um... wrongo. almost everyone uses Word, at home and at work. people have stopped thinking for themselves when it comes to grammar and spelling - they just let Word find their mistakes. if Word decides that 'idiot' is no longer a valid word in the thesaurus, then quite simply it is no longer a valid word.
What a piece of FUD.
Let me start by saying that NO ONE I know of relies on a grammar checker. It's yet another tool, but most people just ignore it--it's too stupid to do grammar right, and that's the way it is.
As for the Thesaurus--it's always been missing words. It misses common words, it comes up with nonsensical matches, and (*gasp!*) it doesn't automatically check your word choice!
The spell check has a certain ammount of words, and you can always add more. MS keeping their defaut squeaky-clean is by no means evil--after all, they do NOTHING to force you to be squeaky clean.
Complain about MS for their crimes, not their good intentions.
"nothing" is a fallicy. They (users) arguably get the most benefit from the GPL--free software, and the guarantee that they will never suffer from a lazy corporation's lack of willingness to updgrade their software.
The GPL's a contract, and doesn't "strip developers of their rights" anymore than Microsoft "strips developers" of their rights to cash.
You trade you right to not use the GPL in your work for the right to use GPL'd code. It's a very simple concept. If you don't like the GPL, you can (gasp) NOT USE GPL'D CODE!
1: Fast User switching (you can switch to another user without logging off. GREAT if you share your PC with *anyone.*)
2: An INCREDIBLE Start Menu. (Everything is configurable... what it looks like, if it's new or old, and even what shows up. You can even have unlimited windowing through your file strucutre.)
3: Faster Boot time. (Especially if you're running Win2k!)
4: Game support (MS isn't saying "This isn't a gaming OS" this time, so things will be much better.)
5: A collapsing System Tray (Of all the little icons that show up by the clock, you can configure which ones always hide, which ones never hide, and which ones "hide when inactive.")
6: The latest and greatest interfunctionallity from MS--which menas that the latest and greatest from someone else will work for you now.
To manually hibernane, hold down shift at the shutdown screen and "Suspend" switches to "Hibernate."
Also, look for the (beta) Powertoys. Some of these little things are VERY nifty (Virtual Desktop for Windows, new TweakUI, etc.)
Re:Interesting comment in related news...
on
Microsoft's Future
·
· Score: 1
AOL is all about a monopoly, just a different kind. They support 'open' and 'free' just like Microsoft does...when it suites their interests. They are getting a mountain of free development for an application that is competeing against an offering from their main fow.
Everyone on the face of the planet supports "open" and "free" only when it suits their interestes. Some people have interests that are a lot more altruistic than a corporation (which, really, IS NOT ALLOWED TO NOT BE GREEDY), but everyone only supports OSS et all when it suits their interests.
Of course, if you really do support it always--care to be "open" with your personal information? I'd like to start my life over, and "open identity" sounds like a great way to do it.
in post-98 Windows, pull up the "Internet Options" appelet in the Control Panel, and go to the "Programs" Tab. From there, you can select the default e-mail application in a drop-down menu labeled, simply enough, "e-mail."
The drop-down list only has those programs that told Windows that they are e-mail programs, but the feature's been in so long that most apps should be able to do it.
In Windows XP, this same feature affects what shows up on the Start Menus as well--and both Netscape 6.1 and Mozilla 0.9.4 show up as choices when they are installed. I don't know about Eudora, though.
Is the desire for Microsoft to make more money a compelling reason?
Yes. However, if you don't want to be bound by that, don't buy Frontpage 2002.
If you DO buy it, and you CAN'T get a refund, talk to a lawyer about a fraud suit. Limitations on use of the sofware product (as opposed to little web appelets) are hardly common practice--so if they pop up, and there's no reasonable way to you to know about them and they have your money, MS has defrauded you.
IANAL, and the only legal advice I can give is "talk to a lawyer if you want legal advice"
Private individuals and corporations are NOT the US government. They can and have created and got the government to enforce contracts and rules that restrict the right to bear arms, freedom from self-incrimination, and freedom of speech.
Well, this brings up interesting issues over whether the code was actually extended, over whether the GPL covers software embedded in a hardware system (gee, sounds like patent law)
Copyright applies to anything original that you can copy--from Tolkien's LOTR to a physical statute of art.
Patents apply to ideas and designs.
A specific PC is, IMHO (IANAL!), something that might be covered by a few patents, but is defitely covered by a copyright. If I make a PC that looks just like a Compaq Presario with a different name, they can gut me for copyright violation above and beyond any patents I may have violated.
Phantom Menace was a poor to mediocre movie no matter what your point of view, unless you saw it when you were 7 without seeing the original movies. It does not deserve to be talked about any more that Waterworld does.
You, my friend, have far too weighty an opinion of Hollywood. The Phantom Menace was as good as most of the movies that have ever come out of hollywood. It might not be a timeless work of art--but that applies to the whole darn thing.
TPM was Star Wars--the Star Wars of ewoks, time measured in parsecs, and hokey new age religion masquarading as fantasy blended with sci-fi. It's a fun space fantasy. If you go in waiting for anything but "fun star wars", you'll be disappointed.
Forced crypto backdoors -- is this to be the next "gun control"? After all, the only thing gun control has done for us in the US is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get a firearm. Criminals continue to acquire their weapons illegally.
Gun Control's failure can be attributed do politics. If every gun was tracked from the moment of its creation (and I mean *every* gun, made anywhere in the world by a real business) the market of firearms for criminals would fall off. Maybe it wouldn't fall entirely, and it wouldn't be quick, but it'd eventually work.
Of course, the fact that some "Gun Control" advocates really want "Gun banning" rattles the issue as much as Abortion's rattled by the mythical "pro-abortion" front. (Y'know, the people who go out and encourage women to get knocked up, abort, & continue ad nauseum.)
Similarly, what will force the "bad guys" to throw away their non-trojaned cryptography in favor of this new back-doored stuff? This sort of legislation is only useful for spying on law-abiding citizens. Let's be real here. How does this sort of legislation make it more difficult for criminals and terrorists to do what they do?
Well, easy. Make a marker for the new encryption, and test regularly & randomly for the right kind of encryption. The barrier to entery for using the old encryption--you have to write the new software yourself--will make the new stuff effective.
If only stupid & lazy criminals use the old encryption, then the new encryption would quickly begin to be used.
This is a question that is NEVER taught in schools, but should be. Any "holy" war is a economic war being excused for religious reasons. This is used to encite the people to fight. During any "holy" war you will hear a protest, "Would God want us doing this?". The Jerry Falwells of the world use the Bible to push their opinion; why can't the economy?
Actually, WWII was hardly economic on the US side, but it qualifies as a "holy war." (The Pope blessed the conflict, and the above-statistical numbers of American Catholics who fought in WWII fought with religious frevor.) Afghanistan's push to keep the Soviet Union out was, also, hardly economic.
You could say that "holy war" is a title that any war not of economics deserves. (Try thinking of every war as at least two wars, with each side waging a "different war.")
Another level to look at it is this:The US, with their powerful economy and military, are the "Great Satan," because they deny, through not passing an "equal" share of the money (namely, that which would make the US and Arabs equally economically powerful).
That's one way to look at it--but a horribly ethnocentric way of doing so. Why isn't Saudi Arabia the "Great Satan", or Kuwait--I mean, they're (comparatively) greatly successful. Why isn't Great Britain or Canada, or the UN itself, considered as such? Or France? (I mean, if they hated france we'd at least have something in common.)
I'm a senior this year, yet I have never had a social studies teacher come out and say "God is their excuse for war". Of course not. American High Schools are not allowed to even do a little bit of that--they can teach politics, and cultures, and societial imacts, and "strange unknown reasons" and even atheism all they want, but they can't use "the G word" for fear of offending someone.
That always ticked me off about High School. Glad I'm out.
rather than traditional block quotes, I'll simply offer a retort.
If I read it correctly, you argued that civil liberties are a Good Thing because they lead to happiness. It seems to me that this is part of their definition--"civil liberties are freedoms of the people that lead to happiness when freely exercised by all." If we assume such to be the definition, the need still exists to extol it.
There are, of course, "freedoms" that do not meet this definition. The freedom to steal. The freedom to exercise your anger on another. The freedom to hijack an airplane and commit an act of mass murder. All things that we have a vested interested in preventing, but that also fall under the very broad label of "freedom." (In the context of my original post, at least.)
You are most certainly correct that the government exists to serve its citizens. I allow myself to be governed because I trust my government to provide security and protect my liberties--the very two most basic things for which it was founded.
However, the government will always exist in some form, as long as people work together. Government is that thing that exists for the benefit of the citizens. In an ancarchy a corporation who's only shareholders were employees, an who all lived in the same town, would be a government. A group of people in the same community that met together to decide where the roads go is a government. A wealthy landowner that imposes rules on his land is a government.
At its simplest level (even in a utopian world), a government must exist to coordinate and specifically request the work of the citizens (which, ideally, would be everyone on the planet.) Government (even if you call it something else!) is that thing where people go to decide who's land is what, that thing that keeps "the record", and that says when a doctor is a doctor and when married people are married. Utopian Anarchy is a myth.
That said, I agree that government has a paradoxial purpose--to protect the people while serving them, to exercise both as much power as it needs and as little as is necessary. The largest burden such a noble endeavor has is that the power that must be wielded attracts not only those with a strong sense of duty (those who are best to wield it) but those with a great thirst for power (those who should not wield power at all.)
Thankfully, the answer to all of these problems is the same: We discuss them and come to an agreed-upon conclusion, even if our discussion are by proxy. So, write your congresspeople, voice your opinion, and remember to argue as coherently as you can.
There's nothing wrong with a sound bite, as long as it gets the most important fact across.
If the only choices you see are anarchy or totalitarianism, then I'll choose anarcy, thank you.
Who said that they were the only choices? Neither one is American.
The American way is simple: A balance between Anarchy and Totolitarianism. Neither side is an absolute good, and in the issues RMS rasied--as in all things--we must carefully agree on where our balance will sit.
So I don't think the electors from that state should have been seated. Therefore I don't accept GWB as elected. In power, yes, but that's a different concept. Usurpation, I believe it's called.
Not true at all.
The president of the United States is elected by the electoral college. The candidates went to court concerning the Florida recount. These cases went to the Supreme Court--who did interpret by partisan lines, but so what?
In all too-close problems of a presidential election, Congress has oversight. Congress, as a body, chose to award the presidency to George W. Bush. Ergo, he is a duly elected president. Not a single democratic senator chose to even raise the question for debate--and the Rebuplicans had no reason to.
Now it's true, the supreme court was clearly in complict agreement. And it's possible that things would have turned out the same anyway. And Gore wasn't any better. So? That is'nt what happened. What happened was usurpation.
How, exactly, is it "usurpation?" All that Bush did was file a lawsuit, and play politics--which is exactly the game that every president has ever done to get the job.
In any case, the 2000 election is a good reason to reform the electoral college & our voting procedures--and it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Bush is the President of the United States, and by disrespecting him now (of all times!) RMS and yourself are no better than the ignorant republican fanatics who hounded Clinton throughout his entire presidency.
The man is president, and as president he deserves our respect as Americans.
OK, lets say we give up strong encryption. Lets say let the government have back doors into our systems. Does this really help in any measurable way? For instance, I want to send something to Cryptome about government waste. Since I don't know John Young all that well (hey, we don't get to gether to plan stuff, you know?), I send him a gpPgp (Government Penetrated Pretty Gone Privacy) encrypted message. Intercepted, decoded, trashed, and I'm in jail because I've exposed something the Government would rather I didn't. Where's the trial? Well, you don't get one now...
That's some rather faulty logic there, my dear AC.
You're assuming that mandating access to any speech would automatically imply governmental prosecution for unpopular speech. And argument like this ignores two very simple facts--namely, the gov't can just crack your encryption / subenoa your logs if they're prosecutiong you even without a backdoor, and that giving up a relatively unknown freedom is an order of magntiude (or more) less disruptive than giving up one of America's fundamental freedoms.
This short thought experiment shows that passing laws to breach privacy are generally a bad idea. If I know you are watching, it won't help you to read my messages because those I'm involved with will know what "The Fat Man Walks Alone" means.
The USA has been cracking "code phrase" systems for about two hundred and twenty five years now. If they have to crack the encrypted code phrase message on top of figuring out the code itself, then the investigation could get really bogged down and we could have another 9-11.
Picture if we had a totally transparent and tracked society--upon someone being killed, an instant record of everyone around them at the time of their death could be taken from the raw data logs. The investigation would go much smoother, and the public servants tasked with investigating, defending, and prosectution would all be able to get a lot more work done for their time. Justice would become faster, although real safeguards to prevent abuse would (of course!) be needed.
Of course, the specific example of encryption's back-doors is a good one. I'm sure that Congressional advocates can come up with good examples--both hypothetical and historical--that would back up their side. By weighng both sides of the issue as a nation, we can come to a fair and just solution.
I could go on but I fear for my family if I do. We have seen little in the way of proof as yet, but right now 75% of those polled are willing to turn a country and all it's people into a parking lot. That's kind of scary.
Welcome to America, land of the representative democracy because the people are so bloodthirsty.
As for fearing for your family--assuming that you are an American Citizen (or the citizen of a NATO ally), if you live in fear now, you will live in fear no matter what laws are passed, no matter what freedoms are protected, and no matter where you live.
The most basic tenent of civilization is trusting someone else with your security. If you do not do this, then you will wind up living in fear just as our ancestors did in the time of gods and witch doctors.
I agree that you're always trading liberty for security. However, the point of having a constitution is that those rights CANNOT be traded for security.
Good point about the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Of course, the rights to privacy, invisibility, and cheap airline travel aren't in any amendment other than the blanket 10th.
And thanks for the "perceptive" comment. I feel all warm and fuzzy now.
Problem is I'm their employer, and so are you if you are an American citizen. How does the government keep secrets when they are transparent to their employers, the citizens of the country?
The same way that someone I hired to hide something would do it. I would want to have easy access to their personal life (including finances and where they go, save for blocked out times when they're doing the hiding), but not when they're actually keeping the secret.
Our gov't (yes, I am a citizen! Woo hoo!) is hired to protect our common intrests of liberty and defense. This job requires keeping some things secret, and understanding this we can work it into even an otherwise totally open society.
A safeguard against abuse would be automatic rights to examine any "secret" concerning you, as well as a time-expiration (say, ten years) on all other secrets.
Slashdot Mirror
um... wrongo. almost everyone uses Word, at home and at work. people have stopped thinking for themselves when it comes to grammar and spelling - they just let Word find their mistakes. if Word decides that 'idiot' is no longer a valid word in the thesaurus, then quite simply it is no longer a valid word.
What a piece of FUD.
Let me start by saying that NO ONE I know of relies on a grammar checker. It's yet another tool, but most people just ignore it--it's too stupid to do grammar right, and that's the way it is.
As for the Thesaurus--it's always been missing words. It misses common words, it comes up with nonsensical matches, and (*gasp!*) it doesn't automatically check your word choice!
The spell check has a certain ammount of words, and you can always add more. MS keeping their defaut squeaky-clean is by no means evil--after all, they do NOTHING to force you to be squeaky clean.
Complain about MS for their crimes, not their good intentions.
"nothing" is a fallicy. They (users) arguably get the most benefit from the GPL--free software, and the guarantee that they will never suffer from a lazy corporation's lack of willingness to updgrade their software.
The GPL's a contract, and doesn't "strip developers of their rights" anymore than Microsoft "strips developers" of their rights to cash.
You trade you right to not use the GPL in your work for the right to use GPL'd code. It's a very simple concept. If you don't like the GPL, you can (gasp) NOT USE GPL'D CODE!
And how do you Know Bill Gate's name?
I didn't say RMS was "Good" as a Saint is good. He's "alot closer to Good than Bill Gates is."
Sheesh.
Good: To sacrafice oneself for the benefit of others
Evil: To sacrafice others for the benefit of oneself.
As virulent as RMS may be, he's alot closer to Good than Bill Gates is. (Note the cap)
DM
That was always FUD plus early driver problems.
:)
Actually, it was MS saying their position, and the market & most of the game / driver industry ignoring MS.
The fast boot would be nice, but OTOH, I hibernate my Win2K. The only time that I actually shut it down is to swap out some hardware.
I've had Win2k crash on me on several occasions due to some rather annoying conflicts--all of which have vanished after WinXP.
'course, the next PC ("Personal Computer") I get will be a Mac.
Odd... I didn't notice that at home...
ah, well. Not like it really matters--it's the same old thing with a different look and some new setting to tweak
A short list:
1: Fast User switching (you can switch to another user without logging off. GREAT if you share your PC with *anyone.*)
2: An INCREDIBLE Start Menu. (Everything is configurable... what it looks like, if it's new or old, and even what shows up. You can even have unlimited windowing through your file strucutre.)
3: Faster Boot time. (Especially if you're running Win2k!)
4: Game support (MS isn't saying "This isn't a gaming OS" this time, so things will be much better.)
5: A collapsing System Tray (Of all the little icons that show up by the clock, you can configure which ones always hide, which ones never hide, and which ones "hide when inactive.")
6: The latest and greatest interfunctionallity from MS--which menas that the latest and greatest from someone else will work for you now.
To manually hibernane, hold down shift at the shutdown screen and "Suspend" switches to "Hibernate."
Also, look for the (beta) Powertoys. Some of these little things are VERY nifty (Virtual Desktop for Windows, new TweakUI, etc.)
AOL is all about a monopoly, just a different kind. They support 'open' and 'free' just like Microsoft does...when it suites their interests. They are getting a mountain of free development for an application that is competeing against an offering from their main fow.
Everyone on the face of the planet supports "open" and "free" only when it suits their interestes. Some people have interests that are a lot more altruistic than a corporation (which, really, IS NOT ALLOWED TO NOT BE GREEDY), but everyone only supports OSS et all when it suits their interests.
Of course, if you really do support it always--care to be "open" with your personal information? I'd like to start my life over, and "open identity" sounds like a great way to do it.
in post-98 Windows, pull up the "Internet Options" appelet in the Control Panel, and go to the "Programs" Tab. From there, you can select the default e-mail application in a drop-down menu labeled, simply enough, "e-mail."
The drop-down list only has those programs that told Windows that they are e-mail programs, but the feature's been in so long that most apps should be able to do it.
In Windows XP, this same feature affects what shows up on the Start Menus as well--and both Netscape 6.1 and Mozilla 0.9.4 show up as choices when they are installed. I don't know about Eudora, though.
The fourth amdendment is against unlawful search & seizure without a warrant.
Hmm... yeah, I can see that "no search" part. But, really, it's still on shakier grounds than the "you can't regulate guns because of the second."
Good point, anyway.
sounds interesting... (don't mind me, I'm just marking this so I can find it later.)
I've got to agree with the Blind Guardian bit--that's an amazing album, almost enough to get me to read Tolkien.
Is the desire for Microsoft to make more money a compelling reason?
Yes. However, if you don't want to be bound by that, don't buy Frontpage 2002.
If you DO buy it, and you CAN'T get a refund, talk to a lawyer about a fraud suit. Limitations on use of the sofware product (as opposed to little web appelets) are hardly common practice--so if they pop up, and there's no reasonable way to you to know about them and they have your money, MS has defrauded you.
IANAL, and the only legal advice I can give is "talk to a lawyer if you want legal advice"
*ahem*
Private individuals and corporations are NOT the US government. They can and have created and got the government to enforce contracts and rules that restrict the right to bear arms, freedom from self-incrimination, and freedom of speech.
Well, this brings up interesting issues over whether the code was actually extended, over whether the GPL covers software embedded in a hardware system (gee, sounds like patent law)
Copyright applies to anything original that you can copy--from Tolkien's LOTR to a physical statute of art.
Patents apply to ideas and designs.
A specific PC is, IMHO (IANAL!), something that might be covered by a few patents, but is defitely covered by a copyright. If I make a PC that looks just like a Compaq Presario with a different name, they can gut me for copyright violation above and beyond any patents I may have violated.
Good ones are.
Blunderbusses and muskets aren't. Pipe Bombs aren't.
A real rifle, bullets, or any semi-automatic weapon takes considerable skill, and to do them in bulk they REQUIRE an industrial base of some kind.
Got a URL where I can get a Windows version?
Phantom Menace was a poor to mediocre movie no matter what your point of view, unless you saw it when you were 7 without seeing the original movies. It does not deserve to be talked about any more that Waterworld does.
You, my friend, have far too weighty an opinion of Hollywood. The Phantom Menace was as good as most of the movies that have ever come out of hollywood. It might not be a timeless work of art--but that applies to the whole darn thing.
TPM was Star Wars--the Star Wars of ewoks, time measured in parsecs, and hokey new age religion masquarading as fantasy blended with sci-fi. It's a fun space fantasy. If you go in waiting for anything but "fun star wars", you'll be disappointed.
And I *liked* waterworld, god damn it!
Forced crypto backdoors -- is this to be the next "gun control"? After all, the only thing gun control has done for us in the US is make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to get a firearm. Criminals continue to acquire their weapons illegally.
Gun Control's failure can be attributed do politics. If every gun was tracked from the moment of its creation (and I mean *every* gun, made anywhere in the world by a real business) the market of firearms for criminals would fall off. Maybe it wouldn't fall entirely, and it wouldn't be quick, but it'd eventually work.
Of course, the fact that some "Gun Control" advocates really want "Gun banning" rattles the issue as much as Abortion's rattled by the mythical "pro-abortion" front. (Y'know, the people who go out and encourage women to get knocked up, abort, & continue ad nauseum.)
Similarly, what will force the "bad guys" to throw away their non-trojaned cryptography in favor of this new back-doored stuff? This sort of legislation is only useful for spying on law-abiding citizens. Let's be real here. How does this sort of legislation make it more difficult for criminals and terrorists to do what they do?
Well, easy. Make a marker for the new encryption, and test regularly & randomly for the right kind of encryption. The barrier to entery for using the old encryption--you have to write the new software yourself--will make the new stuff effective.
If only stupid & lazy criminals use the old encryption, then the new encryption would quickly begin to be used.
This is a question that is NEVER taught in schools, but should be. Any "holy" war is a economic war being excused for religious reasons. This is used to encite the people to fight. During any "holy" war you will hear a protest, "Would God want us doing this?". The Jerry Falwells of the world use the Bible to push their opinion; why can't the economy?
Actually, WWII was hardly economic on the US side, but it qualifies as a "holy war." (The Pope blessed the conflict, and the above-statistical numbers of American Catholics who fought in WWII fought with religious frevor.) Afghanistan's push to keep the Soviet Union out was, also, hardly economic.
You could say that "holy war" is a title that any war not of economics deserves. (Try thinking of every war as at least two wars, with each side waging a "different war.")
Another level to look at it is this:The US, with their powerful economy and military, are the "Great Satan," because they deny, through not passing an "equal" share of the money (namely, that which would make the US and Arabs equally economically powerful).
That's one way to look at it--but a horribly ethnocentric way of doing so. Why isn't Saudi Arabia the "Great Satan", or Kuwait--I mean, they're (comparatively) greatly successful. Why isn't Great Britain or Canada, or the UN itself, considered as such? Or France? (I mean, if they hated france we'd at least have something in common.)
I'm a senior this year, yet I have never had a social studies teacher come out and say "God is their excuse for war".
Of course not. American High Schools are not allowed to even do a little bit of that--they can teach politics, and cultures, and societial imacts, and "strange unknown reasons" and even atheism all they want, but they can't use "the G word" for fear of offending someone.
That always ticked me off about High School. Glad I'm out.
rather than traditional block quotes, I'll simply offer a retort.
If I read it correctly, you argued that civil liberties are a Good Thing because they lead to happiness. It seems to me that this is part of their definition--"civil liberties are freedoms of the people that lead to happiness when freely exercised by all." If we assume such to be the definition, the need still exists to extol it.
There are, of course, "freedoms" that do not meet this definition. The freedom to steal. The freedom to exercise your anger on another. The freedom to hijack an airplane and commit an act of mass murder. All things that we have a vested interested in preventing, but that also fall under the very broad label of "freedom." (In the context of my original post, at least.)
You are most certainly correct that the government exists to serve its citizens. I allow myself to be governed because I trust my government to provide security and protect my liberties--the very two most basic things for which it was founded.
However, the government will always exist in some form, as long as people work together. Government is that thing that exists for the benefit of the citizens. In an ancarchy a corporation who's only shareholders were employees, an who all lived in the same town, would be a government. A group of people in the same community that met together to decide where the roads go is a government. A wealthy landowner that imposes rules on his land is a government.
At its simplest level (even in a utopian world), a government must exist to coordinate and specifically request the work of the citizens (which, ideally, would be everyone on the planet.) Government (even if you call it something else!) is that thing where people go to decide who's land is what, that thing that keeps "the record", and that says when a doctor is a doctor and when married people are married. Utopian Anarchy is a myth.
That said, I agree that government has a paradoxial purpose--to protect the people while serving them, to exercise both as much power as it needs and as little as is necessary. The largest burden such a noble endeavor has is that the power that must be wielded attracts not only those with a strong sense of duty (those who are best to wield it) but those with a great thirst for power (those who should not wield power at all.)
Thankfully, the answer to all of these problems is the same: We discuss them and come to an agreed-upon conclusion, even if our discussion are by proxy. So, write your congresspeople, voice your opinion, and remember to argue as coherently as you can.
There's nothing wrong with a sound bite, as long as it gets the most important fact across.
If the only choices you see are anarchy or totalitarianism, then I'll choose anarcy, thank you.
Who said that they were the only choices? Neither one is American.
The American way is simple: A balance between Anarchy and Totolitarianism. Neither side is an absolute good, and in the issues RMS rasied--as in all things--we must carefully agree on where our balance will sit.
So I don't think the electors from that state should have been seated. Therefore I don't accept GWB as elected. In power, yes, but that's a different concept. Usurpation, I believe it's called.
Not true at all.
The president of the United States is elected by the electoral college. The candidates went to court concerning the Florida recount. These cases went to the Supreme Court--who did interpret by partisan lines, but so what?
In all too-close problems of a presidential election, Congress has oversight. Congress, as a body, chose to award the presidency to George W. Bush. Ergo, he is a duly elected president. Not a single democratic senator chose to even raise the question for debate--and the Rebuplicans had no reason to.
Now it's true, the supreme court was clearly in complict agreement. And it's possible that things would have turned out the same anyway. And Gore wasn't any better. So? That is'nt what happened. What happened was usurpation.
How, exactly, is it "usurpation?" All that Bush did was file a lawsuit, and play politics--which is exactly the game that every president has ever done to get the job.
In any case, the 2000 election is a good reason to reform the electoral college & our voting procedures--and it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Bush is the President of the United States, and by disrespecting him now (of all times!) RMS and yourself are no better than the ignorant republican fanatics who hounded Clinton throughout his entire presidency.
The man is president, and as president he deserves our respect as Americans.
OK, lets say we give up strong encryption. Lets say let the government have back doors into our systems. Does this really help in any measurable way? For instance, I want to send something to Cryptome about government waste. Since I don't know John Young all that well (hey, we don't get to gether to plan stuff, you know?), I send him a gpPgp (Government Penetrated Pretty Gone Privacy) encrypted message. Intercepted, decoded, trashed, and I'm in jail because I've exposed something the Government would rather I didn't. Where's the trial? Well, you don't get one now...
That's some rather faulty logic there, my dear AC.
You're assuming that mandating access to any speech would automatically imply governmental prosecution for unpopular speech. And argument like this ignores two very simple facts--namely, the gov't can just crack your encryption / subenoa your logs if they're prosecutiong you even without a backdoor, and that giving up a relatively unknown freedom is an order of magntiude (or more) less disruptive than giving up one of America's fundamental freedoms.
This short thought experiment shows that passing laws to breach privacy are generally a bad idea. If I know you are watching, it won't help you to read my messages because those I'm involved with will know what "The Fat Man Walks Alone" means.
The USA has been cracking "code phrase" systems for about two hundred and twenty five years now. If they have to crack the encrypted code phrase message on top of figuring out the code itself, then the investigation could get really bogged down and we could have another 9-11.
Picture if we had a totally transparent and tracked society--upon someone being killed, an instant record of everyone around them at the time of their death could be taken from the raw data logs. The investigation would go much smoother, and the public servants tasked with investigating, defending, and prosectution would all be able to get a lot more work done for their time. Justice would become faster, although real safeguards to prevent abuse would (of course!) be needed.
Of course, the specific example of encryption's back-doors is a good one. I'm sure that Congressional advocates can come up with good examples--both hypothetical and historical--that would back up their side. By weighng both sides of the issue as a nation, we can come to a fair and just solution.
I could go on but I fear for my family if I do. We have seen little in the way of proof as yet, but right now 75% of those polled are willing to turn a country and all it's people into a parking lot. That's kind of scary.
Welcome to America, land of the representative democracy because the people are so bloodthirsty.
As for fearing for your family--assuming that you are an American Citizen (or the citizen of a NATO ally), if you live in fear now, you will live in fear no matter what laws are passed, no matter what freedoms are protected, and no matter where you live.
The most basic tenent of civilization is trusting someone else with your security. If you do not do this, then you will wind up living in fear just as our ancestors did in the time of gods and witch doctors.
I agree that you're always trading liberty for security. However, the point of having a constitution is that those rights CANNOT be traded for security.
Good point about the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Of course, the rights to privacy, invisibility, and cheap airline travel aren't in any amendment other than the blanket 10th.
And thanks for the "perceptive" comment. I feel all warm and fuzzy now.
Problem is I'm their employer, and so are you if you are an American citizen. How does the government keep secrets when they are transparent to their employers, the citizens of the country?
The same way that someone I hired to hide something would do it. I would want to have easy access to their personal life (including finances and where they go, save for blocked out times when they're doing the hiding), but not when they're actually keeping the secret.
Our gov't (yes, I am a citizen! Woo hoo!) is hired to protect our common intrests of liberty and defense. This job requires keeping some things secret, and understanding this we can work it into even an otherwise totally open society.
A safeguard against abuse would be automatic rights to examine any "secret" concerning you, as well as a time-expiration (say, ten years) on all other secrets.