I think you're absolutely right about this. Here's how the Feds are now recruiting people for the FBI and DOJ:
(recruitment) Hey! Step right right up and put your name down for a job with the FBI or DOJ and possible nomination as next U.S. Attorney General. You've got just the attributes we here in Washington are looking for, primarily, the ability to rationalize anything that Der Führer^w^w President Bush wants done. You'll fit in nicely here in Washington, the land of the Big Lie, little credibility, and less truth than contained in any Fox News report on the "War on Terrorism". Why, I'm sure you realize that those so-called "black" CIA prisons that the ACLU and other un-patriotic civil libertarian groups are concerned about are really nice little weekend vacation spots chosen so as to put people (who are kept anonymous only for their own protection) in the mood to talk to us about the time they spent with Osama bin Laden. And those FBI oversights, well, you and I both know that no harm was done to anyone who had nothing to hide. Anyone who thinks we did wrongly just isn't looking at the world in the right way; know what I mean, kid? (/recruitment)
It's time to really start putting the pressure on our spineless Congresscritters to impeach that little sawed-off, two-bit, spawn of a syphilitic whore and a baboon who calls himself "The Decider" before it's too late to do so. Every time he and his cronies are allowed to get away with this sort of thing it is regarded by those in Washington as setting a precedent for what others may do in the future: the starting point for new abuses, as it were. Keep those cards and letters going to the jellyfish in Congress and maybe they'll use them to fashion some sort of spine.
For one thing I urge you to start using encryption for your email. There's no sense making it any easier than necessary for the agents of darkness to decide that you've written something that could be considered illegal, disloyal, of a "threat to national security". Anyone who doesn't start using encryption is simply making it easy for the State to monitor the communications of all of us. No matter how powerful the computers of the NSA, FBI, etc. they won't have time, if the use of encryption becomes common, to not only decrypt all the email, but then also parse through all of it for anything that's "out of line".
One of the big problems here is the sheer length of time it takes to get anything done legally. How many times does MS get to appeal the EU's decision? According the article a ruling on the appeal of the 2004 decision won't be made until near the end of the year. Each time this happens MS has yet more months and years in which to continue its illegal practices and gain marketshare. Given enough layers of appeals MS will win this fight by default as no one will be left to compete with them in the "workgroup server" space. The situation reminds me of the death row prisoner who dragged his appeals on so long he died a natural death. Whatever became of the use of injunctions prohibiting certain practices until the law is decided? Why is it MS seems to get a free pass in that regard? Inquiring minds want to know.;)
You make some good points. However, you miss a third possibilty in your "listen to copy then..." scenario and it's the one that the RIAA and MPAA are hanging their hats on: the possibilty that you will listen to a copy and never buy a "real" copy of the material from them. This loses them money and the fact that unauthorized copies of something exist is why they lost the money, hence, in the world according to the alphabet lobbies no copies should be allowed, at all. That's why the RIAA is suing everyone, including people who've never used computers or have no Internet access, for copyright infringement if they suspect that the person may, at some time or place, have been in the presence of a copy of some music. It's why the so-called "content providers" are working so hard to make sure that Digital Restrictions Management becomes not only ubiquitous, but is also never called by its right name. They want to create a world in which they don't have to change their business models, adjust their profit margins, pay artists more than a pittance, etc.; so they buy legilators and legislation to get their way.
This situation is not liable to change unless people refuse to buy DRM-crippled media and hardware. Only by denying the MPAA and RIAA the chance to totally control the use of their products will we stand a chance of winning this fight. Every time someone buys Deliberately Restricted Media, or hardware that supports the use of DRM, they subsidize the creation of a world in freedom is reduced. The worst part of the transaction is that their purchase of DRMed material not only limits their freedom, but works to decrease the freedom of the rest of us by encouraging the manufacture of more DRMed goods and the development of yet more restrictive DRM schemes. It's for this reason that I have stopped purchasing new DVDs, I want to practice what I preach and forgoing some "entertainment" is a small price to pay for freedom to do what I wish with my own property.
Sorry to have offend your sensibilities. However, being polite, which I have made a point of doing for a long time, doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. It's time to start applying sarcasm and rudeness to the tender parts of those who've gotten us into this situation.
Careful. With an attitude like that you'll be called an "unlawful enemy combatant", or maybe the Vice-President, hard to tell the difference these days.
Of course, the memo authorizing this travesty, which utterly destroys the last vestiges of due process for ordinary Americans, says that agents are to use the "exigent circumstances" requests only in case of "dire need". Yeah, we know how well that crap worked when they were supposedly abiding by the extremely dubious constitutional grounds provided by the infamous PATRIOT ACT. Our legislators continue to drag their feet and express surprise that the FBI would abuse its power: these are the jerks that handed the Feds the gun in the first place, now they seem surprised to find that the Bush administration has made use of its secret police powers to investigate at least 143,000 Americans, few of whom are at all likely to be terrorists - I guess that happens when most of one's eighteen functioning brain cells are mainly concentrating on how to maintain oneself in position at the public trough.
This is a clever move on the part of the Foul Breathed Investigators as it seems that "exigent circumstance" requests may be made by phone; in the interests of saving time and lives of course. Now, with no need to issue even minimal follow-up paperwork there will be far fewer traces of the abuses of power that will continue. After all, the cockroaches can now safely occupy the middle of the room: the lights have been turned off. No need to worry about having to scurry for cover should any noxious Inspector General or Congresscritter show up asking "What the hell?" So, America takes yet another step towards the darkness that is a police state. How long before phone records are used to justify having the military pick up some local "unlawful enemy combatant" in your neighborhood? Think it can't happen here? Think that Americans somehow don't have that "dark side" that shows up everywhere else in the world when governments are allowed virtually unlimited police powers? If that's true, how do you account for the FBI PATRIOT ACT abuses, the current dustup over the firing of eight US District Attorneys, the Valerie Plame affair, the use of secret CIA prison camps and the "extraordinary rendition" of prisoners to other nations with even fewer safeguards against torture than we have, the fact that the military tribunals now being held at Gitmo are secret (can't have anyone finding out who we really detain down there), and the remainder of the whole sordid list of abuses that our little sawed-off tinpot "Decider" in the White House has loosed on this country?
It's getting to be very close to the point at which openly dissenting from government policies will become very dangerous. It will be too late to put a stop to these abuses once the malevolent piece of vegetation that we "elected" President decides to start really using all the powers he's been given over the past six years. After all, how many people are going to be willing to openly risk the "midnight knock" that is more and more a possibilty for anyone who stands out from the crowd? Once people begin to disappear in numbers large enough to attract the attention of the sleep-walking American populace there will be little chance of peacefully reigning in our out-of-control Federal government. The time to act is now. Join the next demonstration against the war, start one to call attention to how Texas' Favorite Idiot has trampled our Constitutional liberties into the mud, write the spineless wimp that occupies your local Congressional district office and insist that he begin living up to his oath of office - which requires the protection of the Constitution and I'm not talking about shielding the document itself from destruction, write your local newspapers explaining why continuing to allow President Bush, Vice President Richard "Sparky Crashcart" Cheney, Attorney General Alberto "Torquemeda" Gonzales, and Secretary of State Condi "Head in the Sand" Rice to remain in office is a Bad Idea, do something to protect this country before it's too late. The government IS NOT THE COUNTRY and the sooner everyone realizes this the sooner we can kick the SOBs out of o
As a libertarian and long-time Linux user I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. In tact, I think that any libertarians who take the time to study the whole FOSS movement will find themselves drawn to it because of the philosophy of maximizing freedom and lowering the barriers to entry in the computer software marketplace that is the basis of the FOSS movement. I've had several discussions about this with fellow libertarians who were initially anti-FOSS because of its "communistic" heritage and have convinced them that their views were wrong by explaining the FOSS philosophy to them. I think that, if we'll spend the time and effort, we'll find those who favor freedom are among our most powerful potential allies in this struggle against Microsoft's attempt to maintain monopolistic dominance of the PC marketplace. We just have to get past the "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech" definition problem, though how we'll do that I'm not sure.
It seems to me that the real problem here is that people continue to be confused by the use of the word free. Somehow we need to make clear that, when we speak of "Free Software", we are not talking about an item which costs little or nothing. Instead we are talking about the ideas of freedom of use, freedom to make changes we want to the software, and the freedom to give the software to others. It's this dual meaning of the word free that continues to hobble the spread of FOSS, not only the use of the software, but the adoption of the philosphy of freedom for all that accompanies it. It's this dichotomy of meaning, and the difficulty of explaining it, that has caused me to almost entirely drop the use of the term "free software" and, instead, to use the term "Open Source". I realize that this is not an optimal solution, but until we can come up with the equivalent of a 30-second sound bite that will capture not only our deeper interpretation of the word free, but will also stick in the minds of the public, I can't think of a better way to get people into the discussion without distracting them with the "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech" issue.
Maybe we need something along the lines of "Free of viruses, free of malware, free of restrictions, free to give away, free to use" as a slogan for our movement.
No, it's time to start getting creative about fighting back against a government that is intent on monitoring every move the citizens of this country make. I'm no expert on http logging, but wouldn't it be possible, with Open Source browsers anyway, to change the code so that the information that is logged is incorrect? Let the bastards collect the data, just make sure it's incorrect, maybe by making sure it points to the originators and supporters of this legislation. This legislation is just another attempt, by those who would impose their vision of the Fascist States of America on us, to track our every move and it needs to be stopped before the spineless Congresscritters in Washington roll over and give President Bush another item on his checklist for turning America into a police state. Turn up the heat and call your favorite Congresscritter and let them know that you will not vote for them if they support this measure.
You seem to have missed my point. I didn't say that no one uses proprietary software, or that it shouldn't exist. I was simply pointing out that problems exist with the use of proprietary software that are at least as bad as anything that attaches to FOSS, with the additional disadvantage of exposing one's business to vendor lock-in which limits one's freedom of action. CEO's who continue to support the use of MS software have either deliberately ignored the threat such software poses to their business or are trapped, via vendor lock-in, into continuing to use it. I find it unfortunate that people continue to use closed-source software, but support their right to do stupid things if they want.
Actually, that's not true. Proprietary software is much more dangerous to businesses for a number of reasons, including tying one's business to the fortunes of another company, not having the ability to use the software as one wants, etc. The move being contemplated is one that would be beneficial to the community as a whole in that it would throw a giant monkey-wrench into Novell's attempt to portray itself as a "safe" (in the sense that MS couldn't sue the end-users) Linux distro. The Novell/MS is evil and needs to be countered by legal moves such as this. Stop spreading FUD about the FOSS community, the real problem here is people who think like you.
Bear in mind that IANAL, but I suspect that the FSF could make life very difficult for Novell if they change the license for all of the many utilities and applications that they control from GPLv2 to GPLv3. Novell would have a lot of work to do if they were suddenly put in a position in which they could no longer distribute the gcc package, GIMP, GNOME, etc. with SuSE or any other Novell-branded Linux distro. There are a lot of small pieces of the overall that use FSF-developed code and are essential to running a Linux system. We could find out how much truth there is to RMS' statement that the overall system should be called GNU/Linux if the FSF goes ahead with this move.
Personally, I would support the FSF if they decide to do this. The Novell/ MS deal is nothing, but a way to provide Novell with a marketing tool, the ability to say "use our Linux distro and be safe from MS patent claims", at the expense of the overall community. Novell is essentially saying that it's OK for MS to sue everyone, except Novell customers, for so-called IP infringements. It is a move by Novell to establish themselves as the Linux monopoly by making their product "safe" from MS lawyers. Novell is hoping that the business community will make wholesale migrations to their products in order to avoid the threat of MS litigation and is a, somewhat silent, partner in MS' efforts to spread FUD about the "use of MS proprietary technology in Linux". Make no mistake about it Novell is evil: to my mind it is more evil than MS in that it portrays itself as a friend of the Linux/FOSS community, while doing whatever it can to undermine the philosphical and legal basis for that community. MS at least makes no claim that Linux is OK - they just flat-out hate us and do everything that they can to prevent the spread of freedom within the community of computer users.
I certainly hope that the judges hearing the appeal (and the Supremes when it gets to them) have the intestinal fortitude to assert their authority. The problem with this whole case is that the Bush administraation does whatever it wants regardless of the law. A President who had any respect for the Constitution and the rule of law would never have started this program in the first place. The fact that Bush and his co-conspirators have decided to stop this program tells me that they have simply started another one somewhere within the government's huge espionage sector. They are indeed trying to remove themselves and their actions from scrutiny so that they can carry on as they want over in the dark corners of the room.
I have no confidence that Bush will obey any adverse ruling that comes out of this case. After all, to do so would undermine the "unitary executive" theory of government upon which he bases his dictatorial actions. I suspect that, in the back of his little twisted mind, he thinks he's immune to actions by the other branches of government. After all, "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?" In the final analysis it's only the willingness of each branch of government to abide by decisions made by another that makes our form of government work. With his signing statements Bush has repeatedly demonstrated that only he, as the "unitary executive", will make the determination of how a law is to be interpreted or enforced. The Attorney General has recently stated in Senate hearings that the civil liberties embodied in our Constitution do not apply all the time: http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem14.html. Given that mindset there is nothing to prevent this President from deciding that he is not subject to rulings of the courts and I'm sure that he will have no problem getting a ruling to that effect from his AG and others in his administration.
This country is facing a Constitutional crisis that makes the Watergate affair pale by comparison. Between a President who believes that he is not bound by the rule of law and willingly believes whatever twisted interpretation of same will allow him to achieve his ends while appearing to act within the law and a Congress whose members have, by and large, stood by while he has shredded most of the Consitution we have arrived at this point. President Bush has been allowed to carry out whatever course of action he wants, be it the suspension of habeus corpus, torture, secret imprisonment, warrantless wiretapping, etc. with nothing of substance being done to stop him. Indeed, the Congress has abetted him by passing such legislation as the PATRIOT ACT, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Anti-Torture Act of 2005 (which merely formalized AG Gonzales' interpretation of what constitutes torture, essentially allowing anything short of causing death). All he has had to do is to cloak himself in the flag and claim that Patriotism and a desire to "keep America safe" justify his actions. Congress is as much a part of this travesty as he is and the decision by the new Democratic leadership to "take impeachment off the table" can only have strengthened his view of the correctness of his actions. There is still some hope that our course can be reversed, but doing so will require a concerted effort by the Congress, the Courts, and the People to achieve it. Let's hope that the courts don't let us down and that they allow this suit to go forward. At least it would be a start.
One has to wonder how they count non-authorized systems. For instance, I added a gig of RAM and a different video card to my parent's computer a little over a year ago. The system told me that the Windows XP installation was no longer valid when I re-booted the system and put me through the re-certification rigamarole. That failed: it kept refusing the key that the system itself had generated. I eventually found a registry hack out on the 'Net that let me get around all of this and kept my folks PC usable. However, I'm sure that MS would consider this to be a pirated installation, even though the original Certificate of Authority is still glued on the machine. This all happened over a year ago so some of the technical details may be wrong, but the jist of the tale is correct. It all makes me glad that I don't use any MS slaveare at home.
Competition is good and I'm all for it. However, taking advantage of a badly broken patent system, while at the same time claiming that they are working towards fixing that system, is simply one more example of the hypocrisy of Microsoft and is not an example of fair competition. If His Billness and Company are truly concerned about frivolous patents then this is the sort of thing they should not be doing. The fact that they have filed the application tells me that the loudly proclaimed moves to improve the system were nothing, but another marketing ploy designed to improve the company's image, while making no difference to the way it actually functions. Our only hope now is that the USPTO will find examples of "prior art" in its own emails as they seem incapable of noticing it in the outside world - as we've seen too many other times.
European acceptance of government intrusion into lives of private citizens notwithstanding, ID cards do nothing to prevent crime or terrorism. All they do is make it easier for an increasingly oppressive government to track those citizens whom it doesn't like, for whatever reason. As our Founding Fathers understood so well the history of government is one of the erosion and eventual elimination of civil liberties. The REAL ID initiative is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to get the American people to accept the government's having the power to determine whether or not they can travel, open a bank account, or who knows what else in the future. This is directly counter to the principles this country was founded on and needs to be opposed as vigorously as possible. Allowing REAL ID to go ahead will put in place the final piece needed by the Bush administration to turn America into a police-state. The previous pieces of the puzzle include the PATRIOT ACT, which allows the government to declare any criminal act as a terrorist act if it decides, without any judicial involvement, that the crime was committed with the intent of attempting to change government policy; the redefinition of torture was another piece as government agents may now use any amount of coercion to obtain information from "suspects"; the Military Tribunals Act of 2006, which allows the government to arbitrarily declare any U.S. citizen to be an "unlawful enemy combatant", will allow the government to disappear its opponents into miliitary prisons (called concentration camps in other times and places); and REAL ID will put in place the technology needed to allow real-time tracking of anyone the government takes an interest in. Which part of police-state do the American people not understand?
Darn, what a shame that the police should have to be able to recognize 50 different types of driver's licenses. Have we so lost touch with our history in this nation that we think that it's the job of the citizenry to make it easier for the State to "police" us? Take a good look at the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and you won't find anything in there that indicates that Americans should be required to make the job of the police easier. In fact, it's just the opposite, which is why there isn't supposed to be unwarranted search in this country (President Bush's illegal NSA domestic spying program notwithstanding), it's why the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination exists, it's why jury trials are a right, at it's heart it's why the 2nd Amendment exists. Face it people (and I know that a lot of/.'ers already understand this) the government is the enemy of freedom, no matter what it says about "promoting liberty", just look at what the State actually does and open your eyes to the fact that the government is a far greater threat to your life and liberty than any numnber of terrorists.
You are absolutely correct in that, according to the Constitution the Federal government has no power to impose this sort of regulation. The problem is that our masters in Washington have gotten into the habit of ignoring that document when they find it inconvenient for their purpose of expanding government police powers. I for one am tired of this "we need to be more secure" bullshit. Let's see, so far all of the terrorist attacks against Americans, on and off our shores have killed probably fewer than 5K people, certainly fewer than 10K and yet the average American seems to be convinced that terrorists are just around the corner and only more government surveillance will protect them. Why is this? I think it's because average Americans suffer from two major problems: they are unable to assess what poses the real risks in their lives and, thanks to our public uneducation system, they are convinced that the government is the source of all good and wisdom in our society. This makes it possible for power-mongers such as Chertoff to foist their specious reasoning off on the majority of the sheeple as gospel.
When one considers that the new REAL ID cards will probably have RFID chips embedded in them how long do you suppose it will be before the thousands of police surveillance cameras, that now keep tabs on a lot of our public spaces, will be equipped with RFID scanners so that a record can be kept of exactly who is within the camera's view at any given time. Welcome to the Soviet Union of America, where the government's police powers rampage unchecked and the citizenry have voluntarily surrendered their liberty - making that horrible trade-off of liberty for "security". Somehow or other this move must be stopped or we will run the very real risk of this ID turning into an internal passport - which it will be in some sense right out of the gate when one considers that it will be required in order to travel via airline to anywhere.
The idea that privacy will be better protected by the implementation of REAL ID is laughable. Not only will RFID chips make it easy for police to track the whereabouts of everyone, but you can bet that the same people who developed the technology to clone cell-phones won't be long in developing technology to allow criminals to read the REAL ID chips themselves. Then, the whole world will open up to them as no one will question my assertion that I'm you when I present them with a forged REAL ID card that has the stolen info on its own RFID chip. This whole scheme is nothing but a way to stick yet another part of the camel of unfettered State police powers into the the tent of people's private lives.
Since our Congresscritters are showing their usual lack of concern about the continual erosion of our civil liberties I think it's time we rubbed their noses in our concern. Let's put together a March on Washington for next July 4. I urge everyone reading this to go to Washington and just show up on the Mall come next 4th of July. We'll turn Washington into a "free speech zone" and tell our government that we're tired of the continual and expanding use of the police powers of the State to interfere with and monitor the affairs of normal American citizens. It's time that we show President Bush and the rest of the anti-civil liberties crowd that at least some of us take this threat seriously and we won't take it lying down. Marches and peaceful civil disobedience worked in the 60s and they can work again if people can be made to understand the fact that their own government is a far greater threat to their safety than any number of terrorists. I'd rather take my chances as a free man, thank you.
I could not disagree with you more. This is the sort of thinking that has allowed G.W. Bush and company to ignore the 4th Amendment and have the NSA eavesdrop on Americans. It's an argument that says that it's OK to ignore the letter of the law when it's convenient for the state or society to do so. The Florida legislature did not include IM in their list of communication methods that are included in the law. Perhaps they did that to protect Mark Foley.;) It's the job of the courts to enforce the laws as written, not to act as mind-readers, no matter how worthy the cause, and extend the law because they think the legislature intended to cover a particular act which was not included in the law. If the judges think the law should have an IM provision then they should encourage the legislature to amend it. They should not take it upon themselves to rewrite the law - they are not the legislature.
On another aspect of this case - does it bother anyone that a police officer is posing as an underage girl to entrap men into this sort of crime? IANAL so I've never understood why it's OK for agents of the state to pretend to be persons they are not, solicit others to commit a crime, and then arrest them for the act that they incited. If I do that as a citizen it's called conspiracy. What is it about the fact of being in the employ of the state that suddenly makes it OK to disobey laws that apply to ordinary citizens? I've got no problem with the police, when they have reason to believe, because of other investigation, tips, etc., that a crime is being planned or committed, infiltrating an undercover agent into the operation. My objection is to the state's habit of having it's agents pose as someone else and then actively soliciting criminal activity.
Wow! After nearly a decade on Slashdot I have a "first post". But, I didn't come here to write about that. I came here to write about the story, which is not only believable, but presents a scenario which I suspect that we will see played out this year. That's right, the Republicans, with a little help from their good friends at Diebold, will make sure that they maintain control of both the House and the Senate. Given the Bush Administration's coordinated and continuous assault on our civil liberties this is not only the next logical step in the restriction of same, but will also ensure that no one, especially those nasty Democrats, will ever be able to prove that such a thing has happened. The scary thing is that, in state-wide races, it is not necesaary to manipulate large numbers of votes. All one needs to do is identify the "swing" districts in a given state and infect the machines there with vote-stealing code. This not only limits the number of people who need to be involved in the scheme, it has the additional benefit of producing entirely plausible results as the chosen "stolen districts" are historically unpredictable. I doubt that even sophisticated statistical analysis procedures would be able to detect vote fraud of this type. The implications for the future of this country are dire indeed. We may very well see the end of American democracy with this election.
Sorry, the patents in question are not laws, they are methods to minimize the tax liability of businesses and individuals. As such, the state has no control over them except by changing the rules of the patent process to ban such patents. Furthermore, the patent holders, in general, do not forbid the use of their methods, they merely demand that you obtain a license to use them - thus enriching themselves and giving them more incentive to develop more tax-avaoidance methods that they can patent, etc.;)
However, I expect that, unlike the software patent issues we generally deal with here on/., this situation won't be allowed to last. There is too much money at stake and the business community will not allow others, aside from their bought-and-paid-for Congresscritters, to have control over what means they can use to lower their taxes. Look for calls to change patent law to disallow patents on tax-related business methods. With any luck, we'll be able to ride that move and expand the scope to disallow patents on business methods in general and, maybe, get rid of software patents into the bargain.
An interesting observation. However, I think that an even stronger influence on the design, as opposed to use, of computers and other digital technologies is that of mathematics. After all, math is the driving force behind the design of the various digital beasties that now affect our lives. Thus, they all operate according to a well-understood set of logic and math rules. The actual packaging of the devices is driven by sales, marketing, and, to a degree, engineering considerations - which are the parts of the process that are affected by culture per se.
How the device is actually used is driven by culture. I think that's one of the reasons that Americans, in general, are quick to pick up the latest in "easy to use" tech and that's one of the reasons for MS's dominance in the computer field. Bill Gates and company have sold their products as being "easy to use" and they have done a good job of making good on that claim - it's unfortunate that the underlying OS is such a piece of schlock, but that's another discussion. I'm not an MS fan, but the company has done more to popularize the use of computers for all sorts of tasks - to the point that it has an apparently unshakeable hold on the mind of the average computer user - than the rest of the industry did over the thirty or so years prior to the introduction of Windows 3. Most PC users at that time (and since) didn't have to deal with the underlying complexity of the technology as, since they were generally using the machines at work, they had geeks like us to set the things up and fix them when they went south. As time has gone on MS has made Windows easier to use at the expense of removing access to much of the underlying power of the machine - which is why so many of us here on/. despise them so.
MS isn't the only company to sell their products based on the "easy to use" mantra. Other examples are provided by Apple - a one-button mouse must be easier to use than the multi-button devices from other companies; HP, their first touch-screen PCs were a marvel though the technology itself wasn't robust enough for use in business and/or shop-floor settings; and IBM - the original PC was, in spite of its many shortcomings, much easier to use than the mainframes the company made most of its money on. Camera phones provide another example, they're easier to use than their full-size digital camera cousins - just pull open the phone, point it at what you want the picture of, push a button to take the picture, push another button to send the picture to whomever you want - how mush simpler can it get?
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. "Easy" is always quicker to sell than "hard and requires learning before you become proficient", at least here in America.
An interesting idea. However, I think that Occam's Razor probably comes down on the side of blocking information as it's easier to do that than it is to create false information. However, you do have a good point because people who aren't able to think critically and don't really know how to do research (both things that our "education system" is very bad at) can certainly be misled by being encouraged to believe that information that comes from "your side" of an argument is always true, while that from the "other side" is always wrong. To a degree everyone does this as there is simply too much information readily available, as of now, to be able to review all of it. Add into the mix the "hey, look over here I'm right" folks such as Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart and it makes it easier (and more socially acceptable) to apply these pre-made filters than it is to engage one's critical thinking capability and derive one's own conclusions.
I think that the only way we'll ever be able to tell if this sort of clandestine filtering is being done in the U.S. is via indirect analysis of the information available. When the point is reached that those who oppose a given government policy are forced to rely on conjecture, as opposed to being able to supply facts to bolster their position, while the opposite side has all the information they need, then I think we'll be able to conclude that the flow of information is being deliberately manipulated. We haven't reached that point, nor are we close to it, but the government can apply the same strategy to the restriction of information flow that they've so successfully applied to the destruction of our civil liberties: the "death of a thousand cuts", by which information will slowly be reduced until only the government's point of view is heard. It's a lengthy process, but potentially very effective. I think that we may already be seeing the start of it as the government fails to abide by its own laws about things such as the DHS's report on privacy which is supposed to be filed on an annual basis and which hasn't been filed this year, though it is several months late http://www.epic.org/privacy/pdf/Letter_0926.pdf/. All that has to be done is for the government to make it painful enough (to get information) that most people won't go to the trouble of asking and they will have taken another step towards greater information control.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're absolutely right about this. Here's how the Feds are now recruiting people for the FBI and DOJ:
(recruitment)
Hey! Step right right up and put your name down for a job with the FBI or DOJ and possible nomination as next U.S. Attorney General. You've got just the attributes we here in Washington are looking for, primarily, the ability to rationalize anything that Der Führer^w^w President Bush wants done. You'll fit in nicely here in Washington, the land of the Big Lie, little credibility, and less truth than contained in any Fox News report on the "War on Terrorism". Why, I'm sure you realize that those so-called "black" CIA prisons that the ACLU and other un-patriotic civil libertarian groups are concerned about are really nice little weekend vacation spots chosen so as to put people (who are kept anonymous only for their own protection) in the mood to talk to us about the time they spent with Osama bin Laden. And those FBI oversights, well, you and I both know that no harm was done to anyone who had nothing to hide. Anyone who thinks we did wrongly just isn't looking at the world in the right way; know what I mean, kid? (/recruitment)
It's time to really start putting the pressure on our spineless Congresscritters to impeach that little sawed-off, two-bit, spawn of a syphilitic whore and a baboon who calls himself "The Decider" before it's too late to do so. Every time he and his cronies are allowed to get away with this sort of thing it is regarded by those in Washington as setting a precedent for what others may do in the future: the starting point for new abuses, as it were. Keep those cards and letters going to the jellyfish in Congress and maybe they'll use them to fashion some sort of spine.
Just my $.02,
Ron
For one thing I urge you to start using encryption for your email. There's no sense making it any easier than necessary for the agents of darkness to decide that you've written something that could be considered illegal, disloyal, of a "threat to national security". Anyone who doesn't start using encryption is simply making it easy for the State to monitor the communications of all of us. No matter how powerful the computers of the NSA, FBI, etc. they won't have time, if the use of encryption becomes common, to not only decrypt all the email, but then also parse through all of it for anything that's "out of line".
Just my $.02,
Ron
One of the big problems here is the sheer length of time it takes to get anything done legally. How many times does MS get to appeal the EU's decision? According the article a ruling on the appeal of the 2004 decision won't be made until near the end of the year. Each time this happens MS has yet more months and years in which to continue its illegal practices and gain marketshare. Given enough layers of appeals MS will win this fight by default as no one will be left to compete with them in the "workgroup server" space. The situation reminds me of the death row prisoner who dragged his appeals on so long he died a natural death. Whatever became of the use of injunctions prohibiting certain practices until the law is decided? Why is it MS seems to get a free pass in that regard? Inquiring minds want to know. ;)
Just my $.02,
Ron
You make some good points. However, you miss a third possibilty in your "listen to copy then..." scenario and it's the one that the RIAA and MPAA are hanging their hats on: the possibilty that you will listen to a copy and never buy a "real" copy of the material from them. This loses them money and the fact that unauthorized copies of something exist is why they lost the money, hence, in the world according to the alphabet lobbies no copies should be allowed, at all. That's why the RIAA is suing everyone, including people who've never used computers or have no Internet access, for copyright infringement if they suspect that the person may, at some time or place, have been in the presence of a copy of some music. It's why the so-called "content providers" are working so hard to make sure that Digital Restrictions Management becomes not only ubiquitous, but is also never called by its right name. They want to create a world in which they don't have to change their business models, adjust their profit margins, pay artists more than a pittance, etc.; so they buy legilators and legislation to get their way.
This situation is not liable to change unless people refuse to buy DRM-crippled media and hardware. Only by denying the MPAA and RIAA the chance to totally control the use of their products will we stand a chance of winning this fight. Every time someone buys Deliberately Restricted Media, or hardware that supports the use of DRM, they subsidize the creation of a world in freedom is reduced. The worst part of the transaction is that their purchase of DRMed material not only limits their freedom, but works to decrease the freedom of the rest of us by encouraging the manufacture of more DRMed goods and the development of yet more restrictive DRM schemes. It's for this reason that I have stopped purchasing new DVDs, I want to practice what I preach and forgoing some "entertainment" is a small price to pay for freedom to do what I wish with my own property.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Sorry to have offend your sensibilities. However, being polite, which I have made a point of doing for a long time, doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. It's time to start applying sarcasm and rudeness to the tender parts of those who've gotten us into this situation.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Careful. With an attitude like that you'll be called an "unlawful enemy combatant", or maybe the Vice-President, hard to tell the difference these days.
Later,
Ron
Of course, the memo authorizing this travesty, which utterly destroys the last vestiges of due process for ordinary Americans, says that agents are to use the "exigent circumstances" requests only in case of "dire need". Yeah, we know how well that crap worked when they were supposedly abiding by the extremely dubious constitutional grounds provided by the infamous PATRIOT ACT. Our legislators continue to drag their feet and express surprise that the FBI would abuse its power: these are the jerks that handed the Feds the gun in the first place, now they seem surprised to find that the Bush administration has made use of its secret police powers to investigate at least 143,000 Americans, few of whom are at all likely to be terrorists - I guess that happens when most of one's eighteen functioning brain cells are mainly concentrating on how to maintain oneself in position at the public trough.
This is a clever move on the part of the Foul Breathed Investigators as it seems that "exigent circumstance" requests may be made by phone; in the interests of saving time and lives of course. Now, with no need to issue even minimal follow-up paperwork there will be far fewer traces of the abuses of power that will continue. After all, the cockroaches can now safely occupy the middle of the room: the lights have been turned off. No need to worry about having to scurry for cover should any noxious Inspector General or Congresscritter show up asking "What the hell?" So, America takes yet another step towards the darkness that is a police state. How long before phone records are used to justify having the military pick up some local "unlawful enemy combatant" in your neighborhood? Think it can't happen here? Think that Americans somehow don't have that "dark side" that shows up everywhere else in the world when governments are allowed virtually unlimited police powers? If that's true, how do you account for the FBI PATRIOT ACT abuses, the current dustup over the firing of eight US District Attorneys, the Valerie Plame affair, the use of secret CIA prison camps and the "extraordinary rendition" of prisoners to other nations with even fewer safeguards against torture than we have, the fact that the military tribunals now being held at Gitmo are secret (can't have anyone finding out who we really detain down there), and the remainder of the whole sordid list of abuses that our little sawed-off tinpot "Decider" in the White House has loosed on this country?
It's getting to be very close to the point at which openly dissenting from government policies will become very dangerous. It will be too late to put a stop to these abuses once the malevolent piece of vegetation that we "elected" President decides to start really using all the powers he's been given over the past six years. After all, how many people are going to be willing to openly risk the "midnight knock" that is more and more a possibilty for anyone who stands out from the crowd? Once people begin to disappear in numbers large enough to attract the attention of the sleep-walking American populace there will be little chance of peacefully reigning in our out-of-control Federal government. The time to act is now. Join the next demonstration against the war, start one to call attention to how Texas' Favorite Idiot has trampled our Constitutional liberties into the mud, write the spineless wimp that occupies your local Congressional district office and insist that he begin living up to his oath of office - which requires the protection of the Constitution and I'm not talking about shielding the document itself from destruction, write your local newspapers explaining why continuing to allow President Bush, Vice President Richard "Sparky Crashcart" Cheney, Attorney General Alberto "Torquemeda" Gonzales, and Secretary of State Condi "Head in the Sand" Rice to remain in office is a Bad Idea, do something to protect this country before it's too late. The government IS NOT THE COUNTRY and the sooner everyone realizes this the sooner we can kick the SOBs out of o
It's probably because he uses a Richard Nixon mask when he goes out in public. After all, no one wants to speak ill of the dead.
Just my $.02,
Ron
As a libertarian and long-time Linux user I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. In tact, I think that any libertarians who take the time to study the whole FOSS movement will find themselves drawn to it because of the philosophy of maximizing freedom and lowering the barriers to entry in the computer software marketplace that is the basis of the FOSS movement. I've had several discussions about this with fellow libertarians who were initially anti-FOSS because of its "communistic" heritage and have convinced them that their views were wrong by explaining the FOSS philosophy to them. I think that, if we'll spend the time and effort, we'll find those who favor freedom are among our most powerful potential allies in this struggle against Microsoft's attempt to maintain monopolistic dominance of the PC marketplace. We just have to get past the "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech" definition problem, though how we'll do that I'm not sure.
Just my $.02,
Ron
It seems to me that the real problem here is that people continue to be confused by the use of the word free. Somehow we need to make clear that, when we speak of "Free Software", we are not talking about an item which costs little or nothing. Instead we are talking about the ideas of freedom of use, freedom to make changes we want to the software, and the freedom to give the software to others. It's this dual meaning of the word free that continues to hobble the spread of FOSS, not only the use of the software, but the adoption of the philosphy of freedom for all that accompanies it. It's this dichotomy of meaning, and the difficulty of explaining it, that has caused me to almost entirely drop the use of the term "free software" and, instead, to use the term "Open Source". I realize that this is not an optimal solution, but until we can come up with the equivalent of a 30-second sound bite that will capture not only our deeper interpretation of the word free, but will also stick in the minds of the public, I can't think of a better way to get people into the discussion without distracting them with the "free as in beer" vs. "free as in speech" issue.
Maybe we need something along the lines of "Free of viruses, free of malware, free of restrictions, free to give away, free to use" as a slogan for our movement.
Just my $.02,
Ron
No, it's time to start getting creative about fighting back against a government that is intent on monitoring every move the citizens of this country make. I'm no expert on http logging, but wouldn't it be possible, with Open Source browsers anyway, to change the code so that the information that is logged is incorrect? Let the bastards collect the data, just make sure it's incorrect, maybe by making sure it points to the originators and supporters of this legislation. This legislation is just another attempt, by those who would impose their vision of the Fascist States of America on us, to track our every move and it needs to be stopped before the spineless Congresscritters in Washington roll over and give President Bush another item on his checklist for turning America into a police state. Turn up the heat and call your favorite Congresscritter and let them know that you will not vote for them if they support this measure.
Just my $.02,
Ron
You seem to have missed my point. I didn't say that no one uses proprietary software, or that it shouldn't exist. I was simply pointing out that problems exist with the use of proprietary software that are at least as bad as anything that attaches to FOSS, with the additional disadvantage of exposing one's business to vendor lock-in which limits one's freedom of action. CEO's who continue to support the use of MS software have either deliberately ignored the threat such software poses to their business or are trapped, via vendor lock-in, into continuing to use it. I find it unfortunate that people continue to use closed-source software, but support their right to do stupid things if they want.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Actually, that's not true. Proprietary software is much more dangerous to businesses for a number of reasons, including tying one's business to the fortunes of another company, not having the ability to use the software as one wants, etc. The move being contemplated is one that would be beneficial to the community as a whole in that it would throw a giant monkey-wrench into Novell's attempt to portray itself as a "safe" (in the sense that MS couldn't sue the end-users) Linux distro. The Novell/MS is evil and needs to be countered by legal moves such as this. Stop spreading FUD about the FOSS community, the real problem here is people who think like you.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Bear in mind that IANAL, but I suspect that the FSF could make life very difficult for Novell if they change the license for all of the many utilities and applications that they control from GPLv2 to GPLv3. Novell would have a lot of work to do if they were suddenly put in a position in which they could no longer distribute the gcc package, GIMP, GNOME, etc. with SuSE or any other Novell-branded Linux distro. There are a lot of small pieces of the overall that use FSF-developed code and are essential to running a Linux system. We could find out how much truth there is to RMS' statement that the overall system should be called GNU/Linux if the FSF goes ahead with this move.
Personally, I would support the FSF if they decide to do this. The Novell/ MS deal is nothing, but a way to provide Novell with a marketing tool, the ability to say "use our Linux distro and be safe from MS patent claims", at the expense of the overall community. Novell is essentially saying that it's OK for MS to sue everyone, except Novell customers, for so-called IP infringements. It is a move by Novell to establish themselves as the Linux monopoly by making their product "safe" from MS lawyers. Novell is hoping that the business community will make wholesale migrations to their products in order to avoid the threat of MS litigation and is a, somewhat silent, partner in MS' efforts to spread FUD about the "use of MS proprietary technology in Linux". Make no mistake about it Novell is evil: to my mind it is more evil than MS in that it portrays itself as a friend of the Linux/FOSS community, while doing whatever it can to undermine the philosphical and legal basis for that community. MS at least makes no claim that Linux is OK - they just flat-out hate us and do everything that they can to prevent the spread of freedom within the community of computer users.
I certainly hope that the judges hearing the appeal (and the Supremes when it gets to them) have the intestinal fortitude to assert their authority. The problem with this whole case is that the Bush administraation does whatever it wants regardless of the law. A President who had any respect for the Constitution and the rule of law would never have started this program in the first place. The fact that Bush and his co-conspirators have decided to stop this program tells me that they have simply started another one somewhere within the government's huge espionage sector. They are indeed trying to remove themselves and their actions from scrutiny so that they can carry on as they want over in the dark corners of the room.
I have no confidence that Bush will obey any adverse ruling that comes out of this case. After all, to do so would undermine the "unitary executive" theory of government upon which he bases his dictatorial actions. I suspect that, in the back of his little twisted mind, he thinks he's immune to actions by the other branches of government. After all, "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?" In the final analysis it's only the willingness of each branch of government to abide by decisions made by another that makes our form of government work. With his signing statements Bush has repeatedly demonstrated that only he, as the "unitary executive", will make the determination of how a law is to be interpreted or enforced. The Attorney General has recently stated in Senate hearings that the civil liberties embodied in our Constitution do not apply all the time: http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem14.html. Given that mindset there is nothing to prevent this President from deciding that he is not subject to rulings of the courts and I'm sure that he will have no problem getting a ruling to that effect from his AG and others in his administration.
This country is facing a Constitutional crisis that makes the Watergate affair pale by comparison. Between a President who believes that he is not bound by the rule of law and willingly believes whatever twisted interpretation of same will allow him to achieve his ends while appearing to act within the law and a Congress whose members have, by and large, stood by while he has shredded most of the Consitution we have arrived at this point. President Bush has been allowed to carry out whatever course of action he wants, be it the suspension of habeus corpus, torture, secret imprisonment, warrantless wiretapping, etc. with nothing of substance being done to stop him. Indeed, the Congress has abetted him by passing such legislation as the PATRIOT ACT, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Anti-Torture Act of 2005 (which merely formalized AG Gonzales' interpretation of what constitutes torture, essentially allowing anything short of causing death). All he has had to do is to cloak himself in the flag and claim that Patriotism and a desire to "keep America safe" justify his actions. Congress is as much a part of this travesty as he is and the decision by the new Democratic leadership to "take impeachment off the table" can only have strengthened his view of the correctness of his actions. There is still some hope that our course can be reversed, but doing so will require a concerted effort by the Congress, the Courts, and the People to achieve it. Let's hope that the courts don't let us down and that they allow this suit to go forward. At least it would be a start.
Just my $.02,
Ron
One has to wonder how they count non-authorized systems. For instance, I added a gig of RAM and a different video card to my parent's computer a little over a year ago. The system told me that the Windows XP installation was no longer valid when I re-booted the system and put me through the re-certification rigamarole. That failed: it kept refusing the key that the system itself had generated. I eventually found a registry hack out on the 'Net that let me get around all of this and kept my folks PC usable. However, I'm sure that MS would consider this to be a pirated installation, even though the original Certificate of Authority is still glued on the machine. This all happened over a year ago so some of the technical details may be wrong, but the jist of the tale is correct. It all makes me glad that I don't use any MS slaveare at home.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Competition is good and I'm all for it. However, taking advantage of a badly broken patent system, while at the same time claiming that they are working towards fixing that system, is simply one more example of the hypocrisy of Microsoft and is not an example of fair competition. If His Billness and Company are truly concerned about frivolous patents then this is the sort of thing they should not be doing. The fact that they have filed the application tells me that the loudly proclaimed moves to improve the system were nothing, but another marketing ploy designed to improve the company's image, while making no difference to the way it actually functions. Our only hope now is that the USPTO will find examples of "prior art" in its own emails as they seem incapable of noticing it in the outside world - as we've seen too many other times.
Just my $.02,
Ron
European acceptance of government intrusion into lives of private citizens notwithstanding, ID cards do nothing to prevent crime or terrorism. All they do is make it easier for an increasingly oppressive government to track those citizens whom it doesn't like, for whatever reason. As our Founding Fathers understood so well the history of government is one of the erosion and eventual elimination of civil liberties. The REAL ID initiative is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to get the American people to accept the government's having the power to determine whether or not they can travel, open a bank account, or who knows what else in the future. This is directly counter to the principles this country was founded on and needs to be opposed as vigorously as possible. Allowing REAL ID to go ahead will put in place the final piece needed by the Bush administration to turn America into a police-state. The previous pieces of the puzzle include the PATRIOT ACT, which allows the government to declare any criminal act as a terrorist act if it decides, without any judicial involvement, that the crime was committed with the intent of attempting to change government policy; the redefinition of torture was another piece as government agents may now use any amount of coercion to obtain information from "suspects"; the Military Tribunals Act of 2006, which allows the government to arbitrarily declare any U.S. citizen to be an "unlawful enemy combatant", will allow the government to disappear its opponents into miliitary prisons (called concentration camps in other times and places); and REAL ID will put in place the technology needed to allow real-time tracking of anyone the government takes an interest in. Which part of police-state do the American people not understand?
Just my $.02,
Ron
Darn, what a shame that the police should have to be able to recognize 50 different types of driver's licenses. Have we so lost touch with our history in this nation that we think that it's the job of the citizenry to make it easier for the State to "police" us? Take a good look at the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and you won't find anything in there that indicates that Americans should be required to make the job of the police easier. In fact, it's just the opposite, which is why there isn't supposed to be unwarranted search in this country (President Bush's illegal NSA domestic spying program notwithstanding), it's why the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination exists, it's why jury trials are a right, at it's heart it's why the 2nd Amendment exists. Face it people (and I know that a lot of /.'ers already understand this) the government is the enemy of freedom, no matter what it says about "promoting liberty", just look at what the State actually does and open your eyes to the fact that the government is a far greater threat to your life and liberty than any numnber of terrorists.
Just my $.02,
Ron
You are absolutely correct in that, according to the Constitution the Federal government has no power to impose this sort of regulation. The problem is that our masters in Washington have gotten into the habit of ignoring that document when they find it inconvenient for their purpose of expanding government police powers. I for one am tired of this "we need to be more secure" bullshit. Let's see, so far all of the terrorist attacks against Americans, on and off our shores have killed probably fewer than 5K people, certainly fewer than 10K and yet the average American seems to be convinced that terrorists are just around the corner and only more government surveillance will protect them. Why is this? I think it's because average Americans suffer from two major problems: they are unable to assess what poses the real risks in their lives and, thanks to our public uneducation system, they are convinced that the government is the source of all good and wisdom in our society. This makes it possible for power-mongers such as Chertoff to foist their specious reasoning off on the majority of the sheeple as gospel.
When one considers that the new REAL ID cards will probably have RFID chips embedded in them how long do you suppose it will be before the thousands of police surveillance cameras, that now keep tabs on a lot of our public spaces, will be equipped with RFID scanners so that a record can be kept of exactly who is within the camera's view at any given time. Welcome to the Soviet Union of America, where the government's police powers rampage unchecked and the citizenry have voluntarily surrendered their liberty - making that horrible trade-off of liberty for "security". Somehow or other this move must be stopped or we will run the very real risk of this ID turning into an internal passport - which it will be in some sense right out of the gate when one considers that it will be required in order to travel via airline to anywhere.
The idea that privacy will be better protected by the implementation of REAL ID is laughable. Not only will RFID chips make it easy for police to track the whereabouts of everyone, but you can bet that the same people who developed the technology to clone cell-phones won't be long in developing technology to allow criminals to read the REAL ID chips themselves. Then, the whole world will open up to them as no one will question my assertion that I'm you when I present them with a forged REAL ID card that has the stolen info on its own RFID chip. This whole scheme is nothing but a way to stick yet another part of the camel of unfettered State police powers into the the tent of people's private lives.
Since our Congresscritters are showing their usual lack of concern about the continual erosion of our civil liberties I think it's time we rubbed their noses in our concern. Let's put together a March on Washington for next July 4. I urge everyone reading this to go to Washington and just show up on the Mall come next 4th of July. We'll turn Washington into a "free speech zone" and tell our government that we're tired of the continual and expanding use of the police powers of the State to interfere with and monitor the affairs of normal American citizens. It's time that we show President Bush and the rest of the anti-civil liberties crowd that at least some of us take this threat seriously and we won't take it lying down. Marches and peaceful civil disobedience worked in the 60s and they can work again if people can be made to understand the fact that their own government is a far greater threat to their safety than any number of terrorists. I'd rather take my chances as a free man, thank you.
Just my $.02,
Ron
I could not disagree with you more. This is the sort of thinking that has allowed G.W. Bush and company to ignore the 4th Amendment and have the NSA eavesdrop on Americans. It's an argument that says that it's OK to ignore the letter of the law when it's convenient for the state or society to do so. The Florida legislature did not include IM in their list of communication methods that are included in the law. Perhaps they did that to protect Mark Foley. ;) It's the job of the courts to enforce the laws as written, not to act as mind-readers, no matter how worthy the cause, and extend the law because they think the legislature intended to cover a particular act which was not included in the law. If the judges think the law should have an IM provision then they should encourage the legislature to amend it. They should not take it upon themselves to rewrite the law - they are not the legislature.
On another aspect of this case - does it bother anyone that a police officer is posing as an underage girl to entrap men into this sort of crime? IANAL so I've never understood why it's OK for agents of the state to pretend to be persons they are not, solicit others to commit a crime, and then arrest them for the act that they incited. If I do that as a citizen it's called conspiracy. What is it about the fact of being in the employ of the state that suddenly makes it OK to disobey laws that apply to ordinary citizens? I've got no problem with the police, when they have reason to believe, because of other investigation, tips, etc., that a crime is being planned or committed, infiltrating an undercover agent into the operation. My objection is to the state's habit of having it's agents pose as someone else and then actively soliciting criminal activity.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Wow! After nearly a decade on Slashdot I have a "first post". But, I didn't come here to write about that. I came here to write about the story, which is not only believable, but presents a scenario which I suspect that we will see played out this year. That's right, the Republicans, with a little help from their good friends at Diebold, will make sure that they maintain control of both the House and the Senate. Given the Bush Administration's coordinated and continuous assault on our civil liberties this is not only the next logical step in the restriction of same, but will also ensure that no one, especially those nasty Democrats, will ever be able to prove that such a thing has happened. The scary thing is that, in state-wide races, it is not necesaary to manipulate large numbers of votes. All one needs to do is identify the "swing" districts in a given state and infect the machines there with vote-stealing code. This not only limits the number of people who need to be involved in the scheme, it has the additional benefit of producing entirely plausible results as the chosen "stolen districts" are historically unpredictable. I doubt that even sophisticated statistical analysis procedures would be able to detect vote fraud of this type. The implications for the future of this country are dire indeed. We may very well see the end of American democracy with this election.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Sorry, the patents in question are not laws, they are methods to minimize the tax liability of businesses and individuals. As such, the state has no control over them except by changing the rules of the patent process to ban such patents. Furthermore, the patent holders, in general, do not forbid the use of their methods, they merely demand that you obtain a license to use them - thus enriching themselves and giving them more incentive to develop more tax-avaoidance methods that they can patent, etc. ;)
/., this situation won't be allowed to last. There is too much money at stake and the business community will not allow others, aside from their bought-and-paid-for Congresscritters, to have control over what means they can use to lower their taxes. Look for calls to change patent law to disallow patents on tax-related business methods. With any luck, we'll be able to ride that move and expand the scope to disallow patents on business methods in general and, maybe, get rid of software patents into the bargain.
However, I expect that, unlike the software patent issues we generally deal with here on
Just my $.02,
Ron
An interesting observation. However, I think that an even stronger influence on the design, as opposed to use, of computers and other digital technologies is that of mathematics. After all, math is the driving force behind the design of the various digital beasties that now affect our lives. Thus, they all operate according to a well-understood set of logic and math rules. The actual packaging of the devices is driven by sales, marketing, and, to a degree, engineering considerations - which are the parts of the process that are affected by culture per se.
/. despise them so.
How the device is actually used is driven by culture. I think that's one of the reasons that Americans, in general, are quick to pick up the latest in "easy to use" tech and that's one of the reasons for MS's dominance in the computer field. Bill Gates and company have sold their products as being "easy to use" and they have done a good job of making good on that claim - it's unfortunate that the underlying OS is such a piece of schlock, but that's another discussion. I'm not an MS fan, but the company has done more to popularize the use of computers for all sorts of tasks - to the point that it has an apparently unshakeable hold on the mind of the average computer user - than the rest of the industry did over the thirty or so years prior to the introduction of Windows 3. Most PC users at that time (and since) didn't have to deal with the underlying complexity of the technology as, since they were generally using the machines at work, they had geeks like us to set the things up and fix them when they went south. As time has gone on MS has made Windows easier to use at the expense of removing access to much of the underlying power of the machine - which is why so many of us here on
MS isn't the only company to sell their products based on the "easy to use" mantra. Other examples are provided by Apple - a one-button mouse must be easier to use than the multi-button devices from other companies; HP, their first touch-screen PCs were a marvel though the technology itself wasn't robust enough for use in business and/or shop-floor settings; and IBM - the original PC was, in spite of its many shortcomings, much easier to use than the mainframes the company made most of its money on. Camera phones provide another example, they're easier to use than their full-size digital camera cousins - just pull open the phone, point it at what you want the picture of, push a button to take the picture, push another button to send the picture to whomever you want - how mush simpler can it get?
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. "Easy" is always quicker to sell than "hard and requires learning before you become proficient", at least here in America.
Just my $.02,
Ron
An interesting idea. However, I think that Occam's Razor probably comes down on the side of blocking information as it's easier to do that than it is to create false information. However, you do have a good point because people who aren't able to think critically and don't really know how to do research (both things that our "education system" is very bad at) can certainly be misled by being encouraged to believe that information that comes from "your side" of an argument is always true, while that from the "other side" is always wrong. To a degree everyone does this as there is simply too much information readily available, as of now, to be able to review all of it. Add into the mix the "hey, look over here I'm right" folks such as Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart and it makes it easier (and more socially acceptable) to apply these pre-made filters than it is to engage one's critical thinking capability and derive one's own conclusions.
I think that the only way we'll ever be able to tell if this sort of clandestine filtering is being done in the U.S. is via indirect analysis of the information available. When the point is reached that those who oppose a given government policy are forced to rely on conjecture, as opposed to being able to supply facts to bolster their position, while the opposite side has all the information they need, then I think we'll be able to conclude that the flow of information is being deliberately manipulated. We haven't reached that point, nor are we close to it, but the government can apply the same strategy to the restriction of information flow that they've so successfully applied to the destruction of our civil liberties: the "death of a thousand cuts", by which information will slowly be reduced until only the government's point of view is heard. It's a lengthy process, but potentially very effective. I think that we may already be seeing the start of it as the government fails to abide by its own laws about things such as the DHS's report on privacy which is supposed to be filed on an annual basis and which hasn't been filed this year, though it is several months late http://www.epic.org/privacy/pdf/Letter_0926.pdf/. All that has to be done is for the government to make it painful enough (to get information) that most people won't go to the trouble of asking and they will have taken another step towards greater information control.
Just my $.02 (they do add up after a while),
Ron