In today's world of instant information, monopolies can't last while doing malevolent things;
It's a good thing that microsoft has cleaned up it's act then. Oh, wait...
competition moves at the speed of light.
That might be true in an open and free marketplace. It does not apply in markets where the suppliers are cartels or monopolies. Many markets have natural monopolies because the cost of entry is so very high, and I believe telecommunications is one of them.
I cannot imagine that you or I could build a network and successfully compete against the existing providers, regardless of how they treat their customers.
it's not like they're citizens, so they don't enjoy Constitutional protections. Legally, our government should be able to do whatever they want to them
The rights described by the constitution apply to everyone - not just citizens. That is why the prison was built in Cuba on land that is leased from the Cuban government. The constitution does not apply there.
Is it legal to do this? That remains to be seen. Is it ethical? Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfitz, and Rice are always claiming the US is only interested in peace, democracy, and the rule of law, The mere existance of gulags like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and the secret prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan tend to severely undermine the sincerity (and truth) of those claims.
The Patriot Act as best as I can tell from reading the summary headlines of each section doesn't really take away any civil rights from me
Nor are you likely to, and I suppose that was it's intent. The patriot act is an omnibus bill that modifies existing legislation, and you are unlikely to understand the implications of any section of the patriot act unless you can see the before-and-after versions of the laws it alters.
The fact that such a lengthy and detailed document could be conjured up on such short notice suggests that law enforcement agencies had previously collaborated on a wish list of things they wanted, and it was waiting for the right set of circumstances before it was unveiled.
The question is whether it was really necessary. Al Capone was ultimately arrested for tax evasion. There were sufficient laws on the books to get public enemy #1 then, and I fail to see how the situation today is any different. Prior to the patriot act, I assume it was already a crime to murder/conspire to murder someone?
Let's say that you say on the phone you want to blow up the world. The NSA manages to catch this. It isn't admissable in court. However, do we want people to look into these things?
Well, if I were to do such a thing, I would probably be subject to extra-ordinary rendition, sent to Guantanamo Bay, subjected to interrogation techniques that civilized nations consider torture, before I was finally tried and sentenced by a secret military tribunal.
And you ask whether the use of the term tyranny is hyperbole?
Excessive police surveillance is one of the fundamental characteristics of a police state. After 9/11 people wanted answers. I don't recall anyone asking for the NSA to track everyone's phone calls, or Internet access.
For better or worse, there really isn't a real "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution.
Do you only have the rights that are explicitly defined in your constitution?
However, people demand security. Often security and privacy conflict with one another and we as a society need to decide where that line needs to be drawn. If we don't want the government to look over our shoulders, then we can't bitch when they didn't see something coming.
Let's assume that you totally trust GWB and believe he would *never* lie to you or do anything even remotely dishonest. Would you have wanted Bill Clinton to have the same set of powers? What if Hillary gets elected president - would you want her to have the same lack of oversight that Bush currently enjoys?
Sooner or later, a politician you don't respect or trust will be elected. If the prospect of such an individual abusing their powers bothers you, the reasonable course of action would be to deny such power to all politicians.
Back to Pixar: I've only seen one of their movies, A Bug's Life. It wasn't bad, but it totally used up my capacity for cutsy 3D animated talking animals -- and that's all Pixar seems to do.
Have you seen The Incredibles"? Of the Pixar movies I have seen, it was clearly the best. It's still a kid's movie, but there was plenty for me to enjoy too.
There is no getting away from corporate-speak, but we can try to curb the worst excesses.
What I find most offensive is when words that are not verbs, are made into verbs:
PHB: Can you action this for me?
Action is not a verb, and making it one does not clarify what the PHB is asking me to do. From an aural perspective, it has more interesting implications, and I assume that is why the suits speak that way.
When I discuss a technical problem with my colleagues, we use acronyms and concepts that my manager simply does not understand, but we completely understand. In doing so, we are able to communicate more efficiently amongst ourselves. I wonder if the suits are not doing the same thing?
Ofcourse we're a means to an end. So is every employee of every company in the world. Why's that tragic?
Employees are not expected to kill, nor are they expected to die for their employer. I suppose one could make an argument that those who work for tobacco companies are paid to kill, but that is clearly the exception and not the rule.
But soldiers? What other function do they have? What good are soldiers if there are no wars to fight or enemies to kill?
The tragedy is the wasted human potential. The elites are quick to use the military to advance their own selfish goals. At the same time, the elites have any number of justifications for inaction when there are honourable causes where the military could make a difference.
What's truly tragic is that, unfortiunately, uninformed opinions like yours are far from unique.
Well, if you haven't anything interesting or insightful to say, you can always fall back on ad-homenim attacks.
We don't need your support or approval, and we certainly don't need your permission.
Of course not. The military fights and dies for the political and corporate elite - not for me.
But I have never been under the illusion that it was any other way.
The current organization has very little in common with its founders' original purposes.
IIRC, the original intent of MADD was to oppose drunk driving, and raise awareness to all of the negative social consequences of it. What leads you to conclude they have some (any?) other agenda?
yet MADD keeps pushing for even lower limits.
So what? Any lives that have been lost because the driver was in any way impaired were entirely preventable. Let them push for lower limits. The only folks who will be adversely impacted are those who drink and drive.
The current organization of MADD cares less and less about traffic safety and more about outright Prohibition.
Reference? Citation? Can you justify that claim in any way?
It sounds to me like you have some kind of axe to grind against MADD...
You fight on behalf of the political and corporate elites. When they say fight, you fight, and when they think it is time for "acceptable losses", you take your chances on not being one of the unfortunates who die.
I don't think that soldiers are mindless barbarians - although the leaders try their very best to dehumanize whoever the current enemy happens to be. No, soldiers are more like Roman gladiators, merely a means to an end.
The environment needs to provide a consistent, but not necessarily high level of realism.
Abso-fricken-lutely!
The first game I ever really loved was Ultima IV. The graphics were nothing to write home about, but the story and world was so immersive the quality of the graphics did not matter.
Baldur's Gate was a great game, and it was by no means photorealistic. Planescape:Torment was the best ever and it would not have been improved by adding more polygons to the characters.
The same is true for other genres. The graphical quality of the game does not make a significant difference whether an RTS sucks or not. It might look pretty, but if it's crap, it's still crap.
And again, greed wins out over morality. Do business, no matter what the cost.
But Google is a publicly traded company now, and there is no place for morality. The board is obligated to act in the best interests of the shareholders. Since there is money to be made in China, Google follows the official party line.
I'm far too cynical to be disappointed any more. Corporations exist to make money and limit the liability of the owners. I'd say that they would kill people if it paid well enough, but we already know about the tobacco industry...
Unfortunately, morality, ethics and integrity are empty rhetoric, the real goal is to enhance shareholder value.
Serious audiophile sites/publications ignore Bose equipment completely. Perhaps that is because they refuse to waste their time on stuff they know is junk, or it could be because Bose has been known to deploy lawsuits in response to bad reviews.
While it is true that RMS is a hardcore believer in the principles of free software, he is also a pretty good programmer in his own right. He created emacs and the original gcc compiler.
Lots of people make fun of RMS, but he has proven he has m4d sk1llz.
For the record, I think the rest of your post is bang on though.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a good thing that microsoft has cleaned up it's act then. Oh, wait...
competition moves at the speed of light.That might be true in an open and free marketplace. It does not apply in markets where the suppliers are cartels or monopolies. Many markets have natural monopolies because the cost of entry is so very high, and I believe telecommunications is one of them.
I cannot imagine that you or I could build a network and successfully compete against the existing providers, regardless of how they treat their customers.
The rights described by the constitution apply to everyone - not just citizens. That is why the prison was built in Cuba on land that is leased from the Cuban government. The constitution does not apply there.
Is it legal to do this? That remains to be seen. Is it ethical? Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfitz, and Rice are always claiming the US is only interested in peace, democracy, and the rule of law, The mere existance of gulags like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and the secret prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan tend to severely undermine the sincerity (and truth) of those claims.
I think the GP had it right the first time. When everyone can live their wildest fantasy, there won't be any more inventions...
Enderle? The well-known microsoft and sco shill?
Embarassing indeed...
Nor are you likely to, and I suppose that was it's intent. The patriot act is an omnibus bill that modifies existing legislation, and you are unlikely to understand the implications of any section of the patriot act unless you can see the before-and-after versions of the laws it alters.
The fact that such a lengthy and detailed document could be conjured up on such short notice suggests that law enforcement agencies had previously collaborated on a wish list of things they wanted, and it was waiting for the right set of circumstances before it was unveiled.
The question is whether it was really necessary. Al Capone was ultimately arrested for tax evasion. There were sufficient laws on the books to get public enemy #1 then, and I fail to see how the situation today is any different. Prior to the patriot act, I assume it was already a crime to murder/conspire to murder someone?
Let's say that you say on the phone you want to blow up the world. The NSA manages to catch this. It isn't admissable in court. However, do we want people to look into these things?Well, if I were to do such a thing, I would probably be subject to extra-ordinary rendition, sent to Guantanamo Bay, subjected to interrogation techniques that civilized nations consider torture, before I was finally tried and sentenced by a secret military tribunal.
And you ask whether the use of the term tyranny is hyperbole?
Excessive police surveillance is one of the fundamental characteristics of a police state. After 9/11 people wanted answers. I don't recall anyone asking for the NSA to track everyone's phone calls, or Internet access.
Are there any laws that mean anything to this administration?
Do you only have the rights that are explicitly defined in your constitution?
However, people demand security. Often security and privacy conflict with one another and we as a society need to decide where that line needs to be drawn. If we don't want the government to look over our shoulders, then we can't bitch when they didn't see something coming.I think that Bruce Schneier's recent article in Wired is one of the most reasoned and insightful responses to your line of argumentation.
As he states, it is not a debate over security versus privacy - it is liberty versus tyranny.
Let's assume that you totally trust GWB and believe he would *never* lie to you or do anything even remotely dishonest. Would you have wanted Bill Clinton to have the same set of powers? What if Hillary gets elected president - would you want her to have the same lack of oversight that Bush currently enjoys?
Sooner or later, a politician you don't respect or trust will be elected. If the prospect of such an individual abusing their powers bothers you, the reasonable course of action would be to deny such power to all politicians.
It all depends on whether or not your name is Karl Rove...
Well said!
What, you had not heard of Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib before?
Have you seen The Incredibles"? Of the Pixar movies I have seen, it was clearly the best. It's still a kid's movie, but there was plenty for me to enjoy too.
Noblesse Oblige is expected, and should not admired.
There is no getting away from corporate-speak, but we can try to curb the worst excesses.
What I find most offensive is when words that are not verbs, are made into verbs:
Action is not a verb, and making it one does not clarify what the PHB is asking me to do. From an aural perspective, it has more interesting implications, and I assume that is why the suits speak that way.
When I discuss a technical problem with my colleagues, we use acronyms and concepts that my manager simply does not understand, but we completely understand. In doing so, we are able to communicate more efficiently amongst ourselves. I wonder if the suits are not doing the same thing?
When all else fails, there is always bullshit bingo!
Employees are not expected to kill, nor are they expected to die for their employer. I suppose one could make an argument that those who work for tobacco companies are paid to kill, but that is clearly the exception and not the rule.
But soldiers? What other function do they have? What good are soldiers if there are no wars to fight or enemies to kill?
The tragedy is the wasted human potential. The elites are quick to use the military to advance their own selfish goals. At the same time, the elites have any number of justifications for inaction when there are honourable causes where the military could make a difference.
What's truly tragic is that, unfortiunately, uninformed opinions like yours are far from unique.Well, if you haven't anything interesting or insightful to say, you can always fall back on ad-homenim attacks.
We don't need your support or approval, and we certainly don't need your permission.Of course not. The military fights and dies for the political and corporate elite - not for me.
But I have never been under the illusion that it was any other way.
IIRC, the original intent of MADD was to oppose drunk driving, and raise awareness to all of the negative social consequences of it. What leads you to conclude they have some (any?) other agenda?
yet MADD keeps pushing for even lower limits.So what? Any lives that have been lost because the driver was in any way impaired were entirely preventable. Let them push for lower limits. The only folks who will be adversely impacted are those who drink and drive.
The current organization of MADD cares less and less about traffic safety and more about outright Prohibition.Reference? Citation? Can you justify that claim in any way?
It sounds to me like you have some kind of axe to grind against MADD...
And one time, at boot camp...
When are you going to start doing that?
You fight on behalf of the political and corporate elites. When they say fight, you fight, and when they think it is time for "acceptable losses", you take your chances on not being one of the unfortunates who die.
I don't think that soldiers are mindless barbarians - although the leaders try their very best to dehumanize whoever the current enemy happens to be. No, soldiers are more like Roman gladiators, merely a means to an end.
That is the real tragedy...
You have a problem with Mothers Against Drunk Driving?
<shakes head>
Abso-fricken-lutely!
The first game I ever really loved was Ultima IV. The graphics were nothing to write home about, but the story and world was so immersive the quality of the graphics did not matter.
Baldur's Gate was a great game, and it was by no means photorealistic. Planescape:Torment was the best ever and it would not have been improved by adding more polygons to the characters.
The same is true for other genres. The graphical quality of the game does not make a significant difference whether an RTS sucks or not. It might look pretty, but if it's crap, it's still crap.
But Google is a publicly traded company now, and there is no place for morality. The board is obligated to act in the best interests of the shareholders. Since there is money to be made in China, Google follows the official party line.
I'm far too cynical to be disappointed any more. Corporations exist to make money and limit the liability of the owners. I'd say that they would kill people if it paid well enough, but we already know about the tobacco industry...
Unfortunately, morality, ethics and integrity are empty rhetoric, the real goal is to enhance shareholder value.
Is Eric Schmidt still around? I thought that Steve Ballmer was going to f*cking bury him!
Apparently, he did it once before...
You can have good sounding speakers, or you can have Bose. You can't have both. Here are a few links for more information:
Serious audiophile sites/publications ignore Bose equipment completely. Perhaps that is because they refuse to waste their time on stuff they know is junk, or it could be because Bose has been known to deploy lawsuits in response to bad reviews.
Given the overly-specific nature of some Japanese pr0n, I suspect that someone has done that already!
While it is true that RMS is a hardcore believer in the principles of free software, he is also a pretty good programmer in his own right. He created emacs and the original gcc compiler.
Lots of people make fun of RMS, but he has proven he has m4d sk1llz.
For the record, I think the rest of your post is bang on though.