That's a kind of funny criticism considering how many hundreds of your so-trusted "real" banks in the Western economies have gone bust in the last few years
(And most of those who didn't, it's only because they got bailed out by taxpayers.)
The reason PayPal IS so big is precisely because they're so useful. Your reasoning error is to assume that because there is no "regulation" preventing them from running away with everyone's money, that it must mean they're somehow going to do so. I can understand where this paranoia comes from but it isn't really rational.
PayPal is for transactions. Move your money into a "real" bank or into something else regularly and you won't lose anything.
That's a kind of funny criticism considering how many hundreds of your so-trusted "real" banks in the Western economies have gone bust in the last few years, while the one private pseudo-bank PayPal has held up ROCK-SOLID. And it's not just 'because they were unregulated', as I'm sure you'd love to criticize, as this has happened and is still happening in so many different countries (cf. Europe).
I also posed that question in response to a similar comment in another thread and got hammered by moderators. Yet all you need to is post "US censoring Wikileaks" and you instantly get +5 insightful, for an evidence-free claim that flies in the face of existing evidence, common sense and rationality, just because it's the popular viewpoint here. Certainly the government's hands aren't clean and the fight for liberty is an ongoing one, but claiming the US has 'censored Wikileaks' is false, and it's not helpful to the cause to make highly emotional false claims.
Damn, this makes Microsoft look OPEN, doesn't it??
Oh, the irony.
Exactly my thoughts too. Not exactly what one might've dreamed for if one was hoping for some exciting new OS. It's a bit disappointing, to put it mildly.
Local storage has and is becoming extremely small and cheap, much faster than bandwidth is becoming cheaper (in fact global average broadband prices have actually started to rise again, and with many governments trying to get their hands on the business via phony gibberish about 'universal access' and broadband being a 'right', prices are not likely to start coming down again massively soon), so why try push away from local storage? One word and word only, greed. They can hand-wave about 'security' but fundamentally there is no good valid technical argument for this approach. Basically it's this, they're salivating with little dollar signs on their eyes at the thought of pushing all that 'software as service', with a cut for every copy of the OS, and a cut again for every app purchased in the app store. Nice business model if you can get it.
I think they're a little optimistic, people aren't going to buy into this 'just because it's Google'. However, being an advertising business, what I can picture is that they might try give the devices away free in order to make money from advertising and apps. Sort of the razor blade model. It might work in the longer run.
Fortunately the platform market is becoming very competitive, so I think what will happen is Google initially mainly only reaches a certain section of the market, but as time goes on, is pressured to open it up more and more, especially as it gains traction people would want to push it into new domains and uses.
For example many countries simply don't count very premature babies we routinely save as 'births' in their statistics but because we don't save 100% we show a lot more 'infant mortality' for trying. We also have a bigger spread in socioeconomic conditions in our population than Western Europe.
I actually agree with you on this. Another example is violent crime. Western European nations routinely criticize the US for being "violent" and unsafe because the average per capita homicide rate is a few times higher in the US (and incorrectly blame it on the "gun culture" and arrogantly think they're safer because they don't have a right to carry arms), however when you factor in spread of demographic and socioeconomic conditions you find that most areas in the US are statistically just as safe as Western Europe, if not more so, and that the majority of violent crime is confined to a few areas that skew the averages.
So again, you want to me to choose between a European nation, where the government can deny all my rights and I have zero recourse, or the US, where the government could try deny all my rights but at least I would have a fighting chance. Well I know which I'll pick.
Finally, note that there is nothing _technically_ preventing Constitutional Amendments being nullified by further Constitutional Amendments.
Of course. But this is true for ANY country, so how does that make the US worse? Law needs force to be enforced. And yet that's why the founding fathers thought the people should be armed. To protect themselves from a bad government! It even states so in the declaration of independence. The only thing that can act as a final barrier between a bad government and oppression, is a well-armed populace. The US government could TRY nullify the bill of rights, sure, but let me tell you, the people won't go down without a fight. Unlike your so-called "civilized" nations where the poor Jews were not allowed to arm themselves and had no means to prevent 6 million of their people being sent off to the slaughter.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but your post betrays a strong US bias and a belief in American exceptionalism.
If I'm "biased", it's because the FACTS are "biased". Nobody has ever been able to provide me one proper strong counter-example, and this is 230 years later the US example was created (during which Germany has done plenty things that were not exactly sound in terms of human liberties, I might add).
but then I am German and biased myself
And if the German legal foundation provides stronger liberties than the US, then tell me, why is it that the general public is not even so much as allowed to carry a firearm to protect their very own life and limb from attack? That a young woman walking through a dark park in the middle of the night is not even allowed the means to protect herself from a rapist or murderer? Thanks, but again, I'll take the US, because I want my daughter to be able to have the right to defend her own life.
FWIW, the first amendment does not state that freedom of speech is an inalienable right
So tell me, do you HONESTLY believe that when the founding fathers wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", that there weren't referring to any rights in particular, and that they were in fact just being poetic and thought that that "sounded cool"?
Yeah, you have an "inalienable" right to free speech, as long as you...
No, that's the whole point, you have an "inalienable" right, period. The definition of inalienable IS that there is no "as long as". Ever. When government passes laws restricting exercise of that right (as they always will, whine whine boo hoo, do something about it), those laws are illegal and immoral, and do not "take away" your right, they "block your ability to exercise" your right.
And step outside the US, you'll discover that most other so-called "Western democracies" are FAR worse off than the US.
Whether or not somebody has been prosecuted for it is as far as I know unknown as of yet, but a google search will show you many of the news about the military censor of WikiLeaks, amongst which is this.
I'm aware of this, and it does indeed appear to be a violation of fundamental liberties, though it strikes me as a little weak as far as enforcing this goes. Until mind-reading technology comes along, there is little they can do to stop anyone reading the Wikileaks documents.
Furthermore - legal freedom of speech is absolutely helpless against an assault by politicians, unless the recognized right to public firearm ownership is included, since this is in fact the 'final' protection against the oppression of such rights. Countries like the Netherlands do not recognize the inalienable right of the people to overthrow their own government, and to maintain the force necessary in order to do so, should their government become oppressive. Hence I say, their evident current freedom of speech has nothing holding it up. It can only be temporary. The founding fathers explicitly recognized the right of the people to overthrow their own government should it become bad, and said, 'without being able to arm themselves this is useless' so they threw in the recognized right to arm themselves in order to overthrow their own government --- that is truly precious.
With the Nordic countries, Netherlands and Switzerland at the top.
You missed my point. It's subtle though. The word "inalienable" is the core point, it's not just a pretty word, it is central to the entire foundation of the US legal system. Re-read, digest, re-read. Yes, there are countries that currently ostensibly "happen to have" more press freedom. But that freedom is ephemeral and temporary; the Netherlands constitution for example explicitly allows formal law to limit the freedom of speech. This is in total contrast to the US which states "Congress shall make no law". Therefore laws limiting freedom of speech in the Netherlands are 'constitutional'. This means that it is inevitable that eventually lawmakers will gradually successfully be able to raise press restrictions without any final legal recourse to overturn. Laws limiting freedom of speech in the US are 'unconstitutional' on the face of it (even though many exist, they are in fact formally illegal). This is also why almost every other Western nation has been able to suppress the right to firearm ownership with nary a squeak from the populace. No government can legally or morally do that in the US, while for other countries, they can legally do it but not morally do it -- big difference, and this core difference makes the US example both special, and fragile and precious.
Sorry to clarify, this was ambiguous: I meant "Of course the first amendment is insufficient". The first amendment is some words on a piece of paper, it's completely insufficient on its own.
I don't mean to imply the 2nd amendment is the only means to protect the 1st, of course. There are many other ways, that should be used *complementary* to the 1st.
But regardless, my main point is that in spite of what Voulnet implied, the US remains a beacon of free speech and other liberties to the rest of the world. This isn't just a tired old cliche, it's objectively true. No other government formally recognizes or is founded on these inalienable recognitions of liberty.
I know what the first amendment says, and I know that lawmakers have pissed all over it for a long time, and will continue to piss on it for a long time. I'm not saying it's "OK" (where did I say that?), I'm saying that the claim that Wikileaks has been censored by the US government is, on the face of it, simply not even remotely true. It doesn't help the cause of liberty to make false, emotional hyperbolic claims.
it means that the first amendment is insufficient to protect our freedom of speech.
Of course it isn't. Your right to freedom of speech (like other liberties) will ALWAYS be under attack. Always, for as long as the US exists. That's why the founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in there. The 2nd amendment is there to protect the 1st.
But the reality is that things have not gotten as bad as the OP claimed.
Whether the repression happens at the barrel of a gun, or with a nudge and a wink, it's still repression
It happens eventually, step by step. What I'm talking about in terms of WikiLeaks censorship is the US gov't preventing US Army as well as US gov't employees from accessing WikiLeaks.
As far as I know, they just "asked" them not to. Voluntarily. Have they prosecuted or arrested anyone for doing so?
As for censoring websites from the entire world, I meant by it seizing websites that reside in the.com domain and preventing access to it not just for US citizens
Which.com domain have they seized and blocked access to? Sorry if I've missed something here.
The ongoing trend does not bode well for the freedom of the internet, and the US gov't, unfortunately, has been showing us worrying signs of intentions to control the cyberspace.
Yes, governments can, have always, and always will try to control anything and everything and suppress citizen rights. What I am saying is that in the case of Wikileaks, I don't think they have succeeded yet, whereas the statement "censoring websites from the entire world" suggests they have.
The problem with saying "We are still able to do this and this" is that soon you may not be able to, and as a non US-citizen, I care about this because it will affect the entire internet, not just, say, US newspapers.
That I agree with. The threat is ALWAYS there, and maintaining liberty will always be a constant tireless fight by people who care. But that doesn't mean we should let our emotions run away with us and make claims that on the face of it, when analyzed closely, aren't really true.
(Apologies for not reading that on the preview, and correcting some of the crappy typos, "why downloaded" = "who downloaded"; "format attempts" = "formal attempts")
True; let me amend that to "when your next door neighbor wants to blow you to smithereens just for not wanting to be part of their communist shithole". The overall gist is about the same.
Actually, apart from doing things like pressuring private companies like Amazon and PayPal to "voluntarily" kick Wikileaks off their systems, and making public statements musing that Mr Assange should be assassinated (all reprehensible, to be sure), has the US government actually done anything concrete to censor Wikileaks? Have they arrested or imprisoned anyone who downloaded the torrent? Have they issued ISPs with warrants to find out why downloaded the torrent? Have they forced any media organizations publishing information on the leaks into silence, or arrested or prosecuted any media organization that has published anything about the leaks? Have they made any format attempts to extradite Mr Assange? Has the US government done anything to forcibly silence discussion among the public on the leaks -- for example, shutting down blogs, or arresting blog owners? Have they forced media organizations to toe the official state position only? I'm curious, apart from vague allusions to "censoring websites from the entire world", what are you referring to exactly?
The types of activities I've mentioned, are the types of things that DO actually go on in the many countries outside the US that do practice censorship and control of speech, and I must say, I don't really see the US doing those things. Or perhaps you want to suggest that they are doing those things but that we don't know about them because the US has silenced anyone who talks about it. But I'm afraid I don't even see the climate of fear around discussion that that type of control usually generates in such countries that suppress freedom of speech; as far as I can tell, Americans seem to enjoy the liberty of being able to do and say whatever they want about their government very, very openly.
Actually when it comes to press freedom, the US still looks better than most countries. In fact, even after 230 years of the US example, I don't know of any other governments whose core founding and/or legal principles include the explicit recognition of the citizenry's inalienable right to freedom of speech, it seems to genuinely be something exceptional. Oh sure, many governments have begrudgingly given a nod to what they see as "granting" of similar rights (and in fact even that much is due to the positive influence of the US historically) - but saying "OK, we grant you freedom of speech" is actually fundamentally vastly different to inalienable rights, which are not considered granted, but exist independent of government and cannot morally be taken away. Sure, in practice lawmakers pee on the constitution with abandon, as lawmakers will do, but I'll take the US any day. Trying to block citizens' practice of liberties such as free speech is something all governments do anyway, but only one government in the world at least formally recognizes this as wrong (and gives the citizens other rights, such as the 2nd amendment, in order to enforce the 1st amendment).
I'm definitely not saying it's perfect, or that we shouldn't strive for better. On the contrary, we should continually strive for better. We have to.
Uhrm, I thought it was pretty clear from the context that OP was referring to good, civilized, law-abiding people defending themselves from non-law-abiding aggressors.
I guess you're right, it's the lesser evil. Still, I find it scaring and can't understand what makes a human being work day after day to design and manufacture such an evil device.
Don't worry, when your next door neighbor wants to blow you to smithereens just for existing, you will finally understand.
The world has bad people in it. Good people need to defend themselves from bad people so civilization can continue. It's really that simple. Civilization can exist only as a small, ephemeral clearing carved out in a metaphorical forest of chaos; you live entirely within the clearing. The clearing is always under attack, but you live entirely within the clearing, so you never actually see what is happening at the fringes of that clearing in order to hold back the forces that would otherwise overwhelm the clearing.
That's great. Seriously. No chapter 11 is a good thing! Your no worse off for having tried.
Actually having started a software startup, I know he feels, and in a sense you are worse off, because while you're trying to build a startup, you are earning far less than what your skills would earn you as a salaried employee. So instead of being able to save some money and/or buy a few decent things, you aren't able to do so, so end 'further behind financially than you would've been if you hadn't tried it'. Especially if you have a wife/family, and you have to think about things like saving for the child's education, or for your retirement etc. And the longer you "persevere", the worse it becomes if you aren't getting that income up there where you need it to pay yourself a decent salary. And the older you get, so the harder it will be to "catch up". When my business went through difficult times, my confidence also took massive hits. I'm going on seven years now with it and some days I still wonder if I'm doing the right thing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a kind of funny criticism considering how many hundreds of your so-trusted "real" banks in the Western economies have gone bust in the last few years
(And most of those who didn't, it's only because they got bailed out by taxpayers.)
The reason PayPal IS so big is precisely because they're so useful. Your reasoning error is to assume that because there is no "regulation" preventing them from running away with everyone's money, that it must mean they're somehow going to do so. I can understand where this paranoia comes from but it isn't really rational.
PayPal is for transactions. Move your money into a "real" bank or into something else regularly and you won't lose anything.
That's a kind of funny criticism considering how many hundreds of your so-trusted "real" banks in the Western economies have gone bust in the last few years, while the one private pseudo-bank PayPal has held up ROCK-SOLID. And it's not just 'because they were unregulated', as I'm sure you'd love to criticize, as this has happened and is still happening in so many different countries (cf. Europe).
Some people are missing the sarcasm gene...
Where is Wikileaks being censored?
I also posed that question in response to a similar comment in another thread and got hammered by moderators. Yet all you need to is post "US censoring Wikileaks" and you instantly get +5 insightful, for an evidence-free claim that flies in the face of existing evidence, common sense and rationality, just because it's the popular viewpoint here. Certainly the government's hands aren't clean and the fight for liberty is an ongoing one, but claiming the US has 'censored Wikileaks' is false, and it's not helpful to the cause to make highly emotional false claims.
Damn, this makes Microsoft look OPEN, doesn't it??
Oh, the irony.
Exactly my thoughts too. Not exactly what one might've dreamed for if one was hoping for some exciting new OS. It's a bit disappointing, to put it mildly.
Local storage has and is becoming extremely small and cheap, much faster than bandwidth is becoming cheaper (in fact global average broadband prices have actually started to rise again, and with many governments trying to get their hands on the business via phony gibberish about 'universal access' and broadband being a 'right', prices are not likely to start coming down again massively soon), so why try push away from local storage? One word and word only, greed. They can hand-wave about 'security' but fundamentally there is no good valid technical argument for this approach. Basically it's this, they're salivating with little dollar signs on their eyes at the thought of pushing all that 'software as service', with a cut for every copy of the OS, and a cut again for every app purchased in the app store. Nice business model if you can get it.
I think they're a little optimistic, people aren't going to buy into this 'just because it's Google'. However, being an advertising business, what I can picture is that they might try give the devices away free in order to make money from advertising and apps. Sort of the razor blade model. It might work in the longer run.
Fortunately the platform market is becoming very competitive, so I think what will happen is Google initially mainly only reaches a certain section of the market, but as time goes on, is pressured to open it up more and more, especially as it gains traction people would want to push it into new domains and uses.
For example many countries simply don't count very premature babies we routinely save as 'births' in their statistics but because we don't save 100% we show a lot more 'infant mortality' for trying. We also have a bigger spread in socioeconomic conditions in our population than Western Europe.
I actually agree with you on this. Another example is violent crime. Western European nations routinely criticize the US for being "violent" and unsafe because the average per capita homicide rate is a few times higher in the US (and incorrectly blame it on the "gun culture" and arrogantly think they're safer because they don't have a right to carry arms), however when you factor in spread of demographic and socioeconomic conditions you find that most areas in the US are statistically just as safe as Western Europe, if not more so, and that the majority of violent crime is confined to a few areas that skew the averages.
So again, you want to me to choose between a European nation, where the government can deny all my rights and I have zero recourse, or the US, where the government could try deny all my rights but at least I would have a fighting chance. Well I know which I'll pick.
Finally, note that there is nothing _technically_ preventing Constitutional Amendments being nullified by further Constitutional Amendments.
Of course. But this is true for ANY country, so how does that make the US worse? Law needs force to be enforced. And yet that's why the founding fathers thought the people should be armed. To protect themselves from a bad government! It even states so in the declaration of independence. The only thing that can act as a final barrier between a bad government and oppression, is a well-armed populace. The US government could TRY nullify the bill of rights, sure, but let me tell you, the people won't go down without a fight. Unlike your so-called "civilized" nations where the poor Jews were not allowed to arm themselves and had no means to prevent 6 million of their people being sent off to the slaughter.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but your post betrays a strong US bias and a belief in American exceptionalism.
If I'm "biased", it's because the FACTS are "biased". Nobody has ever been able to provide me one proper strong counter-example, and this is 230 years later the US example was created (during which Germany has done plenty things that were not exactly sound in terms of human liberties, I might add).
but then I am German and biased myself
And if the German legal foundation provides stronger liberties than the US, then tell me, why is it that the general public is not even so much as allowed to carry a firearm to protect their very own life and limb from attack? That a young woman walking through a dark park in the middle of the night is not even allowed the means to protect herself from a rapist or murderer? Thanks, but again, I'll take the US, because I want my daughter to be able to have the right to defend her own life.
FWIW, the first amendment does not state that freedom of speech is an inalienable right
So tell me, do you HONESTLY believe that when the founding fathers wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", that there weren't referring to any rights in particular, and that they were in fact just being poetic and thought that that "sounded cool"?
Yeah, you have an "inalienable" right to free speech, as long as you ...
No, that's the whole point, you have an "inalienable" right, period. The definition of inalienable IS that there is no "as long as". Ever. When government passes laws restricting exercise of that right (as they always will, whine whine boo hoo, do something about it), those laws are illegal and immoral, and do not "take away" your right, they "block your ability to exercise" your right.
And step outside the US, you'll discover that most other so-called "Western democracies" are FAR worse off than the US.
Whether or not somebody has been prosecuted for it is as far as I know unknown as of yet, but a google search will show you many of the news about the military censor of WikiLeaks, amongst which is this.
I'm aware of this, and it does indeed appear to be a violation of fundamental liberties, though it strikes me as a little weak as far as enforcing this goes. Until mind-reading technology comes along, there is little they can do to stop anyone reading the Wikileaks documents.
Furthermore - legal freedom of speech is absolutely helpless against an assault by politicians, unless the recognized right to public firearm ownership is included, since this is in fact the 'final' protection against the oppression of such rights. Countries like the Netherlands do not recognize the inalienable right of the people to overthrow their own government, and to maintain the force necessary in order to do so, should their government become oppressive. Hence I say, their evident current freedom of speech has nothing holding it up. It can only be temporary. The founding fathers explicitly recognized the right of the people to overthrow their own government should it become bad, and said, 'without being able to arm themselves this is useless' so they threw in the recognized right to arm themselves in order to overthrow their own government --- that is truly precious.
With the Nordic countries, Netherlands and Switzerland at the top.
You missed my point. It's subtle though. The word "inalienable" is the core point, it's not just a pretty word, it is central to the entire foundation of the US legal system. Re-read, digest, re-read. Yes, there are countries that currently ostensibly "happen to have" more press freedom. But that freedom is ephemeral and temporary; the Netherlands constitution for example explicitly allows formal law to limit the freedom of speech. This is in total contrast to the US which states "Congress shall make no law". Therefore laws limiting freedom of speech in the Netherlands are 'constitutional'. This means that it is inevitable that eventually lawmakers will gradually successfully be able to raise press restrictions without any final legal recourse to overturn. Laws limiting freedom of speech in the US are 'unconstitutional' on the face of it (even though many exist, they are in fact formally illegal). This is also why almost every other Western nation has been able to suppress the right to firearm ownership with nary a squeak from the populace. No government can legally or morally do that in the US, while for other countries, they can legally do it but not morally do it -- big difference, and this core difference makes the US example both special, and fragile and precious.
Of course it isn't
Sorry to clarify, this was ambiguous: I meant "Of course the first amendment is insufficient". The first amendment is some words on a piece of paper, it's completely insufficient on its own.
I don't mean to imply the 2nd amendment is the only means to protect the 1st, of course. There are many other ways, that should be used *complementary* to the 1st.
But regardless, my main point is that in spite of what Voulnet implied, the US remains a beacon of free speech and other liberties to the rest of the world. This isn't just a tired old cliche, it's objectively true. No other government formally recognizes or is founded on these inalienable recognitions of liberty.
Is that not enough?
I know what the first amendment says, and I know that lawmakers have pissed all over it for a long time, and will continue to piss on it for a long time. I'm not saying it's "OK" (where did I say that?), I'm saying that the claim that Wikileaks has been censored by the US government is, on the face of it, simply not even remotely true. It doesn't help the cause of liberty to make false, emotional hyperbolic claims.
it means that the first amendment is insufficient to protect our freedom of speech.
Of course it isn't. Your right to freedom of speech (like other liberties) will ALWAYS be under attack. Always, for as long as the US exists. That's why the founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in there. The 2nd amendment is there to protect the 1st.
But the reality is that things have not gotten as bad as the OP claimed.
Whether the repression happens at the barrel of a gun, or with a nudge and a wink, it's still repression
Trust me, there is a vast difference.
It happens eventually, step by step. What I'm talking about in terms of WikiLeaks censorship is the US gov't preventing US Army as well as US gov't employees from accessing WikiLeaks.
As far as I know, they just "asked" them not to. Voluntarily. Have they prosecuted or arrested anyone for doing so?
As for censoring websites from the entire world, I meant by it seizing websites that reside in the .com domain and preventing access to it not just for US citizens
Which .com domain have they seized and blocked access to? Sorry if I've missed something here.
The ongoing trend does not bode well for the freedom of the internet, and the US gov't, unfortunately, has been showing us worrying signs of intentions to control the cyberspace.
Yes, governments can, have always, and always will try to control anything and everything and suppress citizen rights. What I am saying is that in the case of Wikileaks, I don't think they have succeeded yet, whereas the statement "censoring websites from the entire world" suggests they have.
The problem with saying "We are still able to do this and this" is that soon you may not be able to, and as a non US-citizen, I care about this because it will affect the entire internet, not just, say, US newspapers.
That I agree with. The threat is ALWAYS there, and maintaining liberty will always be a constant tireless fight by people who care. But that doesn't mean we should let our emotions run away with us and make claims that on the face of it, when analyzed closely, aren't really true.
A glaring typo in a slashdot summary? No way! Unthinkable, how could they let that one slip by, they are usually so on the ball.
(Apologies for not reading that on the preview, and correcting some of the crappy typos, "why downloaded" = "who downloaded"; "format attempts" = "formal attempts")
True; let me amend that to "when your next door neighbor wants to blow you to smithereens just for not wanting to be part of their communist shithole". The overall gist is about the same.
Actually, apart from doing things like pressuring private companies like Amazon and PayPal to "voluntarily" kick Wikileaks off their systems, and making public statements musing that Mr Assange should be assassinated (all reprehensible, to be sure), has the US government actually done anything concrete to censor Wikileaks? Have they arrested or imprisoned anyone who downloaded the torrent? Have they issued ISPs with warrants to find out why downloaded the torrent? Have they forced any media organizations publishing information on the leaks into silence, or arrested or prosecuted any media organization that has published anything about the leaks? Have they made any format attempts to extradite Mr Assange? Has the US government done anything to forcibly silence discussion among the public on the leaks -- for example, shutting down blogs, or arresting blog owners? Have they forced media organizations to toe the official state position only? I'm curious, apart from vague allusions to "censoring websites from the entire world", what are you referring to exactly?
The types of activities I've mentioned, are the types of things that DO actually go on in the many countries outside the US that do practice censorship and control of speech, and I must say, I don't really see the US doing those things. Or perhaps you want to suggest that they are doing those things but that we don't know about them because the US has silenced anyone who talks about it. But I'm afraid I don't even see the climate of fear around discussion that that type of control usually generates in such countries that suppress freedom of speech; as far as I can tell, Americans seem to enjoy the liberty of being able to do and say whatever they want about their government very, very openly.
Actually when it comes to press freedom, the US still looks better than most countries. In fact, even after 230 years of the US example, I don't know of any other governments whose core founding and/or legal principles include the explicit recognition of the citizenry's inalienable right to freedom of speech, it seems to genuinely be something exceptional. Oh sure, many governments have begrudgingly given a nod to what they see as "granting" of similar rights (and in fact even that much is due to the positive influence of the US historically) - but saying "OK, we grant you freedom of speech" is actually fundamentally vastly different to inalienable rights, which are not considered granted, but exist independent of government and cannot morally be taken away. Sure, in practice lawmakers pee on the constitution with abandon, as lawmakers will do, but I'll take the US any day. Trying to block citizens' practice of liberties such as free speech is something all governments do anyway, but only one government in the world at least formally recognizes this as wrong (and gives the citizens other rights, such as the 2nd amendment, in order to enforce the 1st amendment).
I'm definitely not saying it's perfect, or that we shouldn't strive for better. On the contrary, we should continually strive for better. We have to.
Uhrm, I thought it was pretty clear from the context that OP was referring to good, civilized, law-abiding people defending themselves from non-law-abiding aggressors.
I guess you're right, it's the lesser evil. Still, I find it scaring and can't understand what makes a human being work day after day to design and manufacture such an evil device.
Don't worry, when your next door neighbor wants to blow you to smithereens just for existing, you will finally understand.
The world has bad people in it. Good people need to defend themselves from bad people so civilization can continue. It's really that simple. Civilization can exist only as a small, ephemeral clearing carved out in a metaphorical forest of chaos; you live entirely within the clearing. The clearing is always under attack, but you live entirely within the clearing, so you never actually see what is happening at the fringes of that clearing in order to hold back the forces that would otherwise overwhelm the clearing.
Slashdot makes this same mistake
It's not a mistake, it keeps discussion lively.
That's great. Seriously. No chapter 11 is a good thing! Your no worse off for having tried.
Actually having started a software startup, I know he feels, and in a sense you are worse off, because while you're trying to build a startup, you are earning far less than what your skills would earn you as a salaried employee. So instead of being able to save some money and/or buy a few decent things, you aren't able to do so, so end 'further behind financially than you would've been if you hadn't tried it'. Especially if you have a wife/family, and you have to think about things like saving for the child's education, or for your retirement etc. And the longer you "persevere", the worse it becomes if you aren't getting that income up there where you need it to pay yourself a decent salary. And the older you get, so the harder it will be to "catch up". When my business went through difficult times, my confidence also took massive hits. I'm going on seven years now with it and some days I still wonder if I'm doing the right thing.