It's by no means obvious to me that "provide nothing" is less evil than "provide partial."
Again, their policy is not "Don't be as evil", it's "Don't be evil." Even a little bit of evil is, well, evil, and Google is breaking their promise by doing it.
They're the ones who set themselves this lofty goal. They have no right to complain now that people are pointing at their hypocrasy.
The truth is that the complex ethical decisions faced by Google don't fall easily into a black-and-white division of "good" versus "evil".
Then they should change their motto to "Don't do anything we disagree with" (and by "we" I mean "the Google board"). That way they have a nice, flexible, standard to which they can hold themselves.
But that's not their motto. It's "Don't be evil." At which point they've acknowledged that there is such a thing as "evil", so they've lost the right to complain when people take them to task for doing things that those same people consider "evil".
Take the Linux kernel, add the core GNU utils, libc, bash, etc. Hey look, a real OS! Just because it doesn't use KDE, Apache or X doesn't mean it's not a real operating system.
I'll grant you that, but such a beast doesn't exist (so far as I know). All of the distros add in other things that make the complete OS. If what you described were being distributed, I'd have no problem calling it GNU/Linux (or more accurately, just GNU Linux).
This is precisely why EULAs were started--to shield commercial businesses from liability for producing (often knowingly) a seriously flawed product. EULAs are the devil.
Yeah, especially the ones with the line "This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." Those things are just plain evil!
I've always found it funny that Stallman insists on the term "GNU/Linux". GNU/Linux is a misnomer. There's Debian Linux, RedHat Linux, SuSE Linux, Gentoo Linux, and dozens of others. Debian is probably closest to GNU/Linux, but strictly speaking, because there's no complete operating system that uses only GNU utils and the Linux kernel, there's no such thing as GNU/Linux. Rather, there are competing OSes that use that kernel, and GNU based utils as some portion of the OS. Last I checked, GNU didn't come up with rpm, and it can be argued that the package management system of an OS is about as important as anything else on the system (not sure offhand about apt, but then I said Debian is probably closest to GNU/Linux "purity").
Life on earth may have been designed... but then you've got to explain the origin of the designer.
No, actually, you don't. ID could limit itself just to explaining how life on Earth developed, and not saying anything about other planets. In that case, there could easily be a case of some intelligent species mucking about with genetics on Earth, even though their evolution was purely by chance.
And really, if there was some kind of evidence that something like this did happen, wouldn't you want to know about it?
Personally, I think it's much simpler to say "Based on observable evidence, evolution occurred due to random fluctuations in the genetic code and outside environmental pressures resulting in a handful of those fluctuations to be passed on to the next generation. Over time, those changes add up to new species." If there was some kind of intelligent designer monkeying around with genetics (no pun intended), there's no evidence for it, so we should ignore it unless that evidence becomes available.
Incidentally, they weren't "begging" the question, they were "raising" it. When you beg a question, you are using circular logic to answer a question. When IDers say "Evolution is difficult and beyond our intelligence; therefore, there must be an intelligent designer," they are begging the question. When they say "An intelligent designer could be anything, not just (a|the) [gG]od," they are not begging the question on that being's origins, they are raising it.
I hate to refer to my own previous post on this subject, but by taking a one dollar salary, they are saving themselves over $100 million per year. Each. That is the only reason they are doing this, if anyone tells you anything else they are selling something.
Capital gains tax rates are higher than income tax.
And you're higher than a kite!
From the IRS (http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html): "You may have to report capital gains and losses on Form 1040, Schedule D (PDF) . If you have a net capital gain, that gain may be taxed at a lower tax rate. The term "net capital gain" means the amount by which your net long-term capital gain for the year is more than your net short-term capital loss. The highest tax rate on a net capital gain is generally 15% (or 5%, if it would otherwise be taxed at 15% or less). There are 3 exceptions:
The taxable part of a gain from qualified small business stock is taxed at a maximum 28% rate. Net capital gain from selling collectibles such as coins or art is taxed at a maximum 28% rate. The part of any net capital gain from selling Section 1250 real property that is due to recapture of straight-line depreciation is taxed at a maximum 25% rate. "
The important part is that your long term capital gains are pegged based on your tax bracket. If you would normally pay more than 15% in taxes, your capital gains are 15%. If you would pay less, you pay only 5%. Short term capital gains are just figured as normal income and taxed as below.
And here are the tax schedules (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=133517 ,00.html): "If taxable income is over-- But not over-- The tax is: $0 $7,300 10% of the amount over $0 $7,300 $29,700 $730 plus 15% of the amount over 7,300 $29,700 $71,950 $4,090.00 plus 25% of the amount over 29,700 $71,950 $150,150 $14,652.50 plus 28% of the amount over 71,950 $150,150 $326,450 $36,548.50 plus 33% of the amount over 150,150 $326,450 no limit $94,727.50 plus 35% of the amount over 326,450 "
So, if you earn $1 billion from the sale of stock held over one year, with only $1 dollar in actual income, you pay ($1 billion * 5%) $50 million (since the tax rate on $1 is 10%, which is less than 15%). If, however, you earned a $1 million salary, then cashed out $1 billion in stock, you'd pay ($1 billion * 15% = $150 million) + ($94,727.50 + (1 million - 326,450)*35% = $330,470) = $150,330,470.
By paying themselves $1 per year, they saved themselves over $100 million. Yeah, it was completely altruistic. Altruistic like a fox!
You should try applying to big insurance companies, apparently they love you old farts. I just started at one here in Texas, and at 34 I'm the youngin' on the team. The next youngest is 42, and it goes up from there.
If these guys were spending their days ripping DVDs and CDs rather than doing something productive (like, you know, reading Slashdot), chances are not all of the $88,000 in equipment was used for that purpose. Wonder how much they've got sitting at home, or what their eBay IDs are.
Now we can further separate the technocracy from the unwashed masses who don't have cell phones or know how to use them. Holding the population in thrall is becoming easier every day...
Did you see "Blackhawk Down"? Remember the scene when the US troops start their airlift into Mogadishu? Remember the little boy on the rooftop, reporting their movement with a (wait for it...) cell phone?? And that happened over 10 years ago, and cell phones were still common enough in one of the poorest nations on earth that they were used by common people. There are countries in Africa today who still don't have hot water and electricity in every home, but everyone's got a cell phone. So I don't see this as a "tool of the technocracy", I see this as bringing progress to people over thin air.
If the turnaround time is quick enough, I imagine that some individuals might only pay for tickets via SMS when they see the ticket controller coming towards them and ride free the rest of the time.
It would be trivial to put a timestamp on the ticket. If yours is from after the train left the station, it's no good. Or better yet, just have the system bill you an extra couple (bucks|quid|whatever the slang term for moolah is in Finland) for buying the ticket after the train left the station. How hard is that?
That said, my intent here is to address specific concerns of the Slashdot user base. To be more directly accountable.
And for that, (I|we) thank you. It's nice to know that, even if you guys don't take all of the suggestions your readers give you, at least you're actively aware of what we see as problems and are willing to address them head on. Even if your version of addressing them is to tell people "I don't think it's a big deal, so I'm not changing anything."
If you think Congresss can prevent me, a free citizen, from starting businesses elsewhere with my money, I'm freaked.
"Can" and "should" are two different things, my friend. Though there are times when it makes sense for the government to prevent its citizens from investing in foreign countries. Like when they're actively at war with someone, and want to prevent any resources from reaching the enemy.
If I want more peace, I'll consider the better way to spread it -- buy the products of the poorest people to help them gain wealth.
It's certainly more moral, and probably more effective in the long run, no argument there.
I don't completely agree with your interpretation of the Commerce Clause, but I don't entirely disagree with it, either. I agree that its original intent was to prevent States from interferring with interstate commerce, or even international (so Virginia, for example, can't raise tariffs against baskets from Georgia, and Texas can't have tariffs against oil from overseas), but it, coupled with Congress's ability to set tariffs, means they do have the power to regulate any business activity which crosses internal or external borders. Just the ability to set tariffs alone is enough to prevent American companies from doing business overseas. Note that you don't have to agree this power should be used to acknowledge it exists.
Considering that the US wasn't a democracy but a Republican Federalist Union of Independent States, I can't agree. Washington himself said trade with everyone, entangle alliances with no one.
You're splitting hairs. The US has a strategic national interest in not being attacked. The more free, both economically and politically, other countries are, the less likely it is they will attack us. Ergo, we have an interest in fostering freedom around the world. And you can't really quote Washington in foreign policy. He had his strengths, but in his heart he was just a farmer from Virginia who wanted to be left alone. That's not always an option.
"There's nothing immoral in, effectively, blockading China's ability to buy software from American companies." That's anti-liberty and undeniably tyrannical. Let consumers make their own decisions.
Except that the "consumer" we're talking about is a blood thirsty monster. You would agree that it's sensible to prevent murderers from buying guns, right? So why wouldn't you prevent dictators from buying [insert evil software here]?
we are at war with dozens of economies, we've demanded petrodollar use for decades and we're on the verge of collapse if we don't stop this imperialism
"War". You keep saying that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
But just to prove the world isn't completely off its kilt, I do agree whole-heartedly that we need to do something about the fiat "money" we're using, and the ability of the Fed to arbitrarily control the economy.
Nope, nothing here giving Congress any authority to regulate business in the U.S., let alone China.
Wrong on both counts. The Interstate Commerce Clause gives Congress broad authority to regulate business within the borders of the US, and various trade treaties approved by the Senate give the government strong powers at regulating the activities of American companies in other countries. In addition, the Federal government explicitly has the authority to level taxes and tariffs on all commerce coming in, or going out, of its territories. So, yes, the federales can tell Microsoft where they can and can't sell their products.
Even leaving all that aside, it can be argued that the US has a strong strategic interest in seeing democracy flourish around the globe. Companies which empower countries to keep a chain around their citizens' necks shouldn't be able to plead "We have no choice, we have to do as they say!" Because they do have a choice, and that choice is not to do business in those countries. There's nothing immoral in, effectively, blockading China's ability to buy software from American companies. Whether it would be effective is a different argument which I am avoiding.
FWIW, China isn't the worst government. I know of one that warmongers in 100 countries as we speak, forcing oil-buying countries to use this Empire's currency, all the while stomping on its own citizens' rights and freedoms while pretending to defend liberty.
Oh, please, now you're just trolling. We're not actively at war with any other country currently, we don't force anyone to use our currency (in fact, the Congress was about to levy sanctions on China if they didn't stop pegging their currency to ours exclusively), and if our rights and liberties were as jeopardized as you seem to be claiming you'd be in jail right now, or worse.
I usually agree whole-heartedly with what you write, dada, but you seem to have some wild hair up your butt that's making you spout nonsense today. What gives?
More great Franklin quotes (not all from Poor Richard's):
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats. A life of leisure and a life of laziness are two things. There will be sleeping enough in the grave. A place for everything, everything in its place. A penny saved is a penny earned. At twenty years of age the will reigns; at thirty, the wit; and at forty, the judgment. Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none. Keep your eyes wide open before marriage, half shut afterwards.
And the thought that in modern times he'd be locked up under the PATRIOT act is truly sad...
Well, the government he was born under would've hanged him if they could. So being locked up in prison actually shows some progress.
"Gentleman, we must all hang together, or we will surely all hang seperately." B. Franklin
Re:Web 2.0 doesn't really sound like the web
on
Web 3.0
·
· Score: 1
You'd never call an email a webpage.
You would if you were a technological moron, which, it seems to me, most of the people pushing "Web 2.0" are.
It is true that the way people are using the web is becoming more pervasive and that developers are creating more user friendly and dynamic sites. But to say this makes it a fundamentally different medium (which seems to be what the Web 2.0 crowd are implying) is just silly. It is an upgrade over what came before, so it that sense "2.0" makes sense. But the hype, oh the hype!, will it never end?
Slashdot Mirror
It's by no means obvious to me that "provide nothing" is less evil than "provide partial."
Again, their policy is not "Don't be as evil", it's "Don't be evil." Even a little bit of evil is, well, evil, and Google is breaking their promise by doing it.
They're the ones who set themselves this lofty goal. They have no right to complain now that people are pointing at their hypocrasy.
The truth is that the complex ethical decisions faced by Google don't fall easily into a black-and-white division of "good" versus "evil".
Then they should change their motto to "Don't do anything we disagree with" (and by "we" I mean "the Google board"). That way they have a nice, flexible, standard to which they can hold themselves.
But that's not their motto. It's "Don't be evil." At which point they've acknowledged that there is such a thing as "evil", so they've lost the right to complain when people take them to task for doing things that those same people consider "evil".
This is how I first read your post:
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah breasts? Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah.
So, yeah, booth babes count.
Take the Linux kernel, add the core GNU utils, libc, bash, etc. Hey look, a real OS! Just because it doesn't use KDE, Apache or X doesn't mean it's not a real operating system.
I'll grant you that, but such a beast doesn't exist (so far as I know). All of the distros add in other things that make the complete OS. If what you described were being distributed, I'd have no problem calling it GNU/Linux (or more accurately, just GNU Linux).
This is precisely why EULAs were started--to shield commercial businesses from liability for producing (often knowingly) a seriously flawed product. EULAs are the devil.
Yeah, especially the ones with the line "This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." Those things are just plain evil!
Remember when american made goods were the best in the world?
I'm only 34, so, no.
I've always found it funny that Stallman insists on the term "GNU/Linux". GNU/Linux is a misnomer. There's Debian Linux, RedHat Linux, SuSE Linux, Gentoo Linux, and dozens of others. Debian is probably closest to GNU/Linux, but strictly speaking, because there's no complete operating system that uses only GNU utils and the Linux kernel, there's no such thing as GNU/Linux. Rather, there are competing OSes that use that kernel, and GNU based utils as some portion of the OS. Last I checked, GNU didn't come up with rpm, and it can be argued that the package management system of an OS is about as important as anything else on the system (not sure offhand about apt, but then I said Debian is probably closest to GNU/Linux "purity").
Life on earth may have been designed... but then you've got to explain the origin of the designer.
No, actually, you don't. ID could limit itself just to explaining how life on Earth developed, and not saying anything about other planets. In that case, there could easily be a case of some intelligent species mucking about with genetics on Earth, even though their evolution was purely by chance.
And really, if there was some kind of evidence that something like this did happen, wouldn't you want to know about it?
Personally, I think it's much simpler to say "Based on observable evidence, evolution occurred due to random fluctuations in the genetic code and outside environmental pressures resulting in a handful of those fluctuations to be passed on to the next generation. Over time, those changes add up to new species." If there was some kind of intelligent designer monkeying around with genetics (no pun intended), there's no evidence for it, so we should ignore it unless that evidence becomes available.
Incidentally, they weren't "begging" the question, they were "raising" it. When you beg a question, you are using circular logic to answer a question. When IDers say "Evolution is difficult and beyond our intelligence; therefore, there must be an intelligent designer," they are begging the question. When they say "An intelligent designer could be anything, not just (a|the) [gG]od," they are not begging the question on that being's origins, they are raising it.
You are incorrect.
You need to go read that tax guide again. Look up the difference between earned income and capital gains. They're treated very differently.
I hate to refer to my own previous post on this subject, but by taking a one dollar salary, they are saving themselves over $100 million per year. Each. That is the only reason they are doing this, if anyone tells you anything else they are selling something.
Capital gains tax rates are higher than income tax.
7 ,00.html):
And you're higher than a kite!
From the IRS (http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc409.html):
"You may have to report capital gains and losses on Form 1040, Schedule D (PDF) . If you have a net capital gain, that gain may be taxed at a lower tax rate. The term "net capital gain" means the amount by which your net long-term capital gain for the year is more than your net short-term capital loss. The highest tax rate on a net capital gain is generally 15% (or 5%, if it would otherwise be taxed at 15% or less). There are 3 exceptions:
The taxable part of a gain from qualified small business stock is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.
Net capital gain from selling collectibles such as coins or art is taxed at a maximum 28% rate.
The part of any net capital gain from selling Section 1250 real property that is due to recapture of straight-line depreciation is taxed at a maximum 25% rate. "
The important part is that your long term capital gains are pegged based on your tax bracket. If you would normally pay more than 15% in taxes, your capital gains are 15%. If you would pay less, you pay only 5%. Short term capital gains are just figured as normal income and taxed as below.
And here are the tax schedules (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=13351
"If taxable income is over-- But not over-- The tax is:
$0 $7,300 10% of the amount over $0
$7,300 $29,700 $730 plus 15% of the amount over 7,300
$29,700 $71,950 $4,090.00 plus 25% of the amount over 29,700
$71,950 $150,150 $14,652.50 plus 28% of the amount over 71,950
$150,150 $326,450 $36,548.50 plus 33% of the amount over 150,150
$326,450 no limit $94,727.50 plus 35% of the amount over 326,450 "
So, if you earn $1 billion from the sale of stock held over one year, with only $1 dollar in actual income, you pay ($1 billion * 5%) $50 million (since the tax rate on $1 is 10%, which is less than 15%). If, however, you earned a $1 million salary, then cashed out $1 billion in stock, you'd pay ($1 billion * 15% = $150 million) + ($94,727.50 + (1 million - 326,450)*35% = $330,470) = $150,330,470.
By paying themselves $1 per year, they saved themselves over $100 million. Yeah, it was completely altruistic. Altruistic like a fox!
You should try applying to big insurance companies, apparently they love you old farts. I just started at one here in Texas, and at 34 I'm the youngin' on the team. The next youngest is 42, and it goes up from there.
I'm think you're absolutely correct, it reflects completely on the administration that you thought it plausible that someone would say that.
Oh, btw, did you know the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?
The first thing I would do is Google ingenuity and innovation
What does the "Natural Gas Technologies II Conference - Ingenuity & Innovation" have to do with anything?
Seriously, I don't know how porn makes any money with the amount of free stuff available.
The same way most Open Source projects do: consulting fees! Who wouldn't pay Nicole from WeLiveTogether.com to do some "one-on-one consulting"?
If these guys were spending their days ripping DVDs and CDs rather than doing something productive (like, you know, reading Slashdot), chances are not all of the $88,000 in equipment was used for that purpose. Wonder how much they've got sitting at home, or what their eBay IDs are.
Now we can further separate the technocracy from the unwashed masses who don't have cell phones or know how to use them. Holding the population in thrall is becoming easier every day...
Did you see "Blackhawk Down"? Remember the scene when the US troops start their airlift into Mogadishu? Remember the little boy on the rooftop, reporting their movement with a (wait for it...) cell phone?? And that happened over 10 years ago, and cell phones were still common enough in one of the poorest nations on earth that they were used by common people. There are countries in Africa today who still don't have hot water and electricity in every home, but everyone's got a cell phone. So I don't see this as a "tool of the technocracy", I see this as bringing progress to people over thin air.
If the turnaround time is quick enough, I imagine that some individuals might only pay for tickets via SMS when they see the ticket controller coming towards them and ride free the rest of the time.
It would be trivial to put a timestamp on the ticket. If yours is from after the train left the station, it's no good. Or better yet, just have the system bill you an extra couple (bucks|quid|whatever the slang term for moolah is in Finland) for buying the ticket after the train left the station. How hard is that?
That said, my intent here is to address specific concerns of the Slashdot user base. To be more directly accountable.
And for that, (I|we) thank you. It's nice to know that, even if you guys don't take all of the suggestions your readers give you, at least you're actively aware of what we see as problems and are willing to address them head on. Even if your version of addressing them is to tell people "I don't think it's a big deal, so I'm not changing anything."
If you think Congresss can prevent me, a free citizen, from starting businesses elsewhere with my money, I'm freaked.
"Can" and "should" are two different things, my friend. Though there are times when it makes sense for the government to prevent its citizens from investing in foreign countries. Like when they're actively at war with someone, and want to prevent any resources from reaching the enemy.
If I want more peace, I'll consider the better way to spread it -- buy the products of the poorest people to help them gain wealth.
It's certainly more moral, and probably more effective in the long run, no argument there.
Oh, and thanks, you, too.
I don't completely agree with your interpretation of the Commerce Clause, but I don't entirely disagree with it, either. I agree that its original intent was to prevent States from interferring with interstate commerce, or even international (so Virginia, for example, can't raise tariffs against baskets from Georgia, and Texas can't have tariffs against oil from overseas), but it, coupled with Congress's ability to set tariffs, means they do have the power to regulate any business activity which crosses internal or external borders. Just the ability to set tariffs alone is enough to prevent American companies from doing business overseas. Note that you don't have to agree this power should be used to acknowledge it exists.
Considering that the US wasn't a democracy but a Republican Federalist Union of Independent States, I can't agree. Washington himself said trade with everyone, entangle alliances with no one.
You're splitting hairs. The US has a strategic national interest in not being attacked. The more free, both economically and politically, other countries are, the less likely it is they will attack us. Ergo, we have an interest in fostering freedom around the world. And you can't really quote Washington in foreign policy. He had his strengths, but in his heart he was just a farmer from Virginia who wanted to be left alone. That's not always an option.
"There's nothing immoral in, effectively, blockading China's ability to buy software from American companies."
That's anti-liberty and undeniably tyrannical. Let consumers make their own decisions.
Except that the "consumer" we're talking about is a blood thirsty monster. You would agree that it's sensible to prevent murderers from buying guns, right? So why wouldn't you prevent dictators from buying [insert evil software here]?
we are at war with dozens of economies, we've demanded petrodollar use for decades and we're on the verge of collapse if we don't stop this imperialism
"War". You keep saying that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
But just to prove the world isn't completely off its kilt, I do agree whole-heartedly that we need to do something about the fiat "money" we're using, and the ability of the Fed to arbitrarily control the economy.
Nope, nothing here giving Congress any authority to regulate business in the U.S., let alone China.
Wrong on both counts. The Interstate Commerce Clause gives Congress broad authority to regulate business within the borders of the US, and various trade treaties approved by the Senate give the government strong powers at regulating the activities of American companies in other countries. In addition, the Federal government explicitly has the authority to level taxes and tariffs on all commerce coming in, or going out, of its territories. So, yes, the federales can tell Microsoft where they can and can't sell their products.
Even leaving all that aside, it can be argued that the US has a strong strategic interest in seeing democracy flourish around the globe. Companies which empower countries to keep a chain around their citizens' necks shouldn't be able to plead "We have no choice, we have to do as they say!" Because they do have a choice, and that choice is not to do business in those countries. There's nothing immoral in, effectively, blockading China's ability to buy software from American companies. Whether it would be effective is a different argument which I am avoiding.
FWIW, China isn't the worst government. I know of one that warmongers in 100 countries as we speak, forcing oil-buying countries to use this Empire's currency, all the while stomping on its own citizens' rights and freedoms while pretending to defend liberty.
Oh, please, now you're just trolling. We're not actively at war with any other country currently, we don't force anyone to use our currency (in fact, the Congress was about to levy sanctions on China if they didn't stop pegging their currency to ours exclusively), and if our rights and liberties were as jeopardized as you seem to be claiming you'd be in jail right now, or worse.
I usually agree whole-heartedly with what you write, dada, but you seem to have some wild hair up your butt that's making you spout nonsense today. What gives?
More great Franklin quotes (not all from Poor Richard's):
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats.
A life of leisure and a life of laziness are two things. There will be sleeping enough in the grave.
A place for everything, everything in its place.
A penny saved is a penny earned.
At twenty years of age the will reigns; at thirty, the wit; and at forty, the judgment.
Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none.
Keep your eyes wide open before marriage, half shut afterwards.
And the thought that in modern times he'd be locked up under the PATRIOT act is truly sad...
Well, the government he was born under would've hanged him if they could. So being locked up in prison actually shows some progress.
"Gentleman, we must all hang together, or we will surely all hang seperately." B. Franklin
You'd never call an email a webpage.
You would if you were a technological moron, which, it seems to me, most of the people pushing "Web 2.0" are.
It is true that the way people are using the web is becoming more pervasive and that developers are creating more user friendly and dynamic sites. But to say this makes it a fundamentally different medium (which seems to be what the Web 2.0 crowd are implying) is just silly. It is an upgrade over what came before, so it that sense "2.0" makes sense. But the hype, oh the hype!, will it never end?