I disagree with you because you've already proven you're an idiot. (That's all of your tripe I saw.) Being open-minded is not the same thing as suffering fools gladly, and you are a fool. Economy-sized bought-in-Walmart fool. Where's the red dot? That is your purpose in life and your destiny.
I'm not sure how long the "affluence" can be sustained. I really do belive that the piper must be paid--and right now we have a chorus of pipers with China holding the biggest pipe. (I'm also unsure if McDonald's definition of American affluence is the real thing.)
I remember you by your handle, but not by anything you write. However, I could easily forget your handle and waste several seconds reading your tripe. The bottom line is you are wasting your time. Why don't you set the red dot for our mutual convenience? I really see no other use for you.
P.S. You are still a fool, and I still don't care which kind.
Even within the government no one has complete access to all of the information, but the press can still dig up the truth. You have to be both "willing and able" however, and the modern MSM is not willing. Much easier to just play the game and get the "news" straight from the official government propaganda office. At least until the system implodes. Remember the Soviet Union?
Then don't think of it as "enemy". Think of it as an annotational convenience to avoid wasting each other's time. I would do it myself, but unfortunately, the total number of slots is limited, and there are constructive reasons for using "friend" slots. Since you have no constructive purpose here, there's no loss to you in desinating me as your foe.
I'm not posting for the sake of arguing with idiots or educating proud ignoramuses. I don't care which you are. Please designate me as your "foe", and we can conveniently ignore each other in the future.
My memory must be getting bad, since this was only a few weeks ago and I'm not sure now. However, I do believe that he said it was called to his attention by someone else who did know him and who was shocked by the comments.
I'm sorry I haven't kept completely up to date on the technology, but I really don't buy any assurances that it can't be done as easily or more easily than in the past. Are you suggesting it is somehow more secure because they'd have to replace more components to do the job? Or are you just considering that there are so many other ways that they don't need to worry about directly tapping phones anymore? In the latter case, I still disagree, because there's no adequate substitute for having both sides of the conversations.
I don't see that red dot. Shall I have to taunt you again? For example, I could offer to go look at your other posts and append replies showing the generality of your stupidity. Right now, all I want from you is a foe designation so that I won't waste any time in the future.
Are you trying to write a parody there? What you are describing is called "the Press", and they still have the legal requirements to do the job you described. What is lacking now is the will. Or if you prefer to look at it from the other perspective, they have simply sold their souls for convenience and a bit of job security.
Wow, I can't believe that the troll post was actually modded correctly. I didn't actually read your tripe, but glanced over it and corrected the two mistakes in your brief subject. Even for a Bushevik troll, that's a pretty impressive degree of stupidity.
Tell you what you can do to thank me. Please designate me as your foe, so we can eagerly ignore each other henceforth.
That's not a funny joke, and it isn't limited to any particular country. The modification to make your telephone into a bugging device is actually quite trivial. In the absence of legal constraint, it is probably more reasonable to assume those techniques are being used as well.
However, as regards the main topic, I've always worked from the premise that powers are abused. Therefore, I've always assumed that the power to tap email is probably being widely abused, and not just by the NSA. It's not the case that I'm doing anything of legitimate interest to legal authorities, but simply that I have an attitude of questioning authority, and they don't appreciate that.
However, if I had any actual reason to be paranoid, then the situation would be very different, and I would obviously be much more discreet about what I put into my email. That's where you encounter the bogosity aspect of Dubya's claims of the necessity of this kind of illegal surveillance. Wannabe terrorists are not going to jeopardize their complicated plans by describing them in clear email. They aren't even going to expose their real communication channels. Insofar as they are going to use technical mechanisms at all, they are going to go out of their way to obfuscate both the message, the source, and the destination--all of which are trivially easy for anyone who is actually motivated to do so.
No, there's only one aspect of this that has surprised me so far. That was when Dubya admitted he had done it. He obviously doesn't understand what "impeachable offense" means. He apparently thinks it is only related to a certain number of votes in Congress, but that's just the transient political status. What Dubya has confessed to doing is clearly a violation of the laws that he swore to defend.
Okay, I admit that I'm getting a bit hyperbolic there. I don't think anyone has a clear "on the record" statement from Dubya on what he hears or think he hears in response to his prayers, but he definitely thinks he's following God's will. He's made many statements to that effect, including some that were made in public. Exactly how direct the guidance is and whether or not he thinks he hears God's voice is still subject to debate, and the public statements are usually in reference to bad breaks for his opponents (whether or not his supporters created them) or bad breaks for the nation (that call for his personal effectiveness and without regards to his track record of ineffectiveness). I do know that many Christians who express beliefs similar to Dubya's do say that they hear God's voice directly, but few of them claim to hear it in any conversational sense, and that is what my comment sounded like.
However, the only reason I followed on that line of the OP's poorly conceived 'joke' was to focus on the underlying motivations of the propagandizing vandals on Wikipedia. They are not interested in the 'neutral point of view', and though their various brands of extremism are directed in different directions and with different objectives, the damage is often quite similar.
Basically a reasonable analysis, but I think Wikipedia also needs to take into account the 'damage done', which is easily measured by the number of times the article has been read. In the specific example you cited, if no one had read the article, then there would have been no harm to his reputation and no one would have cared. My guess is that the 'harm' in this case occured because of direct but external links into Wikipedia from search engines that picked up the "Kennedy" keyword.
Tell you what. Please designate me as your "foe", and we'll ignore each other. I have no other use for your sort of rude idiocy, and it rather pisses me off to observe how your brand of proudly ignorant stupidity is destroying my nation.
If you have nothing to say, why do you feel compelled to spew your mindless blather? Do you really fantacize you can change reality with more repetitions? Are you really so ignorant, or just stupid?
Hint: I don't care. Please mark me as "foe" and we'll happily ignore each other.
Unfortunately, I have to agree that your interpretation of human nature seems too realistic, though I don't agree that Wikipedia is rejecting science as a model. Rather Wikipedia is focusing on the collective wisdom of many people. It reminds me of the Japanese expression "Sannin yoreba Monju- no chie."
However, my generalized reaction to your post was to think that what Wikipedia needs is a way to assess the incentive for vandalism, and they need to make the content 'sticky' directly in relation to the motivations of the potential vandals. You were focused on economic motivations, but Wikipedia needs to consider the problem more broadly, and that also includes the amount of harm done by the vandalism. Actually, I think that assessing the amount of potential harm is easier, since that's related directly to the number of times a particular page is being read.
Yes, I think many of these ideas are good, but I still lament their necessity. Not a major point, but I still think the abuse of anonymity is the root of most of these problems. Actually, this relates to the OP's 'joke', which is actually related to secrecy and a different form of abuse of anonymity. To me it seems quite unfortunate that many people behave better (or much better) when they are held accountable for their actions.
I don't have time to argue with fools. If you are not a fool, but simply ignorant, then I don't have time to educate you. You can go read some history books, or even find lots of useful information on the Web.
However, since you can dismiss me as a rude person since I don't care whether you are an idiot or ignornant, then why don't you designate me as a "foe". It will be a convenient way for us to ignore each other forever.
I really feel like you're raising extremely minor technical quibbles for the sake of being a minor league quibbler. Why don't you make some constructive suggestions? I provided several hints in the part of my comment that you ignored. I didn't want to go into greater depth at that time, but suffice it to say that you have not raised any issue that I hadn't already considered.
Slashdot Mirror
Listen. Your purpose in my life is to provide me with a red "foe" dot. Then you can rest in peace, having accomplished your life's work.
Are you so stupid that you need detailed directions how to set the red "foe" dot? That's your sole purpose in my life.
I disagree with you because you've already proven you're an idiot. (That's all of your tripe I saw.) Being open-minded is not the same thing as suffering fools gladly, and you are a fool. Economy-sized bought-in-Walmart fool. Where's the red dot? That is your purpose in life and your destiny.
I'm not sure how long the "affluence" can be sustained. I really do belive that the piper must be paid--and right now we have a chorus of pipers with China holding the biggest pipe. (I'm also unsure if McDonald's definition of American affluence is the real thing.)
I didn't read it. You are wasting your fucking time--just like you always do, mostly likely. Your only purpose in my life is to provide a red dot.
P.S. You are still a fool, and I still don't care which kind.
Violence is never the solution. Look at Iraq. In the example you cited, that would put the insane liar Cheney directly in charge. 'Nuff said.
Even within the government no one has complete access to all of the information, but the press can still dig up the truth. You have to be both "willing and able" however, and the modern MSM is not willing. Much easier to just play the game and get the "news" straight from the official government propaganda office. At least until the system implodes. Remember the Soviet Union?
Then don't think of it as "enemy". Think of it as an annotational convenience to avoid wasting each other's time. I would do it myself, but unfortunately, the total number of slots is limited, and there are constructive reasons for using "friend" slots. Since you have no constructive purpose here, there's no loss to you in desinating me as your foe.
I'm not posting for the sake of arguing with idiots or educating proud ignoramuses. I don't care which you are. Please designate me as your "foe", and we can conveniently ignore each other in the future.
Thank you for so doing.
My memory must be getting bad, since this was only a few weeks ago and I'm not sure now. However, I do believe that he said it was called to his attention by someone else who did know him and who was shocked by the comments.
I'm sorry I haven't kept completely up to date on the technology, but I really don't buy any assurances that it can't be done as easily or more easily than in the past. Are you suggesting it is somehow more secure because they'd have to replace more components to do the job? Or are you just considering that there are so many other ways that they don't need to worry about directly tapping phones anymore? In the latter case, I still disagree, because there's no adequate substitute for having both sides of the conversations.
I don't see that red dot. Shall I have to taunt you again? For example, I could offer to go look at your other posts and append replies showing the generality of your stupidity. Right now, all I want from you is a foe designation so that I won't waste any time in the future.
Are you trying to write a parody there? What you are describing is called "the Press", and they still have the legal requirements to do the job you described. What is lacking now is the will. Or if you prefer to look at it from the other perspective, they have simply sold their souls for convenience and a bit of job security.
Tell you what you can do to thank me. Please designate me as your foe, so we can eagerly ignore each other henceforth.
However, as regards the main topic, I've always worked from the premise that powers are abused. Therefore, I've always assumed that the power to tap email is probably being widely abused, and not just by the NSA. It's not the case that I'm doing anything of legitimate interest to legal authorities, but simply that I have an attitude of questioning authority, and they don't appreciate that.
However, if I had any actual reason to be paranoid, then the situation would be very different, and I would obviously be much more discreet about what I put into my email. That's where you encounter the bogosity aspect of Dubya's claims of the necessity of this kind of illegal surveillance. Wannabe terrorists are not going to jeopardize their complicated plans by describing them in clear email. They aren't even going to expose their real communication channels. Insofar as they are going to use technical mechanisms at all, they are going to go out of their way to obfuscate both the message, the source, and the destination--all of which are trivially easy for anyone who is actually motivated to do so.
No, there's only one aspect of this that has surprised me so far. That was when Dubya admitted he had done it. He obviously doesn't understand what "impeachable offense" means. He apparently thinks it is only related to a certain number of votes in Congress, but that's just the transient political status. What Dubya has confessed to doing is clearly a violation of the laws that he swore to defend.
However, the only reason I followed on that line of the OP's poorly conceived 'joke' was to focus on the underlying motivations of the propagandizing vandals on Wikipedia. They are not interested in the 'neutral point of view', and though their various brands of extremism are directed in different directions and with different objectives, the damage is often quite similar.
Basically a reasonable analysis, but I think Wikipedia also needs to take into account the 'damage done', which is easily measured by the number of times the article has been read. In the specific example you cited, if no one had read the article, then there would have been no harm to his reputation and no one would have cared. My guess is that the 'harm' in this case occured because of direct but external links into Wikipedia from search engines that picked up the "Kennedy" keyword.
Tell you what. Please designate me as your "foe", and we'll ignore each other. I have no other use for your sort of rude idiocy, and it rather pisses me off to observe how your brand of proudly ignorant stupidity is destroying my nation.
Hint: I don't care. Please mark me as "foe" and we'll happily ignore each other.
However, my generalized reaction to your post was to think that what Wikipedia needs is a way to assess the incentive for vandalism, and they need to make the content 'sticky' directly in relation to the motivations of the potential vandals. You were focused on economic motivations, but Wikipedia needs to consider the problem more broadly, and that also includes the amount of harm done by the vandalism. Actually, I think that assessing the amount of potential harm is easier, since that's related directly to the number of times a particular page is being read.
Yes, I think many of these ideas are good, but I still lament their necessity. Not a major point, but I still think the abuse of anonymity is the root of most of these problems. Actually, this relates to the OP's 'joke', which is actually related to secrecy and a different form of abuse of anonymity. To me it seems quite unfortunate that many people behave better (or much better) when they are held accountable for their actions.
However, since you can dismiss me as a rude person since I don't care whether you are an idiot or ignornant, then why don't you designate me as a "foe". It will be a convenient way for us to ignore each other forever.
I really feel like you're raising extremely minor technical quibbles for the sake of being a minor league quibbler. Why don't you make some constructive suggestions? I provided several hints in the part of my comment that you ignored. I didn't want to go into greater depth at that time, but suffice it to say that you have not raised any issue that I hadn't already considered.