Why the knee-jerk reaction? Government spending money on infrastructure is hardly the same thing as you or I shelling out $63B for a super-cool backyard train set.
Consider the following:
Building a rail line like this creates jobs, especially in the demographic that is currently stuck in the welfare loop. When these people get their paychecks, they pay taxes. Plus, they have money to spend on retail, who pay both taxes and their employees...see where I'm going with this? Granted, taxes only amount for so much, but this is a case of the government putting money into an essentially closed loop.
After construction, the rail would then be held by the government, right? I would imagine riding the rails would not be free-of-charge, so if they can get commuters to ride it, they should be able to make a considerable amount in revenue.
Beyond the direct jobs created by the construction, consider how much material would be needed. If the material could be collected and precessed in the U.S., then refer back to the benefits of the government directly creating jobs.
I am not an economist, and I'm also pragmatic about this, so I really can't say whether or not this rail system would be worth it. But I do know enough about economics to know that government spending is not necessarily a bad thing. The only time you really get into trouble is when you establish excessive free programs with little or no revenue to cover them, not when you're building lasting infrastructure.
While I agree with that for the most part, one of the things I've always liked about threaded discussions on Slashdot is that, because of the moderation system, really great discussions could be seen and take place nested 4 or 5 threads under the original post. Since 3rd-level comments and above aren't visible in the redesign without clicking through, it's now much less likely that discussions beyond 1st or 2nd level will even be seen.
They clearly state both in the video and the article with it that they aren't attacking the NSF in general over it's contributions to basic science, but research going to private industry and things like rigging a soccer game.
But, as usual, people will ignore both the video and the text, and simply assume that the leaders they follow think that NSF==bad.
It's funny: WikiLeaks was originally a place for whistle-blowers to leak only what was necessary to expose wrong-doing. That was when the organization wasn't controlling the release of information.
Suddenly, it's become a RapidShare for U.S. government database dumps, one which they make a conscious decision to enable.
Look, I'm in favor of government transparency as much as the next guy. Transparency in where tax dollars are spent. Transparency in record-keeping. Transparency in lawmaking. Basically, transparency in anything that remains domestic.
But despite my desire for a transparent government domestically, diplomacy is different.
In a perfect world, everyone could get together, talk about their differences, and get along. But in the real world, countries often hate one another, and even factions within them. Diplomacy, in all its subtlety and secrecy, is often the only thing keeping away the hounds. The back-room scheming just sort of comes with the territory but, ultimately, it's done with the intent of keeping the people the government represents safe within the global community. I see it as a necessary evil.
In order for the government to do its job, some things must remain secret. Diplomats must be able to communicate in private in order to adequately and frankly assess situations so that the government can form its global policies. I don't see you screaming on the forums for the release of troop movements for the next month, do I? Yet diplomatic action can easily be worth a thousand days' worth of troop movements.
The Pentagon Papers were published to expose wrong-doing, which is the entire point of whistle-blowing and what's supposed to be the reason Wikileaks exists in the first place. These leaks have nothing to do with whistle-blowing to protect the people from the government, but instead hurt the government's efforts to legitimately help it's people remain on good terms with allies.
Er...it kind of does. Does exposing personal views of Arabic leaders supporting action against Iran count? How about exposing private cables between the U.S. and South Korea planning a unified Korea after waiting out an economic collapse of North Korea?
Even if it's just banter between nations about things people had already figured out anyway...does it really need to be exposed? Wrong-doings...yes, those should be exposed. But I think Wikileaks found the line it had been straddling for a while and took a big leap over it.
Nontransparent governments may be legal, but in my opinion, it's still wrong.
This view tends to be thrown around here a lot, but it's a little too simplistic. Having a government that's open to the people is one thing; exposing to the world that your ambassador thinks a critical strategic ally is a dick is quite another.
Ok. There's a big, big difference between "disrespecting" people by executing a prank and being "disrespected" by being sentenced to 30 months to five years in prison.
I find it ridiculous to continually dumb down products. To me, this seems like it will cause a slippery slope to stupidity. What happens if we dumb down the products to the point where people don't know how to create them anymore, or the knowledge is only in the hands of the far and few? I resist the notion that learning should be back-seated for short-term profits. In the long run, people will become too stupid to buy those products and we're stuck with even dumber products.
Funny thing: how many people do you know in regular society that can put together a lightbulb? How about a microwave? What about the latest iPhone?
Deep control is totally unnecessary and only highly slows down page rendering times.
Interesting that you seem to know exactly what my needs are. The primary reason I use NoScript is to block JavaScript beyond page-level. The Chrome feature you're referencing is far too heavy-handed for my needs.
So going back to the original statement, I'll gladly continue to use Firefox for surfing while I'll keep using Chrome as part of my development toolset.
Not in a way that isn't a complete pain in the ass for frequent surfing. Plus, it doesn't support deep control or even come close to preventing click-jacking on pages you allow.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the knee-jerk reaction? Government spending money on infrastructure is hardly the same thing as you or I shelling out $63B for a super-cool backyard train set.
Consider the following:
Building a rail line like this creates jobs, especially in the demographic that is currently stuck in the welfare loop. When these people get their paychecks, they pay taxes. Plus, they have money to spend on retail, who pay both taxes and their employees...see where I'm going with this? Granted, taxes only amount for so much, but this is a case of the government putting money into an essentially closed loop.
After construction, the rail would then be held by the government, right? I would imagine riding the rails would not be free-of-charge, so if they can get commuters to ride it, they should be able to make a considerable amount in revenue.
Beyond the direct jobs created by the construction, consider how much material would be needed. If the material could be collected and precessed in the U.S., then refer back to the benefits of the government directly creating jobs.
I am not an economist, and I'm also pragmatic about this, so I really can't say whether or not this rail system would be worth it. But I do know enough about economics to know that government spending is not necessarily a bad thing. The only time you really get into trouble is when you establish excessive free programs with little or no revenue to cover them, not when you're building lasting infrastructure.
Since you feel the need to ask that question, your answer is no.
I, on the other hand, feel no need to ask such a question.
Isn't burning strawmen fun?
(really worth reading)
I second that. Wow.
While I agree with that for the most part, one of the things I've always liked about threaded discussions on Slashdot is that, because of the moderation system, really great discussions could be seen and take place nested 4 or 5 threads under the original post. Since 3rd-level comments and above aren't visible in the redesign without clicking through, it's now much less likely that discussions beyond 1st or 2nd level will even be seen.
And thus the cycle shall continue...
They clearly state both in the video and the article with it that they aren't attacking the NSF in general over it's contributions to basic science, but research going to private industry and things like rigging a soccer game.
But, as usual, people will ignore both the video and the text, and simply assume that the leaders they follow think that NSF==bad.
Er..."loved", not "didn't like".
The OP was asking why Democrats (U.S.) didn't like the Pentagon Papers (U.S.). So I responded in the context of the U.S.
It's funny: WikiLeaks was originally a place for whistle-blowers to leak only what was necessary to expose wrong-doing. That was when the organization wasn't controlling the release of information.
Suddenly, it's become a RapidShare for U.S. government database dumps, one which they make a conscious decision to enable.
Look, I'm in favor of government transparency as much as the next guy. Transparency in where tax dollars are spent. Transparency in record-keeping. Transparency in lawmaking. Basically, transparency in anything that remains domestic.
But despite my desire for a transparent government domestically, diplomacy is different.
In a perfect world, everyone could get together, talk about their differences, and get along. But in the real world, countries often hate one another, and even factions within them. Diplomacy, in all its subtlety and secrecy, is often the only thing keeping away the hounds. The back-room scheming just sort of comes with the territory but, ultimately, it's done with the intent of keeping the people the government represents safe within the global community. I see it as a necessary evil.
In order for the government to do its job, some things must remain secret. Diplomats must be able to communicate in private in order to adequately and frankly assess situations so that the government can form its global policies. I don't see you screaming on the forums for the release of troop movements for the next month, do I? Yet diplomatic action can easily be worth a thousand days' worth of troop movements.
The Pentagon Papers were published to expose wrong-doing, which is the entire point of whistle-blowing and what's supposed to be the reason Wikileaks exists in the first place. These leaks have nothing to do with whistle-blowing to protect the people from the government, but instead hurt the government's efforts to legitimately help it's people remain on good terms with allies.
Great! Now you've made the 12th most boring day interesting. Oh well: I guess we can always look to the 13th mo...DAMN IT!
Er...it kind of does. Does exposing personal views of Arabic leaders supporting action against Iran count? How about exposing private cables between the U.S. and South Korea planning a unified Korea after waiting out an economic collapse of North Korea?
Even if it's just banter between nations about things people had already figured out anyway...does it really need to be exposed? Wrong-doings...yes, those should be exposed. But I think Wikileaks found the line it had been straddling for a while and took a big leap over it.
Nontransparent governments may be legal, but in my opinion, it's still wrong.
This view tends to be thrown around here a lot, but it's a little too simplistic. Having a government that's open to the people is one thing; exposing to the world that your ambassador thinks a critical strategic ally is a dick is quite another.
But wouldn't that be property loss?
It sounds nothing like physical damage. At all.
Ok. There's a big, big difference between "disrespecting" people by executing a prank and being "disrespected" by being sentenced to 30 months to five years in prison.
I'm really curious (and I'm sure others reading this are as well): what did you do to get 5 years without causing any damage?
I like it better than "blogosphere".
At least they're not stealing our precious bodily fluids.
I find it ridiculous to continually dumb down products. To me, this seems like it will cause a slippery slope to stupidity. What happens if we dumb down the products to the point where people don't know how to create them anymore, or the knowledge is only in the hands of the far and few? I resist the notion that learning should be back-seated for short-term profits. In the long run, people will become too stupid to buy those products and we're stuck with even dumber products.
Funny thing: how many people do you know in regular society that can put together a lightbulb? How about a microwave? What about the latest iPhone?
More like a bushel.
Deep control is totally unnecessary and only highly slows down page rendering times.
Interesting that you seem to know exactly what my needs are. The primary reason I use NoScript is to block JavaScript beyond page-level. The Chrome feature you're referencing is far too heavy-handed for my needs.
So going back to the original statement, I'll gladly continue to use Firefox for surfing while I'll keep using Chrome as part of my development toolset.
Not in a way that isn't a complete pain in the ass for frequent surfing. Plus, it doesn't support deep control or even come close to preventing click-jacking on pages you allow.
Reason #1 why I refuse to switch to Chrome.