Well, thank goodness you are here to set us straight on what 'REAL civil disobedience' is. Everyone else was under the delusion that the appropriate method of overturning institutional abuse was dependent upon context, but now that the great 'bobbied' has codified civil disobedience, the truth will now be clear to all./s
Except we know he raised concerns multiple times, and that others with much more pull than him have had their careers ruined by trying to go through the proper channels. The oversight system doesn't work. We can barely get decent oversight in local police departments, so there's no real chance of oversight in the No Such Agency.
In effect, he substituted his judgment for the judgment of our elected representatives, an act of extraordinary hubris in the words of Robert Gates [pbs.org].
Sounds like he is projecting, seeing as the NSA's lack of effective oversight means that they do that all of the time.
Perhaps you should try actually thinking instead of pounding your chest to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner? MLK publicly addressed unjust laws by being punished in a manner that was clearly unjust. If Snowden is punished, it will be hidden from the public and over laws that are effectively secret from the people. Also, had he not run, we likely wouldn't have been able to get as much press. You should be far more concerned that the NSA is insane, stupid, and practically unchecked in their power, instead of complaining that Snowden didn't follow the MLK edition of the Civil Disobedience handbook to the letter.
if this were reversed, and he was a Russian citizen disclosing the abuse of Russian spy agencies, do you think he would even be alive for a trial? Now, what makes you think that our spies are any less evil?
I believe the concern is the long term viability of the band. Yes, on the deal, they made a profit, but it also appears to have hurt the U2 brand, which is what the complaints would be about.
and, assuming that we can get roughly equal capacity at more economic temperatures, what kind of range of capacity are we talking about here? Would you be able to power a toaster or a city?
For starters, it would be more efficient to just provide minimum wage jobs to the immigrants, even if the entirety of their employment is to undo the work of other immigrants. However, there's a great likelihood that they will actually do something useful in the course of work, meaning that we might even be able to pay them a US living wage.
Look up what it costs on average to arrest a local drug pusher sometime.
Perhaps you might want to pick a better example than the horribly failed war on drugs.
Law enforcement is expensive.
Then perhaps we should take a 'less is more' approach.
Since our bombs are more valuable than most of what we are blowing up, it probably would make us rethink our policies, or we'd just pay private contractors who would slaughter entire villages of innocent civilians to buff their numbers.
To be fair, Comcast is less popular than Congress or even the DMV by some surveys, and they've recently had a large string of public customer interactions where their employees' actions were indefensible. That may have been a factor in backing down from this fight quickly.
One thing that always bothers me when people mention that the Constitution doesn't apply outside of the US to non-citizens is that, if the Constitution doesn't apply, the government has NO right to act because it has no power without the Constitution.
Your (and my, and any individual citizen's) personal interpretation of the Constitution is not the measure. It is the interpretation and implementation by our three branches of government. I realize that some reading this believe they have all been compromised, or that they think some particular thing is "obviously unconstitutional" (even though the judicial, legislative, and executive branches say otherwise), but the fact is we have the system of government we have.
My argument wasn't that anything was "obviously unconstitutional", my argument was that they should try and keep their practices as far into "obviously constitutional" as possible. If doing nothing is 0 and the threshold of unconstitutional is 10, let's try and keep most things around 3 or 4 and only go up to a 7 when we absolutely have to. Or, if you want a real life equivalent for citizens, it's appreciated if we aren't barely legally sober all the time while driving.
So how about you consider the alternative: one where you don't assume that everyone working at every/any level of government, e.g., NSA, doesn't have the worst motivations and is actually trying to do their best to honorably, legally, and Constitutionally, protect our nation and its people instead of the opposite. How about that?
That's fine. However, that road to hell is paved with good intentions. Genuine malice is actually pretty rare in humanity, but gross incompetence is abundant in 100% of the population. Thus, putting too much power in one place results in great power being inevitably wielded incompetently. The inherent secrecy of the institution means that they are largely shielded from serious outside criticism, which results in incompetence being baked into their practices. Being enormous and secretive means that our intelligence agencies are bathed in incompetence and useless practices to the extent that Maxwell Smart is an incredibly generous portrayal.
How about an alternative where our government actually follows the Constitution even if we can have our lawyers weasel around it through advanced legalese? One where we value personal liberty over threats that we've made up or manufactured ourselves? We would be safer if someone were to burn all of the NSA's facilities to the ground, leaving nothing but rubble. They are a much bigger liability than any risk that they fight, and this has problem been the case for intelligence agencies going back to Hoover.
I believe we should craft a policy where Mike Rogers apologizes for his misdeeds and the misdeeds of the NSA in general, and asks, for the sake of humanity, that the NSA be completely and totally destroyed, ideally releasing info that will lead to the destruction of similar agencies around the world (perhaps some conclusive evidence that spies always do more harm than good). Rogers then jumping off a tall building is highly recommended, but I wouldn't consider it mandatory.
So our ship gets completely atomized - by them or us. Mission to prevent discovery of home-world accomplished. Same as people throw themselves on live grenades,
Unless, of course, somebody phones home, and then they know of a belligerent race that they think will destroy them. Great plan, asshole.
or on the other end of the scale, start shooting up their school because they're bored.
I don't know of any mass shootings due to ennui.
What a pant-load. What is "rational" to aliens is... alien. And what is a provocation to them is unknowable, since they are aliens. Maybe it's their policy to keep their origin secret, for whatever reason.
Evolutionary forces would almost certainly have to act in a similar manner regarding aggression, and if they are xenophobes, then it wouldn't make all that much sense for them to be exploring space, since that greatly increases the risk of them being found.
If people acted in their own short-term self-interest, lifestyle diseases wouldn't be the biggest killers.
Sitting on your ass and eating an entire cake is in your short term interest. It's just bad in the long term. Picking fights with strangers is a bad idea that almost always ends badly. This is going to be universal unless they are such powerful beings that we can't hope to fight them. Shoot first, ask questions later is idiotic. Even most apex predators don't do that.
No, a lot of people make non-commercial porn. After any invention, the first question humanity asks themselves is how they can use that technology for sex.
Not, it's still censorship. It's censorship that's legal, and in many cases, we find it acceptable or possibly even desirable, but it is still censorship.
True, but it does add a lot of overhead, especially since cameras are so widespread. If you end up causing the deaths of thousands of your own people to save 5% on a resource, it's a lot harder to sell to the people footing the bill.
The problem with a lot 'common sense' is that it's merely the first idea that pops into your head. A rational study of nature shows that attacking when not provoked and when you have nothing to gain is not favored by evolution. If they are a space faring race of roughly equal development, they likely have technology that we don't have and vice versa. Therefore, it is in our mutual interest to share that tech. However, since it's something complicated and may not be ready to use right away, and having someone who can RTFM is a much better idea.
Also, there's a pretty decent chance that they would be technologically superior to us, or at least be able to seriously damage us, so even in regards to our own short term self-interest, it's not a great idea.
You can be non-aggressive without being a pacifist, and if your defenses are adequate enough, it becomes a moot point. You could put a toy poodle on meth, but he'd be unable to do any harm to an elephant. Aggression is only one factor to consider here, and an incredibly small one at that. As long as we aren't non-aggressive to the point that we are willing to just let another species wipe us out, your concern is invalid.
I understand throwing the drastic measures on the table to spur change, but this is just a stupid idea with drawbacks that are quite possibly worse than AGW.
1. If you're a human, there will always be a reason to compete. We over-breed. Everyone seems to think that their genes are special.
No, most of the West, Japan, and China all have subreplacement birth rates.
2. Why would we go for unarmed combat for the first time in our species history?
My point was that technology is way more important than aggression so long as we aren't so unaggressive that we won't just sit back while an alien species murders us all. So, if we were to go out into space, meet the Vulcans, and engage them in battle, they would wipe the floor with us despite being a more peaceful race because they are a warp capable species and we are not.
3. More advanced doesn't mean pacifist. We're more advanced than at any time in the past - and look around you. You don't have to look at international problems - just go to your local jail or ER.
Yes, but there have been some claims that we may be more peaceful today (relative to the population anyway), and those arguments are far from unreasonable. Keep in mind, that at least according to some estimates, the cause of death for ~30% of hunter gatherer males was homicide, and that might give you an idea of how far we've come. That we aren't all the way there yet is a wholly different issue, and seems to illustrate Hawking's point. If you are glorifying the past, keep in mind that the real difference is that we are more aware of what horrible monsters we are.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, thank goodness you are here to set us straight on what 'REAL civil disobedience' is. Everyone else was under the delusion that the appropriate method of overturning institutional abuse was dependent upon context, but now that the great 'bobbied' has codified civil disobedience, the truth will now be clear to all. /s
Sounds like he is projecting, seeing as the NSA's lack of effective oversight means that they do that all of the time.
Perhaps you should try actually thinking instead of pounding your chest to the tune of the Star Spangled Banner? MLK publicly addressed unjust laws by being punished in a manner that was clearly unjust. If Snowden is punished, it will be hidden from the public and over laws that are effectively secret from the people. Also, had he not run, we likely wouldn't have been able to get as much press. You should be far more concerned that the NSA is insane, stupid, and practically unchecked in their power, instead of complaining that Snowden didn't follow the MLK edition of the Civil Disobedience handbook to the letter.
if this were reversed, and he was a Russian citizen disclosing the abuse of Russian spy agencies, do you think he would even be alive for a trial? Now, what makes you think that our spies are any less evil?
I believe the concern is the long term viability of the band. Yes, on the deal, they made a profit, but it also appears to have hurt the U2 brand, which is what the complaints would be about.
and, assuming that we can get roughly equal capacity at more economic temperatures, what kind of range of capacity are we talking about here? Would you be able to power a toaster or a city?
For starters, it would be more efficient to just provide minimum wage jobs to the immigrants, even if the entirety of their employment is to undo the work of other immigrants. However, there's a great likelihood that they will actually do something useful in the course of work, meaning that we might even be able to pay them a US living wage.
Perhaps you might want to pick a better example than the horribly failed war on drugs.
Then perhaps we should take a 'less is more' approach.
Since our bombs are more valuable than most of what we are blowing up, it probably would make us rethink our policies, or we'd just pay private contractors who would slaughter entire villages of innocent civilians to buff their numbers.
That would pretty much be it, other than the drug trade that is so profitable because of prohibition.
I seriously hope that robot sex is more sophisticated than just a bucket of fish, ethical or not.
To be fair, Comcast is less popular than Congress or even the DMV by some surveys, and they've recently had a large string of public customer interactions where their employees' actions were indefensible. That may have been a factor in backing down from this fight quickly.
One thing that always bothers me when people mention that the Constitution doesn't apply outside of the US to non-citizens is that, if the Constitution doesn't apply, the government has NO right to act because it has no power without the Constitution.
My argument wasn't that anything was "obviously unconstitutional", my argument was that they should try and keep their practices as far into "obviously constitutional" as possible. If doing nothing is 0 and the threshold of unconstitutional is 10, let's try and keep most things around 3 or 4 and only go up to a 7 when we absolutely have to. Or, if you want a real life equivalent for citizens, it's appreciated if we aren't barely legally sober all the time while driving.
That's fine. However, that road to hell is paved with good intentions. Genuine malice is actually pretty rare in humanity, but gross incompetence is abundant in 100% of the population. Thus, putting too much power in one place results in great power being inevitably wielded incompetently. The inherent secrecy of the institution means that they are largely shielded from serious outside criticism, which results in incompetence being baked into their practices. Being enormous and secretive means that our intelligence agencies are bathed in incompetence and useless practices to the extent that Maxwell Smart is an incredibly generous portrayal.
How about an alternative where our government actually follows the Constitution even if we can have our lawyers weasel around it through advanced legalese? One where we value personal liberty over threats that we've made up or manufactured ourselves? We would be safer if someone were to burn all of the NSA's facilities to the ground, leaving nothing but rubble. They are a much bigger liability than any risk that they fight, and this has problem been the case for intelligence agencies going back to Hoover.
I believe we should craft a policy where Mike Rogers apologizes for his misdeeds and the misdeeds of the NSA in general, and asks, for the sake of humanity, that the NSA be completely and totally destroyed, ideally releasing info that will lead to the destruction of similar agencies around the world (perhaps some conclusive evidence that spies always do more harm than good). Rogers then jumping off a tall building is highly recommended, but I wouldn't consider it mandatory.
Unless, of course, somebody phones home, and then they know of a belligerent race that they think will destroy them. Great plan, asshole.
I don't know of any mass shootings due to ennui.
Evolutionary forces would almost certainly have to act in a similar manner regarding aggression, and if they are xenophobes, then it wouldn't make all that much sense for them to be exploring space, since that greatly increases the risk of them being found.
Sitting on your ass and eating an entire cake is in your short term interest. It's just bad in the long term. Picking fights with strangers is a bad idea that almost always ends badly. This is going to be universal unless they are such powerful beings that we can't hope to fight them. Shoot first, ask questions later is idiotic. Even most apex predators don't do that.
No, a lot of people make non-commercial porn. After any invention, the first question humanity asks themselves is how they can use that technology for sex.
We aren't saying that Google doesn't have the right to do that, we are saying they are asshats for doing that, which we have the right to say.
Not, it's still censorship. It's censorship that's legal, and in many cases, we find it acceptable or possibly even desirable, but it is still censorship.
True, but it does add a lot of overhead, especially since cameras are so widespread. If you end up causing the deaths of thousands of your own people to save 5% on a resource, it's a lot harder to sell to the people footing the bill.
Being intelligent is only part of the equation, though. You also have to have the data and the necessary skills to properly interpret the data.
The problem with a lot 'common sense' is that it's merely the first idea that pops into your head. A rational study of nature shows that attacking when not provoked and when you have nothing to gain is not favored by evolution. If they are a space faring race of roughly equal development, they likely have technology that we don't have and vice versa. Therefore, it is in our mutual interest to share that tech. However, since it's something complicated and may not be ready to use right away, and having someone who can RTFM is a much better idea.
Also, there's a pretty decent chance that they would be technologically superior to us, or at least be able to seriously damage us, so even in regards to our own short term self-interest, it's not a great idea.
You can be non-aggressive without being a pacifist, and if your defenses are adequate enough, it becomes a moot point. You could put a toy poodle on meth, but he'd be unable to do any harm to an elephant. Aggression is only one factor to consider here, and an incredibly small one at that. As long as we aren't non-aggressive to the point that we are willing to just let another species wipe us out, your concern is invalid.
I understand throwing the drastic measures on the table to spur change, but this is just a stupid idea with drawbacks that are quite possibly worse than AGW.
No, most of the West, Japan, and China all have subreplacement birth rates.
My point was that technology is way more important than aggression so long as we aren't so unaggressive that we won't just sit back while an alien species murders us all. So, if we were to go out into space, meet the Vulcans, and engage them in battle, they would wipe the floor with us despite being a more peaceful race because they are a warp capable species and we are not.
Yes, but there have been some claims that we may be more peaceful today (relative to the population anyway), and those arguments are far from unreasonable. Keep in mind, that at least according to some estimates, the cause of death for ~30% of hunter gatherer males was homicide, and that might give you an idea of how far we've come. That we aren't all the way there yet is a wholly different issue, and seems to illustrate Hawking's point. If you are glorifying the past, keep in mind that the real difference is that we are more aware of what horrible monsters we are.
Also, less aggressive doesn't mean defenseless.