It's really very simple. Any lobbyist for a business or industry has one message for their politician targets: "We want more money, and we'll make it worth your while to give us more money."
Any other message coming from lobbyists or corporate spokespeople is basically nonsense used to create a false explanation for the politician's actions which just so happen to benefit the lobbyist's industries.
Actually, it's more an example of what's sometimes referred to as "gray-mailing".
Imagine that a top government official C orders a spy S to engage in a war crime. Years later, S is caught doing something that is against the rules but not as serious. To gray-mail, S defends himself not by creating arguments that he didn't do what he's accused of, but by making it clear that any attempt to go after him will result in C's order being revealed to the general public.
Known terrorists have literally been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
There are at least 2 counterarguments to this being somehow illegitimate: 1. "Terrorist" is an extremely hard word to define, because almost everything that people generally considered terrorists do, governments also do. For instance, the US government has blown up apartment buildings in Yemen to try to influence Yemeni policy. All too often, "terrorist", like "communist" 50 years ago, just means "some guy a government doesn't like". 2. Known terrorists can in fact make peace. The IRA were terrorists, yet they made peace with the UK. The ANC were at times terrorists, but Nelson Mandela made peace with the South African government.
You have it exactly wrong on your definitions, according to wikipedia, and certainly according to my theory prof back when I was studying this stuff regularly.
though these days CxOs are so brazen in their greed that their employment contracts probably give them benefits even if they were fired for raping children in the company boardroom
When did that become a firing-worthy offense for these guys?
Except you're wrong too. NP-complete is a set of NP problems not known to be in P but can be verified in P. If P=NP, all problems in P are not and never were in NP-complete.
That's all well and good for you, but how do those noobs acquire any experience if everybody in the industry follows your logic? And that's hardly an idle question: at least in my area, you'd probably have a better chance of getting hired with a felony conviction on your record than having no experience because you just graduated.
Which report would you believe: A report written by somebody who's salary depends on coming up with a particular answer, or a report written by somebody who will remain employed no matter what they conclude?
Tenured university researchers and government scientists can't be fired for coming up with the 'wrong' answer than other scientists. Hence they have significantly less motivation to lie than somebody working for Greenpeace or BP.
We'll agree that correlation != causation. And we can also agree that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, craps like a duck, it's likely to be a duck.
Or you learn the lesson from dynamically typed computer languages: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, craps like a duck, etc, it's close enough to treat exactly like a duck for all practical purposes.
Actually, the wonderful Canadian film The Corporation argues fairly convincingly that if you were to treat a corporation as a person, you would be forced to diagnose them as a complete sociopath.
Last I checked, there was this little thing about right to a speedy trial and right to counsel. The speedy trial is clearly being denied in Manning's case, and this is a clear attempt to interfere with his right to counsel by cutting off the funds to pay for said counsel.
Alternately, I guess we could just go with the rule that whatever the executive branch is totally cool - after all, that was perfectly ok in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain, right?
The sad part is that this sort of investigative journalism should be getting published by the New York Times or Washington Post or CNN. Instead, it's been relegated to places like Rolling Stone.
It's also fair to say that anyone who's been reading Matt Taibbi's coverage of the financial crisis in Rolling Stone has at least as good a picture of what's really going on as somebody who listens to Larry Kudlow on CNBC.
It's true that if they throw Assange in prison, what Wikileaks has started continues, but there is real reason for concern.
If they can do this to Assange for the crime of embarrassing the US government, then they can do it to anyone who speaks out with any real effectiveness against current government policies. There are also far too many who would like to kill or at the very least blacklist journalists for saying or writing something embarrassing to people in power.
The goal of those people is to erase the freedom of speech if that speech becomes too effective. If they succeed, it will make the McCarthy hearings look like a picnic by comparison (and I write that as someone whose grandfather was a victim of those hearings).
You're under the false assumption the US government is following its own laws or constitution. If you need any proof of that, ask the US citizens who have been imprisoned in Gitmo for the crime of having unpopular beliefs about an invisible man in the sky. Oh, wait - you can't, because some of them are dead and the rest being held incommunicado.
If the US gets hold of Assange, is he more likely to: A. Receive a fair trial in a court of law, where he can explain in great detail the corruption he exposed B. Get thrown in Gitmo with no way of getting tried or getting out C. Get sent to one of our allies in an unsavory place as part of 'extraordinary rendition'
Slashdot Mirror
Please? There's a reason why you can't place a trademark on normal everyday words as "intellectual property".
It's really very simple. Any lobbyist for a business or industry has one message for their politician targets: "We want more money, and we'll make it worth your while to give us more money."
Any other message coming from lobbyists or corporate spokespeople is basically nonsense used to create a false explanation for the politician's actions which just so happen to benefit the lobbyist's industries.
Actually, it's more an example of what's sometimes referred to as "gray-mailing".
Imagine that a top government official C orders a spy S to engage in a war crime. Years later, S is caught doing something that is against the rules but not as serious. To gray-mail, S defends himself not by creating arguments that he didn't do what he's accused of, but by making it clear that any attempt to go after him will result in C's order being revealed to the general public.
We are the cyborgs. Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Known terrorists have literally been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
There are at least 2 counterarguments to this being somehow illegitimate:
1. "Terrorist" is an extremely hard word to define, because almost everything that people generally considered terrorists do, governments also do. For instance, the US government has blown up apartment buildings in Yemen to try to influence Yemeni policy. All too often, "terrorist", like "communist" 50 years ago, just means "some guy a government doesn't like".
2. Known terrorists can in fact make peace. The IRA were terrorists, yet they made peace with the UK. The ANC were at times terrorists, but Nelson Mandela made peace with the South African government.
We have met the Internet and he is us.
You mean like back when they gave it to Henry Kissinger? Really, the politicized nature of the prize is nothing new.
They mean "... after it's been thrown out a window in frustration."
If a butt-kicking is necessary, I assume Tove would be happy to provide it with her mad karate skillz.
You have it exactly wrong on your definitions, according to wikipedia, and certainly according to my theory prof back when I was studying this stuff regularly.
though these days CxOs are so brazen in their greed that their employment contracts probably give them benefits even if they were fired for raping children in the company boardroom
When did that become a firing-worthy offense for these guys?
Except you're wrong too. NP-complete is a set of NP problems not known to be in P but can be verified in P. If P=NP, all problems in P are not and never were in NP-complete.
...And I don't eve trust that person to do it properly.
After all, a simple typo can completely screw up the meaning of an automated backup script!
That's all well and good for you, but how do those noobs acquire any experience if everybody in the industry follows your logic? And that's hardly an idle question: at least in my area, you'd probably have a better chance of getting hired with a felony conviction on your record than having no experience because you just graduated.
Yeah, that guy makes the Iraqi Information Minister sound credible by comparison.
Which report would you believe: A report written by somebody who's salary depends on coming up with a particular answer, or a report written by somebody who will remain employed no matter what they conclude?
Tenured university researchers and government scientists can't be fired for coming up with the 'wrong' answer than other scientists. Hence they have significantly less motivation to lie than somebody working for Greenpeace or BP.
We'll agree that correlation != causation. And we can also agree that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, craps like a duck, it's likely to be a duck.
Or you learn the lesson from dynamically typed computer languages: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, craps like a duck, etc, it's close enough to treat exactly like a duck for all practical purposes.
Actually, the wonderful Canadian film The Corporation argues fairly convincingly that if you were to treat a corporation as a person, you would be forced to diagnose them as a complete sociopath.
Last I checked, there was this little thing about right to a speedy trial and right to counsel. The speedy trial is clearly being denied in Manning's case, and this is a clear attempt to interfere with his right to counsel by cutting off the funds to pay for said counsel.
Alternately, I guess we could just go with the rule that whatever the executive branch is totally cool - after all, that was perfectly ok in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain, right?
At least 0.01% per line.
The sad part is that this sort of investigative journalism should be getting published by the New York Times or Washington Post or CNN. Instead, it's been relegated to places like Rolling Stone.
It's also fair to say that anyone who's been reading Matt Taibbi's coverage of the financial crisis in Rolling Stone has at least as good a picture of what's really going on as somebody who listens to Larry Kudlow on CNBC.
It's true that if they throw Assange in prison, what Wikileaks has started continues, but there is real reason for concern.
If they can do this to Assange for the crime of embarrassing the US government, then they can do it to anyone who speaks out with any real effectiveness against current government policies. There are also far too many who would like to kill or at the very least blacklist journalists for saying or writing something embarrassing to people in power.
The goal of those people is to erase the freedom of speech if that speech becomes too effective. If they succeed, it will make the McCarthy hearings look like a picnic by comparison (and I write that as someone whose grandfather was a victim of those hearings).
You're under the false assumption the US government is following its own laws or constitution. If you need any proof of that, ask the US citizens who have been imprisoned in Gitmo for the crime of having unpopular beliefs about an invisible man in the sky. Oh, wait - you can't, because some of them are dead and the rest being held incommunicado.
If the US gets hold of Assange, is he more likely to:
A. Receive a fair trial in a court of law, where he can explain in great detail the corruption he exposed
B. Get thrown in Gitmo with no way of getting tried or getting out
C. Get sent to one of our allies in an unsavory place as part of 'extraordinary rendition'
I'm not betting on A.
More like Stanley Kubrick had a really good idea and Stephen Spielberg did his best to ruin it by going on way too long after the ending.
Except the voice wreckognition software would interpret that as "Sell Exxon, delight!"