Sure, but how does this make driver licences necessary?
Prevention, mainly. People want some assurance that the guy next to them in the huge fscking SUV has some idea how to operate it. It's little consolation that he might get a ticket after he's run over you. They're not strictly for identification, that's just a use that has sprang up since cars have become so common.
The real problem here is that there was a gap -- a need for people to prove that they were who they say they are, for example -- and an inappropriate entity stepped in to fill the void. People are all too willing to accept the DMV acting as the default ID card arbiter because most people don't want to have to be responsible for two trips to a government office.
Not that anyone who owns a very expensive 747 is going to let some random shmuck fly it.
Very true, but there are some random shmucks with enough money to afford planes (maybe not 747s, but still big enough to cause discomfort when they plow into your house...) who might decide to bypass the lengthy process of getting a pilot's license. Anyway, the point is that it does make sense to require that someone is qualified to operate a plane or car before allowing them to operate the vehicle. Yes, someone can take a car on the road without a driver's license or take a plane out without a pilot's license -- but there are severe penalties designed to discourage that kind of behavior.
The point is that today people can't conceive of a world without driver's licenses and yet we lived in such a world for ~40 years.
We also lived in a world without cars for thousands of years. We lived in a world with television, social security numbers, radio, computers, mass-produced clothing or canned food. Our children can't conceive of that now. By saying "oh, no, we have to have *shudder* driver's licenses" you're not providing a convincing argument about "producing papers on demand." Sorry, but it doesn't follow that drivers licenses lead to police states that require "papers on demand." It's alarmist overreaction. Very sloppy thinking.
Furthermore, any intrusion that people truly don't want is preventable - that's why we have elections. The folks at the DMV may not be elected officials, but the people who appoint them are. Obviously, people didn't feel too strongly about driver's licenses, in fact they probably supported them -- but they have reacted strongly against automated systems that take people's pictures and send tickets for speeding -- and (at least in Denver) they've gotten rid of it.
Your implicit suggestion that driver's licenses will lead to a police state doesn't hold water. In a country with 260+ million people, you have to accept some regulation and if a government is going to keep 50,000 (or more) John Smiths straight it may have to have a better system than just name, SSN and birthdate.
Maybe face recognition is too intrusive, but you can't go around whining about how people didn't need any license to drive a car in 1902. No one is going to take you seriously, and rightly so.
Somehow the world managed to survive those 40 odd years of unlicensed drivers.
Are you suggesting that the traffic patterns in the early years of the automobile were anything like they are today? I certainly hope not, otherwise I can see exactly why people deride you as a nut. It's a ridiculous proposal - the idea that if we didn't require driver's licenses for the first 40 years of the automobile, we never should.
When a town only has a few people with automobiles, and those autos are much less powerful than the cars of today, requiring a license probably seemed unnecessary. It shouldn't be necessary to explain how the increase in the number of cars would correspond with increased regulations as to the operation of those vehicles.
The Wright Brothers didn't need pilot licenses either. Are you going to get in a 747 with an unlicensed pilot? Would you like to live near an airport where anyone can jump in a Cessna regardless of training? No? Then shut the hell up.
There's no doubt of that, but the real question is whether we have a right to expect it. Obviously, the framers of the Constitution really had no way to anticipate the technology that we'd have today -- so the question is where we draw the lines.
And, paranoia aside, do the benefits of more accurate identification outweigh the inconveniences or intrusions? I can see beneficial uses of this technology -- what are the possible harmful effects? (Realistic, not "black helicopter" fantasies about being tracked down by super-secret government agents...) What are the possible benefits?
It's a shame that changes like this don't need to be ratified by the citizens of Connecticut -- maybe it's time for a new Amendment to the Constitution:
Amendment XXVIII No federal or state institution shall require that individuals disclose information that is not absolutely necessary for the operation of the institution. Furthermore, no state or federal institution shall disclose any personal information to non-governmental institutions without the express written consent of the individual, nor shall institutions collect data for the purposes of law enforcement against persons not charged or suspected of crime.
Basically, it would need to be re-written and tightened up, but the idea would be to convey:
1. All people have a presumptive right to refrain from giving personal information beyond what is absolutely necessary for a government institution to operate.
2. No government entity could collect information for the purpose of solving crimes that have not yet been committed.
3. Any information given to the government must remain in "trust" and cannot be shared with non-governmental entities.
I'd probably add a clause that requires governmental entities to provide a copy of any and all information being stored about them, and the ability to expunge data (fingerprints, mug shots) gathered that do not result in successful charges. So, if you're arrested or charged for burglary, but are found innocent (or never go to trial at all) you can have your mug shot and fingerprints removed from their databases.
1. When I say "the retailer" I'm talking about the people who OWN the store and make the decisions - at a corporate level. Some geek making minimum wage behind the counter at Babbages might influence one or two sales, but you don't matter diddly in the grand scheme of things.
2. I already mentioned that products like the XBox that are in demand will sell regardless of their treatment by the retailer. And a product that is universally hated will not sell -- but borderline products need retailer support. The XBox sales would be even more dismal if retailers didn't give it good treatment. It'd be even MORE dismal if retailers decided that the PS2 was going to be the ultimate winner and decided not to carry the XBox at all.
3. Nothing you said refutes the basic premise: the retailer (not the counter jockey) has influence over whether something sells. Guess what? If the corporate office doesn't order XBoxes -- they don't sell. End of story. If enough retailers decide to short-order a product, it'll kill the sales.
Before you get all uppity over your experience working the register at Babbages, maybe you should be a corporate buyer for a little bit. One or two anecdotal tales of your limited experience in one Babbages location doesn't a trend make.
That's not surprising. On items like the PS2 and XBox, they're "loss leaders" -- basically items that drive people into the store and cause them to make future purchases.
It's not a Microsoft-only phenomenon, some of Red Hat's boxed sets are basically sold at no profit or a slight loss if you figure in cost of shipping, stocking and so forth. It's the same way with Windows -- stores might get a 10% markup on Windows, probably less.
I suppose it's the only way, really -- to get a traditional markup, they'd have to sell the units at a cost of $500 or more.
The article on Yahoo! mentions "piracy" (what a ridiculous term, anyway) a number of times before they mention that Gateway is promoting legally enjoying digital music. Obviously, Gateway is not promoting "piracy" they're just trying to protect their right to sell legal hardware without tampering with it to give the RIAA and MPAA undo control over individual's property. Lest we forget, these companies already enjoy "royalties" from CD-Rs and such to compensate for legal copying -- so how the fsck is that "piracy"?
The RIAA (and apparently Reuters, or at least Andy Sullivan) wants everyone to believe that if you make a copy -- even for personal use -- it's *shudder* piracy.
First the software industry and record/movie companies are telling us it's "piracy" to rip MP3s or play DVDs with DeCSS...now the government is telling us we're junior terrorists if we buy a bag of pot. When will the hyperbole end? And when will someone smack the shit out of these sanctimonious assholes for being corporate greedbags and conservative tightasses?
Actually, Pulp Fiction follows Campbell's stages of the hero quite nicely. If you pay attention to Bruce Willis' character (Butch Coolidge) he goes through all of the stages.
Yes, Lucas is a bit too self-important, and yes Star Wars (and the rest) owe quite a bit to science fiction.
However, this article is so one-sided and vindictive it's ridiculous. Like it or not, Star Wars does draw some of its themes from mythology. It does fit with certain archetypes, and that's probably why it was so broadly popular instead of just being popular with sci-fi geeks.
For thousands of years, people of all cultures have told stories of heroes that shaped their culture and helped form their perception of the world. We no longer have a truly coherent culture or enjoy the belief in heroes like Beowulf or King Arthur -- so we go to movies and search for heroes there. No one believes that they're going to grow up to be Luke Skywalker (I hope...) but the movie satisfies a craving that we all have for heroes -- that's basically all Campbell and Lucas are saying, though they try to make it sound much more complicated than that. There are plenty of other reasons to enjoy Star Wars, but I believe that this was a huge factor.
Yeah, I think that says a lot about how the product made it to market in the first place. It certainly wasn't a loss for Bill, but it didn't do a lot for M$ -- not that there's any shame in having a product that doesn't take off, particularly when the company in question can afford to make mistakes.
You know, if I was a happily married billionaire with three kids, I think I'd let someone else run the company and spend my time with my wife and kids instead of trying to run the world... of course, to test this theory I'd need a billion dollars and a wife and kids...
Is it that bad? I wouldn't buy an XBox just on the basis of it being a Microsoft product, but I admit that it's a dislike of MS (not to mention the fact I already own two other consoles...) and that I don't have any experience with the XBox itself. It might be the greatest platform known to man, but I just won't give M$ my money. I do wish that the other manufacturers would make some XBox-sized controllers... the dinky things that come with Nintendo and Sony systems are a bit small for me.
They will hammer away at the xbox the ay they did at windows (how many people ran windows prior to v3.11?) and everything else
Believe it or not, there are Microsoft products that fail -- remember Microsoft BOB? (If you blinked after it was released, you probably don't.)
There's a difference between a product like Windows - where all the real expenses are in R&D and distribution is cheap - and hardware products like the XBox where every unit costs M$ hundreds of dollars. Remember, as it stands now, they don't even make money on the console -- they only make money on game licensing.
If Microsoft wants to get the TiVO market, they're going to have to go against the tide of the rest of the mega-evil corporations and support people's ability to record digital TV, so it will be interesting to see what happens there. People aren't going to spend $300 or $400 on a box to record shows if all the digital controls that the broadcasters are pushing come into effect. Remember, the FCC is pushing for all-digital content by 2006, which means a whole new world for recording TV.
I would be interested to see what it costs to develop a game for the x-box versus the PlayStation 2.
That would be an interesting comparison. The boxes from a developer's perspective. Although I think I've heard that it's supposed to be easy(ish) to port a game from Windows to XBox, but I don't know this firsthand. (Someone will certainly correct me if I'm wrong...)
I believe that the Linux kit for PS2 is supposed to allow people to develop games for the PS2 -- and that's a pretty cheap kit. The professional development kit for the PS2 is pretty expensive.
What the heck does the RETAILERS opinions of the boxes have to do with things?
A retailer's relationship with a manufacturer/product can make a lot of difference between a product that sells well and one that doesn't. A good example of this is in grocery stores where the store brand gets preferential treatment -- better placement, more advertising, slightly lower cost -- over the name brand. I've even seen grocers put name-brand products in odd locations (for example, name-brand crackers in a completely different aisle from the rest) or just not carrying popular brands at all. If you shop at King Sooper's or Safeway (I forget which) in Denver, you can buy three generic brands of fig cookies, but you can't find Fig Newtons in the store at all.
If you are a retailer you decide things like how many units to carry, store placement, promotions and so forth. If a product is in high demand, there's not much a retailer can do to dissuade people -- but if a product (like the XBox) is trying to make inroads into an existing market with a popular front-runner (like the PS2) how retailers treat the product can make a lot of difference. Since Microsoft isn't selling the XBox direct to the public, they have to depend on retailers. (Having a direct outlet is a double-edged sword -- retailers tend to dislike companies selling their products directly, because they have an incentive to take sales away from the retailer (more profits) and can afford to sell the product cheaper than the retailers.)
If a product doesn't have decent margins or you don't have a good relationship with the vendor (or both) you can certainly understock the product and hope that people will go to the competition's product and kill the products you don't like. I'm not saying that's happening with the XBox, but if several large retailers like Best Buy decided to promote the PS2 more heavily it could certainly have a negative impact on XBox sales. (I doubt this is the case...their margins on the XBox can't be much lower than on the PS2, which has virtually no margin. Game titles are where they make their money, and I imagine the margins are about the same for XBox and PS2.)
Oh, and speaking as someone who used to work in retail -- I don't care for "oily salesmen" any more than you do. The things I looked for were decent margins, stock when I needed it, a good return policy for unsold inventory and decent terms (net 30 or better).
One example that easily comes to mind is the huge number of police cameras in England.
I would argue that this isn't really a loss of freedom. But, I also mentioned in my first post that it's a cycle, not an absolute straight line. People come to expect a given set of freedoms, they fight for them, and eventually get complacent. Someone in government, the church or other institutions tries to take away said freedoms and after a certain point people rebel (violently or not) and usually push a little farther. I think, ultimately, that the RIAA and MPAA are going to regret trying to crack down on people's ability to copy data because when the time comes that the majority of people get pissed about it they're going to go farther than just "fair use" -- they're going to go after unlimited ability to copy and a drastic reduction of copyright. Similarly, the police in Denver are probably ultimately going to wish that they had not pursued the Tattered Cover case because they're going to end up getting the Supreme Court to issue a judgement that will essentially have the force of law - namely, that bookstores do not have to give up this kind of information. Instead of it being a legal grey area, it will become rigidly defined and they are going to find the line drawn in favor of personal freedom rather than government control.
As far as the "war on drugs." Again, I would argue that this is cyclical. If it is a "freedom" that people care about (and I'm not sure I would call using drugs a "freedom" anyway) it will eventually go the other way. The "freedom" to smoke up, shoot up, snort or pop pills has hardly ever been a popular cause or an explicit right. However, let's look at prohibition. Since a drinking age has long been legislated, we can assume that anyone over a certain age can expect the "right" to drink. Then a group of people got together and passed legislation against it. Didn't last long, did it?
The last few hundred years are a very small sample
Again, I'm not talking about just the last hundred years -- I'm talking about the entire sweep of recorded history.
Again, I'll ask: please provide a specific example of an individual freedom that has evolved that has been done away with. You cannot, because it has not happened. Here's the cycle as I see it: people feel that a particular freedom or freedoms are being repressed, eventually they rebel, usually they win. Over time, the people who do not have to fight for these freedoms relax until, again, they begin to feel repressed and the cycle starts again.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, it doesn't go back willingly. Yes, various "free" societies have devolved or collapsed, but they also evolved out of less free societies -- and have seeded more "free" societies.
I'm not referring merely to the United States, I'm referring to the entire span of recorded history.
The US and the idea of individual freedoms that we now have did not spontaneously spring into being. It's been the result of a steady progression. It's been very slow, no doubt about that.
Look at the British, for example. They've slowly gone from a country ruled absolutely be a king, to a country with a king that essentially co-ruled with parliament to a country that has royalty as figureheads only. This has taken hundreds of years, but it's very unlikely that the British will revert to a monarchy or accept a serious decline in personal freedoms.
Please give an example of a personal freedom that came into being and then was successfully eradicated. Yes, certain countries/governments have managed to curtail personal freedoms for a time -- I doubt Cubans are more free under Castro than they were under the previous government -- but as a general trend, personal freedoms will always prevail. The fact is that there is a larger percentage of the population that gains from any given personal freedom than the percentage of the population that gains from oppressing them. Eventually, the majority realizes this.
If history is any guide, individual freedom always wins... even if the individual who starts the fight doesn't live to see it. The real question is how bad any particular abuse has to get before a majority of people fight against it. The government, churches and other institutions have long been trying to limit personal freedoms and the free flow of information all throughout recorded history.
One way or another, the restrictions have always crumbled. It may be of little consequence to those currently experiencing the brunt of those institutions, but over the long haul freedom always wins. This is not to say that people shouldn't be fighting or speaking up -- but all too often the restriction of personal freedoms has to become very oppressive before people will expend serious effort to fight it.
Sorry, I refuse to pony up extra for a machine that comes with a Windows tax and inferior components. I'll put together my own systems with the best components I can find and exactly the peripherals and such that I want. If sheep who don't know from computers think that a computer that doesn't have "Dell" or "Compaq" on the case is inferior, that's their problem.
IANAL, but I believe you can win judgements against someone if you can prove that they've filed a frivolous lawsuit. In fact, I believe filing frivolous lawsuits is punishable in and of itself -- they might be able to find a NY District Attorney that might haul him up on charges.
Yes, you're right -- it is expensive to defend yourself against a lawsuit like this, even if you are correct, but... I just couldn't see settling it. And I'd be contacting every media outlet in NY to publicize the suit. (You cannot sue a newspaper for covering something like this, or -- more accurately -- you can't win.)
Yes, I realize that Afghanistan's national pride would have taken a hit if they had just handed him over -- but a lot of people would still be alive. The Taliban would likely still be in power. The outcome -- a prolonged military attack on Afghanistan -- was a foregone conclusion if they refused.
I also disagree that this was just "a hunch." For one thing, I believe that the administration still has evidence that they're not sharing with the public. Another is the fact that this isn't the first attack that bin Laden has orchestrated, merely the most successful. It's my understanding that there is very conclusive evidence that he has been responsible for previous terrorist attacks against the US.
What would have happened if bin Laden was in Canada? That's a good question. Surely, we would have been loathe to attack Canada, and they would be just as unlikely to turn him over knowing that we'd be likely to sentence him to death. (Actually, I'm not sure we would. Killing bin Laden makes him a martyr, particularly if it were a scheduled execution that the entire world could focus on rather than dying anonymously in some cave...) However, we're far more likely to allow Canada to try him in Canada because we know that Canada would actually give bin Laden a fair (fairer, anyway) trial than Afghanistan. (Or the US, for that matter...) Who really believes that the Taliban would have tried bin Laden, or found him guilty if they did? He was there for a reason, because the government and many of the people supported him. They backed the wrong horse.
Canada isn't really a good example, anyway. Say bin Laden was in a country that we were more neutral with, like the Czech Republic or Kenya. Would we attack them if they refused to hand him over? Would they have handed him over without a fight? That's a good question, I'd say we likely would have, eventually. But more likely, those countries would have handed him over.
Frankly, if I were the president when something like this happened, we would have been bombing Afghanistan within 48 hours if they refused to hand him over. It was a foregone conclusion anyway, giving them a long time to think it over was a mistake to wait so long as it was.
As for the policy of interventionism... that's probably part of it. The fear of communism is probably a bigger factor, but we've gotten in the habit and forgotten why we started. The Korean War, Vietnam, supporting the Taliban -- those were done in the name of blocking the spread of communism. (Which in many ways gets back to corporate greed, really...)
There are a lot of issues here, but I want to address a few of them.
1. "Spreading the Wealth."
We've already seen many examples of trying to aid foreign countries, and that aid being appropriated by military forces in the country. So, it's often worthless to try to help a country without sending troops to "stabalize" the region and be sure that food, medicine and so forth go where they're intended. Military interventionism is one of the things that the US is always being beat up about -- in other words, we can't win for losing here. If we help, someone hates us. If we don't, someone hates us. Simply put, there is no way to do the right thing by everyone no matter how good our intentions are. Do nothing, we're wrong. Do something, we're wrong.
2. Afghanistan would be insulted by our weight loss industry.
There's a number of things about our culture that offend other countries. The idea that not wanting to eat (bulimia, anorexia) is a disease would probably disgust them as well... again, I really think that the WTC attack was as much a religious and cultural issue as it was a protest of any foreign policy -- that's just an excuse. I think that the old-guard in the Taliban and other Islamic terrorist organizations are just itching to try to wipe out cultures that don't agree with them. It's really hard to convince your wife or daughter that she's inferior and shouldn't read, write or be uncovered in public when you have women like Madeline Allbright as Secretary of State for the most powerful country in the world.
3. Our foreign policies as an excuse to attack us. Changes must be made.
No doubt, bin Laden has drummed up support by playing up our support for Israel. Again, however, if we weren't involved with Israel but just fail to help Palestine, they'd find fault. We're a target not so much because of our policies, but because we're the biggest guy on the block. If you're top dog, there's always someone who wants to knock you down. That's not to say our foreign policy isn't faulty, but the fact remains that there is no way we'll be able to walk the tightrope well enough to keep from pissing someone off. If we change foreign policy to please people like bin Laden, we'll not only be seen as a "Great Satan" by someone -- we'll also be seen as weak. Also, the things that we're hated for abroad, you can be sure that our every fault is exaggerated in what passes for the Middle Eastern press. Truth in reporting isn't a big concern for people with terrorist ties.
4. Our actions have claimed more lives than the attack itself.
Maybe. By whose count? Also, the point wasn't to kill an equal number of people -- we'd have been happy if the Afghanistan government or people would have just turned bin Laden over to us with no bloodshed whatsoever. They refused. Now they're paying the price. Not to sound callous, but it could have been prevented. I, for one, doubt that the present administration is all that anxious to find bin Laden -- they want to drag this out as long as possible to keep attention away from all the nasty things that Bush administration is trying to do. Yes, I'm a cynical bastard, and yes, I think that Bush and his cronies are evil.
I think the bottom line is this, as a country the people of the US need to pay more attention to what we're doing in (and to) foreign countries. We should not be intimidated into ceasing to try to help other countries, but our "leaders" need to take a longer view of things. We often get fired up about a cause, jump in and then get bored and leave a big-ass mess behind. That's a gross oversimplification, but it pretty much holds true. Our foreign policy changes almost daily, and we're not very good at predicting what the outcome of our actions is going to be down the road. Of course this leads to trouble.
Just spreading the wealth isn't really possible. Pouring money into another country really doesn't work. Anything more involved is seen as heavy-handed. I wish there was an easy answer for this, but there's not.
Ever heard the saying "two wrongs do not make a right?"
Yes, corporate greed does a lot of harm to the world.
There is, however, no excuse for terrorism against innocent people. These gutless bastards and the organizations that backed them haven't even had the courage to own up to their actions or give a reason for them.
The things that corporations do to harm people, in this country and others, should be brought to light and should be stopped. But this is not the way to do it. If anything, the WTC attacks have just solidified the position of people like George W. Bush who make possible some of the horrors that are visited upon "starving nations." Not only have thousands of innocent people been murdered, but it's not considered impolitic to disagree with the current administration. These attacks have convinced millions of people that the only way to prevent further attacks is to give free reign to conservative assholes like Bush and Ashcroft.
These events were "inspired" by people just as evil as the corporations who indoctrinate children with the idea that it's glorious to kill people for "jihad." They're just as power-hungry and evil, even more so if you asked me.
Most of the terrorists were traced back to Saudi Arabia. If people are starving in Saudi Arabia, they can look to their own government for that -- they bring in enough oil money to feed ever man, woman and child in the country. These were people who were trained to hate by people like bin Laden -- someone who's probably never gone hungry a day in his life. At least not prior to his terrorist days. It was more inspired by misguided religious beliefs than anything.
Again, corporate greed does plenty of harm, but by having to trot it out in every discussion you dilute the argument and convince people that you're a fanatic. Corporate greed isn't responsible for all the world's ills any more than Islamic terrorists are. They both visit their own horrors upon people, but place blame where it belongs.
The brain may have a pre-programmed response to gravity on earth
I doubt that it's pre-programmed. We learn to respond to gravity the same way that we learn to walk, talk or catch a ball on Earth. If you took an infant to a zero-gravity environment (ignoring any other potential ill-effects like bone-density loss...) they would simply grow up used to that gravity. If you brought them back to Earth (again, ignoring the fact that an infant raised in zero-gravity would be a helpless whelp if brought to Earth later in life) they wouldn't automagically be able to adapt to the cause and effect of the stronger gravity. It's not innate, it's learned.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but how does this make driver licences necessary?
Prevention, mainly. People want some assurance that the guy next to them in the huge fscking SUV has some idea how to operate it. It's little consolation that he might get a ticket after he's run over you. They're not strictly for identification, that's just a use that has sprang up since cars have become so common.
The real problem here is that there was a gap -- a need for people to prove that they were who they say they are, for example -- and an inappropriate entity stepped in to fill the void. People are all too willing to accept the DMV acting as the default ID card arbiter because most people don't want to have to be responsible for two trips to a government office.
Not that anyone who owns a very expensive 747 is going to let some random shmuck fly it.
Very true, but there are some random shmucks with enough money to afford planes (maybe not 747s, but still big enough to cause discomfort when they plow into your house...) who might decide to bypass the lengthy process of getting a pilot's license. Anyway, the point is that it does make sense to require that someone is qualified to operate a plane or car before allowing them to operate the vehicle. Yes, someone can take a car on the road without a driver's license or take a plane out without a pilot's license -- but there are severe penalties designed to discourage that kind of behavior.
Good to see civilised debate is alive and well.
Yup.
The point is that today people can't conceive of a world without driver's licenses and yet we lived in such a world for ~40 years.
We also lived in a world without cars for thousands of years. We lived in a world with television, social security numbers, radio, computers, mass-produced clothing or canned food. Our children can't conceive of that now. By saying "oh, no, we have to have *shudder* driver's licenses" you're not providing a convincing argument about "producing papers on demand." Sorry, but it doesn't follow that drivers licenses lead to police states that require "papers on demand." It's alarmist overreaction. Very sloppy thinking.
Furthermore, any intrusion that people truly don't want is preventable - that's why we have elections. The folks at the DMV may not be elected officials, but the people who appoint them are. Obviously, people didn't feel too strongly about driver's licenses, in fact they probably supported them -- but they have reacted strongly against automated systems that take people's pictures and send tickets for speeding -- and (at least in Denver) they've gotten rid of it.
Your implicit suggestion that driver's licenses will lead to a police state doesn't hold water. In a country with 260+ million people, you have to accept some regulation and if a government is going to keep 50,000 (or more) John Smiths straight it may have to have a better system than just name, SSN and birthdate.
Maybe face recognition is too intrusive, but you can't go around whining about how people didn't need any license to drive a car in 1902. No one is going to take you seriously, and rightly so.
Somehow the world managed to survive those 40 odd years of unlicensed drivers.
Are you suggesting that the traffic patterns in the early years of the automobile were anything like they are today? I certainly hope not, otherwise I can see exactly why people deride you as a nut. It's a ridiculous proposal - the idea that if we didn't require driver's licenses for the first 40 years of the automobile, we never should.
When a town only has a few people with automobiles, and those autos are much less powerful than the cars of today, requiring a license probably seemed unnecessary. It shouldn't be necessary to explain how the increase in the number of cars would correspond with increased regulations as to the operation of those vehicles.
The Wright Brothers didn't need pilot licenses either. Are you going to get in a 747 with an unlicensed pilot? Would you like to live near an airport where anyone can jump in a Cessna regardless of training? No? Then shut the hell up.
There's no doubt of that, but the real question is whether we have a right to expect it. Obviously, the framers of the Constitution really had no way to anticipate the technology that we'd have today -- so the question is where we draw the lines.
And, paranoia aside, do the benefits of more accurate identification outweigh the inconveniences or intrusions? I can see beneficial uses of this technology -- what are the possible harmful effects? (Realistic, not "black helicopter" fantasies about being tracked down by super-secret government agents...) What are the possible benefits?
It's a shame that changes like this don't need to be ratified by the citizens of Connecticut -- maybe it's time for a new Amendment to the Constitution:
Basically, it would need to be re-written and tightened up, but the idea would be to convey:
1. All people have a presumptive right to refrain from giving personal information beyond what is absolutely necessary for a government institution to operate.
2. No government entity could collect information for the purpose of solving crimes that have not yet been committed.
3. Any information given to the government must remain in "trust" and cannot be shared with non-governmental entities.
I'd probably add a clause that requires governmental entities to provide a copy of any and all information being stored about them, and the ability to expunge data (fingerprints, mug shots) gathered that do not result in successful charges. So, if you're arrested or charged for burglary, but are found innocent (or never go to trial at all) you can have your mug shot and fingerprints removed from their databases.
1. When I say "the retailer" I'm talking about the people who OWN the store and make the decisions - at a corporate level. Some geek making minimum wage behind the counter at Babbages might influence one or two sales, but you don't matter diddly in the grand scheme of things.
2. I already mentioned that products like the XBox that are in demand will sell regardless of their treatment by the retailer. And a product that is universally hated will not sell -- but borderline products need retailer support. The XBox sales would be even more dismal if retailers didn't give it good treatment. It'd be even MORE dismal if retailers decided that the PS2 was going to be the ultimate winner and decided not to carry the XBox at all.
3. Nothing you said refutes the basic premise: the retailer (not the counter jockey) has influence over whether something sells. Guess what? If the corporate office doesn't order XBoxes -- they don't sell. End of story. If enough retailers decide to short-order a product, it'll kill the sales.
Before you get all uppity over your experience working the register at Babbages, maybe you should be a corporate buyer for a little bit. One or two anecdotal tales of your limited experience in one Babbages location doesn't a trend make.
That's not surprising. On items like the PS2 and XBox, they're "loss leaders" -- basically items that drive people into the store and cause them to make future purchases.
It's not a Microsoft-only phenomenon, some of Red Hat's boxed sets are basically sold at no profit or a slight loss if you figure in cost of shipping, stocking and so forth. It's the same way with Windows -- stores might get a 10% markup on Windows, probably less.
I suppose it's the only way, really -- to get a traditional markup, they'd have to sell the units at a cost of $500 or more.
The article on Yahoo! mentions "piracy" (what a ridiculous term, anyway) a number of times before they mention that Gateway is promoting legally enjoying digital music. Obviously, Gateway is not promoting "piracy" they're just trying to protect their right to sell legal hardware without tampering with it to give the RIAA and MPAA undo control over individual's property. Lest we forget, these companies already enjoy "royalties" from CD-Rs and such to compensate for legal copying -- so how the fsck is that "piracy"?
The RIAA (and apparently Reuters, or at least Andy Sullivan) wants everyone to believe that if you make a copy -- even for personal use -- it's *shudder* piracy.
First the software industry and record/movie companies are telling us it's "piracy" to rip MP3s or play DVDs with DeCSS...now the government is telling us we're junior terrorists if we buy a bag of pot. When will the hyperbole end? And when will someone smack the shit out of these sanctimonious assholes for being corporate greedbags and conservative tightasses?
I think I need some coffee...
Actually, Pulp Fiction follows Campbell's stages of the hero quite nicely. If you pay attention to Bruce Willis' character (Butch Coolidge) he goes through all of the stages.
Yes, Lucas is a bit too self-important, and yes Star Wars (and the rest) owe quite a bit to science fiction.
However, this article is so one-sided and vindictive it's ridiculous. Like it or not, Star Wars does draw some of its themes from mythology. It does fit with certain archetypes, and that's probably why it was so broadly popular instead of just being popular with sci-fi geeks.
For thousands of years, people of all cultures have told stories of heroes that shaped their culture and helped form their perception of the world. We no longer have a truly coherent culture or enjoy the belief in heroes like Beowulf or King Arthur -- so we go to movies and search for heroes there. No one believes that they're going to grow up to be Luke Skywalker (I hope...) but the movie satisfies a craving that we all have for heroes -- that's basically all Campbell and Lucas are saying, though they try to make it sound much more complicated than that. There are plenty of other reasons to enjoy Star Wars, but I believe that this was a huge factor.
Yeah, I think that says a lot about how the product made it to market in the first place. It certainly wasn't a loss for Bill, but it didn't do a lot for M$ -- not that there's any shame in having a product that doesn't take off, particularly when the company in question can afford to make mistakes.
You know, if I was a happily married billionaire with three kids, I think I'd let someone else run the company and spend my time with my wife and kids instead of trying to run the world... of course, to test this theory I'd need a billion dollars and a wife and kids...
Nice site, BTW.
it's just that nobody likes the thing.
Is it that bad? I wouldn't buy an XBox just on the basis of it being a Microsoft product, but I admit that it's a dislike of MS (not to mention the fact I already own two other consoles...) and that I don't have any experience with the XBox itself. It might be the greatest platform known to man, but I just won't give M$ my money. I do wish that the other manufacturers would make some XBox-sized controllers... the dinky things that come with Nintendo and Sony systems are a bit small for me.
They will hammer away at the xbox the ay they did at windows (how many people ran windows prior to v3.11?) and everything else
Believe it or not, there are Microsoft products that fail -- remember Microsoft BOB? (If you blinked after it was released, you probably don't.)
There's a difference between a product like Windows - where all the real expenses are in R&D and distribution is cheap - and hardware products like the XBox where every unit costs M$ hundreds of dollars. Remember, as it stands now, they don't even make money on the console -- they only make money on game licensing.
If Microsoft wants to get the TiVO market, they're going to have to go against the tide of the rest of the mega-evil corporations and support people's ability to record digital TV, so it will be interesting to see what happens there. People aren't going to spend $300 or $400 on a box to record shows if all the digital controls that the broadcasters are pushing come into effect. Remember, the FCC is pushing for all-digital content by 2006, which means a whole new world for recording TV.
I would be interested to see what it costs to develop a game for the x-box versus the PlayStation 2.
That would be an interesting comparison. The boxes from a developer's perspective. Although I think I've heard that it's supposed to be easy(ish) to port a game from Windows to XBox, but I don't know this firsthand. (Someone will certainly correct me if I'm wrong...)
I believe that the Linux kit for PS2 is supposed to allow people to develop games for the PS2 -- and that's a pretty cheap kit. The professional development kit for the PS2 is pretty expensive.
What the heck does the RETAILERS opinions of the boxes have to do with things?
A retailer's relationship with a manufacturer/product can make a lot of difference between a product that sells well and one that doesn't. A good example of this is in grocery stores where the store brand gets preferential treatment -- better placement, more advertising, slightly lower cost -- over the name brand. I've even seen grocers put name-brand products in odd locations (for example, name-brand crackers in a completely different aisle from the rest) or just not carrying popular brands at all. If you shop at King Sooper's or Safeway (I forget which) in Denver, you can buy three generic brands of fig cookies, but you can't find Fig Newtons in the store at all.
If you are a retailer you decide things like how many units to carry, store placement, promotions and so forth. If a product is in high demand, there's not much a retailer can do to dissuade people -- but if a product (like the XBox) is trying to make inroads into an existing market with a popular front-runner (like the PS2) how retailers treat the product can make a lot of difference. Since Microsoft isn't selling the XBox direct to the public, they have to depend on retailers. (Having a direct outlet is a double-edged sword -- retailers tend to dislike companies selling their products directly, because they have an incentive to take sales away from the retailer (more profits) and can afford to sell the product cheaper than the retailers.)
If a product doesn't have decent margins or you don't have a good relationship with the vendor (or both) you can certainly understock the product and hope that people will go to the competition's product and kill the products you don't like. I'm not saying that's happening with the XBox, but if several large retailers like Best Buy decided to promote the PS2 more heavily it could certainly have a negative impact on XBox sales. (I doubt this is the case...their margins on the XBox can't be much lower than on the PS2, which has virtually no margin. Game titles are where they make their money, and I imagine the margins are about the same for XBox and PS2.)
Oh, and speaking as someone who used to work in retail -- I don't care for "oily salesmen" any more than you do. The things I looked for were decent margins, stock when I needed it, a good return policy for unsold inventory and decent terms (net 30 or better).
One example that easily comes to mind is the huge number of police cameras in England.
I would argue that this isn't really a loss of freedom. But, I also mentioned in my first post that it's a cycle, not an absolute straight line. People come to expect a given set of freedoms, they fight for them, and eventually get complacent. Someone in government, the church or other institutions tries to take away said freedoms and after a certain point people rebel (violently or not) and usually push a little farther. I think, ultimately, that the RIAA and MPAA are going to regret trying to crack down on people's ability to copy data because when the time comes that the majority of people get pissed about it they're going to go farther than just "fair use" -- they're going to go after unlimited ability to copy and a drastic reduction of copyright. Similarly, the police in Denver are probably ultimately going to wish that they had not pursued the Tattered Cover case because they're going to end up getting the Supreme Court to issue a judgement that will essentially have the force of law - namely, that bookstores do not have to give up this kind of information. Instead of it being a legal grey area, it will become rigidly defined and they are going to find the line drawn in favor of personal freedom rather than government control.
As far as the "war on drugs." Again, I would argue that this is cyclical. If it is a "freedom" that people care about (and I'm not sure I would call using drugs a "freedom" anyway) it will eventually go the other way. The "freedom" to smoke up, shoot up, snort or pop pills has hardly ever been a popular cause or an explicit right. However, let's look at prohibition. Since a drinking age has long been legislated, we can assume that anyone over a certain age can expect the "right" to drink. Then a group of people got together and passed legislation against it. Didn't last long, did it?
The last few hundred years are a very small sample
Again, I'm not talking about just the last hundred years -- I'm talking about the entire sweep of recorded history.
Again, I'll ask: please provide a specific example of an individual freedom that has evolved that has been done away with. You cannot, because it has not happened. Here's the cycle as I see it: people feel that a particular freedom or freedoms are being repressed, eventually they rebel, usually they win. Over time, the people who do not have to fight for these freedoms relax until, again, they begin to feel repressed and the cycle starts again.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, it doesn't go back willingly. Yes, various "free" societies have devolved or collapsed, but they also evolved out of less free societies -- and have seeded more "free" societies.
I'm not referring merely to the United States, I'm referring to the entire span of recorded history.
The US and the idea of individual freedoms that we now have did not spontaneously spring into being. It's been the result of a steady progression. It's been very slow, no doubt about that.
Look at the British, for example. They've slowly gone from a country ruled absolutely be a king, to a country with a king that essentially co-ruled with parliament to a country that has royalty as figureheads only. This has taken hundreds of years, but it's very unlikely that the British will revert to a monarchy or accept a serious decline in personal freedoms.
Please give an example of a personal freedom that came into being and then was successfully eradicated. Yes, certain countries/governments have managed to curtail personal freedoms for a time -- I doubt Cubans are more free under Castro than they were under the previous government -- but as a general trend, personal freedoms will always prevail. The fact is that there is a larger percentage of the population that gains from any given personal freedom than the percentage of the population that gains from oppressing them. Eventually, the majority realizes this.
Who do you think will win this fight?
If history is any guide, individual freedom always wins... even if the individual who starts the fight doesn't live to see it. The real question is how bad any particular abuse has to get before a majority of people fight against it. The government, churches and other institutions have long been trying to limit personal freedoms and the free flow of information all throughout recorded history.
One way or another, the restrictions have always crumbled. It may be of little consequence to those currently experiencing the brunt of those institutions, but over the long haul freedom always wins. This is not to say that people shouldn't be fighting or speaking up -- but all too often the restriction of personal freedoms has to become very oppressive before people will expend serious effort to fight it.
Wow...talk about herd mentality.
Sorry, I refuse to pony up extra for a machine that comes with a Windows tax and inferior components. I'll put together my own systems with the best components I can find and exactly the peripherals and such that I want. If sheep who don't know from computers think that a computer that doesn't have "Dell" or "Compaq" on the case is inferior, that's their problem.
IANAL, but I believe you can win judgements against someone if you can prove that they've filed a frivolous lawsuit. In fact, I believe filing frivolous lawsuits is punishable in and of itself -- they might be able to find a NY District Attorney that might haul him up on charges.
Yes, you're right -- it is expensive to defend yourself against a lawsuit like this, even if you are correct, but... I just couldn't see settling it. And I'd be contacting every media outlet in NY to publicize the suit. (You cannot sue a newspaper for covering something like this, or -- more accurately -- you can't win.)
Why should they have turned over Bin Laden
Self-preservation?
Yes, I realize that Afghanistan's national pride would have taken a hit if they had just handed him over -- but a lot of people would still be alive. The Taliban would likely still be in power. The outcome -- a prolonged military attack on Afghanistan -- was a foregone conclusion if they refused.
I also disagree that this was just "a hunch." For one thing, I believe that the administration still has evidence that they're not sharing with the public. Another is the fact that this isn't the first attack that bin Laden has orchestrated, merely the most successful. It's my understanding that there is very conclusive evidence that he has been responsible for previous terrorist attacks against the US.
What would have happened if bin Laden was in Canada? That's a good question. Surely, we would have been loathe to attack Canada, and they would be just as unlikely to turn him over knowing that we'd be likely to sentence him to death. (Actually, I'm not sure we would. Killing bin Laden makes him a martyr, particularly if it were a scheduled execution that the entire world could focus on rather than dying anonymously in some cave...) However, we're far more likely to allow Canada to try him in Canada because we know that Canada would actually give bin Laden a fair (fairer, anyway) trial than Afghanistan. (Or the US, for that matter...) Who really believes that the Taliban would have tried bin Laden, or found him guilty if they did? He was there for a reason, because the government and many of the people supported him. They backed the wrong horse.
Canada isn't really a good example, anyway. Say bin Laden was in a country that we were more neutral with, like the Czech Republic or Kenya. Would we attack them if they refused to hand him over? Would they have handed him over without a fight? That's a good question, I'd say we likely would have, eventually. But more likely, those countries would have handed him over.
Frankly, if I were the president when something like this happened, we would have been bombing Afghanistan within 48 hours if they refused to hand him over. It was a foregone conclusion anyway, giving them a long time to think it over was a mistake to wait so long as it was.
As for the policy of interventionism... that's probably part of it. The fear of communism is probably a bigger factor, but we've gotten in the habit and forgotten why we started. The Korean War, Vietnam, supporting the Taliban -- those were done in the name of blocking the spread of communism. (Which in many ways gets back to corporate greed, really...)
There are a lot of issues here, but I want to address a few of them.
1. "Spreading the Wealth."
We've already seen many examples of trying to aid foreign countries, and that aid being appropriated by military forces in the country. So, it's often worthless to try to help a country without sending troops to "stabalize" the region and be sure that food, medicine and so forth go where they're intended. Military interventionism is one of the things that the US is always being beat up about -- in other words, we can't win for losing here. If we help, someone hates us. If we don't, someone hates us. Simply put, there is no way to do the right thing by everyone no matter how good our intentions are. Do nothing, we're wrong. Do something, we're wrong.
2. Afghanistan would be insulted by our weight loss industry.
There's a number of things about our culture that offend other countries. The idea that not wanting to eat (bulimia, anorexia) is a disease would probably disgust them as well... again, I really think that the WTC attack was as much a religious and cultural issue as it was a protest of any foreign policy -- that's just an excuse. I think that the old-guard in the Taliban and other Islamic terrorist organizations are just itching to try to wipe out cultures that don't agree with them. It's really hard to convince your wife or daughter that she's inferior and shouldn't read, write or be uncovered in public when you have women like Madeline Allbright as Secretary of State for the most powerful country in the world.
3. Our foreign policies as an excuse to attack us. Changes must be made.
No doubt, bin Laden has drummed up support by playing up our support for Israel. Again, however, if we weren't involved with Israel but just fail to help Palestine, they'd find fault. We're a target not so much because of our policies, but because we're the biggest guy on the block. If you're top dog, there's always someone who wants to knock you down. That's not to say our foreign policy isn't faulty, but the fact remains that there is no way we'll be able to walk the tightrope well enough to keep from pissing someone off. If we change foreign policy to please people like bin Laden, we'll not only be seen as a "Great Satan" by someone -- we'll also be seen as weak. Also, the things that we're hated for abroad, you can be sure that our every fault is exaggerated in what passes for the Middle Eastern press. Truth in reporting isn't a big concern for people with terrorist ties.
4. Our actions have claimed more lives than the attack itself.
Maybe. By whose count? Also, the point wasn't to kill an equal number of people -- we'd have been happy if the Afghanistan government or people would have just turned bin Laden over to us with no bloodshed whatsoever. They refused. Now they're paying the price. Not to sound callous, but it could have been prevented. I, for one, doubt that the present administration is all that anxious to find bin Laden -- they want to drag this out as long as possible to keep attention away from all the nasty things that Bush administration is trying to do. Yes, I'm a cynical bastard, and yes, I think that Bush and his cronies are evil.
I think the bottom line is this, as a country the people of the US need to pay more attention to what we're doing in (and to) foreign countries. We should not be intimidated into ceasing to try to help other countries, but our "leaders" need to take a longer view of things. We often get fired up about a cause, jump in and then get bored and leave a big-ass mess behind. That's a gross oversimplification, but it pretty much holds true. Our foreign policy changes almost daily, and we're not very good at predicting what the outcome of our actions is going to be down the road. Of course this leads to trouble.
Just spreading the wealth isn't really possible. Pouring money into another country really doesn't work. Anything more involved is seen as heavy-handed. I wish there was an easy answer for this, but there's not.
Ever heard the saying "two wrongs do not make a right?"
Yes, corporate greed does a lot of harm to the world.
There is, however, no excuse for terrorism against innocent people. These gutless bastards and the organizations that backed them haven't even had the courage to own up to their actions or give a reason for them.
The things that corporations do to harm people, in this country and others, should be brought to light and should be stopped. But this is not the way to do it. If anything, the WTC attacks have just solidified the position of people like George W. Bush who make possible some of the horrors that are visited upon "starving nations." Not only have thousands of innocent people been murdered, but it's not considered impolitic to disagree with the current administration. These attacks have convinced millions of people that the only way to prevent further attacks is to give free reign to conservative assholes like Bush and Ashcroft.
These events were "inspired" by people just as evil as the corporations who indoctrinate children with the idea that it's glorious to kill people for "jihad." They're just as power-hungry and evil, even more so if you asked me.
Most of the terrorists were traced back to Saudi Arabia. If people are starving in Saudi Arabia, they can look to their own government for that -- they bring in enough oil money to feed ever man, woman and child in the country. These were people who were trained to hate by people like bin Laden -- someone who's probably never gone hungry a day in his life. At least not prior to his terrorist days. It was more inspired by misguided religious beliefs than anything.
Again, corporate greed does plenty of harm, but by having to trot it out in every discussion you dilute the argument and convince people that you're a fanatic. Corporate greed isn't responsible for all the world's ills any more than Islamic terrorists are. They both visit their own horrors upon people, but place blame where it belongs.
in the REAL world, no one should be left alone. you must be the best to stay on top.
Best at what? FUD?
heavy duty servers will not be replaced by MS. Windows servers simply cannot handle the load, let alone be secured decently
Can't argue with that.
The brain may have a pre-programmed response to gravity on earth
I doubt that it's pre-programmed. We learn to respond to gravity the same way that we learn to walk, talk or catch a ball on Earth. If you took an infant to a zero-gravity environment (ignoring any other potential ill-effects like bone-density loss...) they would simply grow up used to that gravity. If you brought them back to Earth (again, ignoring the fact that an infant raised in zero-gravity would be a helpless whelp if brought to Earth later in life) they wouldn't automagically be able to adapt to the cause and effect of the stronger gravity. It's not innate, it's learned.