Iran is in no way peaceful. They harass diplomats from tons of countries. They have a supreme sense of entitlement. Also while I have quite a few Muslim friends in middle eastern countries they are scared to speak out about any of the specific issues due to the fact that they HONESTLY believe that they will not live to see morning if they do.
Does that sound peaceful to you?
The thing is that I could replace "Iran" and "Middle Eastern countries" with the United States, and your paragraph would ring just as true. I know that doesn't absolve the Iranians of anything. But the old saying about glass houses is still relevant IMO. The US destabilizes governments around the world for economic advantage, and then turns around and talks about how dangerous and "rogue" these countries are. Syria, Libya and Iran are all good examples of this dynamic. The US is also the largest arms manufacturer in the world, which is hardly an investment in peace.
I know the GP's point was that the world outside of the US and Britain is by no means peaceful, and that's true. And a lot of that has nothing to do with the US or Britain (or even Israel). But a lot of it does, and I think people in the West need to understand that better if they are to understand the why and how of the world.
These damn countries listed practically invented warfare, and the overall instability of their leaders is what makes people panic and come up with anti-EMP defense strategies.
Things are not as simple as they are made to seem on the evening news. What do I mean by that? I mean that warfare did not develop in a vacuum in those countries.
And if you prevent the police from acting on this, then how are they supposed to detect a dirty bomb, for example? Not a nuclear weapon, which is still a bit far-fetched...but a dirty bomb, made with medical isotopes, for example. It has been tried before, and it'd be a nasty piece of work if one were detonated.
In this case, they were likely being worried about a dirty bomb.
I think you are probably correct. It would be good if the police were trained sufficiently (now that they're apparently anti-terrorism officers too) to know that there is no threat from a "dirty bomb". The dirty bomb was just cooked up to scare us. Seems to have worked. Basically, in the dirty bomb scenario the radioactive material would be so widely dispersed, it would pose no immediate health risk. It's really a non-issue. But like so much else these days, we are chasing our shadows and tails for some reason other than that stated.
Did they shoot him, claim it was self-defense, and ship his remains to Gitmo? Or did they check out his story and send him on his way?
Seems like a non-story to me.
If your rights are violated, and you don't come to harm over it, were they still violated? Or perhaps, if I drive drunk and make it home safely, should I be allowed to drive drunk?
She didn't opt out because she trusted authority. The TSA screener told her she would be fine going through with the pump, when the screener clearly had no idea if that were true. But people are well conditioned to trust authority and not challenge it. Ask Stanley Milgram, he knows.
I've never understood how some people can be so dogmatically sure about the existence of an objective reality. Not to say there isn't one. but I've actually heard some people claim that 100% of their own experience supports an objective reality external to themselves
I have thought about this quite a bit, and the conclusion that I have come to is that reality is at once objective and subjective. There does indeed seem to be an objective reality outside of our consciousness. Two people can observe an object and generally come to an agreement about it. However, they are both experiencing viewing that object subjectively. They have to observe it to be aware of it at all, and observation and experience are always subjective. So while there may be an objective reality, it can only be experienced subjectively. Neat, eh?
I turned on the news yesterday to find out that we discovered another underwear bomber and that the design was "sophisticated" and a dog and pony show was trotted out on the Today show by the fucking CIA.
I want you, every one of you, to ask yourselves, when was the last time the CIA did intelligence press releases?
This alone tells you that it's bullshit. Does anyone expect the CIA to play it straight? These guys invented "cannot confirm or deny", so when they confirm on national TV, you know it serves an agenda. Good post!
He didn't say "no" 101 times, though. When someone asks "wanna go blow up a bridge", you have to choose the correct answer EVERY SINGLE TIME. Forever.
Peer pressure is no excuse for enacting a terrorist plot. If you're corruptible and in a position in which your corruption gets people killed (either by your own hand or by your willful inaction), you're everyone's rightful prey.
Um, no. There are laws against entrapment for a reason. If I walk up to you and offer you drugs, and you take them, have I shown that you are "corruptible"? Yes I have! But I have also entrapped you. Because, the thing is, everyone's corruptible in some way. You can say these are bad people who might have done something someday, and you might be right. But in these particular cases, the perps would not have gotten to where they were without the help of the FBI.
The problem with your analysis is that it presumes there are realistic threats somewhere out there in the first place. There aren't. All of this work is for naught. How do I know? Because universally these cases turn out to be witless patsies. If they were stopping real threats there would be some seriously hardened guys in there with all the doofuses. But there aren't.
Then there is the lack of actual succesful attacks. It would be ridiculous to believe that any system would be perfect in the face of the existential threat these guys are made out to be. And yet the record for actual home-grown attacks over the last decade is basically two or three whackjobs with some guns and that one guy who flew his plane into the IRS building. I think the death toll is under 20 people all told. That level of risk just does not justify the resources that are put into these schemes not to mention the erosion of public confidence that it brings.
Meanwhile real crimes go unsolved because of the resources spent on these con-job photo-ops.
Yes, thank you. I have been saying this for years, but most people are too scared to believe it. There is no terrorist threat. Sure, there are a few people out there who want to use violence to make their point. But they have always been there, that is nothing new. If there were an actual terrorist threat we would see some successful attacks; against buses, shopping malls, sports arenas, airport security lines, etc. This is not happening in the US.
But for whatever reason, people still believe what they see on the news. They think that since we are spending so much money, and it is always in the news, there must be something to all this. But it's about what so much else is about: money and power.
Not really, because it junks the entire concept of limited authorisation within a corporation - if 'exceeds authorized access' doesn't apply when your authorisation is limited just because you are a legitimate employee of that company, then a significant portion of the point of limited authorisation is thrown out.
How do you figure? Does this ruling somehow get rid of access control lists?
The ruling is equivalent to "if you have a logon, you should have root".
Not really. The question is whether the employees exceeded their authorized access. Since they just logged in under their user ID's and downloaded data they had access to, they clearly did not exceed their authorized access. They exceeded their authorization to share those data, but that is a separate issue from whether they exceeded their authorized access on the system.
Has anyone else's policies resulted in anything else?
It's "have" any one else's policies, and yes they have. There was a brief period after WWII when the middle class grew, and income and prosperity were more widespread. It wasn't perfect by any means. But regulations and the tax structure, not to mention common decency, ensured that the productivity gains and profits were shared by a larger portion of the population. A blue collar worker could make enough money to buy a modest home and support a family.
But when the wealthy saw that their hold on society and its riches was slipping, they mounted a counter offensive. It started under Nixon, but really got going under Reagan. They have been pushing back against a more equal society ever since. That income and wealth inequality is as drastic as it is today is not an accident and did not happen by chance.
Democracy doesn't work because we've developed the science of propaganda to a point where the amount of money you have is directly related to the odds of winning an election.
Though I'm glad this guy got out of his ticket, I think this case highlights the danger of treating an officer's word as "fact" in traffic court. It's a shortcut, nothing more. Officers can be wrong or dishonest just like anyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Iran is in no way peaceful. They harass diplomats from tons of countries. They have a supreme sense of entitlement. Also while I have quite a few Muslim friends in middle eastern countries they are scared to speak out about any of the specific issues due to the fact that they HONESTLY believe that they will not live to see morning if they do.
Does that sound peaceful to you?
The thing is that I could replace "Iran" and "Middle Eastern countries" with the United States, and your paragraph would ring just as true. I know that doesn't absolve the Iranians of anything. But the old saying about glass houses is still relevant IMO. The US destabilizes governments around the world for economic advantage, and then turns around and talks about how dangerous and "rogue" these countries are. Syria, Libya and Iran are all good examples of this dynamic. The US is also the largest arms manufacturer in the world, which is hardly an investment in peace.
I know the GP's point was that the world outside of the US and Britain is by no means peaceful, and that's true. And a lot of that has nothing to do with the US or Britain (or even Israel). But a lot of it does, and I think people in the West need to understand that better if they are to understand the why and how of the world.
These damn countries listed practically invented warfare, and the overall instability of their leaders is what makes people panic and come up with anti-EMP defense strategies.
Things are not as simple as they are made to seem on the evening news. What do I mean by that? I mean that warfare did not develop in a vacuum in those countries.
And if you prevent the police from acting on this, then how are they supposed to detect a dirty bomb, for example? Not a nuclear weapon, which is still a bit far-fetched...but a dirty bomb, made with medical isotopes, for example. It has been tried before, and it'd be a nasty piece of work if one were detonated.
The dirty bomb thing has been blown way out of proportion. I know, I'm as shocked as you are. See: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100421_dirty_bombs_revisited_combating_hype
Sadly there is an on going meme on the internet that "the cops are out to get you".
Indeed, it's a shame that the authorities have abused their position to the point that the average citizen cannot trust them.
Uh, you know that "stop and frisk" has been NYPD SOP for years now, right? It's not DWB, but it's Walking While Black.
In this case, they were likely being worried about a dirty bomb.
I think you are probably correct. It would be good if the police were trained sufficiently (now that they're apparently anti-terrorism officers too) to know that there is no threat from a "dirty bomb". The dirty bomb was just cooked up to scare us. Seems to have worked. Basically, in the dirty bomb scenario the radioactive material would be so widely dispersed, it would pose no immediate health risk. It's really a non-issue. But like so much else these days, we are chasing our shadows and tails for some reason other than that stated.
Did they shoot him, claim it was self-defense, and ship his remains to Gitmo? Or did they check out his story and send him on his way?
Seems like a non-story to me.
If your rights are violated, and you don't come to harm over it, were they still violated? Or perhaps, if I drive drunk and make it home safely, should I be allowed to drive drunk?
Your bloodstream: the perfect place to hide drugs!
(Getting them back out might be a tad difficult.)
My liver and kidneys handle that for me.
She didn't opt out because she trusted authority. The TSA screener told her she would be fine going through with the pump, when the screener clearly had no idea if that were true. But people are well conditioned to trust authority and not challenge it. Ask Stanley Milgram, he knows.
I've never understood how some people can be so dogmatically sure about the existence of an objective reality. Not to say there isn't one. but I've actually heard some people claim that 100% of their own experience supports an objective reality external to themselves
I have thought about this quite a bit, and the conclusion that I have come to is that reality is at once objective and subjective. There does indeed seem to be an objective reality outside of our consciousness. Two people can observe an object and generally come to an agreement about it. However, they are both experiencing viewing that object subjectively. They have to observe it to be aware of it at all, and observation and experience are always subjective. So while there may be an objective reality, it can only be experienced subjectively. Neat, eh?
I turned on the news yesterday to find out that we discovered another underwear bomber and that the design was "sophisticated" and a dog and pony show was trotted out on the Today show by the fucking CIA.
I want you, every one of you, to ask yourselves, when was the last time the CIA did intelligence press releases?
This alone tells you that it's bullshit. Does anyone expect the CIA to play it straight? These guys invented "cannot confirm or deny", so when they confirm on national TV, you know it serves an agenda. Good post!
Why should you have to apologize for something you didn't do?
Because you're married? Zing!
He didn't say "no" 101 times, though. When someone asks "wanna go blow up a bridge", you have to choose the correct answer EVERY SINGLE TIME. Forever.
Peer pressure is no excuse for enacting a terrorist plot. If you're corruptible and in a position in which your corruption gets people killed (either by your own hand or by your willful inaction), you're everyone's rightful prey.
Um, no. There are laws against entrapment for a reason. If I walk up to you and offer you drugs, and you take them, have I shown that you are "corruptible"? Yes I have! But I have also entrapped you. Because, the thing is, everyone's corruptible in some way. You can say these are bad people who might have done something someday, and you might be right. But in these particular cases, the perps would not have gotten to where they were without the help of the FBI.
And surprisingly, very few people see anything wrong with that.
But they're stopping terrorists!
Terrorists!
people who do very horrible things, by order of truly evil people, without any complaint: witless pansies
How dare you talk about the military that way! *oh snap*
The problem with your analysis is that it presumes there are realistic threats somewhere out there in the first place. There aren't. All of this work is for naught. How do I know? Because universally these cases turn out to be witless patsies. If they were stopping real threats there would be some seriously hardened guys in there with all the doofuses. But there aren't.
Then there is the lack of actual succesful attacks. It would be ridiculous to believe that any system would be perfect in the face of the existential threat these guys are made out to be. And yet the record for actual home-grown attacks over the last decade is basically two or three whackjobs with some guns and that one guy who flew his plane into the IRS building. I think the death toll is under 20 people all told. That level of risk just does not justify the resources that are put into these schemes not to mention the erosion of public confidence that it brings.
Meanwhile real crimes go unsolved because of the resources spent on these con-job photo-ops.
Yes, thank you. I have been saying this for years, but most people are too scared to believe it. There is no terrorist threat. Sure, there are a few people out there who want to use violence to make their point. But they have always been there, that is nothing new. If there were an actual terrorist threat we would see some successful attacks; against buses, shopping malls, sports arenas, airport security lines, etc. This is not happening in the US.
But for whatever reason, people still believe what they see on the news. They think that since we are spending so much money, and it is always in the news, there must be something to all this. But it's about what so much else is about: money and power.
Yeah. . . I think I'm going to need to see some reputable sources for those claims.
I love these requests, in the age of the Internet and Google. Here ya go
Aren't you /.ers the ones constantly complaining there needs to be MORE government regulation and the nations problems would be solved?
No. Next question!
Did they still say 'dickity'? Was tying an onion to your belt still the style at the time?
We had to say dickity, 'cause the Kaiser stole our number twenty!
Not really, because it junks the entire concept of limited authorisation within a corporation - if 'exceeds authorized access' doesn't apply when your authorisation is limited just because you are a legitimate employee of that company, then a significant portion of the point of limited authorisation is thrown out.
How do you figure? Does this ruling somehow get rid of access control lists?
Perhaps somewhere there are. But not here.
The ruling is equivalent to "if you have a logon, you should have root".
Not really. The question is whether the employees exceeded their authorized access. Since they just logged in under their user ID's and downloaded data they had access to, they clearly did not exceed their authorized access. They exceeded their authorization to share those data, but that is a separate issue from whether they exceeded their authorized access on the system.
Has anyone else's policies resulted in anything else?
It's "have" any one else's policies, and yes they have. There was a brief period after WWII when the middle class grew, and income and prosperity were more widespread. It wasn't perfect by any means. But regulations and the tax structure, not to mention common decency, ensured that the productivity gains and profits were shared by a larger portion of the population. A blue collar worker could make enough money to buy a modest home and support a family.
But when the wealthy saw that their hold on society and its riches was slipping, they mounted a counter offensive. It started under Nixon, but really got going under Reagan. They have been pushing back against a more equal society ever since. That income and wealth inequality is as drastic as it is today is not an accident and did not happen by chance.
Democracy doesn't work because we've developed the science of propaganda to a point where the amount of money you have is directly related to the odds of winning an election.
Here it is! Bam!
Though I'm glad this guy got out of his ticket, I think this case highlights the danger of treating an officer's word as "fact" in traffic court. It's a shortcut, nothing more. Officers can be wrong or dishonest just like anyone else.
Not only accused of wreckless driving, he is doing some pretty wreckless sciencing too!
Reckless. Wreckless driving would be a good thing!