As an American citizen, let me be the first to tell you that you are not alone in finding this abhorent, for many reasons. First, there's the fact that it is hypocritical to claim to be founding a stable democratic state (the current popular excuse for hegemonic wars of aggression) which respects the natural rights and liberties of its citizens (something that no state can do in the long run, democratic or otherwise), while subverting one of the most important institutions in a free society, the press and communications channels. Second, as an American citizen, I have no doubt that this policy would be abused (as if its very existence were not abusive of state power) domestically as well as internationally. Never evaluate a government proposal on the basis of the good it will impart if properly administered, but rather by the harm it will inflict when abused.
It is important to disassociate political states and their actions from the individuals the state opresses and dominates. There are many Americans who do not support or condone the actions of the state, and many others (myself included) who do not recognize even the legitimacy of the state's very existence.
When was the last time America actually fought a war out of self-defense? Most reasonable people (i.e. not proponents of the "War on Terror") say that it was WWII (although I argue against this, since there is ample evidence that Roosevelt was aware of a potential Japanese attack in the Pacific, and maneuvered the Pacific fleet into an indefensible position and ignored the advice of the admiral in charge of the fleet to move it, but that's another debate entirely). All America's subsequent wars have unquestionably been wars of aggression, in which America has played the role of foreign invader. Also note that when I speak of "America's" wars, I refer to America in terms of its political state, not the populace. I for one neither condone nor support the actions of the state in any nation, and do not view a political state as a representative of individual citizens.
Oh, for some mod points:). The type of proposed behavior (distributing lies, shutting down civilian communications channels to inspire FUD, etc.) is precisely the type of behavior ascribed to terrorists (plus, of course, blowing things up, and we all know how good the state is at that task).
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we soon see legislation requiring major networking manufacturers to implement backdoors in their equipment, and requiring them to provide access to said backdoors to the DoD. It would not be without precedent for them to try. I'm sure/.ers remember the outcry several years ago over the FBI's attempt to gain backdoor access to all encryption schemes via legislation. While it may be political bullshit to say that "Everything changed after 9/11", the one thing that did change fairly dramatically is the state. I wouldn't be surprised if such legislation is both introduced and passed into law.
Oversight? You're kidding, right? Oversight provided by corrupt and/or corruptable officials of the very same state engaging in the activity to be overseen is the best definition of the fox guarding the henhouse. Any information that actually filters down to the public is first edited (for "National security reasons", of course) and classified. Even when oversight is in place, we are far, far from being guaranteed access to accurate information. Besides which, you forget that the vast majority of the state's activities, overseen or not, are unconstitutional (don't forget, constitutionally, if the feds aren't specifically tasked with a given activity, it is forbidden to them). What's the point of assigning oversight committees to verify that illegal activities are carried out in the properly illegal manner? Would you like to see an oversight committee in charge of monitoring the illegal and immoral military detention of civilians without charges? How do you oversee such an activity? The usual standard is to verify that the actions of the state conform to the law, but when the law itself is both immoral and unconstitutional, what purpose is served by oversight?
Secondly, psychological military operations, known as psyops, will be at the heart of future military action. Psyops involve using any media - from newspapers, books and posters to the internet, music, Blackberrys and personal digital assistants (PDAs) - to put out black propaganda to assist government and military strategy. Psyops involve the dissemination of lies and fake stories and releasing information to wrong-foot the enemy.
Wow, now that's a good idea. I sure don't see anything immoral here, and certainly no potential for abuse. After all, the only way to have a stable democratic state which protects its citizens' freedoms is if that state controls the media and uses it to knowingly distribute lies and propoganda. The founding fathers knew this, which was why when they wrote the first amendment, they... Oh wait, that's right. The media is supposed to be independent from the state. A state that uses the media to distribute lies is a mortal danger to freedom, and needs to be deposed, quickly.
Thirdly, the US wants to take control of the Earth's electromagnetic spectrum, allowing US war planners to dominate mobile phones, PDAs, the web, radio, TV and other forms of modern communication. That could see entire countries denied access to telecommunications at the flick of a switch by America.
Do I really even need to comment on this one? Combined with their planned propoganda campaign, they're looking to completely exclude targeted populations from recieving accurate and timely information. Again, if the true objective here was to combat terrorists by spreading democracy, this would obviously be massively counterproductive. But of course we all know that this is not about spreading democracy, or combating terrorism, any more than Iraq or Afghanistan were about freedom and democracy. It is about control.
- Have a permanent, voter verifiable, auditable, and recountable paper trail (a feature Diebold and ES&S both offer)
Yes, because as historical elections have shown, paper ballots are tamper-proof. No one has ever been known to rig or steal an election when a paper trail existed.
The fact is, a paper trail ensures nothing. It can be falsified, albeit with somewhat more difficulty than purely electronic records. Diebold's primary concern shouldn't be a random voter physically tampering with a machine, it should be the people charged with operating and safeguarding the machine. They have access, and as they're working an election, they almost certainly have strong personal political views that could motivate a "correction" of the results.
Guns are a tool, few would claim they offer liberation in and of themselves. A gun can be used to liberate, or oppress. Also, few people actually advocate a direct violent assault on the agents of the state. Simply begin refusing its orders, stop paying taxes, seek private services to replace public "entitlements", and wait for the government to come for you. Then you use your guns.
Since the PS3's drive will be backward compatible with existing DVD and CD media, I expect the initial batch of PS3 games will be delivered on standard DVDs. Current capacity requirements don't really demand anything more. By the time games do need the capacity of the Blu Ray discs, the standard will either have become reasonably priced, or the PS3 will require the same disc swapping as past systems, and a large part of its usefulness (and price) will have been wasted. Sony is taking quite a gamble by using a format whose standards are so new that their definition and implementation has delayed the launch of their new console so long. We'll have to wait to see if it will pay off, but personally I'm favoring the Blu Ray format based on its larger capacity and the fact that Sony has now announced that it will not downsample analog outputs (at least initially).
You have to remember that when any new technology comes out, it is ridiculously expensive. Only when it starts to see reasonably widespread adoption will the costs be reduced to an affordable level. Prior to that, the market is too small to make a profit at what most of us consider "reasonable" prices. Early adopters pay a high price for having the latest and greatest, the rest of us wait to see which standard become dominant, then wait for prices to fall. If either HD-DVD or Blue Ray are recieved well by consumers, prices for that particular format will begin to drop to resonable levels as manufacturers increase their output, and will eventually (within a few years) be comparable with current DVD+/-R prices.
Precisely. More than likely this will simply spell terrible sales for the PC version of Halo 2. Don't overestimate the power of massive corporations. Ultimately, consumers have to accept a product if it is to be successful, not have it shoved down their throats.
DoJ search requests: Google said no; Yahoo, AOL, MSN yes.
Update: Earlier today, I asked a Justice Department spokesperson which search engines other than Google received requests to provide search records. The answer: Yahoo, AOL, and MSN were also asked to supply search records information, and all complied. Google did not, and that is why the DoJ asked a federal judge on Wednesday to order the company to do so.
Another fact to consider as you sift through news coverage: Justice is not requesting this data in the course of a criminal investigation, but in order to defend its argument that the Child Online Protection Act is constitutionally sound.
Note in particular that the DoJ is now pursuing a subpoena now that Google refused their request. In other words, they don't yet have a subpoena (or didn't at the time, I haven't checked for new developments since then), they tried to get private data without one. And from Yahoo, MSN, and AOL, they succeeded. As the article points out, no trial is currently underway. All that happened is that the supreme court ordered the Shrub and his crew to return to a lower court to argue the constitutionality of the law. They have not yet initiated this case, and consequently have not yet been able to issue subpoenas for it.
I haven't studied Norway's economy, but Sweden is the example everyone always uses. They have an unstable economy. From 1991-93, they had a massive recession, with high unemployment and skyrocketing inflation. This was the result of Swedish government policies that kept up unsustainable employment rates on public works projects. They're doing it again, and I expect are due for another major recession within the next 5-10 years.
First, this is not a trial, where a subpoena would be relevant. If this was a trial, a subpoena could be issued if Google was shown to have data relevant to the trial. This is political maneuvering to justify a restrictive law. No subpoena is involved here.
Completely wrong. First of all, the constitution directs congress to commission the census for the purpose not only of determining congressional representation, but also for determing state populations that the federal government may levy taxes with regard to apportionment according to population (see Article I Section 2). It not longer does this, as (for example) the income tax is a direct tax levied without regard to apportionment according to population (thanks to the 13th amendment). So, disregarding all other relevant factors, the originally intended purpose of the census is no longer valid. Further, the constitution spcifies that the enumeration of the populace be carried out as directed by law. That means that the congress may direct the exact means by which the population be tallied, but in no way grants authority to collect additional data.
The only requirement in the constitution is an enumeration of the population for purposes of calculating the constituancy of the house, but there is very broad leniency given as to how to Census shall be put into action.
The constitution is quite specific in its limitation on federal power. A power not specifically granted to the federal government is a power it may not excercise. If it is granted authority to collect an enumeration of the populace, it may do exactly that, and nothing else.
That truly is the perfect response. If companies perform some highly objectionable act (usually involving collaborating with the government), the quickest way to punish them is not to petition for government fines and restrictions, but to simply switch to another goods or services provider.
Suppose they really did not provide any personally identifiable information. There is still the fact that the government has the clout to demand information from some of the nation's largest companies and they are willing to provide it without a warrant or a fight. It sets a very bad precident. Powers the government may use are powers that it may abuse.
Never underestimate the willingness of supposedly private enterprises to roll over and lap up potential political favors. Google need not have detected any deep, hidden conspiracy (the dangers of massive personal information databases in the hands of a political agency, and especially a political agency whose rulers change regularly, should be readily apparent). The other search engines quite possibly (and quite probably) rolled over in the hopes of obtaining future favorable political actions.
This is another problem with government power. In a market economy, consumers would have the opportunity to reject and punish this kind of behavior by switching to another company's services (in this case, Google). In America's "mixed economy" (a cute term for bugeoning socialism), the government can be used to leverage companies to act in ways that the market would normally reject. This can be done through promises of future political compensation or potential tax breaks. Even if one believes that socialism is somehow a viable economic system (it's not, but that's another discussion), one cannot deny the potential for corruption that exists in such a system.
I expect that Google will hold its ground. Consider that IT-related scandals (such as Sony's DRM fiasco) are gaining more attention in the mainstream media. If a story like this makes it to the New York Times or CNN (a likely event), you can expect that internet users will respond appropriately and choose their search engine accordingly. The importance of the good PR this can generate in a country that still puts up a show of caring about civil liberties should not be underestimated.
You miss the point entirely. First of all, the US Census bureau is constitutionally entitled to collect statistical information regarding the number of people in each state. It has no authority to collect any other data, and regardless of what any court might rule, without an ammendment, the constitution does not authorize it to collect any other data. For those unfamiliar, the constitution actually states that the federal government may not perform any functions not specifically granted to it by the constitution, not that any government agency actually obeys the constitution. A perfect example of how the political state naturally devolves to restrictive tyranny, regardless of it's founders' intent.
That is, of course, entirely beside the point. Constitutional restrictions on the government, both state and federal, were put in place because government powers, no matter how seemingly innocuous they appear to the general public (such as, for example, demanding search logs from a private enterprise), are prone to abuse to the point that, in the long run, abuse is the rule rather than the exception. That is specifically why the federal government was so severely restricted when it was actually bound by the constitution (no government can be restricted to respecting civil liberties in the long run, as all forms of government are subject to corruption, but that is an entirely different discussion).
Dell has been moving to get a piece of the gaming segment recently. Hardcore gaming machines is one area where AMD is huge. They generally outperform comparible (in performance, not price, Intel being more expensive) Intel chips in gaming benchmarks, and most serious gamers know it. So it would make a good deal of sense for Dell to start offering their chips. That's the only way they could compete in the gaming market with the specialty companies like Alienware.
FINALLY! Someone else on/. presenting rational economic debate. And I thought I was the only one. No one seems to question the validity of the idea that the rich somehow owe the poor a free (or discounted) ride. WHY should the richest pay a massively higher percentage of taxes than the poor? Hmmm? I'm waiting...
The only justifications I've ever heard offered for such a concept relied on an assumed refutation of the validity of private property rights. The only way to justify the rich being forced to pay more is if the rich obtained their wealth at the expense of the poor. After all, one could only "owe" society a debt for one's success if it was only through the great benevolence of "society" that one was allowed to profit. One such justification is a derivative of Marx's exploitation theory. This is the warped idea that, in a natural state of affairs, all proceeds from the sale of a product are properly the wages of the workers who produced them, and therefore any profits are akin to theft from the workers. This idea (and Marxism in general) is very easy to refute. Consider: in the 'natural', or original state of things, if someone wished to bring a product or service into existence, they would make it themselves, and dispose of it as they saw fit, keeping any proceeds as their own. Marxists argue that said proceeds are 'wages', and view modern division of labor as a process whereby unproductive individuals place themselves in positions of power over this worker, and usurp his right to his wages by claiming 'profits'. This view is ludicrous. In reality, Marx failed to understand the semantics of his claims and simply reversed the logical process. Profits, by definition, are the proceeds of a transaction, minus any input costs. Wages, by definition, are an agreed-upon sum to be paid to a worker by an employer for undertaking an agreed-upon unit of work. Wages, therefore, are an input cost, and thus wages are a deduction from profits, not the other way around. Wages exist by mutual agreement between employer and worker. Without this mutual agreement, there are no wages, and there are no employees, only indivduals earning profits. When a self-employed worker reaches a point at which they desire or require assistance in their task, they are free to hire a worker. They name a price they are willing to pay, and the potential employee is free to accept or decline. This process of requiring voluntary consent is the hallmark of capitalism. At this point, our worker is now an employer. He did not exploit anyone, he did not steal from anyone, and he owes his employee only what he agreed to pay him, regardless of the proceeds from sales of the product. Another thing Marxists like to overlook is the fact that, without our capitalist employer, the employee would not have had the materials or facilities to produce his product. When Marxists claim that an employee rightfully owns the product of his labor, they forget (or conveniently overlook) the fact that the facilities to produce that product had to come from somewhere. The raw materials had to come from somewhere. Without these profit-earning capitalists, the employee would have no raw materials with which to produce the good to which he is supposedly entitled.
Even ignoring all that, one has to understand that advancements in this nation's overall economic productivity don't come from the poor. They result from reinvestment of wealth. The more you tax the rich, the less they have to reinvest to expand their business, or invest in the stock market, thereby providing more capital to other companies to expand their business. Government intervention in a free market will result in economic disarray and inefficiencies, which result in lower employment, higher prices, devalued currency, etc.
Now, we're dealing with something even more appaling: the government taking money from the wealthy to give to the poor to resolve a problem that is the creation of the government in the first place
Slashdot Mirror
As an American citizen, let me be the first to tell you that you are not alone in finding this abhorent, for many reasons. First, there's the fact that it is hypocritical to claim to be founding a stable democratic state (the current popular excuse for hegemonic wars of aggression) which respects the natural rights and liberties of its citizens (something that no state can do in the long run, democratic or otherwise), while subverting one of the most important institutions in a free society, the press and communications channels. Second, as an American citizen, I have no doubt that this policy would be abused (as if its very existence were not abusive of state power) domestically as well as internationally. Never evaluate a government proposal on the basis of the good it will impart if properly administered, but rather by the harm it will inflict when abused.
It is important to disassociate political states and their actions from the individuals the state opresses and dominates. There are many Americans who do not support or condone the actions of the state, and many others (myself included) who do not recognize even the legitimacy of the state's very existence.
When was the last time America actually fought a war out of self-defense? Most reasonable people (i.e. not proponents of the "War on Terror") say that it was WWII (although I argue against this, since there is ample evidence that Roosevelt was aware of a potential Japanese attack in the Pacific, and maneuvered the Pacific fleet into an indefensible position and ignored the advice of the admiral in charge of the fleet to move it, but that's another debate entirely). All America's subsequent wars have unquestionably been wars of aggression, in which America has played the role of foreign invader. Also note that when I speak of "America's" wars, I refer to America in terms of its political state, not the populace. I for one neither condone nor support the actions of the state in any nation, and do not view a political state as a representative of individual citizens.
Oh, for some mod points:). The type of proposed behavior (distributing lies, shutting down civilian communications channels to inspire FUD, etc.) is precisely the type of behavior ascribed to terrorists (plus, of course, blowing things up, and we all know how good the state is at that task).
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if we soon see legislation requiring major networking manufacturers to implement backdoors in their equipment, and requiring them to provide access to said backdoors to the DoD. It would not be without precedent for them to try. I'm sure /.ers remember the outcry several years ago over the FBI's attempt to gain backdoor access to all encryption schemes via legislation. While it may be political bullshit to say that "Everything changed after 9/11", the one thing that did change fairly dramatically is the state. I wouldn't be surprised if such legislation is both introduced and passed into law.
Oversight? You're kidding, right? Oversight provided by corrupt and/or corruptable officials of the very same state engaging in the activity to be overseen is the best definition of the fox guarding the henhouse. Any information that actually filters down to the public is first edited (for "National security reasons", of course) and classified. Even when oversight is in place, we are far, far from being guaranteed access to accurate information. Besides which, you forget that the vast majority of the state's activities, overseen or not, are unconstitutional (don't forget, constitutionally, if the feds aren't specifically tasked with a given activity, it is forbidden to them). What's the point of assigning oversight committees to verify that illegal activities are carried out in the properly illegal manner? Would you like to see an oversight committee in charge of monitoring the illegal and immoral military detention of civilians without charges? How do you oversee such an activity? The usual standard is to verify that the actions of the state conform to the law, but when the law itself is both immoral and unconstitutional, what purpose is served by oversight?
From TFA:
Secondly, psychological military operations, known as psyops, will be at the heart of future military action. Psyops involve using any media - from newspapers, books and posters to the internet, music, Blackberrys and personal digital assistants (PDAs) - to put out black propaganda to assist government and military strategy. Psyops involve the dissemination of lies and fake stories and releasing information to wrong-foot the enemy.
Wow, now that's a good idea. I sure don't see anything immoral here, and certainly no potential for abuse. After all, the only way to have a stable democratic state which protects its citizens' freedoms is if that state controls the media and uses it to knowingly distribute lies and propoganda. The founding fathers knew this, which was why when they wrote the first amendment, they... Oh wait, that's right. The media is supposed to be independent from the state. A state that uses the media to distribute lies is a mortal danger to freedom, and needs to be deposed, quickly.
Thirdly, the US wants to take control of the Earth's electromagnetic spectrum, allowing US war planners to dominate mobile phones, PDAs, the web, radio, TV and other forms of modern communication. That could see entire countries denied access to telecommunications at the flick of a switch by America.
Do I really even need to comment on this one? Combined with their planned propoganda campaign, they're looking to completely exclude targeted populations from recieving accurate and timely information. Again, if the true objective here was to combat terrorists by spreading democracy, this would obviously be massively counterproductive. But of course we all know that this is not about spreading democracy, or combating terrorism, any more than Iraq or Afghanistan were about freedom and democracy. It is about control.
- Have a permanent, voter verifiable, auditable, and recountable paper trail (a feature Diebold and ES&S both offer)
Yes, because as historical elections have shown, paper ballots are tamper-proof. No one has ever been known to rig or steal an election when a paper trail existed.
The fact is, a paper trail ensures nothing. It can be falsified, albeit with somewhat more difficulty than purely electronic records. Diebold's primary concern shouldn't be a random voter physically tampering with a machine, it should be the people charged with operating and safeguarding the machine. They have access, and as they're working an election, they almost certainly have strong personal political views that could motivate a "correction" of the results.
Guns are a tool, few would claim they offer liberation in and of themselves. A gun can be used to liberate, or oppress. Also, few people actually advocate a direct violent assault on the agents of the state. Simply begin refusing its orders, stop paying taxes, seek private services to replace public "entitlements", and wait for the government to come for you. Then you use your guns.
You BITE his shiny metal ass!
Since the PS3's drive will be backward compatible with existing DVD and CD media, I expect the initial batch of PS3 games will be delivered on standard DVDs. Current capacity requirements don't really demand anything more. By the time games do need the capacity of the Blu Ray discs, the standard will either have become reasonably priced, or the PS3 will require the same disc swapping as past systems, and a large part of its usefulness (and price) will have been wasted. Sony is taking quite a gamble by using a format whose standards are so new that their definition and implementation has delayed the launch of their new console so long. We'll have to wait to see if it will pay off, but personally I'm favoring the Blu Ray format based on its larger capacity and the fact that Sony has now announced that it will not downsample analog outputs (at least initially).
You have to remember that when any new technology comes out, it is ridiculously expensive. Only when it starts to see reasonably widespread adoption will the costs be reduced to an affordable level. Prior to that, the market is too small to make a profit at what most of us consider "reasonable" prices. Early adopters pay a high price for having the latest and greatest, the rest of us wait to see which standard become dominant, then wait for prices to fall. If either HD-DVD or Blue Ray are recieved well by consumers, prices for that particular format will begin to drop to resonable levels as manufacturers increase their output, and will eventually (within a few years) be comparable with current DVD+/-R prices.
Precisely. More than likely this will simply spell terrible sales for the PC version of Halo 2. Don't overestimate the power of massive corporations. Ultimately, consumers have to accept a product if it is to be successful, not have it shoved down their throats.
From TFA:
DoJ search requests: Google said no; Yahoo, AOL, MSN yes. Update: Earlier today, I asked a Justice Department spokesperson which search engines other than Google received requests to provide search records. The answer: Yahoo, AOL, and MSN were also asked to supply search records information, and all complied. Google did not, and that is why the DoJ asked a federal judge on Wednesday to order the company to do so. Another fact to consider as you sift through news coverage: Justice is not requesting this data in the course of a criminal investigation, but in order to defend its argument that the Child Online Protection Act is constitutionally sound.
Note in particular that the DoJ is now pursuing a subpoena now that Google refused their request. In other words, they don't yet have a subpoena (or didn't at the time, I haven't checked for new developments since then), they tried to get private data without one. And from Yahoo, MSN, and AOL, they succeeded. As the article points out, no trial is currently underway. All that happened is that the supreme court ordered the Shrub and his crew to return to a lower court to argue the constitutionality of the law. They have not yet initiated this case, and consequently have not yet been able to issue subpoenas for it.
I haven't studied Norway's economy, but Sweden is the example everyone always uses. They have an unstable economy. From 1991-93, they had a massive recession, with high unemployment and skyrocketing inflation. This was the result of Swedish government policies that kept up unsustainable employment rates on public works projects. They're doing it again, and I expect are due for another major recession within the next 5-10 years.
First, this is not a trial, where a subpoena would be relevant. If this was a trial, a subpoena could be issued if Google was shown to have data relevant to the trial. This is political maneuvering to justify a restrictive law. No subpoena is involved here.
Completely wrong. First of all, the constitution directs congress to commission the census for the purpose not only of determining congressional representation, but also for determing state populations that the federal government may levy taxes with regard to apportionment according to population (see Article I Section 2). It not longer does this, as (for example) the income tax is a direct tax levied without regard to apportionment according to population (thanks to the 13th amendment). So, disregarding all other relevant factors, the originally intended purpose of the census is no longer valid. Further, the constitution spcifies that the enumeration of the populace be carried out as directed by law. That means that the congress may direct the exact means by which the population be tallied, but in no way grants authority to collect additional data.
The only requirement in the constitution is an enumeration of the population for purposes of calculating the constituancy of the house, but there is very broad leniency given as to how to Census shall be put into action.
The constitution is quite specific in its limitation on federal power. A power not specifically granted to the federal government is a power it may not excercise. If it is granted authority to collect an enumeration of the populace, it may do exactly that, and nothing else.
That truly is the perfect response. If companies perform some highly objectionable act (usually involving collaborating with the government), the quickest way to punish them is not to petition for government fines and restrictions, but to simply switch to another goods or services provider.
Suppose they really did not provide any personally identifiable information. There is still the fact that the government has the clout to demand information from some of the nation's largest companies and they are willing to provide it without a warrant or a fight. It sets a very bad precident. Powers the government may use are powers that it may abuse.
What kind of horrible talk is that? Your neighbors are "terrorists". The Nazis killed "Jews".
Never underestimate the willingness of supposedly private enterprises to roll over and lap up potential political favors. Google need not have detected any deep, hidden conspiracy (the dangers of massive personal information databases in the hands of a political agency, and especially a political agency whose rulers change regularly, should be readily apparent). The other search engines quite possibly (and quite probably) rolled over in the hopes of obtaining future favorable political actions.
This is another problem with government power. In a market economy, consumers would have the opportunity to reject and punish this kind of behavior by switching to another company's services (in this case, Google). In America's "mixed economy" (a cute term for bugeoning socialism), the government can be used to leverage companies to act in ways that the market would normally reject. This can be done through promises of future political compensation or potential tax breaks. Even if one believes that socialism is somehow a viable economic system (it's not, but that's another discussion), one cannot deny the potential for corruption that exists in such a system.
I expect that Google will hold its ground. Consider that IT-related scandals (such as Sony's DRM fiasco) are gaining more attention in the mainstream media. If a story like this makes it to the New York Times or CNN (a likely event), you can expect that internet users will respond appropriately and choose their search engine accordingly. The importance of the good PR this can generate in a country that still puts up a show of caring about civil liberties should not be underestimated.
You miss the point entirely. First of all, the US Census bureau is constitutionally entitled to collect statistical information regarding the number of people in each state. It has no authority to collect any other data, and regardless of what any court might rule, without an ammendment, the constitution does not authorize it to collect any other data. For those unfamiliar, the constitution actually states that the federal government may not perform any functions not specifically granted to it by the constitution, not that any government agency actually obeys the constitution. A perfect example of how the political state naturally devolves to restrictive tyranny, regardless of it's founders' intent.
That is, of course, entirely beside the point. Constitutional restrictions on the government, both state and federal, were put in place because government powers, no matter how seemingly innocuous they appear to the general public (such as, for example, demanding search logs from a private enterprise), are prone to abuse to the point that, in the long run, abuse is the rule rather than the exception. That is specifically why the federal government was so severely restricted when it was actually bound by the constitution (no government can be restricted to respecting civil liberties in the long run, as all forms of government are subject to corruption, but that is an entirely different discussion).
Dell has been moving to get a piece of the gaming segment recently. Hardcore gaming machines is one area where AMD is huge. They generally outperform comparible (in performance, not price, Intel being more expensive) Intel chips in gaming benchmarks, and most serious gamers know it. So it would make a good deal of sense for Dell to start offering their chips. That's the only way they could compete in the gaming market with the specialty companies like Alienware.
FINALLY! Someone else on /. presenting rational economic debate. And I thought I was the only one. No one seems to question the validity of the idea that the rich somehow owe the poor a free (or discounted) ride. WHY should the richest pay a massively higher percentage of taxes than the poor? Hmmm? I'm waiting...
The only justifications I've ever heard offered for such a concept relied on an assumed refutation of the validity of private property rights. The only way to justify the rich being forced to pay more is if the rich obtained their wealth at the expense of the poor. After all, one could only "owe" society a debt for one's success if it was only through the great benevolence of "society" that one was allowed to profit. One such justification is a derivative of Marx's exploitation theory. This is the warped idea that, in a natural state of affairs, all proceeds from the sale of a product are properly the wages of the workers who produced them, and therefore any profits are akin to theft from the workers. This idea (and Marxism in general) is very easy to refute. Consider: in the 'natural', or original state of things, if someone wished to bring a product or service into existence, they would make it themselves, and dispose of it as they saw fit, keeping any proceeds as their own. Marxists argue that said proceeds are 'wages', and view modern division of labor as a process whereby unproductive individuals place themselves in positions of power over this worker, and usurp his right to his wages by claiming 'profits'. This view is ludicrous. In reality, Marx failed to understand the semantics of his claims and simply reversed the logical process. Profits, by definition, are the proceeds of a transaction, minus any input costs. Wages, by definition, are an agreed-upon sum to be paid to a worker by an employer for undertaking an agreed-upon unit of work. Wages, therefore, are an input cost, and thus wages are a deduction from profits, not the other way around. Wages exist by mutual agreement between employer and worker. Without this mutual agreement, there are no wages, and there are no employees, only indivduals earning profits. When a self-employed worker reaches a point at which they desire or require assistance in their task, they are free to hire a worker. They name a price they are willing to pay, and the potential employee is free to accept or decline. This process of requiring voluntary consent is the hallmark of capitalism. At this point, our worker is now an employer. He did not exploit anyone, he did not steal from anyone, and he owes his employee only what he agreed to pay him, regardless of the proceeds from sales of the product. Another thing Marxists like to overlook is the fact that, without our capitalist employer, the employee would not have had the materials or facilities to produce his product. When Marxists claim that an employee rightfully owns the product of his labor, they forget (or conveniently overlook) the fact that the facilities to produce that product had to come from somewhere. The raw materials had to come from somewhere. Without these profit-earning capitalists, the employee would have no raw materials with which to produce the good to which he is supposedly entitled.
Even ignoring all that, one has to understand that advancements in this nation's overall economic productivity don't come from the poor. They result from reinvestment of wealth. The more you tax the rich, the less they have to reinvest to expand their business, or invest in the stock market, thereby providing more capital to other companies to expand their business. Government intervention in a free market will result in economic disarray and inefficiencies, which result in lower employment, higher prices, devalued currency, etc.
Now, we're dealing with something even more appaling: the government taking money from the wealthy to give to the poor to resolve a problem that is the creation of the government in the first place