Actually, the fact that it is a government funded broadcast network makes it worse. Who exactly is it that you think can restrict free speech?
While I don't have much use for NPR, you wouldn't believe the uproar that would take place if someone from the US Justice Department started to investigate remarks like this made on one of NRR's programs.
And the ACLU would have a fit. Has the CCLU even commented?
It also is not true that a private citizen saying this would not attract any ire from some PC faction in the Canadian Federal Government.
For examples: http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/newsl etters/2001/may.html... and it doesn't have to be government funded either: http://www.freedomfight.ca/forum/showthre ad/t-201. html
Canada - Land of Restricted Speech
on
Canadian Privacy Act
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
There are other issues that you might consider before moving to Canada. These have to do with Free Speech. There is no room for it north of 49.
Canada has an "Official Languages Commissioner" currently looking into Don Cherry's http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id= 110004688 remarks about "French Guys" being "wimps" since more of them in the NHL wear face shields. Basically, that's the whole story.
The "Minister of State for Multiculturalism" is also involved: "the government will not tolerate statements that create dissonance in our society and disrespect for others."
All this proves is that Candians need a Bill of Rights stronger than their wimpy... oops - Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Well, it doesn't seem to protect any speech outside of these Ministers of Silly Walks combined tut-tutting (which would be a fine way to just keep these political hacks busy if their mere opinions did not have the force of law).
It was a Mac game that had a visual programming interface (sort of a flow chart). I don't think it caused brain damage - you really had to think about condensing the "code" (even with (sort of) called subroutines) and it made you think quite carefully about how you programmed your litle robot for navigation, fuel and defense.
I remember it too, and not only that, I've got a copy of the 5 page press release that went with the 2 pages posted.
Excerpt: "Incidentally, we are now at work on a follow-on product -- a WOM buffer, known as WOMB, which we expect will be pregnant with possibilities."
Geez, Micosoft wants to violate our corporate software policy at will in order to grant us the privilege of buying (excuse me, perpetually renting) their bloated, insecure, overpriced, buggy software (only in the sense that it is not hardware).
I think the challenge of finding the security holes after they've "upgraded" my computer on their schedule with the lastest "Code Red Attractor" patch could be a bit of fun.
If you add the monetary punishment of their new licensing requirements to that, it's really quite compelling.
But wait, if you call in the next 10 minutes we'll include "gathering information about other software on your computer" SO WE CAN DESIGN THE NEXT PATCH TO BREAK IT, if it isn't from Redmond.
They have found out that their customer base has a one to one correspondence with membership in The Masochist Society for the Feeble Minded.
All right, THAT'S IT! I'm taking up a collection to bribe the Justice Department to reinstate...
No wait, they screwed up already.
Instead, we'll bribe the DEA claiming MS software is a mind damaging drug.
I very much appreciate your prompt reply and it will teach me once again not
to trust the Washington Post. My apologies. This takes care of your point
1.
Points 2 through 4, however, are not as reassuring.
2-Your expectation that the FBI will not contact you is nice, but
irrelevant. Possibly naive. Best of luck.
3-Um, I would not expect them (or, necessarily, you - and this is the point)
to confirm it.
4-The question of compliance with US laws and regulations is not in
question.
_Carnivore_ is public knowledge. The principle the FBI may wish to apply is
not in dispute.
So, the issue at hand is whether there may be a secret "law or regulation"
requiring you to let "Magic Lantern" pass your protection. Or, if you would
do so voluntarily (despite the scurrilous history of The Post).
If there is such a "regulation", and it is a secret, the public might well
have the expectation that McAfee would not acknowledge compliance.
If you can be demonstrated to have offered... well...
Therefore, a stronger statement would be more reassuring. Something on the
order of: "We are a provider of personal and corporate security products.
Leaving such a hole in our protection software is not only demonstrably
ineffective, but also dangerous to our customers and the security of
critical data in the United States. Unless required by the EXPLICIT laws or
regulations of the United States, we cannot, in conscience, comply with any
such request. Since it would be discovered in any case, it would be
corporate suicide to offer this unasked. If any government agency asks for
such a consideration we will insist that a warning label (similar to that on
a cigarette package) be required by Federal law on all such products."
This would be neither unpatriotic nor unreasonable. However, I will be
looking for the inevitable freeware products which will supplement my virus
protection anyway.
Since we have the Internet (and if we didn't this would be moot) the FBI
cannot accomplish its goal (assuming it has this goal) by forcing your
compliance with a secret regulation. If it should try, you should be
leading the charge to make that attempt public. It cannot work for long,
and it jeopardizes your stockholders' investments and your employees' jobs.
Finally, I sympathize with the position in which your company has been
placed by this erroneous reportage. Probably there is nothing you (and by
simple extension, any other company in your marketplace) can do to squelch
this.
I am sorry that I can presently provide no better advice as to how this
problem may be resolved. Perhaps suing The Post for libel? Maybe asking
slashdot????
JonKatz comments re: identity politics somehow put me in mind of certain feminists, certain environmentalists and especially certain "religious" "leaders".
Maybe these identity politicians foreshadow the "Virtual States" we may expect in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be confusing capitalism with socialism. That confusion would play out in favor of the CBC.
Actually, the fact that it is a government funded broadcast network makes it worse. Who exactly is it that you think can restrict free speech?
l etters/2001 /may.html ... and it doesn't have to be government funded either:e ad/t-201. html
While I don't have much use for NPR, you wouldn't believe the uproar that would take place if someone from the US Justice Department started to investigate remarks like this made on one of NRR's programs.
And the ACLU would have a fit. Has the CCLU even commented?
It also is not true that a private citizen saying this would not attract any ire from some PC faction in the Canadian Federal Government.
For examples:
http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/news
http://www.freedomfight.ca/forum/showthr
There are other issues that you might consider before moving to Canada. These have to do with Free Speech. There is no room for it north of 49.
= 110004688
Canada has an "Official Languages Commissioner" currently looking into Don Cherry's
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id
remarks about "French Guys" being "wimps" since more of them in the NHL wear face shields. Basically, that's the whole story.
The "Minister of State for Multiculturalism" is also involved: "the government will not tolerate statements that create dissonance in our society and disrespect for others."
All this proves is that Candians need a Bill of Rights stronger than their wimpy... oops - Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Well, it doesn't seem to protect any speech outside of these Ministers of Silly Walks combined tut-tutting (which would be a fine way to just keep these political hacks busy if their mere opinions did not have the force of law).
This may be stretching the definition of "scientist", but what does a Behavioral Psychologist say after making love?
"It was good for you, was it good for me?"
stolen from Steven Pinker's _Blank Slate_
Anybody remember "Chipwits"?
It was a Mac game that had a visual programming interface (sort of a flow chart). I don't think it caused brain damage - you really had to think about condensing the "code" (even with (sort of) called subroutines) and it made you think quite carefully about how you programmed your litle robot for navigation, fuel and defense.
An infelicitous phrase. Not quite what is meant I think.
If we'd had a Chinese free nuclear development program, for example, Wen Ho Lee would never have been charged with espionage.
I remember it too, and not only that, I've got a copy of the 5 page press release that went with the 2 pages posted.
Excerpt:
"Incidentally, we are now at work on a follow-on product -- a WOM buffer, known as WOMB, which we expect will be pregnant with possibilities."
Well, last time we had to do "scrape every last bit out of the bucket" saved 2 digits in every date by leaving out the century bits.
Your devotion to HTML makes me glad _I can turn it off_ in all the email I receive.
Don't think this will be an issue for more than a very short period, if ever. Read George Gilder's _Telecosm_.
Geez, Micosoft wants to violate our corporate software policy at will in order to grant us the privilege of buying (excuse me, perpetually renting) their bloated, insecure, overpriced, buggy software (only in the sense that it is not hardware).
I think the challenge of finding the security holes after they've "upgraded" my computer on their schedule with the lastest "Code Red Attractor" patch could be a bit of fun.
If you add the monetary punishment of their new licensing requirements to that, it's really quite compelling.
But wait, if you call in the next 10 minutes we'll include "gathering information about other software on your computer" SO WE CAN DESIGN THE NEXT PATCH TO BREAK IT, if it isn't from Redmond.
They have found out that their customer base has a one to one correspondence with membership in The Masochist Society for the Feeble Minded.
All right, THAT'S IT! I'm taking up a collection to bribe the Justice Department to reinstate...
No wait, they screwed up already.
Instead, we'll bribe the DEA claiming MS software is a mind damaging drug.
No wait, this is true.
We just need to get those Narcs to do their job!
Mr. Mosqueda,
... well...
I very much appreciate your prompt reply and it will teach me once again not
to trust the Washington Post. My apologies. This takes care of your point
1.
Points 2 through 4, however, are not as reassuring.
2-Your expectation that the FBI will not contact you is nice, but
irrelevant. Possibly naive. Best of luck.
3-Um, I would not expect them (or, necessarily, you - and this is the point)
to confirm it.
4-The question of compliance with US laws and regulations is not in
question.
_Carnivore_ is public knowledge. The principle the FBI may wish to apply is
not in dispute.
So, the issue at hand is whether there may be a secret "law or regulation"
requiring you to let "Magic Lantern" pass your protection. Or, if you would
do so voluntarily (despite the scurrilous history of The Post).
If there is such a "regulation", and it is a secret, the public might well
have the expectation that McAfee would not acknowledge compliance.
If you can be demonstrated to have offered
Therefore, a stronger statement would be more reassuring. Something on the
order of: "We are a provider of personal and corporate security products.
Leaving such a hole in our protection software is not only demonstrably
ineffective, but also dangerous to our customers and the security of
critical data in the United States. Unless required by the EXPLICIT laws or
regulations of the United States, we cannot, in conscience, comply with any
such request. Since it would be discovered in any case, it would be
corporate suicide to offer this unasked. If any government agency asks for
such a consideration we will insist that a warning label (similar to that on
a cigarette package) be required by Federal law on all such products."
This would be neither unpatriotic nor unreasonable. However, I will be
looking for the inevitable freeware products which will supplement my virus
protection anyway.
Since we have the Internet (and if we didn't this would be moot) the FBI
cannot accomplish its goal (assuming it has this goal) by forcing your
compliance with a secret regulation. If it should try, you should be
leading the charge to make that attempt public. It cannot work for long,
and it jeopardizes your stockholders' investments and your employees' jobs.
Finally, I sympathize with the position in which your company has been
placed by this erroneous reportage. Probably there is nothing you (and by
simple extension, any other company in your marketplace) can do to squelch
this.
I am sorry that I can presently provide no better advice as to how this
problem may be resolved. Perhaps suing The Post for libel? Maybe asking
slashdot????
Duane Hershberger
Well, are you going to give PBS a lot of money then?
JonKatz comments re: identity politics somehow put me in mind of certain feminists, certain environmentalists and especially certain "religious" "leaders".
Maybe these identity politicians foreshadow the "Virtual States" we may expect in the future.
Too bad.