And the point of demanding the key instead of acceptng being fed just that user's data was that that user was a distraction from the real target.
If I read the summary right, the Lavabit operators had offered means for the feds to access individual accounts. But that wasn't enough, they demanded access to everyone's data. But that's ok, I am sure they had warrants for each and every one of them.
there is no country that won't do this, no matter what they say. so stop thinking its the big bad old USA. its everyone, everywhere, who CAN do it.
Qualitatively, yes you're probably right. Quantitatively, not so much. It's like the military. Every country, or almost, has one. But only the USofA spends about as much on "defense" as the rest of the planet put together.
PS Capitals, used with some restraint, go a long way to making heads and tails out of a sentence.
Yes, they will no doubt start spying for the highest bidder and we'll still have problems with them, but at least someone else will have to pay for it then.
Nobody else would be willing to pay what we do, and that would seriously hamper their ability to function.
The U.S. pays 20% of the U.N. funding, and refuses to fund certain operations against the interests of the U.S..
It's really questionable why the U.S. is paying more than a proportional assessment in any case.
That might be true. But conversely it is really questionable why the U.S. is claiming more than proportional influence. Not least of which involves routinely threatening to ignore the UN entirely.
Then there's the difference between due contributions and actually paying them. From wikipedia:
The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. Since 1985 the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.[13] After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.[citation needed] U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.[citation needed]
The winners make the rules, so any party that doesn't have a chance of winning is a waste of time and effort.
I disagree. Even if other parties have -- at first -- no real chance of winning, having them at all might still make clear just exactly how similar the current major parties are.
When Ds and Rs agree on something that's a sure sign it is against most peoples' interests. I think that developing a wider frame of reference would make that more obvious.
So you're saying violence is the only way to effect change from the outside? I don't know about that, certainly not clear to me that's what GP was getting at. Seems to me what you guys need is a third, fourth, fifth major political party with half a chance of, if not winning any election, at least offset the current status quo.
If, as you say, both parties were listening to people/corps, the GP's statement would still be only half right -- just the other half. So my statement would still be all right.
Slashdot has many European and non-US posters that by their own declaration are far to the left of the US in their politics and views.
First, I'm going to just assume you forgot to type "other" before non-US, though the slip is a telling one if you're into Freud:-)
Otherwise, your statement is true enough, and I suppose I fit the description -- for reasonable values of "far".
I get my share of mod points. I try to use them to highlight interesting points when they are well argued, sometimes even ones I disagree with. I only down mod the most obvious trolls, i.e., the blatantly racist/homophobe crowd.
But you seem to be suggesting, if I read you right, that/. moderation is somehow made less fair for being international. How do you figure? Your far right (from my point of view anyway) opinions would stand out less conspicuously in local US sites, I am sure, but I honestly don't see how this is related to fairness?
Depends on what sources you call news, I guess. The reputable ones, in my book, include coverage of what the scientists say -- such as relating the conclusions presented at the UN today -- as well as coverage of major natural disasters. If the former happened to have predicted the later, proper news outlets will point that out.
Sorry for late reply, I am in Europe and just woke up. I think this also might explain my confusion when I read your post, eg that the DP have radicalized and are now "socialists". Likewise for your statement that the major networks (even CNN?) have liberal bias.
You see, compared to what we've got over here, both major US parties are decidedly right wing. Even the Ds would be judged by most here to be to the right of our mainstream right wingers. There are lots of reasons for this I suppose.
Finally, I am in no position to find out for sure, but from what I can find suggests the TP is funded to a large extent by folks like the Koch brothers? Hardly grassroots, then, I would say.
Well I must admit that I can't remember exactly where I had heard that "the campaign with the largest budget wins, every time", and can't seem to find it just now. Still, a quick search gave me this nice chart.
Since I don't have House/Senate results memorized, I only glanced at recent Presidential elections. At first sight, this does not seem to support my statement. But these figures are per party. I am pretty sure that, typically, the incumbent party will typically spend a much larger percentage of total funds on their eventual candidate (post primaries) than the opposing party. Simply because the primaries select their incumbent candidate quickly, almost without fail.
Now if we look again at the charts and remember which party was incumbent for each of the cycles, I think it might still turn out -- I can't unfortunately find a convenient chart demonstrating it just now -- that the candidate with the largest funds has won the election, at least in recent Presidential races.
I am not sure what you were trying to say about putting a dollar value on "free media coverage" -- sorry if I misunderstand you. Are you saying we must compensate, in some way that isn't just hand waving, for a perceived Democrat bias in the media and then we will find it is surprising that Republicans ever win anything at all?
Also, I was under the impression TP candidates are, even more so then usual, funded primarily by business rather than individuals? Not sure about that though.
urine would test positive for crack, smack, uppers, downers, outers, inners, horse tranquilizers, cow paralyzers, blue bombers, green goofers, yellow submarines and LSD Mach 3.
"One of the things you learn from years of dealing with drug people, is that you can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back on a drug. Especially when it's waving a razor-sharp hunting knife in your eye." Hunter S. Thompson (RIP)
Alexander appealed to [key private organizations] to help support the information sharing concept and any legislation that may be required to implement it.
And of course it has long been true, and even more blatantly so since Citizens United, that large corporations have a significant influence on legislation. The campaign with the largest budget wins, every time. And obviously they expect something in exchange.
Look, it's fine to disagree with with Ms Klein. I also don't agree with every line she writes. I decided to post the link because the GGGP was talking about left-wing propaganda, and I think this article does a fair job of at least showing the right-wing has far from clean hands in this department.
But then this brave AC saw fit to use a big word (wrongly) and proceeded to do exactly what that word usually derides. Viz, "nutbar", "w00w00s", "freaks".
Also, I think it is rather telling that all of this remains anonymous. Grow a pair, will ya?
Ad hominem, is what you wanted to say. Then you proceed to call the people you disagree with (which is fine) various names. Yeah, you're a real big hitter for your team, AC.
So you are blaming the US for a problem started by the Soviet Union, continued by Egypt, and made worse when the Egyptians spread chemical weapons to Iraq and Syria
Are their other guily parties? Sure. All I was saying is that a military dictatorship such as the Egyptians used to suffer, which was completely dependent on US diplomatic and military support (and likely still is, since the latest military coup) would never dream of doing any dealings that would offend their, eh, benefactor. Besides, did you forget that the US were squarely on the Iraqi side of that whole Iraq-Iran debacle?
Did Turkey and Brazil intended to do anything about the chemical weapons?
No, because it was an initiative for a Middle East without nuclear weapons.
Well, neither idea was going to go anywhere. Iraq wouldn't have bought in. Iran wouldn't have bought in either. There are probably other countries that wouldn't have bought in, such as Syria. .
The Turkish/Brazilian initiative had Iran on board: see this for example. They did not need Iraq on board, though I think they might have been.
Iran and Israel got along well until the Iranian Islamic revolution after which Iran decided to be Israel's enemy and threaten genocide.
Iran and Israel got along fine as long as Iran was a Western backed brutal dictatorship. The fact that the revolution which ended that was an Islamic one was as predictable as it was unfortunate (in my opinion) -- for the Iranian people, that is, in the long run. When did Iran threaten genocide? Are you aware that one of the largest Jewish populations live in Iran, rather happily and unoppressed I might add? Please don't bring up that discredited mistranslation on the part of their previous leader (who is a nutjob, no argument there).
There is little liklihood that the Turkish / Brazilian initiative would have gone anywhere.
You got that right. But that's only because, shall we say, certain non-signatories of the Non-Profileration Treaty, made sure it was nipped in the bud, as it would actually impose restrictions on their nuclear facilities as well as the Iranians'.
You are deluding yourself if you believe that Iraq in the 80s or Egypt anywhere during the last couple decades would be able to do anything like what you suggest without US knowledge and support.
There was a promising initiative by Turkey and Brazil toward a nuke free Middle East, but it was shot down by the USG because of course Israel can't be expected to do precisely what everyone is demanding of Iran.
The US is in no position to wave the NPT in anyone's face seeing as they provide know how and materials to almost half of the non signatories..
PS good to see you learned to post anonymously in your own submitted stories, cold fjord
I have no idea if what you suggest is true, that NSA is just the go-to bunch of nerds for CIA. Actually more likely there would be several puppet masters. Some military intelligence outfits, certainly. And FBI and DEA came up recently as well. Big US Corporations? It would seem so.
But regardless, I don't agree, if that is even what you were implying, that we should therefore not criticize said nerds for facilitating so willingly. Some of whom surely frequent/.... Not cool, guys.
Of course every bit of understanding about who really calls the shots is welcome. But don't underestimate the extent to which a colossal bureaucracies can go off the rails by their own self sustained momentum.
Slashdot Mirror
And the point of demanding the key instead of acceptng being fed just that user's data was that that user was a distraction from the real target.
If I read the summary right, the Lavabit operators had offered means for the feds to access individual accounts. But that wasn't enough, they demanded access to everyone's data. But that's ok, I am sure they had warrants for each and every one of them.
there is no country that won't do this, no matter what they say. so stop thinking its the big bad old USA. its everyone, everywhere, who CAN do it.
Qualitatively, yes you're probably right. Quantitatively, not so much. It's like the military. Every country, or almost, has one. But only the USofA spends about as much on "defense" as the rest of the planet put together.
PS Capitals, used with some restraint, go a long way to making heads and tails out of a sentence.
Can we PLEASE deport the NSA?
Yes, they will no doubt start spying for the highest bidder and we'll still have problems with them, but at least someone else will have to pay for it then.
Nobody else would be willing to pay what we do, and that would seriously hamper their ability to function.
You say it like that would be a bad thing..
The U.S. pays 20% of the U.N. funding, and refuses to fund certain operations against the interests of the U.S..
It's really questionable why the U.S. is paying more than a proportional assessment in any case.
That might be true. But conversely it is really questionable why the U.S. is claiming more than proportional influence. Not least of which involves routinely threatening to ignore the UN entirely.
Then there's the difference between due contributions and actually paying them. From wikipedia:
The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. Since 1985 the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.[13]
After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.[citation needed]
U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.[citation needed]
The winners make the rules, so any party that doesn't have a chance of winning is a waste of time and effort.
I disagree. Even if other parties have -- at first -- no real chance of winning, having them at all might still make clear just exactly how similar the current major parties are.
When Ds and Rs agree on something that's a sure sign it is against most peoples' interests. I think that developing a wider frame of reference would make that more obvious.
So you're advocating violent regime change then?
So you're saying violence is the only way to effect change from the outside? I don't know about that, certainly not clear to me that's what GP was getting at. Seems to me what you guys need is a third, fourth, fifth major political party with half a chance of, if not winning any election, at least offset the current status quo.
Oh, sorry I missed the tongue in cheek there. I agree, by the way, though it was pretty shameless even before Citizen's United.
If, as you say, both parties were listening to people/corps, the GP's statement would still be only half right -- just the other half. So my statement would still be all right.
But, you realize I was joking, yes?
the democrats aren't listening to the people. The republicans are
Well, you're half right.
Slashdot has many European and non-US posters that by their own declaration are far to the left of the US in their politics and views.
First, I'm going to just assume you forgot to type "other" before non-US, though the slip is a telling one if you're into Freud :-)
Otherwise, your statement is true enough, and I suppose I fit the description -- for reasonable values of "far".
I get my share of mod points. I try to use them to highlight interesting points when they are well argued, sometimes even ones I disagree with. I only down mod the most obvious trolls, i.e., the blatantly racist/homophobe crowd.
But you seem to be suggesting, if I read you right, that /. moderation is somehow made less fair for being international. How do you figure? Your far right (from my point of view anyway) opinions would stand out less conspicuously in local US sites, I am sure, but I honestly don't see how this is related to fairness?
Depends on what sources you call news, I guess. The reputable ones, in my book, include coverage of what the scientists say -- such as relating the conclusions presented at the UN today -- as well as coverage of major natural disasters. If the former happened to have predicted the later, proper news outlets will point that out.
I's like to see the data that says we're getting more droughts, floods, and massive storms.
Watch the news, look around you. It takes willful ignorance to not see this train wreck coming.
Sorry for late reply, I am in Europe and just woke up. I think this also might explain my confusion when I read your post, eg that the DP have radicalized and are now "socialists". Likewise for your statement that the major networks (even CNN?) have liberal bias.
You see, compared to what we've got over here, both major US parties are decidedly right wing. Even the Ds would be judged by most here to be to the right of our mainstream right wingers. There are lots of reasons for this I suppose.
Finally, I am in no position to find out for sure, but from what I can find suggests the TP is funded to a large extent by folks like the Koch brothers? Hardly grassroots, then, I would say.
Ok, next step, let's find some plants that might be able to grow there. Let's make Mars a green planet.
Actually the soil is fine to plant things in, you literally just have to accommodate for the temperature. At least from what the last rover showed us.
Cool. Start in a big geodesic dome at nice temperature and gradually change the atmosphere to make O2!
Water Discovery Is Good News For Mars Colonists
Well, duh.
Now beer, that would be news!
Well I must admit that I can't remember exactly where I had heard that "the campaign with the largest budget wins, every time", and can't seem to find it just now. Still, a quick search gave me this nice chart.
Since I don't have House/Senate results memorized, I only glanced at recent Presidential elections. At first sight, this does not seem to support my statement. But these figures are per party. I am pretty sure that, typically, the incumbent party will typically spend a much larger percentage of total funds on their eventual candidate (post primaries) than the opposing party. Simply because the primaries select their incumbent candidate quickly, almost without fail.
Now if we look again at the charts and remember which party was incumbent for each of the cycles, I think it might still turn out -- I can't unfortunately find a convenient chart demonstrating it just now -- that the candidate with the largest funds has won the election, at least in recent Presidential races.
I am not sure what you were trying to say about putting a dollar value on "free media coverage" -- sorry if I misunderstand you. Are you saying we must compensate, in some way that isn't just hand waving, for a perceived Democrat bias in the media and then we will find it is surprising that Republicans ever win anything at all?
Also, I was under the impression TP candidates are, even more so then usual, funded primarily by business rather than individuals? Not sure about that though.
urine would test positive for crack, smack, uppers, downers, outers, inners, horse tranquilizers, cow paralyzers, blue bombers, green goofers, yellow submarines and LSD Mach 3.
"One of the things you learn from years of dealing with drug people, is that you can turn your back on a person, but never turn your back on a drug. Especially when it's waving a razor-sharp hunting knife in your eye."
Hunter S. Thompson (RIP)
Alexander appealed to [key private organizations] to help support the information sharing concept and any legislation that may be required to implement it.
And of course it has long been true, and even more blatantly so since Citizens United, that large corporations have a significant influence on legislation. The campaign with the largest budget wins, every time. And obviously they expect something in exchange.
So yes, unfortunately, this guy is for real.
Look, it's fine to disagree with with Ms Klein. I also don't agree with every line she writes. I decided to post the link because the GGGP was talking about left-wing propaganda, and I think this article does a fair job of at least showing the right-wing has far from clean hands in this department.
But then this brave AC saw fit to use a big word (wrongly) and proceeded to do exactly what that word usually derides. Viz, "nutbar", "w00w00s", "freaks".
Also, I think it is rather telling that all of this remains anonymous. Grow a pair, will ya?
ad hominid attacks
Ad hominem, is what you wanted to say. Then you proceed to call the people you disagree with (which is fine) various names. Yeah, you're a real big hitter for your team, AC.
I'll just leave this here.
So you are blaming the US for a problem started by the Soviet Union, continued by Egypt, and made worse when the Egyptians spread chemical weapons to Iraq and Syria
Are their other guily parties? Sure. All I was saying is that a military dictatorship such as the Egyptians used to suffer, which was completely dependent on US diplomatic and military support (and likely still is, since the latest military coup) would never dream of doing any dealings that would offend their, eh, benefactor. Besides, did you forget that the US were squarely on the Iraqi side of that whole Iraq-Iran debacle?
Did Turkey and Brazil intended to do anything about the chemical weapons?
No, because it was an initiative for a Middle East without nuclear weapons.
Well, neither idea was going to go anywhere. Iraq wouldn't have bought in. Iran wouldn't have bought in either. There are probably other countries that wouldn't have bought in, such as Syria. .
The Turkish/Brazilian initiative had Iran on board: see this for example. They did not need Iraq on board, though I think they might have been.
Iran and Israel got along well until the Iranian Islamic revolution after which Iran decided to be Israel's enemy and threaten genocide.
Iran and Israel got along fine as long as Iran was a Western backed brutal dictatorship. The fact that the revolution which ended that was an Islamic one was as predictable as it was unfortunate (in my opinion) -- for the Iranian people, that is, in the long run. When did Iran threaten genocide? Are you aware that one of the largest Jewish populations live in Iran, rather happily and unoppressed I might add? Please don't bring up that discredited mistranslation on the part of their previous leader (who is a nutjob, no argument there).
There is little liklihood that the Turkish / Brazilian initiative would have gone anywhere.
You got that right. But that's only because, shall we say, certain non-signatories of the Non-Profileration Treaty, made sure it was nipped in the bud, as it would actually impose restrictions on their nuclear facilities as well as the Iranians'.
You are deluding yourself if you believe that Iraq in the 80s or Egypt anywhere during the last couple decades would be able to do anything like what you suggest without US knowledge and support.
There was a promising initiative by Turkey and Brazil toward a nuke free Middle East, but it was shot down by the USG because of course Israel can't be expected to do precisely what everyone is demanding of Iran.
The US is in no position to wave the NPT in anyone's face seeing as they provide know how and materials to almost half of the non signatories..
PS good to see you learned to post anonymously in your own submitted stories, cold fjord
I have no idea if what you suggest is true, that NSA is just the go-to bunch of nerds for CIA. Actually more likely there would be several puppet masters. Some military intelligence outfits, certainly. And FBI and DEA came up recently as well. Big US Corporations? It would seem so.
But regardless, I don't agree, if that is even what you were implying, that we should therefore not criticize said nerds for facilitating so willingly. Some of whom surely frequent /. ... Not cool, guys.
Of course every bit of understanding about who really calls the shots is welcome. But don't underestimate the extent to which a colossal bureaucracies can go off the rails by their own self sustained momentum.
Sex is for evolution not procreation!
Too bad AC, maybe more people would have got the joke if you had written something like
"Sex is pro evolution not pro creation"