Biogirl said:

Alright, maybe that's a little harsh, but this focus on the "true nature" of the Bradley is really dispiriting. Like it's a matter of great importance that we keep all of these wildly expensive, deadly pieces of equipment straight

It actually is important to be accurate in an article. While I appreciate your point and sympathize with it, there is no reason in the world why an article can't be both important and accurate. A quick trip by an editor to Google can instantly verify facts contained within an article. If editors are fact-checking, then what the heck are they doing? Correcting grammar?

The incorrect facts concerning the Bradley that have been pointed out by commenters are not some arcane trivia that only "military weenies" know. And even if they were, there is no excuse for getting facts wrong.

As another related example, I am quite supportive of some types of gun control regulation in this country, but when well-meaning gun control advocates open their mouths and reveal that they know nothing about guns (the object of the regulation), I cringe.

If you don't understand what you are talking about, there is no way you will convince people opposed to your point of view that you have any credibility at all.

And isn't that the point of any article or advocacy? To present itself as a credible source of information?

For Pete's sake, the FIRST LINE of the article is wrong!

Over the last 15 years or so I have to deal with MS from a business standpoint on many different deals and platforms while I worked for three different companies.

The usual MS methodology is to identify some market segment where someone else is making money, rush in with grandiose plans and promises, do a completely half-ass job, trash the place, and then slink out after a couple of years with a "change in strategy."

Why should book engine search be any different?

MS's legacy is littered with failed business ventures precisely because MS lacks commitment.

And MS lacks commitment because they don't really understand what making a consumer-facing product is all about. They can't analyze a market and construct a viable 5 or 10 year plan for anything other than their OS, which people (reluctantly) are forced to buy.

Its endemic in their culture, and by now we should all be used to it.

If you weren't going to pay them for it then why should they do it?

Oh, I don't know....maybe because they said that they would do it!

MS always wants to the center of attention, but lacks the commitment to accomplish anything truly notable. They enter into a market or initiative with big promises and a show of force in an attempt to drive out any competitors, and then they complain when the bill arrives.

At some point you have to ask what kind of analysis led them into a certain initiative, and then what caused them to fold like a cheap deck chair.

The real problem is that their business strategy is entirely defensive; they don't want to be left out of the party, but lack the vision, culture, and core competency to succeed in anything except a very narrow line of products.

YellowDogDem, are you new here? Did you just fall off the turnip truck?

So, enter Bush, and laws that basically said that he didn't have to go to FISA, he could do whatever the hell he wanted, perpetual emergency powers, etc, which as far as I'm concerned lies the problem

There were no "laws" that said Bush didn't have to go to FISA.

Telecom immunity had to be an essential part of that plan (and still has to be), because they didn't want to get sued, especially since getting sued would make what and to whom the government was spying on.

That sentence doesn't parse. What the hell are you trying to say?

Okay, so my understanding is that this new bill pretty much rolls Fisa's powers back closer to where they were. I just don't have a problem with that, especially with oversight, and reasonable proof of need. In fact, count me in with a sigh of relief.

There is no need to "roll FISA powers back to closer to where they were." That is the FISA we have now. This bill EXPANDS government surveillance power, and grants telecoms immunity for their massive illegal wiretaps in direct violation of existing FISA law.

You see we already have a mechanism (enacted into law with the original FISA) where telecoms can be compelled to cooperate with the government.

It's called a "warrant."

When a warrant is presented to a telecom to enact a wiretap, that assures the telecom that the requested tap is legitimate and that a judge (a non-elected and presumably non-political entity) decided that there was compelling evidence to issue the warrant.

The problem with "warrant-less wiretapping" is that there is no judicial overview of the process. The government goes to the telecoms and says, "Hey we want to wiretap a whole bunch of communications, maybe millions of people, and by the way we don't have a warrant, but if you cooperate with us (i.e. look the other way) you'll get a bunch of big government contracts that will make you millions of dollars.

The telecoms knew this was illegal because the law clearly requires warrants, but said,"Sure, we'll do this, and we especially like the part of about the millions of dollars, but if the shit goes down, you government guys have got to get our backs so we don't get our asses sued off by all the people we illegally spied on. And oh yeah, we'll kick back some of those millions in the form of lobbyist contributions."

And the government said, "No worries, we'll get your back because if this shit goes south some of us here might go to prison, so we're on the same team."

Now do you fucking understand?