John Young of Cyprome has claimed for some time that Wikileaks is a CIA front, almost right from the start.
Sure, everyone's paranoid when it comes to the world of intelligence, but still, it is an interesting thought. Selective "leaking" to Wikileaks, which disseminates it to key media outlets... that would be a fantastic propaganda tool.
"The real question is if Marijuana was legal what will be the increase in use"
Your question and the statements that follow imply that you believe legalisation would lead to an increase in use. This is not as clear-cut as you suspect. If Portugal is anything to go by, decriminalisation of all drug usage (not just marijuana) would actually lead to a decrease in drug usage. For example, a Cato Institute study found that:
"Drug use among 13- to 15-year-olds fell from 14.1 per cent in 2001 to 10.6 per cent in 2006. Among 16- to 18-year-olds it has dropped from 27.6 per cent to 21.6 per cent. This, incidentally, has come after years of steadily increasing drug use among the young; between 1995 and 2001, use in the 16-to-18 bracket leapt up from 14.1 per cent to its 2001 high. This drop has come against a background of increasing drug use across the rest of the EU."
The man behind the research concluded that, “Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success.” The evidence would suggest that, being able to divert more resources to education, support, and health to tackle drug abuse, has a much more positive effect in reducing drug uptake and usage.
Whatever happened to "correlation is not causation"? The article is a little short of scientific evidence to back up its claims except for a few anecdotal stories. Maybe it could be that the types of people who excel at WoW, or are drawn to playing particular games, already have these particular traits. The game may help them realise this, but to say gaming can boost your career is just a silly headline to grab attention. Just because the article is talking about a positive effect of games doesn't mean we shouldn't think about this critically.
Re:Thank God for standardized testing
on
The Creativity Crisis
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
In the words of Woodrow Wilson, "We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."
Creativity is not conducive to performing difficult manual tasks.
My favourite two laws are that a pregnant woman can request to urinate in a policeman's helmet, and that it is legal to urinate on the rear inside wheel of any vehicle.
And why, exactly, is Google at fault here? The actual post on Full Disclosure states the following at the bottom:"Finally, a reminder that this documents contains my own opinions, I do
not speak for or represent anyone but myself." He makes no mention of working for Google, posting this with Google's sanction, nor does he even post it from a Google email address.
The fact is, a guy who posted this vulnerability in a private capacity, and he just happens to work at Google. Just because he works at Google, somehow this means another stage in the "war" between Google and Microsoft? Nonsense. Sounds like journalists are trying to make a scandal out of nothing.
... the blog's in Russian. In Russia blogs translate you, etc. etc. ESA has a mission diary available though, written by Diego Urbina and Romain Charles.
I suspect they're objecting to (what they see) as the conditioning of children into handing over what they consider to be personal information without question (as it says in the summary).
I had a brief look at the opinion piece on the JASA website, and its argument is basically "think of the children", which (according to them) trumps free speech:
Internet pornography is such a readily accessible evil for children, that the Constitutional Court, if the Bill were challenged, would be bound to hold that the section 28 obligation to protect at all costs the best interests of children would trump the rights to freedom of expression and privacy.
Section 28 of the Bill of Rights states "A child's best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.". Previous court rulings have said that the state 'must provide the legal and administrative infrastructure necessary to ensure that children are accorded the protection contemplated by S28.'
The Bill of Rights also notes that 'The rights... may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors', which include things like the nature of the right, its purpose etc. So, while they recognise pornography as free speech etc, they also "think of the children", which as we all know overrules any other concern.
Okay, plugging the leak is important, but why aren't BP also doing something like this to contain the effect of the leaked oil: use 'empty supertankers to suck the spill off the surface, treat and discharge the contaminated water, and either salvage or destroy the slick.' Instead, they're just rolling out containment booms and sending people out to mop up beaches, never mind trying to initially insist that the crude was red tide, dishwashing-liquid runoff, or mud. Oh wait, the supertanker idea costs a lot of money. Sorry, sorry, my bad.
fashion is the only "art" that can become OBSOLETE.
How many musical artists have created and sold music over the last 100 years, how many of those artists are still remembered and/or listened to on a regular basis, and are still considered as popular and/or relevant as when they created their music? Discuss. For bonus points, compare and contrast the trends in the music industry during the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's, and identify whether or not these trends bare any resemblance to fashion trends in that the music changes because, over time, music artists "want to stay ahead of the curve", and "don't want to be" playing "what everybody else is" playing.
So now you've changed tact and are claiming I'm delusional because I found what was said amusing, and not because I'm deluding myself that "those places aren't nearly so different from us as we'd like to pretend". Flip flop much? But, since you mention it, I did find it funny that someone can call the woman stupid. It was amusing to me, and it was unexpected, because I would've thought we would be blaming the perpetrators. Maybe I've got a warped sense of humour.
Well, gee, maybe that's because those places aren't nearly so different from us as we'd like to pretend on television. Quit deluding yourself.
I'm deluding myself because I'm pointing out that they're not so different? Interesting.
To deny that this is the case is to deny reality.
I'm not denying that, and nowhere did I say this was not the case. What I'm refusing to accept is that this means we must change our behaviour and impose self censorship in order to accommodate a regime of thought crime. Claims that the woman in question or anyone else who speaks freely and openly are being stupid helps perpetuate and create this reality. Stop blaming the victims, and blame the perpetrators, and perhaps things will start to change.
Funny, you just reminded of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and a few other places where people had to watch (and still do watch) what they say because they were never entirely sure whether or not the person they were talking to would be an informer of some sort. It didn't matter if those remarks were not preserved, or limited to a small set of known recipients. You just never really knew, and self-censored what you said.
By claiming her behaviour is stupid, and saying that you should watch what you say unless completely anonymous (what happens if anonymity on the internet is eroded?), you're really targeting the wrong person/party. Her behaviour is not stupid. Her behaviour is perfectly natural in a society that (supposedly) promotes and protects freedom of speech. The real target of your ire and denunciations of stupidity should be the corporate and (in this case) government desire to undermine these freedoms, and promote self-censorship. The real stupid thing here is the idea that she should not be free to say what she wants. As the parent said: Stop being an apologist for the implementation of a regime of "thought crime."
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
I sympathize with the writers as they had no idea how many seasons they would get but in the end I must admit I found the writing to be more or less utter drivel.
Actually, this is one of the prime reasons I stopped watching Lost at around Season Two. An interview I saw with Dominic Monaghan on Jonathan Ross in the UK revealed that Lost had been written in its entirety as a two or three season series. However, the success of the first season meant that the powers-that-be insisted it be turned into the multi-season megalith we now have.
Ah, so the degree of hypocrisy is what bothers you? So, if China declares there is a piracy problem, but denies involvement, spends millions on a War on Piracy that is ineffectual, and exists purely to incarcerate its citizens, and then proceeds to continue being secretly involved in piracy, you'd be happier? That's a rather interesting position to take.
Doe the CIA World Fact Book clearly show that the CIA and the US government were complicit in drug running networks, including heroin and cocaine, for decades? (And they likely still are.) I seem to recall the US does deny that, so your argument is moot because they are as hypocritical on the score
Agreed. As if we need to give military forces any more reason to target civilian infrastructure, shipping, railways, trains, trucks etc. Madness. Certain countries have long justified attacks on civilians and villages by claiming that that's where terrorists are located and are firing their weapons from; how is using this weapon any different to the condemned strategies of these terrorists? This is just another nail in the coffin of the Geneva Conventions.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
And the context changes what, exactly? This argument immediately falls flat because it depends on the assumption that the only things in life that people don't want others to know about are bad things i.e. illegal, or socially unacceptable (for example). In other words, Schmidt is arguing that only criminals and other "bad" people have a right to privacy, and this is clearly false.
Slashdot Mirror
John Young of Cyprome has claimed for some time that Wikileaks is a CIA front, almost right from the start.
Sure, everyone's paranoid when it comes to the world of intelligence, but still, it is an interesting thought. Selective "leaking" to Wikileaks, which disseminates it to key media outlets ... that would be a fantastic propaganda tool.
Your question and the statements that follow imply that you believe legalisation would lead to an increase in use. This is not as clear-cut as you suspect. If Portugal is anything to go by, decriminalisation of all drug usage (not just marijuana) would actually lead to a decrease in drug usage. For example, a Cato Institute study found that:
The man behind the research concluded that, “Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success.” The evidence would suggest that, being able to divert more resources to education, support, and health to tackle drug abuse, has a much more positive effect in reducing drug uptake and usage.
The British motto should probably be along the lines of "NOBIS AQVIESCIAM"
What, ACS:Law they go the house?
Leela: It's amazing. It's like a textbook on evolution.
Fry: Except in Louisiana.
Whatever happened to "correlation is not causation"? The article is a little short of scientific evidence to back up its claims except for a few anecdotal stories. Maybe it could be that the types of people who excel at WoW, or are drawn to playing particular games, already have these particular traits. The game may help them realise this, but to say gaming can boost your career is just a silly headline to grab attention. Just because the article is talking about a positive effect of games doesn't mean we shouldn't think about this critically.
In the words of Woodrow Wilson, "We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."
Creativity is not conducive to performing difficult manual tasks.
My favourite two laws are that a pregnant woman can request to urinate in a policeman's helmet, and that it is legal to urinate on the rear inside wheel of any vehicle.
Bollocks. You can get a tune out of a vuvuzela, too. Don't know if that video is visible for non-UK viewers, so here's a clip of it on YouTube.
I don't know how to play a keyboard, and if I bang the keys and make a racket, does that mean it's no longer a keyboard?
And why, exactly, is Google at fault here? The actual post on Full Disclosure states the following at the bottom:"Finally, a reminder that this documents contains my own opinions, I do not speak for or represent anyone but myself." He makes no mention of working for Google, posting this with Google's sanction, nor does he even post it from a Google email address.
The fact is, a guy who posted this vulnerability in a private capacity, and he just happens to work at Google. Just because he works at Google, somehow this means another stage in the "war" between Google and Microsoft? Nonsense. Sounds like journalists are trying to make a scandal out of nothing.
... the blog's in Russian. In Russia blogs translate you, etc. etc. ESA has a mission diary available though, written by Diego Urbina and Romain Charles.
Ummm ... not quite the intended image I had in my mind when I read this.
I suspect they're objecting to (what they see) as the conditioning of children into handing over what they consider to be personal information without question (as it says in the summary).
I had a brief look at the opinion piece on the JASA website, and its argument is basically "think of the children", which (according to them) trumps free speech:
Section 28 of the Bill of Rights states "A child's best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.". Previous court rulings have said that the state 'must provide the legal and administrative infrastructure necessary to ensure that children are accorded the protection contemplated by S28.'
The Bill of Rights also notes that 'The rights ... may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors', which include things like the nature of the right, its purpose etc. So, while they recognise pornography as free speech etc, they also "think of the children", which as we all know overrules any other concern.
Thanks for that ... would give mod points if I had 'em.
Okay, plugging the leak is important, but why aren't BP also doing something like this to contain the effect of the leaked oil: use 'empty supertankers to suck the spill off the surface, treat and discharge the contaminated water, and either salvage or destroy the slick.' Instead, they're just rolling out containment booms and sending people out to mop up beaches, never mind trying to initially insist that the crude was red tide, dishwashing-liquid runoff, or mud. Oh wait, the supertanker idea costs a lot of money. Sorry, sorry, my bad.
How many musical artists have created and sold music over the last 100 years, how many of those artists are still remembered and/or listened to on a regular basis, and are still considered as popular and/or relevant as when they created their music? Discuss. For bonus points, compare and contrast the trends in the music industry during the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's, and identify whether or not these trends bare any resemblance to fashion trends in that the music changes because, over time, music artists "want to stay ahead of the curve", and "don't want to be" playing "what everybody else is" playing.
So now you've changed tact and are claiming I'm delusional because I found what was said amusing, and not because I'm deluding myself that "those places aren't nearly so different from us as we'd like to pretend". Flip flop much? But, since you mention it, I did find it funny that someone can call the woman stupid. It was amusing to me, and it was unexpected, because I would've thought we would be blaming the perpetrators. Maybe I've got a warped sense of humour.
I'm deluding myself because I'm pointing out that they're not so different? Interesting.
I'm not denying that, and nowhere did I say this was not the case. What I'm refusing to accept is that this means we must change our behaviour and impose self censorship in order to accommodate a regime of thought crime. Claims that the woman in question or anyone else who speaks freely and openly are being stupid helps perpetuate and create this reality. Stop blaming the victims, and blame the perpetrators, and perhaps things will start to change.
Funny, you just reminded of the Soviet Union, Cuba, and a few other places where people had to watch (and still do watch) what they say because they were never entirely sure whether or not the person they were talking to would be an informer of some sort. It didn't matter if those remarks were not preserved, or limited to a small set of known recipients. You just never really knew, and self-censored what you said.
By claiming her behaviour is stupid, and saying that you should watch what you say unless completely anonymous (what happens if anonymity on the internet is eroded?), you're really targeting the wrong person/party. Her behaviour is not stupid. Her behaviour is perfectly natural in a society that (supposedly) promotes and protects freedom of speech. The real target of your ire and denunciations of stupidity should be the corporate and (in this case) government desire to undermine these freedoms, and promote self-censorship. The real stupid thing here is the idea that she should not be free to say what she wants. As the parent said: Stop being an apologist for the implementation of a regime of "thought crime."
Actually, this is one of the prime reasons I stopped watching Lost at around Season Two. An interview I saw with Dominic Monaghan on Jonathan Ross in the UK revealed that Lost had been written in its entirety as a two or three season series. However, the success of the first season meant that the powers-that-be insisted it be turned into the multi-season megalith we now have.
Ah, so the degree of hypocrisy is what bothers you? So, if China declares there is a piracy problem, but denies involvement, spends millions on a War on Piracy that is ineffectual, and exists purely to incarcerate its citizens, and then proceeds to continue being secretly involved in piracy, you'd be happier? That's a rather interesting position to take.
Doe the CIA World Fact Book clearly show that the CIA and the US government were complicit in drug running networks, including heroin and cocaine, for decades? (And they likely still are.) I seem to recall the US does deny that, so your argument is moot because they are as hypocritical on the score
Agreed. As if we need to give military forces any more reason to target civilian infrastructure, shipping, railways, trains, trucks etc. Madness. Certain countries have long justified attacks on civilians and villages by claiming that that's where terrorists are located and are firing their weapons from; how is using this weapon any different to the condemned strategies of these terrorists? This is just another nail in the coffin of the Geneva Conventions.
And the context changes what, exactly? This argument immediately falls flat because it depends on the assumption that the only things in life that people don't want others to know about are bad things i.e. illegal, or socially unacceptable (for example). In other words, Schmidt is arguing that only criminals and other "bad" people have a right to privacy, and this is clearly false.