I don't see how this won't be abused by governments to track and shut down people who oppose them (like human rights activists that coordinate using twitter).
Strange name for a bill thats made for limiting and controlling the flow of information in case of, well just about anything. War on drugs, immigrants, terrorists, citizens?
...or in case of breaking news stories via places like the wikileaks channel, or other reporting of recent world events not in line with the Fed/Corporate interests...
My bag of chips is hot, greasy and with no writing on it.
Not like in the good old days, when it came wrapped in newspaper - lucky you if you scored the page 3 girl in the process of consuming hot, greasy chips...
Because Canada paid for the infrastructure that they are about to fuck us in the ass with?...
Not to mention that all that publicly funded infrastructure also runs through public land.
camperdave: Bigger companies have all sorts of advantages over smaller companies. Why is this particular advantage unfair in your mind?
Why should a huge company freeloading off subsidies, publicly funded infrastructure, AND rent-free public land use be allowed monopoly status by society? Not just any monopoly, but a government granted Coercive monopoly - once of the worst kinds.
No need to answer through - we all pretty much know the answer. They are powerful and well funded enough to grease the right palms in the halls of government, a method that is particularly effective in persuading politicians to grant monopoly "for the good of society".
Newsflash: Monopolies like Bell create a dead-weight loss for society.
The jury deliberated for several days before a lone holdout against conviction was removed from the panel, for reasons that were not disclosed. After an alternate was put in that juror's place, the panel started over and reached a decision in a matter of hours.
This is where some enterprising independent investigative journalist/blogger could step up, track down, and get the inside scoop on that amazing "remove jury doubt" justice run around.
What I want to know: How did the replacement get up to speed with the months of trial information, to make a decision in a few hours? Or did they just want to get out of there as quickly as possible hours after being pulled in. And what the happened to jury debates behind closed doors? How can the judge know who is the "troublemakers" are in order to throw them off the jury? Do juries debate a little (a mere day or two - nothing really) then the majority run out to the judge complaining that there are a few disagreements, could he/she please kick them off the jury team so that they can all get on with their groupthink and normal lives quicker. Justice, Indeed.
I really hate Eclipse actually. I find it buggy, slow, and non-intuitive in a lot of ways.
My experience as well - I was shocked actually. Recently had to use that latest greatest "Eclipse for a Java" with a legacy Java project for the first time - the disconnect between "WorkSpaces" and "Projects" drive me batty after a while. Got an existing java project with eclipse project file? Forget trying to just open it - Nooo you have to jump through all sorts of non intuitive loops and importing processes just to load the damn thing into the IDE. Documentation ambiguous, scarce and/or non-existent for the problems and error messages Eclipse keeps throwing in your way during that importation process. And all that just to load the damn project - I am not looking forward to developing under such a non-intuitive environment - IDE's are supposed to make mundane tasks easier, not complicate them.
The great thing about (moral) standards is that there are so many to choose from.
... but only MY religion/race/communities moral righteousness are the divine/correct ones. And since we have the reins of power, thou shalt yield to our moral will come law of the land./sarcasm.
As the thorough research of Bob Altemeyer discovered:
What makes authoritarian followers? Altemeyer suggests that the “social learning model of aggression” explains authoritarian aggression in high RWAs. The model is basically fear plus a trigger, in this case self-righteousness.
Thus in the experiments done on this subject, if you know how highly people scored on the Dangerous World scale, and if you know how self-righteous they are,you can explain rather well the homophobia of authoritarian followers, their heavy-handedness in sentencing criminals, their prejudices against racial and ethnic minorities, why they are so mean-spirited toward those who have erred and suffered, and their readiness to join posses to ride down Communists, radicals, or whomever. (p. 57)
He also offers a personal-development model of overall high-RWA characteristics. “I have discovered in my investigations that, by and large, high RWA students
had simply missed many of the experiences that might have lowered their
authoritarianism” (p. 61). Altemeyer doesn’t rule out a genetic component to being a high RWA, but he suggests that life experiences that reinforce the correctness of authority and offer few chances to question received truth are responsible for the development of high RWA characteristics.
Some characteristics of high RWAs. Altemeyer has found that people who score high on the RWA scale tend to also have the following characteristics:
1. Illogical Thinking
2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds
3. Double Standards
4. Hypocrisy
5. Blindness to Themselves
6. A Profound Ethnocentrism (“Authoritarian followers are highly suspicious of their many out-groups; but they are credulous to the point of self-delusion when it comes to their in-groups.” p. 90)
7. Dogmatism: The Authoritarian’s Last Ditch Defense
Right-wing authoritarianism and religion.
The first thing you need to know about religious fundamentalists, in case you haven’t inferred it already, is that they usually score very highly on the RWA scale. A solid majority of them are authoritarian followers. (p.111)
Altemeyer sees religious fundamentalism as “a template for prejudice,” and not surprisingly, fundamentalists exhibit the same kinds of cognitive and ethical problems as high RWAs — a disregard of standards of reasoning and evidence, mental compartmentalization, hypocrisy, dogmatism, etc. This chapter is where the careful groundwork of earlier chapters really pays off — Altemeyer makes a convincing case that religious fundamentalism feeds its followers right-wing authoritarian attitudes.
Also keep in mind that, if you need to pause and watch closely to "clearly see" the children, then it's not really clear - the gunner didn't have the luxury of being able to do that back then.
If you watch the short video you will see that they do have the luxury - they had plenty of time to zoom in on the van while the van was stopped to pick up the wounded reporter - they even have to wait for authorization to fire on the van. Also, if you watch the long video you can see that they have a ridiculously good zoom on that camera - they can easily zoom into great detail on anything they like... they did not bother to do so on the van though you'll note. In the short version on video they point out the kids on the front seat for you and also quote the public report that they made every effort to identify civilians/kids - which you can see they did not do. Even worse they changed the hospital to take the kids to from the US base to a local one.
Worse, the video shows two children clearly visible in the front seat of a van being shot up by the gunship after their parents stopped to help the wounded from the first attack. The soldier commentary says something like "serves them right" for stopping.
Never fear, there is a new "Cybersecurity" act now to allow the president to block disturbing leaks and wikileaks from challenging incompetence and corruption in the future. Nothing to see here, move along.
Wikileaks also recently released CIA "Red Cell" files on how they will manipulate public opinion to keep countries around the world supporting the Afghanistan war this summer, a time when casualties are expected to rise and they say "public apathy will no longer be enough" to guarantee support for the war.
"We can censor you but you can not censor us, we can hide info to you but you can not hide info to us." --United States of America
Probably just another CIA "Red Cell" style case of manipulating public opinion similar to this case. Only In this example its just basic old Reverse psychology: Your citizens overwhelmingly do not want filters. If the US says don't do it, your citizens will rally against foreigners telling them what to do - and so be more open to implement filtering. Childish, but it probably works on some.
The result? Australia ended up with a DMCA-wannabe and extended copyright terms or lost other trade items.
So Aussie signed the "DCMA-wannabe" deal so it did not lose trade on other items. But guess what, Australia LOST ANYWAY, and got the DCMA rammed in for its trouble. Well, at least the politicians involved got their kick backs and personal perks, I guess.
In 1960, a congressional committee, recognizing the need to rein in the extravagant claims of secrecy that were thriving in the Department of Defense and intelligence community, observed that:
"Secrecy—the first refuge of incompetents—must be at a bare minimum in a democratic society, for a fully informed public is the basis of self-government. Those elected or appointed to positions of executive authority must recognize that government, in a democracy, cannot be wiser than the people."
Brussels, March 22nd, 2010 - With the current debates surrounding the Gallo Report on "Intellectual Property Rights" (IPR) enforcement1 and rumours about an imminent revival of the IPR criminal enforcement directive (IPRED2), a holy war is taking place in the European Parliament. Members of the Parliament are being flooded with false figures and statistics from the entertainment industries' intensive lobbying. They are also being heavily pressured by the French authorities.
The difference is, for every 4 stupid things the US introduces, 3 are fought and 2 are shot down. For that amount, UK introduces 2 stupid things and both pass with little or no opposition.
Every time I hear the words "Bill Watered down", I am going to think of the Overton Window, a phrase that Fortunato_NC recently taught me (thanks!).
Propose some "extremely extreme law", and your going more likely to get the nice watered down ordinary old "extreme law" passed, the one that your sponsor(s) always wanted - while maintaining your political capital. Only a matter of time before the internet start's hosting more living document's aimed to help the layman select their vote, complete with these dirty little tricks + pictures of the top political offenders... can ram that political capital you know where Mr Politician.
Believe me, the US would love to keep ignoring/punishing the tiny speck of a market that is NZ, but...
About 40 years later and the US goverment is only slightly starting to warm up to us
and
We signed one with china last year, that saw out exports to that country explode as a result... they are now a larger export destitation then the US is.
You got that right - the only reason the US is "warming to NZ" is that it is scrambling to sign up trade deals with all these string attached right now, because quite frankly in a few years China/SE Asia will be the bigger trade partners, especially for the well placed Aussie and NZ. That will mean much less political clout for the US to push around your little markets with - loss of power.
Aussie did not ban any nuclear ships and has already signed up with a few US trade "deals" - they still got shafted with the worst of the DMCA, filtering etc. To add insult to this injury, the evidence in coming in that the US trade deals are not working out in Australia's favor at all. Basically the only people that seem to benefit from US trade "deals" are the politicians that hurried through their implementation.
Only in the IIPA's dreams, you know, the one where only a few geeks knew what an internet was... that or they can't hire any decent developers without conscience to help them with their internet killing plans.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently 'committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering,'
You might have got that a bit confuzed: US only circumvents in the case of the Cuba's, Iran's etc of the world - it helps destabilize our enemies. For everyone else like NZ, WE are committed to forcing the world to filter as conditions on our trade treaties. (in this case, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam.
Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at three o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, go to work at the mill every day for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would beat us around the head and neck with a broken bottle, if we were LUCKY!...
TelMex controls 92% of the landline phones in the country and his affiliate cell phone business, Telcel, accounts for 73% of the mobile business. The wealth and power derived from these companies has allowed Slim to expand his business empire across a wide swathe of industries."
The "Pirate" in The Pirate Party's name implies the duplication of digital information. One side of the "Pirate" argument, mostly being represented by large digital distributors such as the Music Industry and Motion Picture Associations, believe that our society needs strong legislation enforcing Artificial Scarcity into the digital medium via treaties such as ACTA. In other words, they appear to hold the view that only certain rights holders should have exclusive legal right to make and sell unlimited digital copies for fixed cost, just like any physical good for sale. On the other side of the debate we have the "Pirates" who appear to hold the view that digital information should not be treated as a scarce good, that digital distribution is just a natural property of any digital medium and should be available to everyone.
How does the Pirate Party intend to allow those wishing to distribute original creative digital works to make a profit without legislating artificial scarcity into the digital medium?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how this won't be abused by governments to track and shut down people who oppose them (like human rights activists that coordinate using twitter).
Like these guys
Strange name for a bill thats made for limiting and controlling the flow of information in case of, well just about anything. War on drugs, immigrants, terrorists, citizens?
...or in case of breaking news stories via places like the wikileaks channel, or other reporting of recent world events not in line with the Fed/Corporate interests...
My bag of chips is hot, greasy and with no writing on it.
Not like in the good old days, when it came wrapped in newspaper - lucky you if you scored the page 3 girl in the process of consuming hot, greasy chips...
Because Canada paid for the infrastructure that they are about to fuck us in the ass with?...
Not to mention that all that publicly funded infrastructure also runs through public land.
camperdave: Bigger companies have all sorts of advantages over smaller companies. Why is this particular advantage unfair in your mind?
Why should a huge company freeloading off subsidies, publicly funded infrastructure, AND rent-free public land use be allowed monopoly status by society? Not just any monopoly, but a government granted Coercive monopoly - once of the worst kinds.
No need to answer through - we all pretty much know the answer. They are powerful and well funded enough to grease the right palms in the halls of government, a method that is particularly effective in persuading politicians to grant monopoly "for the good of society".
Newsflash: Monopolies like Bell create a dead-weight loss for society.
From the SF Gate article:
The jury deliberated for several days before a lone holdout against conviction was removed from the panel, for reasons that were not disclosed. After an alternate was put in that juror's place, the panel started over and reached a decision in a matter of hours.
This is where some enterprising independent investigative journalist/blogger could step up, track down, and get the inside scoop on that amazing "remove jury doubt" justice run around.
What I want to know: How did the replacement get up to speed with the months of trial information, to make a decision in a few hours? Or did they just want to get out of there as quickly as possible hours after being pulled in. And what the happened to jury debates behind closed doors? How can the judge know who is the "troublemakers" are in order to throw them off the jury? Do juries debate a little (a mere day or two - nothing really) then the majority run out to the judge complaining that there are a few disagreements, could he/she please kick them off the jury team so that they can all get on with their groupthink and normal lives quicker. Justice, Indeed.
I really hate Eclipse actually. I find it buggy, slow, and non-intuitive in a lot of ways.
My experience as well - I was shocked actually. Recently had to use that latest greatest "Eclipse for a Java" with a legacy Java project for the first time - the disconnect between "WorkSpaces" and "Projects" drive me batty after a while. Got an existing java project with eclipse project file? Forget trying to just open it - Nooo you have to jump through all sorts of non intuitive loops and importing processes just to load the damn thing into the IDE. Documentation ambiguous, scarce and/or non-existent for the problems and error messages Eclipse keeps throwing in your way during that importation process. And all that just to load the damn project - I am not looking forward to developing under such a non-intuitive environment - IDE's are supposed to make mundane tasks easier, not complicate them.
" It's the latest way for Hollywood to combat falling DVD sales due to piracy" citation needed
The great thing about (moral) standards is that there are so many to choose from.
... but only MY religion/race/communities moral righteousness are the divine/correct ones. And since we have the reins of power, thou shalt yield to our moral will come law of the land. /sarcasm.
As the thorough research of Bob Altemeyer discovered:
What makes authoritarian followers? Altemeyer suggests that the “social learning model of aggression” explains authoritarian aggression in high RWAs. The model is basically fear plus a trigger, in this case self-righteousness.
Thus in the experiments done on this subject, if you know how highly people scored on the Dangerous World scale, and if you know how self-righteous they are,you can explain rather well the homophobia of authoritarian followers, their heavy-handedness in sentencing criminals, their prejudices against racial and ethnic minorities, why they are so mean-spirited toward those who have erred and suffered, and their readiness to join posses to ride down Communists, radicals, or whomever. (p. 57)
He also offers a personal-development model of overall high-RWA characteristics. “I have discovered in my investigations that, by and large, high RWA students had simply missed many of the experiences that might have lowered their authoritarianism” (p. 61). Altemeyer doesn’t rule out a genetic component to being a high RWA, but he suggests that life experiences that reinforce the correctness of authority and offer few chances to question received truth are responsible for the development of high RWA characteristics.
Some characteristics of high RWAs. Altemeyer has found that people who score high on the RWA scale tend to also have the following characteristics:
1. Illogical Thinking
2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds
3. Double Standards
4. Hypocrisy
5. Blindness to Themselves
6. A Profound Ethnocentrism (“Authoritarian followers are highly suspicious of their many out-groups; but they are credulous to the point of self-delusion when it comes to their in-groups.” p. 90)
7. Dogmatism: The Authoritarian’s Last Ditch Defense
Right-wing authoritarianism and religion.
The first thing you need to know about religious fundamentalists, in case you haven’t inferred it already, is that they usually score very highly on the RWA scale. A solid majority of them are authoritarian followers. (p.111)
Altemeyer sees religious fundamentalism as “a template for prejudice,” and not surprisingly, fundamentalists exhibit the same kinds of cognitive and ethical problems as high RWAs — a disregard of standards of reasoning and evidence, mental compartmentalization, hypocrisy, dogmatism, etc. This chapter is where the careful groundwork of earlier chapters really pays off — Altemeyer makes a convincing case that religious fundamentalism feeds its followers right-wing authoritarian attitudes.
So your fine with foreign intelligence agencies telling foreign governments how to manipulate the opinion of your countries people then?
and when the soldier says "serves them right"?
The actually say @17:46 "Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.". See more on transcript: http://www.collateralmurder.com/file/transcript-en.txt
Also keep in mind that, if you need to pause and watch closely to "clearly see" the children, then it's not really clear - the gunner didn't have the luxury of being able to do that back then.
If you watch the short video you will see that they do have the luxury - they had plenty of time to zoom in on the van while the van was stopped to pick up the wounded reporter - they even have to wait for authorization to fire on the van. Also, if you watch the long video you can see that they have a ridiculously good zoom on that camera - they can easily zoom into great detail on anything they like... they did not bother to do so on the van though you'll note. In the short version on video they point out the kids on the front seat for you and also quote the public report that they made every effort to identify civilians/kids - which you can see they did not do. Even worse they changed the hospital to take the kids to from the US base to a local one.
These are people with families, with kids
Worse, the video shows two children clearly visible in the front seat of a van being shot up by the gunship after their parents stopped to help the wounded from the first attack. The soldier commentary says something like "serves them right" for stopping.
Never fear, there is a new "Cybersecurity" act now to allow the president to block disturbing leaks and wikileaks from challenging incompetence and corruption in the future. Nothing to see here, move along.
Wikileaks also recently released CIA "Red Cell" files on how they will manipulate public opinion to keep countries around the world supporting the Afghanistan war this summer, a time when casualties are expected to rise and they say "public apathy will no longer be enough" to guarantee support for the war.
More likely Wikileaks than Pirate bay, especially with recent release of highly questionable CIA documents plus the imminent release of that video.
"We can censor you but you can not censor us, we can hide info to you but you can not hide info to us." --United States of America
Probably just another CIA "Red Cell" style case of manipulating public opinion similar to this case. Only In this example its just basic old Reverse psychology: Your citizens overwhelmingly do not want filters. If the US says don't do it, your citizens will rally against foreigners telling them what to do - and so be more open to implement filtering. Childish, but it probably works on some.
The result? Australia ended up with a DMCA-wannabe and extended copyright terms or lost other trade items.
So Aussie signed the "DCMA-wannabe" deal so it did not lose trade on other items. But guess what, Australia LOST ANYWAY, and got the DCMA rammed in for its trouble. Well, at least the politicians involved got their kick backs and personal perks, I guess.
They do if they are publishing classified information, private information..
From "The Pentagon Loses a Skirmish with WikiLeaks"
In 1960, a congressional committee, recognizing the need to rein in the extravagant claims of secrecy that were thriving in the Department of Defense and intelligence community, observed that:
"Secrecy—the first refuge of incompetents—must be at a bare minimum in a democratic society, for a fully informed public is the basis of self-government. Those elected or appointed to positions of executive authority must recognize that government, in a democracy, cannot be wiser than the people."
Brussels, March 22nd, 2010 - With the current debates surrounding the Gallo Report on "Intellectual Property Rights" (IPR) enforcement1 and rumours about an imminent revival of the IPR criminal enforcement directive (IPRED2), a holy war is taking place in the European Parliament. Members of the Parliament are being flooded with false figures and statistics from the entertainment industries' intensive lobbying. They are also being heavily pressured by the French authorities.
The difference is, for every 4 stupid things the US introduces, 3 are fought and 2 are shot down. For that amount, UK introduces 2 stupid things and both pass with little or no opposition.
Every time I hear the words "Bill Watered down", I am going to think of the Overton Window, a phrase that Fortunato_NC recently taught me (thanks!).
Propose some "extremely extreme law", and your going more likely to get the nice watered down ordinary old "extreme law" passed, the one that your sponsor(s) always wanted - while maintaining your political capital.
Only a matter of time before the internet start's hosting more living document's aimed to help the layman select their vote, complete with these dirty little tricks + pictures of the top political offenders... can ram that political capital you know where Mr Politician.
Various Sea Gypsy cultures have been living out their entire lives on the water surface for eons.
About 40 years later and the US goverment is only slightly starting to warm up to us
and
We signed one with china last year, that saw out exports to that country explode as a result... they are now a larger export destitation then the US is.
You got that right - the only reason the US is "warming to NZ" is that it is scrambling to sign up trade deals with all these string attached right now, because quite frankly in a few years China/SE Asia will be the bigger trade partners, especially for the well placed Aussie and NZ. That will mean much less political clout for the US to push around your little markets with - loss of power.
Aussie did not ban any nuclear ships and has already signed up with a few US trade "deals" - they still got shafted with the worst of the DMCA, filtering etc. To add insult to this injury, the evidence in coming in that the US trade deals are not working out in Australia's favor at all. Basically the only people that seem to benefit from US trade "deals" are the politicians that hurried through their implementation.
It's like 1997 all over again.
Only in the IIPA's dreams, you know, the one where only a few geeks knew what an internet was... that or they can't hire any decent developers without conscience to help them with their internet killing plans.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently 'committed to helping people to circumvent government internet filtering,'
You might have got that a bit confuzed: US only circumvents in the case of the Cuba's, Iran's etc of the world - it helps destabilize our enemies. For everyone else like NZ, WE are committed to forcing the world to filter as conditions on our trade treaties. (in this case, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam.
Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at three o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, go to work at the mill every day for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would beat us around the head and neck with a broken bottle, if we were LUCKY! ...
TelMex controls 92% of the landline phones in the country and his affiliate cell phone business, Telcel, accounts for 73% of the mobile business. The wealth and power derived from these companies has allowed Slim to expand his business empire across a wide swathe of industries."
Monopolies are obviously highly profitable for a few. Besides the economic cost to the those funding el imperio de Carlo Slim Helu, have the Mexicans actually weighed up the social costs of supporting it?. ...Or is it that the Mexicans do not have a government that represents their best interests...?
The "Pirate" in The Pirate Party's name implies the duplication of digital information. One side of the "Pirate" argument, mostly being represented by large digital distributors such as the Music Industry and Motion Picture Associations, believe that our society needs strong legislation enforcing Artificial Scarcity into the digital medium via treaties such as ACTA. In other words, they appear to hold the view that only certain rights holders should have exclusive legal right to make and sell unlimited digital copies for fixed cost, just like any physical good for sale. On the other side of the debate we have the "Pirates" who appear to hold the view that digital information should not be treated as a scarce good, that digital distribution is just a natural property of any digital medium and should be available to everyone.
How does the Pirate Party intend to allow those wishing to distribute original creative digital works to make a profit without legislating artificial scarcity into the digital medium?