|
Post by John Warner on May 11, 2006 22:26:29 GMT -5
Thanks Anth, did you see an article in the news about congress demaning phone record answers?
The whole concept of phone tapping and information sharing got me thinking. The general public generally fears huge government intervention into these kinds of issues, especially because its grown enormously in the last few years. What I am wondering or simply curious about is why are we generally so scared about the government sharing information, but yet every day our information is transancted by people we don't know for money. What I am talking about is financial companies buying and selling consumer information, such as our address, income, debt and equity, email addresses, social security numbers, medical records, etc. Has anyone every bothered to count how much spam mail they get a month, or junk mail, or credit card applications? Shouldn't this scare us alot more then what practices the government has been taking on lately? After all how many people have their idenity stolen every year and get taken advantage of? What do you think about all this?
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on May 12, 2006 8:58:59 GMT -5
I think you bring up an interesting point. I think people are always scared of the government, no matter what they are doing because the decisions that they make impact their lives directly. People are scared because they have no control, other then electing their officials into office, and waiting to see the results.
When you talk about corporate America, anyone can take legal action and get back what was taken, or use law enforcement officials to their advantage, but when it comes to the government, people are scared because "big brother" is the one doing it.
|
|
|
Post by cymbalsteve on May 12, 2006 9:06:16 GMT -5
Good stuff J-dub, I honestly wasn't really debating, I agree with some of what your saying, I just like to get you going. Honestly suprised that you haven't figured that out yet. But like Mike said, I'm am impressed with the knowledge that you are shooting out.
I like alot of your post Mike, makes a lot of sense. Glad to see you young kids of today keeping up on current affairs.
Do you think there will be a backlash of sorts next election? Will the democrats get control of congress/president?
|
|
|
Post by FrankMcG on May 12, 2006 9:38:55 GMT -5
Personally, I don't see the big deal with the phone records issue.
You don't think that every time someone swipes their Bonus Card at Giant (or their Super Card at Acme, etc.) that those companies aren't keeping a log of what you're buying? If you don't, then you're kidding yourself. How do you think they know what to put on sale so that they know people will be interested in it, and therefore, spend more money on?
Granted, the phone records issue is not the same as going to the grocery store, but the old adage is true: "Honest people have nothing to hide." I could give rat's ass if "Big Brother" knows who I called in the middle of the night on a drunken dial (c'mon, you know you've done it) just as much as they know I like to buy Hamburger Helper, Steak-um's, and Ellio's (had to throw that in there for Mike).
You've seen it on Law and Order and read it in the news once and again... How many times are phone records used to put people in prison? Or conversely, to defend someone? Somebody's already keeping track of this stuff; so why can't it be the government?
(BTW, the government is just as welcome to my buying habits at Giant, if it means cheaper prices on all the stuff I like.)
|
|
|
Post by John Warner on May 12, 2006 15:43:12 GMT -5
I guess I should have figured you out Steve, jokes on me; but thanks for the compliment, it means a lot to me.
You are right Anthony about being able to sue corporate america, but even though us little guys can and do have those rights I think it should still concern us, because of the time and money that requires to go through these processes. Whistle blowers pay a big personal price whenever they do things like that. It still concerns me how much of my information is out there. And with politics I agree, you vote someone in and are supposed to trust they will not abuse their power, its even harder to trust when the person you voted agaisnt got into power. My political science professor made the point that our system was set up with the belief of mistrust and that when one is given too much power they will abuse it. Thus our system of checks and balances and keeping the status quo. It's like my dad always said; they [politicans] have great power with the simple stroke of a pen. They can sign your life away or make peace all with a signature.
With the elections I don't forsee much changing. The public is unhappy with the republican party and only a little happier with the democrat party. This seems like there will be a big upset except that people have generally favorable views of their own representatives, plus its a mid-term election so presidental ties don't matter that much and fewer people will vote this year. Also, we only get a crack at one third of the senators and part of the house. Lastly, I learned in political science that 75% of an elected offical getting voted in is determined by the state of the economy. Despite high gas prices the economy has been doing very well, meaning unemployment has been continually sliding under 5%, the dow is at highs previous of 6 years ago, and inflation is relatively kept in check. However the war in Iraq is damping the public's spirits of the health of our nation, so I think that if there is a blacklash it won't be that severe. I predict with a 75% accuracy that Rick Santorum will keep office as will Rendell, and Republicans keep a majority in the house and senate.
What does anyone predict could happen with Iran, do you think we will end up going to war again? What about the UN, do they ever do anything worthwhile?
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on May 12, 2006 16:46:20 GMT -5
I think Santorum is on the way out...
|
|
|
Post by pzearfoss on May 15, 2006 9:44:13 GMT -5
The wiretapping thing is gray issue. I know that (at first at least) it was international calls, however, there's nothing to prevent that from overlapping to soley domestic calls. The law itself is loose; "Unnecessary" is entirely subjective. This isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened either. Remember the small stink a few years ago about the FBI's email scanning system that was supposedly powerful enough to scan every message sent over the domestic internet for keywords, or CIA's echelon which scans telephone conversations. These aren't new. In that respect we've been spied on for years. I suppose my contention is that I have a hard time believing the president when he simply says "trust me", especially when he invokes the State Secrets Privilege to block the investigation. Here are some links that might interest: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELONen.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrets_Privilege
|
|
|
Post by pzearfoss on May 15, 2006 9:44:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FrankMcG on May 15, 2006 16:23:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John Warner on May 17, 2006 14:18:44 GMT -5
Who can we trust? Are we supposed to trust anyone? Is there a way for our society to come to better common ground on values we want our government up uphold with actions, and refrain from others? I don't know about you but I have a love/hate relationship with politics...
|
|
|
Post by pzearfoss on May 18, 2006 9:49:26 GMT -5
I personally have a hate relationship with politics, in the sense that politics often gets in the way of doing what the right thing most assuredly is, which is one of the primary reasons Thomas Jefferson didn't want a 2 party system, but things were very different back then.
As for who to trust, I don't know. How do you ever know who to trust? It always comes down to a judgement call.
I don't personally think that dub-ya is doing anything that he doesn't think is right. The issues that he faces don't really have right answers. Immigration, terrorism and the proverbial war on it, no child left behind, etc. What he thinks is the right decision isn't necessarily I think is the right decision, and there's a lot disunity now because a lot of questions don't have any simple, clear cut answers.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and power can easily corrupt, even while someone is thinking that they are doing the right thing. The government has checks and balances built in to help prevent that. A lot of stink now is because of 9/11, it seems like we're getting lax on maintaining those checks and balances.
Complicating matters is that there's a myriad of new communication technologies that government doens't necessarily doesn't understand, (for example the company that tried to patent the hyperlink, which in terms of the web is about as dumb as Twifford thinking he could patent the question mark). Throw in more that people who want to attack the U.S. are using these technologies with the intention to hurt us, and you have a very sticky situation. Now, probably more than any other time in history, has the line between privacy and security been so blurry.
|
|
scrappy
New Member
White hats...
Posts: 61
|
Post by scrappy on May 18, 2006 10:57:26 GMT -5
I personally have a hate relationship with politics, in the sense that politics often gets in the way of doing what the right thing most assuredly is, which is one of the primary reasons Thomas Jefferson didn't want a 2 party system, but things were very different back then. As for who to trust, I don't know. How do you ever know who to trust? It always comes down to a judgement call. I don't personally think that dub-ya is doing anything that he doesn't think is right. The issues that he faces don't really have right answers. Immigration, terrorism and the proverbial war on it, no child left behind, etc. What he thinks is the right decision isn't necessarily I think is the right decision, and there's a lot disunity now because a lot of questions don't have any simple, clear cut answers. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and power can easily corrupt, even while someone is thinking that they are doing the right thing. The government has checks and balances built in to help prevent that. A lot of stink now is because of 9/11, it seems like we're getting lax on maintaining those checks and balances. Complicating matters is that there's a myriad of new communication technologies that government doens't necessarily doesn't understand, (for example the company that tried to patent the hyperlink, which in terms of the web is about as dumb as Twifford thinking he could patent the question mark). Throw in more that people who want to attack the U.S. are using these technologies with the intention to hurt us, and you have a very sticky situation. Now, probably more than any other time in history, has the line between privacy and security been so blurry. BOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! my name only has 1 F. the other one you wrote stands for "you Fing suck it". meaning you, not me.
|
|
scrappy
New Member
White hats...
Posts: 61
|
Post by scrappy on May 18, 2006 10:59:43 GMT -5
and yes, pat. I just smited you for that kind of Bullspit.
|
|
|
Post by pzearfoss on May 18, 2006 11:02:46 GMT -5
I don't feel very smote, do you want me to modify the post?
(?) - Patent no. 385756-7213Q to Dan TwiFord, all rights reserved.
|
|
|
Post by John Warner on May 21, 2006 22:05:11 GMT -5
"Trademarks are intended to protect both the firm selling a trademarked product and the consumer buying it. A Senate report states:
"The purpose underlying any trademark statute [are] twofold. One is to protect the public so that it may be confident that, in purchasing a product bearing a particular trademark which it favorably knows, it will get the product which it asks for and wants to get. Secondly, where owner of a trademark has spent energy, time, and money in presenting to the public the product, he is protected in this investment from misappropriation in pirates and cheats."
This statement was made in connection with another product-related law, the Lanham Act (1946), which provides for registration of a company's trademarks. Historically, the first user of a trademark in commerce had the exclusive right to use that particular word, name, or symbol in its business. Registration under the Lanham Act provides important advantages to a trademark owner that has used the trademark in interstate or foreign commerce, but it does not confer ownership. A company can lose its trademark if it becomes generic, which means that it has primarily come to be merely a common descriptive word for the product. Coca-Cola, Whopper, and Xerox are registered trademarks, and competitors cannot use these names. Aspirin and escalator are former trademarks that are now generic terms in the United States and can be used by anyone. In 1998, the Trademark Law Revision Act resulted in a major change to the Lanham Act, allowing a company to secure rights to a name before actual use by declaring an intent to use the name. In 2003, the United States agreed to participate in the Madrid Protocol, which is a treaty that facilitates the protection of U.S. trademark rights throughout the world.
One of the most recent changes in trademark law is the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that companies may obtain trademarks for colors associated with their products. The reason is that, over time, consumers may begin to associate a particular color with a specific brand. Examples of products that may benefit from the new law include NutraSweet's sugar substitute in pastel blue packages and Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation's pink insulation. Another recent addition to the trademark law is the Federal Dilution Act (1995), which is used to prevent someone from using a trademark on a concompeting product (e.g. "Cadillac" brushes)."
Marketing 8th edition, by Roger Kerin, Steven Hartley, Eric Berkowitz, and William Rudelius. Published by McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY 2006
|
|