"I don't think its at all unreasonable to stop a burglar from intruding into your home, and I don't think its unreasonable to stop a terrorist from killing thousands of civilians."
WHOA WHOA WHOA! Remember that "Innocent until proven guilty" thing?
So let me get this straight. You believe that it is acceptable for the Police--remember, no judges here--to wiretap your phone because they believe you might be a burglar because you spoke with someone who spoke to someone who knows someone who is a burglar?!
"I would submit to you that in every single war the US has ever engaged in [my emphasis], civil liberties were curtailed far more dramatically than in our current conflict."
Okay, let's start with our first conflict--the War of 1812. What Civil Liberties were violated during that war? How about the Mexican-American war? Spanish-American War? World War I? Korean War?
The government arrested a bunch of people during World War I for speaking against the draft, but the government was found to be acting illegally.
Curtailing Civil Liberties during a war is more the exception than the rule.
"[Al-Qaeda] have operatives working inside of the US. When they get phone calls from places like Morocco, Algeria, Syria, well.... I'd like for our government to know what the f they're discussing."
Fair enough. I have no problem with this, necessarily, either.
Where I have the problem is the Executive Branch deciding who is an Al-Qaeda operative.
For example, suppose I have a friend in Saudi Arabia. He has a friend in Saudi Arabia as well. His friend's brother is believed by Saudi Arabia to be a terrorist because he does not like the Saudi Royal Family being in charge of the government and believes that Saudi Arabia should be a democracy (this is a threat to the Royal Family and, thus, makes him a terrorist in their eyes).
So if my friend calls me, does that make me a terrorist suspect? After all, I have now have a "connection to a suspected terrorist." I have received a call from an area where terrorists exist. Does receiving a call from overseas automatically make me a terrorist suspect? And, as a terrorist suspect here in the US, the Patriot Act allows the government to search my apartment surreptitiously and copy all of the information on my computer. Let's say I also don't agree with the government's war on Iraq and I have various friends who also don't agree. Because their names are in my address book--which the government copied during a "Sneak and Peek" warrant, they can now be harassed by the government.
This is one of those things that this administration is good at. I agree that if Osama bin Laden calls somebody in the US, the government should be listening in. That's the point that the administration is making and it's a good one. But they never qualify how they decide who these terrorists are--that's left purposefully vague. The extensions of other laws is also not mentioned. Obviously, if Osama bin Laden calls Joe Somebody here in the US, the government had better be investigating that guy, right?
And this is where the line gets drawn. Should the government investigate 1000 innocent people to find 1 guilty one?
"Microsoft's Home and Entertainment division, which overall includes the Microsoft Xbox video game console system, PC games, the Home Products Division, and TV platform products for the interactive television industry [...]"
"The Constitution says that 'the President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states . ..'"
Yes. But again, those are military organizations. Not being in the military means that he is not my commander-in-chief. He is my President (even if I didn't vote for him).
"There are numerous instances of military operations in the US, starting with the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. The Civil War is another example."
True. However, these are examples of groups attempting to secede from the United States and not recognizing the authority of the government. So, in these cases, the military was used to suppress insurrection.
However, the President cannot arbitrarily decide that looting in Cleveland means he can send in the troops.
"As I understand it, it was done at NSA listening posts in foreign nations."
I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant where the actual listening post is. The government doesn't have to enter my house to tap my phone, but they still have to get a warrant to do so. Same idea.
"[...] there's a good argument that the president has the right to listen in to all of the enemy's communications, even those that terminate inside the U.S.."
Actually, I don't have a problem with this. Where I have a problem is who actually defines "the enemy."
For example, the President defines the enemy as "those terrorists." We all know who the terrorists are, right? They're those people who wear funny hats, speak a different language, and worship a different god, and want to blow us up. Of course, the President also defines as "terrorists" anyone who may speak to anyone who wears a funny hat, speaks a different language, or worships a different god. And anyone who may speak to anyone who may speak to anyone who wears a funny hat, speaks a different language, or worships or different god. Or anyone who speaks to anyone who speaks to anyone who... You get the idea.
At the moment, the Executive Branch gets to define who "the enemy" is with no input from any other branch. That's a bad idea. I want someone else in there like, say, a judge who looks over the evidence and decides whether or not this person really should be spied upon.
"If he becomes a dictator in wartime, why not come out and say this? Can he rape and murder? [...] if he can break one law, why not others?
Well, in theory, if he has to rape and murder to "protect and defend the constitution" then, yes, I suppose he can. Again, in theory.
One of the things that annoys me about the debate, though, is that the support for this comes from the fact that the President is the Commander-in-Chief. However, he is the Commander-In-Chief of the military, not of the country. This is where that argument falls apart.
IANACS (Constitional Scholar), so I may be wrong. But if I remember correctly, the constitution places restraints on military operations within the United States. For example, the federal government cannot deploy the military in any state without first getting permission from the governor of the state. This was part of the issue back in the 1960s when LBJ was going to send the Army into Alabama to protect Civil Rights protesters. If I remember my history correctly, George Wallace was not going to allow this and was going to send the Alabama National Guard to fight them. LBJ called Wallace to the White House and convinced him to allow troops.
(Random aside: I remember this coming up after Hurricane Andrew in Florida. The governor at the time had explicitly ask for the President to send military troops to prevent looting, etc. He could not do it without the governor asking.)
So if spying is a military operation, it cannot be used within the continental United States without permission of the Governors. If spying is a civilian operation (The NSA is not a branch of the military), then the President's status of Command-in-Chief is irrelevant to the argument.
"If he becomes a dictator in wartime, why not come out and say this? Can he rape and murder? [...] if he can break one law, why not others?
Well, in theory, if he has to rape and murder to "protect and defend the constitution" then, yes, I suppose he can. Again, in theory.
One of the things that annoys me about the debate, though, is that the support for this comes from the fact that the President is the Commander-in-Chief. However, he is the Commander-In-Chief of the military, not of the country. This is where their argument falls apart.
IANACS (Constitional Scholar), so I may be wrong. But if I remember correctly, the constitution places restraints on military operations within the United States. For example, the federal government cannot deploy the military in any state without first getting permission from the governor of the state. This was part of the issue back in the 1960s when LBJ was going to send the Army into Alabama to protect Civil Rights protesters. If I remember my history correctly, George Wallace was not going to allow this and was going to send the Alabama National Guard to fight them. LBJ called Wallace to the White House and convinced him to allow troops.
(Random aside: I remember this coming up after Hurricane Andrew in Florida. The governor at the time had explicitly ask for the President to send military troops to prevent looting, etc. He could not do it without the governor asking.)
So if spying is a military operation, it cannot be used within the continental United States without permission of the governor of the state where the spying is to occur. If spying is a civilian operation (The NSA/FBI/CIA are not branches of the military), then the President's status of Commander-in-Chief is irrelevant to the argument.
First, the referenced article mentioned the iMac. Second, the iMac and MacBook Pro are probably the best known Core Duo-based computers on the market right now. Heck, I did a Google search for Intel Core Duo. The first page to come up and not mention the iMac was on page 2, and that was just a mention about an Epson notebook in Japan.
It's similar to the iPod. The press will report how iPods are a security risk. Does this mean that iRiver players are not? Nope. They just grab on to the best known product.
"I find it odd how many Mac fans are hopeing that switch to Intel will fail. [...] Apple switched to Intel because Apple needed to work with a manufacturer who is dedicated to making chips for personal computers. Neither IBM (servers) nor Freescale (embeded) has that dedication."
Agreed. It's a switch that had to be made. But it isn't necessarily a "good" thing.
One of the things I've pointed out is that Apple may have a problem competing with their Intel Macs in certain markets. For example, how do you justify a Mac running Photoshop when a PC can run Photoshop. The Mac most probably won't be significantly faster than the PC doing the same task, with both of them having Intel chips.
While we can argue day and night about whether a PowerMac G5 is faster than a Dell whatever, it can be argued. It's pretty tough to argue that MacPro with a 3.5GHz Intel CPU, 1GHz FSB, 4GB of RAM, etc. is faster than an Intel-based Dell with the same innards. And why would Photoshop perform any faster with one over the other, short of things like intolerably slow task switching in Windows.
I'll admit, I'm one of those people who's sorry to see Apple using Intel chips. I see why it had to happen and I'm looking forward to all the "cool" things that Apple should now be able to build (Mac Tablet?). But I can't help believing that Apple has traded away a competitive advantage. But I don't see that there was much of an alternative short of Apple buying out Freescale...
"Now we get the 'Orii' and they bring a whole new dimension to the show."
Can't say I agree. The Orii strike me as a bit one-dimensional. One of the beauties of the Goa'uld system lords is that they make great individual bad-guys. Baal, Apophis, Sokar, Hathor, etc.
The individual Orii messengers, on the other hand, are all the same. Perhaps there's a message here, sure, but after dealing with three or four of them, with the same "My God is great" yadda yadda yadda, they become pretty dull and robotic. In fact, personally, I'm waiting for SG-1 to use a Kirk maneuver on them: "Hey, Orii! If your gods are all-powerful, can they make a rock that they can't move?" The Orii immediately starts babbling faster and faster until sparks fly and they collapse on the ground.
I mean, religious fundamentalism makes a fun episode or two. But it gets a little boring after awhile...
Personally, I think SG-1 needs the rest. If it'd been me, I'd've ended SG-1--the TV Show--when Richard Dean Anderson left. I'd've sent Carter to Area 51, sent Teal'C back to the Jaffa, sent Jackson to Atlantis, and retired Jack. I'd imagine that the Stargate concept has enough clout to do movies--either theatrical or television. Bring 'em back every couple of years to do the movies. Keep the franchise alive and on people's minds with Atlantis.
Though I'll admit that I enjoyed this past week's episode with the room full of Carters...
The Bad News: There's no way we can compete with smaller and nimbler companies. The Good News: At the rate we're going, we're going to smaller than any of them!
Back when Intel was having trouble getting their chips to compete with PowerPC, they introduced MMX. They had a great benchmark number with Photoshop doing a two-pixel blur. The Intel machine soundly trounced the PowerMac.
On two pixel blurs.
If you did a three-pixel blur, the PowerMac trounced the Intel machine. If I remember right, they were pretty close on a four-pixel and, from there on out, the PowerMac won.
Again, it's "Lies, Damned Lies, and Benchmarks." Yes, Steve is going to get up there and show statistics and benchmarks saying things like twice or three times as fast. He'll quickly bring up the fine print about how these are processor measurements and that the disks aren't faster, etc. But what will stick in your head is "two-times faster!"
So you need to take all benchmarks with a grain of salt. And laugh at those who complain.
My favorite: A few years ago, Apple used Spec benchmarks to show how the G5 stomped the latest from Intel. People complained because Apple used GCC on both platforms and they should have used Intel's compiler because it produces faster code. A few years later, Apple had some benchmarks on it's website showing a PowerMac running Final Cut Pro trouncing an Intel machine running Adobe Premier. People complained because Apple should have used the same software on both platforms.
About a year ago, there was a bill in Congress seeking to prevent people from suing restaurants for making them fat--the so-called "cheeseburger bill." Various people had tried to sue McDonalds because they were advertising food that, if you ate alot of it, would make people fat. Of course, the congressmen who supported to bill thought that the whole idea of suing a restaurant for making you fat was frivolous. The consumer is ultimately responsible for their own health and the argument that "McDonalds made me do it" was rediculous.
Fast forward to now. Various congressmen have been taking bribes from lobbyists to vote one way or another on bills. Whose fault is this? According to the congressmen, it's the lobbyists! They plied these innocent congressmen with free trips, money, etc. It's not their fault! No one ever told them that accepting money for voting a particular way was wrong! The lobbyists are the bad guys, offering them money! Dear God, won't somebody think of the congressman!
Where's the "Party of Responsibility" now?
Personally, I say forget making it more difficult for lobbyists to bribe congressmen. Heck, make it easier! But each and every trip taken, each and every dinner received from a $4 Big Mac to a $500 dinner, each and every baseball cap received, and each and every spouse/child/sibling/cousin who is employed by a lobbyist during the congressman's tenure will become part of the public record. And their opponent can bring it up with the voters come election-time...
"The knowledge base article [...] specifically said: iTunes sends data about the song selected in your library to the iTunes Music Store to provide relevant recommendations."
Fair enough. But, as I said, "What data?" It never told me that. What does Apple do with this mysterious data once they get it? It never told me that. It's just sending "data."
Does the "data" have anything to do with whether or not a song was ripped from a CD via iTunes or did it come onto my computer through "some other means"? Because, if I bought the CD and ripped it, iTunes doesn't need to tell me about other tracks on the same CD because I already own it.
That's all I ask: I want to know what the data is and how it's being used.
(As an aside, this may be part of Apple's legal definition. The iTunes Music Store doesn't sell music--it sells data. So the Beatles can't sue Apple because they're not selling music. Just data.)
"Further, the MiniStore actively changing as you click different tracks in iTunes might give a small hint that something is happening."
Well, I'd expect that from Apple's marketing blurbs, most of which you quoted. The marketing blurbs tell me what it does. It doesn't tell me how it using whatever data I'm giving it to come up with the results. That's the important part!
"Now, if you're saying that Apple should have had some kind of a dialog box come up when you first upgraded to and launched iTunes 6.0.2 explaining this and giving a clear option to simply opt to not use the new MiniStore in the first place, sure, I'll agree that would have likely been better. And now they're doing just that."
They've also stated that the data is not stored, which is important to me. But, yes, Apple listened to people's concerns and changed the behavior of the program. This is a good thing and it's good that Apple did this.
Hopefully, they also learned a lesson and won't give us reason to question again.
My cable provider, Time Warner, has five Pay-Per-View porns, Playboy, and Playboy en Espanol ("Si! Si! Si!"). So there's seven. If we include the various Cinemaxes and TMCs, you could probably, on occasion, fill up 11 tuners with porn.
"no personal data is collected or sent, or ever was."
Yay! Pat yourself on the back! You were right.
The issue, though, was not about what evil things Apple might be doing. The issue was that you had no idea what Apple was doing. There was speculation--perhaps even informed speculation--but no actual word from Apple about this. Not even buried deep in the bowels of the license agreement.
"how the fuck is it an invasion of privacy?"
Remember that if the information had been stored--we now know it wasn't--information can always be subpoenaed.
Here's an entertaining scenario: Several years ago, I remember reading about some kid who committed suicide. The parents attempted to sue the record companies and artists, I believe, for driving their kids to suicide. Imagine if there was a database somewhere that showed exactly what the kid had been listening to...
I'd be curious about the age of these people who are "afraid" of computers.
Back in the mid-late 80s, I happened to bump into one of my old elementary school teachers and he was chatting about how they were adding computers to the classroom (when I was there, back in the '70s, we had a computer terminal hooked to the local college's mainframe). Because the teacher remembered how much I used the computer back in elementary school, he suggested I come in and see what they were doing, chat with some teachers, maybe come up with some ideas.
I showed up and chatted with a bunch of teachers in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. They all said the same thing. They wanted to make sure that kids weren't "afraid" of the computer. I commented that you don't need to tell them this--elementary school kids aren't afraid of anything. Heck, I used to hang upside down from steel jungle gyms over hard-packed ground! One of the fun things to do on the playground was to jump off the swings when they were as high as possible (and land, again, on the ground--none of the soft sand like these pansy kids today have!:^) You really think a kid is going to be afraid of a little beige box?
It was the teachers who were "afraid" of the computer. As I said, the teachers grew up in a time when computers were gigantic things and you had to have a 180 IQ just to be in the same room with them. But, again, most of their fears came from the fact that they had these computers thrust upon them without really any idea about how to use it. I was talking to the principal and I suggested having the teachers accomplish something with the computer and then let them go from there. Have the teacher write a story, draw a picture, whatever. Get appropriate software for the teachers to experiment with before you let the kids at it. Once the teachers are comfortable, there'll be less of the "We need to teach you to not fear the computer" and more of "Here's some interesting stuff you can learn with the computer's help."
I won't strongly disagree with you, but I think Dell could pre-install it.
However, Dell would probably have to buy it from Apple (or Amazon) and resell it to the customer. So the Dell would cost more than the Windows machine because I'm pretty sure Dell pays less than $129 for Windows.
"[...] Because the hardware support in OSX is rather finite, it won't just 'install on a typical PC'."
This is sort of an off-topic question, but I was thinking about it the other day...
What about the opposite, where people want to run Windows on as Mac? Where's the Windows support for AirPort cards and iSight cameras? I imagine that Apple's 802.11 b/g card just an OEM version of someone else's card. Some quick research implies it's a Lucent card, but I'm not sure.
The other question I had was with Macs and temperature. I assume the fans are controlled by some sort of embedded chip that will turn on the fans when the temperature gets too hot. Or, is it something that is controlled within the Operating System? If I install Windows on my MacBook Pro, will it melt because Windows doesn't know how to turn on the fans? Or, for safety's sake, will the fans run all the time because Windows doesn't know how to turn them off? Wasn't this an issue with the PowerMac G5 when people first installed Linux on them?
The FAA doesn't want you to use your cell-phone during taxi, takeoff, and landing because of anecdotal evidence that they can screw up various electronic systems of the airplane. While you're in the air, the FAA doesn't have a problem with it unless it messes up the airplane, at which point someone will come back and tell you to turn it off (depending on how curious they are and how much time they have, they might try to figure out which device was the problem).
The FCC doesn't want you using your cell-phone while in-flight because some cellular systems were not designed to deal with passengers being able to see all cell towers while traveling at over 400 miles per hour. I don't know the details, just that it can mess things up. The FCC has no problem with you using the cell-phone during taxi, take-off, or landing because you're going slowly and you're at low altitude, and you're probably not going to confuse the cellular systems.
So, if the FCC drops their complaints about cell-phone use, you will be able to use a cell-phone while in-flight, but not during take-off or landing.
"I can see the companies who currently publish games for the Mac saying, 'Hell, since the Mac can run Windows now too, why bother with a Mac version at all?'"
First, I'm not sure many companies actually publish games for the Mac. They usually subcontract it through one of Mac game development houses (Aspyr, etc.). So this would remain the same.
Second, in my opinion, there will be fewer dual-booters than you realize.
Think of what you have to do to dual-boot. First, I need to have a copy of Windows around someplace (or, legally, go buy one). Next, I need to repartition the hard drive--how much space do I need for Windows and Mac OS X, anyway? Then I need to format one of the partitions for HFS+ (or UFS or something that Mac OS X understand). Then I need to reinstall Mac OS X. Then I need to format the other partition with NTFS. Then I need to install Windows. Then I need to search the Internet for appropriate device drivers. Think there's a device driver for Airport cards? I don't know if that's just an OEM version of somebody else's 802.11b/g card (I assume it is), but I don't know where to find those drivers. How about the Bluetooth hardware and the graphics card. So there'll be quite a few hours of getting your drivers all put together. And, no, I wouldn't expect any help from Apple on this one.
All to play a few games? I'll admit, I'm no "hardcore gamer." But with that much hassle involved, I think I'd rather just wait 7 months for the game to show up on the Mac.
Hell, as a Mac user, I'm used to that anyway. I just got Doom 3 and Star Wars: Battlefront for Christmas...
Apple isn't going to go out of their way to keep Windows from running on a Mac. However, Apple isn't going to go out of their to allow Windows to run on a Mac. If someone (ie, hackers, Microsoft) wants to go out of their way to do it, fine. But Apple won't support it.
So, in other words, I doubt Apple supports BIOS calls through EFI because Apple has no need to do so. If Microsoft releases a version of Windows XP (or Vista) that supports EFI, that's fine. But Apple isn't going to "cripple" their machines so people can run Windows.
Apple has nothing to be "backwards compatible" with in regards to Intel, so why should they bother to support BIOS calls?
That's what he was saying.
Re:Big Brother and the iTunes Company
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Gee, that sounds simple! The issue I have is what data is it using to make this determination?
If it's taking the song I'm currently playing and sending that to iTMS, I don't have much of a problem with that.
But suppose it's is taking the song I'm currently play and sending to iTMS, where it is being stored in order to come up with "better" suggestions. Then I have a bit more of a problem with it.
Suppose, further, that iTMS is also keeping statistics as to whether the song came from iTunes or a ripped CD. Suppose, further, that it's able to detect the difference between a track ripped with iTunes and a track ripped "in some other way" (some tag that iTunes adds), in order to come up with "better" suggestions. After all, if you went and bought the whole CD, you must really like these guys.
Let's go a little further. Since the RIAA suspects you might be trafficking in "stolen" music, they contact Apple and subpoena that information as part of an investigation. Sure enough, something like 90% of the 1000 individual songs you played were ripped "in some other way." I think that'd be enough evidence for a search warrant...
You're right. While I'm browsing my own music, the MiniStore will automatically show me more music from my favorite artists. What they're not telling me is what information is being used to determine it. As I mentioned, if it's sent and forgotten, I don't have much of a problem with this. It's a useless feature--I'll decide when I want to look for new music--but what the heck. The problem is, the cute marketing description doesn't tell me what information is being sent for Apple to come up with this list.
That's where this is bad. I'll decide what information about me that Apple gets to use, thank you very much.
Yes, but they still didn't want people talking about it...
Actually, my favorite story about Area 51 is the movie "Independence Day." From what I understand, the producers went to the military and asked for cooperation (eg, some shooting at MCAS El Toro, etc.). The military loved the script and was gung-ho to do it. They only asked one little thing...
That all references to Area 51 be removed from the script.
The producers decided not to change the script and forego military cooperation.
Slashdot Mirror
"I don't think its at all unreasonable to stop a burglar from intruding into your home, and I don't think its unreasonable to stop a terrorist from killing thousands of civilians."
WHOA WHOA WHOA! Remember that "Innocent until proven guilty" thing?
So let me get this straight. You believe that it is acceptable for the Police--remember, no judges here--to wiretap your phone because they believe you might be a burglar because you spoke with someone who spoke to someone who knows someone who is a burglar?!
"I would submit to you that in every single war the US has ever engaged in [my emphasis], civil liberties were curtailed far more dramatically than in our current conflict."
Okay, let's start with our first conflict--the War of 1812. What Civil Liberties were violated during that war? How about the Mexican-American war? Spanish-American War? World War I? Korean War?
The government arrested a bunch of people during World War I for speaking against the draft, but the government was found to be acting illegally.
Curtailing Civil Liberties during a war is more the exception than the rule.
"[Al-Qaeda] have operatives working inside of the US. When they get phone calls from places like Morocco, Algeria, Syria, well.... I'd like for our government to know what the f they're discussing."
Fair enough. I have no problem with this, necessarily, either.
Where I have the problem is the Executive Branch deciding who is an Al-Qaeda operative.
For example, suppose I have a friend in Saudi Arabia. He has a friend in Saudi Arabia as well. His friend's brother is believed by Saudi Arabia to be a terrorist because he does not like the Saudi Royal Family being in charge of the government and believes that Saudi Arabia should be a democracy (this is a threat to the Royal Family and, thus, makes him a terrorist in their eyes).
So if my friend calls me, does that make me a terrorist suspect? After all, I have now have a "connection to a suspected terrorist." I have received a call from an area where terrorists exist. Does receiving a call from overseas automatically make me a terrorist suspect? And, as a terrorist suspect here in the US, the Patriot Act allows the government to search my apartment surreptitiously and copy all of the information on my computer. Let's say I also don't agree with the government's war on Iraq and I have various friends who also don't agree. Because their names are in my address book--which the government copied during a "Sneak and Peek" warrant, they can now be harassed by the government.
This is one of those things that this administration is good at. I agree that if Osama bin Laden calls somebody in the US, the government should be listening in. That's the point that the administration is making and it's a good one. But they never qualify how they decide who these terrorists are--that's left purposefully vague. The extensions of other laws is also not mentioned. Obviously, if Osama bin Laden calls Joe Somebody here in the US, the government had better be investigating that guy, right?
And this is where the line gets drawn. Should the government investigate 1000 innocent people to find 1 guilty one?
"The Constitution says that 'the President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states . . .'"
Yes. But again, those are military organizations. Not being in the military means that he is not my commander-in-chief. He is my President (even if I didn't vote for him).
"There are numerous instances of military operations in the US, starting with the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. The Civil War is another example."
True. However, these are examples of groups attempting to secede from the United States and not recognizing the authority of the government. So, in these cases, the military was used to suppress insurrection.
However, the President cannot arbitrarily decide that looting in Cleveland means he can send in the troops.
"As I understand it, it was done at NSA listening posts in foreign nations."
I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant where the actual listening post is. The government doesn't have to enter my house to tap my phone, but they still have to get a warrant to do so. Same idea.
"[...] there's a good argument that the president has the right to listen in to all of the enemy's communications, even those that terminate inside the U.S.."
Actually, I don't have a problem with this. Where I have a problem is who actually defines "the enemy."
For example, the President defines the enemy as "those terrorists." We all know who the terrorists are, right? They're those people who wear funny hats, speak a different language, and worship a different god, and want to blow us up. Of course, the President also defines as "terrorists" anyone who may speak to anyone who wears a funny hat, speaks a different language, or worships a different god. And anyone who may speak to anyone who may speak to anyone who wears a funny hat, speaks a different language, or worships or different god. Or anyone who speaks to anyone who speaks to anyone who... You get the idea.
At the moment, the Executive Branch gets to define who "the enemy" is with no input from any other branch. That's a bad idea. I want someone else in there like, say, a judge who looks over the evidence and decides whether or not this person really should be spied upon.
(Sorry about the double-post. I somehow managed to confuse the Slashcode)
"If he becomes a dictator in wartime, why not come out and say this? Can he rape and murder? [...] if he can break one law, why not others?
Well, in theory, if he has to rape and murder to "protect and defend the constitution" then, yes, I suppose he can. Again, in theory.
One of the things that annoys me about the debate, though, is that the support for this comes from the fact that the President is the Commander-in-Chief. However, he is the Commander-In-Chief of the military, not of the country. This is where that argument falls apart.
IANACS (Constitional Scholar), so I may be wrong. But if I remember correctly, the constitution places restraints on military operations within the United States. For example, the federal government cannot deploy the military in any state without first getting permission from the governor of the state. This was part of the issue back in the 1960s when LBJ was going to send the Army into Alabama to protect Civil Rights protesters. If I remember my history correctly, George Wallace was not going to allow this and was going to send the Alabama National Guard to fight them. LBJ called Wallace to the White House and convinced him to allow troops.
(Random aside: I remember this coming up after Hurricane Andrew in Florida. The governor at the time had explicitly ask for the President to send military troops to prevent looting, etc. He could not do it without the governor asking.)
So if spying is a military operation, it cannot be used within the continental United States without permission of the Governors. If spying is a civilian operation (The NSA is not a branch of the military), then the President's status of Command-in-Chief is irrelevant to the argument.
"If he becomes a dictator in wartime, why not come out and say this? Can he rape and murder? [...] if he can break one law, why not others?
Well, in theory, if he has to rape and murder to "protect and defend the constitution" then, yes, I suppose he can. Again, in theory.
One of the things that annoys me about the debate, though, is that the support for this comes from the fact that the President is the Commander-in-Chief. However, he is the Commander-In-Chief of the military, not of the country. This is where their argument falls apart.
IANACS (Constitional Scholar), so I may be wrong. But if I remember correctly, the constitution places restraints on military operations within the United States. For example, the federal government cannot deploy the military in any state without first getting permission from the governor of the state. This was part of the issue back in the 1960s when LBJ was going to send the Army into Alabama to protect Civil Rights protesters. If I remember my history correctly, George Wallace was not going to allow this and was going to send the Alabama National Guard to fight them. LBJ called Wallace to the White House and convinced him to allow troops.
(Random aside: I remember this coming up after Hurricane Andrew in Florida. The governor at the time had explicitly ask for the President to send military troops to prevent looting, etc. He could not do it without the governor asking.)
So if spying is a military operation, it cannot be used within the continental United States without permission of the governor of the state where the spying is to occur. If spying is a civilian operation (The NSA/FBI/CIA are not branches of the military), then the President's status of Commander-in-Chief is irrelevant to the argument.
There are only two that immediately come to my mind:
So figure that three occurences in 29 years is pretty rare.
You're right. But there are a few reasons.
First, the referenced article mentioned the iMac. Second, the iMac and MacBook Pro are probably the best known Core Duo-based computers on the market right now. Heck, I did a Google search for Intel Core Duo. The first page to come up and not mention the iMac was on page 2, and that was just a mention about an Epson notebook in Japan.
It's similar to the iPod. The press will report how iPods are a security risk. Does this mean that iRiver players are not? Nope. They just grab on to the best known product.
"I find it odd how many Mac fans are hopeing that switch to Intel will fail. [...] Apple switched to Intel because Apple needed to work with a manufacturer who is dedicated to making chips for personal computers. Neither IBM (servers) nor Freescale (embeded) has that dedication."
Agreed. It's a switch that had to be made. But it isn't necessarily a "good" thing.
One of the things I've pointed out is that Apple may have a problem competing with their Intel Macs in certain markets. For example, how do you justify a Mac running Photoshop when a PC can run Photoshop. The Mac most probably won't be significantly faster than the PC doing the same task, with both of them having Intel chips.
While we can argue day and night about whether a PowerMac G5 is faster than a Dell whatever, it can be argued. It's pretty tough to argue that MacPro with a 3.5GHz Intel CPU, 1GHz FSB, 4GB of RAM, etc. is faster than an Intel-based Dell with the same innards. And why would Photoshop perform any faster with one over the other, short of things like intolerably slow task switching in Windows.
I'll admit, I'm one of those people who's sorry to see Apple using Intel chips. I see why it had to happen and I'm looking forward to all the "cool" things that Apple should now be able to build (Mac Tablet?). But I can't help believing that Apple has traded away a competitive advantage. But I don't see that there was much of an alternative short of Apple buying out Freescale...
"Now we get the 'Orii' and they bring a whole new dimension to the show."
Can't say I agree. The Orii strike me as a bit one-dimensional. One of the beauties of the Goa'uld system lords is that they make great individual bad-guys. Baal, Apophis, Sokar, Hathor, etc.
The individual Orii messengers, on the other hand, are all the same. Perhaps there's a message here, sure, but after dealing with three or four of them, with the same "My God is great" yadda yadda yadda, they become pretty dull and robotic. In fact, personally, I'm waiting for SG-1 to use a Kirk maneuver on them: "Hey, Orii! If your gods are all-powerful, can they make a rock that they can't move?" The Orii immediately starts babbling faster and faster until sparks fly and they collapse on the ground.
I mean, religious fundamentalism makes a fun episode or two. But it gets a little boring after awhile...
Personally, I think SG-1 needs the rest. If it'd been me, I'd've ended SG-1--the TV Show--when Richard Dean Anderson left. I'd've sent Carter to Area 51, sent Teal'C back to the Jaffa, sent Jackson to Atlantis, and retired Jack. I'd imagine that the Stargate concept has enough clout to do movies--either theatrical or television. Bring 'em back every couple of years to do the movies. Keep the franchise alive and on people's minds with Atlantis.
Though I'll admit that I enjoyed this past week's episode with the room full of Carters...
The Bad News: There's no way we can compete with smaller and nimbler companies.
The Good News: At the rate we're going, we're going to smaller than any of them!
Actually, my favorite benchmark came from Intel.
Back when Intel was having trouble getting their chips to compete with PowerPC, they introduced MMX. They had a great benchmark number with Photoshop doing a two-pixel blur. The Intel machine soundly trounced the PowerMac.
On two pixel blurs.
If you did a three-pixel blur, the PowerMac trounced the Intel machine. If I remember right, they were pretty close on a four-pixel and, from there on out, the PowerMac won.
Again, it's "Lies, Damned Lies, and Benchmarks." Yes, Steve is going to get up there and show statistics and benchmarks saying things like twice or three times as fast. He'll quickly bring up the fine print about how these are processor measurements and that the disks aren't faster, etc. But what will stick in your head is "two-times faster!"
So you need to take all benchmarks with a grain of salt. And laugh at those who complain.
My favorite: A few years ago, Apple used Spec benchmarks to show how the G5 stomped the latest from Intel. People complained because Apple used GCC on both platforms and they should have used Intel's compiler because it produces faster code. A few years later, Apple had some benchmarks on it's website showing a PowerMac running Final Cut Pro trouncing an Intel machine running Adobe Premier. People complained because Apple should have used the same software on both platforms.
"Kick all of them out of office."
Hear hear.
About a year ago, there was a bill in Congress seeking to prevent people from suing restaurants for making them fat--the so-called "cheeseburger bill." Various people had tried to sue McDonalds because they were advertising food that, if you ate alot of it, would make people fat. Of course, the congressmen who supported to bill thought that the whole idea of suing a restaurant for making you fat was frivolous. The consumer is ultimately responsible for their own health and the argument that "McDonalds made me do it" was rediculous.
Fast forward to now. Various congressmen have been taking bribes from lobbyists to vote one way or another on bills. Whose fault is this? According to the congressmen, it's the lobbyists! They plied these innocent congressmen with free trips, money, etc. It's not their fault! No one ever told them that accepting money for voting a particular way was wrong! The lobbyists are the bad guys, offering them money! Dear God, won't somebody think of the congressman!
Where's the "Party of Responsibility" now?
Personally, I say forget making it more difficult for lobbyists to bribe congressmen. Heck, make it easier! But each and every trip taken, each and every dinner received from a $4 Big Mac to a $500 dinner, each and every baseball cap received, and each and every spouse/child/sibling/cousin who is employed by a lobbyist during the congressman's tenure will become part of the public record. And their opponent can bring it up with the voters come election-time...
"The knowledge base article [...] specifically said: iTunes sends data about the song selected in your library to the iTunes Music Store to provide relevant recommendations."
Fair enough. But, as I said, "What data?" It never told me that. What does Apple do with this mysterious data once they get it? It never told me that. It's just sending "data."
Does the "data" have anything to do with whether or not a song was ripped from a CD via iTunes or did it come onto my computer through "some other means"? Because, if I bought the CD and ripped it, iTunes doesn't need to tell me about other tracks on the same CD because I already own it.
That's all I ask: I want to know what the data is and how it's being used.
(As an aside, this may be part of Apple's legal definition. The iTunes Music Store doesn't sell music--it sells data. So the Beatles can't sue Apple because they're not selling music. Just data.)
"Further, the MiniStore actively changing as you click different tracks in iTunes might give a small hint that something is happening."
Well, I'd expect that from Apple's marketing blurbs, most of which you quoted. The marketing blurbs tell me what it does. It doesn't tell me how it using whatever data I'm giving it to come up with the results. That's the important part!
"Now, if you're saying that Apple should have had some kind of a dialog box come up when you first upgraded to and launched iTunes 6.0.2 explaining this and giving a clear option to simply opt to not use the new MiniStore in the first place, sure, I'll agree that would have likely been better. And now they're doing just that."
They've also stated that the data is not stored, which is important to me. But, yes, Apple listened to people's concerns and changed the behavior of the program. This is a good thing and it's good that Apple did this.
Hopefully, they also learned a lesson and won't give us reason to question again.
Well, let me check.
My cable provider, Time Warner, has five Pay-Per-View porns, Playboy, and Playboy en Espanol ("Si! Si! Si!"). So there's seven. If we include the various Cinemaxes and TMCs, you could probably, on occasion, fill up 11 tuners with porn.
Not that I've tried...
"no personal data is collected or sent, or ever was."
Yay! Pat yourself on the back! You were right.
The issue, though, was not about what evil things Apple might be doing. The issue was that you had no idea what Apple was doing. There was speculation--perhaps even informed speculation--but no actual word from Apple about this. Not even buried deep in the bowels of the license agreement.
"how the fuck is it an invasion of privacy?"
Remember that if the information had been stored--we now know it wasn't--information can always be subpoenaed.
Here's an entertaining scenario: Several years ago, I remember reading about some kid who committed suicide. The parents attempted to sue the record companies and artists, I believe, for driving their kids to suicide. Imagine if there was a database somewhere that showed exactly what the kid had been listening to...
I'd be curious about the age of these people who are "afraid" of computers.
:^) You really think a kid is going to be afraid of a little beige box?
Back in the mid-late 80s, I happened to bump into one of my old elementary school teachers and he was chatting about how they were adding computers to the classroom (when I was there, back in the '70s, we had a computer terminal hooked to the local college's mainframe). Because the teacher remembered how much I used the computer back in elementary school, he suggested I come in and see what they were doing, chat with some teachers, maybe come up with some ideas.
I showed up and chatted with a bunch of teachers in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. They all said the same thing. They wanted to make sure that kids weren't "afraid" of the computer. I commented that you don't need to tell them this--elementary school kids aren't afraid of anything. Heck, I used to hang upside down from steel jungle gyms over hard-packed ground! One of the fun things to do on the playground was to jump off the swings when they were as high as possible (and land, again, on the ground--none of the soft sand like these pansy kids today have!
It was the teachers who were "afraid" of the computer. As I said, the teachers grew up in a time when computers were gigantic things and you had to have a 180 IQ just to be in the same room with them. But, again, most of their fears came from the fact that they had these computers thrust upon them without really any idea about how to use it. I was talking to the principal and I suggested having the teachers accomplish something with the computer and then let them go from there. Have the teacher write a story, draw a picture, whatever. Get appropriate software for the teachers to experiment with before you let the kids at it. Once the teachers are comfortable, there'll be less of the "We need to teach you to not fear the computer" and more of "Here's some interesting stuff you can learn with the computer's help."
I won't strongly disagree with you, but I think Dell could pre-install it.
However, Dell would probably have to buy it from Apple (or Amazon) and resell it to the customer. So the Dell would cost more than the Windows machine because I'm pretty sure Dell pays less than $129 for Windows.
"[...] Because the hardware support in OSX is rather finite, it won't just 'install on a typical PC'."
This is sort of an off-topic question, but I was thinking about it the other day...
What about the opposite, where people want to run Windows on as Mac? Where's the Windows support for AirPort cards and iSight cameras? I imagine that Apple's 802.11 b/g card just an OEM version of someone else's card. Some quick research implies it's a Lucent card, but I'm not sure.
The other question I had was with Macs and temperature. I assume the fans are controlled by some sort of embedded chip that will turn on the fans when the temperature gets too hot. Or, is it something that is controlled within the Operating System? If I install Windows on my MacBook Pro, will it melt because Windows doesn't know how to turn on the fans? Or, for safety's sake, will the fans run all the time because Windows doesn't know how to turn them off? Wasn't this an issue with the PowerMac G5 when people first installed Linux on them?
It's an overlapping set of responsibilities.
The FAA doesn't want you to use your cell-phone during taxi, takeoff, and landing because of anecdotal evidence that they can screw up various electronic systems of the airplane. While you're in the air, the FAA doesn't have a problem with it unless it messes up the airplane, at which point someone will come back and tell you to turn it off (depending on how curious they are and how much time they have, they might try to figure out which device was the problem).
The FCC doesn't want you using your cell-phone while in-flight because some cellular systems were not designed to deal with passengers being able to see all cell towers while traveling at over 400 miles per hour. I don't know the details, just that it can mess things up. The FCC has no problem with you using the cell-phone during taxi, take-off, or landing because you're going slowly and you're at low altitude, and you're probably not going to confuse the cellular systems.
So, if the FCC drops their complaints about cell-phone use, you will be able to use a cell-phone while in-flight, but not during take-off or landing.
For a chuckle, take a look at this PDF on "Passenger Electronic Devices" from NASA: http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report_sets/ped.pdf
"I can see the companies who currently publish games for the Mac saying, 'Hell, since the Mac can run Windows now too, why bother with a Mac version at all?'"
First, I'm not sure many companies actually publish games for the Mac. They usually subcontract it through one of Mac game development houses (Aspyr, etc.). So this would remain the same.
Second, in my opinion, there will be fewer dual-booters than you realize.
Think of what you have to do to dual-boot. First, I need to have a copy of Windows around someplace (or, legally, go buy one). Next, I need to repartition the hard drive--how much space do I need for Windows and Mac OS X, anyway? Then I need to format one of the partitions for HFS+ (or UFS or something that Mac OS X understand). Then I need to reinstall Mac OS X. Then I need to format the other partition with NTFS. Then I need to install Windows. Then I need to search the Internet for appropriate device drivers. Think there's a device driver for Airport cards? I don't know if that's just an OEM version of somebody else's 802.11b/g card (I assume it is), but I don't know where to find those drivers. How about the Bluetooth hardware and the graphics card. So there'll be quite a few hours of getting your drivers all put together. And, no, I wouldn't expect any help from Apple on this one.
All to play a few games? I'll admit, I'm no "hardcore gamer." But with that much hassle involved, I think I'd rather just wait 7 months for the game to show up on the Mac.
Hell, as a Mac user, I'm used to that anyway. I just got Doom 3 and Star Wars: Battlefront for Christmas...
Whoa. Simmer, dude.
Apple isn't going to go out of their way to keep Windows from running on a Mac. However, Apple isn't going to go out of their to allow Windows to run on a Mac. If someone (ie, hackers, Microsoft) wants to go out of their way to do it, fine. But Apple won't support it.
So, in other words, I doubt Apple supports BIOS calls through EFI because Apple has no need to do so. If Microsoft releases a version of Windows XP (or Vista) that supports EFI, that's fine. But Apple isn't going to "cripple" their machines so people can run Windows.
Apple has nothing to be "backwards compatible" with in regards to Intel, so why should they bother to support BIOS calls?
That's what he was saying.
Gee, that sounds simple! The issue I have is what data is it using to make this determination?
If it's taking the song I'm currently playing and sending that to iTMS, I don't have much of a problem with that.
But suppose it's is taking the song I'm currently play and sending to iTMS, where it is being stored in order to come up with "better" suggestions. Then I have a bit more of a problem with it.
Suppose, further, that iTMS is also keeping statistics as to whether the song came from iTunes or a ripped CD. Suppose, further, that it's able to detect the difference between a track ripped with iTunes and a track ripped "in some other way" (some tag that iTunes adds), in order to come up with "better" suggestions. After all, if you went and bought the whole CD, you must really like these guys.
Let's go a little further. Since the RIAA suspects you might be trafficking in "stolen" music, they contact Apple and subpoena that information as part of an investigation. Sure enough, something like 90% of the 1000 individual songs you played were ripped "in some other way." I think that'd be enough evidence for a search warrant...
You're right. While I'm browsing my own music, the MiniStore will automatically show me more music from my favorite artists. What they're not telling me is what information is being used to determine it. As I mentioned, if it's sent and forgotten, I don't have much of a problem with this. It's a useless feature--I'll decide when I want to look for new music--but what the heck. The problem is, the cute marketing description doesn't tell me what information is being sent for Apple to come up with this list.
That's where this is bad. I'll decide what information about me that Apple gets to use, thank you very much.
Yes, but they still didn't want people talking about it...
Actually, my favorite story about Area 51 is the movie "Independence Day." From what I understand, the producers went to the military and asked for cooperation (eg, some shooting at MCAS El Toro, etc.). The military loved the script and was gung-ho to do it. They only asked one little thing...
That all references to Area 51 be removed from the script.
The producers decided not to change the script and forego military cooperation.