Cybercrime pisses off U.S. black market businesses because it outsources a huge income potential to other countries.
All kidding aside, I don't personally believe in cybercrime. Some cybercrime victims are merely stupid users, and no law can fix them. Other cybercrimes that do disturb one's property should be covered by laws already in place.
My fear is that defending the cybercrime idea will only help make more wealthy lawyers and give politicians more abusive power.
What is the size of the market for people who need a new hand? I'm intrigued for seeing deeper into the business plan here.
Are there profitable products that can be extended from this one? Maybe cybernetics for the non-handicapped in controlling machinery or possibly military purposes?
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be research for the handicapped, I'm just trying to see how a corporation justifiesthe expenses.
Or is this a government-funded (theft) product? If so, I'll say it is a waste.
We had an authority over a large central government: the States. Until the 17th Amendment destroyed the State guardians, that is.
The War Between States (aka Lincoln's Civil War) was not about slavery, it was about getting away from the tyranny of Clay and Hamilton's American System of Mercantilism.
Thanks. It is also one that I think I could live by, even though I consider myself an anarchocapitalist.
If we could return to the days of a very limited federal government, the citizens could pick the State that best suits their beliefs. The federal government was built to make sure the States don't trample on the rights of the citizens, and to defend our borders. They were not set up to offend other countries or tax or surveil or build railroads.
I see you're a teacher: I also believe the federal government has no right to invest in education or make grants or loans for college. You would find yourself with many more freedoms as a teacher, though, if you (or your school) didn't fall under federal regulations for colleges.
The KKK doesn't exist in a single state, international terrorists don't only stay in a single state.
If the KKK commits a State crime (murder is a State crime not a federal crime), they'll be prosecuted by the State. What's the problem?
Terrorists are not a problem. I have yet to see terrorist being a problem, other than 9/11, and I will argue to my grave that we asked for me through our interventions throughout the world.
The Federal government has no power to fight these groups -- NO POWER. But giving them this power gives them the power to continue to tax the citizens in small amounts to give big amounts to the cronies.
And by your logic, I can automatically dismiss any POV you have since it obviously only serves your best interest. That statement is totally self defeating, as you're saying that no ones motivations can be trusted, so therefore you've given anyone a very good argument for why EVERYONE should be able to be surveilled upon, regardless of who they are and if they are currently doing anything to "warrant" such surveilence.
Untrue. When I offer you a product or a service, you know I am looking to make a profit. I profit with added income, you profit with an added service. You can fire me at any time if my product doesn't perform, or you find a better deal.
Government is a monopoly on the use of force, and every government enacts is provided for through coercion: do this or we'll jail/shoot you. There is a HUGE difference between me and government. You can choose to avoid my product. You can't choose to avoid government.
EXCEPT
The Constitution designed this country so that State governments could compete with one another -- to try to bring in the best citizens. The Federal government was set up solely to defend the borders (DEFEND) and make sure the State governments didn't trample on basic human rights. The federal government had no military, had no tax authority and had no ability to watch the CITIZENS, they were designed to watch the State governments.
Further, I'd argue that even if their primary motivation is protection of their "family and friends", such protection, on a broad and indirect scale , necessarily extends to anyone of similar background: if an indirect action is believed to protect that federal official's "family", it also protects everyone else.
I'm not saying they want these laws to protec their families -- they want these laws so government is forced to spend taxdollars towards these individuals and their families.
The motivation of government officials is to take care of themselves first. The motivation of nearly ALL individuals is to take care of themselves first. This is fine in a completely voluntary system (such as the free market) where we know the other party is profiting, but we're profiting from their service or product.
Government, on the other hand, is a one way street. We get taxed say 5 cents so that a government official can take all those little nickels and offer it in whole to some friend or crony. Guess what? All those little nickels add up, often, to millions. Now we have 300 million citizens who aren't going to fight to save a nickel each, or one REALLY powerful friend of a few Congressmen who WILL fight to save his income.
Actually, the Republicans have always been the Party of Lincoln. Lincoln was at heart a fan of Clay and Hamilton's American System of Mercantilism: warfare, welfare for corporations, high income taxation and a central bank.
There is no surprise to any freedom lover that the Republicans are evil (as are the Democrats as well). Both parties are subsets of the Authoritarian Party, which believes in trampling on rights of the many to help the few.
I'm no libertarian: there is no way to save freedom through law.
Actually, the McCarthy affair wouldn't have occured if our U.S. Congress stuck to their prescribed Constitutional powers. The Federal government is so restricted by the Constitution that no group would really have much power to do much, including Communists, Democrats, Republicans, whoever.
The answer is simple: reduce federal power to the Constitutional maximum.
United States citizens or permanent residents, to legitimately be conspiring to commit actions against the United States or its citizens that would be outside of the bounds of the law, in concert or cooperation with a foreign influence?
This question is irrelevant as the Constitution does NOT give our Federal government any power to do anything about these problems. The States and the People are the ones who need to arm themselves to protect against "terrorists." Our Federal government is also guilty of causing the anger and hatred that exists against the country by others.
Is it ever ok for US intelligence and/or military capability to use domestic surveillance and/or intelligence-gathering to protect our assets (be they life, property, and so on), or is it always better to err on the side of privacy in domestic concerns, and use the standard US criminal justice system to prosecute crimes after they have already occurred?
The problem is much deeper as I partially explained above. US Intelligence and the US military has no power to be used against the citizens in any way, or on US soil in any way but defensive. If they want to tap our phones so they can NOTIFY a citizen they're a target, there MIGHT be some Constitutional authority (in defense) but I can't see much beyond that. The biggest problem is that government has no power to privacy -- they must be transparent and completely answerable to any citizen. US Intelligence is so hidden that there is no oversight and the 9th and 10th Amendments provide for the People to have the power to investigate the government.
Is it possible to have appropriate oversight of such activities, or would you argue that such mechanisms for oversight and investigation already exist (e.g., warrants, etc.)?
Yes, leave it to the States and the People.
Please consider that no matter how much you personally may distrust the machinery of government, I would remind you that you would likely find that in face-to-face discussions with individual military, intelligence, or other government personnel, you'd find a genuine and deep-seated desire to do what is best.
Whoops, you forgot a few words:
you'd find a genuine and deep-seated desire to do what is best, for the government person's self or family or friends.
Don't like your neighbor getting high? Start a war on drugs. Three thousand people get killed in a terrorist action? Take everyone's civil liberties away.
No, that's not the case... Your questions are more in line as such:
1. Don't like people medicating with drugs made by groups that don't bribe politicians? 2. Three thousand people get killed because the politicians before you killed millions of non-citizens?
Surveillance will always be pitched in the guise of protecting lives.
Which is why we need to show this for what it really is: extending the financial income of those voting for the bill.
Isn't it ironic that the Chinese government is helping to fund the War in Iraq AND the eradication of US civil liberties?
Not really. The Chinese government has been culpable for a decade by continually buying our counterfeit dollars that Greenspan has been printing in high speed. What surprises me more is that I meet people every day who still have a love for government.
Our basic rights that used to be protected by the Bill of Rights lost that protection decades ago. What's new? We still have those basic rights, government just ignored their restrictions on trampling those rights. It doesn't stop me from expressing them, I just have to be a little more careful.
I'm against government is every form, but I say to hell with it. Let them spy. The bigger and more intrusive government gets, the more people will flock to the underground economy and the more bloat and red tape will be created that will make the new intrusions pretty useless. Because the CIA and the FBI and the NSA are already off limits, they might be spying already and we have no idea. They just want to make it legit, in a country with the largest percentage of citizens in prison.
With another Congressman getting caught (taking bribes this time), the problem with our government isn't the CIA or the FBI or the War on Iraq or any of the usual suspects. The real problem we face today is the abuse of power that ALL government officers perform at every level of government. Do you really think the morons at the DMV don't abuse their power? Do you think the local cop doesn't? Do you think your zoning board doesn't abuse their power? Why would you think otherwise?
Government is one thing: a cabal with the unique monopoly on using force against anyone they please. Why keep voting for more thieves and murderers when you can do the right thing: stop voting, start finding alternate sources of income.
For those fearing chaotic nihilism from a complete lack of government: most minarchists, libertarians and even some anarchocapitalists such as myself are not adverse to very small governments at the city level. Want to live as a socialist? Find 30,000 other socialists and form a local government completely seperate from those outside of your town.
I do have a great solution to the abuse of power: unanimous majority voting. Don't pass any law without a completely unanimous voting group. If you can't get EVERY U.S. voter to vote YES for a law, try to get every Illinoisan to vote. If you can't get EVERY Illinois voter to vote YES for that law, try to get every Chicagoan. If that doesn't work, drop down to the district/precinct level. If that doesn't work, try to get everyone on your city block to vote YES. If you can't get a unanimous voting bloc there, guess what? You're witnessing the fraud of democracy. Anyone who votes in the next national election basically accepts all the atrocities the previous politicians enacted.
I understand how people can look at my analogy as wrong, all I was pointing at is that Bastiat didn't support either the window glazer OR the window owner -- he pointed out that ALL decisions made and decisions ignored affect the market somehow.
Microsoft's dominance may not make you profitable, but they are ONE OF the strongest IT market forces, so those who work against them have see a higher risk -- and maybe a higher reward IF they succeed.
If you pick a product that is difficult to interface into the current market leader, you're taking a risk for what may be a bigger reward.
The difference between the RIAA and Microsoft is that the RIAA uses government's coercion to bolster their product. Microsoft does sue for copying Windows, but most users pay for the operating system (being businesses). I'm not saying taking apart Microsoft is akin to breaking a window (no pun), but I am saying that Microsoft does perform some good for the economy and I do not see them as a monopoly force.
Actually, I'm a reader of Bastiat and didn't say it was exactly the same, it just reminded me of it. It is very easy to say "kill Windows and save money!" but you have to look at the big picture, just as the people that proclaim benefit from breaking a window.
If you read my comment, you'd see that I acknowledge that the money WOULD flow to other areas of the economy. Microsoft is not the broken window, killing Microsoft is the broken window. How would the money flow? Who knows, that's for the market to decide. Many readers on slashdot likely earn their living directly or indirectly from Microsoft's large share of the market. I believe many would find their jobs missing if Microsoft was terminated overnight.
but if you aren't an M$ fanboy and don't consider yourself a Linux fanboy, then I assume you must be a Mac fanboy.
I disagree. I am a fanboy of making my time spent valuable to me. Time spent can be financially profitable or it can be socially profitable or spiritually profitable, but it must be profitable. I'm not going to waste my time reinventing the wheel, as I'm not getting paid for it, increasing my social status, or gaining spiritual wealth.
I don't know what I could say that hasn't already been said in the M$ vs. Mac vs. Linux choice. However, I think that at the bottom line it is just that, choice.
Correct! And you have that choice, right? Which instantly destroys anyone else's "Microsoft is a monopoly!" claim.
Since I'm sys-adminning other peoples machines, I choose to give them something which eases my efforts.
True, and it is your job so it makes sense for you to know the ins-and-outs. Using Linux offers you a profit in terms of knowledge that you can use to earn dollars, see? For me, everything I plug into my PC has to work no matter WHAT OS I am using. All my Linux PCs over the years have had significant driver problems -- anyone using Linux for the past 6 years knows what I am talking about. I try a new Linux PC every 6 months, and while the problems have been reduced, I still can't find it time-preferable for me.
I couldn't care less whether you use Linux or not. I'm just extremely grateful that I can.
And I agree with you 100%. I'd LOVE to use Linux, in fact, I likely will in the next few weeks on my main writing PC. For me, though, Windows has offered so much in time-saved as all my needed devices have just worked. I don't have the time to get new hardware working under Linux, and I'm often trying something new that doesn't even have a Linux driver.
I'd love to see more Linux users as that will increase the usability of Linux by the laymen. That is definitely a goal of mine, but I'm not going to destroy a good portion of my income to meet that goal right now.
I don't see Microsoft as a thief. Government is a thief: they steal with the threat of a gun. Microsoft is a choice, government isn't.
You and every other person in this world is FREE to choose against Microsoft. As many people know, Microsoft has an interface in their software that is VERY easy to use, and they are supported by more programmers than any other operating system. You can't fault Microsoft for releasing Windows 3.1 that was compatible with millions of computers and offered a fairly decent interface. Apple decided to release their OS to a proprietary solution, and F/OSS OSes weren't really on the radar at the time.
Interesting. I'm not familiar with the "current" available Powerbook/iBook dinosaurs. I do recall the great keyboards, but I am very interested in looking at how thin, light, and small they are.
For me, a tiny screen is fine (800x600 as long as its BRIGHT). I have no need for a CD or DVD. I have no need for more than 4-6GB. I don't even need a PC Card slot (unfortunately all laptops have them). 1 USB port or Firewire, a bright 800x600 screen and 4GB hard drive with at least 200Mhz processor speed.
This book is very similar to the Parable of the Broken Window by Bastiat. You can remove Microsoft from the PC equation and maybe see a savings of $450 per PC, but you're forgetting about the unintended consequences of that action.
I'm not being a Microsoft fanboy here, I just wanted to make it clear that Microsoft is producing a huge market than many of us here rely on. Microsoft uses their profit for positive benefits to society as well: 1234 These are just a few from November, 2005.
Also, Microsoft employs more than 12,000 people. These people likely buy products or use services that your employer produces.
Sure, ending Microsoft's majority-control of the operating system market and office processing market sounds like a great idea, yet there isn't a viable alternative that is as widely supported, YET. Give it time. Thousands of companies this very minute are working on the next replacement of both the OS and the office processing software.
The market compensates for consumer demand, and no company (that I know of) has had the ability to perform at the top for more than a decade. Microsoft has been on top for a while, but it isn't anything unnatural -- they've created a product that billions of people LIKE using. That product has created a third party market that has put food on the table of millions of contractors, programmers and hardware manufacturers.
Would the money saved over Office and Windows be spent elsewhere? Of course it would. I believe that money will be best spent over time, as individual consumers make individual choices. Yes, going to F/OSS software would likely save $500 per PC that could be spent on food or cars or drugs or hookers or a new roof, but such a change couldn't happen overnight.
If Linux fanboys want to convince, they need to make a product that works as well as the competition.
In my experience (I'm 31 and have been watching freeware since 1984 when I started my first BBS), that hasn't happened often.
Looking at the editorial closer:
Bove is correct that Microsoft's practices over the years have discouraged innovation and stunted competition. Stunted competition? Microsoft's platform has offered millions of programmers a fairly amazing platform to make software that not only works in a standard way familiar to users, but also interacts with other programs.
Two of the companies that Microsoft has been accused of destroying are Novell and WordPerfect. The editor is right in laying the blame at Novell and WordPerfect. My company only maintains a few Novell servers and we HATE them. WordPerfect was always terrible except when it was running solely under DOS. They never produced a product that was user friendly (I know, we still support some WordPerfect desktops).
While a Mac is not necessarily cheaper than a Wintel system, the Mac OS X is considerably more resilient against attacks. I'm not sure this is really a big deal. My security company offers corporations the ability to be virus and spam free for less than $250 per user per year. For a 50-user network, you're looking at only $12,500 to bring us on. Considering most of my customers bill out at $150 per hour, for only 83 hours invested, we're likely saving them hundreds of hours in time saved. If they switched to a Mac, they're still going to need someone working on their spam and other problems, and I don't see a huge savings there over us.
Chapter 3 deals with what worries Microsoft the most - Lin
Considering my church is in a high crime area, and I know that we've looked at providing Internet services for both teens and poor families, I think Linux could be a decent substitute for Win98. Firefox is simple under Linux, and the GUI is becoming more user friendly.
I agree, it isn't the best solution, but it isn't a bad one either.
I tried one and I hated the keyboard. The Sony keyboard was tinier than standard, but it had a better feel to it. I know it seems to be a really bad reason to say "no" to a decent laptop, but when you type/write as much as I do on a daily basis, you want the built-in keyboard to be near perfect!
My church could use a few PCs. My local teen center could as well. I don't have $5000 in my budget to purchase them 10 PCs, but I probably have 15 PCs worth of hardware that could run Firefox and a basic word processor just perfectly with Damn Small Linux or another distro.
This is actually a distribution that I think will find many fans. I have so much hardware I'd like to donate to my church or local teen center but I know wouldn't run WinXP.
Personally, I've been looking for a throw-away cheap laptop so I can word process on-the-go. My previous model was a Sony VAIO model (PCG-N505VX I believe) with no CD or DVD (useless for me), a gorgeous display, and it was thinner than any laptop I'd ever seen. The processor was a P2-333 I believe, and it did everything I needed it to do (it was the first PC I had with Firewire built in).
Unfortunately, I dropped it once too many times, and it's $sys$. I hate Sony now, but I am desperate to find a similar laptop. I'd gladly install a thin version of Linux, but I am worried about driver support on some of these old notebooks. For me, video driver support is REALLY important (I need fast video as I do tend to swap between windows at incredible speed).
Currently I perform almost all my writing and editing on my Pocket PC Phone with an external keyboard, but it isn't keeping up with my volume. I may go find a used N505VX as the form factor was perfect, and searching the web shows numerous people with successful Linux installs on this unit. I was holding off on replacing my portable because I didn't want to screw with Linux and I knew it was my only real option.
The article is now in my bookmarks, I've been banging my head trying to find a deposit of information on using Linux with ancient hardware. Having a preassembled distro is a huge plus, I hate wasting time tinkering with any production-quality machine.
Why not buy a new unit? Honestly, money isn't the problem. For me, the new laptops are way overburdened with hardware and features that I would NEVER need. I have yet to see a new SMALL monitor on a thin minimalist laptop that works as well as my old N505 did, as brightly as it did, with battery life as good as it had.
I can definitely agree that Windows XP wouldn't run well on the laptop, yet my Win2K install was pretty decent (I needed a ton of RAM though, and the article is aimed at 64MB dinosaurs).
I did. I type my comments on my PDA Phone and use word-completion to increase my typing speed to way more than you'd believe on a small keyboard. I hit the wrong word there, thanks for the correction.
I assume you're also keeping copies of your backups off-site...
Depends on the customers' needs. I don't back up much of my own data as I don't have much need for anything except what government requires me to keep. As for what word I meant to use, I did mean WEARY: Having one's interest, forbearance, or indulgence worn out. My interest is worn out in these huge media formats. Thanks for incorrectly correcting me.
I can think of a few. Instead of asking dumb questions, perhaps you should do some basic research?
I own a business and have employees that handle that research, yet I have yet to see an answer that I can sell to every customer. Current solutions for data bloat only cause more data bloat. Understand my original comment's subject?
Only an idiot (or an amature) would run their backups against a life filesystem.
I have an engineering customer that modifies a significant amount of their data in tiny ways every day. Snapshots have proven to be the WORST way for backing up when you consider the recovery time needed. For the product we offer, we guarantee a quick return to production.
If you want complicated, check out SANs using multi-diskarray plaids and all the LVM / VFS junk that goes on top of that.
One of my employees fixes my dad's computer. I've never answered the phone. As for complicated, RAIDs are horribly complex. I've seen so many RAIDs blow drives repeatedly that took dozens of hours to figure out the reason. I've seen clusters get confused (even recent ones) and was happy to convince the customer to dump the systems. I believe SANs are less complicated but the manufacturing and tech support side is colluding to make it complex. I wonder if you're posting AC because your job relies on creating more complex systems for job security, rather than helping make your customers more profitable (which is what we sell in our services -- profitability on investing in our time).
Seeing posts like the parent modded +5 insightful is depressing.
Slashdot Mirror
Lincoln hated blacks. He wrote the Illinois law barring blacks from his State. Google Dilorenzo real lincoln to read some sickening Lincoln facts.
Good post, btw.
Cybercrime pisses off U.S. black market businesses because it outsources a huge income potential to other countries.
All kidding aside, I don't personally believe in cybercrime. Some cybercrime victims are merely stupid users, and no law can fix them. Other cybercrimes that do disturb one's property should be covered by laws already in place.
My fear is that defending the cybercrime idea will only help make more wealthy lawyers and give politicians more abusive power.
What is the size of the market for people who need a new hand? I'm intrigued for seeing deeper into the business plan here.
Are there profitable products that can be extended from this one? Maybe cybernetics for the non-handicapped in controlling machinery or possibly military purposes?
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be research for the handicapped, I'm just trying to see how a corporation justifiesthe expenses.
Or is this a government-funded (theft) product? If so, I'll say it is a waste.
I am against voting. Government is coercion, I prefer convincing.
The free market works exceptionally well with government force. I believe most market failures came from government intrusion.
Now that we have instant global information sharing, the fears that created so many government regulations can be reduced by sharing of information.
We had an authority over a large central government: the States. Until the 17th Amendment destroyed the State guardians, that is.
The War Between States (aka Lincoln's Civil War) was not about slavery, it was about getting away from the tyranny of Clay and Hamilton's American System of Mercantilism.
Thanks. It is also one that I think I could live by, even though I consider myself an anarchocapitalist.
If we could return to the days of a very limited federal government, the citizens could pick the State that best suits their beliefs. The federal government was built to make sure the States don't trample on the rights of the citizens, and to defend our borders. They were not set up to offend other countries or tax or surveil or build railroads.
I see you're a teacher: I also believe the federal government has no right to invest in education or make grants or loans for college. You would find yourself with many more freedoms as a teacher, though, if you (or your school) didn't fall under federal regulations for colleges.
The KKK doesn't exist in a single state, international terrorists don't only stay in a single state.
If the KKK commits a State crime (murder is a State crime not a federal crime), they'll be prosecuted by the State. What's the problem?
Terrorists are not a problem. I have yet to see terrorist being a problem, other than 9/11, and I will argue to my grave that we asked for me through our interventions throughout the world.
The Federal government has no power to fight these groups -- NO POWER. But giving them this power gives them the power to continue to tax the citizens in small amounts to give big amounts to the cronies.
And by your logic, I can automatically dismiss any POV you have since it obviously only serves your best interest. That statement is totally self defeating, as you're saying that no ones motivations can be trusted, so therefore you've given anyone a very good argument for why EVERYONE should be able to be surveilled upon, regardless of who they are and if they are currently doing anything to "warrant" such surveilence.
Untrue. When I offer you a product or a service, you know I am looking to make a profit. I profit with added income, you profit with an added service. You can fire me at any time if my product doesn't perform, or you find a better deal.
Government is a monopoly on the use of force, and every government enacts is provided for through coercion: do this or we'll jail/shoot you. There is a HUGE difference between me and government. You can choose to avoid my product. You can't choose to avoid government.
EXCEPT
The Constitution designed this country so that State governments could compete with one another -- to try to bring in the best citizens. The Federal government was set up solely to defend the borders (DEFEND) and make sure the State governments didn't trample on basic human rights. The federal government had no military, had no tax authority and had no ability to watch the CITIZENS, they were designed to watch the State governments.
Further, I'd argue that even if their primary motivation is protection of their "family and friends", such protection, on a broad and indirect scale , necessarily extends to anyone of similar background: if an indirect action is believed to protect that federal official's "family", it also protects everyone else.
I'm not saying they want these laws to protec their families -- they want these laws so government is forced to spend taxdollars towards these individuals and their families.
The motivation of government officials is to take care of themselves first. The motivation of nearly ALL individuals is to take care of themselves first. This is fine in a completely voluntary system (such as the free market) where we know the other party is profiting, but we're profiting from their service or product.
Government, on the other hand, is a one way street. We get taxed say 5 cents so that a government official can take all those little nickels and offer it in whole to some friend or crony. Guess what? All those little nickels add up, often, to millions. Now we have 300 million citizens who aren't going to fight to save a nickel each, or one REALLY powerful friend of a few Congressmen who WILL fight to save his income.
Actually, the Republicans have always been the Party of Lincoln. Lincoln was at heart a fan of Clay and Hamilton's American System of Mercantilism: warfare, welfare for corporations, high income taxation and a central bank.
There is no surprise to any freedom lover that the Republicans are evil (as are the Democrats as well). Both parties are subsets of the Authoritarian Party, which believes in trampling on rights of the many to help the few.
I'm no libertarian: there is no way to save freedom through law.
Actually, the McCarthy affair wouldn't have occured if our U.S. Congress stuck to their prescribed Constitutional powers. The Federal government is so restricted by the Constitution that no group would really have much power to do much, including Communists, Democrats, Republicans, whoever.
The answer is simple: reduce federal power to the Constitutional maximum.
United States citizens or permanent residents, to legitimately be conspiring to commit actions against the United States or its citizens that would be outside of the bounds of the law, in concert or cooperation with a foreign influence?
This question is irrelevant as the Constitution does NOT give our Federal government any power to do anything about these problems. The States and the People are the ones who need to arm themselves to protect against "terrorists." Our Federal government is also guilty of causing the anger and hatred that exists against the country by others.
Is it ever ok for US intelligence and/or military capability to use domestic surveillance and/or intelligence-gathering to protect our assets (be they life, property, and so on), or is it always better to err on the side of privacy in domestic concerns, and use the standard US criminal justice system to prosecute crimes after they have already occurred?
The problem is much deeper as I partially explained above. US Intelligence and the US military has no power to be used against the citizens in any way, or on US soil in any way but defensive. If they want to tap our phones so they can NOTIFY a citizen they're a target, there MIGHT be some Constitutional authority (in defense) but I can't see much beyond that. The biggest problem is that government has no power to privacy -- they must be transparent and completely answerable to any citizen. US Intelligence is so hidden that there is no oversight and the 9th and 10th Amendments provide for the People to have the power to investigate the government.
Is it possible to have appropriate oversight of such activities, or would you argue that such mechanisms for oversight and investigation already exist (e.g., warrants, etc.)?
Yes, leave it to the States and the People.
Please consider that no matter how much you personally may distrust the machinery of government, I would remind you that you would likely find that in face-to-face discussions with individual military, intelligence, or other government personnel, you'd find a genuine and deep-seated desire to do what is best.
Whoops, you forgot a few words:
you'd find a genuine and deep-seated desire to do what is best, for the government person's self or family or friends.
Don't like your neighbor getting high? Start a war on drugs. Three thousand people get killed in a terrorist action? Take everyone's civil liberties away.
No, that's not the case... Your questions are more in line as such:
1. Don't like people medicating with drugs made by groups that don't bribe politicians?
2. Three thousand people get killed because the politicians before you killed millions of non-citizens?
Surveillance will always be pitched in the guise of protecting lives.
Which is why we need to show this for what it really is: extending the financial income of those voting for the bill.
Isn't it ironic that the Chinese government is helping to fund the War in Iraq AND the eradication of US civil liberties?
Not really. The Chinese government has been culpable for a decade by continually buying our counterfeit dollars that Greenspan has been printing in high speed. What surprises me more is that I meet people every day who still have a love for government.
Our basic rights that used to be protected by the Bill of Rights lost that protection decades ago. What's new? We still have those basic rights, government just ignored their restrictions on trampling those rights. It doesn't stop me from expressing them, I just have to be a little more careful.
I'm against government is every form, but I say to hell with it. Let them spy. The bigger and more intrusive government gets, the more people will flock to the underground economy and the more bloat and red tape will be created that will make the new intrusions pretty useless. Because the CIA and the FBI and the NSA are already off limits, they might be spying already and we have no idea. They just want to make it legit, in a country with the largest percentage of citizens in prison.
With another Congressman getting caught (taking bribes this time), the problem with our government isn't the CIA or the FBI or the War on Iraq or any of the usual suspects. The real problem we face today is the abuse of power that ALL government officers perform at every level of government. Do you really think the morons at the DMV don't abuse their power? Do you think the local cop doesn't? Do you think your zoning board doesn't abuse their power? Why would you think otherwise?
Government is one thing: a cabal with the unique monopoly on using force against anyone they please. Why keep voting for more thieves and murderers when you can do the right thing: stop voting, start finding alternate sources of income.
For those fearing chaotic nihilism from a complete lack of government: most minarchists, libertarians and even some anarchocapitalists such as myself are not adverse to very small governments at the city level. Want to live as a socialist? Find 30,000 other socialists and form a local government completely seperate from those outside of your town.
I do have a great solution to the abuse of power: unanimous majority voting. Don't pass any law without a completely unanimous voting group. If you can't get EVERY U.S. voter to vote YES for a law, try to get every Illinoisan to vote. If you can't get EVERY Illinois voter to vote YES for that law, try to get every Chicagoan. If that doesn't work, drop down to the district/precinct level. If that doesn't work, try to get everyone on your city block to vote YES. If you can't get a unanimous voting bloc there, guess what? You're witnessing the fraud of democracy. Anyone who votes in the next national election basically accepts all the atrocities the previous politicians enacted.
I understand how people can look at my analogy as wrong, all I was pointing at is that Bastiat didn't support either the window glazer OR the window owner -- he pointed out that ALL decisions made and decisions ignored affect the market somehow.
Microsoft's dominance may not make you profitable, but they are ONE OF the strongest IT market forces, so those who work against them have see a higher risk -- and maybe a higher reward IF they succeed.
If you pick a product that is difficult to interface into the current market leader, you're taking a risk for what may be a bigger reward.
The difference between the RIAA and Microsoft is that the RIAA uses government's coercion to bolster their product. Microsoft does sue for copying Windows, but most users pay for the operating system (being businesses). I'm not saying taking apart Microsoft is akin to breaking a window (no pun), but I am saying that Microsoft does perform some good for the economy and I do not see them as a monopoly force.
Actually, I'm a reader of Bastiat and didn't say it was exactly the same, it just reminded me of it. It is very easy to say "kill Windows and save money!" but you have to look at the big picture, just as the people that proclaim benefit from breaking a window.
If you read my comment, you'd see that I acknowledge that the money WOULD flow to other areas of the economy. Microsoft is not the broken window, killing Microsoft is the broken window. How would the money flow? Who knows, that's for the market to decide. Many readers on slashdot likely earn their living directly or indirectly from Microsoft's large share of the market. I believe many would find their jobs missing if Microsoft was terminated overnight.
Read before commenting.
but if you aren't an M$ fanboy and don't consider yourself a Linux fanboy, then I assume you must be a Mac fanboy.
I disagree. I am a fanboy of making my time spent valuable to me. Time spent can be financially profitable or it can be socially profitable or spiritually profitable, but it must be profitable. I'm not going to waste my time reinventing the wheel, as I'm not getting paid for it, increasing my social status, or gaining spiritual wealth.
I don't know what I could say that hasn't already been said in the M$ vs. Mac vs. Linux choice. However, I think that at the bottom line it is just that, choice.
Correct! And you have that choice, right? Which instantly destroys anyone else's "Microsoft is a monopoly!" claim.
Since I'm sys-adminning other peoples machines, I choose to give them something which eases my efforts.
True, and it is your job so it makes sense for you to know the ins-and-outs. Using Linux offers you a profit in terms of knowledge that you can use to earn dollars, see? For me, everything I plug into my PC has to work no matter WHAT OS I am using. All my Linux PCs over the years have had significant driver problems -- anyone using Linux for the past 6 years knows what I am talking about. I try a new Linux PC every 6 months, and while the problems have been reduced, I still can't find it time-preferable for me.
I couldn't care less whether you use Linux or not. I'm just extremely grateful that I can.
And I agree with you 100%. I'd LOVE to use Linux, in fact, I likely will in the next few weeks on my main writing PC. For me, though, Windows has offered so much in time-saved as all my needed devices have just worked. I don't have the time to get new hardware working under Linux, and I'm often trying something new that doesn't even have a Linux driver.
I'd love to see more Linux users as that will increase the usability of Linux by the laymen. That is definitely a goal of mine, but I'm not going to destroy a good portion of my income to meet that goal right now.
I don't see Microsoft as a thief. Government is a thief: they steal with the threat of a gun. Microsoft is a choice, government isn't.
You and every other person in this world is FREE to choose against Microsoft. As many people know, Microsoft has an interface in their software that is VERY easy to use, and they are supported by more programmers than any other operating system. You can't fault Microsoft for releasing Windows 3.1 that was compatible with millions of computers and offered a fairly decent interface. Apple decided to release their OS to a proprietary solution, and F/OSS OSes weren't really on the radar at the time.
Interesting. I'm not familiar with the "current" available Powerbook/iBook dinosaurs. I do recall the great keyboards, but I am very interested in looking at how thin, light, and small they are.
:)
For me, a tiny screen is fine (800x600 as long as its BRIGHT). I have no need for a CD or DVD. I have no need for more than 4-6GB. I don't even need a PC Card slot (unfortunately all laptops have them). 1 USB port or Firewire, a bright 800x600 screen and 4GB hard drive with at least 200Mhz processor speed.
Time to hit e-bay
This book is very similar to the Parable of the Broken Window by Bastiat. You can remove Microsoft from the PC equation and maybe see a savings of $450 per PC, but you're forgetting about the unintended consequences of that action.
I'm not being a Microsoft fanboy here, I just wanted to make it clear that Microsoft is producing a huge market than many of us here rely on. Microsoft uses their profit for positive benefits to society as well: 1 2 3 4 These are just a few from November, 2005.
Also, Microsoft employs more than 12,000 people. These people likely buy products or use services that your employer produces.
Sure, ending Microsoft's majority-control of the operating system market and office processing market sounds like a great idea, yet there isn't a viable alternative that is as widely supported, YET. Give it time. Thousands of companies this very minute are working on the next replacement of both the OS and the office processing software.
The market compensates for consumer demand, and no company (that I know of) has had the ability to perform at the top for more than a decade. Microsoft has been on top for a while, but it isn't anything unnatural -- they've created a product that billions of people LIKE using. That product has created a third party market that has put food on the table of millions of contractors, programmers and hardware manufacturers.
Would the money saved over Office and Windows be spent elsewhere? Of course it would. I believe that money will be best spent over time, as individual consumers make individual choices. Yes, going to F/OSS software would likely save $500 per PC that could be spent on food or cars or drugs or hookers or a new roof, but such a change couldn't happen overnight.
If Linux fanboys want to convince, they need to make a product that works as well as the competition.
In my experience (I'm 31 and have been watching freeware since 1984 when I started my first BBS), that hasn't happened often.
Looking at the editorial closer:
Bove is correct that Microsoft's practices over the years have discouraged innovation and stunted competition. Stunted competition? Microsoft's platform has offered millions of programmers a fairly amazing platform to make software that not only works in a standard way familiar to users, but also interacts with other programs.
Two of the companies that Microsoft has been accused of destroying are Novell and WordPerfect. The editor is right in laying the blame at Novell and WordPerfect. My company only maintains a few Novell servers and we HATE them. WordPerfect was always terrible except when it was running solely under DOS. They never produced a product that was user friendly (I know, we still support some WordPerfect desktops).
While a Mac is not necessarily cheaper than a Wintel system, the Mac OS X is considerably more resilient against attacks. I'm not sure this is really a big deal. My security company offers corporations the ability to be virus and spam free for less than $250 per user per year. For a 50-user network, you're looking at only $12,500 to bring us on. Considering most of my customers bill out at $150 per hour, for only 83 hours invested, we're likely saving them hundreds of hours in time saved. If they switched to a Mac, they're still going to need someone working on their spam and other problems, and I don't see a huge savings there over us.
Chapter 3 deals with what worries Microsoft the most - Lin
Considering my church is in a high crime area, and I know that we've looked at providing Internet services for both teens and poor families, I think Linux could be a decent substitute for Win98. Firefox is simple under Linux, and the GUI is becoming more user friendly.
I agree, it isn't the best solution, but it isn't a bad one either.
I tried one and I hated the keyboard. The Sony keyboard was tinier than standard, but it had a better feel to it. I know it seems to be a really bad reason to say "no" to a decent laptop, but when you type/write as much as I do on a daily basis, you want the built-in keyboard to be near perfect!
Why mess with junk?
One geek's junk is a layman's treasure.
My church could use a few PCs. My local teen center could as well. I don't have $5000 in my budget to purchase them 10 PCs, but I probably have 15 PCs worth of hardware that could run Firefox and a basic word processor just perfectly with Damn Small Linux or another distro.
This is actually a distribution that I think will find many fans. I have so much hardware I'd like to donate to my church or local teen center but I know wouldn't run WinXP.
Personally, I've been looking for a throw-away cheap laptop so I can word process on-the-go. My previous model was a Sony VAIO model (PCG-N505VX I believe) with no CD or DVD (useless for me), a gorgeous display, and it was thinner than any laptop I'd ever seen. The processor was a P2-333 I believe, and it did everything I needed it to do (it was the first PC I had with Firewire built in).
Unfortunately, I dropped it once too many times, and it's $sys$. I hate Sony now, but I am desperate to find a similar laptop. I'd gladly install a thin version of Linux, but I am worried about driver support on some of these old notebooks. For me, video driver support is REALLY important (I need fast video as I do tend to swap between windows at incredible speed).
Currently I perform almost all my writing and editing on my Pocket PC Phone with an external keyboard, but it isn't keeping up with my volume. I may go find a used N505VX as the form factor was perfect, and searching the web shows numerous people with successful Linux installs on this unit. I was holding off on replacing my portable because I didn't want to screw with Linux and I knew it was my only real option.
The article is now in my bookmarks, I've been banging my head trying to find a deposit of information on using Linux with ancient hardware. Having a preassembled distro is a huge plus, I hate wasting time tinkering with any production-quality machine.
Why not buy a new unit? Honestly, money isn't the problem. For me, the new laptops are way overburdened with hardware and features that I would NEVER need. I have yet to see a new SMALL monitor on a thin minimalist laptop that works as well as my old N505 did, as brightly as it did, with battery life as good as it had.
I can definitely agree that Windows XP wouldn't run well on the laptop, yet my Win2K install was pretty decent (I needed a ton of RAM though, and the article is aimed at 64MB dinosaurs).
Do you mean investigating?
I did. I type my comments on my PDA Phone and use word-completion to increase my typing speed to way more than you'd believe on a small keyboard. I hit the wrong word there, thanks for the correction.
I assume you're also keeping copies of your backups off-site...
Depends on the customers' needs. I don't back up much of my own data as I don't have much need for anything except what government requires me to keep. As for what word I meant to use, I did mean WEARY: Having one's interest, forbearance, or indulgence worn out. My interest is worn out in these huge media formats. Thanks for incorrectly correcting me.
I can think of a few. Instead of asking dumb questions, perhaps you should do some basic research?
I own a business and have employees that handle that research, yet I have yet to see an answer that I can sell to every customer. Current solutions for data bloat only cause more data bloat. Understand my original comment's subject?
Only an idiot (or an amature) would run their backups against a life filesystem.
I have an engineering customer that modifies a significant amount of their data in tiny ways every day. Snapshots have proven to be the WORST way for backing up when you consider the recovery time needed. For the product we offer, we guarantee a quick return to production.
If you want complicated, check out SANs using multi-diskarray plaids and all the LVM / VFS junk that goes on top of that.
One of my employees fixes my dad's computer. I've never answered the phone. As for complicated, RAIDs are horribly complex. I've seen so many RAIDs blow drives repeatedly that took dozens of hours to figure out the reason. I've seen clusters get confused (even recent ones) and was happy to convince the customer to dump the systems. I believe SANs are less complicated but the manufacturing and tech support side is colluding to make it complex. I wonder if you're posting AC because your job relies on creating more complex systems for job security, rather than helping make your customers more profitable (which is what we sell in our services -- profitability on investing in our time).
Seeing posts like the parent modded +5 insightful is depressing.
What is your comment moderated at, Coward?