People are saying yah, well, that's dumb--corruption problems, process issues, etc. but I think that's part of the point. Maybe I'm just mising all the wonderful success stories of companies who have migrated to thin clients while maintaining high levels of user satisfaction as employees of the company go about the business of doing their jobs. I'm sure those stories are out there, I'm just not seeing many of them.
And I don't lay that all on the feet of IT. The people who have pointed out that upper management is a problem . . . well, generally speaking, of course! They don't have to deal with the system the way most of the rest of us do because they secure the best resources for themselves, they don't give IT the tools they need to succeed, and what you end up with is a thin client implementation that is a bad as the decision to go to thin clients.
In other words, the types of business that I've personally seem so far that really think thin clients are the way to are the same ones that seem the most screwed up at the top. Maybe that has to do with where I am geographically, or the types of businesses I'm exposed to, I don't know. Maybe this/. topic will open my eyes to the successful implementation of these wonderful devices all over the United States. If it really does work, I'm not opposed to it just for the sake of being contrary.
I came from a much smaller employer to my current one, so I'm used to a lot more control over my working environment--not having to submit work orders for someone to come in and hang my pictures up on the wall, having control over my computing environment, etc.
So, yes, a few times a year we end up in the tornado protection areas of our building, and a couple times a year we find ourselves without power for certain spans of time. It's a bigger problem on the manufacturing side, where a power loss can have more significant effects. No, I don't know whether the company cares or what they're doing about it.
I included it because it is one of the two circumstances that definitively makes this worthless POS on my desk even more useless. And yes, sporadically there are server problems also. In both cases it would make my time less of a waste if I could do something, especially when doing a specific something at that specific time happens to be important. And that's just one of the gripes about this setup. I hope that is responsive.
What I like is that the responses this comment is receiving is focusing on the smallest of the issues and treating it as if it's the biggest one. Makes a ton of sense.
Unlike laptops/desktops, when the server goes down or we have power problems, my computer becomes a paperweight unlike some of my co-workers who got laptops/desktops before the thin-client requirements were instituted. They at least can continue work with documents and files stored on their local drive. Me, my work just stops.
Also, responsiveness in a large company is a huge problem when it is a broken process. If I need to add a piece of software, I can't do it on a thin client, I have to go back through IT which might only take a few days (still too long) but can also take significantly longer. Yah, I can't do significant damage but I also can't get crap done when it needs to get done. I know that's a systemic issue and not the fault of the thin clients themselves, but companies in my experience are not adjusting well and it's terribly frustrating.
Finally, it's worth noting in my company anyway that senior management, of course, is exempt from the this client requirements. So when I was describing the paperweight problem to a senior director one day she said "I had no idea!" Hey, no sh**, you with your nice laptop and docking station. They don't give a crap 'cause they don't have to deal with it.
The author of http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=211702&t hreshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=17234934that post, which I replied to, used the term "hidden agenda" and was clearly speculating that liberals having a hidden agenda (which party bashes Wal-Mart? Democrats, except if Wal-Mart employees say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", then it's the Religious Right, but most of the year it's Democrats).
Maybe you should hop off your partisan high-horse before posting again. The point I was trying to make was bi-partisan.
by and large they aren't produced by people purporting to represent a peaceful religion.
In other words, you have groups like Focus on the Family and the like going after every semi-violent video game for destroying culture and humanity, but when the game is about a Christian gunning down non-believers, well, gunning down non-Christians apparently is one of the few things in life that doesn't make baby Jesus cry.
That is what was so important about getting a progressive Christian group on board the protest. Otherwise, it's just that wacko leftist radicalist group "Campaign to Defend the Constitution" attacking upstanding Christians for creating and distributing (presumably for a fair personal profit nonetheless, correct me if I'm wrong) a game that is essentially all about killing or converting anyone not like you in religious belief.
I do wonder what dog the Campaign to Defend the Constitution has in this fight. If you go to their web site http://www.defconamerica.org/our-issues/Campaign to Defend the Constitution, it looks as if most of their issues deal with the separation of church and state. Now, I'm actually a pretty staunch separation of church and state libertarian, but that's exactly why their involvement rubs me the wrong way--the government did not produce, is not selling or otherwise promoting this game. If the game sucks, or enough people find its themes objectionable, then such games will be (once again) relegated to small fundie independent programmers that pretty much everyone ignores or makes fun of because the games suck and the themes are laughable, but it's just strange to find a group with a mission purportedly involving the separation of church and state jump into a campaign against a private software developer to get a business to pull a game from their shelves.
Finally, is anyone getting sick of the "hidden agenda" attack? I know I am.
[/sarcasm]
dumbass.
What strikes me even moreso is these various posts involving people jumping to conclusions about strangers they've just met, then placing ridiculous value judgements on them. She likes Harry Potter and that makes her not smart? Are you some authority on literature?
I know I'm coming off abrasively but it's not solely directed at you, particularly given the other responses to this part of the thread. Maybe there is something to be said for not being so intellectually snobby, you're (once again not just you, but including you) closing a lot of doors that might have really great things behind them.
It is not burying your head int he sand and pretending there are no bad guys by treating damage done to lives and property as a result of terrorism as no different than damage done and lives lost to other sources. Nice straw man, though.
I don't think it is so much that terrorists are laughing at us as they are pleased that the United States makes them relevant. We are the enabler.
Terrorist groups want to affect foreign policy, but that's not always about "do what we want or I'll blow myself up in a crowd of people." Much of it seems to be long-term thinking, which is to say that terrorist attacks even if they don't result in a change of policy at least result in the issue terrorists consider to be important staying in the news. In order to stay relevant, it is absolutely critical to terrorists that we treat damage and death caused by terrorism as disproportionaly mroe important than other types of tragedy.
If (a) the United States curtailed its neo-colonial economic protectionist foreign policy (which actually cares little or nothing about citizens of the world as long as its economic interests are protected) and (b) we treated death or damage from terrorism proportionate to its actual risk, we would be much better off as a country. We could free up tax money to return to people, or at least stem the damage we're doing to the future economy when the bill for all our current actions comes due.
Jack Thompson can stick his nanny state where the sun doesn't shine. I'm the parent of a 3-year-old and that means I have to police my language, I have to watch what shows I have on TV. Does it get harder? Hell yes it gets harder. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to throw up my hands and tell the state to protect my kids--which, by the way, (a) the state sucks at since they're too busy doing things a limited government was never intended to do, and (b) will do all the things the opinion says it will. It will reduce all of us to playing only those games suitable for minors.
This money could be used for attorney fees for going after the next P2P company, or to go after individuals downloaders/sharers, or to R&D for the next DRM scheme, or for lobbying governments for laws that benefit them and/or make it easier for them to target the above groups.
One thing it will likely not be used for is to work to further integrate musicians and their music into quality, legal digital distribution channels that allow broad consumer rights.
If the government forced everyone to have an RFID tag implanted, then you could be readily identified by scanners so everyone can tell what information has been deemed "good" or "appropriate" for you as determined by the government. Have the FCC/FTC take over "voluntary" ratings programs and voila!
This is nothing but a money grab by access providers that will blow up in their faces. Most people use the Internet for social networking these days, and if those sites either essentially get shut down (by being part of the crappy lower tier) or are forced to charge users (because they have to pay exorbitant access charges to get on the upper tier), many people will simply drop offline, which will end up hurting these access providers in the long run.
So you're really just protecting these capitalists from themselves? How generous! Me, I would let the market teach them a harsh lesson (if that is, indeed, what would result) at which time your point is made regardless and in a much more effective manner.
On the other hand, if you're wrong, isn't the market the best place to hash it out?
And given the choice, trusting the gouvernement seems more reasonable, as they already have certain monopols (law making, law enforcement, military power).
I am unable to come up with a better argument against your point than you just made yourself. The fact that they have a "certain monopol" over powers delegated to the government (or more recently here in the U.S. usurped in flagrant disregard of the Constitution) (a) makes the consequences of corruption much more dangerous, and (b) makes trusting the government a much more risky proposition than you set it out to be.
The other thing that bugs me quite a bit about this thread, and not the immediate parent poster particularly, is the concept that somehow government is accountable while corporations are not. If people actually took responsibility for how they spent their money, corporations are easily just as accountable. Corporations don't just stay in existence without customers, and the consumer voice, in those rare instances when we choose to use it, does not have to wait on elections every "X" years (in addition to other factors that make market forces more effective than government).
Distrust of government is what America was founded upon. That we have forgotten this invaluable lesson is much to our detriment.
I don't give two craps how our freedoms compare to other countries, I just know that I am less free today than I was yesterday, and was less free yesterday than the day before that.
Hey, we've got more freedom than a citizen of China! Yippee!
If either or both of the sponsors of the HD or Blue Ray DVD standards/manufacturers could have convinced George Lucas to hold off until players were really commercially available and for Lucas to only release this set on HD and/or Blue Ray DVD, that would have been a huge boost to those hardware manufacturers. An opportunity missed--I certainly would have bought one of those players earlier than I would have otherwise for the sake of an OT theatrical release DVD set.
I'm sure I'll add it to my wish list, although the price tag will likely be ridiculous. Better to spend the small sums on the tr47 bootleg DVD release.
We should have the best intelligence in the world, and we knew our information was outdated or unreliable, at best. Significantly less sophisticated countries should never be able to bluff us.
The author you responded to was a little fast and loose with his wording, but by responding to his words specifically and not the concept presented you've only revealed your bias.
Were WMDs found? Yes, as the response accuratly indicated WMDs were found . . . in amounts radically, stupendously, tremendously less than the public was led to believe.
Was the amount of previously unknown WMDs found in Iraq after the invasion, in retrospect, enough to justify a war with Iraq over WMDs? You'd have to be seriously mental to answer "yes", so save your credibility by contesting some other issue.
Now for the $64,000 question--what did Bush know and when did he know it? We've heard everything from that he intentionally ignored evidence that there were no WMDs and is guilty of treason to that Congress had all of the same intelligence Bush had and that the whole world believed Saddam had stockpiled of WMDs and so Bush was 100% right. Me, I think we had crappy intelligence, and I do believe Bush knew we had crappy intelligence but went forward anyway when one very legitimate option at the time would have been to attempt to secure better intelligence before acting rashly and foolishly. To that end, I think he was negligent, or perhaps grossly negligent, regarding the use of WMD "intelligence" to bolster his case for war with Iraq, but not part of some grand conspiracy and he did not commit treason.
Just IMO anyway. I also agree with the study cited in this topic--for some reason Fox News viewers seem to have more misconceptions about the Iraq War and its lead-up than people who closely followed the "liberal media". Me, I am still waiting for a serious news competitor in the market whose news slant is libertarian. The Cato Institute's work for Fox News is probably as close as I'm going to get in the near future.
or do you have to install/uninstall it? Would like to try it, but want to know how easy it is to turn it on/off and whether/how much resources it uses on/off. Thanks much for any information provided.
I'm just wondering about the concept of development costs, as they seem central to your premise. Was the Netflix model the result of an in-depth R&D process, the same way a new drug molecule is? Does it matter whether it was or whether it was an idea someone throught up on the crapper? Because even if they did research into whether the idea was marketable or a good business model, the idea still had to have its origins somewhere, probably somewhere humble, and not as the result of "business model R&D".
I struggle with business model patents, but perhaps an idea is for business model patents to have a more limited period of protection than other types of patented ideas? I know there are a lot of people out there who, for example, want pharmaceutical products to have a shorter protection period so manufacturers can produce lower-cost generics sooner, but I think that the concept of development costs takes a much more concrete form when it comes to something like drug product development compared to the development of Netflix's business model. At its heart I think you are right that we are doing a bit of line drawing, but it is a valuable exercise to engage in.
I'm going to be honest here, nothing would make me happier than for the RIAA to hire someone who comes up with an absolutely foolproof copy protection mechanism that totally and completely prevents backing up CDs, and whatever other copyright protections they want to build in. Let the entire industry adopt that copy protection scheme.
Nothing will kill their CD game faster than giving them exactly what they want. Let them put the product they want on the market, and people will flock, in droves, to alternatives. One of the main reasons people haven't migrated is because of ineffective copy protection that allows them to make copies and the like. Close down all the loopholes and suddenly electronic music distibution systems start looking a lot more promising.
Sure, the RIAA will then start focusing more on electronic music distribution, but at that point the previous paradigm has already cracked and IMO their credibility regarding the benefits of their copy protection plans would have taken a huge hit.
I understand your question, and I think the answer falls into just a couple of concepts. First, wiretapping is rarely a one-call tap. It is usually a tap over time. Allowing subsequent approval of a tap gives the government some leeway in emergency situations, which in and of itself is not a bad idea. A subsequent judicial review, provided it is done within a reasonable time, may conclude that the government must stop monitoring and remove the tap, or it may conclude that the tap is justified. The court may also fine tune for the Executive branch what it will approve on an emergency basis and, to that extent, may have something to say about how the data collected may be lawfully used.
So there is a justified place IMO for subsequent review as long as it is within a reasonable time frame. And in this case it is what makes Bush so entirely baffling--the subsequent review option in no way impedes his ability to tap, so this stuff about it being necessary to bypass the FISC is just really unjustified unless there is some rationale that is being kept hidden from us.
The poll found that 53 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping without prior court approval "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism";
The FISC does not require prior court approval, it only requires court approval, which is the exact fact that makes most of Bush's defenses of this program worthless. It is also relevant to note that using the FISC (sealed proceedings) would not result in our enemies knowing the intimate secrets of our anti-terrorism tactics, which knocks out another of Bush's IMO weak defenses of this program.
That Americans are not more generally outranged by this program calls to mind a relevant Ben Franklin quote during the 1787 Constitutional Convention:
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
Slashdot Mirror
People are saying yah, well, that's dumb--corruption problems, process issues, etc. but I think that's part of the point. Maybe I'm just mising all the wonderful success stories of companies who have migrated to thin clients while maintaining high levels of user satisfaction as employees of the company go about the business of doing their jobs. I'm sure those stories are out there, I'm just not seeing many of them.
/. topic will open my eyes to the successful implementation of these wonderful devices all over the United States. If it really does work, I'm not opposed to it just for the sake of being contrary.
And I don't lay that all on the feet of IT. The people who have pointed out that upper management is a problem . . . well, generally speaking, of course! They don't have to deal with the system the way most of the rest of us do because they secure the best resources for themselves, they don't give IT the tools they need to succeed, and what you end up with is a thin client implementation that is a bad as the decision to go to thin clients.
In other words, the types of business that I've personally seem so far that really think thin clients are the way to are the same ones that seem the most screwed up at the top. Maybe that has to do with where I am geographically, or the types of businesses I'm exposed to, I don't know. Maybe this
I came from a much smaller employer to my current one, so I'm used to a lot more control over my working environment--not having to submit work orders for someone to come in and hang my pictures up on the wall, having control over my computing environment, etc.
So, yes, a few times a year we end up in the tornado protection areas of our building, and a couple times a year we find ourselves without power for certain spans of time. It's a bigger problem on the manufacturing side, where a power loss can have more significant effects. No, I don't know whether the company cares or what they're doing about it.
I included it because it is one of the two circumstances that definitively makes this worthless POS on my desk even more useless. And yes, sporadically there are server problems also. In both cases it would make my time less of a waste if I could do something, especially when doing a specific something at that specific time happens to be important. And that's just one of the gripes about this setup. I hope that is responsive.
What I like is that the responses this comment is receiving is focusing on the smallest of the issues and treating it as if it's the biggest one. Makes a ton of sense.
Unlike laptops/desktops, when the server goes down or we have power problems, my computer becomes a paperweight unlike some of my co-workers who got laptops/desktops before the thin-client requirements were instituted. They at least can continue work with documents and files stored on their local drive. Me, my work just stops.
Also, responsiveness in a large company is a huge problem when it is a broken process. If I need to add a piece of software, I can't do it on a thin client, I have to go back through IT which might only take a few days (still too long) but can also take significantly longer. Yah, I can't do significant damage but I also can't get crap done when it needs to get done. I know that's a systemic issue and not the fault of the thin clients themselves, but companies in my experience are not adjusting well and it's terribly frustrating.
Finally, it's worth noting in my company anyway that senior management, of course, is exempt from the this client requirements. So when I was describing the paperweight problem to a senior director one day she said "I had no idea!" Hey, no sh**, you with your nice laptop and docking station. They don't give a crap 'cause they don't have to deal with it.
The author of http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=211702&t hreshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=17234934 that post, which I replied to, used the term "hidden agenda" and was clearly speculating that liberals having a hidden agenda (which party bashes Wal-Mart? Democrats, except if Wal-Mart employees say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", then it's the Religious Right, but most of the year it's Democrats).
Maybe you should hop off your partisan high-horse before posting again. The point I was trying to make was bi-partisan.
by and large they aren't produced by people purporting to represent a peaceful religion.
In other words, you have groups like Focus on the Family and the like going after every semi-violent video game for destroying culture and humanity, but when the game is about a Christian gunning down non-believers, well, gunning down non-Christians apparently is one of the few things in life that doesn't make baby Jesus cry.
That is what was so important about getting a progressive Christian group on board the protest. Otherwise, it's just that wacko leftist radicalist group "Campaign to Defend the Constitution" attacking upstanding Christians for creating and distributing (presumably for a fair personal profit nonetheless, correct me if I'm wrong) a game that is essentially all about killing or converting anyone not like you in religious belief.
I do wonder what dog the Campaign to Defend the Constitution has in this fight. If you go to their web site http://www.defconamerica.org/our-issues/Campaign to Defend the Constitution, it looks as if most of their issues deal with the separation of church and state. Now, I'm actually a pretty staunch separation of church and state libertarian, but that's exactly why their involvement rubs me the wrong way--the government did not produce, is not selling or otherwise promoting this game. If the game sucks, or enough people find its themes objectionable, then such games will be (once again) relegated to small fundie independent programmers that pretty much everyone ignores or makes fun of because the games suck and the themes are laughable, but it's just strange to find a group with a mission purportedly involving the separation of church and state jump into a campaign against a private software developer to get a business to pull a game from their shelves.
Finally, is anyone getting sick of the "hidden agenda" attack? I know I am.
[/sarcasm] dumbass. What strikes me even moreso is these various posts involving people jumping to conclusions about strangers they've just met, then placing ridiculous value judgements on them. She likes Harry Potter and that makes her not smart? Are you some authority on literature? I know I'm coming off abrasively but it's not solely directed at you, particularly given the other responses to this part of the thread. Maybe there is something to be said for not being so intellectually snobby, you're (once again not just you, but including you) closing a lot of doors that might have really great things behind them.
It is not burying your head int he sand and pretending there are no bad guys by treating damage done to lives and property as a result of terrorism as no different than damage done and lives lost to other sources. Nice straw man, though.
I don't think it is so much that terrorists are laughing at us as they are pleased that the United States makes them relevant. We are the enabler.
Terrorist groups want to affect foreign policy, but that's not always about "do what we want or I'll blow myself up in a crowd of people." Much of it seems to be long-term thinking, which is to say that terrorist attacks even if they don't result in a change of policy at least result in the issue terrorists consider to be important staying in the news. In order to stay relevant, it is absolutely critical to terrorists that we treat damage and death caused by terrorism as disproportionaly mroe important than other types of tragedy.
If (a) the United States curtailed its neo-colonial economic protectionist foreign policy (which actually cares little or nothing about citizens of the world as long as its economic interests are protected) and (b) we treated death or damage from terrorism proportionate to its actual risk, we would be much better off as a country. We could free up tax money to return to people, or at least stem the damage we're doing to the future economy when the bill for all our current actions comes due.
Jack Thompson can stick his nanny state where the sun doesn't shine. I'm the parent of a 3-year-old and that means I have to police my language, I have to watch what shows I have on TV. Does it get harder? Hell yes it gets harder. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to throw up my hands and tell the state to protect my kids--which, by the way, (a) the state sucks at since they're too busy doing things a limited government was never intended to do, and (b) will do all the things the opinion says it will. It will reduce all of us to playing only those games suitable for minors.
And those games by and large suck.
This money could be used for attorney fees for going after the next P2P company, or to go after individuals downloaders/sharers, or to R&D for the next DRM scheme, or for lobbying governments for laws that benefit them and/or make it easier for them to target the above groups.
One thing it will likely not be used for is to work to further integrate musicians and their music into quality, legal digital distribution channels that allow broad consumer rights.
If the government forced everyone to have an RFID tag implanted, then you could be readily identified by scanners so everyone can tell what information has been deemed "good" or "appropriate" for you as determined by the government. Have the FCC/FTC take over "voluntary" ratings programs and voila!
So you're really just protecting these capitalists from themselves? How generous! Me, I would let the market teach them a harsh lesson (if that is, indeed, what would result) at which time your point is made regardless and in a much more effective manner.
On the other hand, if you're wrong, isn't the market the best place to hash it out?
I am unable to come up with a better argument against your point than you just made yourself. The fact that they have a "certain monopol" over powers delegated to the government (or more recently here in the U.S. usurped in flagrant disregard of the Constitution) (a) makes the consequences of corruption much more dangerous, and (b) makes trusting the government a much more risky proposition than you set it out to be.
The other thing that bugs me quite a bit about this thread, and not the immediate parent poster particularly, is the concept that somehow government is accountable while corporations are not. If people actually took responsibility for how they spent their money, corporations are easily just as accountable. Corporations don't just stay in existence without customers, and the consumer voice, in those rare instances when we choose to use it, does not have to wait on elections every "X" years (in addition to other factors that make market forces more effective than government).
Distrust of government is what America was founded upon. That we have forgotten this invaluable lesson is much to our detriment.
The Official Microsoft Marketing Plan.
I don't give two craps how our freedoms compare to other countries, I just know that I am less free today than I was yesterday, and was less free yesterday than the day before that.
Hey, we've got more freedom than a citizen of China! Yippee!
If either or both of the sponsors of the HD or Blue Ray DVD standards/manufacturers could have convinced George Lucas to hold off until players were really commercially available and for Lucas to only release this set on HD and/or Blue Ray DVD, that would have been a huge boost to those hardware manufacturers. An opportunity missed--I certainly would have bought one of those players earlier than I would have otherwise for the sake of an OT theatrical release DVD set.
I'm sure I'll add it to my wish list, although the price tag will likely be ridiculous. Better to spend the small sums on the tr47 bootleg DVD release.
We should have the best intelligence in the world, and we knew our information was outdated or unreliable, at best. Significantly less sophisticated countries should never be able to bluff us.
The author you responded to was a little fast and loose with his wording, but by responding to his words specifically and not the concept presented you've only revealed your bias.
Were WMDs found? Yes, as the response accuratly indicated WMDs were found . . . in amounts radically, stupendously, tremendously less than the public was led to believe.
Was the amount of previously unknown WMDs found in Iraq after the invasion, in retrospect, enough to justify a war with Iraq over WMDs? You'd have to be seriously mental to answer "yes", so save your credibility by contesting some other issue.
Now for the $64,000 question--what did Bush know and when did he know it? We've heard everything from that he intentionally ignored evidence that there were no WMDs and is guilty of treason to that Congress had all of the same intelligence Bush had and that the whole world believed Saddam had stockpiled of WMDs and so Bush was 100% right. Me, I think we had crappy intelligence, and I do believe Bush knew we had crappy intelligence but went forward anyway when one very legitimate option at the time would have been to attempt to secure better intelligence before acting rashly and foolishly. To that end, I think he was negligent, or perhaps grossly negligent, regarding the use of WMD "intelligence" to bolster his case for war with Iraq, but not part of some grand conspiracy and he did not commit treason.
Just IMO anyway. I also agree with the study cited in this topic--for some reason Fox News viewers seem to have more misconceptions about the Iraq War and its lead-up than people who closely followed the "liberal media". Me, I am still waiting for a serious news competitor in the market whose news slant is libertarian. The Cato Institute's work for Fox News is probably as close as I'm going to get in the near future.
or do you have to install/uninstall it? Would like to try it, but want to know how easy it is to turn it on/off and whether/how much resources it uses on/off. Thanks much for any information provided.
My company's web filter, http://www.websense.com/global/en/WebSense ("Securing Productivy"), blocks the site as a proxy filter.
I'm just wondering about the concept of development costs, as they seem central to your premise. Was the Netflix model the result of an in-depth R&D process, the same way a new drug molecule is? Does it matter whether it was or whether it was an idea someone throught up on the crapper? Because even if they did research into whether the idea was marketable or a good business model, the idea still had to have its origins somewhere, probably somewhere humble, and not as the result of "business model R&D".
I struggle with business model patents, but perhaps an idea is for business model patents to have a more limited period of protection than other types of patented ideas? I know there are a lot of people out there who, for example, want pharmaceutical products to have a shorter protection period so manufacturers can produce lower-cost generics sooner, but I think that the concept of development costs takes a much more concrete form when it comes to something like drug product development compared to the development of Netflix's business model. At its heart I think you are right that we are doing a bit of line drawing, but it is a valuable exercise to engage in.
I'm going to be honest here, nothing would make me happier than for the RIAA to hire someone who comes up with an absolutely foolproof copy protection mechanism that totally and completely prevents backing up CDs, and whatever other copyright protections they want to build in. Let the entire industry adopt that copy protection scheme. Nothing will kill their CD game faster than giving them exactly what they want. Let them put the product they want on the market, and people will flock, in droves, to alternatives. One of the main reasons people haven't migrated is because of ineffective copy protection that allows them to make copies and the like. Close down all the loopholes and suddenly electronic music distibution systems start looking a lot more promising. Sure, the RIAA will then start focusing more on electronic music distribution, but at that point the previous paradigm has already cracked and IMO their credibility regarding the benefits of their copy protection plans would have taken a huge hit.
I understand your question, and I think the answer falls into just a couple of concepts. First, wiretapping is rarely a one-call tap. It is usually a tap over time. Allowing subsequent approval of a tap gives the government some leeway in emergency situations, which in and of itself is not a bad idea. A subsequent judicial review, provided it is done within a reasonable time, may conclude that the government must stop monitoring and remove the tap, or it may conclude that the tap is justified. The court may also fine tune for the Executive branch what it will approve on an emergency basis and, to that extent, may have something to say about how the data collected may be lawfully used.
So there is a justified place IMO for subsequent review as long as it is within a reasonable time frame. And in this case it is what makes Bush so entirely baffling--the subsequent review option in no way impedes his ability to tap, so this stuff about it being necessary to bypass the FISC is just really unjustified unless there is some rationale that is being kept hidden from us.
That Americans are not more generally outranged by this program calls to mind a relevant Ben Franklin quote during the 1787 Constitutional Convention: