Wanting to call a duck a duck and a cat a cat is not being nitpicky. And copyright infringment and theft are as different as ducks and cats.
Is the employee refering to the type of person who willfully violates company policy, which in the view of the company is a crime aka the procurement of company trade secrets regardless of whether or not they divulged them or made a profit from their actions or is the employee refering the type of person who thinks being honest about willfully violating company policy, which in the view of the company that they work for is a crime aka the procurement of company trade secrets regardless of whether or not they divulged them or made a profit from their actions absolves them of punishment?
Better. It was still foolish of Apple to fire these people, because it's sending the message that if you fuck up, you're better off lying and take the risk of being found out and fired, rather than confessing your sins and definetly being fired. And this could come back to bit them. Say I work at Apple, and I find out that someone in my department is leaking details of upcoming products to Thinksecret. I could rat this person out to management, but this person knows I pettily broke company policy by using my employee discount to buy my sister an iPod. I could talk to my boss about the leaker and confess my own violation of company policy, but if it's just going to get me fired anyway, I'm going to keep my mouth shut.
More like if you use the same penalty for those who tell the truth as those who lie and get caught, you remove all the incentive to tell the truth in the first place.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the party practically split over the Viet Nam war and it began marginalizing its conservative wing.
Liar, unless by "conservative" you mean "racist". Not only has the Democratic party not moved to the left, it has moved to the right - and is more conservative than the GOP was thirty years ago. As for the GOP, it's moved so far to the right that it's got one foot in the "facism" category. John Mitchell, Nixon's Attorney General, observed that "the country is going so far to the right that you won't recognize it", waaay back in 1972, before Regean, before the GOP takeover of Congress, before 911.
Today, there is what is practically a purge going on in the Democratic Party as leftist activists try to drive out all but the most liberal or left leaning members. Joe Lieberman is a prime example.
Liar. There are plenty of other pro-military Democrats who voted for the Iraq invasion that didn't have to face strong primary challenges - Hillary Clinton, Jack Murtha, John Kerry, and so on. Joe Lieberman is being shown the door because while he claims to be a "loyal Democrat", he refuses to heed the choice of Democratic voters who voted for Ned Lamont in the primary, he ran for both the Senate and for Vice President in 2000 (if he and Gore had won, the Republican governor of CT would have nominated a Republican replacement), he has lent a "bipartisan" air to everything from the witch hunt for Bill Clinton, to gutting Social Security, to unconditional support for the Iraq war. Joe puts on airs of being a man of concience and principles, and yet has spend the last 6 years attacking Democrats more than attacking the Administration for illegal domestic spying, torture, extreme judicial nominees, or outting a CIA agent as a political ploy. Joe has also attacked Lamont for being endorsed by Al Sharpton, nevermind that Joe also sought Sharpton's endorcement - and his history of cozying up to Louis Farrakhan.
Maybe you've heard of "9/11 Democrats"? They are Democrats that understand that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were the opening volleys of a new threat against the United States, and that the Democratic Party, as currently composed, is not serious about national security despite the occasional noise they make.
Wow, this goes way beyond lying...fuck you, buddy. Who was the first to bomb Al Queda? Bill Clinton, you miserable sack of shit. Who treated terrorism as our #1 national security threat, before the towers were bombed? Bill Clinton. Who sat on reports predicting attacks by Al Queda in the U.S., using planes no less? George Bush. Who, as a former member of the Air Guard, indefensibly sat on his ass for 20 minutes while the nation was under attack, rather than calling NORAD, his two time Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield, or his VP and former SOD Dick Cheney? George Bush. Who pulled troops out of Afganistan into a bogus war, letting Osama bin Laddin escape? George Bush. Who has refused to do anything to block the gaping security holes in our ports and chemical plants? George Bush. Speaking of ports, who was completely unaware that an Arab company was going to take over management of the largest ports in the U.S.? George Bush. After running two elections demonizing Democrats as being unable to protect this country, who stayed on vacation while a hurricane was destroying New Orleans? George Bush. Who is making enemies faster than we can kill them? George Bush.
Consider the case of President John F. Kennedy. He favored tax reform
Looks like you are a liar, again. So have today's Democrats.
supported the Bay of Pigs operation
Some "support".
committed US troops to Viet Nam
Most Congressional Democrats voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq based on the evidence that was given them, and I doubt you could find a single one who opposed the operation in Afganistan.
faced down the Soviet Union in the Cuban Missile Crisis
If everything works out right, then our sons and daughters can leach off of the sons and daughters of Iraq. 50 years ago, many wanted to leave Germany and Japan in shambles. Today, would you say we are better or wose off for helping rebuild DE and JP?
Apples to irrelevant oranges. Germany and Japan may have been under totalitarian governments, but those governments weren't sitting on top of a powerkeg of ethnic and religious sects waiting to explode.
If we can do Iraq right
Too late. Far, far to late.
Or, we could just up and leave. Pull out the tentstakes and just hope for the best.
How much is too much? How many thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars need to be lost before the backers of the Iraqi invasion admit they totally and completely failed? Is it worth loosing 60,000 troops like we did in Vietnam? Is it worth another few trillion dollars to "stay the course?"
How long would it be before the warlords stepped in and turned Iraq into something much worse than we had before?
The Bush Administration did that already, thank you. The Iraqi people would have been better off if Saddam had been left in power. Neocons don't seem to realize that something you hate can be replaced with something much worse. The people of Afganistan would have been better off with a communist government than living under the Taliban. Communism fell in Yogoslavia, and it promptly disintegrated into civil war...just like Iraq has.
First, the NSA did not wiretap "the entire country"
How do you know what a secret agency is doing with a secret program?
Second, does the President yield less authority than your common beat cop? If a police officer pulls someone over and sees a beer can on the floor of the car, the courts have ruled that he has probable cause to perform a search without a warrant. Yet, when the military recovers a laptop with dozens of contacts in an Al-Quaida raid, this somehow doesn't meet the standard of 'probable cause'?
wtf are you talking about. I doubt the military obtaining an Al Qaeda laptop was one of the four times the FISA court has denied a warrant in it's almost 30 year history.
Hmmm, seems to me everyone "knew" how great the PSP was - right before the DS proceeded to trounce it up and down the sales chart.
Sure, you'll have no problems finding articles where people are wowed with the PSP's feature set, because it does have a very impressive set of features. About the same size as the DS, but with a much larger screen, 802.11b, a USB port, graphics hardware that in some ways is more powerful than the PS2, better sound, and able to play movies. However, you will have problems finding articles predicting dominance by Sony's handheld, which is a whole nother kettle of fish. In fact if you Google for "Sony PSP preview" and read every article on the first page of results, you'll find none of them expected trouble for Nintendo.
But if you really want to talk about the PSP, consider the fact that rumors were that it would cost $400 on launch, but Sony bit the bullet and released it at $250, 66% more than the DS, or $100. Now, the price for the Wii hasn't been announed yet, but $200-$250 is expected. The PS3 will be 200-300% more costly.
If the PSP had a release price of $450, the "unwashed masses" would have been down on it, too. At E3, if Sony had announed that the PS3 would cost under $350 (instead of $500 and $600), people would still be predicting another Sony win this round, like they were before E3.
So, in summary, and to borrow that old quote on politics and the economy: it's the price, stupid.
It absolutley matters. You seem to have a hard time grasping the "not everyone is a coder or can hire a coder" concept, which particularly applies to small businesses. But I would also add a third part, "not everyone has the time to code". IBM certinally has the resources to develop open sourced software, but if they need something now, and there is no OSS option but there is a closed source one, they wont hesitate to go with the latter.
Since when did people not purchase Free Software? Red Hat seems to make a pretty good living doing exactly this.
Which is helpful if there is a commercial company backing the software, but if there isn't, you are SOL. But even companies like Red Hat depend on the volunteer aspect of OSS, and trying to herd volunteers is like herding cats.
Not applicable.
Yes, it is.
Normally if the customer wants a feature, and it's profitable enough, they pay for the development in a certain area. IBM, Red Hat, Novell etc have done this many times.
Not every company is the size of IBM or can fund development of software (once again, not everyone can hire a coder). Think small business here. There certianally are advantages to OSS, but by refusing to consider closed source software, you are limiting your own choices, and that is not "freedom". End of story.
To make a political analogy, you are like the people who insist we need term limits so we can have "freedom" from incumbents, nevermind that term limits are a restriction on who you can vote for. Or Administration officials who insist we stay in Iraq until it establishes a democracy, and then talk about how we cannot let Iraq become a theorcracy, never mind that one could be put in power democratically.
But when you come on Slashdot, don't expect people to counter you on any positive statement on Linux, Macs, or Nintendo.
Not our fault if don't pay attention. Any time any number of people have a problem with Apple hardware, it's on the Slashdot frong page with people bitching about their quality, long before there's any talk of a recall. See the scratched Nano screens and the Macbook batteries. Any time Apple does something wrong or questionable, there's a dozen group-thinkers criticizing the supposed "pro-Apple groupthink" before they bother to read the other posts. Take, for example, the story of Apple pulling all Wiley books from the Apple Store because Steve was pissed about their unauthorized biography of him. You had people doing the usualbitching that "if this were Microsoft, you'd be up in arms", completely ignoring all the posts callingJobsaconsumateasshole. As for Linux, it's hard to find an article where people aren't complaining about how something is a pain to do, or how Linux is "not ready for the mainstream". As for Nintendo, you must have missed the 50 articles bitching about how stupid "Wii" was for a name.
Nintendo still has the kiddy image.
How so.
The PS3 will be seen as the more mature console and will thus appeal to the teen/early 20s crowd.
To the five people who don't know that the PS3 will be 2-3 times as expensive, maybe. Not to mention the fact that Nintendo has always had the best party games, and hearing that Lucas Arts has taken an interest in the motion-sensing controller is enough to make the even the casual gamer or Star Wars fan salivatate.
It is funny to read slashdot posts that are already claiming victory for the Wii when it isn't out yet.
Because we know the price points and features for all three consoles, obviously. Early this year people were expecting the PS3 to do very well because of its power and the Blu Ray drive. Then we found out about how you'll be able to play games from Nintendos 20 year old back catalog, the lower game price and much lower system price, and how much the PS3 will cost. Barring any major changes or equipment problems, Nintendo is going to clean house this round, Microsoft is going to pick up the market that wants a more powerful console, and Sony is going to have to settle for the people who will spend 2-3x as much just to play the next Metal Gear Solid, and a very, very distant third place.
Wait until the bugs have been ironed out.
What "bugs" has Nintendo had?
While Nintendo does have a good reputation, they have made plenty of stupid mistakes in the past to warrant caution.
No, they haven't. Yes, the Virtual Boy was a worthless product, but the NES, Super Nintendo, N64, Game Cube, and the Gameboy line have all been very solid sucesses.
Umm, I read slashdot and actually have the guts to post what I believe rather than posting with the crowd.
No, you don't. You are railing against what you percieve the "crowd" to be going, which is just as bad as blindly following it in the first place, and are just as much a fanboy as that which you criticize. You're just an anti-fanboy.
I always find it interesting when people predict the Wii's success at this stage in the game.
Why, when we know the features and approximate price points will be of all three consoles?
Most people were rather down on the DS when it was first announced ("What a gimmick...", etc.), what makes us so sure, now, that the we'll be any better at predicting the success of the Wii?
Because we know what their compeititon is doing, obviously. Any more questions?
Sony will drive dumptrucks of money to ad agencies all over the planet.
Sony can spend all the money in the world on marketing, and it wont change the fact that reality will set in very quickly once people see the price tags at Wal-Mart or on Amazon.
Nintendo will of course do their own marketing push, but don't be surprised if you hate the approach they take. Big N is after 'the rest of us', the non-gamer, and will appropriately tailor their messaging to this end.
Which is of course just as stupid as only catering to your hardcore audience. Any business that blows off their core audience in favor of the theoretical amount of cash out there in the pockets of their non-customers wont be in business very long. Sure, Nintendo will bring out layperson-friendly games like Mario Party or Nintendogs, but not at the expense of the Nintendo fanboy, who will mostly likely buy several accessories (like wireless controllers), the new Mario and Zelda games, and their old NES favorites like Castlevania and Contra.
I like the Wii but I think that this go-round they only have a shot at 2nd place, at best...Nintendo is gambling big time with this new machine...
Huh? With lower game price, much lower system price, innovative controller and massive back library, Nintendo is going to clean house and then some. Just the talk of Lucas Arts looking at the motion sensing controller is enough to make the casual gamer or Star Wars fan weak in the knees. Microsoft is going to get the market that wants a more graphically powerful console, and Sony is going to have to settle for the people who want the next Metal Gear Solid so badly that they are willing to pay 2-3 times as much money for the system in order to play it.
...Sony had the only next gen console out, or it's compeditors had similar prices. For the market of "people who have $600 to throw around", you need to subtract all the gamers that will buy a 360 and a Wii for the same price as a PS3. And speaking of price...
As for price, it's only $100 more than the 360
That's $200 more, thank you very much. Or should we compare the "core" 360 system to the "premium" PS3 system and say it's really $300 more?
No, Nintendo is going to clean house this round, and Sony is going to get its ass handed to it. Microsoft is going to get the market that wants a more powerful console, whereas Sony is going to have to settle for the (tiny) number of people willing to pay 2-3 times as much for a system just so they can play the next Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy games. Blu Ray is a non issue at this point, as most people do not have big HDTV sets to make it worthwhile to spend the extra money.
I'm fine with most abortions, but only if the father has the same rights as the mother. i.e. if the mother can abort during the first three months of the pregnancy, the father should also have the right to terminate his responsibilities within three months of finding out about said pregnacy. Fatherhood these days is real long on responsibilities and real short on rights.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could turn back the clock 10 years and have our greatest concern about the President be, quite legitimately, that he once lied in a deposition for a civil case?
That's the best part - he didn't even lie (the court decided "sexual relations" == "intercourse", and blow jobs are not intercourse) or break the law.
But the SC always has to look at the spirit of things, not just the letter, and there might be enough Justices who see this as a necessary evil to make it a close vote.
I wish the word "direct" had been placed in the Constitution in a couple of places. Such as emminent domain only being used for "direct public use" and Congress having jurisdiction over things that "directly effect interstate commerce".
No, it's a term used to describe Justices who find things in the constitution that are not written, or use foreign law to support decisions (which generally involve more power resting in the hands of the national government.)
Nope, it really is a term used by conservative Republicans to assail decisions they don't like. The problem is conservative judges are "activists" too.
For instance, using a vague "right to privacy" not ennumerated, but apparantly implied by the constitution
What part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" do you no-right-to-privacy-in-the-Constitution types not understand?
It should probably also be applied to justices who failed to strike down John McCain's (R-AZ) campaign finance "reform" law, which clearly violates the first ammendment in the months leading up to an election.
No, unlimited campaign financing is what restricts speech, because it crowds out other speech. That's the reasoning the courts have used on why restrictions on it are constitutional.
That it has mostly been liberal judges (though many of those appointed by republican presidents) and liberal issues is immaterial to the general problem, except that it seems conservatives are the only group that's really aware of the problem. (so naturally, the liberal excesses will be the ones more strongly remembered.)
You say "awareness", I say "hypocracy". See the above link.
Indeed. A lesson that many left wingers need to learn.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
By the way they talk, it seems they believe that saying the Iraq war is "illegal"
International law aside, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield should have all resigned on the spot once it was demonstrated that Saddam had no WMD's. They've spend hundreds of billions of dollars, gotten thousands of U.S. soldiers killed, and tied up our military for bogus reasons. They should have resigned, but we haven't even gotten a real appology. To hell with them and anyone who makes excuses for them.
that there were no WMD's
There weren't any, even the Administration has admitted so. Didn't you get the memo?
and that Bush has committed an impeachable offense will make those falsehoods true.
Lying about a blowjob is impeachable, but lying the country into war and blatantly violating the consitution is not? The hypocracy of the GOP knows no bounds.
Like it or not, the FISA act did give an avenue for warrant less wiretaps if they were provided for by statute.
Problem: there hasn't been anything of the kind.
You may disagree with the administrations claim that the September 2001 Joint Resolution is such a statute, but that hardly is the final say on whether these detailed legal justifications are wrong.
Um, no. SCOTUS already ruled in Hamdan that the AUMF was not a blank check for the administration. End of story.
The worst case for the administration (and the country, IMO), is for the case to reach the USSC and it be ruled as unjustified. In that case, the wiretaps stop and the country loses an important tool to fight terrorism.
Complete, unadulterated horseshit. The government was already able to spy on susptected terrorists to their hearts content under FISA. As other posters have pointed out, thousands of FISA warrants have been issued since 1978, and only four have been denied. And, if they were actually serious about protecting Americans from terrorism, they'd do something about security for ports and chemical plants.
And as far as "testing the limits of power", that's something they need to do with the legislative branch and have it sorted out by the courts, a la the PATRIOT act. Not act in secret, ouside the bounds of any legislative or judicial review. Or claim War Powers when no war has been declared.
You sir, are a fool. As someone said of this Administration, I wonder if you are trying to get the Founding Fathers to spin in their graves so fast that they form a combustion engine.
They teach the facts at school. They don't teach you to think about them.
Not necessarily. K-12 history classes are more about telling a good story and spoonfeeding patriotism to kids, rather than describing events as they happened. Here's three examples off the top of my head, and it's been ten years since I was in high school.
The story: for his expedition, Columbus had to shop around for a financer because Middle Age rednecks insisted that the Earth was flat, and a voyage around the world was impossible. The truth: Columbus was wrong, and his critics were right. Most learned men of the time did in fact belive the world was round, but thought that the proposed voyage would be too long, which it was. Columbus underestimated the size of the world, and overestimated the size of Asia, so if there hadn't been islands and a couple of continents in the way, they would have died before reaching the "East Indies".
The story: American colonists standing up to King George was the "shot heard round the world." The truth: that's a bunch of crap. There have been uprisings and long as there have been empires. Yawn.
The story: Paul Revere, his ride, etc. The truth: he wouldn't have yelled "the British are coming!" because the colonists themselves were British.
That's why I recommend taking some history in college to anyone who hated it in high school: you knew history in high school was crap, and now you find out why. What I'd like to see is a class contrasting the sense of entitlement some Americans felt in the 1800's with "Manifest Destiny" with the sense of entitlement some Germans had in the 1930's and 40's.
Slashdot Mirror
No. If you lie and get caught you also have to pay lawyer fees and a hefty fine.
Apple would have a difficult time suing them for damages for merely downloading a copy. It's uploading that really gets you in trouble.
OK, for you nit-picky bastards
Wanting to call a duck a duck and a cat a cat is not being nitpicky. And copyright infringment and theft are as different as ducks and cats.
Is the employee refering to the type of person who willfully violates company policy, which in the view of the company is a crime aka the procurement of company trade secrets regardless of whether or not they divulged them or made a profit from their actions or is the employee refering the type of person who thinks being honest about willfully violating company policy, which in the view of the company that they work for is a crime aka the procurement of company trade secrets regardless of whether or not they divulged them or made a profit from their actions absolves them of punishment?
Better. It was still foolish of Apple to fire these people, because it's sending the message that if you fuck up, you're better off lying and take the risk of being found out and fired, rather than confessing your sins and definetly being fired. And this could come back to bit them. Say I work at Apple, and I find out that someone in my department is leaking details of upcoming products to Thinksecret. I could rat this person out to management, but this person knows I pettily broke company policy by using my employee discount to buy my sister an iPod. I could talk to my boss about the leaker and confess my own violation of company policy, but if it's just going to get me fired anyway, I'm going to keep my mouth shut.
More like if you use the same penalty for those who tell the truth as those who lie and get caught, you remove all the incentive to tell the truth in the first place.
As to Apple, the whole company has been turning into shit since introducing CD keys for home OSX installs 2 years ago.
Eh? I never had to use a cd key for any of my Tiger installs. Methinks you are talking about Server, not client.
Is that the type who steals or the type who thinks being honest about their crimes absolves them of punishment?
These aren't those type of people, as they didn't steal anything.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the party practically split over the Viet Nam war and it began marginalizing its conservative wing.
Liar, unless by "conservative" you mean "racist". Not only has the Democratic party not moved to the left, it has moved to the right - and is more conservative than the GOP was thirty years ago. As for the GOP, it's moved so far to the right that it's got one foot in the "facism" category. John Mitchell, Nixon's Attorney General, observed that "the country is going so far to the right that you won't recognize it", waaay back in 1972, before Regean, before the GOP takeover of Congress, before 911.
Today, there is what is practically a purge going on in the Democratic Party as leftist activists try to drive out all but the most liberal or left leaning members. Joe Lieberman is a prime example.
Liar. There are plenty of other pro-military Democrats who voted for the Iraq invasion that didn't have to face strong primary challenges - Hillary Clinton, Jack Murtha, John Kerry, and so on. Joe Lieberman is being shown the door because while he claims to be a "loyal Democrat", he refuses to heed the choice of Democratic voters who voted for Ned Lamont in the primary, he ran for both the Senate and for Vice President in 2000 (if he and Gore had won, the Republican governor of CT would have nominated a Republican replacement), he has lent a "bipartisan" air to everything from the witch hunt for Bill Clinton, to gutting Social Security, to unconditional support for the Iraq war. Joe puts on airs of being a man of concience and principles, and yet has spend the last 6 years attacking Democrats more than attacking the Administration for illegal domestic spying, torture, extreme judicial nominees, or outting a CIA agent as a political ploy. Joe has also attacked Lamont for being endorsed by Al Sharpton, nevermind that Joe also sought Sharpton's endorcement - and his history of cozying up to Louis Farrakhan.
Maybe you've heard of "9/11 Democrats"? They are Democrats that understand that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were the opening volleys of a new threat against the United States, and that the Democratic Party, as currently composed, is not serious about national security despite the occasional noise they make.
Wow, this goes way beyond lying...fuck you, buddy. Who was the first to bomb Al Queda? Bill Clinton, you miserable sack of shit. Who treated terrorism as our #1 national security threat, before the towers were bombed? Bill Clinton. Who sat on reports predicting attacks by Al Queda in the U.S., using planes no less? George Bush. Who, as a former member of the Air Guard, indefensibly sat on his ass for 20 minutes while the nation was under attack, rather than calling NORAD, his two time Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield, or his VP and former SOD Dick Cheney? George Bush. Who pulled troops out of Afganistan into a bogus war, letting Osama bin Laddin escape? George Bush. Who has refused to do anything to block the gaping security holes in our ports and chemical plants? George Bush. Speaking of ports, who was completely unaware that an Arab company was going to take over management of the largest ports in the U.S.? George Bush. After running two elections demonizing Democrats as being unable to protect this country, who stayed on vacation while a hurricane was destroying New Orleans? George Bush. Who is making enemies faster than we can kill them? George Bush.
Consider the case of President John F. Kennedy. He favored tax reform
Looks like you are a liar, again. So have today's Democrats.
supported the Bay of Pigs operation
Some "support".
committed US troops to Viet Nam
Most Congressional Democrats voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq based on the evidence that was given them, and I doubt you could find a single one who opposed the operation in Afganistan.
faced down the Soviet Union in the Cuban Missile Crisis
If you want to talk ab
If everything works out right, then our sons and daughters can leach off of the sons and daughters of Iraq. 50 years ago, many wanted to leave Germany and Japan in shambles. Today, would you say we are better or wose off for helping rebuild DE and JP?
Apples to irrelevant oranges. Germany and Japan may have been under totalitarian governments, but those governments weren't sitting on top of a powerkeg of ethnic and religious sects waiting to explode.
If we can do Iraq right
Too late. Far, far to late.
Or, we could just up and leave. Pull out the tentstakes and just hope for the best.
How much is too much? How many thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars need to be lost before the backers of the Iraqi invasion admit they totally and completely failed? Is it worth loosing 60,000 troops like we did in Vietnam? Is it worth another few trillion dollars to "stay the course?"
How long would it be before the warlords stepped in and turned Iraq into something much worse than we had before?
The Bush Administration did that already, thank you. The Iraqi people would have been better off if Saddam had been left in power. Neocons don't seem to realize that something you hate can be replaced with something much worse. The people of Afganistan would have been better off with a communist government than living under the Taliban. Communism fell in Yogoslavia, and it promptly disintegrated into civil war...just like Iraq has.
First, the NSA did not wiretap "the entire country"
How do you know what a secret agency is doing with a secret program?
Second, does the President yield less authority than your common beat cop? If a police officer pulls someone over and sees a beer can on the floor of the car, the courts have ruled that he has probable cause to perform a search without a warrant. Yet, when the military recovers a laptop with dozens of contacts in an Al-Quaida raid, this somehow doesn't meet the standard of 'probable cause'?
wtf are you talking about. I doubt the military obtaining an Al Qaeda laptop was one of the four times the FISA court has denied a warrant in it's almost 30 year history.
Might not please some fans, but would make great television.
Not necessarily. "Bad guys win, good guys all die" is a pretty gay way to go out, a la Blake's 7.
Hmmm, seems to me everyone "knew" how great the PSP was - right before the DS proceeded to trounce it up and down the sales chart.
Sure, you'll have no problems finding articles where people are wowed with the PSP's feature set, because it does have a very impressive set of features. About the same size as the DS, but with a much larger screen, 802.11b, a USB port, graphics hardware that in some ways is more powerful than the PS2, better sound, and able to play movies. However, you will have problems finding articles predicting dominance by Sony's handheld, which is a whole nother kettle of fish. In fact if you Google for "Sony PSP preview" and read every article on the first page of results, you'll find none of them expected trouble for Nintendo.
But if you really want to talk about the PSP, consider the fact that rumors were that it would cost $400 on launch, but Sony bit the bullet and released it at $250, 66% more than the DS, or $100. Now, the price for the Wii hasn't been announed yet, but $200-$250 is expected. The PS3 will be 200-300% more costly.
If the PSP had a release price of $450, the "unwashed masses" would have been down on it, too. At E3, if Sony had announed that the PS3 would cost under $350 (instead of $500 and $600), people would still be predicting another Sony win this round, like they were before E3.
So, in summary, and to borrow that old quote on politics and the economy: it's the price, stupid.
Doesn't matter.
It absolutley matters. You seem to have a hard time grasping the "not everyone is a coder or can hire a coder" concept, which particularly applies to small businesses. But I would also add a third part, "not everyone has the time to code". IBM certinally has the resources to develop open sourced software, but if they need something now, and there is no OSS option but there is a closed source one, they wont hesitate to go with the latter.
Since when did people not purchase Free Software? Red Hat seems to make a pretty good living doing exactly this.
Which is helpful if there is a commercial company backing the software, but if there isn't, you are SOL. But even companies like Red Hat depend on the volunteer aspect of OSS, and trying to herd volunteers is like herding cats.
Not applicable.
Yes, it is.
Normally if the customer wants a feature, and it's profitable enough, they pay for the development in a certain area. IBM, Red Hat, Novell etc have done this many times.
Not every company is the size of IBM or can fund development of software (once again, not everyone can hire a coder). Think small business here. There certianally are advantages to OSS, but by refusing to consider closed source software, you are limiting your own choices, and that is not "freedom". End of story.
To make a political analogy, you are like the people who insist we need term limits so we can have "freedom" from incumbents, nevermind that term limits are a restriction on who you can vote for. Or Administration officials who insist we stay in Iraq until it establishes a democracy, and then talk about how we cannot let Iraq become a theorcracy, never mind that one could be put in power democratically.
But when you come on Slashdot, don't expect people to counter you on any positive statement on Linux, Macs, or Nintendo.
Not our fault if don't pay attention. Any time any number of people have a problem with Apple hardware, it's on the Slashdot frong page with people bitching about their quality, long before there's any talk of a recall. See the scratched Nano screens and the Macbook batteries. Any time Apple does something wrong or questionable, there's a dozen group-thinkers criticizing the supposed "pro-Apple groupthink" before they bother to read the other posts. Take, for example, the story of Apple pulling all Wiley books from the Apple Store because Steve was pissed about their unauthorized biography of him. You had people doing the usual bitching that "if this were Microsoft, you'd be up in arms", completely ignoring all the posts calling Jobs a consumate asshole. As for Linux, it's hard to find an article where people aren't complaining about how something is a pain to do, or how Linux is "not ready for the mainstream". As for Nintendo, you must have missed the 50 articles bitching about how stupid "Wii" was for a name.
Nintendo still has the kiddy image.
How so.
The PS3 will be seen as the more mature console and will thus appeal to the teen/early 20s crowd.
To the five people who don't know that the PS3 will be 2-3 times as expensive, maybe. Not to mention the fact that Nintendo has always had the best party games, and hearing that Lucas Arts has taken an interest in the motion-sensing controller is enough to make the even the casual gamer or Star Wars fan salivatate.
It is funny to read slashdot posts that are already claiming victory for the Wii when it isn't out yet.
Because we know the price points and features for all three consoles, obviously. Early this year people were expecting the PS3 to do very well because of its power and the Blu Ray drive. Then we found out about how you'll be able to play games from Nintendos 20 year old back catalog, the lower game price and much lower system price, and how much the PS3 will cost. Barring any major changes or equipment problems, Nintendo is going to clean house this round, Microsoft is going to pick up the market that wants a more powerful console, and Sony is going to have to settle for the people who will spend 2-3x as much just to play the next Metal Gear Solid, and a very, very distant third place.
Wait until the bugs have been ironed out.
What "bugs" has Nintendo had?
While Nintendo does have a good reputation, they have made plenty of stupid mistakes in the past to warrant caution.
No, they haven't. Yes, the Virtual Boy was a worthless product, but the NES, Super Nintendo, N64, Game Cube, and the Gameboy line have all been very solid sucesses.
Umm, I read slashdot and actually have the guts to post what I believe rather than posting with the crowd.
No, you don't. You are railing against what you percieve the "crowd" to be going, which is just as bad as blindly following it in the first place, and are just as much a fanboy as that which you criticize. You're just an anti-fanboy.
I always find it interesting when people predict the Wii's success at this stage in the game.
Why, when we know the features and approximate price points will be of all three consoles?
Most people were rather down on the DS when it was first announced ("What a gimmick...", etc.), what makes us so sure, now, that the we'll be any better at predicting the success of the Wii?
Because we know what their compeititon is doing, obviously. Any more questions?
The PS3 is designed to be a home console and Sony knows how to make home consoles.
They might know how to make them, but they don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes time to price them.
Sony will drive dumptrucks of money to ad agencies all over the planet.
Sony can spend all the money in the world on marketing, and it wont change the fact that reality will set in very quickly once people see the price tags at Wal-Mart or on Amazon.
Nintendo will of course do their own marketing push, but don't be surprised if you hate the approach they take. Big N is after 'the rest of us', the non-gamer, and will appropriately tailor their messaging to this end.
Which is of course just as stupid as only catering to your hardcore audience. Any business that blows off their core audience in favor of the theoretical amount of cash out there in the pockets of their non-customers wont be in business very long. Sure, Nintendo will bring out layperson-friendly games like Mario Party or Nintendogs, but not at the expense of the Nintendo fanboy, who will mostly likely buy several accessories (like wireless controllers), the new Mario and Zelda games, and their old NES favorites like Castlevania and Contra.
I like the Wii but I think that this go-round they only have a shot at 2nd place, at best...Nintendo is gambling big time with this new machine...
Huh? With lower game price, much lower system price, innovative controller and massive back library, Nintendo is going to clean house and then some. Just the talk of Lucas Arts looking at the motion sensing controller is enough to make the casual gamer or Star Wars fan weak in the knees. Microsoft is going to get the market that wants a more graphically powerful console, and Sony is going to have to settle for the people who want the next Metal Gear Solid so badly that they are willing to pay 2-3 times as much money for the system in order to play it.
As for price, it's only $100 more than the 360
That's $200 more, thank you very much. Or should we compare the "core" 360 system to the "premium" PS3 system and say it's really $300 more?
No, Nintendo is going to clean house this round, and Sony is going to get its ass handed to it. Microsoft is going to get the market that wants a more powerful console, whereas Sony is going to have to settle for the (tiny) number of people willing to pay 2-3 times as much for a system just so they can play the next Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy games. Blu Ray is a non issue at this point, as most people do not have big HDTV sets to make it worthwhile to spend the extra money.
I'm fine with most abortions, but only if the father has the same rights as the mother. i.e. if the mother can abort during the first three months of the pregnancy, the father should also have the right to terminate his responsibilities within three months of finding out about said pregnacy. Fatherhood these days is real long on responsibilities and real short on rights.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could turn back the clock 10 years and have our greatest concern about the President be, quite legitimately, that he once lied in a deposition for a civil case?
That's the best part - he didn't even lie (the court decided "sexual relations" == "intercourse", and blow jobs are not intercourse) or break the law.
But the SC always has to look at the spirit of things, not just the letter, and there might be enough Justices who see this as a necessary evil to make it a close vote.
Not to mention the fact that the Supreme Court has been rubber stamping outrageous law enforcment tactics for decades.
I wish the word "direct" had been placed in the Constitution in a couple of places. Such as emminent domain only being used for "direct public use" and Congress having jurisdiction over things that "directly effect interstate commerce".
No, it's a term used to describe Justices who find things in the constitution that are not written, or use foreign law to support decisions (which generally involve more power resting in the hands of the national government.)
Nope, it really is a term used by conservative Republicans to assail decisions they don't like. The problem is conservative judges are "activists" too.
For instance, using a vague "right to privacy" not ennumerated, but apparantly implied by the constitution
What part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" do you no-right-to-privacy-in-the-Constitution types not understand?
It should probably also be applied to justices who failed to strike down John McCain's (R-AZ) campaign finance "reform" law, which clearly violates the first ammendment in the months leading up to an election.
No, unlimited campaign financing is what restricts speech, because it crowds out other speech. That's the reasoning the courts have used on why restrictions on it are constitutional.
That it has mostly been liberal judges (though many of those appointed by republican presidents) and liberal issues is immaterial to the general problem, except that it seems conservatives are the only group that's really aware of the problem. (so naturally, the liberal excesses will be the ones more strongly remembered.)
You say "awareness", I say "hypocracy". See the above link.
Over Kerry? Of course I voted for him the second time. I mean... c'mon... Kerry was the alternative.
An infinitely better alternative. So what's your excuse again?
The president is immune from prosecution for as long as he is president, that's just the way it is.
Bill Clinton might disagree with you on that one.
Indeed. A lesson that many left wingers need to learn.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
By the way they talk, it seems they believe that saying the Iraq war is "illegal"
International law aside, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield should have all resigned on the spot once it was demonstrated that Saddam had no WMD's. They've spend hundreds of billions of dollars, gotten thousands of U.S. soldiers killed, and tied up our military for bogus reasons. They should have resigned, but we haven't even gotten a real appology. To hell with them and anyone who makes excuses for them.
that there were no WMD's
There weren't any, even the Administration has admitted so. Didn't you get the memo?
and that Bush has committed an impeachable offense will make those falsehoods true.
Lying about a blowjob is impeachable, but lying the country into war and blatantly violating the consitution is not? The hypocracy of the GOP knows no bounds.
Like it or not, the FISA act did give an avenue for warrant less wiretaps if they were provided for by statute.
Problem: there hasn't been anything of the kind.
You may disagree with the administrations claim that the September 2001 Joint Resolution is such a statute, but that hardly is the final say on whether these detailed legal justifications are wrong.
Um, no. SCOTUS already ruled in Hamdan that the AUMF was not a blank check for the administration. End of story.
The worst case for the administration (and the country, IMO), is for the case to reach the USSC and it be ruled as unjustified. In that case, the wiretaps stop and the country loses an important tool to fight terrorism.
Complete, unadulterated horseshit. The government was already able to spy on susptected terrorists to their hearts content under FISA. As other posters have pointed out, thousands of FISA warrants have been issued since 1978, and only four have been denied. And, if they were actually serious about protecting Americans from terrorism, they'd do something about security for ports and chemical plants.
And as far as "testing the limits of power", that's something they need to do with the legislative branch and have it sorted out by the courts, a la the PATRIOT act. Not act in secret, ouside the bounds of any legislative or judicial review. Or claim War Powers when no war has been declared.
You sir, are a fool. As someone said of this Administration, I wonder if you are trying to get the Founding Fathers to spin in their graves so fast that they form a combustion engine.
They teach the facts at school. They don't teach you to think about them.
Not necessarily. K-12 history classes are more about telling a good story and spoonfeeding patriotism to kids, rather than describing events as they happened. Here's three examples off the top of my head, and it's been ten years since I was in high school.
The story: for his expedition, Columbus had to shop around for a financer because Middle Age rednecks insisted that the Earth was flat, and a voyage around the world was impossible. The truth: Columbus was wrong, and his critics were right. Most learned men of the time did in fact belive the world was round, but thought that the proposed voyage would be too long, which it was. Columbus underestimated the size of the world, and overestimated the size of Asia, so if there hadn't been islands and a couple of continents in the way, they would have died before reaching the "East Indies".
The story: American colonists standing up to King George was the "shot heard round the world." The truth: that's a bunch of crap. There have been uprisings and long as there have been empires. Yawn.
The story: Paul Revere, his ride, etc. The truth: he wouldn't have yelled "the British are coming!" because the colonists themselves were British.
That's why I recommend taking some history in college to anyone who hated it in high school: you knew history in high school was crap, and now you find out why. What I'd like to see is a class contrasting the sense of entitlement some Americans felt in the 1800's with "Manifest Destiny" with the sense of entitlement some Germans had in the 1930's and 40's.