Since these types of contributions are currently legal, I don't see how anyone can fault MS for using them.
Why would they not do their best to keep people in place that would rule favorably for them, when their opponents will be working just a vigorously to oust the same people?
I agree that the whole soft-money situation is fscked up and needs to be overhauled. Until that happens, however, you have to fight fire with fire. I'm not a MS supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't fault them for using the same tools that their opponents are.
So anyone who thinks that Microsoft just might not be in the wrong on this issue is a Microsoft plant? When will/.'ers wake up and realize that just because you don't like a company or it's practices, this DOES NOT automatically make them guilty of any transgression you wish to accuse them of?
Read my comment again, and this time read it for content.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
"Microsoft had been challenged, but not yet convicted"
When the majority of these contributions were made, Microsoft had not yet been found guilty. Is it not in one's best interest to support those politicians which are most likely to support your interests?
Yes, I strive to be MS free, but I would have rather seen MS put this money into bug and security fixing than DC lawyers and lobbyists.
What a waste of resources
You have to look at this from Microsoft's perspective: "If we don't spend this money, we may not be around to fix bugs and security later."
If you want to keep the hired gun ringers off your back, get them on your side - even if that only means taking them out of the available pool for your opponents.
"Hello, Mr. Antitrust Lawyer-Type-Person? We'd like to hire you at your standard rate of $600/hr to string these paperclips together for the next, oh... 2 years. When can you start?"
You think the US government would decline contributions from any and all companies who have had their questionable business behaviour legally challenged.
Kinda makes sense, no? A lot like convicts being unable to cast a vote.
Not even remotely related. Why?
Convicts have been CONVICTED. As punative measure, their ability to vote has been restricted.
In this case, Microsoft had been challenged, but not yet convicted. Ever hear of a little concept known as "Innocent until PROVEN guilty"? Were this not the case, simply waging unfounded allegations against any person or company could (and likely would) impact that entity strongly for the worse.
And, as a nit to pick, it's not the "US govenment" that's accepting the contributions - it's PEOPLE and CAMPAIGNS that are running for office in the same. That money goes into getting and keeping people in office, not into the Federal coffers.
Wrong! I couldn't disagree more. The liberalization of the Supreme Court and its re-interpretation of the Consitution of the United States have made this country a worse place, not a better place.
That's another great thing about this country. You're welcome to that opinion, and welcome to work towards changing the way the Consitution is interpreted (or not, in your case) if it's important to you.
Although I can't find it at the moment, it seems like I once read (or heard?) Walter Williams [gmu.edu] discuss the folly of a "living" Constitution. Basically the problem is this: if the rules are malleable, the game doesn't work.
I've not heard (or read) Mr. William's views, but if you do happen to find them, I'd love to read them.
The Framers didn't intend us to have a country run by the rules of Calvinball
No they didn't, so it's good that we don't... despite your claim to the contrary.
but thanks to your gleefully activist Supreme Court, that's what we've got.
(The above bold emphasis is mine)
Who said it was MY activist Supreme Court? Did I appoint any of those Justices? Hell, for that matter I didn't vote for anyone who appointed any of those Justices. Assuming you're a US citizen, they're as much YOUR "gleefully activist Supreme Court" as they are mine... so you can just get off that moral high horse.
The job of the courts is to apply law, not interpret it.
If this were true, we'd have no need for courts. If law was without the need for interpretation, all cases would simply be adjudicated by computer and no justices (Supreme or otherise) would be necessary. It is in fact the need for interpretation of law that makes our legal system flexible and functional.
While I don't agree with some of your opinions, I respect them and welcome the opportunity to discuss them more. Who knows, we both might learn something.
Since we have a right to privacy (see my comments elsewhere in this article regarding Griswold vs. Connecticut 1965)... yes, losing privacy is losing a liberty.
I specifically qualified that I believed the quote to be inaccurate. Thanks for correcting me, however, as the proper quote still applies.
Fraud and deceit are harsh words - and indicate that I wished to mislead - if you'd read my statement, you'd realize that this is not the case.
So, using your corrected (and presumably correct) version:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This absolutely applies here. People are arguing that they should surrender essential liberties in order to obtain perceived safety (and perhaps a marginal improvement thereof).
Don't pick nits with a quote that I prequalified as likely incorrect - it was the sentiment that I wished to convey, not because I find it useful that Mr. Franklin held these views, but rather because I hold them and his words (paraphrased perhaps) were a useful way to articulate it.
I find it interesting that you can discern great ignorance on my part simply from a misquote.
Show me in the constitution or bill of rights where it says we have a right to privicy?
It doesn't. It doesn't have to.
I enjoy my privicy, hence posting anonymously, but it is sad to say that we don't have a RIGHT to privicy.
Actually, we do.
That's the great thing about the Constitution - it's always evolving, based on the decisions and judgements handed down by the Supreme Court. It's up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and make judgements on areas not specifically mentioned.
IANAL, but consider Griswold vs. Connecticut in 1965. The Spreme Court ruled that an individual DOES have a general RIGHT to privacy, despite not being explicitly protected by the Constitution.
Quoting Justice William Douglas from the Griswold decision:
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.... Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Consider doing a bit of research before deciding what rights you do or do not posses.
Routinely invading my privace to keep me and others from getting blown to bits is acceptable. Doing so for just about any other reason is not.
And you trust "them" to use this newfound toy only for those reasons you find acceptable?
"Well, I know we're only supposed to use this for anti-terrorism, but it's a really important case and if we only do it this once...."
Surrendering your liberties *with conditions* is naive. Power granted will be abused, eventually. Only by fighting to retain all of your liberties can you have any hope of retaining any of them.
In the immortal words of Tonto, "Who you calling *we*, White Man?"
It would be hypocritical to say "X-raying bags isn't good enough. We need to know about the people boarding the plane" in one breath, and then cry about this in the next.
While I agree that hypocracy is rampant, I challenge you to find one place where I've advocated the restriction of civil liberty for any reason, or specifically the creation of a false sense of security.
While uninformed people have asked for this type of regulation, I find your assertion that this is what the collective "we" wanted quite disturbing.
(i.e.: assurances that the data doesn't fall into the wrong hands or is abused)
Assurances from whom? The government? Trust us, we're from the government and we're here to help you.Not!
The often quoted (and probably inaccurate) statement attributed to Benjamin Franklin applies here : He that would trade liberty for security deserves and would receive neither.
It's all too easy to become complacent about trading away liberties until finally you have none. It's not that I think this particular issue is the end of the world, it's the principle of retaining and defending your right to privacy. All liberties must be defended vigorously, lest we allow the systematic elimination of them all.
Interesting to note that there is no mention of the 'we didn't violate Russian law' argument.
I think this is a very wise move on their part. While the basis for a US court having jurisdiction is somewhat questionable (IANAL), if that's a cornerstone of their defense, they end up in a very precarious position.
Should a judge decide that in fact he/she *DOES* have jurisdiction, a major portion of the case is lost, and that momentum loss would be very difficult to recover from. Rather than challenge jurisdiction, they're challenging the overly ambiguous and inevenly applied law itself. I say good for them.
Granted, the mainframe has a good architecture. But why should my company spend $400,000 for a Linux mainframe, when we could run Linux faster on a $2,000 PC server?
Architecture is the key. What's the difference between a 120 MIPS mainframe and 3000 MIPS desktop, and why is the 120 MIPS mainframe faster in mainframe type applications?
Architecture. Specifically, things like I/O, process handling, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong believer that "desktop" type hardware can compete with the big boys, especially considering the cost diferences and the extra speed, boxes, redundancy, etc that you can buy with all that cash you save. But... there are times when the big mainframe architectures really do have a reason for being.
I wonder what the viability of this kind of technology would be for recreating certain desirable regions of the world. Take, for example, prime grape growing regions in France, California, etc that produce award winning wines. Why couldn't a company design an enclosure that reproduces those conditions in, say, Nebraska where land is cheap and produce comparable crops? Would the cost of construction and continued environmental regulation outweigh any benefits?
Ok, so he's "Interesting", but since I disagree with him and use sarcasm to illustrate my point, I'm a troll? Save your mod points for the fp's of the world.
You're absolutely right! In fact... why do we let them have airplanes? We've established that *those* can do significant damage to a city, so lets go take away those commie bastard's airplanes. Hmmm... I bet they could ram a Toyota into a school and kill children! We'd better take those away.
Good point, though I suspect it would be difficult to do.
Of course, with the stuff passed in the name of Interstate Commerce, it'll happen. Hey, we can just invoke IC for this too! People are involved in Interstate Commerce, people drive from state to state, therefore the Federal Gubmint has the right... no DUTY... to implement a National ID card!
"Trust us - we're from the government, and we're here to help you."
Slashdot Mirror
Since these types of contributions are currently legal, I don't see how anyone can fault MS for using them.
Why would they not do their best to keep people in place that would rule favorably for them, when their opponents will be working just a vigorously to oust the same people?
I agree that the whole soft-money situation is fscked up and needs to be overhauled. Until that happens, however, you have to fight fire with fire. I'm not a MS supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't fault them for using the same tools that their opponents are.
So anyone who thinks that Microsoft just might not be in the wrong on this issue is a Microsoft plant? When will /.'ers wake up and realize that just because you don't like a company or it's practices, this DOES NOT automatically make them guilty of any transgression you wish to accuse them of?
Sheesh.
See my reply to the other individual who failed to take tense into account in my comment.
Read my comment again, and this time read it for content.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
"Microsoft had been challenged, but not yet convicted"
When the majority of these contributions were made, Microsoft had not yet been found guilty. Is it not in one's best interest to support those politicians which are most likely to support your interests?
You have to look at this from Microsoft's perspective: "If we don't spend this money, we may not be around to fix bugs and security later."
And damn near brilliant.
If you want to keep the hired gun ringers off your back, get them on your side - even if that only means taking them out of the available pool for your opponents.
"Hello, Mr. Antitrust Lawyer-Type-Person? We'd like to hire you at your standard rate of $600/hr to string these paperclips together for the next, oh... 2 years. When can you start?"
Not even remotely related. Why?
Convicts have been CONVICTED. As punative measure, their ability to vote has been restricted.
In this case, Microsoft had been challenged, but not yet convicted. Ever hear of a little concept known as "Innocent until PROVEN guilty"? Were this not the case, simply waging unfounded allegations against any person or company could (and likely would) impact that entity strongly for the worse.
And, as a nit to pick, it's not the "US govenment" that's accepting the contributions - it's PEOPLE and CAMPAIGNS that are running for office in the same. That money goes into getting and keeping people in office, not into the Federal coffers.
Explain to me how the FIRST posting of a link to the OFFICIAL listing of the results is redundant. Too many spare mod points floating around?
Moron.
Both are valid.
Oscars.org is the official Academy site.
Oscar.com is the official ABC/Academy site.
If you'd bothered to do a whois, you'd see that both are registered to the Academy.
They've got the bandwidth to handle it, so why not?
Why not go right to the source?
http://www.oscar.com
What's your point? (Really... what is your point?)
That's another great thing about this country. You're welcome to that opinion, and welcome to work towards changing the way the Consitution is interpreted (or not, in your case) if it's important to you.
I've not heard (or read) Mr. William's views, but if you do happen to find them, I'd love to read them.
No they didn't, so it's good that we don't... despite your claim to the contrary.
(The above bold emphasis is mine)
Who said it was MY activist Supreme Court? Did I appoint any of those Justices? Hell, for that matter I didn't vote for anyone who appointed any of those Justices. Assuming you're a US citizen, they're as much YOUR "gleefully activist Supreme Court" as they are mine... so you can just get off that moral high horse.
If this were true, we'd have no need for courts. If law was without the need for interpretation, all cases would simply be adjudicated by computer and no justices (Supreme or otherise) would be necessary. It is in fact the need for interpretation of law that makes our legal system flexible and functional.
While I don't agree with some of your opinions, I respect them and welcome the opportunity to discuss them more. Who knows, we both might learn something.
Since we have a right to privacy (see my comments elsewhere in this article regarding Griswold vs. Connecticut 1965)... yes, losing privacy is losing a liberty.
I specifically qualified that I believed the quote to be inaccurate. Thanks for correcting me, however, as the proper quote still applies.
Fraud and deceit are harsh words - and indicate that I wished to mislead - if you'd read my statement, you'd realize that this is not the case.
So, using your corrected (and presumably correct) version:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This absolutely applies here. People are arguing that they should surrender essential liberties in order to obtain perceived safety (and perhaps a marginal improvement thereof).
Don't pick nits with a quote that I prequalified as likely incorrect - it was the sentiment that I wished to convey, not because I find it useful that Mr. Franklin held these views, but rather because I hold them and his words (paraphrased perhaps) were a useful way to articulate it.
I find it interesting that you can discern great ignorance on my part simply from a misquote.
It doesn't. It doesn't have to.
Actually, we do.
That's the great thing about the Constitution - it's always evolving, based on the decisions and judgements handed down by the Supreme Court. It's up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and make judgements on areas not specifically mentioned.
IANAL, but consider Griswold vs. Connecticut in 1965. The Spreme Court ruled that an individual DOES have a general RIGHT to privacy, despite not being explicitly protected by the Constitution.
Quoting Justice William Douglas from the Griswold decision:
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.
Consider doing a bit of research before deciding what rights you do or do not posses.
And you trust "them" to use this newfound toy only for those reasons you find acceptable?
"Well, I know we're only supposed to use this for anti-terrorism, but it's a really important case and if we only do it this once...."
Surrendering your liberties *with conditions* is naive. Power granted will be abused, eventually. Only by fighting to retain all of your liberties can you have any hope of retaining any of them.
In the immortal words of Tonto, "Who you calling *we*, White Man?"
While I agree that hypocracy is rampant, I challenge you to find one place where I've advocated the restriction of civil liberty for any reason, or specifically the creation of a false sense of security.
While uninformed people have asked for this type of regulation, I find your assertion that this is what the collective "we" wanted quite disturbing.
Assurances from whom? The government? Trust us, we're from the government and we're here to help you. Not!
The often quoted (and probably inaccurate) statement attributed to Benjamin Franklin applies here : He that would trade liberty for security deserves and would receive neither.
It's all too easy to become complacent about trading away liberties until finally you have none. It's not that I think this particular issue is the end of the world, it's the principle of retaining and defending your right to privacy. All liberties must be defended vigorously, lest we allow the systematic elimination of them all.
Just my $.05 (inflation, you know).
I think this is a very wise move on their part. While the basis for a US court having jurisdiction is somewhat questionable (IANAL), if that's a cornerstone of their defense, they end up in a very precarious position.
Should a judge decide that in fact he/she *DOES* have jurisdiction, a major portion of the case is lost, and that momentum loss would be very difficult to recover from. Rather than challenge jurisdiction, they're challenging the overly ambiguous and inevenly applied law itself. I say good for them.
Architecture is the key. What's the difference between a 120 MIPS mainframe and 3000 MIPS desktop, and why is the 120 MIPS mainframe faster in mainframe type applications?
Architecture. Specifically, things like I/O, process handling, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong believer that "desktop" type hardware can compete with the big boys, especially considering the cost diferences and the extra speed, boxes, redundancy, etc that you can buy with all that cash you save. But... there are times when the big mainframe architectures really do have a reason for being.
Just my $.05 (inflation, you know).
I wonder what the viability of this kind of technology would be for recreating certain desirable regions of the world. Take, for example, prime grape growing regions in France, California, etc that produce award winning wines. Why couldn't a company design an enclosure that reproduces those conditions in, say, Nebraska where land is cheap and produce comparable crops? Would the cost of construction and continued environmental regulation outweigh any benefits?
Ok, so he's "Interesting", but since I disagree with him and use sarcasm to illustrate my point, I'm a troll? Save your mod points for the fp's of the world.
You're absolutely right! In fact... why do we let them have airplanes? We've established that *those* can do significant damage to a city, so lets go take away those commie bastard's airplanes. Hmmm... I bet they could ram a Toyota into a school and kill children! We'd better take those away.
It's for the children!
Good point, though I suspect it would be difficult to do.
Of course, with the stuff passed in the name of Interstate Commerce, it'll happen. Hey, we can just invoke IC for this too! People are involved in Interstate Commerce, people drive from state to state, therefore the Federal Gubmint has the right... no DUTY... to implement a National ID card!
"Trust us - we're from the government, and we're here to help you."