I think you may be overlooking the real reason why this is important.
I have no problem with the government screening American's phone calls, e-mail, or other communications to a foreign country. But every president since the FISA Act was passed in 1978 was required to submit information as to who was being tracked and a polite bit of evidence as to why. This president ignored that act.
By ignoring the FISA Act the president removed the minor bit of oversight that existed; the only legal body that could verify that the president was doing what he said he was doing, and that it was within the law. The secret FISA court very rarely rejected any request previous administrations have submitted, so ignoring this court seems strange and leads to the following two conclusions:
1. The administration is preforming data mining on a massive scale, and it is infeasible to submit requests for each communication individually.
2. The administration is doing something legally questionable, which it didn't want the court to see.
While congress has been "briefed" on the program, it has not been "informed". Briefings have a tendency to gloss over details and use generalizations. My gut reaction is that the administration is mainly data mining, and from their reluctance to just say that it implies that there are more Americans being data mined than they are letting on. (If more Americans weren't being tracked, this administration would have just lumped this new tool into the Patriot Act.)
I'd like to believe what the administration is saying, but their track record for trust is highly tarnished and we need some oversight on this one.
I am *confident* that most americans don't mind people who are taking calls to and from the middle east are being monitored.
I agree completely that any American that is conversing or dealing with parties in the middle east should be monitored in some way (be it recording, intercepting, or what have you) just to make sure there's no shenanigans. I could even see the U.S. having a little prerecorded message before each call, e-mail, or other communication that goes through. "This call may be monitored for security reasons..."
However, if the administration is only recording communications such as these for data mining purposes, I see little reason why they wouldn't have asked congress for it in the first place. Congress granted a whole heap of powers to the administration with the Patriot Act, and wiretapping of this nature would have hardly batted an eye if it was included. So if the administration is only doing what they say they are doing, I see very little reason why they wouldn't have just come clean about it at that time.
My problem is that we have only the president's word that he's not doing something else. The secret judicial court that was put in place by the FISA act almost never denied reasoned spying of this nature in the past. I have difficulty believing that the FISA court wouldn't have approved at least some degree of this type of monitoring if they were asked for it.
The only reason not to ask a pro-Patriot Act congress and a nearly "yes-man" FISA court for data mining of this magnitude is if the monitoring the administration is actually undertaking is not of this nature, or is such that it could be abused to great effect, or possibly both.
While the legislature has been "briefed" on the surveilance program, it has not been "informed". There is a distinct difference. Briefings have the uncanny knack to gloss over important details, in favor of the main selling points.
History has shown that politicians lie and are quite adept at it. Be it Republican or Democrat, there should be an unbiased party reviewing the program for legal violations (AKA: Judicial Overview). While I understand that judicial overview is a pain and tedious, there is a legislative body that can help it by setting rules to improve and smooth out the process.
"And don't forget, she's a politician, and they're *not* to be trusted." - Obi-Wan Kenobi
From TFA Reliable records from trees and other sources go back only about 1,200 years. So no, they're NOT saying that it was as warm in 800 AD. They are saying that this is the warmest year since 800 AD and that they don't have have any reliable records before that! This is a big difference.
Mr. Moderators, slumberer (859696) makes a valid point.
Nature doesn't give a shit what we do.... Nature is far too resilient and our powers are far too minuscule to do anything more then weed out the least adaptable species in the most fragile environments.
I'l admit that Earth is a relatively tough nut to crack. It's survived millions of years of hardship and it's held it's own. But please don't reinforce the following misguided beliefs that most people seem to hold:
Misbelief #1: Humans have little or no impact on nature.
Humans have a great impact on nature. Clear cutting in the amazon destroys habitat for local species, driving them to extinction. Water pollution in Australia is deteriorating the Great Barrier Reef at amazing speed. The simple matter is that we know we impact nature, what we do not know is whether we've done enough to change global climate patterns.
Misbelief #2: The earth will preserve the status quo ad nauseum.
Life has survived while riding the earth over millions of years. But please do not make the misguided belief that the earth and life are partners in this process. The earth does not care what happens to the life that resides on it. The earth will rebalance when certain things go out of whack. The historical records show that the earth is quite adept at cycles, and in meeting one force with a counter-force. I would expect this to be the case with human impact as well.
I can't say whether humanity has thrown enough crap at the earth to force it to counter-balance our impact. But it seems rather foolish to believe that the earth will sit idly by. "Global Warming" is most likely a misnomer. While it IS true that we are contributing to the overall heat of the planet. It is unknown what the end balancing act that the earth may hit us with. It could send us an ice age, enlarge the deserts we have, cause a famine, or make the world a big tropical ball. The point is we don't know exactly what will happen.
While humans are a very clever and adaptable species, we are not self-sufficient. We rely on many other species to keep us on top. While humans will probably survive what the earth throws at us, many of the other species we rely on may not. That is what concerns me more.
I agree with you that AJAX seems to be an answer to a greater problem. The problem (as I see it) is that the HTML was originally designed for viewing static web pages. There may have been some code or scripts behind the page generation itself, but you still only loaded one page at a time. Over the years there have been a couple of trends that have spawned to help solve this "single page load" problem.
The common ground that these trends (Frames, Javascript, Flash, AJAX, etc.) share is that they all try to bring the user closer to achieving a truly dynamic experience. All these trends are in someway trying to overcome the "single page load" problem that is inherent with HTML. Each of these technologies have their own strengths and weaknesses, but the core problem will still remain until enough people realize the problem for what it is and try to solve it.
Desktop applications are giving way to web applications. Most people are not computer savvy. The few that are (but do not work in a related field) know what they know about computers because they need to, not because they want to. No person should have to know about installing drivers, software patches, or resolving hardware conflicts. Web applications require no installation and no maintenace (except, of course, for the hosting system). It should be no surprise why these types of programs are catching on.
Web applications will continue to strive to bring the user a better, more dynamic experience. However, until the underlying problem of the "single page load" problem is addressed by HTML and it's related processes, it will most likely remain this half-breed of application.
Cheaper trials means more research, and the tests are only conducted when it is almost certain to succeed.
Cheaper trials do mean more research, but I think you are making an unwarranted "leap of good faith" to believe that drugs that do undergo testing are likely to succeed.
More tests mean more statistics to monkey with. While more testing could lead to more openness about the effects of a drug, more often than not drug companies will manipulate the data to present a rosey picture to the consumer. I have worked with people who have participated in assembling clinical data before, and I can tell you that few firms report data that is detrimental to the drug company.
More testing will have both benefits and detriments. Some will use it for honest clinical research (due to the cost savings), but I think any drug company on a shareholder schedule will be using it to farm data that backs the company's claims.
When there's an opportunity for abuse with minimal penalties, there will be people abusing it.
What happened to me (and seems to be a growing trend) is that I was essentially "terminated" when I gave my resignation. They cut a check for the two weeks and I was out the door. They also said that I was also volunteering to use my stored up vacation during this two week period so they wouldn't have to pay me any extra. (I had one week still saved up.) They were able to do this because if I were to complain or contest the situation, it was strongly implied that any future inquiries about my employment would be negative. (Even though I always had stellar reviews from my manager and coworkers who also volunteered to be my references.)
Looking back, it was still the right choice to just not cause a rabble and just soldier on. A black mark in the IT industry is often a death sentence, so I kept quiet. Now I realize that every corporation is not this evil, but they are out there. Besides, the new job I landed is much nicer.
Microsoft is kicking themselves for this one. They are finally given a juicy exploit that they could use to knock Google down a notch or two, but the exploit occurs because of IE's code. Microsoft's entire PR department is going, "Arrgh!" If the fault had lain anywhere else, Google would have had Microsoft-funded bad press everywhere. (And I think Slashdot would have toned down the Google love.)
Don't get me wrong. Google issued a quick (and relatively quiet) fix to cover their butts and should be given due credit. But let's not overstate the issue. Google dodged a potentially PR wrecking bullet. I just hope they're more careful in the future as the next issue may not be so easy to sweep under the carpet. Microsoft is waiting to pounce, and will do so at the first serious non-IE based error they can find in Google's chain of products.
AOL says that since it will control the network, it can protect users from the sorts of viruses and spyware that infect other peer-to-peer systems.
Please note that AOL never claims that they will not have their own spyware installed, merely that their version is not one that "infects" other computers. And since everyone must be part of their network, everyone will have it installed.
Granted, I'm siding with the highly likely probability that AOL will have an uber-spyware program to go long with this network. I fully expect the license agreement to have a clause like "By installing this program you agree that we can monitor and regulate any and all electronic transfers of media you may have to help ensure that you are protected from digital pirates. Y'arr!"
People who trust AOL tend to believe that they are the internet, so this should be no biggie for them. I'm sure that there will be a follow up article a year or so from now, "AOL users shocked that personal information was collected."
Slashdot should know better than to post a pure fluff article. This is nothing more than an advertisement. If we're going to masquerade this as news content, as least include how much slashdot got as a kickback.;)
"Viviane Reding, European IT commissioner, says that if a multilateral approach cannot be agreed, countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states could start operating their own versions of the internet and the ubiquity that has made it such a success will disappear."
I think it's inevitable that the internet will splinter. It's probably the only method left to please all parties involved. Then nations of the world will then have control of each of their own little slice of the internet. The next step would be for the world to decide on how all the slices begin to talk to each other again.
I really dislike the idea of a segmented internet, but the world does not have a uniform face. Each nation has its own idiosyncracies and political bigwigs grasping for power. It was only a matter of time before each of the parties involved started falling out with each other. Maybe it'll lead to a stronger internet in the end, maybe not. I just hope that those who have enjoyed freedom of speech in countries where it is often censored are not suppressed too much.
Then again, we might just watch these new versions of the internet just crash and burn.
1. Unbiased - free from all prejudice and favoritism : eminently fair
By unbiased, I mean a site which would present and explain the reasoning behind politician's choices, potentially listing his or her contributors', supporters' and/or personal motives in reaching the decision they came to.
2. Impetus - (1) a driving force : impulse; (2) incentive, stimulus
By impetus, I do mean discovering the "driving force" behind a politician's decision. Looking at a voting record will only provide you with a very narrow and limited viewpoint. There are better informed opinions in the world than the ones you or I could slop together by looking at a voting record. Behind every decision a politician makes, there are forces at work. Whether it's partisan yes-yes-ing, a corporation lining his or her pockets, or caving in to popular opinion, the motive can not be discovered by looking at a voting record. Voting is the end result of all these factors, and does very little to help me better understand the reasoning behind it.
3. No need for exaggeration. The bill is scheduled to come before the commerce committee, which has senators at the helm, not representatives. One of these senators is from my state, and even if one wasn't, citizens can contact the chair of the committee to voice their opinion. I find it sad that you think that you have to just accept whatever hair-brained notion a politician comes up with.
From your decided eloquence and tactful manner, I'd have to guess that you are a male aged 16-23 with some severe social interaction issues. If you're not, I'd recommend you seek out a therapist, as it is not normal to react this virulently to a simple request for information. The fact that you used the anonymous coward reply also implies you lashed out in anger due to (in part) a heightened sense of insecurity.
I can't help but see the parallel between the story of Chicken Little and this article. The US built this from the ground up, while the world watched and did nothing. Now that it's successful everyone wants a piece of it. So to paraphrase, the US slaved away and made the bread (aka internet), and everyone else now wants to eat it. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that the rest of the world can start making their own bread any time now.
I have heard of no credible evidence that the US is abusing their administration of the internet. Yet other countries want control of it. The only logical conclusion is that these same countries must also have ideas of how the system could be abused, and can't wait to implement them. Censorship is probably on the forefront of each of these countries minds. (Some are worried about it happening, some are salavating at the chance to abuse it.)
Countries know they can not build a corrupt system from the ground up, since no one will use it, so they are attempting to gain control of what people are currently using. I just see transferring control as the equivalent of giving a child a button with "Blow Up World" written on it.
While Microsoft may now be too bulbous a company to be true innovators right now, it doesn't mean they don't have the resources to become one. Large companies in near monopoly situations rarely attempt to push the forefront of innovation if no one is competing with them. Google represents the first true and worthy competitor Microsoft has seen in ages, and it seems short-sighted to think that it will roll over and die simply because Google got the jump on them.
Google has demonstrated it is a direct threat to Microsoft. So it seems rediculously foolish to think that the slumbering giant known as Microsoft won't be able to compete with Google, or even put up a decent fight. Microsoft had no impetus to offer people a better solution than what they currently have. Things have changed. Microsoft is awake, and is starting to move again. The real question is whether Google will be able to handle the eventual Microsoft counterstrike.
While Microsoft has a decidedly bad karma about it, people often flip-flop buying decisions over the most flippant of reasons. "Evil" is just a company with a bad PR division.
This is no different than cataloging the internet...which they also did without the copyright owners consent.
I disagree.
It is my belief that Google won the internet copyright lawsuits because none of the people they infringed on could demonstrate monetary damages resulting from the use. If anything, it seems like courts deem duplications as "fair use" if no harm comes to the copyright holder.
However, I believe publishers could easily demonstrate that this practice "harms" their company by infringing on its copyrights. Sampling excerpts from books is one thing, but my understanding is that Google is siphoning entire books to be searched. I believe it will be difficult for Google to prove that this will not harm the publishing industry. As such, I believe the publishers will win this fight.
Throughout history there have been people proclaiming end of the world scenarios, and this person is no different. Like any new frontier that is explored, people are "testing the waters" for what they can and can't do. Once this frontier society has a good grasp of the inherent workings of the system, laws will start to be formed to govern it. Some laws will stay, some will go.
But it seems short-sighted idiocy for someone to proclaim that one of the core driving forces of the system will be gone (public domain). It's like saying gravity will dry up.
While it will most likely not look exactly like it does today, the public domain will still exist. There will just be laws in place to govern it better.
This is more of a push by the state of Massachusetts to force Microsoft and other similar vendors to provide an export option that contains no proprietary data in it.
While it's true that standards change over time, the fact that there would be an open standard means that a document could be successfully reconstituted (all standards include version information). Requiring an open document storage option means that even 5 years after a standard has gone the way of the dodo, a developer such as myself could still recreate the document if needed.
This is not true of.doc files and other proprietary storage formats. Basically, MA is making a law that states that they do not ever want to be committed to any one vendor, and that all they really care about is the document and the actual information it contains.
What NASA really needs is a better pitch man. Which of the following sounds better:
"Voyager is a 30 year old probe that has lasted well beyond it's intended purpose."
OR
"Voyager is the first wave of NASA's proactive plan at deep space detection, which ranks among the organization's most cost-effective projects to date." (The "second wave" would be Voyager 2.)
Let's face it, a room full of eggheads just don't know how to pitch a great product. If NASA would start selling it as a security feature, and not just some probe that sends back random data, this wouldn't be much of an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you may be overlooking the real reason why this is important.
I have no problem with the government screening American's phone calls, e-mail, or other communications to a foreign country. But every president since the FISA Act was passed in 1978 was required to submit information as to who was being tracked and a polite bit of evidence as to why. This president ignored that act.
By ignoring the FISA Act the president removed the minor bit of oversight that existed; the only legal body that could verify that the president was doing what he said he was doing, and that it was within the law. The secret FISA court very rarely rejected any request previous administrations have submitted, so ignoring this court seems strange and leads to the following two conclusions:
1. The administration is preforming data mining on a massive scale, and it is infeasible to submit requests for each communication individually.
2. The administration is doing something legally questionable, which it didn't want the court to see.
While congress has been "briefed" on the program, it has not been "informed". Briefings have a tendency to gloss over details and use generalizations. My gut reaction is that the administration is mainly data mining, and from their reluctance to just say that it implies that there are more Americans being data mined than they are letting on. (If more Americans weren't being tracked, this administration would have just lumped this new tool into the Patriot Act.)
I'd like to believe what the administration is saying, but their track record for trust is highly tarnished and we need some oversight on this one.
I am *confident* that most americans don't mind people who are taking calls to and from the middle east are being monitored.
I agree completely that any American that is conversing or dealing with parties in the middle east should be monitored in some way (be it recording, intercepting, or what have you) just to make sure there's no shenanigans. I could even see the U.S. having a little prerecorded message before each call, e-mail, or other communication that goes through. "This call may be monitored for security reasons..."
However, if the administration is only recording communications such as these for data mining purposes, I see little reason why they wouldn't have asked congress for it in the first place. Congress granted a whole heap of powers to the administration with the Patriot Act, and wiretapping of this nature would have hardly batted an eye if it was included. So if the administration is only doing what they say they are doing, I see very little reason why they wouldn't have just come clean about it at that time.
My problem is that we have only the president's word that he's not doing something else. The secret judicial court that was put in place by the FISA act almost never denied reasoned spying of this nature in the past. I have difficulty believing that the FISA court wouldn't have approved at least some degree of this type of monitoring if they were asked for it.
The only reason not to ask a pro-Patriot Act congress and a nearly "yes-man" FISA court for data mining of this magnitude is if the monitoring the administration is actually undertaking is not of this nature, or is such that it could be abused to great effect, or possibly both.
While the legislature has been "briefed" on the surveilance program, it has not been "informed". There is a distinct difference. Briefings have the uncanny knack to gloss over important details, in favor of the main selling points.
History has shown that politicians lie and are quite adept at it. Be it Republican or Democrat, there should be an unbiased party reviewing the program for legal violations (AKA: Judicial Overview). While I understand that judicial overview is a pain and tedious, there is a legislative body that can help it by setting rules to improve and smooth out the process.
"And don't forget, she's a politician, and they're *not* to be trusted." - Obi-Wan Kenobi
From TFA Reliable records from trees and other sources go back only about 1,200 years. So no, they're NOT saying that it was as warm in 800 AD. They are saying that this is the warmest year since 800 AD and that they don't have have any reliable records before that! This is a big difference.
Mr. Moderators, slumberer (859696) makes a valid point.
Misbelief #1: Humans have little or no impact on nature.
Humans have a great impact on nature. Clear cutting in the amazon destroys habitat for local species, driving them to extinction. Water pollution in Australia is deteriorating the Great Barrier Reef at amazing speed. The simple matter is that we know we impact nature, what we do not know is whether we've done enough to change global climate patterns.
Misbelief #2: The earth will preserve the status quo ad nauseum.
Life has survived while riding the earth over millions of years. But please do not make the misguided belief that the earth and life are partners in this process. The earth does not care what happens to the life that resides on it. The earth will rebalance when certain things go out of whack. The historical records show that the earth is quite adept at cycles, and in meeting one force with a counter-force. I would expect this to be the case with human impact as well.
I can't say whether humanity has thrown enough crap at the earth to force it to counter-balance our impact. But it seems rather foolish to believe that the earth will sit idly by. "Global Warming" is most likely a misnomer. While it IS true that we are contributing to the overall heat of the planet. It is unknown what the end balancing act that the earth may hit us with. It could send us an ice age, enlarge the deserts we have, cause a famine, or make the world a big tropical ball. The point is we don't know exactly what will happen.
While humans are a very clever and adaptable species, we are not self-sufficient. We rely on many other species to keep us on top. While humans will probably survive what the earth throws at us, many of the other species we rely on may not. That is what concerns me more.
I agree with you that AJAX seems to be an answer to a greater problem. The problem (as I see it) is that the HTML was originally designed for viewing static web pages. There may have been some code or scripts behind the page generation itself, but you still only loaded one page at a time. Over the years there have been a couple of trends that have spawned to help solve this "single page load" problem.
The common ground that these trends (Frames, Javascript, Flash, AJAX, etc.) share is that they all try to bring the user closer to achieving a truly dynamic experience. All these trends are in someway trying to overcome the "single page load" problem that is inherent with HTML. Each of these technologies have their own strengths and weaknesses, but the core problem will still remain until enough people realize the problem for what it is and try to solve it.
Desktop applications are giving way to web applications. Most people are not computer savvy. The few that are (but do not work in a related field) know what they know about computers because they need to, not because they want to. No person should have to know about installing drivers, software patches, or resolving hardware conflicts. Web applications require no installation and no maintenace (except, of course, for the hosting system). It should be no surprise why these types of programs are catching on.
Web applications will continue to strive to bring the user a better, more dynamic experience. However, until the underlying problem of the "single page load" problem is addressed by HTML and it's related processes, it will most likely remain this half-breed of application.
More tests mean more statistics to monkey with. While more testing could lead to more openness about the effects of a drug, more often than not drug companies will manipulate the data to present a rosey picture to the consumer. I have worked with people who have participated in assembling clinical data before, and I can tell you that few firms report data that is detrimental to the drug company.
More testing will have both benefits and detriments. Some will use it for honest clinical research (due to the cost savings), but I think any drug company on a shareholder schedule will be using it to farm data that backs the company's claims.
When there's an opportunity for abuse with minimal penalties, there will be people abusing it.
What happened to me (and seems to be a growing trend) is that I was essentially "terminated" when I gave my resignation. They cut a check for the two weeks and I was out the door. They also said that I was also volunteering to use my stored up vacation during this two week period so they wouldn't have to pay me any extra. (I had one week still saved up.) They were able to do this because if I were to complain or contest the situation, it was strongly implied that any future inquiries about my employment would be negative. (Even though I always had stellar reviews from my manager and coworkers who also volunteered to be my references.)
Looking back, it was still the right choice to just not cause a rabble and just soldier on. A black mark in the IT industry is often a death sentence, so I kept quiet. Now I realize that every corporation is not this evil, but they are out there. Besides, the new job I landed is much nicer.
Microsoft is kicking themselves for this one. They are finally given a juicy exploit that they could use to knock Google down a notch or two, but the exploit occurs because of IE's code. Microsoft's entire PR department is going, "Arrgh!" If the fault had lain anywhere else, Google would have had Microsoft-funded bad press everywhere. (And I think Slashdot would have toned down the Google love.)
Don't get me wrong. Google issued a quick (and relatively quiet) fix to cover their butts and should be given due credit. But let's not overstate the issue. Google dodged a potentially PR wrecking bullet. I just hope they're more careful in the future as the next issue may not be so easy to sweep under the carpet. Microsoft is waiting to pounce, and will do so at the first serious non-IE based error they can find in Google's chain of products.
AOL says that since it will control the network, it can protect users from the sorts of viruses and spyware that infect other peer-to-peer systems.
Please note that AOL never claims that they will not have their own spyware installed, merely that their version is not one that "infects" other computers. And since everyone must be part of their network, everyone will have it installed.
Granted, I'm siding with the highly likely probability that AOL will have an uber-spyware program to go long with this network. I fully expect the license agreement to have a clause like "By installing this program you agree that we can monitor and regulate any and all electronic transfers of media you may have to help ensure that you are protected from digital pirates. Y'arr!"
People who trust AOL tend to believe that they are the internet, so this should be no biggie for them. I'm sure that there will be a follow up article a year or so from now, "AOL users shocked that personal information was collected."
Slashdot should know better than to post a pure fluff article. This is nothing more than an advertisement. If we're going to masquerade this as news content, as least include how much slashdot got as a kickback. ;)
The Louvre announced that it was lowering the bustline of the Mona Lisa to attract more visitors.
"Viviane Reding, European IT commissioner, says that if a multilateral approach cannot be agreed, countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states could start operating their own versions of the internet and the ubiquity that has made it such a success will disappear."
I think it's inevitable that the internet will splinter. It's probably the only method left to please all parties involved. Then nations of the world will then have control of each of their own little slice of the internet. The next step would be for the world to decide on how all the slices begin to talk to each other again.
I really dislike the idea of a segmented internet, but the world does not have a uniform face. Each nation has its own idiosyncracies and political bigwigs grasping for power. It was only a matter of time before each of the parties involved started falling out with each other. Maybe it'll lead to a stronger internet in the end, maybe not. I just hope that those who have enjoyed freedom of speech in countries where it is often censored are not suppressed too much.
Then again, we might just watch these new versions of the internet just crash and burn.
2005 - Google buys into AOL, changes motto to "Do some evil"
2007 - Google buys into Microsoft, changes motto to "Do evil"
1. Unbiased - free from all prejudice and favoritism : eminently fair
By unbiased, I mean a site which would present and explain the reasoning behind politician's choices, potentially listing his or her contributors', supporters' and/or personal motives in reaching the decision they came to.
2. Impetus - (1) a driving force : impulse; (2) incentive, stimulus
By impetus, I do mean discovering the "driving force" behind a politician's decision. Looking at a voting record will only provide you with a very narrow and limited viewpoint. There are better informed opinions in the world than the ones you or I could slop together by looking at a voting record. Behind every decision a politician makes, there are forces at work. Whether it's partisan yes-yes-ing, a corporation lining his or her pockets, or caving in to popular opinion, the motive can not be discovered by looking at a voting record. Voting is the end result of all these factors, and does very little to help me better understand the reasoning behind it.
3. No need for exaggeration. The bill is scheduled to come before the commerce committee, which has senators at the helm, not representatives. One of these senators is from my state, and even if one wasn't, citizens can contact the chair of the committee to voice their opinion. I find it sad that you think that you have to just accept whatever hair-brained notion a politician comes up with.
From your decided eloquence and tactful manner, I'd have to guess that you are a male aged 16-23 with some severe social interaction issues. If you're not, I'd recommend you seek out a therapist, as it is not normal to react this virulently to a simple request for information. The fact that you used the anonymous coward reply also implies you lashed out in anger due to (in part) a heightened sense of insecurity.
Could anyone recommend a good unbiased site that tracks politicians and their impetus anywhere?
I'd like to make sure I'm voting for the lesser evils in the world, and not these 20.
I can't help but see the parallel between the story of Chicken Little and this article. The US built this from the ground up, while the world watched and did nothing. Now that it's successful everyone wants a piece of it. So to paraphrase, the US slaved away and made the bread (aka internet), and everyone else now wants to eat it. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that the rest of the world can start making their own bread any time now.
I have heard of no credible evidence that the US is abusing their administration of the internet. Yet other countries want control of it. The only logical conclusion is that these same countries must also have ideas of how the system could be abused, and can't wait to implement them. Censorship is probably on the forefront of each of these countries minds. (Some are worried about it happening, some are salavating at the chance to abuse it.)
Countries know they can not build a corrupt system from the ground up, since no one will use it, so they are attempting to gain control of what people are currently using. I just see transferring control as the equivalent of giving a child a button with "Blow Up World" written on it.
While Microsoft may now be too bulbous a company to be true innovators right now, it doesn't mean they don't have the resources to become one. Large companies in near monopoly situations rarely attempt to push the forefront of innovation if no one is competing with them. Google represents the first true and worthy competitor Microsoft has seen in ages, and it seems short-sighted to think that it will roll over and die simply because Google got the jump on them.
Google has demonstrated it is a direct threat to Microsoft. So it seems rediculously foolish to think that the slumbering giant known as Microsoft won't be able to compete with Google, or even put up a decent fight. Microsoft had no impetus to offer people a better solution than what they currently have. Things have changed. Microsoft is awake, and is starting to move again. The real question is whether Google will be able to handle the eventual Microsoft counterstrike.
While Microsoft has a decidedly bad karma about it, people often flip-flop buying decisions over the most flippant of reasons. "Evil" is just a company with a bad PR division.
This is no different than cataloging the internet...which they also did without the copyright owners consent.
I disagree.
It is my belief that Google won the internet copyright lawsuits because none of the people they infringed on could demonstrate monetary damages resulting from the use. If anything, it seems like courts deem duplications as "fair use" if no harm comes to the copyright holder.
However, I believe publishers could easily demonstrate that this practice "harms" their company by infringing on its copyrights. Sampling excerpts from books is one thing, but my understanding is that Google is siphoning entire books to be searched. I believe it will be difficult for Google to prove that this will not harm the publishing industry. As such, I believe the publishers will win this fight.
Does this mean that soon, I too could wake up next to Sharon Stone and lead a martian revolution?
Throughout history there have been people proclaiming end of the world scenarios, and this person is no different. Like any new frontier that is explored, people are "testing the waters" for what they can and can't do. Once this frontier society has a good grasp of the inherent workings of the system, laws will start to be formed to govern it. Some laws will stay, some will go. But it seems short-sighted idiocy for someone to proclaim that one of the core driving forces of the system will be gone (public domain). It's like saying gravity will dry up. While it will most likely not look exactly like it does today, the public domain will still exist. There will just be laws in place to govern it better.
This is more of a push by the state of Massachusetts to force Microsoft and other similar vendors to provide an export option that contains no proprietary data in it.
.doc files and other proprietary storage formats. Basically, MA is making a law that states that they do not ever want to be committed to any one vendor, and that all they really care about is the document and the actual information it contains.
While it's true that standards change over time, the fact that there would be an open standard means that a document could be successfully reconstituted (all standards include version information). Requiring an open document storage option means that even 5 years after a standard has gone the way of the dodo, a developer such as myself could still recreate the document if needed.
This is not true of
But I have a Ring of Charisma +3, a noble white steed, long flowing locks and the optional "Entice Women" feat!
Aww crap, and I was sooo looking forward to catching "Monster In Law" before it hits theaters. http://www.monsterinlaw.com/
What NASA really needs is a better pitch man. Which of the following sounds better:
"Voyager is a 30 year old probe that has lasted well beyond it's intended purpose."
OR
"Voyager is the first wave of NASA's proactive plan at deep space detection, which ranks among the organization's most cost-effective projects to date." (The "second wave" would be Voyager 2.)
Let's face it, a room full of eggheads just don't know how to pitch a great product. If NASA would start selling it as a security feature, and not just some probe that sends back random data, this wouldn't be much of an issue.