Slashdot Mirror

"Without technology providing additional food, or transport from farms to tables, I believe the balance point for hunter-gatherers or subsistence agriculture has already been exceeded."

I agree that human population now likely exceeds the capacity for traditional hunter/gatherer lifestyles (maybe by several times). Increasing population density leading to more structured bureaucratic militarized societies is probably a big reason most hunter/gatherer societies were lost (attacked or assimilated or pushed away onto marginal lands to fade away). But that does not invalidate the truths that according to Marshall Sahlins hunter/gatherers had *more* free time than most of us today, and what work they did was very self-directed, often more like professional work of today.

Most (95%?) of the labor hours expended today in the USA tend to be about guarding, engaging in non-productive make-work, or is just destructive or competitively wasteful, or is trying to compensate for the other ills of the society from the previous problems. For example, most heart surgery is apparently worse than useless according to Dr. Joel Fuhrman:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/PCI_angioplasty_article.aspx
Most schooling is harming kids according to John Taylor Gatto:
http://www.newciv.org/whole/schoolteacher.txt
Most farming (mainly for animal product production) is killing us and destroying our land:
http://www.ravediet.com/reviews.html
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
Much policing related to drug laws is destroying our communities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
Most of US military use is making us less safe:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/our-work/law-and-security/torture-on-tv/less-safe/
http://www.cato.org/store/books/power-problem-how-american-military-dominance-makes-us-less-safe-less-prosperous-less-free-har
Most computer software development is unneeded; for example IBM had a perfectly good in-house Forth they could have used as a command line interpreter rather than pay Bill Gated for MS-DOS which he bought from someone else. Most Wall Street computerized trading is of little-to-negative social value (just high stakes zero-sum horse racing and putting the whole unregulated derivatives system at risk of systemic collapse).
Most college degrees are not worth it either economically or educationally:
http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/why-college-may-not-worth-133900551.html
I could go on... And on.. And on...
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/AchievingAStarTrekSociety.html

So, figure out a way that we can stop doing all that 95%+ of excess wasteful labor, and we then would indeed have free time, and our collective standard of living would go up. But then how would people be able to afford to buy food and pay rent? (Thus a basic income or other alternatives become needed...)

My point is not that hunter/gather low-tech is better than high-tech. It is that both our current high-tech existence and our historical low-tech existence have different good and bad points. There are many forms of technology, too, (e.e.g the "appropriate technology" idea) so even high-tech and low-tech is a crude distinction when we are talking about com

My source for torture not working is several years of various readings, news articles, and so on. Sorry, I don't have a library saved, but I've been hearing it over and over for nearly the past decade. Here's what a google search for "torture truth" yields, among other things:

Washington Post: 5 myths about torture and truth
- Gestapo had better results from tips and informers, and failed to break (with torture) many.
- between 1500 and 1750, French prosecutors tried to torture confessions out of 785 individuals.... the number of prisoners who said anything was low, from 3 percent in Paris to 14 percent in Toulouse. [note: that's three percent said ANYTHING, let alone the truth]
- the CIA's own 1963 interrogation manual explains that "a time-consuming delay results" -- hardly useful when every moment matters.
- you can't reliably train to resist torture

Washington Post: The Torture Myth

Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq.... says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."

That's from someone whose job has been to extract information, and he says that torture doesn't work well.

Perhaps you don't like the Washington Post. Let's look at the BBC, reknowned as one of the better news sources in the world. (This was found by googling for "torture effective".)

BBC News: The truth about torture
This would actually seem to support your claims: they note several torturers who feel it's very effective. I'll accept that as a counterpoint. I'm including it so that you don't claim that I'm not linking things which disagree with what I expected to find. (There are several articles/pages about harsh techniques having yielded valuable information.)

FBI Interrogator says cookies are more effective than torture

On the other hand, there are lots of pages about torture being ineffective, too:

Information Secured Through Torture Proved Unreliable, CIA Concluded

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods.... The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions.... Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

(Bold emphasis added by me. The "results" yielded by torture were valueless, whereas what he said before they tortured him was useful.)

Former Head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Says Torture Produces Unreliable Information
http://www.youtube.

Which is exactly why there ought to be legislation of some kind to prohibit the kind of thinking that makes American businesses not required to obey the Constitution when it doesn't involve dealings on American soil. American soil or not, the business operates in America, where such rights are supposedly "protected".

There is such a law that allows foreigners to sue businesses in US courts for wrongs they commit or for which they supported in other countries. The Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) of 1789 was created just for this. It has been used to sue a number businesses, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and other large corporations have been sued using the ATCA. Shell was sued for supporting the execution of Ken Saro Wiwa and other Nigerian by the Nigerian military rulers. Chevron was sued in LA for the shooting of peaceful protesters at "Chevron's Parabe offshore platform and the destruction of two villages by soldiers in Chevron helicopters and boats" in Nigeria. Of course during his presidency Bush tried to Bush even tried to get the US Supreme Court to disallow human rights violation lawsuits, more evidence he supported torture.

Falcon

I mention this because today's story shows that sites like Reddit and Digg actually make life a lot easier for spin doctors and propaganda.

We all know there's quite a lot of propaganda in the U.S., such as the U.S. army funding Hollywood movies. (I think /. ran this story before. See here, here, and and here). Also, some people think prime time television is getting audiences to get used to the idea of torture. See here.

The point is that sites like Digg, Reddit and Wikipedia are maybe things that actually makes the a government's propaganda job easier, by making authority and authoritative opinion a more diffuse concept. There's no such concept as "reputation" or "editorial independence", like you have in the press.

IMHO, this is a twist on things. In particular, the younger generation that is growing up with such sites and with little or no concept of the traditional media outlets concern me the most. Newspaper sales are going down all over the world, for instance.

for the lazy

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/iran/index.do
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast&c=iran
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/defenders/hrd_iran /alert081606_ebadi.htm
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/02/49f87 7bc-61bb-4b7d-87e0-663033df3404.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4114621.stm

From the BBC article:

The execution of children

Torture, as well as degrading punishments such as amputation, flogging and stoning

Discrimination against women and girls

The persecution of political opponents, following last February's mass disqualification of opposition candidates in the run-up to parliamentary elections

Discrimination against minorities, including Christians, Jews, Sunni Muslims, and in particular followers of the Baha'i faith, including arbitrary arrest and detention.

Can we start being worried yet?
Can we start telling them they can't do this yet?
Or are these still wonderful people who should have A-bombs?

*sits and waits for the moral equivalency arguments*

Kind of ironic, coming from somebody that is objecting to the contents of a speech he didn't hear and can't find a transcript of, isn't it? But I'll bite.

My claim, which you are objecting to:

This is now known to be false; the treatment was in fact authorized (by redefining torture) and Bush has yet to recant his position. It looked for a minute as if McCain had cornered him into showing some sense, but his signing statement makes it clear that he still endorses torture. The only thing that clearly wasn't authorized (and what the Bush administration has actually objected to) is taking pictures of the torture and leaking it to the media. The "perps" who have so far been charged are (last I heard) only the low level grunts who got caught.

My proof (or at least a sampling thereof--there's lots more):

• The Bush administration redefined 'torture' to permit techniques such as used at Abu Grabe
• The Bush administration defends the need for torture
• The Bush administration has a system of secret prisons in which such torture is conducted
• McCain pushes to have torture outlawed
• Bush dodges with a "signing statement" saying he isn't bound by the ban
• The Bush administration primarily objects to the fact that pictures were taken
• ...and blames the leakers
• Only the low-level grunts who got caught have been nailed, and they got slaps on the wrist

There is, of course, a lot more where that came from.

Now, can you please back up your claim that Gore told the Arabs to attack us?

--MarkusQ

During calendar year 2003, 1727 applications were made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for electronic surveillance and physical search . The 1727 applications include applications made solely for electronic surveillance, applications made solely for physical search, and combined applications requesting authority for electronic surveillance and physical search simultaneously . The Court approved, in whole or in part, 1724 applications.

The Court denied four applications. The Government did not appeal. any of those decisions.

-2003 FISA stats

This is the most since 2000 - In fact I believe in other years all were approved?

No wonder you didn't cite your sources. You're lying through your teeth. :D

So what's the deal? Do you get paid for this, or is it just fun?

When your own "great leader" is defending himself against charges of spying on the citizenry, holding captives indefinitely without trial, torturing prisoners, and invading sovereign nations based on fabricated evidence... you don't really have any moral high ground left to shout from. You act as though journalists are free to print whatever they want here in the United States. I beg to differ.

Check this out: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/asylum/asylum_10_s ensenbr.asp

They did not have the ability to vote on the particular subject. Elected officials should be able to vote on each particular topic at hand individually. Especially when it would be political suicide to vote against the main topic.

/.'s article here is the first I've heard of this Real ID plan...

Well, aside from the obvious fact that since the neo-con coup the network media hasn't covered anything except talking-dubya-points, the reason you haven't noticed this tidbit of legistlation (which apparently started back in Feburary) is because "liberal media" has painted it as an immagration issue - that is: the only people targeted by this legislation according to the to PTB and their media cheerleaders were illegal aliens - I heard it debated on Faux News as an immagration issue a least a month ago. I would have to say either a) you haven't been paying attention, or b) you are foolish enough to a ctually believe the that the motives these pseudo-news agencies put forward are the actual intent of the neo-con coup. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course...

Here is a list of articles about this legislation (trivially found using Google) from some touchy feely immagration rights outfit that no one will pay any attention to.

[ -- copied & pasted -- ]

The REAL ID Act in the Media

• "Jewish Groups Oppose US's Stricter Controls on Asylum," Jerusalem Post, March 9, 2005
• "Death Sentence?" Christianity Today, March 8, 2005
• "Republican Plan Would Tighten Laws for Asylum Cases," Hearst Newspapers, March 6, 2005
• "Keep the Doors Open," The Jewish Week editorial, February 25, 2005
• "Unwelcome Mat," The Boston Globe, February 25, 2005
• "Religious Asylum Assailed," Family News in Focus, February 22, 2005 (PDF - 51KB)
• "Proyecto de ley torpedea el derecho de asilo," El Nuevo Herald, February 22, 2005
• "Conservative camps split on tightening asylum," The Boston Globe, February 21, 2005
• "Not broke, don't fix," The Washington Times, February 20, 2005
• "National ID Party," The Wall Street Journal editorial, February 17, 2005 (subscription required)
• "On Guard, America," The New York Times editorial, February 15, 2005
• "Refugee Politics," The Baltimore Sun editorial, February 14, 2005
• "Real ID Act deserves defeat in the Senate," San Antonio Express-News editorial, February 18, 2005
• "Playing the terror card," Contra Costa Times, February 14, 2005
• "Ineffectual migrant policy," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial

/.'s article here is the first I've heard of this Real ID plan...

Well, aside from the obvious fact that since the neo-con coup the network media hasn't covered anything except talking-dubya-points, the reason you haven't noticed this tidbit of legistlation (which apparently started back in Feburary) is because "liberal media" has painted it as an immagration issue - that is: the only people targeted by this legislation according to the to PTB and their media cheerleaders were illegal aliens - I heard it debated on Faux News as an immagration issue a least a month ago. I would have to say either a) you haven't been paying attention, or b) you are foolish enough to a ctually believe the that the motives these pseudo-news agencies put forward are the actual intent of the neo-con coup. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course...

Here is a list of articles about this legislation (trivially found using Google) from some touchy feely immagration rights outfit that no one will pay any attention to.

[ -- copied & pasted -- ]

The REAL ID Act in the Media

• "Jewish Groups Oppose US's Stricter Controls on Asylum," Jerusalem Post, March 9, 2005
• "Death Sentence?" Christianity Today, March 8, 2005
• "Republican Plan Would Tighten Laws for Asylum Cases," Hearst Newspapers, March 6, 2005
• "Keep the Doors Open," The Jewish Week editorial, February 25, 2005
• "Unwelcome Mat," The Boston Globe, February 25, 2005
• "Religious Asylum Assailed," Family News in Focus, February 22, 2005 (PDF - 51KB)
• "Proyecto de ley torpedea el derecho de asilo," El Nuevo Herald, February 22, 2005
• "Conservative camps split on tightening asylum," The Boston Globe, February 21, 2005
• "Not broke, don't fix," The Washington Times, February 20, 2005
• "National ID Party," The Wall Street Journal editorial, February 17, 2005 (subscription required)
• "On Guard, America," The New York Times editorial, February 15, 2005
• "Refugee Politics," The Baltimore Sun editorial, February 14, 2005
• "Real ID Act deserves defeat in the Senate," San Antonio Express-News editorial, February 18, 2005
• "Playing the terror card," Contra Costa Times, February 14, 2005
• "Ineffectual migrant policy," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial

For those of you not from the US of A, it guarantees freedom of expression in the most absolute terms. Short of something that incites violence (e.g. "let's kill him") or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, it is OK.

Provided what you want to say is agreeable to the government, otherwise you might find yourself bannished to a free speech zone in a nice out of the way place.

Team America: World Police". Too rude to print here, it would probably get you put in jail in some countries.

If the way you handle accidently seeing a women's breast ( nice one at that) is any indication of how your nation reacts to "indecency" then maybe you should cover your own ass.

My reply to "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." is this:

If the government isn't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. With footnotes to Filegate, Yasser Hamdi, and Brandon Mayfield to name three off the top of my head.