Several reasons, some of them legitimate. There is a lot of anti-US sentiment in the world that makes the US doubt it can get a fair hearing in an international war crimes setting. Also, the US is the leading military power in the world, and its unique role in world affairs makes it much more likely to get dragged into court than other nations.
In the less legitimate realm, like other world powers, the drawbacks of certain international processes are greater for it than the benefits. It supports the ICC, but will not fully sign on because it does not trust the international community not to be anti-American, and because it would cost either side quite a few votes in domestic elections. Finally, when it does things badly, it does not want attention drawn to it, and signing on to the ICC makes it slightly harder to cover things up when they decide to for reasons of saving face--they need to pretend to do an investigation. The ICJ shows that pretty clearly--a CIA operation supporting terrorist techniques against communists during the cold war was dragged into the spotlight.
A lot of Americans live withing walking distance and have relatively unrestricted access to the press and the court system. DC has one of the highest lawyer-per-capita populations in the world. You can't walk ten feet without tripping over an NGO. If anyone tried to cover up something that big, a lot of those people would work very hard to prevent it--and they have media connections and strong grassroots networks.
@Nuremberg, sure. But that was when such trials were in their infancy.
Today, winners are exempt from war crime trials until regime change occurs in their nation. Then sometimes they are hauled before the ICC or another international tribunal, because the new regime is willing to give them up.
> The problem is that these crimes were committed by the police. Unless a local prosecutor indicts those uniformed hooligans, they will not face any punishment for their illegal actions. (They may be sued in civil courts, but this does not punish the perpetrators, but the local tax payers, who will pay the judgment.) It is unusual for a local authority to indict members of its own police force. In such a case, the U.S. Constitution can indeed provide an avenue for obtaining justice.
Actually, I think civil actions CAN reach the cops themselves, rather than just the government, if they're far enough out of line. Qualified immunity only extends officials in a search and seizure context, for example, when officers have "arguable probable cause." Most government officials are shielded up to a point, so that they won't be too "timid" in performing their duties out of a fear of litigation and liability (I doubt 5% of the prison guards in the country haven't been sued), but they aren't shielded infinitely. (Of course, their training and awareness of liability will vary.)
> Why not ? Well imagine you have to determine if it's the national holiday in India (they have a big elephant parade). But you don't actually have any tools smaller than elephants to measure this. So every hour or so you catapult an elephant into the main street of New Delhi, and you see if the elephant hits the detector you've set up at the other end of that street. Obviously any "detected" elephant will not be unaffected, and won't ever get to the place where the parade elephants normally end up, and your interference pattern will be gone. Now s/elephants/photons/ and you have the problem of quantum physics (and yes this is a simplification).
You just described quantum physics... with elephants.
> Sorry for violating Godwin's law, but, after all, 60 years ago Hitler accused the US of treating Jews inhumanely. This seems to be done in the same spirit. Oh right, 70 years by now. I'm getting old.
Yes, although this is a much better psyop. Think about it: China simultaneously diverts attention from its attacks, weakens the credibility of the US on cyber issues, undermines pro-western support in arab nations, undermines moderates in arab nations, etc...
Realize that being associated with the United States often undermines the credibility and popular support of moderate or pro-democracy parties in Arab states, where there is a lot of Anti-US feeling. People who strongly dislike some thing about Iran, for example, really like that it stands up to the United States.
This was a GOOD move politically on China's part, even though it is probably at least something of a lie, possible almost entirely a lie. My bet is the US, aside from Stuxnet, has been assisting with cyber-assets in the various revolutions--because those are the most costless assets to deploy, and they don't draw us into major wars. China is attempting to leverage that cyber activity against us by magnifying whatever role it played. Our recent statement that it can be an act of war lends their claims legal weight and makes it easier for anti-US papers and pundits and the international community to criticize the US.
I don't support China--I'd much rather have countries as US friends than as friends of China--but this was a great move on China's part.
> Actually thought while better than speech for some commands is worse for data entry...Human's don't think in a straight line.
Thought as we currently think, yes. But with some kind of mental training, we could learn to use a thought interface productively--perhaps setting a mental flag for dictation.
Agreed. Have you ever noticed how in Trek, computer voice interactions were generally limited to single actors in a given scene, generally either the ranking officer or a technical expert? Something like that might work.
The communicator was also voice-commanded, of course. But they never tried it in a bar.:)
> Poor programming practices opens you up to SQL injection.
Insecure programming practices, you mean. They're poor only in 99.9% of situations, i.e. where the need for security justifies the brief additional time. You may not need them, for example, in an in-house diagnostic script you're using for a small company that only two admins can use--provided that you are disciplined enoight not to let that spill over into your more secure coding.
The question is (1) at what point the origin of a cyber-attack presents presumptive evidence of state action that must be rebutted, (2) whether the absence of a showing that the state was not involved means that the US should be launching reprisal cyber-attacks against China. Also, (3) whether it does so already and we just don't hear about it.
At this point, there is a pattern of cyber-attacks on the US originating in China. If China does not hunt down the perpetrators, it should be considered complicit and the United States should strongly consider response in kind.
In the US at least, there's no law against discrimination on the basis of the ability to pass admissions tests that are rational. (They may not even have to be rational if the school isn't government--I'm not sure off-hand.) I suppose there could be one in Canada... I can see the fights in the press over it now... but it would be a remarkably stupid, dumb, stupid (and maybe redundant) idea that tends to show off the most inefficient and dumb (and redundant) parts of Canadian government.
Not really--he just likely has a horrible local hospital and has never seen a good one, and he's generalizing because that's his experience with the profession. Humans generalize based on limited experience--it doesn't make them morons, it just gives them a limited information set, and reflects a tendency to overgeneralize. Most doctors lie regularly for insurance purposes and liability reasons--I'm generalizing, but I don't *think* I'm overgeneralizing, and even if I were, it would not necessarily mean I was a moron.
Nah--From TFA: each facing six charges including theft, unauthorized use of a computer, using a device to obtain unauthorized service and theft of data.
Having Insurance is like winning a battle in which many people die: it's worse than almost anything, except for losing one/not having insurance when you need it.
I agree with you an GP on some levels but not others. The courts support that position, which is the current law, yes. (Generally.) I am not advocating making the flag holy, but I could see where someone could see it that way. I think it is a *much* less valid political statement than bumper stickers that ridicule the president--they are ridiculing an individual in a position and are commenting on the job, or the nation. Burning a flag isn't a comment, it's a stunt. I do recognize the danger, which is why I would only associate the most minimal penalties with flag-burning (e.g. civil infraction) and would limit the rule against it to a sui generis rule. (i.e. only applicable to flag burning, not to any other action or item by analogy or otherwise).
I'm generally very liberal about free speech. But there are a very few restraints I'm okay with.
Not necessarily--a commitment to pluralism does not mean one respects every point of view. We have laws which express the limits of relativism society is prepared to accept.
> Many Americans do, indeed, believe that there should be some restraint on flag burning. They are goose-stepping pricks.
Hi! Goose-stepping prick here. I know it's an unpopular position on slashdot, but I do happen to believe that burning the flag (other than to retire it) should not be okay. I wouldn't be okay with making it a serious offense either, but I'd be okay with it being maybe a tiny civil infraction--the flag represents something, a nation that is accepting of many points of view, a commitment to pluralism. It may be ironic to say, then, that it shouldn't be burned--but burning it is a rejection of the nation, not merely of policies. So I think you should be able to work as hard as you wan to effect change, to speak and act and do many things to change the way the nation functions, to transform it completely while acting withing the law, but burning the flag diminishes the sacrifice and service of the millions in government service, and does not say you wish to find a new and better future, but only that you're burning a symbol to get attention, and that there is no reform within the system.
But because of the slippery slope, I would want it to be a per se restriction--something that doesn't apply to the Bible or Koran, for example.
Because if a lack of freedom is constitutionalized, it is much harder to get it implied into the constitution at a later date--but if freedoms are recognized constitutionally, it is much harder for the government to prosecute you after violating them, and much harder to suspend them at whim.
It is unfortunate that morality is often taught via guilt by the weak-minded.
It is morality that should be the guide here. Open discussion on certain topics is inappropriate until someone has been given a chance to correct them, or at least fair warning that they exist. Major vulnerabilities in infrastructure, for example. But such chance cannot be indefinite in duration, because open discussion incentivizes people to get their acts together, and because any limits on free speech is inherently problematic in a pluralist society purporting to be governed by democratic ideals.
And other things really are significant national security issues: Satellite orbit info was actually a major problem about ten years ago (and I'm sure continues to be today), but pre-web, pretty much only Russia and China and a few other countries had the capability in their intelligence agencies to track our satellite movement. Once the web became popular, that information became much more widespread--making it much harder to get certain kind of intelligence on medium- or even low-technology nations, terrorists, etc...
True for editors--I was thinking of readers and web pages. The Ctrl+ feature of Word is incredibly useful, and the lack of education about it costs society a huge amount of time, collectively.
> The [reset] switch could be placed under a cover of sorts, or booby trapped to keep your brother away from it. Either way, it is an essential part of the machine.
Isn't it great how families rarely have to worry about tort liability?
Actually, the "complex" scrollbars seemed to have at least one useful feature--the ability to scroll by paragraphs. Making that easy, via scrollbar or key combination, might make reading easier for millions of people each day across the world. Or it might not. But it's worth doing some kind of study, at least--it struck me as a potentially useful feature, at least where the paragraph is not longer than the screen.
Slashdot Mirror
> I wonder why would USA want immunity...
Several reasons, some of them legitimate. There is a lot of anti-US sentiment in the world that makes the US doubt it can get a fair hearing in an international war crimes setting. Also, the US is the leading military power in the world, and its unique role in world affairs makes it much more likely to get dragged into court than other nations.
In the less legitimate realm, like other world powers, the drawbacks of certain international processes are greater for it than the benefits. It supports the ICC, but will not fully sign on because it does not trust the international community not to be anti-American, and because it would cost either side quite a few votes in domestic elections. Finally, when it does things badly, it does not want attention drawn to it, and signing on to the ICC makes it slightly harder to cover things up when they decide to for reasons of saving face--they need to pretend to do an investigation. The ICJ shows that pretty clearly--a CIA operation supporting terrorist techniques against communists during the cold war was dragged into the spotlight.
> I can't think of anything Nintendo has ever done to justify this.
LulzSec was mad because their princess was in another castle.
A lot of Americans live withing walking distance and have relatively unrestricted access to the press and the court system. DC has one of the highest lawyer-per-capita populations in the world. You can't walk ten feet without tripping over an NGO. If anyone tried to cover up something that big, a lot of those people would work very hard to prevent it--and they have media connections and strong grassroots networks.
> Winners are exempt from war crime trials.
@Nuremberg, sure. But that was when such trials were in their infancy.
Today, winners are exempt from war crime trials until regime change occurs in their nation. Then sometimes they are hauled before the ICC or another international tribunal, because the new regime is willing to give them up.
> The problem is that these crimes were committed by the police. Unless a local prosecutor indicts those uniformed hooligans, they will not face any punishment for their illegal actions. (They may be sued in civil courts, but this does not punish the perpetrators, but the local tax payers, who will pay the judgment.) It is unusual for a local authority to indict members of its own police force. In such a case, the U.S. Constitution can indeed provide an avenue for obtaining justice.
Actually, I think civil actions CAN reach the cops themselves, rather than just the government, if they're far enough out of line. Qualified immunity only extends officials in a search and seizure context, for example, when officers have "arguable probable cause." Most government officials are shielded up to a point, so that they won't be too "timid" in performing their duties out of a fear of litigation and liability (I doubt 5% of the prison guards in the country haven't been sued), but they aren't shielded infinitely. (Of course, their training and awareness of liability will vary.)
> Why not ? Well imagine you have to determine if it's the national holiday in India (they have a big elephant parade). But you don't actually have any tools smaller than elephants to measure this. So every hour or so you catapult an elephant into the main street of New Delhi, and you see if the elephant hits the detector you've set up at the other end of that street. Obviously any "detected" elephant will not be unaffected, and won't ever get to the place where the parade elephants normally end up, and your interference pattern will be gone. Now s/elephants/photons/ and you have the problem of quantum physics (and yes this is a simplification).
You just described quantum physics... with elephants.
Excellent.
> Sorry for violating Godwin's law, but, after all, 60 years ago Hitler accused the US of treating Jews inhumanely. This seems to be done in the same spirit. Oh right, 70 years by now. I'm getting old.
Yes, although this is a much better psyop. Think about it: China simultaneously diverts attention from its attacks, weakens the credibility of the US on cyber issues, undermines pro-western support in arab nations, undermines moderates in arab nations, etc...
Realize that being associated with the United States often undermines the credibility and popular support of moderate or pro-democracy parties in Arab states, where there is a lot of Anti-US feeling. People who strongly dislike some thing about Iran, for example, really like that it stands up to the United States.
This was a GOOD move politically on China's part, even though it is probably at least something of a lie, possible almost entirely a lie. My bet is the US, aside from Stuxnet, has been assisting with cyber-assets in the various revolutions--because those are the most costless assets to deploy, and they don't draw us into major wars. China is attempting to leverage that cyber activity against us by magnifying whatever role it played. Our recent statement that it can be an act of war lends their claims legal weight and makes it easier for anti-US papers and pundits and the international community to criticize the US.
I don't support China--I'd much rather have countries as US friends than as friends of China--but this was a great move on China's part.
> Actually thought while better than speech for some commands is worse for data entry...Human's don't think in a straight line.
Thought as we currently think, yes. But with some kind of mental training, we could learn to use a thought interface productively--perhaps setting a mental flag for dictation.
Agreed. Have you ever noticed how in Trek, computer voice interactions were generally limited to single actors in a given scene, generally either the ranking officer or a technical expert? Something like that might work.
The communicator was also voice-commanded, of course. But they never tried it in a bar. :)
> Poor programming practices opens you up to SQL injection.
Insecure programming practices, you mean. They're poor only in 99.9% of situations, i.e. where the need for security justifies the brief additional time. You may not need them, for example, in an in-house diagnostic script you're using for a small company that only two admins can use--provided that you are disciplined enoight not to let that spill over into your more secure coding.
The question is (1) at what point the origin of a cyber-attack presents presumptive evidence of state action that must be rebutted, (2) whether the absence of a showing that the state was not involved means that the US should be launching reprisal cyber-attacks against China. Also, (3) whether it does so already and we just don't hear about it.
At this point, there is a pattern of cyber-attacks on the US originating in China. If China does not hunt down the perpetrators, it should be considered complicit and the United States should strongly consider response in kind.
In the US at least, there's no law against discrimination on the basis of the ability to pass admissions tests that are rational. (They may not even have to be rational if the school isn't government--I'm not sure off-hand.) I suppose there could be one in Canada... I can see the fights in the press over it now... but it would be a remarkably stupid, dumb, stupid (and maybe redundant) idea that tends to show off the most inefficient and dumb (and redundant) parts of Canadian government.
Not really--he just likely has a horrible local hospital and has never seen a good one, and he's generalizing because that's his experience with the profession. Humans generalize based on limited experience--it doesn't make them morons, it just gives them a limited information set, and reflects a tendency to overgeneralize. Most doctors lie regularly for insurance purposes and liability reasons--I'm generalizing, but I don't *think* I'm overgeneralizing, and even if I were, it would not necessarily mean I was a moron.
Nah--From TFA: each facing six charges including theft, unauthorized use of a computer, using a device to obtain unauthorized service and theft of data.
Having Insurance is like winning a battle in which many people die: it's worse than almost anything, except for losing one/not having insurance when you need it.
From TFA: each facing six charges including theft, unauthorized use of a computer, using a device to obtain unauthorized service and theft of data.
I agree with you an GP on some levels but not others. The courts support that position, which is the current law, yes. (Generally.) I am not advocating making the flag holy, but I could see where someone could see it that way. I think it is a *much* less valid political statement than bumper stickers that ridicule the president--they are ridiculing an individual in a position and are commenting on the job, or the nation. Burning a flag isn't a comment, it's a stunt. I do recognize the danger, which is why I would only associate the most minimal penalties with flag-burning (e.g. civil infraction) and would limit the rule against it to a sui generis rule. (i.e. only applicable to flag burning, not to any other action or item by analogy or otherwise).
I'm generally very liberal about free speech. But there are a very few restraints I'm okay with.
Not necessarily--a commitment to pluralism does not mean one respects every point of view. We have laws which express the limits of relativism society is prepared to accept.
> Many Americans do, indeed, believe that there should be some restraint on flag burning. They are goose-stepping pricks.
Hi! Goose-stepping prick here. I know it's an unpopular position on slashdot, but I do happen to believe that burning the flag (other than to retire it) should not be okay. I wouldn't be okay with making it a serious offense either, but I'd be okay with it being maybe a tiny civil infraction--the flag represents something, a nation that is accepting of many points of view, a commitment to pluralism. It may be ironic to say, then, that it shouldn't be burned--but burning it is a rejection of the nation, not merely of policies. So I think you should be able to work as hard as you wan to effect change, to speak and act and do many things to change the way the nation functions, to transform it completely while acting withing the law, but burning the flag diminishes the sacrifice and service of the millions in government service, and does not say you wish to find a new and better future, but only that you're burning a symbol to get attention, and that there is no reform within the system.
But because of the slippery slope, I would want it to be a per se restriction--something that doesn't apply to the Bible or Koran, for example.
Because if a lack of freedom is constitutionalized, it is much harder to get it implied into the constitution at a later date--but if freedoms are recognized constitutionally, it is much harder for the government to prosecute you after violating them, and much harder to suspend them at whim.
China, Iran, India, or someone planning to sell it (Russia, Organized Crime, etc...)?
I suppose Israel could do it too. (They'd risk a bit if they got caught, but we know they have the capability.)
It is unfortunate that morality is often taught via guilt by the weak-minded.
It is morality that should be the guide here. Open discussion on certain topics is inappropriate until someone has been given a chance to correct them, or at least fair warning that they exist. Major vulnerabilities in infrastructure, for example. But such chance cannot be indefinite in duration, because open discussion incentivizes people to get their acts together, and because any limits on free speech is inherently problematic in a pluralist society purporting to be governed by democratic ideals.
And other things really are significant national security issues: Satellite orbit info was actually a major problem about ten years ago (and I'm sure continues to be today), but pre-web, pretty much only Russia and China and a few other countries had the capability in their intelligence agencies to track our satellite movement. Once the web became popular, that information became much more widespread--making it much harder to get certain kind of intelligence on medium- or even low-technology nations, terrorists, etc...
True for editors--I was thinking of readers and web pages. The Ctrl+ feature of Word is incredibly useful, and the lack of education about it costs society a huge amount of time, collectively.
> The [reset] switch could be placed under a cover of sorts, or booby trapped to keep your brother away from it. Either way, it is an essential part of the machine.
Isn't it great how families rarely have to worry about tort liability?
"So HOW did your brother turn into Don King?"
Actually, the "complex" scrollbars seemed to have at least one useful feature--the ability to scroll by paragraphs. Making that easy, via scrollbar or key combination, might make reading easier for millions of people each day across the world. Or it might not. But it's worth doing some kind of study, at least--it struck me as a potentially useful feature, at least where the paragraph is not longer than the screen.