So let me get this straight. You think that the United States has spent FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS of unbudgeted, untraceable money over the past decade. Money that was not borrowed from anyone, but was just "printed out" and handed out to big corporations like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. Money that those corporations then kept off their own books, since it hugely exceeds the combined revenues of every major military contractor I know of.
Is this some sort of joke? You can't seriously believe this. Either you haven't thought it through, or you are so blinded by your own hatred that you can't even perform basic arithmetic.
Can you provide a citation for that $500B/yr figure? The entire US national security budget is under $900B/yr, so I find it rather hard to believe that more than half that is spent on "black programs to catch terrorists".
You can make your points without lying to people. You should make your points without lying to people.
If Iran ever dared to use such a weapon against anyone, it would be the last thing it ever did.
Most likely true, but what if we're in a situation where the Iranian regime is already facing its end? For example, I believe they have another election coming up. I expect it will be stolen just like the last one. And perhaps like the last one, there will be widespread protests. So far, pretty reasonable, right?
But let's say that the protestors, inspired by the Arab Spring events, push harder this time, and actually get close to toppling the regime. Given Iran's abuses of its own people last time, I doubt they'd hesitate to employ the same tactics used in Syria and Lebanon - outright war against anyone opposing them.
There could be no help from the international community if they had nukes, because if the regime thought they were really going to fall and that their rulers would end up like Gaddafi, they have no reason not to pull out all the stops. If you're really facing down an angry mob that wants to tear you limb from limb, using a nuke is a GREAT option -- it is the ultimate punishment for those who have done this to you, and it buys you time while your enemies regroup. Time which you can use to try to get out of the country, or at least surrender to the International Criminal Court (which does not employ capital punishment, unlike your former subjects).
All the fear-mongering about them nuking Israel is a ruse. The Middle Eastern dictators need Israel as a bogeyman to scare their citizens, and Israel plays right into their hands by acting the part quite regularly. Tehran wants a nuke to ensure the survival of their regime, nothing more, nothing less. The Iranian people would be wise to oppose such a development, not that their opposition is liable to have any effect.
That depends how much they pay. Google, for example, pays the cute but relatively small sum of $3133.70 for the most severe bugs. These Vupen guys could have reported their bugs and pocketed at most ~$6k (maybe less, if Google failed to recognize the severity of the bugs), or they could do as they did, keep the bugs to themselves until Pwn2Own came around, and earn ten times that amount.
I doubt they care so much about the fame. The extra $54k, on the other hand...
You don't know if the getaway was noted, and if you wait until the police are knocking on your door to report the car stolen, then they're not going to believe you. The smart thing to do is report it after a realistic amount of time, and to have ditched it somewhere, with the ignition tampered with, stuff "stolen" out of it, and surfaces wiped of fingerprints. Perhaps the smarter thing would be to steal someone else's car for the getaway, though that risks them reporting it before the getaway is complete.
The first half is a defense attorney, the second half is a cop. Both speakers make it very clear -- do not talk to police without a lawyer present. Some will try to screw you to boost their numbers, others will screw you by accident, but either way you get screwed. Cops have a very specific job to do, and that job does not involve looking out for your personal best interests. Talk to a lawyer instead - they are legally required to do what's best for you.
But if video games have taught me anything, it's that the timer doesn't start until you actually begin the last mission. We could wait a year or a decade or a century, that LED countdown timer won't start until we actually land a team on the asteroid. In which case, I propose we simply never launch a team.
The United States is not a theocracy, despite attempts by a minority to make us one. The United States most certainly does not "regularly annihilate" countries.
I'm no fan of the Iraq War, but the country was certainly not annihilated. Now care to name some more examples of this "unending warfare" you claim?
I know its trendy to scream and holler about how the US is some dystopian super-villain, but saying something boldly and loudly does not make it true.
Putting aside the obvious political flamebait, are we really now at a point where anything that's been at all updated since the 1950s is considered "smart"? The term makes sense for things that have a microcontroller added to them, but that's not the case here. This concrete isn't any smarter than my toothbrush.
Just wait a few months for the SCOTUS to rule on Esther Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (aka Shell). Based on what the conservative majority was saying during the hearings, it looks like they're getting ready to rule that corporations are not persons when it comes to suing them for human rights violations, thus making them immune to the law suits. They'll be able to commit whatever atrocities they want in the third world, and their victims' only recourse will be through the corrupt local courts.
The case can be traced back to that scandal from the 90s where some Nigerian villagers were protesting Shell's destruction of their local environment, so Shell collaborated with a local junta to have them all murdered. Shell payed a settlement for that one, but they're working on having carte blanche for this sort of thing moving forward.
But of course, they'll still be "persons" in the sense that lets them buy off politicians.
The airwaves are a public resource, which we allow the government to regulate for us to prevent the tragedy of the commons. That doesn't give the government the right to take that resource away from us entirely.
It would be like asking a friend to house-sit for you (you know, feed the dog, take in the mail, etc) while you're away, and coming home to find that he's changed the locks because he's worried you might make a mess of the place.
Normally I think/. is excessively paranoid about this sort of thing, but giving the government (or any organization) the right to shut down vital communication networks is a BAD idea.
Wow, was your doctor in Virginia a Jewish lobster-person by any chance? What sort of quack sees someone with post-nasal drip and decides it must be the ovaries!?
This deserves to get modded up. I think the disincentives you give are excessive, but the general idea is sound.
I'd propose: Giving the order to torture - you must immediately be turned over to the Hague. They'll decide what to do with you. Giving the order for an internet shutdown - four years in prison and a fine of 150% of your net worth (thus bankrupting you, and taking a portion of your future earnings).
Obviously a Constitutional amendment would be required, if only to prevent your VP from taking your place and immediately pardoning you, which makes this extremely unlikely. But it would be a good way to give useful powers to the government while making sure that those powers don't get abused.
I despise Ubi's DRM, but they've been quite good about not toeing the traditional "morality" line. If you think you're going to get to run around slaughtering those damn atheist marxist redcoat nazis without having any uncomfortable questions come up, you're in for quite a disappointment.
Don't worry, the United States isn't going to have "real universal health care" in our lifetimes. It was hard enough just to get subsidized coverage for the poor, common sense regulations for the insurers, and a no-free-loading law. For now, the health of anorexic people will just be our business indirectly, same as all other health problems.
I do wonder though... almost every other country in the world has had real universal health care (either single payer or socialized) for a long time now. How many of them have banned skinny models? Must be a lot, if you know what you're talking about.
You can't just look at that one rate. You have to look at the aggregate effect of corporate taxes and income taxes and payroll taxes and sales taxes and so on. The aggregate tax rate in the US is much higher than 12.5%, and I see absolutely no evidence to support your claim that 17.35% is ideal.
Link to a paper then. There is no evidence I've ever seen to support the notion that the maximum of the curve exists at a lower tax rate than we currently employ. The fact that a member of the Republican party says otherwise holds about as much value in my mind as a drug dealer assuring me that heroin really isn't all that addictive.
These people aren't uneducated. They went to school. They received an education. If after years of schooling you still can't divide 114 by 6 given a pad and pencil and a couple minutes of quiet time, you don't get to claim "But I'm just uneducated!". You're stupid, either willfully or otherwise.
Really, you should be able to do the above in your head in seconds, but out of necessity we're setting the bar pretty much on the ground.
Well if we're assuming that the government is ignoring the law and just straight up abducting people, then it doesn't much matter what the law says, now does it? They could have kidnapped people without passing anything. Thankfully, for all America's problems, we're not yet that far gone.
If you think we are, then there's no point discussing it, since no matter what they write on paper, you could still choose to believe as you do. Your belief is non-falsifiable.
Well, the line item veto can also be gamed. Let's say that Obama and the Democrats propose a new bill. It raises taxes on the rich by 1% and uses that money to fund food banks. To get the Republicans on board (pretend for the moment that the current GOP strategy isn't to oppose everything with Obama's name on it), they also include a section in the bill that cuts corporate taxes by 1%. After both houses of Congress pass it, Obama could just line item veto the tax cut part, while keeping the part he wanted.
Essentially, the line item veto allows the party that controls the White House to negotiate in bad faith. By making bills all or nothing, you make it possible for Congress to trust in the knowledge that the other side will keep their end of the bargain. The current system sucks, but line item vetos would be worse.
Obama opposed the law, called it "ill-conceived" in his signing statement, and he has now issued executive orders curtailing its effect. Essentially, under his new guidelines, a panel of six people has to approve each such military detention. All six have to agree, i.e. each of the six has the ability to veto it and force the person to go through the civilian justice system. One of those members is the secretary of state (currently Ms. Clinton), whose primary job is keeping other countries happy with us.
Of course, as soon as Obama is out of office, be that in one year or five, the next president can erase all that and come up with their own guidelines. It is a bad law, and it should be changed. But it won't be changed so long as Republicans control Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
So let me get this straight. You think that the United States has spent FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS of unbudgeted, untraceable money over the past decade. Money that was not borrowed from anyone, but was just "printed out" and handed out to big corporations like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. Money that those corporations then kept off their own books, since it hugely exceeds the combined revenues of every major military contractor I know of.
Is this some sort of joke? You can't seriously believe this. Either you haven't thought it through, or you are so blinded by your own hatred that you can't even perform basic arithmetic.
Can you provide a citation for that $500B/yr figure? The entire US national security budget is under $900B/yr, so I find it rather hard to believe that more than half that is spent on "black programs to catch terrorists".
You can make your points without lying to people. You should make your points without lying to people.
If Iran ever dared to use such a weapon against anyone, it would be the last thing it ever did.
Most likely true, but what if we're in a situation where the Iranian regime is already facing its end? For example, I believe they have another election coming up. I expect it will be stolen just like the last one. And perhaps like the last one, there will be widespread protests. So far, pretty reasonable, right?
But let's say that the protestors, inspired by the Arab Spring events, push harder this time, and actually get close to toppling the regime. Given Iran's abuses of its own people last time, I doubt they'd hesitate to employ the same tactics used in Syria and Lebanon - outright war against anyone opposing them.
There could be no help from the international community if they had nukes, because if the regime thought they were really going to fall and that their rulers would end up like Gaddafi, they have no reason not to pull out all the stops. If you're really facing down an angry mob that wants to tear you limb from limb, using a nuke is a GREAT option -- it is the ultimate punishment for those who have done this to you, and it buys you time while your enemies regroup. Time which you can use to try to get out of the country, or at least surrender to the International Criminal Court (which does not employ capital punishment, unlike your former subjects).
All the fear-mongering about them nuking Israel is a ruse. The Middle Eastern dictators need Israel as a bogeyman to scare their citizens, and Israel plays right into their hands by acting the part quite regularly. Tehran wants a nuke to ensure the survival of their regime, nothing more, nothing less. The Iranian people would be wise to oppose such a development, not that their opposition is liable to have any effect.
That depends how much they pay. Google, for example, pays the cute but relatively small sum of $3133.70 for the most severe bugs. These Vupen guys could have reported their bugs and pocketed at most ~$6k (maybe less, if Google failed to recognize the severity of the bugs), or they could do as they did, keep the bugs to themselves until Pwn2Own came around, and earn ten times that amount.
I doubt they care so much about the fame. The extra $54k, on the other hand...
You don't know if the getaway was noted, and if you wait until the police are knocking on your door to report the car stolen, then they're not going to believe you. The smart thing to do is report it after a realistic amount of time, and to have ditched it somewhere, with the ignition tampered with, stuff "stolen" out of it, and surfaces wiped of fingerprints. Perhaps the smarter thing would be to steal someone else's car for the getaway, though that risks them reporting it before the getaway is complete.
Straight from the horse's mouth: Don't Talk to Police.
The first half is a defense attorney, the second half is a cop. Both speakers make it very clear -- do not talk to police without a lawyer present. Some will try to screw you to boost their numbers, others will screw you by accident, but either way you get screwed. Cops have a very specific job to do, and that job does not involve looking out for your personal best interests. Talk to a lawyer instead - they are legally required to do what's best for you.
But if video games have taught me anything, it's that the timer doesn't start until you actually begin the last mission. We could wait a year or a decade or a century, that LED countdown timer won't start until we actually land a team on the asteroid. In which case, I propose we simply never launch a team.
Not so fast! Let's see the birth certificate!
How can you expect me to trust in a solution that isn't based in the Cloud?!
The United States is not a theocracy, despite attempts by a minority to make us one. The United States most certainly does not "regularly annihilate" countries.
I'm no fan of the Iraq War, but the country was certainly not annihilated. Now care to name some more examples of this "unending warfare" you claim?
I know its trendy to scream and holler about how the US is some dystopian super-villain, but saying something boldly and loudly does not make it true.
Putting aside the obvious political flamebait, are we really now at a point where anything that's been at all updated since the 1950s is considered "smart"? The term makes sense for things that have a microcontroller added to them, but that's not the case here. This concrete isn't any smarter than my toothbrush.
Just wait a few months for the SCOTUS to rule on Esther Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (aka Shell). Based on what the conservative majority was saying during the hearings, it looks like they're getting ready to rule that corporations are not persons when it comes to suing them for human rights violations, thus making them immune to the law suits. They'll be able to commit whatever atrocities they want in the third world, and their victims' only recourse will be through the corrupt local courts.
The case can be traced back to that scandal from the 90s where some Nigerian villagers were protesting Shell's destruction of their local environment, so Shell collaborated with a local junta to have them all murdered. Shell payed a settlement for that one, but they're working on having carte blanche for this sort of thing moving forward.
But of course, they'll still be "persons" in the sense that lets them buy off politicians.
The airwaves are a public resource, which we allow the government to regulate for us to prevent the tragedy of the commons. That doesn't give the government the right to take that resource away from us entirely.
It would be like asking a friend to house-sit for you (you know, feed the dog, take in the mail, etc) while you're away, and coming home to find that he's changed the locks because he's worried you might make a mess of the place.
Normally I think /. is excessively paranoid about this sort of thing, but giving the government (or any organization) the right to shut down vital communication networks is a BAD idea.
Wow, was your doctor in Virginia a Jewish lobster-person by any chance? What sort of quack sees someone with post-nasal drip and decides it must be the ovaries!?
This deserves to get modded up. I think the disincentives you give are excessive, but the general idea is sound.
I'd propose:
Giving the order to torture - you must immediately be turned over to the Hague. They'll decide what to do with you.
Giving the order for an internet shutdown - four years in prison and a fine of 150% of your net worth (thus bankrupting you, and taking a portion of your future earnings).
Obviously a Constitutional amendment would be required, if only to prevent your VP from taking your place and immediately pardoning you, which makes this extremely unlikely. But it would be a good way to give useful powers to the government while making sure that those powers don't get abused.
I despise Ubi's DRM, but they've been quite good about not toeing the traditional "morality" line. If you think you're going to get to run around slaughtering those damn atheist marxist redcoat nazis without having any uncomfortable questions come up, you're in for quite a disappointment.
Don't worry, the United States isn't going to have "real universal health care" in our lifetimes. It was hard enough just to get subsidized coverage for the poor, common sense regulations for the insurers, and a no-free-loading law. For now, the health of anorexic people will just be our business indirectly, same as all other health problems.
I do wonder though... almost every other country in the world has had real universal health care (either single payer or socialized) for a long time now. How many of them have banned skinny models? Must be a lot, if you know what you're talking about.
You can't just look at that one rate. You have to look at the aggregate effect of corporate taxes and income taxes and payroll taxes and sales taxes and so on. The aggregate tax rate in the US is much higher than 12.5%, and I see absolutely no evidence to support your claim that 17.35% is ideal.
Link to a paper then. There is no evidence I've ever seen to support the notion that the maximum of the curve exists at a lower tax rate than we currently employ. The fact that a member of the Republican party says otherwise holds about as much value in my mind as a drug dealer assuring me that heroin really isn't all that addictive.
You might want to look up "verbiage" in a dictionary before criticizing people.
These people aren't uneducated. They went to school. They received an education. If after years of schooling you still can't divide 114 by 6 given a pad and pencil and a couple minutes of quiet time, you don't get to claim "But I'm just uneducated!". You're stupid, either willfully or otherwise.
Really, you should be able to do the above in your head in seconds, but out of necessity we're setting the bar pretty much on the ground.
Nah, this is being done by a startup, not the United States government. It doesn't fit with their world view. Unless...
the start-up is a front for the NSA!!!
dun dun dunnnnnn....
Well if we're assuming that the government is ignoring the law and just straight up abducting people, then it doesn't much matter what the law says, now does it? They could have kidnapped people without passing anything. Thankfully, for all America's problems, we're not yet that far gone.
If you think we are, then there's no point discussing it, since no matter what they write on paper, you could still choose to believe as you do. Your belief is non-falsifiable.
Well, the line item veto can also be gamed. Let's say that Obama and the Democrats propose a new bill. It raises taxes on the rich by 1% and uses that money to fund food banks. To get the Republicans on board (pretend for the moment that the current GOP strategy isn't to oppose everything with Obama's name on it), they also include a section in the bill that cuts corporate taxes by 1%. After both houses of Congress pass it, Obama could just line item veto the tax cut part, while keeping the part he wanted.
Essentially, the line item veto allows the party that controls the White House to negotiate in bad faith. By making bills all or nothing, you make it possible for Congress to trust in the knowledge that the other side will keep their end of the bargain. The current system sucks, but line item vetos would be worse.
False.
Obama opposed the law, called it "ill-conceived" in his signing statement, and he has now issued executive orders curtailing its effect. Essentially, under his new guidelines, a panel of six people has to approve each such military detention. All six have to agree, i.e. each of the six has the ability to veto it and force the person to go through the civilian justice system. One of those members is the secretary of state (currently Ms. Clinton), whose primary job is keeping other countries happy with us.
Of course, as soon as Obama is out of office, be that in one year or five, the next president can erase all that and come up with their own guidelines. It is a bad law, and it should be changed. But it won't be changed so long as Republicans control Congress.