And that's a point I've been trying to make. People have been in a tizzy about it only now, but it's been going on for a long time.
So you're saying the ends justify the means, then? Ok, I want to be rich. Do you mind if I come slaughter your family and steal your house? You do? But the ends justify the means. Wait, it's unjust for me to get rich that way?
Apples and oranges. Or more like apples and baseballs. Everyone presumes the government is going to pre-empt our enemies only in order for it to become our enemy itself. Ridiculous, if you consider our own Revolutionary history.
So we DO need more invasive surveillance? How much is too much, for you? Cameras in your bathroom at home? Forgive the hyperbole but it certainly seems as though that's exactly what you would find appropriate.
I pasted in "invasive" by mistake. But I AM suggesting that more surveillance will certainly be useful in prosecuting the war on terror.
I never said I was willing to give up either my own, nor anyone else's constitutional rights.
All I said (from the very beginning) was that our calls are being monitored anyway, and there isn't much that will be done about it.
Now all you loonies come out of the woodwork thinking I support that. All I am saying is you all are wasting your time fighting it, because the lawsuits will be put down by the government.
This is war. Crazy things happen in a war, like it or not, and this is one of them.
And to call me a coward? I already mentioned that I would be willing to fight myself - I AM TOO OLD TO DO SO. (Go back and read a previous post I wrote.)
It's pretty hypocritical to tell me I am a coward to not sign up for the military WHEN I AM NOT ALLOWED TO at this time, and if any of you have not done so yourself. Which is why I asked the question. And I am still waiting for an answer.
And it's also very interesting that everyone here just assumes I think it's cool what the government's doing. I NEVER SAID I AGREED WITH IT. All I ever said is that they should do whatever they need to do to win a war. Do I like it? Hell no. But it needs to be done.
Once we win, we go back to a peacetime mode, and you can damn well bet I will be right there saying stay out of my business along with every one else.
1 - Demonizing the enemy. There are certainly evil people in the world, but they are not the slobbering subhuman monsters you take them for.
We certainly have a few bad apples in our military (as has been recently covered), and in our own society in general. Every society does.
But we don't cut peoples heads off with machetes (and then proudly hold the cut-off head by the hair and proclaim how "great" God is), or burn bodies and drag the charred remains through the streets, run people through "human shredders", gas entire villages with nerve agents, fly jet airplanes into office buildings, put explosives in sneakers, cars or our own clothing and go on suicide missions.
You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that many (if not all) of the above actions would certain qualify a person as a monster.
Sorry, do not pass go, do not collect $200, as my mother used to say. The event you have linked to occurred before September 11, 2001. LONG before, in fact. Which just weakens your case: These people can be, and WERE, caught, without the extreme measures that our current government is attempting to use.
In fact, dozens of FBI agents already knew that 9/11 was being planned long before it happened,
And how was it that they found out? What measures of surveillance did they use?
Carnivore and other means of electronic surveillance have been in service long before 9/11, and long before this particular administration has been in office.
Which takes me back to my original point: The government has been "violating our privacy" long before we ever imagined. And, like it or not, sometimes this kind of "violation" SAVES LIVES.
but the "big wigs" decided to ignore them. So it seems then, that what we need isn't more information and more invasive surveillance, but smarter leaders.
Doesn't it?
We always can use smarter leaders, no matter what the situation. But to say we don't need more information and more invasive surveillance... sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me.
Part of winning any war may be directly attibuted to having the best and most available intelligence... no matter how or where it originated.
I don't break any laws as I conduct my telephone conversations, nor do (I would speculate) 99.99% of Americans. But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone calls?....And folks, please spare me the privacy argument/nonsense...
this statement is nothing more than a more sophisticated way of saying "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear",
That's your interpretion/opinion, but you've missed my point. My point is that *I* don't fear what the Government is doing, I am NOT presuming to suggest whether *YOU* should or should not fear what they are doing. But you should understand they are going to do what they want anyway.
the last portion really disqualifies you from saying anymore on the subject.
As a US Citizen, I am eminently qualified to say whatever I choose to on this subject, under the First Amendment. Who the hell are you to say that I am not?
It reflects absolutely no respect for the constitutional protections for the people of this nation.
I am well aware of the protections granted under Consitution, chapter and verse. Spare me your lectures and condecension. I'm a lifelong American who loves this country and would lay my life down today for it if called upon (I'm too old to be in the military).
But you need to understand something: We are at WAR. And the enemies of our country do not give a goddamn about our liberties, or freedoms, our lives, and do not operate by any societal rules whatsoever. We therefore have to conduct ourselves under this reality, and understand something basic such as knowing that if an enemy combatant (or agent or participant, or whatever) is making a PHONE CALL to someone else, and either (or both ends) of that phone call happen to be in that country... the government MUST have that information, period.
LIKE IT OR NOT, NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS TRUMP CIVILIAN PRIVACY CONCERNS, PERIOD. DEAL WITH IT.
Blocking the government's ability to get the information it needs to potentially save lives or avert an attack, simply because you don't want the governement to know what you said to whomever is, in my view, giving indirect assistance to the enemy. YES, I SAID THAT.
Point1: there are many "unenforcible" and antiquated laws on the books which can be used against you if the dominant party doesnt like what you are doing or who you are associating with
So what? People can file lawsuits against you now if they don't like what you are doing. With a good lawyer, you can make anything "enforcible".
Point2: even if it is not used for legal abuse, it can be used for closed door blackmail/threats to keep the opposing political groups and corporations "in line"
This speaks to my original point: The government has the power, and can and will use it. Abuse or not, legal or not. As for me, it doesn't affect me. If it does you, too bad. Fight them all you want, but whatever the results are, deal with it and move on.
Point3: We have had technically feasible ways to invade people's privacy en wholesale since the late 40's but you didnt see it happen because when they try they face the public wrath
How would you know if it happened or not? I'm not a conspiacy theorist and don't wear a tinfoil hat, but seriously, how do you know what the government did or did not record since that time?
Point4: according to that statement above, why are they trying to invoke state secrets to hide their obvious breach of the constitution on multiple amendments? hmmm?
How about the survival of our country? If we don't do what is necessary to protect ourselves... if we don't take EVERY POSSIBLE MEASURE to prevent an attack (whatever manner or form it may be), THERE MAY WELL NOT BE A CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS WITH.
I FOR ONE WOULD RATHER HAVE A TEMPORARY BENDING OF THE RULES BY THE ONES WE ALREADY PUT IN CHARGE (remember that you a
If the Government wants to find out who I talk to and when... it's pretty easy to get that information now as it is.
If they want to actually listen... it's a waste of time but hey, what do I care? Knock yourself out.
My point: I hardly think the Government is interested in what I am asking my wife to make for dinner tonight, or whether I need to pick up anything at the store on the way home to help in making said dinner.
They want to know when, where and how the next attack on our country is going to take place. I don't break any laws as I conduct my telephone conversations, nor do (I would speculate) 99.99% of Americans.
But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone calls? It doesn't affect my daily life one bit - but an attack not thwarted most definitely would!
I asked the above question seriously, not rhetorically. And folks, please spare me the privacy argument/nonsense... the moment it became technically feasible to "violate" one's privacy, that privacy is already gone forever.
I think the lawsuits were already a non-starter, and now that the government is said to be stepping in, this matter will likely be put down so quickly, you'll be able to count the times the judge pounds the gavel on one hand.
I agree. And further... whenever a company does anything to alienate it's customers (no matter what that happens to be), another company will rise up to take those customers away.
Slow service? Too expensive? Restrictive? That lean, hungry, bend-over-backwards-to-please new company over there will take care of you.
BTW, and OT: The sig quote ("I have never won a debate with an ignorant person") has got to be one of the most insightful bits of wisdom I have read in quite some time.
I know of no news outlet (in any form) in today's world that do not have some kind of slant. Each outlet now identifies a target audience and caters to it... tells that audience what it believes it wants to hear.
I'm willing to give Google *some* benefit of the doubt and presume that maybe some of the articles are a bit too slanted on one side or the other.
But perhaps, then, shouldn't there be an Editorial Section, as there is in any regular paper?
Even more "mainstream" outlets, such as CNN (which slants to the left) or Fox (to the right) have thier own broadcasters that run against the grain (Lou Dobbs on CNN, Alan Colmes on Fox). They don't get censored, nor do they get put on a "tight leash".
Google should take some time and at least offer some kind of alternate category for thier search results, or an explanation as to why they are doing what they are doing. Perhaps an Editorial category could fill the bill.
Censorship of search results (as is happening currently) will cause Google's clients to take their business elsewhere. And lest Google be so dismissive of this as a non-issue... the Internet was around well before Google came into being. It will still be around long afterwards.
With the endless lawsuits flying around for patent infringement, challenges to existing patents, breach of contact and other "IP theft", it seems to me I'm in the wrong line of work.
Instead of writing code (the pay and benefits for which I can't complain), maybe I should probably add a law degree, sell my soul and get into the tech litigation biz. I can make tons upon tons of cash - far, far more than I am making now - and don't have to write anything (except the occasional briefs and motions). But I guess I better claim patent on the process of doing this, or I'LL get sued.
Considering the recent ink on Google, is anyone suprised here?
What essentially is happening in China is a 21st Century version of the Cultural Revolution - an electronic purging, if you will, of any "impure" expression among the populace.
You only get one guess as to who decides what "impure" is... or is not.
Interesting (but not at all a shock) that students are recruited to rat out their peers. There must be a big-time carrot being held out to rise up high within Party ranks.
Intel has been dropping the ball lately on performance... it seems like the inmates in Marketing have been running this asylum for some time now. They need to hand it back over to Engineering if they are to stop their decline.
Especially now that even Marketing is running out of ideas, evidenced by stupid product names and logos. (VIIV? 64? 75? Core 2 Duo... Extreme? Wha...?!)
Make the product perform better than the competition. Make "Intel Inside" *mean something*.
Do that, and I'd be willing to bet that everything else (including bad marketing) will take care of itself.
I'm neither a business expert nor a historian, but I have never understood how Apple Corps had any possibility of winning a trademark infringement case against Apple Computer... whether in the same business or not.
Look at these two examples:
Budweiser (Budvar, Czech Republic) and Budweiser (Anheuser Busch, USA). Same name, same business. And I have seen both products sold in the same location before (I prefer the Czech version myself).
ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company) and ABC (American Broadcasting Company). ABC... ABC. Same business.
And these are just off the top of my head. Certainly there are others.
I don't get where the Beatles were going with their action. Clearly Apple Computer was not going to be made to stop using their own logo and name. Nor were they going to be made to stop selling music via iTunes. What gives?
AOL exists on name recognition and the ignorance of the customers that choose to use them as an ISP. Nothing new here. As such, this becomes the modus operandi for everything it does... "let's block these mails, but show them as bounced messages... our users are too dumb to know the difference anyway, right?" Still, nothing new here.
But AOL itself is stupid, thinking that EVERYONE is so blissfully unaware of it's business practices. Even moreso, that anyone would be OK with it.
I don't know which is worse... that AOL thinks it can get away with an e-mail tax, that it can censor e-mails opposing it, or that it thought it was perfectly OK to do either (or both).
Hey, AOL... there are still parts of your feet still down there... keep shooting.
The county clerk should just get out. He's already finished. The state has already gotten into bed with Diebold, and the clerk has already tainted himself in the eyes of the state by calling in the activists.
Even if he right about the machines (and I believe he is)... the Powers That Be have already made their mind up about the issue.
The only ones now that can change things are the voters themselves, and that's a very tall order. We can barely get a 50% turnout to vote for president... how the hell can we get enough people out to call for a change to voting devices? And then, overcome the government's (and Diebold's) spin?
Seems like the Good Ship Redmond is adrift. They are preoccupied by too many projects going on, such as putting the wraps on Vista and Longhorn Server, "Orcas" (successor to Visual Studio 2005, aka "Whidbey"), Office 12... then they still have to deal with antitrust fights all around the world.
I notice too, that they haven't bought anyone out recently. They probably should, because they certainly haven't had much luck with any new product development. UMPC (or, "Newton XP") is going to be DOA.
Instead of "Developers! Developers! Developers!", Balmer needs to be jumping around screaming "Ideas! Ideas! Ideas! Ideas! Ideas! Ideas!"
Slashdot Mirror
But that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the NSA wiretaps and phone record collection that began AFTER 9/11.
WRONG. It started BEFORE 9/11.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/
And that's a point I've been trying to make. People have been in a tizzy about it only now, but it's been going on for a long time.
So you're saying the ends justify the means, then? Ok, I want to be rich. Do you mind if I come slaughter your family and steal your house? You do? But the ends justify the means. Wait, it's unjust for me to get rich that way?
Apples and oranges. Or more like apples and baseballs. Everyone presumes the government is going to pre-empt our enemies only in order for it to become our enemy itself. Ridiculous, if you consider our own Revolutionary history.
So we DO need more invasive surveillance? How much is too much, for you? Cameras in your bathroom at home? Forgive the hyperbole but it certainly seems as though that's exactly what you would find appropriate.
I pasted in "invasive" by mistake. But I AM suggesting that more surveillance will certainly be useful in prosecuting the war on terror.
I never said I was willing to give up either my own, nor anyone else's constitutional rights.
All I said (from the very beginning) was that our calls are being monitored anyway, and there isn't much that will be done about it.
Now all you loonies come out of the woodwork thinking I support that. All I am saying is you all are wasting your time fighting it, because the lawsuits will be put down by the government.
This is war. Crazy things happen in a war, like it or not, and this is one of them.
And to call me a coward? I already mentioned that I would be willing to fight myself - I AM TOO OLD TO DO SO. (Go back and read a previous post I wrote.)
It's pretty hypocritical to tell me I am a coward to not sign up for the military WHEN I AM NOT ALLOWED TO at this time, and if any of you have not done so yourself. Which is why I asked the question. And I am still waiting for an answer.
And it's also very interesting that everyone here just assumes I think it's cool what the government's doing. I NEVER SAID I AGREED WITH IT. All I ever said is that they should do whatever they need to do to win a war. Do I like it? Hell no. But it needs to be done.
Once we win, we go back to a peacetime mode, and you can damn well bet I will be right there saying stay out of my business along with every one else.
1 - Demonizing the enemy. There are certainly evil people in the world, but they are not the slobbering subhuman monsters you take them for.
We certainly have a few bad apples in our military (as has been recently covered), and in our own society in general. Every society does.
But we don't cut peoples heads off with machetes (and then proudly hold the cut-off head by the hair and proclaim how "great" God is), or burn bodies and drag the charred remains through the streets, run people through "human shredders", gas entire villages with nerve agents, fly jet airplanes into office buildings, put explosives in sneakers, cars or our own clothing and go on suicide missions.
You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that many (if not all) of the above actions would certain qualify a person as a monster.
Have you ever joined (or previously served) the military, Mr. Potty-Mouth?
Sorry, do not pass go, do not collect $200, as my mother used to say. The event you have linked to occurred before September 11, 2001. LONG before, in fact. Which just weakens your case: These people can be, and WERE, caught, without the extreme measures that our current government is attempting to use.
In fact, dozens of FBI agents already knew that 9/11 was being planned long before it happened,
And how was it that they found out? What measures of surveillance did they use?
Carnivore and other means of electronic surveillance have been in service long before 9/11, and long before this particular administration has been in office.
Which takes me back to my original point: The government has been "violating our privacy" long before we ever imagined. And, like it or not, sometimes this kind of "violation" SAVES LIVES.
but the "big wigs" decided to ignore them. So it seems then, that what we need isn't more information and more invasive surveillance, but smarter leaders.
Doesn't it?
We always can use smarter leaders, no matter what the situation. But to say we don't need more information and more invasive surveillance... sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me.
Part of winning any war may be directly attibuted to having the best and most available intelligence... no matter how or where it originated.
Names, please? Name one terrorist caught or one attack averted due directly or indirectly to the NSA having these phone records.
Can I have an estimate of how many lives have been saved so I can weigh that against the loss of privacy and/or potential abuses?
That's ok, I'll wait for the answer...
Here's one example:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/millen
You can Google for the rest yourself.
I don't break any laws as I conduct my telephone conversations, nor do (I would speculate) 99.99% of Americans. But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone calls?....And folks, please spare me the privacy argument/nonsense...
this statement is nothing more than a more sophisticated way of saying "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear",
That's your interpretion/opinion, but you've missed my point. My point is that *I* don't fear what the Government is doing, I am NOT presuming to suggest whether *YOU* should or should not fear what they are doing. But you should understand they are going to do what they want anyway.
the last portion really disqualifies you from saying anymore on the subject.
As a US Citizen, I am eminently qualified to say whatever I choose to on this subject, under the First Amendment. Who the hell are you to say that I am not?
It reflects absolutely no respect for the constitutional protections for the people of this nation.
I am well aware of the protections granted under Consitution, chapter and verse. Spare me your lectures and condecension. I'm a lifelong American who loves this country and would lay my life down today for it if called upon (I'm too old to be in the military).
But you need to understand something: We are at WAR. And the enemies of our country do not give a goddamn about our liberties, or freedoms, our lives, and do not operate by any societal rules whatsoever. We therefore have to conduct ourselves under this reality, and understand something basic such as knowing that if an enemy combatant (or agent or participant, or whatever) is making a PHONE CALL to someone else, and either (or both ends) of that phone call happen to be in that country... the government MUST have that information, period.
LIKE IT OR NOT, NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS TRUMP CIVILIAN PRIVACY CONCERNS, PERIOD. DEAL WITH IT.
Blocking the government's ability to get the information it needs to potentially save lives or avert an attack, simply because you don't want the governement to know what you said to whomever is, in my view, giving indirect assistance to the enemy. YES, I SAID THAT.
Point1: there are many "unenforcible" and antiquated laws on the books which can be used against you if the dominant party doesnt like what you are doing or who you are associating with
So what? People can file lawsuits against you now if they don't like what you are doing. With a good lawyer, you can make anything "enforcible".
Point2: even if it is not used for legal abuse, it can be used for closed door blackmail/threats to keep the opposing political groups and corporations "in line"
This speaks to my original point: The government has the power, and can and will use it. Abuse or not, legal or not. As for me, it doesn't affect me. If it does you, too bad. Fight them all you want, but whatever the results are, deal with it and move on.
Point3: We have had technically feasible ways to invade people's privacy en wholesale since the late 40's but you didnt see it happen because when they try they face the public wrath
How would you know if it happened or not? I'm not a conspiacy theorist and don't wear a tinfoil hat, but seriously, how do you know what the government did or did not record since that time?
Point4: according to that statement above, why are they trying to invoke state secrets to hide their obvious breach of the constitution on multiple amendments? hmmm?
How about the survival of our country? If we don't do what is necessary to protect ourselves... if we don't take EVERY POSSIBLE MEASURE to prevent an attack (whatever manner or form it may be), THERE MAY WELL NOT BE A CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS WITH.
I FOR ONE WOULD RATHER HAVE A TEMPORARY BENDING OF THE RULES BY THE ONES WE ALREADY PUT IN CHARGE (remember that you a
If the Government wants to find out who I talk to and when... it's pretty easy to get that information now as it is.
If they want to actually listen... it's a waste of time but hey, what do I care? Knock yourself out.
My point: I hardly think the Government is interested in what I am asking my wife to make for dinner tonight, or whether I need to pick up anything at the store on the way home to help in making said dinner.
They want to know when, where and how the next attack on our country is going to take place. I don't break any laws as I conduct my telephone conversations, nor do (I would speculate) 99.99% of Americans.
But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone calls? It doesn't affect my daily life one bit - but an attack not thwarted most definitely would!
I asked the above question seriously, not rhetorically. And folks, please spare me the privacy argument/nonsense... the moment it became technically feasible to "violate" one's privacy, that privacy is already gone forever.
I think the lawsuits were already a non-starter, and now that the government is said to be stepping in, this matter will likely be put down so quickly, you'll be able to count the times the judge pounds the gavel on one hand.
I agree. And further... whenever a company does anything to alienate it's customers (no matter what that happens to be), another company will rise up to take those customers away.
Slow service? Too expensive? Restrictive? That lean, hungry, bend-over-backwards-to-please new company over there will take care of you.
BTW, and OT: The sig quote ("I have never won a debate with an ignorant person") has got to be one of the most insightful bits of wisdom I have read in quite some time.
Rather than allege how "bad" a competitor's product is, MS should simply come out with a better product themselves.
What's the point of saying "OO.o sucks"? They don't have a lot of control over that, now do they? They need to show some leadership here.
Hey, Ballmer: "Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality! Quality!"
Photos have been out for some time, actually.
http://laptop.media.mit.edu/
I know of no news outlet (in any form) in today's world that do not have some kind of slant. Each outlet now identifies a target audience and caters to it... tells that audience what it believes it wants to hear.
I'm willing to give Google *some* benefit of the doubt and presume that maybe some of the articles are a bit too slanted on one side or the other.
But perhaps, then, shouldn't there be an Editorial Section, as there is in any regular paper?
Even more "mainstream" outlets, such as CNN (which slants to the left) or Fox (to the right) have thier own broadcasters that run against the grain (Lou Dobbs on CNN, Alan Colmes on Fox). They don't get censored, nor do they get put on a "tight leash".
Google should take some time and at least offer some kind of alternate category for thier search results, or an explanation as to why they are doing what they are doing. Perhaps an Editorial category could fill the bill.
Censorship of search results (as is happening currently) will cause Google's clients to take their business elsewhere. And lest Google be so dismissive of this as a non-issue... the Internet was around well before Google came into being. It will still be around long afterwards.
With the endless lawsuits flying around for patent infringement, challenges to existing patents, breach of contact and other "IP theft", it seems to me I'm in the wrong line of work.
Instead of writing code (the pay and benefits for which I can't complain), maybe I should probably add a law degree, sell my soul and get into the tech litigation biz. I can make tons upon tons of cash - far, far more than I am making now - and don't have to write anything (except the occasional briefs and motions). But I guess I better claim patent on the process of doing this, or I'LL get sued.
Perhaps you prefer a more suitable homeland, such as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea?
Considering the recent ink on Google, is anyone suprised here?
What essentially is happening in China is a 21st Century version of the Cultural Revolution - an electronic purging, if you will, of any "impure" expression among the populace.
You only get one guess as to who decides what "impure" is... or is not.
Interesting (but not at all a shock) that students are recruited to rat out their peers. There must be a big-time carrot being held out to rise up high within Party ranks.
Intel has been dropping the ball lately on performance... it seems like the inmates in Marketing have been running this asylum for some time now. They need to hand it back over to Engineering if they are to stop their decline.
Especially now that even Marketing is running out of ideas, evidenced by stupid product names and logos. (VIIV? 64? 75? Core 2 Duo... Extreme? Wha...?!)
Make the product perform better than the competition. Make "Intel Inside" *mean something*.
Do that, and I'd be willing to bet that everything else (including bad marketing) will take care of itself.
I'm neither a business expert nor a historian, but I have never understood how Apple Corps had any possibility of winning a trademark infringement case against Apple Computer... whether in the same business or not.
Look at these two examples:
Budweiser (Budvar, Czech Republic) and Budweiser (Anheuser Busch, USA). Same name, same business. And I have seen both products sold in the same location before (I prefer the Czech version myself).
ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company) and ABC (American Broadcasting Company). ABC... ABC. Same business.
And these are just off the top of my head. Certainly there are others.
I don't get where the Beatles were going with their action. Clearly Apple Computer was not going to be made to stop using their own logo and name. Nor were they going to be made to stop selling music via iTunes. What gives?
...over the RIAA, that is.
Beating France was not suprising in the least. After all, given their rich and storied legacy...
AOL exists on name recognition and the ignorance of the customers that choose to use them as an ISP. Nothing new here. As such, this becomes the modus operandi for everything it does... "let's block these mails, but show them as bounced messages... our users are too dumb to know the difference anyway, right?" Still, nothing new here.
But AOL itself is stupid, thinking that EVERYONE is so blissfully unaware of it's business practices. Even moreso, that anyone would be OK with it.
I don't know which is worse... that AOL thinks it can get away with an e-mail tax, that it can censor e-mails opposing it, or that it thought it was perfectly OK to do either (or both).
Hey, AOL... there are still parts of your feet still down there... keep shooting.
The county clerk should just get out. He's already finished. The state has already gotten into bed with Diebold, and the clerk has already tainted himself in the eyes of the state by calling in the activists.
Even if he right about the machines (and I believe he is)... the Powers That Be have already made their mind up about the issue.
The only ones now that can change things are the voters themselves, and that's a very tall order. We can barely get a 50% turnout to vote for president... how the hell can we get enough people out to call for a change to voting devices? And then, overcome the government's (and Diebold's) spin?
And I'll probably get sued for this moment of lamentation...
Seems like the Good Ship Redmond is adrift. They are preoccupied by too many projects going on, such as putting the wraps on Vista and Longhorn Server, "Orcas" (successor to Visual Studio 2005, aka "Whidbey"), Office 12... then they still have to deal with antitrust fights all around the world.
I notice too, that they haven't bought anyone out recently. They probably should, because they certainly haven't had much luck with any new product development. UMPC (or, "Newton XP") is going to be DOA.
Instead of "Developers! Developers! Developers!", Balmer needs to be jumping around screaming "Ideas! Ideas! Ideas! Ideas! Ideas! Ideas!"
1. That they are still purveyors of one the most insidious brand of spyware.
2. Most of us still know it.
3. My already-low opinion of them remains so.