Slashdot Mirror
Cyber-Security Czar To Be Named
The Washington Post and everybody else is reporting that on Tuesday President Obama will name Howard A. Schmidt as cyber-security czar. Schmidt was an advisor to President Bush on cyber-security matters. The Post rehearses the reasons why the Obama administration has had difficulty in finding someone for the post, and notes that the turf battles did not start in this administration: "Schmidt was chosen after a long process in which dozens of people were sounded out. Many declined the post, largely out of concern that the job conferred much responsibility with little true authority, some of them said. Meanwhile, the cybersecurity chief at the National Security Council, Christopher Painter, has served as the de facto coordinator, trying to push ahead the 60-day cyberspace policy review plan unveiled by Obama in May. That plan's formulation was led by Melissa Hathaway, who resigned in frustration in August after delays in naming a cyber-coordinator. She had been a contender for the position... Schmidt served as special adviser for cyberspace security from 2001 to 2003 and shepherded the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, a plan that then was largely ignored. He left that job also frustrated, colleagues said."
You are going to need it. "...much responsibility and little true authority..." is a recipe for failure and scapegoating. As it is so often in business, so it is even more so in government, the PHB's (those with the real authority) don't grasp the issues and will make bad decisions, forcing you to deal with the consequences.
Get it in writing. There words and yours. Let there be as public a record as possible as to what recommendations were ignored.
Secretary: 1 through Secretary: 5
the Fuhrer of Healthcare?
Since his name is "Schmidt" I'm assuming he knows all about The Google
Given the sensitive nature of the job, they should go unnamed.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Wow, I didn't realize Hathaway had resigned.. but I guess that's why she didn't get the job, eh? I don't think this is the last resignation we'll see in the cyber security area.
Hathaway seemed like she was really the best pick for the job, especially considering the 60 day cyberspace policy review thing she did. Not that I read through the entire thing, but she made some pretty interesting suggestions. For instance, she talked about how cyber security is not something that can just be centrally managed on a national level and then applied across different agencies. Each agency has to be forced to create a good information security culture for themselves (this is already happening, to an extent).
The National Cyber Security Division within Homeland Security has been trying to do this. They have neither the resources, nor the authority to do this, however.. even though it's part of what their mission is. As a result, they've had some extreme issue when it comes to leadership, with almost no one lasting more than a year or so there without resigning.
I wouldn't be surprised if I saw Mr. Schmidt resigning at some point, but hopefully having an experienced advisor with the Presidents ear will move cyber security up enough in the list of priorities so that people aren't scared just to take the job in first place.
Not a single democrat willing to take the job...
The party has just crawled up one notch in my esteem.
I can understand why some of the potential candidates declined the offer. Trying to improve internet security from the level of a politician will be like trying to carry water in a spaghetti strainer. There are only two ways to really fix internet security: wait for technology to improve through private industry, or pull the plug. I really hope no attempt is made to use government funds to back a particular contractor. Traditional government funding provides little incentive for rapid improvement (your productivity does not affect your income, and a government-backed organization inevitably turns political inside and out, resulting in a long chain of ass-kissing).
I really fear that more deals will be made with AT&T and other top infrastructure-owning companies. I am a big proponent of fair market, and each deal made between a private company and the government puts us one step farther away from equal competition. Stepping away from equal competition means it is that much harder for bright, new companies to enter the market.
Captain Dunsel comes to mind...
None of these diverse organizations in the Federal Government will cede authority to an appointed bureaucrat. His office may come up with standards but adoption will face tremendous hurdles of anything that he comes up with. There's too much entropy in Washington IT and it's governed by consultants and contractors all with their own agendas. Couple that with a full time workforce that is largely unaffected by any thought of losing their jobs over something like IT Security and you have a lose/lose situation.
Most of the Federal Bureaucracies in IT serve the budget and unless congress mandates some sort of funding strings I doubt that you'll see any positive movement in security the litany of websites, servers and other things that contain government information.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Funny, they had to give the job back to the last guy who had it because no one else would take it. I wouldn't take it either, because that guy is going to get strung up by the angry mob when the inevitable Chinese cyber-strike occurs.
I've met Howard Schmidt several times at security events, and I think he's best suited for writing articles for the trade mags and speaking on the lecture circuit than he is for real information security work. Hre just strikes me as nothing more than a charlatan.
It's hard to meet the guy and come away liking him too, his ego fills the room, and since he's an "honorary" professor at several colleges with security initiatives, he inists on everyone calling him "professor schmidt." Reminds me of the maestro from "Seinfeld."
I don't know how he could be taken seriously after he did an infomercial on youtube for his alma matta, the University of Phoenix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep2ykil-cmU
The first non-socialist, non-tax-cheat appointed by the administration!
Since there's no authority, he cannot force anyone to do anything.
Since he is the "Czar", he CAN make recommendations.
Any department that doesn't follow his recommendations is on their own when they get cracked.
Any department that DOES follow his recommendations has an easy out when they get cracked. They blame him.
Meanwhile, he's busy setting up all of his family and friends with high paying, low responsibility jobs with the companies trying to get him to "recommend" their products/services.
Don't let Obama off easy on the "turf wars" thing. He specifically promised multiple times in the campaign to hire a security czar who would report directly to him and have real authority.
For months nobody would accept this position because it was set to report both to the National Security Council and National Economic Council and have no budgetary authority. Now it seems that he will report only to the National Security Council, but this still breaks Obama's promise, although this is hardly the only time he tossed aside a campaign promise.
What is the difference the taxpayer is going to be paying for all of it anyway. Maybe the next time you get your paycheck, why don't you look at the taxes the government is taking from you. One of those is FICA.. You will see it. We already cover these people and now under the OBAMANATION we get to subsidize them even more. You are wrong the freedom from responsibility rests with these government tit suckers. While we (the taxpayer) continue to shoulder the load and have the responsibility of paying more.
the emir of enigmas
the nawab of nosiness
the sahib of silliness
the khan of the kafkaesque
you can have fun with this all day
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Each federal department behaves differently. Agencies like the various DoD support and intelligence agencies, not to mention the CIA which is its own separate agency unto itself from any department, are not going to let the yahoos from Homeland Security or Justice tell them what to do or even be in on the conversation about how they organize and communicate, especially with regard to classified information.
A cyber-security czar who cannot command the CIA and DoD agencies is quite literally one with no practical authority since those groups are the majority of what matters with real, important IT security in the federal government.
Schmidt wasn't just "a former Bush administration official," he was the first cybersecurity czar, appointed shortly after 9/11 and contributed to the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace. I suppose they didn't get it right the first time, but things will be different now.
You don't know anything. You checks the google to make sure the pipes are working, then you check the mcaffee to make sure it is secure.
if you buy health insurance right now, it continues to climb in price like no tomorrow, covers less and less every day, all to support a bloated inefficient system of companies competing to deny you coverage. under a single payer system, even if the government was 10x more inefficient and bureaucratic, it would still be cheaper, and you would be paying for a healthcare entity whose mandate is to take care of YOU, not some fucking stockholder
universal health care coverage is so fucking obviously superior to what we have now, i can only conclude morons and assholes who defy it do so only out of some alien atavistic hatred for simple, obvious progress
are you like those townhall retards who stand up and shout "big government, keep your socialist hands off my medicare!" (snicker)
you're going to PAY for healthcare one way or another genius. the current way you pay for it sucks FAR FAR WORSE than a government run system could ever be. try to understand the fucking obvious someday
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In soviet russia You get rid of czar!
In kapitalist america Czar gets rid of YOU!
I'm pretty sure we'll have plenty of people costing taxpayers $20K regardless of the required insurance. If you're too poor to be able to be able to pay for insurance, you're probably in the bracket which will have almost completely government-subsidized insurance. If you have enough to pay for insurance but don't, odds are that you can pony up some money for the hospital bill. If you're in this position but can't pay, then you should be forced to foot the bill as a debt. However, I'm willing to bet (from my personal experience anyway) that the majority of people who currently use the emergency room for free care are also at the poverty level that would allow them highly-subsidized insurance. Therefore, we're all still probably going to take a hit, but it might just be more distributed.
It really comes down to how we foot the hospital bills for the poor, either through high hospital bills or mandatory insurance for those who can pay. Anyone else taking advantage of the system should be punished.
And THIS is what is wrong with American thinking and why "Universal Health Care" will never work. EVERYONE is thinking about 'me me me' and the bottom line on THEIR wallet.
Every single other first world nation in the world has figured out health care for everyone, and as far as I can tell they haven't devolved into chaos. It's not a matter of money. If we cut Military spending in half and quit tried being the world's big brother we could easily fund full health care for everyone in the US including some 'elective' surgeries like Lasik. The fundamental reason why universal health care won't work in America is thinking like this.
I got to take all 8 days of vacation to India this year for a wedding where I met quite a few travelers from Europe. Not a single one has this mentality. Not a single one worried about how those 'bums' were imposing on 'their' freedom.
Some other nice amenities that those 'socialist' countries get that we don't: We are the only country that has no mandatory parental leave. This graph is in weeks. Way down at that tail end is the United States with 0 days. We also have the proud distinction of being the only country with 0 minimum days of vacation..
If I had fewer ties to America, I would move to one of those 'socialist' countries in a heart beat. I would gladly give 70% income tax to know that I (or my children) are covered cradle to grave (including while on vacation out of the country). School (including college), healthcare, maternity leave, unemployment, etc etc.
Hopefully when you reach the age you need to move into a home, your family makes the right decision and just has you euthanized instead, wouldn't want you imposing on their freedoms.
I just meant czar is an inappropriate name...
Of course we need a Cyber-Security Car. With so many cars getting electronic enhancements, even becoming WiFi hot spots, it is obvious that we need more security for them. However, they should all have security, not only one car. Unless one Cyber-Security Car offers so much protection that a single one in an area is able to protect a nearby herd of cars. I hope the manufacturers quickly add security, so the government won't try to control the kinds of security in cars.
One other way. The government can mandate standards that all products must meet in order to be considered for purchase by the government.
Think TCP/IP.
Then, keep extending the spec as new advances are made. But keep it focused on different vendors supplying different segments ... and all working together because they all follow the same spec.
if there were no laws against pseudoephedrine, you'd have more meth makers, and all of the society wide suffering that goes with that. the fact you can't buy pseudoephedrine is a different kind of suffering, but a smaller scale of suffering than not having the law around
life is not about black and white choices, its about shades of grey.you examine the issue in a vacuum, without the context of the negatives of your other choices, and this makes you have these hysterical opinions
and you NEED health insurance. even 21 yo marathoners have heart attacks and broken legs. if you believe you don't need health insurance, you have some sort of god complex, and then you definitely need mental health coverage
as for not affording it, you can't afford NOT to have it
as for making you pay for it: why force people to pay taxes? why not make it voluntary? because people are fucking irresponsible, and they won't pay for taxes, health insurance, or a whole bunch of other things they need but are usually too stupid to understand why they need it. so you NEED to force them because if given a choice, people won't do the right thing. which is pay your fucking taxes and pay your fucking health insurance. you HAVE to, because it is your RESPONSIBILITY as a member of SOCIETY from which you derive BENEFITS
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Aern't you guys paying attention? Our country is benig overrun buy these UNELECTED leaders!!
That's not in the CONSTITUION! Its from RUSSIA! happy party members get to b leadrs!!
Hale to the thief comerad number 1. we need to recall Nobama he's ruining the contriy with socialsm and destroying our DEMOCRACY with comunism! did u vote for the czars/KINGS? I sure didnt
Why do yuo think were in a recessoin and headed towwards a global crash??
Oh you. It's a shame that are children believe this.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
And suddenly it is the Mother of all Jobs!
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
as for making you spread your beliefs: why force people to believe in god? why not make it voluntary? because people are fucking irresponsible, and they won't believe in god, follow his rules, or a whole bunch of other things they need but are usually too stupid to understand why they need it. so you NEED to force them because if given a choice, people won't do the right thing. which is have faith and have their souls safe from damnation. you HAVE to, because it is your RESPONSIBILITY as a member of GOD'S CHILDREN from which you derive SALVATION.
I hope you know realize why your argument sounds fucking ridiculous. I would have no objection to government health care if my participation were voluntary. Otherwise, you're essentially removing choice and freedom from the equation. If you want me to foot the bill for someone else's medical care, you can sure as hell bet I'm going to want to have a say in how their life is run. They'd better damn well eat right, quit smoking and drinking, not engage in any risky behavior, and must exercise properly. If they're hellbent on taking away my freedom, they can kiss theirs goodbye as well.
You can go ahead and bring out the list of all of the wonderful things that I get from taxes or society, but save yourself the trouble. If they cost something, I'd prefer to pay based on what I consume, not some blanket tax from the federal government that pays for all kinds of crap I don't want ranging from social security to wars in the Middle East.
You can't have freedom without responsibility.
according to any philosphical understanding of what freedom means conceptually, freedom has never meant behavior which imposes on other people. your problem is you don't understand in which direction the imposition is happening in the healthcare debate. the issue is not that the government is imposing on you to pay for health insurance, the issue is you are imposing on society thinking you can walk around without health insurance
"You can't have freedom without responsibility."
this is exactly right. it is your responsibility to take care of your health. if you don't do that, you are not exercising a freedom of yours, you are acting irresponsibly. you are willfully or ignorantly avoiding the fact that if you are passed out on the ground, we can't simply walk by you, we have to take you to the hospital, or we aren't being ethical. therefore you MUST get health insurance because this is your RESPONSIBILITY. not having insurance is not a right or a freedom you are exercising, it is an act of IRRESPONSIBILITY you are committing
do you understand now?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if are a billionaire, you don't have to buy health insurance, because you can afford a sudden huge healthcare expense
now would like to comment on the reality of sudden horrible unaffordable health expenses for the other 99.9999% of us?
pfffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
duh
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why do yuo think were in a recessoin and headed towwards a global crash??
Umm... because unfettered market was allowed to play hazard games with our economy? Because people were in charge whose primary interest was to fill their own pockets no matter what happens to the whole economy and we let it happen due to no laws regulating what they can or cannot do?
I didn't vote for greedy bankers tossing our economy in favor of their own wallets but guess what: You don't get to elect them!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I hope you have your grave dug and paid for so that when you do suffer some unexpected ailment you can crawl in and not use any of the services you decided not to pay into. That's the responsible thing to do.
and you NEED health insurance. even 21 yo marathoners have heart attacks and broken legs. if you believe you don't need health insurance, you have some sort of god complex, and then you definitely need mental health coverage
Just because you think I NEED it doesn't make a mandate from the Federal Government requiring me to buy it any more Constitutional.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
are you immune to sudden unforeseen health costs that you can't afford? unless you are a billionaire, the answer is no
therefore, as a matter of objective fact, you do need health insurance. furtermore, it must be mandated, because there are so many morons out there like you who can't tell the difference between a responsibility and a freedom
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
question: can you drive without insurance?
answer: no, and you are punished if you get in accident and you do not have insurance
why? because you are imposing on everyone else's freedoms, by forcing them to pay for your accidents. you understand that, right?
if you understand that, why do you not understand the simple obvious logic about health care insurance? not getting health insurance is not you exercising a freedom of yours. not getting health insurance is you not fulfilling a responsibility of yours. can you honestly tell me with a straight face otherwise?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
it is your responsibility to take care of your health. it is not my responsibility to take care of your health. correct?
any person alive today might be in the hospital by the end of the day. correct? are you immortal? do you deny this simple truth?
therefore, it is your responsibility to have insurance to make sure that you are paying for your health maintenance, which might include sudden unforeseen unaffordable costs. i shouldn't have to pay for it, correct?
therefore, if you do not have health insurance, you are not exercising a right of yours, you are abrogating a responsibility of yours. really. its quite fucking simple
that you think anything else is logically incoherent. follow the bouncing ball. it is airtight, simple logic. that you deny it is probably not a sign stupidity on your part, but judging by the quantity of effort you put into debating me, some sort of horrible propagandized state you live in. denial, denial, denial
look at every other industrialized democracy on this planet. having universal health care is a fucking brain dead obvious duty of a free society. SO MY FREEDOMS ARE NOT IMPOSED UPON BY YOUR UNFORESEEN COSTS. duh
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why should you be forced to pay for some condition of mine for which you are in no way responsible. If you shot me, I might have a case for seeking financial compensation from you for medical expenses, but otherwise why should you pay?
As I said, I have absolutely no objection to government-run health care as long as my participation is voluntary and I can choose another provider at any time.
Also, I am currently forced to pay into many of the services I do not wish to pay into. I'll be lucky if Social Security is still around, let alone worth anything at all, by the time I expect to be able to collect any of it. Try telling to the government that you won't pay. They'll most likely just laugh at you, but if they wanted to, they could imprison you.
but i'll take a bite at that retarded bait anyways: is the constitution not the fucking bible. it is a living breathing contract for a living breathing society. it grows and changes as the society grows and changes. the constitution is not the fucking quran that requires a holy war if someone suggests the horrible sacriledge of a new better way TO ENSURE OUR FREEDOMS FROM IRRESPONSIBLE ASSHOLES
fact: you are not exercising a right when you do not to have health insurance. you are offloading your responsibility for your health onto me
let me repeat that for the hard of understanding:
you. are. not. exercising. a. right. when. you. do. not. to. have. health. insurance. you. are. offloading. your. responsibility. to. take. care. of. your. health. onto. me.
there is no logical route around this simple obvious as fucking day truth
that you don't understand this fucking obvious truth means nothing more than us, the society you expect to pay for your healthcosts, has to compel you, kicking and screaming TO LIVE UP TO YOUR MOTHERFUCKING RESPONSIBILITIES. we are not imposing on your freedoms in the least, moron, we are making sure you are not imposing on OUR freedoms. get it?
is it acceptable that i walk by you dying in the street because you have no health insurance and no way to pay for care? of course not. therefore, you better be fucking RESPONSIBLE and pay for unforeseen costs with insurance. unless you believe you are an immortal and will never be injured beyond your means
it is only this delusion of immortality that could convince you that holding your ground in this retarded argument any further makes the slightest bit of fucking sense
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i have an ethical duty to make sure you get care
i do not say "do you have health insurance or $200K in an emergency health fund?" and if you say no, i walk away and let you die
if you understand why it is impossible for anyone with even a rudimentary human conscience to do that, then you understand the "twisted context" in play here as you call it
Only in the twisted context where we have made "society"(i.e. government) responsible for the well being of the individual
incredible. amazing. you are simply retarded beyond belief or have less sense of morality than a kindergartener if you actually believe those words
the "twisted context" you refer to asshole is called simple morality according to any definition of morality by any culture that has ever existed: you render aid to the sick and fallen
let me repeat: you render aid to the sick and fallen
are you willing to argue that? are you willing to call this simple obvious unavoidable morality a "twisted context"?
if yes, you are an amoral asshole who has no place in the debate
if no, you agree with me
decide, motherfucker
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
in addition, i am wary of individuals who treat it like fundamentalists treat their religious documents, that it is without question. everything should be questioned: this is the philosophical spirit in which the founding fathers wrote the fucking thing!
the constitution is a living breathing document, it describes a pact between a people and their government. naturally and inescapably, it changes over time. to not understand this is the frightening part
furthermore, to say any part of the constitution somehow stands against healthcare reform is the egregious lack of understanding of constitution in play here, friend
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"If you are passed out on the ground, I can simply choose to walk by without caring. Police officers or other public servants may be required to offer assistance as part of their job, but as a member of the public no such obligations exist for me."
this is the part where those who oppose something as simple and obvious as universal health insurance show their true colors: selfish self-centered irresponsible unethical assholes
thank you for going on record and showing to the world exactly what you are
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if you honestly think the constitution is somehow arranged against universal healthcare, you simply don't understand the constitution. i see a whole bunch of broad concepts out of context up there, a gordian knot of confused misunderstandings. good luck in your intellectual growth kid, you'll get it someday
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
and executive branches is embroiled in the healthcare overhaul
the entirety of the media and all of the partisan hacks are out in full force
do you honestly believe that the common fucking sense legislation currently being passed, in the full blinding light of everyone's attention, is something only you have discovered to be an abrogation of some sort of basic constitutional principles?
you're a middle school teenager or a complete moron if you do believe that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The deal is that either you pay for yourself, or I pay for you. You pay for yourself by voluntarily getting health insurance and using that health insurance when you, or your kid, or your spouse gets sick and needs to visit the emergency room, or the doctor. I pay for you, or your spouse, or child when they break a leg, get sick or whatever, and you don't have insurance.
At the end of the day, the cost gets absorbed some how. Have you ever had to pay a doctor's bill without insurance? They're absolutely ridiculous. A bad car accident can bankrupt someone if they're lucky enough to live through the experience. The thing about insurance is that people will swear up and down that they don't need it. People will believe that they are in complete control of their lives. Those are the exact same people who get t-boned by people running red lights, or trip and fall down the stairs after slipping on ice.
if he's some sort of partisan hack, liberal or conservative, i am proud not to know who he is, as all these loud ignorant vindictive partisan assholes is the problem with our country, not a solution. i am a moderate. if you hadn't noticed, the issue of healthcare overhaul is not some sort of liberal agenda, its a squarely moderate concern
furthermore, thanks for the links. what exactly are your links suppose to tell me? that there are more morons than you out there? ok, you win, i admit defeat. i was wrong to say you alone believe the constitution is being defiled by the healthcare overhaul. i humbly accept your assertion of the existence of many more morons out there
meanwhile, i look forward to the supreme court taking up this highly egregious defiling of the constitution in the immediate future! what a hot potato!
(crickets)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I've known Howard for more than a decade. He started out as a local cop who had a hobby working with computers. He was a pioneer in forensic analysis of computer evidence, and was instrumental in establishing the Air Force's information security capability which was arguably the biggest influence on the evolution of today's DoD capability. He started out doing hands on low level hardware and software analysis. He was a hacker in the true sense of the word. I visited his home, and there were always multiple machines strewn about, which he had built himself.
While I doubt he's done much hands-on work in a long time, he understands the issues and problems as they relate to computer crime and network security. He knows everyone worth knowing in the law-enforcement side of security, since most of them worked for him or with him at some point in his career. He also has worked as the security chief for such companies as Microsoft and Ebay and has all the contacts on the commercial side as well.
I have met and gotten to know numerous "security professionals" over the years in classes, conventions, forums, courtrooms, and bars. I haven't met anyone else with Howard's mix of legitimate hands-on experience and political contacts (political as in knowing the right people not political as in democrat and republican). While I don't know who else they were looking at, I'm positive they could have done much worse than Howard.
To be the welfare car of the Republic?
I'd rather buy a Ford.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
President Obama: Good afternoon Mr. Schmidt, could you tell us who you worked for previous[sic] in cyber-security?
Howard A. Schmidt: Microsoft ...
Yeah, I'd guess a lot of us are thinking that. Funny that the summary didn't mention that little fact. One of the guys who was responsible for the "security" measures that brought us the botnet phenomenon is now the one responsible for the government's computer-security policies.
So does this mean that the US government will be mandating changes that make all other OSs part of the botnets?
Yesterday's story about the botnet masters buying into the ISPs' businesses and "going legit" was just just to soften us up for today's computer security story.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
crackpots on teh intarwebs, who have identified a vast conspiracy to pass flagrantly unconstitutional laws in the senate and the house
fight on, retards!
if this is the best you pathetic morons can muster against healthcare reform in this country, the legislation is obviously a winner. but its good to know there's low iq assholes out there bravely defending the constitution, as they pathetically understand it, from dire threats in this country. dire threats like common sense legislation in the full glare of everyone's attention. ah! but you see the real threat to constitutional liberties! hilarious. retarded.
"You are a moderate? Could have fooled me. You are behaving exactly as the partisan hacks that you just claimed to hate so much."
yes, i am a moderate, not a liberal. of course, from the perspective of the crackpot fringe right, i'm certain moderate america looks liberal. but i have just as much disdain for the morons on the far left as i do for morons on the far right like yourself
if you like, you can consider me a partisan moderate. because i do have a strong emotional hatred for the far left AND the far right. you assholes are the source of so much stupidity on the airwaves and in the so-called "debates", aka zero iq propaganda flinging contests. we in moderate middle are sick of you, you on the far left, you on the far right. you assholes are what is wrong with this country. so fucking loud, so fucking stupid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
why don't you try reading A Christmas Carol?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Carol
do you happen to notice any parallels between the themes enunciated by those who oppose universal health insurance, and the mentality of the protagonist in that fable?
what does the fable teach us about the protagonist's attitude and why it fails?
and therefore, maybe this christmas you can come to appreciate why the currently losing side on healthcare debate might be founded on losing principles, if you can see how A Christmas Carol actually does in fact comment on the losing principles and failed mentality of those who oppose universal health care
hint: those losing principles have nothing to do with constitutional principles, if you actually understand the us constitution, as you assert you do, but seem to understand in only the most rudimentary, crude fashion
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that there are other issues in play in a free society, other than free association, and that some of those issues override free association IN CERTAIN LIMITED CONTEXTS. and all of this is perfectly agreeable with the us constitution. in fact, that the constitution itself has limits on free association, for example. furthermore, that these limits actually serve to maximize your freedom in a well-functioning of a free society
i'm not getting drawn into this discussion, because its intellectual charity. its beneath me. you seem to be only able to hold one concept in your head at a time, leading you to erroneous ridiculous conclusions derived in a vacuum of consideration of any other valid constitutional concepts, concepts equally important for the functioning of a free society. its a balancing act kid. not the taking of one isolated concept and amping it to the max
it is not worth my effort to continue talking to you on this issue, as it is not a debate, its an educational endeavour, and i am not your father or your teacher. if this sounds condescending, it would be even more condescending to plaster a smile on my face, hold your hand, and calmly explain to you some of the obvious constitutional issues you fail to see as important, when they are obviously important, strictly from a constitutional perspective, and if you honestly had a sound understanding of the constitution, you would already have considered these issues yourself. the fact you haven't merely demonstrates what a joke your so-called understanding of the constution is, if you think something like universal health care is unconstitutional
you need a lot of work on your own to catch up with the understanding that there are other issues at play here, none of them arranged to compromise your principles, but in fact arranged to deepen your understanding of your principles and what the founding fathers were grappling with when they wrote our important documents. one hopes you have the intellectual acumen to achieve this greater state of wisdom
as a starting place, make believe, suspend your disbelief for the moment, and consider that the constitution actually allows for limited limits on free association, and that universal health care perfectly falls within those limits. see if you can justify that to yourself, from within the framework of the constitution. if you can do that, you have hope, and you're not doomed to permanent fringe crackpot status. use this epiphany as a starting point for the expansion and growth of your understanding of the constitution and your future intellectual growth. good luck kid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it