cool, so we should all just kick back and enjoy it. got ya.
and i have very little sympathy for elected officials. typically the people one would want to have in office don't want to deal with the BS and the people who want to get elected are the sort one shouldn't trust with pizza delivery, much less running a government. (No offense to pizza deliverers, the comparison to politicians was unfair.)
you criticize without offering an alternative remedy. you could claim there isn't a problem (not credibly, but you could...) you could help remedy your reservations with what is being done, or you could devise/enact an alternative.
so? i'm glad. but why then is Obama so concerned about protecting Bush? why has Holder promised not to prosecute Bush-Cheney war crimes? Answer: he doesn't want to be prosecuted for his own, whatever they may be.
for all the issues i care about he's as bad or worse than Bush. Guantanamo. Civil liberties. Rule of law. Economic policy. Government spending. He even did the opposite of what he claimed on both healthcare and financial regulation. For the former, he blamed the insurance companies, then signed legislation that gives them a giant gift of perpetually increased funding from all of us. How do you fix something you claim is the problem by incentivizing it? For the latter, Goldman Sachs, one of the key culprits in the mess, is unworried about any impact from the financial regulation bill that's supposed to prevent the next crisis. It has no teeth. It certainly doesn't bring back Glass Stegal, which would have actually helped.
Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald and others in the left blogosphere were on the story early, just as they were throughout the fight over telecom immunity last year. Greenwald declared the Obama position to be worse than Bush:
It is hard to overstate how extremist is the "sovereign immunity" argument which the Obama DOJ invented here in order to get rid of this lawsuit. I confirmed with both ACLU and EFF lawyers involved in numerous prior surveillance cases with the Bush administration that the Bush DOJ had never previously argued in any context that the Patriot Act bars all causes of action for any illegal surveillance in the absence of "willful disclosure." This is a brand new, extraordinarily broad claim of government immunity made for the first time ever by the Obama DOJ -- all in service of blocking EFF's lawsuit against Bush officials for illegal spying.
The Raw Story weighed in on the case, and TPM Muckraker checked in with constitutional scholars Ken Gude, Amanda Frost and Lewis Fisher to see if they agreed with Greenwald's analysis:
Is it a sweeping power grab by the executive branch, that sets set a broad and dangerous precedent for future cases by asserting that the government has the right to get lawsuits dismissed merely by claiming that state secrets are at stake, without giving judges any discretion whatsoever?
tpm says it's the same, but there are new claims made by the Obama DoJ which Bush never had the audacity (pun intended) to make. to me, that's enough to make Obama worse in an objective sense. but moreover, he's subjectively worse in that he's poisonous and harmful because he both says the right thing (excessive secrecy is bad) while simultaneously cementing the bipartisan consensus and legitimizing Bush's radical and harmful policies. This is simply a grievous blow to the rule of law in America.
What makes this trend of escalated anti-whistleblower activity particularly notable is that Obama, during his career in the Senate and when running for President, feigned serious support for whistleblowers. Today, Bush DOJ whistleblower Jesselyn Raddack -- while pointing out that "Bush harassed whistleblowers mercilessly, but Obama is prosecuting them and sending them to jail" -- notes that Obama previously made commitments like this one (click on image to enlarge):
i'm telling you that people are taking broad scope ethically/morally correct action in leaking/whistleblowing precisely because our government has *proven* itself incapable of policing its abuses of secrecy privileges. I'm sure that if Obama (and his congress, and the last (Republican) government) were'nt fighting FOIA release of their misdeeds tooth and nail that there would be a lot fewer leaks, with a lot narrower focus. because our government feels itself to be free from the rule of law people are rationally acting to expose and discredit it.
and your quibbles about wikileaks' methods are interesting to hear. perhaps they don't have the resources to address your concerns. maybe you should help them edit and remove information harmful to the innocent. alternatively, it's interesting to finally hear these complaints when it's the US government's secrets on display. no similar outrage was present for all the times they blanket released the secrets of other governments. what makes the US deserve so much special consideration?
Obama promised openness and accountability. He delivered more secrecy and persecution of whistleblowers than Bush. Ergo he deserves what he gets. Maybe with enough popular backlash (and make no mistake: domestic or not wikileaks and thinking Americans' support for it constitutes popular backlash) politicians will start considering *doing* the things they promise in order to get elected.
Here's an alternative view for you: if, for example, rather than hiding pictures of our torture behind claims that releasing them will incite those near our victims, what if we instead had a firm policy of releasing pictures of our wrongdoings, prosecuted those responsible, and had that whole accountability thing? Maybe the fact that we don't have any accountability (because we're tacitly approving heinous activities) is *actually* more damaging to our national security than releasing these sorts of documents. But hey accountability and transparency have never worked before. Nope. The Church Commission was completely wrong about that one. Whoops. There went 20 years where we could've been torturing more than we did.
all i needed to know about AI i learned from BSG
on
Robots Taught to Deceive
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Now I have to be suspicious when my bread pops up that maybe my toaster is trying to trick me into eating a slightly under-done breakfast!
[Dark Helmet and Sandurz come across an image of themselves viewing the screen. As they react, the screen mimics what they are doing]
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at?! When does this happen in the movie?!
Colonel Sandurz: "Now". You're looking at "now", sir. Everything that happens now [indicates himself and Helmet] is happening "now". [Indicates the screen]
Dark Helmet: What happened to "then"?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed "then".
Dark Helmet: When!?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. Were at "now," now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to "then"!
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: "Now?"
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why!?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When!?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet:... When will "then" be "now"?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.
Dark Helmet: [backpedals in shock] How soon?
[Corporal rewinds the tape back to scene showing protagonists wandering in desert.]
Corporal: Sir!
Dark Helmet: What?!
Corporal: We have identified their location.
Dark Helmet: Where?!
Corporal: It's the moon of Vega!
Colonel Sandurz: Good work, set a course and prepare for our arrival!
Dark Helmet: [increasingly panicked] When?!
Corporal: 1900 hours, sir!
Colonel Sandurz: By high noon tomorrow, they will be our prisoners!
Dark Helmet: Who?!! [mask falls down]
there's no politics like academic politics. and from supposedly refined and non-confrontational people. graduate studies are imo heavily burdened with passive aggression and backstabbing training.
you're making sure writes are committed in the OS which is good, but you ought to disable write caches in the disks your journaling filesystems reside on. sure it isn't likely to be a problem, but better safe than sorry. wait, is that patentable?!?
of course for modern electronics one might use tunable LC networks on either end to accommodate variations in commodity sourced cables.
also, i take issue with ECL being described as inefficient. CMOS is inefficient when transitioning a lot. ECL merely has a constant power drain, which also happens to make it less noisy. It was also differential before LVDS was cool (or even around).
that's fine. they should have also cited wikipedia's citations. how is it a bad thing to cite the path to the answer rather than the answer alone? is not a well-edited wikipedia article and its commentary good background to defend one against potential accusations of argumentum ad verecundiam?
no, per the summary we clearly need government regulation to fix this. don't tell people they can fix it themselves, much less how to do it. knowledge is power and we need the government to have more of the latter at the expense of us having less knowledge. Besides, i thought the government was into selling the notion that privacy was undesirable so as to let them keep expanding the surveillance state. Why would they do anything but show professional courtesy to these advertisers?
or it could be a service level agreement that abstracts how the specified performance metrics are to be achieved, assuming that they are fungible. A bad assumption, as it turns out.
no, no, no. those costs are incalculable and soft costs not in management's budget. they're covered by the emergency fund. not to mention it'd look bad for the manager if they got toted up and ascribed to him/her.
don't be selfish. i want to watch the executive too. it would be far more socially valuable for you to sell tickets and publish a web video. plus you could make mad bank doing a real public service by providing a cautionary tale to other executives so as to avoid similar asshattery in future.
Slashdot Mirror
cool, so we should all just kick back and enjoy it. got ya.
and i have very little sympathy for elected officials. typically the people one would want to have in office don't want to deal with the BS and the people who want to get elected are the sort one shouldn't trust with pizza delivery, much less running a government. (No offense to pizza deliverers, the comparison to politicians was unfair.)
Thank you. and sorry for being terse and/or sarcastic. it's just a frustrating situation and i mistook you for a "support my guy at any cost troll".
you criticize without offering an alternative remedy. you could claim there isn't a problem (not credibly, but you could...) you could help remedy your reservations with what is being done, or you could devise/enact an alternative.
careful: state control of the media is dangerous and leads to the same thing. the real danger is in concentrating too much power in one place.
so? i'm glad. but why then is Obama so concerned about protecting Bush? why has Holder promised not to prosecute Bush-Cheney war crimes? Answer: he doesn't want to be prosecuted for his own, whatever they may be.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3839080
for all the issues i care about he's as bad or worse than Bush. Guantanamo. Civil liberties. Rule of law. Economic policy. Government spending. He even did the opposite of what he claimed on both healthcare and financial regulation. For the former, he blamed the insurance companies, then signed legislation that gives them a giant gift of perpetually increased funding from all of us. How do you fix something you claim is the problem by incentivizing it? For the latter, Goldman Sachs, one of the key culprits in the mess, is unworried about any impact from the financial regulation bill that's supposed to prevent the next crisis. It has no teeth. It certainly doesn't bring back Glass Stegal, which would have actually helped.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0830/outfront-goldman-sachs-volcker-obama-catch-me-if-can.html
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=34842
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/188551
yes the same taibbi who wrote
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom/
the eff thinks otherwise.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/jewel-v-nsa-roundup-media-obamas-position
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/expert_consensus_obama_aping_bush_on_state_secrets.php?ref=fp1
tpm says it's the same, but there are new claims made by the Obama DoJ which Bush never had the audacity (pun intended) to make. to me, that's enough to make Obama worse in an objective sense. but moreover, he's subjectively worse in that he's poisonous and harmful because he both says the right thing (excessive secrecy is bad) while simultaneously cementing the bipartisan consensus and legitimizing Bush's radical and harmful policies. This is simply a grievous blow to the rule of law in America.
and here's one for his persecution of whistleblowers:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/25/whistleblowers
so you cede the right to have your complaints taken seriously.
read some Glenn Greenwald. Yes, the same Greenwald that excoriated Bush. It's called consistency in pursuit of your beliefs.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/06/obama
But perhaps you missed the recent decision and its history.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/opinion/09thurs2.html?_r=1&hp
for those who say it wasn't Obama, it was his Justice department, for which he appointed Holder, "champion of civil rights"... except when it matters.
i'm telling you that people are taking broad scope ethically/morally correct action in leaking/whistleblowing precisely because our government has *proven* itself incapable of policing its abuses of secrecy privileges. I'm sure that if Obama (and his congress, and the last (Republican) government) were'nt fighting FOIA release of their misdeeds tooth and nail that there would be a lot fewer leaks, with a lot narrower focus. because our government feels itself to be free from the rule of law people are rationally acting to expose and discredit it.
and your quibbles about wikileaks' methods are interesting to hear. perhaps they don't have the resources to address your concerns. maybe you should help them edit and remove information harmful to the innocent. alternatively, it's interesting to finally hear these complaints when it's the US government's secrets on display. no similar outrage was present for all the times they blanket released the secrets of other governments. what makes the US deserve so much special consideration?
Obama promised openness and accountability. He delivered more secrecy and persecution of whistleblowers than Bush. Ergo he deserves what he gets. Maybe with enough popular backlash (and make no mistake: domestic or not wikileaks and thinking Americans' support for it constitutes popular backlash) politicians will start considering *doing* the things they promise in order to get elected.
Here's an alternative view for you: if, for example, rather than hiding pictures of our torture behind claims that releasing them will incite those near our victims, what if we instead had a firm policy of releasing pictures of our wrongdoings, prosecuted those responsible, and had that whole accountability thing? Maybe the fact that we don't have any accountability (because we're tacitly approving heinous activities) is *actually* more damaging to our national security than releasing these sorts of documents. But hey accountability and transparency have never worked before. Nope. The Church Commission was completely wrong about that one. Whoops. There went 20 years where we could've been torturing more than we did.
Kill the fracking toasters!
http://www.pocket-lint.com/images/d2Zw/battlestar-gallactica-toaster-launches-sci-fi-0.jpg
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Spaceballs
[Dark Helmet and Sandurz come across an image of themselves viewing the screen. As they react, the screen mimics what they are doing] ... When will "then" be "now"?
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at?! When does this happen in the movie?!
Colonel Sandurz: "Now". You're looking at "now", sir. Everything that happens now [indicates himself and Helmet] is happening "now". [Indicates the screen]
Dark Helmet: What happened to "then"?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed "then".
Dark Helmet: When!?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. Were at "now," now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to "then"!
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: "Now?"
Dark Helmet: Now!
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why!?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When!?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet:
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.
Dark Helmet: [backpedals in shock] How soon?
[Corporal rewinds the tape back to scene showing protagonists wandering in desert.]
Corporal: Sir!
Dark Helmet: What?!
Corporal: We have identified their location.
Dark Helmet: Where?!
Corporal: It's the moon of Vega!
Colonel Sandurz: Good work, set a course and prepare for our arrival!
Dark Helmet: [increasingly panicked] When?!
Corporal: 1900 hours, sir!
Colonel Sandurz: By high noon tomorrow, they will be our prisoners!
Dark Helmet: Who?!! [mask falls down]
there's no politics like academic politics. and from supposedly refined and non-confrontational people. graduate studies are imo heavily burdened with passive aggression and backstabbing training.
I think you've got a fine premise for a TV show here. Perhaps on Discovery or TLC?
Indiana Jones: Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.
you're making sure writes are committed in the OS which is good, but you ought to disable write caches in the disks your journaling filesystems reside on. sure it isn't likely to be a problem, but better safe than sorry. wait, is that patentable?!?
http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_is_the_problem_with_the_write_cache_on_journaled_filesystems.3F
and how is tfa patentable when SIGHUP and SIGTERM have been around for 40 years?
a shorter way of saying this is "phase matched cables".
http://www.mwjournal.com/journal/article.asp?HH_ID=AR_7184&tite=Phase%20Matching%20and%20Tracking%20of%20Coaxial%20Cable%20Sets
pay no mind to the fact that it's discussing microwave applications. it's just as relevant to high speed digital (or lower speed, further distance) digital electronics. keep in mind how far this interconnect had to travel due to part density and cooling needs.
of course for modern electronics one might use tunable LC networks on either end to accommodate variations in commodity sourced cables.
also, i take issue with ECL being described as inefficient. CMOS is inefficient when transitioning a lot. ECL merely has a constant power drain, which also happens to make it less noisy. It was also differential before LVDS was cool (or even around).
that's fine. they should have also cited wikipedia's citations. how is it a bad thing to cite the path to the answer rather than the answer alone? is not a well-edited wikipedia article and its commentary good background to defend one against potential accusations of argumentum ad verecundiam?
who was actually correct about the facts of the matter?
sight unseen, i bet Wikipedia.
no, per the summary we clearly need government regulation to fix this. don't tell people they can fix it themselves, much less how to do it. knowledge is power and we need the government to have more of the latter at the expense of us having less knowledge. Besides, i thought the government was into selling the notion that privacy was undesirable so as to let them keep expanding the surveillance state. Why would they do anything but show professional courtesy to these advertisers?
or it could be a service level agreement that abstracts how the specified performance metrics are to be achieved, assuming that they are fungible. A bad assumption, as it turns out.
no, no, no. those costs are incalculable and soft costs not in management's budget. they're covered by the emergency fund. not to mention it'd look bad for the manager if they got toted up and ascribed to him/her.
don't be selfish. i want to watch the executive too. it would be far more socially valuable for you to sell tickets and publish a web video. plus you could make mad bank doing a real public service by providing a cautionary tale to other executives so as to avoid similar asshattery in future.