as if no one is aware of the issues at stake except you
the issue is prevent government abuse, right? that's what i am fighting for. that's what i care about. that's what i am trying to do MOST EFFECTIVELY HERE. rather than cling to a notion that has passed its sell-by date
so: transparency, independent review with authority to punish, any and all wiretapping efforts
got me?
"It isn't a ridiculously hard standard -- warrants are issued daily and routinely."
no, no, no
that's my whole point: technological change HAS made it ridiculously hard. your average al qaeda goon or timothy mcveigh is not calling up his #2 on the rotary phone. they are using skype, they are using a friend's computer one moment, getting an sms text on another friend's cell phone the next moment. do you see that?
the avenues of communication, the protocols, the endpoints: they are ridiculously huge in number, convoluted, and fluid. such that, yes: i am asserting that getting a wiretap first is an antiquated, quaint notion. that no reasonable person can expect anyone to be able to elucidate and enunciate all of the communication avenues of a suspect they ar einterested in beforehand
nevermind the stereotype of senator palpatine or agent smith out to take away all of your rights for the sake of some b-grade hollywood fantasy, i am talking about the well-meaning fbi agent on the trail of a genuine suspect: do you honestly expect him to be aware of all of the terminals of communication and avenues of communication being used by that suspect beforehand? do you really?
the era of the warrant to wiretap has been destroyed
destroyed NOT by some insidious ideology. destroyed by simple technological change
understand me yet? I AM FOR THE FIGHT AGAINST GOVERNMENT ABUSE
i aam simply asking you to recognize that this battle is lost
now mod me into obvlivion and declare me your eternal ideological foe, and completely and utterly miss my point
i agree governments abuse power, that we should fight that. but i suggest the time of warrants for wiretaps has passed due to technological change, and i get modded -1,000 troll, everyone declares me their foe, and a bunch outraged +500 insightfuls underline the party line for me
i know what the party line is: warrantless wiretaps are evil. got it. duh
they are also pretty much now the status quo, in the west, and the world
do you understand that?
so all i'm suggesting is keep up the good fight against government abuse, just shift the battlefront
but no, we're all going to sit here, cover our eyes, and insist on rigid interpretation of laws from 1950. even though NO ONE IS LISTENING TO ANY OF YOU AND THE WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS KEEP COMING
so: do you want to make a difference?
or live in high holy righteous empty indignation and denial?
we all understand why the riaa sucks balls: technology changes the landscape. we laugh at the riaa for trying to uphold a business model from the days of vinyl. but now everyone here wants to uphold laws from the days of rotary phones, and i'm the asshole for suggesting the law might be outdated
whatever
i await my -300 troll, and my 300 new foes
all i am arguing for is flexibility in the valid fight against government abuse, and i'm the enemy
anyone committed to getting a gun will get one, no matter what the law is
duh
the simple and obvious truth is that when you make it harder to get guns, less people get guns. its really as simple as that
the goal is not to reduce gun ownership to zero, or to prevent a massacre by a committed zealot (by the way, the moron in pittsburgh was acting on the fear obama's administration was going to take away his guns... if that irony doesn't speak volumes to you about what the real issue is here, i don't know what will)
the goal is simply get less guns in less hands, for any reason, or by any means. then you simply cut down on senseless casual deaths
easy access to guns: senseless gun deaths
hard access to guns: much less gun deaths
i don't know why this simple obvious logic escapes you
this whole "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns" is a nice piece of propagandistic turn of phrase, but it completely ignores the reality of limiting access: less senseless death
i think the human right to life trumps any right you can allude to being trampled on by stricter laws
i'd say just one of those deaths is worth more than 1,000 prevented muggings
and i can't imagine anyone with any grasp on reason or logic thinking that the number of deaths prevented by guns is anywhere near, by orders of magnitude, the number of pointless deaths commited with guns
and this is laughable:
"we can then balance appropriately against the limitation of human rights imposed by gun control"
i think a valid human right is the right to life
i think that right pretty much trumps any other right you are alluding to
however, unless those who criticize warrantless wiretaps can enunciate a valid alternative, the status quo is not going to change
of course, the smart aleck reply to my comment is: GET A WARRANT! DUH!
except that we are talking about the profusion and proliferation of modes of communication and channels of communication happening much faster, with only a handful of suspects, than any agent sitting down with a judge can keep up with
perhaps those who don't like warrantless wiretaps should instead focus on transparent recordkeeping and an ability to review what was tapped and when and why, and the empowerment of the punishment of abuses. that's the real issue here right?
the ability to abuse the priveledge of warrantless wiretapping is real. this must be balanced against, absolutely. but going to the previous era when people picked up a rotary wall phone, and this was a slow and easy to track thing, is gone. therefore, those who care about the abuse of governmental power need to shift their focus along with the technological shift in focus: the feds are getting taps without warrants. accept that for the moment, and continue the deper, more important fight: how do we prevent abuse?
because i think the boat of warrants before tapping has sailed: technology has sunk the idea of getting a warrant before every snoop. the modes of communication and their fluidity in terms of protocol, originating device, user id/ number, etc. has rendered the idea of sitting down with a judge and getting a warrant a quaint idea from a bygone era
you must display some flexibility in your fight against government abuse. becaus eit hink with some of you, when you adhere to this fundamentalist notion of NO WARRANT NO TAP you are going to find the world has moved on, and your approach is simply ineffective. you can do a better job fighting government abuse if you give up this bulwark as a victim of technological change, and shift the valid righteous fight against government abuse to a new battle field: transparency, review, punishment of abusers
you do realize of course that when people wear their high holy fire and brimstone moral outrage on their sleeves, they undermine their own morality, right?
child slavery. genocide in darfur. or, since you are so good at splitting hairs: how about the us invasion of iraq? these are subjects worthy of moral outrage
but when people cry moral outrage over showing saddam hussein A MOVIE, its the same effect as the boy who cried wolf: no one listens to you anymore. you do want your moral judgments to matter in this world, right? then reserve the fire and brimstone for actions that actually REQUIRE fire and brimstone as a valid response. but if you pick up the holy hand grenade of antioch over every slight you perceive, you in effect reduce your morality to no morality at all
perspective. scale. context. people need to learn subtlety. their easy shallow outrage is just as ugly an american thing, just as immature a thing, as frat boys with guns showing saddam hussein a frat boy movie. really
people in this thread are upset at this. they resent the frat-boys-with-guns ugly american attitude on display here. however, the people upset at this are displaying a sort of hyperactive, over-the-top righteous indignation that is equally ugly, if not more so
here is my thesis for some of you: this high holy righteous indignation worn on your sleave attitude is more deadly to international relations and a civil, decent society than the ugly american frat boy with a gun. how?
if every sleight you perceive is reason to invoke extreme moral outrage, after awhile, nothing provokes extreme moral outrage. in other words, i think some of you need to reserve your easily triggered outrage for truly outrageous events. say, the genocide in darfur, or... say the us invasion of iraq? your problem is akin to the boy who cried wolf: if every little sleight is reason to go ballistic in your moral outrage, after awhile, just like the boy who cried wolf, no one listens to you anymore
you need to let the small things slide. and yes, showing saddam hussein an off color american movie is most definitely a small thing. really. that's 100% true. please accept this, or completely miss my point, and remain a truly ugly american
if you can't learn to do that, you diminish the value of your own outrage, to the point that no one listens to you, no one values your opinion. your opinion is shallow, its always the same. you're upset! you're angry! why? because saddam hussein was shown a movie! the horror! zzz. you do want people to value your judgment, right? or are you just masturbating your moral indignation for some convoluted sense of vanity? some of you really have no percetion of scale or context in what sets you off
and, to take a stab at the usa, in the name of this high holy attitude, you see it all the time domestically: lawsuits over the height of a neighbors bush. you see it in people calling 911 because their fast food order was incorrect. you see it all the time where people bring to bear far too much outrage over slight sleights on their conscience. it is a kind of immaturity on your part. yes, just as immature as frat boys with guns
some of you really need to grow a thicker skin. the phrase "ugly american" can refer to many things. frat boys with guns is one. another is this sort of thin skinned easy outrage on display in a lot of comments in this thread
the only job for you to do is accept that it exists. no big deal
but certain people with a lot of book reading but no real world common sense believe commerce is some sort of bogeyman in this world
fact: all historical attempts at excising commerce from a substantial segment of any human society only results in a set of evils worse than any set of evils you can point to emmanating from commerce
we accept commerce. not because we love it. but because there is no better way to organize human beings into productive and happy units
yes, i said happy. relatively speaking. all happiness is relative. as if alternative schemes to commerce make people happier
but until something better than captchas is developed, we have to keep using captchas, since a leaky captcha is better than no captcha
so i await the slashdot story trumpeting the brand spanking new approach that works much better than captchas. which is obviously difficult, or we wouldn't be posting about this
"finding your own information from the internet" leads you to sources of trustworthy news... which happens to be the free press, or a derivative of, that you just dissed
Multiple types of service can be provided with a prioritized pecking
order. An additional property is built-in worm detection and
eradication. Because IP only guarantees best effort delivery, loss
of a carrier can be tolerated. With time, the carriers are self-
regenerating. While broadcasting is not specified, storms can cause
data loss. There is persistent delivery retry, until the carrier
drops. Audit trails are automatically generated, and can often be
found on logs and cable trays.
a free press is integral to the functioning of a modern democracy. hell, the printing press gave birth to the foment of ideas and individuals who created modern democracy. without a free press, those in power feel at ease to engage in shenanigans while no one is watching. the free press is the light that sends those cockroaches scurrying. with no free press watching, the cockroaches do their thing, and rot our social institutions
but its not like a free press is under attack from some callow ideology working against democracy, the free press is simply losing its economic lifeblood and fading away. and its losing it from a technological innovation that everyone thinks is an even better fountain for the free exchange of ideas
except this new medium has no economic underpinnings. such that there is no structure to it, there is no scarcity of resources that forces it into limited models that are small in number and easy to constrain to trust and impartiality. instead, on the internet, we get rumor, lies, fearmongering, propaganda, spread with the same reach as old school media but beholden to nothing or no one, certainly not any standard of behavior, and costing absolutely nothing to run
so what gives? is the internet, supposed great leap forward in the exchange of ideas, actually the death knell of good ideas, by drowning it in a sea of mediocrity and lies?
simply because the "slashdot geniuses" are correct on one point: there is no way to compel the payments you insist on. otherwise, it is as you say: if everyone leaches content, and no one pays content creators for their efforts, there will simply be no content. but all of the models for forcing payment are old-school, pre-internet, that simply do not translate
so its a conundrum
however, i don't think old school media can, or will fade away. they have something no imbecile on the internet has: trust. they are impartial. well, as impartial as is possible: no media source is truly impartial, but however you want denigrate the impartiality of old school media, surely you don't think anything on the internet is better
so i don't understand how they can monetize this "resource" of trust that they enjoy, but they do have it, and no one else has it, so there must be SOME way to capitalize on that... i just don't udnerstand how yet, really, and i don't think anyone does
Slashdot Mirror
mowing your lawn this way is just as exciting as your average wii game
as if no one is aware of the issues at stake except you
the issue is prevent government abuse, right? that's what i am fighting for. that's what i care about. that's what i am trying to do MOST EFFECTIVELY HERE. rather than cling to a notion that has passed its sell-by date
so: transparency, independent review with authority to punish, any and all wiretapping efforts
got me?
"It isn't a ridiculously hard standard -- warrants are issued daily and routinely."
no, no, no
that's my whole point: technological change HAS made it ridiculously hard. your average al qaeda goon or timothy mcveigh is not calling up his #2 on the rotary phone. they are using skype, they are using a friend's computer one moment, getting an sms text on another friend's cell phone the next moment. do you see that?
the avenues of communication, the protocols, the endpoints: they are ridiculously huge in number, convoluted, and fluid. such that, yes: i am asserting that getting a wiretap first is an antiquated, quaint notion. that no reasonable person can expect anyone to be able to elucidate and enunciate all of the communication avenues of a suspect they ar einterested in beforehand
nevermind the stereotype of senator palpatine or agent smith out to take away all of your rights for the sake of some b-grade hollywood fantasy, i am talking about the well-meaning fbi agent on the trail of a genuine suspect: do you honestly expect him to be aware of all of the terminals of communication and avenues of communication being used by that suspect beforehand? do you really?
the era of the warrant to wiretap has been destroyed
destroyed NOT by some insidious ideology. destroyed by simple technological change
understand me yet? I AM FOR THE FIGHT AGAINST GOVERNMENT ABUSE
i aam simply asking you to recognize that this battle is lost
now mod me into obvlivion and declare me your eternal ideological foe, and completely and utterly miss my point
zzz
could you tell me how to fit the country known as the uk into an internet link?
k thx
i agree governments abuse power, that we should fight that. but i suggest the time of warrants for wiretaps has passed due to technological change, and i get modded -1,000 troll, everyone declares me their foe, and a bunch outraged +500 insightfuls underline the party line for me
i know what the party line is: warrantless wiretaps are evil. got it. duh
they are also pretty much now the status quo, in the west, and the world
do you understand that?
so all i'm suggesting is keep up the good fight against government abuse, just shift the battlefront
but no, we're all going to sit here, cover our eyes, and insist on rigid interpretation of laws from 1950. even though NO ONE IS LISTENING TO ANY OF YOU AND THE WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS KEEP COMING
so: do you want to make a difference?
or live in high holy righteous empty indignation and denial?
we all understand why the riaa sucks balls: technology changes the landscape. we laugh at the riaa for trying to uphold a business model from the days of vinyl. but now everyone here wants to uphold laws from the days of rotary phones, and i'm the asshole for suggesting the law might be outdated
whatever
i await my -300 troll, and my 300 new foes
all i am arguing for is flexibility in the valid fight against government abuse, and i'm the enemy
got it?
now: go ahead. shoot the messenger
anyone committed to getting a gun will get one, no matter what the law is
duh
the simple and obvious truth is that when you make it harder to get guns, less people get guns. its really as simple as that
the goal is not to reduce gun ownership to zero, or to prevent a massacre by a committed zealot (by the way, the moron in pittsburgh was acting on the fear obama's administration was going to take away his guns... if that irony doesn't speak volumes to you about what the real issue is here, i don't know what will)
the goal is simply get less guns in less hands, for any reason, or by any means. then you simply cut down on senseless casual deaths
easy access to guns: senseless gun deaths
hard access to guns: much less gun deaths
i don't know why this simple obvious logic escapes you
this whole "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns" is a nice piece of propagandistic turn of phrase, but it completely ignores the reality of limiting access: less senseless death
i think the human right to life trumps any right you can allude to being trampled on by stricter laws
compared between the usa and say the uk
i'd say just one of those deaths is worth more than 1,000 prevented muggings
and i can't imagine anyone with any grasp on reason or logic thinking that the number of deaths prevented by guns is anywhere near, by orders of magnitude, the number of pointless deaths commited with guns
and this is laughable:
"we can then balance appropriately against the limitation of human rights imposed by gun control"
i think a valid human right is the right to life
i think that right pretty much trumps any other right you are alluding to
however, unless those who criticize warrantless wiretaps can enunciate a valid alternative, the status quo is not going to change
of course, the smart aleck reply to my comment is: GET A WARRANT! DUH!
except that we are talking about the profusion and proliferation of modes of communication and channels of communication happening much faster, with only a handful of suspects, than any agent sitting down with a judge can keep up with
perhaps those who don't like warrantless wiretaps should instead focus on transparent recordkeeping and an ability to review what was tapped and when and why, and the empowerment of the punishment of abuses. that's the real issue here right?
the ability to abuse the priveledge of warrantless wiretapping is real. this must be balanced against, absolutely. but going to the previous era when people picked up a rotary wall phone, and this was a slow and easy to track thing, is gone. therefore, those who care about the abuse of governmental power need to shift their focus along with the technological shift in focus: the feds are getting taps without warrants. accept that for the moment, and continue the deper, more important fight: how do we prevent abuse?
because i think the boat of warrants before tapping has sailed: technology has sunk the idea of getting a warrant before every snoop. the modes of communication and their fluidity in terms of protocol, originating device, user id/ number, etc. has rendered the idea of sitting down with a judge and getting a warrant a quaint idea from a bygone era
you must display some flexibility in your fight against government abuse. becaus eit hink with some of you, when you adhere to this fundamentalist notion of NO WARRANT NO TAP you are going to find the world has moved on, and your approach is simply ineffective. you can do a better job fighting government abuse if you give up this bulwark as a victim of technological change, and shift the valid righteous fight against government abuse to a new battle field: transparency, review, punishment of abusers
a
fucking
movie
you do realize of course that when people wear their high holy fire and brimstone moral outrage on their sleeves, they undermine their own morality, right?
child slavery. genocide in darfur. or, since you are so good at splitting hairs: how about the us invasion of iraq? these are subjects worthy of moral outrage
but when people cry moral outrage over showing saddam hussein A MOVIE, its the same effect as the boy who cried wolf: no one listens to you anymore. you do want your moral judgments to matter in this world, right? then reserve the fire and brimstone for actions that actually REQUIRE fire and brimstone as a valid response. but if you pick up the holy hand grenade of antioch over every slight you perceive, you in effect reduce your morality to no morality at all
perspective. scale. context. people need to learn subtlety. their easy shallow outrage is just as ugly an american thing, just as immature a thing, as frat boys with guns showing saddam hussein a frat boy movie. really
gun ownership is a right AND a responsibility
as such, it must be strictly limited and licensed and monitored
people understand this about car ownership, why they don't understand this about gun ownership is beyond me
its some sort of fucking quasireligious fanaticism with guns in this fucking country
its the second amendment, not the goddamn ten commandments
whodathunkit
people in this thread are upset at this. they resent the frat-boys-with-guns ugly american attitude on display here. however, the people upset at this are displaying a sort of hyperactive, over-the-top righteous indignation that is equally ugly, if not more so
here is my thesis for some of you: this high holy righteous indignation worn on your sleave attitude is more deadly to international relations and a civil, decent society than the ugly american frat boy with a gun. how?
if every sleight you perceive is reason to invoke extreme moral outrage, after awhile, nothing provokes extreme moral outrage. in other words, i think some of you need to reserve your easily triggered outrage for truly outrageous events. say, the genocide in darfur, or... say the us invasion of iraq? your problem is akin to the boy who cried wolf: if every little sleight is reason to go ballistic in your moral outrage, after awhile, just like the boy who cried wolf, no one listens to you anymore
you need to let the small things slide. and yes, showing saddam hussein an off color american movie is most definitely a small thing. really. that's 100% true. please accept this, or completely miss my point, and remain a truly ugly american
if you can't learn to do that, you diminish the value of your own outrage, to the point that no one listens to you, no one values your opinion. your opinion is shallow, its always the same. you're upset! you're angry! why? because saddam hussein was shown a movie! the horror! zzz. you do want people to value your judgment, right? or are you just masturbating your moral indignation for some convoluted sense of vanity? some of you really have no percetion of scale or context in what sets you off
and, to take a stab at the usa, in the name of this high holy attitude, you see it all the time domestically: lawsuits over the height of a neighbors bush. you see it in people calling 911 because their fast food order was incorrect. you see it all the time where people bring to bear far too much outrage over slight sleights on their conscience. it is a kind of immaturity on your part. yes, just as immature as frat boys with guns
some of you really need to grow a thicker skin. the phrase "ugly american" can refer to many things. frat boys with guns is one. another is this sort of thin skinned easy outrage on display in a lot of comments in this thread
decency is alive and well
decency is applicable only to people who are likewise decent
saddam hussein does not validate as someone who deserves decency
perhaps you'd like to expand your repertoire of righteous indignation and focus it on the crimes of saddam hussein
or perhaps you care less about principles, and more about anti-americanism
of the gp
commerce exists
the only job for you to do is accept that it exists. no big deal
but certain people with a lot of book reading but no real world common sense believe commerce is some sort of bogeyman in this world
fact: all historical attempts at excising commerce from a substantial segment of any human society only results in a set of evils worse than any set of evils you can point to emmanating from commerce
we accept commerce. not because we love it. but because there is no better way to organize human beings into productive and happy units
yes, i said happy. relatively speaking. all happiness is relative. as if alternative schemes to commerce make people happier
marcus junius brutus
or perhaps ulysses s. grant
but until something better than captchas is developed, we have to keep using captchas, since a leaky captcha is better than no captcha
so i await the slashdot story trumpeting the brand spanking new approach that works much better than captchas. which is obviously difficult, or we wouldn't be posting about this
until then, nothing changes
you're eye is just organically attracted, narcissistically, to patterns that resemble itself
beauty is in the eye of the beholder
i want to go to chase.com
not
chase.cÒm
chase.cÓm
chase.cÔm
chase.cÕm
chase.cÖm
etc.
and i don't want to think about it
nor should i have to, nor should such an obvious security hole be introduced
hint: what does .com stand for?
"finding your own information from the internet" leads you to sources of trustworthy news... which happens to be the free press, or a derivative of, that you just dissed
rfc 1149:
A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers
aka tcp/ip over pigeons
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1149.html
a free press is integral to the functioning of a modern democracy. hell, the printing press gave birth to the foment of ideas and individuals who created modern democracy. without a free press, those in power feel at ease to engage in shenanigans while no one is watching. the free press is the light that sends those cockroaches scurrying. with no free press watching, the cockroaches do their thing, and rot our social institutions
but its not like a free press is under attack from some callow ideology working against democracy, the free press is simply losing its economic lifeblood and fading away. and its losing it from a technological innovation that everyone thinks is an even better fountain for the free exchange of ideas
except this new medium has no economic underpinnings. such that there is no structure to it, there is no scarcity of resources that forces it into limited models that are small in number and easy to constrain to trust and impartiality. instead, on the internet, we get rumor, lies, fearmongering, propaganda, spread with the same reach as old school media but beholden to nothing or no one, certainly not any standard of behavior, and costing absolutely nothing to run
so what gives? is the internet, supposed great leap forward in the exchange of ideas, actually the death knell of good ideas, by drowning it in a sea of mediocrity and lies?
simply because the "slashdot geniuses" are correct on one point: there is no way to compel the payments you insist on. otherwise, it is as you say: if everyone leaches content, and no one pays content creators for their efforts, there will simply be no content. but all of the models for forcing payment are old-school, pre-internet, that simply do not translate
so its a conundrum
however, i don't think old school media can, or will fade away. they have something no imbecile on the internet has: trust. they are impartial. well, as impartial as is possible: no media source is truly impartial, but however you want denigrate the impartiality of old school media, surely you don't think anything on the internet is better
so i don't understand how they can monetize this "resource" of trust that they enjoy, but they do have it, and no one else has it, so there must be SOME way to capitalize on that... i just don't udnerstand how yet, really, and i don't think anyone does
this man can pretty much go to any city on the planet right now, make an excitable announcement, and cause a mass exdodus
that's a rather interesting gift
assuming you didn't have them as replacement organ farms in the first place