Uh, well, in case you didn't realize it, every country doesn't have a government like the US. The vast majority of "countries" only have this status to placate the population's need for nationalism. In reality they have the power of like a state or county government or a large business in the US. The powerful are all one government. All of their interests overlap borders every which way. There are not multiple "mass surveillances". There is one. There is one "government". There is one empire. The British Empire never failed. It only conquered. It is the entire west.
BUT EVERYONE KNOWS THE EMPIRE WAS DISSOLVED PEACEFULLY BECAUSE AMERICA IS SO GREAT THE REVOLUTION CHANGED EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD HAHA Ok if you want to believe that then enjoy what's coming to you (doubt you will)
And oh yeah your post is like the stupidest thing I have ever seen. What is the point of your repeated questioning? To deflect a notion you don't want to confront with infinitely suspended questions? Nice.
In a state where everything is legislated, the people in it are assumed by the state to be mindless slaves who would stop functioning without constant instruction in minute details of life. And they are probably correct in that judgement.
You should take these stories personally. I think it would be difficult to over react. You can see countless examples of such laws already enacted. You think you're so intelligent that such laws would never affect you. But there are such laws that affect you.
Instead of making excuses for the signs of your government's tyranny, you should inventory the examples. I think most anyone who has the discipline to do this will come to the conclusion that they are not a respected citizen of the state.
Maybe if enough people were to harden themselves in this way there could be an opportunity for freedom for those who deserve it.
Simply put people are not taking this opportunity to hone their debate skills. They are taking this opportunity to affirm their own self-perception of being in line with "the smart people in society".
The glaring problem with this debate is that no one supporting the pro-vaccine side displays the discipline to assume the other side could possibly be valid. This means they do not have the discipline to discern the truth. The reason for this is that they are judging the available information unevenly. They are applying a single and unchanging pattern of thought to multiple scopes of data. They are unwilling to break down the details and find the underlying causes of confusion. The are convinced they have spotted the problem too early on in their analysis of the situation.
Damage control for the damage control. A feeble attempt to placate a few people who are catching on to propaganda tactics. What are we supposed to think? "Some people in the federal government think that mass surveillance is bad so there isn't really much cause for concern or action"?
What are we supposed to think from this? That we need to pour more money into mass surveillance to aid data analysis to keep us safe?
This is a obvious example of the ongoing damage control.
All of the recent stories concerning the NSA seem to be dancing around the main point: our government has been proven to steal information from all of us. They have been monitoring and recording all electronic communications for years. This isn't just a breach of trust. This is a complete annihilation of trust for anyone who has the ability to reason. Nothing anyone says who is or was involved with intelligence is credible.
The conclusion that must be drawn to preserve freedom is that the government is an mortal enemy to the vast majority of people. This bitter idea needs to be made palatable to everyone. Only then can reform be enacted.
I can't even imagine why the original formatting of this message is being stripped or why I can't edit my post. Maybe this is why slashdot is not popular anymore
This "news story" is incredibly biased. "You're not being censored by YouTube, you're being censored by the laws, so everything is A-OK:-)"
This message is absolute poison. Hollow rhetoric. He throws out some half-"factoids" encased in some kind of journalistic prose and supposes it supports his baseless, completely negative, unconstructive opinion. What possible interest could this guy have in shooting down someone else's point of view? What belief is he supporting? "Everything is okay no matter what even when people are being systematically censored for absolutely no good reason"?
'Differences in bandwidth alone make a true peer-to-peer internet impossible even if we ignore the legal and economic landscape'
Practically every internet connection in this country is overkill for sharing ideas in an engaging way (text, images, sound, video). Proof by example: Skype. False assertion.
'Empowering the little guys? It already does. But empowered does not and never will mean equal results.'
'Letting unpopular messages be heard? It does that but only to a point. Getting an unpopular message heard requires an audience'
What is this even supposed to mean? Empowered how? Empowered to host your unpopular messages in a little corner of the web that will not be prioritized in any index and is for all practical purposes inaccessible to a broad audience? Meanwhile every popular hosting service, the keepers of the broad audiences, vigourously censor anything according to their whims and "legal obligations"?
'Technology isn't "enslaving us" any more than it ever did. Just because it didn't turn out to be a utopian fantasy doesn't mean everything is bad and we are all slaves.'
There was absolutely no implication in the message of which this is a response that a "utopian fantasy" was expected. Having the broad audience held captive by a few powerful content/service providers does smell of slavery if you have a nose. You may argue that the majority chose to occupy their time with only a few service/content providers. To be blunt: they were herded to these providers. The disparity of development resources ensured that the existing powerful interests would eventually invest in the construction of something more immediately attractive to most people than an eclectic array of simple content.
Simply put the powers that be invested in their own ability to distribute multimedia rather than the ability of everyone else to distribute multimedia. ISPs and indexing services ignored the immediate demand and the potential demand for self-publication because it did not suit the interests of the majority of the economy even if it would result in more profit for the ISPs and indexing services (surprise: the majority of the economy is not the majority of the population). This amounts to a clear sign of slavery.
his "news story" is incredibly biased. "You're not being censored by YouTube, you're being censored by the laws, so everything is A-OK:-)"
This message is absolute poison. Hollow rhetoric. He throws out some half-"factoids" encased in some kind of journalistic prose and supposes it supports his baseless, completely negative, unconstructive opinion. What possible interest could this guy have in shooting down someone else's point of view? What belief is he supporting? "Everything is okay no matter what even when people are being systematically censored for absolutely no good reason"?
'Differences in bandwidth alone make a true peer-to-peer internet impossible even if we ignore the legal and economic landscape'
Practically every internet connection in this country is overkill for sharing ideas in an engaging way (text, images, sound, video). Proof by example: Skype. False assertion.
'Empowering the little guys? It already does. But empowered does not and never will mean equal results.'
'Letting unpopular messages be heard? It does that but only to a point. Getting an unpopular message heard requires an audience'
What is this even supposed to mean? Empowered how? Empowered to host your unpopular messages in a little corner of the web that will not be prioritized in any index and is for all practical purposes inaccessible to a broad audience? Meanwhile every popular hosting service, the keepers of the broad audiences, vigourously censor anything according to their whims and "legal obligations"?
'Technology isn't "enslaving us" any more than it ever did. Just because it didn't turn out to be a utopian fantasy doesn't mean everything is bad and we are all slaves.'
There was absolutely no implication in the message of which this is a response that a "utopian fantasy" was expected. Having the broad audience held captive by a few powerful content/service providers does smell of slavery if you have a nose. You may argue that the majority chose to occupy their time with only a few service/content providers. To be blunt: they were herded to these providers. The disparity of development resources ensured that the existing powerful interests would eventually invest in the construction of something more immediately attractive to most people than an eclectic array of simple content.
Simply put the powers that be invested in their own ability to distribute multimedia rather than the ability of everyone else to distribute multimedia. ISPs and indexing services ignored the immediate demand and the potential demand for self-publication because it did not suit the interests of the majority of the economy even if it would result in more profit for the ISPs and indexing services (surprise: the majority of the economy is not the majority of the population). This amounts to a clear sign of slavery.
Slashdot Mirror
shut up, your comment is not clever and is detrimental to the community here
Security is not the selling point, trendiness is, the interface for most consumers to security is trendiness
Uh, well, in case you didn't realize it, every country doesn't have a government like the US. The vast majority of "countries" only have this status to placate the population's need for nationalism. In reality they have the power of like a state or county government or a large business in the US. The powerful are all one government. All of their interests overlap borders every which way. There are not multiple "mass surveillances". There is one. There is one "government". There is one empire. The British Empire never failed. It only conquered. It is the entire west.
BUT EVERYONE KNOWS THE EMPIRE WAS DISSOLVED PEACEFULLY BECAUSE AMERICA IS SO GREAT THE REVOLUTION CHANGED EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD HAHA
Ok if you want to believe that then enjoy what's coming to you (doubt you will)
And oh yeah your post is like the stupidest thing I have ever seen. What is the point of your repeated questioning? To deflect a notion you don't want to confront with infinitely suspended questions? Nice.
Why do you assume that lawmakers do not already know this?
Why do you assume that it is not part of their purpose to make evil?
In a state where everything is legislated, the people in it are assumed by the state to be mindless slaves who would stop functioning without constant instruction in minute details of life. And they are probably correct in that judgement.
You should take these stories personally. I think it would be difficult to over react. You can see countless examples of such laws already enacted.
You think you're so intelligent that such laws would never affect you. But there are such laws that affect you.
Instead of making excuses for the signs of your government's tyranny, you should inventory the examples.
I think most anyone who has the discipline to do this will come to the conclusion that they are not a respected citizen of the state.
Maybe if enough people were to harden themselves in this way there could be an opportunity for freedom for those who deserve it.
Simply put people are not taking this opportunity to hone their debate skills.
They are taking this opportunity to affirm their own self-perception of being in line with "the smart people in society".
The glaring problem with this debate is that no one supporting the pro-vaccine side displays the discipline to assume the other side could possibly be valid. This means they do not have the discipline to discern the truth. The reason for this is that they are judging the available information unevenly. They are applying a single and unchanging pattern of thought to multiple scopes of data. They are unwilling to break down the details and find the underlying causes of confusion. The are convinced they have spotted the problem too early on in their analysis of the situation.
Take it or leave it. This is a hard life lesson.
Damage control for the damage control.
A feeble attempt to placate a few people who are catching on to propaganda tactics.
What are we supposed to think? "Some people in the federal government think that mass surveillance is bad so there isn't really much cause for concern or action"?
Recent stories:
NSA Wants To Dump the Phone Records It Gathered Over 14 Years"
"Whistleblower: NSA Is So Overwhelmed With Data, It's No Longer Effective"
These conspicuously attempt to dodge the simple fact that the federal government regularly operates criminally by trying to portray global mass surveillance as ineffective and in need of more funding. To say they operate criminally is an great understatement. The summation of their criminal activity is the threat of the complete destruction of freedom itself.
What are we supposed to think from this? That we need to pour more money into mass surveillance to aid data analysis to keep us safe? This is a obvious example of the ongoing damage control. All of the recent stories concerning the NSA seem to be dancing around the main point: our government has been proven to steal information from all of us. They have been monitoring and recording all electronic communications for years. This isn't just a breach of trust. This is a complete annihilation of trust for anyone who has the ability to reason. Nothing anyone says who is or was involved with intelligence is credible. The conclusion that must be drawn to preserve freedom is that the government is an mortal enemy to the vast majority of people. This bitter idea needs to be made palatable to everyone. Only then can reform be enacted.
I can't even imagine why the original formatting of this message is being stripped or why I can't edit my post. Maybe this is why slashdot is not popular anymore
This "news story" is incredibly biased. "You're not being censored by YouTube, you're being censored by the laws, so everything is A-OK :-)"
This message is absolute poison. Hollow rhetoric. He throws out some half-"factoids" encased in some kind of journalistic prose and supposes it supports his baseless, completely negative, unconstructive opinion. What possible interest could this guy have in shooting down someone else's point of view? What belief is he supporting? "Everything is okay no matter what even when people are being systematically censored for absolutely no good reason"?
'Differences in bandwidth alone make a true peer-to-peer internet impossible even if we ignore the legal and economic landscape'
Practically every internet connection in this country is overkill for sharing ideas in an engaging way (text, images, sound, video). Proof by example: Skype. False assertion.
'Empowering the little guys? It already does. But empowered does not and never will mean equal results.'
'Letting unpopular messages be heard? It does that but only to a point. Getting an unpopular message heard requires an audience'
What is this even supposed to mean? Empowered how? Empowered to host your unpopular messages in a little corner of the web that will not be prioritized in any index and is for all practical purposes inaccessible to a broad audience? Meanwhile every popular hosting service, the keepers of the broad audiences, vigourously censor anything according to their whims and "legal obligations"?
'Technology isn't "enslaving us" any more than it ever did. Just because it didn't turn out to be a utopian fantasy doesn't mean everything is bad and we are all slaves.'
There was absolutely no implication in the message of which this is a response that a "utopian fantasy" was expected. Having the broad audience held captive by a few powerful content/service providers does smell of slavery if you have a nose. You may argue that the majority chose to occupy their time with only a few service/content providers. To be blunt: they were herded to these providers. The disparity of development resources ensured that the existing powerful interests would eventually invest in the construction of something more immediately attractive to most people than an eclectic array of simple content.
Simply put the powers that be invested in their own ability to distribute multimedia rather than the ability of everyone else to distribute multimedia. ISPs and indexing services ignored the immediate demand and the potential demand for self-publication because it did not suit the interests of the majority of the economy even if it would result in more profit for the ISPs and indexing services (surprise: the majority of the economy is not the majority of the population). This amounts to a clear sign of slavery.
his "news story" is incredibly biased. "You're not being censored by YouTube, you're being censored by the laws, so everything is A-OK :-)"
This message is absolute poison. Hollow rhetoric. He throws out some half-"factoids" encased in some kind of journalistic prose and supposes it supports his baseless, completely negative, unconstructive opinion. What possible interest could this guy have in shooting down someone else's point of view? What belief is he supporting? "Everything is okay no matter what even when people are being systematically censored for absolutely no good reason"?
'Differences in bandwidth alone make a true peer-to-peer internet impossible even if we ignore the legal and economic landscape'
Practically every internet connection in this country is overkill for sharing ideas in an engaging way (text, images, sound, video). Proof by example: Skype. False assertion.
'Empowering the little guys? It already does. But empowered does not and never will mean equal results.'
'Letting unpopular messages be heard? It does that but only to a point. Getting an unpopular message heard requires an audience'
What is this even supposed to mean? Empowered how? Empowered to host your unpopular messages in a little corner of the web that will not be prioritized in any index and is for all practical purposes inaccessible to a broad audience? Meanwhile every popular hosting service, the keepers of the broad audiences, vigourously censor anything according to their whims and "legal obligations"?
'Technology isn't "enslaving us" any more than it ever did. Just because it didn't turn out to be a utopian fantasy doesn't mean everything is bad and we are all slaves.'
There was absolutely no implication in the message of which this is a response that a "utopian fantasy" was expected. Having the broad audience held captive by a few powerful content/service providers does smell of slavery if you have a nose. You may argue that the majority chose to occupy their time with only a few service/content providers. To be blunt: they were herded to these providers. The disparity of development resources ensured that the existing powerful interests would eventually invest in the construction of something more immediately attractive to most people than an eclectic array of simple content.
Simply put the powers that be invested in their own ability to distribute multimedia rather than the ability of everyone else to distribute multimedia. ISPs and indexing services ignored the immediate demand and the potential demand for self-publication because it did not suit the interests of the majority of the economy even if it would result in more profit for the ISPs and indexing services (surprise: the majority of the economy is not the majority of the population). This amounts to a clear sign of slavery.