"Another point, where are the "innocent Americans" that are being spied on?"
We don't know. That's a secret.
"Can you name one?"
If we did, we would probably get disappeared.
"Has anyone been prosecuted based on such spying?"
Why bother with prosecution? Just throw them in a dark hole. Or export them to a foreign power who will torture a confession out of them.
"Do you think an "innocent American" who had no involvement in terrorism would have any trouble at all getting such evidence thrown out?"
You're having real trouble with this "innocent until proven guilty" thing, aren't you? You understand that the writ of habeas corpus is, to all intents and purposes, GONE in this case. You're a terrorist if some pencil pusher decides you're a terrorist, and you have no due process rights after that point.
The Constitution exists to protect us from the government. The government is much better funded, organized, and capable than terrorists are.
How do you figure? According to what Google says, they're not going to block google.com from Chinese readers. However, in order to do business in China, they had to play by Chinese rules. And I happen to think that some access to information is better than none.
The fact that Google stands to make money is not relevant. They're doing the best they can in a bad situation, one not of their making.
"that they would have a no-confidence vote and replace you."
Then, if your moral duty is to do something that gets you fired, you do it. There aren't excuses.
I happen to think that censored Google in China is better for the Chinese people than no Google in China, so I don't really understand what everybody's so torqued about.
Marketing people do an excellent job of marketing their discipline to them what pays their salaries.
I won't argue that marketing can and does color perceptions. I will argue that it doesn't MAKE (as in, force) anybody to do anything. We are still beings with free will, and it is incumbent upon us to exercise that will, and (here's the rub) take responsibility for those actions.
Only if people permit themselves to be deceived. All the advertising dollars in the world won't influence my decisions a whit. Why? Because they're MY DECISIONS, and I don't choose to allow the advertising to cloud my judgement.
I absolutely will not agree that marketing "makes" anybody do anything. Will it influence them, if they permit it to? Absolutely. Will it make anybody do anything they weren't already predisposed to do? Absolutely not.
Grow a spine and quit your whining. Either the hardware performs according to your requirements, and you buy it, or it doesn't, and you don't. Crying about "giving in to the marketing" is absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
"Another point, where are the "innocent Americans" that are being spied on?"
We don't know. That's a secret.
"Can you name one?"
If we did, we would probably get disappeared.
"Has anyone been prosecuted based on such spying?"
Why bother with prosecution? Just throw them in a dark hole. Or export them to a foreign power who will torture a confession out of them.
"Do you think an "innocent American" who had no involvement in terrorism would have any trouble at all getting such evidence thrown out?"
You're having real trouble with this "innocent until proven guilty" thing, aren't you? You understand that the writ of habeas corpus is, to all intents and purposes, GONE in this case. You're a terrorist if some pencil pusher decides you're a terrorist, and you have no due process rights after that point.
The Constitution exists to protect us from the government. The government is much better funded, organized, and capable than terrorists are.
How do you figure? According to what Google says, they're not going to block google.com from Chinese readers. However, in order to do business in China, they had to play by Chinese rules. And I happen to think that some access to information is better than none.
The fact that Google stands to make money is not relevant. They're doing the best they can in a bad situation, one not of their making.
If he hadn't gotten that money by exploiting an illegal monopoly, I might think that was a kinda cool thing.
Gates is a robber baron.
I've got a better idea.
How about we stop trying to make fictional characters "poster children" for how kids ought to grow up?
Call me crazy.
Uh huh. What's your point?
This argument is precisely why some of the Framers opposed the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution does not say "these are the things people get to do." It says "These are the things that the Government is not allowed to do."
Seems to me like these things need to be done by stating a principle, and sticking to it. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.
What does that have to do with liberalism?
"I'm not sure she's the best way to tell women that it's OK to enter male-dominated fields."
So there are only certain prejudices and stereotypes that you think should change? The ones about gay people are OK?
"that they would have a no-confidence vote and replace you."
Then, if your moral duty is to do something that gets you fired, you do it. There aren't excuses.
I happen to think that censored Google in China is better for the Chinese people than no Google in China, so I don't really understand what everybody's so torqued about.
People keep saying this, and I'd love to see an example.
Malfeasance? Yes, executives can and should be liable for that. How could a court possibly determine "maximum shareholder value"?
That moist "splat" sound was the joke hitting you in the forehead. Good catch.
Your parent poster was talking about a G5. You bought a G4. What do you disagree about, exactly?
"The average Smoky McPotts Mac freak"
What ARE you talking about?
I worship styrofoam coffee cups, you insensitive clod!
Huh. If it had been my deal, they'd have given up the root passwords before I cut the check.
Again, I say: Grow a spine. Take responsibility for your choices, because nobody but you is going to make them.
Marketing people do an excellent job of marketing their discipline to them what pays their salaries.
I won't argue that marketing can and does color perceptions. I will argue that it doesn't MAKE (as in, force) anybody to do anything. We are still beings with free will, and it is incumbent upon us to exercise that will, and (here's the rub) take responsibility for those actions.
"Marketing made me do it" is a cop out.
I absolutely DO have conscious control over who I give my money to.
Only if people permit themselves to be deceived. All the advertising dollars in the world won't influence my decisions a whit. Why? Because they're MY DECISIONS, and I don't choose to allow the advertising to cloud my judgement.
I absolutely will not agree that marketing "makes" anybody do anything. Will it influence them, if they permit it to? Absolutely. Will it make anybody do anything they weren't already predisposed to do? Absolutely not.
"Did such an idealized system of law ever exist? May it yet?"
Point the first: HAH! Yeah right.
Point the second: As long as there are lawyers, and money to be made from complicated laws, no.
I just get so impatient with this notion that marketing makes people do things. It makes me tetchy. : )
"and gave in to the marketing"
Grow a spine and quit your whining. Either the hardware performs according to your requirements, and you buy it, or it doesn't, and you don't. Crying about "giving in to the marketing" is absurd.
"Way back in the pre-Carly days, when HP did engineering"
Yeah, the computer industry has sure changed since 1983.
(I kid, I kid!)
Why bother with voting when you can buy whoever wins the election?