Woz Compares the Cloud and PRISM To Communist Russia

An anonymous reader writes "Some journalists ran into Steve Wozniak at the airport and asked him about iOS 7 and PRISM, where he made an interesting comparison about how the US is becoming what it once feared most. In communist Russia 'you couldn't own anything, and now in the digital world you hardly own anything anymore (YouTube video). You've got subscritpions and you already said ok, ok, agree and you agree that every right in the world belongs to them and you got no rights and anything you put in the cloud, you don't even know,' says Woz. 'Ownership was what made America different than Russia.'"

Comments

Typo

[Alworx]

subscritpions

FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Communist Ammerica the Russians own you!

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Mike Frett]

Communism in it's purist form as visioned by Karl Marx has never been implemented; he never really explained it either. But the way I read it, everyone would be equal; no rich, no poor and we all share things -- kind of like Open Source. It's actually not a bad thing if you like the Star Trek way of working not for money, but to better Humanity. It goes back to our Cave Man roots in a way.

But society has beat it into all of your heads that it's evil and wrong, which in the way the Soviet Union had implemented it -- It is. But like I said, it's never been implemented in it's true form and the Rich and Poor are too dug in to ever enact it. It's unfortunate because I wouldn't mind being truly equal and working to better ourselves instead of money.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Tokolosh]

There is a difference between sharing and collaborating voluntarily, and "sharing" while looking into the barrel of a gun. In the voluntary case, you have the option of removing yourself from the group. Churches and their schisms are an example.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

It's actually not a bad thing if you like the Star Trek way of working not for money, but to better Humanity.

Star Trek was a great show, but it had some real problems with the whole idea of money. In some episodes, main characters would laugh at the idea of money itself, as if no one had any money, and then in other episodes they'd talk about how many "credits" something cost. It was one of many huge inconsistencies in the show and the whole Star Trek universe. Go to YouTube and look for "star trek mistakes"; there's a whole series of videos showing giant consistency errors in the series.

Another one is the issue of genetic engineering. In DS9, the fact that Julian Bashir was genetically engineered becomes a huge plot point, because it's apparently highly illegal and has been for a long time (presumably since the days of Khan). But then there's a 2nd-season TNG episode where the ship visits a colony where they're genetically engineering kids with super immune systems which cause a mysterious contagious illness.

They couldn't even get straight whether Troi had ever kissed Riker with a beard or not: there's a bunch of episodes where she and Riker make out (and Riker has his beard), and then in the Generations movie he kisses her and she's disgusted by his beard and acts like he's never kissed her since he grew it.

Back to communism and money: the main problem here is how do you decide who does what job, and how do you get people to actually do jobs? Everyone wants the good jobs, and no one wants the shit jobs. Who actually wants to haul garbage for a living? Or clean toilets? Lots and lots of people would prefer not to work at all if they don't have to. How do you motivate people to do jobs that society needs done, but which everyone would prefer someone else do? If you give everyone the same amount of money so there's no rich or poor, you have to give them their paycheck whether they've earned it or not. If you withhold pay because they don't feel like doing the job they're assigned, then you're creating a wealth disparity, which is against the whole concept. The whole idea breaks down under just a little inspection.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[IndustrialComplex]

Back to communism and money: the main problem here is how do you decide who does what job, and how do you get people to actually do jobs? Everyone wants the good jobs, and no one wants the shit jobs. Who actually wants to haul garbage for a living? Or clean toilets? Lots and lots of people would prefer not to work at all if they don't have to.

The answer, of course, is phasers. Useful and motivational.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[wierd_w]

The only way this would ever work:

Non human servators.

As long as it is *required* for humans to work, and not optional, the "work for betterment of humanity" angle can never work.

Basically, we need soul-less, emotionless, and thankless machines to do those jobs that nobody wants to do.

Humans have to become "irrevelavent" to the maintenance and operation of the gears and cogs of mass production and infrastructure as anything other than the source of innovation. (That is to say, a mega plague could sweep the planet and extinct all human life, and the machines would continue on, repairing empty houses, growing food that won't be eaten, and maintaining themselves, each other, and all the physical social infrastructure. Human involvement is not necessary for "the system" to function.)

Until we have machines that fill this role, the proposal will never work, as cited.

When such machines DO become available, then there would no longer be a need for money, or wealth.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[ebno-10db]

Communism in it's purist form as visioned by Karl Marx has never been implemented; he never really explained it either.

Marxism is not the only form of communism, and Marx was an authoritarian. It's well explained here.

In the 19th century there was a big rivalry between the Marxist communists and the anarchist communists, as exemplified by Bakunin. He and other anarchists hated Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat", which Marx never precisely defined, but in which the word "dictatorship" was accurately used. As Bakunin said:

They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.

I'm no political extremist, but I've always thought that if I were to become one I'd be an anarchist. Essentially they believe that all government authority is corrupt.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[femtobyte]

Back to communism and money: the main problem here is how do you decide who does what job, and how do you get people to actually do jobs? Everyone wants the good jobs, and no one wants the shit jobs. Who actually wants to haul garbage for a living? Or clean toilets? Lots and lots of people would prefer not to work at all if they don't have to. How do you motivate people to do jobs that society needs done, but which everyone would prefer someone else do?

This is a problem that faces all economic systems, and has yet to be perfectly dealt with in any large-scale society. Note, however, that capitalism has one of the worst track records for resolving this: the shittiest jobs are often also the lowest paid, and who gets to do them is "decided" by race, gender, and economic status (in a self-reinforcing cycle of poor people being stuck with shitty jobs that leave them poor). Countries adopting a more social-democratic approach alleviate some of these problems by assuring that even those in shitty jobs can receive a more humane overall standard of living --- access to good healthcare; livable wages; enforcement of workplace health and safety regulation; similar educational opportunities for their children; etc.

Making the "worst" jobs pay the most (until they are seen as "equally good" to any other career path) is one method of approach; another is to try and spread "undesirable" jobs between everyone (e.g. all company employees from top to bottom will take a toilet scrubbing duty rotation for 15 minutes a week). Various proposed alternatives to capitalism all have their own pitfalls and details to work out, but many (at least employed to limited extents) have a significantly better track record than capitalism for creating humane and just societies (that don't drop massive burdens of suffering on an economically disenfranchised lower class).

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

> How do you motivate people to do jobs that society needs done, but which everyone would prefer someone else do?

Robots. I am not joking. When we get to the point where all the crappy jobs can be done by robots we are going to have mass unemployment because lots of people will choose to do nothing instead of something higher up the food chain.

And I don't think that is such a bad thing. A life spent doing nothing is really no less meaningful than a life spent working a shit job, but it is a much less shitty life. As a society we should embrace the idea of getting to the point where everybody can afford to live idle lives, right now only the rich can do that.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[ebno-10db]

while looking into the barrel of a gun

A libertarian term of art, more commonly phrased as "men with guns".

In the voluntary case, you have the option of removing yourself from the group. Churches and their schisms are an example.

By your reasoning about freedom, any country that allows you to leave is free.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[ebno-10db]

all company employees from top to bottom will take a toilet scrubbing duty rotation for 15 minutes a week

I see you've worked for a small company.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you could remove greed, lust, hate, and evil from human nature then this would work..

But alas; it is nothing but a utopian pipe dream.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[turbidostato]

"Who actually wants to haul garbage for a living? Or clean toilets?"

Machines would do without problem.

Look at engineering in an abstract way: by now we could have been rid of all those pesky unmotivating jobs.
But then, look at capitalism: is perfect to reach local optima but it has no concept of "just to make for a better society".

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[turbidostato]

You probably should study a bit more on the matter.

While Bakunin, of course, was right in that any dictatorship tends to perpetuate, Marx's proletarial dictatorship was not the end of the story but just the obvious recognition of the former: no dictatorship leaves its position volontarily, so the dictatorship of capital needs to be destroyed by the impetus of the dictatorship of proletariat.

A catch-22: you won't get an end to capitalist but by means of force, but that force will become a dictatorship itselt that in no way will surrender its position.

But there's hope: there's almost unlimited capitalism but there's social-democracies too; URRS was a dictatorship but it was destroyed mostly peacefully.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[femtobyte]

Very small companies often approach rather "communist" ideals: everyone really is "in it together," with equal input and common goals (not based on "maximize shareholder profit at all costs") and no 400:1 pay disparities between management and labor. Interestingly, such "small business" ideals are often held up by staunch defenders of capitalism (while arguing on behalf of megacorporations that function nothing like the mom-and-pop shop or garage startup) --- the only way to make capitalism look good is to cherry-pick the most communist parts (while ignoring the conditions under which the majority work).

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[femtobyte]

And alternate non-capitalist social organizations could greatly speed up the application of machines to improve human lives (rather than just the profit margins of a wealthy few). For example, in a society that shares all "undesirable" tasks more equally, so even the most brilliant engineers and scientists have to muck out toilets, there's likely to be a lot more productive effort put into making better self-cleaning/non-stinky toilets than a society where such a task can be fobbed off on poor minority women earning minimum wage. And, once the robots are introduced, the benefits accrue to everyone in society (not just the wealthy class, while some poor worker ends up in even more misery unemployed and homeless).

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

Except now you've replaced economic disparity with a different kind of disparity, where instead of people having differing amounts of money, they have differing amounts of power: the patricians at the top and the plebeians at the bottom. That's not much of an improvement.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[cfsops]

A catch-22: you won't get an end to capitalist but by means of force, but that force will become a dictatorship itselt that in no way will surrender its position.

The hand of Vengeance found the Bed
To which the Purple Tyrant fled.
The iron hand crush'd the Tyrants head
And became the Tyrant in his stead.

[Blake]

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[tristes_tigres]

> however, that capitalism has one of the worst track records for resolving this: the shittiest jobs are
> often also the lowest paid, and who gets to do them is "decided" by race, gender, and economic status

Excellent point, - never thought of that myself, even though it's so obvious. Perhaps, because it is so obvious.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

Even then, there'd still be a need for money and wealth, because nothing can ever be really equal. My favorite example of something where you can never have equality for everyone is real estate. I for instance want a luxurious house on the coast of Hawaii. I'm sure lots of other people want a house in such a location too, judging by the property prices on the Hawaiian coast. There's simply no way 8 billion people can each have their own luxurious house on the Hawaiian coast: it isn't that large. (I also want my luxurious house to be surrounded by rain forest, not a bunch of high-rise condos.) Even if you take into account the fact that not everyone wants to live in exactly the same place (some people like mountain properties, some people want to live in Manhattan, some people want to live in the French Riviera, etc.), there's only so much property to go around, and a lot more people than the amount of really prime locations. How many people would really live in Fargo if they had the choice to live anywhere in the world they wanted?

So who gets the nice properties? Now we're right back to some kind of class structure, where people in the upper classes get the nice properties and the people in the lower classes get the less-desirable properties.

The only way this idea works is if you abandon all physical reality, and move everyone into The Matrix (or perhaps the Nexus thing in ST: Generations), where they can create whatever reality they choose.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[tristes_tigres]

> Well, if you could remove greed, lust, hate, and evil from human nature then this would work..

Actually, for the communism to work it is enough to remove the scarcity. That's why maintaining scarcity and inequality is a major preoccupation of the 1%

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[DeeEff]

Don't forget, eventually the patricians will become the Eloi and the Plebians the Morlocks, and the Eloi will slowly start to fade out of existance.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[ebno-10db]

You probably should study a bit more on the matter.

I don't claim to be an expert on the issue, but all you're saying is that you agree with Marx more than Bakunin. That's a matter of opinion rather than fact or knowledge.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[ebno-10db]

That's part of the reason I like working for small companies, but I still don't like cleaning the toilets.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

It's not a horrible idea: if a large portion of the population leads idle lives, some fraction of those will do something with their time that turns out to be useful, such as creating art or music (things which right now don't usually pay well so not that many people take the risk of dedicating time to these pursuits because they're busy working normal jobs to support themselves and their families), or inventing something new.

The main problem with the whole idea is that resources are scarce, and likely will be for quite some time: freshwater, food, and energy are all in scarce supply. Eventually, maybe we'll be able to build giant orbital ships which grow food using solar energy or something, but for now and the foreseeable future those are going to be big, and growing, problems.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[mc6809e]

By your reasoning about freedom, any country that allows you to leave is free.

Don't confuse leaving a group with leaving a territory.

Besides, it still doesn't work in the case of the USA. Wherever you are on the planet, you still must pay income taxes (at a minimum). It's costs over $400 in fees to renounce your citizenship. You essentially must buy your freedom.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[femtobyte]

The only way this idea works is if you abandon all physical reality, and move everyone into The Matrix

Or, you share the nice places. Once in a while, you get to rotate through some beautiful prime vacation spot. The rest of the time, you live in your comfortable but mundanely situated ordinary dwelling. In the process, people work on finding ways to make the "normal" habitat areas more luxuriously comfortable and appealing: you might not get a private island rainforest, but you'll always be an easy stroll away from some beautiful parks and garden groves, isolated from the noise and stench of 20th-century traffic. With a little earthmoving machinery, even Boring Flatsville can get some interesting topography and nice places to watch a sunset.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Toonol]

Dammit. Posting to undo moderation. You deserve an 'informative' which I can no longer give.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[phantomfive]

>quote>everyone would be equal; no rich, no poor and we all share things

The problem is one of finite resources. There are houses that are near the lake (or near the railroad or whatever), and those are more desirable, and some people are going to get those and be considered richer because they have the more desirable stuff. That's in the best case.

In practice, the soviet union never claimed to be communist, they were socialist, which is the intermediate step on the way to communism. They never quite figured out how to get all the way, so different people always got paid different amounts. The basic difference between socialism and communism:

Communism: "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability."
Socialism: "To each according to his contribution."

I'm not sure how communism deals with the fact that people have wants beyond their needs.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone would be equal; no rich, no poor and we all share things

This means denying to reward those who contribute to society. How is that fair?
In absence of rewards, people must be forced to work. How is that freedom?

Inherently, and especially in its purest form, communism means ruin and tyranny.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Toonol]

It's an invalid point. The 'shittiest jobs' are low-paid because they're menial, require no skill, and anybody can do them. The shitty jobs that require intelligence and skill are... highly paid. And there are many shitty jobs that are highly paid.

It isn't decided by race, gender, or economic status. It's decided by the market, and the demand for the work an individual is able to do.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[BrokenHalo]

and the Eloi will slowly start to fade out of existance [sic].

Better than being eaten.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[funkboy]

Communism in it's purist form as visioned by Karl Marx has never been implemented; he never really explained it either. But the way I read it, everyone would be equal; no rich, no poor and we all share things -- kind of like Open Source. It's actually not a bad thing if you like the Star Trek way of working not for money, but to better Humanity. It goes back to our Cave Man roots in a way.

Actually the closest implementation to Marx's vision was the Paris Commune that formed in the power vacuum of the early 1870s after the Prussians captured Napoleon III. After losing what was basically a mini-civil war to the Versailles government forces, everyone that was running the Commune was lined up against a wall & executed.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Tokolosh]

You Tories look down on Libertarians like feudal lords used to look down on democrats.

The USA is about the only country in the world which insists on taxing its citizens who are normally resident in another country. And if you renounce your citizenship, you are deemed to have done so for tax reasons, and have to pay an exit tax on all your assets.

Free to go? Not so much. You are an economic hostage.

http://world.time.com/2013/01/31/mister-taxman-why-some-americans-working-abroad-are-ditching-their-citizenships/

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[RevEngr]

Until we have machines that fill this role, the proposal will never work, as cited.

When such machines DO become available, then there would no longer be a need for money, or wealth.

...or people.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. The pilgrims that came across on the Mayflower had Karl Marx's communism when they originally came over. It neraly killed them off due to starvation. People stopped working because they would be taken care of by others for free. The USSR had state ownership, not quite the same thing because the state divided it as it saw fit, the pilgrims split wealth based on equal shares.

Whats sad is you don't know that, Karl Marx I guess didn't know that, and everyone keeps repeating it like it is a slam dunk success. Its a guarnteed failure, but feel free to go somewhere else and find out for yourself.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[dryeo]

Really the problem is energy. Given an unlimited (or close to) source of really cheap energy, everything else can be done. Water can be desalinized or otherwise cleaned, food can be grown in greenhouses or even mines and so on. The key to utopia is cheap endless energy and it is a lot easier putting solar energy stations in orbit then farms.
Of course this would never happen as our whole system depends on scarcity to the point that artificial barriers are put up to ensure plentiful things stay scarce.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[datavirtue]

I would like it if we applied some of our pedantic nature to labeling income taxes for what they really are: labor taxes. I think it really reveals the nature of what the taxes are really for, paying banks for debt interest on the money we allow them to create.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[datavirtue]

Small companies are small because they are inefficient. I guess this is the corollary of your relation to communism. Large companies are more efficient although it is not a linear scale and they have their own social problems.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[datavirtue]

Nothing is decided by race or gender, it is ALL decided by economic status. But I live in America so my views may be skewed.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

To go far into the realm of sci-fi, Iain M. Banks designed one of the few post-scarcity societies that is actually self-consistent (unlike Star Trek's Federation), The Culture. Its solution to the prime real estate problem is to build more real estate. Not really possible with any imaginable technology, unfortunately.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Baloroth]

But society has beat it into all of your heads that it's evil and wrong, which in the way the Soviet Union had implemented it -- It is.

No, it's wrong in the way Marx himself envisioned it. I've read a bit of his work. He openly stated that his Communism would only work if it was implemented across the entire world, and only by force. That's right: he both knew and embraced the fact that the Communist Revolution would be violent. This is why all the serious attempts at his vision have, in fact, been violent: it's an inherent part of the system. Not only that, but since it has to operate world-wide, it must spread itself, again by force if necessary. That is why the US was so scared of Communism: because Communism, as Marx envisioned it, cannot survive unless it destroys its enemies. It's also why the USSR, and other Communist nations, have sought to conquer or convert others. It's inherent in the system. Marxist Communism sought to destroy all other forms of government and social order.

And if you don't believe me, let me quote the Communist Manifesto:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Any system of government that seeks to force itself upon the world, whether other countries want it or not, is evil and wrong.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

On top of that, if undesirable jobs were highly paid like the GP suggests, then there would be a large economic incentive to make machines to do them. Part of the reason no one makes robots to haul garbage is because garbage men are cheap and robots are expensive.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[TheLink]

It's actually going back to the bad old days.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[bkmoore]

...I wouldn't mind being truly equal and working to better ourselves instead of money.

Then join a cult such as Scientology. But then again, there is no equality in cults, so you're probably better off not joining.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[batwingTM]

The whole thing breaks down when you view it as the way we are trained look at things to in a capitalist society, yes. The concepts of Communism are not the evil that many people play them out to be, just as the conceptual good of Capitalism is not the same as people make it out to be.

Truthfully we probably cannot properly exist in either extreme and reality is somewhere in the middle, until we can free ourselfs from the need to work, and spend our time in the upper layers of Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as it is *required* for humans to work, and not optional, the "work for betterment of humanity" angle can never work.

In Star Trek world, humans were not required to work in our modern sense. People did, what they wanted to do provided it was legal - ie. for betterment of humanity.

As for credits in Star Trek, those were only ever used for "expensive" or limited things that needed to be rationed. They were basically ration cards. Like transporter privileges, or replicator privileges.

Work was a "hobby" in Star Trek. Something you *like* to do. Like be in military. Or be a cook. Or a farmer. Or engineer. It was something to do so you are not bored!! You can think of it as everyone was able to live a normal life. But others, through work, could gain additional privileges/perks/rewards.

Frankly, we are heading either to Star Trek world or to a cesspool. As workers are replaced with automation, we will either provide everyone a "living wage" for living and work will be optional, or we will have misery and unrest (wars?) as there will be not enough jobs and more than enough resources to go around.

Today's capitalism simply does NOT work when most of the jobs become automated.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[kermidge]

That's part of the point, I think; nobody has to like cleaning toilets. So long as everyone cleans a toilet or two, it's not an onerous chore because the load is spread out - and no one need do it as a full-time job. Heck, if all one had to do was clean a few toilets a day, it'd be as much a break as anything else. It's just not that tough a chore - unless some idiot left a mess they were too proud or too sadistic to deal with themselves.

Any job can become unbearable if there is no respite.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[femtobyte]

Regardless of what Marx wrote, the development of Marxist ideology under the Soviet government strongly and officially diverged on this point. A key tenet advanced by Stalin was Socialism in One Country: that, rather than seeking global domination and revolution, the USSR should work towards making itself into a model Socialist paradise; once its own working class enjoyed a utopian life ahead of the rest of the world, then workers in all other countries would rise up to gain the same paradise for themselves. Of course, the USSR ran into a few problems before completing its internal transition to the happiest, wealthiest, most productive place in the world... but, in the meantime, the official state doctrine was not the "original" Marxist stance of necessary global revolution, despite endless fearmongering propaganda in the West that the Ruskies were just itching to swarm over the border and eat your babies.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[jinchoung]

exactly right. that's why marx was ahead of his time... like WAAAAAaaaaaaay ahead of his time. the bolshevic's imperfect implementation guaranteed that at best, everyone lived in egalitarian poverty. clearly that would never fly. but in a world today where productivity and profits of corporations are going up while the number of required workers is going down, it certainly is possible to envision a future where the only thing for humans to do is that which they choose to do themselves. imo, a post-scarcity society is inevitable eventually. and THAT is when marxism will make the most sense. when everything is free, why would you even WANT to own?

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[kermidge]

The key to solving scarcity in most forms is energy. Provide plentiful energy at ludicrously low prices, many problems vanish. The issue would then become heat dissipation.

Near-term, not much we can do but continue to integrate the 'green' stuff, include methane/CO2, with rapid shift to thorium-cycle nukes.
Mid-term, add in solar-power satellites.
Indeterminate - fusion (as several experts point out, it's more a matter of $ than when). I'll leave off more far-afield things.
In all cases, a reasonable blend is to be preferred to all-or-nothing. Part of any blend is recognizing fit of source to scale of demand, balanced by impact on us.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[cold fjord]

You essentially must buy your freedom.

You have freedom as an American citizen. The fee is to legally remove your citizenship. The price went from $0 to $450 in 2010, during President Obama's term. There are also these fees if you have some assets:

... leaving America has a special tax cost. You generally must prove 5 years of tax compliance in the U.S. Plus, if you have a net worth greater than $2 million or have average annual net income tax for the 5 previous years of $155,000 or more (that’s tax, not income), you pay an exit tax. You generally pay 15% on any gain, as if you sold your property when you left. There’s an exemption of approximately $668,000. -- Giving Up U.S. Citizenship

Then there is this courtesy of Barbar Boxer (D-Los Angeles):

Owe The IRS? Bill Would Suspend Passport Rights For Delinquent Taxpayers

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this idea, is that it assumes that every person will put in the effort for the collective group and not just suck on benefits of everyone else while not contributing. History has shown that that has never happened, there will always be people that want to work and will, and those who don't want to work and won't. And even out of the ones who will work, there will be a split between those who work their absolute hardest every day, and those who do just enough to get by (aka the absolute minimum).

Eventually (and it's happening to some degree in our country now), when those "pulling the cart" realize that it's futile, and stop pulling to get in the cart with all the other freeloaders who aren't pulling, and eventually no one is left to pull. Who then pulls the cart with everyone in it? And that is where the persuasion of a the "end of a gun" comes into play and is required to get everyone out and make them contribute, and that's why it's the only way that type of system can work.

No thanks, I'll pass.

Re:First Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

... no rich, no poor and we all share things

Unfortunately, we're intrinsically built to be selfish. We don't share sex; women want one reliable person satisfying their needs, maybe two persons. We don't share child-care. We babble about protecting children, but very few will cover the debt your child raises. Most obviously, we don't share food.

More importantly, sharing leads to structural inefficiencies. If I share my food, then you will not exert yourself growing food, reducing the amount of food available. If a government practices 'cradle to grave', then it will provide gainful employment; to the point that busy work causes inefficiency.

... working to better ourselves ...

One of the duties of government is to undo destructive market forces; notably the force Marx railed against the most: That of putting a dollar value on everything. With this, murder, virginity, air, river water, become commodities for someone to collect and own. Another one is money begetting money. Most tax regimes reflect this: Money earnt by sweat is taxed at a lower marginal rate than money earnt from capital assets. But owning money has become a top priority in some governments: This causes commerce to be controlled not by government but by the finance industry. This forces the rest of the population to depend on the honesty of bankers. As the Global crisis and LIBOR scandal have proven, it doesn't work.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

You said something useful and then mention art or music??? Maybe someone would build a bridge, that's something useful....

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[stealth_finger]

In Communist Ammerica the Chinese own you!

FTFY

Re: FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble with his vision is that people are involved. They always tend to mess things up. You have those who have no desire to work and milk the system for a free ride. Then you have those who usurp the system for their own evil goals (Stalin). So I question whether his proposed system could ever be realized, since it fails to take into account human nature. Perhaps the best system is one that provides checks and balances while trying to make all people have equal rights.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[FlyHelicopters]

The problem with your idea comes when I say, "sorry, I don't want to clean the toilets, I'm not going to clean the toilets, unless of course you put a gun in my face".

Now today a company owner doesn't have to employ me and I don't have to work there, but if "everyone has to do every job" in your dream world, then who is enforcing this?

So you're welcome to clean toilets, but I'm not going to. Unless of course forced to by the threat of violence, but then we just have moved from money to force as a class system.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[FlyHelicopters]

Two problems:

1. Forcing engineers and scientists to clean toilets is a horrible waste of resources. It has also been tried, learn some recent history, read up on the "Great Leap Forward" in China and see how badly that went moving "smart people" into the crop fields.

2. What happens when those people simply don't want to clean the toilets and simply say "no" when you ask them to?

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is equal, no matter how you turn it. Equality doesn't say anything about personal income or not, it defines equal opportunities in form and shape of your own free will. We are born equal - nothing can change that. By saying that "all people should earn the same amount of money" you are trying to destroy this equality. Having the possibility of success and "riches" is a required factor for driving humanity forward, atleast at given date. If we remove that opportunity, why the heck should most people even try to make a change if the market doesn't tell if it's wanted or not?

Take me for just for the example, I've created my own business and have employed some people. My ultimate goal is ofcourse to make enough money to don't have to worry about that in the future, buying me time (time is money) to invest and create in things that will not give me money. I've got mouths to feed so income is required, so if I want to do time on a project that is going to pay for that - I need some other ways to pay for it.

I work my ass off - I don't even consider it work anymore, just 'a way of life'. At the moment I'm usually the one with the smallest paycheck each month, I prioritize my employees (both personally and legally). If you remove the opportunity for me to earn a 'quick buck', why the heck should I do this? Why the heck should I work 24/7 when all that is required is some lame ass job where I don't even have to think? And don't have to worry about how to feed my mouths?

People who want equal salary really doesn't understand the market and are probably the ones not creating any new value.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[FlyHelicopters]

Yes, and what Stalin either didn't understand, or did and didn't care... was that people... human beings, don't work like that...

I see a lot of ideas tossed out by people who fail to take into account how human beings actually work.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[mjwalshe]

no because you pay income tax on more than your direct labour income tax of share dividends for example

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[cold fjord]

despite endless fearmongering propaganda in the West that the Ruskies were just itching to swarm over the border and eat your babies.

The Soviets invaded and annexed Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. The Soviets invaded and annexed part of Finland. The Soviets invaded and annexed part of Poland.

Eat babies? No. But the Soviets deliberately created a famine in Ukraine that killed 7 million people, men, women, and children, including babies.

After the invasion of Poland, the Soviets massacred the Polish army's officers and police officers in the Katyan Forest massacre - est. 22,000 dead

Swarming over the border with the Red Army might have been difficult at various times.

1937-1941 - Military Purges

The whole Red Army development program was nearly wrecked in the 1937-39 period when Stalin's paranoiac purge of Tukhachevsky and some 35,000 other high-ranking officers in the Red Army brought the whole military machine to the verge of chaos. As was the case with the entire Soviet military establishment, Soviet operational maneuver concepts and forces suffered severe damage in the late 1930s, in part because Stalin purged their creators. The multiple waves of military purges, which began in 1937 and lasted into the opening months of World War II, liquidated most Red Army theoreticians and senior commanders. Inevitably, therefore, their ideas fell into disuse or outright disrepute. Incredibly, the slaughter of thousands of his military personnel was seated in Stalin's own paranoia, not any known coup attempt. The families, the friends, and the colleagues of the condemned either joined them in oblivion or sat with faces frozen in mute resignation, waiting for the summons that could arrive at any moment

Although the senior ranks experienced the most severe losses in terms of percentages (11 of 13 army commanders were shot, as were 57 of the 85 corps commanders and 110 of the 195 division commanders), the numerical bulk of the victims came from subordinates unfortunate enough to be on the wrong staff or performing the wrong mission. Estimates of the total losses created by this mass bloodletting range from 15,000 to 30,000 officers, depending upon the dates used and the figures available. And, most of the 1,836,000 surviving Red Army prisoners of war liberated from the Axis powersat the end of World War II were sent to the Gulag as "traitors to the motherland."

The Soviet Story (2008)
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[sjames]

We can already do a lot of them with robots now. Sadly (and tellingly), people desperate for a job are currently cheaper than robots.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

go ussa

Re: FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are far too knowledgeable and will need to be eliminated. Anarchy is the most dangerous political system for centralized power and is hated by all governments, and is misquoted and dinegrated because of that.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[uncle slacky]

No, the answer is robots - and a basic income for everyone.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[RCL]

If machines to clean toilets appear, then the new shit job will be servicing those machines.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[RCL]

"Who actually wants to haul garbage for a living? Or clean toilets?"

Machines would do without problem.

Who will want to repair those machines?

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[lxs]

No for communism to work the population has to be of ants, bees or mole-rats. Primate nature is incompatible with an egalitarian society.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[RCL]

Disparity between people cannot be eliminated (without making us clones of each other) and is essential for the progress. What makes the system unstable in the long run is positive feedback created by the way inheritance works in our society (and nature) . We start with inequal population and with each iteration (generation) the gap widens, which ultimately results in catastrophic "rebalance" happening from time to time.

While we cannot make everyone start "from scratch" (e.g. we cannot prevent people from inheriting certain biological traits like good looks, physical strength, cleverness), we may try to change our inheritance laws so it is harder to form castes. Not sure how exactly though.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[peppepz]

In fact, in real socialist states, the idea is that you cannot own real estate. Your house gets assigned to you, and when you leave it you give it back. So everyone would get equal treatment and opportunities. In reality, what happened is that members of the upper bureaucracy were assigned big houses while regular people got anonymous sleep points. So the class structure was there, with bureaucracy replacing aristocracy/bourgeoisie.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[sFurbo]

Look at engineering in an abstract way: by now we could have been rid of all those pesky unmotivating jobs.

No, we couldn't. Getting machines to orientate themselves in a non-controlled environment is non-trivial, to say the least. If there were engineering solutions to that, a lot of these jobs would have disappeared from other Western countries (the US seems to be an outlier with an inexhaustible supply of very cheap labor).

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[tristes_tigres]

In imaginary libertarian paradise, where mythical beast called "free market", decides who does what for how much, your objection would have been valid.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[tristes_tigres]

And race and gender has absolutely nothing to do with whatever you call "economic status". Nothing at all. Perish the thought!

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[tristes_tigres]

Thank you for this testament to the efficiency of the US education and media. Never mind the numerous examples of non-monetary, egalitarian societies and the actual history of money and debt.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

You're right, with enough cheap energy you can do everything else artificially. However, earth-based farms still consume valuable real estate, and I question the idea of putting farms underground: there's only so much area available underground (with mines and such), and it seems like it'd be cheaper and easier, once we have the technology, to just build massive space-station farms than to dig enough tunnels (and worry about them collapsing) to grow food. Of course, by that time, we'll probably come up with some artificial way of synthesizing food rather than growing it.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

I never said communism was evil, just that it was completely infeasible. I don't think I've ever met anyone who thought the basic idea was "evil" (quite the contrary in fact), just that it doesn't work in the real world because of human nature.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why we have to get all the guns, to make people realize its good to share. So the commies use the guns to force the rest of us to see what we are missing out on. Did you know Marx was a rabid racist? Yes, he was, make me wonder why BO loves him so much as well as any vial liberal. My family ran away from the Nazis only to have it come to the US because of retards like you.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

You're right, machines that repair other machines could never exist.
Your lack of imagination concerns me.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[femtobyte]

1. Forcing engineers and scientists to clean toilets is a horrible waste of resources.

Having grown up in a family of scientists/engineers, and frequently in the company of many other scientists/engineers: guess who cleans the toilets at home? Most scientists/engineers aren't ludicrously rich, and don't have home servants. At least at home, they scrub their own toilets, do their own laundry, wash their own dishes, etc. --- and yet the progress of technology doesn't grind to a screeching halt.

It has also been tried, learn some recent history, read up on the "Great Leap Forward" in China

I have read some history: plenty to know that simplifying the causes of failure in the "Great Leap Forward" to "Scientists made to work in crop fields" is grossly inaccurate.

2. What happens when those people simply don't want to clean the toilets and simply say "no" when you ask them to?

They get to have incredibly nasty toilets. And why should the people with clean and well-maintained toilets (because they all chip in to getting work done that needs be done) let those work-shirkers share theirs?

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[RCL]

And who will want to repair machines that repair the machines that clean toilets?

You don't get the point - we cannot avoid undesirable jobs. No matter how far we push the technical progress, there will be occupations that people will shun.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Communist Ammerica, China owns you!

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Again, a stunning display of imagination.
If a machine that repairs other machines exists, why would anyone need to repair it? Presumably, such machines could repair each other.
Or is that just too farfetched for you to wrap your head around?
A human analogy would be: If people are repaired by doctors, who repairs the doctors?

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Weedlekin]

You are forgetting that in a society where everything is communally owned, there is no need for organised violence to deal with uncooperative people. All they need to do is withdraw your right to access to the community's property (i.e. everything), because no matter how stubborn you are, helping a team to clean toilets for an hour a week will start look like a pretty pretty good deal after you've spent acouple of months living under a bridge and eating rotting food out of trash cans.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Marxism is not the only form of communism, and Marx was an authoritarian. It's well explained here.

In the 19th century there was a big rivalry between the Marxist communists and the anarchist communists, as exemplified by Bakunin. He and other anarchists hated Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat", which Marx never precisely defined, but in which the word "dictatorship" was accurately used. As Bakunin said:

They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.

I'm no political extremist, but I've always thought that if I were to become one I'd be an anarchist. Essentially they believe that all government authority is corrupt.

If you're going to use that kind of logic - all political idealogies amount to dictatorships in practice, with the possible exception of complete anarchism - though even that would still end up as a dictatorship once the strong rose to the top.

Even democracy will amount to a certain percentage of the popluation getting their way over another percentage of the population. Geting a chance to vote every few years make no difference if there's only 2 people to vote for and they both say the same shit while wearing a different coloured tie.

The only choice we still pretend to exercise is what flavour of dictatorship we're going for this 4 years - and how much tyranny we will accept that flavour demonstrating.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[onyxruby]

What a naive fool you are, if you think communism could work if only given the chance to be done the /right/ way. We've had dozens of countries over many decades all try to do communism in one flavor or another. All fell to the fact that communism is an ideal platform for corruption and human nature.

Read your history to learn the efforts that were put into isolation behind the iron curtain to try and keep people from learning any differently. Even with generation upon generation, raised in isolation it could not work. No amount of bloody cleansing can or ever will make communism work because you can't change human nature. 100 million people were slaughtered to the alter of communism in the last century in a futile effort to change human nature. It's the largest and most expensive social experiment in history and the 100 million dead should be more than enough to prove it's failure.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[deadweight]

And you never will. Just like libertarianism* and every other utopian vision, it relies on a perfection of the human spirit that is not possible. * libertarianism - def. That enjoyable, but brief, period between the end of powerful government and the start of strong men and corporations realizing they have no more authority over them strong enough to pay attention to.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[RCL]

You are totally removing humans from the equation, whereas the topic is precisely about them. Even if self-sustaining population of machines can be created, that changes nothing for "who will want to clean toilets" question. There will be a need to either interact with those machines or do other "unpleasant" tasks which they cannot (yet) handle. That job might not look that unpleasant by today's standards, similarly how nowadays jobs don't look that bad from 2000 BC perspective, but it will be considered "dirty" in the future and people will not voluntarily do that.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[ai4px]

The other issue with communism is the human factor. Some people simply don't want to work. The whole "from each his abilities" breaks down from the start.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

You're failing to totally remove humans from the equation, whether or not the topic is precisely about them. If a self-sustaining population of machines can be created, that entirely eliminates the need for a "who will want to clean toilets" question. There will be no need to interact with those machines (since they're by definition self-sustaining) nor do other "unpleasant" tasks which will all be handled by machines (since that's the premise: machines that take over all jobs, even the unpleasant ones like cleaning toilets). The lack of jobs might not look that unpleasant by today's standards, unlike how nowadays jobs don't look any more scarce from a 2000 BCE perspective, but it will allow for a life of leisure activities in the future and people will really appreciate that.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Stuarticus]

You seem to show a lack of imagination if you're trying to picture a money free economy where we all own property. Why on earth would I need to own a property on a Hawaiian beach? If that were the case I'd need about 200 houses all over the globe depending on where I felt like visiting...

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

Actually, it could work, if you had some overseer who was good at judging peoples' actual abilities, and then assigning them jobs, and judging peoples' needs, and assigning them resources, and then setting up an enforcement apparatus so that people who refuse to work are punished or otherwise motivated to do the work they're assigned. The problem, of course, comes back to human nature: every time someone tries setting up a governmental system with that much power (the proper term is totalitarianism), it's a disaster because the people granted that much power become corrupt or incompetent. Plus, even if corruption weren't such a problem, the whole thing (a central planned economy) is just so ridiculously inefficient that it doesn't work. If you have a government looking at every citizen's life with intense scrutiny, that requires having a huge number of government agents, who of course have to be scrutinized themselves.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Stuarticus]

Jeez, your house must stink worse than your attitude. Clean your toilet!

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[RCL]

Creating advanced tools (even equal to us in all regards) will never eliminate "who will want to clean the toilets" question. There were societies that used slave labour (which approximates "self-sustaining intelligent machines") to avoid menial jobs, yet they still had the same motivational problems.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

Why wouldn't you own property? Or otherwise temporarily live in property?

You have to live somewhere. People require dwellings; it's part of being human. People like to live in nice places (like Hawaiian beaches), not in shitty places (like Detroit). There's only so many nice places to go around, and you can't just use a 3D printer to fabricate new ones (we're not at Ringworld/Dyson sphere technology yet), so there's going to be some kind of competition for those places. That's inherently unequal.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Stuarticus]

What would you buy the things you owned with?

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Quila]

By your reasoning about freedom, any country that allows you to leave is free.

It's no coincidence that every communist country has been very strict about allowing its people to leave. They built a famous wall to prevent that once.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Quila]

But like I said, it's never been implemented in it's true form

Neither has capitalism on any reasonable scale. The government always interferes, and often not to the benefit of society.

But communism won't be implemented in any "true" form because we're humans, not insects genetically programmed to slave for the hive collective.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

You mean tricoders, clothes, etc? We're talking about a post-scarcity society: you just go up to your replicator and tell it to make you those things. If there's infinite supply, there's really no reason for those things to not be free for all. Money exists because there's scarcity, causing things to have value, and we use money as an analogue for that value (because it's a lot more convenient than the barter system). Without scarcity, there's no reason for money, and conversely, to have a society without money, you have to eliminate scarcity. I'm just pointing out that while, while in such a society things like food, water, clothes, gadgets, etc. can all be free for the taking (which doesn't mean you get to take someone else's, just that you can have your own made for you for free), real estate will not be non-scarce for the foreseeable future (not until we can build Dyson spheres), and people always want to live in nice places, which is why beachfront and penthouse property costs so much more than treeless plots of barren, infertile land in the desert or North Dakota.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Stuarticus]

My point is ownership becomes a fairly abstract concept in a world without money or scarcity. Why do you actually need to own anything? By what means do you acquire these things? When you can instantly have the things you need, or carry them with you at all times why do you even need a permanent abode?

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

And from 13 colonies along a coast, a giant nation was created by... massacre, annexation and invasion.
Go to your neighborhood casino and find out.

The point is it is not due to communist/capitalist.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[onyxruby]

Hi, glad to meet you. You can now say you have met someone that thinks the basic idea of communism is evil. It's a system that requires war for expansion, suppression of the populace and has killed 100 million people in an effort to expunge human nature.

Cheers,
onyxrxuby

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Patch86]

You could argue that as all of the industrial/service/agriculture/etc. (i.e., traditionally useful) jobs become automated, more and more people will move into jobs which machines can't do, and which are arguably more pleasurable; such as the creative industries. That is, everyone will become artists, actors, musicians, athletes, designers, architects, interior decorators, theoretical scientists, anything which can't simply be automated. The money involved with manufacturing things or performing basic services and utilities should drop ever lower in comparison to the un-automatable industries, meaning that the amount of money being earned by the collective mass of people in the latter should be ample to pay for the products of the former.

The problem with this vision is the skills gap. Traditionally a large portion of the population have not needed more skills or talent than can be gained by a few months training- where will these people fit into a world where the only career options are either creative or theoretical? Will the kind of people who work down mines or on the Ford production lines be able to adapt to being a novelist or an archaeologist? Is that a temporary problem with the existing workforce, or is that something that can never be overcome- are some people unable to become bright enough for highly intellectual jobs? If anyone has the answer to that one...

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

people always want to live in nice places

Ah, but what passes for "nice places" can and do change.

Lots of places we live in today aren't really nice places (too hot, too cold, etc) before, but technology made them into nice places.

It's possible that technology will allow us to create more nice places or turn existing not-so-nice places to nice ones. And if we have reached scarcity, the cost of doing so is negligible that everybody can have a nice place for themselves.

Of course there will be differences between the nice place over here and the nice place over there so things are not technically "equal", but I think under such a world, people wouldn't care about those differences, so things are effectively equal. I think the man behind Star Trek expressed the idea best in the following exchange regarding Picard:

Reporter: Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century.
Gene Roddenberry: In the 24th century, they wouldn't care.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Resources are not scarce at all.
They are simply not allocated or priced correctly.
For food, the entire world throws away half of the food produced. The west out of simple waste, the 3rd world because of lack of roads for transport, refrigeration, and canning/pickling facilities.
Stop just sending bags of rice and start building proper roads and they can feed themselves.

For water, see Las Vegas, the place where thousands of gallons of DRINKING WATER are thrown into the air in fountains, fill fake canals, and water fucking lawns in the middle of one of the most arid places in the world. It is beyond stupid that the place even exists. It's sole reason of being because of out dated gambling prohibition and the influence of criminal gangs.
There is plenty of water, even fresh water, it is simply not used correctly.

Power however needs work. We have lots of that also, but it is a political issue, not technical.
A billion solar roofs in poor countries, a thousand nuke reactors in rich and the problem is really solved. No fusion, no super conducting power lines, not space power satellites, nothing we don't already use and the problem is actually solved.
Bonus, get this done and water pumping and treatment, food transport and refrigeration, travel for medical help, etc all get cheaper and the first two points take care of themselves.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

Because there will always be scarcity, unless we all become part of The Matrix. While manufactured goods can become free in a society with free energy, some items will have sentimental value. If I like woodworking, for instance, and instead of just asking my replicator to make me a nice wooden table, I have it make me an old-fashioned hand plane and hand saw and other tools, and use those to make my own (imperfect) table, that table will have sentimental value to me that can't be replaced (or, if I give it to my wife, it'll have perhaps even more sentimental value to her). When you kid draws you a crappy painting in art class and you hang it on your refrigerator, that painting has no value to anyone else, but it has immense sentimental value to you (or so I've heard from people with kids). People will always want to own such things. Even on Star Trek, the characters all had treasured possessions in their quarters that they kept for sentimental reasons, even though the possessions didn't have any real value to others; even Data had a (weird little cylindrical) case of his treasured items (including service medals) in the episode where they put him on trial and Riker took his arm off. Picard had his little flute from the episode where he lived a lifetime on some long-since destroyed planet. Picard would have been pissed if some asshole decided to steal his flute, even if it's technically possible to replicate. He wouldn't care about someone taking his boots or comm badge, since those can be easily replaced by the replicator, but he doesn't want a copy of his flute, he wants the real thing.

As for a permanent abode, it comes down to two things: sentimentality and the work necessary to set it up. People fill their abodes with things they treasure, like handmade items, their kids' crappy drawings, etc. They also set them up in a way that pleases them: painting the walls colors they like, arranging the furniture the way they like, putting in countertops they like, etc. You can't just walk into another place and set things up like that in a few minutes, and who the hell wants to move from banal, boring, ugly apartment to apartment, decorated by someone else or worse designed to offend as few people as possible? Maybe eventually technology will get to the point where you can walk into a place and it's instantly transformed according to your preferences, but then we're back to technology that's near the level of that needed to build Dyson spheres, or living in The Matrix, which is so far advanced beyond what we have it's almost pointless to think about. Even Star Trek with its replicators does not show a society with that level of technological capability: the Enterprise did not have the ability to instantly set peoples' quarters up according to their preferences, so they all had the same boring furniture and paint schemes, unless they had taken the time to change them (like Worf's quarters).

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

What you describe isn't true communism, it's the state supposedly required to get to communism. If you knew the first thing about Marx's writings you'd know this. No one's ever achieved communism, according to Marx, only totalitarian authoritarian socialist states.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[FlyHelicopters]

They aren't paid at home, I'm talking about at work...

At work, they are paid by the company for X amount of their time. Should that paid time be for doing their jobs, or for cleaning toilets?

As for home servents, actually I'm willing to bet that most scientists/engineers can afford a weekly cleaning service. I have one and haven't cleaned a toilet in... well, forever.

If you don't think that moving millions of intellectuals from the cities to the countryside during the Great Leap Forward was a primary factory in its failure, then we are simply going to have to disagree on that one.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

I completely disagree. You might be able to dress up an apartment in Detroit to be fairly nice inside, but it's still going to be surrounded by thugs, and even if you can fix that, it's still going to be located in a place where the climate just isn't that great. If I want to live in a place where I can wear short sleeves year-round and listen to waves on a beach when I'm at home (and not with a recording, but being able to see them out my window), Detroit isn't going to cut it, I'm going to want to live in Hawaii, or Fiji, or someplace like that. If I'm stuck with an apartment in Detroit, while someone else gets a beach house in Hawaii under this supposedly "equal" system, I'm going to be pissed, and I'm going to cause a lot of problems because someone's getting a much better deal than me. Maybe some people would actually prefer the apartment in Detroit for whatever reason, but surely a lot more people will want the Hawaiian beach house, creating higher demand for that property.

As for baldness, I think that's BS too. Since genetic engineering is illegal in the Federation (except for the 2nd season TNG episode where it wasn't), people will still be the same as they are now, which means that some people will be more attractive than others because of genetics. People will want to make up for that, and bald people will surely want to fix this deficiency, just as they do now, to make themselves more attractive, more youthful, etc. (Obviously, this assumes a society where youthful looks are valued; this isn't true for all human societies in history, but I see no reason to believe that people in the 24th century are going to resemble tribal societies where old age is revered more; it's possible, but it would have nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with the fact that societies evolve cultures over time that have various values for various reasons, besides only technology.) If Picard wants to bang chicks in their early 20s, for instance, he's going to want to make himself look younger so he can be more attractive to women in that demographic. Lack of scarcity isn't going to change that, and make 22-year-old women want to jump in bed with 40-60-year old balding men.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[FlyHelicopters]

That is nice, but I don't want to live in such a society...

If you try to force me to do so, then I'm going to use force to try and prevent you from doing so.

So it comes back to force rather than money. I may or may not win (along with those who think like me), but we'll sure give you a run for your money.

Side note: this is the sort of mistake that such people make when using such thinking. You assume that my only two choices are:

1. To go along and clean the toilets.
2. To live under a bridge eating rotten food.

I have a third choice...

3. Remove you from power by force...

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Patch86]

That is an oversimplification from (your link) an anti-Marxist anarchist. I've got a lot of sympathy for anarchists, but that doesn't mean that he isn't oversimplifying to help prove his point.

Marxism could broadly be split into two elements- the revolutionary and reformist branches. Famously, Marx declared himself a reformist, saying of the politics of two prominent revolutionary Marxists (Guesde and Lafargue) that if their politics represented Marxism, that "...ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste" ("...what is certain is that I am not a Marxist").

The anarchist view is that any form of government- however democratic- is a dictatorship. Marx's view of a world governed by and for the masses would be a "dictatorship of the masses" in anarchist thought. That does not make Marx an authoritarian by modern (capitalist) standards; his view of things would have chimed nicely with our modern view of democracy.

I've always thought anarchism was very blue sky thinking- I see the appeal of it, but I simply can't picture a world where it could actually happen and where it could remain in a stable and sustainable state. This view is somewhat reinforced by reality- there have been a few anarchist revolutions and communities over the years, and none of them have ever grown to a meaningful size or survived for more than a few years. I'd love to be proved wrong, though.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[FlyHelicopters]

No thank you, I pay someone to do that...

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

All wrong.

There's only so much arable land available for producing food. We've gotten a lot more efficient at growing food, but part of that is because of the use of petroleum-based fertilizers. Petroleum is a non-renewable and dwindling resource (and not exactly ecological either). We haven't quite gotten to the point where we've really run out of good land for growing, but it's coming. It doesn't help that the places that are good for growing food also happen to be favored for living in; farmland is constantly being turned into subdivisions in this country. There's tons of open land here in the US where people could live, such as North Dakota, but no one wants to live there (gee, wonder why), and those places are also terrible for growing food because they're not arable land (too cold, not enough water, etc.).

Building roads in Africa isn't going to help people feed themselves; the warlords and gangs will fight over the roads, bomb them, etc. The various powers there do not want people to feed themselves, because then they won't have power over those people. It's entirely a political problem there.

Yes, Vegas and Phoenix are very wasteful with drinking water. However, they (and LA) get their water from the Colorado River, and it's running dry. They also get water from aquifers, which also are running dry. Pretty soon, they're going to hit a shortage, and it's going to be ugly. The shortage of water in the Colorado River has already decimated farmland in Mexico, causing a large portion of the illegal immigration from that country into the US: those people can't work as farmers in northern Mexico any more because there's no water left for irrigation, so they come here looking for work. There's only so much freshwater available, and places like Saudi Arabia have to use desalination to make enough for their people. Desalination requires a ridiculous amount of energy.

Fission reactors can't generate enough power for everyone: where do you dump the waste heat? Fission reactors work by generating heat from fission, and then exploiting the difference in temperature between that and a nearby heatsink to drive steam turbines. That heatsink is usually a river. Rivers only have so much heat capacity before you screw up the local ecosystem or worse. There's been many cases of nuclear reactors (I remember some in Tennessee) having to shut down during peak times in the summer months (when everyone has their A/C on), because the river got too hot. Any power generation technology that relies on heat cycles (this includes fusion) will have this same problem. The only technology that doesn't is photovoltaic power. Of course, this doesn't work that well during the night, but if we can invent better energy-storage technologies that'll be solved. There's plenty of roofspace and parking lot area that can be covered with PV panels, even in the rich countries that don't have as much sunlight; the only problem is that PV is currently expensive compared to fossil fuels. But if we need more power than that, the real answer is orbital solar power collectors.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be able to dress up an apartment in Detroit to be fairly nice inside, but it's still going to be surrounded by thugs, and even if you can fix that, it's still going to be located in a place where the climate just isn't that great.

You're still thinking inside the box. This is the theoretical Star Trek post-scarcity future. You're not limited to just dressing up the inside and not the outside.

I'm going to cause a lot of problems because someone's getting a much better deal than me

Again, you're thinking inside the box. You're thinking that Hawaii is a much better deal than Detroit, always. I'm saying technology can change the balance.

I mean, guns can be the great equalizer in force. Is it so hard to imagine that there are other technologies that can equalize all those other aspects of life which makes you think Hawaii is a better deal than Detroit?

If Picard wants to bang chicks in their early 20s, for instance, he's going to want to make himself look younger so he can be more attractive to women in that demographic.

Or he could just be Patrick Stewart (who did in fact dated the then-20 something Lisa Dillon for a time)

I do think this is getting off topic. The original topic is about money and property. I don't think girlfriends and wives should fall under the category of property and something we own for social status (even if that's how they could be today)

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

Again, you're thinking inside the box. You're thinking that Hawaii is a much better deal than Detroit, always. I'm saying technology can change the balance.

No, it can't. Technology can't change the climate so that it's balmy and warm all year round in Detroit. At least not without Kardishev Type II civilization-level technology (Dyson spheres), or perhaps The Matrix (which isn't physical reality at all). We're not talking about that, we're talking about, at best, Star Trek-level technology (Star Trek depicts a Type I civilization). Even Star Trek, with warp drives and phasers and replicators and transporters, does not show technology capable of turning the whole planet into Hawaii. In fact, Star Trek has many, many episodes showing human settlers on colony planets, because apparently there's too many people for the planets they have, and they don't have the technology to build Dyson spheres, so they send ships full of colonists out to empty planets to settle them. They even invented the Genesis Device to try to make more usable planets for colonization, but even that was limited in its capabilities (it could basically take an existing planet or collection of matter and turn it into an Earth-like planet, complete with different biomes, some probably really nice like Fiji and Hawaii, and others kinda shitty like Antarctica, Saudi Arabia, and North Dakota). And honestly, the Genesis Device really stretched suspension of disbelief even for Star Trek physics; the amount of energy needed to pull of such a feat would be enormous, and they didn't show how this device supposedly got enough energy to do such a thing, especially since it was only the size of a photon torpedo, and even those don't have that much energy in them.

Or he could just be Patrick Stewart (who did in fact dated the then-20 something Lisa Dillon for a time)

There's always a few women attracted to older men, but Patrick Stewart was a famous (and presumably rich) actor, and also unusually attractive for a bald man (or even any man for that matter). If he wasn't so attractive, and neither rich nor famous, and his goal was to bang young chicks, he wouldn't have had much success at that, unless he settled for some very unattractive ones. Lack of money isn't going to change this. Genetic engineering and various medical treatments could though. I only brought this up because of your quote about people in the 24th century supposedly not caring about baldness, which I think is bullshit. Lack of scarcity of most resources would change many things, but certain facets of human nature will never change unless we change ourselves so that we're no longer human. Lack of scarcity isn't going to make us all not care about physical beauty, or not be attracted or unattracted to other people based on physical appearance.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[onyxruby]

Marx himself wrote about the need for violent revolution and suppression of the masses at a world wide scale in order to achieve his theoretical state. Have you actually ready what he wrote?

If you cant implement something without declaring war on the world, the death of millions and suppression of any who dare to dissent than it's evil. It's a bit like saying we could eliminate poverty if we simply slaughtered the poor (something that Vlad the Impaler actually did by the way).

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

Well I suppose this probably is splitting hairs, but my point was that Marx said that the period of violent revolution, and the whole transitional phase, was not actually "communism", but that "communism" was the end state (which has never been achieved). Basically, the Stalinist states got to that horrible transitional phase, and got stuck there. But you do have a good point with your last paragraph.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[femtobyte]

At work, they are paid by the company for X amount of their time. Should that paid time be for doing their jobs, or for cleaning toilets?

If you measure "efficiency" from a corporate-centric perspective, as in "what maximizes returns to the rich ruling class," then yes, it may well be most efficient to create a horrendously stratified and unequal society that turns the majority of workers into interchangeable labor drones. However, considering efficiency from the perspective of a whole society, which means taking into account everyone's quality of life, it's OK to decrease "unit productivity per time" in exchange for giving a lot more people opportunity/ability to live richer lives, rather than a tiny lucky few.

If you don't think that moving millions of intellectuals from the cities to the countryside during the Great Leap Forward was a primary factory in its failure, then we are simply going to have to disagree on that one.

This was certainly a factor, but consider why it was a factor. The problem wasn't "intellectuals" being made to contribute to work, but more that city-slicker "intellectuals" were put in charge of the complex and highly knowledge/skill-dependent tasks of food production. Rather than learning to be farmers alongside rural peasants who, while not world-class in food production, at least had a history of doing generally well enough to feed the country, brand new techno-fetishist disruptive changes were imposed on agricultural production techniques by centralized technocrats, with no actual experience and isolated from on-the-ground issues of agricultural production. Dumping a bunch of idealistic party faithfuls and an expensive imported tractor-combine (with no fuel or replacement parts) on a rural village and expecting productivity to explode turns out not to not always work so well as envisioned.

The failures of the Great Leap Forward are not an indication that involving more people in more diverse areas of social production is itself a bad idea. The problem is having "smart" people coming in with a chip on their shoulder thinking they can do everything better than those boorish rural manual laborers; assuming that knowledge and skill can/will flow from some centralized technocratic elite. A less top-down centralized approach, in which city intellectuals first developed hands-on experience working under the tutelage of already-productive farmers, instead of pulling out the fancy Lysenkoist pseudoscientific theories from day one, might have turned out a lot better.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[kermidge]

Dream world? Nah. Simple cooperation amongst agreeable people. The kind of thing adults used to do. That a few might refuse a particular task is not a show-stopper, simply something that's worked around. It's just not that difficult; I've seen enough examples in my life to know it works if people decide to make it work. And where the fuck did I mention anything even remotely smacking of force? That's something you pulled into it. Some folks just enjoy being sand in the gears.

I envisioned no compulsory utopia but rather a voluntary mutual grouping of spread effort only for whatever-sized group decided to do so. In my life I've seen some things done by groups as small as a handful of adults sharing a house to as large as a residential block - voluntary association for spreading the load, as it were. Heck, whole cities have gotten themselves together for recycling even before it became popular. Doesn't even require a majority, only a critical mass of like-minded folks. Old man Grundy and his kin become irrelevant.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Obfuscant]

In the process, people work

That's the point. Who is going to work when they get paid the same no matter what? Who is going to maintain the nice houses so that the string of visitors can use them when they show up? Who is going to fly the planes to take people there? Who is going to drive the cabs? Who is going to fix the toilets when they break? Who fixes the broken water pipes? I won't -- I'm not living in that house and you're paying me whether I work or not. Tough to be you.

you might not get a private island rainforest, but you'll always be an easy stroll away from some beautiful parks and garden groves,

I want a private island. I don't want to be "an easy stroll away" from what I want. I'm sorry, I'm working on what?

With a little earthmoving machinery,

Built and maintained and run by who? Interesting topography to who? Designed by who? You think a pile of dirt heaped up by a grader can equal a mountain vista or oceanside view? You haven't seen a mountain vista or been to the ocean, have you?

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Obfuscant]

But the way I read it, everyone would be equal; no rich, no poor and we all share things -- kind of like Open Source.

I'm sorry, but when I saw this in meta-moderation I had to come comment. Open Source is one of the least equal environments I have ever seen. Linus, the perl pumpkin, etc, are not equals.

In an open source project, if a majority of people want something, one of three things happens.

1. The open source project leader agrees and it happens.
2. The open source leader disagrees, but enough people who know how to program and are familiar with the project create a fork and the user community splits into fragments that may or may not be sufficient to support the long term existence of either or both versions.
3. The group who wants the thing don't know how to program and it just doesn't happen.

In a true world of equals, the first action would always happen.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Obfuscant]

You are forgetting that in a society where everything is communally owned, there is no need for organised violence to deal with uncooperative people. All they need to do is withdraw your right to access to the community's property (i.e. everything),

If I am an owner, how can anyone withdraw my right to access something? And who enforces this withdrawal? Do you imagine that I'll simply leave the house I'm staying in if you come around and say "please leave, you've not cleaned your share of toilets today"? You'll make me leave? You and whose army? Oh, there's the organized violence.

after you've spent acouple of months living under a bridge and eating rotting food out of trash cans.

How about a couple of months eating out of your refrigerator and sleeping in your bed? I'm not going to live under a bridge just because you ask me to. You think I should sleep in the cold? Nice try. Ain't gonna happen. The stuff in your house is just as much mine as it is yours. That's what your socialism rules tell me. You made the rules, now live with them.

And that, Weedlekin, is the reason pure socialism can never work -- it is being run by and applied to human beings.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[femtobyte]

Who is going to work when they get paid the same no matter what?

Where was that in my description above? I was proposing that everyone's work would involve a balanced mix between "undesirable" jobs and more interesting, self-fulfilling work --- not the same as doing no work. You do no work, you get no share in products of society produced by those working in "balanced job complexes".

I want a private island.

Bully for you. But the rest of society has decided they aren't going to work their asses off in miserable jobs so you can collect all the fruits of their labor and live high on the hog off their work. So, sorry, you don't get a private island. And, if you're such a self-entitled lazy parasite that you refuse to work on the same terms as everyone else (including a little toilet cleaning), I hope being homeless and starving is your second choice preference after that private island.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[FlyHelicopters]

If you measure "efficiency" from a corporate-centric perspective, as in "what maximizes returns to the rich ruling class," then yes, it may well be most efficient to create a horrendously stratified and unequal society that turns the majority of workers into interchangeable labor drones.

I read this several times, trying to absorb and understand what you're saying or thinking here.

The first question I'd ask is, "why do most people become interchangeable labor drones?".

The second question I'd ask is, "how does trying to make white collar workers do blue collar jobs help blue collar workers?" Are you planning to have the people who currently clean toilets full time become scientists and engineers?

However, considering efficiency from the perspective of a whole society, which means taking into account everyone's quality of life, it's OK to decrease "unit productivity per time" in exchange for giving a lot more people opportunity/ability to live richer lives, rather than a tiny lucky few.

I read this several times as well. What it sounds like you're saying is... "rather than lift up the toilet cleaners of the world, we're going to make everyone clean toilets so everyone seems to be equal".

I fail to see how making a white collar worker clean toilets changes anything, because you sure can't give his/her job to the former toilet cleaners.

And what is your solution when the white collar workers all say "no"? Frankly, the blue collar workers can probably beat up the white collar workers, however the white collar workers can hire a much better army than the blue collar workers can.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Built and maintained and run by who? Interesting topography to who? Designed by who? You think a pile of dirt heaped up by a grader can equal a mountain vista or oceanside view? You haven't seen a mountain vista or been to the ocean, have you?

You haven't been to Central Park, have you? That was accomplished using 19th century technology and techniques.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Star Trek with its replicators does not show a society with that level of technological capability: the Enterprise did not have the ability to instantly set peoples' quarters up according to their preferences, so they all had the same boring furniture and paint schemes, unless they had taken the time to change them (like Worf's quarters).

Why would you expect a military vessel to have all of the amenities available that exist on the planet from which it originated?

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[turbidostato]

"Forcing engineers and scientists to clean toilets is a horrible waste of resources"

Exactly what I said: good to find local optima, impossible to look further than that. Provided that engineers cleaning toilets is the fastest way to have self cleaning toilets (by means of the "scratch your own itch" principle) how can that be "a horrible waste of resources"?

"read up on the "Great Leap Forward" in China and see how badly that went moving "smart people" into the crop fields."

Apples to oranges. It is not a matter of moving smart people to the crop fields, but that they stay long enough on the crop fields to feel the pain and solution that once they return to the lab or design table (the "return to the lab or design table" being instrumental here).

"What happens when those people simply don't want to clean the toilets and simply say "no" when you ask them to?"

What happens when any people say "no" on his job? You just take him away and he won't taste the fruits of the society around him. And I don't mean to put him in jail: now you fire him and if that's his general attitude, he won't be able to earn a life and will become a beggar; there, it might be that he won't recieve the new selfcleaning toilet so he will need to clean his own one by hand.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[turbidostato]

"There were societies that used slave labour (which approximates "self-sustaining intelligent machines") to avoid menial jobs, yet they still had the same motivational problems."

Yes, human minds are complex things.

But now consider in one of these societies if you (or they) preferred to be the unmotivated slave spading shit for slashes or the unmotivated poor rich trying to motivate himself by inventing philosophy.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[turbidostato]

"No, we couldn't."

Yes, we would.

"Getting machines to orientate themselves in a non-controlled environment is non-trivial, to say the least."

It is not, but it's doable given proper motivation, even with current engineering knowledge (so, go figure if much more man-hours were thrown to that kind of problems).

Witness? modern cruise missiles, for instance. The problem is not the engineering, the problem is a society that it's not motivated towards those targets.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Fjandr]

The highest taxes are on labor though. Taxes on capital gains in the US are far less than what is paid in labor taxes. Additionally, employers have to pay a tax on labor, which inevitably comes out of what is paid to employees (or restricts the number of employees hired).

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

In brief, communism isn't evil per se, but dictators always propose a form of communism because it gives them power. On the other hand capitalism removes this power form the government and spreads it to the rich and wealthy. I'd posit that it isn't that different.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't anyone find it ironic that someone who founded apple and loves the iOS franchise to bits is complaining about lack of freedom?

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[turbidostato]

"all you're saying is that you agree with Marx more than Bakunin"

Not at all. What I was saying is that if you think Marx' end was the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that was his main difference with Bakunin, you are wrong. Bakunin's and Marx' target were exactly the same, it was the path what was different.

But then, yes, I think Bakunin's path was essentially wrong, while Marx' was not (utterly wrong, yes, but not essentially wrong). And that's the most saddening thing that can be said about our society.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.

Marx was pretty clear that private property should be abolished, yet everybody who has tried to push for communism ultimately came to the realization that you actually do need to be able to own stuff, because people tend to abuse and misuse that which has no personal cost to them. Because of that, communism ultimately will never work. The reason that it is imprinted as evil is simple: Those who still believe in abolition of personal property want to take from the haves, which even includes the poor, almost always by means of violent revolution, and nobody will stand for that. In fact, I can't think of a single incidence where a change to communism didn't involve at the very least some kind of re-education camps or "work for free or suffer the consequences" camps.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Obfuscant]

Where was that in my description above?

It's part of the socialist system. You're describing how that system should deal with the difference in desirability of housing. Behind that all is the issue of being paid to work.

You do no work, you get no share in products of society produced by those working in "balanced job complexes".

Sorry, that's not the concept behind the system. "To those according to their need" is the second part of the equity equation.

Bully for you. But the rest of society has decided they aren't going to work their asses off in miserable jobs so you can collect all the fruits of their labor and live high on the hog off their work.

That's right, and that's the failure of the system. They aren't going to work their asses off when they don't have to.

I hope being homeless and starving is your second choice preference after that private island.

We all own everything together. That includes your house and your food. Guess who's coming to dinner?

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Magius_AR]

Bully for you. But the rest of society has decided they aren't going to work their asses off in miserable jobs so you can collect all the fruits of their labor and live high on the hog off their work. So, sorry, you don't get a private island. And, if you're such a self-entitled lazy parasite that you refuse to work on the same terms as everyone else (including a little toilet cleaning), I hope being homeless and starving is your second choice preference after that private island.

lol, congrats, you are now a capitalist/Republican.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Grishnakh]

You've got to be kidding. Japan's been struggling with trying to make useful humanoid robots for over a decade now, and they still haven't gotten very far. There's a huge difference between making a robot that can clean a toilet and do other odd jobs, and making a cruise missile. Cruise missiles don't have to move much: they have a rocket motor for propulsion, and some movable fins. They have fairly sophisticated computers inside to guide them to their target using GPS and some image processing, but the controls are easy: up/down/left/right. All they have to do is guide themselves to a target and collide with it.

A general houseworker robot has to move in far more complex ways than that. Just look at the range of motion possible with a human arm and torso. This is why humanoid robots haven't gone far: it's too complex a problem for our current engineering. We have a hard enough time just making prosthetic legs for people, and at least there part of the control system is already done for you (the human brain); making robots that can walk around and use tools like people is not within our grasp yet. Of course, we could just design a toiled that self-cleans, but such a thing would probably be horrendously expensive (or else someone would have done it by now, especially the Japanese; they love fancy toilets: go look at Toto toilets for example. Heated seats, built-in bidets, remote controls, etc. They also have a serious lack of cheap labor in their country for domestic help.), and doesn't solve all the other problems involved in maintaining a house or office: vacuuming, dusting, taking out the trash, etc.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[femtobyte]

It's part of the socialist system.

I guess you're simply ignorant that there are a nearly infinite variety of possibilities for socio-political organization. Guess what: not every possible system lies along a single narrow axis between some rigid ideal of capitalism or communism. People can have ideas for different systems with their own approaches to resolving societal issues. Your argument that, because I'm not describing Capitalism, I must adhere to some particular Socialist logic, is downright idiotic.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[femtobyte]

Yes, the language was intentionally constructed to provoke comparison with right-wing rhetoric. The key differentiation, however, is that I'm calling the wealthy capitalist class --- who accumulate their wealth by taking a cut of the labor of others, rather than through their own work --- the parasites. "Don't work, don't eat" is a sick ethic within a capitalist system, where a wealthy few control the majority of the means of production and can prevent others from working (on remotely fair terms). But if jobs were available to all, so no one able to productively work will be left unemployed just because they aren't profitable enough to some plutocrat, then expecting all (able) people to contribute in exchange for society's products is not so pernicious.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Magius_AR]

The key differentiation, however, is that I'm calling the wealthy capitalist class --- who accumulate their wealth by taking a cut of the labor of others, rather than through their own work --- the parasites.

Except that that is a straw man. Because you're either bitching about the .01% (in which case, I'd say the # of "parasites" in the system is quite low...) -or- you're attempting to call the upper 10-20% "high on the hog parasites that don't work", which is simply wrong. And, consequently, left-wing politics are fantastic for punishing the upper 20% for the crimes of the .01%

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[femtobyte]

Yes, I'm bitching about the top 0.01% in particular --- indeed, the number of parasites is low, but the reason for bitching is that they're immensely damaging disproportionate to their number. When a single person can put hundreds or thousands (or more) of others out of jobs and homes to serve their own selfish interests, we have a problem. When a single person (or a couple Koch Brothers) can sway national politics by far more than a handful of votes, we have a problem. And, to the extent that the top few percent derive some to most of their income from mimicking and serving the parasitic machinations of the super-wealthy, they too deserve censure. Yes, it's possible to get in the top 20 or 10% of income by putting in a shitload of your own work; I don't begrudge anyone for that. But the closer you get to the top, the more likely you're deriving the majority of your wealth from parasitically interposing yourself to control the labor of others.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe?

[Magius_AR]

When a single person can put hundreds or thousands (or more) of others out of jobs and homes to serve their own selfish interests, we have a problem.

I don't see that as a problem. It's an unfortunate necessity of business. And it can't be changed without introducing a world of other problems (such as companies going bankrupt because they aren't able to effectively cost-manage their company). Also, you make it seems like these evil business owners are scheming to ruin as many people's lives as possible if it saves them a buck. And it's typically not that black and white. I know many business owners and they aren't the horrible people they are made out to be. They often seek any and all possible alternates before cutting employees. And, if forced to downsize, they do it with a great deal of regret. Now I'm sure there's a few instances where the separation between employee and CEO is so great that it becomes "numbers on paper" moreso than "people's livelihoods", but once again I feel this is the exception, not the norm.

. When a single person (or a couple Koch Brothers) can sway national politics by far more than a handful of votes, we have a problem.

Not a problem if our government was small, rather than the bloated corporatist state it is. If the federal government was properly limited in power the way it was intended, all the money in the world wouldn't help a company generate favorable legislation since it would be unconstitutional and illegal for the government to do in the first place.

But the closer you get to the top, the more likely you're deriving the majority of your wealth from parasitically interposing yourself to control the labor of others.

I'll agree with you on this much, but that segment of our populace is so damn small that it simply doesn't concern me that much, particularly when the parasites at the bottom are far _far_ greater in number. Moreover, typically the people at the top at least did _something_ to earn their parasite status (with the exception of handed down familial wealth, which is why I support a 100% death tax).

Mr. Wozniak...

[CodeHxr]

Please come with us into the black van. NOW! *whack to head, covered with black bag*

Re:Mr. Wozniak...

[CanHasDIY]

Please come with us into the black van. NOW! *whack to head, covered with black bag*

Dear PTB:

DO NOT FUCK with the Woz. You cannot even begin to comprehend the forces you are dealing with.

That is, unless you want all of nerd-dom to come down on your ass like fucking Mjölnir.

Re:Mr. Wozniak...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear CanHasDIY,

If I had a nickel for every person who bitched about me, I'd be... about twice as filthy rich and powerful as I am now, by definition.

No really, I reserve my black heliocopters for people who actually threaten me, or for fast Domino's delivery.

Besides, I've actually got a soft spot for Woz, he made the personal computer possible, and that has made my life a lot easier. Him and that Zuckerberg kid. Holy shit, people just slap blackmail and treasonous material on their own sites now. I used to have to forge love letters to get this kind of stuff. Thank God for the Internet and the PC. Easy spying, and some Call of Duty.

Oh wait... I forgot, those are actually real AC-130's I control. That explains why it didn't show a kill streak on my screen when I knew I vaporized that village the other day. That had to be 20 kills minimum. Is there an achievement for that?

Your friend (or else)
-PTB

P.S. Be seeing you.

Re:Mr. Wozniak...

[Darinbob]

Only a nerd would threaten a security service comprised of no-neck jocks with Mjölnir. They'll be scratching their heads for months now wondering what this is and if it's from some terrorist language.

Re:Mr. Wozniak...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right because no one in a security service could possibly have ever read Norse mythology. No they just have to all be dumb jocks so you can feel better about being a loser in life. Hurr hurr.

Re:Mr. Wozniak...

[antdude]

Led by Steve Jobs, who isn't really dead. :P

Re:Mr. Wozniak...

[BrokenHalo]

No really, I reserve my black heliocopters for people who actually threaten me, or for fast Domino's delivery.

Use the right tool for the job. Heliocopters are better for flying into the sun.

Re:Mr. Wozniak...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well.... it is Norse :)

Re:Mr. Wozniak...

[cold fjord]

DO NOT FUCK with the Woz. You cannot even begin to comprehend the forces you are dealing with.

Woz: If you switch me on, I shall draw more power than you can possibly imagine.

Police: Watt?

Woz: Gigaxactly.

As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[intermodal]

I'm not surprised to see that Woz has his head on straight enough to see that we've become what we feared. I can only hope that, despite the odds being against it, my countrymen will listen to this wise man. But history tells me that they'll ignore it, just like anything else they don't want to hear.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Black Parrot]

I suspect that the USSR was never so different from the way we were then as the propagandists would have us believe. Rigged elections? Media that didn't inform the public what was going on? Warfare and bullying as a way of achieving the top dog's "national" goals?

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[perpenso]

I suspect that the USSR was never so different from the way we were then as the propagandists would have us believe.

The people I know who lived under the Soviet regime vehemently disagree with such revisionism. For all its flaws and mistakes the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[mcgrew]

I suspect that the USSR was never so different from the way we were then as the propagandists would have us believe. Rigged elections? Media that didn't inform the public what was going on? Warfare and bullying as a way of achieving the top dog's "national" goals?

Not back then, no, but certainly now. Vietnam and Korea were really part of the cold war, Eisenhower won by a landslide, Kennedy won the states you'd expect him to, as did Nixon in the 1960 election, and if the media had been a propaganda machine you'd never have heard of the Kent State Massacre, the police overreactions to the Chicago Seven, and Pentagon Papers would have never seen the light and Daniel Ellsberg would have never worked again, probably jailed, and possibly assassinated.

It started slowly with Reagan's "War on Drugs" and slowly got worse until 911 when the slippery slope became a steep cliff.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've known two people who lived under the Soviet regime. One was Jewish. Mixed experience. After WW2 they moved to a new town because they heard "we wouldn't be bothered there" or something like that. Of course that's a lot better than being loaded on a rail car. One of the more interesting stories he related to me was that of his GPs living in a rural area, most likely farming. One morning they see a cloud of dust on the horizon and the next thing you know a Red Army officer pulls up. "What are you doing here?" he inquires with urgency, "the entire German army is coming this way!". With that, they had perhaps an hour to take what they wanted and leave. He held dual Russian-Israeli citizenship, perhaps they didn't leave until after the Soviet union collapsed. I'm not sure how that worked.

The other one was a woman who was very much an apologist for the system. She was going on about "it was nothing like what you think, life was good, etc.". I chalk that up to Survivorship bias

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[timeOday]

I certainly agree with your point. But if the former Soviets you know don't live there anymore, it is a self-selected sample of people who disliked it enough to leave.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[avgjoe62]

When I worked in the Pentagon, there was a display case containing three pieces of the Berlin Wall. I never paid much attention to it - it was just something I passed by while walking to and from the office.

But one day I took some time and looked at the pieces. They were covered with graffiti. I distinctly remember a "Kilroy-was-here" and a lot of so-and-so loves so-and-so bullshit on the wall. Almost drowned out was the name of a young man on the top of one of the pieces, with his date of birth and the date of his death written below. And right below that was the phrase "Endlich frei" (Finally free). This young man was seventeen years old when he was shot for trying to leave East Berlin and travel to West Berlin.

There was a quantifiable difference in the ways the US and the USSR treated their citizens. And while that gap may be narrowing the fact that we are reading about this in the newspapers and debating this is a good thing. I remember a saying that was said during the aftermath of WWII - "If you want to know what atrocities the Russians committed, look in the graves. If you want to know what atrocities the Nazis committed, look at the receipts. If you want to know what atrocities the Americans committed, look in the newspapers."

Let's hope that always stays true.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

> The people I know who lived under the Soviet regime vehemently disagree with such revisionism.

I was raised in Soviet Union and live in Russia. And I must say that Black Parrot is quite right.

Emigration from Soviet Union and from Russia was/is driven by various factors. People who emigrate tend to rationalize their choices, sometimes in really twisted way. Well, you really need to find a way to tell yourself that the leaving of your fatherland was justified, to live in peace with yourself. If you want to learn something about Soviet Regime, I'm afraid that an average Soviet (and Russian) emigrant is a wrong person to rely on.

I'm no apologist of USSR, but I must say that you western people have a really bizzare view of it that hasn't got much to do with reality.

Re: As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel did not exist during WW2. So he had no such citizenship.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no apologist of USSR, but I must say that you western people have a really bizzare view of it that hasn't got much to do with reality.

I'm no apologist for current U.S. gov't misdeeds, but the notion that the U.S. gov't was/is similar to the Soviet regime is also bizarre and hasn't got much to do with reality.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

by "his ilk," do you mean politicians or Democrats? It makes a drastic difference in how right you are.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[tnk1]

The reason that I know that you are wrong is that you are actually writing this comment without a serious fear of being thrown into a KGB jail cell.

Yes, the USSR was different. If you don't understand how, please start reading some history. Start with the articles on the Cheka, proceed to NKVD, take a gander at Gulag. If you don't understand the difference then, please keep reading until you do.

Seriously, I know that the US engages in propaganda as much as anyone, but there are pretty objective differences involved. Both qualitative and quantitative.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[perpenso]

I certainly agree with your point. But if the former Soviets you know don't live there anymore, it is a self-selected sample of people who disliked it enough to leave.

Good point. However given the disparity between the number of people who desired to leave the Soviet system for the west and the number of people who desired to leave the west for the Soviet system, I'd say the above group represents a valid appraisal. Furthermore, having lived both under the Soviets and in the west they would seem to have a more informed opinion than someone who only lived in the west or never lived in the west.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no apologist for current U.S. gov't misdeeds, but the notion that the U.S. gov't was/is similar to the Soviet regime is also bizarre and hasn't got much to do with reality.

Absolutely true. I should've elaborated on that. Actually, Soviet Union was so different from from current and former US, that it is really difficult to compare these countries. Most of the people in the US, as well as most of the people in ex-USSR don't even understand how skewed their vision of the former "enemy" really is.

However, I must say that the Soviet regime in was in some ways really better than you've accustomed to believe, that is for sure. And, in some ways the US has commited much more horrendous misdeeds.

-- parent poster

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, what? Yeah, not owning your data is exactly like not owning your house, car, food, and living under the possibility of sudden, immediate execution or exhile to a Siberian gulag!

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, having lived both under the Soviets and in the west they would seem to have a more informed opinion than someone who only lived in the west or never lived in the west.

There was a great Russian writer, who emigrated from the Soviet Union, who used to say: 'Communists I hate the most. But the ones which I hate even more are the anti-communists'.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[MacTO]

I agree with what you say, however the propaganda of America about American's greatness and the propaganda of America about the Soviet Union's tyranny were also far from the truth. The two nations were closer than the American government would ever admit to, although nowhere near as close as the paranoid elements of society would claim.

The sad reality is that both nations were stuck in a paranoid mentality during the cold war. This resulted in a reduction of civil liberties. The situation was far worse under the Soviet regime, but the American government often committed acts that it claimed were the domain of communists and that had no place in their own free society.

We see something similar happening today, only in the name of terrorism.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[girlintraining]

For all its flaws and mistakes the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now.

Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?

While you're formulating your answer, consider that the United States is the only country to nuke another country. We used our own prisoners and citizens as guinnea pigs to conduct experiments in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare. We engaged in propaganda in the extreme, rewriting our pledge of allegiance to include "under god" and printed the same on our money as a propaganda war against "godless communism." We engaged in witch hunts, like McCarthy appearing before Congress to say he "held in his hands" a list of known communist co-conspirators. We publicly executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953, and it wasn't until just a few years ago, in 2008, that the transcripts from a court case widely panned at the time as a "witch hunt" revealed major inconsistencies in the testimony of key witnesses against them. That same year, the government continued to trumpet that a 98 year old man, on his deathbed, recanted and said that the Rosenbergs were spies... but the press quietly buried what he said right after: That the principle charge against them, the reason they were executed -- passing secrets about how to build the atom bomb, they were innocent of. They had only passed on low value information that was already duplicated elsewhere... mostly hand-drawn sketches.

So I'm not sure your claim that the USSR and the USA were significantly different in their propaganda campaigns... In fact, I would argue they were more or less the same, both in substance and quantity. But I'd be happy to entertain any significant act that you feel the USSR undertook that didn't have a parallel from the USA.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Emigration from Soviet Union and from Russia was/is driven by various factors. People who emigrate tend to rationalize their choices, sometimes in really twisted way. Well, you really need to find a way to tell yourself that the leaving of your fatherland was justified, to live in peace with yourself.

Wow! Is that a loaded perspective, or what? People who emigrate are essentially "traitors" living in "shame"? It couldn't possibly be that they are part of a family that suffered during collectivization (where millions died), or in the "second serfdom" that followed? Or that they were part of a satellite nation that was forcibly occupied and had its own democratic reform movement crushed by Soviet tanks? I'm sure for urban Russians who were good loyal party members things were not so bad.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, I know that the US engages in propaganda as much as anyone, but there are pretty objective differences involved. Both qualitative and quantitative.

In the past I have created and maintained a website that exposes crimes of Gulag. But, if you even want to start talking about quantitative differences, you would need to put your Western sources in a trash can. Because they are wrong literally by multiple orders of magnitude.

Propaganda, indeed...

Re: As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure he meant *POST*-WW2, although I'd be curious to know if either the Soviets or Israelis approve of people having joint citizenship between their particular two states.

Re: As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[alen]

Life was good for card carrying communist party members like my grandparents. For everyone else, not so much

In our apartment building in the late 1970's there was only one telephone. You had to ask the people living in the apartment to use it

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[perpenso]

Furthermore, having lived both under the Soviets and in the west they would seem to have a more informed opinion than someone who only lived in the west or never lived in the west.

There was a great Russian writer, who emigrated from the Soviet Union, who used to say: 'Communists I hate the most. But the ones which I hate even more are the anti-communists'.

Karl Marx would probably not have considered the Soviet state to be a Communist state. Dictators and zealots come in both far left and far right flavors, merely different sides of the same coin.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Is that a loaded perspective, or what? People who emigrate are essentially "traitors" living in "shame"? It couldn't possibly be that they are part of a family that suffered during collectivization (where millions died), or in the "second serfdom" that followed? Or that they were part of a satellite nation that was forcibly occupied and had its own democratic reform movement crushed by Soviet tanks?

I didn't say that. But, if your Ex-Soviet friends have emigrated during or after 1980s, there is an overwhelming chance that their emigration has nothing to do with politics. So, you should take their stories and their self-victimization with a grain of salt.

I'm sure for urban Russians who were good loyal party members things were not so bad.

Stop thinking so black and white. I have been exposing atrocities of Stalin and Gulag for years. I am not an evil communist or `loaded`, as you say.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a great Russian writer, who emigrated from the Soviet Union, who used to say: 'Communists I hate the most. But the ones which I hate even more are the anti-communists'.

Karl Marx would probably not have considered the Soviet state to be a Communist state. Dictators and zealots come in both far left and far right flavors, merely different sides of the same coin.

Dovlatov was talking about the people who consider themselves to be communists. Not about the communists in an academic sense.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[ebno-10db]

However, I must say that the Soviet regime in was in some ways really better than you've accustomed to believe, that is for sure. And, in some ways the US has commited much more horrendous misdeeds.

That would be more meaningful if you at least gave some examples.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[OhANameWhatName]

the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now

That would mean that the soviet system wasn't monitoring every move a citizen made, clamping down on whistle blowers and repressing free speech.

I call bullshit.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that the USSR was never so different from the way we were then as the propagandists would have us believe.

Read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Now.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[ebno-10db]

consider that the United States is the only country to nuke another country

A different means to the same end - we actually killed more Japanese in the conventional bombings. If you're going to criticize that (and there is certainly good reason to do so) please discuss how you would have conducted the war instead.

Additionally discuss how several million Germans died towards the end and after WWII because the USSR decided to shrink the eastern part of Germany.

We engaged in propaganda in the extreme, rewriting our pledge of allegiance to include "under god" and printed the same on our money as a propaganda war against "godless communism."

That silly "under God" thing is your idea of extreme propaganda? No, blatant lies are extreme propaganda. Please discuss the relative extents of US and USSR use of such techniques, and the number of people sent to death prisons for disagreeing with the official line.

We engaged in witch hunts, like McCarthy appearing before Congress to say he "held in his hands" a list of known communist co-conspirators.

McCarthy victims lost their jobs, which was an injustice. How many were sent to something like the gulag?

We publicly executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953 ... the principle charge against them, the reason they were executed -- passing secrets about how to build the atom bomb, they were innocent of. They had only passed on low value information that was already duplicated elsewhere... mostly hand-drawn sketches.

They weren't innocent (at least not Julius), Sobel didn't say they were innocent, and there are many reasons other than his confession to believe that Julius was guilty. The reason they only passed on "low value information that was already duplicated" was because Ethel's brother Greenglass was a lousy spy. Greenglass and Julius were traitors - just not very effective ones. Ethel was a slightly different story. She probably wasn't guilty of much beyond not ratting out her husband and her brother. I think that may still have qualified for the death penalty, but in the interests of justice I don't think it merited it.

I'd be happy to entertain any significant act that you feel the USSR undertook that didn't have a parallel from the USA.

Does killing tens of millions of your own citizens in forced collectivization, forced relocations, artificial famines and camps that worked their prisoners to death count for anything?

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[ebno-10db]

If you want to know what atrocities the Russians committed, look in the graves. If you want to know what atrocities the Nazis committed, look at the receipts. If you want to know what atrocities the Americans committed, look in the newspapers.

Best description of the difference I've ever seen.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I must say that the Soviet regime in was in some ways really better than you've accustomed to believe, that is for sure. And, in some ways the US has commited much more horrendous misdeeds.

That would be more meaningful if you at least gave some examples.

1. War crimes and supporting horrendous regimes abroad: US has a much worse track record in that aspect (read about Nicaragua, Colombia, etc. etc.). (Even if you take into account Afghanistan, Chekhoslovakia, etc.)
2. Untill the middle of 1970s the USSR really existed to educate and enchance lifes of it's citizens. The drive of Russian Revolution was still there. Read something about Soviet education, Soviet health care. At the same time USSR was really undemocratic. But it was not so scary to live in as you'd like to believe.
3. You really need to understand how bad was the state of Russian Empire before revolution... To see that USSR has fixed lot's of problems.

I'd like to elaborate on this, but I need some work to do. Still, I hope you've grasped the idea.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

(Different AC)
The Great Purge and the Katyn Massacre are the two that jump out to me. Admittedly, I'm Canadian and was born around the end of the Cold War, so my perspective is rather limited. I don't recall reading about mass executions in the US in that time period.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that the USSR was never so different from the way we were then as the propagandists would have us believe.

Read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Now.

Sorry to say, but he was full of bullshit. Read this.

Re: As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[femtobyte]

In our apartment building in the late 1970's there was only one telephone. You had to ask the people living in the apartment to use it

Laying this entirely at the feet of Communism, however, would be rather silly. Consider that Russia, prior to the 1917 revolution, was far behind America's concurrent state of development: consider the Historical GDP per capita. Russia in the early 1900's was where America was in the 1820s, development-wise. Not having phones for everyone by 1970 is no surprise for a country starting well over fifty years behind the leading edge of the development curve before communism took over. That Russia could even consider reaching standard-of-living parity with the US (and could actually beat America in the space race) is an absolute marvel for a country that, half a century earlier, was rural serfs and Czars. The USSR actually provided a rather solid and rapid level of technological and standard-of-living development, though at a brutal human cost (with similarities to the horrors of early industrial revolution development in the West).

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[cold fjord]

I suspect that the USSR was never so different from the way we were then as the propagandists would have us believe. Rigged elections? Media that didn't inform the public what was going on? Warfare and bullying as a way of achieving the top dog's "national" goals?

The Russians, to their great credit, have made the old Soviet archives available to varying degrees over time. (Sometime more open, sometimes less open.) Although it was known before, the record has become ever clearer. Stalin, who lived into the 1950s, was a monster of epic proportions. After Stalin died, the Soviet state continued to be a police state, even if it relaxed somewhat at first, and more gradually over time. But it was, from start to finish, a totalitarian regime. It simply transformed from extremely oppressive and genocidal to not genocidal but still highly oppressive.

If you want to prove that there was no difference between the Soviet Union and the United States you will need to find tens of millions of bodies of ordinary Americans in mass graves in the United States of people killed by bullet or starvation and overwork in prison camps run by an American secret police that you will have to identify. Many people are misinformed on this matter. The media seldom carries stories on the Soviet Union any more. Although the lack of media reporting contributes to people being uninformed today, some of it is due to parts of the media establishment itself that tolerated reporters that were toadies to dictators, such as (the should be infamous) Walter Duranty: New York Times Concealed Ukrainian Genocide

It's understandable that the media seldom covers the Soviet Union any more since it is history, not news, and the Soviet Union has been gone for 22 years now. Although the lack of coverage about the behavior of the former Soviet Union might explain why people are uninformed, it doesn't explain why communism still holds an attraction for so man people. For that you have to understand that the human mind processes some things better than others, and some things badly. Communism is effectively a mind trap - the theory sounds so beautiful to many people that it must be true, but in practice it has always led to oppression, often bloody at that. And please spare me the "no true communist state has ever existed" routine. Dozens of nations have tried. It can't be done, but people will keep trying because the ideas won't die despite a century of bloody failure and misery in so many countries. There are still communists in America today. Communist parties and associated movements used to take their guidance from Moscow. Many leftists supported them, but never realized their fate should the communists come to power. ( Leftists Will be Shot in the U.S. When Marxists come to power- KGB Agent Yuri Bezmenov ) Communism can't succeed because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and self-labeled scientific theories that are nonsense.

Here some resources if you want to know more (focusing mainly on the Soviet Union):

The Soviet Story (2008) Section in Soviet Story on the Soviet inflicted Ukrainian holocaust (only about 5 minutes in)
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police

Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[perpenso]

For all its flaws and mistakes the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now.

Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?

Read up on the Stalin era. Even later Soviet leaders were disgusted.

While you're formulating your answer, consider that the United States is the only country to nuke another country.

And in the odd perverse mathematics of war may have saved lives compared to blockade and starvation or invasion and mass casualties by conventional weapons. The simple fact was that Truman was expecting 500,000 American dead and 5 million Japanese dead if the war continued through conventional means. The atomic bombings were a tragedy, the problem is that the other options may have been far worse. A classic negative-negative decision, all your likely options are bad.

The casualties from mass fire bombings in Tokyo were comparable to an atomic bombing. Read Eugene Sledge's "With The Old Breed" for an account of the fighting on Okinawa. President Truman had such accounts in his mind when he made the decision. Also note that civilian casualties on Okinawa were comparable to an atomic bombing. I realize it is popular today to say that Japan was going to surrender anyway but the historical facts are that the surrender after the atomic bombings and after the emperor's decision nearly failed when a military coup was attempted. The plotter's had to "rescue" the emperor from the bad advice his ministers were providing and prevent his surrender message from going out. We have no idea what would have happened without the atomic bombings, imminent surrender is hardly a foregone conclusion. Again, Truman faced a negative-negative decision, he had no good option, rather one option that may produce fewer casualties (military and civilian) than the others.

We used our own prisoners and citizens as guinnea pigs to conduct experiments in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare.

Agreed, terrible.

We engaged in propaganda in the extreme, rewriting our pledge of allegiance to include "under god" and printed the same on our money as a propaganda war against "godless communism."

Seriously? This is some great and terrible crime?

We engaged in witch hunts, like McCarthy appearing before Congress to say he "held in his hands" a list of known communist co-conspirators.

McCarthy was a buffoon. The anti-communist witch hunts wrong. But you are making my point for me. These witch hunts were nothing like those under the Soviets. Read up on Soviet gulags.

We publicly executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953, and it wasn't until just a few years ago, in 2008, that the transcripts from a court case widely panned at the time as a "witch hunt" revealed major inconsistencies in the testimony of key witnesses against them.

Decoded 1944 Soviet cables confirmed Julius worked for the Soviets. Nikita Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs that they helped accelerate the Soviet atomic bomb program. Various Soviet officials eventually confirmed that Julius was a wartime spy.

They had only passed on low value information that was already duplicated elsewhere... mostly hand-drawn sketches.

Primary source or merely a secondary confirmatory source, large contribution or small contribution, its still wartime espionage. Was the penalty excessive, perhaps, but executing a wartime spy is hardly in the same category as executing those who disagree with a government policy, as we saw in large scale during the Stalin era. Again, you are merely confirming the US and Soviet governments were nothing alike. No one is claiming the US government was without flaws and mistakes, just nowhere near the Soviet level. Enlightened leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev were the exception not the rule.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

For all its flaws and mistakes the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now.

Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?

One party rule.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and now we have to listen to russian trolls on american online forum?! Zamechatelno!
You, nasty cowards, guess what I've experienced the past regime, as well as the current state of democracy. I live in one of those sattelite to russia countries. Do you know what is to not have electricity every 2 of 4 hours? To not be able to buy food, because in the groceries there was none? To be able to study some of the most desired subjects in universities only if you have relatives from the communist party? To qualify for promotion only if you, and all your relatives have clean political past? Millions of your people to be executed by the rule of the said communist party for faulty accusations of treason?
And last, but not the least, do you know how visitors from countries of the eastern block called russians, after they returned home from the USSR?
They called them svinji(pigs)!

Well, tovarishci, I know Putin pays well, but I'm sure you know that Gasprom is collapsing as is the whole russian economy.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no apologist of USSR, but I must say that you western people have a really bizzare view of it that hasn't got much to do with reality.

I'm not American or Russian so have a more independent opinion of such matters. I do however have friends from the Ukraine, Poland, and Czech Republic who all independently agree on their hatred of all things Soviet. I tend to trust their opinions and first hand accounts over any anonymous internet person.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. War crimes and supporting horrendous regimes abroad: US has a much worse track record in that aspect (read about Nicaragua, Colombia, etc. etc.). (Even if you take into account Afghanistan, Chekhoslovakia, etc.)

Seriously? You do not think the Soviets supported horrendous regimes abroad? North Korea, for example. What about the various repressive puppets states that the Soviets installed and defended with Soviet tanks? The US track record pales in comparison.

2. Untill the middle of 1970s the USSR really existed to educate and enchance lifes of it's citizens.

Perhaps if you were an urban Russian. If you were a peasant farmer the collectivization and "second serfdom" was not so enhancing, especially for the millions who died.

3. You really need to understand how bad was the state of Russian Empire before revolution...

Too bad we are comparing against the US not Czarist Russia.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[perpenso]

the U.S. was nothing like the Soviets, not even close, not even now

That would mean that the soviet system wasn't monitoring every move a citizen made, clamping down on whistle blowers and repressing free speech.

The Soviets would have listened to the phone calls, reportedly the NSA is not doing so.

Repressing free speech? Who has been sent to an Alaskan gulag over the content of their phone call?

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[phantomfive]

Yeah, a lot of times we get anonymous coward posts from someone claiming to be an expert in a given field, but not showing a whole lot of actual knowledge. These often get modded up because of the claim of expertness. I'm not sure that guy ever actually lived in Russia.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[tftp]

Does killing tens of millions of your own citizens in forced collectivization, forced relocations, artificial famines and camps that worked their prisoners to death count for anything?

Are you talking about American Indians?

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[memnock]

Been to a protest? Lots of people's free speech rights are impinged upon. In at least one case, a few busloads worth.

Re: As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Nefarious Wheel]

Let's see -- was that 99% serfs and 1% czars?
Where have I heard that number before...

Re: As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[BrokenHalo]

In our apartment building in the late 1970's there was only one telephone.

I lived in buildings in London as recently as the late '80s where that was the case.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very interesting thread. These question needs to be asked though. Will America be more oppressive of its citizens and citizen of other countries if these data gathering programs continue to grow and advance in capability, alongside other military advances including autonomous weapon systems? Could your realistically compare this future America with communist Russia?

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[perpenso]

Been to a protest? Lots of people's free speech rights are impinged upon. In at least one case, a few busloads worth.

5 buses let through. 13 diverted to an alternate location two miles away. Yep that is certainly on par with being sent to a Siberian gulag for political dissent.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please name me a President of the United States that did to his own people what Joseph Stalin did to his.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[girlintraining]

Tell you what; you get anyone to mod you up, and I'll bother replying with a detailed summary of exactly how wrong you are.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have two friends who were born and grew up in the Soviet Union before emigrating to the US ~10 years ago. They both agree that Soviet life was more about endless frustration and bureaucracy than anything Americans would associate with life in a "police state". Not once did they ever lie awake in bed at night worrying that the KGB was going to knock on their door at 3am one night and make them disappear without a trace. On the other hand, they spent thousands of hours waiting in lines so they could shop for things that were dirt cheap... but not what they actually wanted to buy.

Here's an example one gave. Imagine that you're an engineer who wants to build something. You have the DigiKey catalog in front of you, and you know what you want. However, you can't actually *buy* anything from them. As a hobbyist, you fill out the order form, and mail it in to them. A few weeks or months later, you get a letter telling you that 3/4 of the items on your list are out of stock, but you can get the remainder as free samples by mailing them the postage. So, you stuff a few Kopecks into an envelope, and mail it off. Then, you fill out another order form with alternative items for the things you need that they didn't have, and mail it to them. A few weeks later, you get a reply telling you that 2/3 the items are out of stock (including the 3 you really need), but you can get the remainder as free samples for a few Kopecks in postage. So... you mail the second response letter back to them with a few Kopecks for postage. And fill out order form #3, trying to figure out what the fsck they actually DO have in stock for the 3 parts you still need. You list 20 alternatives for each of them, and mail it in. Two days later, your shipment from order #1 arrives... 4 of the items are just wrong, two are missing, and one doesn't actually work. The remaining 12 parts are fine. You fill out order form #4 to try and get replacements ordered, and mail it in. Stir and repeat for the shipment from order 2. At some point, order #3's response arrives... and to your horror, they actually HAVE everything in stock... and the shipping charge is several Rubles. Ouch. You sigh, and mail it in, knowing half the items will be wrong/broken anyway, and you can trade the remainder locally with others (technically, illegal, since they were free samples... but kind of illegal anyway, because the clerk at DigiKey probably entered your order as coming from a Pioneers Troop leader or schoolteacher, even though you're neither, because otherwise he or she would have had to go through more effort to reject your order).

Anyway... fast forward 8-14 months. Finally, you've gotten the components you need, plus a few spares (ALWAYS spares, because otherwise you'd be screwed if something didn't work). You build your project, and everyone who sees it thinks it's really cool. Somebody tells you one night that you should make some to sell to others. But there's a problem... you can't actually BUY the parts to make them and sell them to others. Free samples? No big deal. A hundred? No. A thousand? You must be kidding. Hypothetical Soviet DigiKey literally has no process or workflow for fulfilling orders that aren't either free samples or an official order from some state-owned enterprise, approved in triplicate by the relevant planning office. Sure, you could maybe get lots of friends to place orders for free samples. In fact, you probably do. But that, after substantial effort and time, might get you enough parts to make a dozen or two.

The only other way to get your hands on a LOT of parts would be to buy them from someone who basically stole them from his employer (a state-owned company). Maybe even someone who worked for Hypothetical Soviet Digikey. Moreover, even if you got them, you couldn't quit your job. If you quit, someone from the government would eventually show up demanding to know where your money was coming from, because almost by definition, if you were somehow making enough money to live on without having a "proper" job, you were almost certa

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

The USSR never claimed to be Communist (hint: what does the acronym means? (not that they were Socialists, not after Stalin anyway)). Had they claimed that, whoever made the claim would at least lose his job for not having a clue about the system he lived in. Communism is a perfect, stateless system; the USSR was anything but stateless.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally correct. I am from a soviet block country, 1st gen immigrant to the USA - you're living in a fantasy world if you think the US has ever been anything like the communist dictatorships of eastern europe. You simply can not imagine or comprehend it, it is so unbelievable. Nothing in this country short of slavery was anything like what people have experienced under the soviets / chinese.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

> A different means to the same end - we actually killed more Japanese in the conventional bombings

Here's a better example. The United States was the only country that has always, unapologetically, regarded a first-strike that included primarily "economic" targets (like cities) as a legitimate option. The Soviet Union had gigantic nuclear bombs, and absolutely would have nuked New York and Los Angeles without a second thought out of spite, knowing that Moscow & St. Petersburg were at the top of America's "must-nuke" list... but the idea that the Soviet Union had nuclear bombs pointed at cities like Phoenix and Austin was pure propaganda. That's not to say the Soviet Union necessarily had *moral* objections to nuking Phoenix or Austin... they just didn't see any reason to waste bombs that could be put to better use as bomb #20 or #21 melting away a few hundred more feet of NORAD HQ's mountain in Wyoming.

In effect, the US had no qualms about holding a knife to the throat of a civilian population that had basically zero real influence over its own government.To the Soviet military, nuclear weapons were something to throw at the US in a final act of vengeance before they and everyone they knew were killed in cold blood. That's not to say the Soviet military wouldn't have hesitated to nuke American military targets into oblivion if they thought they could get away with it... but they knew they wouldn't. To Soviet military planners, American military strategy was pure evil, intended mainly to kill as many Soviet civilians as possible. And American military strategists would have mostly agreed, as long as you withdrew the 'evil' part.

On the other hand, it was probably America's psychotic nuclear strategy that prevented World War III. Had America been less eager to nuke civilian targets, and the Soviet Union believed an American response would be missile-by-missle and proportionate instead of overwhelming and final, both countries would probably have a few radioactive craters today that used to be cities near military bases. Probably NOT New York, LA, Chicago, or DC... but Florida would probably be uninhabitable for a few more decades, as well as DC's outermost Virginia suburbs, Baltimore, Brunswick (GA), Charleston (SC), Mobile (AL), San Diego, and everything within 200 miles of Cheyenne Mountain.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

He considered the Russian revolution folly, as his theory required that a nation be heavily industrialized via capitalism before switching over. This so there there was a source of production and distribution capacity to build on.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[perpenso]

Tell you what; you get anyone to mod you up, and I'll bother replying with a detailed summary of exactly how wrong you are.

I don't ask people to mod me up. BTW, I have the only 5 in this thread, at the moment at least. Please feel free to attempt a rebuttal. :-)

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

The term you are looking for is Authoritarian. USA have grown steadily more authoritarian during and since the cold war, and the soviet system was heavily authoritarian from the get go.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you get up at 5am to stand in line with 100 other people to get a bottle of milk for your children, then it's like in Communism. Now? Not so much.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[kermidge]

Just on this matter, I've had little trouble figuring out if the several ACs posting about having lived in SU and Russia have done so or not. But I sin against /. wisdom by having read a bit about the subject matter to start with, and having known a handful or two of people who have lived there at various times.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[phantomfive]

So which would you say is fake? (it's ok on slashdot to read, just don't read the article! that's all)

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am another commy in the past. My parents regret collapse of USSR so much... I for one, owe my life to it. Simply certain type of treatment was available for me when i was a kid. I'd probably be dead if I was born 2 years later...(simply had to be in a sunny place for a while, when I come from cold dump Baltic shore, so mum was able to take me to black sea shore)

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[kermidge]

You deserve some up mods for insight and goodly info. Thanks.

I saw too many pictures in Life magazine of the aftermath of the "bullet visas" issued by the Grupo. Some of them were brought to mind by your post; it's not as though I think I needed more unsettling things to take to slumber with me, but have to be glad that to this day the power held in them can keep me awake.

As I get older I know less of importance; one thing that sticks is "be nice to each other." There's far too much of the other going around, wherever it's done by some humans to others. It's a troubling thing to think that for too many, their lives are so small that finding ways to hurt others is somehow important to them.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I used to support somewhat popular oposition website and here you accuse me of pro-Putin shilling. How ironic!

It looks like you're somewhere from southern Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics. Sadly, you don't mention, which one.

To be able to study some of the most desired subjects in universities only if you have relatives from the communist party.

In "mainland" USSR this was never the case. As we can read in a great book by a spanish journalist Rafael Poch-de-Feliu: "The Great Transition, Russia 1985-2002" (which is available not only in Spanish, but in Russian, Chinese and some other languages), situation in southern autonomous republics were different from the rest of the USSR. He mentions that the communist party structure functioning in some of them mirrored legacy clan structures and was de-facto formed by members of specific national clans. I'm sorry for you, but you really shouldn't extrapolate your experience to the rest of USSR.

Also, something tells me that your problems with electricity and water arose after the collapse of Soviet Union. Are they?

Again, I did not write that USSR, and southern autonomous republics in particular, didn't have any problems. I'm just telling that the picture is really different to the one that is presented in official Western sources.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[dgatwood]

Then again, the difference between the Democrats and Republicans these days is getting so small that it feels like we're almost there. On nearly every important issue, they agree, which means that there are few to no dissenting voices pointing out the flaws in their positions on important issues. Even in the best of cases, they only disagree as long as the other guy is in power. Then, when they get power, their positions swap.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Ihlosi]

Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?

Shoot people attempting to leave the country.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[cold fjord]

Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?

At the end of this post are a couple resources. Please take some time to go through them, or the link to another post that is there. The gap between what is in your post versus the history is staggering. I hope you choose to become better informed. Also, choosing to depict the aberration in American society as typical while ignoring the typical in Soviet society does not illuminate, but adds to confusion.

Now, if we are talking about history of the Soviet Union and comparing it with the United States during the same period, there are a few things that come to mind.

The Soviet Union created the Ukraine terror famine resulting in 7,000,000 million dead.

The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in 1939.

The Soviet Union conspired with Nazi Germany to invade and partition Poland's territory.

After the invasion of Poland, the Soviets massacred the Polish army's officers and police officers in the Katyan Forest massacre - est. 22,000 dead

The Soviet Union engaged in aggression by invading the country Latvia and annexed it to the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union engaged in aggression by invading the country Lithuania and annexed it to the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union engaged in aggression by invading the country Estonia and annexed it to the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union engaged in aggression by invading the country of Finland and annexing Finnish territory to the Soviet Union

The Soviet Union purged its the Red Army, both before, and after the war.

1937-1941 - Military Purges

The whole Red Army development program was nearly wrecked in the 1937-39 period when Stalin's paranoiac purge of Tukhachevsky and some 35,000 other high-ranking officers in the Red Army brought the whole military machine to the verge of chaos. As was the case with the entire Soviet military establishment, Soviet operational maneuver concepts and forces suffered severe damage in the late 1930s, in part because Stalin purged their creators. The multiple waves of military purges, which began in 1937 and lasted into the opening months of World War II, liquidated most Red Army theoreticians and senior commanders. Inevitably, therefore, their ideas fell into disuse or outright disrepute. Incredibly, the slaughter of thousands of his military personnel was seated in Stalin's own paranoia, not any known coup attempt. The families, the friends, and the colleagues of the condemned either joined them in oblivion or sat with faces frozen in mute resignation, waiting for the summons that could arrive at any moment

Although the senior ranks experienced the most severe losses in terms of percentages (11 of 13 army commanders were shot, as were 57 of the 85 corps commanders and 110 of the 195 division commanders), the numerical bulk of the victims came from subordinates unfortunate enough to be on the wrong staff or performing the wrong mission. Estimates of the total losses created by this mass bloodletting range from 15,000 to 30,000 officers, depending upon the dates used and the figures available. And, most of the 1,836,000 surviving Red Army prisoners of war liberated from the Axis powersat the end of World War II were sent to the Gulag as "traitors to the motherland."

If you pardon the language, life's a bitch when you're in the Red Army. Purged before the war, when captured sent to the genocidal prison camps of Nazi Germany, and after the war sent to the slightly less murderous NKVD prison camps. The US did nothing like that.

The Soviet Union kept German POWs for as long as 12 years after the war. The losses were staggering.

In early April 1945, the United States was responsible for 313,000 prisoners in Europe; by month's end this total had shot up to 2.1 million

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhmm, the DDR was not part of the USSR. The DDR really was just the usual crazy German fascists doing their usual crazy German fascist things.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Extremely good comment but for one thing: hope is never enough. We should not have to rely on the sacrifices of people like Snowden because at best that only covers the big stuff, we should be able to do better than that, we must aim higher.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[cold fjord]

You probably should read some Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. - The Gulag Archipelago

And maybe watch a documentary or two:

The Soviet Story (2008)
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[cold fjord]

I was raised in Soviet Union and live in Russia. And I must say that Black Parrot is quite right.

Emigration from Soviet Union and from Russia was/is driven by various factors. People who emigrate tend to rationalize their choices, sometimes in really twisted way. Well, you really need to find a way to tell yourself that the leaving of your fatherland was justified, to live in peace with yourself. If you want to learn something about Soviet Regime, I'm afraid that an average Soviet (and Russian) emigrant is a wrong person to rely on.

I'm no apologist of USSR, but I must say that you western people have a really bizzare view of it that hasn't got much to do with reality.

Even if you were born in the Soviet Union and live in Russia, I don't think you know your own history. Either that or you are finding a way to justify Soviet crimes and the terrible oppression of the Soviet period.

You probably should read some Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. - The Gulag Archipelago

And maybe watch a documentary or two:

The Soviet Story (2008)
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand what you're saying and see and agree with your largely valid points, I'm not whoever you're responding to but here are my circumstances in a supposedly democratic western nation:
- I hold opinions unpopular to the "elites" of the US: e.g. not keen on massive surveillance no matter what.
- I hold opinions unpopular to the "elites" of my own country (Norway): e.g. not keen on the ongoing genocide-by-dilution on white people and European culture (like the Enlightenment ideals) in Europe.
- the NSA (or at least its alter ego NSAbot-chan <3) listens to everything I say :)
- just as everyone else I too am a criminal.
- I am dependent on my country for day-to-day survival, i.e. I'm biting the hand that feeds me.
- I have military training and weapons knowledge.
- Slashdot does not use https, everything is cleartext to both the NSA, the local NSM and PST and everyone else in the entire world.
- opinions more or less representative of my own are constantly censored in private and government media and publicly derided and ostracised. There is little actual freedom of expression and factual debate is mostly nonexistent.
- "my" government recently introduced: obligatory metadata storage as per EU directive even though we're EFTA/EEC and have veto rights, terrorism legislation that is extremely sloppily defined and based on perceived intent i.e. thoughtcrime.
- a neighbouring country (Sweden) has had legal 100% DPI by their armed forces on all data originating as well as passing through Sweden for a number of years.
- most Norwegian data passes through Sweden.
- Sweden has a government even more hostile to my own opinions than my own and regular acts of violence committed by "socialists" and "MENAns" against people of either different opinions (could be almost anything depending on which day it is and where the wind is blowing from) and/or skin colour (against whites).

If any "elite" in the US/Sweden/Norway wanted to crush me they could, I wouldn't stand a chance. Doesn't matter that it won't be a blind copy of the horrors of national socialist Germany or soviet Russia; I would be thoroughly fucked up regardless of the hows and whys of it. They haven't so far but that says nothing about the future.

I know I take a risk each time I open my mouth. I have started to censor myself, partly out of consideration for family, partly out of consideration for myself, partly out of consideration for an increasingly horrible future.

My only "safety" is that I'm completely unimportant, poor, isolated, weak, and perhaps; a grumpy old codger! :D

But it is not supposed to be like this, this is not democracy, it is not reasonable freedom, it is not even representative government.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[aralin]

I lived half my life under communism and second half in america and I can tell you outright, that the level of propaganda and the extent to which it is believed by the population in US is 5 times as bad as I ever experienced it with the communists. The level of surveillance of people by government was much much lower, and the number of people as percent of population being incarcerated for made up crimes was 2 orders of magnitude lower than now in US and we didn't get rape tolerated in prisons. Yes, we had an iron curtain, but so will US, once the fence in south gets finished. I don't know anyone who lived under both regimes and would strongly disagree with me on this.

The general rule is the same in both. Don't stick your head up high or your neck might get cut. You are always guilty of something and they can throw you in jail if they like, unless you are really rich and then... they can still throw you in jail if they like. Just keep your head low. Fuck it, even Russia is now more free than US and they got 13% flat tax.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[aralin]

- Stalinism pales in face of the only ever committed continent wide genocide of native americans.
- Nobody cares for your justification. Everyone else in the world agrees that using Nuclear weapons is unjustifiable for any reason.
- Nobody really cares about fake trials. But if you want to talk about miscarriage of justice, lets compare incarceration rates for Stalin and Obama.

Those three are enough to rebut all your major points.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[cold fjord]

The Soviet Union used to tightly control emigration. Under Stalin there was considerable repression. There was a lot of back and forth with the West on the issue, and internal Jewish dissidents pressuring for it. Over time the policy became more liberal.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/fsuemig.html
http://forward.com/articles/12254/declassified-kgb-study-illuminates-early-years-of-/

It was a horrific system for a very long time. (Some of the material in the videos is pretty rough.)

The Soviet Story (2008)
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[cold fjord]

You would probably pick up a lot from these two videos.

The Soviet Story (2008)
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[dremon]

My goodness, what an ultimate collection of 80's-style propaganda crap.

Stalin, who lived into the 1950s, was a monster of epic proportions.

This 'monster' created a greatest industrial superstate from the underdeveloped agrarian country. He won the second world war. He made a nuclear shield against the peaceful civilized democracies that nuked Japan and killed most of their own natives.

you will need to find tens of millions of bodies

Mister, you are citing the lies of Solzhenitsyn. There are well-known figures: around 700.000 people where sentenced to death penalty from 1921 to 1953; the absolute majority in 1937-38 during the 'Big Terror' years due to the internal fights in the goverment and the rising Trotskism movement. Should that not happened the Stalin's powers would be overthrown and Germany wouldn't have any difficulties whatsoever 3 years later. The top number of prisoners in the detention and work camps was around 2 million people (compare it to the modern US). On average 0.8% of the population was held in the camps during Stalin era.

Ukrainian Genocide

There was absolutely no genocide but a starvation from objective reasons. Same as in USA in 30's.

Communism is effectively a mind trap - the theory sounds so beautiful to many people that it must be true, but in practice it has always led to oppression, often bloody at that.

It's a mind trap only for such short-sighted and narrow-minded anti-soviet fanatics like you.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you been to the Southern border? I have tried to escape the US, but there is a big wall there now and border agents come and ask you questions. They might not shoot you 'yet'... ;)

You can still walk right into Mexico when the border crossings are open with no questions asked most of the time though.

Re: As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[gcerullo]

In our apartment building in the late 1970's there was only one telephone. You had to ask the people living in the apartment to use it

And that was the 1970's version of what the NSA is doing today. The people who lived in the apartment with the telephone were the informants who kept an eye and "ear" on everyone who used that phone informing on the 'goings on' within the circle of people they interacted with. Low tech but effect enough for that time period.

I have the same thoughts about our current society as Woz does. It's becoming the very same society as the one that we railed against during the cold war and it sickens me.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll

Look, I can make wild assertions as well!

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[bill_mcgonigle]

A great number of those "American Indians" were not actually in "America" at the time they were killed. Something to consider...

Imaginary lines on maps never justify murder.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Let's hope that always stays true.

Have you read the recent press reports about reporters phones being tapped en masse by the Obama Administration and reporters threatened for reporting on certain stories? Sen. Peter King (NY), known supporter of terrorism (IRA donor), is calling for the arrest of (to hear him speak, he'd probably prefer a drone strike) Glen Greenwald.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly agree with your point. But if the former Soviets you know don't live there anymore, it is a self-selected sample of people who disliked it enough to leave.

Good point. However given the disparity between the number of people who desired to leave the Soviet system for the west and the number of people who desired to leave the west for the Soviet system, I'd say the above group represents a valid appraisal. Furthermore, having lived both under the Soviets and in the west they would seem to have a more informed opinion than someone who only lived in the west or never lived in the west.

A disparity that looks larger depending on where you stood at the time - in the US, yes large disparity. In the Euro countries, not so large... keeping in mind that the Soviets were less problematic than the East Germans, the Pro-Franco lot and all other flavours of euro-fasiscm.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Shadowmist]

There was a quantifiable difference in the ways the US and the USSR treated their citizens. And while that gap may be narrowing the fact that we are reading about this in the newspapers and debating this is a good thing. I remember a saying that was said during the aftermath of WWII - "If you want to know what atrocities the Russians committed, look in the graves. If you want to know what atrocities the Nazis committed, look at the receipts. If you want to know what atrocities the Americans committed, look in the newspapers."

Let's hope that always stays true.

Or in the history books... such as the deathsongs of various Amerind tribes, or the tales of American slavery. In the modern day, you look for unmarked graves in places like Romania, where we export the torture that we can't do legally on U.S. soil, Guantano Bay, where hundreds are still being held without trial. all of the nations where we backed any bloodthirsty dictator who promised to carry the flag of Anti-Communism, from the Shah of Iran, to Pol Pot. Atrocity is a pretty popular American export.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[onyxruby]

Can you provide an example of something that the Soviets did that the United States has not done?

Slaughtering 20 million of their own citizens, and that's just under Stalin.

While you're formulating your answer, consider that the United States is the only country to nuke another country.

That's true, it ended WW2 with several million fewer casualties than an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have allowed.

We used our own prisoners and citizens as guinnea pigs to conduct experiments in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare.

Common practice at the time, as reprehensible as we now view it. We also treated our prisoners significantly better than the Soviets powers did. Also bear in mind that things like the nasty side affects from radiation simply were not known at that time.

We engaged in witch hunts, like McCarthy appearing before Congress to say he "held in his hands" a list of known communist co-conspirators.

This doesn't even count as a pimple on the ass that is known as the Gulag's. Tens of millions of people were sentenced and countless millions were killed for political dissidence.

I'm not sure your claim that the USSR and the USA were significantly different in their propaganda campaigns

They were, and to be frank the US really sucks at propaganda and the Soviets were masters at it.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bolshevik regime was responsible, directly or indirectly, for the deaths of 20 million people between 1918 and 1956, and for the imprisonment in camps of millions more.

This number is exxagerated by an order of magnitude. There was slightly more than 700 thousands executed and Here is a known academic paper that presents more or less accurate figures about the number if executions and the number of prisoners of Gulag , for instance.

You see, cold fjord, your sources are completely skewed.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, you rely on propagandist fakes. Please take the time and read about the movies that you're recommending us.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you were born in the Soviet Union and live in Russia, I don't think you know your own history. Either that or you are finding a way to justify Soviet crimes and the terrible oppression of the Soviet period.

You probably should read some Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. - The Gulag Archipelago

And maybe watch a documentary or two:

The Soviet Story (2008)
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police

So, you're going to teach me the history of my country using fake movies and known Cold War propagandists such as Solzhenitsyn who went as far as staging his photos as if they were made in a camp?

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[bill_mcgonigle]

I have tried to escape the US, but there is a big wall there now

No, it's not to keep us in, it's to keep the brown people out. I heard a politician say so!

What's that about liberty dying with thunderous applause?

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[FlyHelicopters]

No, they don't, but you're missing the point...

The USSR killed millions of Russians inside Russia.

The USA kill millions of Indians outside of the USA. Those Indians were not US Citizens.

Did we steal their land? Yes, but then again they were unable to hold it, didn't believe in "ownership of land", and so forth. So maybe we didn't steal it since it was "unclaimed". :)

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[bill_mcgonigle]

The USA kill millions of Indians outside of the USA. Those Indians were not US Citizens.

Imaginary titles (or lack thereof) do not justify murder either.

Let's take a concrete example. If Obama gets a secret court to revoke the citizenship of a political enemy, say Glen Greenwald, is it OK then to drone strike him?

He mostly lives outside the US due to some issue with federal marriage laws.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[FlyHelicopters]

I'm not trying to justify murder, but there is a difference between killing your own people and killing someone else's people. You may not like the difference, you may not think it matters, but there is one.

Regarding your example, that isn't the same because it involves someone who was a US Citizen and had it removed. The Indians never had it to begin with.

There is a basic truth that gets overlooked by people who want to live in a happy, fuzzy world:

Those with power and force rule over those who lack it. All the pretty facades of civilization don't change that point.

European explorers showed up in the new world about 500 years ago, found various civilizations that were more primitive than they were, and began to exploit the situation. Once the local people figured this out, they tried to various extents, to stand up for themselves. As the people from Europe had guns and cannon and the people from America did not, the outcome was easy to predict.

Now you can make a case for that being "right or wrong", but it doesn't really matter, the person with force and power doesn't have to listen to your moral argument.

If you want to make a moral argument that sticks, get your own force and power, then people will listen to you. It sounds crude to say "might makes right", but it sure does seem to be effective.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you!

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[airdweller]

-- And, in some ways the US has commited much more horrendous misdeeds.
- That would be more meaningful if you at least gave some examples.

I'm not the parent, but how about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States ? I've never heard of anything even close done in the USSR.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[perpenso]

The USSR never claimed to be Communist (hint: what does the acronym means? (not that they were Socialists, not after Stalin anyway)).

The Soviet Union was governed by a single party system. That single party was the Communist Party.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[cold fjord]

Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services

Now you've heard. Of course the Soviets didn't limit themselves to such bourgeois crimes.

Katyn massacre

No indeed.

Soviets Face Up to the Gulag
Gulag: Understanding the Magnitude of What Happened

A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police
The Soviet Story (2008)

There is a lot that is hiding in Soviet history.

The Great Terror: A Reassessment

I think one of the most shocking things for people that believe the United States is the great evil in the world is to get a serious look into Soviet history.

The peoples of Eastern Europe are great peoples, but they long labored under the most oppressive of governments.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[tftp]

I'm not trying to justify murder, but there is a difference between killing your own people and killing someone else's people. You may not like the difference, you may not think it matters, but there is one.

The people that are being murdered probably don't care much about who exactly is doing the killing. After all, would you, standing against the wall, be thinking of the execution squad as of "your own people?" Such executions are common in civil wars, and you can bet that the warring sides do not think of each other as of long lost, beloved brothers.

But if you want to approach this legally, what difference does it make? I think it's the matter of having legal power of a souvereign over a given person. If he is under the jurisdiction of a country then that country can use its laws, however unjust, to oppress that person, all the way up to killing. Governments have that right, and the USA uses it even today, sometimes even without a trial, and sometimes it knowingly kills innocents. This means that mass deaths in USSR were ... legal? Apparently so, as long as the actions of the government were in accord with the laws that the same government had adopted and published. Can a country have harsh laws that make no sense? Sure it can; how about Saudi Arabia today, or Thailand, or Afghanistan? If you don't like their laws, don't go there. If you are a citizen... you either obey, or you escape, or you fight those laws, or you die.

Now, what about a situation when conquerors come into a country and kill its population without accepting that population under their jurisdiction? (That's the situation you posed.) Then this becomes a plain vanilla war crime. Politically speaking, the USA would be better off interpreting the Indians as citizens. The government has power to order its citizens around. It does not have such power over foreigners.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[alexchorny]

Solzhenitsyn did not base his books on real history. Recently I read about a science institute named after Juk. Juk was named one of 6 people that were principals of repressions in "The Gulag Archipelago" by Solzhenitsyn. Officials of this institute researched this question and found no documents proving this. So they contacted Solzhenitsyn foundation and later Solzhenitsyn himself. He said that this book is not a documentation book, and his work is not based on archives.

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[FlyHelicopters]

This means that mass deaths in USSR were ... legal?

Yes, of course. Not everything that is legal is right and not everything that is right is legal.

What Hitler did was "legal", the rest of the world disagreed and decided to do something about it. They didn't take him to court, they used force and power.

The Indians didn't live within the borders of the United States at the time they were killed, at least not most of them. How do you call someone a US Citizen when they live outside of your country?

Re:As usual, Woz proves to be the guy who knows.

[airdweller]

"I think one of the most shocking things for people that believe the United States is the great evil in the world is to get a serious look into Soviet history."

I think only crazy people believe the US to be "the great evil". Any smart person knows that all countries/peoples are "grey" on the "black-white" scale.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[SolarCanine]

Since Woz didn't post the video to YouTube, or in fact even make the video, not really.

We need anti-circumvention laws

[AmiMoJo]

We need laws that prohibit circumventing the law via technological means. DRM should not be able to take away rights like fair use or resale.

Re:We need anti-circumvention laws

[Samantha Wright]

But what if they then circumvent those laws? Maybe an anti-anti-circumvention law circumvention law is in order...

Re:We need anti-circumvention laws

[Jeremy Erwin]

The cloud may be an end run around DRM issues.

I use two cloud services-- Apple's and Amazon's-- strictly for the purpose of syncing my computer, my kindle, my tablet and so on. It is very convenient to use the device best suited for my purposes at the time, and not worry about getting the data onto the device, and off it.

But even though they are often on the same LAN, exchanging a piece of data, no matter how trivial, somehow involves a sever half way across the continent, recording data for the NSA's pleasure, or rechecking a license, Why? Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if everyone could run their own server, dispensing documents as they pleased?

Re:We need anti-circumvention laws

[fredprado]

Sure it would, but by providing you with this option the manufacturers would be renouncing some of their power over you, and so there is no motive for them to provide such solutions. At least until someone outside their club starts doing that.

Re:We need anti-circumvention laws

[CanHasDIY]

But even though they are often on the same LAN, exchanging a piece of data, no matter how trivial, somehow involves a sever half way across the continent, recording data for the NSA's pleasure, or rechecking a license, Why? Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if everyone could run their own server, dispensing documents as they pleased?

Easier for us; not easier (nor profitable) for the oligarchs who live for power and control.

Re:We need anti-circumvention laws

[CliffLandin]

Easier for us, those who read Slashdot, but not easier for your average user that can barely sync their data through the cloud.

Re:We need anti-circumvention laws

[suutar]

Unfortunately, fair use is not legally a right. It is simply a defense against accusations of copyright infringement. It is not a defense against other illegal actions, like circumventing an access control system. Sad, isn't it?

Re:We need anti-circumvention laws

[Darinbob]

I would just like to have a law that makes it illegal to break the law.

Re:We need anti-circumvention laws

[mcgrew]

My data stays on my own private network (unless I've been rooted). I can synch my own data, I don't need the Cloud Boys to do it for me and have the NSA hoover up everything I have (not that they couldn't if they wanted to but it would actually take effort, unlike when you use cloud services).

Re:We need anti-circumvention laws

[CanHasDIY]

Easier for us, those who read Slashdot...

Aww, c'mon man! How hard is it to run the XAMPP installer?

...but not easier for your average user that can barely sync their data through the cloud.

...

Well, shit, when you're right you're right...

Obligatory

[aitikin]

In Soviet Russia...

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, Cloud compares PRISM to you!

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, you spy on Government!

digital take over

[theatrecade]

I agree with Woz. Nobody owns anything. Everything digitally is licensed. Even when you hold a physical copy in your hands it's on loan for 60$. You ever actually read a EULA? With the NSA spying on you on everything not only don't you own anything nothing is private anymore.. welcome to the new America! Welcome to the New World... I hope you enjoy your stay and by the way ignore that 4th amendment only the 2nd one kinda counts....

Re:digital take over

[atriusofbricia]

I agree with Woz. Nobody owns anything. Everything digitally is licensed. Even when you hold a physical copy in your hands it's on loan for 60$. You ever actually read a EULA? With the NSA spying on you on everything not only don't you own anything nothing is private anymore.. welcome to the new America! Welcome to the New World... I hope you enjoy your stay and by the way ignore that 4th amendment only the 2nd one kinda counts....

And I'm going to have to disagree here. One might be able to argue that we don't 'own' enough in the digital realm vice it being licensed, but isn't that at least in part what is supposed to be so great about Linux and related bits?

In any case the comparison to Soviet Russia immediately falls on its face. I own my house, I own my business, I own my car and dozens of other things. It is annoying when people try and make comparisons between things when very superficially they are similar but they aren't even remotely close in scale or severity.

This isn't to excuse the NSA thing and related things as they are inexcusable. But to say that we've become Communist Russia because of digital licensing and such shows either profound ignorance or at least faulty logic. Communism has killed some 100 million people throughout history. How many people have been killed by EULAs?

Re:digital take over

[fredprado]

If you consider "owning" as being able other people to use it, maybe what is lost is what makes Linux great indeed. But it is lost just for us, the common people, corporations and the government still have this right,

On the other hand, if you consider "owning" as being able to do whatever you wish with it, whenever you want, losing that has nothing to do with open source or Linux. It actually goes against what makes it great and the idea that made it come to be.

Re:digital take over

[fredprado]

I meant "being able to prevent other people from using it" in the first paragraph.

Re:digital take over

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Russians in Soviet Russia could own a house and almost every other thing anybody could own in the West. Communism was/is about the ownerships of means of production (factories, land) and not pencils or cars. http://www.historians.org/projects/giroundtable/RussianAlly/RussianAlly9.htm

Re:digital take over

[cold fjord]

You also own the hardware that the software runs on, which isn't a lot of comfort. It's a pity that the common sense displayed by the old Borland company didn't carry forward.

Additionally, Borland was known for its practical and creative approach towards software piracy and intellectual property (IP), introducing its "Borland no-nonsense license agreement". This allowed the developer/user to utilize its products "just like a book"; he or she was allowed to make multiple copies of a program, as long as only one copy was in use at any point in time. -- Borland

Re:digital take over

[Anonymous Coward]

One might be able to argue that we don't 'own' enough in the digital realm vice it being licensed, but isn't that at least in part what is supposed to be so great about Linux and related bits?

Something is wrong if you own the hard drive but not the specific data contained within (not talking about all copies of the data everywhere, which is what's disgusting).

Re:digital take over

[theatrecade]

In any case the comparison to Soviet Russia immediately falls on its face. I own my house, I own my business, I own my car and dozens of other things. It is annoying when people try and make comparisons between things when very superficially they are similar but they aren't even remotely close in scale or severity.

He said "when I grew up.." Russia was a completely different country back then. He is referring to the cold war era.

but isn't that at least in part what is supposed to be so great about Linux and related bits?

not everything that is Linux is open source and free. Linux it self yes maybe i should add the word "hardly"

Re:digital take over

[Anonymous Coward]

In any case the comparison to Soviet Russia immediately falls on its face. I own my house, I own my business, I own my car and dozens of other things.

Do you? Or are you making payments on most of that stuff?

Re:digital take over

[femtobyte]

At least when you are paying for a car (that you bought with a loan), you are generally free to mess with it however you wish. Want to repaint it, or rip out the back seats for more trunk space, or fiddle with the engine? Go right ahead. Same with your house: the bank doesn't get a say in what home modifications you make. You're responsible for paying off the loan, but not for using your (not-fully-paid-for) property according to the mandates of bank management. Not so with software you "own" under a restrictive license or "cloud-based" system.

Re:digital take over

[Anonymous Coward]

One might be able to argue that we don't 'own' enough in the digital realm vice

I would just like to take this opportunity to say that I support digital realm vice, as well as real-world vice, both amateur and commercial. The more vice we have, the better off I feel we are. It's yours; you should be able to sell it or give it away as it pleases you. Because yes, we do own it.

Re:digital take over

[Anonymous Coward]

Same with your house: the bank doesn't get a say in what home modifications you make. You're responsible for paying off the loan, but not for using your (not-fully-paid-for) property according to the mandates of bank management.

They certainly do for my home, it's right there in my loan agreement. You do read those, right? The restrictions are quite practical and common sense. Effectively, I'm not allowed to do anything the would reduce the value of my home. I'm not bothered by it one bit, but they sure as hell have a say in what I do. Nothing as bad as a HOA. I'd never agree to one of those. They're much more like communism.

Re:digital take over

[FrankSchwab]

"fiddle with the engine" - well, not since, what, the '70s? Sure you can paint the airfilter, or put on a cat-back exhaust, but anything more substantial is illegal, and in areas (like mine) with smog checks prior to registration will get found.

I have a friend with a Miata that he put a turbo on. Every two years, he spends a Saturday afternoon swapping the ECU and re-plumbing the engine, takes it in for the mandatory smog check, then spends another Saturday putting everything back on. A bit too much fiddling for me.

Re:digital take over

[femtobyte]

but anything more substantial is illegal, and in areas (like mine) with smog checks prior to registration will get found.

However, these are typically not requirements imposed as terms of your car loan. Restrictions against making your car into a smog machine are more analogous to restrictions that you can't modify your computer to churn out spam or DOS attacks: emissions requirements are set by the larger community to regulate harms that impact that larger community. However, your computer software EULAs may prohibit you from using/modifying your devices in the privacy of your own home for activities with no impact on the general public, according to regulations set at the whim of a megacorporation rather than through any even nominally democratic process.

Re:digital take over

[mcgrew]

I own my LPs, cassettes, CDs, DVDs, and VHS tapes. What I don't own is the data on them, but the MAFIAA can't take them away like they can an Amazon or iTunes download. When you "buy" a download you're just renting.

Re:digital take over

[Charliemopps]

But see, this is exactly the problem. You CAN'T own code. It doesn't really exist. So they invented this licensing scheme to make money off of it, and convinced the idiots in Washington that this was the only way it could be. Now our entire government is convinced that "production" is something that is meant for poor people that don't live here need to do... and the designs and procedures used in that production are where the actual value is. Which is exactly ass-backward. Labor is valuable, and better designs and procedures allow you to make that labor more valuable. Ideas should be free, you labor should not be. How you pay for the labor that goes into those ideas is a big question, and an important one... but the solution we seem to have come up with has to be about the stupidest idea humanity has ever had.

Re:digital take over

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody owns anything.

I own my house, the land it sits on and everything in it. I also own a gun. It is your choice if you let other men dictate your lifestyle.

Re: digital take over

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point the only thing I am making payments on is my house. Everything else is paid off. I am 53 and I haven't really worked that hard to get to this point. I definitely know that a lot of people are better off than I am.

Re:digital take over

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in an attempt to settle minds, let's remember that our money itself is actually just on loan, too...

Re:digital take over

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad Borland sold so much vaporware and sunk due to Phillipe's tastes in expensive Porsche's and nose powder.

Re:digital take over

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think you own your house, try seeing what happens if you don't make your yearly (or monthly) "rent" on it... aka property taxes. Even if your house is paid off completely, you still must pay your yearly rental fee or it will be taken away!

Before you argue with that rational, try doing to it as you wish, like renovate it, or add on to it, without getting permission from the government, also known as a "permit" (aka, it's not just a piece of paper, it's also a verb, as in, they permit you to do something with your "property" that you "own".

Re:digital take over

[mc6809e]

Ideas should be free, your labor should not be.

Says the man that never in his life labored to create a new idea.

Re:digital take over

[sjames]

You clearly have missed the subtle nuance between "we have become an exact copy" and "we are becoming more like".

Re:digital take over

[knarf]

The license bit is covered by several free software licenses. Just keep to using free software and you stay clear from that part of the New World Order. You don't need to read the EULA because there is no EULA, only a distribution LA. You can even use some of that free software to thwart those ThreeLetterAgencies who are so interested in your computing habits.

To me this whole coming-out of the spies only provides yet another means to show my less-aware friends and family that just because they're not concerned it does not mean someone is not out to get them, even if all they're after for now is records of all their communications. Now the alternatives offered by free software are not only cheaper and less obnoxious (yes, Windows 8.x, I'm looking at you), they're also less susceptible to prying eyes.

Methinks someone should rewrite the lyrics to that Coldplay song about spies coming out of the water. This time, they're coming out of the router.

Re:digital take over

[Shadowmist]

At least when you are paying for a car (that you bought with a loan), you are generally free to mess with it however you wish. Want to repaint it, or rip out the back seats for more trunk space, or fiddle with the engine? Go right ahead. Same with your house: the bank doesn't get a say in what home modifications you make. You're responsible for paying off the loan, but not for using your (not-fully-paid-for) property according to the mandates of bank management. Not so with software you "own" under a restrictive license or "cloud-based" system.

Take out the seat belts, air bags, remove the headlights, or various other things that are required to make the vehicle street legal, you have problems.

Re:digital take over

[bill_mcgonigle]

Says the man that never in his life labored to create a new idea.

Says a man who can't think of another way to make a living on an idea but to threaten violence?

The GP post is wrong - he says, "ideas should be free". Ideas are free. They cannot be contained, and the very mention of them creates duplication of them. Nothing can change that, ever.

Trying to impose a commodity business model on ideas through force does not make them non-free. It just threatens violence against those who naturally reproduce those ideas in an effort to make money in a particular model that is contrary to the natural state of affairs. In the case of the US, it's one man threatening three hundred million for his private benefit.

Humans are hard-wired for mimicry - efforts to thwart that are doomed to eventual failure. Let's make money with non-zero-sum games instead.

Re:digital take over

[kermidge]

Yes, well, that's fine and I'm glad for you; however, I believe we're talking generally of softwares - OS, programs, media.

For instance, who owns your operating system? Your browser?

And only going by memory here, but if your deed is not freehold then your land ownership carries conditions. Well, all deeds carry conditions, but freehold is the least encumbered. Most people end up with quit claim. What deed do you have?

Re:digital take over

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The means of production (and distribution?) were controlled, as they are in USA 2013 by a big load of so-called "legal rights" : "intellectual property". Main difference is that the monopolies are privately owned instead of controlled by party bureaucrats. Ok, maybe you don't risk being sent to a work camp in Alaska if you break said monopoly in the US, but a likely life-time in debt for illegally manufacturing copies and illegally distributing a few song recordings... Not very nice either.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[fredprado]

And even if he did he would still have the original copy...

His watch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Off topic from the discussion, but what watch is he wearing in the video? 1:51 has a good shot of it. It doesn't look like the Pebble, but perhaps another type of smart watch? ;)

Todd

Re:His watch?

[Jeremy Erwin]

It's an iPod nano watch.

Re:His watch?

[Anonymous Coward]

He is wearing 2 watches, one on each arm. The one on the left arm is his Nixie tube watch..... here: http://www.cathodecorner.com/nixiewatch/ I believe it is his favourite watch he said before.

Re:His watch?

[NixieBunny]

And the one on is left wrist is a Nixie watch. Very big, utterly practical.

Re:His watch?

[Jeremy Erwin]

What's in Woz's backpack He does not travel light.

Re:There's something we'll always own.

[toonces33]

No, there are companies out there patenting DNA as well, and that's another set of thorny issues.

Re:There's something we'll always own.

[Black Parrot]

Apparently SCOTUS just ruled that you can't patent 'natural' DNA.

Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

How's Apple's walled garden any different?

Re:Ha!

[CanHasDIY]

How's Apple's walled garden any different?

You're asking the wrong Steve.

For a response, please address your query to:

Steve Jobs
c/o Dept of Avarice
666 Infinite Loop (of Suffering)
Lake of Fire, HL 48169

Re:But can we trust Woz's judgement?

[Black Parrot]

After all, here is a guy (who insists on using a juvenile nickname) who had the wool pulled over his eyes by perhaps one of the most successful psychopaths of this and the last century: Steve Jobs. Do you really think this guy is qualified?

It's not obvious that Jobs snowed him; I suspect that they always had motivations and goals that were nigh orthogonal.

Concept of Ownership

[Sponge Bath]

Ownership follows power. If you don't have more brute force strength than the next domestic house ape, you own nothing. Scribbles on a piece of paper like the constitution are not power.

Re:Concept of Ownership

[Sponge Bath]

Game of Thrones may have affected my normally sunny disposition.

Re:Concept of Ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

In communist america...

[Anonymous Coward]

company owns you.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[mcgrew]

Isn't that like a book proclaiming how bad literacy is?

It's not like Woz posted the clip. And I commend him for it, I couldn't have said it better myself. IMO the cloud is only good for things you want posted publicly.

Personally, I won't do online banking simply because the internet is an insecure form of communication, although I'll shop online with a credit card if necessary since the most it will cost is fifty bucks (and perhaps increased surveillance by the NSA if I buy the wrong book, like maybe 1984.)

Speaking of which, the NSA is cooking up more CYA lies for us. Is anybody stupid enough to believe anything the NSA says?

Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

[Zeio]

This is nothing new.

We live in a oligarchical collectivist police state where a banking cabal, central governments, the military industrial complex and megacorps control everything.

The little guy, the small business, freedom, liberty. Gone.

Welcome to wage slavery, plebeians. And you voted your captors in.

Microcomputer revolution was against the "cloud"

[perpenso]

The microcomputer revolution that Woz was a significant contributor to was in part a movement against the "cloud" of that day, remote minicomputers and mainframes where your software and your data lived. One of the goals of the microcomputer revolution was to have your software and your data on your computer on your desk.

If we were to have a second revolution in the spirit of the preceding perhaps we would have our own "cloud" servers hosted on our own IP address at home, offering ubiquitous access to all of our computers and devices and syncing between them. Again, all your data being hosted on your server on your desk (or in the corner or the closet).

Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

You send things across the internet and expect privacy? You've got to be kidding. There were no privacy considerations when TCP/IP was designed. Why would you expect bits going through any router or other device that you do not personally control to be private?

Some rules to follow:
1. Don't post anything to Twitter/Facebook/Google+ etc.
2. Even better, don't have accounts.
3. Never send anything to anyone electronically that you don't want on the front page of the newspaper/CNN/Google News etc.
4. When you do post, post as an Anonymous Coward, even if No Such Agency can find out who you are.

Re:Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

5. Always wear your tinfoil hat.

Re:Privacy

[mcgrew]

4. When you do post, post as an Anonymous Coward, even if No Such Agency can find out who you are.

I'm not a coward, I'm shouting out loudly in my own name (yes, I'm McGrew). If I was a cowardly little pussy like you I wouldn't have joined the USAF and volunteered for South East Asia during Vietnam, where we were supposedly fighting the same bullshit our own government is now doing.

I now wish I hadn't, it was a fucking waste of time and effort considering how things have gone since 911. Oh, well, at least it made going to school easier, what with the GI Bill and Illinois paying my tuition. But that's not why I joined.

I sneer at you, wimp.

Re:Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch out, we got a badass over here.

Re:Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

i guess you never learned the lesson of plausible dependability. being a gun totting puppet, (if you volunteered, drone if you were drafted) fighting on the wrong side of the world, for a semi fascist policy based on penis envy politics should have taught you better.

Re:There's something we'll always own.

[pr0fessor]

Wasn't there a story about that earlier? It looked like a small victory.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/06/13/1550225/supreme-court-no-patents-for-natural-dna-sequences

Ownership in Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that in Russia back then there was nothing to buy... It wasn't just a 'culture of lease', as 3/4 of the population was more worried about eating and having TP, not accepting that their ( unimagined ) digital content was in the ( also unimagined ) cloud.

I do agree that rights were ( still are? ) highly limited there but he needs to compare apples to apples ( sorry...) in making those sorts of general statements.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[spire3661]

Online banking is backed by physical entities. If an event happens it is often easily fixable. IM not saying run your life through online banking, but it is a useful tool backed by real-world interests.

Re:But can we trust Woz's judgement?

[johnjaydk]

After all, here is a guy (who insists on using a juvenile nickname) who had the wool pulled over his eyes by perhaps one of the most successful psychopaths of this and the last century: Steve Jobs. Do you really think this guy is qualified? The analogy would be asking RMS for hygiene tips, or ESR for advice on your sex life.

It wasn't more than a few years ago that we had a comment from a guy who shared office with RMS, who insisted that RMS had excellent hygiene so I would suggest you stick to car analogies. As to Woz, he might be a bit naive but he is a great engineer and his heart is in the right place. I would love to have more friends with those qualities.

Digital Communism

[SpaceManFlip]

It's like the "Electronic Plantation" that Jello Biafra once hollered about

And...

[FuzzNugget]

He's right.

That there aren't millions of people storming the halls of government with torches and pitchforks is more telling than anything else of how oppressed the USA has become.

Re:And...

[CanHasDIY]

He's right.

Of course he is; he's "The Wizard of Woz." ... and I say that as a fairly ardent Apple Hater.

That there aren't millions of people storming the halls of government with torches and pitchforks is more telling than anything else of how oppressed the USA has become.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but as "storming the halls of government" would require the resources to make a 2000 mile journey (one way), as well as very likely costing me my source of income, my home, my family... not really feasible.

Now, you coastal folks who can hop on a train and be to DC in a couple hours? YOU have less excuse.

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

lol yea. A plane ticket is whats stopping you from storming the white house. Continue ranting on forums instead of doing anything positive, worm.

Re: And...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a known Apple-hater, too. The funny thing, though, is that it's almost entirely the non-Wozness of Apple as it has become that makes me an Apple hater.

I learned that I hated Apple at the press announcement in 1984 where Jobs announced the "Hacker-Proof" (his actual words) sealed-box Macintosh to the world.

Re: And...

[Anonymous Coward]

They took my pitch fork and put on the no fly list. Also the no pitch fork list.

Wasn't there some other famous regime making lists of people? I think I saw a movie like that...

Re:And...

[HeckRuler]

No, it's cool, we've got technology and a digital infrastructure to overcome that. Just get a group of friends to storm a facsimile of the halls of government. You know, like your local city hall, or Verizon store, or something vaguely close to the NSA if you squint. I think torches and pitchforks would be nice and traditional but people have had better luck with posters and bullhorns. But make sure you get video of it and post it online. Try to get the press involved.

It's called a demonstration. Or even "protest" if you frown the whole time. The important factors are how many people you get to show up, how long you stay there, and the reaction from whatever facsimile you're targeting.

Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Penguinisto]

Given the ruthless efficiency with which the PRISM system collected communications, I'd compare it more closely to the former East German (DDR) Stasi

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[fahrbot-bot]

Given the ruthless efficiency with which the PRISM system collected communications, I'd compare it more closely to the former East German (DDR) Stasi

Technically, if you believe the NSA has no direct access, the ISPs and Telcos actually collected the information and sent the NSA copies. [ So when James Clapper, was asked, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" and he responded, "No" he wasn't technically lying to Congress... ]

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[suutar]

I'd think that the NSA asking for the data to be sent to them would qualify as "collecting". So the question is do they send a new request every three months when their warrant renews or are the telecoms just sending it out of the goodness of their hearts at this point? (Google's statements seem to indicate the NSA is asking, but of course, everything is subject to interpretation...)

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Given the ruthless efficiency with which the PRISM system collected communications, I'd compare it more closely to the former East German (DDR) Stasi

The Stasi were more competent than average; but what arguably makes the 'in capitalist America' system cleverer is how it can function as a (relatively) inexpensive appendage of free market incentives that already exist.

So much useful data gets generated, and sometimes compiled, purely for the convenience of self-sustaining private sector actors(the phone company routing calls to the correct cell and billing you, your credit card issuer keeping accounts in order, your ISP shepherding the little packets about, advertising weasels scrutinising your behavior to try to sell you stuff, Everything Facebook, people 'checking in' to random shit on foursquare, etc, etc.) You don't need to bother with the (impressive; but rather unsustainably expensive) 'more than 10% of the population acting as at least part-time informants' business. You just copy the data that the private sector generates automatically!

Now, copying, storage, and analysis aren't free, by any means; but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than having to gather the data yourself and then pay for storage and analysis. Plus(solving a second problem that commies always had trouble with) your intelligence apparatus doubles as your consumer-goods R&D and focus grouping apparatus, since large parts of it are shared between marketing weasels and spooks, so you don't run into those embarrassing bare shelves and unfashionable lifestyles...

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Quoth James Clapper, director of national intelligence: "This has to do with of course somewhat of a semantic, perhaps some would say too cute by half. But it is—there are honest differences on the semantics of what—when someone says 'collection' to me, that has a specific meaning, which may have a different meaning to him."

He also characterized denying 'collection' as "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner by saying 'no,'"

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[ebno-10db]

The Stasi were more competent than average

Careful not to spout your cliches about German efficiency amongst KGB alumni.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Soviets collapsed because of lack of technolgy -- repeat 1989 today and the Soviet Union would be alive and well -- It is what Putin hopes to re-instate. Woz is correct in his analysis.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[BlueStrat]

Technically, if you believe the NSA has no direct access,...

You mean, exist in a reality where there are no secret NSA rooms mirroring all the data from major carriers?

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/11/09/2040206/ex-att-tech-says-nsa-monitors-all-web-traffic

No. Clapper is a lying POS that needs to spend many decades (his remaining life) inside a super-max cell.

And he's far from the only one in this government (from both political parties) that belongs in a prison cell for the rest of their lives, and many executed for their crimes against all US citizens of all political/religious/ideological stripes and the betrayal of their Oaths of Office to protect and defend the US Constitution that have been highlighted by the string of scandals and revelations of late, and their outright lies under oath in response to questions.

This is not a (R) or (D) issue. They don't even bother keeping promises to their own Party's constituents unless it fits their agendas. They lie and betray everyone while defying and destroying the Rule of Law and constantly seeking to further restrict and redefine individual liberty and Constitutional Rights.

They see themselves as our masters and ALL of us as serfs. History demonstrates repeatedly that this is what happens when a government and those running it gain too much power relative to the people.

The current US government no longer operates with the will of the governed as expressed by the restrictions placed upon it, and therefor is no longer a legitimate government.

Strat

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[fazey]

if they are capturing by tapping MCI, they are getting it without needing to ask the companies for it. But this is nothing new, these are just the companies you know about. You know how many Data Centers play ball with the NSA too?

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[BrokenHalo]

So the question is do they send a new request every three months when their warrant renews

I think the whole point is that the NSA is acting extra-legally, so there is no warrant - since that would involve the judiciary.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[CptNerd]

The scary part is, there is a court, set up to only deal with them, just like the IRS Tax Court only deals with IRS cases. So, since the FISA court almost never turns down a request for a subpoena, it's a thin bandaid of legality over a suppurating sore of government abuse of power.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[BlueStrat]

The current US government no longer operates with the will of the governed..

Yes, it does, and the election results prove it...

No, it does not. Many groups were suppressed before and during the 2012 election by the IRS targeting and likely other means at the government's disposal as well. Possibly the NSA played a part in blackmailing certain key individuals and organizations as well.

Besides, in order for the voters to be able to consent and to make a reasoned choice, they have to know what the government is actually doing. They most certainly did not. That does not equal consent.

Regardless of elections, the part of my sentence that you left out when you quoted me is the operative part that supports my statement, which you did not address:

The current US government no longer operates with the will of the governed as expressed by the restrictions placed upon it, and therefor is no longer a legitimate government.

When the government ignored (and continues to ignore) the restrictions on it's powers and scope that were part of the deal made with the people for consent, it forfeited that consent and forfeited it's legitimacy as a government.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Strat

Re: Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[s.petry]

almost

Try always. in place of that. It was released the other day, FISA has approved 100% of the requests it has received from agencies. Giving rise to a reporter calling it a rubber stamp(correctly)

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[ccalvert]

"Many groups were suppressed before and during the 2012 election by the IRS targeting"

Do you hear yourself? Political groups are not supposed to be tax exempt. That is what the IRS was looking for: "Is this 501c4 application for a civic group or a political group?" You say that these groups couldn't engage in political activity because of the IRS investigation. That means you are saying they are political groups, not civic groups, and therefore should not have received tax exempt status.

I'm not saying the IRS didn't make very serious mistakes: they did. But your claim that it effected the election is by definition off point.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Honestly, I try to avoid the 'amongst KGB alumni' state as much as I can...

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[bkmoore]

....I'd compare it more closely to the former East German (DDR) Stasi

Technically, if you believe the NSA has no direct access, the ISPs and Telcos actually collected the information and sent the NSA copies....

The STASI did not have enough agents to spy on the East German population. That is why they relied on "Unofficial Colleges (IM)" or informants to do most of the eavesdropping for them. What the NSA and the ISPs/Telcos do in tandem is not very different than the old STASI / IM system. The only difference is the STASI had to rely on the technology of the day; typewriters, microphones, and tape recorders. The NSA system is digital and automated.

With enough AI, the NSA could easily achieve a kind of automated super-spy system that records each and every criminal action by anyone who posts online information, uses the telephone, etc. Remove that mattress label, mention it on the phone, or post it on /. and get a letter from law enforcement asking to pay a fine. Or they could wait until you get caught for something big and tack on every little "crime" you have ever inadvertently committed, such as eating an illegal lobster, and yes there is a federal law against that.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[fustakrakich]

Well, you wake me up when people start to 'throw off such Government'... The resistance is statistically insignificant, making your little recital there completely irrelevant.

Re: Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[jmac_the_man]

501c4 groups are allowed to conduct political activity, they're just not allowed to have their primary purpose be lobbying on behalf of a candidate.

Plenty of liberal groups, such as Organizing for Action, Obama's rebranding of his reelection campaign, exist to "educate the American people" about some issue or other and get 501c4 status. (OFA was personally approved by Lois Lerner, a key figure in the current scandal.)

Face it. The IRS was classifying liberals it agreed with as social welfare groups and conferring benefits upon them, while withholding that classification and those benefits from conservatives it disagreed with. This is the worst abuse of power in the history of the IRS.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[AHuxley]

Re: NSA could easily achieve a kind of automated super-spy system that records each and every criminal action by anyone who posts online information, uses the telephone, etc.
Be fun feeding an AI with messages about corruption, regional political leadership by name, going to the press, an installation, facility, a whistleblower, contractor with "Pulitzer Prize" and past whistleblowers as keyword bait.
Load up the local keywords and pass the short message around a few Yahoo, Google, Skype, MS, Apple IM/mail accounts saved draft "dead-drop" email style with new ip's every time :)
In East Germany they would have to wait for a person to turn up at a Church peace group, take part in a march and then be taken into interrogation.
You would then face trial, loss of your home, work, educational achievements, marriage, children where at risk of State care... and you still faced years in prison.
What the US gov seems to want to do is get to you as your considering protesting, seeing who you want to protest with and then work on "shaping" the movement into a joke, waste of time or astroturfing effort.
If you show potential, you will be offered the option to turn and the group becomes fed bait to any other protesters/computer users.
No more bad optics of been arrested in the USA, just smart people making use of the many new free speech zones.
What we are seeing now is the legal distress of federal workers skilled at tracking China, Russia, EU, South America been asked to turn their skill sets on the US public.
Russia and a few trusted Germans had little to work with in late 1940's Germany but over time build a very loyal cadre.
The NSA and CIA will have to fix this over a generation of staff and buy in much better on going psychological profiling.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[dgatwood]

The current US government no longer operates with the will of the governed.

Yes, it does, and the election results prove it...

And I suppose you believe that elections in various third-world nations prove that their governments operates according to the will of the governed, too. An election that is not free is not an assertion of assent. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the U.S. election system was designed (plurality rule or worse), and because of the insane amount of money required to campaign for any national office, our elections are effectively rigged so that only a couple of candidates actually have a chance of winning, no matter what the two parties might want you to believe. That's hardly a free election by any reasonable standard. Therefore, the election does not prove anything except that more people voted for one candidate than another (at best).

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

The resistance is statistically insignificant at this moment but is trending rapidly upwards with the ever-growing list of scandals and shockingly un-Constitutional revelations that are now being picked up by the MSM

FTFY

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[elashish14]

If I give you a bag of marbles every day and you do not discard them, then you are still collecting them. It doesn't matter whether you took them from me or whether I give them to you willingly.

The intelligence official is an outright liar and should be punished to the fullest extent possible for perjury (assuming he was under oath). And whenever the politician says that these programs have government oversight, one simply needs to point out how bald-facedly he lied to Senator Wyden during the hearing.

But of course, just like in the case of Bradley Manning, the US government is going to shoot the messenger and act like it's not even a problem. That's a great nation for you there.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Shadowmist]

The Soviets collapsed because of lack of technolgy -- repeat 1989 today and the Soviet Union would be alive and well -- It is what Putin hopes to re-instate. Woz is correct in his analysis.

You're wrong, and Woz is wrong as well. The Soviets collapsed because America forced them into an arms race they couldn't pay for (which almost broke the United States as well), that, and the expense of maintaining an imperial empire as far away as Cuba. To develop technology, you need a rich economy to support it, one that could pay for luxuries such as Bell Labs, Sillicon Valley, Xerox Parc. The Soviet Union in contrary to what Marx would have predicted evolved from what was a poor if large nation, that only got poorer due to war, and the money being spent on future wars that never occured.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[LongearedBat]

The current US government no longer operates with the will of the governed as expressed by the restrictions placed upon it, and therefor is no longer a legitimate government.

This is not intended as a troll, but as a serious question...

What are the pro-gun ownership people doing about it? Isn't that the main argument that people in the US use to reserve the right to own a wide variety of military weaponry?

Or have I misunderstood the gun control debate? (Note: I don't live in the US.)

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[fahrbot-bot]

If I give you a bag of marbles every day and you do not discard them, then you are still collecting them. It doesn't matter whether you took them from me or whether I give them to you willingly.

Well... I'm collecting bags that happen to contain marbles. You collected the marbles and placed them into the bags. Unfortunately, a lot of things in the legal sense can depend on semantics.

In the case of James Clapper, the senator questioning him was Ron Wyden (D - Oregon) who is currently on the Select Committee on Intelligence and (I imagine) already very well knows all about PRISM and such. According to this Huffington Post article (and probably others), Clapper was given the list of Sen. Wyden's questions prior to the meeting so Clapper would have a chance to give a "straight answer" - about a classified program in a public meeting - to a question Wyden already knew the answer. Clapper said he gave the most truthful untruthful answer he could given the situation. Wyden should be bitch slapped for asking the question in the first place. I understand they're trying to cover their asses, but what part of "classified" don't elected officials understand.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Patch86]

If the responder (James Clapper) had wanted to answer the question in the "most truthful" manner, he could have answered with more words than "no". Such as "No, but we didn't need to collect it because we have been provided with massive quantities of data simply by asking companies to provide it to us".

What Mr Clapper did there was what we like to call "lying by omission". By answering a question in such a way as to deliberately misunderstand what is being asked of you and therefore deliberately not providing the information expected, you are lying. It doesn't matter if you did so by saying as few words as possible.

There is no other way to interpret his answer other than that he was deliberately attempting to not tell Congress what Congress wanted him to tell them.

Re: Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Patch86]

I read in one article that they've turned down exactly one request in their history. Which is a scary thought- what on earth did that request contain that even they couldn't bring themselves to rubber-stamp it?

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[sjames]

That depends on what the definition of 'is' is.

Of course they're lieing. And they'll be let off because of technicalities and benefit of a doubt that no common citizen would ever enjoy.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell mods this kind of crap up? They do have direct access, and it would be collection either way. Tell the cyber-nazis to go to hell (or at least think it and wish for it!).

Kind regards from an ultra-far-right (that spells f-r-e-e-d-o-m in case you haven't got a clue) Norwegian.

[And while it is beside the point despite what some might think I've got plenty of company in seeing it this way out here on the far right, only a few fools think the surveillance has anything to do with defeating the religion of piss].

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

The operative word here is "on", not "from", so the technically you think you've identified doesn't exist.

Re: Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[mwvdlee]

Nothing special, just a dummy request so they could legally deny rubber stamping 100% of request.

Re: Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[lxs]

I believe the entire phrase was "a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp" which is the kind of put-down that at least brings some levity in a mostly shitty situation.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[BlueStrat]

The current US government no longer operates with the will of the governed as expressed by the restrictions placed upon it, and therefor is no longer a legitimate government.

This is not intended as a troll, but as a serious question...

What are the pro-gun ownership people doing about it? Isn't that the main argument that people in the US use to reserve the right to own a wide variety of military weaponry?

Or have I misunderstood the gun control debate? (Note: I don't live in the US.)

Turning to the 2A is the last resort. Contrary to how media has portrayed gun owners as a bunch of dangerous hicks just looking to shoot somebody, in actuality there are vanishingly few like that. They tend to quickly end up in prison or as testaments to Darwin. We will try to work through the system as much and as far as possible before turning to violence.

There's a saying in the US about the four boxes to be used in the defense of freedom; the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box, to be used in that order. We are still in the soap & ballot box stage, and entering the jury box stage.

Guns in civilian hands are just one deterrent against tyranny, not the first or the only deterrent.

It will not be gun-owning US civilians who start shooting first. It WILL be US civilians who shoot last if the government starts shooting, however.

The only way the US government could win a shooting war against the US population is if the government used WMDs to kill most of the population, but that doesn't leave much to rule over. Not to mention, the rest of the world might have a problem with the US government employing nuclear/chemical/biological weapons on a large scale for domestic genocide.

Strat

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[LongearedBat]

Thanks. I hadn't heard of the four boxes before. And it seems to me then that the aim (so to speak) of gun ownership is to avoid the sort of thing that's happening in Syria.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Efficiency? If what they are saying is true about PRISM, then it's so big and convoluted that efficiency is a four-letter word.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

ruthless efficiency

Don't forget fear, surprise, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms!

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Given the ruthless efficiency with which the PRISM system collected communications, I'd compare it more closely to the former East German (DDR) Stasi

I'd rather compare it to the NSA - who obviously was much more efficient because the Stasi is gone, and the NSA is still spying on everybody.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Given the ruthless efficiency with which the PRISM system collected communications, I'd compare it more closely to the former East German (DDR) Stasi

Technically, if you believe the NSA has no direct access, the ISPs and Telcos actually collected the information and sent the NSA copies. [ So when James Clapper, was asked, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" and he responded, "No" he wasn't technically lying to Congress... ]

Since the NSA does collect direct data everywhere in the world, and they can't filter Americans out, I think he was technically lying.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

The part where "classified" doesn't allow them to break the Constitution. Nothing allows them to do that.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[s.petry]

Don't ignore the obvious. I agree that the IRS may not have been the best example, however to deny it had impact is rubbish. If I started a political action group called "liberty returned" or something, I would not have been able to qualify the organization. This means that I can not necessarily accept donations legally as I'm not a charitable organization. Fringe case? Perhaps, but lets look at some other government leaks, and actions by the laughably "free press" in the US.

It was leaked that DHS, DOJ, FBI, CIA, and Media (Fox/NBC/ABC/CNN) colluded to undermine the OWS movement. This collusion included illegally arresting citizens, planting agent provocateurs, surveillance, and harassment. The biggie is the slander and libel by main stream media presenting the group as a bunch of pot smoking free loaders including leadership, who were actually demanding justice for executives committing illegal acts (robo-scams etc...).

Main Stream media made a circus of the election process. This was obvious to my 13 year old kid, so you should have caught on too! Portraying anyone the established didn't want as "crazy" and "insane" if they portrayed them at all.

Go investigate the Ross Perot blackmail case. You don't think that the surveillance agencies make cases like this much easier to perform, and much easier to hide? Yes folks, the corruption really is that bad.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[santiagoanders]

Learn the difference between effect and affect. It will make people take the rest of your tripe more seriously.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[s.petry]

The debates are not just about Gun control, but all of the basic human rights defined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights that the self proclaimed elites have been declaring war on. Free speech, Privacy and Security, etc...

Guns are a primary argument because the elites fear a bunch of serfs that can defend themselves. This has been the case since the advent of any Government, often giving rise to non-elites with too much power being killed.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[s.petry]

It is illegal for the Government to make information classified for the express purpose of cover up. Since that is true, your argument is pure bullshit and the person you responded too is incorrect.

If you believe everything the establishment is telling you, shame on you. 'There is sunshine and fresh air outside of the cave, but most slaves are content to sit and watch their evening puppet shows. They fear change so much that they will vehemently defend lies intended to keep them in the cave.' - Socrates

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[fustakrakich]

The US is not a 'third world nation'.. yet. And people are free to not sell their vote to the guy with the most bling. All arguments to the contrary are specious at best. The system is a perfect reflection of the complicity (complacency?) of the voters. And they insist on playing the blame game because they and you will not accept the truth. The prevailing attitude is the primary cause of this problem, not this ethereal conspiracy you all dream up to avoid responsibility for your own actions. So, vote them out. If they don't leave peacefully, then you might have a case. Success or failure depends on you!

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF??? How the hell does that post earn a "Troll" mod??

"Troll" != I disagree with what was posted.

I guess some people have a taste for the flavor of jackboot leather and Zyklon-B.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're actually supposed to remove the mattress label if you're the consumer who purchases it. It's the proof that it's a new mattress, and once it's removed, it can no longer be legally sold, as we don't want issues with bedbugs/disease/etc on mattresses being resold to the public. Now if you're the mattress company, it's not just illegal to remove it, it's a bad idea, as who would purchase a mattress missing its tag?

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[dewrox]

Receiving and Collecting are one and the same since if you receive and retain then you have collected. Pretty sure they did not immediately destroy or discard the information. Don't try and pussy foot around this, He lied flat out and he knew it. He (and they) is hoping that semantics and the apathy of the general population will let them get away with it.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, his claim that it effected the election is proof that the IRS was doing their job!

If you call yourself a 'tea party', it helps to understand what the original tea party was.
It was a group of people that hid their identity, forcefully sized and then destroyed private property, and refused to pay lawful taxes. The fact that they were the founding fathers and started a new order that does not allow Kings and forces representation of the people allows many "USA, USA" chanting people to ignore the fact that they were criminals that did not want to pay taxes. Mock outrage over a political group not being allowed to illegally dodge taxes is transparent.

If someone wanted tax exempt status for something called 'Illegal Tax Dodge Scheme Group of America' the IRS would be complete failures at their job if they did not receive extra scrutiny right?

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the part where they realize the 'classified' is illegal, immoral, and is destroying everything America stands for?

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a (R) or (D) issue. They don't even bother keeping promises to their own Party's constituents

Actually, they do keep their promises to their constituents, as long as you look at them in a realistic way, and open your ears to the true implicit promise.

Their promise is: we're going to keep on doing the same stuff we've always been doing.

That's a believable promise, it's a promise that every single voter really does know at least at a subconscious level (and I think most people know it consciously), it's a sincere promise, and it's a promise that they usually keep. They really do live up to their expectations.

It's a (R) and (D) issue. Politicians join those parties when they give up on actual politics, and decide to run on the above platform instead. And it's what we all (~99%) vote for because, I guess: fuck politics. When you care about politics, whether you're a rightie or a leftie, you are definitely going to lose, and after enough consistent losing, so you stop trying, and start voting for (R) or (D). Everybody ends up there, it seems, so that's where the votes are.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent poster must not know about Lesterland.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Collect (Verb)
1. to gather together
2. to accumulate
3. to receive or compel payment of: to collect a bill.

Actually, if he'd wanted to answer in the "most truthful way", he would have said "yes". Even if the NSA did not produce or acquire any of the data itself and only took and organized what was given by the telecom companies, that still satisfies every applicable meaning of the word collect. So, James Clapper's response wasn't a "lie by omission" so much as it was just a "lie".

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[doccus]

We,ll, that's very much like the Soviet era.. there, ordinary citizens, as well as local businesses collected information on their neighbours and customers, and every month would give their report to the local "community social service representative", who would then allow an increase in food allotments or whatever.. Only difference is the ISPs get to keep operating as a business instead of a food allowance...

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with most of what you say I would like to point out that no one is invading Syria to stop Assad from using Chemical Weapons. Also, I'm not sure the US Military couldn't win without such weapons. Assuming the soldiers actually fight instead of throwing down there guns and turning on the government, the US military could just use overwhelming air power and conventional weapons to pound any uprising into submission. If we could level Dresden without a nuke in WWI while getting shot at they could defiantly level New York, LA, or Chicago if there is no in air opposition.

The second amendment guys had a point back in 1976 when the best of military technology was the long gun and wooden sailing ship, but with tanks, air planes, and rockets there is no way for a small group of untrained insurgents to win in any type of direct confrontation. Not without some very serious and very hard to get fire power. (Think mobile SAM sites, Javelin AT-Missiles.)

The only way for the 2nd amendment to work as a check against tyranny as intended is to bring back trained militias and allow them to be equipped them as necessary. The National Guard is supposed to represent this but at they are just as bound to the federal government as the regular military at this point.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Obfuscant]

In the case of James Clapper, the senator questioning him was Ron Wyden (D - Oregon) who is currently on the Select Committee on Intelligence and (I imagine) already very well knows all about PRISM and such.

As a constituent of Senator Wyden who has heard for years only glowing reviews of his personality and character, I'd like to point out one fact that everyone seems to be overlooking.

As you say, he already knew about PRISM, and was, in fact, making broad hints about the program for months. He knew about the program AND DID NOTHING TO STOP IT. He has a sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution, and did nothing to stop PRISM from taking place. This leaves one of two situations, and I'll let you pick which you believe. Either the PRISM program is Constitutional, or Ron Wyden has broken his oath to us and abdicated his responsibility as the Senator he was elected to be and should therefore be recalled. (One of the clear duties of the Senate and House are as a check and balance upon the Executive branch. Civics 101.)

If you complain about the PRISM program trodding upon your Constitutional rights, you have Mr. Wyden to thank for not acting to stop it, and have chosen the latter position.

As an aside, Mr. Wyden is the politician who, while running for Senate the first time, promised to run a clean, honest, upfront campaign with no negative campaigning. Immediately following this pledge, advertisements began appearing against his opponent, Gordon Smith, claiming Smith "killed a kid" in the name of corporate profits. The truth was, a teenaged employee (legally employed) at Smith's farm died in an accident, and the parents of the teen appeared soon after the negative ads in ads for Smith absolving him of responsibility and blame.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[mrchaotica]

That's the aim of the Second Amendment. Gun ownership in general has additional uses, such as hunting and self-defense [from street crime, as opposed to self-defense from tyranny].

By the way, one thing that's helpful when trying to understand the Constitution: remember that it was written by a bunch of folks who had just completed the violent overthrow of their previous ruler. Had they been around today, every single one of them would have been labeled a terrorist.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[mrchaotica]

Guns are a primary argument because the elites fear a bunch of serfs that can defend themselves. This has been the case since the advent of any Government, often giving rise to non-elites with too much power being killed.

You seem to be implying that anti-gun folks are elitist while pro-gun folks are serfs. Given that Republican congressmen are just as obscenely rich as Democrat congressmen (and that plenty of liberals are just as dirt-poor as certain conservatives -- albeit more likely to live in an urban area) I'm not sure that implication holds.

What I don't understand is why it's so hard to find major political group that supports the whole Bill of Rights, instead of picking and choosing from it.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[mrchaotica]

As an aside, Mr. Wyden is the politician who, while running for Senate the first time, promised to run a clean, honest, upfront campaign with no negative campaigning. Immediately following this pledge, advertisements began appearing against his opponent, Gordon Smith, claiming Smith "killed a kid" in the name of corporate profits. The truth was, a teenaged employee (legally employed) at Smith's farm died in an accident, and the parents of the teen appeared soon after the negative ads in ads for Smith absolving him of responsibility and blame.

The question is, was it really one of Mr. Wyden's supporters who ran that ad, or was it a false-flag attack designed to backfire?

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[messymerry]

"The Internet is the dream of the Stasi." - I said this last century... Set up a proxy. M$ (or enter your favorite other Nazgul here) sends the data to the proxy which forwards it to whomever. The spooks didn't get it form M$, they got it from Asshat Inc.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Obfuscant]

The question is, was it really one of Mr. Wyden's supporters who ran that ad,

Good question. Yes.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[s.petry]

Poppycock! Nothing was implied at all. The statement I made was very clear. All of our rights are being attacked by people currently in power. If you read other comments I make regularly, you will see comments like "there is no difference between R and D in practice, this is a left-right paradigm that people want you to believe".

Your last paragraph is interesting, and becoming more common of a question. The simple answer is that you need to ignore the paradigms being pushed on to you and start your own political programs. Petition to get people you trust on ballots and ignore candidates given to you by elites. Just as important, is to teach other people that the left-right paradigms are fake and get them on board with a plan to remove career politicians from politics. One of my favorite quotes is from Socrates who states "The only people that should be representatives in a Republic are those that don't want the job".

I always recommend that people read and study Philosophy, namely "The Republic" which is the blueprint for our form of Government. Study will show you exactly why Socrates said what he did, in addition to showing you that society would function very well without career politicians.

In closing, pay attention to that 2nd paragraph. Our founding fathers built in rules for us to make very peaceful revolutions. This is why the elites currently in power are trying so hard to dismantle the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The work for us will be difficult, but will save years of misery and lots of bloodshed.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[messymerry]

The smart ones are keeping their mouths shut and waiting. In the art of war, the pawns go first. Right now, if you speak up or act in any way, you will be hammered. The "State's Enforcers" are scared shitless and shooting everything that moves. Goods and services have not deteriorated to the point where civil unrest is an overriding concern. When this happens the 3% that can actually effect change will come out of the woodwork and kick the hineys and their sycophants. The State has been buying up as much ammo as they can, but everybody knows that the People have been doing the same. When this powder keg goes off, they will be able to see it on Saturn...

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[BlueStrat]

Thanks. I hadn't heard of the four boxes before. And it seems to me then that the aim (so to speak) of gun ownership is to avoid the sort of thing that's happening in Syria.

No problem, you're welcome.

Well, I think you grasp the basic principle, but the Syria situation (as are almost every uprising/civil war, but triply-so in the current ME) is quite complicated, one complication being that NONE of the sides/groups involved view the US as anything more than the Western "Great Satan" that must be destroyed. Another is that the US has quietly been sending arms to rebel forces in Syria for some time. The Benghazi incident where US Amb. Stevens was killed is part of that little "extracurricular activity" playing out and why State Dept. and other officials have been so reticent and evasive when answering Congressional questions.

Here's an excellent-quality and fascinating (warning: it is a bit graphic) documentary on the global history of civilian gun ownership world wide over the last ~150 years, and the actual historical results of the consequences of governments disarming a populace or a segment of a populace. The concepts expressed in the documentary are the reason for the 2A.

Innocents Betrayed -The True Story of Gun Control World Wide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7vNj2sb_00

Historical fact: The British troops on their way to Concord & Lexington were sent to locate and destroy civilian-owned muskets, cannon (yes, civilian cannon...think hostile Indians/raiders/etc), powder, etc, when that famous battle occurred.

Strat

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Reziac]

http://brownfieldagnews.com/2013/05/17/luetkemeyer-wants-hsus-irs-investigation-investigated/

There are better articles but this was the one I could find offhand.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[Reziac]

Increasingly the case in the U.S. as well, with various agencies encouraging everyone to spy on and report on their neighbors. Lack of manpower is no obstacle so long as people still like to gossip, or can be fearbent into gossip.

Re: Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[cffrost]

I read in one article that they've turned down exactly one request in their history. Which is a scary thought- what on earth did that request contain that even they couldn't bring themselves to rubber-stamp it?

The name of a fellow country club member?

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[JBaustian]

Clapper was told the day before the hearing that he would be asked this question. He had an entire day to craft a truthful answer or to decline to answer the question in an open hearing. A trained lawyer would not have lied under oath. Clapper is a career military officer and must not have considered the consequences of telling a bald-faced lie.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[haruchai]

Guns in civilian hands are just one deterrent against tyranny, not the first or the only deterrent.

It will not be gun-owning US civilians who start shooting first. It WILL be US civilians who shoot last if the government starts shooting, however.

The only way the US government could win a shooting war against the US population is if the government used WMDs to kill most of the population, but that doesn't leave much to rule over. Not to mention, the rest of the world might have a problem with the US government employing nuclear/chemical/biological weapons on a large scale for domestic genocide.

Strat

If you truly fear that the government is becoming a fearsome tyranny, you cannot wait for they start shooting if you hope to win - they have too many means at their disposal. It's not just about firepower but mobility, control of the infrastructure and who has the high ground.

They know every inch of the country, have fighter jets, bombers, aircraft carriers, satellites and spacecraft - and they know almost everything about everyone, as Edward Snowden has revealed.

The resistance could survive a very long time but they'd be living underground and doing everything by cover of night.

Also, a US Civil War nowadays could have a serious impact on the world economy and it's not likely that the rest of the powerful nations would stand idly by - and there's no telling who's side they would come down on.

And if you're serious about being armed and ready to fight against gov't tyranny, please tell your comrades to get in shape - those fat fucks on the scooters at the gun shows are only going to be useful as a food source when shit hits the fan.

Re:Russia? Please... they were amateurs.

[ArsonSmith]

The largest 3rd party would be your choice then. Look for them on your ballot in your state, they are almost always there.

Re:But can we trust Woz's judgement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever you get knocked down to a -1 moderation, you're either an idiot, or you're talking about possibilities nobody wants to consider because they're just too scary.

I think your post qualifies as the latter.

Jobs has done his utmost to create legions of highly controlled pod people for fun and profit.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't stop people from wearing tin-foil hats though.

Re:There's something we'll always own.

[cold fjord]

It looked like a small victory.

I love the smell of small victories in the morning. It almost makes up for being napalmed.

Good for Woz.

[Anonymous Coward]

I always did like that guy.

In Soviet Russia...

[Phil Urich]

...everything's pretty familiar, actually. No humorous inversions of American society to be found.

In Soviet Russia

[dkleinsc]

Youtube watches you!
Google searches you!
Email reads you!
MS Windows boots you!
Facebook pictures you!
Text message receives you!

Ok, I'm done, anyone else?

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Kazymyr]

Phone listens to you!

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux struggles to get peripherals working with you! ........ whoops, not gonna go down well with the politburo's party line this one.... must delete before they read..... in soviet russia you watch nsa....

Re:In Soviet Russia

[AvderTheTerrible]

Looks like we're in Soviet Russia then, since Youtube does watch you (watch history, subscriptions, all to send you target ads), Google does search you (again, to sell you targeted ads), your email does read you (think about who else gets to read all your email and turn them into an open book about your life). Hell, as Windows incorporates more DRM measures and gets more and more locked down, it kind of does boot you from being in control. Facebook of course is just commercialized surveillance where its users are the product and are served up to advertisers for the purpose of selling my crap to the masses. Text messages....I got nothing there. Phone listens to you...well same thing as email. Who else gets to listen? Sad that what was once a hilarious joke is now turning true before our eyes.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Government listens to you! Oh wait.....

Re:In Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

XBone plays you!

Cloud to butt continues to entertain

[neminem]

"You've got subscriptions and you already said ok, ok, agree and you agree that every right in the world belongs to them and you got no rights and anything you put in my butt, you don't even know,' says Woz. "

Re:Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolut

[dkleinsc]

Welcome to wage slavery, plebeians. And you voted your captors in.

Of course they did. If they hadn't, the other bad guys would have gotten in.

Re:Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolut

[mcgrew]

I've always heard that, but I've never truly believed it. I think the corruptible are drawn to power. Being power hungry must be a form of mental illness; I mean, who in their right mind would want to be President?

watched the entire 4 minutes twice

[roman_mir]

I just wanted to see where this was and who was Woz talking with.

Anyway, he is right that the common people don't think about these things, common people don't think about pretty much anything in their lives, they just take things for granted as things happen, they don't think about affecting anything, changing anything.

However Woz is wrong that 'trouble comes from the top', the trouble starts from within. It's exactly the problem with the modern era that 'common people' and (his words) 'high thinkers, intellectuals, philosophers' are given the same vote. That's how the problems start, common people provided with the power to set policy via their majority vote and then they vote for long term destruction of the country by voting for politicians that promise short term gain (stealing from minorities and redistributing) and as freedoms of minorities erode first, eventually government grows big enough to take away everybody's freedoms.

Now, how does this process start precisely, whether it starts at the top that some canning politicians have this long term strategy or maybe canning businessmen that work with canning politicians have this long term strategy... I think it's not even that. I think all such strategies are fairly short term (5-10 years), but it happened periodically in USA that powers were given to government but apparently at first there are enough checks and balances that if a 'right' type of intellectual is found in position of power (a right type of POTUS for example) then this can be reversed.

That's why the current Fed is not the first central bank in USA. But eventually the combination of the exactly wrong (Teddy Roosevelt) POTUS comes to power and the wrong types of ideas (anti-trust laws, then IRS and the Fed) are pushed through.

This quickly corrupts the entire power structure, because it does give government much more power and the apparatus grows very quickly, if it's not killed off at the very beginning, in the first 10 years say, then it's going to be successful and kill the system based on idea of individual freedom.

That progression was clear in USA, from anti-trust laws and beginning of the destruction of private property rights in the case against Standard Oil, to the creation of IRS (initially targeted only top 1-2% for maximum of 7% income) and the Fed (printing money) and then in less than 5 years the Fed is given the power to monetise gov't debt and manipulate interest rates.

That's what it took for USA the last time. Eventually it led to the Fed causing one bubble after another with all the inflation (1921, 1929, 1971, etc). The presidents became bolder and bolder, especially starting with Hoover and FDR, who caused the Great Depression to arise from the recession with all the intervention.

Then the space race and cold war and the related spending, the Medicare and SS to buy more votes, which gave green light to allow prices to start going up because clients were no longer price sensitive. Then all the other departments, from energy to education, again more gov't intervention, subsidies (wars for energy, loan guarantees for education), agriculture of-course, then destruction of real money, shifting the world to fiat currency that allowed massive inflation around the world on an unprecedented scale.

Anyway, there are many chapters here, all leading to bigger and bigger government, more and more 'bread and circuses' mentality with total destruction of self-reliance and initiative, huge increase in feelings of entitlements, more and more obligations shifted to people who still produce. All of this leads to the destruction of productivity and growth of government, as it becomes the biggest economic sector, the biggest employer, the biggest welfare system as well. Every day a number of stories come up how governments want more and more regulations, more and more laws, more and more lawsuits of-course, it seems that this is the status quo of our day and nobody is even noticing the self-destructing trend.

Nobody, until some inco

Re:watched the entire 4 minutes twice

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an interesting story and history in front of us and Woz is right, USA is becoming what USSR used to be, it's not fully implemented yet in some aspects, but it's much more than USSR used to be in so many other terrible ways, it's especially clear for people that observed what USSR was from within and what USA has become now.

Nah, the USA is not becoming the USSR. The USA is becoming something even greater, and unlike the USSR, it'll actually succeed.

They will succeed because the top of the USA is holding all the power, and as you said the problem is not with the top. As long the top of the USA hold the power (the rich, the job creators, the people who produce, our glorious corporate masters) the USA will survive. The top, being at the top because they're wiser and better than the common people, will make wise decisions to ensure all the destruction of the economy and freedom will be aimed to weed out the weakest and most unproductive people first - middle class and poor people - while leaving the productive ones (the top themselves) alone. And time and time again we see this is exactly what is happening.

This will continue until only the most productive and rich people remain, and they can rebuild society.

It's basically the John Galt solution, except the productive people don't have to isolate themselves from society (no more than living in their highly fenced mansion guarded by private security) while waiting out for the rest to starve.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[robot256]

It would have been more of a mistake if there was any hope his opponent would have been better on these issues. Frankly, the only reason any Republicans are speaking out against the NSA is because it's Obama's NSA. They were just as complicit as the rest of us when they rammed the Patriot Act through.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[PRMan]

Have you learned that the next Republican will likely be no better? If not, then you haven't learned anything either.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I won't do online banking simply because the internet is an insecure form of communication, although I'll shop online with a credit card if necessary

Then you're a moron. It's far easier to steal someone's credit card information than to compromise their online banking credentials.

own the cloud

[cosenal]

The two main keywords of the news are "own" and "cloud". I wonder why nobody has come up with a combination of the two words, such as *cough* *cough* owncloud :)

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[CayceeDee]

I'll go a step further.. Is ANYbody stupid enough to believe anything this GOVERNMENT says??

Your entire rant is based on the premise that the Bush adminstration was so much better. They started the secret surveillance, but Obama gets the blame because he is still using it. Do you not see the cognitive dissonance here? I sure do.

USA - USSR + Russian Federation = NWO

[some old guy]

The old Party oligarchs in Russia gave up on the disfunctional Marxist police state in favor of an overtly fascist police state so they could 1) become as wealthy as Western oligarchs, 2) flaunt it like Western oligarchs, and 3) give the masses a few more consumer shinies to keep them fairly passive, all with a nice facade of democracy.

Yeltsin set the stage, and Putin has made it a tour de force in how to re-brand oppression. "There is no such thing as a former Chekist", as Uncle Boris likes to say.

Russian has become more like the USA, and the USA becomes more like Russia.

New World Order, anyone?

Re:USA - USSR + Russian Federation = NWO

[styrotech]

Russian has become more like the USA, and the USA becomes more like Russia.

New World Order, anyone?

OK, here you go....

All the locals hide their tears of regret
Open fire 'cos I love you to death
Sky high with a heartache of stone
You'll never see me 'cos I'm always alone

How to love without a trace of dissent
I'll buy the torture 'cos you pay for the rent
Tied high with a broken command
You're all alone to the promised land

I'm in love with this malicious intent
You've been taken but you don't know it yet
What you will know must never live to be found
'Cos it's the subject of the eyes of the clown

Re:USA - USSR + Russian Federation = NWO

[tftp]

USSR, in their attempts to build socialism, reached the end of the line by 1980's. Nobody was working, but everyone was paid. The industry collapsed. Changes were not just desired, they were mandatory, because the country was about to experience another wave of hunger. Gorbachev started the reforms, but he had no clue what to do. By Putin's time things got sorted out on their own, in a naturally capitalist way. A young capitalist economy, running under minimal control of the government, can be very efficient - more efficient, in principle, than the mature - if not creaking old - capitalism of the USA, bound in seventeen layers of red tape, so that BANANA is the only available industrial option.

It's the old tale of Phoenix. Empires get born, mature, get old, and then die. Young empires take the lead until it's their turn to get old and die.

Note

[Anonymous Coward]

Woz is verifiably smarter than the vast majority of /., and I would venture he's got us all beat by a sigificant margin.

Since /. was (is?) verifiably smarter than the rest of the world, Woz's words, as usual, should be heeded.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the surveillance is all fun and games until the government starts cracking down on tea partiers.

Then it's personal.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[mcgrew]

It's not necessary. If I want to see if a check has cleared or look at my balance, I'll call them. I do check my credit card account online, though.

The beard...

[Anonymous Coward]

was why she ditched him for Worf obviously, and after he transfers to DS9 and she thinks about hooking back up with Riker.... The beard needs to go :D

Hahaha, but seriously I loved how they didn't seriously address THAT plot inconsistency. Worf is with Troi at the end of TNG (Both the beginning and end of 'All Good Things...') and then like what, 6 months later he's on DS9, single, and then is hooking up with Dax (Which also struck me as odd since for what... 2-3 seasons Dax had been the Bashir love interest?)

So anyways, that's my 2c on that. I'm actually now busy scrubbing all ST/SW stuff from my memory, so I don't have to go through any more of the mental agony that South Park so eloquently summed up in their 'Raping of Indiana Jones' episode.

We're not there yet.

[ancientt]

In the great Sci-Fi utopia there are no jobs that need done because technology does everything necessary, leaving people free to pursue what they want to do.

In true Communism, there is no need for a paycheck because everyone does what is best for the society with the talets they have and everyone shares the rewards equally.

Both scenarios have a common problem: people. Sci-Fi utopias have a problem because people don't just want to pursue fun things, they want to achieve status marked by having things or being able to do things that others can't. We don't want to just be equal in every way. Likewise we don't want to work as hard as we can to get the same reward that someone with less talent gets for less contribution. Compounding that basic human desire for better pay for better work, Communism has another people problem in that nobody seems to be able to realistically determine what is best for everyone else and still have their support.

It is interesting to consider if the singularity were to happen if it would fix both systems by solving the people problem. If we were all subject to an iron rod of perfect disclipline and reward by an entity that we knew was always right, it would cause humanity to change in a way that would result in the humans we all pretend we want to be. I find the idea a little scary actually because I don't really want perfect disclipline and I don't want to work as hard as I can and I don't want to give up pretending I'm more free the way it is now.

Re:We're not there yet.

[ebno-10db]

an entity that we knew was always right

Bigger problem: there is no objective definition of "right".

Re:We're not there yet.

[ancientt]

You're just saying that because you're one of us old style humans. The new style will know that the objective definition of right comes from Deep Thought.

Re:We're not there yet.

[tristes_tigres]

> they want to achieve status marked by having things

In communism things can be had by anyone for asking, so having things would not confer any status. What good is a mansion if you can't get servants to clean it, or less fortunate to envy it?

Re:We're not there yet.

[Grishnakh]

Well Star Trek must not have been one of these utopian societies because they had plenty of shit jobs, one big one being working on a security detail (with a red shirt).

Re:We're not there yet.

[ebno-10db]

The new style will know that the objective definition of right comes from Deep Thought.

You can already find old style humans who determine the truth purely using Deep Thought - libertarians or communists, your choice.

Re:We're not there yet.

[FlyHelicopters]

More room for my pinball table collection? And my robots will clean it...

Re:We're not there yet.

[sjames]

Ideally, we don't want people to have to work as hard as they can. Given unemployment figures, apparently we don't actually need that now.

There are hints of the answer in Sci-Fi as well (however imperfect). There is status in accomplishment. There is status based on outstanding service to humanity.

I suspect an answer that actually works will be a sort of compromise arrived at through trial and error. Not properly called Capitalism, Communism, or Socialism.

Consider, for example, a system mostly like what we have now except that every citizen is entitled to $1500 a month just for being a citizen.

Before you wonder too hard where the money comes from consider: In exchange for that, we can do away with medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, food stamps,etc because the basic income covers them. We can also get rid of a lot of workplace regulations because just quitting becomes an option. Perhaps not the miost desirable option, but enough of one that an employer that wants employees will need to provide safe working conditions or do all the work himself. Minimum wage can go. Along with them, the considerable administrative and enforcement costs can go.

$1500/month isn't going to put anyone in the lap of luxury so there will still be motive to work for a living. However, $1500/month isn't destitution and leaves you with all of your time to find work or start a business, so we have some degree of equality.

Add in universal healthcare (and I don't mean buy insurance or else plans) and low cost education at least through the bachelors degree and you get a long way towards equality.

Re:We're not there yet.

[ancientt]

Sorry, I thought the reference was common enough it wouldn't be misunderstood. I meant to be humorous by implying that Douglas Adams' idea would actually happen. See: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4637-o-deep-thought-computer-he-said-the-task-we-have for a much longer quote.

“O Deep Thought computer," he said, "the task we have designed you to perform is this. We want you to tell us...." he paused, "The Answer."
"The Answer?" said Deep Thought. "The Answer to what?"
"Life!" urged Fook.
"The Universe!" said Lunkwill.
"Everything!" they said in chorus.
Deep Thought paused for a moment's reflection.
"Tricky," he said finally.
"But can you do it?"
Again, a significant pause.
"Yes," said Deep Thought, "I can do it."
"There is an answer?" said Fook with breathless excitement.
"Yes," said Deep Thought. "Life, the Universe, and Everything. There is an answer. But, I'll have to think about it."
...
Fook glanced impatiently at his watch.
“How long?” he said.
“Seven and a half million years,” said Deep Thought.

Re:We're not there yet.

[chriscappuccio]

In other words, the "singularity" has the same problem that Sci-Fi utopia and true Communism have: People won't actually want it.

Re:We're not there yet.

[ancientt]

What? People do want true Communism even if they will never get it. People do want the Sci-Fi utopia even if they will never get it. People don't necessarily want the Singularity, but if it happens that way, it won't matter whether they want it or not.

Re:Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolut

[Darinbob]

I thought we were in an autonomous collective.

What a blathering dipstick Woz has become

[stevez67]

It's sad when a fatcat oligarch like Woz, sitting on his millions, lectures how no one owns anything. I look forward to the day no one prints his skewed, self-serving view.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[ancientt]

You forgot to click the Post Anonymously checkbox didn't you?

Pretty big talk coming from an Apple founder

[ikhider]

Puh-lease, Apple is a major proponent of DRM. Have you not heard of an "I-Cloud"? Wozniak is not exactly prof Stallman. If Woz wants the internet to be free, he should persuade the executives at Apple to go this route. He helped build the Frankestein that is Apple, now he can try to civilize it. While Woz admits that he tends to agree with Stallman's views and gives money to the electronic frontier foundation, he ought to take the next step and put his code where his mouth is.

Freedom Box vs. The Transparent Society

[Paul Fernhout]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomBox
"FreedomBox is a community project to develop, design and promote[1] personal servers running free software for distributed social networking, email and audio/video communications.[2] "

I'm not convinced that by itself is enough though. Encryption can be broken and the metadata remains short of anonymizing systems. And laws can just be passed to require registration etc..

Ultimately, the answer to one way surveillance may be more like David Brin's "Transparent Society" where anyone can surveil anything -- so, for example, all cameras in public spaces would be accessible by anyone, everyone would be able to access the NSA's database of phone metadata logs (and anyone could check who had checked someone's phone logs etc.), and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparent_society
"The Transparent Society (1998) is a non-fiction book by the science-fiction author David Brin in which he forecasts social transparency and some degree of erosion of privacy, as it is overtaken by low-cost surveillance, communication and database technology, and proposes new institutions and practices that he believes would provide benefits that would more than compensate for lost privacy."

A step towards that would be to have laws passed that say corporations with limited liability have no right to privacy in any of their communications or records.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[OhANameWhatName]

What are you saying? That no matter who you vote for the end results are the same? It's almost like there really isn't a democratic political process at all?

Hmmmm ... interesting.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[mcgrew]

Unfortuantly, a large number of "low information" people who are still bitching about Bush, when he's been gone for 5 flippin' years and the new boss is FAR worse than the old boss.

Worse? Hardly. More like the same damned thing. A better comparison of Bush to a Democrat would be Blagojevich, Illinois' previous Governor (now in prison for selling Obama's Senate seat). Both were corrupt incompetents who appointed incompetent cronies to top positions... hmmm, Eric Holder? Nope, Obama isn't much different at all.

However, Obama hasn't started any needless wars (yet), hasn't tried to lower taxes on the rich, and hasn't destroyed the still struggling economy like Bush did. Obama's far from a great President, but he's better than Carter or Reagan. I never thought I'd see a worse President than Carter but Bush proved me wrong. Went into office with a booming economy and a balanced budget and peace, left office with the worst economy the US has seen since the Depression, the highest deficit we'd had in our history, and fighting two wars.

If you think Obama's a worse President than Bush you're a fool who was brainwashed by your fellow Republicans.

BTW, I voted Green Party, aka "none of the above." I'd have voted Libertarian but I like the clean air we didn't have before the EPA and I don't like eating toxic fish from filthy waterways. Being against environmental regulations is a show stopper for me; I was 20 when the environmental regs were passed and unlike you kids I know what it was like. Take it from a geezer, 1960 wasn't pretty.

By the way, I've been smoking pot since Obama was ten years old and I applaud the fact that he isn't sending the Feds to Washington and Colorado like Romney would have done. Plus, Romney is an evil job-destroying sociopath and there's no way possible he would have been better than Obama, bad as I think Obama is.

Stop voting for Republicrats. They're both bad, just in different ways.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because conversation over phone is so much secure?

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[mcgrew]

The Republican House Speaker called Edward Snowden a traitor. It's a bipartisan police state we now have (this isn't the first time I've said that). I wouldn't doubt if I were on the no-fly list but I haven't been on a plane since you could smoke inflight.

I say Boehner's the traitor, Snowden's a patriot who gave everything but his life (and still may) for his fellow Americans.

If you're against Snowden you're against freedom. That's one brave kid.

Just like communism

[Anonymous Coward]

And like communism, there are people who think of it as the greatest thing since sliced bread, and there are people who are more than happy to take advantage of those people for their own evil agenda.

Deep thought? Where's that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere in the cloud?

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you learned that the next Democrat will likely be no better? If not, then you haven't learned anything either.

Re:Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolut

[Chris Mattern]

I thought we were in an autonomous collective.

You're fooling yourself!

Re:But can we trust Woz's judgement?

[ebno-10db]

here is a guy (who insists on using a juvenile nickname) who had the wool pulled over his eyes by perhaps one of the most successful psychopaths of this and the last century: Steve Jobs

How do I get the wool pulled over my eyes like that? For the $100M that Woz made on being taken advantage of, I'll not only use a "juvenile nickname" but wear a clown suit if you want.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[fustakrakich]

Is anybody stupid enough to believe anything the NSA says?

You'll get your answer in about a year and a half. Smart money is on 'yes'. Don't be looking for any meaningful upsets. There is no opposition, just noise.

Re:Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolut

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah blah blah, boohoo. Nobody makes you work, become a bum on the corner, no one cares. Or you can become the next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, they were not 1%'s when they started. It's really all up to you. Which is what makes America great. IF you're not a loser.

Re:There's something we'll always own.

[toQDuj]

The "chemical" DNA, however...

It's a generation thing

[Taco Cowboy]

Woz is from the same generation as me, and people like us who had been through the Vietnam war and the Watergate era, do not trust anything

On the other hand, with the advent of FB and all the social-media thingy, the younger generations (Y/Z/Z+1) tend to accept everything everybody tells them, and they do not mind everybody knows what they do at any given moment

Case in point --- http://pooptheworld.com/

Some of them actually BOUGHT an app so that they can tell the world when they poop !!

That is why I ain't at all surprised at the result of a poll that was taken not that long ago, about the majority of the American people are okay with their government spying on them, as long as they feel that their government is fighting terrorism for them

Re:It's a generation thing

[kermidge]

Generational thing, yes; also, I fear, a thinking thing. Not that the latter hasn't some connection to the former. More recent generations don't seem to have the tools needed to gain enough perspective to even think to ask why there might be something amiss with broad-scale data gathering on a nations' subjects - er, citizens. I may sound a broken record on this but one looming distinction is that the Baby Boomers are the last generation where a majority read books.

The newer few generations seem to read very little at all, and what they do read is often small stuff. Half the bright lights here seem to have trouble enough with reading comprehension just slogging through a summary - let alone demonstrate ability to read and digest a whole big large ginormous one- or two-page article. All that reading takes, you know, _time_. Time lost to reading, which could be much better spent doing myriad things.

Besides, who the fuck cares what some bearded old has-been slightly-famous once for something or other thinks about something? Privacy? What's that? Gotta be fifty or so just to know what it means, anymore.

Yupper, surrender gleefully such privacy as may be somehow overlooked - government data slurping keeps us safe from things, such as those bombs in Boston.

As for comments on who's doing what where, all it takes is a splitter on a trunk - see Narus et al in relation the original AT&T secret room from a few years back. ISPs and such don't have to hand over shit, it doesn't really matter. Please note, though, and re-read carefully all the quotes from the named nine companies: "no direct access." Doesn't say squat about other-than-direct access. So it can be had both ways.

Re: It's a generation thing

[Anonymous Coward]

So, perhaps now is the time to start asking our leaders one of the most infamous and horrible questions in American history: Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?

Re:It's a generation thing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Woz is from the same generation as me, and people like us who had been through the Vietnam war and the Watergate era, do not trust anything"

          Yes, but they do vote Democrat, thanks alot for not learning your lesson after Carter, ....stupid hippie. The blame for the current administration. legislation and hijinx rest squarely on your shoulders. While you're at it, you're responsible for methamphetamine and disco, as well. GO AWAY!

Re: It's a generation thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Your an idiot if you think this is a democrat vs. republican thing.

Re:It's a generation thing

[mrchaotica]

Hey, not all of us generation Y (or whatever) folks are clueless -- I agree with Woz's quote so much, I just made it my sig!

Re: It's a generation thing

[JBaustian]

Here are more appropriate questions for our Dear Leader: Why have you been endorsed in the last two presidential elections by the Communist Party of the United States? Why would the CPUSA do that?

Dennis there's some lovely filth down here

[Anonymous Coward]

There you go, bringing class into it again

"Collecting" vs "Storing"

[Taco Cowboy]

I'd think that the NSA asking for the data to be sent to them would qualify as "collecting"

You may call it "semantic", but the meaning of "collecting" is far different from that of "storing"

If NSA is the one who set up active "middle of the man" devices to collect anything and everything going through the pipe, NSA is collecting information from the American public

But if the info turns out to be "copies" of emails and stuffs sent to NSA by the ISPs, and all NSA does is to provide a storage for all those info, technically and legally, it's not "collecting", it's " storing "

Re: "Collecting" vs "Storing"

[s.petry]

Logic failure. Those two acts are mutually exclusive, and the storing would not be possible without collecting.

it is impossible to store something you do not have.

Re:"Collecting" vs "Storing"

[mrchaotica]

How, pray tell, do you "store" something without having first "collected" (which is synonymous with "acquired") it?

America

[Smiddi]

America is "broken" and the rest of the world seems to clawing over itself to follow suit (with a few minor exceptions). Its depressing reading about the path our children "must" follow.

Re:Microcomputer revolution was against the "cloud

[readingaccount]

To be honest, the Cloud does have some (and I stress, some) legitimate benefits for even the little guy. My wife uses Dropbox and saves her assignments and current tasks in said Dropbox. She doesn't backup much, and it tends to be up to me to remember to image her machine every so often. Should her hard drive fail, files are accidentally deleted, or her most important data is otherwise no longer available and recoverable locally, Dropbox will ensure it can be easily recovered on the net. Apart from allowing the ability to use your files anywhere seamlessly with a network connection, the Cloud in this case can be leveraged as something of a temporary backup for a small amount of content.

So long as you retain all data on your own hardware and only use the Cloud for easy remote access and in specific situations a temporary backup of recent data, then it works well.

BUT...

Don't be a fucking idiot like Paul Thurrott and willingly give up ALL your data to the cloud:

http://winsupersite.com/cloud/zero-data-hardest-part-saying-goodbye

Re:There's something we'll always own.

[Anonymous Coward]

It looked like a small victory.

I love the smell of small victories in the morning. It almost makes up for being napalmed.

Apocalypse Now, one of the few movies I've watched...... but I liked it. Anything good come out in the last 30 years I should bother watching?

Re:Microcomputer revolution was against the "cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you could do that, but then you'd kill many of the advantages the cloud provides:

- A common cloud is cheaper and more energy efficient overall, because infrastructure is shared.
- Your uptime is now tied to your individual server, power grid, and storage, since you likely don't have any redundancy.
- Your backups likely aren't as good or redundant.
- Your physical security absolutely isn't as good.

As always, it's a compromise. With the relatively trivial stuff I use cloud services for, I value the convenience over the potential increase in privacy.

And note that it's only a potential increase in privacy. Do you really think that if the government wanted your data, they wouldn't be able to get it on a private cloud? I'd trust [large cloud provider] to protect my data far better than I could on my own.

It's not the fault of capitalism alone, it's human

[Taco Cowboy]

... capitalism has one of the worst track records for resolving this: the shittiest jobs are often also the lowest paid, and who gets to do them is "decided" by race, gender, and economic status

If you ever studied Islam, you would know that they have a weird kind of "UTOPIAN IDEAL" whereby no matter who you are, everybody in the society must be equally oppressed

Even under that type of "UTOPIAN IDEAL" they still end up with giving the shittiest jobs to folks from the lowest societal rung

My point is, Capitalism is far from perfect, but it is not to be solely blamed for assigning shittiest jobs to those with no power to reject it --- we human, and the human society (no matter which) practices the same thing, be it from China or America or India, or Russia

Re:But can we trust Woz's judgement?

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, here is a guy (who insists on using a juvenile nickname) who had the wool pulled over his eyes by perhaps one of the most successful psychopaths of this and the last century: Steve Jobs. Do you really think this guy is qualified? The analogy would be asking RMS for hygiene tips, or ESR for advice on your sex life.

It wasn't more than a few years ago that we had a comment from a guy who shared office with RMS, who insisted that RMS had excellent hygiene so I would suggest you stick to car analogies. As to Woz, he might be a bit naive but he is a great engineer and his heart is in the right place. I would love to have more friends with those qualities.

Yes the guy who shared the office with RMS showered every month. RMS showered every fortnight. Twice as good = excellent ;P~~~

Actually the only time I ever met RMS he came across as an offensive petty jerk. He didn't smell though.

Re:Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolut

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting is the problem, lesser of two evils and all that jazz.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe? [Nope]

[BrokenHalo]

I have worked for a small company where my boss was the man who scrubbed the toilets (and without complaint). His "take" on it was that he was paying his staff for expertise he didn't have, so he got on with all of the other things that needed to be done in the interests of getting the most value for his money.

An unusually enlightened attitude, I might say...

Re:Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolut

[Mozai]

> And you voted your captors in.

Of the choices offered, was there even one option that would not result in captors-of-wage-slaves taking the reins of power?

---
Question authority. Don't ask why, just do it.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you learned that stating the obvious is a waste of time? If not, then you haven't learned anything either.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[Trogre]

Umm, who said anything about Republicans? If you adhere to the two-party system, you are part of the problem.

Phan Thi Kim Phuc

[Anonymous Coward]

No discussion about America and communism is complete without this photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TrangBang.jpg

Re:Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolut

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to wage slavery, plebeians. And you voted your captors in.

No, my fucken parents did. I'm not of voting age yet. How should I take my revenge on them?

Ridiculous argument

[Anonymous Coward]

This is utter drivel. Nobody forces you to upload videos on to YouTube. Nobody forces you to have a Facebook page, nobody forces you to watch a Hollywood movie etc etc. We, as a community, however have to right to build our own YouTube like site, if we so wish. Most of the time we can't be bothered. Its nothing to do with loss of freedom, its to do with getting off your fat ar**es and building your own, that's the right you have.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[dryeo]

In 2008 the people voted pretty strongly for change, transparency and such, sadly they didn't get that but that was what the people wanted. My country is the same, we have a government that promised transparency, the end to the abuses the previous government did and so on and they've also been a huge disappointment. Last election the third party almost got in, their leader died and the new leader immediately started changing the party into the other party as "it'll make us more electable"

Re:FIrst Post Maybe? [Nope]

[datavirtue]

My grandmother always told me as a small child that the boss gets all the crap jobs. She has owned a very small business for 40 years.

Re:There's something we'll always own.

[cold fjord]

Apocalypse Now, one of the few movies I've watched...... but I liked it. Anything good come out in the last 30 years I should bother watching?

These are some fairly good films, depending on your tastes and what you want to get out of it. You might see about viewing the trailers on Youtube or somewhere else to see if it looks interesting to you, especially if you are thinking 300 as it is a rather different style of movie retelling the story of the Spartans in movie - comic book form and may not appeal to you. In no particular order:

Master and Commander
Act of Valor
The Lighthorsemen
Saving Private Ryan
The Great Raid
Das Boot
Schindler's List
Glory
Gettysburg
Gladiator
The Last Samurai
Braveheart
We Were Soldiers
300
Gallipoli
Breaker Morant

I suppose you could even throw in the Lord of the Rings trilogy movies. They are well done and the backdrop is a fight against evil and a gathering war. There is a lot to recommend them, if they might be the sort that is your cup of tea. Of course they are very different from the rest, let alone Apocalypse Now.

Bravo !

[Anonymous Coward]

Woz yet again cuts to the chase and reveals an Inconvenient Truth ! The Obama Government asserts that ALL communications of any form within and through the U.S.A. is the property of the Obama Government ! This assertion includes spoken words private and public !

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2006, 75% percent of Republicans supported NSA antics; a mere 37% of Democrats did.

Today, 52% of Republicans still support NSA antics whilst 65% of Democrats do.

The NSA had majority support from the Republicans then and now. The Democrats went from a 1/3rdish minority to a nearly 2/3rds majority. As a whole, the Democrats are the hypocrites here.

Re:But can we trust Woz's judgement?

[batwingTM]

Woz and Apple have a history, he was the brains behind the hardware and Jobs was the salesman... and a Salesman managed to convince people that his truth was the truth?

Wow, what a surprise... I guess that you don't trust anything that is said by anyone, ever. Though I would like to see the evidence that Woz had the wool pulled over his eyes. He didn't make out as well as Jobs did, but there were more factors that Steve Jobs at play there.

Woz, another rant?? Move on

[Anonymous Coward]

In Russia you could own things, but the government owned you..... That is communism.....

Other forms of communism are different, or certain countries were just listed as communism to instill fear into the zombie's known as the average US citizen.

In the US we are communists, make no mistake, just because you can own a home, property, and zombifying devices doesn't mean you are free, neither does a contract called the constitution give you any rights, you look at the censorship!!, making drugs and alcohol illegal, you are suppose to have the right to do to your body what you want. I could go on and on with examples, but a number are aware of the attempts to put a noose around your neck and drag you along.

Companies own politicians, politicians own the voters, voters/non-voters are owned by major government, and you make a silly comparison to the NSA, and the i07. This is least of the issues we leave under a communist government.

Re:There's something we'll always own.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks! I'll have a look.... Das Boot looks interesting (mostly because it's more foreign to me)

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[kermidge]

Jeez, mcgrew, you're on a roll. Speak it, dude.

Re:There's something we'll always own.

[cold fjord]

If you happen to be in, or travel to, the United States, you can tour a real German U-boat at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. Check the website and call ahead if that is of interest to you.

U-505 Submarine

Enjoy the movie.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

He ran on a platform of stopping this shit. So yeah he should be held to a higher standard.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right about some things you said, aka, your last sentence, the rest shows you still don't get the whole big picture. You realize your Green party is only Green on the outside, and "Red" in the middle right? Environmentalism is only another means to a communist end game...

Look at all the laws and regulations put out there by environmentalist supporters and they would make communists proud. Like taxing the very CO2 that every human being exhales just by breathing (aka being alive). The EPA and other agencies/groups basically believe that they can regulate you because you breathe!

Re:Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolut

[Anonymous Coward]

You're fooling yourself.

In related news, Putin defends PRISM

[Anonymous Coward]

With quotes like

Putin’s only disagreement with the United States seemed to be President Obama’s argument, in explaining the programs, that “You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.” Putin responded, “Yes you can.”

:D

All the executables I buy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have no DRM on them, so I own them. They're all from Google play, and none of them have the License check permission.

I see no problem here.

Context and facts matter

[Anonymous Coward]

You appear to have been edumacated by unionized thugs pretending to be public school teachers, so let me give you a little hand with your "facts"

"the United States is the only country to nuke another country"

First, we were fighting BACK against evil tyrants in a WORLD WAR that had claimed the lives of millions of people. The alternative (a then-planned ground invasion) would have killed even more people than those two nukes did. Furthermore, our enemies were working on nuclear bombs and would have used them on our cities had they gotten them first. The truth is that all the "nukes are evil and in some other weapons category" stuff arose AFTER the war.

"We used our own prisoners and citizens as guinnea pigs to conduct experiments in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare."

You are probably trying to conflate a few isolated whack-job researchers with national policy. Yeah, some evil docs did a horrendous STD experiment on some black men in the south (terrible, evil, and entirely consistent with the way southern Democrats treated blacks) but NOT national policy. We did not use prisoners in NBC warfare tests; generally we used active-duty military personnel and took the precautions thought to be adequate in those early days of nuclear experimentation (for example, soldiers near nuke blast tests were generally trucked-out of the area before exposure to fallout...when that did not happen it was a screw-up NOT some evil national policy)

"We engaged in propaganda in the extreme"

Every nation on Earth has always used communications to say good things about itself and bad things about its opponents... so what's your point? Even today, every nation on Earth uses propaganda. It depends on how you want to define it, and how offended you want to be about it. In fact, we have no way of knowing if you have written your post as anti-American propaganda to make some other country look better

"rewriting our pledge of allegiance to include "under god" and printed the same on our money as a propaganda war against "godless communism." "

This is a common accusation... but the truth is that at the time, most Americans were Christians and very patriotic and supported this stuff NOT as propaganda but simply as good-old American patriotism. The first time I heard this stuff held-up as propaganda it was by a flea-infested pot smoking worthless bum hippie in the early seventies.

"We engaged in witch hunts, like McCarthy appearing before Congress to say he "held in his hands" a list of known communist co-conspirators."

Ah, yes, the traditional (usually completely partisan and hypocritical) lefty attack in "tailgunner Joe"... Tell me... are you offended that last year during the presidential campaign Democrat senate majority leader Harry Reid paraded around claiming to have secret proof that Mitt Romney had not paid his taxes and saying Romney should prove himself innocent? Sadly for you, after the Berlin wall fell and the old soviet records spilled-out we learned that a number of the people he fingered really were on the communist payroll (try reading one of the books on the subject...) which leads directly to...

"We publicly executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953..."

Now you are just making this too easy. Now that we have the soviet records, we are certain they were communist spies and one of their grandkids even ended-up making a film in which the members of the family and their friends openly admit they were spies. It's a very sad tale, and the two sons of the Rosenbergs (and their grandkids) deserve nothing but sympathy from the public; Traditionally, Americans do not blame kids for the sins of their parents. But the very simple truth is that in the 1920's and 30's Communism was made to look wonderful to many Americans (via propaganda from Soviet-aligned outlets like the New York Times) and with the great depression it was quite natural that many more simple-minded people fell for the lie

ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish he'd sit down and shut up. The man hasn't done anything relevant for over 30 years now, yet here we are, still hanging on his every word like he actually still does something useful.

Re:There's something we'll always own.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently SCOTUS just ruled that you can't patent 'natural' DNA.

Can you explain that to a non-northern-american?

Is that exception there so you can patent homosexual DNA in a meek attempt to bolster hetero relationships?

Communes, Kibbutz

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

What many tend to forget is that Russia was very happy to support the creation of Israel, as a communist influence in the Middle East (note how the Soviet Union never support the Arabs like it helped the Vietnamese, you would almost think they used the conflicts to test their new equipment and sell their old stuff but not to the point of actually giving any real benefit. If you were cynical). Just as America was happy to support the creation of Israel, as a capitalist influence in the Middle East.

Communism was tried and it sorta worked... but there were a LOT of different style Kibbutz's and most sooner or later allowed some private property, some reward for those who worked harder and demanded that anyone who enter be capable of contributing (A country would have to support all, it can't (well unless you want to go nazi) entry through the womb of the infirm)).

Both Captalism and Communism are flawed. Communism can't deal with basic human greed and the inevitability that some will be more equal then others. Capitalism failes to learn from Monopoly... Monopoly can be won, it has an end game. But real life is endless and if real life can be won, the richest own the entire board, how is the next generation of the losers of the previous round ever supposed to get a chance if the game isn't reset (inheritance tax) to even the odds again?

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[Ihlosi]

Is anybody stupid enough to believe anything the NSA says?

I think the higher-ups in the government heavily rely on things the NSA says.

Oh ... wait ... we're screwed, I guess.

Whiney-ass bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

about 3/4 of the teabagger "charities" who had asked for proof of eligibility for tax free status and proof of their activities so that it could be checked that lobbying was NOT the major activity WITHDREW THEIR REQUEST.

Those that didn't obviously thought they had a good case and the IRS agreed.

Unless you're going to demand that those groups that withdrew their offer must nevertheless submit their information, you CANNOT decide that the IRS were wrong to be skeptical of these claims.

Re:Whiney-ass bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

about 3/4 of the teabagger "charities" who had asked for proof of eligibility for tax free status and proof of their activities so that it could be checked that lobbying was NOT the major activity WITHDREW THEIR REQUEST.

Hey partisan asshat, the IRS was asking for things like the text of prayers (unlawful request), complete lists of members and donors with names, addresses, phone numbers, etc (unlawful request) copies of any and all printed materials/flyers/pamphlets/books used, discussed, or distributed, email records, etc. (more unlawful requests), and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Lists of the questions can be found online. Go look. Also, at least one organization we know of had IRS-held confidential information leaked to opposition groups.

Faced with that kind of unlawful and hostile behavior from a government agency with as much ability to destroy and with as little oversight or consequences for agency wrongdoing as the IRS, it's amazing that as many groups persisted as they did.

Do you want the next administration to have that much power over your side? Or do you think that your guys with this power won't ever lose another election, ever?

So pay the janitor more.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ben&Jerry pay everyone the same salary (or used to at least).

If a senior manager working to seal a deal for a million dollars thinks that they aren't being recompensed for their work and the janitor is getting too high a pay for "easy work that doesn't require an MBA", he can decide to step down and take the janitor job, cleaning the toilets.

You can't run a business if the toilets are never cleaned. ESPECIALLY if you get clients in the building: they need to shit too.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[cold fjord]

Snowden's a patriot who gave everything ...

You could say that. He seems to be in the process of giving everything to the Guardian, which means that the American people will get it, along with Iran, Communist China, Communist North Korea, al Qaida, and any other country or groups that wants it, including Russia which is now flying patrols along American territory again.

It is a pity he didn't give everything to the Inspector General or a Congressman.

Freedom existed before Snowden, it will exist after him.

Re:But can we trust Woz's judgement?

[sjames]

Trust his judgement in what? He's not running for office and he is not issuing orders. He is suggesting an idea. You are left to agree, disagree, or just not think about it. I suggest that many will try very hard not to think about it even as the probability that he is correct nags at them.

Re:But can we trust Woz's judgement?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right about Jobs of course, however...

Someone else have already corrected you on RMS, I'll just add that yeah some of us do have hair, get over it :P (you too will have hair including in incredibly uncomfortable places when you get older).

As for ESR sex tips I'm sure he must have plenty, he probably picked up sword-fighting for more than one reason (bodice-ripping, damsels in distress, beating away the hordes of sex-starved amazonians etc.) and you only find celibate nuns in the cathedral while the bazaar is filled with exotic hookers :)

BTW "Woz" is far better than "DumbMarketingGuy" (but AC reigns supreme).

Re:But can we trust Woz's judgement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus ESR's Sex tips are not bad either.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[mcgrew]

He gave up a $200k job, a beautiful, talented girlfriend and all his possessions with nothing in return. The secrets he's revealing should never have been secret in the first place and brought government crimes against the constitution to light. The "putting lives in danger" is a baldfaced lie only a moron would believe.

As to freedom, what freedoms do we have that other civilized nations don't?

His boss is lying too

[ThatsNotPudding]

"No one is listening to your phone calls*." -- President Obama


But we are having our corporate pals collect / record / machine transcribe them for later use as either blackmail or grand jury indictment (with special attention given to any and all legislative and judicial officials).

Churchill

[ThatsNotPudding]

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[cold fjord]

Snowdens situation appears to have been exaggerated. There is a real question as to whether his claims are accurate in any way, or possibly a fabrication. Morons believe many things besides the possibility that exposing genuine sensitive national security programs could have a negative impact on security. For example, a few unauthenticated PowerPoint slides constitute sufficient reason for overturning the democratic process, or even the government, instead of letting Congress do its work addressing concerns of the citizenry. That is pretty ill considered if not in fact moronic.

Assuming you're an American, many aspects of the 1st Amendment rights are far stronger than many nations. The same goes with the 2nd Amendment. There may be others as well, but those are the two common cases.

Not only is there no guarantee that things would be better of the current government is overthrown, it is highly unlikely.

Nobody owns anything in America already

[Weaselmancer]

It's true.

Think you own your house? You don't. You are renting. If you don't believe me stop paying your property tax. They can call it a tax all they want, but it's rent.

As for your other possessions, you are subject to forfeiture at any time for pretty much any reason they can dream up. Have a pile of cash? You don't own that either. Anyone carrying a lot of cash is suspicious and the money will be subject to forfeiture as well.

Eminent domain, bankruptcy court...the list goes on and on.

You don't own anything.

Ownership != Privacy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Woz,

Ownership is no the same than privacy!

We are allowed to buy the ownership of things but our privacy and freedom were never part of the capitalism equation!.

If somebody offer to me freedom and privacy, I could easily give away private ownership!

PRISM: If you are reading this, is not true, I was just kidding, I really love to own a big smartphone and I also love when you spy all about me. You are so so lovely!

Re: Whiney-ass bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

they were asked far more questions than the default questionnaire. doesn't anyone listen to NPR these days?

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[Ihlosi]

As to freedom, what freedoms do we have that other civilized nations don't?

Guns. You have a lot more freedom keeping and bearing those than people in other civilized nations do.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[penguinbrat]

...Is anybody stupid enough to believe anything the NSA says?

Congress..

Re: Whiney-ass bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't anyone listen to NPR these days?

CNN or it does not count as political news, Junior.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[T.E.D.]

Yup. This appears to be the one and only issue man has found where Republicans are willing to go on record supporting the position of President Obama whole-heartedly.

Most of the heat from the complaints about this program are actually coming from the left.

Re:FIrst Post Maybe? [Nope]

[Stuarticus]

Any boss should be willing and able to roll up his sleeves and do a job he expected an underling to do, if they can't then how can they even know if that person is doing it correctly?

Reproduction

[phorm]

The big problem with this is: reproduction.
If people essentially don't have to work, but can still enjoy most of the fruits of life, then you're likely going to have a lot of people somewhere on the totem pole making babies. Even if robots can do the work, there's still a limit in resources (including food), etc, so you end up with situations where:
a) Resources become too expensive for the middle/lower castes, who may not even be able to work to pay for them
b) Resources become scarse for everyone. Tied with (b) this would lead to riots, etc
c) Likely from (b)... war

We're far from parity of output, input, and ecology. Too many people and we get more pollution + less food.

The only real way to expand a "robots do the work" society would be to get off the rock we're currently living on. In that event, you're going to end up with a new (well, new again) class of workers: colonists.

Re:Rant against the cloud on youtube?

[phorm]

Some of the comments do actually provoke thought though:
Why did he go to China?"

Because that is about the only country the Yanks fear and therefore wouldn't dare to tread on with drone strikes, SEALs infiltration teams, CIA assassins, etc.

This is actually an interesting thought. Where *would* you go if you had plans that would piss off one of the most far-reaching governments in the world? The Assange case has shown that it may be very hard to fine a "democratic" country that wouldn't be willing to ship your ass back to the USA.

The `Soviet Story` movie is a fake

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know about your other sources, but the Soviet Story is nothing more than a propagandist fake which was totally debunked long time ago. For starters, it has photos from Nazi camps that are presented as photos from Gulag photos from Russia during the Civic War that are presented as photos of Ukrainian famine that was 10 years after that, etc. Most of the numbers presented in it differ with academic sources by orders of magnitude, etc. etc.

The movie is so out of touch with reality that it proves that you know very little about Soviet history.

Poetry

[Hajnalka]

"Számon tarthatják, mit telefonoztam
s mikor, miért, kinek.
Aktákba irják, miröl álmodoztam
s azt is, ki érti meg.
És nem sejthetem, mikor lesz elég ok
elökotorni azt a kartotékot,
mely jogom sérti meg." /József Attila - 21st November,1935/

In German:

Willkür kann stets durchwühlen meine Räume, -
anzapfen mein Gerät.
Bald in Akten hält man fest meine Träume,
und den, der sie versteht...
Wer ahnt, wann werden zureichen die Gründe, -
wann beweisen mir schlaue Karteibünde,
dass mir kein Recht zusteht.

In French:

Ce que j’ai dit au téléphone – à qui? pourquoi? –
Qu’à leur guise ils le vérifient!
De tout ce que je rêve et qu’on rêve avec moi,
Qu’ils fassent un dossier perfide!
Savoir quand vous aurez groupé suffisamment
De preuves, de motifs, dans ce beau document
Qui viole les droits de ma vie!

In English:

They keep track of my phone calls,
who I call and when and why.
They keep a transcript of my dreams
and what they mean
and according to whom.
I don't know what's in my file of late
but soon they'll make a move
and violate my rights.

(the English version is not the best)
(sorry for the short ö's, slashdot doesn't show the long character)

We knew this and chose to ignore or not care

[Anonymous Coward]

This discussion could be thrown on top of almost ANY area of concern:
Environment, big business, big oil, trade deficit, middle East

We're talking about data and how simple and easy it is to access it.
With the advent of the discount keychain tags, smartphones and tablets (namely iPhone and iPad) we left the world of
brick and mortar and boxed software. We traded away, for the convenience of doing this in your
home office chair, for the destruction of privacy, the ignorance of the public and the extraordinary length
of today's EULA that's attached to every app and cloud account that ever existed.

Who reads those damn things anyway? (would take several hours in many an instance)

When you buy groceries & gas from Kroger, WalMart, Costco, Meijer, Safeway - do you really know what you're also
giving them in terms of YOUR personal information? (no, you really don't)

Data is getting amassed everywhere you go? When is the last time you went into Home Depot and Lowe's and there wasn't
an isle open to help you and you chose the self-checkout? We no longer need humans to come into the process of getting something anymore, that has been overtaken by the app/website/cloud account.

Just because the government, in the name of national security, is able to siphon millions of phone records should come as no surprise or shock. Mostly because we so willingly give that data out in our everyday lives - anonymity and privacy will become extinct in our English vernacular, because our society is being changed day-by-day to the point that we won't be able to recognize what either of those really are or mean.

Look at where email has gone for instance - once the foundation of companies like AOL or Earthlink - most email now is ONLY in the cloud, out of your direct reach and certainly out of your control. I still bring all my email onto my PC this day, and run backups and archives, because I want to own that data myself and not solely rely on the "cloud" to manage it for me.

How many keytags do you have on your car key set? Each one is a pathway to a data goldmine for the company that gave it to you.

Needless to say, the drivers of this mining aren't the government - it's only accessing what's already there. The true force is the largest of companies that are using this tactic as way to further their ends - privacy and everything else be damned.
We're already seeing marketing on FB, twitter and Google+ - stuff you're already tired of seeing, but wait, except that one AD (because they're tracking what you search for, and look at)

Do we really know where this is going?
Most do not, and will not - as we move each day towards a world that knows too much about the neighbor living next door
in China, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

hey

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a privilege to wear that uniform!

Not Communist Russia - East German Police State

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't Communist Russia, it's the East German Police State and their secret police that America is turning into.

Woz had his 15 minutes.... why do we care

[Anonymous Coward]

Woz was there for the start of a great company. After that, the fame and bankroll have given him a pulpit beyond his skills and knowledge base. I can't think of any of his initiatives, investments, books (like Kawasaki) or blogs that made any contribution to the high tech economy. Well, he does fill space for online media companies.

Why is his opinion on PRISM meaningful? When did he acquire this domain expertise?

Our media has gotten so desperate for 'breaking news' that if Woz buys a green car, smiles upon a technology company, or smirks at people like his old (late) partner who have actually delivered something in the last 35 years - it's apparently news.

Please tell them to stop.

Woz isn't a bad guy, just wondering why he is news.

Re:But can we trust Woz's judgement?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a video of RMS eating something off his own fucking foot, on camera, not even trying to be discreet. Natural as anything, I guess, for a a fosstard.

But no code words please.

[niftymitch]

These big dustbin collections of data are interesting.

No TLA agency code words would have been used. Google, Facebook, Microsoft would never see a document request that contains a code word.

Give the large number of requests agents would likely have desks in house. Agents would not have free access to company resources. As big as the big internet companies are they cannot give free unfettered access to company resources.

Queries still need to be crafted and tested. Company employees may not be privy to the secret target so agents may have to craft and run the search for data then validate that it gets the information in question then have the employee rerun the search on live data and modify the access control meta data bits of the output to deliver it to the agent.

The agent now with the data would have credentials to transfer the data to the home office via some resource that may or may not be described by some magic code word that the agent may not have a need to know the name of.

I think that the big G gets thousands of requests... and clearly the big internet companies have no way to validate the details of the search with dozens perhaps hundreds of test searches and a couple final searches a day.

Nothing keeps the big TLA agencies from running their own web search engines. Put up a web page and measure the different engines that touch it. Search engine companies are not the most interesting companies... the long list of hosts implicated in CSS files and flash content cookies are much more interesting.
# This MVPS HOSTS file:
# http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

After delivery nothing keeps the FISA requests from being combined (that I know of). When a massive search might be denied a largish number of large searches would pass inspection. Agent Aarron get all the A's, Agent Bob get all the B's..

Over the years since '78 data flows into but may never be deleted. There are voters that now have their entire lives spanned by these efforts.

Personally my opinion is the big O is too nice a guy and too naive to do anything bad. Naive opens the door for others with lesser or no principals to do harm.

Deep breath now.... it will be OK....

Re:There's something we'll always own.

[airdweller]

Gladiator?! That standard hollywood cheesy piece of shit?
300?! In the same list as Das Boot, Schindler's List or Gettysburg? Wow.

Re:There's something we'll always own.

[cold fjord]

Gladiator?! That standard hollywood cheesy piece of shit?

I take it then that most "cheesy piece of shit" movies result in winning 5 Academy Awards? There was award winning work done in 300 as well.

Apparently you overlooked my caveat, "..depending on your tastes and what you want to get out of it." Feel free to make your own list and leave it laying around Slashdot for the next AC that comes along. That would add far more to the discussion than the post you made.

In Capitalist America...

[nickserv]

http://i.imgur.com/eEzQn.jpg

Never use the cloud

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen a safe reason for a business to use the cloud.

Re:But can we trust Woz's judgement?

[pankkake]

Actually... http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/sextips/

Spoilers!

[DarthVain]

OK you just ruined Slashdot for like a year.

Re:Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolut

[Zeio]

Who says Im not making it. If you believe those folks arent hardworking AND lucky AND politically connected AND after a point they have reached a threshold of too big to fail, then you are nuts.

Not that I hold up Warren Buffet as someone holy, but he is quite rich and quite willing to explain how the system is rigged.

Re:Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolut

[Zeio]

Ron Paul? And everyone thinks the 3rd option is a sick joke. They would rather go with the police state goons in uniform than try something new.

Re:Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolut

[Zeio]

Ask them how perpetually borrowing against income you havent made yet to keep the bread and circus running is a good thing.

Re:There's something we'll always own.

[airdweller]

"I take it then that most "cheesy piece of shit" movies result in winning 5 Academy Awards? There was award winning work done in 300 as well."

Well, at least someone has any trust in the hollywood "awards".

"Feel free to make your own list and leave it laying around Slashdot for the next AC that comes along. That would add far more to the discussion than the post you made."
You mean: to the topic of "Woz Compares the Cloud and PRISM To Communist Russia"? You bet :)

All your copies are belong to us.

[Anonymous Coward]

Comment posted on behalf of Richard M Stallman.

I've been saying for years that many proprietary programs, and Amazon
ebooks are Sovietic, and one reason is their contempt for private
property when they say "All your copies are belong to us."