Might I be allowed to use with the formatting functions?
196 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Jul 2007
It's simply one of the many stops on the rubber stamp of good faith train. The government's going to come in, put on their dog and pony show to appease John Q Idiot, then give the deal its seal of approval.
That's how these things work. Expect the merger to pass through within a year or less.
So, wait, what about those e-mails leaked by AT&T's legal department that completely destroy the entirety of AT&T's argument? Most importantly, the e-mails show to be false AT&T's claims that the only way to grow their network is through the purchase of T-Mobile.
How is this merger even still up for review? Is the illusion of a government for the people even a tenant the corrupt seek to uphold or have they realized that Joe Consumer doesn't give a shit anymore so long as he can buy a new iPhone every couple of years?
Oh, right, sorry, that's exactly what it is. They're rich and corrupt and we're lazy and complacent.
You see, I can't say that I do not think that Google are deserving of an anti-trust investigation. That isn't to say that I support it, merely that you can't argue against it outright. Google has definitely abused its position, but whether or not that's worth investigating is another matter. The very concept of link aggregators cum search indexes cum advertising networks being considered a large and influential enough of a market to be worth taking anti-trust action against blows my mind, but I guess the dullards at the DoJ enjoy wading neck-deep into this sort of bullshit.
All that said, the real question isn't whether or not Google are *worth* being investigated, it's whether or not Google are *worth* being investigated while companies like AT&T are given the very same government's golden seal of approval. It is impossible to separate those two facts from one another, therein lies my conundrum: how can I possibly support an anti-trust investigation of Google that will most likely explicitly center on their abuses of advertising market dominance and ignore all of the legitimate issues like abuse of privacy, all the while the DoJ conveniently fails to launch anti-trust action against truly market damaging anti-competitive price-fixing anti-consumer behemoths like AT&T?
It's bad enough that this investigation will wind up a joke, just like Microsoft's. Even worse, it won't seek to rectify any of the real ills of Google. The fact that I couldn't give a shit whether or not Google manipulates its search index, or whether or not Google fucks over advertisers, is only compounded by the fact that I do very muchly give a shit that a company that has the potential to have an overwhelmingly negative impact on my life as a consumer was all ready broken up once, reformed less than twenty years later and is now in an even more powerful position to abuse than it has ever held before.
That said, what the douchebag dumbfuckers at Google do to other search engines on the internet and the useless keyword whoring advertisers doesn't mean a good god damn thing to me because it's all happening in some shitfuck virtual reality that doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on real life and there are literally dozens of competitors are gunning to take Google down but when the largest telecommunications company IN THE GOD DAMNED WORLD abuses its vertically integrated market dominance it definitely has a real impact on my life, my wallet and the lives and wallets of many tens of millions of people.
To wit, Google are cunts, AT&T are bigger cunts and the United States Department of Justice are the biggest cunts of them all. This whole thing is a fucking joke. You want to take down Google? Fine, be my guest, but do it for the right reasons, and the second you're done you go after AT&T, who are only one of the scores of evil American empires that need to be kneecapped, next. Of course, this entire post was written knowing that Google aren't being investigated because they're worthy of an anti-trust investigation, they're being investigated because they pissed off people that are collectively far wealthier and more influential than they are and with far better lobbyists.
Good God. I'm almost never above making an obvious comment about the United States and how it is either this (pre-fascist corporatocracy) or that (a wholly corrupt state plagued by nepot- and crony-ism) but this is just too easy. I mean, really, this is just so unapologetically obvious that I'm not even sure it is worth commenting on. Oh, but I will anyway.
A decidedly anti-poker and pro-horse racing online gambling ban that violates international trade agreements was tacked on to a port security act by a bunch of religious nutjobs with a vested interest in horse racing in their own states. Law is then protected by powerful Democratic Senator who is guaranteed to be in the Vegas casinos' pockets and enforced by an administration that completely ignored banks acting as money launderers for drug cartels. Yeah, OK, that about sums it up, I'd say.
They don't even bother hiding their true allegiances anymore, now do they?
Wikileaks is good and necessary. Julian Assange is not.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that the way most people in the Western World (tm) world is that they need a figurehead to guide an organization, lest no one will follow or understand it. I don't agree with it, that just seems to be the way it is.
At any rate, no matter how much of a jerk-ass Assange may be, it's worth noting that he (1) is better than the idiots the general populace have consistently elected (insert conspiracy theories about the political systems in America and England here) and (2) he's far more of a real journalist than anyone around today (insert conspiracy theories about the Grauniad/NYT taking him down to please their masters or because he made them look bad, etc). That doesn't not make him a twat and that doesn't make him Ed Murrow, but it does make people like him important and necessary (for now), whether we like it or not.
The way out of this future, or one worse than it, is to hold our governments accountable (through violence if necessary) and to expect the best out of the fourth estate (and not just petty and jealous tabloid reporting). We do both and then suddenly prima donna's like Assange won't have anything to grasp onto for fame and fortune and we'll all live in a much better world than we do now.
I love the Register, especially when it is at its most controversial and muckrakey. Hell, I even love reading Orlowski's columns these days - it took me a couple of years, but I finally came around. That said, I enjoyed the crusade against Wikipedia far more than I enjoy this one. The Register does more than its fair share of investigative journalism and for that I am infinitely grateful, but until you guys start pointing out the failures and corruptions of our respective governments in a way that is equally as successful and consistent as Wikileaks - and it doesn't fucking matter if they're the "sky is blue" sort of reports that everyone all ready knows, as it needs to be pointed out constantly, forcefully and expertly that our governments are either/both incompetent and/or evil - then it comes off just a bit petty to constantly attack this asshat *as if* his actions completely nullify those of Wikileaks.
Yes, again, Wikileaks would be better off without him, just in the same way that the Register would be better off if it had more Lewis Page/Andrew Orlowski articles and less Lucy Orr/Andrew Bailey/Mike Plant videogame reviews.
Who cares if these rules are repealed? Seriously, who gives a shit? They're utter crap written by a pro-business jerkass who was appointed by a pro-business administration.
Within less than a quarter of these rules going into effect the largest telecoms provider IN THE FUCKING WORLD (AT&T) has implemented usage based billing, traffic shaping and throttling. Again, let me reiterate: they have gone as far as "legally" allowed by the FCC to fuck over their customers.
As if that was not enough they, among many other telecoms companies (such as Verizon, the last bit of the original AT&T left un-reassimilated), are taking the FCC to court to have these rules struck down as well as lobbying heavily to Republicans to have them repealed by Congress.
Who gives a shit anymore about what this government does? Everyone is in Big Business's pockets and those who aren't are a marginalized superminority that can't possibly ever really effect change. We're boned. They've won. The bloody game is over. They have flat out won.
This move is completely in line with the FCC's vision for a highly competitive, consumer-friendly and anti-monopolistic business environment seeing as how the FCC took such a tough regulatory stand on usage based billing, traffic shaping and mobile broadband.
The chairman would NEVER rubber-stamp something that is guaranteed to be harmful to the consumer. No. NEVER.
Yes. Of course. It all makes sense. The internal consistency of the United States telecoms regulator is astounding!
Is it possible that you could start indicating in these articles that these are LIGHT WATER reactors and therefore NO CHERNOBYL IS POSSIBLE? The worst we'd get is Three Mile Island and that's a stretch, at least according to Japanese nuclear scientists speaking to government and press. These reactors are far safer than the older designs people are so used to and are designed to take forever to cool down if they just have to shut down the entire thing. NHK are reporting that since the explosion the heat has actually dropped and so has the radiation level.
From what I understand, again according to those same scientists, is that a worst case scenario entails a maximum of 20-40km would be irradiated and only temporarily. Tokyo would be fine and actually the US would catch the brunt of the "fall-out". What barely makes it over here that is.
So, if these reactors wind up coming down nice and easy like, and there is no big nuclear catastrophe, are you fucking anti-nuke wanks going to eat crow and admit that maybe, just maybe, we've advanced to the point where nuclear science can safely handle just about everything we/nature can throw at it?
Mistakes and accidents can always happen, but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. What you NIMBY jerk-offs don't seem able to do is admit when you're wrong. If the container doesn't burst and no shit is flung at any fan, will you own up and go "Oh, I'm a god damned fucking self-interested dick with an agenda and am using other people's tragedy to invoke my own selfish righteous indignation?"
No? You won't do that? Oh. Well then.
Look, dude, if we could treat the underlying disease behind the symptoms (of which spam is only one of many, and is exactly why it is successful) then we wouldn't have war, poverty, racism, sexism, religious extremism, rape or murder. I'm serious. Spam is insidious (and equally brilliant) because it preys on people's insecurities and neuroses. Smart people get taken in by spam all the time.
Further, I take contention with your assertion that phishing is easier to defend against. If it was then there'd be no such thing as espionage. It's all a confidence and trust game. Sure, it might be on a computer, but the tactics are no different than they were a hundred years ago. How do you propose to prevent granny from responding to an e-mail from what looks to be her bank asking for her username and password?
As far as web-of-trust e-mail goes... welcome to 2002 (most likely earlier). Web hosts and software packages have long been offering this. You know this, right? And in regards to "accept mail from my Facebook buddies..." Man, seriously? So, you're saying that Facebook, which is EASILY hackable/phishable, is a better/more secure form of e-mail? What happens when your buddy's Facebook gets hacked and he sends you a well designed scam? You're more likely to trust it coming from someone you explicitly gave permission to e-mail you, your friend, so is it really anymore secure?
The best (only, really) defense against spam is a well trained Bayesian filter combined with a well maintained ISP/host-level blacklist. Also, knowing what not to do, what not to click on, etc. Even then, shit happens. That's why we have laws. Time to write better ones and then start enforcing them. Criminals get smarter, skirt the law. Rinse and repeat.
Pretense. Freedom. Justice. No longer seeking to maintain an image of. Etcetera.
You know, I didn't use to be such a bitter jaded asshole, especially in regards to my homeland. Then, in only slightly less time than it takes to read the actual DMCA, the US government has done just about every single thing it can think of to (1) curtail our right to privacy and (2) our right to a fair and just judicial system.
What is especially appalling is that no matter how far and how often Congress and the President are willing to go to show that they have big businesses' (and not ours) best interests at heart the judiciary finds new and ever so inventive ways at displaying just how little the other two branches of government know about being truly corrupt.
"Apple didn't respond when we attempted to verify this claim. But it doesn't respond when we attempt to verify anything"
Aww, Cade, the Register is like Apple's oft-abused ex bound by ethical journalism to constantly keep seeking comment and always ending up, sadly, rebuked.
One day, in a fit of desperation, perhaps looking to extract any sort of emotional closure from the abusive former flame, the Register will send Steve Jobs an e-mail, asking why Apple never bothers calling anymore to invite it over and, really, what happened to all those good times? Steve, as he is infamously wont to do, will reply that he doesn't love you anymore, never did and would you please just let it go.
Also, about warping the context within which statements are made?
No one here is saying that he has been automatically convicted. No one here is saying that he will automatically be punished unjustly. We're saying that he hasn't a chance in hell of walking away from this having been tried or punished fairly.
Life is not as simple as "if he is FOUND guilty he will be punished, if he is FOUND not guilty he will be set free." Especially in a case like this which is far more subtle than YOU let on. He OBVIOUSLY committed a crime - multiple ones, in fact. I have YET to see anyone here dispute that he obviously broke various laws. What I HAVE seen people here dispute is the severity of his crimes, whether what he is being charged with is just and whether or not a mockery of justice is in the making all to please a scorned military and government.
You are willfully naive if you insinuate that you have served in our military and are willing to attest to never having seen a breach of justice or protocol within the military. You are acting as if the military is a wholly honorable entity that acts without political motivation - either internal or external - and that has never once violated its own codes and practices to secure whatever the fucking hell it wants to. In your very first post ever on the Register you even claim that in minutes the average GI could find a way to cheat around a firearm's "black box" designed to create and assign accountability to said GI. Doesn't seem as if you have much faith in the honesty or integrity of your average GI, yet here you're more than willing to decry our outrage at his mishandling which, framed within your obvious reverence for the military judicial system, makes you disingenuous at best and a fucking liar at worst. Within your capacity as an expert [whereas we are just commentators, you see, aren't we?] you have both summarily passed judgment on a case you aren't assigned to and a defendant you haven't read the file of while attempting to strawman every single person in this thread. Bravo. You take bullshit to new and astounding levels.
The deliberate ignorance and wanton manipulation of both the content contained with and the framing context of people's posts you exhibit is disgusting.
To wit, you and your agenda can fuck right off.
"...and none of the charges filed against Manning make any reference to WikiLeaks."
If it wasn't Wikileaks, then what is the name of this "enemy" he was supposedly "aiding"? Because if it's not Wikileaks - an inanimate [although human run, of course] publishing entity of journalistic merit that has worked with some of the largest names in the press - then surely Manning must have directly passed (a) these cables or (b) other "classified" information of a nature that is "sensitive" to such an esoteric concept as national security on to either (1) a first party that is directly related to a terrorist organization or sovereign nations that have violated either convention law or have been hit with UN resolutions or sanctions (or otherwise been labeled as "baddies" by the US) or (2) a third party that supports said terrorists/sovereign nations either (I) monetarily or (II) logistically.
Sorry for that run-on, but unless Manning has done any of the above then sticking him with an "aiding the enemy" charge is a distraction, unlikely to hold up in court, a gross misuse/willful misinterpretation of case law and legislation, an attack on the free press (that the old media/institutionalized press will likely ignore or even outright not understand) or all of the above.
You can say whatever you want about the United States, and some of it might be right. We might have entered a pre-fascist era (or have strolled willingly into a fully fascist one, albeit in its infancy). We might be an Imperialist nation that have grossly overreached and overestimated the world's tolerance to a lone superpower. Insert platitudes at your leisure. You can also say whatever you want about Wikileaks. Overstate or dismiss its affect on the Middle East all you would like. Again, platitudes, your leisure, etc. Do it again for the Middle East and its maybe/maybe-not populist uprisings against truly malevolent dictators. Say what you will about how Wikileaks announced American imperialism and the propping up of said dictators to the world and how that led to the Middle Eastern revolts; declare it to either be coincidence or unrelated altogether.
Then take all of that garbage and throw it out. You need not look any further than Manning's interaction with and treatment at the hands of the Obama administration to realize that we've all been had and that there now exists no difference between the two parties once you get past the social issues they use to keep us all subdued, sedated and distracted. Abortion, gay rights, the legalization of marijuana and the [so-called] entitlement programs don't matter when any real protest against the real issues is met with the ever-increasing, alarmingly so, judicially-authorized and legislatively-retroacted police encroachment onto and curtailing of our rights.
Britain, in many ways you're far ahead of us in regards to the police and nanny state. You're also far ahead of us in realizing where you're going and attempting to do something about it - eg the student protests and police-incited riots. Take a lesson from us before it's too late and you wind up a one-party state that progressively punishes its citizenry by de-educating, propagandizing, disentitling [of rights hard fought for and earned over nearly a hundred and fifty years and nearly all undone in less than sixty] and disenfranchising everyone under a certain income level or lacking a certain supra-political affiliation.
But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
"The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy— everything."
Had he merely confessed his crimes and sold out everyone he ever interacted with then he wouldn't be facing the current charges. He continues to spurn the United States of America - that is his true crime. Had he merely complied he'd likely land up in jail for the rest of his life or a significant chunk of it, but he'd have capitulated and given the US government exactly what they want.
Since he hasn't and apparently won't, retribution is the only answer. They're not only going to kill him, they're going to utterly destroy him as a warning to *everyone*. If this case goes through unbridled then whatever last vestiges of false freedom and false liberty this country even cared to project have long since been gone.
The United States, as we know it, is either fucking done for or has been long fucking done.
"'actively engaged' with its trading partners to 'seek appropriate action against counterfeiting and piracy'."
As opposed to being "actively engaged" with its trading partners to "seek appropriate ways of monetizing otherwise stale product through new and innovative distribution channels".
Can't I at least get my front door kicked in for something real, like attempting to subvert the government? Or does that not lend as much street cred as being involved in a file-sharing raid? Help me out here!
Space was the ultimate test of [American] mettle.
I dare not even think of what our failure to stand tall in the face of uncertainty and adversity says about us. I've become convinced that we've regressed as a society as the dreams of the 20th century have come crashing down around us at the close of the decade of fear, paranoia and the manipulation thereof. It's a minor regression, mind you, and I remain forever optimistic that one day we'll all look beyond the heavens to even greater wonders unknown, but it is a regression nonetheless, putting us on the back foot and giving us undue pause. Our inability to translate the space age daydream into a tangible reality remains our greatest failure at a time when failure seems to be aplenty.
Dreamers dream, always have and will continue, ad infinitum. When we move beyond the need for such abstract human constructs as race, sex, identity, politics, economics, class and the worst parts of religion, then, and only then, perhaps, can we treat space with the respect and awe it rightly deserves. Then, and only then, perhaps, can we begin in earnest the start of our next evolutionary phase: that of living beyond the heavens, and beyond all our petty Earthly neuroses.
Few people have ever had "the Right Stuff," but to those who have, and to all those who were true believers enough to support the work they did [at NASA and elsewhere]: salut [or, if it's more fitting to your own personal beliefs, God-speed]. You are those most deserving of our adoration and admiration and it is to you that we should all look up and from you that we should learn. Without wishing to tarnish my message with negativity (ahem), perhaps we'd be ever more closer to living the dream if we envied and idolized astronauts, scientists and the engineers who support them instead of thug basketball players, racist hick baseball players, narcissistic rock stars or vapid movie Gods. Perhaps. One day. A man can dream, can't he?
Lastly, it is only fitting that Atlantis shall make the last manned journey in an American space-fairing vehicle - at least for now - before our independent manned space program is proverbially lost under the sea. Robots and satellites and telescopes are a fine and an integral part of the overarching plot that is our space endeavor, but they don't carry with them the same mystique as launching a human being off our planet and into the great beyond. A fitting, if bittersweet, end to an era.
It carries with it an optimistic note to the future, though: Atlantis shall rise again.
...would be to watch this Big Lebowski excerpt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMwpWIRQp4
Anyone from Austin, or for that matter, anyone who's ever passed through Round Rock on the way to Austin, or for that matter, anyone who's ever even looked at Round Rock through a high powered space telescope, knows that its city government and city services - eg, the police - take themselves WAY too seriously.
If you even think of driving through Round Rock in a van that looks like it might even have once had someone smoke a joint while walking past it you will get pulled over and you will get harassed. The police there don't like any "hanky panky" in their fair city.
I offended you so much you went through my back history on the Register cherry-picking items in an attempt at forming your oh so coherent argument?
I'm not even going to bother. This is simply the most unreal experience I've ever had on here and this one time I used Google to completely out a pro-Google Googler by finding out everything there was to know about him after he said "Google wasn't evil" and there was nothing to fear.
Good day, sir. I look forward to another four years of failing to recognize you post here.
@ Matt Bryant
How is it that you've posted nearly 2100 times and I've yet to see your name but in this one thread alone I have seen it pop up numerous times, nearly every single one regurgitating the same tired partisan tripe? Yes, sorry, my apologies, I brought out the post count argument. I concede!
Perhaps my previous response to Paul 106 will hint as to where my sensibilities and loyalties lie. I doubt it, as you just want to rail off your pedestrian opinion while masquerading it as high-brow intellectual analyzation. You didn't read my post, or you'd understand the correlation between a society that condones secretly shipping off POWs to secret military bases (ie doing everything it can to "protect" us from people we denote as "evil") and one that has no problem stripping everyday citizens and soldiers of their rights (ie doing everything we can to set an example for would-be "traitors" and constitutionally protected leakers alike). Our obsession with security has led us to accede to the continual and wanton stripmining of rights and protections from both the constitution and federal law. Moreover, our acquiescence to the turned blind eye of oversight has caused the moral and ethical erosion of government that seeks to domestically abuse the powers given to it to fight terrorism and foreign espionage. To wit, we treated foreign nations like shit for so long, simply because they're foreign, that we fail to recognize what's wrong when we treat our own citizenry the same. As I said in my post, which you failed to read, I pointed out that the military CAN and WILL treat him like this as military law is far more strict than its civilian counterpart. All the same, that certainly doesn't make it right.
Now, because you're obviously here for no other reason than to spout off crap rhetoric, I'll give you a line by line response:
"Please state how any of that - even if it was true in other cases - applies to Manning?"
- No, thanks, you'll just take it out of context again in a crude and infantile attempt to discredit what I'm saying and repeat partisan talking points because you lack both the originality and cognition to form your own opinions about the matter.
"He hasn't been kidnapped"
- I never said he was, that was in regards to our treatment of should've-been-POWs-instead-of-detainees and the fact that they were flown to secret prisons and never charged. Don't even attempt to straw-man me.
"he's been arrested by the US military for breach of US military law."
- Yes, a fact which I stated and bears repeating. Thanks, Matty!
"He hasn't been flown to a secret prison,"
- Again, never said he was. Don't straw-man me.
"he's in Quantico Brig, an established US base, and his friends, family and lawyers have all been given access to him."
- This is not a flat out lie, but it's disingenuous, as you leave out the part where his friends, family, lawyers and journalists have all been harassed by the military. Their cars have been searched and towed, they have been given court summons for things such as not having up to date car insurance paperwork on them (and then refusing to take electronic insurance papers), they have been written ticket after ticket for infractions found without having probable cause, etc. There are more ways to skin a cat than one, and just as Bradley Manning's treatment amounts to torture, so too is constant harassment a tool used to keep his friends, family and lawyers from having easy access to him.
"He hasn't been tortured,"
- Legally he hasn't. Nor has he been subjected to what is torture under international law. Still, his treatment is torturous, and I wager that is the implied meaning of most people's posts on this subject. This is not a nit you should be picking, as you are neither a pedant nor clever, you are merely trying to score points by feigning to not have understood our posts and then hoping we don't come back to clarify.
"he's been kept under US military prison rules, including their rules on how prisoners judged likley to self-harm should be kept."
- Yes, just as prisoners as Camp X-Ray and Abu Ghraib were kept under military prison rules, including their rules on how prisoners judged likely to self-harm should be kept. These rules and their interpretation are ripe for abuse, however, and the fact that you don't even think that they could be is appalling. The military is doing everything they can to prevent oversight of his treatment, and therein lies the problem. You understand this, yet you, again, acted as obtusely as possible to make an asinine point.
"Seeing as I doubt you have any psychiatric training and have likley never even met Manning,"
- While I have no psychiatric training, many people do. People being kept from meeting and evaluating Manning. My lack of training and personal interaction with Manning does not preclude me from forming an opinion about his treatment, just as your own personal inadequacies don't preclude you from forming yours. Again, willfully obtuse. Again, don't straw-man me, buddy.
"I don't see how you are qualified to question the conclusions of trained doctors."
- Trained military doctors with an agenda who are operating under the cover of a military that is doing everything it can to prevent oversight of their treatment of Manning. Look, if you don't understand that the military looks out for its own, and has in the past gone to the exact same extremes it is now to threaten, demoralize and discredit people that have scorned it, then you are even more deluded than I thought.
"There is no "pressure" on foreign governments, all Manning's wrong-doings have been committed in US bases under US militray juristiction,"
- Again, this was part of my correlation/causation bit regarding how... fuck it, you know what, you don't care about this argument, you're just a partisan asshole that has made this thread into his own personal crusade against against anyone who is taking a moral stand against his treatment. His treatment is legal, yes, but it isn't right, and that is why you have gone to the fringes of misunderstanding and misrepresentation to make our arguments look weak because you lack the ability to bolster your own arguments through reason, logic, empathy and understanding. The four previous sentiments are not something only Democrats are prone to, and your incredible ability to incorrectly slander many people for holding those opinions (and ones that you simply made up and credited to them) is simply astounding.
"so no need to involve foreign powers at all."
- Oh, no? So the United States government leaning on Sweden to prosecute him for crimes in their country so that the United Kingdom can extradite him to a country that is then far more likely to extradite him to the United States isn't involving foreign powers at all? I realize that is, of course, not what you meant, as you were merely warping my easily understandable post to suit your own needs, but it is what the US is doing.
"And please give a single example of how the US administration has threatened it's own over Manning?"
- Straw man. Straw man. STRAW MAN. STTTRRAAAWWW MAAANNN!! My post contains three extremely separate points that tied in to make one overarching statement about the way in which this country is operating. (1) Obama is continuing Bush era policies, (2) many of which began to intrude domestically, (3) the treatment of Manning is morally, if not legally, wrong, which directly descends from (1) and (2). Again, I don't expect you to make that logical leap, seeing as how your entire purpose here is to score points and manipulate what we're all saying. I doubt you even read to the point of comprehension the majority of our posts in your hurry (as indicated by the legion of misspellings and typos) to post as many platitudes as humanly possible. It looks as if you just scanned for as many talking points as you could and then vomited up some pointlessly vitriolic reaction, all of which boil down to "it's A-OK legally" and "democrat crybaby wah wah wah".
"In short, you can't for any of the above, because all you sprouted was a load of mindless, unsubstantiated drivel."
- I apologize for my inability to properly germinate. I promise to consult with an arborist before next posting.
As my favorite "liberal" once said, "Don't kick cow crap on my boots and call it bull shit."
@ Anonymous Coward, 03:32 GMT
In case you haven't noticed, I laid my fair share of blame on Obama. Of course, you didn't actually read my post, did you, or you would have known that.
@ Paul 106
I don't exactly think Obama's worse. I think he's a hypocrite and a charlatan for running the campaign that he did and then trying to play Chicago politics on a national level. That's not the point, though, and I'd really rather not debate it. He's merely a technocrat posing as a liberal, as are so many supposed Democrats today. His jockeying for position, a very specific and powerful one in fact - President - belies his and nearly all politicians true nature. They want to uphold the status quo while scoring just enough political points to guarantee power and position for as long as constitutionally allowed. When done, they want to have networked well enough and made as many friends in business as possible to guarantee continued influence and employment. The end.
Obama is a bad President because he reneged on nearly everything he ever said regarding Bush's policies. He continues many of them and, in true Presidential fashion regarding foreign policy and motherland security (wink wink), he seems to have only changed his mind the moment he stepped into office and was given "the talk" that only people of a certain security clearance are given. I don't doubt that the landslide of information - both true and fabricated - presented to a new President can change his mind. The jump from junior Senator to President is that of going from Duke of Gloucester to Prime Minister or King. (That is an imperfect analogy, my apologies, but I hope you gather what I am trying to say.)
Still, that is no excuse for Obama not to try and uphold his campaign promises. As is, Obama is a completely different President than he was a candidate. Not so different from Obama the Senator. I lived in Chicago at the time Obama was elected and I did not vote for him, nor would I ever vote for any politician from Chicago or Illinois. I did not drink the kool-aid. Many did. I expected him to break many of his campaign promises, as anyone who thinks that anyone in power will discontinue programs that enlarge their power is largely naive.
All that I have written above are the reasons why party politics, no matter how many parties and politicians involved, is bullshit. The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is largely one of ideologies. Not all Democrats support abortion and gun control, but it is a large and valid power group within their base. Not all Republicans support limitless intrusion into our private lives under the guise of security, but it is a large and valid power group within their base. I am neither, and I vote neither, and when I withhold my vote - as I did in the last President and congressional elections - it is not out of spite or anger, but out of a lack of other reasonable options. I do not play their game, as voting for one candidate just to block another is just as dangerous as voting a straight ticket simply because that party skews more to your own bias.
When a country has no qualms about holding foreign citizens hostage, torturing them, kidnapping them and flying them to various secret prisons, putting political pressure on foreign nations to curtail their investigations and outright threatening its own citizens and government into submission over all of the previous, then it is absolutely, completely naive to expect that they will treat their own citizens any different.
I'm not even going to get into whether or not Bradley Manning broke the law. That's not the point. What is being done to him is nothing more than psychological torture, making him ripe and tender for the beating he's about to be given in court. They want him weak. They want him broken. Despite the fact that, according to every news source available (and from the military themselves), he has done absolutely nothing wrong in prison nor shown himself to be violent or a threat, he is being put through conditions that not even maximum security inmates are forced to endure.
The fact that his lawyer and all of his advocates are being rebuked at every step paints an extremely clear picture of what the military are doing and why. Military law is far more strict than civilian law and you can get away with a lot more in regards to how you treat alleged criminals. The fact that over the past ten years there existed a culture of lawless coyboyism regarding detainees most likely doesn't help the poor man's situation, either. You would expect Obama, his administration and this (well, the previous, now that the elections are over) congress to have done a partial about face on Bush era tactics, but it appears that they are all too happy to toss the book, throw the book, chew up the book and spit it and possibly even launch it out of a cannon at the guy.
The way in which our government scorned is choosing to treat an American citizen says far more about us and our priorities than Manning's own actions ever could about him. When someone is put into prison, either as a suspect or a convicted criminal (guilty or not), we don't want rehabilitation, or a sentence to fit the crime, we want a penance in blood, drawn out from willfully, sadistically inflicted suffering, either through the psychological destruction of the man in question or through the physical destruction of the beast our very own rehabilitation system creates.
Again, whether or not he is guilty isn't at issue here any more than whether or not a rapist is guilty is. What IS at issue here is the way in which we Americans and our government choose to treat suspects, prisoners and convicted criminals. Bradley Manning, like so many convicted criminals and even innocents, is the victim of a culture of retaliation, that is both petty and cruel, and reaches from the poorest in our nation to the most powerful.
Even if the guy is guilty, even if he did act in severe malice, even if he committed high treason, he is still an American citizen and, far more importantly, a man. Gather the evidence, hold a trial, find him guilty, throw him in prison and put him to death, but don't toy with him as you would a mere insect, don't take away his dignity. The constitution was written to prevent exactly this sort of dehumanizing destruction of a man's sense of self, and it seems that the military-industrial-congressional complex, in combination with our rush to militarize what it means to be an American, has done everything it could make us forget that. That and, in the last 230 years, every legislator who ever wrote an exemption to those protections and every judge who ever validated any breach of protocol and conduct.
So, wait a minute, exactly how does one spend nearly a hundred thousand dollars removing malicious code that hadn't even been executed from a machine that was otherwise unaffected?
Yes, er, please, can someone explain that? It costs a lot less to remove the sugar-tainted gas from the tank than it does to replace the engine, so why did this cost more to "fix" than it does for major corporations to repair after a virus or malicious code has wrecked their system? I'm serious, look at the last few articles on this subject, all of the "repair costs" are way below $85k.
I guess that's how much it cost to get things signed in triplicate and to oversee the oversight and whatnot.
How about an app store that restricts apps to only the permissions they need and, gasp!, takes it one step farther and restricts the apps' ability to invade my privacy?
Finding a quality app isn't any harder than finding a quality restaurant or pub. Finding one that won't figuratively spit in my curry or piss in my pint is.
Nothing. Not a damned thing. Because at the time it was better for English football that he exist and command Leeds than it was for him not to.
Do you really think China gives a damn what the ITU does? They've ripped off every Western country that's done business with them. They've ripped off Japanese and German train design. They're ripped off architectural design. Spain, France, the UK, the US, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Russia, the Middle East, the list goes on. They literally have no scruples about biting the hand that feeds because they know there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it because in the end the companies are making too much short-term money off of China to worry about the long-term damage they are causing to their own businesses.
What makes you think a toothless limp-dicked organized full of aging blowhards that can't even agree on the shade of fucking blue all official ITU letterhead must be are going to be effective enough in stopping the monster industrial power of the world? Here's what happens:
ITU: You broke our rules. Please unban Skype.
China: Fuck you.
ITU: We asked nic---
China: Fuck you!
ITU: Don't make me complain to the US!
China: All foreign made telecoms equipment is banned from China. Foxconn is prohibited from doing business with any company which operates in the US or Europe. Furthermore, Foxconn is free to manufacture using designs from every company it holds as a client. We introduce to you the ChiPad, at the low-low price of $299.
HP, Apple, Cisco, Dell, Nokia and Microsoft: HOLY FUCKING SHIT. WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU DO TO US, ITU?
ITU: Uhmmm now let's not get too hasty... I think a Skype ban is perfectly acceptable in China!
China: Fuck you!
Barring the above, what else could the ITU do, conference China to death?
On days like this, when a billionaire chooses to make a hobby out of having lawsuits thrown out of court, it almost makes you just wish the entire USPTO would go away, leading to a beautiful patent-free technology world where trade secrets and government-protected innovation are secondary to the implementation and execution of ideas, code, interface design, support and innovation.
It almost makes me dream of a world where the quality of your product is of superior importance to that of your ability to out-spend, out-research and out-lobby your competitors. When you can freely reverse-engineer the products of your competitors, and they can freely do the same to you, its what you create, how you create it and how you continue to evolve your creation that matters most. Industrial espionage is the greatest tool capitalism knows.
I say I "almost" want these things, because a completely free and unregulated system isn't the answer any more than the flawed and easily abused current system is. The system definitely needs to be more free, and it definitely needs to retain its ability to protect real innovation (of which makes up very, very few software/tech patents), but the real change will come when companies just accept the fact that doing business with the public means their competitor will always try and one-up them, most often by copping a feel of their good ideas.
As long as you dominate your market position fairly and don't quit innovating then you've nothing to worry about. As long as you respond to changes within the market and to attacks to your success by competitors then you've nothing to worry about. No one wants to be Microsofted, but what amazes me is how often people fail to recognize that, despite the fact that, yes, Microsoft did rip them off, Apple sealed their own fate by being appallingly incompetent. The current patent system encourages late 80s and early 90s era Apple style mismanagement. You could possibly even argue that it discourages real, actual innovation, but I'd say that has more to do with political lobbyists, regulatory bodies and ineffectual/corrupt enforcement of anti-trust legislation. That's a different tangent for a different article, however.
"The guy is a hacker. It was password protected, he had wonderful skills, and was highly trained. Then he downloaded them and used them in a very contentious way."
I've yet to see a single analysis of the charges that agrees with the way in which she has chosen to interpret that specific Michigan law. In fact, numerous law professors have brought up the fact that if this case goes through and he is successfully prosecuted then parents could be criminally charged for monitoring their children's e-mail or Facebook.
Thankfully, I highly doubt any jury in the world would convict this guy. Every guy on the jury's going to be privately thinking that he, too, would have done the same damn thing and every woman is going to think the "victim" is nothing more than common gutter trash. The prosecutor's merely justifying her existence by pushing this ridiculous case into court.
As anyone with AT&T U-Verse can attest, whether it be through faulty implementation on AT&T's part or not, the two formats don't always play nicely together. In fact, they often don't play with each other, period, at all.
Convergence is far better than having a half dozen different standards, even if they all ready play together relatively nicely in a proper setup. People might screw up P1905.1, but I wager it'll be a better standard for everyone than the scattered rest combined.
Every single military establishment I've ever stepped into or walked by - literally every single base, outpost, retail front, etc., no matter where in the country it was - has had Fox News on a television somewhere. Most often on multiple televisions, being paid very careful attention to by enlistees and officers alike.
The fact that the Air Force spokesman specifically gave a statement to Fox News is telling.
I hope this catalyzes American journalism into action. They've been both asleep at the wheel and in cahoots with this government for far too long. It's time they reclaim their place in society as the "fourth estate"!
No, when I want cheap books, I buy used. From libraries, from schools, from large second hand stores such as Bookman's or Half Price Books or from tiny mom and pop shops in the back alley. With Thriftbooks I can buy six hardbacks for $25 with free shipping.
The world of e-Books does not - and from the looks of it, never will - offer such a benefit to the consumer.
Digital products are a scam. A mighty enticing scam, but a scam nonetheless.
Newspapers do pay to play. By your own admission, if not all, then some.
However, what you miss is the obvious fact that newspapers are as integral to the iOS as they are to Kindle. Further, Apple produce no competing product to newspapers, therefore they view newspapers as a truly value-add service that doesn't detract from any of their own lines of revenue. The fact that Apple is trying to cozy up to the publishing industry doesn't hurt, either.
Now, and think rrreeeaaalll hard here, what service does Apple run that could possibly be considered a competitor to radio stations? Could it be the one that's allowed them to single-handedly have their way with the record industry, in the way which they're attempting to do with publishers? You know, the one called iTunes! Yeah, that one! That basically is the precursor to all of this app madness? To completely spell it out for you: they sell mp3s. They don't want you listening to radio. They want you buying mp3s. I am sure Apple has taken the exact same stance on OTA TV apps, as they sell tv shows and movies, too.
In the end, though, it all comes down to Apple wanting to deal with content creators (the studios, labels and publishers themselves) or distributors (such as Amazon and Netflix), not content retailers (such as radio stations and random podunk whogivesashit affiliates from Timbukfuckingtu). No one cares about radio stations, at all. Especially not when every single one has their own app despite having the exact same playlist. Do you really want to have to download eighty different apps, or do you want to just download one for CBC, one for BBC, one for NPC or one that combines them all? I know which one I'd pick.
Not saying Apple are good/evil/Marmaduke for this, just trying to explain the logic behind it.
This thread is absolutely amazing. I doubt you'd find any sane person assert that Google is trustworthy in the least, yet for some reason you people blindly trust them when they say they warned this employee repeatedly?
Yes, because a large multinational corporation known to commit evil would never, ever lie about internal politics, now would they?
Look, I realize this is a hard fucking concept for most people, but I (1) can choose not to use Google, (2) don't pay Google for their services and (3) can easily, readily block Google from tracking me. If Google is ripping off their advertising customers by placing their own links on top then that's fraud, not an anti-trust violation.
I hate Google as much as the next guy. They are evil and can be used for evil (as Register user "skedastic" knows all too well). They are most likely ripping off their REAL paying customers (advertisers). They steal content from other providers (ie music videos on Youtube) and make money off of it via advertising. They have no problem buying up competitors - whether they are competing against a Google service or for advertising market share. I am fairly sure that if there is a type of evil in the world to commit then Google will.
That does NOT make them an antitrust, however. Neither does being the King of Internet Advertising. This is not the same world that IBM and AT&T thrived in. Google don't even exist on the same plane of reality. Trying to apply traditional anti-trust legislation against them is only going to result in a giant clusterfuck that benefits NO ONE and damages EVERYONE. I/you/we benefit from Google having one of the largest R&D divisions in the world - just as we all did from IBM and AT&T (until they used their position in the marketplace to stifle innovation). When they chose to break the law, they chose to in a way that had very real, very bad consequences on business and consumers alike. Until it is proven that Google are squashing competition, stifling innovation, damaging ecommerce (hahahahahahahahaha who gives a fuck, really) and putting the hurt on end-users (in a monopolistic way) then they're not guilty of a single god damned anti-trust violation.
Guilty of fraud? Most likely. Guilty of violating privacy law? Most likely. Guilty of a whole lot of other shit that is most likely illegal (or will be soon)? Most likely. Putting their own search results at the top of a search they're most likely being paid to put a sponsored link on is a dick move and illegal, but it's not anti-trust. Waving the anti-trust baton around willy nilly is irresponsible at best and extremely damaging to innovation at worst. The government encourages companies to be successful because it brings in taxes and revenue to the US; stock markets encourage companies to be successful because it makes investors richer; the consumer encourages companies to be successful because of the innovative products they release - TO A POINT. We arbitrarily decide when that line has been crossed, and then we try our best to take those companies down.
The fact that a bunch of competitors and a whole slew of self-interested/self-aggrandizing eggheads are looking for excuses to anti-trust the shit out of Google only betrays their desperation. Fuck Google in the ass, but do it right proper, by actually charging them for breaking laws instead of filing bullshit anti-trust charges against them. If the limp dicks who run the various governments of the world had actually manned up and said "Oi, don't invade our privacy, okay, or we'll charge you $10,000 for every infraction" and then "Make AdSense more transparent so we know you're not ripping people off" and then "No the DoubleClick merger IS NOT OKAY because you're big enough all ready, fuck off you twats" then Google would be a lot better off company and you wouldn't have a whole bunch of second rate wannabes finding every excuse possible to sue Google into oblivion.
As far as Google goes, the best thing they could possibly do to squelch any anti-trust rumblings would be to FIRE ERIC SCHMIDT AND UNDO EVERY POLICY HE'S EVERY ENACTED. Within reason, of course, but you get the point. That guy is toxic, and if Google and the world governments come to ahead via anti-trust, then he's going to go down in history as being the worst CEO ever. He won't even be able to donate his way into our hearts like Bill Gates, he'll be straight up labeled a corporate disaster. It won't matter because he's rich and scummy, but the fact that Sergei and Larry don't take more pride in their "baby" is something they'll have to live with.
would be absolutely amazing. Select labels are doing this with album/CD purchases and it's just an incredible incentive to actually buy new instead of used - especially if I'm buying direct from the label or band.
This would go a long way towards overcoming the two largest hurdles in my eyes to buying an eBook reader-
1) Never really getting a "good deal" (ie buying used or getting them from the library)
2) Not really "owning" the book (Amazon/publishers can revoke my purchase at any time).
We recently got Smart Meters in our area. The distributor sticks us with a $2.20/month surcharge for the next 11 years and the retailer a $3.95/month surcharge for the same period. This despite the fact that the electric companies are saving money by not requiring meter readers anymore.
This is just as ludicrous as gas companies here charging its customers to replace potentially hazardous steel gas pipes and then not actually replacing them. In fact, sometimes we're charged two or three times over and they're not replaced. I'm not sure why they're charging us - at a profit, no less - to replace a known faulty system that they themselves installed (knowing it was faulty!) in the first place.
Apparently regulators on both sides of the pond look out for nobody but the ones they're supposedly regulating. Light the torches and gather the pitchforks, I think it's time to slay the real monster.
"Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson claimed that it is for government to decide how best to" DO ANYTHING EVER.
How DARE these courts decide whether or not the laws we write are constitutional or not! That's NOT how it's supposed to go - YOU GUYS WORK FOR US! You're just supposed to decide how much copyright felons have to pay to big business.
Why we, THE GOVERNMENT, could get SO MUCH DONE if it weren't for these pesky courts always interfering in our constitutional mandate to MAKE EVERYTHING EVER ILLEGAL.
WTF is the point of forcing mono recording to be at a certain bit depth/sample rate? As if people recording in mono don't want high quality sound? As if people - specifically musicians - recording in mono might not use this as a cheap 'n easy way to record both on and off speaker axis at the same time to get a richer, fuller sound? As if people recording in mono might not set the unit a good six to ten feet back to get a better spatial representation of whatever it is they're recording? Why would Olympus defeat having a mono mode by crippling it to a lesser quality? There's so much you could do with it!
What's the point here? "Oh, they're recording in mono, they must just want extra time! There's no way they're Phil Spector fans who think mono is tighter and punchier!" I'd say someone was asleep at the wheel here but - along with all the other idiotic design choices of this recorder - come off as Olympus biting their thumb at their customers.