If you want a two sided debate, how about somebody post a specific provision of the Patriot Act that they don't like and explain how it personally affects their personal liberties.
If ANYONE'S liberties in this country are being violated, it is a direct impact on EVERYONE'S. Period. Either our civil rights are inviolable and cannot be suspended or revoked aside from established due process of the law, or they are something which can be thrown away because $reason.
Maybe you think the reason is good this time. Maybe it even is. Maybe it hasn't been abused yet. Maybe it has. (There's so much held in secret that making either claim with any degree of certainty is laughable.) But if it exists, you can be sure it will be. Executive, unreviewed power -is- abused, that's why our Founding Fathers wisely placed hard (and low) limits on what type of power can be exercised without review.
Should it be possible to just order a search or wiretap? Absolutely not. Should these things be possible -at all-? Yes. Take your case before a judge. He will review what you have, and if you bring probable cause to believe that the person has committed or intends to commit a crime, and that the search will provide evidence of that, you will receive a search warrant. There-no problem, you're perfectly legal, AND you get to do your search.
Do certain instances require making this request in secret? Yes, they might. Once again, just ask the judge, (s)he has the power to "seal" the proceedings, preventing them from (as they would normally) becoming a matter of public record. However, again, this ensures that the secrecy power is being used where it is genuinely needed-not to cover up abuses or mistakes.
No one is stating that extraordinary government powers are not OCCASIONALLY called for. But when they are made routinely accessible, non-reviewable by judges, and unavailable for public scrutiny, you have a huge potential for abuse. Eventually, it -WILL- occur, even if you're correct that it hasn't already.
As to sharing of information between government agencies, those agencies conducting foreign intelligence operations are routinely (and correctly) allowed to use tactics (blanket wiretaps, covert searches, etc.) which would be unacceptable for use against US citizens. Again, since these agencies operate largely in secret, potential for abuse-just claim you got the information "from the CIA during a foreign intelligence investigation" and you've got a blank check to do whatever you like against US citizens, too. As it would cripple these foreign intelligence agencies to require them to follow Constitutional procedures against foreign powers, we should instead simply separate domestic and foreign surveillance agencies, just as we separate the military and the police (Also, if the CIA gives information to the FBI that they might want to check someone out, and the FBI follows procedure in checking them out and finding something-who would ever know? Big thing here is inadmissibility in court).
As it stands right now, there are HUNDREDS of people who are being detained without the benefit of trial in an overseas military base in an attempt to do an end-run around law and due process. Does this AFFECT me? You bet your ass it does. If they can do it to them, they can do it to you or me. Either we state that certain practices are unacceptable, period, end of the story, or we might end up being the next one with a one-way ticket to Guantanamo.
Oh, I'd imagine most jokes would fail if subjected to logical analysis. (And yes, that's all that one is, I certainly didn't intend it to stand up to any kind of rigorous examination.) Still, glad someone at least knows the basic principles.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
...it does. The fact that that's widely ignored and widely allowed might be true, but that's like saying speeding is legal because everyone does it.
Doesn't really matter. The Senators voting against still did the right thing. ANY standard less then a search warrant issued upon probable cause is unconscionable and unconstitutional. Judges can seal proceedings in individual cases if it's warranted, there's no need for the law enforcement agency to be able to do so on their own. That's exactly -WHY- we have judicial review.
Ask suspected terrorists for permission first before we bug them?
Well, that'd be one way to go about it. Of course, you could also ask a judge. There's this thing called a "search warrant". I've heard they even issued a few BEFORE the Patriot Act was passed.
Of course, you do have to bring probable cause that the person is breaking the law or planning to. What a crazy rule that is, huh?
I mean, what do you think would happen if we allowed warrantless searches, really? That they'd decide to skip any kind of trial too, and just lock those suspected of terrorism up in some remote military base? That kind of thing doesn't happen.
While I'm glad you're paying attention, the right to bribe a police officer, judge, juror, or any other public official is not free speech, nor should it be. Why should bribing a Senator/Congressman be?
With respect to private property, not sure if you're talking about the recent eminent domain ruling, but absolutely agree there. I was real sorry to see that one, and I hope the SC will have the good sense to reverse itself shortly.
There is no form of "confusion" between freedom and privacy. There are really only a few core freedoms-privacy, the right to think, speak, and express yourself as you wish, and freedom of movement.
The current King George is every bit violating the people's express right, just as the one 200 years ago was. In fact, more so-as far as I know, the colonists were not guaranteed they would -not- be taxed without representation, while we are expressly guaranteed freedom from searches without a court order upon probable cause. Other rights have also been violated-free speech/expression (protest zones, gag orders on National Security Letter recipients), speedy trial and no imprisonment without conviction of a jury of your peers (Guantanamo), and the allowance of countless other due process violations, some that we may not even know about.
Freedom -is- your right to conduct your business without interference from or surveillance by the government, unless there are good, solid reasons to believe you have broken the law. In the end, that's all it boils out to.
You're probably trolling, but this demands a response.
Privacy IS more important then security. Period. Freedom is what makes America what it is. Even China will defend its citizens against external attacks, every country in the world will. That's nothing unique or special. What makes America special is that its citizens also are defended against internal attacks.
Will I accept a slightly increased risk of terrorism in order to maintain our freedoms? You bet your ass I will, and happily so. Lot greater chance of dying in a car wreck, but I keep right on driving.
MILLIONS of people have fought and died to defend our freedom. Millions. Do you know what the death toll was from the World Wars? The Civil War? Ever since the Revolutionary War, brave people have risked their lives (and placed them at FAR greater risk then some nebulous risk of a terrorist attack) to defend it.
When you are willing to give that up for a slight increase (or possibly only a perceived increase) in security, you are a coward. Period. Your words do nothing less for those that have risked their lives in defense of freedom, then to spit in the face of the ones that came home and piss on the graves of the ones who did not.
That is your right. That's the whole point here! I would gladly fight and die for your right to defend the things you say. But they are cowardice of the worst type. If that is who you wish to be, then that is who you WILL be. But don't expect the rest of us to sit back and watch while your kind gives in to the very thing the terrorists wished to inspire-
Cindy Sheehan is far -too- vocal, and far too well-known, for that to happen. How many Guantanamo detainees have been convicted of a crime? I don't know if any have, if so, very few.
That's not how it works in a free country. If you are accused of a crime, you may be subject to a -short- period of pretrial detention, and then only if you can't or won't post bail or are provably a flight risk. To be sentenced to jail for years, you must be CONVICTED OF A CRIME, not by a sham "tribunal", but in front of a jury.
Pastor Niemoller's immortal words apply exactly here. Will you let this one start "First they came for the Muslims"?
Yeah, Martin Luther King wasn't doing a thing illegal. He didn't have anything to worry about from the FBI's surveillance, because the government has always acted in a proper and lawful manner.
The principle here is that the United States constitution should be inviolable. It's a pretty good framework. It guarantees a few nice things like freedom of speech and religion, a fair trial by jury with the burden of proof on the prosecution if you are accused of a crime, and the prohibition of cruel or excessive punishment if you are convicted of that crime.
Freedom from warrantless searches got put in there too. It did not get put there for no reason-surveillance of what you are doing, whether it's a search of your home or interception of your communications, is a violation of your basic rights. Sometimes it is called for due to probable cause that you have committed a crime. In that case, you go to a judge, and that judge reviews your evidence. If (s)he decides that you are correct and the search is called for, a warrant will be issued. That's the purpose of judicial review-an impartial judge must approve acts via due process of law that would normally be a direct violation of your rights, such as requiring you to pay a fine, imprisoning you, or conducting searches and surveillance.
I do not -just- oppose these measures on the grounds that I don't want to be watched even -when- I have nothing to hide, although that's most certainly part of it. I oppose it on the grounds that those Constitutional guarantees are the very reason that America is referred to as the "land of the free"-and every time one gets subverted, that becomes less true. That is a reason. If you don't care, that is your right. But don't expect those of us who -do- happen to like our freedom to stand by and watch while it's chipped away piece by piece.
Well, I think that's why the reforms -would- be a good idea. Once anonymous P2P does hit, you can bet the **AA's will be buying-erm, I mean, lobbying for, some new laws. And they'll get ignored, and worked around, and another arms race will follow, and ultimately everyone loses. It's effectively impossible to prevent personal copying when nearly everyone has machines capable of copying vast quantities of data at a keystroke at their fingertips. And just look at the "war on drugs" to see the results of criminalizing a widespread activity.
Industrial regulation is another matter, though-it's hard to burn a thousand bootleg CD's and sell them anonymously, or do anything for-profit that way. The money's got to get to you somehow, and eventually that -will- leave some form of trail.
As to the way you're doing things, I think it is ultimately the way of the future, and widespread "ownership" of content is destined to become a thing of the past. But every watershed technological change in history has been resisted by the people and systems that it obsoletes, and I doubt if this one will be any different.
As to the free thinking bit, can't fault that, I've certainly found myself at odds with liberals at various points despite my general left-leaning bent. I really can't comprehend the levels of gun control people want to put into place, or seat-belt laws, or any of those things, but a lot of people I know support them. I think things will shake out in the end though, just hope it's sooner rather then later.
Kidding, of course. You're absolutely correct, but like anything, there -will- be an inevitable backlash when the law goes too far. (We're already seeing this with widespread disregard for copyright law-in the end, sometimes civil disobedience is the only way.) The successful opposition in Europe to software patents is another one. I think even Microsoft may recognize the lunacy of the current system after they get hit by a few "submarine" patents, from a few companies which produce nothing but lawsuits and aren't the least bit interested in "trading".
Copyrights are another matter-but even if they're allowed (they are Constitutional, although I don't believe the current iteration is), they should be reformed heavily. Registered stuff only (no automatic copyright), strict prohibitions about "extensions" over and above the statutory protections that prohibit what otherwise would be fair use (license agreements/DRM are good examples of this), and consider it a regulation on for-profit copying only, personal use and sharing should not be affected at all.
However, the Constitution clearly calls for them to be for a "limited time". The fact that -this post- is automatically copyrighted for longer then you or I will live, and you could be sued for over $100k for reposting it somewhere else, even with proper credit, is an absolute joke. (I wouldn't -do- that, of course, but there evidently exist plenty who would.) That's not, in any real sense, a "limited time", and it flies in the face of the narrow and very limited copyright/patent regulations intended. Same with software-20 years? Whatever's patented will be obsolete in 20 years. That's not a limited time, nor should patents ever apply to anything abstract. Patenting software is basically like patenting 2+2=4-software, in the end, is just a very complex mathematical algorithm (or, to reduce it even further, just a really long number).
Get some novices (people who have never used the interface before) in, and a list of tasks to complete. Let some of them muddle through it on their own, and give others pointers on use of the help system, google, and man pages. (One of the tasks for the first group could be -finding- help on some of the things they won't be able to complete on their own.) This will help represent the range of people coming into it-some will have absolutely no idea what they're doing, others will have at least some support from other knowledgeable users who can at least point them in the right direction.
You also might want a broad cross-section of users-some who rarely or never use a computer at all, some who use one relatively frequently, and some "power users" from other operating systems. This could lead to a very interesting picture-do those that already "know how" on a different interfacee have a harder time with something new, or are they able to translate most of their knowledge and pick up more quickly?
As to a comparison between the two, you may wish not only to time how long it takes the users to complete their task lists, but also include feedback from them-were the help pages actually helpful, or did they just confuse the issue more? Was the experience relatively smooth and welcoming, or aggravating and frustrating? Was there anything the user expected to be/work a certain way that did not do as expected? Did the user find it necessary to work in CLI at any point, and if so, was this disorienting or frustrating, or relatively smooth? Did they ever think they had done something right when they really had screwed it up, and were any clues/warnings given them to this effect if so?
All these are factors in usability, and I'm sure anyone can list plenty that I missed. In the end, usability is determined by-well, the user. Since it is somewhat subjective (I find working in a command line far easier and more convenient then use of a GUI most of the time, but there are many that would disagree!), focus on what the end-user, presented with the interface for the first time, thinks of it overall.
Now THAT is some scary stuff-and I DON'T mean Wikipedia, I mean that pervertedjustice site.
From the top of the pervertedjustice article you linked:
Since they do not currently have their own website and because we believe the quality of this release is high, we have decided to post it on our PeeJ Opinions page.
Now, waaaaaay underneath it there, they have three "corrections"-which in effect state that the entire thing is wrong, that the three administrators accused in the article of having supported pro-pedophilia viewpoints have actually actively opposed them.
I can't possibly begin to take seriously any site or person that calls a piece with three -provably- factually incorrect, slanderous accusations "high quality". I'd sure hate to see "low quality". I hope all three of those admins sue for slander.
That's all just made up shit, dude. Why would you want that in an encyclopedia??
While I don't have a set of Brittanicas right here, I would guess that you can find references in Brittanica to the plays of Shakespeare, Aphrodite, Zeus, Thor, and The Odyssey.
All of that is "made up shit", but a culture's fiction and mythology is still relevant to a discussion of the culture in question. So why shouldn't Wikipedia, with its quicker-changing nature, have information on more modern fiction and myth?
Well then, since it's so easy, let's have a bit of a challenge here.
Throw away your ID, birth certificate, social security card, credit cards, and any other documents or identification. You won't be needing them for this challenge-for the homeless, they're long since lost or stolen.
Throw away any cash you have on hand, your car keys, your checkbook, your ATM card, and any other access to currency. If you want money, you will have to go hold out a sign, perform on the street, or otherwise get hold of it that way.
Now, you're not quite good and homeless yet. Don't take a shower or change your clothes for a week.
Now-go find a job. And if you can do it, I'll happily agree with your point.
That's "fascist", to you.:) As to your other examples, if you were taking dictation from someone and required shorthand to get everything down in time, I apologize, but do question why they didn't post on their own. Otherwise, the point stands, it's laziness.
Suppose you do have a point, and I don't normally get at people. I really couldn't care less if people misspell long, technical words, but the "lazyspeak" gets to a very irritating point after a while.
I guess I'm not the only one, I was expecting to burn karma on that one. I definitely was not expecting to see it -up-modded, just got to the point something had to be said.
Absolutely agree with you. If someone is suing you for repairs to their car because you rear-ended them, or for the cost of a replacement window because you hit a baseball through it, that is recovery of genuine damages, and is indeed a civil matter.
If any law allows recovery WAY over and above actual monetary damages by the -individual or entity- being sued, then they are not attempting to recover damages, they are levying a fine. That should absolutely require a criminal conviction with all the safeguards that guarantees (due process, innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed representation, strict rules of evidence, no warrantless searches, etc.) That can then also fall under the Eighth Amendment's guarantee that "excessive fines shall not be imposed".
If you really want fair copyright enforcement, fine. Let law enforcement handle it like speeding-it's a common practice, you're never going to stop it, but you can occasionally give out a $50 ticket to slow it down a bit. $100,000 (or even $750) is excessive in the extreme.
Actually, the BSA has a very interesting way of doing it. Decide on the accuracy for yourself.
In effect, they take the total number of computers sold, decide what percentage of those computers "should" be running a given piece of proprietary software, then look at the number of copies sold. The discrepancy between these numbers is the "piracy rate". This type of statistic-making in essence ignores free software/OS's, other types of freeware, "home-rolled" alternatives written by the user themself, and the like. (So, despite the fact that I'm in full compliance with my OS's license by downloading and installing it for free-according to the BSA, I've got a pirated OS!)
Slashdot Mirror
If you want a two sided debate, how about somebody post a specific provision of the Patriot Act that they don't like and explain how it personally affects their personal liberties.
If ANYONE'S liberties in this country are being violated, it is a direct impact on EVERYONE'S. Period. Either our civil rights are inviolable and cannot be suspended or revoked aside from established due process of the law, or they are something which can be thrown away because $reason.
Maybe you think the reason is good this time. Maybe it even is. Maybe it hasn't been abused yet. Maybe it has. (There's so much held in secret that making either claim with any degree of certainty is laughable.) But if it exists, you can be sure it will be. Executive, unreviewed power -is- abused, that's why our Founding Fathers wisely placed hard (and low) limits on what type of power can be exercised without review.
Should it be possible to just order a search or wiretap? Absolutely not. Should these things be possible -at all-? Yes. Take your case before a judge. He will review what you have, and if you bring probable cause to believe that the person has committed or intends to commit a crime, and that the search will provide evidence of that, you will receive a search warrant. There-no problem, you're perfectly legal, AND you get to do your search.
Do certain instances require making this request in secret? Yes, they might. Once again, just ask the judge, (s)he has the power to "seal" the proceedings, preventing them from (as they would normally) becoming a matter of public record. However, again, this ensures that the secrecy power is being used where it is genuinely needed-not to cover up abuses or mistakes.
No one is stating that extraordinary government powers are not OCCASIONALLY called for. But when they are made routinely accessible, non-reviewable by judges, and unavailable for public scrutiny, you have a huge potential for abuse. Eventually, it -WILL- occur, even if you're correct that it hasn't already.
As to sharing of information between government agencies, those agencies conducting foreign intelligence operations are routinely (and correctly) allowed to use tactics (blanket wiretaps, covert searches, etc.) which would be unacceptable for use against US citizens. Again, since these agencies operate largely in secret, potential for abuse-just claim you got the information "from the CIA during a foreign intelligence investigation" and you've got a blank check to do whatever you like against US citizens, too. As it would cripple these foreign intelligence agencies to require them to follow Constitutional procedures against foreign powers, we should instead simply separate domestic and foreign surveillance agencies, just as we separate the military and the police (Also, if the CIA gives information to the FBI that they might want to check someone out, and the FBI follows procedure in checking them out and finding something-who would ever know? Big thing here is inadmissibility in court).
As it stands right now, there are HUNDREDS of people who are being detained without the benefit of trial in an overseas military base in an attempt to do an end-run around law and due process. Does this AFFECT me? You bet your ass it does. If they can do it to them, they can do it to you or me. Either we state that certain practices are unacceptable, period, end of the story, or we might end up being the next one with a one-way ticket to Guantanamo.
Stalin didn't -start- by building gulags.
Oh, I'd imagine most jokes would fail if subjected to logical analysis. (And yes, that's all that one is, I certainly didn't intend it to stand up to any kind of rigorous examination.) Still, glad someone at least knows the basic principles.
Actually...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
...it does. The fact that that's widely ignored and widely allowed might be true, but that's like saying speeding is legal because everyone does it.
Doesn't really matter. The Senators voting against still did the right thing. ANY standard less then a search warrant issued upon probable cause is unconscionable and unconstitutional. Judges can seal proceedings in individual cases if it's warranted, there's no need for the law enforcement agency to be able to do so on their own. That's exactly -WHY- we have judicial review.
Please refer me to the portion of the National Security Letter provision that requires a judge's authorization before one is issued.
Ask suspected terrorists for permission first before we bug them?
Well, that'd be one way to go about it. Of course, you could also ask a judge. There's this thing called a "search warrant". I've heard they even issued a few BEFORE the Patriot Act was passed.
Of course, you do have to bring probable cause that the person is breaking the law or planning to. What a crazy rule that is, huh?
I mean, what do you think would happen if we allowed warrantless searches, really? That they'd decide to skip any kind of trial too, and just lock those suspected of terrorism up in some remote military base? That kind of thing doesn't happen.
While I'm glad you're paying attention, the right to bribe a police officer, judge, juror, or any other public official is not free speech, nor should it be. Why should bribing a Senator/Congressman be?
With respect to private property, not sure if you're talking about the recent eminent domain ruling, but absolutely agree there. I was real sorry to see that one, and I hope the SC will have the good sense to reverse itself shortly.
There is no form of "confusion" between freedom and privacy. There are really only a few core freedoms-privacy, the right to think, speak, and express yourself as you wish, and freedom of movement.
The current King George is every bit violating the people's express right, just as the one 200 years ago was. In fact, more so-as far as I know, the colonists were not guaranteed they would -not- be taxed without representation, while we are expressly guaranteed freedom from searches without a court order upon probable cause. Other rights have also been violated-free speech/expression (protest zones, gag orders on National Security Letter recipients), speedy trial and no imprisonment without conviction of a jury of your peers (Guantanamo), and the allowance of countless other due process violations, some that we may not even know about.
Freedom -is- your right to conduct your business without interference from or surveillance by the government, unless there are good, solid reasons to believe you have broken the law. In the end, that's all it boils out to.
You're probably trolling, but this demands a response.
Privacy IS more important then security. Period. Freedom is what makes America what it is. Even China will defend its citizens against external attacks, every country in the world will. That's nothing unique or special. What makes America special is that its citizens also are defended against internal attacks.
Will I accept a slightly increased risk of terrorism in order to maintain our freedoms? You bet your ass I will, and happily so. Lot greater chance of dying in a car wreck, but I keep right on driving.
MILLIONS of people have fought and died to defend our freedom. Millions. Do you know what the death toll was from the World Wars? The Civil War? Ever since the Revolutionary War, brave people have risked their lives (and placed them at FAR greater risk then some nebulous risk of a terrorist attack) to defend it.
When you are willing to give that up for a slight increase (or possibly only a perceived increase) in security, you are a coward. Period. Your words do nothing less for those that have risked their lives in defense of freedom, then to spit in the face of the ones that came home and piss on the graves of the ones who did not.
That is your right. That's the whole point here! I would gladly fight and die for your right to defend the things you say. But they are cowardice of the worst type. If that is who you wish to be, then that is who you WILL be. But don't expect the rest of us to sit back and watch while your kind gives in to the very thing the terrorists wished to inspire-
Terror.
Oh really?
Cindy Sheehan is far -too- vocal, and far too well-known, for that to happen. How many Guantanamo detainees have been convicted of a crime? I don't know if any have, if so, very few.
That's not how it works in a free country. If you are accused of a crime, you may be subject to a -short- period of pretrial detention, and then only if you can't or won't post bail or are provably a flight risk. To be sentenced to jail for years, you must be CONVICTED OF A CRIME, not by a sham "tribunal", but in front of a jury.
Pastor Niemoller's immortal words apply exactly here. Will you let this one start "First they came for the Muslims"?
Yeah, Martin Luther King wasn't doing a thing illegal. He didn't have anything to worry about from the FBI's surveillance, because the government has always acted in a proper and lawful manner.
The principle here is that the United States constitution should be inviolable. It's a pretty good framework. It guarantees a few nice things like freedom of speech and religion, a fair trial by jury with the burden of proof on the prosecution if you are accused of a crime, and the prohibition of cruel or excessive punishment if you are convicted of that crime.
Freedom from warrantless searches got put in there too. It did not get put there for no reason-surveillance of what you are doing, whether it's a search of your home or interception of your communications, is a violation of your basic rights. Sometimes it is called for due to probable cause that you have committed a crime. In that case, you go to a judge, and that judge reviews your evidence. If (s)he decides that you are correct and the search is called for, a warrant will be issued. That's the purpose of judicial review-an impartial judge must approve acts via due process of law that would normally be a direct violation of your rights, such as requiring you to pay a fine, imprisoning you, or conducting searches and surveillance.
I do not -just- oppose these measures on the grounds that I don't want to be watched even -when- I have nothing to hide, although that's most certainly part of it. I oppose it on the grounds that those Constitutional guarantees are the very reason that America is referred to as the "land of the free"-and every time one gets subverted, that becomes less true. That is a reason. If you don't care, that is your right. But don't expect those of us who -do- happen to like our freedom to stand by and watch while it's chipped away piece by piece.
Drinking coffee...I WILL use the preview button, I WILL use the preview button......
Oh THANK you, I was reading coffee when I read that. Excellent answer though.
Well, I think that's why the reforms -would- be a good idea. Once anonymous P2P does hit, you can bet the **AA's will be buying-erm, I mean, lobbying for, some new laws. And they'll get ignored, and worked around, and another arms race will follow, and ultimately everyone loses. It's effectively impossible to prevent personal copying when nearly everyone has machines capable of copying vast quantities of data at a keystroke at their fingertips. And just look at the "war on drugs" to see the results of criminalizing a widespread activity.
Industrial regulation is another matter, though-it's hard to burn a thousand bootleg CD's and sell them anonymously, or do anything for-profit that way. The money's got to get to you somehow, and eventually that -will- leave some form of trail.
As to the way you're doing things, I think it is ultimately the way of the future, and widespread "ownership" of content is destined to become a thing of the past. But every watershed technological change in history has been resisted by the people and systems that it obsoletes, and I doubt if this one will be any different.
As to the free thinking bit, can't fault that, I've certainly found myself at odds with liberals at various points despite my general left-leaning bent. I really can't comprehend the levels of gun control people want to put into place, or seat-belt laws, or any of those things, but a lot of people I know support them. I think things will shake out in the end though, just hope it's sooner rather then later.
Did I just agree with you on something?
Kidding, of course. You're absolutely correct, but like anything, there -will- be an inevitable backlash when the law goes too far. (We're already seeing this with widespread disregard for copyright law-in the end, sometimes civil disobedience is the only way.) The successful opposition in Europe to software patents is another one. I think even Microsoft may recognize the lunacy of the current system after they get hit by a few "submarine" patents, from a few companies which produce nothing but lawsuits and aren't the least bit interested in "trading".
Copyrights are another matter-but even if they're allowed (they are Constitutional, although I don't believe the current iteration is), they should be reformed heavily. Registered stuff only (no automatic copyright), strict prohibitions about "extensions" over and above the statutory protections that prohibit what otherwise would be fair use (license agreements/DRM are good examples of this), and consider it a regulation on for-profit copying only, personal use and sharing should not be affected at all.
However, the Constitution clearly calls for them to be for a "limited time". The fact that -this post- is automatically copyrighted for longer then you or I will live, and you could be sued for over $100k for reposting it somewhere else, even with proper credit, is an absolute joke. (I wouldn't -do- that, of course, but there evidently exist plenty who would.) That's not, in any real sense, a "limited time", and it flies in the face of the narrow and very limited copyright/patent regulations intended. Same with software-20 years? Whatever's patented will be obsolete in 20 years. That's not a limited time, nor should patents ever apply to anything abstract. Patenting software is basically like patenting 2+2=4-software, in the end, is just a very complex mathematical algorithm (or, to reduce it even further, just a really long number).
Get some novices (people who have never used the interface before) in, and a list of tasks to complete. Let some of them muddle through it on their own, and give others pointers on use of the help system, google, and man pages. (One of the tasks for the first group could be -finding- help on some of the things they won't be able to complete on their own.) This will help represent the range of people coming into it-some will have absolutely no idea what they're doing, others will have at least some support from other knowledgeable users who can at least point them in the right direction.
You also might want a broad cross-section of users-some who rarely or never use a computer at all, some who use one relatively frequently, and some "power users" from other operating systems. This could lead to a very interesting picture-do those that already "know how" on a different interfacee have a harder time with something new, or are they able to translate most of their knowledge and pick up more quickly?
As to a comparison between the two, you may wish not only to time how long it takes the users to complete their task lists, but also include feedback from them-were the help pages actually helpful, or did they just confuse the issue more? Was the experience relatively smooth and welcoming, or aggravating and frustrating? Was there anything the user expected to be/work a certain way that did not do as expected? Did the user find it necessary to work in CLI at any point, and if so, was this disorienting or frustrating, or relatively smooth? Did they ever think they had done something right when they really had screwed it up, and were any clues/warnings given them to this effect if so?
All these are factors in usability, and I'm sure anyone can list plenty that I missed. In the end, usability is determined by-well, the user. Since it is somewhat subjective (I find working in a command line far easier and more convenient then use of a GUI most of the time, but there are many that would disagree!), focus on what the end-user, presented with the interface for the first time, thinks of it overall.
Now THAT is some scary stuff-and I DON'T mean Wikipedia, I mean that pervertedjustice site.
From the top of the pervertedjustice article you linked:
Since they do not currently have their own website and because we believe the quality of this release is high, we have decided to post it on our PeeJ Opinions page.
Now, waaaaaay underneath it there, they have three "corrections"-which in effect state that the entire thing is wrong, that the three administrators accused in the article of having supported pro-pedophilia viewpoints have actually actively opposed them.
I can't possibly begin to take seriously any site or person that calls a piece with three -provably- factually incorrect, slanderous accusations "high quality". I'd sure hate to see "low quality". I hope all three of those admins sue for slander.
That's all just made up shit, dude. Why would you want that in an encyclopedia??
While I don't have a set of Brittanicas right here, I would guess that you can find references in Brittanica to the plays of Shakespeare, Aphrodite, Zeus, Thor, and The Odyssey.
All of that is "made up shit", but a culture's fiction and mythology is still relevant to a discussion of the culture in question. So why shouldn't Wikipedia, with its quicker-changing nature, have information on more modern fiction and myth?
Well then, since it's so easy, let's have a bit of a challenge here.
Throw away your ID, birth certificate, social security card, credit cards, and any other documents or identification. You won't be needing them for this challenge-for the homeless, they're long since lost or stolen.
Throw away any cash you have on hand, your car keys, your checkbook, your ATM card, and any other access to currency. If you want money, you will have to go hold out a sign, perform on the street, or otherwise get hold of it that way.
Now, you're not quite good and homeless yet. Don't take a shower or change your clothes for a week.
Now-go find a job. And if you can do it, I'll happily agree with your point.
That's "fascist", to you. :) As to your other examples, if you were taking dictation from someone and required shorthand to get everything down in time, I apologize, but do question why they didn't post on their own. Otherwise, the point stands, it's laziness.
Suppose you do have a point, and I don't normally get at people. I really couldn't care less if people misspell long, technical words, but the "lazyspeak" gets to a very irritating point after a while.
I guess I'm not the only one, I was expecting to burn karma on that one. I definitely was not expecting to see it -up-modded, just got to the point something had to be said.
Absolutely agree with you. If someone is suing you for repairs to their car because you rear-ended them, or for the cost of a replacement window because you hit a baseball through it, that is recovery of genuine damages, and is indeed a civil matter.
If any law allows recovery WAY over and above actual monetary damages by the -individual or entity- being sued, then they are not attempting to recover damages, they are levying a fine. That should absolutely require a criminal conviction with all the safeguards that guarantees (due process, innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed representation, strict rules of evidence, no warrantless searches, etc.) That can then also fall under the Eighth Amendment's guarantee that "excessive fines shall not be imposed".
If you really want fair copyright enforcement, fine. Let law enforcement handle it like speeding-it's a common practice, you're never going to stop it, but you can occasionally give out a $50 ticket to slow it down a bit. $100,000 (or even $750) is excessive in the extreme.
This is a friendly message to let you know that you are stupid.
"ur", "ppl", and "prolly" are not even -close- to words. Please become literate to a minimum sixth-grade level before inflicting yourself on us.
Thank you!
Actually, the BSA has a very interesting way of doing it. Decide on the accuracy for yourself.
In effect, they take the total number of computers sold, decide what percentage of those computers "should" be running a given piece of proprietary software, then look at the number of copies sold. The discrepancy between these numbers is the "piracy rate". This type of statistic-making in essence ignores free software/OS's, other types of freeware, "home-rolled" alternatives written by the user themself, and the like. (So, despite the fact that I'm in full compliance with my OS's license by downloading and installing it for free-according to the BSA, I've got a pirated OS!)