"I'm pretty sure it's not that we don't know about the work, it's because we don't want to work with 30 year old men who sit in their parents basement looking at porn all day."
Because that's not a totally bigoted preconception, is it?
"The Intuit way of life is unraveling and polar bears are facing massive die-offs because the arctic ice is freezing later and breaking up earlier every year."
OK, Quicken doesn't work very well for me, either, but what does that have to do with polar bears?
"The proposition that law enforcement shouldn't be able to use public information to prosecute crimes is ludicrous."
The proposition that they should be allowed to accrete un-vetted data into data warehouses that will be used for criminal investigations is even more ludicrous.
"I see no problem with the simple viewing of public data by "people with guns"."
If it were an officer acting on a tip, "Hey, I saw this video of a guy getting capped...Officer, you need to take a look at this and investigate", that's not a problem.
That's not what we're talking about here.
I want to know what data the authorities are getting from these public resources. I want to know what they're doing with it, and how they're verifying its accuracy before coercive action is taken. I do not believe that a free society can be continuously surveilled, and remain free.
The government should not be allowed to datamine that information, and accrete it into legally actionable "evidence", because they have the legal authority to coerce citizens into complying with their wishes.
If I publish something stupid on myspace and my gf/mom/prospective boss finds out, that's my fault. Getting arrested, on the other hand...that's not acceptable.
Here's my question. Is there really some sort of terrorist cell using MySpace to coordinate attacks? Seems like a pretty silly idea to me. Again, it's a power grab by the law enforcement authorities to surveil the populace at large.
You're right. I think they should just start building dossiers on everybody. What could possibly go wrong? Where's J. Edgar Hoover and Dick Nixon when you need 'em?
Fifteen whole days? Come on. I can't get a mail in rebate processed that fast, never mind an application to meet with the head of state of a major nation.
The article I read at the introduction of the iTMS said that Apple's intention was originally to not include DRM on the tracks they sold, but the RIAA would not permit them a license.
Maybe it's whitewash, maybe not...but since the iTMS isn't a profit center for Apple, it's hard to understand why they'd care one way or the other about DRM.
Sure, it locks people into iPods, and I'm sure that's a factor, but wouldn't they like to sell more tracks?
Apple has to do exactly what the RIAA told them they had to do in order to get permission to sell record albums. Again: The RIAA is who deserves your ire. If I had to pick a benevolent dictator, I'll take Apple over Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just trying to understand which set of bigoted jokes is acceptable. I think it should be either all of them, or none of them.
Am I offended? Nah. I certainly don't take the opinions of ignorant people seriously. I do think that it's a shame, though.
"sexist" is a subset of "bigoted".
"I'm pretty sure it's not that we don't know about the work, it's because we don't want to work with 30 year old men who sit in their parents basement looking at porn all day."
Because that's not a totally bigoted preconception, is it?
"are just monuments to the terrible and dihonest ways Andrew Carnegy gained his vast fortune"
Pretty much, yeah. That's what I think of when I see his name. Which is spelled "Carnegie".
There are still new features in Vista?
""fundamentalist" scientists"
No you don't.
"who believe the Bible literally and still subscribe to an old Earth"
No they don't. (believe the Bible literally, that is)
"The Intuit way of life is unraveling and polar bears are facing massive die-offs because the arctic ice is freezing later and breaking up earlier every year."
OK, Quicken doesn't work very well for me, either, but what does that have to do with polar bears?
Proof by assertion! Film at 11. Sure am glad we've got you around to tell us how it is!
Treaties are legislation. The treaty acquires the force of law when ratified by Congress. No treaty trumps the Constitution.
"You can't investigate something and consider it un-evaluated."
Cold comfort if you're subjected to extraordinary rendition.
Vigilance, by the citizenry, against those who would take away that freedom. You have it backwards.
"The proposition that law enforcement shouldn't be able to use public information to prosecute crimes is ludicrous."
The proposition that they should be allowed to accrete un-vetted data into data warehouses that will be used for criminal investigations is even more ludicrous.
"I see no problem with the simple viewing of public data by "people with guns"."
If it were an officer acting on a tip, "Hey, I saw this video of a guy getting capped...Officer, you need to take a look at this and investigate", that's not a problem.
That's not what we're talking about here.
I want to know what data the authorities are getting from these public resources. I want to know what they're doing with it, and how they're verifying its accuracy before coercive action is taken. I do not believe that a free society can be continuously surveilled, and remain free.
The government should not be allowed to datamine that information, and accrete it into legally actionable "evidence", because they have the legal authority to coerce citizens into complying with their wishes.
If I publish something stupid on myspace and my gf/mom/prospective boss finds out, that's my fault. Getting arrested, on the other hand...that's not acceptable.
Here's my question. Is there really some sort of terrorist cell using MySpace to coordinate attacks? Seems like a pretty silly idea to me. Again, it's a power grab by the law enforcement authorities to surveil the populace at large.
You're right. I think they should just start building dossiers on everybody. What could possibly go wrong? Where's J. Edgar Hoover and Dick Nixon when you need 'em?
Oooh, that was not pretty. You just got schooled.
"They", huh? Righto. Check that chinstrap.
Again: If that's a concern for you, do not install it. What's the problem?
If you really really think that Google is going to take over your computer, I suggest not installing their software.
I also recommend installing a big, shiny chinstrap on your tinfoil hat. You know that the mind control rays come up from the ground now, right?
Whoops! Head of Government, not head of state. Those crazy parliamentary democracies. : )
I'm not one to subscribe to stereotypes, but I'm pretty sure this is not the first time somebody French has been impolite. There is no story here.
Fifteen whole days? Come on. I can't get a mail in rebate processed that fast, never mind an application to meet with the head of state of a major nation.
Let's be a bit realistic, shall we?
Hmm...I wonder if there are some people who might be able to use this device, that don't have access to a boat in the middle of the Pacific?
No, probably not. So you're right...it's useless.
The article I read at the introduction of the iTMS said that Apple's intention was originally to not include DRM on the tracks they sold, but the RIAA would not permit them a license.
Maybe it's whitewash, maybe not...but since the iTMS isn't a profit center for Apple, it's hard to understand why they'd care one way or the other about DRM.
Sure, it locks people into iPods, and I'm sure that's a factor, but wouldn't they like to sell more tracks?
Apple has to do exactly what the RIAA told them they had to do in order to get permission to sell record albums. Again: The RIAA is who deserves your ire. If I had to pick a benevolent dictator, I'll take Apple over Microsoft.
Then protest the RIAA. Apple isn't doing anything wrong, or unethical.
So don't buy from the iTunes music store. Your problem, she is solved.
Says you. Apparently, other people have a different opinion. Shocking, that.