I'm sorry I was using facts and numbers to come up with my assertions.
You can go here and see a chart of household debt as a percentage of disposable income.
http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2008/04/were-nowhere-near-bottom-in-housing.html
By and large people have been dropping out of the middle class. You give us Bill Gates, but thats just one guy. For every Gates (I won't even get into how he made his money), theres a thousand people dropping into a lower income bracket.
Wages have been stagnate for the last 8 years, but inflation has not. Probably had something to do with Greenspan paying people to take money.
Buying stuff is not free trade. Heres a definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade
You seem to be confusing it with modernization. Thats why we have more "stuff". That and massive amounts of debt.
I'll parrot the "Liberals" when they're right and backed up with actual economic data. I don't agree with them on gun control, etc., but I'm well past the point where I identify with the Republicans who don't have my economic interests at heart. I also try to look at things objectively, not the "feel" I have in my gut. You should try it some time. You'll find some interesting things. Like even the Fed things we're in "doom and gloom" recession.
Thats the most ridiculous argument that I've heard in a long time.
Regan reintroduced social mobility? Bush Jr. continued the trend? Thats just plain asinine. Trickle down economics never worked, and was never intended to. Conservatism was hijacked long ago and turned into some sort of brain washed cult. As is obvious..
By I think, overall, free trade is the way to go, and we have to be able to modernize and respond to changes brought by improvements in technology, rather than try to suppress them or shunt them with global taxes and regulations in the name of the environment. There hasn't been "free trade" during any of the time periods you spoke of. Its just another mantra repeated on talk radio until people have decided that it must be good because they hear about it so much without ever asking any questions about how its good for them or how its to be implemented. The government just bailed out Baer Sterns (well, provided a sweetheart deal to JP Morgan)and violated the laws to do so. Is that free trade? Lots of industries in the US are subsidized. It strains credibility to assert otherwise. The only difference is that now government protection is reserved for large corps and the richest 1% instead of the country as a whole. The only social mobility Reagan introduced was downward social mobility and Bush Jr. is more than happy to continue the trend. Real wages for all levels of society has historically increased more under democratic presidents than republicans by a large margin. I'm an Independent personally. Republicans like you disgust me. At least you could attempt to be intellectually honest. Or maybe that how you see history. My dem friends keep telling them that reality has a well know Liberal bias, after the last 7 years, I'm starting to believe them.
That baseline data is also what you need to monitor everyone in the country at all times. Especially activists groups of the sort that might cut into corporate profits.
But hey maybe your right. Maybe they're looking for who funds the terrorists, oh wait they already know that (cause Bush and the Royal Family are BFF). They're looking for terrorists in this country. Ohh no wait, that wouldn't work, it would be stupid to communicate over phones or hotmail. No trained terrorist would be that dumb and you don't need the data itself anyway. You just need the points of interest then you can monitor those points (such as cell phone numbers). But then theres disposable cell phones, and OMG the most diabolical of all... snail mail, newspapers, etc. etc.
John Nash might find the red spys, but the NSA is just looking for dirt on anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda. Its been done before, thats why we have FISA in the first place.
Speculate all you want, but its just as likely they're looking for Rainbow Ponies as Terrorist in the 'Tubes.
Sure theres potential for information overload but the more likely problem is proper communication. Approach it as if you were writing a recommendation for the people you work for. Use as little jargon as possible and give them real world examples.
For instance, my mom told me she didn't understand what the big deal was about the government listening in to our conversations because "the terrorists want to kill us." She has nothing to hide, and I understand that, so I framed it in a way that matters to her. Basically, I told her why the FISA laws were enacted to begin with (history lesson). The massive corruption that was possible if this information got into the wrong hands and how it harms society. It took time, and we ended up talking about a lot of things, but I was able to explain it to her in a way she understood and she could agree with. The end result was that not only did she learn why certain laws were import and why they were enacted, but she also could make a personal connection with them eg. they mattered to her instead of being some abstract concept.
Fear is not a proper tool for education. You're living in a country where only about 20% of college graduates can find Iraq, Israel, and Saudi Arabia on a map of the globe (in the middle of a war). Most people lack even basic information on any given issue partly due to our educational system (government likes stupid people) and partly due to lack of time (busy people shop instead of voting or educating themselves). Give them the information in a format they can understand. If they become fearful because someone could empty their bank accounts, tell them what to do in a rational, calm manner that will keep them safe. That way they know you're not trying to persuade them (and you shouldn't be). You're trying to education them.
Interesting definitions. To me chatting up a 13 year old who turns out to be an FBI agent is a "apparent miscommunication". Spying on the wrong people in violation of a subpoena (I assume a judge ordered this) is not "miscommunication" if it also "technical glitch". It can be one or the other, but not likely both. Somebody dropped the ball. Yes, it is a big deal.
Imagine if a sysadmin "accidently" rerouted the companies email to their competitors (which might even be legal, if stupid)...
Would the FBI accept an "opps" excuse from our afore mentioned "child predator"? I think not.
If anything, what the children will learn from your examples is how easy it is to buy influence and laws in this country. We've become a country that uses fear to control its citizens. From the "war on terror", to downloading mp3s. At one time copyright infringement was considered a civil matter hence the impression that most people have that the FBI shouldn't be getting involved. I don't doubt Microsoft will use those cases to scare children into compliance with their wishes much the same way the RIAA sues innocents to cower the rest, but I doubt they will truly educate them. That would entail explaining Microsoft's roll in the degradation of our government and the rule of law. Microsoft has always been good at PR (if nothing else).
Its yet another way for Microsoft to interject their fear mongering into the public consciousness. How much do you want to bet in those discussions of IP "rights" the idea that Microsoft believes Linux violates their patents and therefore, using Linux is evil, will come up?
Yes, we must educate the children for their own good...
Maybe we realize it, theres just nothing we can do about it. I can vote for someone I think will restore basic human rights to the country (and overseas visitors) but it could take years before I'll even know if they will do what they say they will or even try. Forget biometric data. You should be worried about extraordinary rendition. If I were a foreigner I wouldn't come here. Theres plenty of other places to go.
In two seconds i came up with games saves, custom maps for a game, game mods etc. Some jerk in a tie sees that and assumes employees are playing games constantly. It could even be vacation pictures, the point was that is wasn't work related and wasn't copyright infringement. You're assuming theres a legit reason for canning them. After seeing this type of stuff for 10 years its obvious someone just needed an excuse to look like they were in control and doing something about the problem. Upper management see 4 people got canned and they think somethings been done. Its doubtful that anyone was actually interested in cleaning up the operation, just looking like they were. CYA
On one hand you're correct, it is about how they commited the crime, but the numbers (as they often do) hide the darker side of the truth in this case. That being holding a knife to a teacher's throat would get them about the same punishment in broad terms. Equating the importance of drug trafficing and computer security just doesn't pass the smell test for me.
Another way to look at it is if the penalty for stealing a Slurpee was 10 years in prison. The guy that shoots the clerk and the kid who runs out the door without paying are suddenly on equal level with the law if the kid grabed one for his fried while the killer only got one. Disproportionate punishment doesn't make society any safer, it just makes people feel safer. It leads to things like Gitmo, Rendition, and everything else "unAmerican". Just because judges are too ignorant of technology to realize its overkill doesn't mean its not.
Higazy alleges that during the polygraph, Templeton told him that he should cooperate, and explained that if Higazy did not cooperate, the FBI would make his brother "live in scrutiny" and would "make sure that Egyptian security gives [his] family hell." Templeton later admitted that he knew how the Egyptian security forces operated: "that they had a security service, that their laws are different than ours, that they are probably allowed to do things in that country where they don't advise people of their rights, they don't - yeah, probably about torture, sure."
Higazy later said, "I knew that I couldn't prove my innocence, and I knew that my family was in danger." He explained that "[t]he only thing that went through my head was oh, my God, I am screwed and my family's in danger. If I say this device is mine, I'm screwed and my family is going to be safe. If I say this device is not mine, I'm screwed and my family's in danger. And Agent Templeton made it quite clear that cooperate had to mean saying something else other than this device is not mine."
Higazy explained why he feared for his family:
The Egyptian government has very little tolerance for anybody who is --they're suspicious of being a terrorist. To give you an idea, Saddam's security force--as they later on were called his henchmen--a lot of them learned their methods and techniques in Egypt; torture, rape, some stuff would be even too sick to . . . . My father is 67. My mother is 61. I have a brother who developed arthritis at 19. He still has it today. When the word 'torture' comes at least for my brother, I mean, all they have to do is really just press on one of these knuckles. I couldn't imagine them doing anything to my sister.
And Higazy added:
[L]et's just say a lot of people in Egypt would stay away from a family that they know or they believe or even rumored to have anything to do with terrorists and by the same token, some people who actually could be --might try to get to them and somebody might actually make a connection. I wasn't going to risk that. I wasn't going to risk that, so I thought to myself what could I say that he would believe. What could I say that's convincing? And I said okay.
Wrong Wrong Wrong. How can you be so wrong and yet get modded insightful (who says Geeks can't be Conservative stooges)? You've mashed different FISA issues together to make it sound like there were no FISA problems. I believe thats called a strawman, but you beat the crap out of him, congrats. No way you work at a telecom, no siree.
As noted below parts of FISA have been ruled unconstitutional. SO YES it is illegal. Your strawman argument is crap. A court ruled it was illegal to intercept communications where both parties were outside the US, that was the reasoning behind updating FISA. The Democrats were on board with that part, but the repubs put all kinds of extras in there (like the immunity) which is not exactly an earth shattering development (evil people do evil things). Yes some Dems love big business and don't mind the idea of legalizing anything that helps profits, but thats not a case to dismiss all the problems with FISA or the administrations handling of this issue. Then theres all the scare tactics the Repubs used to ram the vote down congresses throat. Everything around FISA has been yet another Repub. clusterf#!k.
If you want a detailed, thoughtfull analysis from, i dont know, a constitutional lawyer, I suggest you check out Glen Greenwald's blog at Salon. He's far more knowledgable than I. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald
Thats the way we are tought that it works.. but it doesn't. Pick any incompetant mid level manager you've ever known. Accourding to your way of thinking once they were known to make bad decisions, they would be laid off or have some of their authority revoked. But this obviously didn't happen because you came across them. An Engineer thinks in terms of efficiency so a purely free market capatilist system makes total sense. Unfortunately, most people aren't driven by somewhat naive altruistic motivations of efficiency. They short circuit the feedback mechanism you are relying on to keep everything running smoothly. In fact, its probably much easier for them to do because they are accustomed to thinking of ways to "break" the system, where you are only concerned with ways to improve it. Consider a lawyer. An entire profession devoted to finding the smallest cracks in a structure (law) and use them to their benefit.
The mine collapses we hear about in the news recently are because profit motives don't involve safety. Ignoring safety/environmental concerns are one of the quickest ways to gain a large amount of profit (the only motive and feedback for a corporation). Imagine the US without an FDA or EPA. Having worked in industries that are regulated by both, I can assure you, if you survived, you would quickly change your mind about the relative benefits of government. You could balance that by saying that peasants in the Ukraine under Stalin would probably say the exact oppposite. We'd both be correct. Government in and of itself is neither good nor bad, just like a corporation. The feedback mechanism for a *democratic* government is quite simple, voting. You may think its ineffective or according to your statements, non existing, but I assure you that I have voted for repersentatives for my government and while I might not always like the outcome, I have managed to get them to notice my concerns on occasion.
The feedback mechanism for a corporation, money, is far more complex. For a mom and pop store, its near ideal (save for environmental issues), but for a company that can control the market, its grossly ineffective. Thats why we have antitrust laws and regulatory bodies. Whether those bodies are efficient in their duties is immaterial, we recognized the need for them at some point. The same types of people who work in government also work in the corporate environment. Our sole answer to corporate malfeasance is monetary penalties, but we see time and time again, that companies are more than willing to take the risks because the profit they stand to gain by violating the law is greater than that from not violating the law (MS is a good example). We can impeach our elected repersentatives, but we'll never impeach the head of General Motors.
Heres another case study for you. Remember a few years back when the tobacco lawsuits were going so strong. Then it just kind of fizzled, well there were some fines, but thats about it, even though we know the industry deliberately tried to do harm to the populace by addicting them to their product. Well, what happens to states like Virginia if the tobacco industry dissapears? They go bankrupt, thats what happens. The tobacco lobby threatened to close all their plants in the US and move overseas, they claimed they could do it because the overseas market was their growth sector and has been for awhile. Corporations are not tied to a particular country or culture, only to profits. If the plants were closed, not only would the direct employees lose their jobs, but also all the contractors used by the tobacco companies as well (theres a lot, ask anyone from Virginia), plus the states would lose all the cigarette taxes. Virginia would be bankrupt, and in dire trouble. In fact, they did close a couple plants for no reason than to show they could. Those plants remain closed to this day to drive the point home that a single corporation has more power than the government.
Plus they're young. After their jobs get sent overseas, the company they work for goes bankrupt and upper management skates off with the phat loot, they will realize that they are not one of the "upper crust". That corporations are every bit as corrupt as government but far more powerful. That all the time they spent with their nose in technical books, they lost out on the social equation. Engineers/Nerds tend to be loners and don't know much about politics or history.
Take the idea of Unions. Engineers don't see the need for them. Thats something other people do, people less smart, inferior to them. They haven't learned the historical lessons for why they can be necessary.
After my company went under due to crappy management and took about 30k of my money with them, I wish I could say I had a profound change in the way I think. The truth is I'd already been jaded by 10 years in industry, seen all the layoffs, backstabing, crazy crap from a distance and was more than sick of it all. Its really not efficient, we've been told that companies are the height of efficiency, but thats not the case. That was my first thought. It wasn't about the people who'd been layed off and their familys and what they would go through. In my thinking it was partly their fault, I didn't realize that it had nothing to do with the *individuals*. Management says cut 5%, so it gets cut, usually according to time with the company. One company I was a contractor for announded a layoff of a couple hundred people about 10% at that plant. The next day they announced to the remaining employees that the employee fair would still go on, to bring their kids and wives/husbands. There will be games, food, all of that. The Irony was apparently lost on them. The same company sent out a email saying that they believed in fair competition, were commited to it, and did their best to help the community. Of course, they sent it out in response to them making a settlement with the DOJ for price fixing and unfair competition, which they were totally guilty of.
I've decided that theres no dark matter. The missing part of the universe that holds it all together is... Irony.
Siemens has/had a Linux based SCADA, its called PCS OSx (don't ask). It was developed by Texas Instruments and was originally a SCO Unix based system but they switched to Linux just before they canceled the product line (old TI line of PLCs). It wasn't developed out of Germany but was somewhat successful in the US so it got canned. Its a decent SCADA actually though nowhere as easy to use as WonderWare's or even Intellution's (shudder). You might as well give up on a Linux SCADA from Siemens, too much of their structure is built upon MS (as in every tool and library) not the kind of thing you just up and change.
Well I've watch friends die because of the US health care system. Theres an oncologist practice here that is well known for taking every last cent they can get their greedy hands one. So at least your family might have been able to leave something to their children. At least they got some health care. But since you don't provide any facts for your opinion that Canada is far more likely to ration care, I won't bother. I can easily quote WHO or other statistics to back up my arguement.. sorry to let any facts get in the way.
Strawmen? I'm talking about everyone! Thats the whole point. Society deserves health care. Men, women, children. Even druggies. Its called compassion. Maybe you didn't get much of that in medical school, but perhaps as a child your parents mentioned it. Ok so its a foreign comcept for you, do it because it could just as easily be you in those other peoples shoes.
Your principle that you shouldn't pay for someone who's obese doesn't work. "insurance" is about statistics, as is the cost of health care on society. There no way that you or I alone could afford our "health care" in the extreme and without a timemachine we'll never know until its too late. Whatever your salary, if you scrimped and saved an emergency could come up that would completely wipe you out financially and kill you because you can't afford the care. I understand your reasoning that you want fat people to pay more and I'm not totally unsympathetic. Maybe your even kind hearted enough that you would allow them to have healthcare but require them to pay double what you pay. That still doesn't mean that you will use less of those health services than they do. You could have a genetic condition that necessitates a disproportionate amount of care. Why should the fat guy pay for you? He doesn't have bad genes. Because it will only work if we all pool together under a completely different system than we have now. There are a lot of ways to encourage him to lose weight that don't involve pricing health care out of his reach. We can also encourage you to take better care of yourself because of your genetic weakness without leaving you out to die. At this moment Americans are dieing because they can't afford care. Thousands of others are having their lives ruined just because they got sick.
As a society we don't do a very good job of helping each other and we all suffer for it. You want to tier healthcare, fine, I'll take that as an acceptable compromise. What we're doing now is pricing it out of people reach. Theres enough pain and misery in being seriously ill, I don't think we need to add to it. Theres no reason to punish those people, they've already punished themselves. I wouldn't even consider denying you health care, that makes me not an asshat. It doesn't matter how much money you have, what you do in your personal life, hell , when you get injured and get addicted to perscription drugs, even though you're causing a lot of your own suffering, I'll still support your right to care as opposed to increasing your problems by tripling your insurance causing you to lose your house. I don't agree with the pay structures or hours for doctors either. I've known enough people who ten years later realized the money wasn't worth it if they never got to see their families and never had time to do anything but work. Our society is overworked and undernurished (in many sense of the word). I don't really care what the final system is, I just know the one we have now is broken. Its inhumane and it needs to be brought into line with the decency and compassion that all of us are capable of.
Wow, thats quit a bit of vitroil for your fellow human beings. You MUST be in health care;-). Listen, we are all going to die at some point and we are all going to get sick. You give well meaning advice to your patients, but it will NOT keep them out of the healthcare system. It doesn't matter how healthy they are, they can still get cancer, have heart problems and a myriad other things. Genes are just as or far more likely to cause problems as behavior. These costs will change with age, financial status, and several other factors, but it doesn't matter. Is an extra $50 a month for your fellow human beings that much to ask? What about children? Should have known not to have poor/obese parents with bad genes and/or habits.
Here's somthing that you can tell your patients. The richest among them will have more health problems than the poorest Brits. Why? You don't care, you care about making money. The most in the shortest amount of time. If it doesn't correspond to your preconcieved notions that they're doing it to themselves, you don't want to hear it. Thats why 1/2 as in one-half as in 50% of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills. Luckily for you, theres tons of people out there are too poor to be diagnosed so by the time they know theres a problem they're already dead. You'll charge the insurance company for their last hospital visit and get on with spendin your loot.
Its one thing to not support someone in their bad habits, its quite another to deny them a chance to live because of bad decisions they have made in the past, or for any reason. In the US we spend about 7000 per person per year for health care and we dont even insure everyone, not even close. In canada, they spend about 3000. So maybe having a conscious isn't just the right thing to do, its also the most economical for society at large. You could still tell your patients to take care of themselves, you just wouldn't get to take their last dime. More's the pity, I know.
Exactly. They're trying to change the debate by blaming the sick. It doesn't matter since insurance policies already do this. I used to work at a small company. Their insurance company would look at how much money we cost them, add profit, and thats what our new rates were. Someone gets cancer (and they did), they just up the rates. This ensures they always make "healthy" profits. The bigger your organization and the younger your workers, the better deal you can negotiate with the health insurance company. Then for every penny they don't pay out on you, is a penny in thier pockets ie. your rates will never go down and they'll fight you tooth and nail for your benefits.
This is all about changing the tone created by Michael Moore's awesome (yep, im biased, I dont have insurance anymore since losing my job) movie Sicko. Even when I was insured I always wondered why people without insurance payed more than those with it.
The logical way to do it, is to divide the cost of everyone across the board. It makes complete economic sense. You might pay a little more if your extremely healthy, have the best genes, get enough exercise, etc etc, but when you get run over by an uninsured driver and your medical costs go through the roof, someone else will pick up the stack. Our company tried to join with other small companies to spread out the costs. This can't be done, at least in Tennessee since it would reduce the ridiculous profits of the health insurance industry. Its all about adding a hefty profit on their margins.
Instead of talking about that, the fact that the US spends more money on healthcare per capita but has some of the worst care (37th in the world), that 16% of Americans don't have insurance, and 25% are underinsured, WE're going to make the topic how the lazy americans should just get up off their asses and pay a little more. Notice its a health provider thats doing this, though there was another employer who made the news by forcing their employees to quit smoking. Dont blame the system, blame the sick people.
Unfortunately, intelligent discussion is easily overrided by people screaming free markets all the while lining their pockets with blood money. Yes, if people die so you could squeeze an extra few dollars out of them, its blood money. At least if it were the Mafia you'd get a bullet to your head instead of spending months in agonizing pain while you're family lost everything they'd work ed for trying to get you decent care.
If your congresscriter is Republican or if you're talking to your Republican friends about this you should emphasize what will happen when a Democratic President (Oxymoron in this case they'll all be Fascists) has this power.
Abortion Protesters, terrorists. Religious groups, terrorists. You get the idea.. Some people are only swayed by fear, and this is a case were we should all be afraid.
I recommend Bill Moyers http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile .html Tough Talk on Impeachment because I think it appeals to both sides of the political spectrum. Just tell your 'conservative' friends that you were impressed by what the person who drew up the articles of impeachment for President Clinton had to say.
Creating a Monarchy hurts everyone. This is an issue for everyone who's not going to be a part of the new aristocracy, namely ALL of us. I sometimes wonder if the reason the Democrats are sitting on thier thumbs instead of impeaching this President is that they see all the the power the next President will have and their greed out weights their duty.
What I would like to see are all the Democratic hopefulls say they will not Pardon anyone from the Previous Administration... I think that will be the only hope of any good coming out of the last two terms of this President. I won't hold my breath.
Bitter maybe, but unfortunately, I'm right. It doesn't take much observation to see how people take advantage of one another. You need to lose those rose colored glasses before you go completely blind.
Of course we like them. They work for practically nothing. Thats why they'll never get citizenship or any other measure that offers them the basic rights that the rest of us take for granted. Whos going to mow our yards and build our overpriced houses then? Why would the President suggest something that so many Amercians are obviously against (citizen ship for illegal aliens)? Because if people dont want it in enough numbers, and they do, it will never get through congress. But it'll be a great talking point to pull people who would traditionally vote Democrat away. Even in the off chance they are successfull, look for minimum wage exceptions and across the board lowering of salaries when it happens.
"We" (the royal we) WANT them here so long as they are poor and uneducated. They've taken the low rung on the ladder like former slaves in the South. Wealth is relative, people will go along with a lot if they know they're better off than "some other group". Whether they're Irish, African, Mexican doesn't really matter. As long as theres some other group the rest of us can feel superior to, we'll be more compliant.
Our country isn't built on a free market. Its built on artificially controlling supply and demand so a select few can amass the greatest amount of wealth possible. Its a great system that will continue to work until we all realize that WE are all Mexicans and while we argue about meaningless things (immigrants have leprosy), the "powers that be" continue to enact controls to make sure that we all stay Mexicans. Namely dumbed down education and a totalitarian society.
--
I've got my Survivalism
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry I was using facts and numbers to come up with my assertions. You can go here and see a chart of household debt as a percentage of disposable income. http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2008/04/were-nowhere-near-bottom-in-housing.html By and large people have been dropping out of the middle class. You give us Bill Gates, but thats just one guy. For every Gates (I won't even get into how he made his money), theres a thousand people dropping into a lower income bracket. Wages have been stagnate for the last 8 years, but inflation has not. Probably had something to do with Greenspan paying people to take money. Buying stuff is not free trade. Heres a definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade You seem to be confusing it with modernization. Thats why we have more "stuff". That and massive amounts of debt. I'll parrot the "Liberals" when they're right and backed up with actual economic data. I don't agree with them on gun control, etc., but I'm well past the point where I identify with the Republicans who don't have my economic interests at heart. I also try to look at things objectively, not the "feel" I have in my gut. You should try it some time. You'll find some interesting things. Like even the Fed things we're in "doom and gloom" recession.
That baseline data is also what you need to monitor everyone in the country at all times. Especially activists groups of the sort that might cut into corporate profits.
But hey maybe your right. Maybe they're looking for who funds the terrorists, oh wait they already know that (cause Bush and the Royal Family are BFF). They're looking for terrorists in this country. Ohh no wait, that wouldn't work, it would be stupid to communicate over phones or hotmail. No trained terrorist would be that dumb and you don't need the data itself anyway. You just need the points of interest then you can monitor those points (such as cell phone numbers). But then theres disposable cell phones, and OMG the most diabolical of all... snail mail, newspapers, etc. etc.
John Nash might find the red spys, but the NSA is just looking for dirt on anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda. Its been done before, thats why we have FISA in the first place.
Speculate all you want, but its just as likely they're looking for Rainbow Ponies as Terrorist in the 'Tubes.
Sure theres potential for information overload but the more likely problem is proper communication. Approach it as if you were writing a recommendation for the people you work for. Use as little jargon as possible and give them real world examples.
For instance, my mom told me she didn't understand what the big deal was about the government listening in to our conversations because "the terrorists want to kill us." She has nothing to hide, and I understand that, so I framed it in a way that matters to her. Basically, I told her why the FISA laws were enacted to begin with (history lesson). The massive corruption that was possible if this information got into the wrong hands and how it harms society. It took time, and we ended up talking about a lot of things, but I was able to explain it to her in a way she understood and she could agree with. The end result was that not only did she learn why certain laws were import and why they were enacted, but she also could make a personal connection with them eg. they mattered to her instead of being some abstract concept.
Fear is not a proper tool for education. You're living in a country where only about 20% of college graduates can find Iraq, Israel, and Saudi Arabia on a map of the globe (in the middle of a war). Most people lack even basic information on any given issue partly due to our educational system (government likes stupid people) and partly due to lack of time (busy people shop instead of voting or educating themselves). Give them the information in a format they can understand. If they become fearful because someone could empty their bank accounts, tell them what to do in a rational, calm manner that will keep them safe. That way they know you're not trying to persuade them (and you shouldn't be). You're trying to education them.
Interesting definitions. To me chatting up a 13 year old who turns out to be an FBI agent is a "apparent miscommunication". Spying on the wrong people in violation of a subpoena (I assume a judge ordered this) is not "miscommunication" if it also "technical glitch". It can be one or the other, but not likely both. Somebody dropped the ball. Yes, it is a big deal.
Imagine if a sysadmin "accidently" rerouted the companies email to their competitors (which might even be legal, if stupid)... Would the FBI accept an "opps" excuse from our afore mentioned "child predator"? I think not.
If anything, what the children will learn from your examples is how easy it is to buy influence and laws in this country. We've become a country that uses fear to control its citizens. From the "war on terror", to downloading mp3s. At one time copyright infringement was considered a civil matter hence the impression that most people have that the FBI shouldn't be getting involved. I don't doubt Microsoft will use those cases to scare children into compliance with their wishes much the same way the RIAA sues innocents to cower the rest, but I doubt they will truly educate them. That would entail explaining Microsoft's roll in the degradation of our government and the rule of law. Microsoft has always been good at PR (if nothing else).
Its yet another way for Microsoft to interject their fear mongering into the public consciousness. How much do you want to bet in those discussions of IP "rights" the idea that Microsoft believes Linux violates their patents and therefore, using Linux is evil, will come up?
Yes, we must educate the children for their own good...
Maybe we realize it, theres just nothing we can do about it. I can vote for someone I think will restore basic human rights to the country (and overseas visitors) but it could take years before I'll even know if they will do what they say they will or even try. Forget biometric data. You should be worried about extraordinary rendition. If I were a foreigner I wouldn't come here. Theres plenty of other places to go.
In two seconds i came up with games saves, custom maps for a game, game mods etc. Some jerk in a tie sees that and assumes employees are playing games constantly. It could even be vacation pictures, the point was that is wasn't work related and wasn't copyright infringement. You're assuming theres a legit reason for canning them. After seeing this type of stuff for 10 years its obvious someone just needed an excuse to look like they were in control and doing something about the problem. Upper management see 4 people got canned and they think somethings been done. Its doubtful that anyone was actually interested in cleaning up the operation, just looking like they were. CYA
On one hand you're correct, it is about how they commited the crime, but the numbers (as they often do) hide the darker side of the truth in this case. That being holding a knife to a teacher's throat would get them about the same punishment in broad terms. Equating the importance of drug trafficing and computer security just doesn't pass the smell test for me.
Another way to look at it is if the penalty for stealing a Slurpee was 10 years in prison. The guy that shoots the clerk and the kid who runs out the door without paying are suddenly on equal level with the law if the kid grabed one for his fried while the killer only got one. Disproportionate punishment doesn't make society any safer, it just makes people feel safer. It leads to things like Gitmo, Rendition, and everything else "unAmerican". Just because judges are too ignorant of technology to realize its overkill doesn't mean its not.
In Soviet Russia, open API plugs into you.
its in the article:
Higazy alleges that during the polygraph, Templeton told him that he should cooperate, and explained that if Higazy did not cooperate, the FBI would make his brother "live in scrutiny" and would "make sure that Egyptian security gives [his] family hell." Templeton later admitted that he knew how the Egyptian security forces operated: "that they had a security service, that their laws are different than ours, that they are probably allowed to do things in that country where they don't advise people of their rights, they don't - yeah, probably about torture, sure."
Higazy later said, "I knew that I couldn't prove my innocence, and I knew that my family was in danger." He explained that "[t]he only thing that went through my head was oh, my God, I am screwed and my family's in danger. If I say this device is mine, I'm screwed and my family is going to be safe. If I say this device is not mine, I'm screwed and my family's in danger. And Agent Templeton made it quite clear that cooperate had to mean saying something else other than this device is not mine."
Higazy explained why he feared for his family:
The Egyptian government has very little tolerance for anybody who is --they're suspicious of being a terrorist. To give you an idea, Saddam's security force--as they later on were called his henchmen--a lot of them learned their methods and techniques in Egypt; torture, rape, some stuff would be even too sick to . . . . My father is 67. My mother is 61. I have a brother who developed arthritis at 19. He still has it today. When the word 'torture' comes at least for my brother, I mean, all they have to do is really just press on one of these knuckles. I couldn't imagine them doing anything to my sister.
And Higazy added:
[L]et's just say a lot of people in Egypt would stay away from a family that they know or they believe or even rumored to have anything to do with terrorists and by the same token, some people who actually could be --might try to get to them and somebody might actually make a connection. I wasn't going to risk that. I wasn't going to risk that, so I thought to myself what could I say that he would believe. What could I say that's convincing? And I said okay.
Wrong Wrong Wrong. How can you be so wrong and yet get modded insightful (who says Geeks can't be Conservative stooges)? You've mashed different FISA issues together to make it sound like there were no FISA problems. I believe thats called a strawman, but you beat the crap out of him, congrats. No way you work at a telecom, no siree.
As noted below parts of FISA have been ruled unconstitutional. SO YES it is illegal. Your strawman argument is crap. A court ruled it was illegal to intercept communications where both parties were outside the US, that was the reasoning behind updating FISA. The Democrats were on board with that part, but the repubs put all kinds of extras in there (like the immunity) which is not exactly an earth shattering development (evil people do evil things). Yes some Dems love big business and don't mind the idea of legalizing anything that helps profits, but thats not a case to dismiss all the problems with FISA or the administrations handling of this issue. Then theres all the scare tactics the Repubs used to ram the vote down congresses throat. Everything around FISA has been yet another Repub. clusterf#!k.
If you want a detailed, thoughtfull analysis from, i dont know, a constitutional lawyer, I suggest you check out Glen Greenwald's blog at Salon. He's far more knowledgable than I.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald
might also check out the eff. who are involved in this case
while you're there, give 'em some money, because there are too few people fighting the good fight and far too many like the parent spreading misinformation.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/09/parts-fisa-held-unconstitutional
http://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html
Thats the way we are tought that it works.. but it doesn't. Pick any incompetant mid level manager you've ever known. Accourding to your way of thinking once they were known to make bad decisions, they would be laid off or have some of their authority revoked. But this obviously didn't happen because you came across them. An Engineer thinks in terms of efficiency so a purely free market capatilist system makes total sense. Unfortunately, most people aren't driven by somewhat naive altruistic motivations of efficiency. They short circuit the feedback mechanism you are relying on to keep everything running smoothly. In fact, its probably much easier for them to do because they are accustomed to thinking of ways to "break" the system, where you are only concerned with ways to improve it. Consider a lawyer. An entire profession devoted to finding the smallest cracks in a structure (law) and use them to their benefit.
The mine collapses we hear about in the news recently are because profit motives don't involve safety. Ignoring safety/environmental concerns are one of the quickest ways to gain a large amount of profit (the only motive and feedback for a corporation). Imagine the US without an FDA or EPA. Having worked in industries that are regulated by both, I can assure you, if you survived, you would quickly change your mind about the relative benefits of government. You could balance that by saying that peasants in the Ukraine under Stalin would probably say the exact oppposite. We'd both be correct. Government in and of itself is neither good nor bad, just like a corporation. The feedback mechanism for a *democratic* government is quite simple, voting. You may think its ineffective or according to your statements, non existing, but I assure you that I have voted for repersentatives for my government and while I might not always like the outcome, I have managed to get them to notice my concerns on occasion.
The feedback mechanism for a corporation, money, is far more complex. For a mom and pop store, its near ideal (save for environmental issues), but for a company that can control the market, its grossly ineffective. Thats why we have antitrust laws and regulatory bodies. Whether those bodies are efficient in their duties is immaterial, we recognized the need for them at some point. The same types of people who work in government also work in the corporate environment. Our sole answer to corporate malfeasance is monetary penalties, but we see time and time again, that companies are more than willing to take the risks because the profit they stand to gain by violating the law is greater than that from not violating the law (MS is a good example). We can impeach our elected repersentatives, but we'll never impeach the head of General Motors.
Heres another case study for you. Remember a few years back when the tobacco lawsuits were going so strong. Then it just kind of fizzled, well there were some fines, but thats about it, even though we know the industry deliberately tried to do harm to the populace by addicting them to their product. Well, what happens to states like Virginia if the tobacco industry dissapears? They go bankrupt, thats what happens. The tobacco lobby threatened to close all their plants in the US and move overseas, they claimed they could do it because the overseas market was their growth sector and has been for awhile. Corporations are not tied to a particular country or culture, only to profits. If the plants were closed, not only would the direct employees lose their jobs, but also all the contractors used by the tobacco companies as well (theres a lot, ask anyone from Virginia), plus the states would lose all the cigarette taxes. Virginia would be bankrupt, and in dire trouble. In fact, they did close a couple plants for no reason than to show they could. Those plants remain closed to this day to drive the point home that a single corporation has more power than the government.
Plus they're young. After their jobs get sent overseas, the company they work for goes bankrupt and upper management skates off with the phat loot, they will realize that they are not one of the "upper crust". That corporations are every bit as corrupt as government but far more powerful. That all the time they spent with their nose in technical books, they lost out on the social equation. Engineers/Nerds tend to be loners and don't know much about politics or history.
Take the idea of Unions. Engineers don't see the need for them. Thats something other people do, people less smart, inferior to them. They haven't learned the historical lessons for why they can be necessary.
After my company went under due to crappy management and took about 30k of my money with them, I wish I could say I had a profound change in the way I think. The truth is I'd already been jaded by 10 years in industry, seen all the layoffs, backstabing, crazy crap from a distance and was more than sick of it all. Its really not efficient, we've been told that companies are the height of efficiency, but thats not the case. That was my first thought. It wasn't about the people who'd been layed off and their familys and what they would go through. In my thinking it was partly their fault, I didn't realize that it had nothing to do with the *individuals*. Management says cut 5%, so it gets cut, usually according to time with the company. One company I was a contractor for announded a layoff of a couple hundred people about 10% at that plant. The next day they announced to the remaining employees that the employee fair would still go on, to bring their kids and wives/husbands. There will be games, food, all of that. The Irony was apparently lost on them. The same company sent out a email saying that they believed in fair competition, were commited to it, and did their best to help the community. Of course, they sent it out in response to them making a settlement with the DOJ for price fixing and unfair competition, which they were totally guilty of.
I've decided that theres no dark matter. The missing part of the universe that holds it all together is... Irony.
Siemens has/had a Linux based SCADA, its called PCS OSx (don't ask). It was developed by Texas Instruments and was originally a SCO Unix based system but they switched to Linux just before they canceled the product line (old TI line of PLCs). It wasn't developed out of Germany but was somewhat successful in the US so it got canned. Its a decent SCADA actually though nowhere as easy to use as WonderWare's or even Intellution's (shudder). You might as well give up on a Linux SCADA from Siemens, too much of their structure is built upon MS (as in every tool and library) not the kind of thing you just up and change.
Well I've watch friends die because of the US health care system. Theres an oncologist practice here that is well known for taking every last cent they can get their greedy hands one. So at least your family might have been able to leave something to their children. At least they got some health care. But since you don't provide any facts for your opinion that Canada is far more likely to ration care, I won't bother. I can easily quote WHO or other statistics to back up my arguement.. sorry to let any facts get in the way.
Strawmen? I'm talking about everyone! Thats the whole point. Society deserves health care. Men, women, children. Even druggies. Its called compassion. Maybe you didn't get much of that in medical school, but perhaps as a child your parents mentioned it. Ok so its a foreign comcept for you, do it because it could just as easily be you in those other peoples shoes.
Your principle that you shouldn't pay for someone who's obese doesn't work. "insurance" is about statistics, as is the cost of health care on society. There no way that you or I alone could afford our "health care" in the extreme and without a timemachine we'll never know until its too late. Whatever your salary, if you scrimped and saved an emergency could come up that would completely wipe you out financially and kill you because you can't afford the care. I understand your reasoning that you want fat people to pay more and I'm not totally unsympathetic. Maybe your even kind hearted enough that you would allow them to have healthcare but require them to pay double what you pay. That still doesn't mean that you will use less of those health services than they do. You could have a genetic condition that necessitates a disproportionate amount of care. Why should the fat guy pay for you? He doesn't have bad genes. Because it will only work if we all pool together under a completely different system than we have now. There are a lot of ways to encourage him to lose weight that don't involve pricing health care out of his reach. We can also encourage you to take better care of yourself because of your genetic weakness without leaving you out to die. At this moment Americans are dieing because they can't afford care. Thousands of others are having their lives ruined just because they got sick.
As a society we don't do a very good job of helping each other and we all suffer for it. You want to tier healthcare, fine, I'll take that as an acceptable compromise. What we're doing now is pricing it out of people reach. Theres enough pain and misery in being seriously ill, I don't think we need to add to it. Theres no reason to punish those people, they've already punished themselves. I wouldn't even consider denying you health care, that makes me not an asshat. It doesn't matter how much money you have, what you do in your personal life, hell , when you get injured and get addicted to perscription drugs, even though you're causing a lot of your own suffering, I'll still support your right to care as opposed to increasing your problems by tripling your insurance causing you to lose your house. I don't agree with the pay structures or hours for doctors either. I've known enough people who ten years later realized the money wasn't worth it if they never got to see their families and never had time to do anything but work. Our society is overworked and undernurished (in many sense of the word). I don't really care what the final system is, I just know the one we have now is broken. Its inhumane and it needs to be brought into line with the decency and compassion that all of us are capable of.
Wow, thats quit a bit of vitroil for your fellow human beings. You MUST be in health care ;-). Listen, we are all going to die at some point and we are all going to get sick. You give well meaning advice to your patients, but it will NOT keep them out of the healthcare system. It doesn't matter how healthy they are, they can still get cancer, have heart problems and a myriad other things. Genes are just as or far more likely to cause problems as behavior. These costs will change with age, financial status, and several other factors, but it doesn't matter. Is an extra $50 a month for your fellow human beings that much to ask? What about children? Should have known not to have poor/obese parents with bad genes and/or habits.
Here's somthing that you can tell your patients. The richest among them will have more health problems than the poorest Brits. Why? You don't care, you care about making money. The most in the shortest amount of time. If it doesn't correspond to your preconcieved notions that they're doing it to themselves, you don't want to hear it. Thats why 1/2 as in one-half as in 50% of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills. Luckily for you, theres tons of people out there are too poor to be diagnosed so by the time they know theres a problem they're already dead. You'll charge the insurance company for their last hospital visit and get on with spendin your loot.
Its one thing to not support someone in their bad habits, its quite another to deny them a chance to live because of bad decisions they have made in the past, or for any reason. In the US we spend about 7000 per person per year for health care and we dont even insure everyone, not even close. In canada, they spend about 3000. So maybe having a conscious isn't just the right thing to do, its also the most economical for society at large. You could still tell your patients to take care of themselves, you just wouldn't get to take their last dime. More's the pity, I know.
Exactly. They're trying to change the debate by blaming the sick. It doesn't matter since insurance policies already do this. I used to work at a small company. Their insurance company would look at how much money we cost them, add profit, and thats what our new rates were. Someone gets cancer (and they did), they just up the rates. This ensures they always make "healthy" profits. The bigger your organization and the younger your workers, the better deal you can negotiate with the health insurance company. Then for every penny they don't pay out on you, is a penny in thier pockets ie. your rates will never go down and they'll fight you tooth and nail for your benefits.
This is all about changing the tone created by Michael Moore's awesome (yep, im biased, I dont have insurance anymore since losing my job) movie Sicko. Even when I was insured I always wondered why people without insurance payed more than those with it.
The logical way to do it, is to divide the cost of everyone across the board. It makes complete economic sense. You might pay a little more if your extremely healthy, have the best genes, get enough exercise, etc etc, but when you get run over by an uninsured driver and your medical costs go through the roof, someone else will pick up the stack. Our company tried to join with other small companies to spread out the costs. This can't be done, at least in Tennessee since it would reduce the ridiculous profits of the health insurance industry. Its all about adding a hefty profit on their margins.
Instead of talking about that, the fact that the US spends more money on healthcare per capita but has some of the worst care (37th in the world), that 16% of Americans don't have insurance, and 25% are underinsured, WE're going to make the topic how the lazy americans should just get up off their asses and pay a little more. Notice its a health provider thats doing this, though there was another employer who made the news by forcing their employees to quit smoking. Dont blame the system, blame the sick people.
Unfortunately, intelligent discussion is easily overrided by people screaming free markets all the while lining their pockets with blood money. Yes, if people die so you could squeeze an extra few dollars out of them, its blood money. At least if it were the Mafia you'd get a bullet to your head instead of spending months in agonizing pain while you're family lost everything they'd work ed for trying to get you decent care.
If your congresscriter is Republican or if you're talking to your Republican friends about this you should emphasize what will happen when a Democratic President (Oxymoron in this case they'll all be Fascists) has this power. Abortion Protesters, terrorists. Religious groups, terrorists. You get the idea.. Some people are only swayed by fear, and this is a case were we should all be afraid. I recommend Bill Moyers http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile .html Tough Talk on Impeachment because I think it appeals to both sides of the political spectrum. Just tell your 'conservative' friends that you were impressed by what the person who drew up the articles of impeachment for President Clinton had to say.
Creating a Monarchy hurts everyone. This is an issue for everyone who's not going to be a part of the new aristocracy, namely ALL of us. I sometimes wonder if the reason the Democrats are sitting on thier thumbs instead of impeaching this President is that they see all the the power the next President will have and their greed out weights their duty.
What I would like to see are all the Democratic hopefulls say they will not Pardon anyone from the Previous Administration... I think that will be the only hope of any good coming out of the last two terms of this President. I won't hold my breath.
Bitter maybe, but unfortunately, I'm right. It doesn't take much observation to see how people take advantage of one another. You need to lose those rose colored glasses before you go completely blind.
"We" (the royal we) WANT them here so long as they are poor and uneducated. They've taken the low rung on the ladder like former slaves in the South. Wealth is relative, people will go along with a lot if they know they're better off than "some other group". Whether they're Irish, African, Mexican doesn't really matter. As long as theres some other group the rest of us can feel superior to, we'll be more compliant.
Our country isn't built on a free market. Its built on artificially controlling supply and demand so a select few can amass the greatest amount of wealth possible. Its a great system that will continue to work until we all realize that WE are all Mexicans and while we argue about meaningless things (immigrants have leprosy), the "powers that be" continue to enact controls to make sure that we all stay Mexicans. Namely dumbed down education and a totalitarian society.
-- I've got my Survivalism
In other words.. S@#t rises to the top.