Slashdot Mirror

Oops, wrong link.

Solid article on Kershner and his push-pull relationship with Lucas:


http://www.salon.com/entertainment/col/srag/1999/05/13/kershner

Kershner was too ill to accept Lucas' offer to direct Phantom Menace. One wonders what his sensibilities for human drama and actual tension would have done to that cartoon.

They're not going to force you to use the app store. That's retarded and you're retarded for thinking it.

They've already forced that on two platforms. It's "retarded" to not consider the possibility of them applying the same strategy to their remaining platform. I mean, how is Jobs going to bring you "freedom from porn" if you can install whatever unapproved software you like?

I think Dan Gilmore's got it right:

I fear that Apple will use the inroads it makes with the Mac App Store to further restrict what users of future Macs can do. It couldn't retroactively lock down Macs the way it's locked down the iOS devices, not without creating a firestorm. But it could someday decide to sell only iOS machines, or declare that new machines running some future Mac OS -- not next summer's Mac OSX "Lion" version, apparently -- would work only under the same principles. I believe this is the endgame, but I'm hoping for the best.

(Oh, and Apple-fanboi mods: I'm not trolling. Disagreement != trolling.)

You should at least put a link to the source when you copy and paste a large section of someone else's article. I won't bother to post a point by point refutation of this article because someone else already did.

Is Salon.com any better? http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_loo/2009/06/22/dod_deletes_protest_terrorism_problems_remain
How about the ACLU? http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fbi-investigation-thomas-merton-center-anti-war-investigation

How in the FUCK is what I said a troll?

Tyranny? Don't go pretending that Democrats aren't tyrants.

Obama asserts the right to execute American citizens without any kind of trial, charges, or judicial oversight based on nothing but allegations, i.e., Obama says your are a terrorist -- you get murdered and don't get a chance to defend yourself. Look up Amendments 4-6.

Read: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/02/assassinations/index.html
Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JojnYXRrBaI

Don't ask don't tell: Obama fulfilled his duty to defend the law in court and lost. He could have left it there, but chose to appeal. You can't blame that on obstructionist republicans because you just don't accidentally file an appeal and republicans can neither further nor hinder the decision to appeal. http://jonathanturley.org/2010/10/20/obama-administration-loses-effort-to-block-injunction-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-announces-appeal-to-reverse-victory-over-dadt/

Then of course there is the refusal to prosecute the illegal wiretapping of the previous administration, but rather to immunize the evildoers: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit/

Closing Gitmo? Not. But worse, since the procedures at Gitmo have been declared unconstitutional, Obama is merely shifting operations to Bagram, as if the place in which one denies Habeas Corpus is of such great import: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/05/no-habeas-at-bagram/

Obama uses the state secrets doctrine to prevent civil lawsuits against American companies complicit in the plaintiffs' torture under Bush's rendition program: http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/09/suit_alleging_cia_torture_dism.html

Laissez-faire would support leaving the status quo as it is.

Eh? The status quo is DADT; how can the status quo be laissez-faire?

A "social laissez-faire" would allow anything (gay marriage, taking drugs, carrying guns, eating trans-fats, etc) as long as it doesn't directly impact someone else.

Eh? Rand Paul is the poster child for laissez-faire segregation: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/05/20/rand_paul_maddow_segregation_open2010

Paul argued that the parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that require private businesses serving the general public to serve all customers without regards to their race, gender, religion, or national origin need further "discussion." He insisted that he agreed with the parts of the act that required publicly owned facilities like public transportation to serve everyone regardless of race, but that private businesses should have been exempt.

According to his beliefs, it should still be legal to send Rosa Parks to the back of any privately operated bus. Okay, bad example, as she is dead - doesn't make him right though.

At this stage, most democracies around the world are more free than the US.

This cognitive dissonance of declaring yourselves the "land of the free, home of the brave" is quite astonishing given that:

• Your president has the power to pardon anyone he likes for any reason, completely outside the judiciary.
• Your president has just decided that it's not politically expedient to allow some 200 people accused of terrorism a fair trial. So instead he'll just allow them to be held indefinitely without charge. Even China has the decency to charge their political prisoners with a crime and giving them a day in court.
• Your president can order anyone he likes - US citizen or not - to be placed on a "kill list", which gives the CIA the authority to kill them without any judicial oversight. Don't even bother mentioning a fair trial.

How the hell are you people not making a bigger noise about these three egregious violations of your liberty?

At this stage, most democracies around the world are more free than the US.

This cognitive dissonance of declaring yourselves the "land of the free, home of the brave" is quite astonishing given that:

• Your president has the power to pardon anyone he likes for any reason, completely outside the judiciary.
• Your president has just decided that it's not politically expedient to allow some 200 people accused of terrorism a fair trial. So instead he'll just allow them to be held indefinitely without charge. Even China has the decency to charge their political prisoners with a crime and giving them a day in court.
• Your president can order anyone he likes - US citizen or not - to be placed on a "kill list", which gives the CIA the authority to kill them without any judicial oversight. Don't even bother mentioning a fair trial.

How the hell are you people not making a bigger noise about these three egregious violations of your liberty?

Meanwhile in America:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/29/goldberg

"I'd like to ask a simple question: Why isn't Julian Assange dead?" - comment was published by Chicago Tribune

if western cultures defended freedom with the same vigilance (not the same methods)

In our Western culture, vigilance is synonymous with those methods.

To paraphrase the central figure of a major western religion:

You have heard that it was said, "Go forth and rape and murder all the rapists and murderers." But I say to you, Do not resist a rapist or murderer. If anyone murders your wife, turn to him your cheeks.

He even goes on to explicitly state that if someone sues you, you should give them more than they ask for! If Tenenbaum was a good Christian, he would willingly give the RIAA at least double the $675k they won. And Rasset shouldn't feel right giving less than $3 million!

When the porn makers come for your money and your dignity, give them your Constitutional rights too! It's what Obama or Bush would do, right? Because they're Christians, right?

This is a common criticism of the left, and it is designed to protect members of the right from real charges of racism. Let me be clear, your comment contains no element of racism. The statement "the Tea Party are racists" is inaccurate, but "some Tea Party members, including leaders in the movement, espouse racist views" is accurate.

I could point to Mike Williams, Glenn Beck's "deap-seated hatred of white people" comment (among many other comments), or a host of others for examples of the movement in general (liberal Joan Walsh seems to have a nice summary).

What these all have in common is they are specific examples of racism, not general "they're all racists!" kind of fear-mongering. I commend the Tea Party for dealing with its racist fringe the way it has. I think that is the proper way to handle these issues, not putting your head in the sand and shouting "both sides" (a la Rand Paul when a MoveOn protestor got stomped on by his volunteer).

Liberals weren't clamoring for McCain's birth certificate. We aren't accusing John Boehner of anti-colonial sentiment driving his decisions. Sure, there are boneheaded liberals. You're welcome to bring it up. I'll take a look and decide that Olbermann's off his rocker, or that Media Matters is too whiny (which sometimes I do find).

You have to allow for the possibility that, sometimes (or often), liberals are crying racism not because it's a political gambit to appeal to "stupid voters", but because someone on your side is being a racist.

No one's mentioned content farms yet? That is, websites that are 100% made using bots, presumably their algorithm is: they see what terms are trending in Google News or Google Trends, they google for hundreds of articles with those keywords, and they create a static "article" page with real sentences, but each copied and pasted from who knows where so that the "article" doesn't make any sense. The only important criteria for each sentence is that the sentence must contain the keyword. And they fill up the rest of the page with AdSense ads...

An example, from this real article about content farms:

The Dr. Laura n-word backlash made her quit her radio show. It seems the Dr. Laura n-word controversy has made her pay the price, as the consequences of herbrought down her long-running program. But even if it ended her show, it may not end her career. Despite being labeled as a racist, and despite allegedly being tired of radio, the embattled doctor still seems set to fight on after she leaves. In fact, the Dr. Laura n-word scandal has made her more defiant than ever, despite quitting.

It's so fucking excruciating to have to use my brain to filter this shit, because apparently Google fails at it. Then again I've not seen them lately, but maybe that's because I've used a bit of JavaScript hackery to remove the "News" link from Google's homepage, since every Google search I made my mouse wanders to that link wondering if there's anything new in the world...

On the other hand, this repeating of keyword disease has affected real articles as well, those whose authors are desperate for some search engine hits (freaking SEO-whores...), so the recent article covered here on /. about Facebook's data centers contained the words, "Facebook's data center" in each goddamnfreaking paragraph.

This is not insightful at all, as any insight needs to understand the definitions of the words being used as a prerequisite.

A constitution protects the minority from the majority.

There is no distinction between a "republic" and a "democracy," beacuse a republic is simply a democracy whose head is a president. e.g. Canada and the United States are both democracies, but Canada is not a republic.

Stop taking civics lessons from Internet forums, and read a book. Democracy comes in two flavors: direct and indirect. Both Canada and the United States are indirect democracies.

Stop this nonsense now

You insist the poor are being penalized. A state id costs something like $15 and is good for something like 8 years here. There are multiple DMV locations around town, near bus routes. I can't imagine there is a location here in Omaha that doesn't have a DMV within 10 miles.

Well, that's nice in Omaha, but not everyone lives there, do they?

Here in Georgia, we have no goddamn buses, and here you can't register at the DMV, and here the Republicans try, continually, to require people to have a license or government ID to vote.

So poor people would have to get a ride 30+ miles to the DMV for an ID, and then get a ride to the courthouse to register, and then get a ride to the vote.

Originally, people had to pay $15 for an ID, but that law was struck down as a poll tax, so now they have to provide free IDs.

* You prefer a system where people can get a non-provisional ballot with no ID an without registering to vote.

Yes, because it let's more eligible people vote, you fascist.

* You prefer that people be able to register same-day, even if that means more less-informed voters dilluting the effects of people who planned to vote in advance.

Yes, because it let's more eligible people vote, you fascist.

* You believe no one has attempted to vote fraudently in 30 years despite record examples that it does occur.

The only examples you've cited are some sort of voter registration screw up. There is no actual fraud consisting of people voting when they shouldn't. A case argued before the supreme court managed to find one instance of impersonation to vote in recent history.

* You said one side is obessed with conspiracy theories while the other hasn't, when both parties in reality has committed and accused the other side of voter fraud.

No, the Democrats point out actual voter suppression when it happens. (As do the Republicans.)

The Republicans also claim problems that don't exist so they can enact laws making it harder for the poor to vote.

* You prefer hyperbole and flames over reasonable discourse.

Whereas you think somehow being 'uniformed', aka, not able to spend any time and money on voting, means you shouldn't be able to vote.

I'd much rather had a nation of me then a nation full of people who think they're in charge of what citizens can vote.

* You're a hypocrite accusing others of being conspiracy theorist while assigning far-fetched conspiracy motives to others.

Really? I live in a state that implemented a poll tax in 2005. The court said so.

I don't think I need to invent conspiracy theories about keeping the poor from voting.

    Ya, there's always edge cases that survive way beyond their life expectancy. There was a story (or a few of them) where Google was restoring newsgroup postings from 1981. Some tapes worked. Some didn't. I couldn't find a story about how many tapes worked, but I found this one referencing the event.

    I had an old Apple IIe and a big box of floppies. A few worked, but it had been so long since I touched it that I had a real hard time trying to remember how to do anything. It took several tries to find a boot disk that worked.

DEMOCRATS have destroyed the middle class? BWAHWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH.

You should do stand up.

You should grow a brain:

US Census report: Poverty levels spike to record highs

... there are more than 44 million Americans living in poverty, up 4.8 million from last year ...

Number of poor in US jumps to record 43.7 million

The number of people living in poverty in the United States leapt by nearly four million last year to 43.7 million, the highest number since the US Census began collecting data on America's poor 51 years ago, officials said Thursday.

But, please, don't let facts fuck up your delusions.

In fact, I'm sure you can use your self-identified intellectual superiority, do a lot of mental masturbation to make yourself feel better, and blame skyrocketing rates of poverty on Republicans, despite the fact that Democrats have controlled the House and Senate since 2006 and the Presidency since 2008.

Or you can actually grow up and think.

I'm betting on the mental masturbation.

When the Obama Administration claims the right to ASSASSINATE CITIZENS without due process, I'm not surprised that a little thing like blocking websites doesn't merit due process either.

Don't know why the parent got modded troll. Guess putting your fingers in your ears and modding someone troll is an appropriate response to news you don't want to believe.

When the Obama Administration claims the right to ASSASSINATE CITIZENS without due process, I'm not surprised that a little thing like blocking websites doesn't merit due process either.

but they are, unfortunately, an interested party:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks

Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulsen have a long and strange history together. Both were convicted of felonies relating to computer hacking: Poulsen in 1994 (when he was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison, ironically because a friend turned government informant on him), and Lamo in 2004 for hacking into The New York Times. When the U.S. Government was investigating Lamo in 2003, they subpoenaed news agencies for any documents reflecting conversations not only with Lamo, but also with Poulsen. That's because Lamo typically sought media publicity after his hacking adventures, and almost always used Poulsen to provide that publicity.

And Poulsen is the author of the latest piece on wikileaks. I smell a rat. Not that Assange isn't a jerk. Clearly he is. But there are far bigger egos in the news editing business than his. You don't see stories about their tirades and autocratic impulses that often.

I think it'd be better to get wikileaks news elsewhere, given that the Wired well appears to have been poisoned.

to too many of us, the state/president is our religion, and they worship it unthinkingly, no matter its actions or their hypocrisy.

as pointed out by greenwald yet again:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/28/obama/index.html

Obama in Rolling Stone:

The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible. . . . .If we want the kind of country that respects civil rights and civil liberties, we'd better fight in this election.

compare against:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/27/privacy/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy/index.html

At this point, I didn't believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record. In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

to too many of us, the state/president is our religion, and they worship it unthinkingly, no matter its actions or their hypocrisy.

as pointed out by greenwald yet again:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/28/obama/index.html

Obama in Rolling Stone:

The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible. . . . .If we want the kind of country that respects civil rights and civil liberties, we'd better fight in this election.

compare against:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/27/privacy/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy/index.html

At this point, I didn't believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record. In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

to too many of us, the state/president is our religion, and they worship it unthinkingly, no matter its actions or their hypocrisy.

as pointed out by greenwald yet again:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/28/obama/index.html

Obama in Rolling Stone:

The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible. . . . .If we want the kind of country that respects civil rights and civil liberties, we'd better fight in this election.

compare against:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/27/privacy/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy/index.html

At this point, I didn't believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record. In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

If you really believe that pulling together 120 spooks, propaganda specialists, FBI and military personal with (one) of the public aims:

to gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges.

is not a "plot"/"plan" to get wikileaks - then I really don't know what would qualify as such in your books. Perhaps it is because you think that the Espionage Act of 1917 should apply to Wikileaks - so it is all legal and therefore not a plan/plot to get wikileaks in your books? Perhaps you do not understand how far fetched and ridiculous it is to even cite the Espionage Act against wikileaks. One favorite from that link:

Indeed, the very idea of criminalizing the mere receipt and transmission of classified information by non-government-employees is incredibly dangerous, as it would criminalize much of what investigative reporters do, which is why even harsh AIPAC critics -- such as myself -- found that AIPAC prosecution to be so chilling. There are countries (such as Britain) that criminalize all disclosures of classified information, but the U.S. is not one of them. In sum, anyone (such as Carroll) declaring that WikiLeaks clearly broke U.S. law -- as though there is no real dispute about it -- reveals that they have no idea what they're talking about.

If your still adamant that there is no plot to get wikileaks, then I hope at least that your also not Ok with the Pentagons double standards Vs Wikileaks when it comes to them leaking sensitive information.

, that's to most common-sensical message I saw lately coming from the Australian government!!!

I think they should receive some congrats.

Common sense answers are not what the US is looking for - so they are being ridiculed for not jumping on the fear bandwagon. Now they want all NAT members to implement "blanket of security over our networks" in order to Secure Clamp and Contain the internet... a wwwar against we the people.

So, now the demand is that Australian soldiers walk into private business and secure the network?

So, bad for US soldiers to take control over private networks, bad for AU soldiers not to take control over private networks?

Or maybe they should put up a firewall around Australia to protect business, but not to actually filter anything because an internet filter is bad?

And people wonder why politicians don't listen to their voters. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE. The very same voter will insist that the speed limit be dropped and mile high speed bumps be raised in front of the fire station to stop those devils from driving to fast. The same voter will want green power but no wind mills, tidal station, solar farm or hydro dams because they don't look nice.

We want cheap labor to pick fruit but no immigrants. Free markets to sell OUR goods, import tariffs on THEIR goods.

It is impossible and so politicians stop listening and listen to the lobbyist instead who at least know to be consistent within each single plea.

Or as Douglas Adams said: People are a problem.

I say we nuke them from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.

I think a lot of this cognitive dissidence is coming top down as troll stories trying to drum up support for minority lobby pressure, rather than from the population (or Slashdot readers minds) as you suggest. Take this news article that Slashdot has posted for instance: Complete crap, an obvious troll piece to try and pressure the Aussie government to toe the US line when it comes to it's invented "cyber warfare" rhetoric. Little more than a thin veil of fear to give itself permission to Secure, Clamp, Contain the internet against we the people. To SCC effectively of course you need to coordinate other countries at the same time, or it won't really work - so now the lobby pressure begins to reach us via these puff pieces - this article is asking if your on side with it? Read Most uprated comments on the topic from Slashdot and people are calling it what it is - a farce. So how the Fsk did slashdot editors pick this drudge piece to get posted - Is Geeknet's policy to reeducate geeks... or perhaps the firehose full of lobbyist brigades?

Either way, where your seeing cognitive dissidence of individuals - I am seeing the divide widening between what lobbyists behind Gov policies want you to think, and what increasing number of people are actually thinking.

in the US we have something called the rule of law and due process. that means if the law says you can't get kicked out just because someone thinks you did something bad, you have to be convicted after a trial.

Are you sure about that?

We all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria--through a rendition agreement--tortured, only to find out later it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information...

Obama is now arguing they need the ability to assassinate Americans, but keep details of why and who a complete "state secret" and free from any oversight. If that is not the Orwellian future right now, then I don't know what is... Broader internet wiretaps pale in comparison to this. For those that think this might just be for those Americans congress labels as a "terrorist" - then this politically expedient death might give you pause

.

Well, they are stupid enough to enter the military in the first place. Also, most of them believe in god, and most of them believe they are fighting for freedom, while in reality they are murdering people for oil and political power.

That is as stupid as it gets.

MOD Up - Exactly right. Not to mention all the University machine/robotic professors falling over backwards to build better killer drones "to save lives"... intelligence on part of these uni researchers? I think not.

Did you forget about this: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/27/yemen/index.html

I'm surprised the allusions to prison rape persist. It still happens, though not as common as it once was

I'm not familiar with how common prison rape once was, but it's definitely still a problem.

I'm surprised the allusions to prison rape persist. It still happens, though not as common as it once was

I'm not familiar with how common prison rape once was, but it's definitely still a problem.

This is a dangerous path to follow because the MPAA would have strong backers for something like this, like the US government. Torrent search engines would be small potatoes, how about people/websites that show what your doing is wrong? Again, like WikiLeaks, but others like the EFF? Don't like that they show your dirty little secrets? Just use the ACTA on them and claim something like "they were using illegal software".

You can't simply chase down a deer...

Apropos of nothing, actually, you can run down a deer, much like you can run down an antelope. Whether you've got the energy and the patience, on the other hand, is up to you.

Improve accountability? No, all this will do is force the decision-making process further away from the prying eyes of public scrutiny.

How I wish you were wrong - but this weeks major, (incredible, unbelievable, and under-reported) news proves you very very right....

Apparently it's now legal for the government to kidnap and torture anyone and there's nothing the courts can do about it if the government calls "state secret". Horrible. Just... horrible.

Yep, very cowboyish them folks at Wikileaks.

After all they are te ones who went in guns blazing using cowboy rhetoric.

They are the ones torturing...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html
Using "National Security" as a guise to protect the guilty and deny justice to the victims...
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama/index.html
Using political and economic presure to protect American war criminals from prosecution and force foreign governments into compliance with "extra judicial" measures...
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/CIA_Red_Cell_Memorandum_on_United_States_%22exporting_terrorism%22,_2_Feb_2010
And killing civilians...
http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
For sport...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers

No they don't have them.
Oh wait...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers
And even then the government wouldn't protect them...
Oh wait...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama/index.html

the eff thinks otherwise.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/jewel-v-nsa-roundup-media-obamas-position

Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald and others in the left blogosphere were on the story early, just as they were throughout the fight over telecom immunity last year. Greenwald declared the Obama position to be worse than Bush:

It is hard to overstate how extremist is the "sovereign immunity" argument which the Obama DOJ invented here in order to get rid of this lawsuit. I confirmed with both ACLU and EFF lawyers involved in numerous prior surveillance cases with the Bush administration that the Bush DOJ had never previously argued in any context that the Patriot Act bars all causes of action for any illegal surveillance in the absence of "willful disclosure." This is a brand new, extraordinarily broad claim of government immunity made for the first time ever by the Obama DOJ -- all in service of blocking EFF's lawsuit against Bush officials for illegal spying.

The Raw Story weighed in on the case, and TPM Muckraker checked in with constitutional scholars Ken Gude, Amanda Frost and Lewis Fisher to see if they agreed with Greenwald's analysis:

Is it a sweeping power grab by the executive branch, that sets set a broad and dangerous precedent for future cases by asserting that the government has the right to get lawsuits dismissed merely by claiming that state secrets are at stake, without giving judges any discretion whatsoever?

        In a word, yes.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/expert_consensus_obama_aping_bush_on_state_secrets.php?ref=fp1

tpm says it's the same, but there are new claims made by the Obama DoJ which Bush never had the audacity (pun intended) to make. to me, that's enough to make Obama worse in an objective sense. but moreover, he's subjectively worse in that he's poisonous and harmful because he both says the right thing (excessive secrecy is bad) while simultaneously cementing the bipartisan consensus and legitimizing Bush's radical and harmful policies. This is simply a grievous blow to the rule of law in America.

Improve accountability? No, all this will do is force the decision-making process further away from the prying eyes of public scrutiny.

How I wish you were wrong - but this weeks major, (incredible, unbelievable, and under-reported) news proves you very very right....

Well said, but unfortunately this weeks ruling means it is only going to get worse , much much worse..

Quotes from above:

"The ruling handed a major victory to the Obama administration in its effort to advance a sweeping view of executive secrecy power."

"The distorted, radical use of the state secret privilege -- as a broad-based immunity weapon for compelling the dismissal of entire cases alleging Executive lawbreaking, rather than a narrow discovery tool for suppressing the use of specific classified documents -- is exactly what the Bush administration did to such extreme controversy."

Rulings like this passed with little to no media coverage[1] show that the US is more little down the slippery slope to our Orwellian future. And people here are worried about wikileaks? The mind boggles.

[1] Slashdot posts old old news on Wikileaks instead - like there was ever a doubt that the remaining documents will be published

and here's one for his persecution of whistleblowers:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/25/whistleblowers

What makes this trend of escalated anti-whistleblower activity particularly notable is that Obama, during his career in the Senate and when running for President, feigned serious support for whistleblowers. Today, Bush DOJ whistleblower Jesselyn Raddack -- while pointing out that "Bush harassed whistleblowers mercilessly, but Obama is prosecuting them and sending them to jail" -- notes that Obama previously made commitments like this one (click on image to enlarge):

read some Glenn Greenwald. Yes, the same Greenwald that excoriated Bush. It's called consistency in pursuit of your beliefs.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/06/obama

But perhaps you missed the recent decision and its history.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/opinion/09thurs2.html?_r=1&hp

for those who say it wasn't Obama, it was his Justice department, for which he appointed Holder, "champion of civil rights"... except when it matters.

read some Glenn Greenwald. Yes, the same Greenwald that excoriated Bush. It's called consistency in pursuit of your beliefs.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/06/obama

But perhaps you missed the recent decision and its history.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/opinion/09thurs2.html?_r=1&hp

for those who say it wasn't Obama, it was his Justice department, for which he appointed Holder, "champion of civil rights"... except when it matters.

Since the shit is stolen from monopoly abusers thieves which then exaggerate the damage to terrorize people and as a consequence keep law enforcement from going after bigger crimes, your argument doesn't hold much water. You are immoral if you pay them because you are supporting an immoral system. Google around, ask artists, see e.g. Courtney Love on piracy.

But, in a sense, I criticize pirates too, even if their immoral behavior makes less damage than the IP terrorists'. Piracy is not the answer. "Just Do Not Buy Their Stuff and consume/create something else and defend the right to access it" is the answer.

They won't bankrupt, as big media is a propaganda machine and will be financed some way or the other.
But you won't forfeit your integrity with piracy. And if you are thinking "The hell with my integrity", I'm beginning to think that your reaction is anticipated and sought after. Making you a criminal means you won't be able to defend your rights if you step on the toes of powerful people, and making you forget about integrity removes barriers to the acceptance of the only law that stands when you remove all other laws: "the most powerful wins".

That's why I think anonymous is a great concept used as a great deception: I prefer to be moral, and piss off the real power.

No bullets yet, but draconian repression of the underprivileged by the rich and powerful is an evil that was never really abolished, fanciful patriotic musings notwithstanding. Too bad so many people forget the lessons of history.

but that's another reason why we must NOT do regulations: nobody can predict all ways in which someone or something can be hurt. A gov't actually actively managing risk, that's first of all unheard of. Bernanke couldn't manage risk of falling off a chair, from 2005 straight to 2008 he was repeating the same thing: no bubble, it's just a temporary thing, everything is fine, prices for homes will stay up, all while setting low interest rates, creating more and more money, creating moral hazard with Freddie/Fannie, etc. Gov't can't manage risk of anything.

Actually trying to prevent all bad things that can be done by all companies in the private sector, requires at least as much resources as the entire private sector. 50% gov't by mass that would take from the entire economy, I wonder how many days that structure would last.

What I am proposing is much better from point of view of economy, that's first, and from point of view of actual outcomes for the environment, that's second.

Economy, because there would be nothing to corrupt, no matter how much money a company was willing to spend.

Environment, because actual owners of property are better at managing risks and costs and damage than somebody sitting in a gov't building somewhere, never caring about that property, because it's not theirs and at the same time being lobbied with millions of dollars to set liability caps, having actual sex with the industry representatives and snorting speed of a toaster.

There's an article, by a commercial pilot, about the myths of jets able to "fly themselves" at http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2009/11/19/askthepilot342 . You have to scroll down a little to get to the meat of it, but there's plenty up there to keep 2 people busy.

He also talks about how busy things can get in an earlier article http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2007/08/31/askthepilot243/index.html .

There's an article, by a commercial pilot, about the myths of jets able to "fly themselves" at http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2009/11/19/askthepilot342 . You have to scroll down a little to get to the meat of it, but there's plenty up there to keep 2 people busy.

He also talks about how busy things can get in an earlier article http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2007/08/31/askthepilot243/index.html .

What he's really saying is that pilots salaries are (in his opinion) excessive...

And the kicker is that pilot salaries are really in a pretty bad spot these days:

http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2009/03/20/askthepilot313

One of my uncles is also a pilot and he has said it is tough to have any sort of leverage when it comes to your job given that they know that they have you over a barrel. The airlines know that unless a pilot has virtually no seniority they would face a huge pay cut if they wanted to another company. Not exactly a incentive for them to treat their pilots well.