I haven't seen the news yet, but from what platform are they attacking? I saw the leader of uzbekistan saying that absolutely no tropp transports or fighter/bombers will be allowed to stage from their airfield, but humanitarian ons could.
I don't think police can stop you at will and lock you up for 24 hours. They cannot stop you without probable cause (although there was a law recently passed in California that makes turning around and walking the other way when you see a cop 'probable cause', which irks me), and if they do have cause (e.g., you look like escaped Charles Manson), then the writ of habeus corpus demands that they produce the evidence within 24 hours or release you. These checks are supposed to protect you as a US citizen.
My point is that a possible scenario might involve random acts of terrorism on a small(er) scale, the only preventative of which Might be internal passports. At that point we have lost the War to Keep America Free (one of the good wars!). Rather than live in a police state, I might be tempted to allow myself to get killed by a mad bomber - to live in a heightened state of anxiety much like the Israelis and Brits and Micks do today - rather than live in fear of my own totalitarian police. Sorry, but I read the Gulag Archipelago just recently and I'd definitely give my life to prevent that from happening to this great nation of ours. For the children...
And it's not a question of whether an ID card would offer similar benefits, at least that is a debatable point. We would get one because an emboldened law enforcement lobby would demand one. They only need to assert that it would help them root out evil to convince congress in these trying times.
In a related note, it is gratifying to see congress delaying the passage of some of the more egregious wiretapping legislation.
My other post was a little rambling, but the gist of it is: we must truly, now, each and every one of us, be prepared to give our lives for Freedom. As the bodies stack up, we must be resilient and resolute. The alternative is presenting your papers to authorities each and every time you go into a different city.
Are you equating the intrusion into the private lives of millions of people by the likes of Crusader-for-the-almighty-dollar Larry Ellison and the All-too-ready US government is like seller ratings on Ebay?
I think what I am saying is that there is a sort of rating that airlines could apply to people based on their past record. You must understand that it is difficult for me to think on this as a possible solution. I agree that limits on power are the only assurance that we are safe from our own government, and I maintain that actions abroad by our government are the primary reason for attacks on the ordinary folk. I am just plain out of solutions, technical or otherwise...
Let me say this about Ellison et al: there are three groups of Americans. 1) people who struggle to find out what the right thing is (I would put humbling ourselves before the other nations and enlisting their help in eradication terrorism worldwide as a step in the right direction, i.e., joining the international community as a peer, not a superior); 2) people who are fearful of a weakened nation and so feel the need to kick some Arab ass in front of the world (these guys have buttons that are pushed by...) 3) people who would profit from this and see it as an 'opportunity'. I don't have much love for the latter two groups, and I agree that when I hear Ellison talk about it my blood curdles.
But you're suggesting that America become like Israel and Great Britain, aren't you? God, remember what the Tylenol scare did to us! Now we have all these safety caps and little foil covers on our ketchup!
I think we are still in shock, rage, and denial, so I caution against making any moves right now, at least until the bodies are buried.
I suppose this is one of the biggest challenges faced by this nation, and I fear that part of the answer is that true Libery, Justice, and Freedom cannot exist in this world today. The Founding Fathers were quite idealistic in their day, but in their idealism they founded this the greatest nation. But power has corrupted our government, it's true, and so we are reaping the whirlwind.
By the way, you mention that our government 'in no way prepared for [this]'... what would you have suggested they do? The answer to that is probably what we should be doing now, but I don't see a solution once implemented as being harmoniously coincident with a free country. It's as if reduced privacy and freedom is a de facto consequence of terrorism, and I personally don't want it. In fact, at my core, I agree with you that we are just going to have to die if we want freedom to live. But Fear and Terror are powerful motivators!
My argument boils down to: if you want security, you need the cards, but if you get the cards, you lose your Freedom (I am always an advocate for fighting to get freedom back, 'cuz, just like Jack Handey's car key he dropped in the lava, man, it's gone). If you want Freedom, you must be willing to die for it.
Some days I want Security and some days I want Freedom. But every day that Americans clamor that they want Security, the Law and Legislators always know just what to do: empower themselves at the expense of the Constitution.
...but I came up with this idea as well, after considering all the options. It's the only real way to insure security in America today. I considered it in the same light that ebay ranks sellers on their service. People get extra credit for being good merchants, and buyers are less reluctant to send a paypal check to them, relying on the credit to assure them they'll get their stuff.
In the same manner, we might be able to flash such a card in the airport and not have so much hassle getting on the plane. And someone who doesn't have one would be subject to more intense 'scrutiny'.
The downside, of course, is - as Ellison puts it - we would have to accept the limited measure of privacy we probably already have. But the positives might outweigh the negatives.
I would allow it if it were completely voluntary. I know, I know, it really wouldn't be voluntary if you couldn't get on a plane without one, but I don't know how to make this place safe, and there don't seem to be too many alternatives at this point.
We are truly being attacked from all sides, here, from within and without. If this tragedy has made hundreds more would-be martyrs and suicide bombers out of our enemy, then terrorism might become more commonplace in America. Is it not already a daily part of life in Israel, Northern Ireland, and England? It seems to me that we could see such mundane but equally terrifying events as maniacal suicidal guys in cars mowing down people at a park or a beach, running through shopping centers with guns, all sorts of exploitations of our complex and highly-technological society.
Of course, the concept of America as the shining beacon of Freedom, Justice, and Liberty would be gone. It would be a frank admission that such ideals can't work in this day and age.
I'm really torn on this subject, and I know that my 'devil's advocate' position supporting those cards is probably not popular, and certainly in opposition to the idealism I had in my younger days; but it's possible that I hadn't thought it out back then.
It's not so much fun being an American anymore...
I truly welcome your opposing viewpoint here, but please, if you do respond to this, tell me 1) are there viable alternatives to this that will stop the terrorist threat (um, beyond 'threat', really...), and 2) what, in combination with reduced surveillance, would reduce terrorism? Besides having a 'non-corporativist' government, of course. We suspect that might work, if we could only get ourselves to try that.
Gee, it's fascinating to see how quickly we return to business as usual. It seems like only yesterday we were all united in one belief to get the bastids that perpetrated this heinous act on our sovereign soil. Now we're back to 'damn you if you think you're going to force me to give up my rights'.
But that is probably exactly what our elected officials are asking for if they pass such a bill. Ya know, the American people would be united in the cause if they weren't excluded from it at the start.
What I was thinking was that the President would ask for cooperation from the American people, to help us get the terrorists we would voluntarily open up our access to trusted law officers who would investigate the terrorist cases at hand, and then, when they completed their work in a particular area, they would return individual sovereignty back to the citizen.
But that isn't what happened. Apparently the Senate is used to passing such open-ended laws without feeling the need to consult with their constituency; oh, wait, they did consult with the campaign contributors, didn't they? I'm sure they did.
Dammit, I get so cynical sometimes. It is hard to be an American, you know? Especially when you are trying to prevent the terrorists from gaining the only victory they are willing to lay their lives down for.
Destruction of the American Way of life: Freedom, Justice, and Liberty.
It's not about taking over the seat of the government. We are not about to start speaking Farsi if we lose this one, ya know. The "Real Estate" here is not on a map, it is in our collective hearts and minds.
I just don't trust any of the authorities enough to let them have more and more power over me. And neither did my forefathers.
Read this. It's a comment by a very strange dude about numbers... There are other comments. This guy seems to know something, or I'm a troll victim, for sure!!
What the hell happened to the story about the woman who got her ISP account yanked because the MPAA complained to Time-Warner, her provider? It had a link to salon and everything.
Did the lawyers yank the./ story, too? Can anyone answer this? Has this ever happened before? Prettttty Ominous....
Ok, mod me down now, but please answer the question first.
One must ask the question: "Why are so many technological advances (e.g., echelon, carnivore, street cameras) being coupled with so many bad laws (UCITA, DMCA, incl Napster and MS rulings)?", and again, the answer seems to be that power begets power, ever ratcheting itself up to higher and higher levels through power acquisition. Here we see the mechanism by which power is obtained: again, in the Gulag Archipelago, the budding country needed powerful laws to effect its sweeping changes, so it came up with Article 58, which was very broadly stated and vague. The technology they used back then was the technology of persuasion (i.e., torture) to - in what must have somewhat inspired Orwell! - elicit confessions and enable the police to nab anyone at any time.
Now we have this all-encompassing DCMA law and technologies like carnivore ready to enforce it. They go hand-in-hand, of course, and play into each other. We need Carnivore to enforce the DMCA; we need street cameras to prosecute the drug war (and helicopters and militia and battering ram tanks and don't get me started); we need the Maser gun to break up the riots. It is kind of a "military industrial complex" of law enforcement, and Disney wants it, and MS wants it, and Monsanto wants it - all to secure the revenue stream for their interests!
Once this power is established it can be sold to the highest bidder - one of the more insightful points of the "Derek" story.
I want a government limited in its power over people, but with enough power derived from the people to keep the corps properly regulated. But its not working that way. We instead have a government that is expanding its power, corporations that are reaping the benefits of that, and people who find their behaviors more and more circumscribed every day.
That story about Derek was funny, and it reminded me of the book I am currently reading, The Gulag Archipelago, by Solzhynetsin (sp!). That non-fictional story is an account of how power can corrupt, basically. The problem in Stalinist Russia was that the Reds were, if I have this right, basically trying to create a new society the ideology of which was vulnerable to the thoughts of objective people who could see the shortcomings of it. In their effort to control thought, the officials found it necessary to root out all possible instances of anti-communist behavior; unfortunately this included such things as not reaching the party farm production objectives (ten years in prison for not growing enough grain!) and not surrendering to German armies in WWII (when the POWs were returned to the SU in '45 - by Churchill, incidentally, against the soldiers' wills - rather than being welcomed back as heroes, they were arrested, tortured, and given 10-yr sentences, since they must have been spies to have survived the German camps!). Basically, Stalin, in his paranoia, and by extension the entire nation, found it necessary to control behavior by draconian means.
My point (and I do have one) is that the enforcement of infinitesimally minute behaviors requires the rooting out and punishing of the majority of the citizens of a nation: the mother country goes to war on its citizens. The way to do this is to put each and every citizen at risk of loss of liberty; i.e., each citizen is breaking some law or another. In this manner, the State gains control over the behavior of its population, and in a greater degree than just copying ebooks. Once you have copied an ebook, or, taken to the logical extreme, say, exceeded 55 mph (or snuck a beer into a college football game), you are a criminal.
But, while speeding doesn't leave a record of itself, ebook copying does and so leaves a legacy, a record of the crime. It can be likened to arresting you for a failed drug test; you are not doing a crime now, but there is proof that you once did.
For these reasons, the framers of the Constitution would wisely refrain from endorsing the bastardization of their concept of protection of Science and Arts through copyright. The prosecution of the law requires that we become Stalinist in the degree to which we must root out the crime. Napster points this out effectively, in my opinion: the only way to catch all those crimes is to monitor each and every terminal 24/7. And that gives away too much power to the government for freedom to be guaranteed, even in a Democracy.
If you didn't follow that, feel free to email me with any questions you might have...
You're right, of course. Traditional civil disobedience would be the way to go in an ordinarily democratic society, in which the will of the people prevails.
Their concept of civil disobedience is a little different than Thoreau's in that they don't seem to favor individual acts. They are talking about public mass demonstrations. But what demonstrations are we talking about here? A million man march on Redmond? I am not sure that would do a thing.
File this one under "Monkey Wrench"... You can debate the morality and ethical implications at your leisure, but stop calling it civil disobedience, and start calling it what it really is(dig the Star Trek reference). It might make it harder to justify, and easier to vilify, n'est ce pas?
I'm just barely old enough (okay, I'm old) to have missed LEGO's for the most part. I got to play with Erector Sets! Now those were Real Toys (TM). We were too poor to buy the one with the motor, but I got the one just below it for Christmas. Started out building the stuff in the pictures in the instruction book, but ended up making spinning fan-like objects that could cut fingers in a flash. Oh, and guns, of course...
They should have stayed on it if they truly wanted to be Great Men. That they have achieved great things is indisputable... aw, hell, I think you missed my point...
My point had to do with the hubris that came from achieving great things. One must, by the evidence of the actions of these three, come to believe in one's own infallibility because they were responsible for a great discovery or invention. I tend to look up to scientists as transcending the pettiness of the common man, to hold goals generally loftier than self-interest. Each one of these men were in a position of power and each abused that power.
I think you must think I am just jealous, that what I am saying is a case of sour grapes, but you're wrong. I am trying to point out the errors of the past so that we don't repeat them, but I am afraid that we will, in the field of genetics especially. The lesson of Frankenstein and yes, Jurassic Park is the lesson I am referring to here.
In my career, I have endeavoured to not lie about scientific or engineering results to get funding, and if I ever were to do that, I am sure it wouldn't sit easily on my conscience. I don't think these men had that 'problem'.
The article was funny, and a good reminiscence, but:
Shockley, Teller, and LeMay
what an unholy trinity that is!
Shockley, the Nobel Prize winner who determined to devote his life to eugenics;
Teller, the brilliant scientist who pushed the DoD further into the realm of "The Super", and beyond;
and, finally, LeMay (brilliantly portrayed by George C. Scott in "Dr. Strangelove"), the hawk's hawk who would stop at nothing to achieve global superiority for his country, even at the expense of the American people.
These men, while they performed great deeds in their lifetimes, are to me a good example of how excessive hubris in the scientific and technical arena can be a very dangerous thing, indeed. None of these men can be considered Great Men, in my opinion, because they wandered from the path of integrity and truth in their zealous pursuit of technology for technology's sake.
But the article makes for a great read, and I'm sure in their day these men were admired and respected. I have the advantage of hindsight, and hope that we can all learn from these men how, for some vicious mole of nature in them, even the greatest of men are prone to fall!
errrr... me too! Here is the quote I carried over from the text to start this post:
She also suggested a more sinister reason most of Big Media doesn't seem to care: "I suspect it has something to do with the fact that there's a lot of media conglomeration now, and a lot of the mainstream media in the U.S. is actually owned by content holders.
I don't know for how long I've been saying this exact thing. All you have to do is flick on the TV set and watch a half-hour's worth of news.
But Freedom of Speech! How far have we fallen when Journalists don't even have enough personal integrity to comment on this thing that directly threatens them! I recall the portrayal of Mike Wallace in the movie "The Insider". Was this the last true journalist?
It's like we're hearing "just shut up and play with all the nice, shiny toys we've given you."
The important point to make here is that mainstream media is rapidly devolving and losing credibility. One should - as many of the./ fans here do - avail oneself of sites such as cryptome.org, indymedia, suck^H^H^H^H, and, yes, here, of course (but not adequacy, IMO the wellspring of trolls, the Phil Hendrie of websites). If enough people patronize the important websites, and it happens enough times that You are the Only informed person among your cowworkers, then, with time, the credibility of such sites will rise, DMCA will fall by the wayside, and freedom of speech will reign as supremely as it should with the internet catalyst.
The battle is about the entrenched, old-school interests trying to maintain a foothold on their source of revenue. But - hopefully - it is the case that they will lose that hold if they fail to change and adopt the curent mindset that prevails in places like this one.
If they win, and it sure looks like they are winning today, then God help us we have lost a lot.
But, you know, we have been losing battles daily ever since the mid-70's...
How is this not going to absolutely convince the judges deciding the penalty phase of the MS trial that the company must be broken up into at least two, if not three separate companies?
The alternative is that, for any other competing browser provider (btw, there is no telling how many other browser providing companies were scared off from competing when they saw what happened to Netscape) to achieve support for its product in the future, it also must develop its own operating system!
I'm convinced that the OS folks need to be broken off from the apps folks by dint of this action - which can only be considered 'smart' because it shows arrogance and confidence in MS political clout, unless I don't get all their strategy - now what does it take for judges to understand this?
Also, think of this: if there were a break-up, do you think that the OS side would continue to push.NET in the form it is currently designed? I think the answer has to be 'no', since the function of a post break-up Windows operating system would serve nobody's apps except un-upgraded MS Office etc...
Guy, first thing. It's cool and all, and no problemo if you don't want to.
But if you want to make a change, you have to have the courage to put your name on your ideas first. Don't publish anonymously, 'cuz I can' trust you to respond or even read my response.
Bluesee
Kids Want Out
on
Seanbaby.com
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think that the generation below mine has been so inundated with a barrage of glittery sights and sounds that they are numb. It sounds like Seanbaby (which is./'d already, by the way) consists of just those kids, who are to be regarded as spoiled in one sense and to be pitied as lab rats in another. The science of media manipulation is probably the richest-funded research in the world; They (yes, They) are desperate to understand how to manipulate us. Our 'culture' therefore, has become awash with things that we never would consider pleasurable or desirable, but they are things that corporations have determined are necessary to their survival, i.e., eyeballs or clickthroughs or 'just making the damn sale', and whatever that entails.
But these things cannot be genuine, because they do not spring from genuine creative energies. They therefore don't touch the hearts and sensibilities of our youth. So we as parents are left with the common lament of past parents (as so eloquently pointed out by the Beatles in "She's Leaving Home"): "We gave them everything. Why do they turn from us?" They turn from us because we gave them nothing, except blinders and 'sensation as experience'. Whereas my generation (late 60's thru 70's and 80's) was somewhat coddled, this one is just plain numb, and it takes a lot to wake people up anymore, so shock and 'Extreme' (how many times have we heard that buzzword?) sports and experiences are necessary anymore. Trust is lost; truth is meaningless; connection is severed. One can only wonder how this generation will raise its children? They will have a tough time to the degree that they - for reasons of expedience - have bought into whatever the media culture was selling while they were growing up.
Oh, and please don't bring up Suck; every Wednesday without Polly and Terry just reminds me of how much this Promise is failing, falling to the likes of Disney and AOL.
You know, I was going through my mp3's the other day, and I realized how things have changed. The first 30 or so songs I dl'd were of Radiohead (only live bootlegs, mind you, and yes, two wrongs do make a right here), but they weren't off of Napster, they were downloaded off of fan's pages! You just don't find that sort of access anymore. Not like the old days, ahhhh.... 1998, I remember it like it was yesterday...
We've given them everything. We've taken away everything. It depends on your perspective.
I think that's where we lose sight of our (I'm an American btw) strength. We can impose econmoic sanctions on countries, and they do hurt! These countries signed on to the CTBT voluntarily, in the interests of not only lessening the tensions in the world and making it a safer place, but also so they could divert some of their revenue to better use.
It's easy to verify a *** kiloton explosion, btw, with seismic detectors, so verification is easy. Plus I think you can detect the radiation from space, not sure. Maybe with the very same spy satellites we are talking about. Howzat for gettin back on topic!
Looking away a few degrees is the best way to view stars because the fovea, a concentrated bundle of cones, is located right at the center of the field of view. Whilst its great for seeing color, it isn't as good for seeing dim objects; you need more rods for that. So the best way to look at stars is to look slightly askance at them.
The Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, or CTBT, wasn't ratified by the US, who, incidentally were the first signatories, because the Republicans were so consumed with their hatred of Clinton that they couldn't see straight to give in to even the slightest notion of a 'victory' to him. Partisan and short-sighted politics thereby diminished the US in the eyes of the world (once again), and severely reduced the level of security in the world. Realize that the US stands to benefit greatly from the CTBT; having already tested its weapons to a great degree, they would only become more secure when Pakistan, India, et al voluntarily gave up the ability to test (and thereby develop) their own deadly creations.
Between that, the Kyoto protocol, NMD, and now this discovery that we have been 'in error' on our satellite orbits (is Russia truthful about thiers?), our prestige in the world is reduced to that of a big bully with an attitude problem, rather than the shining beacon of democratic promise and economic prosperity through principled administration of a higher ideal. Plus the fact that W is arrogantly and defiantly ignorant of the issues, and needs Condo Rice to tell him that Mexico is part of North America...
slightly ot, but it puts it all in perspective, ya think?
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't seen the news yet, but from what platform are they attacking? I saw the leader of uzbekistan saying that absolutely no tropp transports or fighter/bombers will be allowed to stage from their airfield, but humanitarian ons could.
I don't think police can stop you at will and lock you up for 24 hours. They cannot stop you without probable cause (although there was a law recently passed in California that makes turning around and walking the other way when you see a cop 'probable cause', which irks me), and if they do have cause (e.g., you look like escaped Charles Manson), then the writ of habeus corpus demands that they produce the evidence within 24 hours or release you. These checks are supposed to protect you as a US citizen.
My point is that a possible scenario might involve random acts of terrorism on a small(er) scale, the only preventative of which Might be internal passports. At that point we have lost the War to Keep America Free (one of the good wars!). Rather than live in a police state, I might be tempted to allow myself to get killed by a mad bomber - to live in a heightened state of anxiety much like the Israelis and Brits and Micks do today - rather than live in fear of my own totalitarian police. Sorry, but I read the Gulag Archipelago just recently and I'd definitely give my life to prevent that from happening to this great nation of ours. For the children...
And it's not a question of whether an ID card would offer similar benefits, at least that is a debatable point. We would get one because an emboldened law enforcement lobby would demand one. They only need to assert that it would help them root out evil to convince congress in these trying times.
In a related note, it is gratifying to see congress delaying the passage of some of the more egregious wiretapping legislation.
My other post was a little rambling, but the gist of it is: we must truly, now, each and every one of us, be prepared to give our lives for Freedom. As the bodies stack up, we must be resilient and resolute. The alternative is presenting your papers to authorities each and every time you go into a different city.
Are you equating the intrusion into the private lives of millions of people by the likes of Crusader-for-the-almighty-dollar Larry Ellison and the All-too-ready US government is like seller ratings on Ebay?
I think what I am saying is that there is a sort of rating that airlines could apply to people based on their past record. You must understand that it is difficult for me to think on this as a possible solution. I agree that limits on power are the only assurance that we are safe from our own government, and I maintain that actions abroad by our government are the primary reason for attacks on the ordinary folk. I am just plain out of solutions, technical or otherwise...
Let me say this about Ellison et al: there are three groups of Americans. 1) people who struggle to find out what the right thing is (I would put humbling ourselves before the other nations and enlisting their help in eradication terrorism worldwide as a step in the right direction, i.e., joining the international community as a peer, not a superior); 2) people who are fearful of a weakened nation and so feel the need to kick some Arab ass in front of the world (these guys have buttons that are pushed by...) 3) people who would profit from this and see it as an 'opportunity'. I don't have much love for the latter two groups, and I agree that when I hear Ellison talk about it my blood curdles.
But you're suggesting that America become like Israel and Great Britain, aren't you? God, remember what the Tylenol scare did to us! Now we have all these safety caps and little foil covers on our ketchup!
I think we are still in shock, rage, and denial, so I caution against making any moves right now, at least until the bodies are buried.
I suppose this is one of the biggest challenges faced by this nation, and I fear that part of the answer is that true Libery, Justice, and Freedom cannot exist in this world today. The Founding Fathers were quite idealistic in their day, but in their idealism they founded this the greatest nation. But power has corrupted our government, it's true, and so we are reaping the whirlwind.
By the way, you mention that our government 'in no way prepared for [this]'... what would you have suggested they do? The answer to that is probably what we should be doing now, but I don't see a solution once implemented as being harmoniously coincident with a free country. It's as if reduced privacy and freedom is a de facto consequence of terrorism, and I personally don't want it. In fact, at my core, I agree with you that we are just going to have to die if we want freedom to live. But Fear and Terror are powerful motivators!
My argument boils down to: if you want security, you need the cards, but if you get the cards, you lose your Freedom (I am always an advocate for fighting to get freedom back, 'cuz, just like Jack Handey's car key he dropped in the lava, man, it's gone). If you want Freedom, you must be willing to die for it.
Some days I want Security and some days I want Freedom. But every day that Americans clamor that they want Security, the Law and Legislators always know just what to do: empower themselves at the expense of the Constitution.
...but I came up with this idea as well, after considering all the options. It's the only real way to insure security in America today. I considered it in the same light that ebay ranks sellers on their service. People get extra credit for being good merchants, and buyers are less reluctant to send a paypal check to them, relying on the credit to assure them they'll get their stuff.
In the same manner, we might be able to flash such a card in the airport and not have so much hassle getting on the plane. And someone who doesn't have one would be subject to more intense 'scrutiny'.
The downside, of course, is - as Ellison puts it - we would have to accept the limited measure of privacy we probably already have. But the positives might outweigh the negatives.
I would allow it if it were completely voluntary. I know, I know, it really wouldn't be voluntary if you couldn't get on a plane without one, but I don't know how to make this place safe, and there don't seem to be too many alternatives at this point.
We are truly being attacked from all sides, here, from within and without. If this tragedy has made hundreds more would-be martyrs and suicide bombers out of our enemy, then terrorism might become more commonplace in America. Is it not already a daily part of life in Israel, Northern Ireland, and England? It seems to me that we could see such mundane but equally terrifying events as maniacal suicidal guys in cars mowing down people at a park or a beach, running through shopping centers with guns, all sorts of exploitations of our complex and highly-technological society.
Of course, the concept of America as the shining beacon of Freedom, Justice, and Liberty would be gone. It would be a frank admission that such ideals can't work in this day and age.
I'm really torn on this subject, and I know that my 'devil's advocate' position supporting those cards is probably not popular, and certainly in opposition to the idealism I had in my younger days; but it's possible that I hadn't thought it out back then.
It's not so much fun being an American anymore...
I truly welcome your opposing viewpoint here, but please, if you do respond to this, tell me 1) are there viable alternatives to this that will stop the terrorist threat (um, beyond 'threat', really...), and 2) what, in combination with reduced surveillance, would reduce terrorism? Besides having a 'non-corporativist' government, of course. We suspect that might work, if we could only get ourselves to try that.
Gee, it's fascinating to see how quickly we return to business as usual. It seems like only yesterday we were all united in one belief to get the bastids that perpetrated this heinous act on our sovereign soil. Now we're back to 'damn you if you think you're going to force me to give up my rights'.
But that is probably exactly what our elected officials are asking for if they pass such a bill. Ya know, the American people would be united in the cause if they weren't excluded from it at the start.
What I was thinking was that the President would ask for cooperation from the American people, to help us get the terrorists we would voluntarily open up our access to trusted law officers who would investigate the terrorist cases at hand, and then, when they completed their work in a particular area, they would return individual sovereignty back to the citizen.
But that isn't what happened. Apparently the Senate is used to passing such open-ended laws without feeling the need to consult with their constituency; oh, wait, they did consult with the campaign contributors, didn't they? I'm sure they did.
Dammit, I get so cynical sometimes. It is hard to be an American, you know? Especially when you are trying to prevent the terrorists from gaining the only victory they are willing to lay their lives down for.
Destruction of the American Way of life: Freedom, Justice, and Liberty.
It's not about taking over the seat of the government. We are not about to start speaking Farsi if we lose this one, ya know. The "Real Estate" here is not on a map, it is in our collective hearts and minds.
I just don't trust any of the authorities enough to let them have more and more power over me. And neither did my forefathers.
Read this. It's a comment by a very strange dude about numbers... There are other comments. This guy seems to know something, or I'm a troll victim, for sure!!
Hey man, go to deja.com and do a search on this guy. There is something going on here.
= en &lr=&safe=off&btnG=Google+Search&site=groups
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Xinoehpoel&hl
Off Topic.
./ story, too? Can anyone answer this? Has this ever happened before? Prettttty Ominous....
What the hell happened to the story about the woman who got her ISP account yanked because the MPAA complained to Time-Warner, her provider? It had a link to salon and everything.
Did the lawyers yank the
Ok, mod me down now, but please answer the question first.
One must ask the question: "Why are so many technological advances (e.g., echelon, carnivore, street cameras) being coupled with so many bad laws (UCITA, DMCA, incl Napster and MS rulings)?", and again, the answer seems to be that power begets power, ever ratcheting itself up to higher and higher levels through power acquisition. Here we see the mechanism by which power is obtained: again, in the Gulag Archipelago, the budding country needed powerful laws to effect its sweeping changes, so it came up with Article 58, which was very broadly stated and vague. The technology they used back then was the technology of persuasion (i.e., torture) to - in what must have somewhat inspired Orwell! - elicit confessions and enable the police to nab anyone at any time.
Now we have this all-encompassing DCMA law and technologies like carnivore ready to enforce it. They go hand-in-hand, of course, and play into each other. We need Carnivore to enforce the DMCA; we need street cameras to prosecute the drug war (and helicopters and militia and battering ram tanks and don't get me started); we need the Maser gun to break up the riots. It is kind of a "military industrial complex" of law enforcement, and Disney wants it, and MS wants it, and Monsanto wants it - all to secure the revenue stream for their interests!
Once this power is established it can be sold to the highest bidder - one of the more insightful points of the "Derek" story.
I want a government limited in its power over people, but with enough power derived from the people to keep the corps properly regulated. But its not working that way. We instead have a government that is expanding its power, corporations that are reaping the benefits of that, and people who find their behaviors more and more circumscribed every day.
That story about Derek was funny, and it reminded me of the book I am currently reading, The Gulag Archipelago, by Solzhynetsin (sp!). That non-fictional story is an account of how power can corrupt, basically. The problem in Stalinist Russia was that the Reds were, if I have this right, basically trying to create a new society the ideology of which was vulnerable to the thoughts of objective people who could see the shortcomings of it. In their effort to control thought, the officials found it necessary to root out all possible instances of anti-communist behavior; unfortunately this included such things as not reaching the party farm production objectives (ten years in prison for not growing enough grain!) and not surrendering to German armies in WWII (when the POWs were returned to the SU in '45 - by Churchill, incidentally, against the soldiers' wills - rather than being welcomed back as heroes, they were arrested, tortured, and given 10-yr sentences, since they must have been spies to have survived the German camps!). Basically, Stalin, in his paranoia, and by extension the entire nation, found it necessary to control behavior by draconian means.
My point (and I do have one) is that the enforcement of infinitesimally minute behaviors requires the rooting out and punishing of the majority of the citizens of a nation: the mother country goes to war on its citizens. The way to do this is to put each and every citizen at risk of loss of liberty; i.e., each citizen is breaking some law or another. In this manner, the State gains control over the behavior of its population, and in a greater degree than just copying ebooks. Once you have copied an ebook, or, taken to the logical extreme, say, exceeded 55 mph (or snuck a beer into a college football game), you are a criminal.
But, while speeding doesn't leave a record of itself, ebook copying does and so leaves a legacy, a record of the crime. It can be likened to arresting you for a failed drug test; you are not doing a crime now, but there is proof that you once did.
For these reasons, the framers of the Constitution would wisely refrain from endorsing the bastardization of their concept of protection of Science and Arts through copyright. The prosecution of the law requires that we become Stalinist in the degree to which we must root out the crime. Napster points this out effectively, in my opinion: the only way to catch all those crimes is to monitor each and every terminal 24/7. And that gives away too much power to the government for freedom to be guaranteed, even in a Democracy.
If you didn't follow that, feel free to email me with any questions you might have...
You're right, of course. Traditional civil disobedience would be the way to go in an ordinarily democratic society, in which the will of the people prevails.
Here. Read this.
Their concept of civil disobedience is a little different than Thoreau's in that they don't seem to favor individual acts. They are talking about public mass demonstrations. But what demonstrations are we talking about here? A million man march on Redmond? I am not sure that would do a thing.
File this one under "Monkey Wrench"... You can debate the morality and ethical implications at your leisure, but stop calling it civil disobedience, and start calling it what it really is(dig the Star Trek reference). It might make it harder to justify, and easier to vilify, n'est ce pas?
I'm just barely old enough (okay, I'm old) to have missed LEGO's for the most part. I got to play with Erector Sets! Now those were Real Toys (TM). We were too poor to buy the one with the motor, but I got the one just below it for Christmas. Started out building the stuff in the pictures in the instruction book, but ended up making spinning fan-like objects that could cut fingers in a flash. Oh, and guns, of course...
OMG, it looks like it's coming back!
This page brings back memories... oh yeah...
They should have stayed on it if they truly wanted to be Great Men. That they have achieved great things is indisputable... aw, hell, I think you missed my point...
My point had to do with the hubris that came from achieving great things. One must, by the evidence of the actions of these three, come to believe in one's own infallibility because they were responsible for a great discovery or invention. I tend to look up to scientists as transcending the pettiness of the common man, to hold goals generally loftier than self-interest. Each one of these men were in a position of power and each abused that power.
I think you must think I am just jealous, that what I am saying is a case of sour grapes, but you're wrong. I am trying to point out the errors of the past so that we don't repeat them, but I am afraid that we will, in the field of genetics especially. The lesson of Frankenstein and yes, Jurassic Park is the lesson I am referring to here.
In my career, I have endeavoured to not lie about scientific or engineering results to get funding, and if I ever were to do that, I am sure it wouldn't sit easily on my conscience. I don't think these men had that 'problem'.
yah, Teller also stole all the Star Wars funding from, um, Woodruff...
Here.
So I wouldn't put it past him. A nasty man...
The article was funny, and a good reminiscence, but:
Shockley, Teller, and LeMay
what an unholy trinity that is!
Shockley, the Nobel Prize winner who determined to devote his life to eugenics;
Teller, the brilliant scientist who pushed the DoD further into the realm of "The Super", and beyond;
and, finally, LeMay (brilliantly portrayed by George C. Scott in "Dr. Strangelove"), the hawk's hawk who would stop at nothing to achieve global superiority for his country, even at the expense of the American people.
These men, while they performed great deeds in their lifetimes, are to me a good example of how excessive hubris in the scientific and technical arena can be a very dangerous thing, indeed. None of these men can be considered Great Men, in my opinion, because they wandered from the path of integrity and truth in their zealous pursuit of technology for technology's sake.
But the article makes for a great read, and I'm sure in their day these men were admired and respected. I have the advantage of hindsight, and hope that we can all learn from these men how, for some vicious mole of nature in them, even the greatest of men are prone to fall!
errrr... me too! Here is the quote I carried over from the text to start this post:
./ fans here do - avail oneself of sites such as cryptome.org, indymedia, suck^H^H^H^H, and, yes, here, of course (but not adequacy, IMO the wellspring of trolls, the Phil Hendrie of websites). If enough people patronize the important websites, and it happens enough times that You are the Only informed person among your cowworkers, then, with time, the credibility of such sites will rise, DMCA will fall by the wayside, and freedom of speech will reign as supremely as it should with the internet catalyst.
She also suggested a more sinister reason most of Big Media doesn't seem to care: "I suspect it has something to do with the fact that there's a lot of media conglomeration now, and a lot of the mainstream media in the U.S. is actually owned by content holders.
I don't know for how long I've been saying this exact thing. All you have to do is flick on the TV set and watch a half-hour's worth of news.
But Freedom of Speech! How far have we fallen when Journalists don't even have enough personal integrity to comment on this thing that directly threatens them! I recall the portrayal of Mike Wallace in the movie "The Insider". Was this the last true journalist?
It's like we're hearing "just shut up and play with all the nice, shiny toys we've given you."
The important point to make here is that mainstream media is rapidly devolving and losing credibility. One should - as many of the
The battle is about the entrenched, old-school interests trying to maintain a foothold on their source of revenue. But - hopefully - it is the case that they will lose that hold if they fail to change and adopt the curent mindset that prevails in places like this one.
If they win, and it sure looks like they are winning today, then God help us we have lost a lot.
But, you know, we have been losing battles daily ever since the mid-70's...
Wait... if there are half a million users and 2.4 million posts...
...that don't seem right, now, does it?
How is this not going to absolutely convince the judges deciding the penalty phase of the MS trial that the company must be broken up into at least two, if not three separate companies?
.NET in the form it is currently designed? I think the answer has to be 'no', since the function of a post break-up Windows operating system would serve nobody's apps except un-upgraded MS Office etc...
The alternative is that, for any other competing browser provider (btw, there is no telling how many other browser providing companies were scared off from competing when they saw what happened to Netscape) to achieve support for its product in the future, it also must develop its own operating system!
I'm convinced that the OS folks need to be broken off from the apps folks by dint of this action - which can only be considered 'smart' because it shows arrogance and confidence in MS political clout, unless I don't get all their strategy - now what does it take for judges to understand this?
Also, think of this: if there were a break-up, do you think that the OS side would continue to push
I thought they already had the trial, and were simply awaiting a decision on remedies?
I don't think it's supposed to take very long.
It's possible I could be wrong here...
Guy, first thing. It's cool and all, and no problemo if you don't want to.
But if you want to make a change, you have to have the courage to put your name on your ideas first. Don't publish anonymously, 'cuz I can' trust you to respond or even read my response.
Bluesee
I think that the generation below mine has been so inundated with a barrage of glittery sights and sounds that they are numb. It sounds like Seanbaby (which is ./'d already, by the way) consists of just those kids, who are to be regarded as spoiled in one sense and to be pitied as lab rats in another. The science of media manipulation is probably the richest-funded research in the world; They (yes, They) are desperate to understand how to manipulate us. Our 'culture' therefore, has become awash with things that we never would consider pleasurable or desirable, but they are things that corporations have determined are necessary to their survival, i.e., eyeballs or clickthroughs or 'just making the damn sale', and whatever that entails.
But these things cannot be genuine, because they do not spring from genuine creative energies. They therefore don't touch the hearts and sensibilities of our youth. So we as parents are left with the common lament of past parents (as so eloquently pointed out by the Beatles in "She's Leaving Home"): "We gave them everything. Why do they turn from us?" They turn from us because we gave them nothing, except blinders and 'sensation as experience'. Whereas my generation (late 60's thru 70's and 80's) was somewhat coddled, this one is just plain numb, and it takes a lot to wake people up anymore, so shock and 'Extreme' (how many times have we heard that buzzword?) sports and experiences are necessary anymore. Trust is lost; truth is meaningless; connection is severed. One can only wonder how this generation will raise its children? They will have a tough time to the degree that they - for reasons of expedience - have bought into whatever the media culture was selling while they were growing up.
Oh, and please don't bring up Suck; every Wednesday without Polly and Terry just reminds me of how much this Promise is failing, falling to the likes of Disney and AOL.
You know, I was going through my mp3's the other day, and I realized how things have changed. The first 30 or so songs I dl'd were of Radiohead (only live bootlegs, mind you, and yes, two wrongs do make a right here), but they weren't off of Napster, they were downloaded off of fan's pages! You just don't find that sort of access anymore. Not like the old days, ahhhh.... 1998, I remember it like it was yesterday...
We've given them everything. We've taken away everything. It depends on your perspective.
I think that's where we lose sight of our (I'm an American btw) strength. We can impose econmoic sanctions on countries, and they do hurt! These countries signed on to the CTBT voluntarily, in the interests of not only lessening the tensions in the world and making it a safer place, but also so they could divert some of their revenue to better use.
It's easy to verify a *** kiloton explosion, btw, with seismic detectors, so verification is easy. Plus I think you can detect the radiation from space, not sure. Maybe with the very same spy satellites we are talking about. Howzat for gettin back on topic!
Looking away a few degrees is the best way to view stars because the fovea, a concentrated bundle of cones, is located right at the center of the field of view. Whilst its great for seeing color, it isn't as good for seeing dim objects; you need more rods for that. So the best way to look at stars is to look slightly askance at them.
The Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, or CTBT, wasn't ratified by the US, who, incidentally were the first signatories, because the Republicans were so consumed with their hatred of Clinton that they couldn't see straight to give in to even the slightest notion of a 'victory' to him. Partisan and short-sighted politics thereby diminished the US in the eyes of the world (once again), and severely reduced the level of security in the world. Realize that the US stands to benefit greatly from the CTBT; having already tested its weapons to a great degree, they would only become more secure when Pakistan, India, et al voluntarily gave up the ability to test (and thereby develop) their own deadly creations.
Between that, the Kyoto protocol, NMD, and now this discovery that we have been 'in error' on our satellite orbits (is Russia truthful about thiers?), our prestige in the world is reduced to that of a big bully with an attitude problem, rather than the shining beacon of democratic promise and economic prosperity through principled administration of a higher ideal. Plus the fact that W is arrogantly and defiantly ignorant of the issues, and needs Condo Rice to tell him that Mexico is part of North America...
slightly ot, but it puts it all in perspective, ya think?