Slashdot Mirror

Your notion that we punish those who fall in our nation's jurisdiction (ie, our citizens and our agencies that helped leak the information) and not a foreign entity (such as wikileaks) was the same conclusion my coworkers and I reached the other day.

As to those individuals, they have some questions they must ask themselves: 1) Is this secret covering up immoral or illegal activities? and 2) Am I willing to accept a punishment that may include death for leaking this information?

For example, if you knew of the Tuskegee Experiment or the similar experiment in Guatemala, would you be willing to risk death for treason to reveal this state secret? If you were a German in 1943, would you risk death for treason to reveal what happened at Auschwitz?

Yes, these are extreme cases. I recognize some of the information may actually harm diplomatic relations, especially when they are official records on one person's personal opinion on a topic and not a representation of the State's view - and I would hope that foreign leaders could recognize that. Publishing those "secrets" seems trivial - but should revealing such things be considered treason? This is something I am still weighing, as I know perception and respect is vital for stable friendly international relations.

In the end, there are times where I find those that leak information to be very patriotic. Of course, I then have to look at corner cases - do I find those who assassinate doctors who perform abortions patriotic? No. So I still need to look at where this fuzzy line of morality falls - and whether an individual has a right to define it for themselves or it should be based on the majority of a society. It has been something I've milled over for many years...

Tuskeegee.

Ah agree. That ig'nant mu'fucka best shut up. Tuskeegee FTW, beeatch!

--signed, the only Slashdot-reading black man known to exist

Maybe not outrageous, but it is (a) untrue and (b) stupid. It's ludicrous to imagine the government R&D meeting back in, say, 1994, where the director says "gentlemen, in 2001 the Apple Corporation will be releasing a product called the iPod.

You're misinterpreting this poorly typeset transliteration of his speech. Check out the actual emphasis he used here (Top right, second link, 2 minutes 8 seconds in):
http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Category.asp?C=7907 4

Yes. Footage of the speech is online here:
http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Category.asp?C=7907 4

The paragraph in question is about 2'08" into the second half of the speech (links top right on that page).

It's clear from his emphasis that he is using meaning (ii), and that the admittedly feeble joke was indeed the "I tune into the iPod occasionally you know?"

No one thinks phone calls made to Al-Qaeda shouldn't be taped.

I do. I think it's a waste of time and money. There are more important things to do.

Terrorists are pikers. Alcohol abuse kills more people than terrorism. Enron wrecked more lives than 9/11. The US government has committed far more atrocities than Al-Qaeda ever will. Terrorists are a just bunch of incompetent, underachieving losers with good press; hell, diseases you never heard of kill more innocent people than terrorism every single day.

The USA government's highly successful campaign to convert the "home of the brave" to the "land of gutless wimps" disgusts me. People are lining up to give away their civil rights (and their tax dollars) chasing some imaginary feeling of security that can't really be achieved since they have become terrorized, puling cowards.

Yeah, you got it. It was actually decribed that way...as railroad monopolies...

Cities like New York, Boston, D.C., and San Francisco have good mass transit system.

Don't forget Chicago :) Great transit to and from both airports! and all over town. Sure is fun whizzing by all the stuck traffic on the expressway.

I take your point about driving to the airport, but remember that we don't use airplanes to commute...

Ever hear of Tom Joyner? What I believe are called regional airlines now, used to be called commuter airlines...or maybe that was commuter airliners...either way, quite a few people do commute by airplane, but lucky for them, they can use smaller, closer to town airports. Meig's Field was right by downtown Chicago. It enjoyed regular commuter service from Springfield, Bloomington, and that other big place down there I can't remember the name of...Champaign! That's it, and Indiana, Michigan, etc. Very little regular service, but it was there. The smaller cities probably have more regular air commuters due to the proximity of their airports. Probably what keeps the regionals afloat. Come to think of it, aren't most of the domestic air travelers actually business flyers? A lot of those travel probably at least twice a week? Aren't they responsible for our "crowded skies"? I don't know how to "google" the question. I can't believe that all those planes are full of vacationers. I've actually noticed a rush hour period at the airports also. Morning and afternoon. To me, a commute by air everyday would be real torture. I simply wouldn't consider it.

Even there, few systems could profitably operate within the private sector.

I wouldn't want to hand it over to the private sector. The benefits of gov't funded public transport are so enormous in terms of peace of mind for the user, the lower pollution and resulting health benefits, the reliablity of a well run system, all these things and many more make up for the taxes taken in. I just feel that the majority is mistaken when they vote against such systems. They probably feel that they would just be robbed. It wouldn't happen that way if they would just stay focused and keep an eye on the money. We can't just hand it to them and say, "Here, build me a train.". A strong will can do amazing things. And...to stay on topic(kinda), all this also applies to our space program.