There was a whole discussion which led up to that point. And I agree with you, that individuals should use their brains. But then in high intensity combat situations, there is not always enough time to fully understand the reasoning for orders and thus there is a command structure which is strictly enforced. Generally speaking, that system probably works well, and that was the context to which I was refering.
Always following blindly or always questioning is probably bad. I was trying to concede to the parent that there are settings where perpetual second guessing is bad.
Perhaps any prosecution or lawsuit should follow a harm-focused model, where the whistleblowers could only be found culpable if the information released actually led to real people being harmed (as opposed to the hypothetical people featured in rhetoric). For example, actually publishing informants or real-time troop positions. Fortunately, as far as I've read, that hasn't happened with Wikileaks.
It may not be perfect, but at least the model we are discussing provides some form of check and balance.
I guess so...it is not preferable to set up a situation where individuals are expected to always second guess their superiors. But there should at least be a defense, in retrospect, in situations where superiors act incorrectly. The first priority should be to include more checks and balances in the classification process to prevent improperly classified secrets. Easier said than done, true, but ultimately it is necessary; we cannot stand for "take my word for it."
Regarding your reasoning: you could use the same logic to reprimand a subordinate who refuses orders to, say, violate the Geneva Conventions. After all, "you don't want every private in the military second guessing" whether their orders violate basic human rights. It has been made clear time and again that blindly "following orders" will, generally, not stand as a defense for perpetrating war crimes.
It may seem like my example is too different for comparison. However, many of the documents leaked provide further evidence of torture, abuses and unreported civilian deaths.
I'm sure Pvt. Manning will be punished because he is an easy target. But then why not punish those who improperly classified information which should have been published? It shouldn't be a crime to reveal information which was improperly classified.
Arguably, by wrongfully classifying information these officials have done more harm to public trust than Wikileaks. Now, many people roll their eyes at the concept of "national secrets" because governments have so substantialy watered-down its meaning.
Interesting. I don't think I lumped Afghanistan with Iran/Iraq though?
So I guess it would be more appropriate to say that the Taliban grew out of the rubble left from the Soviet/US conflict in Afghanistan. A quick wikipedia review says that the US decided not to help rebuild the country and instead left the job up to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the former making relations with warlords and the Taliban so that they could exploit the land (which they did). So not quite as direct as actually giving the Taliban money, but these actions were pretty helpful for the Taliban (assuming wikipedia is right, of course).
How about a list of pilots who turned out to be terrorists! That would be best!
Why are we scanning pilots!!!! If they wanted to fly the plane into a building, they are already the freaking pilot!!! Why would they need a bomb!!! Exclamation marks!!!
It's not a conspiracy theory. In fact during the cold war, the US supported the Taliban (despite their apparent barbarism) so that they could resist the communist regime of the USSR. So it's a little different than as noted above, but it is funny today because the US is fighting the regime they previously helped to stay in power.
Overthrowing democratically elected leaders and installing a brutal dictator...that would be Chile in the 70s. They overthrew the government because it was too socialist for their tastes.
Extremism probably is bred out of poverty. Pre-Holocaust Germany was left fairly poor from losing the first world war and they were ripe for becoming radicalised. Today, 80% of the world's resources are controlled by 20% of the world's population. Nice, you might think, for the rich people on the one hand, but on the other hand it leaves the poor people feeling pretty hungry for a fight, and we make for a fine target for that anger.
And the guy below me? "I can't be bothered to fact check but I'm just going to disagree." Well said, sir!!!!
"But regulation, understood that broadly, does not require a state; indeed it predates it."
Could you elaborate? I don't think I understand what you mean here. How could regulation predate the state? Is that to say that in a perfect free market the players would automatically self-regulate?
I think before you asked for some examples of monopolies or near monopolies that didn't require state intervention to continue to exist. Would Google be an example (has the state propped them up?) Or Microsoft? (I suppose their intellectual property is essentially a state-backed monopoly.)
If it were so hard for monopolies to exist in a true free market, then why would we need things like antitrust laws? Why should we have a problem with price-fixing schemes and cartels, if the market itself were capable of resolving these problems?
Do note that I used the quotation marks on "market" for a reason. Of course the market is inanimate.
The point I am trying to make is that the same people who blame the politicians for effectively taking corporate "bribes" turn around and complain that regulation is an unfair infringement on free markets. The whole point is that free markets cannot be simultaneously competitive and unregulated. You seem to recognize this, because you are saying that it is the responsibility of politicians to make sure that CEOs can't, for example, make bribes (that is, that the government, like an umpire, needs to put limits on players in the game...i.e. regulation). Every game has rules.
BTW the same arguments you make to apologize for inscrupulous CEOs can be applied to less-than-ethical politicians. Politics is an expensive and dirty game, you can't get by without monetary contributions. That line of reasoning could be used to excuse any common crook ("He's just trying to make his way through this tough game of life. He didn't create this distorted situation, so he has no ethical obligations.")...it's just really weak logic.
I believe you are saying that in an ideal world the free market should work perfectly and monopolies would not occur. Maybe!! But in an ideal world communism would work, too. There are variables like human nature which prevent either of these ideal situations from working in real life. IRL, free markets cannot be both competitive and unregulated.
If the "market" buys this outcome with corporate lobbyists and campaign contributions (i.e. regulatory capture) then the market is a huge part of the failure.
Imagine a huge corporation lobbying their way into a monopoly type situation. And then rather than call it a market failure, you say, "Well it's the governments fault for essentially taking our bribes! You should have known better than to listen to us!"
Forced arbitration is already unenforceable in provinces such BC and Ontario. Why don't they just bury in the contract that you forfeit your first born in the event of a dispute. Contract language needs limits, market forces alone are insufficient.
One idea that has occurred to me for airports, is to come up with a random key by smashing the keyboard, save it on the web (or at home on a networked drive), and you don't know memorize it. If border security is allowed to search anything you bring over the border, AND they are allowed to legally compel you to hand over a key in your head (I believe this point is still under debate), hopefully this would be enough to keep the info from them (legally speaking).
I guess the question is are border agents legally allowed to search things you aren't physically taking over the border (your online email accounts, or drives at home you can access remotely etc.)?
Also, is encrypting your data in and of itself reasonable grounds for more thorough searches? Of course, this question is moot at the border, but generally speaking?
That isn't really a reason. That's just, "There's no expectation of privacy because I said so." That's like saying you have no expectation of privacy in your home as soon as you are granted a mortgage.
Hmm interesting analogy. I suppose that if you assume that the writing of laws are a product to be sold to the highest bidder, then this would hold. Otherwise I would say it's corruption, and thus bypassing market forces. I think market forces are generally between service providers and consumers, no?
While no doubt this is a wonderful explanation of the law, I think most people here are arguing that the law itsedoesn't make sense. Why not attach a license to any good limiting what the user can do with it? Why not say that manufacturers get a cut of every resale of a car? Sure some will argue to just let the market decide which licenses to agree to or not, but if we are going to say that, then that needs to cut both ways and we need to stop allowing powerful corporate lobbyists paying politicians to write laws in their favour (which is absolutely not respecting market forces). There are plenty of examples of courts finding various clauses unenforceable, it's not unprecedented; this should be no different.
Well that's just it: if EA wants to be able to refer to copyright infringement as "theft" then they want their goods to be considered tangible. That means no EULAs; there are no licenses to use chairs you bought, nor are there restrictions on buying used chairs.
EA, the content industries, pick one. Is your content tangible or not? Stop cherry picking.
As far as medicine goes, I'd say the scientific community has done a pretty good job of challenging their own credibility by exploiting use conflicts of interest with pharmaceuticals. Look no further than doctors signing their names at the bottom of industry ghost written research.
I did address your points, actually. I am not entirely sure is Psystar did this, but regardless, if I buy a copy of windows, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be allowed to modify that copy and resell it. I'm not suggesting to buy one copy and resell five. Like if I buy a chair I should be allowed to modify it and resell it. If that's not okay, then there is an implicit recognition that software is not a tangible good.
No need to get inflammatory, I'm interested in having an intelligent debate. If you aren't that's alright, just let me know instead of being rude.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a whole discussion which led up to that point. And I agree with you, that individuals should use their brains. But then in high intensity combat situations, there is not always enough time to fully understand the reasoning for orders and thus there is a command structure which is strictly enforced. Generally speaking, that system probably works well, and that was the context to which I was refering.
Always following blindly or always questioning is probably bad. I was trying to concede to the parent that there are settings where perpetual second guessing is bad.
Sounds very reasonable. Good approach.
Perhaps any prosecution or lawsuit should follow a harm-focused model, where the whistleblowers could only be found culpable if the information released actually led to real people being harmed (as opposed to the hypothetical people featured in rhetoric). For example, actually publishing informants or real-time troop positions. Fortunately, as far as I've read, that hasn't happened with Wikileaks.
It may not be perfect, but at least the model we are discussing provides some form of check and balance.
I guess so...it is not preferable to set up a situation where individuals are expected to always second guess their superiors. But there should at least be a defense, in retrospect, in situations where superiors act incorrectly. The first priority should be to include more checks and balances in the classification process to prevent improperly classified secrets. Easier said than done, true, but ultimately it is necessary; we cannot stand for "take my word for it."
Regarding your reasoning: you could use the same logic to reprimand a subordinate who refuses orders to, say, violate the Geneva Conventions. After all, "you don't want every private in the military second guessing" whether their orders violate basic human rights. It has been made clear time and again that blindly "following orders" will, generally, not stand as a defense for perpetrating war crimes.
It may seem like my example is too different for comparison. However, many of the documents leaked provide further evidence of torture, abuses and unreported civilian deaths.
I'm sure Pvt. Manning will be punished because he is an easy target. But then why not punish those who improperly classified information which should have been published? It shouldn't be a crime to reveal information which was improperly classified.
Arguably, by wrongfully classifying information these officials have done more harm to public trust than Wikileaks. Now, many people roll their eyes at the concept of "national secrets" because governments have so substantialy watered-down its meaning.
Interesting. I don't think I lumped Afghanistan with Iran/Iraq though?
So I guess it would be more appropriate to say that the Taliban grew out of the rubble left from the Soviet/US conflict in Afghanistan. A quick wikipedia review says that the US decided not to help rebuild the country and instead left the job up to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the former making relations with warlords and the Taliban so that they could exploit the land (which they did). So not quite as direct as actually giving the Taliban money, but these actions were pretty helpful for the Taliban (assuming wikipedia is right, of course).
How about a list of pilots who turned out to be terrorists! That would be best!
Why are we scanning pilots!!!! If they wanted to fly the plane into a building, they are already the freaking pilot!!! Why would they need a bomb!!! Exclamation marks!!!
It's not a conspiracy theory. In fact during the cold war, the US supported the Taliban (despite their apparent barbarism) so that they could resist the communist regime of the USSR. So it's a little different than as noted above, but it is funny today because the US is fighting the regime they previously helped to stay in power.
Overthrowing democratically elected leaders and installing a brutal dictator...that would be Chile in the 70s. They overthrew the government because it was too socialist for their tastes.
Extremism probably is bred out of poverty. Pre-Holocaust Germany was left fairly poor from losing the first world war and they were ripe for becoming radicalised. Today, 80% of the world's resources are controlled by 20% of the world's population. Nice, you might think, for the rich people on the one hand, but on the other hand it leaves the poor people feeling pretty hungry for a fight, and we make for a fine target for that anger.
And the guy below me? "I can't be bothered to fact check but I'm just going to disagree." Well said, sir!!!!
I just want a list. God I love lists!
All very good points.
"But regulation, understood that broadly, does not require a state; indeed it predates it."
Could you elaborate? I don't think I understand what you mean here. How could regulation predate the state? Is that to say that in a perfect free market the players would automatically self-regulate?
I think before you asked for some examples of monopolies or near monopolies that didn't require state intervention to continue to exist. Would Google be an example (has the state propped them up?) Or Microsoft? (I suppose their intellectual property is essentially a state-backed monopoly.)
If it were so hard for monopolies to exist in a true free market, then why would we need things like antitrust laws? Why should we have a problem with price-fixing schemes and cartels, if the market itself were capable of resolving these problems?
Thanks for the discussions.
A good response.
Do note that I used the quotation marks on "market" for a reason. Of course the market is inanimate.
The point I am trying to make is that the same people who blame the politicians for effectively taking corporate "bribes" turn around and complain that regulation is an unfair infringement on free markets. The whole point is that free markets cannot be simultaneously competitive and unregulated. You seem to recognize this, because you are saying that it is the responsibility of politicians to make sure that CEOs can't, for example, make bribes (that is, that the government, like an umpire, needs to put limits on players in the game...i.e. regulation). Every game has rules.
BTW the same arguments you make to apologize for inscrupulous CEOs can be applied to less-than-ethical politicians. Politics is an expensive and dirty game, you can't get by without monetary contributions. That line of reasoning could be used to excuse any common crook ("He's just trying to make his way through this tough game of life. He didn't create this distorted situation, so he has no ethical obligations.")...it's just really weak logic.
I believe you are saying that in an ideal world the free market should work perfectly and monopolies would not occur. Maybe!! But in an ideal world communism would work, too. There are variables like human nature which prevent either of these ideal situations from working in real life. IRL, free markets cannot be both competitive and unregulated.
Wasn't the 19th century the time of mercantilism??? As in state-run monopolies and the ultimate nationalistic protectionist policies??
If the "market" buys this outcome with corporate lobbyists and campaign contributions (i.e. regulatory capture) then the market is a huge part of the failure.
Imagine a huge corporation lobbying their way into a monopoly type situation. And then rather than call it a market failure, you say, "Well it's the governments fault for essentially taking our bribes! You should have known better than to listen to us!"
Forced arbitration is already unenforceable in provinces such BC and Ontario. Why don't they just bury in the contract that you forfeit your first born in the event of a dispute. Contract language needs limits, market forces alone are insufficient.
One idea that has occurred to me for airports, is to come up with a random key by smashing the keyboard, save it on the web (or at home on a networked drive), and you don't know memorize it. If border security is allowed to search anything you bring over the border, AND they are allowed to legally compel you to hand over a key in your head (I believe this point is still under debate), hopefully this would be enough to keep the info from them (legally speaking).
I guess the question is are border agents legally allowed to search things you aren't physically taking over the border (your online email accounts, or drives at home you can access remotely etc.)?
Also, is encrypting your data in and of itself reasonable grounds for more thorough searches? Of course, this question is moot at the border, but generally speaking?
That isn't really a reason. That's just, "There's no expectation of privacy because I said so." That's like saying you have no expectation of privacy in your home as soon as you are granted a mortgage.
Hmm interesting analogy. I suppose that if you assume that the writing of laws are a product to be sold to the highest bidder, then this would hold. Otherwise I would say it's corruption, and thus bypassing market forces. I think market forces are generally between service providers and consumers, no?
While no doubt this is a wonderful explanation of the law, I think most people here are arguing that the law itsedoesn't make sense. Why not attach a license to any good limiting what the user can do with it? Why not say that manufacturers get a cut of every resale of a car? Sure some will argue to just let the market decide which licenses to agree to or not, but if we are going to say that, then that needs to cut both ways and we need to stop allowing powerful corporate lobbyists paying politicians to write laws in their favour (which is absolutely not respecting market forces). There are plenty of examples of courts finding various clauses unenforceable, it's not unprecedented; this should be no different.
Resistance is futile.
My vote is we work on a plan to put out the sun, the number one source of electromagnetic radiation.
Who's with me?
I like how all the men describe Han Solo as sexist and chauvinist and so on, and the girl thinks he's "sexy." I bet she's a feminist.
Well that's just it: if EA wants to be able to refer to copyright infringement as "theft" then they want their goods to be considered tangible. That means no EULAs; there are no licenses to use chairs you bought, nor are there restrictions on buying used chairs.
EA, the content industries, pick one. Is your content tangible or not? Stop cherry picking.
Posting to slashdot can't be helping the situation.
As far as medicine goes, I'd say the scientific community has done a pretty good job of challenging their own credibility by exploiting use conflicts of interest with pharmaceuticals. Look no further than doctors signing their names at the bottom of industry ghost written research.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/18/doctors-ghost-writing-pharmaceutical-research
I would be worried about invoking autoimmune diseases.
I did address your points, actually. I am not entirely sure is Psystar did this, but regardless, if I buy a copy of windows, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be allowed to modify that copy and resell it. I'm not suggesting to buy one copy and resell five. Like if I buy a chair I should be allowed to modify it and resell it. If that's not okay, then there is an implicit recognition that software is not a tangible good.
No need to get inflammatory, I'm interested in having an intelligent debate. If you aren't that's alright, just let me know instead of being rude.