Who is modding up these stupid comments, masquerading as tolerant acceptance of other people's politics? It is not, as these mods would suggest, open-minded and intelligent to accept the TEA Party movement as a valid political movement. It is not, and anyone who has looked at it knows that it is a movement that rejects science and rational thought in favor of nationalistic provincialism. That an otherwise intelligent person can identify himself with a movement that rejects climate change--to take just one example--is amazing. It is no more close minded to reject the TEA Party than it was to reject the rise of fascism in Europe. This is not hyperbole. A close look at the TEA Party finds amazing similarities to every other fascist movement in modern history.
Maybe it's because I live in Brooklyn, and everyone in my neighborhood has a Mac, but I've NEVER once had anyone come up to me and start randomly praising my MacBook Pro. I don't believe your story.
I have been part of the Occupy Wall Street protest. Tonight there was a public assembly where Cornel West spoke followed by a citizens' soapbox. The movement is organizing and trying to define itself. There are currently a couple hundred people in the park, and there are police everywhere. The atmosphere is incredibly upbeat and friendly--there are young people, there are lawyers, there are doctors, there are concerned citizens of all races, ethnicities, and sexual preferences out supporting this movement. We are not going away. This is the start of a movement. If you are in New York please come out and join us.
The movement is not perfect, but it is something. People = power. Now is a time for action. It is time for us to take our country back!
Well, I don't have a degree in physics, but I've read some books by the intellectually dreamy pop-physics icons Brian Greene, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and Michio Kaku, so I guess I have better qualifications than you.
Following the logic of the above scholars, I predict that c is not less than 0.03% faster than light, but that we have now discovered how to travel back in time! I have lots of other untestable theories about this discovery and am appalled that I haven't heard more predictions about all the amazing implications this discovery is going to have for humans in the future!
I agree with you and think your post is honest and rational, except in your assertion that the definition of minimal government has been distorted in an attempt to make a straw man of those who are rational endorsers of "minimal government." The distortion--and I do agree that there is a distortion--has been made by the political actors who have claimed for themselves the title of being proponents of "minimal government." The government grew under Reagan as it did under Bush; what changed was the appropriation and allocation of tax dollars to favor private enterprise, and away from programs that assisted lower-income people and minorities. They distorted and confused the meaning of "minimal" by separating their words from their deeds. The other side just sat back, spineless and watched it happen.
The tea party are obviously lunatics, but they're right when they proclaim their outrage at the traditional GOP for being as fiscally irresponsible as the democrats. The problem is the movement doesn't offer any real answers--and certainly isn't pushing for "minimal government," as you defined it. God only knows what they want, but if they get their way, we'll end up with some sort of corporate tyranny. They accepted the PR of the conservatives they'd previously elected who then squandered their money. They have become so disillusioned at how the candidates who promised minimal government spent all their money away. They don't understand that those candidates never believed in their own rhetoric and had no intention of ever implementing reasonable government programs, because their candidates were bought off by corporations. And now as a result there is such skepticism in government that we can't even get people to accept that some government is vital to protect our individual pursuit of "life, liberty, and happiness."
Before Andrew Jackson went into full ethnic-cleansing mode, he reasoned one way to deal with the native-American problem was to allow them to stay on their land but tell them they had to abide by state law. Obviously, this was impossible as the native way of life did not conform to US law. This gave him an ability to make the argument for removing the natives by force because he could claim that he was doing it because they were not following the law.
These things happen in small steps. We're being treated like idiots, and it's not long before we're going to hear arguments like, "We would love to keep the Internet open and free, but no one using the Internet is following the law, so we--the ISP--have to control it to stop people from violating the law."
He probably cares very little about the fact that the government created the infrastructure of the Internet. People like him don't really believe in minimal government (as they love to claim); they believe in a very strong, robust government--but one that works only in favor of private business. We of course see this in the financial industry, where at the top, losses are socialized and gains are privatized--with no real effort to end the "to big to fail" policy. These people are not capitalist, they are Marxists, but they're on the other side. They consistently LOVE government when it funds and protects private business, but hate it when it asks for anything back--like, oh say, protection of its citizens.
At least government is accountable to the people in functioning democracies. Corporations are tyrannical in nature, owing no accountability to the public. We've seen what happens to unregulated industries. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it."
Unfortunately, yes. But we are going to lose this battle if the conversation becomes about "government control" and not about freedom to communicate. Power structures all over the world fear the Internet as it is now--and they should. It is not in the interest of power structures to allow the public to communicate freely, and as a result they will eventually try to do away with it.
This is better than nothing, but it's only a matter of time before some of the "ambiguity" in the rules are exploited. What scares me most about net neutrality is that virtually no one outside of those who are actively interested know anything about it, and we've already seen a crazy propaganda campaign in the press to define net neutrality as a "government takeover of the Internet."
If we have any desire for true net neutrality to be upheld, we have to figure out a way to reframe this discussion in the media--and we have to do it quickly or we're going to soon end up with an Internet that is going to resemble broadcast TV more than the open web of information that it is now. I have a bad feeling in my stomach about how net neutrality is going to play out as it seems almost no one understands how vitally important it is.
The point I was trying to make is that a conceptual difference exists between the amalgamation of a curated selection of technologies in the creation of something that gives new meaning to those individual technologies and is greater than the sum of its parts and blatantly just copying without any new contribution or inspiration. Apple rarely if ever has truly invented a technology--but consumers don't care. What they have done--brilliantly--is figured out how to frame existing technologies in ways that drastically improve them, and make them appear to be inevitable when they weren't before. What consistently has set Apple apart is their aesthetic sensibilities. Good design appears inevitable, almost natural--but it so rarely is. You can try your best to point to what made the iPod, iPhone, or iPad great products, but you'll fail. It's the entire experience of the product, the new gestalt they each created that has made them triumph over their existing rivals--not the individual technologies they comprise. This, like it or not, is artistry and it's not an illusion or something created by marketers. The products are works of passion, and Apple is really one of the very few BIG companies in the world that has consistently demonstrated an ability to have faith in their own vision, which we all should applaud. There is so much poorly designed crap in our world created only to enrich some MBA CEO who has no care outside of his own bank account. Say what you will about Apple, but it's hard to deny their passion and artistry. Here on Slashdot, everyone sees the trees and misses the forest.
I'm in no way justifying Apple's suits against Samsung or defending Apple against the suits it faces. The law is often black and whit when it comes to copyright law.
Was not aware that the LG Prada supported multi-touch gestures, inertial scrolling, visual voicemail, and an intuitive touch UI.
Why can't we give credit to a company that really does reimagine products? Yeah, Apple is big and there are other great companies out there, but there's a reason why the iPhone changed the smart-phone game, and there is a reason the iPad changed the tablet game (hey remember slashdot laughing at both of these innovations?).
Before the iPad, tablets tried to run PC-style OSes, and they NEVER sold. But I guess you're going to say that there were tablets before the iPad? Yeah, but they were awful and didn't sell for a reason.
Amazing that this was modded up to a 3. I went out of my way to say that there were phones that provided similar functionality. Did you even read my post??
I don't want to sound like an Apple fanboy, but it has to be said that there is at least a conceptual, if not legal, difference between the suits Apple is filling against Samsung and the suits Samsung is filing against Apple.
There was no smart phone that looked or acted like the iPhone when it came to market. None. There were indeed phones that provided similar functionalities to what the iPhone eventually offered and made mainstream--but there was no smart phone that was even CLOSE in operation and design to what the iPhone introduced. Now, EVERY smart phone on the market looks and operates like an iPhone. This is not innovation, this is duplication. It's as if other companies--seeing the amazing success of the iPhone-- assumed that Apple's vision of the phone was the future and then they've hopelessly tried to copy it. The iPhone was not a new class of product, like the invention of the automobile was; it was merely Apple's take on what a phone should look and feel like, but other companies have assumed that multitouch OSes, app stores, and accelerometers define what a smart phone is and not just how one company (Apple) interpreted it.
This is the difference between bad artists copying and good artists stealing. Sure the iPhone stole heavily from things that were on the market, but it then took those things and made them feel new. So I don't know if there's a legal difference here (probably not), but there is a conceptual difference. Wish Samsung would figure out a way to redefine the smart phone (maybe no touchscreen!) that was unique to its brand, instead of offering what looks to average people like iOS knockoffs.
It's really unfair to say he invented the "iPod." Maybe at most he invented the digital-music player. It's really annoying that the brand name "iPod" has become synonymous with MP3 Player.
There are alternatives (hat tip: MacWorld), but Apple's customer control tactics are almost as bad as the record companies'. I don't think that's entirely true. Apple in my view has done a fairly good job of satisfying the demands of the record companies with regard to content control while still allowing fairly simple exploits to its own content protection. Bottom line is Apple could not have struck the kind of deals they did without assuring the film/record companies that their content would be completely protected--an impossible guarantee, as Apple surely knows. But Apple has struck a good balance in keeping the big companies happy, creating interest from other studios, and not getting terribly in the way of user experience.
Anyone at least find it slightly ironic that the author of this article refers to the OS as "OS EXs" ? Something tells me this guy doesn't have a lot of Mac experience, as anyone who's even remotely paid attention to Apple within the past seven years know it's "OS TEN."
Polls like these don't take into account the flexibility of the market. Fact is, people don't know what they want until they see it. How many people were spending $200+ on an MP3 player before the iPod came around? A significantly smaller portion than Apple's current market share.
Apple's ability to acknowledge the flexibility of the market has been one of the reasons the company has done so well lately. Companies who cater to what polls say regarding what the market wants are doomed to create only kitsch products. Opinions are changeable, and the right product certainly has the ability to assuage public opinion. Apple is planning a revolution with the introduction of this phone/iPod/handheld computer. Is the revolution going to happen? Who knows, but I admire Apple for giving it a go and not simply redeveloping the same kitsch product we've seen a million times.
This is all true, but it's a bit simplified. The fundamental problem with Communism (and Marxism in general) is that it predicts the direction in which society is going and then cuts out the natural process that society must undergo to get there organically. That's why communism only works in situations where it has developed organically. It's capricious and ideological to bypass a process and jump to a forecasted result. It's what the Nazis did: They predicted that Aryans would one day rule the world, so they sought to exterminate everyone else. Governments established under the broad ideology of "communism"--completely sure of where society is going--redistribute wealth. Nazis--also completely sure of where society was going--slaughtered more than 6-million people. Claiming a monopoly and certainty on principals and "the truth" is the first step toward totalitarianism. I see it less of an issue of centralized government and more of an issue concerning social philosophy.
So I'm always weary of politicians who seem to be too confident of where society is "naturally" heading. When I hear Bush talk about liberty and democracy (things that I love and value), I'm incredibly worried of his certainness of what the Iraqi people want. His absolute conviction is quite frightening to me.
The political theorist Hannah Arendt predicted the fall of the Soviet Union long before it happened. It was inevitable and had very little to do with the Reagan administration. The only way people can achieve freedom is to act freely, and that's what the Soviets did. The social movement spread and society's power increased. It got to the point where so many people were assuming a freedom that they didn't have that the government couldn't squash all dissentience. The economic and social collapse of the Soviet Union came from the political action enacted by the people. The people achieved action through plurality, not isolationism. It's the reverse of this government's strong-man approach to foreign policy: Power and strength are gained not from idealistic isolationism, but from plural debate within the public polis.
Currently, the US government has been masterful in dividing words from the deeds they describe, and according to this study, it's paying off. When the government talks of spreading freedom and liberty and then begins censoring speech within its country, a very dangerous form of propaganda is created. It's sad that this conditioning seems to be infiltrating the US school system.
Of course no one is going to cast a vote for Kerry solely because Kerry *may* take a more rational stance on copyright law. The bigger issue is the underlying ideology of the two candidates with regards to issues of consumer freedom. The two candidates' philosophies on this issue are a microcosm of their larger beliefs. It's reasonable to extrapolate further policy changes by examining this issue closely.
So here's how it boils down: If you want a government that continues to restrict consumer rights in favor of large corporations, vote for Bush; if you think consumer rights are an important issue, vote for Kerry. It's that simple.
You are looking at this on too small a scale. To say, "It's all right to breach a user's expectation of privacy as long as he or she doesn't know any better" isn't fair. Just as we don't exonerate people who have committed a crime against someone who was not aware that a crime was perpetrated against him, we can't allow companies to slowly (or quickly?) take away users' on-line rights with the comfort that those in the know are aware of their alternatives.
The bigger issue is that GMail may set new precedence for e-mail privacy policies. Maybe we really don't have too much to worry about, but discussing issues of privacy in open forums is essential for protecting all individual freedoms--and I am glad to see that the/. community is seriously addressing this issue.
What percentage of end-users do you think will register for a GMail account without any knowledge of GMail's privacy policy? (Somewhere in the nineties?)
Re:mis-diagnosis
on
Cyberchondria
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ok, here's a question for you: Who do you think is better equipped to deal with medical problems? A doctor whose career consists of diagnosing and fixing health-related problems or Average Joe Hypochondriac with an Internet connection?
For a second opinion, one should consult another doctor--not the Internet! The only use the Internet has in a situation like this is for researching information after one has received a formal diagnosis from a doctor. People without medical degrees should not go Willy Nilly, searching the Internet, trying to diagnose their affliction, and believing that they know about their health than doctors do.
This is ridiculous. It's about time we fight back against advertising bullies who make the Internet annoying for all of us. The other day, I went to a movie, and commercials--not previews--were played for about 30 minutes before the lights dimmed and the movie started. I'm getting sick of being inundated with advertisements everywhere I go on-line and, for that matter, in the real world. The only power we have over these advertising companies is our money. We should refuse to buy products from companies that engage in less-than-kosher advertising practices.
When will these companies learn that pissing off the entire Internet community is not good for business?
Your post is reminiscent of Adam Smith's free-market philosophy: Without competition, there is little progress. I agree. The only thing that will really stimulate our development of better space technology is competition from another government. It's sad, but true. Right now, there is no real incentive for our government to invest lots of money into improving a system that--at its most basic level--already works well. In short, we will not see big improvements in space technology from NASA until we see big improvements in space technology from other countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is modding up these stupid comments, masquerading as tolerant acceptance of other people's politics? It is not, as these mods would suggest, open-minded and intelligent to accept the TEA Party movement as a valid political movement. It is not, and anyone who has looked at it knows that it is a movement that rejects science and rational thought in favor of nationalistic provincialism. That an otherwise intelligent person can identify himself with a movement that rejects climate change--to take just one example--is amazing. It is no more close minded to reject the TEA Party than it was to reject the rise of fascism in Europe. This is not hyperbole. A close look at the TEA Party finds amazing similarities to every other fascist movement in modern history.
PlayBook users will only be able to do BlackBerry email on their tablets by linking with a BlackBerry phone, for the foreseeable future."
Or by using a browser.
Maybe it's because I live in Brooklyn, and everyone in my neighborhood has a Mac, but I've NEVER once had anyone come up to me and start randomly praising my MacBook Pro. I don't believe your story.
I have been part of the Occupy Wall Street protest. Tonight there was a public assembly where Cornel West spoke followed by a citizens' soapbox. The movement is organizing and trying to define itself. There are currently a couple hundred people in the park, and there are police everywhere. The atmosphere is incredibly upbeat and friendly--there are young people, there are lawyers, there are doctors, there are concerned citizens of all races, ethnicities, and sexual preferences out supporting this movement. We are not going away. This is the start of a movement. If you are in New York please come out and join us.
The movement is not perfect, but it is something. People = power. Now is a time for action. It is time for us to take our country back!
Well, I don't have a degree in physics, but I've read some books by the intellectually dreamy pop-physics icons Brian Greene, Neil Degrasse Tyson, and Michio Kaku, so I guess I have better qualifications than you.
Following the logic of the above scholars, I predict that c is not less than 0.03% faster than light, but that we have now discovered how to travel back in time! I have lots of other untestable theories about this discovery and am appalled that I haven't heard more predictions about all the amazing implications this discovery is going to have for humans in the future!
I agree with you and think your post is honest and rational, except in your assertion that the definition of minimal government has been distorted in an attempt to make a straw man of those who are rational endorsers of "minimal government." The distortion--and I do agree that there is a distortion--has been made by the political actors who have claimed for themselves the title of being proponents of "minimal government." The government grew under Reagan as it did under Bush; what changed was the appropriation and allocation of tax dollars to favor private enterprise, and away from programs that assisted lower-income people and minorities. They distorted and confused the meaning of "minimal" by separating their words from their deeds. The other side just sat back, spineless and watched it happen.
The tea party are obviously lunatics, but they're right when they proclaim their outrage at the traditional GOP for being as fiscally irresponsible as the democrats. The problem is the movement doesn't offer any real answers--and certainly isn't pushing for "minimal government," as you defined it. God only knows what they want, but if they get their way, we'll end up with some sort of corporate tyranny. They accepted the PR of the conservatives they'd previously elected who then squandered their money. They have become so disillusioned at how the candidates who promised minimal government spent all their money away. They don't understand that those candidates never believed in their own rhetoric and had no intention of ever implementing reasonable government programs, because their candidates were bought off by corporations. And now as a result there is such skepticism in government that we can't even get people to accept that some government is vital to protect our individual pursuit of "life, liberty, and happiness."
Before Andrew Jackson went into full ethnic-cleansing mode, he reasoned one way to deal with the native-American problem was to allow them to stay on their land but tell them they had to abide by state law. Obviously, this was impossible as the native way of life did not conform to US law. This gave him an ability to make the argument for removing the natives by force because he could claim that he was doing it because they were not following the law.
These things happen in small steps. We're being treated like idiots, and it's not long before we're going to hear arguments like, "We would love to keep the Internet open and free, but no one using the Internet is following the law, so we--the ISP--have to control it to stop people from violating the law."
He probably cares very little about the fact that the government created the infrastructure of the Internet. People like him don't really believe in minimal government (as they love to claim); they believe in a very strong, robust government--but one that works only in favor of private business. We of course see this in the financial industry, where at the top, losses are socialized and gains are privatized--with no real effort to end the "to big to fail" policy. These people are not capitalist, they are Marxists, but they're on the other side. They consistently LOVE government when it funds and protects private business, but hate it when it asks for anything back--like, oh say, protection of its citizens.
At least government is accountable to the people in functioning democracies. Corporations are tyrannical in nature, owing no accountability to the public. We've seen what happens to unregulated industries. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it."
Unfortunately, yes. But we are going to lose this battle if the conversation becomes about "government control" and not about freedom to communicate. Power structures all over the world fear the Internet as it is now--and they should. It is not in the interest of power structures to allow the public to communicate freely, and as a result they will eventually try to do away with it.
This is better than nothing, but it's only a matter of time before some of the "ambiguity" in the rules are exploited. What scares me most about net neutrality is that virtually no one outside of those who are actively interested know anything about it, and we've already seen a crazy propaganda campaign in the press to define net neutrality as a "government takeover of the Internet."
If we have any desire for true net neutrality to be upheld, we have to figure out a way to reframe this discussion in the media--and we have to do it quickly or we're going to soon end up with an Internet that is going to resemble broadcast TV more than the open web of information that it is now. I have a bad feeling in my stomach about how net neutrality is going to play out as it seems almost no one understands how vitally important it is.
I mostly agree with you.
The point I was trying to make is that a conceptual difference exists between the amalgamation of a curated selection of technologies in the creation of something that gives new meaning to those individual technologies and is greater than the sum of its parts and blatantly just copying without any new contribution or inspiration. Apple rarely if ever has truly invented a technology--but consumers don't care. What they have done--brilliantly--is figured out how to frame existing technologies in ways that drastically improve them, and make them appear to be inevitable when they weren't before. What consistently has set Apple apart is their aesthetic sensibilities. Good design appears inevitable, almost natural--but it so rarely is. You can try your best to point to what made the iPod, iPhone, or iPad great products, but you'll fail. It's the entire experience of the product, the new gestalt they each created that has made them triumph over their existing rivals--not the individual technologies they comprise. This, like it or not, is artistry and it's not an illusion or something created by marketers. The products are works of passion, and Apple is really one of the very few BIG companies in the world that has consistently demonstrated an ability to have faith in their own vision, which we all should applaud. There is so much poorly designed crap in our world created only to enrich some MBA CEO who has no care outside of his own bank account. Say what you will about Apple, but it's hard to deny their passion and artistry. Here on Slashdot, everyone sees the trees and misses the forest.
I'm in no way justifying Apple's suits against Samsung or defending Apple against the suits it faces. The law is often black and whit when it comes to copyright law.
Was not aware that the LG Prada supported multi-touch gestures, inertial scrolling, visual voicemail, and an intuitive touch UI. Why can't we give credit to a company that really does reimagine products? Yeah, Apple is big and there are other great companies out there, but there's a reason why the iPhone changed the smart-phone game, and there is a reason the iPad changed the tablet game (hey remember slashdot laughing at both of these innovations?). Before the iPad, tablets tried to run PC-style OSes, and they NEVER sold. But I guess you're going to say that there were tablets before the iPad? Yeah, but they were awful and didn't sell for a reason.
Amazing that this was modded up to a 3. I went out of my way to say that there were phones that provided similar functionality. Did you even read my post??
I don't want to sound like an Apple fanboy, but it has to be said that there is at least a conceptual, if not legal, difference between the suits Apple is filling against Samsung and the suits Samsung is filing against Apple. There was no smart phone that looked or acted like the iPhone when it came to market. None. There were indeed phones that provided similar functionalities to what the iPhone eventually offered and made mainstream--but there was no smart phone that was even CLOSE in operation and design to what the iPhone introduced. Now, EVERY smart phone on the market looks and operates like an iPhone. This is not innovation, this is duplication. It's as if other companies--seeing the amazing success of the iPhone-- assumed that Apple's vision of the phone was the future and then they've hopelessly tried to copy it. The iPhone was not a new class of product, like the invention of the automobile was; it was merely Apple's take on what a phone should look and feel like, but other companies have assumed that multitouch OSes, app stores, and accelerometers define what a smart phone is and not just how one company (Apple) interpreted it. This is the difference between bad artists copying and good artists stealing. Sure the iPhone stole heavily from things that were on the market, but it then took those things and made them feel new. So I don't know if there's a legal difference here (probably not), but there is a conceptual difference. Wish Samsung would figure out a way to redefine the smart phone (maybe no touchscreen!) that was unique to its brand, instead of offering what looks to average people like iOS knockoffs.
It's really unfair to say he invented the "iPod." Maybe at most he invented the digital-music player. It's really annoying that the brand name "iPod" has become synonymous with MP3 Player.
Anyone at least find it slightly ironic that the author of this article refers to the OS as "OS EXs" ? Something tells me this guy doesn't have a lot of Mac experience, as anyone who's even remotely paid attention to Apple within the past seven years know it's "OS TEN."
Polls like these don't take into account the flexibility of the market. Fact is, people don't know what they want until they see it. How many people were spending $200+ on an MP3 player before the iPod came around? A significantly smaller portion than Apple's current market share.
Apple's ability to acknowledge the flexibility of the market has been one of the reasons the company has done so well lately. Companies who cater to what polls say regarding what the market wants are doomed to create only kitsch products. Opinions are changeable, and the right product certainly has the ability to assuage public opinion. Apple is planning a revolution with the introduction of this phone/iPod/handheld computer. Is the revolution going to happen? Who knows, but I admire Apple for giving it a go and not simply redeveloping the same kitsch product we've seen a million times.
This is all true, but it's a bit simplified. The fundamental problem with Communism (and Marxism in general) is that it predicts the direction in which society is going and then cuts out the natural process that society must undergo to get there organically. That's why communism only works in situations where it has developed organically. It's capricious and ideological to bypass a process and jump to a forecasted result. It's what the Nazis did: They predicted that Aryans would one day rule the world, so they sought to exterminate everyone else. Governments established under the broad ideology of "communism"--completely sure of where society is going--redistribute wealth. Nazis--also completely sure of where society was going--slaughtered more than 6-million people. Claiming a monopoly and certainty on principals and "the truth" is the first step toward totalitarianism. I see it less of an issue of centralized government and more of an issue concerning social philosophy.
So I'm always weary of politicians who seem to be too confident of where society is "naturally" heading. When I hear Bush talk about liberty and democracy (things that I love and value), I'm incredibly worried of his certainness of what the Iraqi people want. His absolute conviction is quite frightening to me.
The political theorist Hannah Arendt predicted the fall of the Soviet Union long before it happened. It was inevitable and had very little to do with the Reagan administration. The only way people can achieve freedom is to act freely, and that's what the Soviets did. The social movement spread and society's power increased. It got to the point where so many people were assuming a freedom that they didn't have that the government couldn't squash all dissentience. The economic and social collapse of the Soviet Union came from the political action enacted by the people. The people achieved action through plurality, not isolationism. It's the reverse of this government's strong-man approach to foreign policy: Power and strength are gained not from idealistic isolationism, but from plural debate within the public polis.
Currently, the US government has been masterful in dividing words from the deeds they describe, and according to this study, it's paying off. When the government talks of spreading freedom and liberty and then begins censoring speech within its country, a very dangerous form of propaganda is created. It's sad that this conditioning seems to be infiltrating the US school system.
Of course no one is going to cast a vote for Kerry solely because Kerry *may* take a more rational stance on copyright law. The bigger issue is the underlying ideology of the two candidates with regards to issues of consumer freedom. The two candidates' philosophies on this issue are a microcosm of their larger beliefs. It's reasonable to extrapolate further policy changes by examining this issue closely.
So here's how it boils down: If you want a government that continues to restrict consumer rights in favor of large corporations, vote for Bush; if you think consumer rights are an important issue, vote for Kerry. It's that simple.
You are looking at this on too small a scale. To say, "It's all right to breach a user's expectation of privacy as long as he or she doesn't know any better" isn't fair. Just as we don't exonerate people who have committed a crime against someone who was not aware that a crime was perpetrated against him, we can't allow companies to slowly (or quickly?) take away users' on-line rights with the comfort that those in the know are aware of their alternatives.
/. community is seriously addressing this issue.
The bigger issue is that GMail may set new precedence for e-mail privacy policies. Maybe we really don't have too much to worry about, but discussing issues of privacy in open forums is essential for protecting all individual freedoms--and I am glad to see that the
What percentage of end-users do you think will register for a GMail account without any knowledge of GMail's privacy policy? (Somewhere in the nineties?)
Ok, here's a question for you: Who do you think is better equipped to deal with medical problems? A doctor whose career consists of diagnosing and fixing health-related problems or Average Joe Hypochondriac with an Internet connection?
For a second opinion, one should consult another doctor--not the Internet! The only use the Internet has in a situation like this is for researching information after one has received a formal diagnosis from a doctor. People without medical degrees should not go Willy Nilly, searching the Internet, trying to diagnose their affliction, and believing that they know about their health than doctors do.
This is ridiculous. It's about time we fight back against advertising bullies who make the Internet annoying for all of us. The other day, I went to a movie, and commercials--not previews--were played for about 30 minutes before the lights dimmed and the movie started. I'm getting sick of being inundated with advertisements everywhere I go on-line and, for that matter, in the real world. The only power we have over these advertising companies is our money. We should refuse to buy products from companies that engage in less-than-kosher advertising practices.
When will these companies learn that pissing off the entire Internet community is not good for business?
Your post is reminiscent of Adam Smith's free-market philosophy: Without competition, there is little progress. I agree. The only thing that will really stimulate our development of better space technology is competition from another government. It's sad, but true. Right now, there is no real incentive for our government to invest lots of money into improving a system that--at its most basic level--already works well. In short, we will not see big improvements in space technology from NASA until we see big improvements in space technology from other countries.