One of the most insighful and thoughtful posts I've read in a while. If I had mod points I would mod you up.
My favorite part:
A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on...
This can apply to the "if i have to give up some privacy to fight terrorism it's worth it" argument that I hear all too often. Don't people realise that there can never exist a compromise when it comes to our rights? We either have them all, or we have none, because once you take away one, it sets a precedent for taking away more.
And what about this one:
...we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt...
What's the national dept right now? Man, we're already there.
Re:The sky is falling (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 25, @09:00AM (#4956973)
I'd be really interested to see you address what I think is the most interesting part of the question, "what of all the people who died to WIN these rights"? Why are their lives less meaningful than those who died on 911 (or yours, mine, etc.)?
And I wouldn't mind seeing an answer to this, either.
No, I am not so concerned about privacy. And I think this is the point the posts above are trying to get at, too. It's that fact that my rights are being taken away. It doesn't matter which onces. Our government cannot constitutionaly take away any of our rights. So when it takes away some, regardless of which ones they are, it is cause for alarm. Today, privacy, tomorrow, something else. That is the point. They should never be able to take away any of our rights. Not one.
This is because, in America, we have paranoid, untrusting, civil rights wackos who do a great job of keeping any civil rights degredations in check.
This is so horribly wrong it's not even funny. Those paranoid, untrusting, civil rights wackos that you so kindly refer to are the fringe; they are not the majority. The majority, unfortunately, thinks like you do. That's all it takes to pass stupid laws.
Seriously, I don't understand your beliefs. We were given specific rights, why exactly is it ok to take them away now? Because we lost two buildings? Because a lot of people died? What about all the people that died to win these rights, huh?
I find the argument about blocking ads on a webpage (or on TiVO) the same as I see P2P file sharing: Technology is changing things. It is not the law's place to hold up defunct business models. If websites can't survive without popups, if television can't survive TiVO, and if the recording industry can't survive P2P, I say good. Something better will take their place. Something the people actually want. It's capitalism in action, why can't anybody important see that?
"Those who say the US needs campaign finance reform are wrong. We need big media/anti-monopoly reform."
I disagree. Campaign finance reform would prevent monopolies from buying laws to maintain their monopolies. If businesses couldn't use today's legal tactics against each other and/or the public, it would only take a better product to unseat a monopoly. If the rules of capitalism are made more equal for everyone, I could see lower barriers to entry in the market, better competition (and better quality as a result), better prices, and a better economy in general.
But that's just me. And I am by no means an expert.
Re:A little Supreme Court Analysis re: Federalism
on
Indecision 2002
·
· Score: 1
Dude, how did you learn all this stuff? Seriously.
Re:The First Worm Written By a Microsoft Lawyer...
on
First Worm with a EULA?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's also common knowledge that EULA's aren't read (by gurus and newbies alike).
I agree. I've seen a few posts chastizing the slashdot community because most of us don't read them. However, I would counter and say that most people on slashdot don't have to read them. They know enough to not be downloading some stupid greeting card program. On a tangent, frankly I think e-greeting cards are retarded. The point of giving something away is the giving part. You're not really giving anyone anything when you send them an email. Anyway, most seasoned computer users know enough about programs they do decide to install to know if they need to scan the EULA for anything fishy.
I think this virus will catch new and naive users, but eventually it will receive such bad press that most people will become aware of it, most virus scanners will catch it, and most people won't download it.
Not quite off topic, but my girlfriend came over tonight and she was pissed. She loves playing Scrabble online at playsite.com and earlier today she was over at her mom's house trying to play it on her computer. Well, for some reason or another, she kept getting a popup about every 2 minutes. She couldn't figure out how to turn it off and it was so friggin annoying it made the game unplayable. It pissed her off so much that her whole day had turned sour over this little thing. All she wanted to do was play Scrabble.
Anyway, this little story is just an example of how annoying this kind of shit really is. It drives people insane when their computer is not in their control. On a side note, that's also a reason I think Digital Restrictions Management will never work.
I use Netscape v3.04 and the Microsoft browser v4.0. As much as I hate to abet the Microsoft juggernaut, this section looks a lot better with the MS browser.
I'm pretty sure both those browsers are grossly non-compliant with the HTML standards. If you'd like to view the web properly, get a browser that complies.
...imagining that a piece of paper folded into an M is inverted...
I don't get that. What does that mean? Like, folded how? And how would it be inverted? From a side view I could see it folded like this:/\/\ but how is that iverted?
I don't believe that it's because they can't build security into their product. I think they won't. They're so driven by money and the bottom line that they don't put as much effort into some areas as others. It wouldn't give them anything to improve on. If they made the perfect OS, no one would buy their next one, and they're such a huge company that if they're not getting continuous revenue, they'll have to lay people off, their stock price will go down, the share holders will be upset, etc... There will be repurcusions. I think they half-ass some part of the OS because they know that they can always claim their next one is better.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the most insighful and thoughtful posts I've read in a while. If I had mod points I would mod you up.
My favorite part:
This can apply to the "if i have to give up some privacy to fight terrorism it's worth it" argument that I hear all too often. Don't people realise that there can never exist a compromise when it comes to our rights? We either have them all, or we have none, because once you take away one, it sets a precedent for taking away more.
And what about this one:
What's the national dept right now? Man, we're already there.
Good post.
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 25, @09:00AM (#4956973)
I'd be really interested to see you address what I think is the most interesting part of the question, "what of all the people who died to WIN these rights"? Why are their lives less meaningful than those who died on 911 (or yours, mine, etc.)?
And I wouldn't mind seeing an answer to this, either.
No, I am not so concerned about privacy. And I think this is the point the posts above are trying to get at, too. It's that fact that my rights are being taken away. It doesn't matter which onces. Our government cannot constitutionaly take away any of our rights. So when it takes away some, regardless of which ones they are, it is cause for alarm. Today, privacy, tomorrow, something else. That is the point. They should never be able to take away any of our rights. Not one.
John McCain (R-AR)
AR? I thought McCain was an Arizona senator. That's AZ.
This is because, in America, we have paranoid, untrusting, civil rights wackos who do a great job of keeping any civil rights degredations in check.
This is so horribly wrong it's not even funny. Those paranoid, untrusting, civil rights wackos that you so kindly refer to are the fringe; they are not the majority. The majority, unfortunately, thinks like you do. That's all it takes to pass stupid laws.
Seriously, I don't understand your beliefs. We were given specific rights, why exactly is it ok to take them away now? Because we lost two buildings? Because a lot of people died? What about all the people that died to win these rights, huh?
You have some of the most insightful comments I have read on slashdot in a while. I completely agree with your argument.
If I had mod points I'd mod you funny. lol
I find the argument about blocking ads on a webpage (or on TiVO) the same as I see P2P file sharing: Technology is changing things. It is not the law's place to hold up defunct business models. If websites can't survive without popups, if television can't survive TiVO, and if the recording industry can't survive P2P, I say good. Something better will take their place. Something the people actually want. It's capitalism in action, why can't anybody important see that?
I stopped reading the moment I came across the word "windooze"
Your loss, he said some interesting things. If I had mod points, I'd have modded you Offtopic. Let him call it what he wants and get over it.
"Those who say the US needs campaign finance reform are wrong. We need big media/anti-monopoly reform."
I disagree. Campaign finance reform would prevent monopolies from buying laws to maintain their monopolies. If businesses couldn't use today's legal tactics against each other and/or the public, it would only take a better product to unseat a monopoly. If the rules of capitalism are made more equal for everyone, I could see lower barriers to entry in the market, better competition (and better quality as a result), better prices, and a better economy in general.
But that's just me. And I am by no means an expert.
Dude, how did you learn all this stuff? Seriously.
It's also common knowledge that EULA's aren't read (by gurus and newbies alike).
I agree. I've seen a few posts chastizing the slashdot community because most of us don't read them. However, I would counter and say that most people on slashdot don't have to read them. They know enough to not be downloading some stupid greeting card program. On a tangent, frankly I think e-greeting cards are retarded. The point of giving something away is the giving part. You're not really giving anyone anything when you send them an email. Anyway, most seasoned computer users know enough about programs they do decide to install to know if they need to scan the EULA for anything fishy.
I think this virus will catch new and naive users, but eventually it will receive such bad press that most people will become aware of it, most virus scanners will catch it, and most people won't download it.
Not quite off topic, but my girlfriend came over tonight and she was pissed. She loves playing Scrabble online at playsite.com and earlier today she was over at her mom's house trying to play it on her computer. Well, for some reason or another, she kept getting a popup about every 2 minutes. She couldn't figure out how to turn it off and it was so friggin annoying it made the game unplayable. It pissed her off so much that her whole day had turned sour over this little thing. All she wanted to do was play Scrabble.
Anyway, this little story is just an example of how annoying this kind of shit really is. It drives people insane when their computer is not in their control. On a side note, that's also a reason I think Digital Restrictions Management will never work.
Well, that's the view from my end.
I use Netscape v3.04 and the Microsoft browser v4.0. As much as I hate to abet the Microsoft juggernaut, this section looks a lot better with the MS browser.
I'm pretty sure both those browsers are grossly non-compliant with the HTML standards. If you'd like to view the web properly, get a browser that complies.
Are you implying we're going to use this badboy on Iraq in the near future?
If Microsoft continues to build market share and eliminate viable competition, they will have less and less motivation to respond to customer needs.
At which point they start losing customers and marketshare, and the cycle begins anew.
peng1.04.tar.gz
pengaol0.96.tar.gz
I don't get that. What does that mean? Like, folded how? And how would it be inverted? From a side view I could see it folded like this: /\/\ but how is that iverted?
I'm just curious, why do you think it will end? You sound like you're very sure of yourself, so I was wondering if you had anything to back that up.
I think he was just proving the futility of your point.
I don't believe that it's because they can't build security into their product. I think they won't. They're so driven by money and the bottom line that they don't put as much effort into some areas as others. It wouldn't give them anything to improve on. If they made the perfect OS, no one would buy their next one, and they're such a huge company that if they're not getting continuous revenue, they'll have to lay people off, their stock price will go down, the share holders will be upset, etc... There will be repurcusions. I think they half-ass some part of the OS because they know that they can always claim their next one is better.
Fight the good fight my friend. I support you.
It ain't braggin' if you can back it up.
Of course it's still bragging. Bragging without being able to prove it is called "lying."
A slashdotter put it best in another RIAA discussion I read a while back: Game On
If someone steals something from my house I don't have a right to break into their house and steal it back, or burn their house down.
As far as I understand it, you can trespass if you are recovering stolen goods belonging to you (ie. repomen)
I think it said they needed to tell the DOJ, but they don't necessarily need permission from them.