Guns are the tool of the righteous man, allowing one to defend oneself against the depredations of a society increasingly consumed by such capitalist ills as poverty, atheism and drugs. Thanks to the liberal pro-"freedom" mindset that pervades our government, corporations led by greedmongers and Satanists lead the way to the corruption of the weaker elements of society, leaving a wake of gang violence, crack addicts and hardneded criminals, all of whome require dealing with in the harshest way by concerned Christians.
That's what your problem is in the UK - you don't have the courage to do your part for your country and for God. Removing the dead wood of society is your duty as both a Christian and as a man.
Well, most people here are constantly ranting about the evils of government/socialism/capitalism or whatever half-baked idea they have at the time, and going on about how only libertarianism can save us all from the evils of life.
And as for poor people, well I've read some great statements on both/. and k5 about how poor people just need to get up off of their arses and stop being so lazy. After all, if they wanted to have money then they'd obviously have it! Since this is the case then things like welfare are just a waste of money and it might encourage them to earn something if they knew that they'd be left to rot on the streets otherwise.
Some fine examples of just how out of touch slashbots are with the rest of reality.
Low-density power sources like solar, biomass, wind etc. have serious scaling problems. When you get less energy yield per pound of generator or square foot of plant space, you have to compensate by building more power infrastructure.
For someone who has supposedly worked with computers for many years you see to have totally missed the idea of a technological advance. The efficiency of solar panels has increased over the years, along with other advances such as transparent solar cells which will allow them to become more ubiquitous. The efficiency demonstrated today is close to the efficiency required for solar power to become viable as a means for providing the power we need.
The construction costs (in money, environmental impact, and human lives lost) blow up a helluva lot faster than most alternate-energy fans realize.
Hello? Solar panels can be installed anywhere with minimal effort on a small scale, providing a reasonable amount of power. Given the right governmental initiatives people could be encouraged to use solar power, thus reducing the amount of traditional power sources required. It doesn't always have to be the strip mine approach you seem to suggest.
They're extrapolating from demonstration projects without thinking about second-order effects.
You never justify your subject line in this comment.
No, I suppose you're right. I sort of got side tracked from the point I was originally going to make.
How can you say that libertarianism is another word for apathy?
Because the average libertarian does not feel like they need to take responsibility for the actions of other people or corporations - after all, they all have their right to freedom don't they? Never mind that freedom is in many ways incompatible with the idea of society, the concept can still be used by libertarians to justify standing back and letting others do what they want.
That was the flaw I meant.
Do you pronounce "USia"/yoo-ess-ee-ah/ or/oozhya/?
The idea that comprises libertarianism - that governemt regulation and intervention can only ever be a bad thing and needs to be fought at all costs, whereas the laissez-faire capitalistism that countries like USia encourage is to be celebrated and promoted - seems to me to be a foolish brand of "eyes held shut" syndrome that does nothing for the tech community.
Despite the rabid pro-"freedom" stance assumed by the average/.er they still manage to fall into hypocracy by condemning Microsoft, the ultimate expression of the kind of socioeconomic structure that they celebrate. If economic freedom is so important to you, then you should be supporting Microsoft again the evils of "big government" interventionalism.
But then again most/.ers are USians who believe that the rest of the world is either a poor copy of their great nation or a socialist hellhole where taxes reach levels of 95%. The rest of the world is there to be exploited, and the libertarians should be cheering USia's corporations on in their efforts to exploit natural resources and engage in anti-competitve practices - after all, it's only the cut and thrust of capitalism right?
The rampant capitalism practiced by USia has led to a nation with approximately 1/20th of the worlds population consuming half of the worlds resources. After all, we don't want to impose environmental regulations, the corporations might not like it. It'd *gasp* harm their profitability if they were forced to clean up after themselves.
No, libertarianism is just another word for selfishness and apathy, a political stance in which the individual is allowed to give up all moral responsibility in the name of profit. And who cares about those that suffer socioeconomic rape at the hands of greedy corporations - it's not our fault if they're poor is it? Should've worked harder.
Sure, all of the things you mention could be implemented using Linux on a wristwatch, but it would make far more sense to implement them directly as part of the watch. There's no need to add the bloat of an entire multiprocess, multiuser operating system to a device like a watch, no matter what it is supposed to be able to run.
This may have the "coolness" factor, but it has precious little else in the way of utility. Leaving aside the questions of what point is there running Linux on a wristwatch since this is a "proof of concept" (i.e. scientists being paid to muck around with stuff they like), the fact of the matter is that human computer interaction is woefully lacking at the moment.
Until we can offer some alternative to the anachronistic technologies we are using today to interact with computers (keyboards? mice? not exactly intuitive for Joe Sixpack are they?) extending the domain for computers is going to fail.
We desparately need a new paradigm in HCI, because the ones we have at the moment just aren't applicable to things like wearable computers.
Go read the artical in this month's Linux Journal. It's great. Basically explains how MS listened to wait users(read nontech suits) wanted and added every and any feature(talking paperclips)..spoiling them rotten, and in turn producing the blotted bugridden product they call Windows.
And of course we all know that the Linux media sites on the net are the home of rational, unbiased opinion about Microsoft don't we? Your post makes it clear what your views are, and I for one would rather come to my own conclusions rather than spew party line FUD.
That the technology behind Transmeta's Crusoe chip is great is not really open to doubt, but what is IMHO open to doubt is the speed at which Transmeta is moving at. It's been close to a year now since the chips were launched, and yet we still haven't seen the Crusoe in anything and Transmeta are still engaged in production negotiations.
At this rate it appears as though by the time that Transmeta get something finally made and used its competitors will have moved beyond it. Time to market is a significant factor in the computing industry, and it looks to me like Transmeta are just taking too long to deliver.
If they don't get their act together soon, the Crusoe will become vapourware because nobody will be using it.
Most innovations in the last 200 years has developed out of this lassiez-faire country. The telegraph, electricity, the mass produced automobile, the transistor, integrated circuits, all came as a result of a free society and free markets.
Errm, I think at least some of those weren't developed in the US at all. Electricity? I think that was around long before the US.
Until a few years ago, due to regulation, there wasn't much competition in cell phones. Now that there is, innovative networks are springing up. What we need in America is far less socialism and government interference and more freedom.
And that's the trouble - there's all of these "innovative networks" springing up which aren't interoperating in any useful way that benefits their users, and their innovations are as of yet catch-up attempts with Europe and Japan.
The rest of the world can follow socialist utopianism for all I care, but America should remain the last bastion of freedom in the world.
Except, as stories on/. every day show, it's not really as free as the Consitution would indicate is it? With cunning tricks like hiding riders in unrelated bills the Government is managing to circumvent every Consitutional restriction upon it every time Congress meets.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-post to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door !" by Emma Lazarus, New York City, 1883
Except that poverty is as much a fact of life in USia as it is in any socialist country. Except that there they at least get health care and some form of welfare to keep them going.
Why did they come? Freedom.
Blanket assertions like that fail to convince me. Many came to USia for freedom I'm sure, but I'm also sure many came for other, less noble reasons.
Well not quite, but the amount of amazing pieces of kit in there every month makes me want to be earning a lot more than I am now just to buy them. I've stopped reading the magazine at the moment, it was just winding me up:)
This shows one of the main limitations of the laissez-faire capitalism that USia endorses over the more rational policies implemented in the rest of the world. When corporations are as unfettered as they are in USia, getting them to agree on things like standards is a herculean task - each corporation is assured that it has the One True path.
In Europe OTOH they're more used to being told what to do by more socialist governments, and the idea of a standard is more easily applicable to the way they work within regulations anyway.
Also, you have to remember that USia is such a huge place that establishing the kind of mobile phone networks that are seen in Europe is extremely difficult - after all, there are still many places in USia that don't even have electricity yet! I'd say that was a priority over the wireless revolution.
Surely you can't define something as intensely personal as music through something as crude and impersonal as a mathematical algorithm? I'm all for the advancement of science, but I can't see that they're ever be able to write an algorithm that was capture the "essence" of a good piece of music, which is essentially what they're talking about.
By reducing a piece of music to a generic set of characteristics they are going to miss out on all of the subtleties that define music. There are genres of music where I can tell the difference when I'm listening to it, but I'd be hard pushed to define those differences. No algorithm is going to be able to do the same, whether it uses fractals or topology or whatever.
They're not really in a comfortable place after all. Their funding relies on both their public image and intensive politicking (is that a word? Ah well, you know what I mean) in Congress. Every time something goes wrong with a mission it makes them look bad, no matter whose fault it really was.
This is a shame since NASA is a worthwhile endeavour and deserves a better deal than it gets from the American government. But we can do without a few minor missions in the name of getting the more important ones working - I don't think anyone would deny that money would be better spent on a Mars mission than say a Pluto one.
In the long run though it may well be that NASA fall behind other agencies and corporate interests. The public is simply not up for a huge space program with its attendant costs. NASA are trying to make space flight cheaper, but it costs money to save money in this case, and at they rate things are going, that'll be money they don't get.
That your religions are responsible for more discrimination and oppression of women than this "evil" called pornography?
Wow, that's a bit of an assumption isn't it? I'm certainly not religious - religion is a crutch for those that cannot handle the thought that there is no real point to existance beyond existing. It's an outdated concept that we need to abandon.
children attacked and killed every day...never mind the children's crusade, the horrible state of orphans in, for example, victorian england, etc. Methinks that most children today are overall better off than in Franklin's time. If you want to bring all of culture down to the level of children, hey, have fun watching Barney for the rest of your life.
And what does that have to do with conditions now? Your strawman argument doesn't add anything to this debate.
exactly is wrong with pornography as you define it (pretty broadly I'd guess)?
I think I've already mentioned this, but the degredation of women for one, the way it encourages men to think of women as there for nothing more than sex and thus often leads to rape for another. No decent person should protect such an immoral "industry".
There are plenty of American Militias that wouldn't mind destroying America, at least what they see as the wrong parts of America.
And the FBI should deal with them too. They had some success at Waco as I recall. It's better to get them early before they get the chance to do any real damage.
As for being a criminal and having nothing to worry about - I've seen a number of estimates of the percentage of citizens that are technically lawbreakers.
*sigh* It's simple - you're either a lawbreaker and a criminal or you're not. There's no half and half here. A country depends on its laws to preserve peace and stability, and anyone breaking said laws is a criminal and deserves whatever they get. If we let shades of grey into the system then we'd soon have anarchy, and that's something no right-minded person would want right?
You, sir, now appear ignorant and biased. And to think I almost agreed with your inane post about the FBI protecting our rights. OF course, seeing where you're coming from, now, I've changed my mind.
So although you agree with my conclusion, now that you discover you don't like my arguments you dismiss what you had already agreed with? Right, that's logical isn't it. I'm sorry to have challenged your liberal beliefs with a dose of the harsh truth.
Protect us from bigots huh? So how does saying things like "The justification that you use to stop the FBI snooping on your collection of porn also allows Arab terrorists the opportunity to plan which building they're going to blow up next." not qualify you as a bigot?
It was just an example of a threat we face today. I don't have anything in particular against Arabs, just when they start blowing our buildings and citizens up.
If, as you claim, the FBI is acting in our best interest, then they should have nothing to hide. What you right wing nationalists don't understand is that our "bitching" is protecting the very values of freedom of speech and protection from oppressive governments that our country was founded upon.
Except that it will allow terrorists and criminals to learn how to bypass it, thus making it ineffective. Which is, I suppose, what liberals like you want to happen isn't it?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
Yes, but Franklin didn't live in an era were innocent children are attacked and killed every day, where pornographers make twice as much money as the regular film industry, where Islamic fundamentalists want to destroy America and where crime and murder are so commonplace. He'd have thought differently if he lived today I'm sure.
Whilst I agree that it's a nice thought, it's just not practical today. Without agencies like the FBI, CIA, NSA etc. having sufficient powers to protect us, we are risking the lives of people, especially those who are most vulnerable such as the poor.
I would honestly say I think it would be immoral to do so today.
The important question here is how many of your rights are you willing to give up for greater security? Where is the line for you? How much of what you do/say/write are you willing to let fall into the government's hands?
Well, let's put it this way. I'd rather have the FBI read my mail and catch a child molester, pornographer or some other kind of pervert than have privacy and dangerous people loose in society. Since I'm not a criminal I've got nothing to worry about. Only criminals need to worry about a system like Carnivore.
And one final question, just how effective is all this snooping? Great, you can catch the stupid terrorists but are they really the ones that we need to be worrying about?
Why, who should we be worried about? I'm quite worried about all of those Muslims foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to strap themselves to bombs and blow up buildings in hated America. What worries you?
As someone who is proud of my great nation, I am against the persecution that agencies like the FBI and CIA suffer. Hey people, they're just doing their job! The reason they exist is to protect us from the increasing number of criminals, terrorists, child molesters, bigots and dictators that exist both inside and outside of the US.
They can't do this if their hands are tied behind their backs by liberal activists more concerned with privacy than security. And besides, does anyone here really think that their sad little lives are interesting enough that the FBI is going to snoop on them?
We've had systems to tap phone lines and intercept mail for decades now, and yet when it's your precious internet people start bitching. It's no different. The justification that you use to stop the FBI snooping on your collection of porn also allows Arab terrorists the opportunity to plan which building they're going to blow up next.
It's time to grow up people, and realise that the world is not the uptopia the liberals make it out to be. We need to be aware of the dangers to protect ourselves from them.
True, but this is a) going to cost a lot of money and b) require some fairly extensive changes to the house. These factors are likely to deter the casual buyer, even if they are bombarded with a huge advertising campaign saying that they "need" it...
I don't know if you've ever tried to integrate multple home cinema products from multiple manufacturers, but it's a royal pain in the ass. I have a TV, VCR, Cable Decoder, DVD player, Surround Stereo, and of course the computer.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what's in my house, and I know what a pain it is... Sure that's somewhere where integration would be a godsend, but most people don't have them all connected together, they're happy with having separate chunks of electronics in different places.
It's only people like us that get pissed off with tweaking audio-visual settings every time we use a different device, just to get it *perfect*:) And so, we'll be the ones buying this kind of stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Guns are the tool of the righteous man, allowing one to defend oneself against the depredations of a society increasingly consumed by such capitalist ills as poverty, atheism and drugs. Thanks to the liberal pro-"freedom" mindset that pervades our government, corporations led by greedmongers and Satanists lead the way to the corruption of the weaker elements of society, leaving a wake of gang violence, crack addicts and hardneded criminals, all of whome require dealing with in the harshest way by concerned Christians.
That's what your problem is in the UK - you don't have the courage to do your part for your country and for God. Removing the dead wood of society is your duty as both a Christian and as a man.
I don't care what you think, Bill Gates is not ($4 billion / ~$28,000) times a better human than the average person.
Hmm, so you measure a person's worth through the amount of money they have? Wow, you're a real "people" person aren't you?
Well, most people here are constantly ranting about the evils of government/socialism/capitalism or whatever half-baked idea they have at the time, and going on about how only libertarianism can save us all from the evils of life.
And as for poor people, well I've read some great statements on both /. and k5 about how poor people just need to get up off of their arses and stop being so lazy. After all, if they wanted to have money then they'd obviously have it! Since this is the case then things like welfare are just a waste of money and it might encourage them to earn something if they knew that they'd be left to rot on the streets otherwise.
Some fine examples of just how out of touch slashbots are with the rest of reality.
Low-density power sources like solar, biomass, wind etc. have serious scaling problems. When you get less energy yield per pound of generator or square foot of plant space, you have to compensate by building more power infrastructure.
For someone who has supposedly worked with computers for many years you see to have totally missed the idea of a technological advance. The efficiency of solar panels has increased over the years, along with other advances such as transparent solar cells which will allow them to become more ubiquitous. The efficiency demonstrated today is close to the efficiency required for solar power to become viable as a means for providing the power we need.
The construction costs (in money, environmental impact, and human lives lost) blow up a helluva lot faster than most alternate-energy fans realize.
Hello? Solar panels can be installed anywhere with minimal effort on a small scale, providing a reasonable amount of power. Given the right governmental initiatives people could be encouraged to use solar power, thus reducing the amount of traditional power sources required. It doesn't always have to be the strip mine approach you seem to suggest.
They're extrapolating from demonstration projects without thinking about second-order effects.
Which are...?
You never justify your subject line in this comment.
No, I suppose you're right. I sort of got side tracked from the point I was originally going to make.
How can you say that libertarianism is another word for apathy?
Because the average libertarian does not feel like they need to take responsibility for the actions of other people or corporations - after all, they all have their right to freedom don't they? Never mind that freedom is in many ways incompatible with the idea of society, the concept can still be used by libertarians to justify standing back and letting others do what they want.
That was the flaw I meant.
Do you pronounce "USia" /yoo-ess-ee-ah/ or /oozhya/?
/yoo-ess-ee-ah/
The idea that comprises libertarianism - that governemt regulation and intervention can only ever be a bad thing and needs to be fought at all costs, whereas the laissez-faire capitalistism that countries like USia encourage is to be celebrated and promoted - seems to me to be a foolish brand of "eyes held shut" syndrome that does nothing for the tech community.
Despite the rabid pro-"freedom" stance assumed by the average /.er they still manage to fall into hypocracy by condemning Microsoft, the ultimate expression of the kind of socioeconomic structure that they celebrate. If economic freedom is so important to you, then you should be supporting Microsoft again the evils of "big government" interventionalism.
But then again most /.ers are USians who believe that the rest of the world is either a poor copy of their great nation or a socialist hellhole where taxes reach levels of 95%. The rest of the world is there to be exploited, and the libertarians should be cheering USia's corporations on in their efforts to exploit natural resources and engage in anti-competitve practices - after all, it's only the cut and thrust of capitalism right?
The rampant capitalism practiced by USia has led to a nation with approximately 1/20th of the worlds population consuming half of the worlds resources. After all, we don't want to impose environmental regulations, the corporations might not like it. It'd *gasp* harm their profitability if they were forced to clean up after themselves.
No, libertarianism is just another word for selfishness and apathy, a political stance in which the individual is allowed to give up all moral responsibility in the name of profit. And who cares about those that suffer socioeconomic rape at the hands of greedy corporations - it's not our fault if they're poor is it? Should've worked harder.
Sure, all of the things you mention could be implemented using Linux on a wristwatch, but it would make far more sense to implement them directly as part of the watch. There's no need to add the bloat of an entire multiprocess, multiuser operating system to a device like a watch, no matter what it is supposed to be able to run.
This may have the "coolness" factor, but it has precious little else in the way of utility. Leaving aside the questions of what point is there running Linux on a wristwatch since this is a "proof of concept" (i.e. scientists being paid to muck around with stuff they like), the fact of the matter is that human computer interaction is woefully lacking at the moment.
Until we can offer some alternative to the anachronistic technologies we are using today to interact with computers (keyboards? mice? not exactly intuitive for Joe Sixpack are they?) extending the domain for computers is going to fail.
We desparately need a new paradigm in HCI, because the ones we have at the moment just aren't applicable to things like wearable computers.
P.S. And I don't mean voice control either.
Go read the artical in this month's Linux Journal. It's great. Basically explains how MS listened to wait users(read nontech suits) wanted and added every and any feature(talking paperclips)..spoiling them rotten, and in turn producing the blotted bugridden product they call Windows.
And of course we all know that the Linux media sites on the net are the home of rational, unbiased opinion about Microsoft don't we? Your post makes it clear what your views are, and I for one would rather come to my own conclusions rather than spew party line FUD.
Still, if it makes you happy...
That the technology behind Transmeta's Crusoe chip is great is not really open to doubt, but what is IMHO open to doubt is the speed at which Transmeta is moving at. It's been close to a year now since the chips were launched, and yet we still haven't seen the Crusoe in anything and Transmeta are still engaged in production negotiations.
At this rate it appears as though by the time that Transmeta get something finally made and used its competitors will have moved beyond it. Time to market is a significant factor in the computing industry, and it looks to me like Transmeta are just taking too long to deliver.
If they don't get their act together soon, the Crusoe will become vapourware because nobody will be using it.
Most innovations in the last 200 years has developed out of this lassiez-faire country. The telegraph, electricity, the mass produced automobile, the transistor, integrated circuits, all came as a result of a free society and free markets.
Errm, I think at least some of those weren't developed in the US at all. Electricity? I think that was around long before the US.
Until a few years ago, due to regulation, there wasn't much competition in cell phones. Now that there is, innovative networks are springing up. What we need in America is far less socialism and government interference and more freedom.
And that's the trouble - there's all of these "innovative networks" springing up which aren't interoperating in any useful way that benefits their users, and their innovations are as of yet catch-up attempts with Europe and Japan.
The rest of the world can follow socialist utopianism for all I care, but America should remain the last bastion of freedom in the world.
Except, as stories on /. every day show, it's not really as free as the Consitution would indicate is it? With cunning tricks like hiding riders in unrelated bills the Government is managing to circumvent every Consitutional restriction upon it every time Congress meets.
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-post to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door !" by Emma Lazarus, New York City, 1883
Except that poverty is as much a fact of life in USia as it is in any socialist country. Except that there they at least get health care and some form of welfare to keep them going.
Why did they come? Freedom.
Blanket assertions like that fail to convince me. Many came to USia for freedom I'm sure, but I'm also sure many came for other, less noble reasons.
Well not quite, but the amount of amazing pieces of kit in there every month makes me want to be earning a lot more than I am now just to buy them. I've stopped reading the magazine at the moment, it was just winding me up :)
This shows one of the main limitations of the laissez-faire capitalism that USia endorses over the more rational policies implemented in the rest of the world. When corporations are as unfettered as they are in USia, getting them to agree on things like standards is a herculean task - each corporation is assured that it has the One True path.
In Europe OTOH they're more used to being told what to do by more socialist governments, and the idea of a standard is more easily applicable to the way they work within regulations anyway.
Also, you have to remember that USia is such a huge place that establishing the kind of mobile phone networks that are seen in Europe is extremely difficult - after all, there are still many places in USia that don't even have electricity yet! I'd say that was a priority over the wireless revolution.
Surely you can't define something as intensely personal as music through something as crude and impersonal as a mathematical algorithm? I'm all for the advancement of science, but I can't see that they're ever be able to write an algorithm that was capture the "essence" of a good piece of music, which is essentially what they're talking about.
By reducing a piece of music to a generic set of characteristics they are going to miss out on all of the subtleties that define music. There are genres of music where I can tell the difference when I'm listening to it, but I'd be hard pushed to define those differences. No algorithm is going to be able to do the same, whether it uses fractals or topology or whatever.
They're not really in a comfortable place after all. Their funding relies on both their public image and intensive politicking (is that a word? Ah well, you know what I mean) in Congress. Every time something goes wrong with a mission it makes them look bad, no matter whose fault it really was.
This is a shame since NASA is a worthwhile endeavour and deserves a better deal than it gets from the American government. But we can do without a few minor missions in the name of getting the more important ones working - I don't think anyone would deny that money would be better spent on a Mars mission than say a Pluto one.
In the long run though it may well be that NASA fall behind other agencies and corporate interests. The public is simply not up for a huge space program with its attendant costs. NASA are trying to make space flight cheaper, but it costs money to save money in this case, and at they rate things are going, that'll be money they don't get.
That your religions are responsible for more discrimination and oppression of women than this "evil" called pornography?
Wow, that's a bit of an assumption isn't it? I'm certainly not religious - religion is a crutch for those that cannot handle the thought that there is no real point to existance beyond existing. It's an outdated concept that we need to abandon.
My morals are based on pure ethics alone.
children attacked and killed every day...never mind the children's crusade, the horrible state of orphans in, for example, victorian england, etc. Methinks that most children today are overall better off than in Franklin's time. If you want to bring all of culture down to the level of children, hey, have fun watching Barney for the rest of your life.
And what does that have to do with conditions now? Your strawman argument doesn't add anything to this debate.
exactly is wrong with pornography as you define it (pretty broadly I'd guess)?
I think I've already mentioned this, but the degredation of women for one, the way it encourages men to think of women as there for nothing more than sex and thus often leads to rape for another. No decent person should protect such an immoral "industry".
There are plenty of American Militias that wouldn't mind destroying America, at least what they see as the wrong parts of America.
And the FBI should deal with them too. They had some success at Waco as I recall. It's better to get them early before they get the chance to do any real damage.
As for being a criminal and having nothing to worry about - I've seen a number of estimates of the percentage of citizens that are technically lawbreakers.
*sigh* It's simple - you're either a lawbreaker and a criminal or you're not. There's no half and half here. A country depends on its laws to preserve peace and stability, and anyone breaking said laws is a criminal and deserves whatever they get. If we let shades of grey into the system then we'd soon have anarchy, and that's something no right-minded person would want right?
You, sir, now appear ignorant and biased. And to think I almost agreed with your inane post about the FBI protecting our rights. OF course, seeing where you're coming from, now, I've changed my mind.
So although you agree with my conclusion, now that you discover you don't like my arguments you dismiss what you had already agreed with? Right, that's logical isn't it. I'm sorry to have challenged your liberal beliefs with a dose of the harsh truth.
Protect us from bigots huh? So how does saying things like "The justification that you use to stop the FBI snooping on your collection of porn also allows Arab terrorists the opportunity to plan which building they're going to blow up next." not qualify you as a bigot?
It was just an example of a threat we face today. I don't have anything in particular against Arabs, just when they start blowing our buildings and citizens up.
If, as you claim, the FBI is acting in our best interest, then they should have nothing to hide. What you right wing nationalists don't understand is that our "bitching" is protecting the very values of freedom of speech and protection from oppressive governments that our country was founded upon.
Except that it will allow terrorists and criminals to learn how to bypass it, thus making it ineffective. Which is, I suppose, what liberals like you want to happen isn't it?
Yes, but Franklin didn't live in an era were innocent children are attacked and killed every day, where pornographers make twice as much money as the regular film industry, where Islamic fundamentalists want to destroy America and where crime and murder are so commonplace. He'd have thought differently if he lived today I'm sure.
Whilst I agree that it's a nice thought, it's just not practical today. Without agencies like the FBI, CIA, NSA etc. having sufficient powers to protect us, we are risking the lives of people, especially those who are most vulnerable such as the poor.
I would honestly say I think it would be immoral to do so today.
The important question here is how many of your rights are you willing to give up for greater security? Where is the line for you? How much of what you do/say/write are you willing to let fall into the government's hands?
Well, let's put it this way. I'd rather have the FBI read my mail and catch a child molester, pornographer or some other kind of pervert than have privacy and dangerous people loose in society. Since I'm not a criminal I've got nothing to worry about. Only criminals need to worry about a system like Carnivore.
And one final question, just how effective is all this snooping? Great, you can catch the stupid terrorists but are they really the ones that we need to be worrying about?
Why, who should we be worried about? I'm quite worried about all of those Muslims foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to strap themselves to bombs and blow up buildings in hated America. What worries you?
As someone who is proud of my great nation, I am against the persecution that agencies like the FBI and CIA suffer. Hey people, they're just doing their job! The reason they exist is to protect us from the increasing number of criminals, terrorists, child molesters, bigots and dictators that exist both inside and outside of the US.
They can't do this if their hands are tied behind their backs by liberal activists more concerned with privacy than security. And besides, does anyone here really think that their sad little lives are interesting enough that the FBI is going to snoop on them?
We've had systems to tap phone lines and intercept mail for decades now, and yet when it's your precious internet people start bitching. It's no different. The justification that you use to stop the FBI snooping on your collection of porn also allows Arab terrorists the opportunity to plan which building they're going to blow up next.
It's time to grow up people, and realise that the world is not the uptopia the liberals make it out to be. We need to be aware of the dangers to protect ourselves from them.
True, but this is a) going to cost a lot of money and b) require some fairly extensive changes to the house. These factors are likely to deter the casual buyer, even if they are bombarded with a huge advertising campaign saying that they "need" it...
I don't know if you've ever tried to integrate multple home cinema products from multiple manufacturers, but it's a royal pain in the ass. I have a TV, VCR, Cable Decoder, DVD player, Surround Stereo, and of course the computer.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what's in my house, and I know what a pain it is... Sure that's somewhere where integration would be a godsend, but most people don't have them all connected together, they're happy with having separate chunks of electronics in different places.
It's only people like us that get pissed off with tweaking audio-visual settings every time we use a different device, just to get it *perfect* :) And so, we'll be the ones buying this kind of stuff.