I am ashamed that we don't instinctively see there are many forms of oversight (think budgetary control)...the money we have dumped on the NSA should have been a indicator...we all share in that blame. The NSA can't operate without a FAT budget. So...NO...they are not beyond oversight. Additionally...I think you are also asserting that we can't find trustworthy representatives that will uphold the spirit of established law without having to disclose everything to the public. THIS is the paranoia that must be addressed first. We are real short on heroes...for a lot of reasons...partly because we can't seem to get the career criminals our of office, public service, and public contracting and consulting. This is a great opportunity to do a little house keeping. For example, I don't think we have made it anyway near clear enough that Mr. Snowden (and his media group) are the real heroes here and those who lie to Congressional Oversight Committees and conspire to deprive us of Constitutional rights (on their way to enslaving us) are actually the real criminals. Many are confused by the minor differences in their Star Wars-esque office settings...oh wait, Snowden doesn't have a Star Wars battle station...so he must be the the bad guy. A nice public trial with a lot of public evidence would do a lot to restore trust and quell the fear that someone is coming to get us...at least the one's we aren't necessarily supposed to trust are OUTSIDE of of own houses. The other paranoia is a lot harder to sell when you are safe in at least one place.
Ask yourself...how does this post get moderated to "5 - Insightful" ???
No offense intended and in the most respectful way I know how to say this...but this person (or bot) appears to be exhibiting pathological levels of anxiety...practically slobbering on his/her (damn sure don't want to be sexist) keyboard...yet the community appears to identify with the underlying theme of vague fear projected in this example toward various "power figures". In the larger thread...are calls for armed insurrection, planning for counter-measures, angst over children's toys, and a smattering of "they're coming to get you" warnings...over a total of 227 postings (12 hours after the daily e-mail feed)...so yes...the numbers seem to be falling (our attention span is so short) and/. has become a honey hole for seditious rambling...is that still a crime?...or is that being handled a different way now? The point being...isn't the real issue (at this point) to the "3 letter guys" really about the effect on the "caged populace" ? I submit it is...so to all the reasoned folk out there who might be tempted to lose interest...keep your filters up...do not turn away...the wheels turn slowly.
Apt posting name...the issue has little to do with the thief's Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REP)...it's more about the public's Reasonable Expectation of Integrity (REI). It may well also have something to do with the public's REP when they connect to the police run cell tower...and becoming the target of illegal intrusion as a side effect. The real side effect of the Snowden disclosures has been to inform the global public that fundamental communication rights have been secretly renegotiated by exercise of sovereign to municipal will...secretly sidelined by dark agenda and collusion in a ends justifies means rationale. This most fundamental boundary condition of liberty and civility in communication continues to be being actively challenged because the wheels of reform and reversal turn slowly. It is especially difficult not in only the hyper-legal sense...but as a logical exercise. What does our world look like if REP is not a fundamental and respected right? Does a reduction of logistical/technological difficulty have to automatically mean that any opportunity must be exploited? Has our competitive nature misdirected our social compass this far off course? There's a strong demographic argument that begins with the recognition that as our population/density/connectedness increases, respect for such boundaries become more important, rather than less...if peace/harmony/cooperation is the goal. And I would like to point out that action to the contrary implies goals of order which require a new level of conflict/turmoil/subjugation than we currently enjoy. REP may turn out to be the fundamental differentiator/indicator of our era as well as a dividing line between participants. It's difficult to have a productive dialogue with anyone who does not acknowledge the importance of REP and cannot understand the importance of voluntary compliance with the concept...invariably overstating some point of fact/view/fear/belief.
That's an incredibly errant (but hopefully comforting) explanation of the "market" forces that drive the system...not saying there isn't an element of truth there...but that's not close to the level of appraisal needed to critique, much less recommend improvements. We all seem to want these problems to have simple solutions so we reduce the complexity to cope. But this isn't simple enough and it isn't the "other guy's" problem. If you feel the need to simplify...one approach might be to move closer to "root" rather than hopping around the tender branches...these are recurring fundamental themes. Once again, we frame seemingly incongruous conundrums with externalized rationalizations of the chaos that surrounds us...rather than simply accepting that our individual actions naturally aggregate consequentially...meaning that if we continue to perform, accept or tolerate such convenient assessments, balance simply cannot be reinstated. The balance I'm referring to is a fundamental respect for the other guy (and the realization that his needs are not greatly different from our own). And once again, we tolerate (empower) unbalanced power yet somehow remain blind to the natural cycle of cause and consequence. It's a strange got'cha that rising population doesn't appear to connect us...but rather it seems to drive us apart. This is an integrity problem that cannot be starved out...we must rediscover the meaning of enough...and re-establish a reasonable and relative baseline value for our contribution or services, resist the temptation to exploit and censure those who do. There is enough to go around if we practice reason and restraint. It's almost like a mental illness to do otherwise.
Well said...I would like to add to that precise science doesn't move as quickly as rumor (or hope)...with only slightly distinguishable error rates due to unbecoming traits on both sides. Science rejects anecdotal evidence until proven where less proof is required for your perjorative pseudo-science...its easy to tell which someone is on...sometimes in proportion to their nastiness scale. Unfortunately, both sides have ample evidence to indict the opposition. What seems to be missing in this post is a respectful approach to unproven anecdotal evidence and simple human frailty. Also likely the poster did not feel welcome or included in the rather clique-ish social circle that ultimately chooses to be less than forgiving of the mistakes of pure science. I submit that either side taken too far from center exhibits a plethora of glaring faults...so be gentle with the fears and beliefs of your neighbor...they have a right to be wrong occasionally as well...particularly when it is fundamentally harmless to anyone else.
This is really about institutional vs public memory isn't it? The Microsoft guy saying they paid their debt to society so trust us again...we're new and improved. The sad reality is we probably are far too forgiving (or simple) so actually holding any group accountable is simply more difficult than it should be through the cloud of obfuscation and disinformation. Maybe we get what we deserve if our collective attention span and memory can't follow through and maybe it's a simple as we get what we actually demand. Isn't this just another 'device' to patch things up? The decision is ultimately personal and memory is likely a very important component.
well said...the "cravings" you describe might be considered a form of mental illness in a post-scarcity society. Societal changes likely begin with similar individual perceptions but the herd must, at some level, collectively recognize (inferring a critical mass here), rather than glorify, the pathology of power/hoarding/coveting while simultaneously signaling approval of connected characteristics such as cooperation and compassion. We appear to be on another vector...maybe its just me.
I think it's interesting you don't see the correlation between scale and prevalence of discussion...particularly under a semi-rude, off-topic header originating in the latest wave of disruptive activism. Asking yourself if your post is part of the problem is a very important introspective loop employed by those who prize their relevance...otherwise motive comes into play...but only just ahead of integrity.
Community approval of this reply mystifies me...this recitation of incongruous platitudes...really? Possibly Perkins is referring to underlying message of this post...namely widening gap and the refusal to honestly address the underlying truths that propel the groups apart. I find it noteworthy the party response to the Occupy folk was a big question mark...as if their stream of complaints made them less relevant... or easier to dismiss for lack of organization? Isn't it also possible this is a widely spread recognition of important talking points? It's clear the Wall Street bailout delayed/removed or “shifted” consequences of immoral/illegal actions at the expense of the “little” guy? And maybe this is a touchy subject for a lot of them because they can connect the dots that certain groups (not saying Google here) continue to be enriched at their expense. Likely the perception is that Google is not a very good corporate community citizen...when it can clearly afford to be...another broken social contract with clear and measurable metrics makes Google an easy target for the stream of dissatisfaction and helplessness. I also wonder how much longer the pendulum can be propelled in its current trajectory...and what the over-correction will look like? Isn't the purpose of American government to ensure some level of uniformity of treatment/opportunity or equality? I don't think “If I don't do it, somebody else will” is a meritorious reply...there are also better options than a replay of the “too big to fail” rationale. And doesn't even the 10%-er argument define a 90% majority? Since we have to live together...as in “share the earth”...hoarding should be considered pathological beyond some undefined threshold...and maybe we have reached it. The only thing we can be certain of...is these demonstrators believe we have.
What's interesting in this argument is the absence of discussion about a National Energy Policy. How many times can we realistically feign betrayal (profiteering and/or price/term fixing) before we realize we have to bake-in (rather than imply) social contract terms simultaneously with legal protections or preferences afforded to industries such as Energy. As soon as we get caught up in the details of the “market”, we divert attention from important issues...that the terms of the market are artificially created/supported by these protections and tend to establish havens for rent seekers and profiteers (unresponsive to public opinion).
$40 natural gas is not competitive with other fuels...it is profiteering. Is it too much to expect provisioning for a cold winter might be a part of the social responsibility? Or will we simply allow unprincipled men to create profiteering triggers that we will inevitably trip. In the early days of the automobile before the rules for the infrastructure of the roads was fully thought out, the proverbial farmer plowing the road in front of his farm to generate towing fees was universally recognized as “bad form”. Are we holding out this problem is intractable?...or that we lack the will to bring it under control?
Set-up a morality credit system...where a transplant recipient assumed/presumed/deemed immoral could earn/buy/receive morality credits for sanctioned acts committed/perpetrated/consecrated in their name.
Clearly...the underlying message is helplessness...can't say it is organized enough to be intentional...but it sure looks that way a lot of the time. This is the perfect example. The breakdown of our system at such a high level (especially in secret) spreads hopelessness as well. Unfortunately, unresponsive governance pushes the timing and amplitude of change out to tipping points...meaning the average American who doesn't vote can't be assumed to also not have an opinion...likely just overly comfortable and trusting. These "apathy metrics" are being tested daily. If it turns out to be a tipping point...then clemency may be inevitable. However, if these revelations are swept away then Snowden's gamble on America will not pay off for him or us...and helplessness/hopelessness will continue to fester...and get pushed to the next potential tipping point. He took a big risk on his reading of the conscience and integrity of mainstreet America.
It's curious to me that about the only thing "off the table" in the healthcare debate is actuarial science...the fundamental rating mechanism. I remind the reader that faulty assessments of the forward effects of complex predictive models (think credit default swaps and other derivitives) were instrumental in the recent mortgage crisis. The insurance industry has been playing a series of these shell games with projections (actuarials without lipstick) since its inception...leveraging effectively guaranteed returns (does that sound reasonable?) to drive up costs to build balance sheet empires (too powerful to regulate?). Does any of this sound familiar? We should be paying more attention to potentially flawed underlying assumptions we receive from rent seekers.
It's a common trap to use logic to predict tax rules...which are all simply logical devices to fund the very expensive business of government. Essentially, Italy just wants their cut...their device says there's a distinction between products. Italy is reconsidering advertising that, in itself, is a product when projected to a consumer...presumably Italy position is that consumption (viewing a paid advertisement) triggers a taxable event (that they otherwise may be unable to capture in other jurisdictions...like Bermuda). Most jurisdictions recognize a taxable event at the point of sale...Italy is imposing what is commonly called a use tax...which is triggered where consumption (use) occurs)...commonly there is a tax credit for sales tax paid in other jurisdictions (to avoid double taxation)...but in this case it is implied there would be no tax credit because Bermuda is presumed to be a “tax haven”. They are just setting up a logical system to get paid for “taxable events” occurring within their sovereign boundaries.
I do not believe this kind of rhetoric is acceptable...it is juvenile, transparent, insulting AND inflammatory. I do not know what it will take to force an realistic response to legitimate concerns...but the time appears to be rapidly approaching when ordinary citizens should begin thinking in terms of better organized demonstrations to demand meaningful checks and balances be implemented. A potentially useful strategy might be to get "citizen" representation on the surveillance taskforce. Preaching to the choir is getting really old...and clearly does not address the issues I believe are important to the public. I have been a solid supporter of Obama because I believed the US sorely needed to balance its approach vector. Unfortunately, the democratic (and especially Obama's) inability to get to ground level on this surveillance travesty has dented my belief that reasonable solutions can be found inside the current two party system. Sadly, it's nearly time for me, as a concerned voter, to withdraw my support from the established power elite because they prove daily (it seems) they can no longer be entrusted to uphold the law, represent the long term interest of the population or even tell the truth. Our representatives are too insulated from the people and the consequences of their actions.
Building on this...government IT acquisitions routinely pay 100% of the software development costs (with front loaded contracts, no less) yet do not retain ownership of the code or unlicensed access rights. Further, substandard contract performance in terms of capability delivery and budget/time adherence carries virtually no meaningful penalty. When summed with outright disobedience of executive order/congress, scope creep, repetitive illustrations of management deficiencies and territorial disputes between agencies; this quite sadly sounds very much on par. Anyone shocked by this should take a closer look at the general state of federal IT acquisitions...a point of failure for profit for at least 25 years. I refer you to numerous OIG and GAO publications since 1990 for the sordid details.
Clearly this is one of the most intriguing aspects of the open source model...does anyone know of an accepted compensation schema that attempts to equitably distribute earnings to coding participants?... or even have any ideas about such a solution?
Resolving this conundrum could change OS appeal and dynamic...possibly turning "OS coder" into a viable career path would increase rates of innovation and foster community cooperation...I'm just saying...
I know my tinfoil hat is showing in this, but...what does a privacy strategy for proprietary interests look like under the semi-plausible assumption that the temptation of industrial espionage is too great to resist? In that case, the strategy gets complicated quickly. Is this a widely overlooked risk? It certainly doesn't get a lot of air time...almost seems like an issue that is a little too scary for prime time...like there's a glass floor that will never be broken.
If it is broadly accepted that money interests are in control...does anyone believe these records are not commercially exploited...like routinely...or is it just foreign interests that might exploit American industry? This is a front line consideration when foreign powers are concerned. How can we reasonably accept such obvious commercial value is not being improperly used as well...because these swell guys have such a great record of restraint?
Money still equals power when properly applied. National security would also be a great cover story for a secondary profit center surrounding the activities of “Commercial Exploitation of Industrial Espionage”.
Or is the mythical Ferrari parked in the barn really just an underutilized asset?
Could you link or cite specifics please? In the absence of specifics this argument is moot.
I have personally met with this phenomenon however I have also seen this excuse crop up when it wasn't deserved.
- Was this a hard money contract?
- Were the specifications published prior to bidding? Or was it no-bid?
- Is the Change-Order chain complete? Answer to questions like these should begin right there.
- Is legal action for specific performance pending or anticipated? Or is simply positioning?
I'm unsure we have enough information to form opinions.
I think it is important to mention that therapy under the slightest duress is generally worthless...or said another way...one must want help/change. Consequently, such classifications are, by definition, somewhat futile attempts to force/legislate a world view (morality).
This...There's a pretty long list of these "You-Might-Be-A-Malware-IF..." scenarios...
If Tech is destined to become a race of mercenary exploitation creating a stratified "food chain"...maybe it's time to formulate an approval or ranking system to designate/evidence voluntary compliance to known standards.
Trust is relative and seems more relevant to decision-making since the sovereign power's entry in the race has become common knowledge.
I can't help but believe a large part of the recent indignation comes from the challenges to the pecking order and realization that the real "top dog" is actually an unknown quantity/quality. The value proposition of tech leadership has come to include subterfuge and trickery...and very few such unprincipled efforts will surrender their "black hat" advantage in the absence of recognizable economic/political consequences to balance their cost/benefit calculations.
It is also unlikely this creepy feeling will go away until we reconcile the trust issues...by whatever method. Might as well get started...
Too funny...this story predates urban legend (as a term).
Imagine how many mattresses full of GrandPa's cash currently reside in a landfill or burn pile...now it's hard drives...but the moral remains the same...cash is too risky...put your money in the bank...where it's safe.
It concerns me to learn our leaders (US citizen here) have lost confidence in our ability to innovate and the value of cooperation. As a direct result, we appear to have temporarily lost our way and have begun to trade on the reputation of our betters (predecessors) to gain advantage through subterfuge (compromising our international integrity) rather than excellence...which, quite frankly, is not the "American Way"... as we were taught to understand it. Ultimately it reveals why the dark underside of 21st century American exceptionalism has taken such a beating in the last couple of decades. We are investing (heavily) in the short term expedience historically proven to be destructive...but worse, our leaders on either side lack the conviction to speak clearly and truthfully about actions taken in our name and the values we believe in.
I hope we all recognize we must evolve from a competitive to a cooperative underlying transaction to remain peacefully sustainable. This balance can only be achieved on a foundation of principled actions respectful of inalienable human rights because as the world continues to shrink our interrelations will reflect the quality of our connections for better or worse. I question the veracity of published popular support for secret courts, invasions of privacy, repeated omissions of material information and commission of false witness under oath (to name a few obvious examples). These methods have no place in the America I want to live in and project to other cultures.
This is a very good time for the otherwise silent majority to put pen to paper in an effort to remind our politicians who they represent. Further, in the unlikely event we cannot encourage meaningful change, these are very good issues for platform declarations and voting booth decisions.
We will only have the qualities in government we demand.
Slashdot Mirror
I am ashamed that we don't instinctively see there are many forms of oversight (think budgetary control)...the money we have dumped on the NSA should have been a indicator...we all share in that blame. The NSA can't operate without a FAT budget. So...NO...they are not beyond oversight. Additionally...I think you are also asserting that we can't find trustworthy representatives that will uphold the spirit of established law without having to disclose everything to the public. THIS is the paranoia that must be addressed first. We are real short on heroes...for a lot of reasons...partly because we can't seem to get the career criminals our of office, public service, and public contracting and consulting. This is a great opportunity to do a little house keeping. For example, I don't think we have made it anyway near clear enough that Mr. Snowden (and his media group) are the real heroes here and those who lie to Congressional Oversight Committees and conspire to deprive us of Constitutional rights (on their way to enslaving us) are actually the real criminals. Many are confused by the minor differences in their Star Wars-esque office settings...oh wait, Snowden doesn't have a Star Wars battle station...so he must be the the bad guy. A nice public trial with a lot of public evidence would do a lot to restore trust and quell the fear that someone is coming to get us...at least the one's we aren't necessarily supposed to trust are OUTSIDE of of own houses. The other paranoia is a lot harder to sell when you are safe in at least one place.
Ask yourself...how does this post get moderated to "5 - Insightful" ??? No offense intended and in the most respectful way I know how to say this...but this person (or bot) appears to be exhibiting pathological levels of anxiety...practically slobbering on his/her (damn sure don't want to be sexist) keyboard...yet the community appears to identify with the underlying theme of vague fear projected in this example toward various "power figures". In the larger thread...are calls for armed insurrection, planning for counter-measures, angst over children's toys, and a smattering of "they're coming to get you" warnings...over a total of 227 postings (12 hours after the daily e-mail feed)...so yes...the numbers seem to be falling (our attention span is so short) and /. has become a honey hole for seditious rambling...is that still a crime? ...or is that being handled a different way now? The point being...isn't the real issue (at this point) to the "3 letter guys" really about the effect on the "caged populace" ? I submit it is...so to all the reasoned folk out there who might be tempted to lose interest...keep your filters up...do not turn away...the wheels turn slowly.
Apt posting name...the issue has little to do with the thief's Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REP)...it's more about the public's Reasonable Expectation of Integrity (REI). It may well also have something to do with the public's REP when they connect to the police run cell tower...and becoming the target of illegal intrusion as a side effect. The real side effect of the Snowden disclosures has been to inform the global public that fundamental communication rights have been secretly renegotiated by exercise of sovereign to municipal will...secretly sidelined by dark agenda and collusion in a ends justifies means rationale. This most fundamental boundary condition of liberty and civility in communication continues to be being actively challenged because the wheels of reform and reversal turn slowly. It is especially difficult not in only the hyper-legal sense...but as a logical exercise. What does our world look like if REP is not a fundamental and respected right? Does a reduction of logistical/technological difficulty have to automatically mean that any opportunity must be exploited? Has our competitive nature misdirected our social compass this far off course? There's a strong demographic argument that begins with the recognition that as our population/density/connectedness increases, respect for such boundaries become more important, rather than less...if peace/harmony/cooperation is the goal. And I would like to point out that action to the contrary implies goals of order which require a new level of conflict/turmoil/subjugation than we currently enjoy. REP may turn out to be the fundamental differentiator/indicator of our era as well as a dividing line between participants. It's difficult to have a productive dialogue with anyone who does not acknowledge the importance of REP and cannot understand the importance of voluntary compliance with the concept...invariably overstating some point of fact/view/fear/belief.
That's an incredibly errant (but hopefully comforting) explanation of the "market" forces that drive the system...not saying there isn't an element of truth there...but that's not close to the level of appraisal needed to critique, much less recommend improvements. We all seem to want these problems to have simple solutions so we reduce the complexity to cope. But this isn't simple enough and it isn't the "other guy's" problem. If you feel the need to simplify...one approach might be to move closer to "root" rather than hopping around the tender branches...these are recurring fundamental themes. Once again, we frame seemingly incongruous conundrums with externalized rationalizations of the chaos that surrounds us...rather than simply accepting that our individual actions naturally aggregate consequentially...meaning that if we continue to perform, accept or tolerate such convenient assessments, balance simply cannot be reinstated. The balance I'm referring to is a fundamental respect for the other guy (and the realization that his needs are not greatly different from our own). And once again, we tolerate (empower) unbalanced power yet somehow remain blind to the natural cycle of cause and consequence. It's a strange got'cha that rising population doesn't appear to connect us...but rather it seems to drive us apart. This is an integrity problem that cannot be starved out...we must rediscover the meaning of enough...and re-establish a reasonable and relative baseline value for our contribution or services, resist the temptation to exploit and censure those who do. There is enough to go around if we practice reason and restraint. It's almost like a mental illness to do otherwise.
Well said...I would like to add to that precise science doesn't move as quickly as rumor (or hope)...with only slightly distinguishable error rates due to unbecoming traits on both sides. Science rejects anecdotal evidence until proven where less proof is required for your perjorative pseudo-science...its easy to tell which someone is on...sometimes in proportion to their nastiness scale. Unfortunately, both sides have ample evidence to indict the opposition. What seems to be missing in this post is a respectful approach to unproven anecdotal evidence and simple human frailty. Also likely the poster did not feel welcome or included in the rather clique-ish social circle that ultimately chooses to be less than forgiving of the mistakes of pure science. I submit that either side taken too far from center exhibits a plethora of glaring faults...so be gentle with the fears and beliefs of your neighbor...they have a right to be wrong occasionally as well...particularly when it is fundamentally harmless to anyone else.
This is really about institutional vs public memory isn't it? The Microsoft guy saying they paid their debt to society so trust us again...we're new and improved. The sad reality is we probably are far too forgiving (or simple) so actually holding any group accountable is simply more difficult than it should be through the cloud of obfuscation and disinformation. Maybe we get what we deserve if our collective attention span and memory can't follow through and maybe it's a simple as we get what we actually demand. Isn't this just another 'device' to patch things up? The decision is ultimately personal and memory is likely a very important component.
well said...the "cravings" you describe might be considered a form of mental illness in a post-scarcity society. Societal changes likely begin with similar individual perceptions but the herd must, at some level, collectively recognize (inferring a critical mass here), rather than glorify, the pathology of power/hoarding/coveting while simultaneously signaling approval of connected characteristics such as cooperation and compassion. We appear to be on another vector...maybe its just me.
I think it's interesting you don't see the correlation between scale and prevalence of discussion...particularly under a semi-rude, off-topic header originating in the latest wave of disruptive activism. Asking yourself if your post is part of the problem is a very important introspective loop employed by those who prize their relevance...otherwise motive comes into play...but only just ahead of integrity.
Community approval of this reply mystifies me...this recitation of incongruous platitudes...really? Possibly Perkins is referring to underlying message of this post...namely widening gap and the refusal to honestly address the underlying truths that propel the groups apart. I find it noteworthy the party response to the Occupy folk was a big question mark...as if their stream of complaints made them less relevant ... or easier to dismiss for lack of organization? Isn't it also possible this is a widely spread recognition of important talking points? It's clear the Wall Street bailout delayed/removed or “shifted” consequences of immoral/illegal actions at the expense of the “little” guy? And maybe this is a touchy subject for a lot of them because they can connect the dots that certain groups (not saying Google here) continue to be enriched at their expense. Likely the perception is that Google is not a very good corporate community citizen...when it can clearly afford to be...another broken social contract with clear and measurable metrics makes Google an easy target for the stream of dissatisfaction and helplessness. I also wonder how much longer the pendulum can be propelled in its current trajectory...and what the over-correction will look like? Isn't the purpose of American government to ensure some level of uniformity of treatment/opportunity or equality? I don't think “If I don't do it, somebody else will” is a meritorious reply...there are also better options than a replay of the “too big to fail” rationale. And doesn't even the 10%-er argument define a 90% majority? Since we have to live together...as in “share the earth”...hoarding should be considered pathological beyond some undefined threshold...and maybe we have reached it. The only thing we can be certain of...is these demonstrators believe we have.
What's interesting in this argument is the absence of discussion about a National Energy Policy. How many times can we realistically feign betrayal (profiteering and/or price/term fixing) before we realize we have to bake-in (rather than imply) social contract terms simultaneously with legal protections or preferences afforded to industries such as Energy. As soon as we get caught up in the details of the “market”, we divert attention from important issues...that the terms of the market are artificially created/supported by these protections and tend to establish havens for rent seekers and profiteers (unresponsive to public opinion). $40 natural gas is not competitive with other fuels...it is profiteering. Is it too much to expect provisioning for a cold winter might be a part of the social responsibility? Or will we simply allow unprincipled men to create profiteering triggers that we will inevitably trip. In the early days of the automobile before the rules for the infrastructure of the roads was fully thought out, the proverbial farmer plowing the road in front of his farm to generate towing fees was universally recognized as “bad form”. Are we holding out this problem is intractable? ...or that we lack the will to bring it under control?
Set-up a morality credit system...where a transplant recipient assumed/presumed/deemed immoral could earn/buy/receive morality credits for sanctioned acts committed/perpetrated/consecrated in their name.
Clearly...the underlying message is helplessness...can't say it is organized enough to be intentional...but it sure looks that way a lot of the time. This is the perfect example. The breakdown of our system at such a high level (especially in secret) spreads hopelessness as well. Unfortunately, unresponsive governance pushes the timing and amplitude of change out to tipping points...meaning the average American who doesn't vote can't be assumed to also not have an opinion...likely just overly comfortable and trusting. These "apathy metrics" are being tested daily. If it turns out to be a tipping point...then clemency may be inevitable. However, if these revelations are swept away then Snowden's gamble on America will not pay off for him or us...and helplessness/hopelessness will continue to fester...and get pushed to the next potential tipping point. He took a big risk on his reading of the conscience and integrity of mainstreet America.
It's curious to me that about the only thing "off the table" in the healthcare debate is actuarial science...the fundamental rating mechanism. I remind the reader that faulty assessments of the forward effects of complex predictive models (think credit default swaps and other derivitives) were instrumental in the recent mortgage crisis. The insurance industry has been playing a series of these shell games with projections (actuarials without lipstick) since its inception...leveraging effectively guaranteed returns (does that sound reasonable?) to drive up costs to build balance sheet empires (too powerful to regulate?). Does any of this sound familiar? We should be paying more attention to potentially flawed underlying assumptions we receive from rent seekers.
It's a common trap to use logic to predict tax rules...which are all simply logical devices to fund the very expensive business of government. Essentially, Italy just wants their cut...their device says there's a distinction between products. Italy is reconsidering advertising that, in itself, is a product when projected to a consumer...presumably Italy position is that consumption (viewing a paid advertisement) triggers a taxable event (that they otherwise may be unable to capture in other jurisdictions...like Bermuda). Most jurisdictions recognize a taxable event at the point of sale...Italy is imposing what is commonly called a use tax...which is triggered where consumption (use) occurs)...commonly there is a tax credit for sales tax paid in other jurisdictions (to avoid double taxation)...but in this case it is implied there would be no tax credit because Bermuda is presumed to be a “tax haven”. They are just setting up a logical system to get paid for “taxable events” occurring within their sovereign boundaries.
I do not believe this kind of rhetoric is acceptable...it is juvenile, transparent, insulting AND inflammatory. I do not know what it will take to force an realistic response to legitimate concerns...but the time appears to be rapidly approaching when ordinary citizens should begin thinking in terms of better organized demonstrations to demand meaningful checks and balances be implemented. A potentially useful strategy might be to get "citizen" representation on the surveillance taskforce. Preaching to the choir is getting really old...and clearly does not address the issues I believe are important to the public. I have been a solid supporter of Obama because I believed the US sorely needed to balance its approach vector. Unfortunately, the democratic (and especially Obama's) inability to get to ground level on this surveillance travesty has dented my belief that reasonable solutions can be found inside the current two party system. Sadly, it's nearly time for me, as a concerned voter, to withdraw my support from the established power elite because they prove daily (it seems) they can no longer be entrusted to uphold the law, represent the long term interest of the population or even tell the truth. Our representatives are too insulated from the people and the consequences of their actions.
Building on this...government IT acquisitions routinely pay 100% of the software development costs (with front loaded contracts, no less) yet do not retain ownership of the code or unlicensed access rights. Further, substandard contract performance in terms of capability delivery and budget/time adherence carries virtually no meaningful penalty. When summed with outright disobedience of executive order/congress, scope creep, repetitive illustrations of management deficiencies and territorial disputes between agencies; this quite sadly sounds very much on par. Anyone shocked by this should take a closer look at the general state of federal IT acquisitions...a point of failure for profit for at least 25 years. I refer you to numerous OIG and GAO publications since 1990 for the sordid details.
Clearly this is one of the most intriguing aspects of the open source model...does anyone know of an accepted compensation schema that attempts to equitably distribute earnings to coding participants? ... or even have any ideas about such a solution?
Resolving this conundrum could change OS appeal and dynamic...possibly turning "OS coder" into a viable career path would increase rates of innovation and foster community cooperation...I'm just saying...
Does that short rant mean that you aren't capable of processing an intermediate outcome? What is so scary about this line of thinking?
Yes...sorry I have no mod points for you Bugs...
I know my tinfoil hat is showing in this, but...what does a privacy strategy for proprietary interests look like under the semi-plausible assumption that the temptation of industrial espionage is too great to resist? In that case, the strategy gets complicated quickly. Is this a widely overlooked risk? It certainly doesn't get a lot of air time...almost seems like an issue that is a little too scary for prime time...like there's a glass floor that will never be broken. If it is broadly accepted that money interests are in control...does anyone believe these records are not commercially exploited...like routinely...or is it just foreign interests that might exploit American industry? This is a front line consideration when foreign powers are concerned. How can we reasonably accept such obvious commercial value is not being improperly used as well...because these swell guys have such a great record of restraint? Money still equals power when properly applied. National security would also be a great cover story for a secondary profit center surrounding the activities of “Commercial Exploitation of Industrial Espionage”. Or is the mythical Ferrari parked in the barn really just an underutilized asset?
Could you link or cite specifics please? In the absence of specifics this argument is moot. I have personally met with this phenomenon however I have also seen this excuse crop up when it wasn't deserved. - Was this a hard money contract? - Were the specifications published prior to bidding? Or was it no-bid? - Is the Change-Order chain complete? Answer to questions like these should begin right there. - Is legal action for specific performance pending or anticipated? Or is simply positioning? I'm unsure we have enough information to form opinions.
I think it is important to mention that therapy under the slightest duress is generally worthless...or said another way...one must want help/change. Consequently, such classifications are, by definition, somewhat futile attempts to force/legislate a world view (morality).
This...There's a pretty long list of these "You-Might-Be-A-Malware-IF..." scenarios... If Tech is destined to become a race of mercenary exploitation creating a stratified "food chain"...maybe it's time to formulate an approval or ranking system to designate/evidence voluntary compliance to known standards. Trust is relative and seems more relevant to decision-making since the sovereign power's entry in the race has become common knowledge. I can't help but believe a large part of the recent indignation comes from the challenges to the pecking order and realization that the real "top dog" is actually an unknown quantity/quality. The value proposition of tech leadership has come to include subterfuge and trickery...and very few such unprincipled efforts will surrender their "black hat" advantage in the absence of recognizable economic/political consequences to balance their cost/benefit calculations. It is also unlikely this creepy feeling will go away until we reconcile the trust issues...by whatever method. Might as well get started...
Too funny...this story predates urban legend (as a term). Imagine how many mattresses full of GrandPa's cash currently reside in a landfill or burn pile...now it's hard drives...but the moral remains the same...cash is too risky...put your money in the bank...where it's safe.
It concerns me to learn our leaders (US citizen here) have lost confidence in our ability to innovate and the value of cooperation. As a direct result, we appear to have temporarily lost our way and have begun to trade on the reputation of our betters (predecessors) to gain advantage through subterfuge (compromising our international integrity) rather than excellence...which, quite frankly, is not the "American Way"... as we were taught to understand it. Ultimately it reveals why the dark underside of 21st century American exceptionalism has taken such a beating in the last couple of decades. We are investing (heavily) in the short term expedience historically proven to be destructive...but worse, our leaders on either side lack the conviction to speak clearly and truthfully about actions taken in our name and the values we believe in. I hope we all recognize we must evolve from a competitive to a cooperative underlying transaction to remain peacefully sustainable. This balance can only be achieved on a foundation of principled actions respectful of inalienable human rights because as the world continues to shrink our interrelations will reflect the quality of our connections for better or worse. I question the veracity of published popular support for secret courts, invasions of privacy, repeated omissions of material information and commission of false witness under oath (to name a few obvious examples). These methods have no place in the America I want to live in and project to other cultures. This is a very good time for the otherwise silent majority to put pen to paper in an effort to remind our politicians who they represent. Further, in the unlikely event we cannot encourage meaningful change, these are very good issues for platform declarations and voting booth decisions. We will only have the qualities in government we demand.