The Miranda warning is not a right. It is only administered by the police when they expect to interrogate you to protect them (the police) against getting information from you illegally.
I was arrested for speeding in NH (only because I was a US citizen on a French driver's license but never mind, off topic) and the racist that arrested me didn't 'read me my rights'. My lawyer told me forget it because he wasn't required to.
Security checkpoints aren't to protect normal people. They're to protect the pentagon, white house and financial centers from having planes dropped on them.
Even if it's painful for us via oil price rises, any action by the leadership in Iran at this time would end up with them being overthrown just like half a dozen other regimes in the past year...which is something they can't fail to recognize.
I think this is really only saber rattling because the leadership of Iran would have to be really stupid to start a war.
"If a hacker gets in and messes it all up, we can reconstruct (the results)," said Drew Ivers, chairman of Texas Rep. Ron Paul's campaign in Iowa and a member of the state GOP central committee. "It would take a little while. It might take a day or two, but we can do it."
What's left unsaid...it will have nothing to do with the way that people actually voted but hell, it'll be just like that Bush election in Florida back in the day...
You're referring to this specific instance (CIQ) whereas I am referring to the entire idea.
Even if you are correct that nothing serious has happened..this time, the reality is that if we have no legal protection that we will be spied upon as much as possible for corporate gain.
I want a life and I want it private. As I also want to be able to use the Internet (I don't use facebook et al and I make every effort for my private life NOT to be posted), and I want to be able to use a telephone without fear of being spied upon, I want legislative protection saying that they just can't do it.
1) All information does not end up in the public domain and to think so implies a level of naivete a bit beyond belief.
Oh really? Name one invention more than 50-100 years old whose implementation, inner workings, etc isn't common knowledge.
It's not an answerable question.
2) 'The common man' does not need to know how to make nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. I'd just as soon that organizations that want to attack my society also not know how to make such weapons.
Except that everyone already DOES know how. That cat is long out of the bag, reproduced, and had several generations of kittens. Good luck putting it back in.
Nuclear tech is out yes, but it is difficult enough to replicate that most entities can't manage it as much as they would like to. And per the next sentence in my previous message, those that have managed it have had a lot of help.
I'm not a biotech engineer (or anything remotely related) but I don't know that it's as difficult to work with biotech as it is to fabricate nuclear material.
3) Where some few governments have succeeded, with the help of other governments, I'm sure there are a lot of people and organizations, not to mention countries, who have been very determined to make a nuclear weapon who have obviously failed or we'd know about it.
Oh really? And how would you know about it, exactly, if someone built a small experimental nuclear reactor and produced enough plutonium to build a few warheads, until the warhead was actually detonated? And what makes you think anyone capable of doing such a thing would squander the capability by wasting it on anything but the most extraordinary of circumstances?
And how do you know that no one has discovered faster than light travel? Or the goose that lays golden eggs?
Until we've seen the evidence of it I'll continue to think that such things aren't technologically achievable at this point in time.
Humanity doesn't work exactly like you think it does. There aren't people who are "just out" to kill us, for no real reason, and will stop at nothing to do it. We create these people through our jacked up foreign policies. When we stop being bullies and accept our PLACE in the world as ONE of many nations, instead of the world's police force, then we don't have to worry about crazy asses trying to blow our cities up.
There are, nonetheless, people who would like to kill us be it for politics, religion or just mental illness. Whatever their reasons, I still don't want them to have information that enables them to do so.
Largely I agree...except with expecting the press not to share information. I think that either the information should be public, as in most cases, or if it's really a question of the ever overused 'National Security' (which is used for bullshit as often as for legitimate reasons, no doubt, but which remains a valid concern for some topics) then it should never enter the public domain at all.
How many of these are patents that were filed in other countries than China that are now being filed in China by the Chinese? i.e. not new design / research / etc but grabbing the rights to such 'inside' China.
I understand your point but I think we can't group all research into the same category without taking risk into account. If a technology can kill large amounts of people and perhaps be relatively easily (re)created then perhaps we don't want that information to be in the hands of people who want to kill us.
Some more than others. If I research a new form of glue, it may have a military application...to a degree, but not to the same degree as a weapon and certainly not to the same degree as a weaponized virus that has the capability to kill millions or billions of people.
You can think in black and white but the world just doesn't work that way.
When I first read that the government wanted a scientific journal to bowdlerize their findings, I was naturally appalled. Then I read the article further and I was even more appalled – at the scientists.
Deliberately researching how to spread lethal bird flu to humans and make it more infectious? What the hell were they thinking? How could this possibly be a good idea? Even as a weapon, it's far too dangerous to ever use – once unleashed, it can and probably will spread back to whoever initiated it.
To quote Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
Arguably they might now work on methods to block the spread of the flu.
I think this research was well worth doing but should be kept out of the wrong hands (i.e. people that want to kill us) as much as possible.
Now that the whole world knows what it is about and since some of the results (if not all) have already been presented at public events...
This is not necessarily the case. The original poster of the comment that the information had been publicly disseminated later said that he had not witnessed this himself and asked anyone who went to the presentations to comment on what exactly has already been made public and what has not. (I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to scroll up).
Yes and no...there is also a question of scale. How much damage can be done, and how difficult it is to realize that damage if you have reasonably well educated people who can take the information in question and use it.
Think zero day vulnerabilities. If you are aware of a zero day vuln you generally don't advertise it to the entire net before letting the vendor have a chance to patch it (whether they actually do so or not is a different question).
There is arguably some science that we don't want in the public domain
Indeed, imagine the damage that might be caused if research on how different types of plastics behave under heavy stress were to fall into the wrong hands. Terrorists might figure out how to turn plastic bottles into knives and then use those knives to hijack an airplane!
There's a small difference between hijacking an airplane and a weaponized virus with high transmission and mortality rates but I certainly understand your point nonetheless.
How do you decide what sort of research should be censored or hidden from the public? Terrorists are creative and can find ways to weaponize just about anything. Perhaps we should require people to get licenses before allowing them to read scientific papers?
Are you suggesting that everything should be shared with the general public, such as the names and photographs of spies that we have in enemy societies, for example? Or is it just the idea of research that should be shared with everyone regardless of the risks associated with that research falling into 'the wrong hands'?
Militarily applicable research is generally fairly well protected. This research should probably have been kept 'in house' if it's something that the government is worried about.
I'm sorry but I just don't agree that all science should be available to everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
The Miranda warning is not a right. It is only administered by the police when they expect to interrogate you to protect them (the police) against getting information from you illegally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
I was arrested for speeding in NH (only because I was a US citizen on a French driver's license but never mind, off topic) and the racist that arrested me didn't 'read me my rights'. My lawyer told me forget it because he wasn't required to.
Security checkpoints aren't to protect normal people. They're to protect the pentagon, white house and financial centers from having planes dropped on them.
Even if it's painful for us via oil price rises, any action by the leadership in Iran at this time would end up with them being overthrown just like half a dozen other regimes in the past year...which is something they can't fail to recognize.
I think this is really only saber rattling because the leadership of Iran would have to be really stupid to start a war.
They are terrorists, at least from the perspective of a traumatized 8 year old girl.
"If a hacker gets in and messes it all up, we can reconstruct (the results)," said Drew Ivers, chairman of Texas Rep. Ron Paul's campaign in Iowa and a member of the state GOP central committee. "It would take a little while. It might take a day or two, but we can do it."
What's left unsaid...it will have nothing to do with the way that people actually voted but hell, it'll be just like that Bush election in Florida back in the day...
"...corrupt the database used to gather votes and crash the website used to inform the public about results"
Crashing the public facing website I could see but the actual back end database should not be reachable from the Internet.
Ron Paul IS a republican so these statements saying that if he wins the republicans will be upset are ridiculous.
Follows the pattern that Baidu appears to have adopted in duplicating what Google does. Typical copy, change the picture and the name, and paste.
Given the history, Google should have left the software open source elsewhere and kept it proprietary in China.
You're referring to this specific instance (CIQ) whereas I am referring to the entire idea.
Even if you are correct that nothing serious has happened..this time, the reality is that if we have no legal protection that we will be spied upon as much as possible for corporate gain.
I want a life and I want it private. As I also want to be able to use the Internet (I don't use facebook et al and I make every effort for my private life NOT to be posted), and I want to be able to use a telephone without fear of being spied upon, I want legislative protection saying that they just can't do it.
At the risk of being modded down, I think that if there is not already legislation to protect people from this type of spying then there should be.
1) All information does not end up in the public domain and to think so implies a level of naivete a bit beyond belief.
Oh really? Name one invention more than 50-100 years old whose implementation, inner workings, etc isn't common knowledge.
It's not an answerable question.
2) 'The common man' does not need to know how to make nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. I'd just as soon that organizations that want to attack my society also not know how to make such weapons.
Except that everyone already DOES know how. That cat is long out of the bag, reproduced, and had several generations of kittens. Good luck putting it back in.
Nuclear tech is out yes, but it is difficult enough to replicate that most entities can't manage it as much as they would like to. And per the next sentence in my previous message, those that have managed it have had a lot of help.
I'm not a biotech engineer (or anything remotely related) but I don't know that it's as difficult to work with biotech as it is to fabricate nuclear material.
3) Where some few governments have succeeded, with the help of other governments, I'm sure there are a lot of people and organizations, not to mention countries, who have been very determined to make a nuclear weapon who have obviously failed or we'd know about it.
Oh really? And how would you know about it, exactly, if someone built a small experimental nuclear reactor and produced enough plutonium to build a few warheads, until the warhead was actually detonated? And what makes you think anyone capable of doing such a thing would squander the capability by wasting it on anything but the most extraordinary of circumstances?
And how do you know that no one has discovered faster than light travel? Or the goose that lays golden eggs?
Until we've seen the evidence of it I'll continue to think that such things aren't technologically achievable at this point in time.
Humanity doesn't work exactly like you think it does. There aren't people who are "just out" to kill us, for no real reason, and will stop at nothing to do it. We create these people through our jacked up foreign policies. When we stop being bullies and accept our PLACE in the world as ONE of many nations, instead of the world's police force, then we don't have to worry about crazy asses trying to blow our cities up.
There are, nonetheless, people who would like to kill us be it for politics, religion or just mental illness. Whatever their reasons, I still don't want them to have information that enables them to do so.
Can anyone who speaks Chinese to a check on how much counterfeit product and pirated copyrighted material is still being offered up on Baidu?
Tell it to New Orleans...
I heard this and I thought 'Finally a kitchen appliance sized nuclear reactor I can have at home!'...
Largely I agree...except with expecting the press not to share information. I think that either the information should be public, as in most cases, or if it's really a question of the ever overused 'National Security' (which is used for bullshit as often as for legitimate reasons, no doubt, but which remains a valid concern for some topics) then it should never enter the public domain at all.
How many of these are patents that were filed in other countries than China that are now being filed in China by the Chinese? i.e. not new design / research / etc but grabbing the rights to such 'inside' China.
I understand your point but I think we can't group all research into the same category without taking risk into account. If a technology can kill large amounts of people and perhaps be relatively easily (re)created then perhaps we don't want that information to be in the hands of people who want to kill us.
Some more than others. If I research a new form of glue, it may have a military application...to a degree, but not to the same degree as a weapon and certainly not to the same degree as a weaponized virus that has the capability to kill millions or billions of people.
You can think in black and white but the world just doesn't work that way.
No, I think because that is my opinion. You are of course welcome to your own.
Your reply is not really worth replying to as it has no substance but what the hell, I was here.
When I first read that the government wanted a scientific journal to bowdlerize their findings, I was naturally appalled. Then I read the article further and I was even more appalled – at the scientists.
Deliberately researching how to spread lethal bird flu to humans and make it more infectious? What the hell were they thinking? How could this possibly be a good idea? Even as a weapon, it's far too dangerous to ever use – once unleashed, it can and probably will spread back to whoever initiated it.
To quote Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
Arguably they might now work on methods to block the spread of the flu.
I think this research was well worth doing but should be kept out of the wrong hands (i.e. people that want to kill us) as much as possible.
Grow a pair and don't ignore them but don't let it rule your life either.
You can't ignore a problem hoping it goes away and people trying to drop airplanes on you are admittedly a problem.
The wars had very little, if anything, to do with 9/11.
Now that the whole world knows what it is about and since some of the results (if not all) have already been presented at public events...
This is not necessarily the case. The original poster of the comment that the information had been publicly disseminated later said that he had not witnessed this himself and asked anyone who went to the presentations to comment on what exactly has already been made public and what has not. (I'm paraphrasing because I'm too lazy to scroll up).
Yes and no...there is also a question of scale. How much damage can be done, and how difficult it is to realize that damage if you have reasonably well educated people who can take the information in question and use it.
Think zero day vulnerabilities. If you are aware of a zero day vuln you generally don't advertise it to the entire net before letting the vendor have a chance to patch it (whether they actually do so or not is a different question).
There is arguably some science that we don't want in the public domain
Indeed, imagine the damage that might be caused if research on how different types of plastics behave under heavy stress were to fall into the wrong hands. Terrorists might figure out how to turn plastic bottles into knives and then use those knives to hijack an airplane!
There's a small difference between hijacking an airplane and a weaponized virus with high transmission and mortality rates but I certainly understand your point nonetheless.
How do you decide what sort of research should be censored or hidden from the public? Terrorists are creative and can find ways to weaponize just about anything. Perhaps we should require people to get licenses before allowing them to read scientific papers?
Are you suggesting that everything should be shared with the general public, such as the names and photographs of spies that we have in enemy societies, for example? Or is it just the idea of research that should be shared with everyone regardless of the risks associated with that research falling into 'the wrong hands'?
Militarily applicable research is generally fairly well protected. This research should probably have been kept 'in house' if it's something that the government is worried about.
I'm sorry but I just don't agree that all science should be available to everyone.