whose data is it anyway???

unchecked corporations run like the egos of their leaders... that is to say grandioseness bordering on self-deification.

"(Bellsouth CTO Bill) Smith, echoing recent sentiments by AT&T Inc. chief executive Edward E. Whitacre Jr., responded that network operators must be free to control the type and quality of service on the system in which they have invested heavily.

Legislating otherwise "would be the same thing as saying to Google, 'I think we ought to have regulation on Google that says when I enter a search term, the top search result is always a random event,' " Smith said, claiming that Google allows clients to pay to influence the ranking of search results. In fact, Google does not allow payments to influence general search results, although advertisers pay for top billing on the lists that run on the right side of Google's pages."

http://tinyurl.com/95wdq

It's amazing how little the "chief technology officer" knows about technology... it's like the f*cker thinks it's actually his data. In reality, it's mine and yours, and it doesn't belong to the network operators. Keep an eye on this one, kids... it's insidious. 

peace,

jenni

establishment vs. authority

I honestly hadn't thought about why i was asking, but you could be right. The fact is i've been asking people, more or less at random, "Do you respect authority or question it?". George and i have kicked the point around in the past, specifically how it relates to one's political affections.

I found that while outclassed linguistically and in the unenviable and morally indefensible position of lone defacto "liaison of America" in Europe, i was able to keep conversations safe but interesting by entering politically neutral ground. The irony of recognizing this as a useful tactic while celebrating a winter holidays in Switzerland was not lost on me.

The recurring caveat was one of separation. The central theme i heard was that the dictums of one's personal social contract always trumped whatever prevailing winds may blow today. Some people called it "the establishment" vs "authority". Some said "the laws of God always trump the laws of man". Some people said, "I may not know the law, but i know when things are wrong". One person characterized it thusly; "A person can be smart, but people are stupid."

Regardless, I present these links. I'm sure you will see the thread that caused me to pose my postulate. Please enjoy them in the order presented for maximum effect:

Ehrlichman's wikipedia entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman#Political_life

Ehrlichman's testimony, 7/24/73 - http://tinyurl.com/dk864

Gonzales' actions expanding the executive - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales#War_on_Terror

Gonzales agrees to testify - http://tinyurl.com/atlrs

peace,

jenni

On Jan 14, 2006, at 10:08 AM, Theodore wrote:

Hopefully agreements and legislation were developed without duress or ill motives and are based on morality which probably has its roots in the Holy Bible (10 commandments). That's where British and US law are rooted anyway. That would argue for suspecting authority and subjecting it to more scrutiny since it is exercised by less than perfect men who may not be subject to or mindful of the rule of law as established in a document such as the US Constitution.

I have a feeling you're in the midst of arguing a point inversely from principle to a particular situation. Please proceed.

jenni x

Subject [rant] Re: establishment vs. authority

fair enough... so which should we suspect first? Which should be subject to more scrutiny?

jenni

On Jan 13, 2006, at 11:28 PM, Theodore wrote:

I believe there is a connotation of history associated with establishment- that is, what has previously been established whether through agreement or legislation. Authority is transient and fleeting and in the hands of whoever has the most firepower at a particular place and a particular time.

jenni x

Subject [rant] establishment vs. authority

what's the difference between "the establishment" and "authority"?

jenni