" In a time of war, the President has such powers as to suspend the need to goto court for such activities.
Says who?
"But why should we care even if we do wire tap such people?"
How do you know? How do we know that they are only tapping dangerous people? How do we know they won't use it against their political and ideological enemies? It has happened before, why not again? The fact that the country is so hysterical over terrorism makes the temptation for abuse that much greater; because people are less likely to question what is going on.
When they don't get a warrant from a court there is no oversight. We don't know who they are wiretapping and why. That's the issue. Though you may not believe me, I would say the same thing if Democrats did it (I'm registered Independent).
Ok, but how does the 4th amendment figure into this?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It says specifically that you must have probable cause. By recent reports, the NSA has been spying on literally thousands of Americans. If they had probable cause to suspect all those people, they should have gone to the FISA court to get a warrant. If not, they have no business spying on those people. It also says that the particular person to be searched must be specified. No fishing expeditions and no sweeping it all up and sorting it out later.
Aside from that the Constitution says only that the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. That's it. There is no "the President can do whatever is necessary in time of war" clause. He is the head military guy. That's it. Otherwise he is just a civilian like you and me, but with a bullet proof car. And like us, he must obey the law.
Wiretapping is not the issue. The issue is that there is a system set up to oversee such activities, and the Bush administration bypassed it. Why could they not get the warrants? The FISA court has rejected only four cases since it was created in the late seventies. It's not hard. That's why the ACLU brought the suit. Bush is breaking the law.
"If you are referring to a ruling like Brown vs. Board of Ed. then I think you have missed the point. You are talking about a judge ruling to grant more liberty.
No, I am talking about a judge restricting the liberty to segregate schools. You are missing my point. This case was about upholding the constitution, not granting or restricting liberty. The court does have a place in deciding what is and is not constitutional. That is what is at issue here. It's not like the judge is up there teaching class!
"Thus, when the govenment begins "cracking down" on any religious practice, excercise, or speach on public property, they are no longer protecting, but oppressing/restricting, in violation of the First Amendment.
How does that apply to this case? The government is not cracking down on anyone here. It is merely saying that ID should not be considered along with evolution. Because it isn't a scientific theory, not because it is religious.
"I would prefer to leave my chilren's education to a teacher and not a judge."
Really? If that were the case you child might be in school reciting the Lord's prayer with a bunch of other kids of the same skin color. The issue here is whether the school board is acting in keeping with the constitution. Last I checked that's within a judge's mandate.
Care to back up that statement? How is Intelligent Design itself not an over-reaching, explain-all-with-one-idea theory?
I happen to believe in God and that He created the universe on purpose to operate in a certain way. So I guess you could say I believe in Intelligent Design. But it is my belief, nothing more. It should not be taught in science class any more than molecular physics should be taught in sunday school.
You mention Galileo. His fate was indeed instructive as to what happens when science and religion get mixed up.
Interesting! I can also hear the high pitched squeal of a TV, and I'm 32. I have always wondered why I am often the only one in the room who can. Now I know! It seems that any store who used the device in the article might drive away some of their older customers too!
"Now we ask "what happens when two cultures make contact when one of them is much more advanced?"
Personally, I think it is a simple answer: They don't. I think it is an easy thought experiment to imagine what would happen if aliens were to make their presence known to humanity at large. There would be two kinds of people; those who would worship the aliens and those that would want to kill them. I hope, for everyone's sake, that any aliens advanced enough to travel here and observe us would also understand that we, as a race, are not yet ready to meet them.
How's it goin' Budenny! It's me again; the guy who responded to your posts along these lines yesterday. I will try for a less long winded version this time.
It's not as simple as "If Mac OS is better on x86 than Windows, Apple will do just fine by unbundling the OS from the hardware". Just because something is better, it does not follow that it will sell more. We all know this. Windows is a dominant operating system. Right now, Apple must convince a lot of people to switch from Windows to Mac OS. This is true regardless of hardware. Now, if that switch means having to buy hardware, Apple makes however many hundreds of dollars in profit (this is the likely scenario. Most OS changes will coincide with new hardware. Your average consumer is not familiar with replacing an OS and all that entails or with setting up a dual boot system). This is more than Apple would make off of a software license sale. The OS would not sell for more than $200, and probably less since it would be competing directly with Windows. So by selling hardware, Apple profit is higher per unit.
Now what if Apple offered both an Apple branded Mac and also allowed Dell to preload the Mac OS? Now you have a situation with two machines running Mac OS. The screen looks the same, but one is more expensive. "Why?" the customer asks. The salesperson replies, "Because the Apple Mac will be more reliable and user friendly.". The consumer replies, "But it's the same software, right?". "Yes". "Well then I'd rather save a couple hundred bucks." And Apple loses a hardware sale. Yes, they make a software sale, but Dell will not sell enough cheap Mac's to make up in volume what Apple loses in margin.
My argument is not that a Mac is not worth the extra money. My argument is that most people, given the choice, will go with the cheaper inferior product. Gateway Computing is still in business right? By tying the OS to the hardware Apple ensures that for every switcher Apple makes the higher profit margin. I think there is also a brand integrity question. Apple has a reputation for ease of use and reliability. If they give up control of the hardware production then some Mac's will "just work" and some will not. It dilutes the brand. BMW would not let Hyundai build a cheaper car with a BMW logo.
Well, I think there are a few things going on here. First of all, I wonder whether Apple could make as much money on software licensing as they do on hardware. I doubt it. The OS would be going head to head with Windows, which opens up a can of worms for Apple vis-a-vis pricing and marketing. Besides that, there is the larger question of the software business model. Microsoft is moving to selling services partly because they have trouble forcing people to pay for Windows. I have never paid for a copy of Windows in my life! As I pointed out, Apple does not have this problem at all. They obviously don't care because they don't have license keys for installing the OS.
Secondly, it's not just Microsoft. Apple would compete with Microsoft on the software, and with Dell on the hardware. You could argue that they do this already, but it's not quite the same. A Dell can't run Mac OS. So when a Dell is cheaper, Apple can say, "Yes, but look at all this cool stuff you get with a Mac that you just plain can't get from Dell." Again, the thing that makes Apple's hardware worth paying for is the software. So unbundling complicates things for Apple.
Finally, I think that selling the OS separately and as a bundle muddies the water from a consumer's point of view. What your average CompUSA shopper will see is a Dell for $500 and a Mac for $700 (or whatever). Both have the same possibilities for operating systems. But the salesman says if you spend the extra money you get "tighter integration". To some it would be worth it and to some it would not. It's hard to put a price on tight integration. Besides that Apple would have to do what Microsoft does and support infinite combinations of hardware. Part of what makes a Mac so stable and easy to use is that the hardware combinations are largely a known quantity and variables are limited. This goes out the window once you unbundle.
What really differentiates a Mac from a Windows machine is the software, not the hardware (from your average consumer's POV). Apple's model depends on limiting choice (ok, there, I said it). A Mac is a package deal. Absent that most people will go the cheaper route and Apple will lose a lot of hardware sales. That, coupled with price competition and piracy on the software side, would be bad for Apple.
"Apple is a hardware manufacturer and if it allows people to run the OS on other hardware, it will go out of business. People who argue this, then turn around and claim that Apple hardware is better cheaper and faster than anyone else's. So why will unbundling not lead to a boom in hardware sales?"
Now hang on a second. Do people really argue this? I am one of those who thinks that Apple is a hardware company. If they unbundle the software and hardware, they become Microsoft, only about 1/20th the size and they get crushed. Microsoft is currently freaking out in all directions over software "piracy". Apple is doing no such thing, to the extent of not having license keys for the OS. I would be interested in arguments to the contrary.
But I do not then turn around and say that Apple's hardware is better/faster/cheaper. It is demonstrable that Apple's hardware is not the cheapest nor the fastest, Photoshop tests aside. Whether it is "better" or not is more subjective. Apple sells their hardware at a premium and bundles great software with it. This is the irony of Apple: they are a hardware company that is successful because they make great software. And they literally or practically give it away! iTunes is free, iLife and iWork are only $80. That's pretty cheap considering what those software suites can do.
So, yeah, I do think that Apple is a hardware company that should not unbundle the software from the hardware. Not only would it radically change Apple's business model and larger vision (they make the whole widget), but there is an advantage to the bundle. The software is tightly integrated with the hardware, and the whole system is more stable because there are fewer variables and unknowns in hardware configuration. I'm looking forward to Apple moving to x86 not so I can run OS X on a Dell, but so I can run Windows on my Mac.
Aw, C'mon! I think these games are a blast. Yet, my friends still think I'm a nice person. I have a girlfriend. I can hold my own on the dancefloor (I think...). I donate to charity. I also ski, ride a motorcycle, rock climb and play in a rock band. There is time for all of these things.
I can certainly understand why some would find these games distasteful. Parts of them are in poor taste! But they are a fun, escapist fantasy in my opinion. Playing them does not lead me to condone violence. I consider the use of force to be a very unsophisticated way of resolving problems (especially because it often does not solve problems at all). But this is a game, not a philosophical statement. Lighten up a bit and let us get our kicks.
They had a hit a few years back called "Flagpole Sitta". The chorus began with the lyric, "I'm not sick but I'm not well, and I'm so hot 'cause I'm in Hell". Harvey Danger is not a person, but the name of the band. Understandable mistake for one unfamiliar with the band.
There were a number of MP3 players on the market when the iPod came out. A big reason the iPod has done so well, aside from the aesthetics, is the interface. It is well layed out and simple to use.
I was curious about the cowon iaudio x5l after reading your post. So I looked it up on CNet. It does have an impressive feature set. But the review I read said no browsing by Artist, Album or Genre. Really?? How is it layed out? Are you browsing music by filename? If so, it seems like a big downside. That and not having a picture slideshow feature.
A lot of this is subjective; people like what they like. But I'm not sure this thing towers over the iPod like you suggest.
"Specifically on Macintosh operating systems, you have to click on the menu, hold the click and drag the mouse down through the items till you get to the one you want."
Wait, what? I may be misunderstanding you, but the menus on the Mac have not acted that way since OS 7. The menus on a Mac work the same as on Windows. Click on the menu, release the click, select item you want, click again. You don't need to hold the click.
In the case of Iraq, I would say that yes, this microwave weapon is better than guns. Thanks for bringing me back on-topic. The reason that this weapon concerns me is that I fear it will be used on protesters in the US and other countries. TFA did not address this, it only talked about military applications. So I digress.
Deep down, I think my reaction is based on my perception that there is a decreasing level of tolerance for people expressing unpopular or unwanted views in this country. For example, people have been ejected from Bush's Social Security "rallies" for having anti-war bumper stickers on their cars. People were arrested for holding anti-Bush signs along his campaign routes. This type of stuff is distressing to me because it is anathema to what I understand America to stand for. So when I hear about a microwave weapon for use in crowd control, it gives me the willies.. But I agree that in the immediate circumstance, this weapon is better than a.50 cal.
Dude, I was saying the same shit on Saturday night! It was clear to me in 2002 that invading Iraq was a bad idea. I can dig wanting to deal with Saddam. He's a bad guy, no doubt. But invading the country, especially the way we did, with little support and little thought of the aftermath, was transparently stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Says who?
"But why should we care even if we do wire tap such people?"
How do you know? How do we know that they are only tapping dangerous people? How do we know they won't use it against their political and ideological enemies? It has happened before, why not again? The fact that the country is so hysterical over terrorism makes the temptation for abuse that much greater; because people are less likely to question what is going on.
When they don't get a warrant from a court there is no oversight. We don't know who they are wiretapping and why. That's the issue. Though you may not believe me, I would say the same thing if Democrats did it (I'm registered Independent).
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It says specifically that you must have probable cause. By recent reports, the NSA has been spying on literally thousands of Americans. If they had probable cause to suspect all those people, they should have gone to the FISA court to get a warrant. If not, they have no business spying on those people. It also says that the particular person to be searched must be specified. No fishing expeditions and no sweeping it all up and sorting it out later.
Aside from that the Constitution says only that the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. That's it. There is no "the President can do whatever is necessary in time of war" clause. He is the head military guy. That's it. Otherwise he is just a civilian like you and me, but with a bullet proof car. And like us, he must obey the law.
Wiretapping is not the issue. The issue is that there is a system set up to oversee such activities, and the Bush administration bypassed it. Why could they not get the warrants? The FISA court has rejected only four cases since it was created in the late seventies. It's not hard. That's why the ACLU brought the suit. Bush is breaking the law.
No, I am talking about a judge restricting the liberty to segregate schools. You are missing my point. This case was about upholding the constitution, not granting or restricting liberty. The court does have a place in deciding what is and is not constitutional. That is what is at issue here. It's not like the judge is up there teaching class!
Dude, you're in way over your head here. And Broken_Ladder is being really patient with you.
How does that apply to this case? The government is not cracking down on anyone here. It is merely saying that ID should not be considered along with evolution. Because it isn't a scientific theory, not because it is religious.
I'll third that! The parent is spot on.
Since you posted as an Anonymous Coward, is it really your 2 cents? How can I tell?
Really? If that were the case you child might be in school reciting the Lord's prayer with a bunch of other kids of the same skin color. The issue here is whether the school board is acting in keeping with the constitution. Last I checked that's within a judge's mandate.
Care to back up that statement? How is Intelligent Design itself not an over-reaching, explain-all-with-one-idea theory?
I happen to believe in God and that He created the universe on purpose to operate in a certain way. So I guess you could say I believe in Intelligent Design. But it is my belief, nothing more. It should not be taught in science class any more than molecular physics should be taught in sunday school.
You mention Galileo. His fate was indeed instructive as to what happens when science and religion get mixed up.
Interesting! I can also hear the high pitched squeal of a TV, and I'm 32. I have always wondered why I am often the only one in the room who can. Now I know! It seems that any store who used the device in the article might drive away some of their older customers too!
Personally, I think it is a simple answer: They don't. I think it is an easy thought experiment to imagine what would happen if aliens were to make their presence known to humanity at large. There would be two kinds of people; those who would worship the aliens and those that would want to kill them. I hope, for everyone's sake, that any aliens advanced enough to travel here and observe us would also understand that we, as a race, are not yet ready to meet them.
It's not as simple as "If Mac OS is better on x86 than Windows, Apple will do just fine by unbundling the OS from the hardware". Just because something is better, it does not follow that it will sell more. We all know this. Windows is a dominant operating system. Right now, Apple must convince a lot of people to switch from Windows to Mac OS. This is true regardless of hardware. Now, if that switch means having to buy hardware, Apple makes however many hundreds of dollars in profit (this is the likely scenario. Most OS changes will coincide with new hardware. Your average consumer is not familiar with replacing an OS and all that entails or with setting up a dual boot system). This is more than Apple would make off of a software license sale. The OS would not sell for more than $200, and probably less since it would be competing directly with Windows. So by selling hardware, Apple profit is higher per unit.
Now what if Apple offered both an Apple branded Mac and also allowed Dell to preload the Mac OS? Now you have a situation with two machines running Mac OS. The screen looks the same, but one is more expensive. "Why?" the customer asks. The salesperson replies, "Because the Apple Mac will be more reliable and user friendly.". The consumer replies, "But it's the same software, right?". "Yes". "Well then I'd rather save a couple hundred bucks." And Apple loses a hardware sale. Yes, they make a software sale, but Dell will not sell enough cheap Mac's to make up in volume what Apple loses in margin.
My argument is not that a Mac is not worth the extra money. My argument is that most people, given the choice, will go with the cheaper inferior product. Gateway Computing is still in business right? By tying the OS to the hardware Apple ensures that for every switcher Apple makes the higher profit margin. I think there is also a brand integrity question. Apple has a reputation for ease of use and reliability. If they give up control of the hardware production then some Mac's will "just work" and some will not. It dilutes the brand. BMW would not let Hyundai build a cheaper car with a BMW logo.
Secondly, it's not just Microsoft. Apple would compete with Microsoft on the software, and with Dell on the hardware. You could argue that they do this already, but it's not quite the same. A Dell can't run Mac OS. So when a Dell is cheaper, Apple can say, "Yes, but look at all this cool stuff you get with a Mac that you just plain can't get from Dell." Again, the thing that makes Apple's hardware worth paying for is the software. So unbundling complicates things for Apple.
Finally, I think that selling the OS separately and as a bundle muddies the water from a consumer's point of view. What your average CompUSA shopper will see is a Dell for $500 and a Mac for $700 (or whatever). Both have the same possibilities for operating systems. But the salesman says if you spend the extra money you get "tighter integration". To some it would be worth it and to some it would not. It's hard to put a price on tight integration. Besides that Apple would have to do what Microsoft does and support infinite combinations of hardware. Part of what makes a Mac so stable and easy to use is that the hardware combinations are largely a known quantity and variables are limited. This goes out the window once you unbundle.
What really differentiates a Mac from a Windows machine is the software, not the hardware (from your average consumer's POV). Apple's model depends on limiting choice (ok, there, I said it). A Mac is a package deal. Absent that most people will go the cheaper route and Apple will lose a lot of hardware sales. That, coupled with price competition and piracy on the software side, would be bad for Apple.
LOFL!!
I gotta go with Hitchcock_Blonde on this one. Windows Plug n' Pray has indeed gotten a lot better. But it's still not as smooth as a Mac.
Now hang on a second. Do people really argue this? I am one of those who thinks that Apple is a hardware company. If they unbundle the software and hardware, they become Microsoft, only about 1/20th the size and they get crushed. Microsoft is currently freaking out in all directions over software "piracy". Apple is doing no such thing, to the extent of not having license keys for the OS. I would be interested in arguments to the contrary.
But I do not then turn around and say that Apple's hardware is better/faster/cheaper. It is demonstrable that Apple's hardware is not the cheapest nor the fastest, Photoshop tests aside. Whether it is "better" or not is more subjective. Apple sells their hardware at a premium and bundles great software with it. This is the irony of Apple: they are a hardware company that is successful because they make great software. And they literally or practically give it away! iTunes is free, iLife and iWork are only $80. That's pretty cheap considering what those software suites can do.
So, yeah, I do think that Apple is a hardware company that should not unbundle the software from the hardware. Not only would it radically change Apple's business model and larger vision (they make the whole widget), but there is an advantage to the bundle. The software is tightly integrated with the hardware, and the whole system is more stable because there are fewer variables and unknowns in hardware configuration. I'm looking forward to Apple moving to x86 not so I can run OS X on a Dell, but so I can run Windows on my Mac.
I can certainly understand why some would find these games distasteful. Parts of them are in poor taste! But they are a fun, escapist fantasy in my opinion. Playing them does not lead me to condone violence. I consider the use of force to be a very unsophisticated way of resolving problems (especially because it often does not solve problems at all). But this is a game, not a philosophical statement. Lighten up a bit and let us get our kicks.
They had a hit a few years back called "Flagpole Sitta". The chorus began with the lyric, "I'm not sick but I'm not well, and I'm so hot 'cause I'm in Hell". Harvey Danger is not a person, but the name of the band. Understandable mistake for one unfamiliar with the band.
I was curious about the cowon iaudio x5l after reading your post. So I looked it up on CNet. It does have an impressive feature set. But the review I read said no browsing by Artist, Album or Genre. Really?? How is it layed out? Are you browsing music by filename? If so, it seems like a big downside. That and not having a picture slideshow feature.
A lot of this is subjective; people like what they like. But I'm not sure this thing towers over the iPod like you suggest.
Really?? Though I haven't seen the original, I think they made the right decision. BTW, for anyone who has not seen it, this is a great movie.
Wait, what? I may be misunderstanding you, but the menus on the Mac have not acted that way since OS 7. The menus on a Mac work the same as on Windows. Click on the menu, release the click, select item you want, click again. You don't need to hold the click.
Deep down, I think my reaction is based on my perception that there is a decreasing level of tolerance for people expressing unpopular or unwanted views in this country. For example, people have been ejected from Bush's Social Security "rallies" for having anti-war bumper stickers on their cars. People were arrested for holding anti-Bush signs along his campaign routes. This type of stuff is distressing to me because it is anathema to what I understand America to stand for. So when I hear about a microwave weapon for use in crowd control, it gives me the willies.. But I agree that in the immediate circumstance, this weapon is better than a .50 cal.
Dude, I was saying the same shit on Saturday night! It was clear to me in 2002 that invading Iraq was a bad idea. I can dig wanting to deal with Saddam. He's a bad guy, no doubt. But invading the country, especially the way we did, with little support and little thought of the aftermath, was transparently stupid.
Heh, Touche!
"Jingoistic - I love it. You get an "A" for vocabulary today."
Thanks! Fancy words make me feel important. No props on the Zeppelin reference? I guess it is a popular song...