What announcement would that be? ACLU requested information and the government complied. For your theory to be correct, ACLU would need to be working for the US government, which seems highly unlikely.
and the government gave the ALCU something. You're assuming the ALCU is an all knowing, all powerful agency. It is not. It is sorely underfunded, and underpowered. Your assumption suggest that the ALCU can reliably get passed all tradecraft by US intelegence. Laughable at best.
No, it's of the People. Every member of US government was voted there by the People. And they're doing what their voters want them to.
by "people", you mean "people" like citizens united, and not flesh and blood people. I mean in every nation on earth they've voted in their leaders with the exception of Saudi Arabia and the Maladives.
For all the talk about two-party system, campaign contributions and such, the fact remains that Depublicrats stay in power because the People want them to. They are not bloodthirsty tyrants stomping their jackboots on their subjects faces; at the absolute worst they're conmen. For good or ill, US citizens are firmly in control of their country's destiny, and deserve all the blame - or credit - for anything their country does, to themselves or anyone else.
No, we have a system that for all intents and purposes does not respond to the will of the people, and the people have virtually no say on what issues are brought up, or not brought up.
I agree with your reply re the gender issues but would expect that the woman has legal standing in the US against Uber.
If that is the case, it sets a far more oppressive, culture superiority, dangerous precident than the combined rape cultures of the worst in India in history and the worst in the US/West in history combined:
The supremecy of US law, everywhere in the world, world wide, just because.
I hope this women does get some recourse, and rape culture world wide is tackled, but the precedent this case will set if she wins is a whole new level of dangerous.
the best coders are not classroom taught, and the nature of Free Software/Open Source ensures it stays that way. FOSS has made the computer one intellectual discipline that is not strictly controlled by a bunch of gatekeepers deciding who does and does not get to even become a leading expert by deciding who does and does not get training.
The perverse effect of this, is we'll got back to the bad old days of the 1990s, and geeks vs suits again. The spirit of the hacker will live on, in a very perverse way not originally intended, and we'll see a new gap between the skilled but unhirable underground, and the well paid but generally incompetant "suits", and "proffesionals". (that was slashdot of the 1990s).
while correct, and terrible, your point also does not add to the argument. The point is, that right now, India has some pretty big gender issues that even the US doesn't have, and you can't sue Uber because another India has terrible womans rights.
The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" means that there should be quite a few dangerous people out there
This is a bit of a false dichotomy. Democratic law enforcement does not hinder the overall quality of law enforcement. Just look at the US, where over the last 30 years, all liberal protections of law have been more or less whittled away to optional, has done little to keep criminals off the streets. Guilty until proven innocent prevents false convictions, which actually helps keeping dangerous people off the streets, because a false conviction closes the case and lets a guilty man walk free(in addition to incarcerating an innocent one).
Even if it did work like this, its a small price to pay to keep institutionalized abusive behavior from happening, if the price is only a handful of petty crimes. Or think about it this way. The police shoot and kill more people every year that all spree shooters did between 1985 and 2015. Most of the really bad abuse behavior done in the USA is done by policians, cops, corporations and their representatives, and other authority figures.
The wierd way that people complain about the state not protcecting them at the same time as trying to talk away all regulation power from the state shows some kind of really strong mental dissonance.
I think the wierd way you confuse "unlimited police powers", with "unlimited police abilities", as if people complaining about police abuse don't want the police to do their legtimate jobs. So your point is a strawman.
As much as I agree with the premise, that rape is common, and prosecution not, and that needs to change, this law suit is frivolous.
1. Jurisdiction. You're suing an American company in America for what happened in another country. If this law suit was in India, against Uber's Indian subsidiary I'd be more sympathetic
2. India has problems with rape, that at least what I get from reading American news, is even worse than American rape culture. It would be entirely out of line for an American company to try and effect change in India. India has to address rape culture on its own.
3. What exactly do you want them to do. Background checks against rapists are fairly sketchy because rape is undereported and convictions hard. i.e. most rapists don't get convicted.
India has a notable rape problem as a whole(so does the US to a degree), and there is no unilateral action that you can demand of Uber that will fix that.
its between that, and another loaded term "cultural marxist" used by fascists to describe everyone who doesn't hold traditional social values.
The term "Social Justice Warrior" is used almost exclusively by fascists and conservatives to describe everyone who believes in activism in lines that go against their values. Its a perojative that uses a stereotype of the worst of feminism and socialism to paint a negative picture of both to avoid any real intellectual discussion.
that shouldn't scare you off from "feminism" in general. Just mainstream feminists are fucking tools, and often more or less tools of PR and marketing.
The larger crime is the amount of time they spent raking some nerds over the coals, and completely missed the handful of domestic assault cases in the news involving NFL players and the rape case against Bill Cosby, and subsequent rape apologism. Roman Polanski(movie producer who admitted to raping a 13 year old girl, and fled the country), is now trying to get back in, and I've heard so called "feminists" apologize for all of the above.
But no, one nerd says something remotely misogynist, and its a "war on women".
Modern feminism is nothing more than Public Relations, Media Department, to keep consumers consumers, and attack anyone who questions the status quo.
however it applies only to "left wing" blowhards, and not their equally obnoxious fascist and libertarian blow hards. Its a sly use of weasel words to discredit multiple spectrum of ideaologies based on a few blowhards. It also implies that all social justice sought by "the left" is the same.
When you feel the need to risk your life to get out of this country you can talk about how the U.S. is just as bad
No sir, you are talking about an unrelated issue. People are not comming over here on rafts because the government is regulating the internet.
I am strictly talking about information systems networks. There is no country on earth where such a network exists that does not abide by rules set forth by the government, and the operators of such network do not cooperate at the highest of levels with that government. This has nothing to do with communism. I am simply stipulating that you measure all with the same stick. Nothing more.
I am going to say its more likely the other way around. Companies have no incentive to upgrade, except in a handful select profitable markets.
utilities will upgrade as often as it is pushed on the ballot. the US trails far behind the world as far as bandwith goes.
Things like Google Fiber(which are still mostly run by municipalities) are an order of 10 times faster than commericial offerings, and most commericial offerings refuse to even try and catch up, but instead attack Google, and various municipalities for competing with them.
There never was a free market for utilities, and its somewhat impossible for a private company to own the infrastructure to really do so.(running a physical line through a whole patchwork of private properties). It also makes competition hard, because every company needs its own infrastructure.
Also, many places cable companies have next to zero competition, and have been extremely notorious at anti-competative practices. A "Free Market" monopoly has no benefit over a government run monopoly, anywhere. The slightest bit of democracy, gives citizens at least some recourse.
Eletricity generation after de-regulation has shown no viable market, as its near impossible to even gather basic information on competative prices.
But we can get to the pre-broadband era of internet, where there was a viable market for dial-up services. This worked extremelly well, customers had real choice, and competition drove both quality and price to a point which was very much acceptable for consumers. However, this market scenario relyed on the extremely regulated public switched phone network, which had extremely strong rules on network neutrality in place to let this happen.
Truely Free markets do not exist except when a there is a strong foundation of "The Commons", allowing equal access to the market.
Technology companies that want to sell equipment to Chinese banks will have to submit to extensive audits, turn over source code, and build âoeback doorsâ into their hardware and software, according to a copy of the rules obtained by foreign companies already doing billions of dollar worth of business in the country.
Sounds like the US Government's policy, and I'm not even joking.
"free market" capitalism never existed except for brief 10 year peroids in history, where the eventual monopolies that form cement their rule, ending competition in exchange for stability.
public utility broadband would be like google fiber, 1 GB/s to the home for about what you pay for fiber, with little ifs ands or buts.
Before you say anything about the government restricting or controlling it, the snowden leaks have shown that "private" ownership of utilities is fairly useless to prevent government spying, as the government just goes behind their back(using spycraft, which corporations can do little to counter), and most of the companies simply co-operated with the government one way or another.
If you thought corporate influence was bad now, just wait until you do some fair research into the end of the electorial college, and the end of state appointed senators.
f states still had the power the Framers intended for them to have, individuals would have better representation than they do now even without electing the President or Senators.
No, not really, and the 12th and 17th Amendments where paid for in blood. The former by Colonel Shay and his men, the latter by the working class at the hands of the army and newly formed police. When it did work this way, corporate intrests reigned supreme.
explain to me how this is diffrent than any entity in the USA. Just about all US Companies hand over data to the feds when asked. Many even partnered with the government. That was in the snowden leaks, i.e. official docs, so its hard to say it doesn't happen.
Also, from google's own website, here is the cooperation they do with the government.
and here are "copyright" takedown notices, to include the now overboard use of the DMCA as cenorship by private government like entities: https://www.google.com/transpa...
But its only orwellian when a government we don't like does it? I think the most ironic is the last one, which is censorship by private organizations, the most chilling and most common, and fully supported by the government. I fail to understand how complicance with the rulling regime is a "communist" thing,
the only time sexuality is accepted in this country is either in advertising, by the rich and famous, or if its done in compiance after purchasing the right combination of products that allow you to be sexualized.
Or, you can have sex in the missionary position after marraige.
Those are the only two accepted types of sexuality in this country.
you didn't actually read the article. They aren't going after pedos in general, but what they are claiming to be a very specific child torture ring, with alleged heads in high ranking government and corporate positions.
Given the nature of "Anonymous", its unlikely they are the original nihilistic self-described terrorists, the moralfagging social justice activists that came in for opperation channology, or even the Federal agents that had been giving the group dirrection with the mass arrests of the former two. This sounds like someone diffrent with a thin grasp on American society.
The video asserts there will be mainstream news defending pedos as "child lovers", something that never happened, and most likely never will.
Or mabey it did get out, but you most likely dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. Which is how most secrets are kept is getting people to dismiss them as conspiracy theories, and throw in aliens and reptilian overlords so you simply don't believe anything the mainstream news doesn't push, repeatedly.
mob rule is still prefrable to the rule of a wealthy elite who dictate policy in their own intrests and laugh at anyone else.
People are stupid, and limiting their power seems like a good idea only until you relize that the people you'd have regulate these people are also people, most likely just as stupid, but in addition to being stupid, greedy and ambitious.
meritocracy is a lie. Appointed over democratic leads to nothing but cronyism, not competance.
Slashdot Mirror
What announcement would that be? ACLU requested information and the government complied. For your theory to be correct, ACLU would need to be working for the US government, which seems highly unlikely.
and the government gave the ALCU something. You're assuming the ALCU is an all knowing, all powerful agency. It is not. It is sorely underfunded, and underpowered. Your assumption suggest that the ALCU can reliably get passed all tradecraft by US intelegence. Laughable at best.
No, it's of the People. Every member of US government was voted there by the People. And they're doing what their voters want them to.
by "people", you mean "people" like citizens united, and not flesh and blood people. I mean in every nation on earth they've voted in their leaders with the exception of Saudi Arabia and the Maladives.
For all the talk about two-party system, campaign contributions and such, the fact remains that Depublicrats stay in power because the People want them to. They are not bloodthirsty tyrants stomping their jackboots on their subjects faces; at the absolute worst they're conmen. For good or ill, US citizens are firmly in control of their country's destiny, and deserve all the blame - or credit - for anything their country does, to themselves or anyone else.
No, we have a system that for all intents and purposes does not respond to the will of the people, and the people have virtually no say on what issues are brought up, or not brought up.
I agree with your reply re the gender issues but would expect that the woman has legal standing in the US against Uber.
If that is the case, it sets a far more oppressive, culture superiority, dangerous precident than the combined rape cultures of the worst in India in history and the worst in the US/West in history combined:
The supremecy of US law, everywhere in the world, world wide, just because.
I hope this women does get some recourse, and rape culture world wide is tackled, but the precedent this case will set if she wins is a whole new level of dangerous.
The perverse effect of this, is we'll got back to the bad old days of the 1990s, and geeks vs suits again. The spirit of the hacker will live on, in a very perverse way not originally intended, and we'll see a new gap between the skilled but unhirable underground, and the well paid but generally incompetant "suits", and "proffesionals". (that was slashdot of the 1990s).
says the homophobe.
while correct, and terrible, your point also does not add to the argument. The point is, that right now, India has some pretty big gender issues that even the US doesn't have, and you can't sue Uber because another India has terrible womans rights.
The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" means that there should be quite a few dangerous people out there
This is a bit of a false dichotomy. Democratic law enforcement does not hinder the overall quality of law enforcement. Just look at the US, where over the last 30 years, all liberal protections of law have been more or less whittled away to optional, has done little to keep criminals off the streets. Guilty until proven innocent prevents false convictions, which actually helps keeping dangerous people off the streets, because a false conviction closes the case and lets a guilty man walk free(in addition to incarcerating an innocent one).
Even if it did work like this, its a small price to pay to keep institutionalized abusive behavior from happening, if the price is only a handful of petty crimes. Or think about it this way. The police shoot and kill more people every year that all spree shooters did between 1985 and 2015. Most of the really bad abuse behavior done in the USA is done by policians, cops, corporations and their representatives, and other authority figures.
The wierd way that people complain about the state not protcecting them at the same time as trying to talk away all regulation power from the state shows some kind of really strong mental dissonance.
I think the wierd way you confuse "unlimited police powers", with "unlimited police abilities", as if people complaining about police abuse don't want the police to do their legtimate jobs. So your point is a strawman.
1. Jurisdiction. You're suing an American company in America for what happened in another country. If this law suit was in India, against Uber's Indian subsidiary I'd be more sympathetic
2. India has problems with rape, that at least what I get from reading American news, is even worse than American rape culture. It would be entirely out of line for an American company to try and effect change in India. India has to address rape culture on its own.
3. What exactly do you want them to do. Background checks against rapists are fairly sketchy because rape is undereported and convictions hard. i.e. most rapists don't get convicted.
India has a notable rape problem as a whole(so does the US to a degree), and there is no unilateral action that you can demand of Uber that will fix that.
its between that, and another loaded term "cultural marxist" used by fascists to describe everyone who doesn't hold traditional social values. The term "Social Justice Warrior" is used almost exclusively by fascists and conservatives to describe everyone who believes in activism in lines that go against their values. Its a perojative that uses a stereotype of the worst of feminism and socialism to paint a negative picture of both to avoid any real intellectual discussion.
The larger crime is the amount of time they spent raking some nerds over the coals, and completely missed the handful of domestic assault cases in the news involving NFL players and the rape case against Bill Cosby, and subsequent rape apologism. Roman Polanski(movie producer who admitted to raping a 13 year old girl, and fled the country), is now trying to get back in, and I've heard so called "feminists" apologize for all of the above.
But no, one nerd says something remotely misogynist, and its a "war on women".
Modern feminism is nothing more than Public Relations, Media Department, to keep consumers consumers, and attack anyone who questions the status quo.
however it applies only to "left wing" blowhards, and not their equally obnoxious fascist and libertarian blow hards. Its a sly use of weasel words to discredit multiple spectrum of ideaologies based on a few blowhards. It also implies that all social justice sought by "the left" is the same.
socialist movements were mainly formed by people working in factories and coal mines.
you are being whole decietful on ideaology.
When you feel the need to risk your life to get out of this country you can talk about how the U.S. is just as bad
No sir, you are talking about an unrelated issue. People are not comming over here on rafts because the government is regulating the internet.
I am strictly talking about information systems networks. There is no country on earth where such a network exists that does not abide by rules set forth by the government, and the operators of such network do not cooperate at the highest of levels with that government. This has nothing to do with communism. I am simply stipulating that you measure all with the same stick. Nothing more.
utilities will upgrade as often as it is pushed on the ballot. the US trails far behind the world as far as bandwith goes.
Things like Google Fiber(which are still mostly run by municipalities) are an order of 10 times faster than commericial offerings, and most commericial offerings refuse to even try and catch up, but instead attack Google, and various municipalities for competing with them.
There never was a free market for utilities, and its somewhat impossible for a private company to own the infrastructure to really do so.(running a physical line through a whole patchwork of private properties). It also makes competition hard, because every company needs its own infrastructure.
Also, many places cable companies have next to zero competition, and have been extremely notorious at anti-competative practices. A "Free Market" monopoly has no benefit over a government run monopoly, anywhere. The slightest bit of democracy, gives citizens at least some recourse.
Eletricity generation after de-regulation has shown no viable market, as its near impossible to even gather basic information on competative prices.
But we can get to the pre-broadband era of internet, where there was a viable market for dial-up services. This worked extremelly well, customers had real choice, and competition drove both quality and price to a point which was very much acceptable for consumers. However, this market scenario relyed on the extremely regulated public switched phone network, which had extremely strong rules on network neutrality in place to let this happen.
Truely Free markets do not exist except when a there is a strong foundation of "The Commons", allowing equal access to the market.
as opposed to those who grew up with "ZOMG 3VIL GOTH KIDS", and the generation before "ZOMG 3VIL KOMMUNISTS"
Technology companies that want to sell equipment to Chinese banks will have to submit to extensive audits, turn over source code, and build âoeback doorsâ into their hardware and software, according to a copy of the rules obtained by foreign companies already doing billions of dollar worth of business in the country.
Sounds like the US Government's policy, and I'm not even joking.
"free market" capitalism never existed except for brief 10 year peroids in history, where the eventual monopolies that form cement their rule, ending competition in exchange for stability.
public utility broadband would be like google fiber, 1 GB/s to the home for about what you pay for fiber, with little ifs ands or buts.
Before you say anything about the government restricting or controlling it, the snowden leaks have shown that "private" ownership of utilities is fairly useless to prevent government spying, as the government just goes behind their back(using spycraft, which corporations can do little to counter), and most of the companies simply co-operated with the government one way or another.
check the date: Sun Mar 31 17:22:15
yeah, just a few hours shy of April 1.
Didn't these guys all just get arrested or something?
f states still had the power the Framers intended for them to have, individuals would have better representation than they do now even without electing the President or Senators.
No, not really, and the 12th and 17th Amendments where paid for in blood. The former by Colonel Shay and his men, the latter by the working class at the hands of the army and newly formed police. When it did work this way, corporate intrests reigned supreme.
explain to me how this is diffrent than any entity in the USA. Just about all US Companies hand over data to the feds when asked. Many even partnered with the government. That was in the snowden leaks, i.e. official docs, so its hard to say it doesn't happen.
Also, from google's own website, here is the cooperation they do with the government.
Here is government requests for user information from google:
https://www.google.com/transpa...
Here is government requests to remove content:
https://www.google.com/transpa...
and here are "copyright" takedown notices, to include the now overboard use of the DMCA as cenorship by private government like entities:
https://www.google.com/transpa...
But its only orwellian when a government we don't like does it? I think the most ironic is the last one, which is censorship by private organizations, the most chilling and most common, and fully supported by the government. I fail to understand how complicance with the rulling regime is a "communist" thing,
Or, you can have sex in the missionary position after marraige.
Those are the only two accepted types of sexuality in this country.
Given the nature of "Anonymous", its unlikely they are the original nihilistic self-described terrorists, the moralfagging social justice activists that came in for opperation channology, or even the Federal agents that had been giving the group dirrection with the mass arrests of the former two. This sounds like someone diffrent with a thin grasp on American society.
The video asserts there will be mainstream news defending pedos as "child lovers", something that never happened, and most likely never will.
the government crowd sourced footage of the boston bombings to reddit and 4chan, and they found the wrong guy, and the guy got death threats.
Or mabey it did get out, but you most likely dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. Which is how most secrets are kept is getting people to dismiss them as conspiracy theories, and throw in aliens and reptilian overlords so you simply don't believe anything the mainstream news doesn't push, repeatedly.
People are stupid, and limiting their power seems like a good idea only until you relize that the people you'd have regulate these people are also people, most likely just as stupid, but in addition to being stupid, greedy and ambitious.
meritocracy is a lie. Appointed over democratic leads to nothing but cronyism, not competance.