Look, you're throwing away the right of the accused to keep the burden of proof on their accuser.
No, I'm not.
Go find the point where I said that the keeper of a "this is what I did" list gives up the right to decide when and where to note it. You can't, because I never said that.
YOU are the one who is throwing away rights--like the right of someone to quietly cooperate with a legitimate authority without feeling like they colloabrating in some orwellian dictatorship.
"Implausible" is not the basis for jurisprudence, just in the media. I bet Yee is really wallowing in the glory, reverence and thanks of his country now, especially now that that transcript is used to persecute him for being a pain in the ass "enemy nonguilty".
Yee gets the same benefits that Benedict Arnold, John Kerry, John Kennedy, and George Bush got. If he forgot them and betrayed his country, then he SHOULD be brought to justice--and it's a travesty to abuse the presumption of privacy to keep a criminal free.
Justice does not exist merely to protect the "innocent", it protects all of us from pinning the consequences on the wrong person, for specific acts.
Uhm, no.
Justice isn't a force, it's a state. "Justice" doesn't do jack to keep the innocent out of prison--justice is keeping the innocent out of prison and putting the gulity in there.
And if you're not willing to be wrong, ever, then you had better either agree to get rid of privacy, or find some better way to do things. Because the occasional miscarriage of justice is one of the downsides in our system of government and commerce.
He signed up to be part of the military. In exchange for glory, revereance, and the thanks of his country, James Yee subjected every minute of his life to scrutiny.
That wouldn't be a good comparison even if the charges were implausible--and they hardly are.
I'll defend my country, the one where we're innocent until proven guilty
Stop.
This isn't about defending our country or "innocent until proven guilty."
This is about having a recourse for when you're accused. Becasue if you can't prove that you're NOT guilty, then you have an unfair chance of being found guilty wrongly. Not to mention the punishment of having to go through a trial at all when you didn't do anything wrong.
Enough people going along with the intimidation, and I'll never be able to defend that right to innocence.
Get off your high horse and stop the straw-grasping comparisons to people who really did suffer.
You either trust our system of government or you don't. If you do, then accounting for your actions in a fair court of law and before officers of the law is a good thing. If you don't, then having a record in case the crooked government tries to railroad you is still a good thing.
Ask the Continental Congress about the first Americans, whose colonial lives were subject to the kinds of invasions they created the 4th Amendment
Yes, which creates due Process, and a systematic method both for fair searches and appeas of what you feel to be unfair one. They did not give carte blanche to criminal behavior to hide behind "privacy"--nor did they make privacy an absolute right, merely something that the government had to justify removing.
Oh, and that 4th amendment you quoted? Try reading it.
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.
It says "secure", not "involate." It says "against unreasonable", not "at all costs."
And by anyone's standard, fierce nondefiance is enough to turn whatever coincidence they have into probable cause. Investigators don't have the time to just make up allegations--and if they do, then you want to keep a record of that, anyway.
Ask the McCarthy "Communists" whose careers, not to mention their political freedoms, were destroyed by those in pursuit of their transcript.
McCarthyism is freaking annoying on two levels. First off, it's a horrible overreaction to a real threat.
Secondly, there were a bunch of cowards who didn't have the courage to stand up and tell the truth.
And ask your children, or their children, who might do something unpopular, whether they want to surrender their privacy.
Again with the presumption that we have privacy at all, or that we have ever had privacy. The closest thing we get is having a limit on what the government will publicly say or sieze, and a presumption of such in our own homes. (And, if you hadn't jumped on the "information bad!" routine, you might have noticed that I didn't include "things done at home" on the list of what to keep.)
The unexamined life is not worth living, but that value decision is ours to make of our own lives, not some "authority" with unchecked access to probe our private lives.
I'm begining to question whether or not you're a troll.
Who exactly are you so afraid of? Homeland Security? FBI? The UN?
Each body who could concievably care about what you do has checks on it. And if you keep your own detailed records, YOU get to be a check on it, too. It's not like I'm telling you to call the police station whenever you go anywhere, or volunteer to wear a house-arrest ankle braclet.
It's your eagerness to hand them over to anyone who accuses you that destroys your freedom.
This is the root of the issue.
"Freedom" does not give you the right do to whatever the hell you please and damn the consequences. Freedom is the right to make your choices, and suffer or enjoy the cons
As long as you're implying convenient necessary details, I'll take issue with your implication that I should keep a log of my life, for checking by the gestapo whenever they need to see "my papers", in order to keep you safe, because you've never done anything you value as private.
Where exactly did I imply that?
In fact, if you're worried about "The Gestapo" a total information log is MORE important, not less. Not because you want to hand it over to them, but because you want to have a legally admissable proof for when they try and frame you.
Being ignorant of your own life, or not keeing any record or heritage at all out of sheer orwellian paranoia, is not going to make your life better, this country better, or your children or my children our our children's children ANY safer from tyranny or terrorism.
You're worried about tyranny? Then speak out when you see something wrong, and keep a record of EVERYTHING so they can't silence you because you're too much of a coward to let your mother know that you watch porn.
Nothing sickens me more than a hypocritical slashdotter who's so much of an ignorant luddite that they think they have any privacy at all. T.H.E.Y. can read your e-mail, they can follow your every move, and they can keep a total and compelte record of every second of your life.
And, seeing as how THEY can do all this--why don't you have one so they can't sneak in a few lies with their complete inundation of facts? Or is it just easier to bitch and complain and deny the rest of us security and convenience so you can speed all the time and buy a dime-bag to get high.
I don't hear any arguments coming out of you when some undefined "legitimate authority" might want your transcript.
Care to elaborate on that?
It's not a simple question. A man in a suit walking up to me and asking where I was at 1800 on 2/15/04 is likely part of a police search, and there isn't a good reason not to asnwer--I don't even have to look at the log, just answer as best I can with notes on how well I remember. If the same man asks slightly different questions a few dozen times, then I get suspicious, get out the record, and decide if it's time to call my lawyer for advice.
(In fact, that's the answer to most run-ins with "THEY". Measure if it's worth the call to a lawyer, and respond accordingly.)
And your faith in the government protecting your best interests means you might be reading this for the first time:
Now, you're raising a different point, and trying to argue them both.
I am well aware that government authority needs to be checked by civilian examination, and that the only thing keeping us from becoming a tyranny is vibrant democracy.
Now, what part of keeping a total log of your life (which, again, I'm only suggesting for those of you who don't trust the government but aren't leaving the country) keeps you from speaking out and participating in the democratic process?
A general draft for E-1s pays them (again in 2002) $13272/yr, again more than minimum wage. You aren't going to starve.
IIRC, that also doesn't reflect the on-base accomodations, which are (IIRC) not billed seperately, but rather taken as a "benefit" to justify a lower cost.
Next, I believe that Cameras go really well with Cellphones, but I don't believe they go well with PDA's. Reason: a cellphone is used for convenience of location, you can make a call from anywhere. Having a picture functionality built into that call is also awesome, because if I'm picking out a car from a lot, I can send pictures back to my mom of the things she wants to look at (color, price, etc), and have her call me back with what she thinks. Rolling this functionality into a PDA seems too clunky; overkill.
You're missing the point of a PDA.
In ten years, PDAs like my Zire simply won't exist. Instead, there will be one-unit "phones" / "PDAs" that connect to one or more wireless networks, including a bluetooth or wired headset for classic calls. I'll be able to pull out my keyboard add on, plug in my "uberpalm", turn on music, and write in a coffee shop as I wait for calls to come in or e-mails to be sent.
Come to think of it, this is all practical NOW. Today. Handspring abandoned PDAs for phone combos, and I haven't seen a new cell phone that couldn't match a PDA's core functions bit-for-bit.
Oh, in case you missed it: the key for PDAs and Phones to work together is a headset. You could even bundle a cheap bluetooth headset into a cell-phone form factor for comfort's sake.
You've almost got the point. "They" already have a record of you that's enough to conclude that you're a terrorist--if they didn't, they wouldn't care about you.
The point of having a personal, complete record is so that you can take the parts that they didn't release to the court and give much-needed context.
And who are "they", again? The UN black-helicopter attack squad? Or maybe you're referring to the Office of Homeland Security (and similar federal executive agencies, like the FBI, CIA, and US military.) I know that's the only "they" that *I* really care if they think I'm a terrorist or not.
Homeland Security may be a bunch of inept, misguided, badly directed thugs--I don't think they are, but they "may be"--but if they are, they're thugs who want the chance to bust the heads of real, genuine threats. If you can prove to them easily that you're NOT a threat, they'll let you go on your way and look for someone they can smack around with no bad press.
Oh, and if it's a "complete record," then it's a complete record--and that means multiple redunant backups, including one easy at hand to give over to satisfy a theoretical subpoena and at least one off-site in a standard data vault and one in the office of your lawyer. And it means noting when and by whom you were asked if you were a terrorist.
OTOH, let's think about the two possibilities that you seem to be encouraging.
1: We don't keep records, and we treat the misguided thugs as "the enemy." This makes them look at us and follow us, and exposes us to a higher risk of miscarraiges of justice.
2: The government really is a Theocratic Heiarchy to Extinguish You. Why the @#$@! are you still in the country, then? Build a boat, learn to fish, and LEAVE. Hundreds of thousands of people live off the radar of the Federal government by not being in or ever coming in contact with this country.
you just made up that "legitimate authority" requirement
No, it was impled. You could also read "legitimate authority" as "someone whom I care whether or not they consider myself a terrorist."
And that "white married christian male" fetish you've got tends to protect Aryan Nation people from scrutiny, too, now doesn't it?
Yes, actually. No member of the Aryan nation gets accused of being a member of Al Quaeda--and I haven't heard much out of them in the last two and a half years.
I don't know why you've got any complaints at all with the current procedures, given your apparent satisfaction with faith based government.
Sheesh. Go ahead and indulge in name calling; it really makes me believe your arugment.
And yes, I am confident in our opposition-based argument-based system of government. If you aren't, then why are you wasting time on Slashdot and not busily leaving this country?
You aren't a legitimate authorty asking a specific question, so "no." (Same as if you wanted to get my phone records from Verizon.)
And in addition to that, I merely noted it as a way to avoid suspicion of terrorism. Being a white married christian male, I actually have confidence in my government to figure out that I'm not a terrorist--and if they happen to have questions, I'd be more than willing to answer them if they ask me.
I'm not saying have a log that you give police at the drop of a hat. I'm saying have a systematic record-keeping system (preferrably passive/silent and double-checked) if you're scared of wrongful allegations of terrorism.
Keep a record of everything you do. Every dollar you spend, every phone call you make, and every trip you take. Upon being asked if you are a terrorist, make relevant portions of this record avaliable.
Orwellian society exists due to lies and secrecy. Truth, fact, and honesty are the only proof against it.
For the same reason they did it with Java - if it's "write once, run anywhere", then why would you buy Windows licenses? Microsoft (quite naturally) wants everyone to run a Windows server and a Windows client, and having Linux be able to take either role with ease doesn't give them the leverage they need to continue their marketshare.
That's one theory, and they've used it in the past.
But another, better theory currenting being exploited by apple is "if we work with them, folks who want/need/have Linux can install MS, and we'll get sales we wouldn't get otherwise."
My guess is that Microsoft will significantly alter the.NET APIs for Longhorn, leaving Mono behind with older legacy libraries that are no longer interoperable with the Microsoft compiler and the rest of the Windows-using world. Needless to say, that would be bad for the Mono team.
Uhm, why would MS do this?.NET is designed to be and sold as a "cross platform" solution--a real way to do Java's "write once, run anywhere" line.
Introducing a crippling change for Longhorn would not only hurt this goal, but it'd bring down the rath of a few regulatory agences all over again--and piss off everyone using.NET and not Longhorn.
Now, if you said "my guess is that MS will introduce custom APIs in Longhorn that make.NET work better", I'd agree with you. But that's not what you said.
One thing that struck me funny is that they cited "construction of structures on Moon and Mars" as a possible application, but I simply can't see how it'd be a better option than, say, inflatables.
*blink, blink*
You're in a hostile environment, where if your structure fails you die. Period.
Would you rather have a balloon protecting you that could be destroyed with a bullet (or high-speed rock?) or a solid structure that you really need to work to break?
The only way I see to use this device is to buy a CD, and if I can't rip it, I'll have to [break the law and] download the MP3-file via file-sharing.
Go look in the back of your computer. Specifically, at your sound card.
There are two "in" jacks, and one "out" jack. Even if somehow the technology to record directly escapes you, you can resort to the time-honored and unpluggable analog hole to make an electronic copy.
Good luck convincing a jury that you switched to a 2- to 3-times as expensive per seat hardware/software platform and it had nothing to do with the fact that the same guy is CEO at both companies.
Why bother? Just admit it, and argue that the switch is worth it. Blame "synergy" or somesuch like that.
Ok, so let's say that Gates detonates a small nuclear device, completly obliterating any hope of getting the source for windows.
The US government can then simply sieze & release the windows copyright, without paying a dime, and all of a sudden every MS software program becomes the ultimate "freeware."
Sure, development would stop on Windows, but Linux and Apple would get a few sudden boosts, in market and useability, and within eighteen months windows would be a thing of the past.
The US would shit its pants, as would the EU. That'd be thousands of jobs lost, support ended, etc. etc.
Three terms:
* Apple * Linux * Emminent Domain.
If MS folds all of a sudden, people can switch to Apple with new hardware, switch to Linux for extant hardware--or the government can just declare emminent domain, and start a new company with the rights to windows. (It'd probably be a stock market purchase, with the money from the stock going right to the "fair price" for MS.)
But for crying out loud, look how little we have to show for a THOUSAND YEARS of effort!
Look how much we innovated between 1500 and 500 BC. Or 2500 and 1500. The middle ages weren't the height of Rome, but they weren't all that bad, compared to any other non-roman millenia.
Heck, look at how little Japan changed in the thousand years before Admiral Perry broke open the gates.
You have two instances of amazing learning and advancement, and you're extrapolating from that a sense that the "Dark ages" were somehow non-performing compared to the human standard. That's just faulty statistics.
As for the real point of your argument, that somehow religion had a detracting effect on advancement: the chaos of the medieval ages was caused by a degredation of the order that Rome imposed, which led to linquistic shifts and cultural atrophy.
The Roman Catholic Church, with its standard language and rather bookish ways, probably should get more credit than anyone else for making the European Renaissance possible. If there hadn't been the order and peace imposed by the Church, no prince would have had the free time that it took to start the Renaissance.
(One could even argue that the Church's belief in miracles and the emminent end-times gave Europeans a mindset that the world could be changed, thus encouraging invention in a way that no other culutre save Rome ever did.)
It's more subtle than that. Most players probably can't tell a difference but when you've played as long as me and at the level I do then you realize that UT feels pretty bad compared to Quake3.
You, ah, DO realize that UT feels "bad" probably because you've played so much Quake?
I've heard book sales are up, but not reading, which is highly interesting. It means people buy books with the intent of reading them but never do. Or they just want to seem smart? Who knows.
It's probably just that readers buy more, and borrow/beg/steal less.
This coincided with the decline and fall of the empire, which was followed by about a thousand years of technological stagnation (though little, if any, less carnage), until events (notably plagues) brought THAT mandated moral code into enough doubt and revision to lead to first the false, then the true, renaissance.
"wrong."
The so-called dark ages had their fair share of innovations and change. Off the top of my head, armor & weapons, agriculture, and "alchemy" (chemistry's precursor) all had major advances during this thousand-year stretch of "no advancement" (Not to mention significant developments in government, theology, and language, but you said technology.)
As to your point: Yes, you could argue that games encourage warrior behavior. OTOH, that's just a subset of the sociological purpose of games: to develop skills that are necessary for life. (Which is why PE teachers and Coaches go on about teamwork, preserverence, et al.)
Slashdot Mirror
but I think most people would want to fully experience the games.
And to do that, they'll buy a better PC.
Look, you're throwing away the right of the accused to keep the burden of proof on their accuser.
No, I'm not.
Go find the point where I said that the keeper of a "this is what I did" list gives up the right to decide when and where to note it. You can't, because I never said that.
YOU are the one who is throwing away rights--like the right of someone to quietly cooperate with a legitimate authority without feeling like they colloabrating in some orwellian dictatorship.
"Implausible" is not the basis for jurisprudence, just in the media. I bet Yee is really wallowing in the glory, reverence and thanks of his country now, especially now that that transcript is used to persecute him for being a pain in the ass "enemy nonguilty".
Yee gets the same benefits that Benedict Arnold, John Kerry, John Kennedy, and George Bush got. If he forgot them and betrayed his country, then he SHOULD be brought to justice--and it's a travesty to abuse the presumption of privacy to keep a criminal free.
Justice does not exist merely to protect the "innocent", it protects all of us from pinning the consequences on the wrong person, for specific acts.
Uhm, no.
Justice isn't a force, it's a state. "Justice" doesn't do jack to keep the innocent out of prison--justice is keeping the innocent out of prison and putting the gulity in there.
And if you're not willing to be wrong, ever, then you had better either agree to get rid of privacy, or find some better way to do things. Because the occasional miscarriage of justice is one of the downsides in our system of government and commerce.
And leave it to their egos to think they could do anything about it.
You think we can't.
Odd, when we can do so much else.
You mean James Yee, an Army chaplain...
He signed up to be part of the military. In exchange for glory, revereance, and the thanks of his country, James Yee subjected every minute of his life to scrutiny.
That wouldn't be a good comparison even if the charges were implausible--and they hardly are.
I'll defend my country, the one where we're innocent until proven guilty
Stop.
This isn't about defending our country or "innocent until proven guilty."
This is about having a recourse for when you're accused. Becasue if you can't prove that you're NOT guilty, then you have an unfair chance of being found guilty wrongly. Not to mention the punishment of having to go through a trial at all when you didn't do anything wrong.
Enough people going along with the intimidation, and I'll never be able to defend that right to innocence.
Get off your high horse and stop the straw-grasping comparisons to people who really did suffer.
You either trust our system of government or you don't. If you do, then accounting for your actions in a fair court of law and before officers of the law is a good thing. If you don't, then having a record in case the crooked government tries to railroad you is still a good thing.
Ask the Continental Congress about the first Americans, whose colonial lives were subject to the kinds of invasions they created the 4th Amendment
Yes, which creates due Process, and a systematic method both for fair searches and appeas of what you feel to be unfair one. They did not give carte blanche to criminal behavior to hide behind "privacy"--nor did they make privacy an absolute right, merely something that the government had to justify removing.
Oh, and that 4th amendment you quoted? Try reading it.
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.
It says "secure", not "involate." It says "against unreasonable", not "at all costs."
And by anyone's standard, fierce nondefiance is enough to turn whatever coincidence they have into probable cause. Investigators don't have the time to just make up allegations--and if they do, then you want to keep a record of that, anyway.
Ask the McCarthy "Communists" whose careers, not to mention their political freedoms, were destroyed by those in pursuit of their transcript.
McCarthyism is freaking annoying on two levels. First off, it's a horrible overreaction to a real threat.
Secondly, there were a bunch of cowards who didn't have the courage to stand up and tell the truth.
And ask your children, or their children, who might do something unpopular, whether they want to surrender their privacy.
Again with the presumption that we have privacy at all, or that we have ever had privacy. The closest thing we get is having a limit on what the government will publicly say or sieze, and a presumption of such in our own homes. (And, if you hadn't jumped on the "information bad!" routine, you might have noticed that I didn't include "things done at home" on the list of what to keep.)
The unexamined life is not worth living, but that value decision is ours to make of our own lives, not some "authority" with unchecked access to probe our private lives.
I'm begining to question whether or not you're a troll.
Who exactly are you so afraid of? Homeland Security? FBI? The UN?
Each body who could concievably care about what you do has checks on it. And if you keep your own detailed records, YOU get to be a check on it, too. It's not like I'm telling you to call the police station whenever you go anywhere, or volunteer to wear a house-arrest ankle braclet.
It's your eagerness to hand them over to anyone who accuses you that destroys your freedom.
This is the root of the issue.
"Freedom" does not give you the right do to whatever the hell you please and damn the consequences. Freedom is the right to make your choices, and suffer or enjoy the cons
As long as you're implying convenient necessary details, I'll take issue with your implication that I should keep a log of my life, for checking by the gestapo whenever they need to see "my papers", in order to keep you safe, because you've never done anything you value as private.
Where exactly did I imply that?
In fact, if you're worried about "The Gestapo" a total information log is MORE important, not less. Not because you want to hand it over to them, but because you want to have a legally admissable proof for when they try and frame you.
Being ignorant of your own life, or not keeing any record or heritage at all out of sheer orwellian paranoia, is not going to make your life better, this country better, or your children or my children our our children's children ANY safer from tyranny or terrorism.
You're worried about tyranny? Then speak out when you see something wrong, and keep a record of EVERYTHING so they can't silence you because you're too much of a coward to let your mother know that you watch porn.
Nothing sickens me more than a hypocritical slashdotter who's so much of an ignorant luddite that they think they have any privacy at all. T.H.E.Y. can read your e-mail, they can follow your every move, and they can keep a total and compelte record of every second of your life.
And, seeing as how THEY can do all this--why don't you have one so they can't sneak in a few lies with their complete inundation of facts? Or is it just easier to bitch and complain and deny the rest of us security and convenience so you can speed all the time and buy a dime-bag to get high.
I don't hear any arguments coming out of you when some undefined "legitimate authority" might want your transcript.
Care to elaborate on that?
It's not a simple question. A man in a suit walking up to me and asking where I was at 1800 on 2/15/04 is likely part of a police search, and there isn't a good reason not to asnwer--I don't even have to look at the log, just answer as best I can with notes on how well I remember. If the same man asks slightly different questions a few dozen times, then I get suspicious, get out the record, and decide if it's time to call my lawyer for advice.
(In fact, that's the answer to most run-ins with "THEY". Measure if it's worth the call to a lawyer, and respond accordingly.)
And your faith in the government protecting your best interests means you might be reading this for the first time:
Now, you're raising a different point, and trying to argue them both.
I am well aware that government authority needs to be checked by civilian examination, and that the only thing keeping us from becoming a tyranny is vibrant democracy.
Now, what part of keeping a total log of your life (which, again, I'm only suggesting for those of you who don't trust the government but aren't leaving the country) keeps you from speaking out and participating in the democratic process?
A general draft for E-1s pays them (again in 2002) $13272/yr, again more than minimum wage. You aren't going to starve.
IIRC, that also doesn't reflect the on-base accomodations, which are (IIRC) not billed seperately, but rather taken as a "benefit" to justify a lower cost.
Next, I believe that Cameras go really well with Cellphones, but I don't believe they go well with PDA's. Reason: a cellphone is used for convenience of location, you can make a call from anywhere. Having a picture functionality built into that call is also awesome, because if I'm picking out a car from a lot, I can send pictures back to my mom of the things she wants to look at (color, price, etc), and have her call me back with what she thinks. Rolling this functionality into a PDA seems too clunky; overkill.
You're missing the point of a PDA.
In ten years, PDAs like my Zire simply won't exist. Instead, there will be one-unit "phones" / "PDAs" that connect to one or more wireless networks, including a bluetooth or wired headset for classic calls. I'll be able to pull out my keyboard add on, plug in my "uberpalm", turn on music, and write in a coffee shop as I wait for calls to come in or e-mails to be sent.
Come to think of it, this is all practical NOW. Today. Handspring abandoned PDAs for phone combos, and I haven't seen a new cell phone that couldn't match a PDA's core functions bit-for-bit.
Oh, in case you missed it: the key for PDAs and Phones to work together is a headset. You could even bundle a cheap bluetooth headset into a cell-phone form factor for comfort's sake.
You've almost got the point. "They" already have a record of you that's enough to conclude that you're a terrorist--if they didn't, they wouldn't care about you.
The point of having a personal, complete record is so that you can take the parts that they didn't release to the court and give much-needed context.
And who are "they", again? The UN black-helicopter attack squad? Or maybe you're referring to the Office of Homeland Security (and similar federal executive agencies, like the FBI, CIA, and US military.) I know that's the only "they" that *I* really care if they think I'm a terrorist or not.
Homeland Security may be a bunch of inept, misguided, badly directed thugs--I don't think they are, but they "may be"--but if they are, they're thugs who want the chance to bust the heads of real, genuine threats. If you can prove to them easily that you're NOT a threat, they'll let you go on your way and look for someone they can smack around with no bad press.
Oh, and if it's a "complete record," then it's a complete record--and that means multiple redunant backups, including one easy at hand to give over to satisfy a theoretical subpoena and at least one off-site in a standard data vault and one in the office of your lawyer. And it means noting when and by whom you were asked if you were a terrorist.
OTOH, let's think about the two possibilities that you seem to be encouraging.
1: We don't keep records, and we treat the misguided thugs as "the enemy." This makes them look at us and follow us, and exposes us to a higher risk of miscarraiges of justice.
2: The government really is a Theocratic Heiarchy to Extinguish You. Why the @#$@! are you still in the country, then? Build a boat, learn to fish, and LEAVE. Hundreds of thousands of people live off the radar of the Federal government by not being in or ever coming in contact with this country.
you just made up that "legitimate authority" requirement
No, it was impled. You could also read "legitimate authority" as "someone whom I care whether or not they consider myself a terrorist."
And that "white married christian male" fetish you've got tends to protect Aryan Nation people from scrutiny, too, now doesn't it?
Yes, actually. No member of the Aryan nation gets accused of being a member of Al Quaeda--and I haven't heard much out of them in the last two and a half years.
I don't know why you've got any complaints at all with the current procedures, given your apparent satisfaction with faith based government.
Sheesh. Go ahead and indulge in name calling; it really makes me believe your arugment.
And yes, I am confident in our opposition-based argument-based system of government. If you aren't, then why are you wasting time on Slashdot and not busily leaving this country?
Read what I said again.
You aren't a legitimate authorty asking a specific question, so "no." (Same as if you wanted to get my phone records from Verizon.)
And in addition to that, I merely noted it as a way to avoid suspicion of terrorism. Being a white married christian male, I actually have confidence in my government to figure out that I'm not a terrorist--and if they happen to have questions, I'd be more than willing to answer them if they ask me.
I'm not saying have a log that you give police at the drop of a hat. I'm saying have a systematic record-keeping system (preferrably passive/silent and double-checked) if you're scared of wrongful allegations of terrorism.
Keep a record of everything you do. Every dollar you spend, every phone call you make, and every trip you take. Upon being asked if you are a terrorist, make relevant portions of this record avaliable.
Orwellian society exists due to lies and secrecy. Truth, fact, and honesty are the only proof against it.
It is quite common you think your own country is the best ever.
Especially if you're Imperial Rome, medieval China, or the United States of America. And in each of those instances, you're right.
Let me reveres the question: How, specifically, is India better than the USA?
For the same reason they did it with Java - if it's "write once, run anywhere", then why would you buy Windows licenses? Microsoft (quite naturally) wants everyone to run a Windows server and a Windows client, and having Linux be able to take either role with ease doesn't give them the leverage they need to continue their marketshare.
That's one theory, and they've used it in the past.
But another, better theory currenting being exploited by apple is "if we work with them, folks who want/need/have Linux can install MS, and we'll get sales we wouldn't get otherwise."
My guess is that Microsoft will significantly alter the .NET APIs for Longhorn, leaving Mono behind with older legacy libraries that are no longer interoperable with the Microsoft compiler and the rest of the Windows-using world. Needless to say, that would be bad for the Mono team.
.NET is designed to be and sold as a "cross platform" solution--a real way to do Java's "write once, run anywhere" line.
.NET and not Longhorn.
.NET work better", I'd agree with you. But that's not what you said.
Uhm, why would MS do this?
Introducing a crippling change for Longhorn would not only hurt this goal, but it'd bring down the rath of a few regulatory agences all over again--and piss off everyone using
Now, if you said "my guess is that MS will introduce custom APIs in Longhorn that make
One thing that struck me funny is that they cited "construction of structures on Moon and Mars" as a possible application, but I simply can't see how it'd be a better option than, say, inflatables.
*blink, blink*
You're in a hostile environment, where if your structure fails you die. Period.
Would you rather have a balloon protecting you that could be destroyed with a bullet (or high-speed rock?) or a solid structure that you really need to work to break?
The only way I see to use this device is to buy a CD, and if I can't rip it, I'll have to [break the law and] download the MP3-file via file-sharing.
Go look in the back of your computer. Specifically, at your sound card.
There are two "in" jacks, and one "out" jack. Even if somehow the technology to record directly escapes you, you can resort to the time-honored and unpluggable analog hole to make an electronic copy.
Good luck convincing a jury that you switched to a 2- to 3-times as expensive per seat hardware/software platform and it had nothing to do with the fact that the same guy is CEO at both companies.
Why bother? Just admit it, and argue that the switch is worth it. Blame "synergy" or somesuch like that.
Ok, so let's say that Gates detonates a small nuclear device, completly obliterating any hope of getting the source for windows.
The US government can then simply sieze & release the windows copyright, without paying a dime, and all of a sudden every MS software program becomes the ultimate "freeware."
Sure, development would stop on Windows, but Linux and Apple would get a few sudden boosts, in market and useability, and within eighteen months windows would be a thing of the past.
The US would shit its pants, as would the EU. That'd be thousands of jobs lost, support ended, etc. etc.
Three terms:
* Apple
* Linux
* Emminent Domain.
If MS folds all of a sudden, people can switch to Apple with new hardware, switch to Linux for extant hardware--or the government can just declare emminent domain, and start a new company with the rights to windows. (It'd probably be a stock market purchase, with the money from the stock going right to the "fair price" for MS.)
But for crying out loud, look how little we have to show for a THOUSAND YEARS of effort!
Look how much we innovated between 1500 and 500 BC. Or 2500 and 1500. The middle ages weren't the height of Rome, but they weren't all that bad, compared to any other non-roman millenia.
Heck, look at how little Japan changed in the thousand years before Admiral Perry broke open the gates.
You have two instances of amazing learning and advancement, and you're extrapolating from that a sense that the "Dark ages" were somehow non-performing compared to the human standard. That's just faulty statistics.
As for the real point of your argument, that somehow religion had a detracting effect on advancement: the chaos of the medieval ages was caused by a degredation of the order that Rome imposed, which led to linquistic shifts and cultural atrophy.
The Roman Catholic Church, with its standard language and rather bookish ways, probably should get more credit than anyone else for making the European Renaissance possible. If there hadn't been the order and peace imposed by the Church, no prince would have had the free time that it took to start the Renaissance.
(One could even argue that the Church's belief in miracles and the emminent end-times gave Europeans a mindset that the world could be changed, thus encouraging invention in a way that no other culutre save Rome ever did.)
It's more subtle than that. Most players probably can't tell a difference but when you've played as long as me and at the level I do then you realize that UT feels pretty bad compared to Quake3.
You, ah, DO realize that UT feels "bad" probably because you've played so much Quake?
I've heard book sales are up, but not reading, which is highly interesting. It means people buy books with the intent of reading them but never do. Or they just want to seem smart? Who knows.
It's probably just that readers buy more, and borrow/beg/steal less.
This coincided with the decline and fall of the empire, which was followed by about a thousand years of technological stagnation (though little, if any, less carnage), until events (notably plagues) brought THAT mandated moral code into enough doubt and revision to lead to first the false, then the true, renaissance.
"wrong."
The so-called dark ages had their fair share of innovations and change. Off the top of my head, armor & weapons, agriculture, and "alchemy" (chemistry's precursor) all had major advances during this thousand-year stretch of "no advancement" (Not to mention significant developments in government, theology, and language, but you said technology.)
As to your point: Yes, you could argue that games encourage warrior behavior. OTOH, that's just a subset of the sociological purpose of games: to develop skills that are necessary for life. (Which is why PE teachers and Coaches go on about teamwork, preserverence, et al.)