Yes, but not the only "excellent and justifiable" reasons to leak. For all the money we spend on the 'war on terror', it would be nice to occasionally hear from the front lines what the actual threats are.
So you're saying it's justifiable to leak legitimately classified information because it feels nice?
. This is a problem, and while I'm not disagreeing that this guy should have kept is damn mouth shut, his opening it didn't cause much harm... he should have simply been fired, and perhaps spend a few months to a year at most in jail, or put on probation. Sometimes people are stupid... it doesn't mean they're a continuing threat to society, and that's the only reason we should ever consider imprisonment.
Sometimes you make very insightful contributions to the discussion here. Your argument is incredibly silly, and obviously misinformed about this particular case.
First, prison is used for deterrence or punishment in addition to preventing future harm. Murderers don't get to avoid prison just because they cut their hands off and promise to never do it again. This guy shouldn't get away with committing a serious crime just because we're not worried about him doing it again.
Second, this piece of trash caused real harm. He compromised an active operation, which led to the revelation that the CIA had an agent in AQAP. I don't know whether anyone was hurt in response, but that's at least one asset we'll never be able to use again.
That does make sense... I can definitely see that. I should have used a more precise term than just B2B, but I don't know the term to use... I'm thinking bigger ticket or more complex sales, predominantly B2B but also some consumer. Basically all the things that can't be automated without serious AI.
I have noticed the same trend in everything else, and of course the broader push towards optimization. It makes me wonder about the future shape of the economy.
The risks are huge. It can range from malware on a workstation, to malicious actions by a 3rd party or employee.
Not to mention the fact that foreign employees (particularly in China) can be coerced by their governments to do any of this. If this were an article about China outsourcing critical IT infrastructure to the US, Slashdot would be [rightly] up in arms with NSA paranoia. The Slashdot collective tends to hold the delusional view that only the US would do such things.
Certainly true for consumer goods, but I think most B2B will stay traditional sales for quite a while. We're not going to be seeing some CTO's assistant going on Amazon and ordering 5 PB of storage and associated backup and archive systems. And that's ignoring all the sales that wouldn't happen if sales people weren't bringing in long-standing relationships, etc.
For larger or more technical sales, people still need sales/SEs/architects/etc. to come up with a system that will work... and they're willing to pay extra for that. Not that all sales guys actually do that, but hey, different story...
Same happened to me last week. And zero shared connections. My only guess lead is that they knew we went to the same school around the same time and work in a related profession.
But I suspect something more nefarious... not that it stopped me from sending a request because, y'know... hey! old friends!
You should read the link I posted instead of oversimplifying and trying to sound like you're teaching me something you obviously have not studied. Federal surpluses don't necessarily mean a decreasing debt. I was trying to be polite, but you are being rude, so let me say this again: your question is stupid.
The most recent surplus was the month of June 2013. There were annual federal surpluses in 1998, 1999, and 2000 under accrual accounting... even if you don't use unified (including social security surpluses), which is probably the counter-argument you've been waiting to make. 1998 can be made into a deficit with other accounting methods, but 1999 and 2000 were surpluses.
If you want to understand why your question is uninformed and misleading, I suggest you read How Did A Surplus Result In The National Debt Going Up?. For others reading, the short is that Social Security surpluses are converted to debt. When SS Surplus > on-budget surplus, ++ federal debt (although debt held by the public will decline).
Of course, a bunch of illiterate assholes are going to use that as their primary argument for cutting SS soon. They will point to the trillions of dollars in debt to SS, ignore that the debt is from SS being required to invest in the federal government, and then demand SS be cut because it's such a large part of our debt.
....and lets not forget, dumbfuck, that when Clinton left office there was a projected 10 year surplus of ~5.6 trillion dollars
Can you point to the last year in which the national debt actually decreased - meaning we had an actual surplus? HINT: start with the Eisenhower Administration.
That's misleading. You need to account for inflation and/or GDP changes. Debt/GDP decreased under Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Truman. Roosevelt and Bush were responsible for the largest increases in debt/GDP, although Roosevelt did make some attempt to pay for his wars. Note that debt/GDP held steady or declined through Vietnam, and saw the bulk of its growth (79.9% total increase) under Reagan, the Bushes, and Obama.
Are you actually arguing that Bush didn't piss away a surplus, and trillions of dollars, cut taxes while launching expensive wars, enact an unfunded entitlement, and leave the country with the worst economy since Hoover? Or are you just saying the US hasn't made a serious effort to pay off the debt in recent history?
The problem is the global-warming deniers trumpet the low temperature outliers, and the global warming proponents trumpet the high temperature outliers. Last year, one side made a big deal about the least ice in the Arctic in recorded history. This year the other side is making a big deal about the ice pack rebounding.
That's unfair and very misleading. AGW deniers do over-use outliers, cherry pick their data, and resort to ad hominems regularly. However, AGW "proponents" generally point to "outliers" that are within the predicted regressions and expected to be new averages. 1998 may have been an outlier at the time, but it is near the mean for the 2000s. 2012 may have been an "outlier" for Arctic ice, but the 2020s will likely have a much lower mean.
I agree that we should be looking at trends... but it's not an outlier if it is precisely where we expect the mean to be in a few short years.
Generally, I am seeing Windows 2003 Servers replaced with 2008 or 2012. Small businesses that used Windows servers generally can't replace them with Linux because they're using MS's VPN, AD, etc. For the other roles (primarily web hosting and storage), *nix and friends have already been dominating and I'm not seeing any change.
I rarely seen Windows 8 at businesses, and usually in a BYOD situation or being tested by a techie type.
Eventually, the decision makers ignoring NSA requests would be jailed and their successors presented with the same threats.
This is the part I don't get. It's just ludicrous to think the government has a credible threat here.
Imagine the headlines and the public's reaction: "Yahoo CEO Jailed On Secret Charges" "Yahoo CEO Denied Lawyer/Visitation Rights for National Security" "DOJ Official Claims Yahoo CEO Refused NSA Spy Demands"
To prevent jail time, a CEO would have to tell the public all about the program and the NSA's demands... and then it would be impossible to keep a trial secret. And secretly fining a multi-billion dollar MNC? The government may not fear voters, but they do fear shareholders.
I don't think these things were created to stop smoking, they were created as a modern 21st century way to get your tobacco fix in a way that doesn't make you smell like a stale ashtray, which might actually cause smoking to increase again which will bring more profit to the tobacco industry.
Isn't that like saying cars weren't created to go on grocery runs, they were created as a way for men to show off?
The first commercially produced ecig was sold and marketed as a smoking cessation device. TFA isn't the first study to show e-cigs on par with patches or other established methods. Juice vendors offer multiple levels of nicotine for precisely this reason. But E-cigs are a multi-purpose tool. They could also be used as a permanent cigarette replacement or to ease into smoking with gradually increasing nicotine levels. Or they can be co-opted and suppressed by the tobacco industry. We'll see.
I have friends who use e-cigs during the day and on planes, but still smoke regularly outside of that. I know others who quit cigarettes entirely, but still vape. Still others use ecigs to quit smoking, then wind down the nicotine and quit vaping. And one co-worker constantly makes me hungry with cake batter-scented vapor. I'm just glad there is a viable, safer alternative for smokers.
I don't use green drives in any serious capacity (seems best just to avoid the issue), but you should be able to make them work by turning off all the green functions.
Maybe I got one with fixed firmware, but I absolutely loved my 4.3 GB. I used it for a few years before giving it to a family member for a linux server. It saw almost 10 years of continuous operation without fail.
I didn't even know problems with Bigfoot were a thing until I read your post...
I don't think fossil fuel interest had anything to do with it. It is a civil war and should be determined by the people of the country not the UN.
Your argument is perfectly valid, but it is worth pointing out that some countries are heavily involved in training, supplying, and supporting one side of the fight.
Russia is conducting a full court press to prevent Assad from losing, not to prevent outside influence. They aren't trying to prevent Iranian or Chinese involvement, just American.
I was taking you seriously until you said "know, thanks to Obama, that if it appears the Syrian Government used chemical weapons, they'd attack him."
You mean Barrack Hussein Obama? The Muslim Kenyan Communist Jihadi? The Destroyer of Cute Kittens, White Woman Impregnator, and Overall Scariest Black Man Evar? Get over it.
Even worse -- the only surprise in the trend lines has been how quickly they're happening.
Speak for yourself. I have long complained about the inherent conservative biases in modeling. I think the most worrying predictions are overly optimistic, and I am usually an optimist.
Let's just hope the next few generations are literate and informed enough to condemn us for our actions... and to engineer a more hospitable climate. As an optimist geek, I have sci-fi fantasies that the technologies developed to respond to climate change will be useful for terraforming.
Outside of the continental US + Alaska, we almost entirely failed to leave an English-speaking zone corresponding to our imperial possessions. Phillipines and Cuba? Lost, and the Spanish made a much bigger impression during their time there.
I know a couple others replied to this, so I will keep it short. The Philippines really does not belong in this list.
The country is very much a like-minded ally. English isn't just one of the official languages, it is the most unifying and dominant. English will help you there where people do not speak Tagalog. Further, the US didn't really "lose" the Philippines--they granted them independence for reasons other than the Philippine-American War. Then did it again after WWII.
I would say that you are right about the US being different, though. I generally hear a distinction about the old powers being colonial imperialists, and the US being capitalist imperialists. I generally agree. Why try to hold territory by force when you can make friends while dominating the culture and exerting strong influence over the economy?
The US spends large amounts on defense because it pays its soldiers a competitive wage in a volunteer army since the 1970s. Most other nations with large militaries use conscription, and are less equipped that the US, and don't have to move forces like the US.
Glad you brought this up, that's usually my job. It's not just the competitive wage, though, but also the larger compensation package (healthcare, retirement, etc.) that inflates the figures (depending on which figures people use).
I would also argue that we're already seeing some impotency in Syria. The world has been watching a small atrocity unfold, millions of civilians displaced, chemical weapons used against civilians... and the US looks wary of responding with cruise missiles. I wonder if we will look back on it with regret, as many of us do with Rwanda?
Statist is a word that does correctly distinguish the major division of our times. Are you primary for, or against the state supporting each and every person, to the extent that some (or all) choices are removed at the directive of the state?
...
So instead of stopping reading, you should read more carefully when you encounter the term as it's someone who realizes there is more depth to the matter than the classic labels that would otherwise be shallowly applied.
I'm sorry, but that term is entirely arbitrary and even more devoid of meaning. It merely allows you to divide political ideologies along one variable in a way that advantages your particular preference.
Do you want a state that is highly involved in boosting equality of opportunity? Outcome? What subsidies/taxes are acceptable? What about enforcement of religious/moral norms? Which ones, and to what extent? What services/infrastructure should the state provide? How internationally involved do you want the state to be? In what situation should the state use force?
A "typical" liberal wants high equality of opportunity, moderate leveling of equality of outcome, higher subsidies/taxes, low enforcement of religious norms, and international involvement primarily through the UN.
A moderate conservative wants high equality of opportunity, low leveling of equality of outcome, low-moderate subsidies/taxes, med enforcement of religious norms, and may or may not be a hawk.
A typical Tea Partier doesn't care about equality of opportunity/outcome, wants low taxes, may or may not oppose corporate subsidies, wants very high enforcement of religious norms, and is a hawk.
Even quasi-libertarian wet dream Ron Paul wants a religiously guided state that denies reproductive freedom. They're all "statist". It's a useless label.
Slashdot Mirror
I had the opposite takeaway. This is the best proof you could ever ask for that "harsh penalties for drug use" just don't work.
As another poster already mentioned, nobody would take this if the others weren't expensive... and they're expensive because they're illegal.
Yes, but not the only "excellent and justifiable" reasons to leak. For all the money we spend on the 'war on terror', it would be nice to occasionally hear from the front lines what the actual threats are.
So you're saying it's justifiable to leak legitimately classified information because it feels nice?
. This is a problem, and while I'm not disagreeing that this guy should have kept is damn mouth shut, his opening it didn't cause much harm... he should have simply been fired, and perhaps spend a few months to a year at most in jail, or put on probation. Sometimes people are stupid... it doesn't mean they're a continuing threat to society, and that's the only reason we should ever consider imprisonment.
Sometimes you make very insightful contributions to the discussion here. Your argument is incredibly silly, and obviously misinformed about this particular case.
First, prison is used for deterrence or punishment in addition to preventing future harm. Murderers don't get to avoid prison just because they cut their hands off and promise to never do it again. This guy shouldn't get away with committing a serious crime just because we're not worried about him doing it again.
Second, this piece of trash caused real harm. He compromised an active operation, which led to the revelation that the CIA had an agent in AQAP. I don't know whether anyone was hurt in response, but that's at least one asset we'll never be able to use again.
That does make sense... I can definitely see that. I should have used a more precise term than just B2B, but I don't know the term to use... I'm thinking bigger ticket or more complex sales, predominantly B2B but also some consumer. Basically all the things that can't be automated without serious AI.
I have noticed the same trend in everything else, and of course the broader push towards optimization. It makes me wonder about the future shape of the economy.
The risks are huge. It can range from malware on a workstation, to malicious actions by a 3rd party or employee.
Not to mention the fact that foreign employees (particularly in China) can be coerced by their governments to do any of this. If this were an article about China outsourcing critical IT infrastructure to the US, Slashdot would be [rightly] up in arms with NSA paranoia. The Slashdot collective tends to hold the delusional view that only the US would do such things.
Certainly true for consumer goods, but I think most B2B will stay traditional sales for quite a while. We're not going to be seeing some CTO's assistant going on Amazon and ordering 5 PB of storage and associated backup and archive systems. And that's ignoring all the sales that wouldn't happen if sales people weren't bringing in long-standing relationships, etc.
For larger or more technical sales, people still need sales/SEs/architects/etc. to come up with a system that will work... and they're willing to pay extra for that. Not that all sales guys actually do that, but hey, different story...
Same happened to me last week. And zero shared connections. My only guess lead is that they knew we went to the same school around the same time and work in a related profession.
But I suspect something more nefarious... not that it stopped me from sending a request because, y'know... hey! old friends!
Read the article. You still don't understand.
You should read the link I posted instead of oversimplifying and trying to sound like you're teaching me something you obviously have not studied. Federal surpluses don't necessarily mean a decreasing debt. I was trying to be polite, but you are being rude, so let me say this again: your question is stupid.
The most recent surplus was the month of June 2013. There were annual federal surpluses in 1998, 1999, and 2000 under accrual accounting... even if you don't use unified (including social security surpluses), which is probably the counter-argument you've been waiting to make. 1998 can be made into a deficit with other accounting methods, but 1999 and 2000 were surpluses.
If you want to understand why your question is uninformed and misleading, I suggest you read How Did A Surplus Result In The National Debt Going Up?. For others reading, the short is that Social Security surpluses are converted to debt. When SS Surplus > on-budget surplus, ++ federal debt (although debt held by the public will decline).
Of course, a bunch of illiterate assholes are going to use that as their primary argument for cutting SS soon. They will point to the trillions of dollars in debt to SS, ignore that the debt is from SS being required to invest in the federal government, and then demand SS be cut because it's such a large part of our debt.
....and lets not forget, dumbfuck, that when Clinton left office there was a projected 10 year surplus of ~5.6 trillion dollars
Can you point to the last year in which the national debt actually decreased - meaning we had an actual surplus? HINT: start with the Eisenhower Administration.
That's misleading. You need to account for inflation and/or GDP changes. Debt/GDP decreased under Clinton, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Truman. Roosevelt and Bush were responsible for the largest increases in debt/GDP, although Roosevelt did make some attempt to pay for his wars. Note that debt/GDP held steady or declined through Vietnam, and saw the bulk of its growth (79.9% total increase) under Reagan, the Bushes, and Obama.
Are you actually arguing that Bush didn't piss away a surplus, and trillions of dollars, cut taxes while launching expensive wars, enact an unfunded entitlement, and leave the country with the worst economy since Hoover? Or are you just saying the US hasn't made a serious effort to pay off the debt in recent history?
The problem is the global-warming deniers trumpet the low temperature outliers, and the global warming proponents trumpet the high temperature outliers. Last year, one side made a big deal about the least ice in the Arctic in recorded history. This year the other side is making a big deal about the ice pack rebounding.
That's unfair and very misleading. AGW deniers do over-use outliers, cherry pick their data, and resort to ad hominems regularly. However, AGW "proponents" generally point to "outliers" that are within the predicted regressions and expected to be new averages. 1998 may have been an outlier at the time, but it is near the mean for the 2000s. 2012 may have been an "outlier" for Arctic ice, but the 2020s will likely have a much lower mean.
I agree that we should be looking at trends... but it's not an outlier if it is precisely where we expect the mean to be in a few short years.
Ah yes, 19th century dumb machines are equivalent to 21st century AI robots.
Back in the 19th century, automation improved worker productivity. Today, automation replaces workers.
BIG difference.
Ahh yes, Luddites started an armed rebellion and risked execution because they just couldn't stand the idea of being more productive.
Improved productivity = fewer workers. That's a big part of where the cost savings in automation tends to come from.
Generally, I am seeing Windows 2003 Servers replaced with 2008 or 2012. Small businesses that used Windows servers generally can't replace them with Linux because they're using MS's VPN, AD, etc. For the other roles (primarily web hosting and storage), *nix and friends have already been dominating and I'm not seeing any change.
I rarely seen Windows 8 at businesses, and usually in a BYOD situation or being tested by a techie type.
Eventually, the decision makers ignoring NSA requests would be jailed and their successors presented with the same threats.
This is the part I don't get. It's just ludicrous to think the government has a credible threat here.
Imagine the headlines and the public's reaction:
"Yahoo CEO Jailed On Secret Charges"
"Yahoo CEO Denied Lawyer/Visitation Rights for National Security"
"DOJ Official Claims Yahoo CEO Refused NSA Spy Demands"
To prevent jail time, a CEO would have to tell the public all about the program and the NSA's demands... and then it would be impossible to keep a trial secret. And secretly fining a multi-billion dollar MNC? The government may not fear voters, but they do fear shareholders.
I don't think these things were created to stop smoking, they were created as a modern 21st century way to get your tobacco fix in a way that doesn't make you smell like a stale ashtray, which might actually cause smoking to increase again which will bring more profit to the tobacco industry.
Isn't that like saying cars weren't created to go on grocery runs, they were created as a way for men to show off?
The first commercially produced ecig was sold and marketed as a smoking cessation device. TFA isn't the first study to show e-cigs on par with patches or other established methods. Juice vendors offer multiple levels of nicotine for precisely this reason. But E-cigs are a multi-purpose tool. They could also be used as a permanent cigarette replacement or to ease into smoking with gradually increasing nicotine levels. Or they can be co-opted and suppressed by the tobacco industry. We'll see.
I have friends who use e-cigs during the day and on planes, but still smoke regularly outside of that. I know others who quit cigarettes entirely, but still vape. Still others use ecigs to quit smoking, then wind down the nicotine and quit vaping. And one co-worker constantly makes me hungry with cake batter-scented vapor. I'm just glad there is a viable, safer alternative for smokers.
I don't use green drives in any serious capacity (seems best just to avoid the issue), but you should be able to make them work by turning off all the green functions.
Maybe I got one with fixed firmware, but I absolutely loved my 4.3 GB. I used it for a few years before giving it to a family member for a linux server. It saw almost 10 years of continuous operation without fail.
I didn't even know problems with Bigfoot were a thing until I read your post...
I don't think fossil fuel interest had anything to do with it. It is a civil war and should be determined by the people of the country not the UN.
Your argument is perfectly valid, but it is worth pointing out that some countries are heavily involved in training, supplying, and supporting one side of the fight.
Russia is conducting a full court press to prevent Assad from losing, not to prevent outside influence. They aren't trying to prevent Iranian or Chinese involvement, just American.
They have never denied having them. They just denied using them until recently. Just as the U.S. has them as well.
Syria has repeatedly denied having chemical weapons. And when they haven't denied it, they haven't acknowledged it, either.
2003
2013
I was taking you seriously until you said "know, thanks to Obama, that if it appears the Syrian Government used chemical weapons, they'd attack him."
You mean Barrack Hussein Obama? The Muslim Kenyan Communist Jihadi? The Destroyer of Cute Kittens, White Woman Impregnator, and Overall Scariest Black Man Evar? Get over it.
Even worse -- the only surprise in the trend lines has been how quickly they're happening.
Speak for yourself. I have long complained about the inherent conservative biases in modeling. I think the most worrying predictions are overly optimistic, and I am usually an optimist.
Let's just hope the next few generations are literate and informed enough to condemn us for our actions... and to engineer a more hospitable climate. As an optimist geek, I have sci-fi fantasies that the technologies developed to respond to climate change will be useful for terraforming.
Outside of the continental US + Alaska, we almost entirely failed to leave an English-speaking zone corresponding to our imperial possessions. Phillipines and Cuba? Lost, and the Spanish made a much bigger impression during their time there.
I know a couple others replied to this, so I will keep it short. The Philippines really does not belong in this list.
The country is very much a like-minded ally. English isn't just one of the official languages, it is the most unifying and dominant. English will help you there where people do not speak Tagalog. Further, the US didn't really "lose" the Philippines--they granted them independence for reasons other than the Philippine-American War. Then did it again after WWII.
I would say that you are right about the US being different, though. I generally hear a distinction about the old powers being colonial imperialists, and the US being capitalist imperialists. I generally agree. Why try to hold territory by force when you can make friends while dominating the culture and exerting strong influence over the economy?
The US spends large amounts on defense because it pays its soldiers a competitive wage in a volunteer army since the 1970s. Most other nations with large militaries use conscription, and are less equipped that the US, and don't have to move forces like the US.
Glad you brought this up, that's usually my job. It's not just the competitive wage, though, but also the larger compensation package (healthcare, retirement, etc.) that inflates the figures (depending on which figures people use).
I would also argue that we're already seeing some impotency in Syria. The world has been watching a small atrocity unfold, millions of civilians displaced, chemical weapons used against civilians... and the US looks wary of responding with cruise missiles. I wonder if we will look back on it with regret, as many of us do with Rwanda?
Statist is a word that does correctly distinguish the major division of our times. Are you primary for, or against the state supporting each and every person, to the extent that some (or all) choices are removed at the directive of the state?
...
So instead of stopping reading, you should read more carefully when you encounter the term as it's someone who realizes there is more depth to the matter than the classic labels that would otherwise be shallowly applied.
I'm sorry, but that term is entirely arbitrary and even more devoid of meaning. It merely allows you to divide political ideologies along one variable in a way that advantages your particular preference.
Do you want a state that is highly involved in boosting equality of opportunity? Outcome? What subsidies/taxes are acceptable? What about enforcement of religious/moral norms? Which ones, and to what extent? What services/infrastructure should the state provide? How internationally involved do you want the state to be? In what situation should the state use force?
A "typical" liberal wants high equality of opportunity, moderate leveling of equality of outcome, higher subsidies/taxes, low enforcement of religious norms, and international involvement primarily through the UN.
A moderate conservative wants high equality of opportunity, low leveling of equality of outcome, low-moderate subsidies/taxes, med enforcement of religious norms, and may or may not be a hawk.
A typical Tea Partier doesn't care about equality of opportunity/outcome, wants low taxes, may or may not oppose corporate subsidies, wants very high enforcement of religious norms, and is a hawk.
Even quasi-libertarian wet dream Ron Paul wants a religiously guided state that denies reproductive freedom. They're all "statist". It's a useless label.
Apple may be doomed, but someone will have to be around to support Internet Explorer 5 on quantum/DNA/128-bit processors.
Arctic melt is still likely to lead to a lot more warming, no?