I don't believe I claimed it was a word without meaning. I know I was scared as hell as a child when I hid under a desk during air raid drills in elementary school because "the communists were going to drop bombs on us." The analogy was simply that while the words may have legitimate meaning (and a justifiable cause for concern), they also give our own extremists fodder to use for things like the Patriot Act and foreign occupations without much opposition from the general public. That is the goal of those catch-words as propaganda. The populace hands over its civil liberties because anyone could be a terrorist; a populace in fear is an easily controllable one. I'm not saying that Terrorism isn't a problem, nor am I saying that Radical Islam (capitalized for a reason) isn't a problem, nor am I saying that brutal, totalitarian regimes under the flag of Communism weren't (and aren't) a problem.
Don't accuse me of America-bashing, please. I was speaking in terms of the words as tools of propaganda. I'm glad you're patriotic and so am I, but a rebel can surely be called a terrorist by those whom they're rebelling against.
First off, my point was that both words are simply being used to induce fear; "terrorist" to justify the stripping of civil liberties in the interest of "security", and "communist" as a rationale for nuclear proliferation and a huge military-industrial complex. Both are "boogey-man" words in the sense that they are being used to induce fear and complacency in the American public. I wasn't commenting on the technical, idealogical, or philosophical meaning of either; I was commenting on their use as propaganda in the US to sway public opinion.
Second, if you want to get technical, before the USA became the USA it was a group of British colonies. A few men within those colonies took up arms and committed acts that could be loosely defined as terrorism before the movement became a revolution and the colonies declared independence. The British would've called them terrorists at the time, not revolutionaries. Again, propaganda is far removed from fact.
Your points are all valid and I agree with you, but I think you misconstrued the point I was making (or I wasn't very clear about it). Well... I agree with you for the most part, but I will say that someone like Stalin used Communism as an excuse for Totalitarianism; Communism was ruined as soon as Humans got involved.
My point is about the way the word is used. The word "communist" was used to induce fear and justify a war economy just the way the word "terrorist" is being used now to justify a war machine and domestic surveillance.
History is written by the victorious; I'm sure similar words were used to describe the founding fathers as they threw tea into a harbor. You're absolutely correct in your definition of both words, but I was simply stating that "terrorist" is the new catch-word that has America rolling over and giving away its civil liberties in the the name of security.
Isn't "terrorist" the new "communist?" It's the new boogey-man word designed to scare everyone into complacency while we cower in our homes and allow things like warrantless wire-tapping to occur.
But I'm getting off topic. America was founded by "terrorists." As was any country who's government was established by any revolution, civil war, or coup; they were all started by a few "terrorists" (with few exceptions, I suppose).
It's not a "bad business decision," it's deceptive advertising, plain and simple. Using a word like "unlimited" wasn't a mistake by their marketing department, it was a deliberate misuse of a word which is then contradicted in fine print that hardly anyone bothers to read.
It makes plenty of sense when the article is about broadband. How Karl Rove fits into the picture is beyond me. I guess that's because I was expecting to read about a broadband report, not Bush-hating flamebait that I can read just about anywhere.
What sort of legal precedent would allow them to arbitrarily wipe HDs and such? There isn't, as far as I know, while searching a laptop (in the way that they search a bag) is legal.
Everyone is up in arms about this, but have any of you ever actually been picked out by a Customs official? They can do almost *anything* they want as long as they follow procedural guidelines. I moved to Guam at one point in my life. I packed as much as I could into a few suitcases and arrived at Guam Customs at about 1am. Around 4am they were satisfied with their search after taking apart things like water filters, looking through packets of papers, etc. Perhaps I don't know my rights in regards to border security, but a Customs Official's "probable cause" is much, much different than a police officer or non-federal law enforcement official.
Is it wrong? Possibly. Have we allowed it without complaint for decades? Yes. Is it a case of "they're not doing it to me so what do I have to worry about?" Yes. I just think it's funny that they can strip search anyone for any undisclosed reason and no one complains, but as soon as a laptop is mentioned they are completely out of control.
Also... I'm fairly certain that the technology you describe already exists.
"It's a US territory, hence, customs/culture are similar, but the prices are higher than San Francisco, people are somewhat bias against US mainlanders, and the weather is a just as good as Miami. Save your money and goto Central America...."
Who isn't "somewhat bias[ed]" against US mainlanders? Or Americans in general? I'm biased against most Americans and I'm an Amercian!
Granted, there are a few places in Central/South America that do love Americans (or the tourist money), but if you base your vacation/travel plans on "who likes us" you won't be travelling very much.
This article is just a little bit silly. Haven't been people been buying and replacing their media since... media existed?
When I was just a young'un I bought cassette tapes. After a couple years I had many, many tapes. Compact Discs were unveiled and that format was the be-all and end-all of audio... and everyone was told that CD's would last forever, unlike magnetic tape... which is just hilarious.
I used to buy VHS tapes. I had a large collection of those. Then DVD's arrived... and suddenly my entire movie collection was obsolete.
In both cases there was good cause to switch to the new media format because the quality had improved. The newer media also took up less space physical space.
The point being that it's an endless cycle; there's no "strategy" involved, really.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe I claimed it was a word without meaning. I know I was scared as hell as a child when I hid under a desk during air raid drills in elementary school because "the communists were going to drop bombs on us." The analogy was simply that while the words may have legitimate meaning (and a justifiable cause for concern), they also give our own extremists fodder to use for things like the Patriot Act and foreign occupations without much opposition from the general public. That is the goal of those catch-words as propaganda. The populace hands over its civil liberties because anyone could be a terrorist; a populace in fear is an easily controllable one. I'm not saying that Terrorism isn't a problem, nor am I saying that Radical Islam (capitalized for a reason) isn't a problem, nor am I saying that brutal, totalitarian regimes under the flag of Communism weren't (and aren't) a problem.
Don't accuse me of America-bashing, please. I was speaking in terms of the words as tools of propaganda. I'm glad you're patriotic and so am I, but a rebel can surely be called a terrorist by those whom they're rebelling against.
First off, my point was that both words are simply being used to induce fear; "terrorist" to justify the stripping of civil liberties in the interest of "security", and "communist" as a rationale for nuclear proliferation and a huge military-industrial complex. Both are "boogey-man" words in the sense that they are being used to induce fear and complacency in the American public. I wasn't commenting on the technical, idealogical, or philosophical meaning of either; I was commenting on their use as propaganda in the US to sway public opinion.
Second, if you want to get technical, before the USA became the USA it was a group of British colonies. A few men within those colonies took up arms and committed acts that could be loosely defined as terrorism before the movement became a revolution and the colonies declared independence. The British would've called them terrorists at the time, not revolutionaries. Again, propaganda is far removed from fact.
Your points are all valid and I agree with you, but I think you misconstrued the point I was making (or I wasn't very clear about it). Well... I agree with you for the most part, but I will say that someone like Stalin used Communism as an excuse for Totalitarianism; Communism was ruined as soon as Humans got involved.
My point is about the way the word is used. The word "communist" was used to induce fear and justify a war economy just the way the word "terrorist" is being used now to justify a war machine and domestic surveillance.
History is written by the victorious; I'm sure similar words were used to describe the founding fathers as they threw tea into a harbor. You're absolutely correct in your definition of both words, but I was simply stating that "terrorist" is the new catch-word that has America rolling over and giving away its civil liberties in the the name of security.
Seriously?
Isn't "terrorist" the new "communist?" It's the new boogey-man word designed to scare everyone into complacency while we cower in our homes and allow things like warrantless wire-tapping to occur.
But I'm getting off topic. America was founded by "terrorists." As was any country who's government was established by any revolution, civil war, or coup; they were all started by a few "terrorists" (with few exceptions, I suppose).
It's not a "bad business decision," it's deceptive advertising, plain and simple. Using a word like "unlimited" wasn't a mistake by their marketing department, it was a deliberate misuse of a word which is then contradicted in fine print that hardly anyone bothers to read.
It makes plenty of sense when the article is about broadband. How Karl Rove fits into the picture is beyond me. I guess that's because I was expecting to read about a broadband report, not Bush-hating flamebait that I can read just about anywhere.
This may be "Insighful," but isn't it also incredibly off-topic? Did you even mention broadband?
What motivation would they have to do that?
What sort of legal precedent would allow them to arbitrarily wipe HDs and such? There isn't, as far as I know, while searching a laptop (in the way that they search a bag) is legal.
Everyone is up in arms about this, but have any of you ever actually been picked out by a Customs official? They can do almost *anything* they want as long as they follow procedural guidelines. I moved to Guam at one point in my life. I packed as much as I could into a few suitcases and arrived at Guam Customs at about 1am. Around 4am they were satisfied with their search after taking apart things like water filters, looking through packets of papers, etc. Perhaps I don't know my rights in regards to border security, but a Customs Official's "probable cause" is much, much different than a police officer or non-federal law enforcement official.
Is it wrong? Possibly. Have we allowed it without complaint for decades? Yes. Is it a case of "they're not doing it to me so what do I have to worry about?" Yes. I just think it's funny that they can strip search anyone for any undisclosed reason and no one complains, but as soon as a laptop is mentioned they are completely out of control.
Also... I'm fairly certain that the technology you describe already exists.
I think there may be a difference between absolute hot and absolutely f**king hot.
"It's a US territory, hence, customs/culture are similar, but the prices are higher than San Francisco, people are somewhat bias against US mainlanders, and the weather is a just as good as Miami. Save your money and goto Central America...." Who isn't "somewhat bias[ed]" against US mainlanders? Or Americans in general? I'm biased against most Americans and I'm an Amercian! Granted, there are a few places in Central/South America that do love Americans (or the tourist money), but if you base your vacation/travel plans on "who likes us" you won't be travelling very much.
Where've you been? Al Gore is the answer to all of your questions.
This article is just a little bit silly. Haven't been people been buying and replacing their media since... media existed? When I was just a young'un I bought cassette tapes. After a couple years I had many, many tapes. Compact Discs were unveiled and that format was the be-all and end-all of audio... and everyone was told that CD's would last forever, unlike magnetic tape... which is just hilarious. I used to buy VHS tapes. I had a large collection of those. Then DVD's arrived... and suddenly my entire movie collection was obsolete. In both cases there was good cause to switch to the new media format because the quality had improved. The newer media also took up less space physical space. The point being that it's an endless cycle; there's no "strategy" involved, really.