WalMart uses predatory business practices If by predatory you mean they do their best to squeeze every last drop of inefficiency out of their suppliers, so they can give their customers the best possible price, then sure, they're predatory. That's what capitalism is supposed to be - businesses competing to provide the best value to their customers.
You don't turn a startup company into a national giant without being better than your competition. That's what Walmart has done. Some companies when they get big get lazy, and start to charge higher prices. To their credit, Walmart has done the opposite - they've used their size and influence to create even more efficiencies and provide their customers even lower prices.
The result is that millions of Americans are better able to afford the necessities of life. And that sounds like a Good Thing to me.
The fact that Britain has been willing to help a friend in need, even though it largely disagreed with our decision to go to war, to me speaks volumes about Britain's national character.
Contrast Britain's sacrifices there with the level of support given by most of our other major "allies", and it becomes even more clear who our real friends are.
I can only assume tjstorck's comments were based on ignorance of the situation on the ground. Perhaps it's because of this annoying media tendency in recent years to talk about Europe as if it were some homogeneous entity. Clearly some parts of Europe are very different than others in many ways, and certainly that's shown itself with respect to Iraq.
I, and many of my fellow Americans, are thankful the Brits have been there for us.
Yeah... for example, a testosterone-soaked boom-fest FPS that ALSO requires strategy, teamwork, and allows some social interaction. Hence the popularity of Team Fortress 2;-)
FPS games can be great... there just happen to be a lot of crappy ones out there.
I'm a huge fan of intuitive/usable interfaces and controllers. But I don't think many consoles are really doing much better than PCs. Or rather, their respective control mechanisms are each suited to different types of games. Not "hardcore" versus soft, but more about how you need to interact with the game world.
A mouse is a pretty simple and intuitive controller. In fact it gives you more precision and quick control than the controllers you get on, say, a Playstation. Which is fine for many games, but not for everything. You don't have to be a "hardcore gamer" (I'm not) to enjoy a FPS. You similarly don't have to be hardcore to feel incredibly frustrated trying to play a FPS on a console, feeling handicapped by a controller that's just doesn't let you turn quickly like you can on the PC. At the same time, there are some games that seem much more suited to a console controller (say, Tekken on a Playstation or the sports games on the Wii).
IMO the problem is not the controller but the game companies' perceived audiences. I.e. that they perceive the game market as primarily the "hardcore" folks. Way back in the day, I used to really enjoy some simulation games on the Commodore 64 (airplanes, naval combat, etc). They were simple and fun. I tried finding some analagous things for the PC, and all I could find is these monstrously complex games that would take a week to learn the basic controls. It was ridiculous. Hopefully the success of the Wii will inspire some of those casual, fun type of games for the PC too.
You have a point, but there is a difference between being vague intentionally and being vague due to sloppiness.
Certainly you don't want to define the law so tightly that it can't deal with minor evolutions in society (e.g. instant messages versus email, say). And certainly there will always be unusual circumstances that can't all be enumerated in the bill, thus requiring judicial interpretation.
But on the other hand, if highly educated and intelligent lawyers and judges cannot agree, at the time of its passage, what the meaning of a statute is for common present-day circumstances, then what was accomplished? Essentially the law has not truly been created, because it will require years of court cases and appeals before anyone has a clue what the law really is. That's just poor craftsmanship on the part of lawmakers, which forces judges to essentially do the lawmakers' jobs.
Many of the situations in Bennett Haselton's editorial were examples of poor craftsmanship rather than intentional ambiguity. Surely rules about the size of the required bond to post an appeal could be written more clearly. And even for cases where some level of ambiguity is desired, having a "test team" seems like it could be useful to help lawmakers keep the ambiguity they want and eliminate the ambiguity they don't.
Saddam's government was in no way connected to Al Qaeda or any similar terrorist organization. Bush declared war based on his accusations that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain, or already had Weapons of Mass destruction. Obviously, Bush was either misled, or was lying because they have found nothing to prove his accusations Your stated facts are completely true. BUT... there is a serious argument that the war in Iraq is *currently* fundamental to the war on terror. While the terrorists weren't active in Iraq before we invaded, they set up shop there post-invasion. Thus, the current fight in Iraq is part of the fight against terrorism. The success of the "surge" is in large part because the foreign terrorists committed so many atrocities against the locals that the local insurgents joined us (hardly their favorite people) against our common enemy. And if we abandon Iraq before the locals can defend themselves and maintain order, then there is a high probability that Iraq will become a haven for terrorists.
Regardless of whether the war was justified, or whether it was associated with terrorism pre-invasion, today unfortunately Iraq is part of the fight against terrorism.
I think having the two on the same ticket would actually work to their disadvantage.
Suppose Obama wins the nomination. His whole message is about change, a break from the usual partisan bickering. Clinton epitomizes the partisan combativeness and "politics of personal destruction" he's arguing against. If she was on his ticket, she would undermine the primary source of his appeal to independents and Republicans. He'd end up spending time either defending her (looking hypocritical), or trying to avoid those issues (looking weak or dishonest), neither of which is a good place to be in.
Suppose Clinton wins the nomination. It's hard to see what Obama brings her. As above his unity appeal is largely negated by her reputation. And even if it wasn't, the VP role is usually to play "bad cop" to the President's "good cop", which is especially important if Hillary's going to try to seem less divisive. Bad cop is not Obama's strength, and Hillary really needs someone to do her dirty work for her, so she can try to improve her image.
The opportunity cost of government spending is a valid point. Which is why government spending should be done only for those areas where there is widespread public support and need, versus, say, "bridges to nowhere".
The problem with the telecommunications industry is that it is not, in fact, a very free market. Indeed it is highly regulated, and because of this the industry has become adept at the lobbying game. It's the classic case of regulatory capture. Because of this, the regulations very much favor incumbents over innovative challengers who could shake up things up. You get nonsense like every county getting to decide which provider to give a monopoly "franchise" to, rather than allowing citizens to choose their own providers through competition.
We're already paying incredible opportunity costs due to these sorts of regulations. So there are two possible solutions - either scrap the artificial regulations so there will be a true competitive market, or accept that it's a highly regulated part of the economy and reform the regulations to better promote our broadband goals. Either one has potential to be an improvement over the status quo.
My view is that we should be aiming for a free market... but let's just remember that when the cable companies start spouting off about the wonders of free markets, they don't really believe it. They've been exploiting the regulatory system for years. Their free market talk is just a tactic to prevent attempts to change the regulations they like into regulations they don't.
There's a world of difference between being overconfident, even arrogant, and being a religious fanatic willing to murder innocent civilians or blow oneself up to do so.
Most engineers I knew in school were certainly very convinced of their analytical ability (which is after all how they got to be engineers). Frequently to the point of arrogance, and few were above making the occasional joke about those pursuing studies that weren't "real majors". But even so, few were extremists of any sort, religious or otherwise.
I think this "study" was just an opportunity for those much-abused humanities majors to strike back at those arrogant engineers who have belittled them for so long. Turnabout is fair play, but it doesn't make it any more true than these other stereotypes.
But it wasn't private, not least because he decided to have his affair with a subordinate of his. People in the business world get fired for that sort of abuse of authority. And then he made it worse by lying to the court.
Fundamentally, we should be able to expect basic decency from the person we elect to our highest office. And we should expect they'll uphold the laws they swore to protect.
They should try harder to ruin businesses who insist on infringing. It's questionable to assume that these businesses "insist on infringing". Many of the companies in question may have been completely legal, but lost track of the purchase orders from their PC vendor that listed all the bundled software. Since the BSA is a guilty-until-proven-innocent system, you can still get nailed even if you really bought all your software.
And for those that were infringing, we don't know whether it was intentional or not. Some may have been a case of some rogue employee installing software without authorization. That wouldn't make it acceptable, but does speak to intent.
As for the suggested strategy of trying "harder to ruin businesses", that's not how extortion rackets work. If you make the pain level too high, people will rebel (in this case, migrate to open-source or some proprietary company that doesn't participate in the BSA). And then the BSA doesn't get what it wants, which are A) money from raids and B) incentives for businesses to buy their software.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why in the world would a company need to keep receipts/invoices for capital equipment it bought many years ago? I can see keeping it during the fiscal year maybe for accounting purposes, but afterwards it seems like a lot of paper to keep track of for no purpose I can discern, other than defending against a BSA audit in which you are presumed guilty unless you can prove your innocence.
And for many small businesses, there may not be a position of "general asset coordinator". PC purchases and the like may just be one of many roles handled by the proprietor.
Obama is relatively inexperienced, but Hillary has held political office for fewer years than Obama. He was elected to the Illinois senate in 1996, whereas Hillary began her political career with her election to the US Senate in 2000.
It is to Clinton's credit that she has somehow managed to get people to see her as experienced, when her total experience is just over one term in the Senate.
Well, I'm not a Ron Paul fan, so this is pure speculation... but perhaps the person likes Ron Paul's policies but sees potential in Obama's ability to unify the country to start solving problems. We have a lot of built up partisan anger and bitterness in this country, as a result of many politicians who prefer to demonize those with whom they disagree, rather than debate the issues in a respectful way. We're not going to be able to tackle serious problems without defusing some of that anger, so we can get folks from both parties to work together and find compromises. Obama is one of the few candidates who really seems to get that; even if you really disagree with his policies at least he treats the opposition with respect and hears them out. Sure it's style as much as substance, but often how you talk with people matters as much as what you say.
I for one would much rather see Obama as President than Hillary, even though I think Hillary's positions are closer to my own than his. And it's because I think he has a better ability to bring folks together. Though I'd much prefer McCain to either of them.
The primary system actually helps reduce the impact of money a lot, by emphasizing local/"retail" politics in small states. The candidates actually have to go out and persuade voters in person, rather than by just running expensive media campaigns. That gives them the exposure they need to become known, and yes, to raise money needed for the big-state campaigns later.
Mike Huckabee's rise is a great example of this. The guy had next to no money, was competing against millionaire Mitt Romney's high-spending campaign, and still came out on top in the Iowa contest.
No doubt the primaries are a complicated process, but there are some real benefits that come out of it.
As someone who believes in the system, I would happily accept accusation and defend myself if it means that nine others are correctly accused, prosecuted, and convicted. I believe in the system*, but I sure as hell wouldn't accept a false accusation having to do with any sex crime, especially not one involving children. You'd be convicted in the court of public opinion well before you even got to trial. And even after you successfully defend yourself in court, half the public will still be convinced you're really a child molester. You'll be shunned by the community, and probably deal with death threats on a regular basis until you move somewhere where nobody knows you. And then you'll live the rest of your life in fear that someone in your new community will find out about the old one, and the whole cycle will start again.
The system may work great... it's the rest of the world where you'll be screwed.
Even for false accusations of relatively lesser crimes, where you don't have to worry so much about the public bloodlust, you still have to disrupt huge portions of your life and probably spend your life's savings on a good legal defense. When all is said and done, you may be free, but your life will still be ruined.
*=with the exception of civil asset forfeiture. Allowing the government to seize your property indefinitely without finding you guilty of any crime is a disgrace.
As I read the grandparent post, the argument was not that the evidence should be inadmissible. It's that uncovering evidence of someone else's crime while committing your own doesn't somehow absolve you of guilt for your own crime. Neither does reporting the crime you discovered - anyone who *wouldn't* report the sexual abuse of a child isn't a human being.
In your example, Mr. Smith should face the maximum punishment possible. And the teen should face some punishment for breaking and entering - maybe light punishment, since it's a first offense (assumption based on the "good boy reputation"), but punishment nonetheless.
1. What ethics we should expect from the people we trust to service our computers 2. What precautions we should take that those people might violate our trust
Sure, the smart and prudent thing is to assume the tech is a scumbag who'll snoop through your data, whether it's to steal your identity or to get some kicks as a voyeur. That doesn't mean we shouldn't set an ethical standard that this sort of behavior is unacceptable, and demand that people and businesses behave properly.
The guy didn't give the tech permission to search through his private data. He gave him permission to install a DVD drive. A DVD drive installation does not require such a search. From a technical standpoint the tech should have a standard set of test files he'll use for everyone, since not everyone will have the right number/sizes of files. And from a business standpoint, it's a violation of the customer's privacy to go on that sort of fishing expedition. Either the tech was sloppy, or this was just a flimsy excuse to justify the snooping. Either way that tech is clearly unprofessional and I wouldn't take anything in there for repair, whether it contained private data or not.
Nobody is going to shed any tears for the pedophile getting caught. I'm glad he did. But that doesn't make the tech's decision to snoop around any less unprofessional and unethical.
IANAL, but from what I read they did not actually *drop* the case. What happened is that the RIAA and the defendant agreed to a judgment being entered against the defendant, in which the sole penalty was that the defendant agreed not to infringe on the RIAA copyrights in the future, and to delete any improperly obtained files from her system.
Escaping a RIAA lawsuit with no monetary damages is no small accomplishment. But it's not quite the same as having the suit dismissed, since a judgment against you means you were found guilty (well, "liable" I guess since it's a civil rather than criminal matter). If you're innocent, as the article claims she is, this is still a loss. It's just not nearly as painful as it could have been.
Sure 24-hour cable news in America sucks. But there are some really fantastic newspapers - which are also "press for profit".
I suspect you'll see a similarly full spectrum of things in the Google system. I don't see a big problem with that, given that Google's system does seem to be placing a strong emphasis on authorship, which should allow you to view stuff from sources you find worthwhile and ignore the ones you know are sensationalist nonsense. Much like how I don't bother watching the various opinionated blowhards on the cable networks - I know what they're peddling and don't care to waste my time on it. But a whole lot of other people seem to find it entertaining. Different strokes for different folks - that's the wonder of a free market.
presumably the idea behind it (whether it will work or not we'll have to see) is that while anyone can write an article, the better ones will rise to the top, just like with pages on Google's search engine.
So instead of a collaborative editing process, it's a competition between individuals.
Re: the monetary incentive, it cuts both ways. Sure there's now more of an incentive for people to share information, but that may produce more good information as well as more bad information. If Google's ranking mechanism works, few people will see the bad ones because they'll be buried way down in the rankings where few will bother to look. And that itself will be incentive to write better material, because otherwise you won't get any sizable ad revenue.
The differences between the Google and Wikipedia models will be interesting to watch. For an author, Google would seem to be the better model - you get undiluted recognition (hard on Wikipedia if your article is interesting enough to be heavily edited by others), a share of ad revenue, and creative control over the output. For someone whose contributions are primarily editing versus initial authorship, Wikipedia obviously makes use of those skills in a way the Google setup hasn't announced. It'll be interesting to see if Google incorporates some sort of opportunity for editors to have a formal role, perhaps through some sort of agreement negotiated with the author.
The thing I really find interesting about Google's knol system is that it can be extended beyond just a Wikipedia-like application. Take the current process of producing a written commercial work - you have an author, but the publisher also provides editors to help get the initial text into shape. If Google plays their cards right, they may turn their system into a platform by which authors and editors can find and contract with each other. While there are some difficulties if you're assuming a traditional buy-my-novel business model, much written work out there uses a magazine-like advertising model already, which is where Google has a lot of strength.
Your problem is that you're taking an expression of spun's frustration, and trying to interpret it as a new logical dictum. The truth is, humans can't be perfectly logical, because we have neither the neural hardware nor the time to weigh each new argument without consideration of the source. In the real world, reputation matters. Certainly, nobody's going to manage to be completely logical 100% of the time. But that's why it's helpful to receive feedback from others with different opinions - it's a check to help prevent your own emotions leading you down a wrong path. I know I've benefited from that sort of interaction on plenty of occasions.
Someone who has tried to spin you over and over in the past is likely to try again in the future. Also true... but it's tricky to know whether someone is trying to "spin you" (implying an intent to mislead) versus "persuade you" (an honest disagreement). Which is why I would argue that if you're going to take the time out of your day to converse with someone, you might as well give them the benefit of the doubt. Even if it's a very small sliver of doubt:-)
That said, I agree that past interactions, reputation, etc. are a useful way to prioritize.
They're no longer interested in convincing the other, but simply desire to sway bystanders who might be taken in by their adversary's rhetorical skills. Hadn't really thought of it that way, but I think you're probably right.
I feel we were justified in treating his status report with extreme skepticism. Absolutely. I think it was completely fair game to say "hey, you seemed excessively optimistic before, how do we know you're not making the same mistake this time?". I don't think it would do our country any good to handle him with kid gloves... being tough but fair is what it should be all about.
I just saw the "tasteless pun", which accused the general of betrayal/treason, as going beyond tough questioning and into a personal attack. Hillary's comment about Petraeus's testimony requiring "a willing suspension of disbelief" was at least in a gray area (was she calling him a liar or merely expressing skepticism?), so by my own criteria I have to give her the benefit of the doubt:-)
In the defense of Petraeus, unlike many Bush appointees, he was clearly competent/qualified in his previous work. And since the purpose of his appointment was to develop and execute a strategy to turn things around in Iraq, presumably we would want to appoint someone who believes that the job can be done. I.e. someone who think it's difficult but not impossible. Otherwise why bother appointing anyone? Given the conditions at the time, I think it's safe to call anyone signing up for that duty an optimist. I don't think there's anything wrong with that sort of optimism, but as you suggested, you need to have some tough questioning to make sure the optimism doesn't get untethered from reality.
Anyway, thanks for the very clear and cool-headed response.
many businesses would be greatly harmed if Windows was not an option. That depends on whether the alternative options are comparable or better, and what the switching costs are. Nobody buys their operating system for its own sake. They buy it because they need it to run the applications they want. If every application in the world were available on every operating system, there would be little reason for anyone to use Windows, given the regular infestations of viruses, spyware, etc that plague it and its relatively high cost compared to the alternatives.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where operating systems compete on their technical merits. We live in a world where network effects are huge and thus people are largely locked into buying Microsoft because they own the API to which most software is written. You get this chicken-and-egg problem where developers won't develop their apps for other operating systems because not enough people use them, and not enough people use them because the apps aren't there yet. In those areas where this fate was avoided (e.g. server platforms/applications), you can see that while Microsoft still has a strong position, it's not a dominant one.
So yes, if Microsoft and Windows suddenly ceased to exist tomorrow, many businesses would suffer great short-term harm as they would have a bunch of applications that they could no longer run. But that's not because Microsoft is wonderful, it's because network effects lock them into a situation where they have to buy a product that nobody really wants (I have yet to find anyone, even big MS fans, who see any compelling reason to get Vista) yet switching would be even more painful, at least in the short term.
Which I think was the post's point - this situation will persist as long as people/businesses continue to accept long-term suffering to avoid short-term suffering. You don't have to see Microsoft as evil or abusive, or take a dim view of their other software, to see the dilemma people face with Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't turn a startup company into a national giant without being better than your competition. That's what Walmart has done. Some companies when they get big get lazy, and start to charge higher prices. To their credit, Walmart has done the opposite - they've used their size and influence to create even more efficiencies and provide their customers even lower prices.
The result is that millions of Americans are better able to afford the necessities of life. And that sounds like a Good Thing to me.
The fact that Britain has been willing to help a friend in need, even though it largely disagreed with our decision to go to war, to me speaks volumes about Britain's national character.
Contrast Britain's sacrifices there with the level of support given by most of our other major "allies", and it becomes even more clear who our real friends are.
I can only assume tjstorck's comments were based on ignorance of the situation on the ground. Perhaps it's because of this annoying media tendency in recent years to talk about Europe as if it were some homogeneous entity. Clearly some parts of Europe are very different than others in many ways, and certainly that's shown itself with respect to Iraq.
I, and many of my fellow Americans, are thankful the Brits have been there for us.
Yeah... for example, a testosterone-soaked boom-fest FPS that ALSO requires strategy, teamwork, and allows some social interaction. Hence the popularity of Team Fortress 2 ;-)
FPS games can be great... there just happen to be a lot of crappy ones out there.
I'm a huge fan of intuitive/usable interfaces and controllers. But I don't think many consoles are really doing much better than PCs. Or rather, their respective control mechanisms are each suited to different types of games. Not "hardcore" versus soft, but more about how you need to interact with the game world.
A mouse is a pretty simple and intuitive controller. In fact it gives you more precision and quick control than the controllers you get on, say, a Playstation. Which is fine for many games, but not for everything. You don't have to be a "hardcore gamer" (I'm not) to enjoy a FPS. You similarly don't have to be hardcore to feel incredibly frustrated trying to play a FPS on a console, feeling handicapped by a controller that's just doesn't let you turn quickly like you can on the PC. At the same time, there are some games that seem much more suited to a console controller (say, Tekken on a Playstation or the sports games on the Wii).
IMO the problem is not the controller but the game companies' perceived audiences. I.e. that they perceive the game market as primarily the "hardcore" folks. Way back in the day, I used to really enjoy some simulation games on the Commodore 64 (airplanes, naval combat, etc). They were simple and fun. I tried finding some analagous things for the PC, and all I could find is these monstrously complex games that would take a week to learn the basic controls. It was ridiculous. Hopefully the success of the Wii will inspire some of those casual, fun type of games for the PC too.
You have a point, but there is a difference between being vague intentionally and being vague due to sloppiness.
Certainly you don't want to define the law so tightly that it can't deal with minor evolutions in society (e.g. instant messages versus email, say). And certainly there will always be unusual circumstances that can't all be enumerated in the bill, thus requiring judicial interpretation.
But on the other hand, if highly educated and intelligent lawyers and judges cannot agree, at the time of its passage, what the meaning of a statute is for common present-day circumstances, then what was accomplished? Essentially the law has not truly been created, because it will require years of court cases and appeals before anyone has a clue what the law really is. That's just poor craftsmanship on the part of lawmakers, which forces judges to essentially do the lawmakers' jobs.
Many of the situations in Bennett Haselton's editorial were examples of poor craftsmanship rather than intentional ambiguity. Surely rules about the size of the required bond to post an appeal could be written more clearly. And even for cases where some level of ambiguity is desired, having a "test team" seems like it could be useful to help lawmakers keep the ambiguity they want and eliminate the ambiguity they don't.
Regardless of whether the war was justified, or whether it was associated with terrorism pre-invasion, today unfortunately Iraq is part of the fight against terrorism.
I think having the two on the same ticket would actually work to their disadvantage.
Suppose Obama wins the nomination. His whole message is about change, a break from the usual partisan bickering. Clinton epitomizes the partisan combativeness and "politics of personal destruction" he's arguing against. If she was on his ticket, she would undermine the primary source of his appeal to independents and Republicans. He'd end up spending time either defending her (looking hypocritical), or trying to avoid those issues (looking weak or dishonest), neither of which is a good place to be in.
Suppose Clinton wins the nomination. It's hard to see what Obama brings her. As above his unity appeal is largely negated by her reputation. And even if it wasn't, the VP role is usually to play "bad cop" to the President's "good cop", which is especially important if Hillary's going to try to seem less divisive. Bad cop is not Obama's strength, and Hillary really needs someone to do her dirty work for her, so she can try to improve her image.
News.com has candidate interviews on technology policies.
The opportunity cost of government spending is a valid point. Which is why government spending should be done only for those areas where there is widespread public support and need, versus, say, "bridges to nowhere".
... but let's just remember that when the cable companies start spouting off about the wonders of free markets, they don't really believe it. They've been exploiting the regulatory system for years. Their free market talk is just a tactic to prevent attempts to change the regulations they like into regulations they don't.
The problem with the telecommunications industry is that it is not, in fact, a very free market. Indeed it is highly regulated, and because of this the industry has become adept at the lobbying game. It's the classic case of regulatory capture. Because of this, the regulations very much favor incumbents over innovative challengers who could shake up things up. You get nonsense like every county getting to decide which provider to give a monopoly "franchise" to, rather than allowing citizens to choose their own providers through competition.
We're already paying incredible opportunity costs due to these sorts of regulations. So there are two possible solutions - either scrap the artificial regulations so there will be a true competitive market, or accept that it's a highly regulated part of the economy and reform the regulations to better promote our broadband goals. Either one has potential to be an improvement over the status quo.
My view is that we should be aiming for a free market
There's a world of difference between being overconfident, even arrogant, and being a religious fanatic willing to murder innocent civilians or blow oneself up to do so.
Most engineers I knew in school were certainly very convinced of their analytical ability (which is after all how they got to be engineers). Frequently to the point of arrogance, and few were above making the occasional joke about those pursuing studies that weren't "real majors". But even so, few were extremists of any sort, religious or otherwise.
I think this "study" was just an opportunity for those much-abused humanities majors to strike back at those arrogant engineers who have belittled them for so long. Turnabout is fair play, but it doesn't make it any more true than these other stereotypes.
There was some news recently that the appendix may play a role in the immune system.
But still, your overall point stands.
But it wasn't private, not least because he decided to have his affair with a subordinate of his. People in the business world get fired for that sort of abuse of authority. And then he made it worse by lying to the court.
Fundamentally, we should be able to expect basic decency from the person we elect to our highest office. And we should expect they'll uphold the laws they swore to protect.
And for those that were infringing, we don't know whether it was intentional or not. Some may have been a case of some rogue employee installing software without authorization. That wouldn't make it acceptable, but does speak to intent.
As for the suggested strategy of trying "harder to ruin businesses", that's not how extortion rackets work. If you make the pain level too high, people will rebel (in this case, migrate to open-source or some proprietary company that doesn't participate in the BSA). And then the BSA doesn't get what it wants, which are A) money from raids and B) incentives for businesses to buy their software.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why in the world would a company need to keep receipts/invoices for capital equipment it bought many years ago? I can see keeping it during the fiscal year maybe for accounting purposes, but afterwards it seems like a lot of paper to keep track of for no purpose I can discern, other than defending against a BSA audit in which you are presumed guilty unless you can prove your innocence.
And for many small businesses, there may not be a position of "general asset coordinator". PC purchases and the like may just be one of many roles handled by the proprietor.
Obama is relatively inexperienced, but Hillary has held political office for fewer years than Obama. He was elected to the Illinois senate in 1996, whereas Hillary began her political career with her election to the US Senate in 2000.
It is to Clinton's credit that she has somehow managed to get people to see her as experienced, when her total experience is just over one term in the Senate.
Well, I'm not a Ron Paul fan, so this is pure speculation... but perhaps the person likes Ron Paul's policies but sees potential in Obama's ability to unify the country to start solving problems. We have a lot of built up partisan anger and bitterness in this country, as a result of many politicians who prefer to demonize those with whom they disagree, rather than debate the issues in a respectful way. We're not going to be able to tackle serious problems without defusing some of that anger, so we can get folks from both parties to work together and find compromises. Obama is one of the few candidates who really seems to get that; even if you really disagree with his policies at least he treats the opposition with respect and hears them out. Sure it's style as much as substance, but often how you talk with people matters as much as what you say.
I for one would much rather see Obama as President than Hillary, even though I think Hillary's positions are closer to my own than his. And it's because I think he has a better ability to bring folks together. Though I'd much prefer McCain to either of them.
The primary system actually helps reduce the impact of money a lot, by emphasizing local/"retail" politics in small states. The candidates actually have to go out and persuade voters in person, rather than by just running expensive media campaigns. That gives them the exposure they need to become known, and yes, to raise money needed for the big-state campaigns later.
Mike Huckabee's rise is a great example of this. The guy had next to no money, was competing against millionaire Mitt Romney's high-spending campaign, and still came out on top in the Iowa contest.
No doubt the primaries are a complicated process, but there are some real benefits that come out of it.
The system may work great... it's the rest of the world where you'll be screwed.
Even for false accusations of relatively lesser crimes, where you don't have to worry so much about the public bloodlust, you still have to disrupt huge portions of your life and probably spend your life's savings on a good legal defense. When all is said and done, you may be free, but your life will still be ruined.
*=with the exception of civil asset forfeiture. Allowing the government to seize your property indefinitely without finding you guilty of any crime is a disgrace.
As I read the grandparent post, the argument was not that the evidence should be inadmissible. It's that uncovering evidence of someone else's crime while committing your own doesn't somehow absolve you of guilt for your own crime. Neither does reporting the crime you discovered - anyone who *wouldn't* report the sexual abuse of a child isn't a human being.
In your example, Mr. Smith should face the maximum punishment possible. And the teen should face some punishment for breaking and entering - maybe light punishment, since it's a first offense (assumption based on the "good boy reputation"), but punishment nonetheless.
There are two separate issues here:
1. What ethics we should expect from the people we trust to service our computers
2. What precautions we should take that those people might violate our trust
Sure, the smart and prudent thing is to assume the tech is a scumbag who'll snoop through your data, whether it's to steal your identity or to get some kicks as a voyeur. That doesn't mean we shouldn't set an ethical standard that this sort of behavior is unacceptable, and demand that people and businesses behave properly.
The guy didn't give the tech permission to search through his private data. He gave him permission to install a DVD drive. A DVD drive installation does not require such a search. From a technical standpoint the tech should have a standard set of test files he'll use for everyone, since not everyone will have the right number/sizes of files. And from a business standpoint, it's a violation of the customer's privacy to go on that sort of fishing expedition. Either the tech was sloppy, or this was just a flimsy excuse to justify the snooping. Either way that tech is clearly unprofessional and I wouldn't take anything in there for repair, whether it contained private data or not.
Nobody is going to shed any tears for the pedophile getting caught. I'm glad he did. But that doesn't make the tech's decision to snoop around any less unprofessional and unethical.
IANAL, but from what I read they did not actually *drop* the case. What happened is that the RIAA and the defendant agreed to a judgment being entered against the defendant, in which the sole penalty was that the defendant agreed not to infringe on the RIAA copyrights in the future, and to delete any improperly obtained files from her system.
Escaping a RIAA lawsuit with no monetary damages is no small accomplishment. But it's not quite the same as having the suit dismissed, since a judgment against you means you were found guilty (well, "liable" I guess since it's a civil rather than criminal matter). If you're innocent, as the article claims she is, this is still a loss. It's just not nearly as painful as it could have been.
Sure 24-hour cable news in America sucks. But there are some really fantastic newspapers - which are also "press for profit".
I suspect you'll see a similarly full spectrum of things in the Google system. I don't see a big problem with that, given that Google's system does seem to be placing a strong emphasis on authorship, which should allow you to view stuff from sources you find worthwhile and ignore the ones you know are sensationalist nonsense. Much like how I don't bother watching the various opinionated blowhards on the cable networks - I know what they're peddling and don't care to waste my time on it. But a whole lot of other people seem to find it entertaining. Different strokes for different folks - that's the wonder of a free market.
presumably the idea behind it (whether it will work or not we'll have to see) is that while anyone can write an article, the better ones will rise to the top, just like with pages on Google's search engine.
So instead of a collaborative editing process, it's a competition between individuals.
Re: the monetary incentive, it cuts both ways. Sure there's now more of an incentive for people to share information, but that may produce more good information as well as more bad information. If Google's ranking mechanism works, few people will see the bad ones because they'll be buried way down in the rankings where few will bother to look. And that itself will be incentive to write better material, because otherwise you won't get any sizable ad revenue.
The differences between the Google and Wikipedia models will be interesting to watch. For an author, Google would seem to be the better model - you get undiluted recognition (hard on Wikipedia if your article is interesting enough to be heavily edited by others), a share of ad revenue, and creative control over the output. For someone whose contributions are primarily editing versus initial authorship, Wikipedia obviously makes use of those skills in a way the Google setup hasn't announced. It'll be interesting to see if Google incorporates some sort of opportunity for editors to have a formal role, perhaps through some sort of agreement negotiated with the author.
The thing I really find interesting about Google's knol system is that it can be extended beyond just a Wikipedia-like application. Take the current process of producing a written commercial work - you have an author, but the publisher also provides editors to help get the initial text into shape. If Google plays their cards right, they may turn their system into a platform by which authors and editors can find and contract with each other. While there are some difficulties if you're assuming a traditional buy-my-novel business model, much written work out there uses a magazine-like advertising model already, which is where Google has a lot of strength.
That said, I agree that past interactions, reputation, etc. are a useful way to prioritize. They're no longer interested in convincing the other, but simply desire to sway bystanders who might be taken in by their adversary's rhetorical skills. Hadn't really thought of it that way, but I think you're probably right. I feel we were justified in treating his status report with extreme skepticism. Absolutely. I think it was completely fair game to say "hey, you seemed excessively optimistic before, how do we know you're not making the same mistake this time?". I don't think it would do our country any good to handle him with kid gloves... being tough but fair is what it should be all about.
I just saw the "tasteless pun", which accused the general of betrayal/treason, as going beyond tough questioning and into a personal attack. Hillary's comment about Petraeus's testimony requiring "a willing suspension of disbelief" was at least in a gray area (was she calling him a liar or merely expressing skepticism?), so by my own criteria I have to give her the benefit of the doubt
In the defense of Petraeus, unlike many Bush appointees, he was clearly competent/qualified in his previous work. And since the purpose of his appointment was to develop and execute a strategy to turn things around in Iraq, presumably we would want to appoint someone who believes that the job can be done. I.e. someone who think it's difficult but not impossible. Otherwise why bother appointing anyone? Given the conditions at the time, I think it's safe to call anyone signing up for that duty an optimist. I don't think there's anything wrong with that sort of optimism, but as you suggested, you need to have some tough questioning to make sure the optimism doesn't get untethered from reality.
Anyway, thanks for the very clear and cool-headed response.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where operating systems compete on their technical merits. We live in a world where network effects are huge and thus people are largely locked into buying Microsoft because they own the API to which most software is written. You get this chicken-and-egg problem where developers won't develop their apps for other operating systems because not enough people use them, and not enough people use them because the apps aren't there yet. In those areas where this fate was avoided (e.g. server platforms/applications), you can see that while Microsoft still has a strong position, it's not a dominant one.
So yes, if Microsoft and Windows suddenly ceased to exist tomorrow, many businesses would suffer great short-term harm as they would have a bunch of applications that they could no longer run. But that's not because Microsoft is wonderful, it's because network effects lock them into a situation where they have to buy a product that nobody really wants (I have yet to find anyone, even big MS fans, who see any compelling reason to get Vista) yet switching would be even more painful, at least in the short term.
Which I think was the post's point - this situation will persist as long as people/businesses continue to accept long-term suffering to avoid short-term suffering. You don't have to see Microsoft as evil or abusive, or take a dim view of their other software, to see the dilemma people face with Windows.