Pangloss

I'm a little swamped at the moment and behind on reading here (always a little crazy at the start of a new term), but I did want to drop by and leave this Associated Press clipping that I thought you all might find informative. It's basically a little Q&A about what constitutes Contempt of Congress, and it has a couple of tidbits that I wasn't aware of, such as the fact that the President can give a pardon for it, and what the maximum sentence is. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070901162.html Here's another source for the same AP article in case that one gets locked out: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jul09/0,4670,ContemptofCongressQampA,00.html

Good post by ParanoiA above. This reminds me of an interview I saw with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman on Sunday. (For background, he's a former Democrat who left his party following an attempt to oust him from his seat in the last election mainly over his position on Iraq (he supports the President). Lieberman is a moderate and is now officially an "Independent", but he generally sides with Democrats on most votes.) Lieberman was saying that our work in Iraq has been a success, and listed a bunch of reasons for thinking so, ranging from improved infrastructure to reduced sectarian violence. Pretty familiar stuff. Then he went on to say that we can't leave now because Al Qaeda and Iran would work together to make Iraq into a new terrorist state. I know some of you won't need a microsecond to see the fallacy in that argument. Al Qaeda is sunni and Iran is shi'a. The only thing they agree on is the calibre of bullet to use when shooting one another. But he even went on to clarify that he meant that they would celebrate victory together and go on to run the country together! How can an American Senator of his experience and intelligence screw THAT up? I don't know, but it sure left me floored.

Ask them who was responsible for 9/11.

I wouldn't be surprised it window cleaners currently make more than microbiologists. People seem to accept that sort of thing just fine. They may be sarcastic about it, but they aren't seriously complaining. I think the reason is that they had a choice in the matter of careers. THIS is the key to why socialism doesn't work, not Bombus's "humans aren't ready for it" (i.e. people won't do what they're supposed to do) complaint. Choice. Why socialism is seen as "left" when "left" is also seen as a protector of personal freedom has never made any sense to me. Exactly. I've no problem with removing the factor of human corruption from a theoretical discussion about socialism, but every real experiment has always had to deal with it. So I agree with you and Bombus in this regard, and I can understand why some folks lament not ever having seen socialism given an honest chance to work. But what I think those folks miss is that that human corruption isn't just a passing fad. It's a permanent part of the human makeup. A successful polity will always be one that takes human corruptibility into account. From now to eternity.

I think your concerns are valid, ParanoiA, but they're outweighed by the advantages of making this change. You're right that most people would misunderstand the reasons for it. But they don't understand the current system either, and it's unlikely that we'll ever get most people to understand most of what happens in government. As with most things in a democracy, whether or not it's successful will depend on who runs it, who monitors it, and what rules guide it. Just my two bits, of course.

(shrug) I think I've made my point. You're more than welcome to remain puzzled.

That's not true, and I don't appreciate being misrepresented. I responded (in Post #56) with a completely different argument, absolutely unrelated to Microsoft. To reiterate, you declared Apple to be innocent of an unfair trade practice because they aren't a monopoly. If the purpose of declaring something to be an unfair trade practice is to prevent the development of a monopoly, then it obviously has to apply to a company that is not yet a monopoly. Therefore your reasoning is flawed. I also asked you if the exact same actions were legal when Microsoft committed them before they became a monopoly. You haven't answered that question either. Well, except for calling me stupid. Even though you're the one who said: Hmm, yeah, ok we'll just wait around for that. Obviously we wouldn't want to do anything to hurt those poor innocent (politically correct) companies. (chuckle) Gotta love it when people make your arguments for you.

As a side comment about the movie, I'm actually looking forward to this one, after being disappointed by Fahrenheit 9/11. I don't mind ideological bias in a documentary, but I do mind intellectual dishonesty. I'm hoping this film gets back to the gut-wrenching honesty and brutal truth of "Roger & Me", one of my all-time favorite films. As a further note about Michael Moore, I think he is at his best when he sets aside partisanship (but not his ideology, which would be impossible). When he focuses on telling us what we need, rather than telling us who's responsible for us not having it, he scores a lot more points with me. And, I think, with his target audience, which is not ideologues at all, but rather people who DON'T agree with him. That was his big mistake in F9/11 -- he forgot whom he was speaking to. In terms of the larger issue of universal healthcare, we need it because this is the 21st century and it's the right thing to do, because it's the right investment in society's future success, and because we can afford it. BTW, I heard Michael Moore make a great point in an interview the other day where he made the point that just because other universal healthcare systems have problems doesn't necessarily mean that we will have those same problems. They're not necessarily attached to the concept of universal healthcare, and in most cases they appear to be solvable problems. I know some of that stems from the repugnant, far-left ideological position that more government control is a good thing (unless it's about security or recreational drug use), but I think he has a valid point. Just because Canada has certain problems doesn't mean we can't address those problems and handle them better.

Ok, then was it legal when Microsoft did it when they WEREN'T a monopoly? And either way, isn't that a pretty obvious conflict? If it was okay when Microsoft did it when they weren't a monopoly, why would that be ok? If monopolies are so evil, shouldn't we prevent them from occuring in the first place, instead of only lamenting them after the fact? (And if it wasn't okay when Microsoft did it when they weren't a monopoly, then why is it ok for Apple to do it when they're not a monopoly?) You wanna keep painting yourself into logical corners it's fine by me, but I'm disappointed that you feel the need to resort to "it's a stupid argument and nobody is making it". That's pretty weak. Still, I don't take it personally; I have little respect for most computer industry observers most of the time. Especially since most of the time they turn out to be wrong. Funny thing is, sometimes they're right.

Kinda having a hard time seeing the "create a stronghold... and control it as we wish" theory as a bad thing. Alas, I don't give our leadership credit for anything so intelligent and purposeful. I guess I'd have to be ideologically opposed to it in order to find such thoughtful design and intention.

No, I mean only select companies are being allowed to write applications for the iPhone. They MAY change that later (as bascule discusses above), but at the moment developers are only allowed to write applications through the web browser, which of course means no icon on the desktop, no access when not connected, responsiveness issues, etc. Because, you know, it's a bad idea to let those evil "third parties" write software for an operating system. I can't imagine why we would want to allow anyone to do that. That's what people are saying. And yet if Microsoft were to do that with Windows CE, hell would hath no fury like this industry scorned. But hey, why stop there, by this logic Microsoft should close Windows Vista. Why not? People might write bad software! Horrors! And hey, everyone's connected to the Internet, so people can just write applications for Vista that run through the web browser............

What struck me as suspicious about his question is that HDTV isn't a file format, it's a broadcast standard. Presumably he was looking at files not from a personal DVD ripper but from an illegal download site (perhaps an incorrect assumption on my part). So in interpreting his English as best as I could, it seemed to me that he was looking for something specific to not just copying software, but illegal transmission software, in which case it wouldn't be suitable for SFN. But that's why I asked the guy to send me a PM if he wanted to clarify his purpose. He did that and he says he specifically wants to talk about format differences, which strikes me as perfectly acceptable. I reopened the thread and sent him a PM.

Good for you, Bob. Now that you're falling back from that closed-minded "yahhh it's impeachment time!" post, you're starting to look at the larger issues. I can tell you're annoyed, and for what it's worth I do understand how frustrated you must be, having lived through plenty of disappointing presidents in my time. That's an absolutely valid point. Likewise if the executive branch cannot exercise its authority without being attacked afterwards by the legislative branch, then that, too, would violate an important separation of powers in the Constitution. There is too much incentive for elected legislators to make hay over specific actions for personal gain. Consider for a moment how far this reaches. The purpose of oversight is so that unilateral actions taken by a chief executive ultimately are reviewed and approved by the people, right? But the point of that is to make the executive branch answerable for its decisions. Not to raise the legislative branch above the executive branch in power. Were the legislative branch to be given approval over the executive branch -- in perfect hindsight, I might add -- the only protection remaining to a President would be to have his party in majority power in the legislature. Not only would that rob the executive branch of constitutionally-specified authority, it would also mean that nothing would ever get done unless a political party was able to control both houses of congress and the White House at the same time. The moment the opposition party gained majority in Congress, every decision made by that president would be overturned or reversed. I wasn't kidding around in likening Bush and Clinton to the Brothers Gracchi -- the Romans went through a very similar problem at the end of the Republic. A consul or tribune would have laws passed by public vote, and during their time in office they would be immune. Once out of office, the opposition would nullify their laws, and prosecute the former office-holder, sending him into exile, or worse. Cicero made a whole legal career out of defending such men. Back and forth and around and around it would go. One year, for example, every human being in Italy would be made a citizen of Rome. The next year that citizenship would be lost. Why do you think Caesar crossed the Rubicon? It wasn't because of a mad lust for power. Their rule of law had deteriorated so far that the only way for Caesar to avoid losing absolutely everything he had worked for was for him to take over absolutely everything. And seven centuries of democratic rule went right down the drain. But was that Caesar's fault, or was he just the last small nail in a very large coffin? The same thing is happening today, right before our very eyes. George Bush isn't what's wrong with this country. What's wrong with this country is the short-sighted partisanship and closed-mindedness ideologies of the people living in it. In my opinion.

Well that's your opinion, but there's a lot of spin going on in there. I could easily counter that "argument" by saying that comparing a legally objective document that's based on the careful deliberation of unassailable fact (judicial-branch subpoena) to a partisan political power-play (congressional subpoena) is what's ridiculous. Welcome to politics. Now, would you like this decision to be made based on heated opinions and rhetoric, or would you like it to be made based on logical legal precedent and carefully determined rule of law? Chose wisely.

You say you can't ping anything but then you go on to say you can ping your local DNS server. This does not sound like a configuration issue to me. It sounds like a local network issue (ie deliberate blockage). Have you talked to your local administrator? Please describe your networking environment. Are you connecting through a school network?

Discussion of illegal file copying is not permitted under the terms of the user agreement (Rule 3a). It also appears to be beyond the general scope of this board (there are plenty of piracy discussion forums you can check into). See the link below for further details, and if you think you have a valid reason for asking your questions here and within the parameters of the rule, drop me a private message and we'll see if we can figure something out. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=51&a=14

Actually, technically they don't carry the weight of law. They carry the weight of congressional authority, which is equal to the authority of the judicial and executive branches. The questions raised by presidents (including Democratic ones) about executive privacy against the congressional branch are valid ones. And they need to be answered in a non-partisan manner. You know, by people who don't say "yahhhh it's impeachment time!"

Interesting. That would certainly mark a distinction between the current examples and Microsoft's historic unfair trade practices (if not necessarily the current ones, though they may also apply, but specifically here I'm thinking of the infamous Shelf Space Wars, etc). On the Apple management statements? I'll have to look for it; this was a couple of weeks ago. But glancing at Google News I see thousands of articles about the impact of the iPhone on the larger cell phone market. Clearly the analysts are responding to Apple management statements, not to mention general industry sentiment. Have you used a run-of-the-mill cell phone lately? Most of them are pure dreck. The article below is a typical example of the multitude of current stories that look at the impact of the iPhone on the broader cell phone market. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/062907dnbusphonefuture.39ccebf.html This quote is particularly relevent to a point I made earlier in the thread, although it doesn't address your question, so please pardon the aside: They're "powerful computers" -- but only Apple gets to decide who can write software for them. And nobody seems to have a problem with that concept. And this is the year 2007. No. Really.

Congressional subpoenas are not holy writs. They don't even have the power of the judiciary behind them, bob. I'm not opposed to impeachment of a president if the grounds are sufficient, but I think it should be done only after grave, NON-PARTISAN consideration to the POLITICAL implications. If he is impeached over partisanship, regardless of the legitimacy of that impeachment aside from its partisanship, there will be a consequence to that impeachment: Never again will an American president NOT be impeached. It will become automatic (and yes it will be Republicans' own fault for starting it with Clinton, so just don't even go there). That's just my opinion, but I think it's a valid one.

That's the way it's being spun on the liberal side of the blogosphere. The counterpoint from the right seems to be that he's not saying that he's not part of the executive branch, but rather than he's part of two branches, being president of the senate. Why anyone would think that this should make him immune from a congressional subpoena directed at one of those branches is beyond me. Logically one would this would make him more susceptible to congressional subpoena. I'm actually hoping this will be resolved under judicial review. We need better definition of the power of congressional subpoena over the executive branch. Anybody who thinks this sort of thing is going to become LESS common under future presidents is just delusional. Constitutional challenges have been growing in frequency for decades. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are the Brothers Gracchi of the fall of the American Republic.

It's an hypothetical question. Knowing bascule I've no doubt he's pondered it more fully than my question suggests. (I was just about to add something to that affect in my last post.)

They compare because Windows wasn't born with 94% market share, bascule. It developed that market share -- from zero -- based in part on unfair trade practices. Swansont, Apple execs have specifically stated their intention to try and dominate the broader cell phone market, and market analysts have spent considerably time (and broadsheet paper) conjecturing over whether or not they will be able to do so. And I don't see any difference from Apple "domination" becoming "monopoly" by fiat vs Microsoft's "domination" becoming "monopoly" by fiat. What I hear this thread saying, in its defense of gigantic megacorporations it loves, is that some types (or number of) unfair trade practices are ok, but other types (or numbers of) are not ok.

Why is it that when liberals defend axe murders they're "standing up for constitutional rights", but when conservatives defend axe murderers they're just ambulance-chasing opportunists?

This is not a decision pertaining affirmative action. This is a decision pertaining to school segregation. There is a difference. Regarding economic criteria as an alternative, ABC News did a story yesterday about a school system in California that has had greater success in integrating its population by using economic guidelines rather than ratial ones. Chief Justice Roberts said almost exactly the same thing in the majority opinion. I don't have the quote right in front of me, but I believe it was "the best way to end racial segregation is to end racial segregation". I had actually planned to start a thread on this myself, entitled "US Schools No Longer Allowed to Segregate Based on Race", just because it would have sounded like a headline out of the 1960s.

Of course. And this doesn't counter my point. Incorrect. All publically-held companies try their damndest to dominate their markets. And in fact they have a legal obligation to do so. That doesn't mean they're all going to resort to the same practices that Microsoft has used that got them into trouble (and therein lies the heart of my question). But you're wrong, they absolutely will try. They cannot not. There is absolutely nothing sacrosanct about Apple, Google, Linux, or My Aunt Jane's Really Good Apple Pie Company. It doesn't matter how green they are, what percentage of their profit they give to the poor, how popular or politically correct their product is. Or how their opponent is perceived. The fact that Microsoft wears a black hat in certain social circles these days may indeed say something about Microsoft, especially with regard to its past behavior. But it absolutely says something about those social circles and their narrow-minded perceptions.