What is needed is a change in culture and attitude on the part of intelligence agencies, so that they are concerned with legality and civil rights and not just the shortest path to the most information.
Anyone who has ever worked in national security can tell you every military and civilian intel agency is extremely careful about the legality of their actions and protecting the civil rights of Americans.
If you only read Glenn Greenwald-esque editorials and opinion pieces, then it's no wonder you have an extremely skewed view of the issues.
I work in a classified environment. You are right that people are concerned with what is legal. But people like Thomas Drake and William Binney might take issue with the idea they are concerned about civil rights. Oh sure, the rank and file are. But we are talking about the top brass here. You know, the guys who lie to Congress.
Forget about NOX and CO2, emission testing and all the BS. Just tax fuel, because that taxes real world mileage. Make the gallon about $7.50-9 and everyone will be driving cars that convert all the energy in the fuel into movement and spew almost no pollutants
I'm just going to assume that you posted AC because you can't bear to put your name to this sophistry.
The most important lesson we can learn from all of this is that environmentalism can't just be forced because some ivory tower academics or pandering politicians want it to just happen.
Environmentalism must happen, no pun intended, naturally. There must be real desire for it to happen among the participants directly involved. There must be economic feasibility. There must be technological feasibility.
A bunch of leftist ideologues can't just get together and set arbitrary limits on carbon dioxide emissions, write some laws, and expect it all to work fine in the real world.
Environmentalists need to get with the real world. They need to get with it when it comes to economics. They need to get with it when it comes to technology. They need to unchain themselves from trees, and do something useful for a change.
You say that like economics and technology are "natural" phenomena. They are not. I know people think Capitalism is some natural law, but it's not either. It is a man-made system. Environmentalism is concerned with our economic system working in a sustainable way. What you seem to actually be saying is that people want to do what people want to do (e.g. making money in the cheapest way possible) and the Environmentalists are getting in their way by pointing out that they are polluting the atmosphere by what they are doing.
The Earth doesn't care about your economic feasibility. If we destabilize it, it will find a new equilibrium whether we like it or not.
Stop with your fucking GAS! BRAKE! GAS! BRAKE! GAS! BRAKE! tailgating and maybe your fucking numbers will improve. You see that car that keeps getting farther away from you then closer again and farther again? That's me, just driving along at a constant speed while I watch you GAS! BRAKE! GAS! BRAKE!
We don't use cars nearly as much in 2043, but I can consistently get 40 mpg on the highway/36 mpg city driving out of my old ass 2013 Fiesta. The manual transmission probably helps.
Jeebus, I guess I just had to see this time period for myself, and I fucking majored in history! No wonder you cows blow it all up. You're completely unaware of your own actions and convinced your unawareness constitutes the "real world."
The walk to the gas station will be for your own good.
This doesn't bode well for future screenplays. Once they figure out what works, they'll write the scripts to sell the products. We'll be nostalgic for the days of mere product placement.
Maybe I was wrong to become a "cable cutter". This type of technology makes me want to sign back up! Manipulate me, big corps! I love being your bitch!
Got news for you, pal. You're their bitch whether you have a TV or not. It's nigh inescapable these days.
The best we can hope for is that this is just some snake-oil fad that the ad guys sold the networks on.
If it actually works, it's just another step in the systematic exploitation of human cognitive limitations and bounded rationality. Exactly what wouldn't improve this situation. I hope the researchers are...suitably proud...of the good work they are doing there.
I am acquainted with a woman who works in advertising and is fond of saying, "I made you buy that." They know what they're doing and are too blinded by greed to care.
I don't have or watch tv. I have a comfortable life as do those around me. Food is cheap, most things that you can buy are relatively cheap, historically wise. Housing is cheap if you don't live in a major city. Even education is cheap when adjusted for wage premium.
What do I have to gain by revolting?
Nothing. The revolution is not imminent. Things would have to get a lot worse for that, and we should all hope things don't degenerate that far.
>> NBC doesn't trust what viewers say when asked for their opinion on shows.
They shouldn't trust people's expressed opinions. How many people have you heard say naive things like "I'm not influenced by advertising" or "I do my own research"? And yet, advertising works, particularly because advertisers know where prospects go to "research" and get their pitches in there.
This article should disabuse anyone of the notion that they are not influenced by advertising. They are studying brain physiology in order to sell you stuff! They are operating on a subconscious level that many people aren't even aware exists! We have little defense if our conscious mind doesn't even enter into the equation. And if you think these techniques are just used to make you want hamburgers, think again.
Advertising and other forms of subconscious manipulation are used to sell you wars, government policies and political candidates. People think their opinions are their own, but often they have just been selected from a menu presented to them by the media.
Yeah, advertising works. Millions if not billions of dollars have been spent to understand how you think, what motivates you, and how to influence that without your knowledge. Anyone who thinks they are not affected is foolish and ignorant.
There was a lack of protection. If it was important enough he should have been willing to do the time. You can't have individuals deciding what is and what is not a national security secret with no consequence. A legitimate whistleblower protection for reporting to someone in the chain of command (e.g. someone working for Congress on that specific issue) would have been appropriate.
Except the chain command has no interest in trouble-making whistle blowers. What is needed is a change in culture and attitude on the part of intelligence agencies, so that they are concerned with legality and civil rights and not just the shortest path to the most information. The boosting of the IG's power in this case better include subpoena and arrest power (or however these things work in New Zealand) or I don't see how it will help.
As to your first point, fuck that. Someone should be willing to have their life ruined in order to expose wrongdoing? That's exactly why more people don't come forward to begin with. I'll agree that is would be chaotic to have everyone deciding whether something should be secret or not. But "national security" and classification have been so abused and used to hide criminality, those who cite it have lost credibility. The speed and altitude capabilities of our newest spy plane? Sure, national security secret. The positions of our troops and battle plans? Absolutely, national security. The fact that the NSA is illegally spying on everyone in contravention of the Constitution? Nope, not national security.
It's even sadder than that: The extra cost of hiring people who were competent enough to recognise and mitigate the risks, would've likely been less than $580k.
In these harsh economic times, it's really a race to the bottom.
Calm down. Sooner or later Elvis and Lennon are going to release new material for their octogenarian fans. We're 13 years beyond the 25 years clause the mouse removed. This illustrates perfectly how US copyright has fucked over the world so a few predominantly jewish billionnaires can control everything created by others.
Why the gratuitous mention of their religion? The issue is the billions, not the Judaism.
Unless the toaster can also cut the bread and insert it, then there isn't much value in being able to turn it on remotely. There are lots of reasons where it might be nice to have some connectivity though:
If the toaster can detecting when I've finished showering, I can program it so that my toast will pop up when I've showed and dressed.
If my doorbell or telephone rings, then it can pause and resume later, so the toast hasn't had time to cool down before I get to it.
Communication in the other direction would let it notify me in whatever room I'm in when the toast is ready.
It could communicate with the fridge that I was likely to get butter out soon, which would mean that I'd be likely to open the door soon. This would let the fridge postpone running the compressor until afterwards (no point chilling air that's just about to be removed from the fridge).
These are just the ones that come to mind immediately. I'm sure there are other applications.
I know you're going with the example provided, but this is ridiculous. Are we bringing in high technology and introducing a much lager attack surface just so people don't have to wait for their toast?
This is what encryption is for. Keeping data from the bad guys.
So, it has come to this. Law Enforcement are now the bad guys. I'm not saying I disagree (at least not in all contexts), but it is a sad state of affairs in a once promising nation.
Impossible or not, is it a private company's (or individual's) duty to engage in the evidence-gathering duties of law enforcement?
Yes, it is.. if you point your gun at their face and say "do my job, or else." It can be anyone's obligation to do anyone else's job.
There is no theoretical upper bound to power. There's only the question of how much power you have so far. And right now, 99% of American voters think the government does not yet have nearly enough power, and we all need to do much more to give more of our power to them.
Pointing a gun at someone does not obligate them to do anything. It's a threat, but the one being threatened does not have to acquiesce. They can choose to not obey and call the bluff. It may cost them their life, but there is still no obligation.
,p>Isn't letting people keep the money they earned, regardless of their income level ALWAYS going to be better than taking it away and giving it to the government?
I would say middle class family is the one which earns less than $300K.
The government disagrees with you. They think anybody that actually has a job is rich. Anybody that has never had a job is poor (but not somebody that had a job and then lost it, they are still rich and not entitled to long term benefits). And with the governments current policies, it won't be long before there IS only poor and rich, and there will probably be a lot more poor when people figure out they can live a more fulfilling lifestyle by being poor than working their but off being "rich".
Wow, you make being poor sound like a great deal. So why are you still working? Is it just personal pride? Or are things maybe not quite as extreme as you make them seem?
So in my lifetime America has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to a bunch of scared sheep repeating "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"?
In your lifetime? Were you born in 1775? Are you the ghost of Patrick Henry?
Slashdot Mirror
What is needed is a change in culture and attitude on the part of intelligence agencies, so that they are concerned with legality and civil rights and not just the shortest path to the most information.
Anyone who has ever worked in national security can tell you every military and civilian intel agency is extremely careful about the legality of their actions and protecting the civil rights of Americans.
If you only read Glenn Greenwald-esque editorials and opinion pieces, then it's no wonder you have an extremely skewed view of the issues.
I work in a classified environment. You are right that people are concerned with what is legal. But people like Thomas Drake and William Binney might take issue with the idea they are concerned about civil rights. Oh sure, the rank and file are. But we are talking about the top brass here. You know, the guys who lie to Congress.
Forget about NOX and CO2, emission testing and all the BS. Just tax fuel, because that taxes real world mileage. Make the gallon about $7.50-9 and everyone will be driving cars that convert all the energy in the fuel into movement and spew almost no pollutants
I'm just going to assume that you posted AC because you can't bear to put your name to this sophistry.
The most important lesson we can learn from all of this is that environmentalism can't just be forced because some ivory tower academics or pandering politicians want it to just happen.
Environmentalism must happen, no pun intended, naturally. There must be real desire for it to happen among the participants directly involved. There must be economic feasibility. There must be technological feasibility.
A bunch of leftist ideologues can't just get together and set arbitrary limits on carbon dioxide emissions, write some laws, and expect it all to work fine in the real world.
Environmentalists need to get with the real world. They need to get with it when it comes to economics. They need to get with it when it comes to technology. They need to unchain themselves from trees, and do something useful for a change.
You say that like economics and technology are "natural" phenomena. They are not. I know people think Capitalism is some natural law, but it's not either. It is a man-made system. Environmentalism is concerned with our economic system working in a sustainable way. What you seem to actually be saying is that people want to do what people want to do (e.g. making money in the cheapest way possible) and the Environmentalists are getting in their way by pointing out that they are polluting the atmosphere by what they are doing.
The Earth doesn't care about your economic feasibility. If we destabilize it, it will find a new equilibrium whether we like it or not.
Kick em while they are down to try and eliminate a competitor in the low margin transportation industry?
Wait, I haven't bought my Golf R yet!
Stop with your fucking GAS! BRAKE! GAS! BRAKE! GAS! BRAKE! tailgating and maybe your fucking numbers will improve. You see that car that keeps getting farther away from you then closer again and farther again? That's me, just driving along at a constant speed while I watch you GAS! BRAKE! GAS! BRAKE!
We don't use cars nearly as much in 2043, but I can consistently get 40 mpg on the highway/36 mpg city driving out of my old ass 2013 Fiesta. The manual transmission probably helps.
Jeebus, I guess I just had to see this time period for myself, and I fucking majored in history! No wonder you cows blow it all up. You're completely unaware of your own actions and convinced your unawareness constitutes the "real world."
The walk to the gas station will be for your own good.
UNLESS
John Titor lives!
I really hope you are trying to prove Poe's Law here. Because otherwise this is pretty stupid.
This doesn't bode well for future screenplays. Once they figure out what works, they'll write the scripts to sell the products. We'll be nostalgic for the days of mere product placement.
You say this like it's not happening already.
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/star-wars-was-born-a-long-time-ago-but-not-all-that-far-far-away-in-1972-filmmakers-george-lucas-and-gary-kurtz-wer/
Maybe I was wrong to become a "cable cutter". This type of technology makes me want to sign back up! Manipulate me, big corps! I love being your bitch!
Got news for you, pal. You're their bitch whether you have a TV or not. It's nigh inescapable these days.
The best we can hope for is that this is just some snake-oil fad that the ad guys sold the networks on. If it actually works, it's just another step in the systematic exploitation of human cognitive limitations and bounded rationality. Exactly what wouldn't improve this situation. I hope the researchers are...suitably proud...of the good work they are doing there.
I am acquainted with a woman who works in advertising and is fond of saying, "I made you buy that." They know what they're doing and are too blinded by greed to care.
> why we haven't had one already
I don't have or watch tv. I have a comfortable life as do those around me. Food is cheap, most things that you can buy are relatively cheap, historically wise. Housing is cheap if you don't live in a major city. Even education is cheap when adjusted for wage premium.
What do I have to gain by revolting?
Nothing. The revolution is not imminent. Things would have to get a lot worse for that, and we should all hope things don't degenerate that far.
I don't have a tv. I feel like I'm missing out.
Don't worry, you're not. Television is only one vector.
You say that like there's a difference. *audience laughter*
+1, Insightful.
>> NBC doesn't trust what viewers say when asked for their opinion on shows.
They shouldn't trust people's expressed opinions. How many people have you heard say naive things like "I'm not influenced by advertising" or "I do my own research"? And yet, advertising works, particularly because advertisers know where prospects go to "research" and get their pitches in there.
This article should disabuse anyone of the notion that they are not influenced by advertising. They are studying brain physiology in order to sell you stuff! They are operating on a subconscious level that many people aren't even aware exists! We have little defense if our conscious mind doesn't even enter into the equation. And if you think these techniques are just used to make you want hamburgers, think again.
Advertising and other forms of subconscious manipulation are used to sell you wars, government policies and political candidates. People think their opinions are their own, but often they have just been selected from a menu presented to them by the media.
Yeah, advertising works. Millions if not billions of dollars have been spent to understand how you think, what motivates you, and how to influence that without your knowledge. Anyone who thinks they are not affected is foolish and ignorant.
There was a lack of protection. If it was important enough he should have been willing to do the time. You can't have individuals deciding what is and what is not a national security secret with no consequence. A legitimate whistleblower protection for reporting to someone in the chain of command (e.g. someone working for Congress on that specific issue) would have been appropriate.
Except the chain command has no interest in trouble-making whistle blowers. What is needed is a change in culture and attitude on the part of intelligence agencies, so that they are concerned with legality and civil rights and not just the shortest path to the most information. The boosting of the IG's power in this case better include subpoena and arrest power (or however these things work in New Zealand) or I don't see how it will help.
As to your first point, fuck that. Someone should be willing to have their life ruined in order to expose wrongdoing? That's exactly why more people don't come forward to begin with. I'll agree that is would be chaotic to have everyone deciding whether something should be secret or not. But "national security" and classification have been so abused and used to hide criminality, those who cite it have lost credibility. The speed and altitude capabilities of our newest spy plane? Sure, national security secret. The positions of our troops and battle plans? Absolutely, national security. The fact that the NSA is illegally spying on everyone in contravention of the Constitution? Nope, not national security.
It's even sadder than that: The extra cost of hiring people who were competent enough to recognise and mitigate the risks, would've likely been less than $580k. In these harsh economic times, it's really a race to the bottom.
But now the Holy Dollar rules everybody's lives
Gotta make a million, doesn't matter who dies
However Americans are far better drivers than Europe...
Do you include Germany? Because the average driver in Germany would put most American drivers to shame.
Calm down. Sooner or later Elvis and Lennon are going to release new material for their octogenarian fans. We're 13 years beyond the 25 years clause the mouse removed. This illustrates perfectly how US copyright has fucked over the world so a few predominantly jewish billionnaires can control everything created by others.
Why the gratuitous mention of their religion? The issue is the billions, not the Judaism.
Unless the toaster can also cut the bread and insert it, then there isn't much value in being able to turn it on remotely. There are lots of reasons where it might be nice to have some connectivity though:
Communication in the other direction would let it notify me in whatever room I'm in when the toast is ready.
These are just the ones that come to mind immediately. I'm sure there are other applications.
I know you're going with the example provided, but this is ridiculous. Are we bringing in high technology and introducing a much lager attack surface just so people don't have to wait for their toast?
This is what encryption is for. Keeping data from the bad guys.
So, it has come to this. Law Enforcement are now the bad guys. I'm not saying I disagree (at least not in all contexts), but it is a sad state of affairs in a once promising nation.
Yes, it is.. if you point your gun at their face and say "do my job, or else." It can be anyone's obligation to do anyone else's job.
There is no theoretical upper bound to power. There's only the question of how much power you have so far. And right now, 99% of American voters think the government does not yet have nearly enough power, and we all need to do much more to give more of our power to them.
Pointing a gun at someone does not obligate them to do anything. It's a threat, but the one being threatened does not have to acquiesce. They can choose to not obey and call the bluff. It may cost them their life, but there is still no obligation.
Since this is a tech site and people work or have worked in that field I would say that everyone here is in the top 1%. Congratulations BTW.
The 1% starts at like $195,000 per year. I'd love to make that much, but actually I don't make half that.
,p>Isn't letting people keep the money they earned, regardless of their income level ALWAYS going to be better than taking it away and giving it to the government?
No, why would you think such a thing?
I would say middle class family is the one which earns less than $300K.
The government disagrees with you. They think anybody that actually has a job is rich. Anybody that has never had a job is poor (but not somebody that had a job and then lost it, they are still rich and not entitled to long term benefits). And with the governments current policies, it won't be long before there IS only poor and rich, and there will probably be a lot more poor when people figure out they can live a more fulfilling lifestyle by being poor than working their but off being "rich".
Wow, you make being poor sound like a great deal. So why are you still working? Is it just personal pride? Or are things maybe not quite as extreme as you make them seem?
The rich will leave the country if taxed too much. I thought that was obvious?
LOl, what are they going to move to Galt's Gulch?
So in my lifetime America has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to a bunch of scared sheep repeating "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"?
In your lifetime? Were you born in 1775? Are you the ghost of Patrick Henry?