I know that my stories are different from what is out there, but the fact is the literary agents I talked to cited those reasons as why it was turned down. Publishers wont take work not solicited from agents, and agents wont read work that hasn't been recommended by someone they know. I sent a sample of my work to Larry Niven after we got to talking on a forum, but that was the last I heard of him.
Self-publish some stuff on the 'Net and, if it catches on, leverage the name recognition you get to get published by a "real" publisher?
Re:It's about dang time things changed
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The debates should definately be open to anyone who is on the ballot in enough states to be able to win the election. In other words, if it is possible (not necessarily probable) for them to win enough electorial votes to win, they should be in the debates.
Exactly. All this polling percentage crap, and subjective measures of "popularity" need to go out the window. Any candidate who has a mathematical chance of winning, should be in the debates. Right now that would mean, I believe, Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, and Peroutka. Not sure if Nader or Cobb are on ballots with enough electoral votes to have a chance to win. Badnarik is confirmed on enough ballots to have 466 electoral votes available though, so he would definitely be in under this system. Peroutka is on 35 states' ballots, so I *think* he probably has a mathematical chance as well.
Isn't that why you went in the business anyway? If you didn't, I quite frankly don't understand you.
You start a business to make a profit, not to save the world or serve the poor.
Says who? I can start a business for any "purpose" I like, and turning a profit is simply a requisite to staying in business... it doesn't have to be my sole reason for *being* in business. And nothing says I have to sacrifice any and everything under the sun, seeking to maximize profit down to the last penny. As long as I make enough to stay afloat, I can happily continue running my business, serving any "purpose" I please.
I subscribe to too many f'in magazines now, and as a result, more than a few issues of various ones go unread.. especially the weekly "news magazine" types.
Anyway, here's a partial list of ones I subscribe to, or purchase on the newsstand semi-regularly:
Information Week
Infoworld
E-Week
Java Developers Journal
Java Pro
Network World
Doctor Dobbs Journal
Software Development
C/C++ Users Journal
XML Journal
Web Services Journal
XML & Web Services Magazine
WebSphere Journal
Oracle
DB/2 Magazine
Linux Magazine
Linux Journal
CRN
Federal Computer Week
VAR Business
Triangle Tech Journal
Baseline
Government VAR
Maximum PC
Communications of the ACM
Blah, blah, blah, inserted to get around blah, blah, lameness filter, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc. blah, blah, lameness filter, blah. Blah. Blah.
Nothing beats real world experience. Of course, that's not to say i couldn't make the wrong decision. The 4yr exp. guy could have got a gig thru nepotism and skated for 4 years, but hopefully the interview would have weeded him out if that was the case.
Just remember that there's a difference between 4 years of experience, and the same 1 year of experience repeated 4 times.
The best combination is education AND real-world experience, where each reinforces the other.
A few years ago we hired a PC/Network Tech. Any resume with an MCSE on it went straight to the round file.
What a moronic policy. You *do* realize that not all MCSE's are "paper MCSE's", right? Some of those people are actually highly qualified, motivated and talented. What about the resume you probably threw away that had MCSE on it, along with 15 years of experience managing all types of systems, and an M.S. in Computer Science?
LOL... I realize that you could argue that *most* MCSE's are useless, but to unilaterally disregard all of them like that is fucking retarded.
I think JBoss (the for-profit company, not the open-source project) provides Tomcat support. Check out the info at: http://www.jboss.com/google/tomcat
This part would seem to indicate they could help you:
There are a number of advantages for choosing JBoss Inc. support services including:
* Quick resolution to support issues because the issues are handled directly by the core development team. This helps you to avoid the run-around common from today's commercial software vendors.
* Optimization of your Middleware infrastructure. With the help of our experts, you can begin to optimize the use of open source middleware products and customize your architectures and applications for greater performance and efficiency.
* Lowest possible total cost of ownership that comes from the unique combination of no cost software licenses and competitively priced support services. JBoss Support Services are priced per application instead of per CPU or server thus preventing you from being penalized for successful enterprise applications.
* Speed development and deployment times for new or existing applications. JBoss experts can help you to get the job done fast, seamlessly and flawlessly. And since time is money, this further helps to reduce your overall middleware costs.
* Accountability that comes from a financially stable and trusted company. JBoss also provides indemnification from threatened or pending legal action for any purported JBoss patent or copyright infringements. The buck stops at JBoss Inc.
* Extensive Partner Network expertly trained and certified on JBoss products to further increase availability of first and second line technical support.
* Comprehensive support offering including production and RightStart development support, training and certification, online education, and online support tools for a wide range of open source middleware products including JBoss Application Server, Hibernate, Tomcat, JBoss Cache, Nukes, JGroups, and more.
Open Source is what adheres to the Open Source Definition. Period.
Bullshit. I for one, don't recall agreeing to accept OSI's definition of Open Source as the one and only such definition. Open Source is a fairly general term, with many definitions.
Troll. If you can't use the source, how is it open?
Besides, the source for the "core" stuff is released under both the JRL and the JDL.. reading over the JDL, it looks pretty damn open to me. The biggest thing I see that seems overly restrictive is the time limitation... it expires after two years, with automatic yearly renewals, unless one party notifies the other within 60 days of an anniversary date, that they are terminating it. (or something to that effect, I read it last night)... but it allows use and distribution in both non-modified, and modified form, as long as modified versions pass the compatibility test. I don't see why anyone should consider that a big problem.
No, the JDL isn't likely to be approved by the OSI as an official Open Source license anytime so, but so what?
So, once you have no taxes and no government, how does that differ from anarchy?
FWIW, the parent post presents a fairly radical view of Libertarianism. Libertarians by and large, are not in favor of *no* government, but want the smallest, least intrusive government possible.
In the case of the United States, that generally means supporting the idea of a limited constitutional republic, with as much power as possible pushed down to the state, or preferably local level. This is so that decision making on things like spending and taxes happens as close as possible to the people affected by same. Thus the people are more directly able to influence those decisions, and government becomes more accountable / responsible.
You've been listening to PJ's anti-Sun rants for too long.
Heh...I love Groklaw, and PJ's probably really nice.. but she does seem to have it in for Sun for some reason.
Yes, Sun has been a little wishy-washy in terms of whether they want to support Linux or want to see it die.. but otherwise they've been fairly friendly to the FOSS communities over the years... dating at least back to the time when they released the source for the ONC-RPC / NFS stuff... and of couse they support Open Office and NetBeans, etc... and let's not forget the various code donations they've made to Apache projects, like Tomcat, etc...
For the love of Cthulu, people, "architect" is a noun, not a verb.
Languages are dynamic, not static. If enough people begin to use 'architect' as a verb, then it is a verb. I have a strong hunch that 20 years from now, the verb form of architect will appear in Merriam-Webster...
In other words, this isn't going to turn into an East Berlin style state with cops asking for your papers
Bzzzzzztttt, wrong, thanks for playing. This is just one more step down the path to the United Police States of Amerika. Anybody who can't see that has their head stuck firmly in the sand (or up their ass).
Basically it boils down to the total amount of data collected, and the storage and subsequent usage of that data. A cop strolls along, sees some stuff, forgets most of it within a few hours unless he sees something *significant.* What is captured on camera is subject to being archived, possibly forever. Again, add in the possiblility of something like facial recognition software, and you have the ability for the government to mine the data for things like "show me everybody who went to the 5th street docks more than 20 times in one month", etc. Link a few of these babies together, and the government can track the movements of an individual about the country. There's an awful lot of potential for abuse in something like 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.
Show me the part of that that says the government cannot passively watch you as you walk in public.
It is, of course, subject to interpretation. I feel that being "secure in my person" allows for "not being under continuous surveillance by the government." There's more that could be said about that, but I'm not a lawyer specializing in Constitutional law, so I'll leave it at that.
You only has privacy as long as the cops don't suspect you of anything and don't have enough evidence to convince a judge to sign a warrant.
Right, that's basically what I was saying.
Sit alone in your basement thinking up conspiracy theories.
Ok. I hope you remember those words when you slip up and say something to piss off Holy Emperor Bush IV in Amerika circa 2035, and the goons from the <strike>Gestapo</strike>, er, <strike>Department of Homeland Security</strike>, er, Ministry of Truth come and drag you away...
Otherwise, if you want to interact with the rest of the world, you have to give up some limited freedoms, such as the freedom not to be watched.
I'm deeply sorry that you feel that way.
The article was referring to the state governments. The surveillance system being discussed is owned, maintained, and operated by the state of Maryland, which puts a strain on your theory that it will be linked up into a nationwide surveillance network.
So I'm extrapolating or prognosticating a little. It's my prediction that if they build these systems, they will eventually be linked and used by the Feds. Can I prove it? No... but if we wait to worry about such issues until they happen, we run the risk of waiting until it's too late.
Perhaps I'm wrong in my assumptions... if so, that's fine... but I fundamentally trust our government(s) about as far as I could throw a Sherman tank. And in the spirit of "better safe than sorry" I prefer to speak out against expansions of government power / surveillance / etc. now, as opposed to waiting until we live in a police sta^@32!$^%NO CARRIER
They have that sort of power. If you are in public, there is nothing stopping the government (or anyone else for that matter) from watching you. What is your proposed solution? Requiring cops to wear blindfolds when in public?
There's a difference between a cop walking the street observing, and a camera recording. The latter has much greater ramifications and IMO, starts to tread on our 4th Amendment rights.
Tell that to the cops who come into your house with a warrant signed by a Judge to search the place for the wide screen TVs you stole.
That's why I said "damn near." If there's a search warrant, fine. Otherwise, they have no business in my home.
Not everywhere, everywhere in public! Those two little words mean a lot, don't forget them.
Where can you go, without going out "in public" along the way??? Assuming the government has a general right to monitor and record every inch of "public" space is pretty scary, if you stop and think about it.
Uh, this is the state government we are talking about here. Minor difference there.
No, you may have been talking about state government, but I'm referring to the Feds when I argue that these systems *will* wind up linked together, the data cross referenced and correlated, and with a system for the Feds to use it to monitor everywhere.
What is all this talk about these violating people's privacy? How is your privacy being violated by someone monitoring you while you are in a public area?
Dude, wake up and smell the coffee. All it takes is a few of these cameras in a few different places, some facial recognition software (or human intervention), linking of the systems in multiple cities, and boom... the government can track your movements from city to city. That sort of power, they do not need.
You are guaranteed limited privacy in your own home, yes. But not when you are walking down a public street.
Limited privacy in my own home? Fuck that... in my own home I have reason to expect damn near 100% privacy if I choose. It's on the streets that I have to accept "limited" privacy, by virtue of being out in public. But just going outside my home does not mean the government has the right to watch my movements and maintain surveillance on me.
Have those making references to "Big Brother" even read "1984"?
Have you? If so, are you really comfortable with the idea of being watched everywhere you go? See, these camera installations are only going to continue to spread and grow.. and make no mistake, they will eventually be linked together, to provide a central method of monitoring people nationwide... it's just a matter of time (if it hasn't already happened). More power for the Federal government...
Most of it is related to heroin though, and cameras would certainly help get some of those pushers and addicts off of the street (dealers see the cops, learn their schedules, etc) (I don't think that they concentrate near the inner harbor though, mostly areas near there).
LOL, yeah right... You really think it'll take the dealers more than 2 days to figure out exactly where the cameras are, and move somewhere else? Or spray paint the lenses black? Or just shoot the damn things, or cut the wires, or otherwise disable / destroy them?
I'm sure the dealers can better afford to destroy cameras, than they city can afford to maintain them. In fact, I bet half the network will be dysfunctional inside a year.
Hell, if I lived in Baltimore, I'd go out and destroy a few of them myself, just on principle.
Finally, the whole concept of "we're at war" -- we have lost the war on terrorism. We have allowed our fundamental freedoms to be sacrificed in the name of "security". Monitoring the actions of innocent Americans equates to surveilance, which is worse than living scared. Being watched all the time inhibits action, free thinking, and most importantly -- dissent.
Dude, if I had mod points, you'd be in line for one.
The American people have overwhelmingly voiced their willingness to sacrifice freedom and liberty for security. So if the government is trying to give them more security and take away some liberty, what is the big deal? It's what the public wants.
It's only the vocal minority who has clearly voiced such a willingness. Then you have joe sixpack, who isn't necessarily in favor of shit like this, but he's too lazy, apathetic, and ignorant to: A. care, B. voice his opinion.
Which is why it's important for the "Slashdot Tinfoil Hat Brigade" to continue to voice *their* opinion as loudly and clearly as possible... most perceptions of what "public opinion" is are based on a ridiculously small (and probably non-representative) sample of the general public.
It wouldn't take many people on "our side" stepping up and being a little more vocal, to change that perception.
Slashdot Mirror
Self-publish some stuff on the 'Net and, if it catches on, leverage the name recognition you get to get published by a "real" publisher?
The debates should definately be open to anyone who is on the ballot in enough states to be able to win the election. In other words, if it is possible (not necessarily probable) for them to win enough electorial votes to win, they should be in the debates.
Exactly. All this polling percentage crap, and subjective measures of "popularity" need to go out the window. Any candidate who has a mathematical chance of winning, should be in the debates. Right now that would mean, I believe, Bush, Kerry, Badnarik, and Peroutka. Not sure if Nader or Cobb are on ballots with enough electoral votes to have a chance to win. Badnarik is confirmed on enough ballots to have 466 electoral votes available though, so he would definitely be in under this system. Peroutka is on 35 states' ballots, so I *think* he probably has a mathematical chance as well.
Yes, yes it should, especially with Doctor Who set to return to the airwaves. It's time to watch a real quality sci-fi programme again.
Isn't that why you went in the business anyway? If you didn't, I quite frankly don't understand you.
You start a business to make a profit, not to save the world or serve the poor.
Says who? I can start a business for any "purpose" I like, and turning a profit is simply a requisite to staying in business... it doesn't have to be my sole reason for *being* in business. And nothing says I have to sacrifice any and everything under the sun, seeking to maximize profit down to the last penny. As long as I make enough to stay afloat, I can happily continue running my business, serving any "purpose" I please.
Give 'em George Orwell's 1984.
Other than that, how about Code Complete, by Steve McConnell, or The Deadline: A Novel About Project Management, by Tom DeMarco?
Some other possibilities:
TCP/IP Illustrated by Stevens
UNIX Network Programming (esp. vol II ), also by Stevens
Object Oriented Software Construction, by Bertran Myer
Ah, yes, Jon Pertwee WAS the best Doctor Who!
Yep.
And "The Master" was the best villain!
Indeed.
Let the flame wars begin!
How could there be a flame-war, who could possibly disagree about this? The 3rd Doctor rules!
Anyway, here's a partial list of ones I subscribe to, or purchase on the newsstand semi-regularly:
Information Week
Blah, blah, blah, inserted to get around blah, blah, lameness filter, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc. blah, blah, lameness filter, blah. Blah. Blah.Infoworld
E-Week
Java Developers Journal
Java Pro
Network World
Doctor Dobbs Journal
Software Development
C/C++ Users Journal
XML Journal
Web Services Journal
XML & Web Services Magazine
WebSphere Journal
Oracle
DB/2 Magazine
Linux Magazine
Linux Journal
CRN
Federal Computer Week
VAR Business
Triangle Tech Journal
Baseline
Government VAR
Maximum PC
Communications of the ACM
Nothing beats real world experience. Of course, that's not to say i couldn't make the wrong decision. The 4yr exp. guy could have got a gig thru nepotism and skated for 4 years, but hopefully the interview would have weeded him out if that was the case.
Just remember that there's a difference between 4 years of experience, and the same 1 year of experience repeated 4 times.
The best combination is education AND real-world experience, where each reinforces the other.
A few years ago we hired a PC/Network Tech. Any resume with an MCSE on it went straight to the round file.
What a moronic policy. You *do* realize that not all MCSE's are "paper MCSE's", right? Some of those people are actually highly qualified, motivated and talented. What about the resume you probably threw away that had MCSE on it, along with 15 years of experience managing all types of systems, and an M.S. in Computer Science?
LOL... I realize that you could argue that *most* MCSE's are useless, but to unilaterally disregard all of them like that is fucking retarded.
This part would seem to indicate they could help you:
There are a number of advantages for choosing JBoss Inc. support services including:
Open Source is what adheres to the Open Source Definition. Period.
Bullshit. I for one, don't recall agreeing to accept OSI's definition of Open Source as the one and only such definition. Open Source is a fairly general term, with many definitions.
Troll. If you can't use the source, how is it open?
Besides, the source for the "core" stuff is released under both the JRL and the JDL.. reading over the JDL, it looks pretty damn open to me. The biggest thing I see that seems overly restrictive is the time limitation... it expires after two years, with automatic yearly renewals, unless one party notifies the other within 60 days of an anniversary date, that they are terminating it. (or something to that effect, I read it last night)... but it allows use and distribution in both non-modified, and modified form, as long as modified versions pass the compatibility test. I don't see why anyone should consider that a big problem.
No, the JDL isn't likely to be approved by the OSI as an official Open Source license anytime so, but so what?
So, once you have no taxes and no government, how does that differ from anarchy?
FWIW, the parent post presents a fairly radical view of Libertarianism. Libertarians by and large, are not in favor of *no* government, but want the smallest, least intrusive government possible.
In the case of the United States, that generally means supporting the idea of a limited constitutional republic, with as much power as possible pushed down to the state, or preferably local level. This is so that decision making on things like spending and taxes happens as close as possible to the people affected by same. Thus the people are more directly able to influence those decisions, and government becomes more accountable / responsible.
Libertarianism != Anarchy
You've been listening to PJ's anti-Sun rants for too long.
Heh...I love Groklaw, and PJ's probably really nice.. but she does seem to have it in for Sun for some reason.
Yes, Sun has been a little wishy-washy in terms of whether they want to support Linux or want to see it die.. but otherwise they've been fairly friendly to the FOSS communities over the years... dating at least back to the time when they released the source for the ONC-RPC / NFS stuff... and of couse they support Open Office and NetBeans, etc... and let's not forget the various code donations they've made to Apache projects, like Tomcat, etc...
For the love of Cthulu, people, "architect" is a noun, not a verb.
Languages are dynamic, not static. If enough people begin to use 'architect' as a verb, then it is a verb. I have a strong hunch that 20 years from now, the verb form of architect will appear in Merriam-Webster...
1. Iron Maiden - Number of the Beast
2. Testament - Souls of Black
3. Saliva - Back Into Your System
4. System of a Down - Toxicity
5. Metallica - Ride the Lighting
6. Motley Crue - Shout at the Devil
7. Trapt - Trapt
8. Slayer - South of Heaven
9. Queensryche - Operation: Mindcrime
10. Sentenced - Crimson
Wow, it takes a special brand of smarts to say:
I challenge you to learn a little bit about the law (and not just what you pulled up off the Internet)
and then:
and why don't you go read the actual ruling?
in the same breath.
In other words, this isn't going to turn into an East Berlin style state with cops asking for your papers
Bzzzzzztttt, wrong, thanks for playing. This is just one more step down the path to the United Police States of Amerika. Anybody who can't see that has their head stuck firmly in the sand (or up their ass).
GOD DAMNIT!!! I KNEW you fuckers were watching me!!
aAaaaaggggghhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Basically it boils down to the total amount of data collected, and the storage and subsequent usage of that data. A cop strolls along, sees some stuff, forgets most of it within a few hours unless he sees something *significant.* What is captured on camera is subject to being archived, possibly forever. Again, add in the possiblility of something like facial recognition software, and you have the ability for the government to mine the data for things like "show me everybody who went to the 5th street docks more than 20 times in one month", etc. Link a few of these babies together, and the government can track the movements of an individual about the country. There's an awful lot of potential for abuse in something like 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.
Show me the part of that that says the government cannot passively watch you as you walk in public.
It is, of course, subject to interpretation. I feel that being "secure in my person" allows for "not being under continuous surveillance by the government." There's more that could be said about that, but I'm not a lawyer specializing in Constitutional law, so I'll leave it at that.
You only has privacy as long as the cops don't suspect you of anything and don't have enough evidence to convince a judge to sign a warrant.
Right, that's basically what I was saying.
Sit alone in your basement thinking up conspiracy theories.
Ok. I hope you remember those words when you slip up and say something to piss off Holy Emperor Bush IV in Amerika circa 2035, and the goons from the <strike>Gestapo</strike>, er, <strike>Department of Homeland Security</strike>, er, Ministry of Truth come and drag you away...
Otherwise, if you want to interact with the rest of the world, you have to give up some limited freedoms, such as the freedom not to be watched.
I'm deeply sorry that you feel that way.
The article was referring to the state governments. The surveillance system being discussed is owned, maintained, and operated by the state of Maryland, which puts a strain on your theory that it will be linked up into a nationwide surveillance network.
So I'm extrapolating or prognosticating a little. It's my prediction that if they build these systems, they will eventually be linked and used by the Feds. Can I prove it? No... but if we wait to worry about such issues until they happen, we run the risk of waiting until it's too late.
Perhaps I'm wrong in my assumptions... if so, that's fine... but I fundamentally trust our government(s) about as far as I could throw a Sherman tank. And in the spirit of "better safe than sorry" I prefer to speak out against expansions of government power / surveillance / etc. now, as opposed to waiting until we live in a police sta^@32!$^%NO CARRIER
They have that sort of power. If you are in public, there is nothing stopping the government (or anyone else for that matter) from watching you. What is your proposed solution? Requiring cops to wear blindfolds when in public?
There's a difference between a cop walking the street observing, and a camera recording. The latter has much greater ramifications and IMO, starts to tread on our 4th Amendment rights.
Tell that to the cops who come into your house with a warrant signed by a Judge to search the place for the wide screen TVs you stole.
That's why I said "damn near." If there's a search warrant, fine. Otherwise, they have no business in my home.
Not everywhere, everywhere in public! Those two little words mean a lot, don't forget them.
Where can you go, without going out "in public" along the way??? Assuming the government has a general right to monitor and record every inch of "public" space is pretty scary, if you stop and think about it.
Uh, this is the state government we are talking about here. Minor difference there.
No, you may have been talking about state government, but I'm referring to the Feds when I argue that these systems *will* wind up linked together, the data cross referenced and correlated, and with a system for the Feds to use it to monitor everywhere.
What is all this talk about these violating people's privacy? How is your privacy being violated by someone monitoring you while you are in a public area?
Dude, wake up and smell the coffee. All it takes is a few of these cameras in a few different places, some facial recognition software (or human intervention), linking of the systems in multiple cities, and boom... the government can track your movements from city to city. That sort of power, they do not need.
You are guaranteed limited privacy in your own home, yes. But not when you are walking down a public street.
Limited privacy in my own home? Fuck that... in my own home I have reason to expect damn near 100% privacy if I choose. It's on the streets that I have to accept "limited" privacy, by virtue of being out in public. But just going outside my home does not mean the government has the right to watch my movements and maintain surveillance on me.
Have those making references to "Big Brother" even read "1984"?
Have you? If so, are you really comfortable with the idea of being watched everywhere you go? See, these camera installations are only going to continue to spread and grow.. and make no mistake, they will eventually be linked together, to provide a central method of monitoring people nationwide... it's just a matter of time (if it hasn't already happened). More power for the Federal government...
What is it that makes it so hard to see that this creates an utter, totalitarian Police State?
Stupidity. Or just plain old "head in the sand syndrome." Or "It can't happen here syndrome." Take your pick.
Most of it is related to heroin though, and cameras would certainly help get some of those pushers and addicts off of the street (dealers see the cops, learn their schedules, etc) (I don't think that they concentrate near the inner harbor though, mostly areas near there).
LOL, yeah right... You really think it'll take the dealers more than 2 days to figure out exactly where the cameras are, and move somewhere else? Or spray paint the lenses black? Or just shoot the damn things, or cut the wires, or otherwise disable / destroy them?
I'm sure the dealers can better afford to destroy cameras, than they city can afford to maintain them. In fact, I bet half the network will be dysfunctional inside a year.
Hell, if I lived in Baltimore, I'd go out and destroy a few of them myself, just on principle.
Finally, the whole concept of "we're at war" -- we have lost the war on terrorism. We have allowed our fundamental freedoms to be sacrificed in the name of "security". Monitoring the actions of innocent Americans equates to surveilance, which is worse than living scared. Being watched all the time inhibits action, free thinking, and most importantly -- dissent.
Dude, if I had mod points, you'd be in line for one.
The American people have overwhelmingly voiced their willingness to sacrifice freedom and liberty for security. So if the government is trying to give them more security and take away some liberty, what is the big deal? It's what the public wants.
It's only the vocal minority who has clearly voiced such a willingness. Then you have joe sixpack, who isn't necessarily in favor of shit like this, but he's too lazy, apathetic, and ignorant to: A. care, B. voice his opinion.
Which is why it's important for the "Slashdot Tinfoil Hat Brigade" to continue to voice *their* opinion as loudly and clearly as possible... most perceptions of what "public opinion" is are based on a ridiculously small (and probably non-representative) sample of the general public.
It wouldn't take many people on "our side" stepping up and being a little more vocal, to change that perception.