In February 1999, 30 international scientists from 13 countries published a memo supporting Pusztai. On 19 February the Royal Society, which is at the "forefront of defending GM technology" and does not normally conduct peer reviews, publicly announced a peer review committee would review his work and on 18 May the board issued the results at a press conference condemning Pusztai. The same day the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee also attacked Pusztai. Behind the scenes coordination was partly revealed by a memo showing that the government had set up a Biotechnology Presentation Group which used both findings to publicly support GM in Parliament only three days later. The Royal Society had also set up a "rebuttal unit" headed by Rebecca Bowden to push a pro-biotech line and counter opposing scientists and environmental groups. Dr Bowden confirmed the groups role was to coordinate biotech policy but denied it was a spin doctoring operation.[6]
The Pusztai experiment was eventually published but because of the controversial nature of his research the 1999 data paper, co-authored by Dr Stanley Ewen, was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual number. Five gave it the green light to be published in The Lancet, the only reviewer arguing against publication was Prof John Pickett of the government funded Institute of Arable Crops Research. After consulting with the Royal Society, Pickett broke the protocols of peer review by publicly attacking the Lancet for agreeing to publish the paper.
We have been running a long-term study of the effects of GM food on the human population for the last ten thousand years, since GM food was introduced with agriculture. So far, we're doing okay.
10K years were of selective breeding crops in small isolated pockets, which then spread into other suitable areas at a very slow rate. Not mass worldwide introduced on never before experienced timespans like they are now. Further, the last 10k years were not dominated by monocultures, with all the problems they bring. whether we are talking about GM crops or not.
Show me one scape of evidence that our ancestors successfully crossed and then selectively cultured any type of crop with any type of non-plant based life (or even non-related species of plant) - e.g. with caterpillars, to produce poison protected crops. It has never happened before in human history. Claiming that GM food is safe based on "everything we understand about the natural world" sounds awfully like blind faith, at worst intellectual dishonesty.
The fact is that "the people" have spoken and the vast majority have decided that they'd rather pay more than eat GM food. The majority of people don't want it, so the shops won't sell it, so the farmers won't grow it.
Too bad it has not played out that way in Australia. There they have deviously turned the tables: you have to pay to be certified GM Free as apposed to labeling GM food clearly.
In Australia, multiple surveys have shown that while 45% of the public will accept GM foods, some 93% demand genetically modified foods be labelled as such. Labelling legislation has been introduced and rejected several times since 1996 on the grounds of "restraint of trade" due to the cost of labelling. The controversy erupted again in 2009 when Graincorp, the nations largest grain handler, announced it would mix GM Canola with its unmodified grain. Traditional growers, who largely rely on GM-free markets, have been told they will now need to pay to have their produce certified GM free.
The misinformation they spread about GM foods is just as bad, if not worse, than the lack of information about which products are and aren't genetically modified.
As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on the effects of genetically modified foods
ONE STUDY. So much for peer review. On the other hand, there have been numerous non human studies, and every single one that has found evidence that indicate that things might not be as rosy as Monsanto and friends claim has been contested by the GM industry - in some cases not attacking the science, but resorting to character assassination and smear campaigns.
If you claim that GM food skeptical consumers don't know WTF they are talking about - what does that make GM supporters, given the massive void of research into long term effects of GM Food? Personally I would call it blind faith - so I prefer my food to be clearly labeled and my politicians to be unbiased, so I can make an informed choice for me. You can eat whatever you want.
Very true. Monsanto and friends have bought off the political side and continue to lobby heavily so that clearlabels on GM food are not required - preventing consumers from making an informed choice in the free market. Now as part of this broader campaign of voter/consumer deception, they just need to convince all the consumers that are not paying attention that their products are all A-Ok for consumption - so they trot out people like this Jonathan Jones so called "professor" to use his credentials to sway public opinion.
Strange the Larrikin Wikimedia page does not mention it, but it is now a Warner Music Group holding (bought by Festival Records, swallowed by Warner Music Australasia).
The *IAA's successfully bought off the Aussie politicians in full public view, it is only natural that they get to recuperate that "investment" in Aussie law changes. Bad thing for Australia is: The carrot they offered in return has turned out to be a dud - those silly Aussie politicians sold out for little more than shiny trinkets of no value.
Moore has definitely taken a more combative approach.
In fact, in a recent speech, Moore decried copyright "radical extremists" with a "babyish" attitude toward copyright.
Notice the same phrase?
Same phrase, same PR firm's that organize all the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) sounds bites, talking points, strategies for lobbyists and bought politicians alike. All extremely well crafted to incite emotional response (in this case, Balanced Copyright Proponent == Extremist, associates with Terrorists) in the minds of listeners, against any balanced copyright point of view. Unfortunately the label loving public will most probably lap it up and believe it.
"far-left progressives" do not exist in America, at least not by any definition of "left" that the rest of the world is used to. The Overton Window has shifted Americans so far to the right they no longer know what is left unless it is so extreme as to have a Hammer and Sickle stamped on it.
A high speed trader does not increase liquidity, because for a high speed trader to work it has to know that It can buy something now and sell it moments later. This means the initial seller and the final buyer already existed before the high speed trader got involved, they just hadn't found each other yet. The item being sold was already as liquid as it was going to get.
This is just plain wrong. Most research points to HFT accounting for around 70% of trading volume. Your also assuming HFT's don't trade amongst themselves, and that they don't make transactions on longer time periods when no buyer/seller can take their trades. When HFT's stop trading market liquidity plunges, and everyone complains when they do NOT trade the market.
Efficient markets/price discovery (and HF trading) is NOT Frontrunning.,You obviously you never traded before all-electronic alternative trading systems were allowed. RTFA.
As the FA points out, you are arguing in favor of inefficient markets. You want to be able to buy up all the shares without anybody being aware of the increased demand. HFT buys and sells in microseconds, at most minute time-frames - reducing the spread in the process. If you don't like the high price, don't buy. You want us to believe that a few microseconds later your buy/sell opportunity at a few cents difference has vanished.
It is no accident that this story comes just as Wall Street reform bill it being released. This story is just a little lube - brace to be shafted as we see what the reform bill holds.
Dug up some references for above:
http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-jungle-Richard-Ney/product-reviews/B00005X4AX/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
http://books.google.com/books?id=5eICAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA37&ots=JFKfDQyI8G&dq=%22richard%20ney%22%20conspiracy%20theory&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-42.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2005-12-06-nyse_x.htm
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3903963?f=related
Unfortunately, the majority seem to be believing Rupert Murdock's Wall Street Journal and similar mouthpieces spouting all the "Electronic Trading must be taxed/stopped/restricted, it is destabilizing markets" rhetoric.
As mentioned in above link and In case you did not hear about the New York Stock Exchange specialists charged with fraud, an event referenced in the above link - it's pretty amazing: Richard Ney wrote a best selling book in 1970 ("The Wall St Jungle", interview NY Magazine 1970) with a few follow up books that all called out the NYSE Specialist families for fraud, explaining exactly how they defraud the public. At the time The Wall Street Journal boycotted anyone selling the best seller and Ney was not permitted as a guest on The Tonight Show - very unusual at the time for someone with such a long run best seller/controversial book - his message had touched a raw nerve. In response, the establishment had Ney widely counter-attacked, labeled a conspiracy theorist nut at every opportunity - comments like "what would an actor know of the stock market" were common and can be heard even today.
To prove Ney's wild eyed grand conspiracy theory right - The Department of Justice finally got around to charging the NYSE specialists for the exact fraud that Ney described - 33 year's after he wrote about the crime! In 2003 the Specialist firms quickly got their get out of jail free cards for a tiny fraction of what they had actually defrauded over the years. The story does not end there however... news came out shortly after that the NYSE was at long last going to move to an all-electronic exchange - and that the Specialists firms charged with defrauding the public were the very same that had been blocking the move due to their 30% NYSE stake. Everyone in the know + those that read Ney's book knew all too well of the massive fraud going on in full public view for at least 33 years (more like 212+ years), but it was not until these Specialist criminals blocked other powerful interests that the illegal behavior was actually pursued by the DOJ.
If ever there was an example of the lack of credibility for the DOJ, this is it. 33+ years of massive fraud in full public view, but the DOJ did not get around to prosecuting until it was ordered to - until it was necessary to coerce the Specialist family firms into letting the NYSE go electronic. Nothing to do with justice, or protecting the innocent being defrauded to the tune of billions of dollars over the decades. As an added insult, the DOJ let the criminals off the hook with a paltry fine. But then there is no surprise there, as Richard Ney said it best:
"Regrettably, the arrangements that exist to preserve the traditions and legalize the frauds of the security industry are inseparable from the general organization of a society controlled by the financial establishment, a society whose laws and principal customs have been contrived to serve the special interests of the financial community,"
Voting Red or Blue will not change this arrangement of US society and it's laws - merely reinforce it.
Thing is, I can't really think of a national security scenario that would be 'helped' by a total shut down of the Internet
Any political crisis where blocking access to the information is better than the political fallout from the actual block. Also it is not an all or nothing Kill switch: There is nothing to say they cannot take ISP's offline for a whole geographical area, say for example in and around any city where H1N1++ virus outbreak has taken hold and the only safe option is to let the people in the area sit it out for better or worse. What better way to keep people in their homes not trying to run if nobody near the area can up/download video's of all the body bag's they are racking up in the zone.
The other is that the US military (well, DARPA) did invent the damn thing in the first place, funded by American taxpayers' money, so perhaps they have an inherent right to do this
They invented some of the core protocol's, which are now international standards. That should not in general give anyone the right to now turn around and take their open standard back.
Bush, Blair, Aznar and Aussie's little Johnny Howard Liberal party were the four that sold the trillion dollar war's onto the world. Voting out the current Aussie Gov unfortunately means your actually voting in the Liberals, whether you want to or not. This small group of politicians are a few of the thousand or so people worldwide that you can assign direct responsibility for this world economic mess. By voting them in, we'd really be rewarding them for screwing us over with the economic cost of war.
The story seems to be repeating worldwide: One group of politicians royally screw us over and cause the economic crisis, the next government becomes unpopular for having to deal with the resulting economic mess, then we all happily re-elect the same bastards that caused it all in the first place.
Florida computer programmer build vote rigging software and squeals, then the inspector related to the investigating found dead in bathtub over state lines where no autopsy made on suicide victims. What a story - thanks!
NO. There is a very good reason they are asking this question. In Europe (Spain in particular(Spanish)) diesel power has been passed off as renewable energy. The company get's to both sell dirty power AND collect on renewable energy subsidies. What's worse, nobody in the upper management or local politics has yet been prosecuted for the massive fraud - halls of power protecting their own it would appear.
So the question the environmentalists are calling it right. If this happens IN Europe, what can we expect when it's over in Africa unless there are strict transparent controls put in place? One thing is certain: There will always be Companies that will do almost anything to make a buck - we need to ask and address how the system can be abused before we invest public funds into it.
The environmentalists are right to ask the question, there are antecedents. In Europe (Spain in particular(Spanish)) there have already have cases of diesel power being passed off as renewable energy - they got caught only because they were arrogant enough to pass it off as solar energy... at night. If they had not been so greedy we would still be non the wiser, and the company get's to both sell dirty power AND collect on renewable energy subsidies. What's worse, nobody in the upper management or local politics has yet been prosecuted - halls of power protecting their own it would appear.
So the question the environmentalists are calling it right. If this happens IN Europe, what can we expect when it's over in Africa unless there are strict transparent controls put in place? One thing is certain: There will always be Companies that will do almost anything to make a buck - we need to ask and address how the system can be abused before we invest public funds into it.
Like drugs, It works perfectly... your just looking at it from the wrong angle. Prosecuting an endless supply of people who happened across the wrong image online, helps clock up points that enable careers in law enforcement to advance, secures more funding for the department to expand, enables the political bosses enact new laws to restrict rights, AND makes the general population feel warm and fuzzy (without needing drugs) when they read in their local papers "50+ Sex/drug offenders prosecuted this year alone, 60% increase over last year" in the headlines. Go after the dealers??! Are you nuts!? That would put an end to the endless parade.
It's one thing to suggest/. _should_ do this (and I think they should, all things being equal), but it's another to say (or imply) it is wrong for them not to.
You might be right. However we do not have to look far (e.g "Thailand Shuts Down 43,000 More Websites", or "FBIs Facebook Monitoring Leads To Arrest In England" both a few stories back) - to see that social network sites like/. are being sniffed, scanned, intercepted and profiles built up for normal citizens all around the world. 43,000 Websites have been shutdown or blocked in Thailand, and it would be naive to think they wouldn' also t sniff plain-text posted on those websites from Thai based IP's to identify problematic Thai citizens, who now may be on government watch list's - just waiting for a visit from local authorities, firing from Gov departments, or any other manner of persecution the regime see's fit to deal out.
It might not be Slashdot's job or responsibility to offer even the most minimum technological security https offers to users - but it may reflect pretty poorly on Slashdot as a technology orientated social networking site - if they do not set a good example in the proper use of technology, who will?
So to narrow down people posting politically sensitive stories (say, whistle-blower type stories) from a country, it is merely necessary to cross check banking records against payments to Slashdot. Slashdot should know better.
Slashdot Mirror
Very interesting, will pick that book up. Also see Genetically modified food controversies for some more recent info, and Arpad Pusztai page for more on the GM potatoes research. Here is an extract:
In February 1999, 30 international scientists from 13 countries published a memo supporting Pusztai. On 19 February the Royal Society, which is at the "forefront of defending GM technology" and does not normally conduct peer reviews, publicly announced a peer review committee would review his work and on 18 May the board issued the results at a press conference condemning Pusztai. The same day the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee also attacked Pusztai. Behind the scenes coordination was partly revealed by a memo showing that the government had set up a Biotechnology Presentation Group which used both findings to publicly support GM in Parliament only three days later. The Royal Society had also set up a "rebuttal unit" headed by Rebecca Bowden to push a pro-biotech line and counter opposing scientists and environmental groups. Dr Bowden confirmed the groups role was to coordinate biotech policy but denied it was a spin doctoring operation.[6]
The Pusztai experiment was eventually published but because of the controversial nature of his research the 1999 data paper, co-authored by Dr Stanley Ewen, was seen by six reviewers - three times the usual number. Five gave it the green light to be published in The Lancet, the only reviewer arguing against publication was Prof John Pickett of the government funded Institute of Arable Crops Research. After consulting with the Royal Society, Pickett broke the protocols of peer review by publicly attacking the Lancet for agreeing to publish the paper.
We have been running a long-term study of the effects of GM food on the human population for the last ten thousand years, since GM food was introduced with agriculture. So far, we're doing okay.
10K years were of selective breeding crops in small isolated pockets, which then spread into other suitable areas at a very slow rate. Not mass worldwide introduced on never before experienced timespans like they are now. Further, the last 10k years were not dominated by monocultures, with all the problems they bring. whether we are talking about GM crops or not.
Show me one scape of evidence that our ancestors successfully crossed and then selectively cultured any type of crop with any type of non-plant based life (or even non-related species of plant) - e.g. with caterpillars, to produce poison protected crops. It has never happened before in human history. Claiming that GM food is safe based on "everything we understand about the natural world" sounds awfully like blind faith, at worst intellectual dishonesty.
+1 I agree, thanks for the correction. Free to make en informed choice is not equal to "free market".
The fact is that "the people" have spoken and the vast majority have decided that they'd rather pay more than eat GM food. The majority of people don't want it, so the shops won't sell it, so the farmers won't grow it.
Too bad it has not played out that way in Australia. There they have deviously turned the tables: you have to pay to be certified GM Free as apposed to labeling GM food clearly.
In Australia, multiple surveys have shown that while 45% of the public will accept GM foods, some 93% demand genetically modified foods be labelled as such. Labelling legislation has been introduced and rejected several times since 1996 on the grounds of "restraint of trade" due to the cost of labelling. The controversy erupted again in 2009 when Graincorp, the nations largest grain handler, announced it would mix GM Canola with its unmodified grain. Traditional growers, who largely rely on GM-free markets, have been told they will now need to pay to have their produce certified GM free.
Woe to be an Aussie wishing to avoid GM food.
The misinformation they spread about GM foods is just as bad, if not worse, than the lack of information about which products are and aren't genetically modified.
The evidence is currently against pro GM food blind faith supporters - the fact is that Pro GM food really "don't know WTF they're talking about". Quote from the link:
As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on the effects of genetically modified foods
ONE STUDY. So much for peer review. On the other hand, there have been numerous non human studies, and every single one that has found evidence that indicate that things might not be as rosy as Monsanto and friends claim has been contested by the GM industry - in some cases not attacking the science, but resorting to character assassination and smear campaigns.
If you claim that GM food skeptical consumers don't know WTF they are talking about - what does that make GM supporters, given the massive void of research into long term effects of GM Food? Personally I would call it blind faith - so I prefer my food to be clearly labeled and my politicians to be unbiased, so I can make an informed choice for me. You can eat whatever you want.
Very true. Monsanto and friends have bought off the political side and continue to lobby heavily so that clear labels on GM food are not required - preventing consumers from making an informed choice in the free market. Now as part of this broader campaign of voter/consumer deception, they just need to convince all the consumers that are not paying attention that their products are all A-Ok for consumption - so they trot out people like this Jonathan Jones so called "professor" to use his credentials to sway public opinion.
They have to do this campaign to deceive, since consumers tend to avoid GM Food in droves - just look at how fast McDonald's had to drop GM potatoes from their fries. They may be able to buy politicians and hide their GM labels, but consumers are still a force to be reckoned with, and thanks to the internet - more informed than ever.
You make it sound like choice is good - so why not label GM food clearly? . Why does Monsanto and their competitors need to lobby politicians so that they labels are not required?
Strange the Larrikin Wikimedia page does not mention it, but it is now a Warner Music Group holding (bought by Festival Records, swallowed by Warner Music Australasia).
The *IAA's successfully bought off the Aussie politicians in full public view, it is only natural that they get to recuperate that "investment" in Aussie law changes. Bad thing for Australia is: The carrot they offered in return has turned out to be a dud - those silly Aussie politicians sold out for little more than shiny trinkets of no value.
Moore has definitely taken a more combative approach.
In fact, in a recent speech, Moore decried copyright "radical extremists" with a "babyish" attitude toward copyright.
Notice the same phrase?
Same phrase, same PR firm's that organize all the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) sounds bites, talking points, strategies for lobbyists and bought politicians alike. All extremely well crafted to incite emotional response (in this case, Balanced Copyright Proponent == Extremist, associates with Terrorists) in the minds of listeners, against any balanced copyright point of view. Unfortunately the label loving public will most probably lap it up and believe it.
Sad but true. You'd get my mod point... if i had any to give...
"far-left progressives" do not exist in America, at least not by any definition of "left" that the rest of the world is used to. The Overton Window has shifted Americans so far to the right they no longer know what is left unless it is so extreme as to have a Hammer and Sickle stamped on it.
A high speed trader does not increase liquidity, because for a high speed trader to work it has to know that It can buy something now and sell it moments later. This means the initial seller and the final buyer already existed before the high speed trader got involved, they just hadn't found each other yet. The item being sold was already as liquid as it was going to get.
This is just plain wrong. Most research points to HFT accounting for around 70% of trading volume. Your also assuming HFT's don't trade amongst themselves, and that they don't make transactions on longer time periods when no buyer/seller can take their trades. When HFT's stop trading market liquidity plunges, and everyone complains when they do NOT trade the market.
Efficient markets/price discovery (and HF trading) is NOT Frontrunning.,You obviously you never traded before all-electronic alternative trading systems were allowed. RTFA.
As the FA points out, you are arguing in favor of inefficient markets. You want to be able to buy up all the shares without anybody being aware of the increased demand. HFT buys and sells in microseconds, at most minute time-frames - reducing the spread in the process. If you don't like the high price, don't buy. You want us to believe that a few microseconds later your buy/sell opportunity at a few cents difference has vanished.
It is no accident that this story comes just as Wall Street reform bill it being released. This story is just a little lube - brace to be shafted as we see what the reform bill holds. Dug up some references for above:
http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-jungle-Richard-Ney/product-reviews/B00005X4AX/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
http://books.google.com/books?id=5eICAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA37&ots=JFKfDQyI8G&dq=%22richard%20ney%22%20conspiracy%20theory&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-42.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2005-12-06-nyse_x.htm
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3903963?f=related
High Frequency Trading is _beneficial_ to the public markets at large, and why powerful interests keep blaming and attacking electronic trading as the root of all financial evils that befall us: http://www.tradersmagazine.com/news/high-frequency-trading-benefits-105365-1.html?zkPrintable=true
Unfortunately, the majority seem to be believing Rupert Murdock's Wall Street Journal and similar mouthpieces spouting all the "Electronic Trading must be taxed/stopped/restricted, it is destabilizing markets" rhetoric.
As mentioned in above link and In case you did not hear about the New York Stock Exchange specialists charged with fraud, an event referenced in the above link - it's pretty amazing: Richard Ney wrote a best selling book in 1970 ("The Wall St Jungle", interview NY Magazine 1970) with a few follow up books that all called out the NYSE Specialist families for fraud, explaining exactly how they defraud the public. At the time The Wall Street Journal boycotted anyone selling the best seller and Ney was not permitted as a guest on The Tonight Show - very unusual at the time for someone with such a long run best seller/controversial book - his message had touched a raw nerve. In response, the establishment had Ney widely counter-attacked, labeled a conspiracy theorist nut at every opportunity - comments like "what would an actor know of the stock market" were common and can be heard even today.
To prove Ney's wild eyed grand conspiracy theory right - The Department of Justice finally got around to charging the NYSE specialists for the exact fraud that Ney described - 33 year's after he wrote about the crime! In 2003 the Specialist firms quickly got their get out of jail free cards for a tiny fraction of what they had actually defrauded over the years. The story does not end there however... news came out shortly after that the NYSE was at long last going to move to an all-electronic exchange - and that the Specialists firms charged with defrauding the public were the very same that had been blocking the move due to their 30% NYSE stake. Everyone in the know + those that read Ney's book knew all too well of the massive fraud going on in full public view for at least 33 years (more like 212+ years), but it was not until these Specialist criminals blocked other powerful interests that the illegal behavior was actually pursued by the DOJ.
If ever there was an example of the lack of credibility for the DOJ, this is it. 33+ years of massive fraud in full public view, but the DOJ did not get around to prosecuting until it was ordered to - until it was necessary to coerce the Specialist family firms into letting the NYSE go electronic. Nothing to do with justice, or protecting the innocent being defrauded to the tune of billions of dollars over the decades. As an added insult, the DOJ let the criminals off the hook with a paltry fine. But then there is no surprise there, as Richard Ney said it best: "Regrettably, the arrangements that exist to preserve the traditions and legalize the frauds of the security industry are inseparable from the general organization of a society controlled by the financial establishment, a society whose laws and principal customs have been contrived to serve the special interests of the financial community,"
Voting Red or Blue will not change this arrangement of US society and it's laws - merely reinforce it.
Thing is, I can't really think of a national security scenario that would be 'helped' by a total shut down of the Internet
Any political crisis where blocking access to the information is better than the political fallout from the actual block. Also it is not an all or nothing Kill switch: There is nothing to say they cannot take ISP's offline for a whole geographical area, say for example in and around any city where H1N1++ virus outbreak has taken hold and the only safe option is to let the people in the area sit it out for better or worse. What better way to keep people in their homes not trying to run if nobody near the area can up/download video's of all the body bag's they are racking up in the zone.
The other is that the US military (well, DARPA) did invent the damn thing in the first place, funded by American taxpayers' money, so perhaps they have an inherent right to do this
They invented some of the core protocol's, which are now international standards. That should not in general give anyone the right to now turn around and take their open standard back.
Bush, Blair, Aznar and Aussie's little Johnny Howard Liberal party were the four that sold the trillion dollar war's onto the world. Voting out the current Aussie Gov unfortunately means your actually voting in the Liberals, whether you want to or not. This small group of politicians are a few of the thousand or so people worldwide that you can assign direct responsibility for this world economic mess. By voting them in, we'd really be rewarding them for screwing us over with the economic cost of war.
The story seems to be repeating worldwide: One group of politicians royally screw us over and cause the economic crisis, the next government becomes unpopular for having to deal with the resulting economic mess, then we all happily re-elect the same bastards that caused it all in the first place.
How short are our collective memories?
Florida computer programmer build vote rigging software and squeals, then the inspector related to the investigating found dead in bathtub over state lines where no autopsy made on suicide victims. What a story - thanks!
NO. There is a very good reason they are asking this question. In Europe (Spain in particular(Spanish)) diesel power has been passed off as renewable energy. The company get's to both sell dirty power AND collect on renewable energy subsidies. What's worse, nobody in the upper management or local politics has yet been prosecuted for the massive fraud - halls of power protecting their own it would appear.
So the question the environmentalists are calling it right. If this happens IN Europe, what can we expect when it's over in Africa unless there are strict transparent controls put in place? One thing is certain: There will always be Companies that will do almost anything to make a buck - we need to ask and address how the system can be abused before we invest public funds into it.
The environmentalists are right to ask the question, there are antecedents. In Europe (Spain in particular(Spanish)) there have already have cases of diesel power being passed off as renewable energy - they got caught only because they were arrogant enough to pass it off as solar energy... at night. If they had not been so greedy we would still be non the wiser, and the company get's to both sell dirty power AND collect on renewable energy subsidies. What's worse, nobody in the upper management or local politics has yet been prosecuted - halls of power protecting their own it would appear.
So the question the environmentalists are calling it right. If this happens IN Europe, what can we expect when it's over in Africa unless there are strict transparent controls put in place? One thing is certain: There will always be Companies that will do almost anything to make a buck - we need to ask and address how the system can be abused before we invest public funds into it.
Is this the future of television?
Hollywood, and big $$$ actors sure hope not... commodities commodities...
Like drugs, It works perfectly... your just looking at it from the wrong angle. Prosecuting an endless supply of people who happened across the wrong image online, helps clock up points that enable careers in law enforcement to advance, secures more funding for the department to expand, enables the political bosses enact new laws to restrict rights, AND makes the general population feel warm and fuzzy (without needing drugs) when they read in their local papers "50+ Sex/drug offenders prosecuted this year alone, 60% increase over last year" in the headlines. Go after the dealers??! Are you nuts!? That would put an end to the endless parade.
It's one thing to suggest /. _should_ do this (and I think they should, all things being equal), but it's another to say (or imply) it is wrong for them not to.
You might be right. However we do not have to look far (e.g "Thailand Shuts Down 43,000 More Websites", or "FBIs Facebook Monitoring Leads To Arrest In England" both a few stories back) - to see that social network sites like /. are being sniffed, scanned, intercepted and profiles built up for normal citizens all around the world. 43,000 Websites have been shutdown or blocked in Thailand, and it would be naive to think they wouldn' also t sniff plain-text posted on those websites from Thai based IP's to identify problematic Thai citizens, who now may be on government watch list's - just waiting for a visit from local authorities, firing from Gov departments, or any other manner of persecution the regime see's fit to deal out.
It might not be Slashdot's job or responsibility to offer even the most minimum technological security https offers to users - but it may reflect pretty poorly on Slashdot as a technology orientated social networking site - if they do not set a good example in the proper use of technology, who will?
That's a subscriber feature.
So to narrow down people posting politically sensitive stories (say, whistle-blower type stories) from a country, it is merely necessary to cross check banking records against payments to Slashdot. Slashdot should know better.