to get rid of the bipartisan imbalanced system where NOTHING can get done.
Big Business wants to help its shareholders, which may number in the millions. When a big business gives $5,000,000 to a candidate, its really giving maybe $5 per shareholder, isn't it? How is that unfair?
If you want to counter big business, get your own PAC together and counter it by giving your own donations. Oh, don't have enough people to form a PAC? Then I guess not enough people agree with you enough to give up a few dollars to fight so called "big business."
In America, we do vote with our dollars. But the PACs aren't voting with billions for one group, they are voting with a few dollars per member. Why is that bad?
And that is EXACTLY what I said in my post. We (the 'weak') have the Internet. The best form of Government for us is to boycott or ban companies we don't like, VIA the Internet, to show that we indeed are all powerful as a group of "one."
Thomas Hobbes was right but could NEVER have foresaw the Internet and the power that it gives us as individuals within a group. If you know of a company who doesn't comply with their posted privacy statement, then tell others! Get the word out. Form a team, a group, a society of people with like interests and let them know.
Don't bother doing it through the Republicrats or Democricans in office. With this very illegal bipartisan system, nothing can get done anyway. So might as well take the power of the Internet and go, man, go.
Bingo. And in return for these wonderful priviledges, you give up some privacy. Big f'ing deal, right?
You're one of few though who don't carry a huge balance, don't care really what the cc company does with the information, as long as you get your priviledges.
I don't think the privacy breaches are that bad even. If you get something good out of it, then who cares?
Umm, why do I need to rent a car, or a movie? If you're renting someone else's expensive goods, then why shouldn't they know more about you, to trust you, etc?
You CAN pay cash for nearly everything. Don't get a car loan, save up $400 a month for 5 years, and then go buy a car cash, and while you drive that car for 5 years, save up another $20,000 (plus interest) to buy your next car.
I provide as little information as possible. You can even get a credit card, by the way, without giving ANY information if you are willing to get it fully secured. I have a few friends who have secured cards with no real information on them, sure they'll never get their security deposit back, but hey, $1000 or whatever it is for 10-20 years of use on a secured card isn't such a bad penalty to pay so you don't have your real info out there.
If you want the quality of life you're living now, with credit lines, movie rental abilities, etc, then yes, you'll give up some privacy. If you really want privacy, there are MANY MANY ways to find it, and some of them are pretty sane.
No, "idiots like" me pay attention to the privacy guidelines we receive in the mail or get online.
"Idiots like" me don't have a frequent buyer's discount card to any grocery stores (I bet you do) so no one knows what I buy.
"Idiots like" me pay cash for as much as we can, including but not limited to what we drive, what we eat, what we watch (movies, etc) because we know that the credit card company is giving us the card in exchange for a nice interest rate and the right to do what they please with the information we give them freely.
"Idiots like" me don't give out our SS# to colleges we attend, don't list it on our driver's license, and check our credit reports (all 3) at least every quarter and find who is looking into our records.
"Idiots like" me understand that is because of IDIOTS LIKE YOU that we get great rates on loans, good deals at the grocery store (I use the cashier's frequent buyer card when I shop) and low prices all around BECAUSE business know more about us and can target their expensive advertising towards those who rely on it.
I personally don't rely on advertising, don't care for coupons or credit cards, don't like to write checks. All the bank SHOULD know about you is "Withdrew $100 from ATM on 6/12/01" and "Deposited check from company on 6/9/01." If you do more with THEIR credit card and THEIR ATM card and THEIR checking account number, is it their fault if you freely gave them information?
I think not. Idiot.
Where's the problem? It's a free market, companies should be able to do what they want to do, and if you don't like it, don't use that company. Find a small family run FDIC insured bank, or better yet, a credit union that promises not to do it. If they do share, then leave.
Sure, big business is tough to fight, but that's why we have the Internet, to share this information. Do you work at a bank that says they respect privacy but is brokering out your information? Then post it, anonymously, to some forum where others can find out and then ignore the bank.
Its quite simple. You pick the companies you do business with, knowing full well now that they CAN share your data. So don't give them any data. Oh, too bad, maybe you can't use your credit card now to run up a 50,000 debt you'll never pay. Boo-hoo.
Or better yet, invest out of the country in smaller privately insured banks. There are huge insurance companies out there insuring lesser known foreign banks up to $500,000 per account (more than the FDIC) and you can sometimes get away with very little personal information posted to open such an account.
Do your research, stop trying to control "big business."
I've found that a standard 'form letter' has worked for me in the past. I've probably won back some lost clients because of security issues. Generally, my letters have been written to whomever accepted the bids for the original contract, along with a repeated thank you for allowing our company to bid on the project. We hope we can be of use in the future on similiar projects, and want to be kept abreast of any upcoming work that will be taking bids. On another note, we would like to mention that we review the your website as it currently stands, and have found some serious security issues and risks that go beyond being "potential problems." If you would be interested in hiring our security team to show you the current security breaches and issues, we would be happy to draft up a competitive bid package for the consulting time and documentation time needed to review all the security problems as your system currently stands. Then go on to say how security is as important to your firm as the end product, and that it is quite possible the reason your bid package on the original contract was higher than the winner was because of differences in opinions about Internet security. Don't be afraid to blast their price, not their service. If you get a follow call (I've gotten them more than 75% of the time!) you can explain that many websites on the Internet have security issues, that you are well versed with how to handle them, and many companies haven't taken the time because the chance of getting hacked SEEMS slim, while in reality it is not. I've lost some clients who have returned to the bid winner to clarify security issues and have gotten some of them fixed (without us telling them specifically what the problems are). Even if you don't get the contract, you may end up with more lucrative time and material work pointing out the bugs in the code. I prefer T&M at full rate rather than contract at discount rate anyway. Plus, there's no warranty involved in T&M consulting. Good luck!