just like people blame their internet slow down and disconnections on ISPs overselling far beyond their hardware capacity and creating unnecessary network overhead through the use of traffic monitoring/filtering & packet shaping technology?
Most people don't understand what that means. I've been lurking on YRO slashdot for a while and I'm not too clear on packet shaping (not asking, that's not my point). "Government is monitoring your internet and that's slowing it down" is a lot clearer.
Most important difference though: you can't vote against your ISP. You can switch, but they all kind of screw you over, right? At the very least, people generally seem to be concerned with price more than ethics of their ISP. You can, however, vote for the party that says "We're going to fix your internet and privacy rights at the same time!" And it won't cost you anything more than voting FOR internet censorship....at least, that's one theory on what might happen. I have no crystal ball. If it's not an issue with the average australian voter, then it's not going to be an issue.
Moreover, if fundamentalist muslims want him dead for his supposed attempts to leave the muslim faith, that kind of puts a point as to how trivial it would be, it doesn't make him still a muslim (and again, that's assuming he ever was, which he wasn't).
And, once he does die, he'll probably be baptized by proxy into the mormon church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead) so really who is to say what religion he is? Is he all three? Absurd.
Third party supporters of all types will say there is no difference between the atheist canidate and the non-atheist canidate (and they will be right.)
Ask yourself if smoking and getting lung cancer is THE ONLY way people get sick.
The answer is: of course not, it usually isn't. Healthcare is not a choice, it does not always come down to personal responsibility. Your argument has no merit in 99% of the cases we're talking about. Why would you even bring it up?
To play devils advocate (or rather, idiot's advocate, don't want to slander the devil) that WOULD mean he did lie to the american public, he's said many times he's not. It would be a shocking coverup that would really shake my opinion of him, not to mention make people wonder what other ridiculous right-wing lies about him are true.
So in and of itself, that wouldn't mean anything, and should not be a question. His response would have been. Kind of like clinton: the adultry didn't really matter and should never have been asked, but he did lie under oath.
Note that this is all hypothetical, the man is NOT muslim
Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam says B. Hussein Obama is a Muslim, and that is sufficient enough evidince of the fact that Obama truly IS a Muslim.
He also said anonymous cowards are all muslim, by your logic YOU are now muslim, moron.
I suppose it's a question of "How secure does it need to be?" If it's launch codes, then I would be uncomfortable with any IM type exchanges, send a messenger in a tank for that. If the company we're talking about is "Del Taco corporate offices" then Skype is probably "secure" enough that Taco Bell wouldn't bother.
I'd be curious as to the general consensus as to what the chances that if say Pfizer were to be communicating trade secrets via skype or messenger, that those messages would be stolen by another pharmecutical or other entity? Or is "secure" more for preventing computer systems from being compromised by hackers or viruses rather than competition? It's all good to say that the australian government can listen in on your skype conversations, but aside from your rights being eroded, what are some of the more tangible risks?
What you do NOT have a right to do is take your Bill, hand it to your neighbors, and force them to pay the bill. That's theft.
It's public good. A sick member of the community is a net drain on it. If you get sick, you're not just dropped out in the middle of the woods, you get cared for, you get medical care even if you don't have insurance. If you can't pay for it personally, they can't reposess that work, it gets paid for by the community AND you.
Even if you don't go to the hospital, your neighbors and family do take care of you, which is a drain on a smaller part of the community, but is still making others pay for your health. Plus there's the net effect on the economy of you not coming into work or failing at your other responsibilites because you were sick.
The point I'm trying to make is that with healthcare, it's ALWAYS the community supporting you. Whether you're paying through an insurance company which screws the patients over and keeps the change, or whether you pay directly to the government and deal with the inefficiencies there, you can't be self-sufficient completely.
Nor should you be. The lexus is a choice. If you can't pay for it, you don't get to keep it. Getting sick is not, you can't choose to get sick or not based on your finances.
So there's no choice, and everyone pays for it anyway. Your black and white picture of healthcare as being the same as buying a car is completely immature.
How about a logical response instead of an emotional one?
I wouldn't really call equating the right to dignity with theft an emotional response, I'd call it a badly delusional response. Likewise for the "Taxes are slavery" argument. That's some type of logic, but it's the same type that flat earthers use.
But since you have your weapon systems, you are a big threat. Or at least you will be if Sarah Palin ever becomes president of the United States. Then I suggest the EU unite and launch a preemptive all-out attack on the United States.
The US likes preemptive strikes against religious fundamentalists, so why can't we?
Two reasons: one, we already have the weapons systems. Bush may be a warmongerer, but at least he's smart enough not to start trouble with someone who could fight back, threatening a really bloody war. Don't take that as condoning what he did, it was terrible, just saying at the absolute least, things worldwide would have been worse if he had tried to invade, say, China. Attacking a superpower is, as you no doubt realize, stupid in all ways.
Two: you're making the same mistake some of our dumber citizens often make: it's not the US that likes pre-emptive strikes, its a small group of people at the top, the neocons in that particular case, who are leading a lot of really dumb people to war. Most people in the country, and in fact even most religious fundamentalists, have no fault in the wars Bush started. So don't blame us for what our government does.
I agree that it is often overstated, but the answer they're looking for right now is much simpler:
Games may affect the election when people play them and forget to vote until the polls close. No need to freak out about overstating the impact of games, some are just very addictive, and you look up and "oh crap, it's 4AM, I forgot to go into work... or vote... or eat."
anybody who wants to steal a car and actually knows how more than likely knows how to drive stick.
I've heard of at least one would-be carjacker taking someone's keys, getting in the car, fumbling around for a few minutes, failing to get the car rolling, and then taking off on foot.
Although it's unlikely that you'll be carjacked, and somewhat more unlikely that you'd be carjacked by someone who didn't know how to drive a manual, it would be damn funny to see that happen. Assuming you didn't get shot out of frustration.
Now we see more warmongers spreading the message that Iran must be trying to attack us, so of course we must attack Iran.
You idiot, I never said we should attack Iran. That doesn't mean we should be giving them our weapons. It's precisely BECAUSE they don't have our weapons systems that we have no reason to attack them: they pose little threat.
Now if you "Information should all be shared" types had your way, that would be different.
And not for nothing, if "information wants to be free" applies to everything, why the hell are you all posting AC?
Anyway, you're clearly just sore because "harmonica hero" hasn't come out yet. Out of curiosity, are harmonica players considered musicians? You say "musicians get chicks." What type of chicks go nuts over harmonicas, exactly?
If all information was free and open, then maybe some countries would spend more time brokering peace and improving the world instead of making sure that they are able to crush their enemies first.
Good lord, what species are you talking about? If Iran had a nuke, they'd destroy Israel or give it to Al Quaeda who would blow up New York. Mutually assured destruction only worked in the cold war because the stakes were so insanely high and both parties were semi-rational. You can't say the same about north korea or Iran, or suicide bombers. I'm a pretty extreme liberal, but there is absolutely no way giving everyone the know how to build weapons is going to end well.
I don't understand blind nationalism.
Well, obviously, as you're not seeing it right now. That was realism.
I love where I live, but if the politicians here get much worse, I'm either leaving the country or revolting.
Well, then it's a very VERY good thing you don't know how to build a missile.
I see the Information wants to be free as an observation that information spreads easily, and that once something is out, you can't lock it up again, just like you can't put a genie back into a bottle.
The specific quote on the wiki page was talking about costs, that's what I was referring to.
As far as the genie in a bottle goes, that's generally true but doesn't explain why we should stop trying to keep our weapons technology from ending up in Iran.
Information wants to be free? Great. Iran wants to nuke us. We need to stop both.
You aren't too bright, are you? There's plenty that can be inferred by the "trivial information" in your FaceBook profile: who your friends are, your political beliefs, your religion, what you did last weekend, etc. Plenty of info to deem whether or not you're a "threat" to whoever has access to that huge amount of data about millions of people.
Thinking you've foiled big brother by not making a facebook profile? You're the one who isn't too bright.
Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?
Well, the article mentions that most of them were bound for Iran, China, or Mexico. China of course likely has some of the technology we're guarding. The other two have technology yeah, and Mexico developing new weapons should not be a big concern in and of itself.
Iran's army, on the other hand, is further behind somewhat technologically, and should not have high-tech weapons. Of course the US has not been responsible or moral with our weapons either, that's the arrogance, but at the end of the day I'd rather FEWER violent governments have powerful weapons than more.
That appeared to be talking about the physical costs to getting information out. As in it costs next to nothing to physically post. It does not appear to me to justify at all the sharing of state secrets that can be used against the US. It doesn't mean that there is no way or no reason to keep any information secret or private....Of course, the fact that I got modded flamebait tells me something about the mindset of people who subscribe to that ideology.
Slashdot Mirror
just like people blame their internet slow down and disconnections on ISPs overselling far beyond their hardware capacity and creating unnecessary network overhead through the use of traffic monitoring/filtering & packet shaping technology?
Most people don't understand what that means. I've been lurking on YRO slashdot for a while and I'm not too clear on packet shaping (not asking, that's not my point). "Government is monitoring your internet and that's slowing it down" is a lot clearer.
Most important difference though: you can't vote against your ISP. You can switch, but they all kind of screw you over, right? At the very least, people generally seem to be concerned with price more than ethics of their ISP. You can, however, vote for the party that says "We're going to fix your internet and privacy rights at the same time!" And it won't cost you anything more than voting FOR internet censorship. ...at least, that's one theory on what might happen. I have no crystal ball. If it's not an issue with the average australian voter, then it's not going to be an issue.
Moreover, if fundamentalist muslims want him dead for his supposed attempts to leave the muslim faith, that kind of puts a point as to how trivial it would be, it doesn't make him still a muslim (and again, that's assuming he ever was, which he wasn't).
And, once he does die, he'll probably be baptized by proxy into the mormon church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead) so really who is to say what religion he is? Is he all three? Absurd.
Third party supporters of all types will say there is no difference between the atheist canidate and the non-atheist canidate (and they will be right.)
Ask yourself if smoking and getting lung cancer is THE ONLY way people get sick.
The answer is: of course not, it usually isn't. Healthcare is not a choice, it does not always come down to personal responsibility. Your argument has no merit in 99% of the cases we're talking about. Why would you even bring it up?
To play devils advocate (or rather, idiot's advocate, don't want to slander the devil) that WOULD mean he did lie to the american public, he's said many times he's not. It would be a shocking coverup that would really shake my opinion of him, not to mention make people wonder what other ridiculous right-wing lies about him are true.
So in and of itself, that wouldn't mean anything, and should not be a question. His response would have been. Kind of like clinton: the adultry didn't really matter and should never have been asked, but he did lie under oath.
Note that this is all hypothetical, the man is NOT muslim
He also said anonymous cowards are all muslim, by your logic YOU are now muslim, moron.
If a bat tried to feed on me, I'd pound it to a pulp.
You say that, but there's one in your hair RIGHT NOW!
After reading that, I've come to the conclusion that some parts of the internet should definitely remain in the dark.
I suppose it's a question of "How secure does it need to be?" If it's launch codes, then I would be uncomfortable with any IM type exchanges, send a messenger in a tank for that. If the company we're talking about is "Del Taco corporate offices" then Skype is probably "secure" enough that Taco Bell wouldn't bother.
I'd be curious as to the general consensus as to what the chances that if say Pfizer were to be communicating trade secrets via skype or messenger, that those messages would be stolen by another pharmecutical or other entity? Or is "secure" more for preventing computer systems from being compromised by hackers or viruses rather than competition? It's all good to say that the australian government can listen in on your skype conversations, but aside from your rights being eroded, what are some of the more tangible risks?
What you do NOT have a right to do is take your Bill, hand it to your neighbors, and force them to pay the bill. That's theft.
It's public good. A sick member of the community is a net drain on it. If you get sick, you're not just dropped out in the middle of the woods, you get cared for, you get medical care even if you don't have insurance. If you can't pay for it personally, they can't reposess that work, it gets paid for by the community AND you.
Even if you don't go to the hospital, your neighbors and family do take care of you, which is a drain on a smaller part of the community, but is still making others pay for your health. Plus there's the net effect on the economy of you not coming into work or failing at your other responsibilites because you were sick.
The point I'm trying to make is that with healthcare, it's ALWAYS the community supporting you. Whether you're paying through an insurance company which screws the patients over and keeps the change, or whether you pay directly to the government and deal with the inefficiencies there, you can't be self-sufficient completely.
Nor should you be. The lexus is a choice. If you can't pay for it, you don't get to keep it. Getting sick is not, you can't choose to get sick or not based on your finances.
So there's no choice, and everyone pays for it anyway. Your black and white picture of healthcare as being the same as buying a car is completely immature.
How about a logical response instead of an emotional one?
I wouldn't really call equating the right to dignity with theft an emotional response, I'd call it a badly delusional response. Likewise for the "Taxes are slavery" argument. That's some type of logic, but it's the same type that flat earthers use.
But since you have your weapon systems, you are a big threat. Or at least you will be if Sarah Palin ever becomes president of the United States. Then I suggest the EU unite and launch a preemptive all-out attack on the United States.
The US likes preemptive strikes against religious fundamentalists, so why can't we?
Two reasons: one, we already have the weapons systems. Bush may be a warmongerer, but at least he's smart enough not to start trouble with someone who could fight back, threatening a really bloody war. Don't take that as condoning what he did, it was terrible, just saying at the absolute least, things worldwide would have been worse if he had tried to invade, say, China. Attacking a superpower is, as you no doubt realize, stupid in all ways.
Two: you're making the same mistake some of our dumber citizens often make: it's not the US that likes pre-emptive strikes, its a small group of people at the top, the neocons in that particular case, who are leading a lot of really dumb people to war. Most people in the country, and in fact even most religious fundamentalists, have no fault in the wars Bush started. So don't blame us for what our government does.
I agree that it is often overstated, but the answer they're looking for right now is much simpler:
Games may affect the election when people play them and forget to vote until the polls close. No need to freak out about overstating the impact of games, some are just very addictive, and you look up and "oh crap, it's 4AM, I forgot to go into work... or vote... or eat."
anybody who wants to steal a car and actually knows how more than likely knows how to drive stick.
I've heard of at least one would-be carjacker taking someone's keys, getting in the car, fumbling around for a few minutes, failing to get the car rolling, and then taking off on foot.
Although it's unlikely that you'll be carjacked, and somewhat more unlikely that you'd be carjacked by someone who didn't know how to drive a manual, it would be damn funny to see that happen. Assuming you didn't get shot out of frustration.
How often does that happen with Guitar Hero? Oh, right. Never.
So now all activites are measured against "will women want me more if I do it?"
There goes EVERY videogame. As well as going to the bathroom.
Guitar hero is fun, that's why people do it.
Now we see more warmongers spreading the message that Iran must be trying to attack us, so of course we must attack Iran.
You idiot, I never said we should attack Iran. That doesn't mean we should be giving them our weapons. It's precisely BECAUSE they don't have our weapons systems that we have no reason to attack them: they pose little threat.
Now if you "Information should all be shared" types had your way, that would be different.
And not for nothing, if "information wants to be free" applies to everything, why the hell are you all posting AC?
...it's Simon Says with a soundtrack.
Man, I should try that sometime.
Anyway, you're clearly just sore because "harmonica hero" hasn't come out yet. Out of curiosity, are harmonica players considered musicians? You say "musicians get chicks." What type of chicks go nuts over harmonicas, exactly?
If all information was free and open, then maybe some countries would spend more time brokering peace and improving the world instead of making sure that they are able to crush their enemies first.
Good lord, what species are you talking about? If Iran had a nuke, they'd destroy Israel or give it to Al Quaeda who would blow up New York. Mutually assured destruction only worked in the cold war because the stakes were so insanely high and both parties were semi-rational. You can't say the same about north korea or Iran, or suicide bombers. I'm a pretty extreme liberal, but there is absolutely no way giving everyone the know how to build weapons is going to end well.
I don't understand blind nationalism.
Well, obviously, as you're not seeing it right now. That was realism.
I love where I live, but if the politicians here get much worse, I'm either leaving the country or revolting.
Well, then it's a very VERY good thing you don't know how to build a missile.
I see the Information wants to be free as an observation that information spreads easily, and that once something is out, you can't lock it up again, just like you can't put a genie back into a bottle.
The specific quote on the wiki page was talking about costs, that's what I was referring to.
As far as the genie in a bottle goes, that's generally true but doesn't explain why we should stop trying to keep our weapons technology from ending up in Iran.
Information wants to be free? Great. Iran wants to nuke us. We need to stop both.
You aren't too bright, are you? There's plenty that can be inferred by the "trivial information" in your FaceBook profile: who your friends are, your political beliefs, your religion, what you did last weekend, etc. Plenty of info to deem whether or not you're a "threat" to whoever has access to that huge amount of data about millions of people.
Thinking you've foiled big brother by not making a facebook profile? You're the one who isn't too bright.
This is useless to me, since I don't even *use* my ps2 anymore, except for quick games of Guitar Hero every few weeks.
Maybe because you haven't had much to play lately? This could alleviate that.
Isn't it more than a bit arrogant and unrealistic to think the US is the only country with these technologies?
Well, the article mentions that most of them were bound for Iran, China, or Mexico. China of course likely has some of the technology we're guarding. The other two have technology yeah, and Mexico developing new weapons should not be a big concern in and of itself.
Iran's army, on the other hand, is further behind somewhat technologically, and should not have high-tech weapons. Of course the US has not been responsible or moral with our weapons either, that's the arrogance, but at the end of the day I'd rather FEWER violent governments have powerful weapons than more.
...security systems to guard the knowledge of how to do anything is in essence offensive, and should not exist.
Did he say anything about what to do when less enlightened dictators use our now open-to-everyone missile technology against us?
That appeared to be talking about the physical costs to getting information out. As in it costs next to nothing to physically post. It does not appear to me to justify at all the sharing of state secrets that can be used against the US. It doesn't mean that there is no way or no reason to keep any information secret or private. ...Of course, the fact that I got modded flamebait tells me something about the mindset of people who subscribe to that ideology.
I guess he did just send me an e-mail that said "Dude, chill out! Hey, got any pot or secret weapons technology?"