No. Snowden did not submit a whistleblower complaint as prescribed in the whistleblower protection act. There was one proper channel to go through and he did not use it.
I see, fair enough. Given history, I can still understand why he wouldn't trust that he would be treated fairly.
Considering that good food and cooking are some of the great pleasures in life, no thanks! I find the concept pretty depressing, actually.
To each their own. I generally find eating to be an inconvenience. If I could just drink a shake instead of eating, it would be great for most meals. I'd still go out with friends, or for special occasions. But drinking this stuff rather than cooking at home would be great, assuming it really provides proper nutrition.
Any evidence to support your allegation? I'm pretty damn sure that he got the traction he claims to have wanted before he started his attempt to systematically destroy our international espionage capability. Try him and hang him. He's proud of his treason.
its laughable for people to think anyone who challenges deep political and financial power structures are going to 1. somehow be rewarded or applauded for their efforts or 2. get some sort of "fair trial" (whatever that really means in our current legal system) where a positive outcome for the WB would encourage others to follow suit....and for those who think otherwise...sorry to tell you...it was your parents putting the money under the pillow, not the tooth fairy:((
Well said, Connie. This is the essence of it right here.
Why do we say when someone who turns their back on a company, or even most government agencies, they're a whistleblower; but when they do the same to the military, or the intelligence apparatus, they are said to have betrayed the country itself?
Because it serves to conflate the interests of the military or intelligence agencies with that of the country as a whole. People are less likely to view them poorly when it is axiomatic that the CIA (or whomever) is working in the best interests of the United States. They overthrew an elected government? Must be okay, since they're only trying to look out for us.
When a government is corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent, then a whistleblower and a spy are essentially the same thing
That's why I get such a kick out of it when these idiots get on TV and call Snowden a traitor because he didn't "go through the proper channels," as if the very agency he was ratting on was going to give him a fair hearing and not throw his ass in prison as a spy/hacker/traitor immediately.
And they're wrong anyway. Snowden did go through proper channels. He was ignored or told to mind his business. That's always the way it goes when one goes through proper channels. I don't think I have ever heard of a case where a person discovers wrongdoing, goes to his superior about it and has his superior actually take meaningful action.
It makes perfect sense, if you think about it (which is why the folks on TV get it wrong). Any given program has been conceived, discussed and agreed upon by people at a high level. They have run the scenarios and considered the outcomes and consequences. Now some staffer comes along and tells them that what they are doing is likely illegal and certainly creepy. They're going to listen to him and take his concerns seriously? Of course not! They're going to tell him to shut up. But the folks on TV will say Snowden should have gone through proper channels, as though he would have gotten any traction. They're either serving an agenda or depressingly naive.
Have you seen what lawyers charge? I have insurance that pays for my dentist and doctor. My mailman is paid with my taxes. I have no money for a lawyer.
We have enough problems with alcohol and prescription drugs, without legalising narcotics just so druggie losers like you can burn your braincells out a bit faster without being hassled by the law. I'd go the other way and follow countries like China and some arab countries - you deal in drugs and you'll be executed. End.
Indeed, we do have enough problems with alcohol and prescription drugs. We have problems with illegal drugs too. Yet we choose to make those problems even worse by punishing and stigmatizing the people who do them. Got a problem with cocaine that is interfering with your well-being? Well, we'll lock you up in jail with some truly terrible people, in a Lord of the Flies type setting, for about 5 years. And then when you get out we'll prevent you from voting and make it much harder to get a job. Would that help with your cocaine problem?
You'll say that person should not have done cocaine to begin with. That's a fair point, but it doesn't help the person after the fact. And no one makes the best decision every time. The threat of punishment isn't a very good way to influence behavior. If a person wants to do something, they'll just try to not get caught. Perhaps we could ask why people feel the need to do drugs to begin with, rather than just punishing them when they do.
That is future "glassholes" are working to bring and it is freaking nightmare.
You are shooting the messenger. The progress in our technologies will bring the lack of privacy you describe regardless of google or any other group.
Our only option is to deal with it. First step would be to abolish stupid laws which force us to do many things in secret like criminalisation of drug consumption and production.
You may be right. But what will really enable us to live with such technology is to have a much less judgmental and up-tight society. It's not even about the drugs you like to do. It's about the women's underwear you like to wear to shareholder's meetings, or the fact that you're kind of into pegging.
Despite what folks like Viol8 think, we will need a more permissive society, if more people are going to know more things about what everyone else is doing. Otherwise it'll be a nightmare for anyone who likes things outside of our very narrowly defined sense of "normal" (which is juts about everyone).
When dealing with those who believe they have unfettered power over you, it is good to show a strong understanding of your rights. If they persist, offer to donate some DNA to their wives, so their families wont be so inbred. Just wait for your lawyer and SAY NOTHING. They may hold you for a couple days, but eventually you will see your lawyer. When you get out, THEN call the press and post the shit out of it.
Yes, most people would do something. The problem with that theory is the 1% is telling the 99% what they NEED them to do in order for the 1% to stay obscenely rich.
No matter what, greed wins. Until you destroy THAT particular "job", all others will fall to it.
I wish I could use all my mod points on this one post. This dynamic is what is holding all of us back. And judging from some of the comments here, many people cannot even conceive of a world where this system doesn't reign supreme.
Why don't we have 95% of the population exploring one branch of science or another? Why can't more books be written? More movies be done? More people help those who need help?
Would it be so bad to live in a world where there is 0% NEED to work and everyone just decides whether they want to be a medic, or an astrophysicist, or a script writer, or...
Only amazingly lazy people believe everyone would stop "working" if it was voluntary. Even if the only payment was respect by the society, joy, or simply to fight boredom, most people would do something.
You're ignoring the fact that 99% of the populace are too stupid to do anything other than make-work.
Fact? That word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
And why should the robots not think about cutting out the middle man and use their own work to accomplish their own goals, without sharing anything with humans?
Because they are not like humans. Should we program greed in?
Imagine. 100% worker substitution. Robotic power in hands of super rich. Isn't it plausible? What happens next?
Movies made in CGI.
Music made on computer.
All dirty job, but prostitution - done by machines.
Poetry made by AI.
What can humans do that robots can't?
Poetry made by AI? I'm sure it'll give Yeats a run for his money...
Re:Isn't this the ultimate goal?
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Except that they have nothing to lose by doing so. All it would take is a single person sharing their robot robot-builder. Money would be obsolete.
And those who control the money and derive their power from it will fight to make sure that doesn't happen. Our situation is not the way it is by accident.
But the robots will be owned by someone who does want payments.
Years ago "they" talked about how in the future machines would do the work, and our problem would be figuring out how to handle our leisure time. What appears to have happened is that the machines do the work, the machine owners capture the revenue, and all of that "free time" essentially translates to lack of income.
And that model is what is holding Humanity back. We (most of us) are all in debt. So we need to work to pay that debt. We have to pay the owners.
Reasonable people can disagree about what the alternative should be. But modern Capitalism is holding us back from our true potential. Maybe we need a resource-based economy, or maybe public banking with a national salary, or maybe something else. We already have high unemployment in an economy that produces more than it needs. We could all have a lot more free time and a more prosperous lifestyle if we weren't all slaves to money and those who control it.
But if you are going to take the tough love approach and cut off their food stamps, which I agree must be done, you do still need to make sure there's love in that action. If you treat them like you hate or distain them, you are going to push them further down the path they're already on.
Excuse me, you're getting in the way of all this righteous indignation we've worked up here. If we can't blame the poor and ignorant for their poverty and ignorance, how can we look down on our fellow man and absolve ourselves of any responsibility to help them?
Children are a choice, and while I'm actually fine with feeding the poor as an alternative to spending more on them, let's never pretend that stupid people deserve respect.
Because black people do not create wealth. They destroy wealth. White people create wealth. It's about productivity, or lack thereof. Look around the globe, look at all black-run cities/nations - there's not one of them where the standard of living isn't at the bottom of the scale and headed down. South Africa is just a nation-sized Detroit. Diversity= end of civilization.
Whatever the reasons, the truth is plain to those who aren't willfully blind to it.
Cue the libtard's squealing "racist" in 3, 2, 1.
Racist? I'm going with neanderthal. This attitude is so primitive and obsolete I'm surprised your genetics are still viable.
How about when the girl gets on welfare with one kid you tell her "Here's the pill, here's where you can get condoms. If you get pregnant again you will be dropped from welfare and charged with child endangerment."
Why should people that are themselves dependents have the right to create more dependents with no consequences?
Ironically, it is the right-wingers who would look down on her and cluck their tongues at her life choices, who would then turn around and deny her access to abortion and birth-control. Family Values!
"There's no global warming because I'm cold."
"There's no poverty because I'm rich."
"There's no racism because I'm white."
Add to that "there's no Islamic terrorism because they haven't hit my town... yet!
Actually, they have hit my town. And I still don't think Islamic terrorism is that big a deal in the grand scheme. Scary, yes, but way down on the list of dangers.
Or... and I know this sounds crazy... we could just not kill people anymore. I know we like to be the super heroes of the world, running around fighting everyones wars and everything... hell, I used to think that way to. But at a certain point you just have to stand back and say "you know what? Fuck it. I'm done blowing 1/3rd of our budget dropping bombs on people I don't know for a cause I barely understand just to have any and all progress erased in a few years because the real problems in other parts of the world have little to do with their totalitarian leaderships."
You think that's why we go to war? We don't go because we need to save and help people. We go because it is in the nation's perceived interest. We go to maintain and extend US hegemony. We go to make the climate friendly to US businesses. Sure, we could stop killing people. But without the threat of force, how do we get people to do what we want them to do?
The reasons given publicly for war are almost never the actual reasons. If it seems ridiculous to you that we go to war and don't achieve the objectives, it's because the stated objectives were not the actual objectives. They tell us we go to war to catch bad guys or free oppressed people. But that is just the sales pitch that people can accept so they don't feel bad about how immoral and exploitative our foreign policy is. They have to make war seem noble and necessary so that people will pick up arms and fly across the world to fight and kill people they've never met. If they were told they were going because Exxon Mobil needs a pipeline and the local government is driving too hard a bargain, and besides we need a bulwark against the Russians, they'd never go!
General Smedley Butler told us that war is a racket. It is waged for profit, power and control. We will only stop killing when we stop wanting power over others.
Slashdot Mirror
"Snowden did go through proper channels."
No. Snowden did not submit a whistleblower complaint as prescribed in the whistleblower protection act. There was one proper channel to go through and he did not use it.
I see, fair enough. Given history, I can still understand why he wouldn't trust that he would be treated fairly.
Considering that good food and cooking are some of the great pleasures in life, no thanks! I find the concept pretty depressing, actually.
To each their own. I generally find eating to be an inconvenience. If I could just drink a shake instead of eating, it would be great for most meals. I'd still go out with friends, or for special occasions. But drinking this stuff rather than cooking at home would be great, assuming it really provides proper nutrition.
Any evidence to support your allegation? I'm pretty damn sure that he got the traction he claims to have wanted before he started his attempt to systematically destroy our international espionage capability. Try him and hang him. He's proud of his treason.
Of course there is evidence.
Try this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
And this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
Yeah, I'm sure he got the traction he wanted...
its laughable for people to think anyone who challenges deep political and financial power structures are going to 1. somehow be rewarded or applauded for their efforts or 2. get some sort of "fair trial" (whatever that really means in our current legal system) where a positive outcome for the WB would encourage others to follow suit. ...and for those who think otherwise...sorry to tell you...it was your parents putting the money under the pillow, not the tooth fairy :((
Well said, Connie. This is the essence of it right here.
Why do we say when someone who turns their back on a company, or even most government agencies, they're a whistleblower; but when they do the same to the military, or the intelligence apparatus, they are said to have betrayed the country itself?
Because it serves to conflate the interests of the military or intelligence agencies with that of the country as a whole. People are less likely to view them poorly when it is axiomatic that the CIA (or whomever) is working in the best interests of the United States. They overthrew an elected government? Must be okay, since they're only trying to look out for us.
When a government is corrupt, dishonest, and incompetent, then a whistleblower and a spy are essentially the same thing
That's why I get such a kick out of it when these idiots get on TV and call Snowden a traitor because he didn't "go through the proper channels," as if the very agency he was ratting on was going to give him a fair hearing and not throw his ass in prison as a spy/hacker/traitor immediately.
And they're wrong anyway. Snowden did go through proper channels. He was ignored or told to mind his business. That's always the way it goes when one goes through proper channels. I don't think I have ever heard of a case where a person discovers wrongdoing, goes to his superior about it and has his superior actually take meaningful action.
It makes perfect sense, if you think about it (which is why the folks on TV get it wrong). Any given program has been conceived, discussed and agreed upon by people at a high level. They have run the scenarios and considered the outcomes and consequences. Now some staffer comes along and tells them that what they are doing is likely illegal and certainly creepy. They're going to listen to him and take his concerns seriously? Of course not! They're going to tell him to shut up. But the folks on TV will say Snowden should have gone through proper channels, as though he would have gotten any traction. They're either serving an agenda or depressingly naive.
Have you seen what lawyers charge? I have insurance that pays for my dentist and doctor. My mailman is paid with my taxes. I have no money for a lawyer.
We have enough problems with alcohol and prescription drugs, without legalising narcotics just so druggie losers like you can burn your braincells out a bit faster without being hassled by the law. I'd go the other way and follow countries like China and some arab countries - you deal in drugs and you'll be executed. End.
Indeed, we do have enough problems with alcohol and prescription drugs. We have problems with illegal drugs too. Yet we choose to make those problems even worse by punishing and stigmatizing the people who do them. Got a problem with cocaine that is interfering with your well-being? Well, we'll lock you up in jail with some truly terrible people, in a Lord of the Flies type setting, for about 5 years. And then when you get out we'll prevent you from voting and make it much harder to get a job. Would that help with your cocaine problem?
You'll say that person should not have done cocaine to begin with. That's a fair point, but it doesn't help the person after the fact. And no one makes the best decision every time. The threat of punishment isn't a very good way to influence behavior. If a person wants to do something, they'll just try to not get caught. Perhaps we could ask why people feel the need to do drugs to begin with, rather than just punishing them when they do.
That is future "glassholes" are working to bring and it is freaking nightmare.
You are shooting the messenger. The progress in our technologies will bring the lack of privacy you describe regardless of google or any other group. Our only option is to deal with it. First step would be to abolish stupid laws which force us to do many things in secret like criminalisation of drug consumption and production.
You may be right. But what will really enable us to live with such technology is to have a much less judgmental and up-tight society. It's not even about the drugs you like to do. It's about the women's underwear you like to wear to shareholder's meetings, or the fact that you're kind of into pegging.
Despite what folks like Viol8 think, we will need a more permissive society, if more people are going to know more things about what everyone else is doing. Otherwise it'll be a nightmare for anyone who likes things outside of our very narrowly defined sense of "normal" (which is juts about everyone).
When dealing with those who believe they have unfettered power over you, it is good to show a strong understanding of your rights. If they persist, offer to donate some DNA to their wives, so their families wont be so inbred. Just wait for your lawyer and SAY NOTHING. They may hold you for a couple days, but eventually you will see your lawyer. When you get out, THEN call the press and post the shit out of it.
I have a lawyer?
Yes, most people would do something. The problem with that theory is the 1% is telling the 99% what they NEED them to do in order for the 1% to stay obscenely rich.
No matter what, greed wins. Until you destroy THAT particular "job", all others will fall to it.
I wish I could use all my mod points on this one post. This dynamic is what is holding all of us back. And judging from some of the comments here, many people cannot even conceive of a world where this system doesn't reign supreme.
Why don't we have 95% of the population exploring one branch of science or another? Why can't more books be written? More movies be done? More people help those who need help?
Would it be so bad to live in a world where there is 0% NEED to work and everyone just decides whether they want to be a medic, or an astrophysicist, or a script writer, or...
Only amazingly lazy people believe everyone would stop "working" if it was voluntary. Even if the only payment was respect by the society, joy, or simply to fight boredom, most people would do something.
You're ignoring the fact that 99% of the populace are too stupid to do anything other than make-work.
Fact? That word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
And why should the robots not think about cutting out the middle man and use their own work to accomplish their own goals, without sharing anything with humans?
Because they are not like humans. Should we program greed in?
Imagine. 100% worker substitution. Robotic power in hands of super rich. Isn't it plausible? What happens next? Movies made in CGI. Music made on computer. All dirty job, but prostitution - done by machines. Poetry made by AI. What can humans do that robots can't?
Poetry made by AI? I'm sure it'll give Yeats a run for his money...
Except that they have nothing to lose by doing so. All it would take is a single person sharing their robot robot-builder. Money would be obsolete.
And those who control the money and derive their power from it will fight to make sure that doesn't happen. Our situation is not the way it is by accident.
But the robots will be owned by someone who does want payments.
Years ago "they" talked about how in the future machines would do the work, and our problem would be figuring out how to handle our leisure time. What appears to have happened is that the machines do the work, the machine owners capture the revenue, and all of that "free time" essentially translates to lack of income.
And that model is what is holding Humanity back. We (most of us) are all in debt. So we need to work to pay that debt. We have to pay the owners.
Reasonable people can disagree about what the alternative should be. But modern Capitalism is holding us back from our true potential. Maybe we need a resource-based economy, or maybe public banking with a national salary, or maybe something else. We already have high unemployment in an economy that produces more than it needs. We could all have a lot more free time and a more prosperous lifestyle if we weren't all slaves to money and those who control it.
But if you are going to take the tough love approach and cut off their food stamps, which I agree must be done, you do still need to make sure there's love in that action. If you treat them like you hate or distain them, you are going to push them further down the path they're already on.
Excuse me, you're getting in the way of all this righteous indignation we've worked up here. If we can't blame the poor and ignorant for their poverty and ignorance, how can we look down on our fellow man and absolve ourselves of any responsibility to help them?
Children are a choice, and while I'm actually fine with feeding the poor as an alternative to spending more on them, let's never pretend that stupid people deserve respect.
Everyone deserves respect, even you.
Because black people do not create wealth. They destroy wealth. White people create wealth. It's about productivity, or lack thereof. Look around the globe, look at all black-run cities/nations - there's not one of them where the standard of living isn't at the bottom of the scale and headed down. South Africa is just a nation-sized Detroit. Diversity= end of civilization. Whatever the reasons, the truth is plain to those who aren't willfully blind to it. Cue the libtard's squealing "racist" in 3, 2, 1.
Racist? I'm going with neanderthal. This attitude is so primitive and obsolete I'm surprised your genetics are still viable.
How about when the girl gets on welfare with one kid you tell her "Here's the pill, here's where you can get condoms. If you get pregnant again you will be dropped from welfare and charged with child endangerment."
Why should people that are themselves dependents have the right to create more dependents with no consequences?
Ironically, it is the right-wingers who would look down on her and cluck their tongues at her life choices, who would then turn around and deny her access to abortion and birth-control. Family Values!
The uneducated single mother probably has 5 kids so she can get that free money.
1986 called, it wants its argument back.
...and any legal system that allows one to murder people is not really a legal system.
Well, we do have the death penalty.
It's all the same
"There's no global warming because I'm cold." "There's no poverty because I'm rich." "There's no racism because I'm white."
Add to that "there's no Islamic terrorism because they haven't hit my town ... yet!
Actually, they have hit my town. And I still don't think Islamic terrorism is that big a deal in the grand scheme. Scary, yes, but way down on the list of dangers.
Or... and I know this sounds crazy... we could just not kill people anymore. I know we like to be the super heroes of the world, running around fighting everyones wars and everything... hell, I used to think that way to. But at a certain point you just have to stand back and say "you know what? Fuck it. I'm done blowing 1/3rd of our budget dropping bombs on people I don't know for a cause I barely understand just to have any and all progress erased in a few years because the real problems in other parts of the world have little to do with their totalitarian leaderships."
You think that's why we go to war? We don't go because we need to save and help people. We go because it is in the nation's perceived interest. We go to maintain and extend US hegemony. We go to make the climate friendly to US businesses. Sure, we could stop killing people. But without the threat of force, how do we get people to do what we want them to do?
The reasons given publicly for war are almost never the actual reasons. If it seems ridiculous to you that we go to war and don't achieve the objectives, it's because the stated objectives were not the actual objectives. They tell us we go to war to catch bad guys or free oppressed people. But that is just the sales pitch that people can accept so they don't feel bad about how immoral and exploitative our foreign policy is. They have to make war seem noble and necessary so that people will pick up arms and fly across the world to fight and kill people they've never met. If they were told they were going because Exxon Mobil needs a pipeline and the local government is driving too hard a bargain, and besides we need a bulwark against the Russians, they'd never go!
General Smedley Butler told us that war is a racket. It is waged for profit, power and control. We will only stop killing when we stop wanting power over others.
But many of the same claims that propelled the Cold War are being recycled to justify the pursuit of a nascent robotic arms race.
Those claims were mostly bullshit back then, and they're completely bullshit now. So, what else you got?