> you can either agree or disagree as you see fit. I'm not interested in agreeing or disagreeing, just interested in what happened.
You may indeed be free to draw your own conclusions, but I consider it unethical to impugn a person's honor based solely on "wild speculation."
If you don't have any basis for your beliefs, you have no right to assassinate his character, and you can take your baseless conclusions to that heaven reserved for all those who have unshakable faith in the imaginary.
> Withholding that info would actually be the height of journalistic integrity.
Exactly.
Plus, If Wired got the info from a government informant (Adrian Lamo), presumably Lamo should have the info. And the FBI should have the info.
I don't see why this article is coming down on Kevin Poulsen - compared to Manning, Lamo, and the FBI, Poulsen is an innocent bystander, making editorial and ethical decisions that seem to be pretty much by the journalistic integrity book.
> not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around. I'm sure I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure since Republicans do it holy, God only damns the Democrats. Courteous or not.
RP sees Abortion as a personal freedom issue - for the fetus. The problem with abortion is that some of us see it from the perspective of the fetus, some of us see it from the eyes of the woman. Trying to see both perspectives presents all sorts of dilemmas, so most of us just pick a side. In my own case, for the first 20 weeks of the pregnancy I ignore the fetus because it is not viable for birth. For the last trimester I favor the child, with exceptions for mother's health.
For the six weeks in between, when the fetus could possibly survive but is not developmentally ready, I don't know which side to favor. I think it's interesting that left out of the discussion is the man. It's possible sexual contact occurred without the consent of the woman, but pretty unlikely it occurred without the consent of a man.
I think if society wants to ban abortion, that might be ok, if they can extract the costs of medical delivery and government childcare from the biological father. It's really not fair for the law to demand the inconvenience of pregnancy and the pain and danger of labor from the woman, but nothing at all from the man.
And back to the philosophy of Ron Paul, he thinks the Federal Government has no business telling people what their values should be. He thinks social issues should be hashed out at a more local level, rather than imposing one ideology on the entire nation.
> OpenLeaks is looking to provide information to interested parties, e.g., journalists,
I don't think "interested parties" is the word you're looking for. Wikileaks only provides information to interested parties. Anybody "interested" can go to wikileaks, anybody who's not, won't go there.
I think you're looking for a phrase like "officially approved good guys who will censor the info responsibly and release only information that sells papers but doesn't piss off the executive branch of the federal government much"
> USA 0 On the upside, we do have unlimited unpaid days off, which 9.7% of our labor force is involuntarily using now.
But seriously, I'm all for lots of Paid Time Off (I get maybe 20 days/year myself) but a case could be made that paying somebody for not working doesn't make sense. And that having the government require it makes even less sense. What really should matter is the entire annual compensation/entire annual work.
We just like the salary to come as PTO because we don't have the discipline to save money for time off.
Good point. I've fallen for falsified data before. Thankfully I was able to recognize evidence to the contrary and realize the weakness of my position. I now no longer count myself religious.
Now I just try to follow the evidence where it goes, even if it sometimes makes me re-think my positions. I recommend you try to do the same. It's scary, yet somehow liberating.
Because we all know how that turned out. Instead of one national monopoly we got seven regional monopolies. Who changed their names then merged back into three or four regional monopolies.
Unless we give rights to lay cable to anybody who feels like starting an ISP, this is a marketplace that can not be free. We may as well not call it a market, and socialize the infrastructure.
> the government's efforts to legitimately help it's people remain on good terms with allies
As the diplomatic cables show, "remaining on good terms with allies" may take a back seat to badgering our allies, harvesting their diplomats biometric information, and generally being pricks to ally and enemy alike.
The US Government operates in a complicated world where decisions are not always driven by benevolence and virtue.
How does one boycott BP? Some markets have no alternatives. Me, I've never seen a BP-branded fueling station in my life, but I've probably burned lots of fuel that went through BP's hands. The oil marketplace has a gordian interchange of resources that defy any attempt of unravelling what came from where. If you really want to boycott BP oil,,you have to swear off oil entirely.
I'll bet if the feds investigated they'd find at least one educator with links to that terrorist. That's what really shocks me - how they've infiltrated our schools.
> we're handing off social interests to parties with priorities that are not those of the electorate I hear what you're saying, totally agree with you.
But I do want to point out that this "handing off social interests" is met with wild enthusiasm from half of the electorate. Our electorate consists largely of tens of millions of proudly ignorant schmucks who have no idea what they want and will passionately fight against their own interests if a tv show tells them to.
Slashdot Mirror
> I really wish the library had a online book store
Why wish, when you can make it happen?
> I'm not impugning anyone's honor, per se
Of course you are. "Unclean hands" are dishonorable.
Definition of IMPUGN
transitive verb
1
: to assail by words or arguments : oppose or attack as false or lacking integrity
Definition of PER SE
: by, of, or in itself or oneself or themselves : as such : intrinsically
> you can either agree or disagree as you see fit.
I'm not interested in agreeing or disagreeing, just interested in what happened.
You may indeed be free to draw your own conclusions, but I consider it unethical to impugn a person's honor based solely on "wild speculation."
If you don't have any basis for your beliefs, you have no right to assassinate his character, and you can take your baseless conclusions to that heaven reserved for all those who have unshakable faith in the imaginary.
"It appears"? "I've never believed"? "I've always suspected"?
Maybe whatever you believe is correct. But is there some sort of evidence Poulsen participated in ... whatever you allege he did?
> Withholding that info would actually be the height of journalistic integrity.
Exactly.
Plus, If Wired got the info from a government informant (Adrian Lamo), presumably Lamo should have the info. And the FBI should have the info.
I don't see why this article is coming down on Kevin Poulsen - compared to Manning, Lamo, and the FBI, Poulsen is an innocent bystander, making editorial and ethical decisions that seem to be pretty much by the journalistic integrity book.
We are encouraging the entire federal government to read an obscure memo entitled "Constitution of the United States of America"
Maybe they can substitute the metal now connecting the hooks with extremely fine steel wool. Then everyone will remember it's the Kindle.
> not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around.
I'm sure I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure since Republicans do it holy, God only damns the Democrats. Courteous or not.
RP sees Abortion as a personal freedom issue - for the fetus. The problem with abortion is that some of us see it from the perspective of the fetus, some of us see it from the eyes of the woman. Trying to see both perspectives presents all sorts of dilemmas, so most of us just pick a side. In my own case, for the first 20 weeks of the pregnancy I ignore the fetus because it is not viable for birth. For the last trimester I favor the child, with exceptions for mother's health.
For the six weeks in between, when the fetus could possibly survive but is not developmentally ready, I don't know which side to favor. I think it's interesting that left out of the discussion is the man. It's possible sexual contact occurred without the consent of the woman, but pretty unlikely it occurred without the consent of a man.
I think if society wants to ban abortion, that might be ok, if they can extract the costs of medical delivery and government childcare from the biological father. It's really not fair for the law to demand the inconvenience of pregnancy and the pain and danger of labor from the woman, but nothing at all from the man.
And back to the philosophy of Ron Paul, he thinks the Federal Government has no business telling people what their values should be. He thinks social issues should be hashed out at a more local level, rather than imposing one ideology on the entire nation.
> So, hopefully others will understand when I say "fuck you, you sniveling leftist brat."
I'm sure they will understand, if you find your target audience.
Perhaps you can distribute these affordable printed materials of yours at wrestling matches, or to tipsy concert-goers at the county fair.
> OpenLeaks is looking to provide information to interested parties, e.g., journalists,
I don't think "interested parties" is the word you're looking for. Wikileaks only provides information to interested parties. Anybody "interested" can go to wikileaks, anybody who's not, won't go there.
I think you're looking for a phrase like "officially approved good guys who will censor the info responsibly and release only information that sells papers but doesn't piss off the executive branch of the federal government much"
> USA 0
On the upside, we do have unlimited unpaid days off, which 9.7% of our labor force is involuntarily using now.
But seriously, I'm all for lots of Paid Time Off (I get maybe 20 days/year myself) but a case could be made that paying somebody for not working doesn't make sense. And that having the government require it makes even less sense. What really should matter is the entire annual compensation/entire annual work.
We just like the salary to come as PTO because we don't have the discipline to save money for time off.
Good point. I've fallen for falsified data before. Thankfully I was able to recognize evidence to the contrary and realize the weakness of my position. I now no longer count myself religious.
Now I just try to follow the evidence where it goes, even if it sometimes makes me re-think my positions. I recommend you try to do the same. It's scary, yet somehow liberating.
> I think it's time for an ATT-type breakup
Because we all know how that turned out. Instead of one national monopoly we got seven regional monopolies. Who changed their names then merged back into three or four regional monopolies.
Unless we give rights to lay cable to anybody who feels like starting an ISP, this is a marketplace that can not be free. We may as well not call it a market, and socialize the infrastructure.
> the government's efforts to legitimately help it's people remain on good terms with allies
As the diplomatic cables show, "remaining on good terms with allies" may take a back seat to badgering our allies, harvesting their diplomats biometric information, and generally being pricks to ally and enemy alike.
The US Government operates in a complicated world where decisions are not always driven by benevolence and virtue.
Since your fantasy world appears to be binary, I'd say the answer is either 0 or 1.
> theres the hobo's everywhere that you never know if they will try to mug you.
True. I can't tell you how many times hobos did not even try to mug me. It's infuriating.
A "responsible company"? In the oil business?
How does one boycott BP? Some markets have no alternatives. Me, I've never seen a BP-branded fueling station in my life, but I've probably burned lots of fuel that went through BP's hands. The oil marketplace has a gordian interchange of resources that defy any attempt of unravelling what came from where. If you really want to boycott BP oil,,you have to swear off oil entirely.
Wow. You just made studying cool.
> I saw a terrorist steal a six pack of beer
I'll bet if the feds investigated they'd find at least one educator with links to that terrorist. That's what really shocks me - how they've infiltrated our schools.
Were cyberbombs detonated on a cybertrain?
Damn that's insightful. I know of no better metaphor. In fact it may be more than a metaphor, the literal truth.
From wiktionary:
2. Anything of no real benefit which nevertheless makes people feel better
The force that holds the ultimate power is not the elected government, but those that control the economy.
At least when you hit something with a hammer you know something happened.
Are you sure? Haven't you ever hit a nail and not been able to tell if the nail sank any deeper?
Placebo nails. I've struck many.
> we're handing off social interests to parties with priorities that are not those of the electorate
I hear what you're saying, totally agree with you.
But I do want to point out that this "handing off social interests" is met with wild enthusiasm from half of the electorate. Our electorate consists largely of tens of millions of proudly ignorant schmucks who have no idea what they want and will passionately fight against their own interests if a tv show tells them to.