Microsoft and other big businesses in the US are constantly under the threat of anti-trust laws and other regulations. Isn't it possible that any one of them might consider it beneficial to bug the computers or operating systems that they sell to various government agencies?
I'm not trying to defend China or slander Microsoft -- I just think it's crazy that someone in Washington would worry about this only now. It seems like the government ought to be doing QA on any computers they buy, if only to spot check them. I'd like to believe that at least the intelligence community is doing this already.
The more local the election boards, the less likely that a wide-spread, concerted, and coordinated effort to perpetrate voter fraud can occur. When the original post states that "government" is whom we should be protecting this from, I'm sure the meaning of government is closer to central government than local government. There is an important distinction -- and I don't think it's "anti-government Slashdot pandering" to say so.
No, sir, you're the one who is wrong. (I won't be so impolite as to point out that you're a moron, mainly for the reason that you brought ad hominem attacks into this thread.)
The communist party of the 1950's in the US was in part supported by the Soviet Union. It's membership was secret, and membership involved swearing allegiance to a foreign government.
It's not illegal to advocate the overthrow of capitalism -- but that's not what the communist party was about. McCarthy was wrong in his witch hunt, blacklists, and so forth; but the real shame is that the important point about communists in the US during the 1950's is glossed over or not addressed at all when this part of history is taught in US schools. I blame this on the fact that most of the people McCarthy hurt were intellectuals, and so intellectuals (many of whom in education have far leftist leanings to begin with) will author a single sentence if it would seem to mollify McCarthy's arguments.
There must be some kind of legal principal that would cover this, no?
What if I stand in Niagara Falls, NY with a high powered rifle, and shoot someone standing in Niagara Falls, Ontario, killing that person? Who gets to prosecute me for murder -- the US or Canada?
The result of eliminating the "webcam-looking-down-on-you" viewpoint, as you put it, will be to meet the original expectations that everyone had of video conferencing from watching Star Trek or even The Jetsons. I think this is fantastic.
As to the video monitor being the "ultimate hidden camera," couldn't that be solved by installing a small indicator light on the monitor, hardwired to the video transmission so that no software could bypass it? If so, then it's no problem.
I'm looking forward to this. I very much enjoy video conferencing, but for the fact that I only have two or three other households in my circle.
Mr. Jones said he has been particularly worried about shielding his children. The Joneses installed software to block illicit content on both of their kids' PCs, and Mr. Jones has password-protected his and his wife's computers.
And it's as simple as that, even if you yourself are in the porn business. If only more parents would take the time to do this, we wouldn't suffer the spectacle of holier-than-thou types demanding that the government step in and place the entire Internet under a giant, child-proof cap.
I don't see this as consumers, taken as a whole, demanding that Wal-Mart not carry certain games any more than I see consumers demanding Budweiser be as bland as it is. The whole idea behind a beer like Budweiser or a store like Wal-Mart is to offend the least number of people possible. If most everyone can find the experience of either at least moderately pleasing, and almost no one find it displeasing, then the product is deemed a success.
I'll bet most Wal-Mart customers couldn't care one way or the other if a violent video game is sold in the store, but a vocal few would.
If I'm not really planning to spend too much on beer, and I'm feeling not too particular about my experience drinking the beer, and there is no alternative readily available, I'll drink Bud. That's how many of the people who wind up in Wal-Mart feel about shopping there, I'll bet -- and I'm sure that's fine with the company. As long as everyone comes in with at least that much motivation, and nothing is done to chase any significant number away, all is well.
Sadly, I think the number of people potentially offended by violent video games is more significant than the number who would choose to deprive Wal-Mart of their business because of its policy of refusing to carry any video games that might offend. We can only hope that video games -- and other products -- don't become as bland as watered-down beer.
Actually, it's clear that the Supreme Court of old recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms. Strangely enough, the most famous example of this occurs in the Dred Scott case of 1857.
The Dred Scott ruling concluded (unfortunately) that slaves were property and could be "carried" into a free territory without the enslaved individual gaining his or her freedom. The ruling also established (again, unfortunately) that those descended from africans were not U.S. citizens. Now, putting those distasteful notions in their historical context for a moment, the reason the court was horrified at the idea of blacks being citizens was because of the rights this would entail.
The Dred Scott majority was policy-driven, as shown by its list of the allegedly unacceptable consequences of black citizenship: Black citizens would have the right to enter any state, to stay there as long as they pleased, and within that state they could go where they wanted at any hour of the day or night, unless they committed some act for which a white person could be punished. Further, black citizens would have "the right to...full liberty of speech in public and private upon all subjects which [a state's] own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." -- citation
The thought that blacks -- as citizens -- would have the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went" was just too much for the racist whites of the time; but it clearly illustrates the fact that the Supreme Court recognized the Second Amendment as being an individual right.
One can of course criticize the racism, but that aspect of the case has nothing to do with the gun issue.
I think it's fair to say that the Second Amendment established the right of the individual, and that that right has been and is being whittled away by "reinterpretations" of the language of the Second Amendment and willful ignoring of the right by courts and lawmakers.
I'll have to admit that the romance angle of Titanic, including the lavish costumes and settting, adds to its appeal as a date movie. My criticism is a bit of a rant based in part on my personal experience: namely, not being able to get my girlfriend to accompany me to see King Kong.;-)
Actually, check the criteria in the U.S. Code. You may be a member of what is called the "unorganized militia." I'll print it below for your convenience.
Title 10 Subtitle A Part 1 Chapter 13 Section 311
311. Militia: composition and classes
Release date: 2005-07-12
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Don't be led by the recent release date into believing that this is something new. This is very old law.
I have my own theory about "what happened" with King Kong (which has made a lot of money, by the way, and will continue to do so when released in DVD).
King Kong is an enormously creative remake which transcends the original. The production quality is very high, and the effects are superb. The storytelling, as well, is very good. The one problem with it, from a box office standpoint, is that an animal -- namely, the title character, who is portrayed very sympathetically -- is killed. I'm sure I'll be criticized as a male chauvinist, but women hate that sort of thing.
Titanic, by contrast, was also a remake and was also "very sad." But, no animals die, and the star of the movie -- the heroine (a woman) -- lives.
The moral of the story is, don't kill women, children, or animals on screen, or you'll tend to alienate the tenderhearted half of heterosexual couples and jeopardize your ticket sales.
I come from an education background, but last year did a stint in the computer industry. The main form of written communication within the company at which I worked consisted of e-mails. The ability of most people at that company -- intelligent people who were capable at their jobs -- to compose a clear e-mail that conveyed what they meant to say was laughable (and these were the native speakers of English). It was common practice after reading someone's e-mail to then track him or her down to ask, "What did you mean?"
I have wondered frequently how much manpower was wasted over the inability to communicate via the written word. I agree that we will soon see a backlash from employers.
Just to second this motion, from personal experience I've learned that this is one of the best things you can do to keep the heating costs down. In an apartment I had where we used to hang out in the living room a lot, and there was no door to the living room, we draped plastic sheeting over the archway to the room. We were able to keep the heat comfortable in that room without letting it escape to other parts of the house.
I think it is really depressing to have to wear a coat in the house. Sweaters maybe, but coats no.
Lastly, don't fall into the trap of turning the heat off at night. Turn it down. If you turn it off, you'll waste more heat trying to heat up an icy cold house each day.
I agree. Just watch a little kid with a bicycle (training wheels removed). He'll wobble and fall down, get up, fall again, scrape his knees -- by the time he's gotten to the end of the block, he's has had none of the pleasure of riding a bicycle.
Go find that same kid, however, after he's done this a few times. He will have forgotten all about the struggle. Now he's riding his bike all over the neighborhood.
There's something wrong with the adult world when members of it seek to shield children from any kind of struggle. Reading Curious George on one's own won't kill a person -- and what was it Nietzsche said?
Thanks for the link, but the whole point of the video is that privacy is important in order to keep the "big, bad, corporate bogey-man" from knowing everything about you.
Why is the ACLU not more concerned about government infringement on privacy? That's the message that should be spread.
The whole point about limiting government -- that the the founders of the United States understood so well -- is that government power can be used tyranically. Even assuming that our present government is the most benevolent possible and able to be trusted with absolute power, what happens when people less benevolent get into office and are able to exercise such power?
That's why the aware person is zealous about keeping his own matters private -- even if he has "nothing to hide." Just because a person has nothing to hide today does not mean that what he has done today won't be considered a crime at some future time under very different political conditions.
I'm with you on your response. I can't believe the criticisms people come up with, and the alternatives they propose.
Are we supposed to set up a dedicated computer room instead of [having computers in] their bedrooms?
No. We're supposed to forbid free access to all of the adults in a country and force them to register their "perversions" with the government.
[M]ake sure there is a full time watcher [of children in the househould]?
No. Why should parents watch their children? Let government watch full-grown adults.
Kids over 13 or so can stay home alone. Do we lock up the computer room when the adults are out?
No. Lock up the Internet, and make the adults of a country live under one, giant child-proof cap.
Please pardon the sarcasm, but it really is sad how some people think. I'm sorry, but children are overwhelmingly the primary responsibility of their parents -- even though that can prove to be "inconvenient" to parents at times.
My point exactly. This is how corporations act, the vast majority of them anyway. It's called business.
I think it's awfully funny when corporations are respected for being so hard nosed and competitive, and capitalizing on an opportunity, but individuals are criticized. I played by the same rules they did. (I even asked them to double check.)
I don't leave cashiers holding the bag either. There's a big difference between the human being standing before you, and the faceless corporation that decides it's going to shave every penny when doing business. It seems to me that their policy is to skimp on the money they use to train their employees, directing them to follow what it says on the daily print out. That's just too bad.
My understanding is "even giving kisses." The original is from The Aeneid, the famous quote regarding the Trojan horse: "Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes." (Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks, even giving gifts.)
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and other big businesses in the US are constantly under the threat of anti-trust laws and other regulations. Isn't it possible that any one of them might consider it beneficial to bug the computers or operating systems that they sell to various government agencies?
I'm not trying to defend China or slander Microsoft -- I just think it's crazy that someone in Washington would worry about this only now. It seems like the government ought to be doing QA on any computers they buy, if only to spot check them. I'd like to believe that at least the intelligence community is doing this already.
The more local the election boards, the less likely that a wide-spread, concerted, and coordinated effort to perpetrate voter fraud can occur. When the original post states that "government" is whom we should be protecting this from, I'm sure the meaning of government is closer to central government than local government. There is an important distinction -- and I don't think it's "anti-government Slashdot pandering" to say so.
The last sentence should read...
No, sir, you're the one who is wrong. (I won't be so impolite as to point out that you're a moron, mainly for the reason that you brought ad hominem attacks into this thread.)
The communist party of the 1950's in the US was in part supported by the Soviet Union. It's membership was secret, and membership involved swearing allegiance to a foreign government.
It's not illegal to advocate the overthrow of capitalism -- but that's not what the communist party was about. McCarthy was wrong in his witch hunt, blacklists, and so forth; but the real shame is that the important point about communists in the US during the 1950's is glossed over or not addressed at all when this part of history is taught in US schools. I blame this on the fact that most of the people McCarthy hurt were intellectuals, and so intellectuals (many of whom in education have far leftist leanings to begin with) will author a single sentence if it would seem to mollify McCarthy's arguments.
There must be some kind of legal principal that would cover this, no?
What if I stand in Niagara Falls, NY with a high powered rifle, and shoot someone standing in Niagara Falls, Ontario, killing that person? Who gets to prosecute me for murder -- the US or Canada?
Someone here must know the answer.
The result of eliminating the "webcam-looking-down-on-you" viewpoint, as you put it, will be to meet the original expectations that everyone had of video conferencing from watching Star Trek or even The Jetsons. I think this is fantastic.
As to the video monitor being the "ultimate hidden camera," couldn't that be solved by installing a small indicator light on the monitor, hardwired to the video transmission so that no software could bypass it? If so, then it's no problem.
I'm looking forward to this. I very much enjoy video conferencing, but for the fact that I only have two or three other households in my circle.
And it's as simple as that, even if you yourself are in the porn business. If only more parents would take the time to do this, we wouldn't suffer the spectacle of holier-than-thou types demanding that the government step in and place the entire Internet under a giant, child-proof cap.
I don't see this as consumers, taken as a whole, demanding that Wal-Mart not carry certain games any more than I see consumers demanding Budweiser be as bland as it is. The whole idea behind a beer like Budweiser or a store like Wal-Mart is to offend the least number of people possible. If most everyone can find the experience of either at least moderately pleasing, and almost no one find it displeasing, then the product is deemed a success.
I'll bet most Wal-Mart customers couldn't care one way or the other if a violent video game is sold in the store, but a vocal few would.
If I'm not really planning to spend too much on beer, and I'm feeling not too particular about my experience drinking the beer, and there is no alternative readily available, I'll drink Bud. That's how many of the people who wind up in Wal-Mart feel about shopping there, I'll bet -- and I'm sure that's fine with the company. As long as everyone comes in with at least that much motivation, and nothing is done to chase any significant number away, all is well.
Sadly, I think the number of people potentially offended by violent video games is more significant than the number who would choose to deprive Wal-Mart of their business because of its policy of refusing to carry any video games that might offend. We can only hope that video games -- and other products -- don't become as bland as watered-down beer.
Actually, it's clear that the Supreme Court of old recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms. Strangely enough, the most famous example of this occurs in the Dred Scott case of 1857.
The Dred Scott ruling concluded (unfortunately) that slaves were property and could be "carried" into a free territory without the enslaved individual gaining his or her freedom. The ruling also established (again, unfortunately) that those descended from africans were not U.S. citizens. Now, putting those distasteful notions in their historical context for a moment, the reason the court was horrified at the idea of blacks being citizens was because of the rights this would entail.
The thought that blacks -- as citizens -- would have the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went" was just too much for the racist whites of the time; but it clearly illustrates the fact that the Supreme Court recognized the Second Amendment as being an individual right.
One can of course criticize the racism, but that aspect of the case has nothing to do with the gun issue.
I think it's fair to say that the Second Amendment established the right of the individual, and that that right has been and is being whittled away by "reinterpretations" of the language of the Second Amendment and willful ignoring of the right by courts and lawmakers.
I'll have to admit that the romance angle of Titanic, including the lavish costumes and settting, adds to its appeal as a date movie. My criticism is a bit of a rant based in part on my personal experience: namely, not being able to get my girlfriend to accompany me to see King Kong. ;-)
Actually, check the criteria in the U.S. Code. You may be a member of what is called the "unorganized militia." I'll print it below for your convenience.
Don't be led by the recent release date into believing that this is something new. This is very old law.
I have my own theory about "what happened" with King Kong (which has made a lot of money, by the way, and will continue to do so when released in DVD).
King Kong is an enormously creative remake which transcends the original. The production quality is very high, and the effects are superb. The storytelling, as well, is very good. The one problem with it, from a box office standpoint, is that an animal -- namely, the title character, who is portrayed very sympathetically -- is killed. I'm sure I'll be criticized as a male chauvinist, but women hate that sort of thing.
Titanic, by contrast, was also a remake and was also "very sad." But, no animals die, and the star of the movie -- the heroine (a woman) -- lives.
The moral of the story is, don't kill women, children, or animals on screen, or you'll tend to alienate the tenderhearted half of heterosexual couples and jeopardize your ticket sales.
American companies can now stop working for repressive foreign governments.
I come from an education background, but last year did a stint in the computer industry. The main form of written communication within the company at which I worked consisted of e-mails. The ability of most people at that company -- intelligent people who were capable at their jobs -- to compose a clear e-mail that conveyed what they meant to say was laughable (and these were the native speakers of English). It was common practice after reading someone's e-mail to then track him or her down to ask, "What did you mean?"
I have wondered frequently how much manpower was wasted over the inability to communicate via the written word. I agree that we will soon see a backlash from employers.
Just to second this motion, from personal experience I've learned that this is one of the best things you can do to keep the heating costs down. In an apartment I had where we used to hang out in the living room a lot, and there was no door to the living room, we draped plastic sheeting over the archway to the room. We were able to keep the heat comfortable in that room without letting it escape to other parts of the house.
I think it is really depressing to have to wear a coat in the house. Sweaters maybe, but coats no.
Lastly, don't fall into the trap of turning the heat off at night. Turn it down. If you turn it off, you'll waste more heat trying to heat up an icy cold house each day.
I agree. Just watch a little kid with a bicycle (training wheels removed). He'll wobble and fall down, get up, fall again, scrape his knees -- by the time he's gotten to the end of the block, he's has had none of the pleasure of riding a bicycle.
Go find that same kid, however, after he's done this a few times. He will have forgotten all about the struggle. Now he's riding his bike all over the neighborhood.
There's something wrong with the adult world when members of it seek to shield children from any kind of struggle. Reading Curious George on one's own won't kill a person -- and what was it Nietzsche said?
You got cookies? I got fruitcakes! If the NSA starts giving out these, I say it's time for revolution.
Thanks for the link, but the whole point of the video is that privacy is important in order to keep the "big, bad, corporate bogey-man" from knowing everything about you.
Why is the ACLU not more concerned about government infringement on privacy? That's the message that should be spread.
The whole point about limiting government -- that the the founders of the United States understood so well -- is that government power can be used tyranically. Even assuming that our present government is the most benevolent possible and able to be trusted with absolute power, what happens when people less benevolent get into office and are able to exercise such power?
That's why the aware person is zealous about keeping his own matters private -- even if he has "nothing to hide." Just because a person has nothing to hide today does not mean that what he has done today won't be considered a crime at some future time under very different political conditions.
Dude, I wish I had money like you. ;-)
I'm with you on your response. I can't believe the criticisms people come up with, and the alternatives they propose.
Are we supposed to set up a dedicated computer room instead of [having computers in] their bedrooms?
No. We're supposed to forbid free access to all of the adults in a country and force them to register their "perversions" with the government.
[M]ake sure there is a full time watcher [of children in the househould]?
No. Why should parents watch their children? Let government watch full-grown adults.
Kids over 13 or so can stay home alone. Do we lock up the computer room when the adults are out?
No. Lock up the Internet, and make the adults of a country live under one, giant child-proof cap.
Please pardon the sarcasm, but it really is sad how some people think. I'm sorry, but children are overwhelmingly the primary responsibility of their parents -- even though that can prove to be "inconvenient" to parents at times.
Google "Nixon war on cancer" and see what you come up with. Sadly, it's an example of governmental hubris.
My point exactly. This is how corporations act, the vast majority of them anyway. It's called business.
I think it's awfully funny when corporations are respected for being so hard nosed and competitive, and capitalizing on an opportunity, but individuals are criticized. I played by the same rules they did. (I even asked them to double check.)
I don't leave cashiers holding the bag either. There's a big difference between the human being standing before you, and the faceless corporation that decides it's going to shave every penny when doing business. It seems to me that their policy is to skimp on the money they use to train their employees, directing them to follow what it says on the daily print out. That's just too bad.
I suppose it is arguable; but, I did ask the clerk to double check, and it wasn't him that I was taking advantage of. He made no mistake.
I stand by what I did: CompUSA can just chalk such things up to the cost of doing business in the manner in which they choose.
My understanding is "even giving kisses." The original is from The Aeneid, the famous quote regarding the Trojan horse: "Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes." (Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks, even giving gifts.)