What you are asking for is "inter-agency data-sharing". It is, indeed, very powerful, but "Big Brother" concerns — largely but not entirely imaginary — stand in the way...
Yeah, because in the two world wars last century the U.S. immediately jumped to everyone's defense...oh wait, they didn't.
And after those two wars, the attitude was condemned as isolationist... The first post-WW2 president — Truman (a Democrat) — said the following:
I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.
Very respectable words, justifying and explaining our post-WW2 engagements in Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (both times), Kuwait and Iraq, as well as more mundane help to Taiwan, Israel, etc.
The US government has now tested it's anti satellite missiles without looking like complete hypocrites for criticizing China for the exact same thing.
First, it is not "exact same thing" — the Chinese targeted a functional (hence flying much higher) satellite with a specially-designed weapon. We hit a falling one with a fairly standard missile.
Second — and most important — even if it were "exactly the same thing", there is nothing hypocritical about responding in kind to something, you'd rather nobody did in the first place.
"Offering the other cheek" to be slapped is a fine principle, but I'd hate it, if my country's defense relied on it...
Answering a question (What is your official contact information?) with a question (Why, what do you not like?) does not count as cooperation...
Instead, they were met with more hostility and the same ambiguous demands from the lawyer.
As far as I could see, there was nothing particularly ambiguous — the bank's lawyers were demanding to know, the official contact information. The most recent e-mail letter even gave the lawyer's own contact, with a request, that the WikiLeaks' counsel contacts him at that address.
WikiLeaks chose to pretend, it was not "served" and got punished.
Why is it, that true dissidents in some countries are willing to brave their government's batons and guns, while America's freedom-fighters would not even appear in court?
From the WikiLeaks-Bank correspondence (predating by a month the hearing, which WikiLeaks claims happened only "a few hours" after their receiving a notice):
Your site promotes, encourages and facilitates the publication and
distribution of stolen, illegally and/or tortiously obtained corporate
records and private records of third-party consumers, including that of
my client and its consumers.
The above part is hard to disagree with in itself. No doubt, most documents posted to the site were obtained by breaking a law (hence illegally) and/or some company's internal policy (thus violating contract, hence tortiously — funny, the word itself is not known to my browser's spell checker).
People like lawyers and judges (often — ex-lawyers) are all about law and contractual obligations — there is nothing surprising about their contempt and distaste for anyone encouraging/rewarding either. The judge is neither "stupid" nor "a monkey" — he acted as should be expected.
Cringley's point is about the stupidity of the bank making itself infamous overnight. This is hard to disagree with, but Cringley's sympathy for Wikileaks shows (he even provided the direct link), so it is valid to discuss the case itself.
And the case boils down to the oft-asked, but never answered question: Do we want 100%-effective law enforcement? Judges certainly strive to achieve that, and we pretend to agree. But do we agree? Answering "yes" would mean condemnation of WikiLeaks (pertaining to documents in our and other free countries, at least). Answering "no" could mean making it impossible for you to stop dissemination of some information about you... What if a site posted SSNs and addresses of everyone they could?
WikiLeaks shouldn't have tried to hide — they were asked for contact information repeatedly. It is no wonder at all, that the judge agreed with the plaintiffs and imposed the injunction. He could've found them in contempt too, and imposed a fine in addition...
You can not "limit influence of money" without trampling the First Amendment-provided right to free speech. McCain-Feingold did just this, but it does not make it right (it is the primary grudge against McCain, in fact)...
Funny, how the same people, who complain about First Amendment violations almost all the time — right to sell porn, right to distribute copyrighted (by someone else) material, right to create/publish law-breaking software are all deemed protected by the same Amendment by these people — not only fail to see this trampling, but actually demand more of it... Or, rather, it would've been funny, if it weren't sad.
Far better from whose standpoint? I don't happen to think that it's any of our business how other nations choose to govern themselves.
From our standpoint — the same standpoint, from which brutality towards our POWs was bad, etc. It is perfectly legitimate for a nation to act differently towards other nations depending on how those nations govern themselves. The idea of nuclear-armed Japan was objected to in this thread based on Japan's history, which is deemed bad by us. Well, if they are deemed — by us — to have improved their governance dramatically since then, then we can accept their rise to power.
If anything, pointing out Russia's formidable nuclear arsenal only strengthens my argument that they would be a more useful counter-weight to China then Japan will.
We can spend many days discussing various what-ifs — my point is, Japan's (and Germany's, for that matter) past history should not be held against them, because they — unlike Russia and China, for example — have undergone dramatic changes in the government structure — for the better.
but if you're not making it or buying it then there shouldn't be an issue if you run across it on the web.
Well, that's a "slippery-slope" of its own... What if those ugly CP-makers are allowing you to watch it for free and use ads to make money?
No way out of it, the crap just has to become legal to watch — and to produce. Crimes, deemed to be associated with the producing — such as rape (statutory or otherwise) — should remain illegal, of course.
If your definition of "improved" means "adopted American culture and politics"
No, they have not, and no, that's not part of my definition. Now take your pathetic anti-American agenda some place else... You have neither the wit nor the grace to do it subtly, so don't even try.
Try telling that to one of the Allied POWs held and tortured by the Japanese.
The "try telling that" is a demagogic trick unworthy of a decent discussion. But if POWs held by Japanese were to exchange memories with the Germans held by the Russians, it is not at all clear, whose memories would've been worse...
Interesting opinion to hold, seeing as how we've never been at war with China or Russia.
We have — and not only the Cold War. During the Korean war, for example, we killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers — China is the reason, North Korea exists today (no crime ever committed by Japanese would match this ongoing atrocity). Air support was provided by USSR, BTW — in both Korean and Vietnam war...
China was an important ally against Japan during WW2 and it was Russian involvement in the end of the war (not the nuclear bombings as commonly believed) that brought it to a quick conclusion without requiring an invasion of the home islands.
Whether or not Chinese and Soviets have helped us defeat Japan is irrelevant to whether their regimes are/were better or worse than Japan's. I can only repeat, that Japan's current liberal democracy is far better, than China's and Russian regimes.
GP was advocating for a nuclear armed Japan. That is a really bad idea. Give Japan nuclear weapons and it will start a regional arms race between Japan, China, Korea and Russia.
China and Russia are nuclear-armed already (Russia — to the teeth) already. We already have "picked sides" too — Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are defended by many thousands of US troops permanently staged in the region.
Let's encourage a reemergence of Japanese militarism! What could possibly go wrong.
The truly nasty Imperial Japan was still better, than the USSR and the post-War Communist China.
Since then Japan has improved dramatically, while Russia and China almost not at all. Yes, I'd take Japanese militarism over Russian or Chinese any day...
But (with a special nod to your sig) Israel's founders did do that - see Deir Yassin for a shining example.
The village was destroyed by units created to defend to Jewish settlers from Arab terrorism... Before Israel was founded, the war between Arabs and Jews was ongoing for over a decade — and it was not started by the Jews. "Death to the Jewish dogs!" was already pronounced in 1929. More infamous is the 1947 (a year before Deir Yassin disaster) terrorist attack on the convoy carrying doctors, nurses, and lecturers on Mt. Scopus.
Nowadays, people seem to forget about the massacres and the bombing of the King David hotel
No, that bombing targeted British government. The hotel "was being used as the base for the Mandate Secretariat, the British military headquarters and a branch of the police Criminal Investigation Division." The explosive charges were planted only under the parts of the building, where British offices were located. The "terrorists" also tried to minimize the casualties: the explosion was scheduled for lunch-hour. Although civilians did perish, they were not the target — this was not a terrorist attack, no more so than Indian or Kenyan fight against the same Empire...
But yes, terrorism as a method was used widely in the past — aerial bombings of cities during WW2 were largely just that.
Which was my point — the enemy, the "new Communists", are the Islamofascists, regardless of the methods they use to fight us. That the most prominent Islamofascists organization today — the Al Qaeda — uses terrorism almost exclusively (blowing up a fellow Iraqi's funeral is both easier than killing American soldiers and causes much more mayhem) leads to a frequent confusion between the goals and methods. But it is still a just a confusion.
No, "violent Islamist" is the new Communist. You were listing apples and chicken wings — Communism is an ideology/aim, terrorism is just a method — there were plenty of Communist terrorists too. Just as Communism in the 20th century, Islamism (not the faith, but the way of life and the society) is realizing, that it is losing to the Western civilization. It can not offer the followers neither the freedoms, nor the economic benefits offered by the competitors. It can not afford an open military conflict either. Terrorism is, pretty much, to fight for those, who must fight.
We will defeat them just as we defeated the "Red Army Faction", the "Shining Path" (Sendero Luminoso) and other Communist terrorists. It will take time — FARC is still alive and kicking, for example, but we'll get there...
America was founded by "terrorists."
Nope, that's not true. "Terrorism" is not just a dirty word — it refers to a very specific tactics to achieve ideological/political goals: violence targeting civilians. America's founders did not do that...
A mission out to Titan to collect a load of hydrocarbons would cost far more energy than the load would be worth.
Same is true about Iraq's oil... Does not stop millions of idiots world-wide from claiming, ours is a "War for Oil".
Re:Equating the sides? (Re: .Sig)
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
No, I'm saying that you've missed out a component: centralized premeditation. For some people this will make the Israelis worse, the others, the Palestinians.
Oh, please, Israel's enemies — Hamas, Hezbollah on the frontlines — are very well organized and centralized. In fact, they are, likely, even more centralized than Israel's command — with its cabinet reshuffles, elections, etc.
This is a reasonable point, if you could prove that this was what the average Palestinian meant by the term.
No, I don't have to prove this at all — because I'm not quoting "average Palestinians".
But, if you insist... The Palestinians had their free democratic elections very recently — and Hamas has won an overwhelming victory. This shows, the organization enjoys wide support among the populace, who agree with their views.
[...] is worthy of Chomsky.
Khmm, I have a feeling, I know you in "real life"...
Re:"ungodly" and "pirated" on Slashdot?
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
Truth be told, I don't think God really cares if your a pirate something or not... Otherwise, Jesus would have mentioned to everyone to pay a royalty to winemakers every time he turned water into wine and to pay the fishermen and bakers every time you copied food through godly miracles.
The "thou shall not steal" comes from 10 Commandments — a document, that predates Jesus by many hundreds of years.
And if it were a living document — as US Constitution is, according to some people — it would've been found to contain the "though shall not infringe on copyright", no doubt. After all, piracy is much closer to stealing, than the selling of pornography is to petitioning the government.
But, to address your point, Jesus knew, that no one else will be able to turn water into wine, so he did not bother...
Equating the sides? (Re: .Sig)
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
When both sides want the whole thing, it makes resolution nigh-impossible.
The Israeli side wants the whole thing, yes, but it is willing to accept half of the thing. The Arabs don't.
regardless of perspective.
So, you are accusing Israel of not being sufficiently careful in avoiding collateral damage, and equate that with the Arabs, who seek to maximize it (but can't)... Wow...
[...] by saying that the other side is worse.
Yes, in any conflict the behavior of one side can not be examined without that of another.
But my page does not seek to convince anyone of the justice of the Israel's struggle, no. It only tries to "raise awareness" of what militant Arabs mean, when they say "occupation".
I just got through arguing with my mother about her medicine were she's telling me she took fridays medicine today and I know better. So now she misses today and I have to move it to sunday to keep everything on track. If this device helps out, so much the better?
I'm afraid, it is not going to help people like your mother. The device will nag, she will take the pill out and put it on the counter to take "later". Then you'll show up and, in order to not anger you, she will either hide the pill(s) or directly throw them out... Every day, unless her condition/pain acutely worsens...
McCain was tortured - there isn't any doubt (barring wacko conspiracy types). He can no longer raise his arm above his head as a result.
Such permanent bodily harm, BTW, is the only compelling argument against torturing of uncooperative captives of intelligence value — who are not protected by laws like Geneva convention, that is (McCain was, but it did not help him). If waterboarding does not have long-lasting effects, then I don't see it as inherently immoral. Whether it qualifies as "torture" or not is moot.
"ungodly" and "pirated" on Slashdot?
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Sorry, we do not believe in Imaginary Property here. There is nothing "ungodly" about "pirated", because pirating is not exactly the same as stealing.
I made no claims about the book and did not intend to.
But I did. It accuses Republicans of waging "war on science", based on their stance on disciplines like bio-ethics and climatology (of which the author holds no better command, than Bush or myself). The fact, that the author is one of the two or three organizers of the event makes it laughingly obvious, that it will be a rather partisan one. That's all I said...
It belies a lack of understanding about important and basic scientific principles.
Really... Why don't you just say it, the way king's dress-makers did — whoever doubts it, is a moron?
While biased and uneducated naysayers love to deny it, anthropogenic climate change has long passed into the realm of "confirmed".
Which is exactly, what established and professional historians were saying about the history of Soviet Union — based in no small part on lies of Duranty and others. The climatologists may or may not be mistaken today, but there is nothing "anti-science" in not believing them.
Medication non-compliance is usually due to forgetfulness rather than intentionally not taking it
I'd be interested in statistics on this matter... I know one — otherwise meticulous — elderly woman, who only takes the prescribed medicines, when she has acute pain (the prescription is for regular use). I have heard of others...
I'm sure, some people just forget (especially, if they are on anti-memory loss medication, ha-ha), but I'm not at all certain, they represent the vast majority of "nonadherents"...
Slashdot Mirror
What you are asking for is "inter-agency data-sharing". It is, indeed, very powerful, but "Big Brother" concerns — largely but not entirely imaginary — stand in the way...
And after those two wars, the attitude was condemned as isolationist... The first post-WW2 president — Truman (a Democrat) — said the following:
Very respectable words, justifying and explaining our post-WW2 engagements in Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (both times), Kuwait and Iraq, as well as more mundane help to Taiwan, Israel, etc.
First, it is not "exact same thing" — the Chinese targeted a functional (hence flying much higher) satellite with a specially-designed weapon. We hit a falling one with a fairly standard missile.
Second — and most important — even if it were "exactly the same thing", there is nothing hypocritical about responding in kind to something, you'd rather nobody did in the first place.
"Offering the other cheek" to be slapped is a fine principle, but I'd hate it, if my country's defense relied on it...
It could be worse:
Answering a question (What is your official contact information?) with a question (Why, what do you not like?) does not count as cooperation...
As far as I could see, there was nothing particularly ambiguous — the bank's lawyers were demanding to know, the official contact information. The most recent e-mail letter even gave the lawyer's own contact, with a request, that the WikiLeaks' counsel contacts him at that address.
WikiLeaks chose to pretend, it was not "served" and got punished.
Why is it, that true dissidents in some countries are willing to brave their government's batons and guns, while America's freedom-fighters would not even appear in court?
The above part is hard to disagree with in itself. No doubt, most documents posted to the site were obtained by breaking a law (hence illegally) and/or some company's internal policy (thus violating contract, hence tortiously — funny, the word itself is not known to my browser's spell checker).
People like lawyers and judges (often — ex-lawyers) are all about law and contractual obligations — there is nothing surprising about their contempt and distaste for anyone encouraging/rewarding either. The judge is neither "stupid" nor "a monkey" — he acted as should be expected.
Cringley's point is about the stupidity of the bank making itself infamous overnight. This is hard to disagree with, but Cringley's sympathy for Wikileaks shows (he even provided the direct link), so it is valid to discuss the case itself.
And the case boils down to the oft-asked, but never answered question: Do we want 100%-effective law enforcement? Judges certainly strive to achieve that, and we pretend to agree. But do we agree? Answering "yes" would mean condemnation of WikiLeaks (pertaining to documents in our and other free countries, at least). Answering "no" could mean making it impossible for you to stop dissemination of some information about you... What if a site posted SSNs and addresses of everyone they could?
WikiLeaks shouldn't have tried to hide — they were asked for contact information repeatedly. It is no wonder at all, that the judge agreed with the plaintiffs and imposed the injunction. He could've found them in contempt too, and imposed a fine in addition...
Please, read the analysis linked to from my posting. You reply misses the point completely...
You can not "limit influence of money" without trampling the First Amendment-provided right to free speech. McCain-Feingold did just this, but it does not make it right (it is the primary grudge against McCain, in fact)...
Funny, how the same people, who complain about First Amendment violations almost all the time — right to sell porn, right to distribute copyrighted (by someone else) material, right to create/publish law-breaking software are all deemed protected by the same Amendment by these people — not only fail to see this trampling, but actually demand more of it... Or, rather, it would've been funny, if it weren't sad.
I thought more of Lessig...
From our standpoint — the same standpoint, from which brutality towards our POWs was bad, etc. It is perfectly legitimate for a nation to act differently towards other nations depending on how those nations govern themselves. The idea of nuclear-armed Japan was objected to in this thread based on Japan's history, which is deemed bad by us. Well, if they are deemed — by us — to have improved their governance dramatically since then, then we can accept their rise to power.
We can spend many days discussing various what-ifs — my point is, Japan's (and Germany's, for that matter) past history should not be held against them, because they — unlike Russia and China, for example — have undergone dramatic changes in the government structure — for the better.
Well, that's a "slippery-slope" of its own... What if those ugly CP-makers are allowing you to watch it for free and use ads to make money?
No way out of it, the crap just has to become legal to watch — and to produce. Crimes, deemed to be associated with the producing — such as rape (statutory or otherwise) — should remain illegal, of course.
No, they have not, and no, that's not part of my definition. Now take your pathetic anti-American agenda some place else... You have neither the wit nor the grace to do it subtly, so don't even try.
The "try telling that" is a demagogic trick unworthy of a decent discussion. But if POWs held by Japanese were to exchange memories with the Germans held by the Russians, it is not at all clear, whose memories would've been worse...
We have — and not only the Cold War. During the Korean war, for example, we killed hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers — China is the reason, North Korea exists today (no crime ever committed by Japanese would match this ongoing atrocity). Air support was provided by USSR, BTW — in both Korean and Vietnam war...
Whether or not Chinese and Soviets have helped us defeat Japan is irrelevant to whether their regimes are/were better or worse than Japan's. I can only repeat, that Japan's current liberal democracy is far better, than China's and Russian regimes.
China and Russia are nuclear-armed already (Russia — to the teeth) already. We already have "picked sides" too — Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are defended by many thousands of US troops permanently staged in the region.
The truly nasty Imperial Japan was still better, than the USSR and the post-War Communist China.
Since then Japan has improved dramatically, while Russia and China almost not at all. Yes, I'd take Japanese militarism over Russian or Chinese any day...
The village was destroyed by units created to defend to Jewish settlers from Arab terrorism... Before Israel was founded, the war between Arabs and Jews was ongoing for over a decade — and it was not started by the Jews. "Death to the Jewish dogs!" was already pronounced in 1929. More infamous is the 1947 (a year before Deir Yassin disaster) terrorist attack on the convoy carrying doctors, nurses, and lecturers on Mt. Scopus.
No, that bombing targeted British government. The hotel "was being used as the base for the Mandate Secretariat, the British military headquarters and a branch of the police Criminal Investigation Division." The explosive charges were planted only under the parts of the building, where British offices were located. The "terrorists" also tried to minimize the casualties: the explosion was scheduled for lunch-hour. Although civilians did perish, they were not the target — this was not a terrorist attack, no more so than Indian or Kenyan fight against the same Empire...
But yes, terrorism as a method was used widely in the past — aerial bombings of cities during WW2 were largely just that.
Which was my point — the enemy, the "new Communists", are the Islamofascists, regardless of the methods they use to fight us. That the most prominent Islamofascists organization today — the Al Qaeda — uses terrorism almost exclusively (blowing up a fellow Iraqi's funeral is both easier than killing American soldiers and causes much more mayhem) leads to a frequent confusion between the goals and methods. But it is still a just a confusion.
No, troops are not civilians — by definition.
No, "violent Islamist" is the new Communist. You were listing apples and chicken wings — Communism is an ideology/aim, terrorism is just a method — there were plenty of Communist terrorists too. Just as Communism in the 20th century, Islamism (not the faith, but the way of life and the society) is realizing, that it is losing to the Western civilization. It can not offer the followers neither the freedoms, nor the economic benefits offered by the competitors. It can not afford an open military conflict either. Terrorism is, pretty much, to fight for those, who must fight.
We will defeat them just as we defeated the "Red Army Faction", the "Shining Path" (Sendero Luminoso) and other Communist terrorists. It will take time — FARC is still alive and kicking, for example, but we'll get there...
Nope, that's not true. "Terrorism" is not just a dirty word — it refers to a very specific tactics to achieve ideological/political goals: violence targeting civilians. America's founders did not do that...
Same is true about Iraq's oil... Does not stop millions of idiots world-wide from claiming, ours is a "War for Oil".
Oh, please, Israel's enemies — Hamas, Hezbollah on the frontlines — are very well organized and centralized. In fact, they are, likely, even more centralized than Israel's command — with its cabinet reshuffles, elections, etc.
No, I don't have to prove this at all — because I'm not quoting "average Palestinians".
But, if you insist... The Palestinians had their free democratic elections very recently — and Hamas has won an overwhelming victory. This shows, the organization enjoys wide support among the populace, who agree with their views.
Khmm, I have a feeling, I know you in "real life"...
The "thou shall not steal" comes from 10 Commandments — a document, that predates Jesus by many hundreds of years.
And if it were a living document — as US Constitution is, according to some people — it would've been found to contain the "though shall not infringe on copyright", no doubt. After all, piracy is much closer to stealing, than the selling of pornography is to petitioning the government.
But, to address your point, Jesus knew, that no one else will be able to turn water into wine, so he did not bother...
The Israeli side wants the whole thing, yes, but it is willing to accept half of the thing. The Arabs don't.
So, you are accusing Israel of not being sufficiently careful in avoiding collateral damage, and equate that with the Arabs, who seek to maximize it (but can't)... Wow...
Yes, in any conflict the behavior of one side can not be examined without that of another.
But my page does not seek to convince anyone of the justice of the Israel's struggle, no. It only tries to "raise awareness" of what militant Arabs mean, when they say "occupation".
I'm afraid, it is not going to help people like your mother. The device will nag, she will take the pill out and put it on the counter to take "later". Then you'll show up and, in order to not anger you, she will either hide the pill(s) or directly throw them out... Every day, unless her condition/pain acutely worsens...
Such permanent bodily harm, BTW, is the only compelling argument against torturing of uncooperative captives of intelligence value — who are not protected by laws like Geneva convention, that is (McCain was, but it did not help him). If waterboarding does not have long-lasting effects, then I don't see it as inherently immoral. Whether it qualifies as "torture" or not is moot.
Sorry, we do not believe in Imaginary Property here. There is nothing "ungodly" about "pirated", because pirating is not exactly the same as stealing.
But I did. It accuses Republicans of waging "war on science", based on their stance on disciplines like bio-ethics and climatology (of which the author holds no better command, than Bush or myself). The fact, that the author is one of the two or three organizers of the event makes it laughingly obvious, that it will be a rather partisan one. That's all I said...
Really... Why don't you just say it, the way king's dress-makers did — whoever doubts it, is a moron?
Which is exactly, what established and professional historians were saying about the history of Soviet Union — based in no small part on lies of Duranty and others. The climatologists may or may not be mistaken today, but there is nothing "anti-science" in not believing them.
I'd be interested in statistics on this matter... I know one — otherwise meticulous — elderly woman, who only takes the prescribed medicines, when she has acute pain (the prescription is for regular use). I have heard of others...
I'm sure, some people just forget (especially, if they are on anti-memory loss medication, ha-ha), but I'm not at all certain, they represent the vast majority of "nonadherents"...