Slashdot Mirror


US Forces Coursera To Ban Students From Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria

An anonymous reader writes "Coursera is an online website that offers free courses from many of the world's top universities. Now, all students from Syria, Sudan, Iran and Cuba will no longer be able to access Coursera. The official blog provides more info regarding the ban: 'Until now the interpretation of export control regulations as they relate to MOOCs has been unclear and Coursera has been operating under the interpretation that MOOCs would not be restricted. We recently received information that has led to the understanding that the services offered on Coursera are not in compliance with the law as it stands ... United States export control regulations prohibit U.S. businesses, such as MOOC providers like Coursera, from offering services to users in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria. Under the law, certain aspects of Coursera's course offerings are considered services and are therefore subject to restrictions in sanctioned countries, with the exception of Syria.'"

306 comments

  1. education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because obviously less education is the solution. [/irony]

    1. Re:education by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because obviously less education is the solution. [/irony]

      Sure, that appears to be the policy answer dictated by the 1% for solving Americas internal problems, why not extend it to our more traditional external enemies as well.

    2. Re:education by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obviously you don't want your *own* voters to be educated. They might vote you out of office.

      Your enemies? I'd say education (with associated atheism + lower birth rates) is a good thing.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The 1% again, eh? Still blaming them for what the government does or does not do? When are you ever going to start blaming your leadership instead? Even if they are enforcing 1%-friendly policies they're still the enablers.
       
      If government is able to be bought it's only because government is for sale.
       
      But no... let's keep acting like the policy makers and policy enforcers are powerless to stop it. Let's keep our heads in the sand about the facts of the matter. Let's yet again vote for the status quo and blame big business for the failures of big government. The obvious solution is more regulation. Oh, wait... this is happening because of government regulations. Maybe we can throw tax money at that problem too.
       
      SSDD.

    4. Re:education by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The 1% again, eh? Still blaming them for what the government does or does not do? When are you ever going to start blaming your leadership instead? Even if they are enforcing 1%-friendly policies they're still the enablers.

      If government is able to be bought it's only because government is for sale.

      But no... let's keep acting like the policy makers and policy enforcers are powerless to stop it. Let's keep our heads in the sand about the facts of the matter. Let's yet again vote for the status quo and blame big business for the failures of big government. The obvious solution is more regulation. Oh, wait... this is happening because of government regulations. Maybe we can throw tax money at that problem too.

      SSDD.

      The main policy makers and enforcers are part of the 1%. It's not that they are powerless to stop it, they just don't want it stopped. The first step to making real change would be campaign finance reform. Hmmm, I wonder why Congress is to keen on doing that?

    5. Re:education by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Even in a somewhat broken democratic republic, it takes more than the 1% to vote in the 1%...

    6. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because obviously less education is the solution. [/irony]

      I know the parent poster was joking, but in most of the Latin American military regimes of the 1960s and 1970s, that was the agreed consensus of the dictators, Pinochet's Chile being a noteworthy exception. And now Chile is better off economically and technologically than most of the others.

    7. Re:education by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My first thought entirely. Of all the education debates, providing education does have a serious cultural impact: it empowers people. Universal higher education is severely detrimental--especially to the lower class--but it still empowers people: it gives them discrete skills and critical thinking skills, and makes them interact with the world around them.

      When an educated person fails, he decides the system around him is broken. This is a natural consequence of education: you have all these skills, you feel you can apply yourself, and yet you are not being allowed to do so. No faceless evil across the other end of the earth is doing this to you. When you are uneducated and starving, you feel there is nothing you can do; all explanations are readily accepted, especially if we blame someone else.

      Education is the enemy of government. Strong education makes government subordinate; weak education makes government powerful. Since there are more citizens than government, it is strictly optimal for government to be subordinate to the needs of the people.

    8. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It worked for their own population.

    9. Re:education by mi · · Score: 2

      The first step to making real change would be campaign finance reform. Hmmm, I wonder why Congress is to keen on doing that?

      "Campaign finance reform" — First Amendment be damned — is just means to an end. An end to electing different sort of politicians.

      But, face it, a person father to the Left and with a greater contempt for what America used to be (and still remains in some places despite his efforts to "fundementally transform" it) than the current President will not soon be elected... And for several years he even had his party's majority in the legislature.

      If you aren't happy with this presidency, then you never will be happy with any — even if you manage to "reform" campaign finance...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:education by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even in a somewhat broken democratic republic, it takes more than the 1% to vote in the 1%...

      Unless your election turnout is <1%.

      Or, you know - rigged voting mechanisms.

      I used to be against the idea of "verified voting," but with the mass adoption of black box voting machines, I think I've changed tack on that one.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    11. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And government is the enemy of education.

      Pol Pot 2012!

    12. Re:education by killkillkill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Historically, all campaign finance reform does is make barriers to anyone who has a voice they wish to get out. Barriers that only the "1%" and their team of lawyers can navigate through. Guess I'm playing my cards as a nut job libertarian here, but this is one area more laws and regulation just make the problem they are trying to solve worse.

    13. Re:education by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 2012 US election turnout was around 58%, with only three states having less than 50% turnout (Oklahoma, Texas and W. Virginia). While there could be plenty of vote tampering, doing it on that scale would involve many thousands of people and would require balls the size of an aircraft carrier. So that's probably not the case here.

    14. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another dolt who doesn't know about regulatory capture, I see.

    15. Re:education by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The 2012 US election turnout was around 58%, with only three states having less than 50% turnout (Oklahoma, Texas and W. Virginia).

      Are these numbers independent-third-party-verified, or are we taking the election commission at their word? Trusting the foxes with the henhouse, so to speak.

      While there could be plenty of vote tampering, doing it on that scale would involve many thousands of people and would require balls the size of an aircraft carrier.

      Two things the feds happen to have already.

      Pardon me for not wanting to trust that a government who claims it has the right to kidnap citizens and hold them, indefinitely, without charges, to run a truly free and fair election.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    16. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @ hillman of the hills...
      don't get out into the valley too much, huh ?
      we have these thingies called 'com-pu-ters', they are black box machines with proprietary code that can not be audited which are running our voting chores, now...
      it only takes (in theory) ONE evil minion of doom to perpetrate voting fraud by remote control...

      oh, urine idjit...

    17. Re:education by fnj · · Score: 2

      What appears to be the power of the electorate is really an empty choice which is really only an opiate and a channel for energy to dissipate through uselessly.

      The system top to bottom is dominated by the organized puppet masters in furtherance of their power trip. They have infiltrated, subverted, and bought the media in their entirety; news and entertainment. They run both major political parties in a false show of competition, but actually arm in arm, making sure that no one with any freshness or independent thought ever gets nominated as D or R for any office. They conspire to marginalize all other parties. Faced with an empty choice in every race between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, what can the electorate do?

      On top of that one is forced to believe that today's champions of liberty are being systematically co-opted or eliminated. How else can one explain their complete absence from the scene? Where are today's Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, and Ben Franklin? You sure as hell won't find them anywhere near the political process as dominated by D and R. You won't find them in the press. You won't find them visible anywhere.

    18. Re: education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Filtered due to preferences.

    19. Re:education by fnj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And in every contest in that election and all elections in recent memory the real choice was made by the power brokers who selected Tweedledum and Tweedledee for the electorate to choose between in every contest. Every contest was a lost cause long before election day.

    20. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know the parent poster was joking, but [...]

      Not joking, sarcastic. Because as you point out, this ban on education only helps to further solidify the positions of the dictators in the countries that the US has an embargo against. An embargo that was (presumably) put in place to try and get the dictators to change their ways about something. And here the US is, banning something that could get the populations of those countries to force the dictators into that change.

      Makes you wonder what the real purpose of those embargoes is.

    21. Re:education by fnj · · Score: 1

      Bingo. It is a simpleton's fix that does not address the real problem at all.

    22. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1% do not exist. Neither do the 99%. Both groups are invented by people with a socialist agenda and propagated by people who like to feel sorry for themselves.

    23. Re:education by causality · · Score: 2

      On top of that one is forced to believe that today's champions of liberty are being systematically co-opted or eliminated. How else can one explain their complete absence from the scene? Where are today's Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, and Ben Franklin? You sure as hell won't find them anywhere near the political process as dominated by D and R. You won't find them in the press. You won't find them visible anywhere.

      There are a few like Ron Paul. No they're not terribly visible because of two reasons. One, the media is not friendly to their message. Two, they say funny things that sound really different from a lot of mainstream thought, so it's fashionable to make fun of them and portray them as looney. It's a bit like being too different in the schoolyard and yes, that's about the level of emotional maturity involved in it.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    24. Re:education by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Or, you know - rigged voting mechanisms.

      The vote conformed to the polling data well enough in 2012 to predict the outcome in 50 out of 50 states. There is no evidence that the vote was rigged. Besides, the guy supported by the 1% LOST. The voters got what they wanted (or at least what they thought they wanted).

    25. Re:education by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, you know - rigged voting mechanisms.

      Oh, it's rigged alright.

      First you convince large quantities of people to vote against their best interests. That's unfortunately very easy. I was reading yesterday a (ahem) "discussion" on returning to 90% taxation for the top tier. "How would you like it if the government stole 90% of YOUR income was a common retort", yet you can pretty much count on none of them ever becoming wealthy enough to qualify. Nor that even after being plundered of 9/10ths of their income (which isn't the same as assets) that the putative victims could still buy and sell their defenders by the busload.

      Secondly, you distract voters on secondary issues. If you get enough people to vote against a more pro-freedom candidate because he's "too Liberal" instead of the fact that he's willing to fight against further deterioration of our alleged principles, or make single-focus campaigns acceptable (Tax Cuts for EVERYONE! No killing BABIES! I'll say NO to DRUGS!).

      Thirdly, organize elections into single-party primaries. This is a proven technique for filtering out moderates, because the extremists vote for extremists, the moderates tend not to show (and in any event, being moderate for a party isn't the same as moderate for the population as a whole).

      Fourth, turn the election from one-person-one-vote to one-dollar-one-vote. Obviously not literally, and dollars don't buy that many votes in the USA, but they do buy bigger megaphones, and sometimes an election can come down to whomever can shout the loudest.

      Fifth, encourage a feeling of hopelessness. "My Vote doesn't count". "Voting third-party is just throwing your vote away". "The system is rigged, so why bother?"

      And finally, give them tenure once elected. Much of the strength of democracy as implemented in the USA is that we have, in effect, a mini-revolution every few years. If a bad idea comes along, you don't have to live with it until its proponents die off if you can vote in fresh blood. But unlike the Presidency, Congress is designed for long-term membership. Not only is there the natural power of the incumbency, but if you can get your guy onto a major pork committe, you can ensure that no matter how he/she rapes the rest of the country - or even your own district - that this critter will bribe the voters with military bases, construction projects, and other perks.

    26. Re:education by causality · · Score: 1

      But, face it, a person father to the Left and with a greater contempt for what America used to be (and still remains in some places despite his efforts to "fundementally transform" it) than the current President will not soon be elected... And for several years he even had his party's majority in the legislature.

      If that were actually true, he would be doing everything possible to reduce the size and power of the federal government. The opposite has happened.

      The contempt Obama shows for America and its past is just a propaganda effort designed to appeal to an increasingly impoverished and angry American voter. None of his actions are consistent with it. "I really don't like the way things are and the way things have been ... so .. I'll do it even harder! Yeah let's perpetuate the power structure that brought us those things!" makes no sense at all.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    27. Re:education by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 2

      >The 2012 US election turnout was around 58%

      What is the turnout in the primaries? People don't understand that voting in the final election is the least powerful vote they can cast. Power is in the primaries.

    28. Re:education by causality · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Historically, all campaign finance reform does is make barriers to anyone who has a voice they wish to get out. Barriers that only the "1%" and their team of lawyers can navigate through. Guess I'm playing my cards as a nut job libertarian here, but this is one area more laws and regulation just make the problem they are trying to solve worse.

      What I want is the one kind of campaign financing system we haven't yet tried. All candidates should receive a large, very generous campaign fund from the government. It should be an equal amount for all candidates who meet the criteria of being on the ballot. Then, any additional contributions from any source is considered bribery, with the offering party punished severely with hard prison time, and the candidate also punished if he or she accepts.

      That's how you disenfranchise the monied interests and return the campaign back to winning over the voters. An extremely generous, lavish campaign fund that comes from taxpayer dollars would still be very much less expensive than the way we do things now.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    29. Re:education by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Even in a somewhat broken democratic republic, it takes more than the 1% to vote in the 1%...

      Yes, yes it does. Now how exactly is someone outside the 1% o their sponsored flunkies supposed to get the political support and media exposure to become a viable candidate when the two major parties are both pretty completely owned, and in the face of a largely disinterested population that the 1% is doing their best to keep ignorant and highly polarized so that they'll vote against "the enemy" rather than considering a third-party candidate who might actually oppose the 1%ers.

      Doesn't help either that "first past the post" voting systems such as ours have been shown to actively dissuade the participation of third parties as they tend to split the vote allowing the party least desired by the majority of the population to win.

      Our system isn't "somewhat broken", it's systemically biased in favor of being captured by powerful special interests. It cold be largely fixed (or at least heavily disrupted) by a handful of minor rule changes from any of a number of different governing philosophies, but so long as it's captured the chance of that happening approaches zero.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    30. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Campaign finance reform" — First Amendment be damned — is just means to an end.

      The First Amendment revolves around speech, what kind of Constitutional Originalist would confuse paying people money for actual speech?

      Oh wait, somebody who is just as keen to interpret it as they as any Revisionist, but who wants to paper themselves with external authority.

      An end to electing different sort of politicians.

      Yes, I know you believe it would lead to that, but that is countered by the observation that we don't have a real different sort of politicians anyway.

      And your same argument is applied to removing gerrymandering, and any other change people want to make, so it makes me wonder why you support the status quo so much? Apparently you prefer the rot we know today to the one that might come up tomorrow.

      But, face it, a person father to the Left and with a greater contempt for what America used to be (and still remains in some places despite his efforts to "fundementally transform" it) than the current President will not soon be elected...

      Actually, that's demonstrating the problem which is leading to the campaign finance reform desire. You think it's contempt for what America used to be, and while to a certain extent that isn't untrue, it's not for the reasons the conservative faux patriots want it to be. Who doesn't want to have contempt for slavery and segregation, or the Indian Wars, or whatever other failings that America did genuinely have? But thanks to a certain media outlook, it's actually treated as if Liberals were America-hating pseudo-communists as a form of propaganda.

      Yet we can't even speak out against that, or it's bashing them, for some terrible and unfortunate reasons, while they get to go on and on about how Nazi-like Liberals are, even though when such a comparison is used on them, they hypocritically protest they didn't.

      And for several years he even had his party's majority in the legislature.

      Part of the problem with the ACA is that...he didn't. There was a conservative wing of the Democratic Party which was impeding the reforms from the Liberal side and forced it to be gutted in many ways.

      If you aren't happy with this presidency, then you never will be happy with any — even if you manage to "reform" campaign finance...

      I'm told the unhappiness is the path to success. It gives you a certain level of drive. So...what's the problem?

    31. Re:education by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Even in a somewhat broken democratic republic, it takes more than the 1% to vote in the 1%...

      In terms of votes, that is true. In terms of spending money on misinformation to influence those votes, no, the 1%ers are quite capable of doing that.

    32. Re:education by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      The first step to making real change would be campaign finance reform. Hmmm, I wonder why Congress is to keen on doing that?

      "Campaign finance reform" — First Amendment be damned — is just means to an end. An end to electing different sort of politicians.

      But, face it, a person father to the Left and with a greater contempt for what America used to be (and still remains in some places despite his efforts to "fundementally transform" it) than the current President will not soon be elected... And for several years he even had his party's majority in the legislature.

      If you aren't happy with this presidency, then you never will be happy with any — even if you manage to "reform" campaign finance...

      It has nothing to do with who the president is. The system is set up that those with money get heard and those without do not. Only when there is enough groundswell of public opinion that it outweighs the money side of the equation does the public get heard. Modern politics is no longer about doing what's best for the country or even the constituent. It has become doing what is best for those bankrolling the decision maker.

      For example, take the tea party movement. They are still a minority in the Republican party, however, they have the support of a few very wealthy individuals that will spend shit loads of money to campaign against those who don't fall in line with them. (This isn't unique to the tea party, it's just an example of these types of groups).

      The government of the US is no longer a representative democracy, but has become a plutocracy.

    33. Re:education by mi · · Score: 0

      The First Amendment revolves around speech, what kind of Constitutional Originalist would confuse paying people money for actual speech?

      Money donated to a cause is speech. If you limit the amounts of an individual donation to N, that means, my talking on behalf of a candidate will be limited to N/minimum-hourly-wage hours. If I keep talking after that, I'll be in violation of your donation-limiting law... So, my speech will be limited.

      And it need not be an individual talking on the corner — buying candidate-supporting ads can be a more common example. By limiting the amount of money I can spend on an ad, you are infringing my Free Speech. By preventing me from associating with other like-minded supporters of a candidate — so that we can buy a pricier ad for the candidate we all like — you are infringing on our Freedom of Association.

      As the Supreme Court once put it in writing:

      the concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    34. Re:education by An+dochasac · · Score: 1

      Not joking, sarcastic. Because as you point out, this ban on education only helps to further solidify the positions of the dictators in the countries that the US has an embargo against. An embargo that was (presumably) put in place to try and get the dictators to change their ways about something. And here the US is, banning something that could get the populations of those countries to force the dictators into that change.

      Because the 54 year-old embargo against Cuba was so effective at turning the Cuban people against Castro^H^H^H^H the US.

      Makes you wonder what the real purpose of those embargoes is.

      The black marketeers love it and it keeps up the price of fake Cuban cigars.

    35. Re:education by mi · · Score: 1

      If that were actually true, he would be doing everything possible to reduce the size and power of the federal government. The opposite has happened.

      Point was, you aren't going to get anyone "better" than Obama — with or without "campaign finance" reform.

      What you want is someone like Chavez and that will not happen until I run out of ammunition...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    36. Re:education by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Or, you know - rigged voting mechanisms.

      The vote conformed to the polling data well enough in 2012 to predict the outcome in 50 out of 50 states. There is no evidence that the vote was rigged. Besides, the guy supported by the 1% LOST. The voters got what they wanted (or at least what they thought they wanted).

      I do suppose there's no need to go through all the effort to rig voting machines, when it's so much easier to rig the "choice" in candidates...

      In the immortal words of the Prophet:

      I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here.

      'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.'
      'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.'

      'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    37. Re:education by ApplePy · · Score: 2

      Besides, the guy supported by the 1% LOST.

      And at the same time, the other guy, who was supported by the 1%, won.

      You're seriously kidding yourself if you think there's any difference between the two major parties at the federal level. All you have to do is look: has the policy changed from Bush to Obama? Is the war over? Is Gitmo closed? Are the Patriot Act and the TSA gone? Your "liberal" president has upped the spying, fed the "defense" contractors, sent more troops overseas, and cut NASA. The previous "conservative" president raised taxes and vastly increased the size and scope of the federal government.

      Nothing changes. The person who occupies the White House is merely a figurehead, and whether he's called a Democrat or a Republican, he works for the same people, and those people ain't me and you.

      And you know what? It's not going to change, either. Today's wealthy and powerful may fall from their towers from lack of breeding and management (note wastrel heirs and heiresses like Paris Hilton), but there will be more to take their place, because there will always be someone who wants more than his neighbors have -- and the talent and drive, or sheer cravenness, to go and get it. If we divided all the world's wealth equally to everyone right now, we'd be right back where we are now within a generation.

      Except, I'd be part of the 1% after. :-)

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    38. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the with an election turnout of 58% that you cite, then that means that someone can be president with the actual vote of just 30% of registered voters... Hyperbole aside and in general, the people "we" are electing have nowhere near the support of a democratic majority they for the most part just represent the largest minority faction.

      Rigging the ballot box is a amateur way to rig an election. Here in the US we rig elections way before any votes are cast. Character assassinations with the collusion of the press are the usual means of control. Any well intentioned person that steps forward as a candidate had better be independently wealthy because their reputation will be dragged through the mud unless they already have the support of whichever party controls the state apparatus and the media.

      We live in a far less civil civilized society than people like to believe and the various factions of the elite do really pull a lot of strings.

    39. Re:education by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Historically, all campaign finance reform does is make barriers to anyone who has a voice they wish to get out. Barriers that only the "1%" and their team of lawyers can navigate through. Guess I'm playing my cards as a nut job libertarian here, but this is one area more laws and regulation just make the problem they are trying to solve worse.

      There's one area of reform that should be tried - getting back to the constitution and the 1 per 30,000 rule, specifically.

      Yes, with 300M people, that means 10,000 congresspeople per house. But it doesn't mean we need to pay them much - in fact, we probably shouldn't. They don't all have to be there - we have enough technology these days that voting, etc., can be done remotely. Their pay should be equal to the median pay in the area they serve. They shouldn't need to travel TOO much - so low pay should be OK since the areas are small. Heck, in a big city, it's probably just a few blocks big.

      It makes paying for people much harder - convincing 5001 reps costs a lot more money than the 100-odd they usually need to show lettuce to. And enough so even the local area can probably raise more money. After all, a billion dollars in funding 5000 reps only gives them $20,000 each. Or 66 cents per person they represent.

    40. Re:education by causality · · Score: 1

      Point was, you aren't going to get anyone "better" than Obama — with or without "campaign finance" reform.

      The two-party system guaranteeing this outcome is a separate discussion.

      What finance reform does is reduce the pressure to adhere to the status quo once a major-party candidate is in. This can only help.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    41. Re:education by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      You really don't need to do vote tampering when it's so much easier to just spin stories and get people to willingly vote for you.

    42. Re:education by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      And then after all that, even if they see the truth laid out in front of them, they'll just want to go home and hide under the covers.

    43. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Money donated to a cause is speech. If you limit the amounts of an individual donation to N, that means, my talking on behalf of a candidate will be limited to N/minimum-hourly-wage hours. If I keep talking after that, I'll be in violation of your donation-limiting law... So, my speech will be limited.

      Only if the law was construed in such a way as to make the time you as an individual spend a charged account. Which is certainly a valid concern, but right now, primarily it's your money I'm concerned about. In particular, how you use your money to influence other people to spend their time. In particular, politicians, but also other government individuals.

      Why should you have more influence with them than I do, simply because you can pay more people to speak to them on your behalf? Why should you have more influence than me at all?

      Why should it not be regulated and managed? Because your freedom can't be touched, yet you are free to take away mine, because you're not the government?

      Money is not speech, it's power. Unequal and ill-suited to use as a substitute for real speech. If it were, then simple bribery would be legitimate.

      And it need not be an individual talking on the corner — buying candidate-supporting ads can be a more common example. By limiting the amount of money I can spend on an ad, you are infringing my Free Speech. By preventing me from associating with other like-minded supporters of a candidate — so that we can buy a pricier ad for the candidate we all like — you are infringing on our Freedom of Association.

      By using money to influence the government in a way that corrupts and degrades it, my right to an honest government is being infringed upon.

      By claiming that the freedom to do so cannot be touched, my freedom to stop actions that are abusing me is infringed upon.

      Thus my speech is stripped away, by drowning out what I have to say or simply regulating it to streetcorners while others get billboards and village squares. With money.

      How does this work out better? You might purport that I could just earn the money to counter such influence with my own, but wait, those with influence use the government to prevent that too. So of course, you might say that the best way to handle it would be to limit government further, so they can't do that.

      Unfortunately, that naively believes that some authority or power won't be developed anyway.

      As the Supreme Court once put it in writing:

      the concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.

      Now read the dissents. In particular, White's.

      The Supreme Court has decided many things wrongly in the fullness of time, this is another case where they failed. Badly. Of course, even some of the concurring dissents believed that, because they were of the naive view that any influence was anathema, and the majority opinion was not as extreme as they wished.

    44. Re:education by bigpat · · Score: 1

      I am very interested in challenging the partisan primary system that is in place in most states.

      Based on "California Democratic Party v. Jones" I don't think most of the partisan primaries in place across the US would pass constitutional muster because they do essentially the same thing that was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Jones. The partisan primary forces the party by law to endorse the winner of that primary. And further in some states people not of that party are allowed by law to choose to vote in that party's primary. The partisan primary system essentially has the same freedom of speech and freedom of association issue as "California Democratic Party v. Jones"

      Although Jones was about the California Democratic Party trying to keep its partisan primary system, I believe they established a larger constitutional principle that the state cannot create an election system which takes the place of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association. Unwittingly they opened the door for a party or perhaps even an individual to challenge the partisan primary systems (that are enshrined by law and paid for with tax dollars)

      Now if only the ACLU or some state party would step up and dismantle for once and for all the partisan primary system in the courts.

    45. Re:education by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Of all the education debates, providing education does have a serious cultural impact: it empowers people.

      In an ideal world, yes. HOWEVER...

      Education is the enemy of government. Strong education makes government subordinate; weak education makes government powerful.

      This argument often runs into problems, since -- in many countries -- education (or, rather, "schooling," which most people equate with "education") is primarily provided by the government. If the government runs schools, it doesn't have an interest in necessarily "empowering" anyone. It certainly doesn't have an interest in making itself "subordinate."

      There is a fundamental conflict of interest when you put things this way. Yes -- education can be a powerful tool for social change, but government-run educational systems may have different primary interests. To the government, the most desirable outcome of education may be to produce obedient citizens.

      I'm not at all saying that public education is a bad thing -- it certainly has been extremely helpful in a number of ways in developed countries. But education (i.e., schooling) by itself is no guarantee of "empowerment" or overcoming government... in fact it can actually make the citizenry more docile and obedient to the government.

      Take a look into the history of compulsory public education in the U.S., and you'll find a lot of nasty business in various historical periods that is directly related to this -- government or business interests wanting to have more control over kids to train them to be good citizens and good workers, rather than "empowering" them to think on their own. Frankly -- the legacy of those ideas is still with us in the U.S. educational system, and arguably it is one of the things standing in the way of making things better. We have a schooling system partly designed NOT to educate and to empower, and recognizing the things that are built into the system that fight against true education is probably the only way to really "fix" things. Alas... that's an inconvenient story that the government doesn't want you to think about too hard, so most policy people don't talk about it.

    46. Re:education by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      The real problem is the voters. Too many voting Americans are all too eager to favor sanctions (or worse) on whomever they are told is villain of the week (or half century). And to the extent that these "villain" countries have traits that should change, too few Americans are patient and forward looking enough to see that trade and engagement would better serve that purpose than sanctions and isolation and an occasional war or two.

    47. Re:education by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      Please tell me which was the last fair election when this wasn't the case.

    48. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Universal higher education is severely detrimental--especially to the lower class

      Could you please explain what you meant by this?

    49. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Taxation is payment for services rendered. If you aren't happy with the services you received, or the payment thereof, you are certainly welcome to redress your grievances, but please don't pretend that calling it theft is anything but hyperbolic grandstanding.

      Now that is a problem with the world, people lead with emotional rhetoric, rather than logic. At best, you're dishonest to yourself, at worst, you're using it to deceive and mislead others while knowing what a load of crap you are pushing.

    50. Re:education by WrongMonkey · · Score: 2

      What kind of barriers to entry on the ballot do you place that (a) prevent people from running just to exploit the lavish campaign fund and (b) don't require a large, well-financed campaign to achieve?

    51. Re:education by Arrepiadd · · Score: 1

      Because obviously less education is the solution. [/irony]

      Seems to have worked for her...

    52. Re:education by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      Primaries draw in the political extremists, and campaign financiers are not likely to be soccer moms. There is no "moderate" party, and ordinary, mainstream, working people just don't have as much time, understanding or motivation to get involved that early in the game, nor is there any grass roots drive to form any sort of "moderate" or "mainstream" movement. The only thing that has materialized has been even more polarization by the emergence of the radial Tea Party and Occupy movements. Yes, this is a problem, but it is systemic of mass democracy, a problem which is compounded by mass media. Mass production, commercialization, and industrialization are what separates the 1% from the 99%. The vision of our founding fathers was for the most important decisions of governance to be decided at the local level. But how can we return to the local level where small voices can still be heard in this age of globalization, interconnected technology, and national - even international - job mobility and relocation?

    53. Re:education by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      it's so much easier to rig the "choice" in candidates...

      Baloney. There was plenty of choice. Ron Paul competed in the primaries ... and lost. Rick Santorum competed in the primaries ... and lost. Gary Johnson competed in both the primaries, and as a Libertarian in the general election. Jill Stein ran in the general election as the Green Party candidate ... and lost. That is a full spectrum of "choice". These people didn't lose because of a "vast conspiracy of the 1%", they lost because PEOPLE DIDN'T VOTE FOR THEM.

      For the record, I voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. I think most of the "1%" would love to have him as president. He got less than 1% of the vote.

    54. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you might have misunderstood.... ...
      Reading.

    55. Re:education by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "First you convince large quantities of people to vote against their best interests. That's unfortunately very easy. I was reading yesterday a (ahem) "discussion" on returning to 90% taxation for the top tier. "How would you like it if the government stole 90% of YOUR income was a common retort", yet you can pretty much count on none of them ever becoming wealthy enough to qualify"

      So wait a moment, the fact that people have a sense of morality and do not approve of theft even when they are guaranteed that they will not personally be victimized is a *problem* for you?

      Classic. The whole problem with the world is that the oppressed are not wretched enough.

      Q.E.D.

      The "taxes are theft" fallacy. You're EXACTLY the kind of manipulant that I was illustrating.

      Taxes are often a waste, although where the waste is is depends on who you are asking. From the same jar of soundbites: "If you don't like it, why don't you go somewhere else?" There's a difference between waste and theft. One of the biggest differences between them is that you pay taxes to keep the real, literal thieves - both domestic and foreign - from your door. You pay for a lot of other, less desirable (to you) things as well, but efficiency isn't a hallmark of government, and for that we should all be very, very grateful.

      By homing in on a single "moral" issue, you've identified yourself with the second group in the list. We've got your number come election time, sucker.

      If you want to argue that government is immoral, that's not a problem for me. But I'm not worried as much about minor immoralities any more than I am about whether governments should be pushing moralities on others when the very foundations of the Republic are under attack. It smacks too much of worrying about motes in other people's eyes when one's own has a 2x4 in it.

      Just as an aside, I refuse to get all panicked about taxes on people with far more money they than they need to live comfortably because for many years I was paying over 35% of my own income in taxes and living a lot better than I do now under lower taxes. Plus, most people never qualified for the 90% bracket. To do so, you've got to be swimming in money to begin with. It's not a case where the hit comes from people who are barely squeaking by as it is. We actually have more of that particular curse now than we did then.

      Truly wealthy people complain about taxes, yes (don't we all?). But if the level of taxation is actually hitting you where you live, you weren't that rich to begin with. For one thing, you apparently cannot afford a good tax consultant.

    56. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually where is the theft from the rich? I may be paraphrasing here, but the saying goes, "the more you have, the more you have to loose". They, and their assets require more protection than my 2 cents, and thus they should pay a bigger portion for what they are getting (protection of their significant assets). If they don't like that, they can be poor like me.

      This is the same argument folks use about flat taxes. "Flat taxes are the only fair taxes." Really? We both work. What makes you worth more than me. That isn't fair (though it may be true). So if we are all to be taxed the same, how about we all get paid the same. That's only fair, right? Oh right, that hasn't panned out to well historically. Hmmm. Maybe those economists who have been saying that when you tax the 1% up the yin-yang they have more incentive to put their money into industry are right. Just look at 1930-1965 +/- for the evidence that is true.

    57. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about owning territory that produces oxygen and allows it to blow across borders? Isn't that providing a service?

      Better sprinkle certain metals in the sky so your algae makes hydrogen instead of oxygen? (biofuel research has proven that possible)

    58. Re:education by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      OK, there are three candidates on your ballot, all three are millionaires. How am I, a voter, possibly going to vote out the 1%? You have to either be very rich, or know someone very rich to even run for office. That's why only half of eligible voters don't vote, there's nobody worth voting for because the ballot has no candidates who would represent YOU.

      I wish I were still young and naive.

    59. Re:education by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      it's so much easier to rig the "choice" in candidates...

      Baloney. There was plenty of choice. Ron Paul competed in the primaries ...

      Ah, yes, Ron Paul's bid for the Republican nomination... perfect example of the sort of rigging I'm talking about.

      If you recall, Ron Paul held a solid 3rd place, despite all the attacks against him. When it came time for the debates, he was ignored by the moderators; when the MSM talked about positioning, they would mention the first, second... and fourth place candidates. Because Ron Paul was in 3rd.

      The fact is, those who control the media have a vested interest in keeping "rabble rousers" out of office, and the American people are either too stupid, or complacent, or both, to actually do their own research and vote based on what a candidate actually stands for, as opposed to what the talking heads claim he stands for.

      So yea, it's rigged, although I will concede it wouldn't be so easy to rig if not for mass and voluntary voter ignorance.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    60. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your response would be more pertinent if California hadn't changed their primary system.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(2010)

    61. Re:education by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Primaries are not presidential elections. Primaries are a construct for reducing choice in the actual presidential election. They exist as alliances between the many candidates because the first-past-the-post system guarantees that there can only be two choices in the election.

    62. Re:education by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      With an approval voting system, we would not need primaries. We would not need political parties.

    63. Re:education by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Taxation is payment for services rendered. If you aren't happy with the services you received, or the payment thereof, you are certainly welcome to redress your grievances, but please don't pretend that calling it theft is anything but hyperbolic grandstanding.

      You've been trained well, citizen unit.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    64. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There might be an underlying point to that.
      Just about everyone in policy positions in our government has at least four, and many much more, formal post secondary education, and you can see the results.

      Maybe less education, within reason, might be better.

      It seems the more people are educated, the more they now about less and less. Finally they seem to know almost everything about nothing.

      Something to give some thought too.

    65. Re:education by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Total bollocks. If the 1% control both of the only two parties that have any chance of getting in, thanks to Duverger's Law having kicked in over a century back, then all it takes is for an election to take place, and that 1% retains control.

      I'm curious - which of the two main US parties to you believe is not just a glove-puppet?

      It's almost as if the 1% may be aware of this situation, and have encouraged it, for the last century or so...

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    66. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You've been trained well, citizen unit.

      You're offering useful dialogue, rhetoric engine.

      Wait, no you're not.

    67. Re:education by mi · · Score: 1

      The two-party system guaranteeing this outcome is a separate discussion.

      America does not have a "two-party system". In fact, nothing in the Constitution even mentions "party". Unlike Democracies world-wide, in our Republic we don't vote for parties — but for individuals. The individuals may — or may not — choose to consider themselves members of a party, but that has little (if any) legal meaning. They can even switch parties after election — without it having any effect on their status. This tends to provide for "big tent" parties — indeed, McCain may be closer to Obama, than he is to Romney...

      On contrast, in Democracies people vote for parties — and the parties then decide, which individuals to place in legislature (and in government) — in proportion to the vote the party gets in the poll. This tends to create smaller, narrow-agenda parties — which create coalitions with one another to actually govern.

      Whichever system is "better", this is the difference that explains, why America has only two major parties currently (though Whigs were a powerful party of their own in the 19th century), while the rest of the world tends to have quite a few more.

      What finance reform does is reduce the pressure to adhere to the status quo once a major-party candidate is in. This can only help.

      Helpful or not, you aren't going to get anyone "better" than Barack Obama — and even he is not good enough for you...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    68. Re:education by CTU · · Score: 1

      The primary is when you vote for which person your spicific party will have run for office right? Well then since I don't have a party I can't do anything

    69. Re:education by CTU · · Score: 1

      I feel my vote is useless anyways no mater who I vote for. Still I did vote for a 3rd party so I can go on to bitch about Obama and if he lost then the ass who won too

    70. Re:education by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      But what happens when only the top 1% of the 10,000 congressmen dominate the discussion, set the agenda, and influence the rest to vote as instructed.

    71. Re:education by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      It's a great sentiment, but money is just the intermediary to the real political capital, which is speech. In our capitalist society, the latter can be bought to a degree -- radio, newspaper, and television adds, movies, books, endorsements, flyers, lobbyists, think tanks, push pollers, etc. -- which is how money becomes a problem. But these things still all exist if you say "candidates can only use government provided funds." So what do you do if, say, the cable networks all lean one particular way? Do they just get to de facto choose who gets to president? What if one person sees it as worthwhile to purchase all of them?

      For that matter, what do you do about the funding of third party political commentary in general? It's just as easy to buy an ad or promote a movie or event saying "Candidate X is a great guy" as it is to hand him the money so they can do it themselves. IMHO it's less accountable because you don't see the purchaser on the published list of donors, and if the message is dirty or incorrect a third party probably doesn't care while a candidate saying such things can lose significant backing and reputation.

      Maybe you say, "No one in America is allowed to publicly say or do anything construed as supporting a candidate without giving equal time to the other candidate." Okay, what about financing which supports issues said candidate is backing, never mentioning him but clearly propping up his campaign platform? Are we going to ban all advocacy of any kind?

      The nature of speech is to be too broad and adaptable to be regulated without inadvertently regulating it in its desired forms, and the point of the 1st amendment is that the benefits of its free exercise are too valuable to set aside. I tend to agree with that, personally -- I think we gain more from unrestricted speech than we lose from malevolent entities trying to use it to their advantage.

      Thankfully, while it's easy to speculate better ones, the present system is actually not all that bad. Yes, it confers *some* advantage to be able to spend 60 million when your opponent spends only 30 million. But the return diminishes rapidly. It's a huge difference being able to convey your message to a voter vs. not being able to. But compared to that it's only a little bit better to convey the same message twice, etc. In general, it's possible for candidates to get their say in even in demographics where the other candidate enjoys home turf advantage. And as much as we like to bemoan the "uninformed voter," the overall effect is to inform voters. The system is definitely inequitable, but not horribly so compared to other systems, and I think with little susceptibility to extensive influence by individual players.

    72. Re:education by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      Actually, the 1% don't really have anywhere near the same level of power and influence as the top 0.01%. Those are the ones we should be worrying about, right? In all seriousness though, I think the reason for this whole debate is that we have an entire generation that was told "we're all in the same boat", then we were told, "OK, we're in different boats, and some of us have luxury motor yachts, but a rising tide floats all boats". But when the tide flowed over to the Yacht Club marina, and didn't come to the fishing wharf, we were told that the economic benefits would trickle down, as long as we got an education. So now we have the most educated generation of Americans ever seen, and still the luxury yachts are rising much faster and further than the research vessels.

      When education wasn't enough, we were told that we needed to invest and grow our savings. In fact, if we didn't buy stocks inflation would eat our savings and we would be left behind. So we did, and lost it all in the dotcom bubble. Then we were told we couldn't go wrong with real estate, but if we weren't owning we would be left behind and forever priced out of the chance to own a home, which is the biggest investment a family can have, right? The so-called "experts", those with Ph.D's, those leaders of think tanks and industry associations, those in-house consultants working for the news outlets - they all sold us a bill of goods of higher education, 401k's, and home equity. They told us that moving up economically was not a zero sum game. But reality is that financial success is reserved for the pop stars, Ivy League grads, "qualified investors" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accredited_investor), the charming, attractive, well-connected schmoozers, those born into it, and those married into it (see "schmoozers"). For everyone else, it is not enough to just work hard at school and at their jobs or small businesses. You have to make sure to never get married, never have kids, and never get sick. Then you might get by and not find yourself greeting people at Walmart or passing out fries just to carry you through "retirement".

    73. Re:education by mi · · Score: 1

      Why should you have more influence with them than I do, simply because you can pay more people to speak to them on your behalf?

      For the same reasons, a person with more free time will have more influence. Aren't you going to limit that? How about limiting attractiveness of women? Certainly, a cute girl talking on behalf of a candidate is more persuasive, than a man — will you seek to outlaw that undue advantage too?

      At least, my having money (and being willing to spend it) is a sign of a good thing — generally. On contrast, somebody else having much free time is suspect — is their influence a good thing?

      By using money to influence the government in a way that corrupts and degrades it, my right to an honest government is being infringed upon.

      There is no "right to honest government" — you are governed by whoever you and the rest of the voters have elected. Unlike Freedom of Speech, which certainly is a right. And I've given you enough examples (to supplement Supreme Court's decision) of how money is speech. Heck, if the First Amendment protects selling pornography, then it certainly covers paying for political billboards and TV-ads.

      You've given me nothing but fake "rights" — and a down-moderation. So long, Anonymous Coward.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    74. Re:education by serbanp · · Score: 1

      The problem is not the turnout, it's the choices. In the current system, flush with interest money and noise-generating machines, no sane and decent human will be able to get on the ballot and also have a decent shot at the position. It's an "either evil A or evil B choice, pick your poison" - kind of situation. Until the big money (and the braindead C.U.decision is overturned), there is no chance for a 3rd (or even 2nd) party.

      Therefore, 58% participation doesn't matter when the cards are already stacked by the 1%.

    75. Re:education by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      "If you limit the amounts of an individual donation to N, that means, my talking on behalf of a candidate will be limited to N/minimum-hourly-wage hours."

      "By limiting the amount of money I can spend on an ad, you are infringing my Free Speech."

      Is the government physically putting tape across your mouth, or putting you in handcuffs so you can't type?

      I don't see how your speech is limited by restricting the amount of money you spend. You can still talk, you can still write. Your words have not been banned. You can express them freely.

      That being said, I think the answer to money in politics is to create more money and give it to everyone, so that it becomes pointless to try to outspend anyone. Then you have to argue with your words alone, since money doesn't give you any advantage.

    76. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of barriers to entry on the ballot do you place that (a) prevent people from running just to exploit the lavish campaign fund and (b) don't require a large, well-financed campaign to achieve?

      How about a 2-4-6 year commitment to federal service, either in the military, the peace corps, etc. to anyone who doesn't win? Also, you can't just repay it. If Mr. BigBucks wants to run and loses, he's going to to IDontWantToBeHereIstan too, no check cutting easy exit for him.

      Goldbricking slackers who refuse to serve and or will bring down the legitimate volunteers? Military prison.

    77. Re:education by dryeo · · Score: 1

      There's always the original first proposed amendment awaiting ratification. Not exactly what you propose but along the same lines and just as article the second (original second proposed amendment) finally got ratifiied, article the first could still be ratified no matter what congress thinks.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    78. Re:education by HiThere · · Score: 1

      There is also considerable evidence that both sides tampered with the vote. We don't know on what scale it was done. Currently one of the favorite approaches appears to be deciding that qualified voters can't vote. This has been made easier by the expiration of the voting rights act, but it was happening even before that.

      Now it's true that you can't tie most of the actions to people in power. If anyone takes the fall it's usually someone at a very low level, but many of the occasions are quite implausible as spontaneous actions, and I haven't heard of massive numbers of people being arrested for manipulating the vote. And sometimes it may not be illegal. (Is it illegal to organize to call college students, and tell them that they must vote from their home district, even if that's not where they are registered?) But illegal or not, it's still tampering with the vote. And if it's even a misdemeanor, then organizing to do it is a felony. But I haven't heard of anyone getting charged, much less convicted.

      Electronic gizmos offer an entirely new level of voter fraud. One that most people can't detect. Many instances of that have also been reported. Since it's a low observational kind of thing, I think that means that it's quite widespread. Funny thing, most of the voting machines don't have a decently observable audit trail. (One exception is the "mark a paper ballot and put it in the slot, we'll run it through an optical scanner" approach. I don't have total trust in those counts either, but at least there's a reasonable audit trail.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    79. Re:education by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Probably when Teddy Rooseveldt ran as a Bull Moose. Of course, he did lose that time.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    80. Re:education by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      You may want to read the discussion... the mention of 58% turnout was in response to the comment "Unless your election turnout is 1%."

    81. Re:education by cavreader · · Score: 1

      I don't believe the government defined what exactly constitutes a Service. Currently the law makes no distinction between providing engineering services for weapon development and web delivered educational services. If the company supplying the took measures to challenge this they could probably get exceptions added to the statute. Oh and please stop declaring Americans as a whole are idiots who can't possibly be as enlightened as yourself.

    82. Re:education by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Quite the opposite. They would not let you use them as cheap slave labour if educated after you conquer them economically.

    83. Re:education by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      And that is the real form of death of democracy - complacency. People think that because their parents and grandparents won many right for them to enjoy today, these rights won't be removed tomorrow.

      Protection of rights is not a one time thing. It's a process. And masses are slowly being told that they do not deserve these protections, these protections are bad for them and so on by the massive propaganda machine owned by a tiny minority with vested interests in repelling the rights won by our parents and grandparents.

      It's sad, but that's how human nature works. Most of us don't even remember the time when people had to fight for their rights on the streets.

    84. Re:education by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Maybe.

      Some states have open primaries, so you can go in and vote for whatever candidate you want. I think Oregon (or maybe WA. – I forget) has a system where the top 2 winners get on the general election ballot, even if they are from the same party. I think I like that system.

      And sometimes even if you belong to a party it does not matter. I am a center right Republican living in a very left wing district. Whoever wins the democratic primary gets the win. Of course, the situation is reversed in the district over.

    85. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://kazanmakbasit.blogspot.com.tr/

    86. Re:education by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's a counter-statement against all the wild claims made in a popular sillhouette man comic, where it is asserted that publicly-provided post-secondary education (college) reduces income inequality--helps the poor.

      College education is a speculative market. In the past 20 years, the US has had many high-profile bubbles where this speculation has destroyed students. For example: the dot-com boom made for a huge demand for Web programmers and designers; there was a nursing shortage in the US which caused a huge level of enrollment into nursing school; accounting was in major demand; and so on.

      In each case, certain careers were high-dollar. Web designers, programmers, nurses, accountants, all $100k-$250k salaries. Then in 4-6 short years, all these people flood out and saturate the market; most of them can't get jobs, and the ones that can are making $40k (tech workers are still making $60k, but nurses make Wal-Mart salary). External events have caused problems too, like the dotcom crash or Arthur Anderson fiasco. They've also caused great opportunity not capitalized on: Exxon Valdez resulted in major labor shortages.

      In a market with government-provided higher education or, as in the US, with government-secured loans, everyone suffers the cost of education: the burden weakens the economy, slowing growth and destroying some wealth. It also creates wealth, because of the wealth created by education. With government-secured loans, the "everyone" factor is that you can only get an education by taking your own risk; with government-provided higher education, the "everyone" factor is that you pay taxes for it.

      So that frames the question: is the wealth created greater than the economic cost (the wealth destroyed)? Let's first accept an important and true piece of information: it is unsustainable for people to pay for their own education. Now let's examine the failure modes.

      If the government does not support higher education, only rich kids can get a college education. They get infinite tries. They're also rare, and businesses must pay for them... $200k, $300k, $500k salaries. Worse yet, the lack of skilled labor hinders business strategic goals: businesses must bait labor off other businesses with ever-increasing salaries, and may lose said labor in the same way. So only hiring rich kids is unsustainable: it costs too fucking much and it prevents the business from actually doing what it needs to do, causing them to lag behind their competitors. This is toxic as hell to small business.

      In the above scenario, it's cheaper for the business to simply employ entrant workers at a low salary, plus generous education benefit. Miyomoto Musashi wrote in his Book of Five Rings that a foreman must be all of a carpenter before he can be a foreman; he wrote as well that a foreman knows that a skilled carpenter can carve furniture, while the unskilled plane floors, or the even less skilled lay joists, or at least cut wedges. Each of these things takes time, and a skilled carpenter taking 20 minutes to cut wedges is wasting a lot of time of extreme value; thus adding an unskilled worker can add as much value as adding a skilled worker.

      Knowing this, we can realize that strategically expanding your labor with lower-skilled workers and developing them into higher-skilled workers comes at the cost of education. It does not come at the cost of supporting a lower-skilled worker who produces minimal output, because the lower-skilled tasks required are still relevant as demand for higher-skilled workers--which you have in abundance--increases. Thus when you move 40 hours of low-skilled work off a high-skilled worker to an entrant, you are gaining the same benefit as hiring n a new high-skilled worker. The cost comes in education, which is offset by the lower wage of a low-skilled worker as compared to a high-skilled worker.

      This means that a business takes exceedingly small risk to hire and train skilled employees as needed. Skilled employees may start a

    87. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the same reasons, a person with more free time will have more influence. Aren't you going to limit that?

      If somebody manages to create more time for themselves, and less for others, then I would certainly be concerned about that.

      If nothing else, I fear it would be all too likely to risk warping the fabric of the universe.

      So no, you can't create more time for yourself. No matter how much money you have.

      How about limiting attractiveness of women? Certainly, a cute girl talking on behalf of a candidate is more persuasive, than a man — will you seek to outlaw that undue advantage too?

      Appearance as a reason to make any decision is indeed a bad thing. I do suggest avoid it.

      Unfortunately, with enough money to keep selling the idea, it remains an influence.

      It's not just limited to cute girls though, the right vocal register, the color of your skin, even your accent, matter all too much.

      Terrible things, really.

      At least, my having money (and being willing to spend it) is a sign of a good thing — generally. On contrast, somebody else having much free time is suspect — is their influence a good thing?

      I disagree with both of your presumptions. You, or anybody else, having money is not generally a sign of a good thing, nor is your presumption that somebody with money would have less free time. If anything they would have more. But they just put forth the idea that it's people, who are worthless, who aren't productively engaged, who spend time doing that.

      That such sentiments are commonly used to influence others, is what I would say is a bad thing.

      And your having the money to propagandize those idea is yet another bad thing.

      There is no "right to honest government" — you are governed by whoever you and the rest of the voters have elected.

      No, I actually have a right to honest government. It's why those who are elected have to swear an oath, or didn't you know about that? This sentiment can also be found in the Preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers. Not to mention the Constitutions of various states.

      You seek to violate that right. You seek to control the government not with your speech, and advance your interests against my own.

      Notice your blithe dismissal of my right to honest government. You purport that's not a right? You are a fool then. What did you think the American Revolution was about? Even a Second Amendment advocate would disagree with you, if they realized how anathema what you were saying was to their own ideals of having influence over the government.

      Sorry, but I do have a right to an honest government, nothing you can say will ever change that. Because if I don't, then I cannot morally act to change government for the better.

      But hey, thanks for showing me the hypocrisy in your logic. You certainly don't feel obligated to not influence government as you wish. You just want to deter others from making changes.

      Unlike Freedom of Speech, which certainly is a right. And I've given you enough examples (to supplement Supreme Court's decision) of how money is speech.

      Yes, you believe money is speech. It's actually power. I only support you having the same power as anybody else to influence the government.

      Heck, if the First Amendment protects selling pornography, then it certainly covers paying for political billboards and TV-ads.

      There are numerous restrictions on selling pornography, it's not an absolute free reign.

      I guess you didn't notice them.

      You've given me nothing but fake "rights" — and a down-moderation. So long, Anonymous Coward.

      Actually, you're the one who has given me nothing but fake "rights" and false "freedoms" whe

    88. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less expensive for whom is the real issue. Once you get a critical mass of educated, honest people in Congress they might start doing things like removing oil subsidies. That will get expensive for some demographics real quick.

    89. Re:education by serbanp · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did read the discussion. Your reply had nothing to do with GP's "Unless your election turnout is 1%" and everything to do with "Or, you know - rigged voting mechanisms", right?

    90. Re:education by darnkitten · · Score: 1

      And in other states, such as mine, you declare your party affiliation at the point where they hand out the ballots. That way you can vote against the most dangerous OR for the least offensive of the candidates on one or the other ballot. A minor boon for the independent voter.

    91. Re:education by darnkitten · · Score: 1

      Yeah--Paul appeared on the primary ballot in my state, after he had already withdrawn from the race, and Santorum was only pretending to run at that point. You only have a choice if you live in an early-primary state.

    92. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "By limiting the amount of money I can spend on an ad, you are infringing my Free Speech."

      Is the government physically putting tape across your mouth, or putting you in handcuffs so you can't type?

      I don't see how your speech is limited by restricting the amount of money you spend. You can still talk, you can still write. Your words have not been banned. You can express them freely.

      Indeed. I can't quite understand why people think their right to speech has been infringed if they aren't allowed to buy their favorite candidtate with their (no doubt) copious amounts of cash in the bank.

      That being said, I think the answer to money in politics is to create more money and give it to everyone, so that it becomes pointless to try to outspend anyone. Then you have to argue with your words alone, since money doesn't give you any advantage.

      I am not sure that this would work so well either. Imagine if it were 1948 and the Dixiecrats were running for office. Would you want them getting an equal share of campaign funding to spread their message?

    93. Re:education by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      I believe that words and reason will win over emotion. The key is to strip away the excuses that emotional arguments present as necessity. Economics is one such excuse. Eliminate the artificial scarcity of money so that no one can use "but we can't pay for it!" as an excuse to limit freedom.

      For example, Lincoln argued for compensated emancipation as a way to end slavery by paying slaveowners for their "property". The emotional arguments used economics against this proposal: "we can't afford it!" But the Civil War ended up costing at least as much as compensated emancipation would have, and had the added effect of killing some three-quarters of a million people and destroying a lot of infrastructure.

      So it's of paramount importance to expose economic-based arguments of artificial scarcity for what they are: excuses for an emotional position, not the physical necessity they are presented as.

    94. Re:education by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I feel my vote is useless anyways no mater who I vote for. Still I did vote for a 3rd party so I can go on to bitch about Obama and if he lost then the ass who won too

      It's never useless.

      If nothing else, it puts the bastard who did get elected on notice that their mandate isn't as overwhelming as they'd like to pretend it is.

    95. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well obviously you're more "in-the-know" than the rest of us. So please, tell us, what have YOU been doing while we've been hiding under the covers because every time I poke my head out to take a gander, it all looks like the same pile of bullshit to me.

    96. Re:education by mi · · Score: 1

      Is the government physically putting tape across your mouth, or putting you in handcuffs so you can't type?

      Any and all proposed "campaign finance reform laws" would limit the amount of money one can spend on their favorite candidate and/or issue. Whether I'm not allowed to talk on a street corner on behalf of a candidate for more than X hours (because X times minimum hourly wage will exceed the limit), or not allowed to buy a TV advertisement, my right to speech is infringed. Whether I'll be "merely" fined for the violation, or actual tape will be put across my mouth is irrelevant — Congress will have made law limiting Freedom of Speech...

      the answer to money in politics is to create more money and give it to everyone

      Well, that's exactly, what we have now. People "create" (earn!) money and give it to causes they wish to advance. And it is just how it should be — and no "reform" is necessary.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    97. Re:education by mi · · Score: 1

      Eliminate the artificial scarcity of money

      Wow!!! That's got to be a troll... No one can be that stupid...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    98. Re:education by mi · · Score: 1

      The system is set up that those with money get heard and those without do not.

      This is an oft-repeated canard, but it is simply not true. Money helps — as does comely appearance, good education, etc. But it is not a guarantee. For example, last year people favoring gun control outspent their opponents in Colorado by staggering 11:1 — and lost anyway.

      Modern politics is no longer about doing what's best for the country or even the constituent.

      "Things aren't what they used to be — and they never were." I'm yet to see a reform proposal, that does not infringe on First Amendment rights — and, worse, all allow the incumbent to decide, whether the opposition is not getting "too much money". That's a straight road to Chavez's Venezuela (if not Castro's Cuba), and that's far worse than even "plutocracy".

      Lastly, you focusing on the wrong target. The real danger are not the wealthy individuals outside of government — they've earned the monies they are spending doing something, that other people wanted to pay for. The real threat to our freedoms (and prosperity) is the ever-expanding federal government — presidents come and go, but the bureaucrats stay... The stuffed suits justifying their own existence by issuing regulations (that nobody wants) and justifying their greater and expenses. Real estate in Washington DC never seems to drop in price and the region hardly sustained any recession. And, wouldn't you know it, they just got another raise...

      Over the years a succession of foolish Congresses has delegated Legislature's powers to the Executive branch — and its various agencies headed by unelected bureaucrats. That needs reforming, but you aren't going to achieve it by limiting the amounts of money people are allowed to spend on politics. People in government will find a way — people outside will be audited by the IRS.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    99. Re:education by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      The private sector creates hundreds of trillions out of thin air, with no resulting hyperinflation. Why shouldn't government? Inflation is psychological, not a physical necessity.

    100. Re:education by CTU · · Score: 1

      I do not believe that is the case for Florida sadly

    101. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you want is someone like Chavez and that will not happen until I run out of ammunition...

      You're so foolishly naive. When they come for you, it'll be at night, with suppressors and NVGs. Run out of ammunition? You'll be lucky if you're even awake to make a shot. In fact, it's far more likely that your house will "accidentally" catch fire - you know, those non-lethal gas that they use is awfully flammable; such a PITA, and causes all kinds of accidents! - with you and your family inside.

    102. Re:education by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      Replace 'government' with a better word, and you are spot on. I do not see government as something bad. Your or others' implementation might not be good, but government is needed.

      I would suggest 'oppressors', as that also would fit for other, non government, groups that have power but equally want a dumb populace. Radical religious groups have the same problems.

      Expanding your horizons frees up the mind. People who are not given that chance are fearful. They do not know the world and are afraid. They also do not realize there are different ways to think/do/live. Perhaps not better or worse, just different.

      No more smart people means people working in low paying jobs. Combine that with an education system that highly favours an 'elite' clientèle (i.e. the same group of people that are in charge), and you have the old multi-class/-caste system again.
      A saying I remember, 'someone worrying about where tomorrows meal will come from has no time to think about rebellion'

      Just make sure that you indoctrinate the 'you are free, you are created equal' into the poor as a way to accept their fate.

      Btw, this is similar to the tactic the British did in their colonies (it also has a name I cannot remember). All smart people would be shipped off to other colonies to remove them from influencing the local (same 'race') populace. In the other colonies, they presume, they would not be able to cause problems. Gandhi is a prime example.
      A similar tactic is also done with troops, but that is going OT.

      Education of our children is and should be our PRIMARY goal. Nothing is more important.
      "let's make college tuition either free or really low and if you have a country full of whip-crack smart people you have a country the rest of the world will fear."
      ~ Henry Rollins

      If you pay your [sport] coach more then your Maths/[Language]/Science/Arts teachers, you have a problem.

      Finally and not to forget, the US imports a large amount of foreign elite students. I read somewhere about 70% are foreign.

    103. Re:education by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      at a certain point, it's turtles all the way down.

    104. Re:education by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      ... i think you forgot that pesky thing called the thirteenth amendment, you know, the one dealing with slavery?

      you basically proposed a system where candidates either win office, or sell themselves into slavery, or losing a contest becomes a criminal offense.

      yay.

    105. Re:education by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      now there was a politician who could get things done. a real doer that one.

    106. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the 12 year old. I mean, really, you'd have to be 12 to believe the tripe you write. Go do some research and find out why it doesn't take tampering on a large scale to tip an election. Go live in the world some more to find out how 'requiring balls the size of an aircraft carrier' isn't relative to this discussion.

    107. Re:education by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i voted for obama. I felt i had no right to bitch, no matter the outcome if i didn't cast my ballot. Voting democratic in Texas... I've yet to live in a purple state.

    108. Re:education by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      it is useless because Republicans are really into gerrymandering and even if Obama had won by 15 points, we'd still have an obstructionist house.

    109. Re:education by jfengel · · Score: 1

      I agree that it's probably not the case, but remember that the way US Presidential elections work, you can do a lot with a relatively small amount of vote tampering.

      The 2000 election is an obvious case in point: a few hundred votes turned one state's entire set of electoral votes, which in turn carried the election. Subsequent elections weren't quite so close, but it's not inconceivable that one could tamper with an election enough to turn it using only tens of insiders rather than thousands of people.

      I agree that's unlikely; even tens of insiders is a lot of opportunity to get caught. And it applies only to the very odd case of the Presidential election. House races are much smaller and closer, but you'd need to interfere in quite a few of them to make a difference. Senate races are more crucial, but they are state wide and it's rare to find one so close that you could change it without serious risk of discovery. They do happen, but it's not always clear in advance which ones they'll be; interfering in all the potentially close ones raises your chance of being caught.

    110. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only useful vote in Amerika is the one not cast.

    111. Re:education by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Your ire is misplaced. I'm not criticizing, I'm expressing empathy for the situation. I've been hiding under the covers like everyone else, because the more you look at it, the more difficult it appears to be to fix.

    112. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... i think you forgot that pesky thing called the thirteenth amendment, you know, the one dealing with slavery?

      you basically proposed a system where candidates either win office, or sell themselves into slavery, or losing a contest becomes a criminal offense.

      yay.

      Amendment #13:
                      Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

                      Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

      I don't see the issue? It is not mandatory to run for office, so that handles the involuntary servitude and slavery aspects. My suggestion is to make the ballot registration require X,000 hour commitment of personally served public service in a less glamorous role, at normal rates (entry level postman, peace corp, army grunt, etc) is neither slavery nor forcible. I think we'd have a better candidate pool if those who ran had to commit to serve even if they didn't get the "starting quarterback" position they wanted.

      Running for President - commander of the military - should mean you are willing to serve in the military as a grunt. Want to pass laws in Congress? You should be willing to work as a prison guard where they enforce the punishments for breaking laws you pass.

      Also, in practical terms, it already costs millions to run for major federal offices, so it is not as if poor people can effectively run - plus I suggest that they get (entry level) pay for the position they serve in. I'm ujust tired of "Oh, if they elected me, my secret plan would have saved us from whatever-issue-of-the-day but since I lost I'm taking my ball and going home." Cartman shouldn't be President.

    113. Re:education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one thing, you apparently cannot afford a good tax consultant.

      Having the tax system (or any part of the legal system that every citizen has to deal with) be so complex that one needs (or can benefit from) a consultant is unethical practice of law on the part of the legal professionals responsible for creating and upholding the laws. The only tax system consistent with ethical practice of law is a simple tax system.

      Unfortunately, the US legal system is riddled with this particular flavour of unethical practice of law. It's not an accident that the Patriot Act is hundreds of pages long, or that Obama Health Care is thousands of pages long, or that the US is the "Land of the Lawsuit".

      Most members of Congress are not just elected politicians, they're legal professionals, as are a huge number of people on their staffs. Fixing the campaign finance system, while desirable, isn't going to help much so long as most of the people in power are members of a special interest group that looks out for its own interests at the expense of society (and can readily be bought by the top 1%).

      The political parties and government agencies couldn't get out of control if society hadn't been stupid enough to first let the legal profession get out of control. Further, we won't be able to fix the problems with politics and government without massive reform of the legal system and the legal profession.

    114. Re:education by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Having the tax system (or any part of the legal system that every citizen has to deal with) be so complex that one needs (or can benefit from) a consultant is unethical practice of law on the part of the legal professionals responsible for creating and upholding the laws. The only tax system consistent with ethical practice of law is a simple tax system.

      I won't say you're wrong, but given what we've got...

      In theory, all the really gnarly stuff only affects people with lots of income or specialized endeavors. Considering the pain and suffering I have to go through every year, I must be in the "lots of income" crowd, since I'm definitely not affected by most of the specialty concerns.

      Having a good tax consultant has multiple purposes. You'd think that they help you reduce your taxes, and to a degree, you'd be right.

      But if you're in the 1% - or maybe even in the top 10%, there's also other reasons. You can get around a lot of the "taxes are theft" issues by making deductible contributions to concerns that you support, offsetting the taxes otherwise paid to the general coffers and thus "wasting your money" on stuff you oppose. Done artfully, you can pick up some good perks - both tangible and intangible - in the process. You can shift tax liabilities to other people or other times where they are less onerous or more convenient. A good tax advisor can help do legally.

  2. Yea. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    News flash! The U.S. has some strict laws that bar trade, even free trade, with a short list of countries classified as enemies of the state. Those mooks, running this MOOC, thought it was OK to ignore that?

    It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the United States not share its knowledge and higher education with its enemies.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

    1. Re:Yea. So? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the United States not share its knowledge and higher education with its enemies.

      Why? A good general education program in Iran/Afghanistan would do a lot more to help fight the Taliban then the $4,000,000,000,000 they just wasted.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Yea. So? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I meant "Iraq", obviously. The USA hasn't started on Iran and Syria yet.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Yea. So? by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the United States not share its knowledge and higher education with its enemies.

      Why? A good general education program in Iran/Afghanistan would do a lot more to help fight the Taliban then the $4,000,000,000,000 they just wasted.

      I meant "Iraq", obviously. The USA hasn't started on Iran and Syria yet.

      Could that be why Iraq and Afghanistan aren't on this list of banned countries? Outrage!

    4. Re:Yea. So? by fgb · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

      Encryption export restrictions were incredibly effective because no other country has mathematicians.

      I mean, it's not as if VPN technology is freely available right now. Even if it wasn't, there are no programmers skilled enough to implement that sort of thing anywhere else in the world.

    5. Re:Yea. So? by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why? A good general education program in Iran/Afghanistan would do a lot more to help fight the Taliban then the $4,000,000,000,000 they just wasted.

      Because that good education could also serve to provide applicable knowledge to one's adversaries, especially in the science and engineering fields.

      Think of it through another medium, in the form of those that our military is willing to take as enlistees. Known gang members are generally barred from enlisting, as there's concern that once they've acquired knowledge in learning how to fight and learning how to use weapons, they'll take that knowledge back to train their gang and will use it against the local civilian population. A single enlistment term is a fairly short amount of time, and given the fairly low death rate of our soldiers, it's very likely that someone will survive to return with this training without having 'been converted' in taking their true allegiance from their pre-military-service days.

      For now I agree with not providing such educational services to those living in countries facing such export controls. Yes, it sucks for those people in those countries, but without practical ways to confirm that those using these services are not proxies of the state, there's no way to keep those states from benefiting from the service.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:Yea. So? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Educating our enemies might enlighten them so that they are no longer our enemies. Sure would be a lot cheaper that way than starting another war, you know, like in Iraq, over Weapons of Mass Destruction that didn't exist.

      We should better educate ourselves. Too much of what passes for education in the US and the West is indoctrination. Read some Noam Chomsky and A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn for a bit of perspective.

      It always amazes me how many very narrowly educated people there are. I used to think a Bachelor of Arts degree was a watered down, wimpy sort of college degree and the Bachelor of Science was the way to go. Now, after encountering quite a few people who know technical stuff like how to be a good code monkey but are utterly ignorant of philosophy and the basics of science and rational thought, I wonder if an Arts degree was meant to deal with precisely that problem. Every person with a college degree should be equipped to understand that, for example, Creationism is bunk.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    7. Re:Yea. So? by Ksevio · · Score: 2

      ... they'll take that knowledge back to train their gang and will use it against the local civilian population

      That would be terrible if they started using integrals and cell osmosis against the locals! We must put an end to this education at once!

    8. Re:Yea. So? by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      ... they'll take that knowledge back to train their gang and will use it against the local civilian population

      That would be terrible if they started using integrals and cell osmosis against the locals! We must put an end to this education at once!

      Yes, because everyone knows integrals and cell osmosis are totally worthless knowledge when designing and using ballistic, biochemical, or nuclear weaponry.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    9. Re:Yea. So? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      This is still stupid policy towards Afghanistan. It's understandable, but wouldn't we be better off with young Afghans thinking of the US as "Country that's helping me get some education" rather than "Evil empire raining drone strikes at weddings"?

      The US has a faction that's being either monumentally stupid with regards to Iran as well. When your enemy picks a leader that says "Let's just try doing what the US has asked us to do", then goes to the US and says "We're willing to do what you guys are asking us to do, but we need to get something in return to appease our hardliners back home", the last thing you want to do is say "Oh, well, that's very nice, but we're going to punish you more for doing this." The reason that's monumentally stupid is obvious: It leaves Iran with no choice but to get some nukes and aim them at Israel or India or whatever other US allies they can, or they will face the same fate as Iraq. (Alternately, this faction is made up of evil bastards who want another war in the Middle East, killing thousands of American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iranians just to make 'em feel better. I'm going with "stupid" based solely on Hanlon's Razor.)

      The impression I get from a lot of US policymakers is that they don't want to use the "soft power" of actually improving the lives of other country's citizens because they won't feel manly enough if they do it, or feel a need to use up resources building what are ultimately useless military toys. But it's actually the best defense imaginable against terrorist groups: "Join the cause! Fight America, the great Satan!" "No way! America saved my sister's family from a tsunami, gave my son the skills he needed to get his great job, and gave us the village water supply!"

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    10. Re:Yea. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is so fucking stupid it's going to hurt me all day. Enough with the paranoid delusions in support of censorship.

    11. Re:Yea. So? by phorm · · Score: 1

      Because that good education could also serve to provide applicable knowledge to one's adversaries, especially in the science and engineering fields

      Unnnnh, so instead the "bad guys" just spend a little cash to send people to a school where they're taught these things. I believe some of those involved in 9-11 were actually fairly well educated in this regard.

      Trading a few hundred thousand or more better-educated members of the general populace for a few potential fanatics isn't such a bad deal.

    12. Re:Yea. So? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Not to mention what they might do once they learn about Classical History and how it relates to modern film

    13. Re:Yea. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Known gang members are generally barred from enlisting,

      There is a big problem with gangs in the military : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
      ugh... The military is just a big gang anyway. Censoring the global internet is bad for humanity. War is bad, too. Education is good.

    14. Re:Yea. So? by cusco · · Score: 1

      The problem with improving people's lives is that they tend to give the credit to the local government, not some faceless bureaucracy on the other side of the world.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    15. Re:Yea. So? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I never said they were.

      Do you think that the world's bad people who are in any way disadvantaged by blocking Coursera? Seems to me like all the bomb-making information is on *other* websites.

      Maybe the children in those countries could grow up seeing the USA as an ally if they had access to a good education? If anything it should be the countries themselves blocking this sort of web site (like North Korea and China do).

      --
      No sig today...
    16. Re:Yea. So? by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      "they'll take that knowledge back to train their gang and will use it against the local civilian population."

      But a MOOC is available to anyone, including the local civilian population. So the local civilian population can use the knowledge to fight the government.

    17. Re:Yea. So? by TWX · · Score: 1

      If the company can restrict the curriculum to avoid hard sciences and engineering in those countries facing export tariffs then I wouldn't object to it.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    18. Re:Yea. So? by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      It's not a lack of high school physics that's stopping terrorists from building a nuclear weapon...

    19. Re:Yea. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or heaven forbid that they would want to debate, discuss, and analyze why it is that Muslim societies have difficulties in dealing with the challenges of modernity and how they might go about creating thriving democratic Muslim societies:

      https://www.coursera.org/course/muslimworld

      No need for missiles! Thriving democratic economies! Dogs and cats living together! Oh the humanity!

    20. Re:Yea. So? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In this particular case, the way the education is provided makes it very clear about who is improving lives. There's no way an Afghan local govt could take credit for Coursera.

    21. Re:Yea. So? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      For now I agree with not providing such educational services to those living in countries facing such export controls. Yes, it sucks for those people in those countries, but without practical ways to confirm that those using these services are not proxies of the state, there's no way to keep those states from benefiting from the service.

      This perspective only makes sense if the majority of the people in that country are, in fact, supportive of their government and are your enemies. If they are actually oppressed by that government, then teaching them all those things, if anything, would help them overthrow the oppressor, and then you have one less hostile country.

    22. Re:Yea. So? by cusco · · Score: 1

      True enough. I was responding mostly to your last paragraph, which seemed more about 'soft power' in general. I think the Peace Corps was the single greatest foreign policy initiative to ever arise out of the bowels of the US gov't, at least until Ronnie Raygun put the former head of Naval Intelligence in charge of it. Ever read 'The Ugly American'? Really a good book (unbeknownst to most people the 'ugly' American was the good guy).

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    23. Re:Yea. So? by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      no? how about claiming that an exemption in the embargo is a concession by the world powers and the embargo is weakening. you don't have to spin very hard to take credit for weakening sanctions.

    24. Re:Yea. So? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No-one thought the law about the sanctions even applied to MOOCs until a few days ago. If they didn't suddenly drop the hammer on it, there would be no "weakening" because there was nothing to weaken.

    25. Re:Yea. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as there's concern that once they've acquired knowledge in learning how to fight and learning how to use weapons, they'll take that knowledge back to train the local police and will use it against the local civilian population.

  3. This is like banning it from black people and Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why doesn't the US do business with communist Cuba but they do with communist China?

    The US is mad at governments, not the people of countries. Are they insinuating that all citizens are potential terrorists? Why not ban it from Americans too because the US seems to think that every American could be a domestic terrorist -- especially those darned Tea Party and Libertarians. Mention the word constitition and you go on a watch list.

  4. How short sighted... by emagery · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If, as a nation, you decide that some other nation is an enemy, how better to influence their youth and upcoming generations to become your friend than offering them a good education? All this does is worsen the divide and entrench the relatively few 'bad guys' said other nation may even have running the show into their positions against us. *headdesk*

    1. Re:How short sighted... by MindStalker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem here is that our laws haven't kept pace with technology. In the height of the Cold War, you didn't want our nuclear scientist teaching the world how to build atomic bombs, and yet every student who went into physics at US university was basically taught the core technologies. The list goes on. Export of knowledge is thus highly regulated. Hopefully coursera will lead the charge in changing the laws, but we can't pretend these laws don't exist.

    2. Re:How short sighted... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Informative

      If, as a national government, you decide...

      FTFY. Most of us, especially those who were born after the Cuban Missile Crisis, have no problem with either Cuba or the people living there.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:How short sighted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://medium.com/the-nib/35ad23800282

      It's an SMBC comic which was done on some kind of commission, so there is no SMBC URL to be had.

    4. Re:How short sighted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTFY. Most of us, especially those who were born after the Cuban Missile Crisis, have no problem with either Cuba or the people living there.

      And on the flip-side most people probably don't care that we are allies and actively support some really reprehensible "governments" around the world that are far far worse than Cuba. Heck even Iran compares favorably to some of the regimes the US is propping up with money and weapons.

    5. Re:How short sighted... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      All this does is worsen the divide and entrench the relatively few 'bad guys' said other nation may even have running the show into their positions against us. *headdesk*

      I just want to back up your point, and note that "all this does" could be interpreted as handwaving away "endangering the safety of future generations", which is what the stooges in DC are doing.

      They are at least as dangerous as whomever they think will learn how to do something useful that they're afraid of. It's entirely consistent though - they
      uniformly reject the notion that education, opportunities, and markets can lead to peace and prosperity, and continually fight against it with their bombs, regulations, and embargoes, despite the clear track record of it working every time it's tried. It's not surprising to the cynic, though - to do otherwise would be to admit to their own innecessity.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:How short sighted... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      More likely they'll fold and an new group with the same members will open in Europe, or Scandanavia, or ... well, basically anywhere. So the US will lose prestige, and the US will lose friends, and ... well, if there are any gains, I don't see them.

      Since what is being argued is an interpretation of the law, you need a lot of money, a good set of lawyers, a lot of patience, and a willingness to take risks to argue with the government interpretation, even when it's blatantly foolish. (I don't *know* that this interpretation isn't reasonable. Maybe it is. But it also may well just be another instance of government overreach.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:How short sighted... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      So the US ought to be training Saudis how to fly planes? Look how well that worked out last time.

      Knowing whether the people you are teaching are genuinely grateful and thankful, to the extent that they show favour to you later, when they might be able to have some influence, is the hard part.

      (Note: the Saudis weren't the pilots, they were the grunts, I know that, but it was easier to say "Saudis" than to remember precisely where the rest of them came from.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    8. Re:How short sighted... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The trick is to teach them other things while training them to fly planes. Slip in some Voltaire, Rousseau and Locke there, for example.

    9. Re:How short sighted... by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      yes, i can see it now, non-skippable popup ads spouting voltaire and locke... you can't give choice without sacrificing control.

  5. Export Control Regulations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So I guess it's true: the deadliest weapon of all is an educated mind.

    Now that every attempt to educate our own citizens has also been shut down or hobbled by everyone from teachers' unions to the creationists, I guess the only way we can maintain an education gap is to deny a Western education to our adversaries too.

  6. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why doesn't the US do business with communist Cuba but they do with communist China?

    Because there are outspoken anti-Castro cuban immigrants that form huge voting blocks in south Florida.

  7. Stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah we wouldn't want to educate anyone in those 'bad' countries. They might grow up to like the usa...

    That'll show em.

    My god as a nation we're just fucking up in pretty much every way possible.. For the stupidest reasons ever.

  8. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why doesn't the US do business with communist Cuba but they do with communist China?

    If Cuba could beat China on the price of cheap electrical goods, toys, etc. I think there would be a quick change in policy.

  9. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because of people, like my parents, who are from Cuba and came to the US in '75. They live in Northern Florida and want nothing less than the Cuban government destroyed and won't vote for ANYONE who even waivers in their distain for Cuba.

    Myself? I think it's silly.

  10. What about North Korea? by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

    Oh, right... I forgot Coursera offers ONLINE courses!

    --
    So say we all
    1. Re:What about North Korea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Little Kimmy's daddy was an INTERNET EXPERT!!! surely the apple must not have fallen too far from the tree!

  11. dumb. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    :( "We have a problem with your government, so we'll punish you instead." brilliant.

  12. non-american universities on coursera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    More than half of the excellent courses I've taken on Coursera were offered from non-US universities... isn't it lovely that these juristictions must once again bow to American short sightedness in thanks for having graciously provided their services on an American platform.

    There are a few nice US courses also, but now I'll gladly look elsewhere for alternatives to avoid American taint; just as I now more actively than ever look elsewhere for internet hosting/cloud services.

  13. North Korea by mattie_p · · Score: 1

    Great news for everyone on the internet in North Korea, they seem to still be able to take Coursera classes! I bet the 1970's Film Appreciation instructor is happy to still have all their students.

  14. Re:This makes sense to an extent by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Then, just maybe, some of them might question whether a "God of Peace" would choose a pedophile warlord for his message of love.

    How does Obama fit in to the course you are talking about?

    Not at all. I was thinking about a straight comparison of beliefs of various religions together with looking at an impact of each belief on society.

  15. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by andydread · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked it was the Occupy people that got put on a terrorist watch list not tea party of liberterian types but don't let the facts in they way of your trolling.. carry on.

  16. petition by Twelfth+Harmonic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    for what it's worth - https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

    1. Re:petition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worth is less than this AC's reply.

  17. Same old story by mysidia · · Score: 1

    We need someone new to step up and challenge the DoC export restrictions on published website content as unconstitutional interference with free speech, like we had with DJ Bernstein challenging cryptography export restrictions.

    1. Re:Same old story by Burz · · Score: 1

      We need someone new to step up and challenge the DoC export restrictions on published website content
      as unconstitutional interference with free speech,
      like we had with DJ Bernstein challenging cryptography export restrictions.

      The official position now is there are no constitutional rights across borders, and the UN declaration of human rights is toilet paper. "Human rights" is something defined/forgotten sporadically by the US State Dept. and the Council on Foreign Relations between war campaigns against third-world countries; it is something relegated to short-term memory.

  18. But some students will be able to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose the poster could have taken a basic course in logic.

  19. Business leaving USA by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because obviously less education is the solution. [/irony]

    What we have here is that the US politicians representing a bunch of UN-EDUCATED FOOLS !

    The US politicians don't seem to care that businesses are leaving USA.

    By banning students from specific country to take ***FREE*** university courses offered by top universities from ***ALL OVER THE WORLD*** the United States of America is signifying to the world that "We Do Not Need Your Business Here".

    With this kind of attitude coupled with the Snowden revelations, businesses _are_ leaving the United States.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Business leaving USA by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, what the US is signifying by banning students from Syria, Sudan, Iran and Cuba is that it doesn't want to assist those regimes.

      Why do you think that banning 4 out of 200 countries tells the other 195 countries that they need not apply? You seem to be over-generalizing.

      I also doubt that there is any real loss of businesses from the US due to this, but kudos for dragging Snowden into it. I am left wondering if you might be off your game today since you didn't work in a condemnation of the NSA as well.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:Business leaving USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No man is an island. What I see as a foreigner in a country not banned (yet) is that the US is a capricious and arbitrary bull in a china shop. You are a petty nation seemingly hell-bent on destroying yourselves and I want to do as little business with American companies as practically possible.

    3. Re:Business leaving USA by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 2

      They should be pushing courses into these countries as hard as possible. By exposing the students to the rest of the world and having them interact with the multitude of other countries and cultures of the other students, you give them an understanding of what the rest of the world is like and a chance to debate it with others.

      By cutting them off like this, you now have a group of students who were busy educating themselves now unable to finish that process and that will likely result in the student starting to think "maybe my government is right about the Americans."

      It becomes a matter of balance between whether the course material assists the regime or whether the interaction with other students causes more people to question the regime. I think the balance tips heavily in favour of causing questions.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    4. Re:Business leaving USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is educating people in Syria, Sudan, Iran or Cuba supporting the regimes in those countries? Surely the most effective counter to corrupt regimes, in the long run, is a well educated population...

    5. Re:Business leaving USA by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      "No, what the US is signifying by banning students from Syria, Sudan, Iran and Cuba is that it doesn't want to assist those regimes."

      No, what the US is signifying by banning students from Syria, Sudan, Iran and Cuba is that it doesn't want to assist the people under those regimes.

      There was a guy from Syria in the first AI MOOC, who kept complaining in the irc chatroom that his internet was getting throttled or shut down by Assad. Banning that guy is helping Assad.

    6. Re:Business leaving USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I also doubt that there is any real loss of businesses from the US due to this"

      I just enquired of Coursera about how to cancel my account with them. I am not prepared to support the US in this imbecilic bullying attitude. Time for the world to wake up and recognize that the US is a far from benign power. Every bit count.

      I suggest examining every service you own or use and seeking alternative to those that are US based.

    7. Re:Business leaving USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is educating people in Syria, Sudan, Iran or Cuba supporting the regimes in those countries? Surely the most effective counter to corrupt regimes, in the long run, is a well educated population...

      Yes. Now couple this with the fact that the USA scores near the bottom on many rankings of education. Feel scared yet? You should.

    8. Re:Business leaving USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the childish leave it is seldom a loss. Have fun!

    9. Re:Business leaving USA by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      No, what the US is signifying by banning students from Syria, Sudan, Iran and Cuba is that it doesn't want to assist those regimes.

      Maybe we should also ban a "regime" that:

      1. Fails to guarantee proper living, healthcare, education, justice, blah, blah, blah, to tens of millions of its own population, in spite of being the richest country in the world.
      2. Illegally spies on his own population and the rest of the world.
      3. Illegally imprisons and tortures people in secret prisons all around the world.
      4. Supports vicious dictatorships.
      5. Supplies money, weapons and training to "freedom fighters" that commit all kinds of atrocities all around the world.
      6. Overthrows governments in other countries when they don't kneel down and suck its cock.
      7. Illegally bombs whatever country it feels like, when it feels like.
      8. Acts as the personal army of private corporations, spending taxpayers money defending private interests at gunpoint, all around the world
      9. Sends missionaries to third world countries to teach great things like how gay people should be executed and how using condoms is a sin, causing countless deaths.
      10. Has a completely corrupt political system that makes a mockery of democracy.
      11. Holds completely illegal and outrageous embargoes on sovereign countries that pose absolutely no threat to it.
      12. And so on, and so on, and so on...
      13. In spite of all the above, poses as the paladin of democracy and human rights all around the world.

      Do you know such an evil regime? Maybe Coursera should ban its courses over there, too.

    10. Re:Business leaving USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This crap makes me feel really sad for a guy I've never met and don't know but when I read his introduction post from "bloody Syria" on a course I just started, I was impressed how someone there tries hard to educate himself and - for once - felt really spoiled (medical issues have hampered my studies in the past and I've normally always had to envy fully healthy people). I really thought that it's impressive that someone under those circumstances tries to think about his future and is able to focus on improving his Android programming skills even though it to me seems unlikely that he'll get a chance to put them to use and earn a living that way. Becoming a butcher for Assad could be a much easier and profitable option. Maybe that's what the US government would prefer... Thus I want to say - from the bottom of my heart - FUCK YOU, US GOVERNMENT!!!

    11. Re:Business leaving USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know such an evil regime? Maybe Coursera should ban its courses over there, too.

      No need to do that. A large portion of the population under that regime boycotts learning anyway.

    12. Re:Business leaving USA by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      To which country are you referring? If it is the one of my wild guess then I would say you may be the victim of faulty education or indoctrination. You may want to sign up for some courses from a more neutral source if you can.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    13. Re:Business leaving USA by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      You may want to sign up for some courses from a more neutral source if you can.

      If I was Cuban the courses wouldn't be available to me. I would be the victim of "faulty education or indoctrination" of US politicians.

    14. Re:Business leaving USA by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      If you were a Cuban you would not have the chance because your first obstacle would be the Cuban government. The internet hardly touches the life of the Cuban people to begin with, let alone meat or cars.

      The Lost World, Part I
      The Lost World, Part II

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    15. Re:Business leaving USA by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      From the second link:

      Havana is also stuck in the past. Cubans themselves call it a time machine. It’s largely unchanged by modern high-tech civilization—what Alvin Toffler calls the Third Wave in his landmark book of the same name. Hardly anyone has a computer, the Internet is banned in private homes, email addresses are for foreigners, cell phones are for the elite, no one can order anything from Amazon.com, and so on. Havana is firmly stuck in the Second Wave, the industrial mass society era of the assembly line, centralized bureaucracy, and the Cold War.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    16. Re:Business leaving USA by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      So what? It's hard to live in an embargoed country. It's so much better to be comfortable on the other side shitting opinions.

    17. Re:Business leaving USA by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Do you know any Cubans? Get you head out of your jingoistic ass and meet a few.

    18. Re:Business leaving USA by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Individual Cubans may be fine people, that doesn't change the nature of their totalitarian government. Or do you have a different theory?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    19. Re:Business leaving USA by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      You do seem comfortable with your opinions.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    20. Re:Business leaving USA by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, the Cuban "totalitarian government" wasn't spying on my emails and phone calls or bombing countries on the other side of the world for no valid reason.

    21. Re:Business leaving USA by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Are you a bot?

    22. Re:Business leaving USA by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Probably not, I seem to be passing the Turing test. ;)

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    23. Re:Business leaving USA by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      The Cuban government oppresses those under its power. If you aren't under its power then it probably can't oppress you. The fact that you aren't under its power and therefore it can't oppress you personally doesn't change the fact that it is a totalitarian government. For whatever it is worth to you, Cuba does have a long history of military adventurism to further the spread of revolution and communism. And there was a shipment of missile related quipment intercepted not long ago on its way from Cuba to North Korea in violation of UN embargos.

      You might find those articles I linked to interesting, or maybe not.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    24. Re:Business leaving USA by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      You bring the UN? Yeah, right. Wake me up when Cuba violates as many UN resolutions as the US and Israel.

    25. Re:Business leaving USA by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Why don't you make that when the Cuban people are free? I can't see certain parts of Europe and the Arab League lightening up on Israel any time soon in the UN. Some people really go off the rails on the subject.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  20. Yes! by betterprimate · · Score: 1

    Because everyone knows knowledge and education breeds intolerance!

  21. This is novel but it's not new by cultiv8 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The US has enforced digital trade sanctions for years, even LinkedIn has blocked users before in fear of violating export sanctions. However, this is the first case I've heard of the US blocking access to a free service offered online.

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    1. Re:This is novel but it's not new by mebrahim · · Score: 1

      FYI: Google Code has been banned to Iranians for years.

  22. Proxies? by hummassa · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else see the ridicule of this attempt? People on the banned countries that really want to continue their courses will use proxies and other technological measures to bypass it?

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:Proxies? by sunderland56 · · Score: 2

      Teaching people about proxy servers and other useful tools is part of the educational value of the web site.

  23. For those who didn't know what the acronym meant by kent_eh · · Score: 2, Informative

    For others (who (like me) weren't familiar with the acronym MOOC:

    Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)

    Would it be so hard for submitters to expand their acronyms in the posts?

    --

    ---
    "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  24. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by SJHillman · · Score: 1

    And there's not as many feelgood stories about Chinese refugees being picked up by the Coast Guard while swimming across the ocean on a raft made out of an old Chevy to escape their homeland.

  25. Easy solution by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If MOOC believes that offering education from the world's top university benefits all of humanity, there is a simple solution. Move the company offshore, or obtain a foreign partner.

    The irony with treating this as banned with regards to certain countries that we are not on good terms with is that educational opportunities are very limited in those countries. Having access to education and the exposure to new ideas it brings is an opportunity to change those societies from within. Other than the industrial-military complex, who doesn't benefit from that?

    1. Re:Easy solution by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      If MOOC believes that offering education from the world's top university benefits all of humanity, there is a simple solution. Move the company offshore, or obtain a foreign partner.

      Not that easy a solution, since, in some cases, the US can go after the employees or management of non-US companies that violate US sanctions. Not sure it'd apply in this case, but there's certainly a risk.

    2. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that easy a solution, since, in some cases, the US can go after the employees or management of non-US companies that violate US sanctions. Not sure it'd apply in this case, but there's certainly a risk.

      I hope not... I'm a US citizen working for a university in a foreign nation, and I provide IT support to students from at least one of those countries...

    3. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I still wonder why the US still has some leadership position in the world. Is there any government in the world that one can say truly looks out for the people (both nationals and non-nationals)?

      The US bans Coursera from providing services in Iran and other countries. What is the result? The minorities take the blow. Take, for example, the Baha'is in Iran. They are denied access to the universities and the few options they have are BIHE (www.bihe.org) and other initiatives such as Coursera (www.coursera.org).

      Breaking out of vicious cycles takes non-vicious solutions and banning educational initiatives to the citizens of a country because the government is unfriendly is certainly vicious.

    4. Re:Easy solution by jittles · · Score: 1

      If MOOC believes that offering education from the world's top university benefits all of humanity, there is a simple solution. Move the company offshore, or obtain a foreign partner.

      The irony with treating this as banned with regards to certain countries that we are not on good terms with is that educational opportunities are very limited in those countries. Having access to education and the exposure to new ideas it brings is an opportunity to change those societies from within. Other than the industrial-military complex, who doesn't benefit from that?

      They can certainly prevent US based universities from sharing that information with Coursera if they do not follow US export regulations.

    5. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the point of sanctions is to apply pressure on foreign governments to change their policies. You can't say well we won't apply the sanction this time because blah blah blah, otherwise it's not really a sanction, is it? It's like punishing your kid and saying he can't watch TV until he tidies up and then being all like oh ok just that one program then.

      The military-industrial complex hates sanctions, by the way - it much prefers wars.

    6. Re:Easy solution by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Really doubt you've got any risk there. The law is really designed to target, for example, senior management of companies that do business with Iran. Then again, I'm not a sanctions specialist.

    7. Re:Easy solution by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I've got an even easier solution. The US government should obey the First Amendment. Education is speech, and the US government is prohibited from restricting it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:Easy solution by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      I've got an even easier solution. The US government should obey the First Amendment. Education is speech, and the US government is prohibited from restricting it.

      The flaw in that argument is in thinking that freedom of speech trumps everything. For instance, revealing secrets that impact national security could be viewed as an exercise of free speech, but that doesn't mean you can't be charged with treason and shot (at least during times of war). Free speech only protects the individual (and in some cases the corporation) in expressing their opinions. It does not mean one is free to disseminate information that is not theirs in the first place (otherwise there would be no copyright laws) or information that has been deemed protected.

    9. Re:Easy solution by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The flaw in that argument is in thinking that freedom of speech trumps everything.

      Freedom of speech is supposed to trump everything else, when it comes to restrictions on or punishment for speech as such. Yes, that does mean that copyright law is probably unconstitutional—the courts actually came very close to throwing it out on First Amendment grounds at one point, but settled for a compromise between principles and short-sighted pragmatism which imposed some restrictions on copyright but still fell short of full compliance with the Constitution. "Information that has been deemed protected" is an even more obvious conflict.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    10. Re:Easy solution by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      If MOOC believes that offering education from the world's top university benefits all of humanity, there is a simple solution. Move the company offshore, or obtain a foreign partner.

      The irony with treating this as banned with regards to certain countries that we are not on good terms with is that educational opportunities are very limited in those countries. Having access to education and the exposure to new ideas it brings is an opportunity to change those societies from within. Other than the industrial-military complex, who doesn't benefit from that?

      They can certainly prevent US based universities from sharing that information with Coursera if they do not follow US export regulations.

      Actually, no. If US based universities legally share information with universities or companies in other countries, they cannot be held accountable for what those entities do with it unless it is shown that the whole arrangement was intended to circumvent US laws.

    11. Re:Easy solution by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      The flaw in that argument is in thinking that freedom of speech trumps everything.

      Freedom of speech is supposed to trump everything else, when it comes to restrictions on or punishment for speech as such. Yes, that does mean that copyright law is probably unconstitutional—the courts actually came very close to throwing it out on First Amendment grounds at one point, but settled for a compromise between principles and short-sighted pragmatism which imposed some restrictions on copyright but still fell short of full compliance with the Constitution. "Information that has been deemed protected" is an even more obvious conflict.

      Since the founding fathers hung traitors, those who exercised their freedom of speech in ways harmful to the cause, it is pretty evident that even the framers of the constitution recognized that it doesn't trump everything else. All of the freedoms in the constitution have an implied "with the exception of..." clause. For instance, the right to bear arms is not violated by not allowing convicted criminals to own firearms while on probation. The world has changed a lot since the constitution but the basic principle of these rights are for the betterment of society still stand and any freedoms must be viewed in that context.

    12. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Coursera's primary claim to fame in the MOOC space is how deeply entwined they are with Stanford and Princeton.

    13. Re:Easy solution by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Since the founding fathers hung traitors, those who exercised their freedom of speech in ways harmful to the cause, it is pretty evident that even the framers of the constitution recognized that it doesn't trump everything else.

      All that means is that the founding fathers were human beings, and not perfect. All of them failed to follow the principles expressed in the Constitution at one point or another.

      For instance, the right to bear arms is not violated by not allowing convicted criminals to own firearms while on probation.

      The conditions of their probation are something they agreed to to stay out of jail after being convicted of some crime which justified putting them in jail in the first place (or so one would hope—a topic for another day). They still have the right to keep and bear arms, but if they choose to exercise that right then they're violating the terms of their probation and back to jail they go, not as punishment but because that's where they would have been anyway without the probation.

      ,,, the basic principle of these rights are for the betterment of society still stand and any freedoms must be viewed in that context.

      Wrong. The basic principle is that all people are "endowed by their Creator" with these inalienable rights. It is better that society recognizes and protects these rights rather than violating them, but the rights themselves are not granted by society to be removed on a whim.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    14. Re:Easy solution by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Not so easy for a university, which is fairly strongly entrenched in public funding.

    15. Re:Easy solution by mounthood · · Score: 1

      ... there is a simple solution. Move the company offshore, or obtain a foreign partner.

      Poe's Law: are you sincere and politically naive, or are you trolling? Do you think the US Government will just give-up and admit defeat if Coursera tries to break international trade sanctions? Since your comment was modded +5 Insightful, I also have to wonder about the moderators. Is this really how people think politics and the law work?

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    16. Re:Easy solution by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The basic principle is that all people are "endowed by their Creator" with these inalienable rights. It is better that society recognizes and protects these rights rather than violating them, but the rights themselves are not granted by society to be removed on a whim.

      Hmmm, I find that nowhere in the Constitution of the United States. Maybe you are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the actual Constitution.

    17. Re:Easy solution by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      ... there is a simple solution. Move the company offshore, or obtain a foreign partner.

      Poe's Law: are you sincere and politically naive, or are you trolling? Do you think the US Government will just give-up and admit defeat if Coursera tries to break international trade sanctions? Since your comment was modded +5 Insightful, I also have to wonder about the moderators. Is this really how people think politics and the law work?

      Not at all. For instance, what if one of the major European universities published this information? Surely you aren't suggesting that the US would tell American Universities they can no longer share data with, say Oxford or Cambridge? US export restrictions only apply to US entities. That's the law.

    18. Re:Easy solution by mounthood · · Score: 1

      Surely you aren't suggesting that the US would tell American Universities they can no longer share data with, say Oxford or Cambridge?

      Of course they can, would, and have done. All governments have export restrictions, and apply them to Universities as well as all other groups, and are not fooled by "I didn't do it, it was that other group". If Coursera was sending money or satellite images could they simply setup a "partner" outside the US? If you think that teaching is not comparable... the politicians don't agree with you, and they've made it clear they don't by forcing Coursera to exclude these countries.

      US export restrictions only apply to US entities. That's the law.

      International sanctions are approved and enforced by the majority of countries in the world, although often at the behest of the US. If a member of Coursera tried to make the material available to a restricted country, regardless of how they obfuscate the transfer, they're liable (and likely) to be charged with a crime.

      Are you suggesting that people move to Iran and start a Coursera clone? (Even if they did, how would they get the new material?) Are you suggesting that people working with Coursera stay in the US and defy export restrictions with some fig leaf excuse? The idea that "there is a simple solution" to ignoring the government is, again, either naive or trolling.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    19. Re:Easy solution by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Surely you aren't suggesting that the US would tell American Universities they can no longer share data with, say Oxford or Cambridge?

      Of course they can, would, and have done. All governments have export restrictions, and apply them to Universities as well as all other groups, and are not fooled by "I didn't do it, it was that other group". If Coursera was sending money or satellite images could they simply setup a "partner" outside the US? If you think that teaching is not comparable... the politicians don't agree with you, and they've made it clear they don't by forcing Coursera to exclude these countries.

      US export restrictions only apply to US entities. That's the law.

      International sanctions are approved and enforced by the majority of countries in the world, although often at the behest of the US. If a member of Coursera tried to make the material available to a restricted country, regardless of how they obfuscate the transfer, they're liable (and likely) to be charged with a crime.

      Are you suggesting that people move to Iran and start a Coursera clone? (Even if they did, how would they get the new material?) Are you suggesting that people working with Coursera stay in the US and defy export restrictions with some fig leaf excuse? The idea that "there is a simple solution" to ignoring the government is, again, either naive or trolling.

      If you read the my original post, it stated that working through a foreign company does not make you responsible for that company's action unless the whole intent was to circumvent the US law (paraphrased). US universities share info with European ones all the time. If the European university did something the US didn't like, they can't charge the US university over it. They could and probably would apply pressure to the foreign government to do something, but ultimately it would be that government imposing a restriction, not the US.

      International sanctions are different, and are not part of the discussion with Coursera. International sanctions are already agreed to by the countries involved and as such it is still be the foreign government enforcing the restriction on their entities, not the US.

      People wouldn't have to move to Iran to start their own Coursera, France, which is friendly to Iran would be good enough. Unless you are thinking that the US will boycott France (in which case the Saudis would be happy to host Coursera and we want their oil, so we won't boycott them), there isn't anything the US can do about it.

      There truly is a simple solution and that is to do this under international law. It is the same reason why a lot of companies off-shore all sorts of operations. It doesn't mean it is an inexpensive solution, just a simple one.

  26. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

    Exactly. Big block of single-issuer voters in a hugely important swing state.

  27. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    And there's not as many feelgood stories about Chinese refugees being picked up by the Coast Guard while swimming across the ocean on a raft made out of an old Chevy to escape their homeland.

    "Feelgood," not so much; when it comes to Chinese illegal immigration, you get more stories like this one.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  28. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point I was trying to make is that it is rediculous to categorize people who want to uphold the constitution are potential terrorists.

  29. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked it was the Occupy people that got put on a terrorist watch list not tea party of liberterian types

    A) [citation needed]

    B) You should check again.

    C) "Tea Party" != Libertarian.

    That is all.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  30. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Alioth · · Score: 1

    Cowardice. China could do real harm to the US if China embargoed the US. Cuba is too weak to hurt the US. Therefore Cuba can be punished but China must be left alone.

  31. Open secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I heard the state-run biotech sector in socialist Cuba was the main supplier of exotic vaccines for the US military. The dealing went through some middle-men, but there wasn't too much effort to hide what's happening. This is pretty widespread knowledge in Europe, but not something you'll hear on Fox TV.

    So, who needs education? The cubans are among the best educated people in the world, at least in humanity subjects, because they have a long-running tradition. In non-noisy workplaces, like cigar manufactures, half workday goes for listening to music and half goes for reading aloud. People with a good voice take turns reciting newspapers end-to-end as well as classics and romances.

  32. What About Facebook? by guttentag · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Certain United States export control regulations prohibit U.S. businesses, such as MOOC providers like Coursera, from offering services to users in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria. Under the law, certain aspects of Coursera’s course offerings are considered services and are therefore subject to restrictions in sanctioned countries...

    Facebook is a "U.S. business" that is "offering services" to users in sanctioned countries. Only it's the Iranian government that tries to block it and redirects you to a page informing users the Web site they are trying to access is "bad for your health." I suppose the difference is that Facebook can be used to help people organize to overthrow the regime the U.S. government does not want, so that makes it OK. Plus, more people using it in a sanctioned country gives the NSA a clearer picture of the trends, attitudes and threats in that country.

    I'm not saying Facebook should be restricted from offering services in countries like Iran. I'm saying laws should be applied equally, not politically.

    1. Re:What About Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is allowed to operate in these sanctioned countries because it is a gold mine for NSA and CIA operations.

      It is a honeypot.

      This online educational course has no or little benefit to these other operations, so it is blocked.

    2. Re:What About Facebook? by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

      My understanding, and I'm not a lawyer (and if I were it would not make me automatically right), is that the restriction being applied to Coursera is export-control law. This is a set of laws that says you can't share details of certain technologies such as missiles, nuclear reactors and bombs, and even the advanced materials required to make such things, even though such information is not classified.

      While it is possible that some of Coursera's subjects pertain to science and technology that falls under the ever-expanding scope of export-control law, it is hard to imagine how everything it teaches falls into applicable categories.

      Like many laws, export-control laws seemed like a good idea at the time. Selling missile and bomb secrets during the Cold War would probably not have been good. And like many laws, some jackass with an axe to grind -- in this case someone who hates Iran, Syria, and Cuba -- has decided to use that law to shut down free speech and free commerce and, you know, freedom.

      In my opinion, the world has changed in two ways since the law was passed. First, the Internet has made it basically impossible to stop the flow of information, so quit trying. Second, oppressive jackasses like the official who demanded Coursera block Iran and Syria are now the biggest threat to American freedom (in hindsight, they always were, which I thought is why we have a Bill of Rights). So both the law, and the people who are applying it, are stupid and need to be changed.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    3. Re:What About Facebook? by phorm · · Score: 1

      Facebook can be used to help people organize to overthrow the regime the U.S. government does not want

      So can education....

  33. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by andydread · · Score: 1

    erm the link you posted had nothing to do with Tea Party or Libertarians unless you are implying that TP and Libertarians are "Right Wing Extremists". It seems you are lumping in TP and libertarians with the folks at StormFront and the like.

  34. really? by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 0

    Cuba....really ? wtf is wrong with the US ... tides will turn ...be ready..

  35. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who committed acts of terrorism? Who planned acts of terrorism? Who destroyed untold amounts of property, spread disease, fought police, did not buy insurance for mass demonstrations on public property, violated laws at every level of government?

    Oh yeah....occupy.

    Who was a foreign backed movement whose stated purpose was the overthrow of the current American economic hegemony?

    And who was working within the system to cause change? Who followed the laws applicable to demonstrations - seeking permits and insurance?

    Keep lying to yourself, bud.

  36. I love USA because of their education materials by aiwarrior · · Score: 1

    I must for one state that I am as indebted to my country education system as to good will of american educators.
    Even though Europe is considered more socialist than the USA most of the thesis's and papers I read are from USA. Examples in my field are the publications of programs and theory documents from Professor Mark Drela.

    Europe does good research also, but when it can have practical and commercial applications it is rarely published or highly redacted. America may have lots of problems but I have found their openness in education a true beacon for the whole world. It is a pity this measures are enforced because they don't actually defeat an adversary government but do hinder the young minds that try to follow knowledge and civilization against barbarity.

    It is true that knowledge does not preclude some kinds of backward thinking but it sure as hell influences positively. For one, I am terribly influenced by the American society yet in Europe culture is quite different. How was that? Not through isolation surely.

    1. Re:I love USA because of their education materials by godrik · · Score: 1

      Even though Europe is considered more socialist than the USA most of the thesis's and papers I read are from USA.

      I obtained my PhD in France and now I am a professor in a US universities. I think you fell into the classical trick of publish or perish. US academic are under constant pressure to get material out as reviews are based on it and your expertise is estimated by the length of your publication list. So the publication rate is very high is the US compared to the rest of the world, europe for instance have much lower requirement for publication. So they do publish less articles.
      I am not sure that European contribution to research is lesser than the US contribution to research (This is a real statement, I do not know how to quantify that properly). But I am pretty sure that because of publication policies, you end up reading an US authors much more often than European ones.

    2. Re:I love USA because of their education materials by Hrshgn · · Score: 1

      Coursera offers courses from many universities around the world, including European ones. It is not a US-only platform.

  37. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, those Tea Party organizers just has their group tax statuses delayed indefinitely so they could not raise free speech (money).
    You better check you attitude, it is having an affect on what gets thru to your brain.

  38. I think Cubans have bigger worries... by Nova+Express · · Score: 1

    ...than being denied particular coursework on an Internet they're not allowed to access anyway. Things like surviving on $20 a month and avoiding getting arrested for owning unauthorized shrimp.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:I think Cubans have bigger worries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [I think Cubans have bigger worries] than being denied particular coursework on an Internet they're not allowed to access anyway.

      Since when? According to 2600 the only website blocked in Cuba is a propaganda radio.
      Cuba is doing much better than other Caribbean countries. They don't get to elect a singer with no idea of what he is doing for the Presidency (unlike Haiti), but the statistics that matter, like quality of life, education, healthcare, look good.

      Your idea of Cuba comes from Cold War-era propaganda. The Cold War is over. You can leave your bunker now. Sadly, we lost. The fascists won, despite not even taking part in it.

    2. Re:I think Cubans have bigger worries... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Castro will soon pass away. That, and there's already a generation change. Things will get better for Cuba, but it will take some time for the grip of fear to be released. Similar to how the Iraqis felt the psychological weight drop once Saddam was dead.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:I think Cubans have bigger worries... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, they have universal health care, near universal literacy, and usually enough to eat. (I know people who've been to the non-touristy areas of Cuba, and talked to Cubans from those same areas who came over to the US. And no, those people didn't have government spies hanging around when they did so.) Their lives are actually a heck of a lot better than most of the other residents of the Carribean.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  39. Re:For those who didn't know what the acronym mean by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

    Would it be so hard for submitters to expand their acronyms in the posts?

    Yeah, this site needs some editors!

    --
    The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  40. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    erm the link you posted had nothing to do with Tea Party or Libertarians unless you are implying that TP and Libertarians are "Right Wing Extremists". It seems you are lumping in TP and libertarians with the folks at StormFront and the like.

    Not so much me, as the Department of Homeland Security.

    Regardless of what you preferred media outlet tells you, a group of people who protest armed very much is a group the feds want to keep an eye on. To try and imply otherwise indicates intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, and/or good ol' fashioned bias.

    So, your turn - how about that citation I requested?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  41. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With us, it's personal. The Castros crossed the US, which is never forgiven. They'll have to die first or plead for mercy (a la Gaddafi). Fidel Castro urged Hrushchev to launch a nuclear attack on the US. The US hasn't forgotten.

  42. American govt is full of retards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the last thing governments want is an educated population, people might get smart enough to throw their monkey asses out on the street.

  43. The U.S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wants to control everything, even knowledge and education. When will people realize the biggest threat to freedom and world peace is in fact the U.S?

  44. You'd think there would be a 1st amendment issue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teaching is free speech! I can't think of anything the 1st amendment was more about, then the free exchange of ideas.

    Or, if you're grading someone and telling them if they're right or wrong, it's now a 'service'?

    All other notions about the value of educating people asside, it's rediculous that this could be an issue.

    Sometimes I'm truly do hate my government.

  45. the law is a blunt instrument. bans doing business by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most of the replies here assume that the US has banned providing courses to these countries. That's not the case. The embargos ban providing SERVICES to these countries. It's not that anyone thinks restricting education is a good idea. The law is just ham-fisted. "Don't provide any services to Syria" means ANY services, including educational services.

    That law is ham-fisted is a good thing to keep in mind generally. "You may not hire anyone for less than $10 / hour" means the retarded kid can't be hired as an apprentice, for example, because his work only generates $6/ hour.

  46. Land of the Free by plopez · · Score: 1

    We're number 1! usa! usa! USA!

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  47. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by andydread · · Score: 2

    Well we can imagine all we want about who may be on a watch list however the documents that have come to light clearly shows that the feds and other police infiltrated the occupy movement. Hardly a libertarian or Tea Party group.

  48. Have you been up to Coursera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that good education could also serve to provide applicable knowledge to one's adversaries, especially in the science and engineering fields.

    It's all basic shit up there on Coursera. And of course, there are no practical labs - it's all theory/textbook learning - Freshmen - maybe Sophomore - level stuff.

    Frankly, if I wanted learn how to build things to do harm, WikiPedia is a MUCH better source than Coursera!

    This ban seems to me to be just some clueless bureaucrat or someone with a real power trip problem.

    1. Re:Have you been up to Coursera? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      This. It's not as if Coursera has a monopoly on knowledge on the Internet.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Have you been up to Coursera? by blue+trane · · Score: 1
  49. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    So, the feds performed surveillance.

    I disagree with them doing it, but that's hardly the same thing as putting the members on a terrorism watch list.

    Congratulations, you've committed the same hyperbolic sin you lambasted me for. Hypocrisy, thy name is andydread.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  50. Proxies can get around censorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and work even when the evil government censoring the web is American.

  51. Look Mom! It's a "Slippery Slope"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Educated people are dangerous, and hard to control, so we must reduce their numbers.

    Maybe they could move some classes to Syria's Virtual University.

    https://www.svuonline.org/isis/index.php

    They don't seem to be afraid of education.

    Or maybe, whoever is making these decisions, should take a few MOOC courses, in the hopes that it improves their ability to think things through.

  52. use proxy; problem solved by hooiberg · · Score: 1

    And they will use a proxy, and everything will be as it was. Just as with non-international television streaming and just as with the nationwide piratebay-block.

  53. On the U.S. government's worsening multiple person by GT66 · · Score: 1

    "United States export control regulations prohibit U.S. businesses, such as MOOC providers like Coursera, from offering services to users in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria."

    Simple solution: Stop being a U.S. based business. The über paranoia, hubris and bullying attitude of the U.S. government has gotten out of hand. They are single-handedly destroying American technology businesses by eroding potential and existing customers trust (through the abuses of the NSA) and increasingly want to us U.S. corporations as a pawn in their geopolitical manipulations. In the era of globalism (promoted by that selfsame government on behalf of corporations over the welfare of its own citizens), now that same government demands adherence to nationalistic agendas. Pure hypocrisy and one that represents increasing risk to our fragile GLOBAL economy.

  54. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who claim to want to uphold the constitution...some of them by forcibly removing the people who they don't like in government.

    And by don't like, I mean their fanciful ideas of the President not being American, faking his birth certificate, and plotting secret FEMA camps in a secret plot to destroy America and replace it with a Communist Islamic Caliphate.

    Yeah, you can shoot somebody because you think they want to kill you, and claim it's self-defense, but there's a point where you actually committed murder.

    So yeah, you can say the idea is legitimate enough on the surface, but it is the particular situation that matters in determining the appropriateness.

  55. 'merica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Team America, **ck yeah!

  56. The 1st Amendment by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Void where prohibited by law - since 1798

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  57. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolutely not. Classic "free market solves all problems" trite. What you can't get around is the big bloc of Florida voters who are virulently anti-Cuban-government (want it destroyed so they can take it over again). That's a real political problem which is more powerful than $10 off iPads.

    The fact that you don't have or know of people with strong political beliefs (stronger than about money) doesn't mean they aren't out there, shaping the world in observable ways.

  58. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was my understanding that the whole Cuba thing started when the government of Cuba was overthrown and the new government ceased US land holdings and threw the US out of the country. Which rightfully or not pissed off a bunch of wealthy/influential people, thus began the embargo. Then the new Cuban government agreed to be a missile platform for Russia back during the Cold War. Which certainly didn't win them any friends in the US. Then there have been the decades of mistrust with no real attempt at reconsideration from either side.

  59. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why doesn't the US do business with communist Cuba but they do with communist China?

    Because the mob wants their property in Cuba back. Trade restrictions will remain in place until that happens.

  60. and nothing of value was lost by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    "Coursera is an online website that offers free courses..."

    TL;DR

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:and nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is pretty neat. I found that the lecture format helps me learn better than just trying to find all the information on the internet myself. I have taken a free course on beginner guitar that wasn't half bad. I also took a course on viruses from Colombia through Coursera. That class was really interesting and made me consider going back to school to study Biology.

      Granted you are not going to get a degree through Coursera, but it is useful if you just want to learn about a material in a lecture / class format.

  61. Re:the law is a blunt instrument. bans doing busin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That law is ham-fisted is a good thing to keep in mind generally. "You may not hire anyone for less than $10 / hour" means the retarded kid can't be hired as an apprentice, for example, because his work only generates $6/ hour.

    You should share your wealth-generation estimating device with the lawmakers then, perhaps they'd find it useful in cases like this.

  62. Re:For those who didn't know what the acronym mean by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the informative post. I'm sure many will benefit from it.

    Would it be so hard for submitters to expand their acronyms in the posts?

    Yes -- what is this "U.S." thing that's mentioned in the summary and headline? I spend a bit of time searching, and I discovered it's actually an abbreviation for United States! How about that! It makes things so much clearer if submitters expanded every abbreviation -- I'm still not sure what this RADAR thing is that people talk about -- and while we're at it, maybe we should include definitions for every single technical term that ever occurs.[/sarcasm]

    In all seriousness, I'm happy that you posted an explanation that clearly was helpful to some people. On the other hand, I think your idea that submitters need to explain well-established concepts goes a bit too far.

    MOOCs have probably been the subject of dozens of stories on Slashdot in the past 2-3 years. They are perhaps the most important technical innovation in higher education in decades. What ultimate effects they will have are still to be determined, but they clearly have been receiving a HUGE amount of buzz for quite a while. The article you linked to even mentions that 2012 was dubbed by the New York Times as "The Year of the MOOC." This is hardly an obscure topic.

    I don't at all mean for my reply to you to come across as mean-spirited. I only used sarcasm above because of your "Would it be so hard?!?" venting in your response. No, it's not so hard -- but it probably isn't necessary in this case. It's not like the days before the internet when an unfamiliar term might send you to multiple dictionaries or encyclopedias to figure out what's going on. Now, it merely takes 10 seconds to search for a topic this prominent and figure out what it is.

    That's how you learn about stuff going on around you -- unfamiliar terms, abbreviations, acronyms, place names, public figures, etc. appear in Slashdot summaries all the time... at least they're unfamiliar to someone. Look them up. Learn something.

    Also, use "context clues." The first sentence of the summary says "Coursera is an online website that offers free courses from many of the world's top universities." It's pretty clear from the rest of the summary that MOOCs are what Coursera offers -- hence MOOCs are probably "free courses from many of the world's top universities" or at least a concept very close to that idea.

    If the summary had just randomly started talking about Coursera and MOOCs without mentioned anything that either did, that would be one thing. But I think this is pretty clear, at least as Slashdot summaries go.

    The summaries are just that: they are summaries. They are not full news articles. If a full lengthy news article didn't explain what a MOOC was, that may be more of an issue. If the summary didn't link to any full news articles that explained what it was talking about, that would also be an issue. But this is a summary -- it needs to be abbreviated, and it can't explain everything. Especially when it's a topic that has been discussed many times here. We don't define what a "Tesla" or a "Bitcoin" is in every summary about them either.

    Please -- continue to post helpful explanations of obscure terms or acronyms or whatever when you think they are useful. If they are, someone will mod them up. But I don't think anything about this summary was unclear, and even if it was to me, I could have figured it out by 10 seconds of searching. Frankly, I do that all the time on Slashdot -- I read about some concept I'm unfamiliar with in the summary, and then I look it up to figure out what's going on. That's what learning is about.

  63. Debunked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    universal health care

    Debunked.

    and usually enough to eat

    Debunked.

    I guess actual facts, gathered by people who have actually been to Cuba, are too hard to face for communist apologists...

    1. Re:Debunked by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      You have an odd definition of the word "debunked," given that your article "debunking" the statement "usually enough to eat" starts with the statement "Nobody starves" in the opening paragraph. Occasional periods of tight supplies, but still enough for everyone to eat, sure sounds like "usually enough to eat" to me. Nor does the fact that Cuban hospitals are often short on medicines and advanced equipment "debunk" the idea of universal healthcare --- everyone still has access to doctors and basic health services, which, while low-tech, succeed in producing decently good health outcomes that rival those in much-higher-budget nations. But, I guess Capitalist apologists like you have a different definition of "facts" unrelated to realities on the ground (like whether or not people actually starve or suffer from medical problems at disproportional rates).

  64. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evil campaign finance regulation like demanding that 'community organizations' not get tax exempt status or that if you are involved in political speech your money is tracked?

    If a conservative (or libertarian) is talking, they are probably lying.

  65. Why I won't submit to Slashdot again by HSkirts · · Score: 1

    I submitted the very same information a 11:39 AM. (http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=submission&id=3301675) My submission never saw the light of day... Again. Since I won't go on Facebook asking anyone to vote on my submissions, and it simply doesn't show being presented later by someone else, coming here to post is a waste of time. So, I won't waste time with the pointless task of trying to share on Slashdot.

  66. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by andydread · · Score: 2

    Actually no. take a look here They went even further the designated them terrorists. I don't see anywere where TP and Libertarians treated that way. Just saying its not as simple as you make it out to be the feds are targeting conservatives. Just saying.

  67. Very odd, spiteful, feckless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I recall correctly, the US does not have a monopoly on education. There are universities all over the world (many more than half a millenia older than the oldest American ones), and what they teach is universally accepted knowledge. If the point of gaining knowledge is to read, learn and study, then there are thousands of courses offered by thousands of universities, most of which are not in the US. That the US is trying this is much like spreading ones hands wide on the beach at low tide and making an attempt at keeping the tide from coming in. Two things: 1) I find it odd that the US government "land of the free" can dictate these terms to its populace (it would be a violation of civil liberties anywhere else) and 2) I find the entire process feckless. It assumes that anyone taking that course will attempt to do something bad, even if that bad thing is simply to be prosperous somewhere other than where the US sanctions.

  68. Pointless and symbolic by matbury · · Score: 1

    I reckon it's pointless and symbolic, like congress trying to impose more sanctions on Iran AFTER they'd agreed to come to negotiations.

    All the countries on that list have internet censorship regimes and so people there are more likely to be familiar with censorship circumvention techniques. Wanna study a US MOOC? Use TOR or whatever tools suit your purpose.

    1. Re:Pointless and symbolic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I reckon it's pointless and symbolic, like congress trying to impose more sanctions on Iran AFTER they'd agreed to come to negotiations.

      All the countries on that list have internet censorship regimes and so people there are more likely to be familiar with censorship circumvention techniques. Wanna study a US MOOC? Use TOR or whatever tools suit your purpose.

      Indeed. Even more disturbing, I find it incredible that my government would apparently rather that the rest of the world remain ignorant, irrational, and aggrieved. Hell, they even seem to prefer that the rest of my fellow citizens remain ignorant, irrational, and aggrieved. How did we in the USA come to this anyway?

  69. Unicorns Might Be Real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Educating our enemies might enlighten them so that they are no longer our enemies.

    And it might have the exact opposite effect. In fact, we have evidence from repeated past experiences, that educating our enemies invariably causes them to use their educations against us. That might not be good.

    We should better educate ourselves.

    Read some Noam Chomsky [chomsky.info] and A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn for a bit of perspective.

    Thanks. I have already read far too much of their opinions. It is my opinion that they present fallacious arguments based on a non-existent panacea. Very much like your initial "might" premise. The world might be a wonderful place if I was Emperor and supreme ruler for life, but it might not.

    It always amazes me how many very narrowly educated people there are.

    I've always been interested in what amazes people, for instance, you are amazed by quantities of narrowly educated people, while my mother is amazed by cell phones, and New Guinea tribes are amazed by airplanes. Me? I'm amazed that I wasted this much time responding to an individual who seems to very myopic in matters of world view and reality.

    Just because something might have a desirable result does not mean that the probability versus risk makes it a worthwhile endeavor. Educating our intractable enemies is not be a good idea.

    1. Re:Unicorns Might Be Real by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      "In fact, we have evidence from repeated past experiences, that educating our enemies invariably causes them to use their educations against us."

      What are you talking about?

      I think the problem only arises when you educate only those that the enemy's government has hand-picked to become educated. When you make the education available for free to anyone in the country, including the government's opposition, without restriction, the results will be as good as the quality of the education you're providing.

      So provide the best education you can, to anyone, without restriction.

    2. Re:Unicorns Might Be Real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Educating our enemies might enlighten them so that they are no longer our enemies.

      And it might have the exact opposite effect. In fact, we have evidence from repeated past experiences, that educating our enemies invariably causes them to use their educations against us. That might not be good.

      Invariably? Do you have an actual citation for this? I would be very interested to see some actual evidence of this. I remain sceptical but I am open to evidence.

      Just because something might have a desirable result does not mean that the probability versus risk makes it a worthwhile endeavor. Educating our intractable enemies is not be a good idea.

      I think the idea is that exposing "intractable enemies" to our point of view may persuade them to change their point of view. Of course, it is possible that it won't. You mention probability versus risk. If you have actual quantifiable evidence of the risks and the benefits then I would actually be interested in seeing it. Care to share?

    3. Re:Unicorns Might Be Real by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In fact, we have evidence from repeated past experiences, that educating our enemies invariably causes them to use their educations against us. That might not be good.

      The evidence from repeated past experiences shows that when you educate someone and then try to "bomb them into stone age", they become enemies. I think that this is not exactly sufficient grounds to conclude that education is the problem.

  70. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Actually no. take a look here They went even further the designated them terrorists.

    Where does that article confirm your claim that the OWS protestors were put on an official terrorist watch list? The term, "watch list," only appears twice on the page, and both times it's in an uncited comment someone left.

    The article confirms what I already said. Next time you post a link in an attempt to bolster your argument, you might want to read more than the headline.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  71. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by rmdashrf · · Score: 1

    But will, judging on the comment above, be resolved in a matter of only one generation.

    --
    Nihil in publicum sputa.
  72. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by andydread · · Score: 1

    Why not ban it from Americans too because the US seems to think that every American could be a domestic terrorist -- especially those darned Tea Party and Libertarians.

    I'll quote the GP that i was responding to before you decided to interject with your snide comment. You can split hairs about "terrorist watch list" or being labled "terrorists" or whether being designated "terrorists" means you are on a watch list all you want, the fact remains that the GP referred to TP and Libertarians being designated terrorist by the US. I think everything i've posted bolsters my arguement that it was the Occupy movement that was and not the TP and Libertarians

  73. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Why not ban it from Americans too because the US seems to think that every American could be a domestic terrorist -- especially those darned Tea Party and Libertarians.

    I'll quote the GP that i was responding to before you decided to interject with your snide comment. You can split hairs about "terrorist watch list" or being labled "terrorists" or whether being designated "terrorists" means you are on a watch list all you want, the fact remains that the GP referred to TP and Libertarians being designated terrorist by the US.
    I think everything i've posted bolsters my arguement that it was the Occupy movement that was and not the TP and Libertarians

    Worst.
    Concession speech.
    Ever.

    Look, all your goalpost relocations and poorly thought out 'source citations' aside, perhaps you'll find this quote from President Obama, said during a summer 2013 speech given in Tanzania, in response to a question about how he defines domestic terrorism, particularly enlightening:

    “Typically domestic terrorists in the U.S. are people who cling to obsolete beliefs from the time of the American Revolution. They are conservative Christians, reactionary Republicans and conspiracy theorists many of whom belong to racist hate groups. [...] Tea Partiers commonly own guns and stock up ammunition and food in anticipation of starting another civil war to overthrow the will of the governing body who represent all of the American people.”

    Note that I found said quote on a site that's dedicated to mocking the Tea Party, and even they found it to be over the line.

    As for the alleged 'snide-ness' of my comment, keep in mind that your original post (which has been proven wrong, repeatedly, at this point) accuses the GP of trolling right out of the gate. Pot, meet kettle.

    Face it, dude - you're wrong. You were wrong in your initial reply to GP, you've been wrong in every response to me, and you're wrong now. Stop doubling down on being wrong - act like an adult and either admit your error, or just shut up. Continuing to argue an already decided point is not helping you.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  74. Syria, Sudan, and Iran I understand by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Syria, Sudan, and Iran I understand.

    But when is the last time Cuba has threatened anyone with an invasion or an attack? When is the last time they mowed down protestors in the country with machine guns or fired gas weapons at them?

    This perverted prejudice against Cuba has got to stop. The US should be ashamed of their bullying attitude. It's been a long, long, long time since the Cuban missile crisis. Let it go already!

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  75. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Yes, it did agree to allow Russian missles. After the US cut off all trade it desperately needed assistance, and Russia was willing to offer it. But first the US cut off all commercial ties and tried to blocade them to anyone else (maily via diplomatic channels rather than military, but that's how Iran was blocaded, so it's a fair usage).

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  76. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by andydread · · Score: 1

    I think I made my point.... you are rambling...carry on.

  77. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who pledged to use the tactics of terrorists to fight Obama?

  78. Re:This is like banning it from black people and J by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    If your point is that you don't know what point you're trying to make, then yes, you've succeeded.

    Funny how you're the one who brought up 'terrorism watch lists,' then said you weren't talking about terrorism watch lists.

    Funny how I mentioned that the feds have performed surveillance on the TP, to which you respond that the feds performing surveillance on OWS was something completely different.

    Oh, wait - that's not funny, it's evidence that you're talking out of your ass in a failed attempt to try and paint Group A in a different light than Group B, even though it's obvious to the casual, non-biased observer that both A and B are dealing with similar treatment.

    But hey, if being childish and unwilling to admit that you made a mistake is what makes you happy, I'm glad to stop trying to help you not be wrong.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  79. How about at least letting them study the arts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could we compromise and at least let them study philosophy, languages, psychology and the other literary arts?

    Or would that just produce sullen, introspective terrorists?

  80. Only if your choices are available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only members of the 1% are available to any meaningful fraction of seats, you have no choice but to vote in one of the 1%.

    Or not vote at all.

    Which still doesn't get the 1% out.

  81. You've been taught well by your masters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And by "your masters", I mean the wealthy. They've taught you to fight for their benefit.

    Well done worker drone.

  82. Ron Paul is not a good example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since he manages batshit insane ideas of what government should do (i.e. only support the defence of big money) and ignores every evidence that this stance is wrong (Somalia).

    Ron Paul is not a champion of liberty. He's a champion for getting government out of interfering with his actions where he doesn't want them. He doesn't propose removing all law, closing down the military and police forces and courts because they do something for him. These things interfere with things he doesn't want done. therefore he categorises them as not interference. They are.

    The EPA, though, tell him he can't just dump his shit wherever (though if you dumped on HIS stuff, boy would he complain...), so that's interference.

    If you think of it as protection, rather than interference, then you can understand his point, but that point is antithetical to the common weal, since he wants protections to those of the powerless removed.

  83. And you are why the system is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you are armed, you think that you are given right to murder if the politician acts contrary to YOUR desires.

    Hence the overton window moves rightward, since the left really haven't got any violent nuts like you (since the 60's) but the right wing is replete with them.

    If someone like Chavez wins a democratic election in the USA your choices are

    1) Live with it
    2) Move out of the USA
    3) Campaign for their competitors at the next election.

    Not

    4) Gun them down.

  84. Presupposition is false by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you claim "because X times minimum hourly wage will exceed the limit", that is a supposition you have made up out of cloth to pretend to have a point.

    It isn't your time that is limited.

    It's your spending.

    Secondly, how many hours of minimum wage pay would equal a 1 minute peak time slot on Fox? 10,000?

  85. Re:the law is a blunt instrument. bans doing busin by Triklyn · · Score: 1

    a sanction is a sanction, start making exceptions and you might as well tear the policy apart to begin with.

    laws are never going to be anything but blunt, 600 elected officials are never going to come up with the different things 300 million will do, nuance is added later by the judiciary.

  86. Universal right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Education is a universal right except for those 4 countries. Ok.

  87. Re:the law is a blunt instrument. bans doing busin by hicksw · · Score: 1

    "Don't provide any services to Syria" means ANY services, including educational services.

    Except, of course, banking services!

  88. Re:For those who didn't know what the acronym mean by kent_eh · · Score: 1

    Sorry for the late response.
    I was always taught that it is just good writing to expand your acronyms when you first use them in any writing.

    --

    ---
    "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh