So what you, and the parent poster, are basically saying is that if US citizens are being targeted then that's a moral outrage and wholly unacceptable; but the rest of us are fair game.
RTFA. It's about bugging embassies and missions, not "us".
I know that many Americans think that God appointed the US to be the world's policeman, and therefore they have some kind of divine right to meddle in the everybody' affairs.
If you're going to indulge in such cliche stereotypes, it's unsporting of you not to say what pure-as-the-driven-snow country you hale from. That would allow "us" to retaliate in kind, should we choose to stoop to such a level of "debate".
With the exception of Britain's GCHQ (which calls its version of Prism "Mastering the Internet [guardian.co.uk]"), and possibly China, most countries have neither the resources nor the inclination to indulge in this kind of mass surveillance.
Possibly they don't have the resources, but how do you know they don't have the inclination? Oh, perhaps your government has said so. You do believe everything they say, don't you?
Twenty-five years ago Mexico was in delicate negotiations to restructure its foreign debt. The Mexican ambassador and former minister of the Treasury (Hacienda) was personally handling the negotiations in Washington.
Strategy planning was done overnight with the President of Mexico and, this goes without saying, utmost secrecy was needed. The only method considered secure enough was to fly the ambassador on a two seater supersonic jet fighter back to the Mexican capital every night for a face to face meeting in an undisclosed location and then fly him back to Washington the next morning.
Sounds overly dramatic. Until the latest models supersonic fighters couldn't fly supersonic for very long. An ordinary business jet would have been just as fast, cost less to operate, and let the ambassador get what was undoubtedly a badly needed nap. Otherwise, it sounds like a wise precaution.
I wouldn't be friends with someone who planted bugs in my home.
Neither would I, but countries don't have "friends". "Allies" are just countries with which the US has common interests. It's reciprocal too. George Washington was practical and realistic when he made that point. It's absurd to talk about this as though one's personal relationships were an appropriate metaphor for foreign relations.
Nor does this involve raping little girls, or whatever other absurd analogy you might use. Invading other countries on false pretenses is something I have a big problem with. Spying on a few allies? Not so much.
Her suspicions don't seem off-the-wall. To her credit she only says she's suspicious, not that she's anywhere near certain. I feel similarly. It's probably not true, but it is a possibility to keep in mind.
Heroes don't run when they know they're 100% right.
Spoken like a true armchair hero. More importantly, this isn't about Snowden as a superhero. Look, it's a bird, it's a plane, no it's Super Snowden! In fact this isn't about Snowden at all, but about what he's released. Trying to turn this into a debate about Snowden is a person as a ridiculous distraction.
Whether the US should take the moral high road or dive into the muck like "just another country" is a debate that goes back to the founding of the Republic. It looks like it's finally been settled.:-(
You're kidding, right? I have a big problem w/ the US invading countries under false pretenses and for utterly indefensible reasons. This spying on allies stuff just means we aren't boy scouts. I'm going to be outraged at least until my next cup of coffee.
Quoting the PP in full because I hate moderators turning into political censors. -1 is for trolls and flamebait, not posters whose opinions you disagree with. FWIW I completely disagree w/ the PP, but their comment is a legitimate part of this debate.
Those countries are probably spying on us as well. And our government has a responsibility to know what other governments are doing, to the best of our abilities.
That said, it shows how much damage Snowden has done to publicly reveal this undoubtedly top secret information. He's a traitor.
P.S. The ultimate irony is if this comment gets modded down from its original +2, but it wouldn't be the first time a comment like this has been. Not only do some mods like to act as political censors, they don't like being called on it.
I'm a staunch supporter of Snowden's revealing how the NSA was violating the 4th Amendment, but it's a shame that he's now revealing stuff like this. It will weaken the outrage over the US government wiping its ass w/ the Bill of Rights, because people will say that now he is endangering national security by revealing this information. He is shooting himself in the foot. TPTB will also have more justification for going after him. Having access to secret information beyond what is necessary for making his original case about spying on US citizens makes him less secure, not more. It also lessens the sympathy he'll get from Americans.
P.S. The latest "revelations" don't shock me, I doubt they shock TPTB in other countries, and the only effect on foreign relations will be the usual faux outrage. It doesn't bother me that the NSA is doing this, in fact I'd be more upset (or at least surprised) if they weren't. I also don't think it will do much if anything to harm national security, but he's still playing it wrong.
do you honestly believe that close Western allies of the US are systematically bugging US embassies and spying on US politicians on a massive scale
I don't know if they're doing it systematically because there haven't been any European Snowdens lately. It certainly wouldn't shock me if it was true. There have been plenty of cases of allies bugging each other, including for business and commercial reasons.
The finest silt sand all the way down. Build anything heavy and it'll start to sink.
That doesn't stop anyone from building up. In Chicago for example you'll never get to bedrock, yet it has the tallest building in the US. You just have to design the foundation appropriately.
Earthquake
San Francisco and LA have skyscrapers. Experience has shown that highrises are often the safest buildings in an earthquake.
"Green" expectations
Manhattan is the greenest place in the country. By concentrating so many people in a small area you greatly reduce the need for cars, and avoid sprawling communities. Suburban lawns are anything but "green" (in the metaphorical sense obviously).
The land's all taken: Something (possibly over 100 years old) must go for something new, and the new, high-density thing will be bigger, so you must find a group of neighbors willing to sell.
Manhattan land has been all taken for over a century, and it certainly hasn't stopped Manhattan from growing.
I've lived all over the continental US. Nowhere has weather comparable to silicon valley.
SoCal is better, especially San Diego. Moreover Shockley was from SoCal, and his backer Beckman Instruments, was in SoCal.
If the Shockley story had played out in Boston— for example— with its miserable weather perhaps it would have just fizzled because once no longer hitched to shockley people who left wouldn't start companies in the same place, they'd go someplace more livable.
Except that lots of MIT alumni have started companies in the area. Route 128 hasn't been quite the same since the minicomputer died, but there was DEC and Data General. These days Kendall square is pretty hot, and there are companies like Analog Devices, Raytheon, etc.
To predict what will kill Silicon Valley you will have to understand what created it in the first place. And it's not what you mention.
I haven't digged into it myself but if anything I would guess it was a combination of the two of the best technology universities plus the very mild weather and the cheap land in the area.
The universities are very good, but that's hardly unique. Think MIT, CalTech, Carnegie-Mellon, Princeton, Champaign-Urbana, etc. In fact while both Stanford and UC Berkeley have always been good, they've attained much of their current status because of SV. I'm sure the weather didn't hurt, but many tech hubs like Boston aren't known for their idyllic weather. For that matter SoCal has more idyllic weather, especially San Diego. The cheap land was hardly unique.
There was an expose' a year or two ago on TV that I watched showing just how futile it is to try and correct ANY wrong negative info in your credit reports with any of the agencies.
It can make Kafka look like a realist. About a year ago I did a refi w/ the bank that held my mortgage (Wells Fargo) to lower the interest rate. No problem. I figured while I was at it I'd get a small HELOC to put a new roof and siding on (you actually can't get a HELOC as small as I wanted, but you don't have to use all the money either). I was turned down because one of the ratings agencies gave me a poor credit score, which surprised me because I'd always had a pretty good one. I asked what the big black marks were. I was told that I'd made three late mortgage payments. I know for a fact that I've never had a late mortgage payment, and it's not something you can miss as they give you notice and charge a late payment fee (I doubt they would have overlooked it if I hadn't paid the late fee). I pointed out that Wells Fargo, the bank I was trying to get a HELOC from, should be able to confirm that I'd never had a late mortgage payment because they'd held my mortgage for 13 years! No effect. Unbelievable. I got so sick of dealing with the system that I'm just saving up a bit and will pay cash.
. After all, it's in many businesses interests to have accurate information
agreed.
I used to agree, but I'm not sure anymore that that's true of credit ratings. The correlation between credit rating and the probability of you paying back a loan is very poor. Furthermore what it takes to go from a very good credit rating to a poor one is surprisingly small, like a few late payments, and serious credit issues like having a house foreclosed on or not paying back a car loan don't seem to have a proportionately large effect. I strongly suspect that banks largely used credit ratings as an excuse to not give people the "loss leader" rates that they advertise.
Much of that stretch is not heavily populated. Take the coastal route from San Diego to San Francisco and you'll see. Personally I'm happy if it stays that way because there is some beautiful scenery. The weather is kind of bland though.
I've seen multiple attempts worldwide to duplicate Silicon Valley. If I had about $500B and 30 years (I'm a little short of the former, and hope to make the latter), I could replicate the Valley, maybe. But I doubt it. The Valley pioneers were amazing people; check out the documentaries on the subject. They had perfect timing. It's hard to see the same confluence of events happening again, at least in tech.
Why SV is where it is is a perennial debate. Success has a thousand fathers and failure is an orphan. The Traitorous Eight that left Shockley Semiconductor Labs to start Fairchild Semi were an amazing group and the real genesis of SV, but why were they in SV in the first place? Because Shockley was there, of course, but why was Shockley there? Apparently because his aging mother lived there. That's it. Happenstance, which is an explanation that many don't like. No other explanation is convincing though.
Stanford and UC Berkeley were and are excellent universities, but there many others. MIT and CalTech are hardly also-rans, not to mention a number of other schools that, especially back when SV started, had as good or better reputation than Stanford or USB. Three of the Traitorous Eight (and Shockley) were MIT alumni. Only one of the eight was a Standford alumni and one UC Berkeley. Only Moore was native to the area.
Shockley was able to start the labs in what became SV only because of his fame. The backers were Beckman Instrument, which was in SoCal. Most the of the semiconductor expertise at the time was in the east. Mostly the Traitorous Eight were lured from the east because they were young, fairly rootless, and thought working for a Nobel Prize winner was a great opportunity. In other words, there was really nothing to recommend what's now SV other than the fact that Shockley's mother lived there, but nobody wants to admit that Shockley was the real grandfather of SV.
No, no, no! There is only one Greatest and Best Place to Live (though there is a debate about whether it's CA, Texas or NYC). There is no room for individual taste or preference! So much for open minded and tolerant people.
I have yet to meet the person who having spent time in California, would not happily throw their home state to the wolves had they the ability.
You haven't met them because they left California. I've known people who've moved to CA, some loved it and stayed, others didn't like it and left. It's never been my permanent residence, but I've spent extended periods in SV for work. My reaction was "it's okay". There are certainly worse places to live, and I understand why some people like it so much, but I've never had any great desire to live there. It's a suburb with a few more Asian take out places and idyllic weather that many people like, but I find boring. It's all a matter of taste.
The worst thing about CA is that there are too many people who think it's the promised land. Texas and NYC suffer from a similar problem. I live in the NY area so they're especially enjoyable to make fun of. Interestingly I find that people who've moved to CA are more prone to the promised land syndrome than the natives. The first time I was in San Diego we ran into an ex-pat New Yorker who asked my wife and me how we liked it. We told him we thought it was a great place. Then he asked if we wanted to move there. When we said no he acted incredibly offended.
Very idyllic, but whether you like it is a matter of taste. After a few weeks of warm, dry and sunny weather every day I start to go nuts. Rain is a treat after that! I enjoy snow. My standard joke about CA is that I can't tell whether I'm indoors or out, so why go outside? I like real weather because it makes me feel alive.
We on the East Coast know that every place west of the Mississippi is nuts. Of course that's also true of places east of the Mississippi, but that's another story.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you, and the parent poster, are basically saying is that if US citizens are being targeted then that's a moral outrage and wholly unacceptable; but the rest of us are fair game.
RTFA. It's about bugging embassies and missions, not "us".
I know that many Americans think that God appointed the US to be the world's policeman, and therefore they have some kind of divine right to meddle in the everybody' affairs.
If you're going to indulge in such cliche stereotypes, it's unsporting of you not to say what pure-as-the-driven-snow country you hale from. That would allow "us" to retaliate in kind, should we choose to stoop to such a level of "debate".
With the exception of Britain's GCHQ (which calls its version of Prism "Mastering the Internet [guardian.co.uk]"), and possibly China, most countries have neither the resources nor the inclination to indulge in this kind of mass surveillance.
Possibly they don't have the resources, but how do you know they don't have the inclination? Oh, perhaps your government has said so. You do believe everything they say, don't you?
Twenty-five years ago Mexico was in delicate negotiations to restructure its foreign debt. The Mexican ambassador and former minister of the Treasury (Hacienda) was personally handling the negotiations in Washington.
Strategy planning was done overnight with the President of Mexico and, this goes without saying, utmost secrecy was needed. The only method considered secure enough was to fly the ambassador on a two seater supersonic jet fighter back to the Mexican capital every night for a face to face meeting in an undisclosed location and then fly him back to Washington the next morning.
Sounds overly dramatic. Until the latest models supersonic fighters couldn't fly supersonic for very long. An ordinary business jet would have been just as fast, cost less to operate, and let the ambassador get what was undoubtedly a badly needed nap. Otherwise, it sounds like a wise precaution.
I wouldn't be friends with someone who planted bugs in my home.
Neither would I, but countries don't have "friends". "Allies" are just countries with which the US has common interests. It's reciprocal too. George Washington was practical and realistic when he made that point. It's absurd to talk about this as though one's personal relationships were an appropriate metaphor for foreign relations.
Nor does this involve raping little girls, or whatever other absurd analogy you might use. Invading other countries on false pretenses is something I have a big problem with. Spying on a few allies? Not so much.
Her suspicions don't seem off-the-wall. To her credit she only says she's suspicious, not that she's anywhere near certain. I feel similarly. It's probably not true, but it is a possibility to keep in mind.
As you can see their very few terroristic attacks to Russia or china.
Not much terrorism in Russia or China? You're kidding, right? Next you'll add India and the UK to the list.
Heroes don't run when they know they're 100% right.
Spoken like a true armchair hero. More importantly, this isn't about Snowden as a superhero. Look, it's a bird, it's a plane, no it's Super Snowden! In fact this isn't about Snowden at all, but about what he's released. Trying to turn this into a debate about Snowden is a person as a ridiculous distraction.
Whether the US should take the moral high road or dive into the muck like "just another country" is a debate that goes back to the founding of the Republic. It looks like it's finally been settled. :-(
You're kidding, right? I have a big problem w/ the US invading countries under false pretenses and for utterly indefensible reasons. This spying on allies stuff just means we aren't boy scouts. I'm going to be outraged at least until my next cup of coffee.
You Americans are sooooooo screwed.
Why, because we're going to have to listen to the faux outrage from your politicians?
P.S. If you're going to use phrases like "you Americans", it would be reasonable to say what country you're from.
Quoting the PP in full because I hate moderators turning into political censors. -1 is for trolls and flamebait, not posters whose opinions you disagree with. FWIW I completely disagree w/ the PP, but their comment is a legitimate part of this debate.
Those countries are probably spying on us as well. And our government has a responsibility to know what other governments are doing, to the best of our abilities.
That said, it shows how much damage Snowden has done to publicly reveal this undoubtedly top secret information. He's a traitor.
P.S. The ultimate irony is if this comment gets modded down from its original +2, but it wouldn't be the first time a comment like this has been. Not only do some mods like to act as political censors, they don't like being called on it.
I'm a staunch supporter of Snowden's revealing how the NSA was violating the 4th Amendment, but it's a shame that he's now revealing stuff like this. It will weaken the outrage over the US government wiping its ass w/ the Bill of Rights, because people will say that now he is endangering national security by revealing this information. He is shooting himself in the foot. TPTB will also have more justification for going after him. Having access to secret information beyond what is necessary for making his original case about spying on US citizens makes him less secure, not more. It also lessens the sympathy he'll get from Americans.
P.S. The latest "revelations" don't shock me, I doubt they shock TPTB in other countries, and the only effect on foreign relations will be the usual faux outrage. It doesn't bother me that the NSA is doing this, in fact I'd be more upset (or at least surprised) if they weren't. I also don't think it will do much if anything to harm national security, but he's still playing it wrong.
do you honestly believe that close Western allies of the US are systematically bugging US embassies and spying on US politicians on a massive scale
I don't know if they're doing it systematically because there haven't been any European Snowdens lately. It certainly wouldn't shock me if it was true. There have been plenty of cases of allies bugging each other, including for business and commercial reasons.
The finest silt sand all the way down. Build anything heavy and it'll start to sink.
That doesn't stop anyone from building up. In Chicago for example you'll never get to bedrock, yet it has the tallest building in the US. You just have to design the foundation appropriately.
Earthquake
San Francisco and LA have skyscrapers. Experience has shown that highrises are often the safest buildings in an earthquake.
"Green" expectations
Manhattan is the greenest place in the country. By concentrating so many people in a small area you greatly reduce the need for cars, and avoid sprawling communities. Suburban lawns are anything but "green" (in the metaphorical sense obviously).
The land's all taken: Something (possibly over 100 years old) must go for something new, and the new, high-density thing will be bigger, so you must find a group of neighbors willing to sell.
Manhattan land has been all taken for over a century, and it certainly hasn't stopped Manhattan from growing.
I've lived all over the continental US. Nowhere has weather comparable to silicon valley.
SoCal is better, especially San Diego. Moreover Shockley was from SoCal, and his backer Beckman Instruments, was in SoCal.
If the Shockley story had played out in Boston— for example— with its miserable weather perhaps it would have just fizzled because once no longer hitched to shockley people who left wouldn't start companies in the same place, they'd go someplace more livable.
Except that lots of MIT alumni have started companies in the area. Route 128 hasn't been quite the same since the minicomputer died, but there was DEC and Data General. These days Kendall square is pretty hot, and there are companies like Analog Devices, Raytheon, etc.
To predict what will kill Silicon Valley you will have to understand what created it in the first place. And it's not what you mention.
I haven't digged into it myself but if anything I would guess it was a combination of the two of the best technology universities plus the very mild weather and the cheap land in the area.
The universities are very good, but that's hardly unique. Think MIT, CalTech, Carnegie-Mellon, Princeton, Champaign-Urbana, etc. In fact while both Stanford and UC Berkeley have always been good, they've attained much of their current status because of SV. I'm sure the weather didn't hurt, but many tech hubs like Boston aren't known for their idyllic weather. For that matter SoCal has more idyllic weather, especially San Diego. The cheap land was hardly unique.
The only plausible explanation I know of is Bill Shockley's mother lived there.
Add to this all the venture capitalists that gathered in the area
The VC's are there because it's SV, not the other way around.
There was an expose' a year or two ago on TV that I watched showing just how futile it is to try and correct ANY wrong negative info in your credit reports with any of the agencies.
It can make Kafka look like a realist. About a year ago I did a refi w/ the bank that held my mortgage (Wells Fargo) to lower the interest rate. No problem. I figured while I was at it I'd get a small HELOC to put a new roof and siding on (you actually can't get a HELOC as small as I wanted, but you don't have to use all the money either). I was turned down because one of the ratings agencies gave me a poor credit score, which surprised me because I'd always had a pretty good one. I asked what the big black marks were. I was told that I'd made three late mortgage payments. I know for a fact that I've never had a late mortgage payment, and it's not something you can miss as they give you notice and charge a late payment fee (I doubt they would have overlooked it if I hadn't paid the late fee). I pointed out that Wells Fargo, the bank I was trying to get a HELOC from, should be able to confirm that I'd never had a late mortgage payment because they'd held my mortgage for 13 years! No effect. Unbelievable. I got so sick of dealing with the system that I'm just saving up a bit and will pay cash.
. After all, it's in many businesses interests to have accurate information
agreed.
I used to agree, but I'm not sure anymore that that's true of credit ratings. The correlation between credit rating and the probability of you paying back a loan is very poor. Furthermore what it takes to go from a very good credit rating to a poor one is surprisingly small, like a few late payments, and serious credit issues like having a house foreclosed on or not paying back a car loan don't seem to have a proportionately large effect. I strongly suspect that banks largely used credit ratings as an excuse to not give people the "loss leader" rates that they advertise.
I hesitate to test cyanide
I do it all the time. They're called almonds (especially appropriate for CA).
Much of that stretch is not heavily populated. Take the coastal route from San Diego to San Francisco and you'll see. Personally I'm happy if it stays that way because there is some beautiful scenery. The weather is kind of bland though.
I've seen multiple attempts worldwide to duplicate Silicon Valley. If I had about $500B and 30 years (I'm a little short of the former, and hope to make the latter), I could replicate the Valley, maybe. But I doubt it. The Valley pioneers were amazing people; check out the documentaries on the subject. They had perfect timing. It's hard to see the same confluence of events happening again, at least in tech.
Why SV is where it is is a perennial debate. Success has a thousand fathers and failure is an orphan. The Traitorous Eight that left Shockley Semiconductor Labs to start Fairchild Semi were an amazing group and the real genesis of SV, but why were they in SV in the first place? Because Shockley was there, of course, but why was Shockley there? Apparently because his aging mother lived there. That's it. Happenstance, which is an explanation that many don't like. No other explanation is convincing though.
Stanford and UC Berkeley were and are excellent universities, but there many others. MIT and CalTech are hardly also-rans, not to mention a number of other schools that, especially back when SV started, had as good or better reputation than Stanford or USB. Three of the Traitorous Eight (and Shockley) were MIT alumni. Only one of the eight was a Standford alumni and one UC Berkeley. Only Moore was native to the area.
Shockley was able to start the labs in what became SV only because of his fame. The backers were Beckman Instrument, which was in SoCal. Most the of the semiconductor expertise at the time was in the east. Mostly the Traitorous Eight were lured from the east because they were young, fairly rootless, and thought working for a Nobel Prize winner was a great opportunity. In other words, there was really nothing to recommend what's now SV other than the fact that Shockley's mother lived there, but nobody wants to admit that Shockley was the real grandfather of SV.
I'll take my small rural town in the Midwest.
No, no, no! There is only one Greatest and Best Place to Live (though there is a debate about whether it's CA, Texas or NYC). There is no room for individual taste or preference! So much for open minded and tolerant people.
I have yet to meet the person who having spent time in California, would not happily throw their home state to the wolves had they the ability.
You haven't met them because they left California. I've known people who've moved to CA, some loved it and stayed, others didn't like it and left. It's never been my permanent residence, but I've spent extended periods in SV for work. My reaction was "it's okay". There are certainly worse places to live, and I understand why some people like it so much, but I've never had any great desire to live there. It's a suburb with a few more Asian take out places and idyllic weather that many people like, but I find boring. It's all a matter of taste.
The worst thing about CA is that there are too many people who think it's the promised land. Texas and NYC suffer from a similar problem. I live in the NY area so they're especially enjoyable to make fun of. Interestingly I find that people who've moved to CA are more prone to the promised land syndrome than the natives. The first time I was in San Diego we ran into an ex-pat New Yorker who asked my wife and me how we liked it. We told him we thought it was a great place. Then he asked if we wanted to move there. When we said no he acted incredibly offended.
You can't beat coastal CA weather.
Very idyllic, but whether you like it is a matter of taste. After a few weeks of warm, dry and sunny weather every day I start to go nuts. Rain is a treat after that! I enjoy snow. My standard joke about CA is that I can't tell whether I'm indoors or out, so why go outside? I like real weather because it makes me feel alive.
Nah, the Chinese food sucks.
Not to mention the weekly cattle drives -- regularly people are mowed (or moo'd) down by stampedes.
I heard the real problem is getting drowned by a gusher, or is that another part of Texas?
We on the East Coast know that every place west of the Mississippi is nuts. Of course that's also true of places east of the Mississippi, but that's another story.