More to the point: Why didn't Microsoft make the situation clear to the end users?
The information is public, and accessible through Windows explorer in XP/Win2k3 server.
However, it is not MS's job to set internal company policy at a corporation. That is the job of other people.
Specifically, whether or not disclose that this information is private - or to disable the key escrow ability all-together - is up to the owner/user, not Microsoft.
You can slam MS all you want, but EFS does exactly what it should and exactly what it is advertised to do.
It is best if the user is made aware that the admin can freely read their encrypted documents.
That, however, is not MS's job.
One good way to do that would be a simple dialog when an encrypted folder is created. "Who may decrypt these documents:" The first two lines are your ID and 'admin'. If policy enforcement is enabled, admin may not be removed from the list.
There is very close to this in XP and Win2k3 server. You can view any encrypted item and view the "Effective Permissions" on it. This describes what you've laid out.
EFS isn't mandatory ever. It's not even an option of home machines. It requires an Active Directory domain and a Win2k Pro/XP Pro workstation, plus a significant amount of planning and administration.
Or they could just overwrite it and delete it
If it is deleted then it is noticed, and you back to tape, and get it back.
If it is encrypted it will go unnoticed for a bit. Your unencrypted versions are backup up over, and it is lost.
I've dealt with this. It's not fun having the data but being unable to read it!
Not sure why you'd want to "permanently encrypt data"... You might as well overwrite and delete it.
Put on your spiteful mind hat.
Regardless of the reasons though, there exists no legitimate reason that in a corporate setting data should be able to be excluded from higher-ups in the corporation, and ultimately, shareholders. If there wasn't a "backdoor" (not truly a backdoor, it's publically known and actually a designed for feature) to another key you'd impropriety going on concealed by encryption.
The purpose of EFS is laptop data security. Designed so that if you have a laptop removed from the corporate network the data on it is unreadable. It does this well enough.
MS encryption should be better, but what you describe is not a flaw.
In a corporate setting it should not be permissible for an employee to conceal data from the owner of the data and machines. The owner of machine - aka the corporation - should have final say over what is encrypted or not.
Imagine what could be done if there was no way for a high-level sysadmin to decrypt user files. Imagine the damage that could be done.
AI spiteful (ex)-employee could easily encrypt and forever destroy sensitive data that is irreplaceable.
Not only that, but it is entirely possible that the user could accidentally render the data unencryptable. That'd be bad.
EFS is not for a typical user to permanently encrypt data that can never be revealed. It is primarily designed so that sensitive data on corporate laptops can be stored in a way that if it is stolen it cannot be decrypted. This purpose is well served by EFS.
There are many excellent critiques of MS's security and data protection capabilities. There is no need to overreach and bash things that do actually work as intended.
The thing is though that if you applied moderned engineering techniques with the older goal, you'd have something special. I had a Pentium 60 Mhz chip that drew a huge power load. Gigantic. Can't find the docs, but my memory was in the 90-100W range just for the chip. Ran hot, hot, hot and it was physically huge.
Could we take the design and manufactuer it on the much smaller fab technology we have now and reap a big benefit?
I don't need a powerful system, just one that operates at a reasonable level of efficeny with low power.
What we really need someone to do is design a laptop from the ground-up for maximum battery life. And I don't just mean the processor.
Look at every function, every component, and remove/reduce everything unnecessary. Combine anything possible. Strip it down to nothing. Give me an old school screen. And I mean that. I don't even care if its an old gas plasma or monochrome display.
I am talking about a laptop that will run with average use for 2 weeks between charges. I don't even care if it's a refined 486/25. Whatever it's speed/capabilities, I'll find an OS to run with it. If that means a console only Linux distro, I'm fine with that.
The fact that you can't get a laptop that can truly run for more than 8 hrs off of battery without insane power saving options is nuts.
Give me a 1 lb 1/2 inch think laptop with a low-power "486 level" processor, minimal graphics card, 1 gb flash card instead of a harddisk, optical disk and wireless network adapter. I don't need no stinking parallel port, no freaking COM ports, S-Video out, no ability to display two video displays at once, no freaking docking ports, maybe a USB port if its not too much trouble, no firewire, no infrared, no onboard ethernet, no onboard modem and definately no line input/microphone jacks. I don't need to no high-powered speakers, a head-phone jack and 16-bit 2-channel stereo sound will do just fine. A 10" screen will do fine, an optional mechanical backlight switch will do fine. Color is nice if you can have it, otherwise, give me a 256-shades of gray and 800x600 resolution.
If someone could persuade a hardware manufacturing plant to make a non-name version of this laptop I am sure it would sell. With the best battery you can buy and this unit you could probabl sell them retail for $399 and make a decent profit. If you can get a CPU down to a low-enough voltage and wattage - and it doesn't have to be an x86 processor mind you - I could see a life of 24 hrs continuous being plausable. Whatever you can get that's low wattage (4 Watts? What's reasonable? My P4 takes an insane amount.. what, 90 Watts all by itself, without anything else in the box? pfft).
Enough of this diatribe. This should be a no brainer. You could sell millions of these units easily. Put together a nice tightly integrated suite of tools - simple e-mail, simple web-browser, simple office suite, etc and you'll be making millions.
Then you turn off his power, cut his phone line, and cause his gas oven to blow up.
Ohh. wait.. real life doesn't follow movie rules about what "hackers" can do?
The current RNC admin spends $150+ billions on a crusade to conduct a democracy-for-oil campaign
That's an interesting idea.
If Bush wanted Iraqs oil on the American market, why not just rattle the saber, get inspectors in Iraq for a bit, doing some intensive inspections (which they did, for a bit), and then declare Iraq a repaired nation, no WMDs, and ask the UN to lift sanctions? That would release all of Iraq's production into the market and depress prices. The whole thing would take, ohh, maybe six months. Bush and the US would look like the good guys.
I think the more likely thing here is that Bush personally, and as a matter of record, didn't like Hussein or Iraq in general. I find it more than likely that he *really* believed every line spouted about Iraq - about being a root of terrorism, about being in the WMD business, about being an axis of evil, etc.
That's more scary, in my mind, than the oil theory.
If you do some mild research, you'll find that France, Germany, and the UK have already once drastically reduced benefits.
I am not supporting Bush's plan. However, it is worth noting that Europe had a much more generous plan the US's Social Security plan, and it ended up once already bankrupting the countries through the 90's. The population of Western nations is aging, and aging fast.
One last thing. Wall Street is not a "net loss", because it is not a "closed system". Value is created from thin air. On top of that, something you and many others has forgotten, is that stocks pay more than just gains if their stock goes and you sell. Corporations pay dividends. And often times significant dividends. Two elderly folk in my family receive far more income from stock dividends than from Social Security. Even without taking dividends into account, vast sums of money from overseas are pumped back into America via the stock trade. Without it the US trade deficit would be.. let's say, absolutely mortifyingly huge. Foreign dollars are invested in US corporations via the stock market, directly (at times of public offerings) and indirectly, through transactions.
You in fact do the transform of XML + XSL on the client side. It's not to terribly hard, but the results are typically incompatible between XML and XSL processors.
Just as an FYI. A lot of times when a new law is passed there is a general reluctance to test it until the right case comes along.
Basically, for a while, it's just a deterrent on the fact that "someone has to be the first to test the new law". Prosecutors will waive it around, but not test it - especially if it's likely to be reasonably challeneged.
The original post said that there is no "moderation" system for Bill O'Reily/Sean Hannity, and all of those types the person disagrees with.
The implicit argument was, and was supported partially by other posts, that "we" as in the government need a system to moderate these voices down.
The argument is that they are liars, and therefore, need to be moderated out of the mainstream just like P0rn trolls are moderated out of the mainstream of Slashdot
I am saying that first, we don't need any additional system. Just because there is a difference of opinion - which is fundamentally what O'Reily and his ilk are selling - doesn't mean that they should made inaccessible to a wide audience. These people aren't making up news stories out or whole cloth, or doing blantant propaganda with the intent to decieve. They take what is happening at any time and give their opinion and analysis of it. Right or wrong, that's an opinion. I mean to say, they aren't out there giving "War of the Worlds"-esque false news reports. They are, fundamentally, selling their opinion, and therefore, no matter how egriously wrong, distorted, lie filled, or false it is it belongs in the mainstream so long as the mainstream is willing tolerate it.
Second, I am saying, that fundamentally when you have multiple view points on an issue it is best to just self-select what you want to pay attention to.
All of Europe faces a big problem, namely, that the entitlement programs are so massive that they are becoming a massive burden as the population ages. France, in particular, is near the breaking point due to a lovely pension system.
A rapidly aging population, long life spans, and a low-growth economy are disasters waiting to happen all over Europe...
The media used to regard the news as public service, and not so much a source of profit.
What you mean to say is that ABC, NBC, and CBS used to do that. The media predates TV by some years.
There are, however, quite a number that do have "correct" answers if you are willing to postulate that the commercial interests of a small number of people should not be more important than the good of the community.
There are a number of people who do not follow that view.
I agree censorship is a bad idea, but the problem with a pervasive, persuasive and centralized media (e.g. ClearChannel) in a democracy is that without a critically thinking population the system becomes unstable.
There is not a centralized media system in the US. That is such a bogus statement. There are now, at this time, more viewpoints, more sources of raw information, and more sources of opinions than at any time in US history.
functioning democracy is a self correcting system, but a hidden dependancy of that system is that accurate, verifiable information is provided to the people who must make the decisions. I.e., the voters.
Close, but not quite. It doesnt have to actively made available - pushed - to voters. It has to be *available* for seeking. Everything a voter needs to make an informed choice is available.
except perhaps to compel news programs to function on a non-profit basis.
We have non-profit news. It's very widespread. Not only is there NPR, but a number of local outlets in any given area. It's worth noting that non-profit does not mean perfect, or even ncessarily better than for profit. The BBC is not-for-profit, yet, it has it's share of problems, correct?
I sense an undertone of unhappiness with the situation at hand. Like you feel like if the electorate had just a little bit better, or more, or different information a different result would have occurred in the recent election. Is that the case?
There is such a massive amount of generalization going. Look.
Did O'Reily say - "Bush has never said an opposing word about creating the 9/11 comission. He has wholly supported it since the very first mention of it."
No, he didn't.
What he said was:
"They said they [9-11 widow Kristen Breitweiser, featured in the ad, and her late husband] voted for Bush [in 2000], but Bush opposed the 9-11 Commission -- which he didn't, by the way. He didn't oppose it. I mean, he had questions about it because he didn't want it politicized."
The is a big difference between #1 and #2.
What's the point? Am I defending O'Reilly? No, not all.
It is not, however, necessarily a lie. Nor does this mean that O'Reily is not pusher of opinion. Maybe, for example, is O'Reily saying that Bush did not ever oppose the comission? Bush did, and then flip-flopped on the matter after it became intensely publicized. Is O'Reily aware of this. Did O'Reily know of this situation and falsify his remarks on purpose? What is his intent here?
Of course a person can lie. Opinion is opinion. When making statements of fact - like O'Reily did - you can always outright lie, make a mistake, give the wrong impression, mislead, and all the other shades less than 100% factual truth.
The best part is that individuals can asses the situation and make a decision based on the merit of the case. Is this a significant lie? What is the intention here? Was it on purpose? Was it significant? How did it affect me, or someone else? Was it spiteful, vainful, what was its nature?
And after all that, the individual can decide if that situation makes the persons opinion more or less valuable, and to what degree. And he or she can act accordingly.
The original post lamented that there is no way to mod this down. The goal of moderation, like in Slashdot, is to get the good to the top, the bad to the bottom, and the crap off your screen. Obviously the people who watch O'Reily - I am not one of them so I can't be 100% sure - find some value in his opinion, and continue to watch him.
Basically, the whole bottom line is that when you are dealing with someone who fundamentally an opinion pusher, the burden is huge for any outside "moderation". The judgement of what is a lie, and what is not lie, is up to individuals. The example you gave can reasonably be excluded from the lie category. Obviously Media Matters feels it was a lie, as do you. Another group or person could look at that, analyze it and say: there was no intent to decieve, therefore, it was not a lie.
Did you ever notice that they all read the republican "talking points"?
Not, I don't generally watch them. Although, last time I caught any of O'Reily he was advocating for the legalization of pot and the tightening of environmental laws, which last I knew, were no where near republican talking points.
They have the ratings and that means that they have they eyeballs, and that means that they are getting away with it.
Which brings us back to the fact that some people are not happy unless everything on all TV/Radio/Websites agrees with their personal opinion, worldview, and perspective. If you do not consume the media, and not enough others do, that outlet loses influence and power.
People can elect to watch and give weigh to whomever and whateve they want. It seems like alot of people are angry because a source they find to be fraudulent and misleading is respected and watched by so many.
People who don't agree with you are not necessarily ignorant, stupid, or wrong.
You can have an opinion and be fair and balanced. Neither O'Reily or Hannity represent themselves as, fundamentally, journalists. They are opinionists and entertainers. They make no claims to be Seymour Hersh, or anyone else.
The reality is that they both have a constant diatribe of being "fair and balanced" when, in fact, they are not.
That is generally the slogan of Fox News. As for the people you mention, they advertise heavily that they provide opinion, "analysis" of the events of the day. This isn't journalism, and they dont claim it to be.
Perhaps they believe (and they could very well be right) that their repitition of a lie will influence the masses.
Their goal is to influence opinion of others while making money. It's the stated goal of these type of programs. I am sure there are facts that are misrepresented, twisted, distorted, lied about, falsified, misunderstood, ignored, and all other sorts of deceptions going on. However, on the face of the shows, they are about opinion. These opinions may be misleading, wrongheaded, or sensible, reasonable, moderate. It doesn't matter. It's still all in the realm of opinion.
First off, I am aware of the Fairness doctrine. A relative wrote the original draft of the text. It has never applied to anything except broadcast outlets. The media landscape is much more broad than that.
Second off, with regards to your "we expect people to do thier jobs bit". You are under the impression that people expect the same thing from their news sources as you do. That is not the case. Believe it or not people like to hear things that they fundamentally agree with.
Next, any particular news source is irrelevant. There are many, many, many sources. If one, or two, or however many have an unsuitable bias than move on to another. That is hardly a dramatic proposition. This is how it has been in the newspaper market for 200+ years.
I am upset because there is nothing that separates this country from China but journalists and voting booths, and some Conservatives are in the process of crossing journalists off the list.
You can think that, but you really are holding journalists too high, and citizens too low. Conservatives are hardly out to "get journalism". Conservatives watch they want. People with different opinions watch what they want. What's the problem with that? It will lead to communism, in your view? This is nothing new.
Moderation on slashdot does not censor anything.
First off, it can in fact lead to censorship. Sign-up for a new account. Post a bunch of trolls. Your account and IP address will get banned after a spell, based on moderation.
It does what it is designed to do; control prominence; making the good stuff rise to the top, and relegating bad ideas, incorrect facts, propaganda, deception, and trolling to the bottom.
There is a real world analogy to moderation, and it's called money. People allocate it based on all kinds of facts, and in the end. The media landscape today is broad and diverse, and almost any viewpoint can be found in some medium.
Finally, if you don't like Fox News, don't watch it. Conservatives aren't out to get rid of "journalism". There is no big bad communist plot to eliminate dissenting view points.
One thing to note, the plan in question would not end social security as we know it. 7/8 of the contribution would go to traditional social security. A 1/8th portion would go to a private account.
Then, the country was transitioning from an agrigrian country to an commericalized industrialized country. The population balance between city and county is basically opposite, and so is the handling of aging.
These are very important things to consider. But I guess you can't even have a discussion on Slashdot or anywhere for that matter. It's jumping straight to "you're an idiot" and snarkyness.
The enterprise of journalism, which is suppoesed to help citizens in a democracy sort through
Since when has that been true? Take off your rose colored blinders. That's never what journalism has been about. Journalism has been about promoting a view, detracting from a view, and most of all selling media. If you want to see for yourself, go to a library and look back at 17th, 18th, and 19th century newspapers. Journalism has always been a taudry business. This business about journalists being the crusading do-gooder out to help democray is a post-World War II fantasy.
and, as far as viewers are concerned, get away with it.
That's in your opinion. They don't get away with in my view, because I refuse to consume their product and to become their product. Remember, when you watch most media, you are not only consuming their product but you become the product: eyeballs to an advertiser.
increasingly sophisticated misinformation that comes from a variety of interested parties is in a state of free-fall
Everything you disagree with is not misinformation. Everyone has an interest. Regardless of how much people might hand-wring about it, everyone has an interest.
either actively subverted by self-interested and sociopathic organizations and individuals
What a load of garbage. There are few very issues with objectively correct or incorrect answers or solutions. Individuals or organizations promoting their view is hardly sociopathic.
or simply crumbling under the unique demands and exigencies of continued survival in the mass media marketplace.
If you feel like a media outlet is not being principled in the face of competition, than abandon that outlet. There are others. You somehow think that intense competition and corporate involvement with media is new. It's not. It is, again, exceedingly old and well established within this country. You seem to have this perception that before a certain point in history things were good with regards to journalism, and then something happened, and now it is bad.
The heart of the matter is that when Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity lie about something, no one is yet able to mod them down.
That is not only an amazing generalization but also fundamentally incorrect. Both of the people you mention are fundamentally pushers of opinion. There is very little in terms of opinion which meets the definition of a lie. On top of all that, you are in fact able to "mod them down". Disregard their opinion, and move on to another source.
It seems like you most upset because people with whom you disagree or believe to be lying are able to have power and influence despite your disapproval of them. This is, despite your view, a truly great thing.
You need to celebrate diversity. Diversity of thought, diversity of opinion, and diversity of expression. If you can't accept a point of view, or the person giving it, then ignore that person and move on. There is no need to clamor for censorship.
The Linux kernel is just getting to the point where it doesn't completely suck ass.
This isn't to disparage where things are at, going, or have been. But you dont just scrap something like the kernel just because its a decade or more old.
That's how you get versions that are "newer" with half the features.
Kernels are time expensive and iterative. You just can't go from nothing to a working production kernel in one or a few releases. It's a big job to do it right.
The linux kernel is finally to a place where you have a good mix of micro and monolithic design principles (not a lot of bloated message passing, loadable modules). It's finally got some really decent SMP, and the VM issues are finally being addressed.
Slashdot Mirror
More to the point: Why didn't Microsoft make the situation clear to the end users?
The information is public, and accessible through Windows explorer in XP/Win2k3 server.
However, it is not MS's job to set internal company policy at a corporation. That is the job of other people.
Specifically, whether or not disclose that this information is private - or to disable the key escrow ability all-together - is up to the owner/user, not Microsoft.
You can slam MS all you want, but EFS does exactly what it should and exactly what it is advertised to do.
It is best if the user is made aware that the admin can freely read their encrypted documents.
That, however, is not MS's job.
One good way to do that would be a simple dialog when an encrypted folder is created. "Who may decrypt these documents:" The first two lines are your ID and 'admin'. If policy enforcement is enabled, admin may not be removed from the list.
There is very close to this in XP and Win2k3 server. You can view any encrypted item and view the "Effective Permissions" on it. This describes what you've laid out.
EFS isn't mandatory ever. It's not even an option of home machines. It requires an Active Directory domain and a Win2k Pro/XP Pro workstation, plus a significant amount of planning and administration.
Or they could just overwrite it and delete it
If it is deleted then it is noticed, and you back to tape, and get it back.
If it is encrypted it will go unnoticed for a bit. Your unencrypted versions are backup up over, and it is lost.
I've dealt with this. It's not fun having the data but being unable to read it!
Not sure why you'd want to "permanently encrypt data"... You might as well overwrite and delete it.
Put on your spiteful mind hat.
Regardless of the reasons though, there exists no legitimate reason that in a corporate setting data should be able to be excluded from higher-ups in the corporation, and ultimately, shareholders. If there wasn't a "backdoor" (not truly a backdoor, it's publically known and actually a designed for feature) to another key you'd impropriety going on concealed by encryption.
The purpose of EFS is laptop data security. Designed so that if you have a laptop removed from the corporate network the data on it is unreadable. It does this well enough.
MS encryption should be better, but what you describe is not a flaw.
In a corporate setting it should not be permissible for an employee to conceal data from the owner of the data and machines. The owner of machine - aka the corporation - should have final say over what is encrypted or not.
Imagine what could be done if there was no way for a high-level sysadmin to decrypt user files. Imagine the damage that could be done.
AI spiteful (ex)-employee could easily encrypt and forever destroy sensitive data that is irreplaceable.
Not only that, but it is entirely possible that the user could accidentally render the data unencryptable. That'd be bad.
EFS is not for a typical user to permanently encrypt data that can never be revealed. It is primarily designed so that sensitive data on corporate laptops can be stored in a way that if it is stolen it cannot be decrypted. This purpose is well served by EFS.
There are many excellent critiques of MS's security and data protection capabilities. There is no need to overreach and bash things that do actually work as intended.
The thing is though that if you applied moderned engineering techniques with the older goal, you'd have something special. I had a Pentium 60 Mhz chip that drew a huge power load. Gigantic. Can't find the docs, but my memory was in the 90-100W range just for the chip. Ran hot, hot, hot and it was physically huge.
Could we take the design and manufactuer it on the much smaller fab technology we have now and reap a big benefit?
I don't need a powerful system, just one that operates at a reasonable level of efficeny with low power.
What we really need someone to do is design a laptop from the ground-up for maximum battery life. And I don't just mean the processor.
Look at every function, every component, and remove/reduce everything unnecessary. Combine anything possible. Strip it down to nothing. Give me an old school screen. And I mean that. I don't even care if its an old gas plasma or monochrome display.
I am talking about a laptop that will run with average use for 2 weeks between charges. I don't even care if it's a refined 486/25. Whatever it's speed/capabilities, I'll find an OS to run with it. If that means a console only Linux distro, I'm fine with that.
The fact that you can't get a laptop that can truly run for more than 8 hrs off of battery without insane power saving options is nuts.
Give me a 1 lb 1/2 inch think laptop with a low-power "486 level" processor, minimal graphics card, 1 gb flash card instead of a harddisk, optical disk and wireless network adapter. I don't need no stinking parallel port, no freaking COM ports, S-Video out, no ability to display two video displays at once, no freaking docking ports, maybe a USB port if its not too much trouble, no firewire, no infrared, no onboard ethernet, no onboard modem and definately no line input/microphone jacks. I don't need to no high-powered speakers, a head-phone jack and 16-bit 2-channel stereo sound will do just fine. A 10" screen will do fine, an optional mechanical backlight switch will do fine. Color is nice if you can have it, otherwise, give me a 256-shades of gray and 800x600 resolution.
If someone could persuade a hardware manufacturing plant to make a non-name version of this laptop I am sure it would sell. With the best battery you can buy and this unit you could probabl sell them retail for $399 and make a decent profit. If you can get a CPU down to a low-enough voltage and wattage - and it doesn't have to be an x86 processor mind you - I could see a life of 24 hrs continuous being plausable. Whatever you can get that's low wattage (4 Watts? What's reasonable? My P4 takes an insane amount.. what, 90 Watts all by itself, without anything else in the box? pfft).
Enough of this diatribe. This should be a no brainer. You could sell millions of these units easily. Put together a nice tightly integrated suite of tools - simple e-mail, simple web-browser, simple office suite, etc and you'll be making millions.
Then you turn off his power, cut his phone line, and cause his gas oven to blow up. Ohh. wait.. real life doesn't follow movie rules about what "hackers" can do?
Actually, everything is accountable. In case you hadn't noticed, the ultimate test of accountability just recently passed us by.
Granted, he squeaked by with 51%, but he still won.
People had thier chance to hold him accountable. They failed.
The current RNC admin spends $150+ billions on a crusade to conduct a democracy-for-oil campaign
That's an interesting idea.
If Bush wanted Iraqs oil on the American market, why not just rattle the saber, get inspectors in Iraq for a bit, doing some intensive inspections (which they did, for a bit), and then declare Iraq a repaired nation, no WMDs, and ask the UN to lift sanctions? That would release all of Iraq's production into the market and depress prices. The whole thing would take, ohh, maybe six months. Bush and the US would look like the good guys.
I think the more likely thing here is that Bush personally, and as a matter of record, didn't like Hussein or Iraq in general. I find it more than likely that he *really* believed every line spouted about Iraq - about being a root of terrorism, about being in the WMD business, about being an axis of evil, etc.
That's more scary, in my mind, than the oil theory.
If you do some mild research, you'll find that France, Germany, and the UK have already once drastically reduced benefits.
I am not supporting Bush's plan. However, it is worth noting that Europe had a much more generous plan the US's Social Security plan, and it ended up once already bankrupting the countries through the 90's. The population of Western nations is aging, and aging fast.
One last thing. Wall Street is not a "net loss", because it is not a "closed system". Value is created from thin air. On top of that, something you and many others has forgotten, is that stocks pay more than just gains if their stock goes and you sell. Corporations pay dividends. And often times significant dividends. Two elderly folk in my family receive far more income from stock dividends than from Social Security. Even without taking dividends into account, vast sums of money from overseas are pumped back into America via the stock trade. Without it the US trade deficit would be.. let's say, absolutely mortifyingly huge. Foreign dollars are invested in US corporations via the stock market, directly (at times of public offerings) and indirectly, through transactions.
You in fact do the transform of XML + XSL on the client side. It's not to terribly hard, but the results are typically incompatible between XML and XSL processors.
Just as an FYI. A lot of times when a new law is passed there is a general reluctance to test it until the right case comes along.
Basically, for a while, it's just a deterrent on the fact that "someone has to be the first to test the new law". Prosecutors will waive it around, but not test it - especially if it's likely to be reasonably challeneged.
One Article
Another
Another that compares the Bush plan to what Europe already does (by the way, Europe already indexes against prices, just like Bush proposes)
Search google. It's easy to find more.
The original post said that there is no "moderation" system for Bill O'Reily/Sean Hannity, and all of those types the person disagrees with.
The implicit argument was, and was supported partially by other posts, that "we" as in the government need a system to moderate these voices down.
The argument is that they are liars, and therefore, need to be moderated out of the mainstream just like P0rn trolls are moderated out of the mainstream of Slashdot
I am saying that first, we don't need any additional system. Just because there is a difference of opinion - which is fundamentally what O'Reily and his ilk are selling - doesn't mean that they should made inaccessible to a wide audience. These people aren't making up news stories out or whole cloth, or doing blantant propaganda with the intent to decieve. They take what is happening at any time and give their opinion and analysis of it. Right or wrong, that's an opinion. I mean to say, they aren't out there giving "War of the Worlds"-esque false news reports. They are, fundamentally, selling their opinion, and therefore, no matter how egriously wrong, distorted, lie filled, or false it is it belongs in the mainstream so long as the mainstream is willing tolerate it.
Second, I am saying, that fundamentally when you have multiple view points on an issue it is best to just self-select what you want to pay attention to.
All of Europe faces a big problem, namely, that the entitlement programs are so massive that they are becoming a massive burden as the population ages. France, in particular, is near the breaking point due to a lovely pension system.
A rapidly aging population, long life spans, and a low-growth economy are disasters waiting to happen all over Europe...
The media used to regard the news as public service, and not so much a source of profit.
What you mean to say is that ABC, NBC, and CBS used to do that. The media predates TV by some years.
There are, however, quite a number that do have "correct" answers if you are willing to postulate that the commercial interests of a small number of people should not be more important than the good of the community.
There are a number of people who do not follow that view.
I agree censorship is a bad idea, but the problem with a pervasive, persuasive and centralized media (e.g. ClearChannel) in a democracy is that without a critically thinking population the system becomes unstable.
There is not a centralized media system in the US. That is such a bogus statement. There are now, at this time, more viewpoints, more sources of raw information, and more sources of opinions than at any time in US history.
functioning democracy is a self correcting system, but a hidden dependancy of that system is that accurate, verifiable information is provided to the people who must make the decisions. I.e., the voters.
Close, but not quite. It doesnt have to actively made available - pushed - to voters. It has to be *available* for seeking. Everything a voter needs to make an informed choice is available.
except perhaps to compel news programs to function on a non-profit basis.
We have non-profit news. It's very widespread. Not only is there NPR, but a number of local outlets in any given area. It's worth noting that non-profit does not mean perfect, or even ncessarily better than for profit. The BBC is not-for-profit, yet, it has it's share of problems, correct?
I sense an undertone of unhappiness with the situation at hand. Like you feel like if the electorate had just a little bit better, or more, or different information a different result would have occurred in the recent election. Is that the case?
There is such a massive amount of generalization going. Look.
Did O'Reily say - "Bush has never said an opposing word about creating the 9/11 comission. He has wholly supported it since the very first mention of it."
No, he didn't.
What he said was:
"They said they [9-11 widow Kristen Breitweiser, featured in the ad, and her late husband] voted for Bush [in 2000], but Bush opposed the 9-11 Commission -- which he didn't, by the way. He didn't oppose it. I mean, he had questions about it because he didn't want it politicized."
The is a big difference between #1 and #2.
What's the point? Am I defending O'Reilly? No, not all.
It is not, however, necessarily a lie. Nor does this mean that O'Reily is not pusher of opinion. Maybe, for example, is O'Reily saying that Bush did not ever oppose the comission? Bush did, and then flip-flopped on the matter after it became intensely publicized. Is O'Reily aware of this. Did O'Reily know of this situation and falsify his remarks on purpose? What is his intent here?
Of course a person can lie. Opinion is opinion. When making statements of fact - like O'Reily did - you can always outright lie, make a mistake, give the wrong impression, mislead, and all the other shades less than 100% factual truth.
The best part is that individuals can asses the situation and make a decision based on the merit of the case. Is this a significant lie? What is the intention here? Was it on purpose? Was it significant? How did it affect me, or someone else? Was it spiteful, vainful, what was its nature?
And after all that, the individual can decide if that situation makes the persons opinion more or less valuable, and to what degree. And he or she can act accordingly.
The original post lamented that there is no way to mod this down. The goal of moderation, like in Slashdot, is to get the good to the top, the bad to the bottom, and the crap off your screen. Obviously the people who watch O'Reily - I am not one of them so I can't be 100% sure - find some value in his opinion, and continue to watch him.
Basically, the whole bottom line is that when you are dealing with someone who fundamentally an opinion pusher, the burden is huge for any outside "moderation". The judgement of what is a lie, and what is not lie, is up to individuals. The example you gave can reasonably be excluded from the lie category. Obviously Media Matters feels it was a lie, as do you. Another group or person could look at that, analyze it and say: there was no intent to decieve, therefore, it was not a lie.
Did you ever notice that they all read the republican "talking points"?
Not, I don't generally watch them. Although, last time I caught any of O'Reily he was advocating for the legalization of pot and the tightening of environmental laws, which last I knew, were no where near republican talking points.
They have the ratings and that means that they have they eyeballs, and that means that they are getting away with it.
Which brings us back to the fact that some people are not happy unless everything on all TV/Radio/Websites agrees with their personal opinion, worldview, and perspective. If you do not consume the media, and not enough others do, that outlet loses influence and power.
People can elect to watch and give weigh to whomever and whateve they want. It seems like alot of people are angry because a source they find to be fraudulent and misleading is respected and watched by so many.
People who don't agree with you are not necessarily ignorant, stupid, or wrong.
You can have an opinion and be fair and balanced. Neither O'Reily or Hannity represent themselves as, fundamentally, journalists. They are opinionists and entertainers. They make no claims to be Seymour Hersh, or anyone else.
The reality is that they both have a constant diatribe of being "fair and balanced" when, in fact, they are not.
That is generally the slogan of Fox News. As for the people you mention, they advertise heavily that they provide opinion, "analysis" of the events of the day. This isn't journalism, and they dont claim it to be.
Perhaps they believe (and they could very well be right) that their repitition of a lie will influence the masses.
Their goal is to influence opinion of others while making money. It's the stated goal of these type of programs. I am sure there are facts that are misrepresented, twisted, distorted, lied about, falsified, misunderstood, ignored, and all other sorts of deceptions going on. However, on the face of the shows, they are about opinion. These opinions may be misleading, wrongheaded, or sensible, reasonable, moderate. It doesn't matter. It's still all in the realm of opinion.
First off, I am aware of the Fairness doctrine. A relative wrote the original draft of the text. It has never applied to anything except broadcast outlets. The media landscape is much more broad than that.
Second off, with regards to your "we expect people to do thier jobs bit". You are under the impression that people expect the same thing from their news sources as you do. That is not the case. Believe it or not people like to hear things that they fundamentally agree with.
Next, any particular news source is irrelevant. There are many, many, many sources. If one, or two, or however many have an unsuitable bias than move on to another. That is hardly a dramatic proposition. This is how it has been in the newspaper market for 200+ years.
I am upset because there is nothing that separates this country from China but journalists and voting booths, and some Conservatives are in the process of crossing journalists off the list.
You can think that, but you really are holding journalists too high, and citizens too low. Conservatives are hardly out to "get journalism". Conservatives watch they want. People with different opinions watch what they want. What's the problem with that? It will lead to communism, in your view? This is nothing new.
Moderation on slashdot does not censor anything.
First off, it can in fact lead to censorship. Sign-up for a new account. Post a bunch of trolls. Your account and IP address will get banned after a spell, based on moderation.
It does what it is designed to do; control prominence; making the good stuff rise to the top, and relegating bad ideas, incorrect facts, propaganda, deception, and trolling to the bottom.
There is a real world analogy to moderation, and it's called money. People allocate it based on all kinds of facts, and in the end. The media landscape today is broad and diverse, and almost any viewpoint can be found in some medium.
Finally, if you don't like Fox News, don't watch it. Conservatives aren't out to get rid of "journalism". There is no big bad communist plot to eliminate dissenting view points.
One thing to note, the plan in question would not end social security as we know it. 7/8 of the contribution would go to traditional social security. A 1/8th portion would go to a private account.
Things are different now from then.
Then, the country was transitioning from an agrigrian country to an commericalized industrialized country. The population balance between city and county is basically opposite, and so is the handling of aging.
These are very important things to consider. But I guess you can't even have a discussion on Slashdot or anywhere for that matter. It's jumping straight to "you're an idiot" and snarkyness.
The enterprise of journalism, which is suppoesed to help citizens in a democracy sort through
Since when has that been true? Take off your rose colored blinders. That's never what journalism has been about. Journalism has been about promoting a view, detracting from a view, and most of all selling media. If you want to see for yourself, go to a library and look back at 17th, 18th, and 19th century newspapers. Journalism has always been a taudry business. This business about journalists being the crusading do-gooder out to help democray is a post-World War II fantasy.
and, as far as viewers are concerned, get away with it.
That's in your opinion. They don't get away with in my view, because I refuse to consume their product and to become their product. Remember, when you watch most media, you are not only consuming their product but you become the product: eyeballs to an advertiser.
increasingly sophisticated misinformation that comes from a variety of interested parties is in a state of free-fall
Everything you disagree with is not misinformation. Everyone has an interest. Regardless of how much people might hand-wring about it, everyone has an interest.
either actively subverted by self-interested and sociopathic organizations and individuals
What a load of garbage. There are few very issues with objectively correct or incorrect answers or solutions. Individuals or organizations promoting their view is hardly sociopathic.
or simply crumbling under the unique demands and exigencies of continued survival in the mass media marketplace.
If you feel like a media outlet is not being principled in the face of competition, than abandon that outlet. There are others. You somehow think that intense competition and corporate involvement with media is new. It's not. It is, again, exceedingly old and well established within this country. You seem to have this perception that before a certain point in history things were good with regards to journalism, and then something happened, and now it is bad.
The heart of the matter is that when Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity lie about something, no one is yet able to mod them down.
That is not only an amazing generalization but also fundamentally incorrect. Both of the people you mention are fundamentally pushers of opinion. There is very little in terms of opinion which meets the definition of a lie. On top of all that, you are in fact able to "mod them down". Disregard their opinion, and move on to another source.
It seems like you most upset because people with whom you disagree or believe to be lying are able to have power and influence despite your disapproval of them. This is, despite your view, a truly great thing.
You need to celebrate diversity. Diversity of thought, diversity of opinion, and diversity of expression. If you can't accept a point of view, or the person giving it, then ignore that person and move on. There is no need to clamor for censorship.
10 years isn't old. It's mature.
The Linux kernel is just getting to the point where it doesn't completely suck ass.
This isn't to disparage where things are at, going, or have been. But you dont just scrap something like the kernel just because its a decade or more old.
That's how you get versions that are "newer" with half the features.
Kernels are time expensive and iterative. You just can't go from nothing to a working production kernel in one or a few releases. It's a big job to do it right.
The linux kernel is finally to a place where you have a good mix of micro and monolithic design principles (not a lot of bloated message passing, loadable modules). It's finally got some really decent SMP, and the VM issues are finally being addressed.