You should learn some history. Hint: change is not necessarily positive in the short OR even the long term. I forget who said it: "no longer do we need to pine for the knowledge of the ancients"... this was during the enlightenment, a recovery after millenia of decline.
ummmm... aren't you talking about Leninism and/or Marxism? I'm no expert on these matters, but how is it possible to have communist parties that trade power back and forth in a democratic system?
Re:Warning! - Socialism ahead.
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
People often say "communism doesn't work", and out of curiosity I looked into it. Dictatorships are bad news for sure, but democracy is a form of government and communism is an economic system - they are not incompatible. Several states in India have had governments with significant democratic communist components - Kerala and West Bengal being the most notable. West Bengal recently had their communist government voted out after 34 years, and that was apparently only because of a percieved betrayal of their socialist principles(!). South America has had several democratic socialist/communist governments... usually overthrown in short order by the USA, as is the case in the Middle East (eg. Iran)... so it's difficult to draw any conclusions there. I did find an interesting communist community in Spain with economic refugees coming into it from the rest of the country. Apparently the mayor changed the economic system to escape the crushing poverty commonly experienced in that part of the country.
I'm happy with my Australian free market with social/democratic trimmings, so I'm certainly no radical, but I was surprised and fascinated by my research.
This is important... in a well functioning society there's a social cost for betraying trust, and that is being viewed with suspicion in future. Even if you believe a mundane explanation is most likely it's still a social duty to regard certain entities with suspicion.
How many times do sharks cruise beaches uneventfully? If this is meant to calm the public mind, well, lets just say this has potential to be counterproductive.
...and the freedom to be ransacked by the next hillbilly lynchmob / group of angry Dansk raiders etc... y'know... the reason we don't drive pickups with mounted anti-tank weapons like in Somalia.
What disengenuous examples! Hobart is cold DESPITE its location ie. adjacent to the warm Eastern Australian current. The California current should make California colder than it is, yet most of the Californian coast is classified as mediterranean. Sure, Chicago has a more hot/cold extreme inland climate, and New York gets its winter weather from inland also, but a Mediterranian climate is all about the ocean.
The southern hemisphere is generally cooler. Take for instance the mediterranian climate. In the USA at the same latitude you have California with a roughly equivalent climate. In the south we have Tasmania for example which is significantly cooler.
In Mikkos own words it's time to act. I guess this means he is taking his own advice. I have in my own very small way been pushing up the price of surveilance : https everywhere, disconnect, duckduckgo etc... haven't been motivated enough for Tor yet because I share a slow connection. Still, we can and must act in small ways in our browsing behavior, purchasing decisions, and any other ways we can come up with. We're lucky that others of us are already acting in not so small ways, and we must support them.
I think colds contribution is valuable. Yes, most disagree, but he's one of a minority of voices arguing for blanket surveilance, unrestricted gun ownership etc... etc... and a minority of a minority in that the arguments are often thoughful and well researched (though I think perhaps a tad disengenuous;) ). I have done extra research and have a more nuanced view because of more than one cold fjord post. Everyone is better off when their views are challenged and they're forced to think, even if/when the result is simply being better able to articulate a position - perhaps cold is getting more benefit there.;) Echo chambers aren't good, and I certainly wouldn't wish for one.
A state adversary WILL get in should they wish to, but any exploit runs the risk of being discovered over time. This is a better outcome than simply rolling over, and may even result in the NSA (or organisation in question) deciding the risk is not worth the benefit. Even if you're gagged and forced into cooperating, having made an agency use totalitarian powers is a good outcome - it's harder to deny the nature of the "project".
The BBC reporter seemed to do things right to me... first what the Reuters reporter said (with a link to the article), then the RSA, Reuters, RSA etc... Yes, the article expected the reader to draw their own conclusions, but isn't that what real news reporting is meant to do?
Why didn't GCQH force The Guardian to retract after being crushed under the Wheels of Great Justice (and some of the most accomodating libel laws in the western world?). Perhaps because all the important details were true, and the "journalistic enhancements" (which were basically true anyway) were mere detail on the periphery of the actual story.
One word : birther. I wasn't saying the laws were perfect, but the US model is particularly bad when it comes to agreeing on what constitutes reality. I'd rather stick to toxic rhetoric than venturing into too much creative writing when it comes to democracy.
Wasn't this about Microsoft changing Skypes architecture to enable surveilance? Hell, they were even brazen enough to patent aspects of it. They've even been scanning chats for URLs (which was news to me). Apparently the excuse was they were scanning the URLs for malicious software, which may be true... but most regard anything they say these days with a grain of salt, and rightly so.
I think the crowd that want to completely rid the UK of libel laws are very mistaken... yes, they make investigative journalism much more tedious and expensive, but they also protect journalists from being gradually replaced by glorified PR people which has largely happened in many other places around the world. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of hacks in the UK, but they at least need to keep some fingertips brushing reality occasionally. At least the UK electorate can be informed should they choose to be (which perhaps is rarely for some).
The UK has tough defamation laws... so much so that many choose to litigate in the UK for stuff published worldwide. Existing in that legal climate would make The Guardian very careful - I'd imagine their legal team are used to vetting stories such as this one.
As an aside - perhaps the tough libel laws are a plus for the UK media. It at least forces Murdoch to spy to get his dirt in the UK rather than simply lie as he would in the USA.
If I must (for example) give someone a webcam into my life I'd prefer them to live far away and have as little interest in my life as possible. Across the largest ocean on earth is good.
The problem IM(not well enough uninformed)HO is that decent leadership was too thin after Nelson Mandela. Desmond Tutu is at least a moral compass calling out some of the unwarranted sidelining of white South Africans, the corruption etc... as well as the Robert Mugabes of this world. The new South African project needed inspired leadership for a generation or two, but it didn't even get one. It did get the best start though given the situation. Hopefully as the electorate becomes more educated the racial politics will get pushed out (either from within the ANC or preferably without so there can be real democratic cut and thrust).
...and the "sellouts" took shelter under the "blowhard" GNU banner in an industry at the time utterly dominated by Microsoft... is it that easy to forget?
He could be a multiple murdering pimping drug dealing meth cook... that's orthagonal to issues hugely more important to the world that have been raised and ADMITTED to. In the age of surveilance it's inevitable all our human failings will be turned against us, and none of us are perfect. I do feel it's possible for us to be better in some small but important ways that make us less vulnerable collectively. The only problem is I'm not sure what those are exactly.;)
Slashdot Mirror
You should learn some history. Hint: change is not necessarily positive in the short OR even the long term. I forget who said it: "no longer do we need to pine for the knowledge of the ancients"... this was during the enlightenment, a recovery after millenia of decline.
ummmm... aren't you talking about Leninism and/or Marxism? I'm no expert on these matters, but how is it possible to have communist parties that trade power back and forth in a democratic system?
People often say "communism doesn't work", and out of curiosity I looked into it. Dictatorships are bad news for sure, but democracy is a form of government and communism is an economic system - they are not incompatible. Several states in India have had governments with significant democratic communist components - Kerala and West Bengal being the most notable. West Bengal recently had their communist government voted out after 34 years, and that was apparently only because of a percieved betrayal of their socialist principles(!). South America has had several democratic socialist/communist governments... usually overthrown in short order by the USA, as is the case in the Middle East (eg. Iran)... so it's difficult to draw any conclusions there. I did find an interesting communist community in Spain with economic refugees coming into it from the rest of the country. Apparently the mayor changed the economic system to escape the crushing poverty commonly experienced in that part of the country.
I'm happy with my Australian free market with social/democratic trimmings, so I'm certainly no radical, but I was surprised and fascinated by my research.
Asking for evidence, especially on a nerd site is being a brick wall?
That video eventually led me to this. Hmmm... :)
This is important... in a well functioning society there's a social cost for betraying trust, and that is being viewed with suspicion in future. Even if you believe a mundane explanation is most likely it's still a social duty to regard certain entities with suspicion.
How many times do sharks cruise beaches uneventfully? If this is meant to calm the public mind, well, lets just say this has potential to be counterproductive.
I think we can all agree that there is nothing approaching a secure and universally acceptable way to handle this problem.
...and the freedom to be ransacked by the next hillbilly lynchmob / group of angry Dansk raiders etc... y'know... the reason we don't drive pickups with mounted anti-tank weapons like in Somalia.
What disengenuous examples! Hobart is cold DESPITE its location ie. adjacent to the warm Eastern Australian current. The California current should make California colder than it is, yet most of the Californian coast is classified as mediterranean. Sure, Chicago has a more hot/cold extreme inland climate, and New York gets its winter weather from inland also, but a Mediterranian climate is all about the ocean.
Both Hobart and Los Angeles are at the southern ends of their respective states which makes that comparison a misleading one.
The southern hemisphere is generally cooler. Take for instance the mediterranian climate. In the USA at the same latitude you have California with a roughly equivalent climate. In the south we have Tasmania for example which is significantly cooler.
In Mikkos own words it's time to act. I guess this means he is taking his own advice. I have in my own very small way been pushing up the price of surveilance : https everywhere, disconnect, duckduckgo etc... haven't been motivated enough for Tor yet because I share a slow connection. Still, we can and must act in small ways in our browsing behavior, purchasing decisions, and any other ways we can come up with. We're lucky that others of us are already acting in not so small ways, and we must support them.
I think colds contribution is valuable. Yes, most disagree, but he's one of a minority of voices arguing for blanket surveilance, unrestricted gun ownership etc... etc... and a minority of a minority in that the arguments are often thoughful and well researched (though I think perhaps a tad disengenuous ;) ). I have done extra research and have a more nuanced view because of more than one cold fjord post. Everyone is better off when their views are challenged and they're forced to think, even if/when the result is simply being better able to articulate a position - perhaps cold is getting more benefit there. ;) Echo chambers aren't good, and I certainly wouldn't wish for one.
No. Just no.
A state adversary WILL get in should they wish to, but any exploit runs the risk of being discovered over time. This is a better outcome than simply rolling over, and may even result in the NSA (or organisation in question) deciding the risk is not worth the benefit. Even if you're gagged and forced into cooperating, having made an agency use totalitarian powers is a good outcome - it's harder to deny the nature of the "project".
The BBC reporter seemed to do things right to me... first what the Reuters reporter said (with a link to the article), then the RSA, Reuters, RSA etc... Yes, the article expected the reader to draw their own conclusions, but isn't that what real news reporting is meant to do?
Why didn't GCQH force The Guardian to retract after being crushed under the Wheels of Great Justice (and some of the most accomodating libel laws in the western world?). Perhaps because all the important details were true, and the "journalistic enhancements" (which were basically true anyway) were mere detail on the periphery of the actual story.
One word : birther. I wasn't saying the laws were perfect, but the US model is particularly bad when it comes to agreeing on what constitutes reality. I'd rather stick to toxic rhetoric than venturing into too much creative writing when it comes to democracy.
Wasn't this about Microsoft changing Skypes architecture to enable surveilance? Hell, they were even brazen enough to patent aspects of it. They've even been scanning chats for URLs (which was news to me). Apparently the excuse was they were scanning the URLs for malicious software, which may be true... but most regard anything they say these days with a grain of salt, and rightly so.
I think the crowd that want to completely rid the UK of libel laws are very mistaken... yes, they make investigative journalism much more tedious and expensive, but they also protect journalists from being gradually replaced by glorified PR people which has largely happened in many other places around the world. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of hacks in the UK, but they at least need to keep some fingertips brushing reality occasionally. At least the UK electorate can be informed should they choose to be (which perhaps is rarely for some).
Errr... no...
The UK has tough defamation laws... so much so that many choose to litigate in the UK for stuff published worldwide. Existing in that legal climate would make The Guardian very careful - I'd imagine their legal team are used to vetting stories such as this one.
As an aside - perhaps the tough libel laws are a plus for the UK media. It at least forces Murdoch to spy to get his dirt in the UK rather than simply lie as he would in the USA.
If I must (for example) give someone a webcam into my life I'd prefer them to live far away and have as little interest in my life as possible. Across the largest ocean on earth is good.
The problem IM(not well enough uninformed)HO is that decent leadership was too thin after Nelson Mandela. Desmond Tutu is at least a moral compass calling out some of the unwarranted sidelining of white South Africans, the corruption etc... as well as the Robert Mugabes of this world. The new South African project needed inspired leadership for a generation or two, but it didn't even get one. It did get the best start though given the situation. Hopefully as the electorate becomes more educated the racial politics will get pushed out (either from within the ANC or preferably without so there can be real democratic cut and thrust).
...and the "sellouts" took shelter under the "blowhard" GNU banner in an industry at the time utterly dominated by Microsoft... is it that easy to forget?
He could be a multiple murdering pimping drug dealing meth cook... that's orthagonal to issues hugely more important to the world that have been raised and ADMITTED to. In the age of surveilance it's inevitable all our human failings will be turned against us, and none of us are perfect. I do feel it's possible for us to be better in some small but important ways that make us less vulnerable collectively. The only problem is I'm not sure what those are exactly. ;)