Really? You must have been watching a different video.
Topolsky's argument and analogy made sense. Emanuel didn't have a counter argument so he resorted to name calling and bullying from his self-styled throne. He was in a room full of his cohorts and admirers, and he had an obligation to listen and present an intelligent response. He didn't.
Sorry, but bullying only makes him look like an ass.
> I don't put anything on Facebook that I wouldn't say in public, even though I have all my private data limited to friends I personally know
What you say in public is transient and taken in context. What you say on FB is permanent and can be largely devoid of context. I'm also pretty sure you change your content based on who might overhear you IRL, whereas you have really no clue who might be listening on FB.
> but I am aware of the cost of having a "free" way to keep in touch with friends and relatives all over the world, and I'm willing to pay that cost.
No, you clearly aren't aware of the cost. You have no idea, nor do I, how deep down the data mine we'll go or who will be doing that mining. Yes, your anti-fascist statement on FB might be applauded loudly today and put you in favourable standing, but what if the far right gains power in your country? Or what if that dude you friended not so long ago happened to have an affinity for explosives in his underthings?
We collectively don't understand all the implications, so don't be so naive to claim that you do. If you're doing anything more than updating your friends on your bowel movements then it's pretty much guaranteed that someone, at some point, will have material to use against you. The only questions are whether it will be relevant in your lifetime and whether they'll have significant power.
I think you miss the point. The Taliban not only do not have power relative to their opposition, they aren't engaging in 'MAD-negating' behaviour. You don't see their leaders strapping bombs to their chest or putting a large bullseye on themselves, just as you don't see dictators on the front lines of a losing battle.
Everything can be boiled down to a struggle for power, but when you bring MAD into the mix there's no point in launching an offensive if it ensures that shortly afterward all the power you sought is turned to glass.
Exactly - that's why there have never been any suicide bombers, and why no one has ever shot at armed police or troops.
People desperate to take or keep power sometimes do desperate things.
Those two statements are unrelated. 'People desperate to take or keep power' don't blow themselves up or shoot at police. Nor do they launch suicidal first strikes... unless you can give examples that show otherwise.
Desperate, powerless and misguided people do those things.
And why not? Are you so naive to believe that those leaders are actually suicidal maniacs, the likes of which we haven't seen since... well... I'm not even sure.
Here's where your logic fails: those who seek power, be it religious, political or otherwise, don't like to lose it. Not in elections and certainly not by bombs.
You've smuggled self-fulfilling prophecy into the equation in ten words or less. Nicely done. I see the eye in the pyramid behind your vision of corporate unity.
And you've failed to consider the context of the comment. Nicely done. It's one of the challenge of open discussions like this - my comments were intentionally simplified since the OP clearly has a binary view of the world and dealing in more abstract notions wouldn't achieve much.
Corporations are simply the easiest of the competing power structures to point to. In fairness, there's a vast number of supranational, supra-governmental, non-governmental and private institutions and even individuals wielding power, many of which operate only superficially within national boundaries.
I hardly think the world is more corrupt than it ever was, we're just a hell of a lot better now at perceiving the tangled tapestry.
You've overly simplified it with the slippery term 'corruption'. Corruption is only one element in the power struggle, and entities can easily work against other entities or individuals without being corrupt. It's also a highly subject subjective term outside of the legal definitions and is often difficult to qualify in international relations. So the term is largely meaningless in a political and legal context when discussing the actions of entities unchecked by any such relativistic ideals.
That's one of the reasons it's important to discard the notion of 'smoking gun' with regards to Wikileaks. It's more relevant to determine if, on the whole, our representatives are working for us or for some other entity, especially when the two are in conflict.
I'm not a 'leftist', so I'll have to apologize for not fitting into your world of walking, talking strawmen.
Regardless, you seem to be under the (albeit sincerely naive) impression that all those things you list are still working in your favour, and that those in political and corporate power are beholden to your interests. They aren't. You're thinking is about 50 years too late - those were the 'good ole days' of benevolence and spirit, working against common enemies and using whatever means necessary to triumph.
In a world where governments are beholden to corporations with no loyalties, they are as likely to be working against you as they are for you. Get it yet?
I'm pretty sure that proof could be posted that the president eats babies, and a large segment of the population like yourself would say 'meh'. There was some rather nasty revelations in the Manning leaks, but I'm guessing you missed them or didn't cae.
That complacency is why our democracy is sliding away.
I suspect after this, internet snooping, the crime bill and a couple of other brilliant moves they'll go back to being a regional party in the west with the old pc's wondering what the heck happened to their party.
A big chunk of Canadians are Red Tories, and likely won't be fooled again.
I find it amusing that someone funded a survey when they could get much more accurate data from a couple lines of SQL. Assuming one of the social networking sites would provide the info, of course.
That even with enough outcry the government still listens to the people up here. Otherwise C30 wouldn't be open for discussion being modified, we wouldn't have scrapped the long gun registry. And we sure wouldn't be looking at scrapping S.13 from the HRC(the one that prohibits free speech).
I believe you mean 'selectively listens to the people up here'. The LGR is a good example - I was vehemently opposed to that massive money pit but polls put support for it at 2/3rds and greater. Scrapping the S.13 was a private members bill put forth by a Liberal. And let's let the dust settle on C30 before declaring victory - the Cons aren't at all the libertarian leaning party many make them out to be.
That just leads to absurdity where you never express an opinion on anything ever
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. In fact, I didn't provide a solution. There's a much better approach anyhow - enforce strict controls and rules on our data that companies and governments collect and retain.
So your protection against the holocaust would be to have refused to do fill in the census report as a Jew. Yeah, that would have worked really well.
No, and that's a silly example. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the reasons why many people and organizations in western countries are uncomfortable with allowing governments to keep data that specifically identifies them. And why many fight for laws to ensure that any data retained is done so in a way that prevents them from identifying the individual in the census. So we do, in fact, refuse to identify the individual as a Jew. Or as a communist. Etc.
The defense against tyranny is not to hide from lists but to prevent tyrans from rising to power. Basically you are saying "I am not on any lists (as far as you know) so I am safe".
No, I'm not saying that at all. And I'm not simply talking about tyranny of the state - I'm referring to transient mores and values. What's acceptable today may not be tomorrow. As humans we can adapt to that, but we have yet to determine how to do that in a digital age. Your opinion is recorded and static. The consequences may be relatively minor - don't get a date with someone with opposing views - or they may be much worse. Imagine J. Edgar Hoover with access to all that information, largely supported by a 'pinko-commie' hating public.
Apparently you're also unfamiliar with the concept of tyranny of the majority. For all your bravado, you'll be tilting at windmills trying to prevent that from happening. Or were you fighting the brave fight on behalf of the communists? Or perhaps you're working hard on behalf of the new enemy, Muslims? There's always tyranny, even in the freest of nations, and it's naive to think otherwise.
I am really not concerned at all with anything I can envision them doing with that information.
And that's the problem.
Nobody knows what the future will hold in terms of laws and governance. The things that you do today, that are likely well within the limits of the law and likely of no interest to the state, may make you an enemy of a new state tomorrow. Your sig is an excellent example - suggesting that you might be an atheist could wind you up on a watch list of the future. Sounds preposterous, sure, but one never knows.
And yes, we're talking about handing what likely amounts to rather dull data over to a corporation. But again, you don't know who that corporation may hand that data over to tomorrow.
Funny how little concern is shown by legislators about the failure of this business due to changing technology, yet it is so determined to protect those in the music and movie industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? You must have been watching a different video.
Topolsky's argument and analogy made sense. Emanuel didn't have a counter argument so he resorted to name calling and bullying from his self-styled throne. He was in a room full of his cohorts and admirers, and he had an obligation to listen and present an intelligent response. He didn't.
Sorry, but bullying only makes him look like an ass.
The only way we will get in space big time is if there is profit to be made by being up there
Maybe we need to change this? It's a rather sad statement that profit trumps all and is the only valid motivation for expanding our horizons.
> I don't put anything on Facebook that I wouldn't say in public, even though I have all my private data limited to friends I personally know
What you say in public is transient and taken in context. What you say on FB is permanent and can be largely devoid of context. I'm also pretty sure you change your content based on who might overhear you IRL, whereas you have really no clue who might be listening on FB.
> but I am aware of the cost of having a "free" way to keep in touch with friends and relatives all over the world, and I'm willing to pay that cost.
No, you clearly aren't aware of the cost. You have no idea, nor do I, how deep down the data mine we'll go or who will be doing that mining. Yes, your anti-fascist statement on FB might be applauded loudly today and put you in favourable standing, but what if the far right gains power in your country? Or what if that dude you friended not so long ago happened to have an affinity for explosives in his underthings?
We collectively don't understand all the implications, so don't be so naive to claim that you do. If you're doing anything more than updating your friends on your bowel movements then it's pretty much guaranteed that someone, at some point, will have material to use against you. The only questions are whether it will be relevant in your lifetime and whether they'll have significant power.
Or how about some of us don't want to hand over a one-dimensional record of our lives to a third party that may or may not be up to no good?
Hi, Canada here...
When you're done with Al could you please send him our way? He seems to be one of the few decent politicians left.
Thanks.
Very powerful lobby groups (MADD, for one)
I think you miss the point. The Taliban not only do not have power relative to their opposition, they aren't engaging in 'MAD-negating' behaviour. You don't see their leaders strapping bombs to their chest or putting a large bullseye on themselves, just as you don't see dictators on the front lines of a losing battle.
Everything can be boiled down to a struggle for power, but when you bring MAD into the mix there's no point in launching an offensive if it ensures that shortly afterward all the power you sought is turned to glass.
Exactly - that's why there have never been any suicide bombers, and why no one has ever shot at armed police or troops.
People desperate to take or keep power sometimes do desperate things.
Those two statements are unrelated. 'People desperate to take or keep power' don't blow themselves up or shoot at police. Nor do they launch suicidal first strikes... unless you can give examples that show otherwise.
Desperate, powerless and misguided people do those things.
And why not? Are you so naive to believe that those leaders are actually suicidal maniacs, the likes of which we haven't seen since... well... I'm not even sure.
Here's where your logic fails: those who seek power, be it religious, political or otherwise, don't like to lose it. Not in elections and certainly not by bombs.
That's not necessarily true in the UK. Truth is only a defence if there's a demonstrable public benefit.
You've smuggled self-fulfilling prophecy into the equation in ten words or less. Nicely done. I see the eye in the pyramid behind your vision of corporate unity.
And you've failed to consider the context of the comment. Nicely done. It's one of the challenge of open discussions like this - my comments were intentionally simplified since the OP clearly has a binary view of the world and dealing in more abstract notions wouldn't achieve much.
Corporations are simply the easiest of the competing power structures to point to. In fairness, there's a vast number of supranational, supra-governmental, non-governmental and private institutions and even individuals wielding power, many of which operate only superficially within national boundaries.
I hardly think the world is more corrupt than it ever was, we're just a hell of a lot better now at perceiving the tangled tapestry.
You've overly simplified it with the slippery term 'corruption'. Corruption is only one element in the power struggle, and entities can easily work against other entities or individuals without being corrupt. It's also a highly subject subjective term outside of the legal definitions and is often difficult to qualify in international relations. So the term is largely meaningless in a political and legal context when discussing the actions of entities unchecked by any such relativistic ideals.
That's one of the reasons it's important to discard the notion of 'smoking gun' with regards to Wikileaks. It's more relevant to determine if, on the whole, our representatives are working for us or for some other entity, especially when the two are in conflict.
And how much does it cost to setup and maintain those filters vs. give unlimited access?
I'm not a 'leftist', so I'll have to apologize for not fitting into your world of walking, talking strawmen.
Regardless, you seem to be under the (albeit sincerely naive) impression that all those things you list are still working in your favour, and that those in political and corporate power are beholden to your interests. They aren't. You're thinking is about 50 years too late - those were the 'good ole days' of benevolence and spirit, working against common enemies and using whatever means necessary to triumph.
In a world where governments are beholden to corporations with no loyalties, they are as likely to be working against you as they are for you. Get it yet?
I'm pretty sure that proof could be posted that the president eats babies, and a large segment of the population like yourself would say 'meh'. There was some rather nasty revelations in the Manning leaks, but I'm guessing you missed them or didn't cae.
That complacency is why our democracy is sliding away.
23% of eligible voters, actually.
I suspect after this, internet snooping, the crime bill and a couple of other brilliant moves they'll go back to being a regional party in the west with the old pc's wondering what the heck happened to their party.
A big chunk of Canadians are Red Tories, and likely won't be fooled again.
I find it amusing that someone funded a survey when they could get much more accurate data from a couple lines of SQL. Assuming one of the social networking sites would provide the info, of course.
That even with enough outcry the government still listens to the people up here. Otherwise C30 wouldn't be open for discussion being modified, we wouldn't have scrapped the long gun registry. And we sure wouldn't be looking at scrapping S.13 from the HRC(the one that prohibits free speech).
I believe you mean 'selectively listens to the people up here'. The LGR is a good example - I was vehemently opposed to that massive money pit but polls put support for it at 2/3rds and greater. Scrapping the S.13 was a private members bill put forth by a Liberal. And let's let the dust settle on C30 before declaring victory - the Cons aren't at all the libertarian leaning party many make them out to be.
That just leads to absurdity where you never express an opinion on anything ever
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. In fact, I didn't provide a solution.
There's a much better approach anyhow - enforce strict controls and rules on our data that companies and governments collect and retain.
So your protection against the holocaust would be to have refused to do fill in the census report as a Jew. Yeah, that would have worked really well.
No, and that's a silly example.
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the reasons why many people and organizations in western countries are uncomfortable with allowing governments to keep data that specifically identifies them. And why many fight for laws to ensure that any data retained is done so in a way that prevents them from identifying the individual in the census. So we do, in fact, refuse to identify the individual as a Jew. Or as a communist. Etc.
The defense against tyranny is not to hide from lists but to prevent tyrans from rising to power. Basically you are saying "I am not on any lists (as far as you know) so I am safe".
No, I'm not saying that at all. And I'm not simply talking about tyranny of the state - I'm referring to transient mores and values. What's acceptable today may not be tomorrow. As humans we can adapt to that, but we have yet to determine how to do that in a digital age. Your opinion is recorded and static. The consequences may be relatively minor - don't get a date with someone with opposing views - or they may be much worse. Imagine J. Edgar Hoover with access to all that information, largely supported by a 'pinko-commie' hating public.
Apparently you're also unfamiliar with the concept of tyranny of the majority. For all your bravado, you'll be tilting at windmills trying to prevent that from happening. Or were you fighting the brave fight on behalf of the communists? Or perhaps you're working hard on behalf of the new enemy, Muslims? There's always tyranny, even in the freest of nations, and it's naive to think otherwise.
I am really not concerned at all with anything I can envision them doing with that information.
And that's the problem.
Nobody knows what the future will hold in terms of laws and governance. The things that you do today, that are likely well within the limits of the law and likely of no interest to the state, may make you an enemy of a new state tomorrow. Your sig is an excellent example - suggesting that you might be an atheist could wind you up on a watch list of the future. Sounds preposterous, sure, but one never knows.
And yes, we're talking about handing what likely amounts to rather dull data over to a corporation. But again, you don't know who that corporation may hand that data over to tomorrow.
It's 'toque'
The Bloomberg article states that he's a Chinese citizen in the US on a work visa
Funny how little concern is shown by legislators about the failure of this business due to changing technology, yet it is so determined to protect those in the music and movie industry.
Do more.
So where's the line? If someone drives recklessly should they be blow to smithereens? Driving slightly over the limit? Speeding?
If putting the lives of others at risks justifies summary execution the world will get a whole lot emptier real soon.