P.A. semi doesn't actually manufacture chips either. They are a "fabless" company, so the comparison to ARM is completely appropriate to the extent that the product lines overlap.
"The Feds will try to get information without a warrant and the conflict will ensue."
I've been waiting to see this type of conflict. I'm surprised that it would happen in New Jersey, but many states have their own Constitutions which define the Rights of their citizens even more broadly than what's in the U.S. Constitution. IANAL, but if I have certain Rights under my State Constitution, the fact that the same Rights are not specifically elaborated in the U.S. Constitution shouldn't mean that agents of the Federal government are free to trample on them.
It would be great if New Jersey had some guts and empowered the NJ State Police to arrest Federal agents for the crime of illegally spying on NJ residents.
" . ..it seems so incredibly unlikely that one day a cell just "plopped" into existence"
What if God did that?
Just because science casts extreme doubt upon the literal interpretation of the Old Testament, doesn't mean that it's fundamentally incompatible with the concept of $deity.
"People get very confused about free will, because they believe it must be somehow seperated from the brain. But the brain _is_ the mind, and vice versa."
That's rather presumptuous of you. I don't think it's a point of "confusion". The majority of people dispute (directly or implicitly) the mind-brain identity theory. Both Christianity and Islam have some concept of an "afterlife" and once you start talking about souls and spirits that transcend the physical body, the "free will" discussion is completely philosophical.
I suppose that "sympathizing with an oppressed minority" is generally a good thing. However, making a complete ass out of yourself by doing something as obnoxious and futile as physically impeding the running of the Olympic torch isn't the best way to express your sympathy.
"And don't forget the Patriot Act! I remember well the NRA marching against that particular piece of legislation!"
And don't forget about what NRA members and supporters did following Clinton's 1994 gun ban! Of the people who voted for that particular travesty AND sought reelection, 33 were defeated in 1994, and another 6 went down in 1996. The NRA has enough of a battle trying to protect the Right to keep and bear arms without being the sole defender of The Constitution.
"I have written my congressman/senators for all sorts of Constitution and Bill of Rights concerns but have gotten no satisfaction in return but "Thank you for your letter. I always . .."
I can understand that frustrastion. Back when the Feds were raiding the search engine companies to acquire their complete search records in the name of stopping child pornography, I even got a reply from one of my elected officials that agreed with the exact opposite stance of my letter. I basically told him that "child porn" was a BS excuse to infringe on our civil liberties. The response I got back was:
"I share your concerns about child pornography on the internet . .."
The frustration of that experience gave me an idea. Next time I feel like writing to one of my elected officials, I'm going to pick some random person out of the phonebook and "CC" them on the letter. For example:
--- Dear fellow citizen,
Having concluded that writing to Rep./Sen. X is a complete waste of time, I'd like to bring your attention to the following issue which has dire implications for our civil liberties . . . ---
What do you think?
Writing to the elected official does ZERO amount of good, so I figure that sending a letter to someone who is actually in a position to share my concerns (an ordinary citizen) will have an effect that's greater than or equal to zero.
"You have the rest of your life to gain technical skills, which in CS are constantly changing . .."
You also have the rest of your life to read Nietzsche, Shakespeare and Plato. I agree about the communication skills, but without a fundamental skill set(programming and problem solving), an employer isn't going to give a damn about what you know of English literature. Technical skills don't have to be "narrow", and CS and Engineering don't somehow turn you into a person who isn't thoughtful and articulate.
I'd recommend that any person pursuing a technical career find a local club of "Toastmasters International" to sharpen their communication skills. Then, they should go to the bookstore at a liberal arts school and compile a list of books they should read to be "well rounded". Total cost savings ~$78,000.
Liberal arts schools are great if you want to use college as a stepping stone to medical school, law school, or a PhD program. If you want to teach at the high school level or below, it's a good choice as well. Liberal arts schools are also great if your only mission is to learn enough so that you don't squander the trust fund $$$ or inheritance you get from your rich parents.
If you want to go to school for 4 years and then get a real job, liberal arts is probably not the way to go.
No, but based on the medium being used for the transmission, and the frequency required, the data can be encoded in such a way as to ensure that the vast majority of the information is accurately received. For example, there's plenty of random noise in space, but we can still get clean transmissions from Mars and Jupiter.
Check out "The War of the Flea" by Robert Taber. You might swallow your laughter if you had a clue about guerilla warfare.
An armed insurgency wouldn't require that the rebels march on the Capitol and take it over by force. The insurgents would only need to gradually take control of their local geographies and prevent the oppressive government from exerting its influence over the area.
"[Clinton] paid off not only Reagan and George I's debts, but built the largest surplus reserve in U.S. history"
LOL.
A few things
1. I don't think you understand debt vs. deficit 2. The Clinton surplus is an absolute MYTH 3. Even if you believe in the imaginary surplus, the Republicans were in control of Congress (you know, the people who hold the purse strings?) and when it allegedly happened, their party leaders claimed credit for the miracle too
The budget DEFICIT got smaller when Clinton was in office, but the DEBT continued to accumulate. The reason they were able to get away with this LIE about a "surplus" was that there were a couple of years where government as a whole took in more than it paid out. However, if you omit the fact that Clinton et. al. borrowed/stole $650 BILLION from Social Security (recall, that's supposed to be entirely separate from the budget), you'll see that there was still a DEFICIT throughout the Clinton years. In other words "Surplus my ass".
I refer you to the Statistical Abstract of The United States 2004(I have it in PDF) Section 9 pages 461-491. Look at non-SS revenue vs, expenditure. Never does the former exceed the latter. Any more recent SAB will show the same.
If you have real evidence to the contrary, I'll gladly examine it.
"Is Google being sincere about these issues, or is this effort mostly paying lip service to its 'do no evil' policy and an attempt to head off future clashes with policy makers?"
They realize, just as Microsoft eventually did, that if you're a large profitable corporation that you better be sending your protection money to Washington D.C. Otherwise, armies of government lawyers and bureaucrats will be working to make life hell for you.
"You say "Congress won't defend the constitution or the rule of law", but it's Congress's job to create the rule of law, and it does that."
The point is that Congress is also BOUND BY laws. Just because Congress is empowered to create and pass legislation doesn't mean that they are somehow immune from existing laws. Furthermore, their powers are specifically elaborated in The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. If they were defending the Constitution, they would have, for instance stopped a renegade executive from stripping them of their exclusive power to declare war. They'd also be holding hearings into why the executive branch is spying on U.S. citizens without probably cause, etc. etc.
"You say the "Supreme Court has been compromised", and yet the purpose of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional questions (among other things), and it's doing that."
Perhaps "subverted" would have been a better description? Yes, they're making rulings all the time, but if their rulings are no longer in line with the Constitution, then they are failing to uphold the law and should be removed from their positions . . . but now we're back to Congress again.
"The real j[o]b problem in this country is . . . that our corporations have been shipping all our [jobs] overseas."
You can't blame a corporation, whose sole purpose is to maximize profits for the shareholders, for taking advantage of a regulatory environment that encourages overseas investment. Nor can you blame them for engaging in legal lobbying practices in an effort to pass legislation that's in their best interests. The problem is the Republicans and Democrats who continue to create government policy that's contrary to the best interests of the vast majority of the population.
Or, perhaps you can go a step further and blame the vast majority of the population for voting these politicians into office, but I'd tend to cut the voters a little bit of slack considering the circumstances.
Re:Anti-vote for The Player of Games...
on
Matter
·
· Score: 1
Allright . . . where do you and MT want to meet me so we can have a good face-to-face conflict about this?:-)
I just don't see what people see in "The Player of Games". It explores some very thought provoking concepts, but the plot ground to a halt shortly after the protagonist's incursion into the alien environment. I wasn't even able to finish it. The marginal stimulations experienced as grand adventure by a character that has pursued an otherwise mundane existence is a good "idea", but makes for extremely dull reading. What am I missing?
We do agree that diving into "Excession" as an intro to Banks would be a tragic mistake. It is the best Banks novel of those that I have read, and one of my favorites of all-time, so I highly recommend it, but I think "Consider Phlebas" should be bare minimum background reading.
As an aside, does anyone but me hate those "Culture" assholes? I haven't discussed this with anyone. If that's the whole point of the series, I think he's kept it going far too long, so I'm somewhat doubtful that my opinion is shared. The earth counterparts of the citizens in "The Culture" would be spolied rich kids with trust funds attending Ivy-league colleges. I long for the day when some insurgency genetically engineers a few viruses and computer viruses to wipe those bastards out.
". ..the issue is that these folks were simply taking the parts, or the entire body, without the permission of either the deceased or their families . . "
I'm sure they asked the deceased, and hearing no objection, decided to sell the body parts.
Think of the issues in logistical terms. In a paper-ballot system, tampering with a ballot box in such a way as to make any appreciable difference in the vote result would require tools, materials, physical access and a certain amount of time and effort within a relatively small window of opportunity.
With an electronic system, if the state isn't allowed to run simulated elections or do detailed inspection of the voting machine and software, the window of opportunity for tampering is huge, the potential for altering the result is high, and the risk of detection is minimal.
"When our government is changed to function by polling the mob, then maybe polls will mean something."
RTF[S|A]. The story in Time is making the argument that the American people "don't care" about loss of privacy and erosion of their civil liberties. Furthermore, the Time article is making claims that polls have consistently supported that conclusion. Using polls to refute assertions about polling data seems like a logical thing to do. Apart from simply fabricating tinformation and making unsubstantiated claims as Time did, how else would you go about assessing how the American people stand on this issue?
"it forces candidates to focus their campaigns on states with a lot of votes."
That seems contrary to the rest of your your argument? The electoral college compels candidates to lessen their focus on states with a lot of votes.
"But those who just happen to live in large states get screwed"
People in high population states are not NEARLY as bad off now as the people in less populous states would be if we abolished the electoral college and went with a pure popular vote for President. If that were the case, candidates wouldn't even bother with more than the top 20 most populous states. 2-3 percentage points worth of the popular vote in CA could wipe out 100% of the votes in a lot of small states. I support the Electoral College system because I don't want public policy catering exclusively to people from large urban areas.
"Yes, the 9-11 Commission was actually very informative and thorough . .."
I'd hardly use those adjectives to describe it, considering the fact that they "forgot" all about the 47-story skyscraper (WTC7) that collapsed on the day of the attacks WITHOUT being hit by an aircraft . . . among other things.
"So anyone should be able to walk off the street and present evidence in a court case while claiming they are an expert at gathering said evidence?"
IANAL, but I think that if a person is called upon to testify by the prosecution, defense, or one of the parties in a civil case, then "yes". You don't have to be an "expert" in gathering evidence to be able to present evidence and observations. Experts are there to evaluate and interpret. If the evidence has been obtained by illegal means as the article is suggesting, there are bound to be other implications.
Slashdot Mirror
P.A. semi doesn't actually manufacture chips either. They are a "fabless" company, so the comparison to ARM is completely appropriate to the extent that the product lines overlap.
And how do you know you're not really a replicant writing a modified compiler to compile the 'C' compiler to insert the backdoor when it compiles?
"The Feds will try to get information without a warrant and the conflict will ensue."
I've been waiting to see this type of conflict. I'm surprised that it would happen in New Jersey, but many states have their own Constitutions which define the Rights of their citizens even more broadly than what's in the U.S. Constitution. IANAL, but if I have certain Rights under my State Constitution, the fact that the same Rights are not specifically elaborated in the U.S. Constitution shouldn't mean that agents of the Federal government are free to trample on them.
It would be great if New Jersey had some guts and empowered the NJ State Police to arrest Federal agents for the crime of illegally spying on NJ residents.
" . . .it seems so incredibly unlikely that one day a cell just "plopped" into existence"
What if God did that?
Just because science casts extreme doubt upon the literal interpretation of the Old Testament, doesn't mean that it's fundamentally incompatible with the concept of $deity.
"People get very confused about free will, because they believe it must be somehow seperated from the brain. But the brain _is_ the mind, and vice versa."
That's rather presumptuous of you. I don't think it's a point of "confusion". The majority of people dispute (directly or implicitly) the mind-brain identity theory. Both Christianity and Islam have some concept of an "afterlife" and once you start talking about souls and spirits that transcend the physical body, the "free will" discussion is completely philosophical.
I suppose that "sympathizing with an oppressed minority" is generally a good thing. However, making a complete ass out of yourself by doing something as obnoxious and futile as physically impeding the running of the Olympic torch isn't the best way to express your sympathy.
"And don't forget the Patriot Act! I remember well the NRA marching against that particular piece of legislation!"
And don't forget about what NRA members and supporters did following Clinton's 1994 gun ban! Of the people who voted for that particular travesty AND sought reelection, 33 were defeated in 1994, and another 6 went down in 1996. The NRA has enough of a battle trying to protect the Right to keep and bear arms without being the sole defender of The Constitution.
"I have written my congressman/senators for all sorts of Constitution and Bill of Rights concerns but have gotten no satisfaction in return but "Thank you for your letter. I always . . ."
."
I can understand that frustrastion. Back when the Feds were raiding the search engine companies to acquire their complete search records in the name of stopping child pornography, I even got a reply from one of my elected officials that agreed with the exact opposite stance of my letter. I basically told him that "child porn" was a BS excuse to infringe on our civil liberties. The response I got back was:
"I share your concerns about child pornography on the internet . .
The frustration of that experience gave me an idea. Next time I feel like writing to one of my elected officials, I'm going to pick some random person out of the phonebook and "CC" them on the letter. For example:
---
Dear fellow citizen,
Having concluded that writing to Rep./Sen. X is a complete waste of time, I'd like to bring your attention to the following issue which has dire implications for our civil liberties . . .
---
What do you think?
Writing to the elected official does ZERO amount of good, so I figure that sending a letter to someone who is actually in a position to share my concerns (an ordinary citizen) will have an effect that's greater than or equal to zero.
"You have the rest of your life to gain technical skills, which in CS are constantly changing . . ."
You also have the rest of your life to read Nietzsche, Shakespeare and Plato. I agree about the communication skills, but without a fundamental skill set(programming and problem solving), an employer isn't going to give a damn about what you know of English literature. Technical skills don't have to be "narrow", and CS and Engineering don't somehow turn you into a person who isn't thoughtful and articulate.
I'd recommend that any person pursuing a technical career find a local club of "Toastmasters International" to sharpen their communication skills. Then, they should go to the bookstore at a liberal arts school and compile a list of books they should read to be "well rounded". Total cost savings ~$78,000.
Liberal arts schools are great if you want to use college as a stepping stone to medical school, law school, or a PhD program. If you want to teach at the high school level or below, it's a good choice as well. Liberal arts schools are also great if your only mission is to learn enough so that you don't squander the trust fund $$$ or inheritance you get from your rich parents.
If you want to go to school for 4 years and then get a real job, liberal arts is probably not the way to go.
"What nonsense. Digital is not fool-proof."
No, but based on the medium being used for the transmission, and the frequency required, the data can be encoded in such a way as to ensure that the vast majority of the information is accurately received. For example, there's plenty of random noise in space, but we can still get clean transmissions from Mars and Jupiter.
Check out "The War of the Flea" by Robert Taber. You might swallow your laughter if you had a clue about guerilla warfare.
An armed insurgency wouldn't require that the rebels march on the Capitol and take it over by force. The insurgents would only need to gradually take control of their local geographies and prevent the oppressive government from exerting its influence over the area.
"[Clinton] paid off not only Reagan and George I's debts, but built the largest surplus reserve in U.S. history"
LOL.
A few things
1. I don't think you understand debt vs. deficit
2. The Clinton surplus is an absolute MYTH
3. Even if you believe in the imaginary surplus, the Republicans were in control of Congress (you know, the people who hold the purse strings?) and when it allegedly happened, their party leaders claimed credit for the miracle too
The budget DEFICIT got smaller when Clinton was in office, but the DEBT continued to accumulate. The reason they were able to get away with this LIE about a "surplus" was that there were a couple of years where government as a whole took in more than it paid out. However, if you omit the fact that Clinton et. al. borrowed/stole $650 BILLION from Social Security (recall, that's supposed to be entirely separate from the budget), you'll see that there was still a DEFICIT throughout the Clinton years. In other words "Surplus my ass".
I refer you to the Statistical Abstract of The United States 2004(I have it in PDF) Section 9 pages 461-491. Look at non-SS revenue vs, expenditure. Never does the former exceed the latter. Any more recent SAB will show the same.
If you have real evidence to the contrary, I'll gladly examine it.
"Is Google being sincere about these issues, or is this effort mostly paying lip service to its 'do no evil' policy and an attempt to head off future clashes with policy makers?"
They realize, just as Microsoft eventually did, that if you're a large profitable corporation that you better be sending your protection money to Washington D.C. Otherwise, armies of government lawyers and bureaucrats will be working to make life hell for you.
"You say "Congress won't defend the constitution or the rule of law", but it's Congress's job to create the rule of law, and it does that."
The point is that Congress is also BOUND BY laws. Just because Congress is empowered to create and pass legislation doesn't mean that they are somehow immune from existing laws. Furthermore, their powers are specifically elaborated in The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. If they were defending the Constitution, they would have, for instance stopped a renegade executive from stripping them of their exclusive power to declare war. They'd also be holding hearings into why the executive branch is spying on U.S. citizens without probably cause, etc. etc.
"You say the "Supreme Court has been compromised", and yet the purpose of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional questions (among other things), and it's doing that."
Perhaps "subverted" would have been a better description? Yes, they're making rulings all the time, but if their rulings are no longer in line with the Constitution, then they are failing to uphold the law and should be removed from their positions . . . but now we're back to Congress again.
"The real j[o]b problem in this country is . . . that our corporations have been shipping all our [jobs] overseas."
You can't blame a corporation, whose sole purpose is to maximize profits for the shareholders, for taking advantage of a regulatory environment that encourages overseas investment. Nor can you blame them for engaging in legal lobbying practices in an effort to pass legislation that's in their best interests. The problem is the Republicans and Democrats who continue to create government policy that's contrary to the best interests of the vast majority of the population.
Or, perhaps you can go a step further and blame the vast majority of the population for voting these politicians into office, but I'd tend to cut the voters a little bit of slack considering the circumstances.
Allright . . . where do you and MT want to meet me so we can have a good face-to-face conflict about this? :-)
I just don't see what people see in "The Player of Games". It explores some very thought provoking concepts, but the plot ground to a halt shortly after the protagonist's incursion into the alien environment. I wasn't even able to finish it. The marginal stimulations experienced as grand adventure by a character that has pursued an otherwise mundane existence is a good "idea", but makes for extremely dull reading. What am I missing?
We do agree that diving into "Excession" as an intro to Banks would be a tragic mistake. It is the best Banks novel of those that I have read, and one of my favorites of all-time, so I highly recommend it, but I think "Consider Phlebas" should be bare minimum background reading.
As an aside, does anyone but me hate those "Culture" assholes? I haven't discussed this with anyone. If that's the whole point of the series, I think he's kept it going far too long, so I'm somewhat doubtful that my opinion is shared. The earth counterparts of the citizens in "The Culture" would be spolied rich kids with trust funds attending Ivy-league colleges. I long for the day when some insurgency genetically engineers a few viruses and computer viruses to wipe those bastards out.
They can have my cold dead fingers only when . . . Oh, never mind.
". . .the issue is that these folks were simply taking the parts, or the entire body, without the permission of either the deceased or their families . . "
I'm sure they asked the deceased, and hearing no objection, decided to sell the body parts.
"It is the exact same problem."
Hardly.
Think of the issues in logistical terms. In a paper-ballot system, tampering with a ballot box in such a way as to make any appreciable difference in the vote result would require tools, materials, physical access and a certain amount of time and effort within a relatively small window of opportunity.
With an electronic system, if the state isn't allowed to run simulated elections or do detailed inspection of the voting machine and software, the window of opportunity for tampering is huge, the potential for altering the result is high, and the risk of detection is minimal.
"When our government is changed to function by polling the mob, then maybe polls will mean something."
RTF[S|A]. The story in Time is making the argument that the American people "don't care" about loss of privacy and erosion of their civil liberties. Furthermore, the Time article is making claims that polls have consistently supported that conclusion. Using polls to refute assertions about polling data seems like a logical thing to do. Apart from simply fabricating tinformation and making unsubstantiated claims as Time did, how else would you go about assessing how the American people stand on this issue?
"Use some common sense, and some good judgment. "
Don't Feed the Trolls.
"it forces candidates to focus their campaigns on states with a lot of votes."
That seems contrary to the rest of your your argument? The electoral college compels candidates to lessen their focus on states with a lot of votes.
"But those who just happen to live in large states get screwed"
People in high population states are not NEARLY as bad off now as the people in less populous states would be if we abolished the electoral college and went with a pure popular vote for President. If that were the case, candidates wouldn't even bother with more than the top 20 most populous states. 2-3 percentage points worth of the popular vote in CA could wipe out 100% of the votes in a lot of small states. I support the Electoral College system because I don't want public policy catering exclusively to people from large urban areas.
"Yes, the 9-11 Commission was actually very informative and thorough . . ."
I'd hardly use those adjectives to describe it, considering the fact that they "forgot" all about the 47-story skyscraper (WTC7) that collapsed on the day of the attacks WITHOUT being hit by an aircraft . . . among other things.
http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html
Why am I NOT encouraged by the government investigating itself about domestic spying?
"So anyone should be able to walk off the street and present evidence in a court case while claiming they are an expert at gathering said evidence?"
IANAL, but I think that if a person is called upon to testify by the prosecution, defense, or one of the parties in a civil case, then "yes". You don't have to be an "expert" in gathering evidence to be able to present evidence and observations. Experts are there to evaluate and interpret. If the evidence has been obtained by illegal means as the article is suggesting, there are bound to be other implications.