Be wary about saying "always" at one time we were "always" free to select competing phone companies over verizon. Now at least in many states the idea has become a joke.
I agree with you that they haven't put anyone (save googlebombers) out of business yet. But still, why should we be rah rahing everything?
Google is rapidly expanding to the point where they seem poised to be the Ma Bell, AT&T, Microsoft, or Verizon of the online world. No criticism of their work and all but I like a little competition in my world.
(Of course, if dead cats work then the perhaps real quote would work too.)
Re: Fire in a Crowded Theater
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
The key to your point is "too accessable" Porn is widely accessable on the internet but it is nowhere fosted upon people unwillingly. Porn providers do not erect giant billboards or do the equivalent of jabbing needles into people willy-nilly.
In order to get porn on the net you have to: a) procure a computer b) procure an internet connection c) search for porn via google or some other method, and d) click on said link. Noone is forcing porn on you nor are they taking out the time to mainline it into your veins.
It seems to me that your real beef is that it isn't hard to get. The fact of the matter is that it takes an act of will (and computer technology) to obtain it now. There is little meaningful difference between that and adding a password to the whole business.
As to the implied point that kids can get it easily, I would point out that we have laws regularing the flow of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs and yet minors are still able to obtain them. On a good day such laws slow things down, a little bit. With porn as with underage drinking it is up to the parents to monitor their children and not the rest of the world to involuntarily alter its behavior on the off chance a child will get in.
Do not think that this is a flippant point or that I am insensitive to the difficulty in controlling children. My point is that mandated adult-checks and so on are not a viable solution because then we are still left arguing about what is "adult" and who gets to apply the standards. I would argue that most news and virtually all of the Bible constitutes "adult" matetrial but I would also argue that we gain nothing by locking that behind closed doors.
The bottom line is that:
Porn is not being "forced" on anyone.
There exists no point at which we can legally define 'art' or 'adult' that isn't going to lead down a garden path of argument until real problems (say the AIDS crisis) only get discussed behind closed doors, if at all.
The function of child rearing is to raise children to act in this world not to bring the world, or adults, down to their level.
Programming languages come and go (anyone remember ADA?) as do development tools and development enviornments. If you want to learn how to use a particular tool then just take a class in that but I would argue that won't take you very far.
My undergrad featured the theory, algorithms, etc courses. The only 'language course' that I took was from another student. I would argue that any computer scientist/programmer/engineer should be able to pick up new languages and new tools on their own. An understanding of the basis of the science, of the field, of why it works not just how, is instrumental there.
If you want to stay employed then you should have a deep enough understanding of the field to pick up and even develop new tools. That level of understanding will also help you to employ the tools in a better way. If you just want to tie yourself to a single tool then so be it but as it goes, so goes your marketability.
A few points.
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Consider this -- prior to the Internet, law enforcement believed that child porn had been basically wiped out. It was a crime from a previous age, like body snatching. But then came the Web. Between 1996 and 2004, child-porn cases handled by the FBI increased 23 fold. The research presented in Pornified argues that technology does not merely make it easier to serve an existing desire, it allows deep exposure that for many people results in stronger and more specific versions of the the original demand.
The problem with this argument is that it follows the racial-profiling logic. I have caught more poeple who look like x then x's are more likely. It is arguing from noisy evidence. As has been shown with suicide rates a rise in reporting or a change in who is making the arrests (the FBI versus local or state law enforcement) does not mean that crime itself has gone up. It could be the case that the FBI chose to ignore child porn issues before or that local law enforcement shifted from covering up cases or classifying them one way (child abduction) to another (child porn).
As the recent scandals in the Catholic Church demonstrated many cases of abuse have gone unreported or underreported for years not because they weren't happening but because those in power, or those victimized chose not to pursue them.
Paul presents most of this neutrally, but you can sense contempt for non-pornographic websites that link to porn sites, or endorse them. She doesn't name any names, but the savvy reader will recognize Fark as one of her targets, and I suspect that Farkers figure among her interviewees.
If you can sense her contempt for one group or another then it isn't a neutral representation.
As a methodological point, if she is drawing most of her interviewees from a single source (e.g. the Fark community) or selecting them by virtue of their kinks then she is biasing her results and her presentation and then we cannot generalize her sample to a larger audience (say all males) (more on this below).
Such "smut" can be defended, of course, and the book gives defenders their say. The obvious response is "porn has been around forever, so stop complaining that it is suddenly a threat to society." But it seems to me that this response is disingenuous. You can't compare an issue of Playboy and the Atari 2600 cartridge of "Custer's Revenge" to the seamless infinity of smut that lives on the Internet today.
But the comparison of Custer's revenge to the "seamless infinity of smut..." is a fallacious example. Your very choice of these two to compare shows a bias. You have offered a not-so-bad concrete example and an abstract exaggeration. A better (less biased) comparison would be between a specific piece of pornography (say a Jenna Jameson Video), and the naked dancers of ancient rome, or the Harem of Solomon. If you prefer literary comparisons we could compare some online erotic stories to the Song of Solomon from the Bible ("My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him."). Comparisons of this time are useful and valid, comparisons of the type you presented are, by their nature, extreme and biased because of it.
The second major response to the claims in this book follows the First Amendment. Regardless of harm, we must not start down the slippery slope of restricting access to objectionable material. Paul considers this, but her the book discusses concrete harm, and she argues that civil liberties are not absolute where one person's rights hurt other people (not many argue for their right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater, for example).
Yes we do have limits where we bump up against the rights of others and, as Thomas Jefferson put it in his "Notes on the State of Virginia"
a) While Hamdi has been removed from Guantano (where we was held for some time) he is still being held without trial, bail, or even being charged with a crime. Jose Padilla is also being held without trial or the ability to mount a meaningful defense. It is relatively (indeed entirely) immaterial where their cells are located the fact is they are still being denied their constitutional rights.
Your comments are illogical at best. If you read closely you will see that I was making directed criticisms about the treatment of U.S. Citizens. I presented no "Malformed picture" and I stand by what I said.
As to your comments about "Nobody arresting me" and "Nobody searching my library records" I would point out that a) I never claimed I would be arrested but then I'm not muslim. And b) My library records (and yours) can be searched by the FBI at any time. The only requirement is a directive issued from the FBI itself. It is not a FISA warrant or indeed subject to any initial review. That, certainly, the fact of being investigated for what we read is not free speech.
As to your 3 points. The full text of the act can be found here. The act consists of a total of 10 Titles each of which enumerates multiple changes to the law including delayed notice of warrant execution, library searches, increased use of "administrative warrants" which see no judicial review (not even from the FISA court, and so on. I suggest that you read the text of the act and consider how the changes it implements can be used by others, and expanded on before you claim that it is "just 3 things"
While False information is generally covered as Slander or Libel "Scandalous" and "Malicious" wiritng is simply anything oppositional to the current govenrment. That includes almost all politicial speech except that desired by the current officeholders. This would include all of the Clinton-Bashing that was published during his office (some of which included unfounded accusations). The same would be true of any and all things critical of the bush administration including news reports of their manipulating WMD evidence.
At the DNC and RNC conventions protestors (even licenced ones) were either a) moved to fenced-in areas well away from the conventions or (in the case of the RNC conventions blocked off and arrested non-violent marchers (with permits) (see here). I'd consider these pretty unambiguous attacks on "the rights of people to peacably assemble and petition their government for a redress of greivances." !st Amendement to the Constitution of the United States.
In other notes we have violations of due process in the case of Jose Padilla and other U.S. Citizens. For example Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." Which requires jury trials for those accused not secret military tribunals. Amendments V and VI also speak to this subject:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
And before you jump on the point I would point out that the Military Tiribunals are not being convened against members of the U.S. Military (' In service in war or in time of public danger') so that clause of Amendment V doesn't give carte Blanche for them.
On another note both the USAPATRIOT act and various federal laws dealing with drugs routinely allow for the unwarranted search and seizure of private property in some cases such property is not returned even when no conviction takes place. This would be (IMHO) a violation of Amendment IV of the constitution which states:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
While we're on the topic of drugs. Excessive punishments and jail times have routinely been employed in this area noteably including California's 3-strikes policy which leads to life in prison even for 3 minor crimes (any 3 frauds including possession). Agasin in my opinion this would be a severe issue with Amendment VIII:
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
As a key point I would also mention this amendment:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other
If Congress passed legislation that strengthened and expanded copyright protection to include design elements as well as software's source code, formalizing the way the courts interpreted the law in the 1970s, we could bring an end to software patents and this short, unhappy blip in our patent system's time line.
Except that that would leave Microsoft (and all the rest of us) open to "look and feel" style lawsuits. Every gui developer would face a landmine and every app that performs a similar function (say a word processor) would face claims of "similar design elements".
VeriChip advocates argue it could help in these circumstances.
So people who make and sell a technology that hasn't caught on (because noone wants it) are tying it to a recent and horrific disaster in an effort to make people want it. Boy I wish that I could say that this is the first time it happened.
But in the wake of 9/11 with Oracle other RFID makers and all the face-recognition people jamming the halls of congress to say "If you bought our crap this wouldn't happen." People just can't wait to jump on the ashes and dig for gold.
I believe it was Oscar Wilde who discussed the problem of "Soulless Commerce" "Irrespective of the true cost to the nation".
The flap has yet to end. The story is still on the front page of Google News and I suspect at least a few papers across the country. Some Pols are still calling for hearings and some groups are still rattling their sabres over it. ESRB and Rockstar may want it to be over. We in the/. community may want it to be over but I assure you other people do not. In things like this we play all 9 innings, and it ain't over till everyone says it is.
At the Republican and Democratic national conventions police have begun creating "Free Speech Zones" located inside barbed wire fences often miles from the actual convention site. People inside these zones were still, in some cases, subject to behavior restrictions (no shouting etc. At the RNC convention in new york police shut down a permitted march and arrested large numbers of people for being on the sidewalk or doing what they were otherwize told they could do. Many of those convinctions were subsequently thrown out and the police were rebuked both for arresting non-violent demontrators and for excessive use of force.
At the Central American Free-Trade Agreement minesterial in florida last year unarmed and non-violent protestors were shot with bean-bag guns and rubber bullets (in theory non-lethal but they can in fact kill or at least cause permanent soft-tissue damage). Judges there are still sorting out the damage.
Bill makes a point here of bemoaning the future of U.S. Programmers but then he has made a profit off of outsourcing. Microsoft, along with HP has been among the big name tech firms pushing for laws to ease both outsourcing and the introduction of non-american workers in the U.S. In the 90's microsoft joined with HP and Intel in pushing for more guest worker visas that would enable them to bring in programmers from other countries on the condition that they a) are exempt from some U.S. laws (e.g. maximum work hours) and b) that they are dependent upon the goodwill of their employer to remain in the country. This used to be called "Bond Slavery" back when it was legal.
While I'm all for investment in research and education in the U.S. I get a little tired of people like Bill who have actively promoted some of the key problems now bemoaning them.
I'll begin spelling out the sentencing issue then get onto the humour.
Extrme Punishment Really, I'm not kidding this is a first-class idea. After all extending sentences to the point of life has worked so well for us in the War on Drugs! Really, you may think I'm being sarcastic but I'm not.
Over the years we have steadily increased the minimum punishments available for certain crimes on the general assumption that more fear for the criminals is better. This has reached an extreme in places like California whose 3-strikes law mandates that all triple felons (tax cheats and teenagers using the wacky weed included) go to jail For Life.
This benevolent program has blessed the state with a large and growing prison population that can make things like license plates, or just sit around and be a drain on the economy when they are no threat to anyone. It has also given California a large commercial prison system which cost the state untold dollars, and employs many fine and underpaid guards as well as passing large amounts of money off to contractors to build ever more large and dangerous prisons.
At present the state has found that by diverting at least drug addicts into treatment rather than the 3-strikes system they save as much as $300,000 per.
Moreover, despite ever-tougher sentencing there is no proof, in California, New York or anywhere else that these sentences have acted to reduce crime in any meaningful sense. One could argue that people should be afraid of the law and I will grant you that people are but there is no evidence that I have seen which proves (in a meaningful sense) that this changes the actions of criminals in any overall sense. Crime existed before, and it still exists.
As to the death penalty, despite normative arguments to the contrary there is no hard evidence that it has deterred even one criminal. States that use it have as much or more crime than those that don't. Similarly, states that have abandonded it (Illinois) have seen no attendent growth in crime. One could argue that this is a fluke I suppose but one cannot argue that it is positive evidence for the penalty.
At best the death penalty gives us a "Cathartic Release" as one author put it. But as Illinois' last governor noted that catharsis is not worth the lives of innocent people who are executed. And make no mistake, innocent people sometimes do get sent to jail.
So yeah, in light of the staggering evidence that meting out unreasonable and excessive punishments does nothing to reduce crime but only costs us unreasonable amounts of money and, probably, gets in the way of real solutions to our problems, I think that we should dive headfirst onto that rock.
Humour The real purpose of the column, I suspect, was not to advocate the death penalty (but you never know) I suspect that it was really his attempt to make humour out of the situation (smelly socks) and to complain that the Germans aren't punishing their crackers enough. This is, as I see it, basically a joke. The problem is that at the core of the joke is the idea that more extreme sentencing is needed.
While the cathartic joy of knowing that the latest Sasser guy is sent to AOL's Helldesk for life is there that relly won't help anyone but AOL.
Personally I favor the idea of community service (perhaps more than 30 hours perhaps not). I want to see someone who causes such destruction help others in a meaningful way. I want to see them giving free computer classes to children in public schools, or helping libraries to setup their systems (under supervision) or help build something of value.
The bottom line is that there are two ways to think about crime and punishment. The first is to seek catharsis, to salve the basic desires for vengance or some public demonstration of retribution. This view favors things like the death penalty and lends itself to the state of affairs we have now, ever increasing prison terms, ever increasing pri
You can send Online comments here by clicking on the "Submit Comments or Position Statements" link. Alternately you can e-mail your comments to vote@nist.gov.
I spoke to one of the committee members Allan Eustis. He stated that their mandate is to provide "Initial Recommendations of Voluntary Guidelines" this coming April. These guidelines will likely follow and overlap with the FEC2000 Guidelines and will apply to all parties in the "voting community" (States, Vendors, etc.). He stated that they would be unlikely to do a great deal before the election other than gather info as they have no budget until then.
While he was on the phone with me another individual in his office was complaining about the security challenges that they will have in dealing with some public comment (I am assuming this one). Apparently checking in guests at the gate ain't easy.
I dispute all of your claims but I'll start with the bit about Air Traffic and Toll Roads.
The airline industry is typically regarded as an economic success. People are able to go further for less money and in greater safety than if they drove. This crucial safety (which makes flying so attractive to the market) is accomplished by regulation. As you pointed out the Air Traffic controller and the nation's air-traffic control system (considered by many to be integral to security) is a single network designed and run by the federal government who sets national standards for airport operation, flight operation, pilot training, etc.
All of this regulation not only makes flying safer (a crucial point if it is to be successful) but it maes it possible for airlines of all sizes to operate. If every airport was different, and every town was a new adventure to fly to then the cost of travel would be considerably more as airline pilots would be required to learn a new standard set of rules for each airport and for each place. The time taken to go from place to place would increase. All of this would work to shut smaller airlines out of the market in favor of the larger, already established companies. Similarly the smaller airports would become less and less served as only the really big runs, the cash cows would be favored, as each small airport, without federal aid would probably fall into disrepair, or at least not be able to keep up with the bigger cities.
As to toll roads, consider first that it took federal dollars to build the existing roads and that even in states with toll road (in my experience) the roads do not pay for themselves. Rather the tolls only act to offset the state dollars that must be invested in them to keep them maintained. Without these roads the ability to move produce, to connect different parts of the state would be adversely impacted thus adversely effecting the economy in general. Making them toll roads to help offset costs is one idea but it will never be a viable way to privatize all road construction. And, how will you ensure that the roads are usable without regulating the way in which they are constructed? Even if you do privatize it the state will still have to be involved.
As to urban sprawl. I personally do not like it but privatizing the infrastructure won't change that.
Look at all of the infrastructure that has been privatized in the past. All of it (in my experience), from the deregulated phone services to the deregulated power in California, to privatized water has been more expensive than municipal services.
In general, a "free market" cannot operate without some infrastructural support, and regulation to make it feasible. Without that monopolies grow and your ability to "vote with your feet" becomes a joke. Take a look at the old trusts of the 1800's They had no regulation, and the people had no freedom.
First you tell me a story that seems to support privatization. Then you tell me it is not true and follow up by listing a source of many other false stories. Then you list the myth (what is the distinction between a "government" inspector and a "public" one). You then conclude by stating (without any proof that I can see) that privatization is good.
I have seen several of your posters that include, among other things, the following bullet point: "Every Federal Regulator that we fire produces 150 new jobs, enough to re-hire all of those federal regulators and the able-bodied poor."
What I wanted to know is, how does that work exactlly. If I were to say fire a building safety inspector, an Air Traffic controller, or an inspector with the FDA how would that produce jobs? And, how would we guarantee that no adverse effect (salmopnella in the food) would result?
Funny thing is that I haven't heard this mentioned by any American media. Not even NPR. It should be all over the place. The fact that it isn't speaks very loudly about that media.
I know, every time I see "the media" (CNN, Fox News, etc) patting themselves on the back about their "tireless crusades" I get a little nauseous.
Lately, the more I watch the more I'm convinced that the whole "Fourth Estate" is run by people who see their job as "nannies to the masses" rather than speakers of truth to power. Then again I doubt that it's ever been much different.
Blackboxvoting.org is the best source for any election-machine info (such as which party's contributors run Diebold). Greg Palast is an American living in England who writes news for the London Sunday Observer.
The fact is that Every source you turn to is biased. I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as unbiased journalism becuase journalists are people with finite amounts of time on their hands and finite column-inches to fill. They have to decide who they interview and how much of that material to use. I doubt that most of them (save those at Fox News) go into it with a definite story in mind and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, biases appear in reporting. Couple this with the fact that all news outlets have a distinct audience and that their preceptions of that audience shapes their reporting to the extent that they wish to attract new audience members and avoid losing old ones. This qorks out differently for Indymedia than it does for CNN but the pressure is still there.
The bottom line is that all you can do (as others have pointed out) is to cast as diverse a net as possible and then to look, as much as is possible, for the nuggets of truth in each one. Just be wary for many people the line between reality and fiction is no longer a barrier.
As to government documents, I wouldn't diss them. They are the one true source of info that we have about the workings of our government. And, so long as Some People can be held in check
Most of em are also not of the same generation as those who use P2P. By and large the people who will be using Kazaa (so far as I can tell) are those in the 16-29 crowd wheras (the last time that I checked) most U.S. Lawmakers were in the 35+ crowd. Moreover the U.S. (unlike other countries such as France) does not make a habit of electing technically trained individuals. We have a few doctors and Psychologists (3 total in Congress I believe), but by and large out lawmakers ate taken from Legal, Government, or Business-trained individuals, hence this kind of profit-centric anti-technology thinking.
There is a wealth of resources availible from places like Privacy International (see also Here) While one would be correct in stating that they are biased their research is sound. CCTV cameras like other oppressive data retention efforts are worse than useless.
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/privacy/CCTV_Feat ur e.html
Just a few points:
Studies have shown that camera operators differentially target people who "look like misfits" (predominantly youth and minorities) and tend to ignore others so the cameras are themselves biased and like all biased searches can be fooled by those who appear "normal."
The data compiled by these cameras is typically retained indefinitely with little or no control on how it is used. Britain has recently faced several court cases surrounding the use of such survaillence data by "its owners" (the people who put up the cameras) for commercial purposes.
Worse yet a great deal of this data can be and is retained for "fishing expeditions." Not being a Brit I will not comment on UK laws but in the U.S. the FBI has recently recinded a long-standing (self imposed) ban on non-criminal investigations, that is, investigating groups and individuals who have not committed and are not expected to commit crimes. This ban was imposed in the wake of the COINTELPRO wherin the FBI conducted undercover survaillence on and, in some cases sought to disrupt groups such as the Students For a Democratic Society, Martin Luther King's SCLC.
The Survaillence included sending forged letters from Dr King asserting that he was under investigation by the IRS in order to cut off SCLC funding. It also included attempts (sometimes successful) to prompt the firing of teachers (at the University and High-School level), attempts to prevent the distribution of legal books and phamplets, and attempts to distrupt anti-war marches.
One choice quote from the committee is: "One technique used in COINTELPRO involved sending anonymous letters to spouses intended, in the words of one proposal, to 'produce ill-feeling and possibly a lasting distrust' "
In short the FBI used its powers to destroy and discredit groups whose only crime was opposing the current state of affairs and advocating nonviolent means to change it.
I know what you are going to say in response to this so let me anticipate it. Yes, the FBI's COINTEL programs relied on a great deal of legal violations. In carrying out many of these attacks the FBI simply violated the law in order to do what it did.
But, the key point is that the entire operation rested on a massive survaillence effort. The kind of large-scale trawling operations that CCTV and increased electronic survaillence (the FBI used a great deal of warrentless electronic Survaillence for COINTELPRO see here) makes possible. So before you go and say that you trust the government to make us safer keep in mind that the government is a large body of people who have their own agendas and frequently (hell typically) misuse said data.
Consider also the WWII internment of peaceful Japanese-American Citizens by the U.S. Most of these people had committed no crimes, particularly the children, it was the Census that made rounding them up possible (see here).
As you yourself stated the cameras can only record what has happened. They do not prevent crimes unless one is afraid of them. Smart Criminal
Slashdot Mirror
Be wary about saying "always" at one time we were "always" free to select competing phone companies over verizon. Now at least in many states the idea has become a joke.
I agree with you that they haven't put anyone (save googlebombers) out of business yet. But still, why should we be rah rahing everything?
Google is rapidly expanding to the point where they seem poised to be the Ma Bell, AT&T, Microsoft, or Verizon of the online world. No criticism of their work and all but I like a little competition in my world.
It's made from felines... felines!
(Of course, if dead cats work then the perhaps real quote would work too.)
In order to get porn on the net you have to: a) procure a computer b) procure an internet connection c) search for porn via google or some other method, and d) click on said link. Noone is forcing porn on you nor are they taking out the time to mainline it into your veins.
It seems to me that your real beef is that it isn't hard to get. The fact of the matter is that it takes an act of will (and computer technology) to obtain it now. There is little meaningful difference between that and adding a password to the whole business.
As to the implied point that kids can get it easily, I would point out that we have laws regularing the flow of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs and yet minors are still able to obtain them. On a good day such laws slow things down, a little bit. With porn as with underage drinking it is up to the parents to monitor their children and not the rest of the world to involuntarily alter its behavior on the off chance a child will get in.
Do not think that this is a flippant point or that I am insensitive to the difficulty in controlling children. My point is that mandated adult-checks and so on are not a viable solution because then we are still left arguing about what is "adult" and who gets to apply the standards. I would argue that most news and virtually all of the Bible constitutes "adult" matetrial but I would also argue that we gain nothing by locking that behind closed doors.
The bottom line is that:
Programming languages come and go (anyone remember ADA?) as do development tools and development enviornments. If you want to learn how to use a particular tool then just take a class in that but I would argue that won't take you very far.
My undergrad featured the theory, algorithms, etc courses. The only 'language course' that I took was from another student. I would argue that any computer scientist/programmer/engineer should be able to pick up new languages and new tools on their own. An understanding of the basis of the science, of the field, of why it works not just how, is instrumental there.
If you want to stay employed then you should have a deep enough understanding of the field to pick up and even develop new tools. That level of understanding will also help you to employ the tools in a better way. If you just want to tie yourself to a single tool then so be it but as it goes, so goes your marketability.
The problem with this argument is that it follows the racial-profiling logic. I have caught more poeple who look like x then x's are more likely. It is arguing from noisy evidence. As has been shown with suicide rates a rise in reporting or a change in who is making the arrests (the FBI versus local or state law enforcement) does not mean that crime itself has gone up. It could be the case that the FBI chose to ignore child porn issues before or that local law enforcement shifted from covering up cases or classifying them one way (child abduction) to another (child porn).
As the recent scandals in the Catholic Church demonstrated many cases of abuse have gone unreported or underreported for years not because they weren't happening but because those in power, or those victimized chose not to pursue them.
But the comparison of Custer's revenge to the "seamless infinity of smut..." is a fallacious example. Your very choice of these two to compare shows a bias. You have offered a not-so-bad concrete example and an abstract exaggeration. A better (less biased) comparison would be between a specific piece of pornography (say a Jenna Jameson Video), and the naked dancers of ancient rome, or the Harem of Solomon. If you prefer literary comparisons we could compare some online erotic stories to the Song of Solomon from the Bible ("My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels
were moved for him."). Comparisons of this time are useful and valid, comparisons of the type you presented are, by their nature, extreme and biased because of it.
Yes we do have limits where we bump up against the rights of others and, as Thomas Jefferson put it in his "Notes on the State of Virginia"
It's "well-regulated" militia not "well-armed." Which is a key linguistic point that many people miss.
a) While Hamdi has been removed from Guantano (where we was held for some time) he is still being held without trial, bail, or even being charged with a crime. Jose Padilla is also being held without trial or the ability to mount a meaningful defense. It is relatively (indeed entirely) immaterial where their cells are located the fact is they are still being denied their constitutional rights.
Your comments are illogical at best. If you read closely you will see that I was making directed criticisms about the treatment of U.S. Citizens. I presented no "Malformed picture" and I stand by what I said.
As to your comments about "Nobody arresting me" and "Nobody searching my library records" I would point out that a) I never claimed I would be arrested but then I'm not muslim. And b) My library records (and yours) can be searched by the FBI at any time. The only requirement is a directive issued from the FBI itself. It is not a FISA warrant or indeed subject to any initial review. That, certainly, the fact of being investigated for what we read is not free speech.
As to your 3 points. The full text of the act can be found here. The act consists of a total of 10 Titles each of which enumerates multiple changes to the law including delayed notice of warrant execution, library searches, increased use of "administrative warrants" which see no judicial review (not even from the FISA court, and so on. I suggest that you read the text of the act and consider how the changes it implements can be used by others, and expanded on before you claim that it is "just 3 things"
While False information is generally covered as Slander or Libel "Scandalous" and "Malicious" wiritng is simply anything oppositional to the current govenrment. That includes almost all politicial speech except that desired by the current officeholders. This would include all of the Clinton-Bashing that was published during his office (some of which included unfounded accusations). The same would be true of any and all things critical of the bush administration including news reports of their manipulating WMD evidence.
In other notes we have violations of due process in the case of Jose Padilla and other U.S. Citizens. For example Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." Which requires jury trials for those accused not secret military tribunals. Amendments V and VI also speak to this subject:
And before you jump on the point I would point out that the Military Tiribunals are not being convened against members of the U.S. Military ('
In service in war or in time of public danger') so that clause of Amendment V doesn't give carte Blanche for them.
On another note both the USAPATRIOT act and various federal laws dealing with drugs routinely allow for the unwarranted search and seizure of private property in some cases such property is not returned even when no conviction takes place. This would be (IMHO) a violation of Amendment IV of the constitution which states:
While we're on the topic of drugs. Excessive punishments and jail times have routinely been employed in this area noteably including California's 3-strikes policy which leads to life in prison even for 3 minor crimes (any 3 frauds including possession). Agasin in my opinion this would be a severe issue with Amendment VIII:
As a key point I would also mention this amendment:
Except that that would leave Microsoft (and all the rest of us) open to "look and feel" style lawsuits. Every gui developer would face a landmine and every app that performs a similar function (say a word processor) would face claims of "similar design elements".
So people who make and sell a technology that hasn't caught on (because noone wants it) are tying it to a recent and horrific disaster in an effort to make people want it. Boy I wish that I could say that this is the first time it happened.
But in the wake of 9/11 with Oracle other RFID makers and all the face-recognition people jamming the halls of congress to say "If you bought our crap this wouldn't happen." People just can't wait to jump on the ashes and dig for gold.
I believe it was Oscar Wilde who discussed the problem of "Soulless Commerce" "Irrespective of the true cost to the nation".
People suck sometimes.
The flap has yet to end. The story is still on the front page of Google News and I suspect at least a few papers across the country. Some Pols are still calling for hearings and some groups are still rattling their sabres over it. ESRB and Rockstar may want it to be over. We in the /. community may want it to be over but I assure you other people do not. In things like this we play all 9 innings, and it ain't over till everyone says it is.
At the Republican and Democratic national conventions police have begun creating "Free Speech Zones" located inside barbed wire fences often miles from the actual convention site. People inside these zones were still, in some cases, subject to behavior restrictions (no shouting etc. At the RNC convention in new york police shut down a permitted march and arrested large numbers of people for being on the sidewalk or doing what they were otherwize told they could do. Many of those convinctions were subsequently thrown out and the police were rebuked both for arresting non-violent demontrators and for excessive use of force.
At the Central American Free-Trade Agreement minesterial in florida last year unarmed and non-violent protestors were shot with bean-bag guns and rubber bullets (in theory non-lethal but they can in fact kill or at least cause permanent soft-tissue damage). Judges there are still sorting out the damage.
Wake up!
Bill makes a point here of bemoaning the future of U.S. Programmers but then he has made a profit off of outsourcing. Microsoft, along with HP has been among the big name tech firms pushing for laws to ease both outsourcing and the introduction of non-american workers in the U.S. In the 90's microsoft joined with HP and Intel in pushing for more guest worker visas that would enable them to bring in programmers from other countries on the condition that they a) are exempt from some U.S. laws (e.g. maximum work hours) and b) that they are dependent upon the goodwill of their employer to remain in the country. This used to be called "Bond Slavery" back when it was legal.
While I'm all for investment in research and education in the U.S. I get a little tired of people like Bill who have actively promoted some of the key problems now bemoaning them.
I'll begin spelling out the sentencing issue then get onto the humour.
Extrme Punishment
Really, I'm not kidding this is a first-class idea. After all extending sentences to the point of life has worked so well for us in the War on Drugs! Really, you may think I'm being sarcastic but I'm not.
Over the years we have steadily increased the minimum punishments available for certain crimes on the general assumption that more fear for the criminals is better. This has reached an extreme in places like California whose 3-strikes law mandates that all triple felons (tax cheats and teenagers using the wacky weed included) go to jail For Life.
This benevolent program has blessed the state with a large and growing prison population that can make things like license plates, or just sit around and be a drain on the economy when they are no threat to anyone. It has also given California a large commercial prison system which cost the state untold dollars, and employs many fine and underpaid guards as well as passing large amounts of money off to contractors to build ever more large and dangerous prisons.
At present the state has found that by diverting at least drug addicts into treatment rather than the 3-strikes system they save as much as $300,000 per.
Moreover, despite ever-tougher sentencing there is no proof, in California, New York or anywhere else that these sentences have acted to reduce crime in any meaningful sense. One could argue that people should be afraid of the law and I will grant you that people are but there is no evidence that I have seen which proves (in a meaningful sense) that this changes the actions of criminals in any overall sense. Crime existed before, and it still exists.
As to the death penalty, despite normative arguments to the contrary there is no hard evidence that it has deterred even one criminal. States that use it have as much or more crime than those that don't. Similarly, states that have abandonded it (Illinois) have seen no attendent growth in crime. One could argue that this is a fluke I suppose but one cannot argue that it is positive evidence for the penalty.
At best the death penalty gives us a "Cathartic Release" as one author put it. But as Illinois' last governor noted that catharsis is not worth the lives of innocent people who are executed. And make no mistake, innocent people sometimes do get sent to jail.
So yeah, in light of the staggering evidence that meting out unreasonable and excessive punishments does nothing to reduce crime but only costs us unreasonable amounts of money and, probably, gets in the way of real solutions to our problems, I think that we should dive headfirst onto that rock.
Humour
The real purpose of the column, I suspect, was not to advocate the death penalty (but you never know) I suspect that it was really his attempt to make humour out of the situation (smelly socks) and to complain that the Germans aren't punishing their crackers enough. This is, as I see it, basically a joke. The problem is that at the core of the joke is the idea that more extreme sentencing is needed.
While the cathartic joy of knowing that the latest Sasser guy is sent to AOL's Helldesk for life is there that relly won't help anyone but AOL.
Personally I favor the idea of community service (perhaps more than 30 hours perhaps not). I want to see someone who causes such destruction help others in a meaningful way. I want to see them giving free computer classes to children in public schools, or helping libraries to setup their systems (under supervision) or help build something of value.
The bottom line is that there are two ways to think about crime and punishment. The first is to seek catharsis, to salve the basic desires for vengance or some public demonstration of retribution. This view favors things like the death penalty and lends itself to the state of affairs we have now, ever increasing prison terms, ever increasing pri
You can send Online comments here by clicking on the "Submit Comments or Position Statements" link. Alternately you can e-mail your comments to vote@nist.gov.
I spoke to one of the committee members Allan Eustis. He stated that their mandate is to provide "Initial Recommendations of Voluntary Guidelines" this coming April. These guidelines will likely follow and overlap with the FEC2000 Guidelines and will apply to all parties in the "voting community" (States, Vendors, etc.). He stated that they would be unlikely to do a great deal before the election other than gather info as they have no budget until then.
While he was on the phone with me another individual in his office was complaining about the security challenges that they will have in dealing with some public comment (I am assuming this one). Apparently checking in guests at the gate ain't easy.
I dispute all of your claims but I'll start with the bit about Air Traffic and Toll Roads.
The airline industry is typically regarded as an economic success. People are able to go further for less money and in greater safety than if they drove. This crucial safety (which makes flying so attractive to the market) is accomplished by regulation. As you pointed out the Air Traffic controller and the nation's air-traffic control system (considered by many to be integral to security) is a single network designed and run by the federal government who sets national standards for airport operation, flight operation, pilot training, etc.
All of this regulation not only makes flying safer (a crucial point if it is to be successful) but it maes it possible for airlines of all sizes to operate. If every airport was different, and every town was a new adventure to fly to then the cost of travel would be considerably more as airline pilots would be required to learn a new standard set of rules for each airport and for each place. The time taken to go from place to place would increase. All of this would work to shut smaller airlines out of the market in favor of the larger, already established companies. Similarly the smaller airports would become less and less served as only the really big runs, the cash cows would be favored, as each small airport, without federal aid would probably fall into disrepair, or at least not be able to keep up with the bigger cities.
As to toll roads, consider first that it took federal dollars to build the existing roads and that even in states with toll road (in my experience) the roads do not pay for themselves. Rather the tolls only act to offset the state dollars that must be invested in them to keep them maintained. Without these roads the ability to move produce, to connect different parts of the state would be adversely impacted thus adversely effecting the economy in general. Making them toll roads to help offset costs is one idea but it will never be a viable way to privatize all road construction. And, how will you ensure that the roads are usable without regulating the way in which they are constructed? Even if you do privatize it the state will still have to be involved.
As to urban sprawl. I personally do not like it but privatizing the infrastructure won't change that.
Look at all of the infrastructure that has been privatized in the past. All of it (in my experience), from the deregulated phone services to the deregulated power in California, to privatized water has been more expensive than municipal services.
In general, a "free market" cannot operate without some infrastructural support, and regulation to make it feasible. Without that monopolies grow and your ability to "vote with your feet" becomes a joke. Take a look at the old trusts of the 1800's They had no regulation, and the people had no freedom.
First you tell me a story that seems to support privatization. Then you tell me it is not true and follow up by listing a source of many other false stories. Then you list the myth (what is the distinction between a "government" inspector and a "public" one). You then conclude by stating (without any proof that I can see) that privatization is good.
How does this all tie together?
Ask me tomorrow.
I have seen several of your posters that include, among other things, the following bullet point: "Every Federal Regulator that we fire produces 150 new jobs, enough to re-hire all of those federal regulators and the able-bodied poor."
What I wanted to know is, how does that work exactlly. If I were to say fire a building safety inspector, an Air Traffic controller, or an inspector with the FDA how would that produce jobs? And, how would we guarantee that no adverse effect (salmopnella in the food) would result?
I know, every time I see "the media" (CNN, Fox News, etc) patting themselves on the back about their "tireless crusades" I get a little nauseous.
Lately, the more I watch the more I'm convinced that the whole "Fourth Estate" is run by people who see their job as "nannies to the masses" rather than speakers of truth to power. Then again I doubt that it's ever been much different.
Blackboxvoting.org is the best source for any election-machine info (such as which party's contributors run Diebold).
Greg Palast is an American living in England who writes news for the London Sunday Observer.
I also check out, Indymedia, CNN, The BBC, and Google News.
The fact is that Every source you turn to is biased. I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as unbiased journalism becuase journalists are people with finite amounts of time on their hands and finite column-inches to fill. They have to decide who they interview and how much of that material to use. I doubt that most of them (save those at Fox News) go into it with a definite story in mind and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, biases appear in reporting. Couple this with the fact that all news outlets have a distinct audience and that their preceptions of that audience shapes their reporting to the extent that they wish to attract new audience members and avoid losing old ones. This qorks out differently for Indymedia than it does for CNN but the pressure is still there.
The bottom line is that all you can do (as others have pointed out) is to cast as diverse a net as possible and then to look, as much as is possible, for the nuggets of truth in each one. Just be wary for many people the line between reality and fiction is no longer a barrier.
As to government documents, I wouldn't diss them. They are the one true source of info that we have about the workings of our government. And, so long as Some People can be held in check
Most of em are also not of the same generation as those who use P2P. By and large the people who will be using Kazaa (so far as I can tell) are those in the 16-29 crowd wheras (the last time that I checked) most U.S. Lawmakers were in the 35+ crowd. Moreover the U.S. (unlike other countries such as France) does not make a habit of electing technically trained individuals. We have a few doctors and Psychologists (3 total in Congress I believe), but by and large out lawmakers ate taken from Legal, Government, or Business-trained individuals, hence this kind of profit-centric anti-technology thinking.
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/privacy/CCTV_Feat ur e.html
Just a few points:
The Survaillence included sending forged letters from Dr King asserting that he was under investigation by the IRS in order to cut off SCLC funding. It also included attempts (sometimes successful) to prompt the firing of teachers (at the University and High-School level), attempts to prevent the distribution of legal books and phamplets, and attempts to distrupt anti-war marches.
One choice quote from the committee is: "One technique used in COINTELPRO involved sending anonymous letters to spouses intended, in the words of one proposal, to 'produce ill-feeling and possibly a lasting distrust' "
In short the FBI used its powers to destroy and discredit groups whose only crime was opposing the current state of affairs and advocating nonviolent means to change it.
I know what you are going to say in response to this so let me anticipate it. Yes, the FBI's COINTEL programs relied on a great deal of legal violations. In carrying out many of these attacks the FBI simply violated the law in order to do what it did.
But, the key point is that the entire operation rested on a massive survaillence effort. The kind of large-scale trawling operations that CCTV and increased electronic survaillence (the FBI used a great deal of warrentless electronic Survaillence for COINTELPRO see here) makes possible. So before you go and say that you trust the government to make us safer keep in mind that the government is a large body of people who have their own agendas and frequently (hell typically) misuse said data.
Consider also the WWII internment of peaceful Japanese-American Citizens by the U.S. Most of these people had committed no crimes, particularly the children, it was the Census that made rounding them up possible (see here).