Prove it. Or, at the very least, allow her the chance to make her defense that she didn't know.
If you show grandma how to download Elvis songs, it is possible she could have no idea, but those cases are so far and few between, that I would put them in to 1% of all pirates in a study I made up myself to help out my argument.
Shouldn't that 1% get the chance to mount an appropriate defense?
If you look at it that way, every limitation on government power is in a sense an advantage totalitarian states have. If North Korea can do it, why can't we? Because we're better than that.
I'd also point out that the US has no problem murdering those who have become politically inconvenient. See all the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan for instance. Shit, it's an open fact that the US has an executive "hit list" that even has US citizens on it.
Finally, it's also worth mentioning that being verifiably honest can have positive diplomatic consequences too.
There are functions of government that demand secrecy -- a lack of this "transparency" you glibly refer to. Defense is just one area. Diplomacy another.
Defense and diplomacy are Trojan Horses hiding corruption. A foreign government with a tactical advantage against an honest government is less of a threat than a corrupt government with a tactical advantage against its own people.
It is impossible to monitor Wikileak's integrity or transparency. Do you think if Mr. Whistleblower's documents regarding Country X are not posted that Mr. Whistleblower is going to go to the established media and complain about that?
If it's bad for Wikileaks to operate without transparency, it's also bad for the US government and corporations to operate without transparency. Wikileaks is a partial solution to the latter problem. The former problem is quite easily solved. If you have information that Wikileaks won't publish, there's no shortage of ways of getting data on the internet anonymously.
Who is Assange to judge and / or label corporations or individuals?
He's a man with a conscience. It's the responsibility of all men with consciences to use them. That means calling out those who do wrong.
Now I'd agree that Assange is on an ego-trip, but who in international politics is not?
There's no reason you cannot have a constitutionally limited direct democracy. It's the limitations built into the constitution that protect minorities, not representation. In fact, representation can even be harmful to minorities. If we have a 40% minority, then in a direct democracy it gets 40% say in the government. If we elect representatives based on a plurality, that 40% will never be able to elect a representative, and so it will have 0% say in the government.
Direct investment in schools (secular AND religious), infrastructure, non-narcotic agricultural income sources, cultural heritage centers (years before Chase Credit and McDonalds, please)
Yes, Terrorists did rob us of our rights. The terrorists I refer to are the ones in our own government. The traditional definition of terrorism is one who uses terror as a means to a political end. Terrorists like Janet Napolitano have successfully used fear to scale back our 4th amendment rights. These terrorists are far more dangerous than any foreign religious fanatic.
If you think the entire populace should be aware of all the non-critical-military/intelligence-ops of the government, then you want a direct democracy.
Yes, what's your point?
The government in a representative democracy is ostensibly there to represent our interests.
FTFY.
We have a right to know whether it is doing so or not.
Agreed!
A government whose every daily operation is exposed to the public spotlight will be completely ineffective in representing anyone's interests.
First, this assertion is offered without any support whatsoever. I don't buy it.
Second, a government that is completely ineffective in representing anyone's interests is preferable to a government that is effective at representing the interests of a small powerful elite at the expense of everyone else, which is what we have today.
The great thing about the US is that you can wave the flag of any country you want, and it's protected by the first amendment of the constitution. If you have a problem with that, maybe you'd feel more comfortable in a country that doesn't guarantee that right?
The telecoms promised us fiber optic networks nationwide in 1993. They charged us for it, and never built it. They've had 17 years to do it, giving them one more year is more than generous enough. The heads of the various ISPs involved should be sitting in jail on fraud charges. They've stolen more than Bernie Madoff ever did.
Thanks for sharing your preconceived notions AC. Personally, I'm glad the small government types are *FINALLY* getting outraged over the violations of our Constitutional rights. I just wish they'd be more consistent about it. If I believed the Tea Partiers actually gave a shit about personal liberties (for everyone, and not just when it affects them), I'd be right there with them.
Man I would love to see the reaction on Fox if Obama did something like that. Just how fast can they switch from "Obama invading your rights" to "Obama making you vulnerable to terrorists" without causing cognitive dissonance in their audience. Actually, I'm not sure their audience is capable of cognitive dissonance.
We have the same policy and will only allow smart phones to connect to exchange when they have the remote wipe capability. It's to protect the company's interests should a phone be lost or stolen.
People running consumer routers are already very vulnerable for the most part. Reflashing the NIC is too much work. What you need to worry about is if you are doing everything else right, running full disk encryption, with encrypted swap, and a nice long passphrase. Let your computer out of sight for a bit and it's been flashed with firmware that will tftp your encryption key to hostile intelligence agencies (foreign or domestic, take your pick). Hell, they could even intercept your equipment before you got it. Looks like it's time to start buying components in person with cash at big box retailers.
Slashdot Mirror
She knew exactly what she was doing.
Prove it. Or, at the very least, allow her the chance to make her defense that she didn't know.
If you show grandma how to download Elvis songs, it is possible she could have no idea, but those cases are so far and few between, that I would put them in to 1% of all pirates in a study I made up myself to help out my argument.
Shouldn't that 1% get the chance to mount an appropriate defense?
If you look at it that way, every limitation on government power is in a sense an advantage totalitarian states have. If North Korea can do it, why can't we? Because we're better than that.
I'd also point out that the US has no problem murdering those who have become politically inconvenient. See all the civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan for instance. Shit, it's an open fact that the US has an executive "hit list" that even has US citizens on it.
Finally, it's also worth mentioning that being verifiably honest can have positive diplomatic consequences too.
There are functions of government that demand secrecy -- a lack of this "transparency" you glibly refer to. Defense is just one area. Diplomacy another.
Defense and diplomacy are Trojan Horses hiding corruption. A foreign government with a tactical advantage against an honest government is less of a threat than a corrupt government with a tactical advantage against its own people.
Since the banks own the government, yes an attack on the banks is an attack on the US government.
It is impossible to monitor Wikileak's integrity or transparency. Do you think if Mr. Whistleblower's documents regarding Country X are not posted that Mr. Whistleblower is going to go to the established media and complain about that?
If it's bad for Wikileaks to operate without transparency, it's also bad for the US government and corporations to operate without transparency. Wikileaks is a partial solution to the latter problem. The former problem is quite easily solved. If you have information that Wikileaks won't publish, there's no shortage of ways of getting data on the internet anonymously.
Who is Assange to judge and / or label corporations or individuals?
He's a man with a conscience. It's the responsibility of all men with consciences to use them. That means calling out those who do wrong.
Now I'd agree that Assange is on an ego-trip, but who in international politics is not?
You can't do foreign policy without secret cables flying around. You can't fight wars without intelligence.
You can't have government accountability with state secrets. I'd rather have the government accountability.
There's no reason you cannot have a constitutionally limited direct democracy. It's the limitations built into the constitution that protect minorities, not representation. In fact, representation can even be harmful to minorities. If we have a 40% minority, then in a direct democracy it gets 40% say in the government. If we elect representatives based on a plurality, that 40% will never be able to elect a representative, and so it will have 0% say in the government.
The rule is do not harm civilians.
Why is Wikileaks held to this rule and not the US Government?
Direct investment in schools (secular AND religious), infrastructure, non-narcotic agricultural income sources, cultural heritage centers (years before Chase Credit and McDonalds, please)
Shit, we could use that in the US.
Yes, Terrorists did rob us of our rights. The terrorists I refer to are the ones in our own government. The traditional definition of terrorism is one who uses terror as a means to a political end. Terrorists like Janet Napolitano have successfully used fear to scale back our 4th amendment rights. These terrorists are far more dangerous than any foreign religious fanatic.
If you think the entire populace should be aware of all the non-critical-military/intelligence-ops of the government, then you want a direct democracy.
Yes, what's your point?
The government in a representative democracy is ostensibly there to represent our interests.
FTFY.
We have a right to know whether it is doing so or not.
Agreed!
A government whose every daily operation is exposed to the public spotlight will be completely ineffective in representing anyone's interests.
First, this assertion is offered without any support whatsoever. I don't buy it.
Second, a government that is completely ineffective in representing anyone's interests is preferable to a government that is effective at representing the interests of a small powerful elite at the expense of everyone else, which is what we have today.
Let's just tag this story Carlin and be done with it.
The great thing about the US is that you can wave the flag of any country you want, and it's protected by the first amendment of the constitution. If you have a problem with that, maybe you'd feel more comfortable in a country that doesn't guarantee that right?
That's why I said they'd be more welcome today than 100 years ago.
The USA only frowns upon brown economic migrants. The Irish are white and speak English, they'll be more welcome today than they were 100 years ago.
My representative is great at listening. Doesn't make a damned bit of difference in what he does, but he will definitely listen to you.
1 GB? Or 1GB/s?
The telecoms promised us fiber optic networks nationwide in 1993. They charged us for it, and never built it. They've had 17 years to do it, giving them one more year is more than generous enough. The heads of the various ISPs involved should be sitting in jail on fraud charges. They've stolen more than Bernie Madoff ever did.
If you want DSL or fiber how about you pay for the lines to be run
The American people already paid for a nation wide broadband network that was never delivered.
Thanks for sharing your preconceived notions AC. Personally, I'm glad the small government types are *FINALLY* getting outraged over the violations of our Constitutional rights. I just wish they'd be more consistent about it. If I believed the Tea Partiers actually gave a shit about personal liberties (for everyone, and not just when it affects them), I'd be right there with them.
Man I would love to see the reaction on Fox if Obama did something like that. Just how fast can they switch from "Obama invading your rights" to "Obama making you vulnerable to terrorists" without causing cognitive dissonance in their audience. Actually, I'm not sure their audience is capable of cognitive dissonance.
But Damn Small Linux is perfect for downloading over slow connections.
You have to use sudo for that.
We have the same policy and will only allow smart phones to connect to exchange when they have the remote wipe capability. It's to protect the company's interests should a phone be lost or stolen.
Do you have the same policy for PCs?
People running consumer routers are already very vulnerable for the most part. Reflashing the NIC is too much work. What you need to worry about is if you are doing everything else right, running full disk encryption, with encrypted swap, and a nice long passphrase. Let your computer out of sight for a bit and it's been flashed with firmware that will tftp your encryption key to hostile intelligence agencies (foreign or domestic, take your pick). Hell, they could even intercept your equipment before you got it. Looks like it's time to start buying components in person with cash at big box retailers.