Current US-gov position on Free Speech
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 2
The current US government position on Free Speech is:
1. We have a First Amendment but it has limits. Lots of limits. So many limits in fact, that it is really just a nice idea that should only be followed when the Free Speech doesn't offend anyone. See Dick Armey's "Reflection on Values" Notice the way he says, I'm for free speech, but I'm not for free speech, on the same page.(Sorry for picking of the Republicans, but I haven't found anything equally stupid from the Democrats on the Web.)
2. Technology is Scary: Plenty of articles on this, including this one from Wired, The Bus Stops Everywhere. I actually think the reason why so many politicians are out to regulate technology to such an absurd degree is what has been called future shock in which technology has moved ahead way to fast for some people to keep up with it. Suddenly, your in the future, and you don't like it. It is akin to culture shock like when French radio stations are required to program X-amount of French programming because too much American stuff is popular. So they play a lot of Celine Dion songs over and over again...
3. Electronic Speech is just plain evil: You don't have Jack Valenti (or someone like him) rushing down to capitol hill whenever electronic speech is attacked, because technology companies I think (much like me) would like to pretend politics don't exist. It's this dirty, ugly, mind-numbingly stupid world, and besides we've only got X-amount of time to get that code done before M$ beats us to it. Who has time to go vote when you've got a milestone to deliver that week? So you combine the fact that there is no Pro-Tech lobby, politicians resent having to keep up with computers and the current disrepute of the First Amendment, and you've got a recipe for authoritarianism.
Re:"Laws" and "Bills" are NOT the same thing!
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
But I believe that these people want this bill to become a law. I will admit that sometimes bills which have no hope of passing are introduced to make a political statement or make the President look bad when he vetos them, I still think most bills are introduced with the hopes of changing the legal environment of the U.S. of A. Therefore introducing a bill is pushing a law, even though it hasn't been enacted yet.
Re:Could you believe I used to be a republican?
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
I used to be a Republican, too! After all the assaults on Liberty from both parties, I decided to join the Libertarians. My Dad thinks its stupid (he'd never change parties) but I figure why should I keep electing people who will preside over the dismantling of the Bill of Rights? I've written letters (paper, snail mail letters, not Emails to the interns who read the Emails) to both Orrin Hatch and Dick Armey explaining why I left the party. Of course, when they got my letter if it was the only one I'm sure they laughed all day and all night (like Mr. Burns over a crippled Irishman) so I'm hoping that they'll lose the election the next go around. (I don't mean as individuals, I mean they should lose their party dominance.) Here's a recent article from Wired you should read:
A combination of a single easy to remember password and a substitution cipher based on the name of the thing that the password is for. Example, NYT would be encoded by making the first version of the alphabet (for the first letter of the password) start with N, the second letter Y=A, the third letter T=A, and then back to N=A until all the letters of your password are encrypted.
Of course there are more high tech ways to do this but you better not lose the program you used to encrypt your passwords unless you know how to rebuild it from scratch. (Still, writing a password encrypting program is fun for a rainy day, I think.)
In a way, this reminds me of the debate over sattellite phones. Since the FBI doesn't know how to listen in, they want us to not use the phones. The attitude seems to be: In this case, since our litigation happy society won't know who to sue, let's use some buggy, proprietary software. So what if a few people die, we'll be able to sue Microsoft for big bucks.
This is stupid reasoning, people need to get it into their minds that sometimes when bad things happen there just isn't anybody to sue. My brother has a congenital heart defect, who is he supposed to sue, God? If he did, where will he connect the money from.
It would be tragic if some had to people die because open source is too radical for the medical establishment.
MUDs, MUCKs, MUSHes, MOOs, and all the other pretend worlds that already exist on the Internet. How about Everquest and Ultima Online?
I don't care how you slice it this is just another kind of online RPG. If people want to take it seriously, fine, but I'm not going to be interested unless it has monsters.
This isn't actually a law. There was a law proposed by Henry Hyde but it went down to defeat. This is actually a proclamation, something like when in a monarchy the king says to do something and the people have to do it. An edict passed down from on high, which the people's representatives didn't vote on.
Probably the most chilling thing about the way Washington works these days is that they can use threats to make things happen that wouldn't (probably...) ever become law if they were subject to something as untidy as a vote...
I doubt the mainstream media will do anything helpful about this, since they are in part responsible for it. It's advocacy through slanted reporting, something I've seen my whole life. I remember as a teenager watching Sally Jesse Raphael doing a show on Dungeons and Dragons (in those days D&D was popular among smart, bored kids who weren't good at sports), she had some people on to say how awful and Satanic D&D was and someone on from the Church of Satan to defend Satanism. (No body was on to defend the idea that roleplaying games not only didn't endorse Satanism but were not any kind of religious worship at all. That was taken for granted by Sally and the people running her show.)
This philosophy has crept into the mainstream news, "Was Columbine caused by movies or video games? We'll ask the author of the book On Killing David Grossman and Senator Joseph Lieberman what they think," is the type of thing you hear from TV discussion shows. How do you fight the mainstream media? I haven't been able to figure out a direct way but they do tend to snuggle up to whoever's in power in Washington, so maybe voting will help. I don't know though, the media is both powerful and entirely unnaccountable, so I don't know if they can ever be beaten. If anyone out there can think of a way to fight slanted reporting and lies of ommission in the powerful US media establishment, I'd love to hear it...
... that it is a little ridiculous that in many cases the people enforcing the age restrictions are too young to get into the movies they are restricting. This is counter to the spirit of the Washington edict because those kids can see these movies whenever they want. I only hope that when one of these movie ushers who has seen South Park 4 or 5 times runs amuck and starts murdering people that the movie theaters will institute a new rule forbidding theater employees to be under the age of 18. In fact, I suggest that the some Representative or Senator should propose such a law, before it is too late!! Now, I don't expect the law to pass, but it will put the fear of God into these movie chain owners! Hmm... should I write to Orrin Hatch or Dick Armey. Maybe Tom DeLay.
Incidentally I'm 29 years old, I can see whatever I want. So much for the "everyone against this stupid edict is under 18" theory I've been hearing. I just hate seeing hypocrisy practiced on such a large scale.
Won't somebody please think of the children...-- Mrs. Lovejoy, The Simpsons
I don't think this is entirely about 16 year olds, though. I think this is about intimidating filmakers into toning down their art (yes, I know these are popular movies and I'm not trying to say they are "high art" but high art --whatever that is-- will be affected just the same) by using the flimsy excuse that children may see them as ammunition. To illustrate my point, see the following article:
This article proves that when pushed to the wall, into a position where children will not see the things they object to, conservatives (that's a small c, I mean people who favor the status quo from 10-20 yrs ago, whatever their political affiliation) are still interested in censoring those things. I think they sincerely think that these things are worse for children than adults... but that's only because they think these things are bad for everyone and ought not to exist at all. If theaters lose money over this, expect the majority movies to be moderated down to PG-13. After all an unfortunate side effect of this new technological age is that the affluent can always see the directors cut on their DVD players and digital TV while the working poor can probably only get the "Blockbuster Version" of the movies. Which creates a side effect that the elitists in our government are probably happy about, unrestricted access to culture may become a province of the upper class in this society while the working class are all treated as children.
You know, it is always sort of refreshing to me when a bigot shows (him or her)self to be a bigot for the world to see. Let's see, you dismiss all the human being living in Japan because the tamagotchi was popular there, how nice of you. I could point out that the reason for the Tamagotchi's popularity was the fact that there is enormous crowding in Japan and the children who play with Tamagotchi's are trying to indulge their longing to have a pet to love when their living circumstances make it impossible, but what would be the point? I mean to hear such an arguement you'd need an open mind, and I'm not sure a person like you would even recognize the fact that there were children in Japan, and I certainly doubt that you would think of them as being human children with the same feelings and desires as any other child.
Well, at least you don't hide the way you feel, I'll give you that.
Hey, your virulent hatred of Katz has caused you to add 3 comments to his total. Wow. You know, some people might consider the fact that Slashdot columns with large numbers of comments will cause more people to read them (snowball effect), but not you. Nope, I'm sure he's quaking in his boots reading your intelligent, well thought out criticisms of his writing.
Why hasn't this been moderated down?
Oh, I read you comments about Japan in an earlier post. You can guess what I think of you.
To summarize: A man in ancient China invents a kite that can be used for human flight (a sort of hang glider.) The emperor sees the man flying in the sky, and summons him to the court. After the man decribes the operation of the machine, the emperor informs him that he will have to be excecuted, regretfully explaning, (paraphrase) "It is not you I fear, but another man, one who will use the machine for evil purposes." The man is beheaded and the machine burned with his remains, because the security of the state is paramount.
This is always the case in an authoritarian regime.
I'm a college student and as an American student, I can work where ever I want. My friend is an international student from Thailand, she has a lot of rules about where she can or cannot work because she's on a student visa. She's a lot better at electrical engineering than anyone I know, but the only jobs she can get are through the school's internship program. This means a lot because whereas I can work part time during the semester, at any job that will hire me, she has to follow the rules set down by the school as to the number of hours she can work during the semester, and she can only get work that's approved by the school.
I don't know if work visas are similar, but I imagine that they are more restrictive than what a citizen can do.
Hmm, you seem to be going out of your way to inaccurately portray Jon's review as a pro-Microsoft piece. I imagine that this is because you don't like Libertarian views and see them as right-wing, rather than as opposed to statism which is the true way to interpret Libertarianism. I hate monopoly myself, and think that government does have the right to break them up because they *always* do illegal things to maintain themselves.
I mean if your going to try to attack someone with quotes, don't use quotes that undermine your own attacks, you quote "Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan - don't generally get to be billionaires through sensitivity and thoughtfulness" and then state "Of course, there's *no* possibility that billionaires got to be that way through means that broke other people, broke other companies, trashed neighborhoods, towns, and cities, and left people poorer." In my own view of the world, insensitivity and thoughtlessness are the cause of most cruelty and evil.
I assume you choose to see Libertarians as right-wing because you favor a strong, oppressive government. Otherwise I don't see how you can believe people who are out to muzzle the police and open the borders are right-wing, which is what Libertarian are out to do. I don't care if the stormtrooper who is cracking my skull claims he is doing it because I'm "Left Wing" or "Right Wing," he ought not be allowed to do it at all. I know that if you give too much power to the government you always end up with an entrenched, elite aristocracy that keeps its people in chains. Please read Animal Farm by George Orwell if you wish to know my opinion of governments that claim to redistribute wealth for the people's benefit. The government thugs with the guns still always have the best stuff, no matter how much they proclaim the "people's revolution."
This, in a nutshell, sums up my problem with Bill Gates Windows monopoly. Recently, after events in Colorado, Microsoft announced a plan to include a "violent video game blocker" in the next iteration of Windows. Of course, in order for this thing to work, all the companies making game CD-ROMs out there (this virtual V-chip is designed to work on CD-ROMs, not other forms of distribution) will have to include a code similar to the V-Chip code broadcast networks have to beam out with there TV signal. My question is, why would anyone do this? I mean aside from the fact that CD-ROM games (which is what this thing is aimed at censoring) already have one layer of blocking (the clerk at the local Software Etc.) my big thought was, what if somebody figures out a way to activate this program remotely? Well, this goes with Gates, "let's control everyone philosophy," and in my opinion will ultimately backfire on Windows.
Well, I think that by and large investment rules designed to protect people are a good thing. However, I think Red Hat had a good idea (offer committed Linux developers stock) but didn't know how to implement it. It is kind of sad, because the whole thing backfired. If Red Hat had never made the offer I doubt anyone would be mad, but they did. The way I think it must've felt to people who got the letter is like they were invited someplace and told at the door "You're not welcome here." So, people will have two reactions, blame the friend who invited them or blame the people who wouldn't let them in the door.
That being said, this is a good lesson for the future. While I'm sure Bill Gates is chuckling over this debacle (and as a public relations thing, it is) this is something people who want to do this offer IPO stock to people who care about their product can learn from and figure out how to fix in the future. In another post it may seem I was critical of Red Hat, but that was unintentional, I was just worried about them. I hope people won't be mad at them for an attempt to share their good fortune even if it was handled in a... um.. less than ideally competent way.
If you don't like insurance rate hikes, drive without insurance. Oh, right, the government forces you to pay for their protection racket don't they? Instead of complaining about the guy who isn't doing anything to you by not wearing his seat belt, you might complain about the government forcing you to pay for insurance. Of course you don't really want liberty anyway, just a society where everyone else is forced to live the way you want them too, even if you feel the need to justify it on the flimsiest and most ridiculous, laughably stupid excuse imaginable.
I hope the people at Red Hat understand that if too many of the wrong people get a hold of their stock... Well, AOL's new "Red Hat" brand name (a.k.a. as in Netscape) or even Microsoft's new "Red Hat" brandname (a.k.a. anyone remember Hotmail as an independant company.) is a thought that gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies. Elitists in suits will not want to protect Red Hat if a hostile take-over attempt comes... and it will.
I bought the Red Car so I could dismantle it-- Judge Doon Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Hmm, I think eventually the media/government complex will need a way to differentiate "good" hackers from "bad" hackers. You know some bland, inoffensive standard of behaviour for "nouveau establishment" people who have a lot of money and power but started out in their garages with home made computer? Maybe these people can be the "net setters?" Unfortunately I'm not entirely up on who a "jet-setter" is or was, it seems to be a sort of archaic term. But, I'm thinking that up until now, the media has been portraying hard core computer experts as sort of like the Mafia. You know, people with cool underworld nicknames who dress in black and wield sinister power over computers. The "evil hacker" stereotype, similar to any other media stereotype about people the newsreaders just don't understand. If this becomes a huge way to wield influence in modern society though, they'll have to be an acceptable version of hackers. You know, in order to get a handle on people who refuse to play golf and otherwise fit in with the status quo. (I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with golf, btw, just that in some parts of the establishment it seems, well, mandatory. Sort of like gym class in High School, you can choose racket ball too if you want.) Besides, if people from elite families decide to get into traditional computer industry jobs, it will no longer be OK fo the media to treat them as freaks. (Or say if some new elite families appear, like the Gates dynasty or something.) Sorry, if I sound cynical, I just meet too many people at my job who seem to think there's something "funny" about me because I actually enjoy computers and they are just getting into it for the Big Buck$. (I keep getting into arguements with this one guy at work just because I'm interested in Linux. I mean, I'm not trying to get the company to change to Linux, I'm just interested in it, and he has a problem with me being curious about Linux in my free time. He'd rather go to the gym and work out on the machines <shiver>)
Maybe monkeys will be able to do it soon Article On Video Game Playing Monkeys. (Make sure to read past the bit about the monkey video game for humans to the part about the human video games for monkeys.) Ok, maybe they can't "shuttle between websites," but it would be really fun to play against a monkey in Doom especially if he/she were a competitive opponent, IMHO. Don'tcha think? They've got to start wiring up zoos!!
That's, I think, because the butler's "brain" is your $XXXX PC, whereas AIBO has a sophisticated internal robot brain. Still, my Mom was bored by AIBO (I keep hoping I'll make enough to buy one) but would probably like the butler.
I worry that if too many Wall Street types buy Red Hat stock, and not enough people who are passionate about Linux, the company will become a soulless money machine. But that's just fear (it has a basis in fact though remember what happened to Netscape. <shiver>AOL</shiver>) It would also be kind of nice if some of the people who helped Linux take on Windows could make some money, but that's just a secondary concern. Well, just my opinion. I would hate to have to leave a garrison behind.. -- Darth Vader, The Empire Strikes Back
I liked Jon's article yesterday, but today's article is full of suggestions that are pointless. Why do I say this? Allow me to state my assumptions:
1. Companies which do not refuse to show South Park in their theaters don't give a damn who sees it or not. They care only about money, while the movie might not fit into the personal tastes of the management of the theater, if they really believed it was "morally evil" they wouldn't show it at all. No, the reason why they are hassling people is fear, fear that if it doesn't appear they are doing something the government will do something violent to them (like putting them in prison.), or put them out of business.
2. Boycotts don't work, usually, especially the type suggested by Jon. This is because if you boycott "immoral" movies and everyone loses money, the Christian coalition and other fascists who have no problem claiming God as protection for their fascism will say, "See, people are turning away from such immoral movies. Lo the Lord hath spread His virtue unto the ignorant masses and soon they will Elect a Parliament of Saints to lead them. And lo the witches will burn and the flames from the pyres will reach to His heavens..." (Remember, these people have no problem lying if they think it will serve their ends, and the media is more likely to treat this as the truth than the idea that people would be opposed to censorship.) You could boycott "moral" movies, but don't expect people to follow you. People are more likely to vote against the fanatics in Washington than they are likely to drag politics into things when they are just tired from a week at work and want to see a movie.
3. What's the real solution? Turn this into a political issue, and make the media see it as such. Make the people who have been making decent people miserable by hassling them for things that are none of their business (like whether they let their kids see South Park, or not) start to suffer a little. Make politicians who exploit tragedies to try to turn this country into an authoritarian state have to live as ordinary citizens by taking their political offices away from them at the ballot box.
I appreciate Jon, but I think the only solution to this is to put the people threatening our rights out of the House, Senate and White House.
Slashdot Mirror
1. We have a First Amendment but it has limits. Lots of limits. So many limits in fact, that it is really just a nice idea that should only be followed when the Free Speech doesn't offend anyone. See Dick Armey's "Reflection on Values" Notice the way he says, I'm for free speech, but I'm not for free speech, on the same page.(Sorry for picking of the Republicans, but I haven't found anything equally stupid from the Democrats on the Web.)
2. Technology is Scary: Plenty of articles on this, including this one from Wired, The Bus Stops Everywhere. I actually think the reason why so many politicians are out to regulate technology to such an absurd degree is what has been called future shock in which technology has moved ahead way to fast for some people to keep up with it. Suddenly, your in the future, and you don't like it. It is akin to culture shock like when French radio stations are required to program X-amount of French programming because too much American stuff is popular. So they play a lot of Celine Dion songs over and over again...
3. Electronic Speech is just plain evil: You don't have Jack Valenti (or someone like him) rushing down to capitol hill whenever electronic speech is attacked, because technology companies I think (much like me) would like to pretend politics don't exist. It's this dirty, ugly, mind-numbingly stupid world, and besides we've only got X-amount of time to get that code done before M$ beats us to it. Who has time to go vote when you've got a milestone to deliver that week? So you combine the fact that there is no Pro-Tech lobby, politicians resent having to keep up with computers and the current disrepute of the First Amendment, and you've got a recipe for authoritarianism.
But I believe that these people want this bill to become a law. I will admit that sometimes bills which have no hope of passing are introduced to make a political statement or make the President look bad when he vetos them, I still think most bills are introduced with the hopes of changing the legal environment of the U.S. of A. Therefore introducing a bill is pushing a law, even though it hasn't been enacted yet.
The Bus Stops Everywhere
I hate seeing our government turn into the one from Dr. Strangelove.
A combination of a single easy to remember password and a substitution cipher based on the name of the thing that the password is for. Example, NYT would be encoded by making the first version of the alphabet (for the first letter of the password) start with N, the second letter Y=A, the third letter T=A, and then back to N=A until all the letters of your password are encrypted.
Of course there are more high tech ways to do this but you better not lose the program you used to encrypt your passwords unless you know how to rebuild it from scratch. (Still, writing a password encrypting program is fun for a rainy day, I think.)
In a way, this reminds me of the debate over sattellite phones. Since the FBI doesn't know how to listen in, they want us to not use the phones. The attitude seems to be: In this case, since our litigation happy society won't know who to sue, let's use some buggy, proprietary software. So what if a few people die, we'll be able to sue Microsoft for big bucks.
This is stupid reasoning, people need to get it into their minds that sometimes when bad things happen there just isn't anybody to sue. My brother has a congenital heart defect, who is he supposed to sue, God? If he did, where will he connect the money from.
It would be tragic if some had to people die because open source is too radical for the medical establishment.
I don't care how you slice it this is just another kind of online RPG. If people want to take it seriously, fine, but I'm not going to be interested unless it has monsters.
This isn't actually a law. There was a law proposed by Henry Hyde but it went down to defeat. This is actually a proclamation, something like when in a monarchy the king says to do something and the people have to do it. An edict passed down from on high, which the people's representatives didn't vote on.
Probably the most chilling thing about the way Washington works these days is that they can use threats to make things happen that wouldn't (probably...) ever become law if they were subject to something as untidy as a vote...
I doubt the mainstream media will do anything helpful about this, since they are in part responsible for it. It's advocacy through slanted reporting, something I've seen my whole life. I remember as a teenager watching Sally Jesse Raphael doing a show on Dungeons and Dragons (in those days D&D was popular among smart, bored kids who weren't good at sports), she had some people on to say how awful and Satanic D&D was and someone on from the Church of Satan to defend Satanism. (No body was on to defend the idea that roleplaying games not only didn't endorse Satanism but were not any kind of religious worship at all. That was taken for granted by Sally and the people running her show.)
This philosophy has crept into the mainstream news, "Was Columbine caused by movies or video games? We'll ask the author of the book On Killing David Grossman and Senator Joseph Lieberman what they think," is the type of thing you hear from TV discussion shows. How do you fight the mainstream media? I haven't been able to figure out a direct way but they do tend to snuggle up to whoever's in power in Washington, so maybe voting will help. I don't know though, the media is both powerful and entirely unnaccountable, so I don't know if they can ever be beaten. If anyone out there can think of a way to fight slanted reporting and lies of ommission in the powerful US media establishment, I'd love to hear it...
Incidentally I'm 29 years old, I can see whatever I want. So much for the "everyone against this stupid edict is under 18" theory I've been hearing. I just hate seeing hypocrisy practiced on such a large scale.
Won't somebody please think of the children...-- Mrs. Lovejoy, The Simpsons
Censorware Article
This article proves that when pushed to the wall, into a position where children will not see the things they object to, conservatives (that's a small c, I mean people who favor the status quo from 10-20 yrs ago, whatever their political affiliation) are still interested in censoring those things. I think they sincerely think that these things are worse for children than adults... but that's only because they think these things are bad for everyone and ought not to exist at all.
If theaters lose money over this, expect the majority movies to be moderated down to PG-13. After all an unfortunate side effect of this new technological age is that the affluent can always see the directors cut on their DVD players and digital TV while the working poor can probably only get the "Blockbuster Version" of the movies. Which creates a side effect that the elitists in our government are probably happy about, unrestricted access to culture may become a province of the upper class in this society while the working class are all treated as children.
You know, it is always sort of refreshing to me when a bigot shows (him or her)self to be a bigot for the world to see. Let's see, you dismiss all the human being living in Japan because the tamagotchi was popular there, how nice of you. I could point out that the reason for the Tamagotchi's popularity was the fact that there is enormous crowding in Japan and the children who play with Tamagotchi's are trying to indulge their longing to have a pet to love when their living circumstances make it impossible, but what would be the point? I mean to hear such an arguement you'd need an open mind, and I'm not sure a person like you would even recognize the fact that there were children in Japan, and I certainly doubt that you would think of them as being human children with the same feelings and desires as any other child.
Well, at least you don't hide the way you feel, I'll give you that.
Hey, your virulent hatred of Katz has caused you to add 3 comments to his total. Wow. You know, some people might consider the fact that Slashdot columns with large numbers of comments will cause more people to read them (snowball effect), but not you. Nope, I'm sure he's quaking in his boots reading your intelligent, well thought out criticisms of his writing.
Why hasn't this been moderated down?
Oh, I read you comments about Japan in an earlier post. You can guess what I think of you.
To summarize: A man in ancient China invents a kite that can be used for human flight (a sort of hang glider.) The emperor sees the man flying in the sky, and summons him to the court. After the man decribes the operation of the machine, the emperor informs him that he will have to be excecuted, regretfully explaning, (paraphrase) "It is not you I fear, but another man, one who will use the machine for evil purposes." The man is beheaded and the machine burned with his remains, because the security of the state is paramount.
This is always the case in an authoritarian regime.
I'm a college student and as an American student, I can work where ever I want. My friend is an international student from Thailand, she has a lot of rules about where she can or cannot work because she's on a student visa. She's a lot better at electrical engineering than anyone I know, but the only jobs she can get are through the school's internship program. This means a lot because whereas I can work part time during the semester, at any job that will hire me, she has to follow the rules set down by the school as to the number of hours she can work during the semester, and she can only get work that's approved by the school.
I don't know if work visas are similar, but I imagine that they are more restrictive than what a citizen can do.
Hmm, you seem to be going out of your way to inaccurately portray Jon's review as a pro-Microsoft piece. I imagine that this is because you don't like Libertarian views and see them as right-wing, rather than as opposed to statism which is the true way to interpret Libertarianism. I hate monopoly myself, and think that government does have the right to break them up because they *always* do illegal things to maintain themselves.
I mean if your going to try to attack someone with quotes, don't use quotes that undermine your own attacks, you quote "Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan - don't generally get to be billionaires through sensitivity and thoughtfulness" and then state "Of course, there's *no* possibility that billionaires got to be that way through means that broke other people, broke other companies, trashed neighborhoods, towns, and cities, and left people poorer." In my own view of the world, insensitivity and thoughtlessness are the cause of most cruelty and evil.
I assume you choose to see Libertarians as right-wing because you favor a strong, oppressive government. Otherwise I don't see how you can believe people who are out to muzzle the police and open the borders are right-wing, which is what Libertarian are out to do. I don't care if the stormtrooper who is cracking my skull claims he is doing it because I'm "Left Wing" or "Right Wing," he ought not be allowed to do it at all. I know that if you give too much power to the government you always end up with an entrenched, elite aristocracy that keeps its people in chains. Please read Animal Farm by George Orwell if you wish to know my opinion of governments that claim to redistribute wealth for the people's benefit. The government thugs with the guns still always have the best stuff, no matter how much they proclaim the "people's revolution."
Libertarians are not right wing.
This, in a nutshell, sums up my problem with Bill Gates Windows monopoly. Recently, after events in Colorado, Microsoft announced a plan to include a "violent video game blocker" in the next iteration of Windows. Of course, in order for this thing to work, all the companies making game CD-ROMs out there (this virtual V-chip is designed to work on CD-ROMs, not other forms of distribution) will have to include a code similar to the V-Chip code broadcast networks have to beam out with there TV signal.
My question is, why would anyone do this? I mean aside from the fact that CD-ROM games (which is what this thing is aimed at censoring) already have one layer of blocking (the clerk at the local Software Etc.) my big thought was, what if somebody figures out a way to activate this program remotely?
Well, this goes with Gates, "let's control everyone philosophy," and in my opinion will ultimately backfire on Windows.
Well, I think that by and large investment rules designed to protect people are a good thing. However, I think Red Hat had a good idea (offer committed Linux developers stock) but didn't know how to implement it. It is kind of sad, because the whole thing backfired. If Red Hat had never made the offer I doubt anyone would be mad, but they did. The way I think it must've felt to people who got the letter is like they were invited someplace and told at the door "You're not welcome here." So, people will have two reactions, blame the friend who invited them or blame the people who wouldn't let them in the door.
That being said, this is a good lesson for the future. While I'm sure Bill Gates is chuckling over this debacle (and as a public relations thing, it is) this is something people who want to do this offer IPO stock to people who care about their product can learn from and figure out how to fix in the future. In another post it may seem I was critical of Red Hat, but that was unintentional, I was just worried about them. I hope people won't be mad at them for an attempt to share their good fortune even if it was handled in a... um.. less than ideally competent way.
If you don't like insurance rate hikes, drive without insurance. Oh, right, the government forces you to pay for their protection racket don't they? Instead of complaining about the guy who isn't doing anything to you by not wearing his seat belt, you might complain about the government forcing you to pay for insurance.
Of course you don't really want liberty anyway, just a society where everyone else is forced to live the way you want them too, even if you feel the need to justify it on the flimsiest and most ridiculous, laughably stupid excuse imaginable.
I bought the Red Car so I could dismantle it-- Judge Doon Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Hmm, I think eventually the media/government complex will need a way to differentiate "good" hackers from "bad" hackers. You know some bland, inoffensive standard of behaviour for "nouveau establishment" people who have a lot of money and power but started out in their garages with home made computer? Maybe these people can be the "net setters?"
Unfortunately I'm not entirely up on who a "jet-setter" is or was, it seems to be a sort of archaic term. But, I'm thinking that up until now, the media has been portraying hard core computer experts as sort of like the Mafia. You know, people with cool underworld nicknames who dress in black and wield sinister power over computers. The "evil hacker" stereotype, similar to any other media stereotype about people the newsreaders just don't understand. If this becomes a huge way to wield influence in modern society though, they'll have to be an acceptable version of hackers. You know, in order to get a handle on people who refuse to play golf and otherwise fit in with the status quo. (I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with golf, btw, just that in some parts of the establishment it seems, well, mandatory. Sort of like gym class in High School, you can choose racket ball too if you want.)
Besides, if people from elite families decide to get into traditional computer industry jobs, it will no longer be OK fo the media to treat them as freaks. (Or say if some new elite families appear, like the Gates dynasty or something.)
Sorry, if I sound cynical, I just meet too many people at my job who seem to think there's something "funny" about me because I actually enjoy computers and they are just getting into it for the Big Buck$. (I keep getting into arguements with this one guy at work just because I'm interested in Linux. I mean, I'm not trying to get the company to change to Linux, I'm just interested in it, and he has a problem with me being curious about Linux in my free time. He'd rather go to the gym and work out on the machines <shiver>)
Maybe monkeys will be able to do it soon Article On Video Game Playing Monkeys. (Make sure to read past the bit about the monkey video game for humans to the part about the human video games for monkeys.) Ok, maybe they can't "shuttle between websites," but it would be really fun to play against a monkey in Doom especially if he/she were a competitive opponent, IMHO. Don'tcha think? They've got to start wiring up zoos!!
Did you mispell pornographic in this post so the page won't be blocked by filtering software? I only wondered...
That's, I think, because the butler's "brain" is your $XXXX PC, whereas AIBO has a sophisticated internal robot brain. Still, my Mom was bored by AIBO (I keep hoping I'll make enough to buy one) but would probably like the butler.
I worry that if too many Wall Street types buy Red Hat stock, and not enough people who are passionate about Linux, the company will become a soulless money machine. But that's just fear (it has a basis in fact though remember what happened to Netscape. <shiver>AOL</shiver>) It would also be kind of nice if some of the people who helped Linux take on Windows could make some money, but that's just a secondary concern. Well, just my opinion.
I would hate to have to leave a garrison behind.. -- Darth Vader, The Empire Strikes Back
1. Companies which do not refuse to show South Park in their theaters don't give a damn who sees it or not. They care only about money, while the movie might not fit into the personal tastes of the management of the theater, if they really believed it was "morally evil" they wouldn't show it at all. No, the reason why they are hassling people is fear, fear that if it doesn't appear they are doing something the government will do something violent to them (like putting them in prison.), or put them out of business.
2. Boycotts don't work, usually, especially the type suggested by Jon. This is because if you boycott "immoral" movies and everyone loses money, the Christian coalition and other fascists who have no problem claiming God as protection for their fascism will say, "See, people are turning away from such immoral movies. Lo the Lord hath spread His virtue unto the ignorant masses and soon they will Elect a Parliament of Saints to lead them. And lo the witches will burn and the flames from the pyres will reach to His heavens..." (Remember, these people have no problem lying if they think it will serve their ends, and the media is more likely to treat this as the truth than the idea that people would be opposed to censorship.) You could boycott "moral" movies, but don't expect people to follow you. People are more likely to vote against the fanatics in Washington than they are likely to drag politics into things when they are just tired from a week at work and want to see a movie.
3. What's the real solution? Turn this into a political issue, and make the media see it as such. Make the people who have been making decent people miserable by hassling them for things that are none of their business (like whether they let their kids see South Park, or not) start to suffer a little. Make politicians who exploit tragedies to try to turn this country into an authoritarian state have to live as ordinary citizens by taking their political offices away from them at the ballot box.
I appreciate Jon, but I think the only solution to this is to put the people threatening our rights out of the House, Senate and White House.
Vox Populi, Vox Dei
The Voice of the People is the Voice of God!