How would we know? Snowden chose not to use the proper procedures, and all the people who were prosecuted did as well. Leaking classified information to those without a need to know and the proper clearances is a federal crime. Choosing to do that on the hope that you will be seen as a whistleblower is absurd, there are proper procedures for the intelligence community, and they protect sources and methods properly. Leaking to a journalist protects nothing and leads to deaths.
Government doesn't get innocent until proven guilty.
I assume that is the constitution you claim they violated. Considering that they had authorization from a federal court (FISA), that could count as a warrant, it was after all a judge ruling that the collection was reasonable, which also satisfies the constitution. Since it has been authorized numerous times since, and has been ruled both constitutional and unconstitutional, how can you say they have done anything against the constitution? The ruling that ruled it unconstitutional has even been overturned.
FISA is not constitutional due to its secrecy (it does more than merely issue questionable warrants which never see the light of day). That violates the 5th and 6th amendments as well.
How did anyone commit treason other than Snowden?
First, you haven't shown that Snowden committed treason. The worst I've read here is the usual accusation that he had the potential to help China or Russia, but no actual evidence of credible harm to the US or benefit to these countries has been shown as a result of his actions. Second, the NSA actions have harmed US citizens, businesses, and society sometimes to the benefit of other governments both directly by losing business (and jobs and wealth) to foreign enterprises and through the undermining of various encryption standards that US businesses rely on. There has been a substantial tarnishing of the US's reputation at home and abroad. Further, we have government officials lying about the extent of these unconstitutional behaviors and programs to Congress.
Not sure how I am bluffing, I gave an example of what you are asking for and what would have resulted. Smarter people than I have thought of this, that is why there are examples of the allies not using Enigma intercepts despite the loss of life, as it would have revealed the secret. Germany in my understanding did upgrade the Enigma near the end of the war, and it was impenetrable to the allies, but it was already too late and there were other methods of getting the information at that point. This is history, if you want to argue it, talk to a historian.
How do you know about the Enigma program? Information doesn't need to be released in real time in order for there to be accountability. But it does need to be released in a timely manner, if we're going to have a democracy which makes good, timely decisions about secret agencies and programs. Enigma didn't need to be revealed during the Second World War, but it would have been criminal to never release information about it at all.
The US has a long history, just with the NSA of hiding everything from the public until it is revealed by another party. Even the very existence of the NSA was kept secret for a quarter of a century until a congressional committee revealed it I'm tired of decades old actions being hidden from me until someone exposes them in an undeniable way.
hey released every piece of correspondence they could find from Snowden, they would love to point to an instance where he tried to report it and the system failed, however, he never did. But of course, you are so anti government, that they could release every email he ever sent and it wouldn't make you happy.
There's no evidence the NSA did any such thing. After all, it's a natural claim to make whether or not Snowden did report the host of problems he discovered. And we have Snowden's statement to the contrary that he did try to go through proper channels, and then decided on the current, successful approach after seeing what happened to past whistleblowers.
The obvious problem with unprovable claims from the NSA is that they have already lied about this subject in their favor. Thus, there is no reason to expect them to be telling the truth this time.
Whats going more wrong more often per design? Is the US just always trying new, cheaper, faster build methods or have too many advance skills be lost in some sectors per decade?
Are the existing fast acceleration profiles even that good for some very hand crafted, bespoke satellite?
New rockets always have a high failure rate. If it's still failing often after the fifth or sixth launch, then it's a problem.
Can the new emerging US private sector do intelligence payloads soon?
They've been doing them since oh, 1986 or so. The current launch provider is the United Launch Alliance which operates the Atlas V and Delta IV rocket systems though I believe SpaceX may be close to launching some military payloads on Falcon 9.
After that categorical statement to the Post, the NSA was caught spying on plainly financial targets such as the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras; economic summits; international credit card and banking systems; the EU antitrust commissioner investigating Google, Microsoft, and Intel; and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. In response, the U.S. modified its denial to acknowledge that it does engage in economic spying, but unlike China, the spying is never done to benefit American corporations.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for instance, responded to the Petrobras revelations by claiming: âoeIt is not a secret that the Intelligence Community collects information about economic and financial mattersâ¦. What we do not do, as we have said many times, is use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf ofâ"or give intelligence we collect toâ"U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line.â
But a secret 2009 report issued by Clapperâ(TM)s own office explicitly contemplates doing exactly that. The document, the 2009 Quadrennial Intelligence Community Reviewâ"provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowdenâ"is a fascinating window into the mindset of Americaâ(TM)s spies as they identify future threats to the U.S. and lay out the actions the U.S. intelligence community should take in response. It anticipates a series of potential scenarios the U.S. may face in 2025, from a âoeChina/Russia/India/Iran centered bloc [that] challenges U.S. supremacyâ to a world in which âoeidentity-based groups supplant nation-states,â and games out how the U.S. intelligence community should operate in those alternative futuresâ"the idea being to assess âoethe most challenging issues [the U.S.] could face beyond the standard planning cycle.â
According to a 2002 "Information Need" spying order [PDF], the NSA was tasked with collecting economic data from the French government, including details of business contracts, information on the state's macroeconomic policy, it's relationships with international lenders, and any dirt on "questionable trade activities."
A 2012 memo [PDF] is more explicit. It specifies that all economic deals or financing rounds worth more than $200m are to be investigated, with particular emphasis on activity relating to the IT and telecommunications industries, oil and gas production, environmental technologies, healthcare developments, and biotechnology.
This information was not just for the use of the US, the documents note, but would be shared with the other four of the "Five Eyes" nations: the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.
The new release will be a massive embarrassment to the US government, since it has long maintained that the only reason the NSA exists is to spy on evildoers online â" terrorists, organized crime, drug dealers, and the like. That the agency was specifically tasked to go after the economic interests of an ally will cause red faces all round.
Edward Snowden specifically did not blow the whistle. He was trained on the proper method to blow the whistle, and Eric Holder details that method in the article I linked. Whistleblowers don't run to foreign governments that are just as bad or worse at freedom, and in the intelligence industry, people know you take it to congress who has oversight of the intelligence agencies. He chose to run to China, who would disappear someone who did what he did, then to Russia that has killed people for speaking out against the government. Yeah, he is real heroic, running to the people who are so much worse than what he is running from.
Well, as I noted earlier, Snowden's method worked, your "proper method" would have just hid the crimes. And let's face, with the brutal treatment of NSA whistleblowers, we have established, officially, running to a foreign power as a legitimate form of whistleblowing.
Why would ANYONE go to jail for spying? What do you think spy agencies are for? This is literally what we formed the NSA and CIA to do. The NSA also is tasked with securing the US Governments communications, but they are primarily a foreign intelligence agency. Their entire job is to spy on other governments to prevent them doing harm to the US.
I was thinking more prison for violating the US Constitution and treason.
So, according to you, we should compromise Top Secret information in order to get permission to stop a plot to hurt people/destroy shit in the US? I am so glad that you have no power, because you have no idea how this works or how it should work. Sources and methods are not meant to be revealed to the general public, as once they are revealed, they are useless in the future. You would have the predicessor of the NSA telling the world that the Enigma was broken in order to get permission to use the information, what kind of freaking moron makes that argument? If Germany found out that the Allies broke Enigma, World War 2 likely would have gone their way.
Who else would you use that can see the secret information to determine if the warrant should be given?
Myself, for starters. If it can't be revealed to the public at all, it's not a legal warrant in my view.
So, stop doing the job that they are asked to do by the government? The NSA is a spying agency, sorry to burst your bubble.
Of course. Stop the job and maybe put a few people in prison after a public trial, of course.
No whistleblower has ever been harmed by the NSA. Disclosing secret and top secret information to foreign governments is not whistleblowing, it is treason. Snowden chose not to blow the whistle and instead commit treason, he is being charged with the crimes he committed.
Fuck you. This lie keeps going. You don't like how Snowden treated the NSA, then don't let the NSA treat whistleblowers like traitors.
If Snowden wanted to be a whistleblower, he should have taken his concerns to congress, not foreign governments.
The slashdotter above us, hcs_$reboot, actually recognizes that the Japanese aren't very keen on planning for the future ("Don't look at the past, don't try to anticipate the future"). I supplied further evidence in how their government is more concerned with chasing after naught bits.
There's a difference between not wanting something and being unable, here due to incompetence at the societal level, to get something. That's the core distinction at the heart of the idea of sour grapes. Here, both you and hcs_$reboot assume that Japan and its citizens want the current state of affairs rather than try for something better. But from the article, the current state of affairs is pretty nasty: work long hours and get about half as much done in that time as a US worker could. Does anyone here really think the Japanese like to work about as hard as a US worker does and only get half as much done?
I don't think Japan wants this even a little bit. But they got caught in a trap of their own making with poor productivity, eye-popping debt loads both private and public, a destructive subsidized postal savings system, and a complete derailment of the strategy that made them a major industrial power in the first place. It's 25 years of slow decline.
I think this wouldn't have happened, if the grown ups who had built up the Japanese miracle were still in charge. They were used to making tough choices and rebuilding a country from rubble. But those guys died off long ago and now, it's the children in charge.
So who are these ideologically bound slashdotters you are speaking of who are calling sour grapes?
First, anyone who assumes Japan wants the current situation. Then there are people who assume that either this state of affairs won't hurt global competitiveness (which seems wrong) or global competitiveness just isn't that important (classic developed world whistling past the graveyard which has been wrong for 60 years and counting), both exhibited in the thread I linked.
I don't know for sure since there is always room for weird situations, but that is what they wrote. And we generally assume people mean what they say or write.
Everyone in the business would also be aware of the nasty prosecution and harassment whistleblowers receive. Thus, Snowden took a more effective strategy which allowed him to whistleblow without being dragged through the courts or having his evidence suppressed.
In actuality, these organizations are staffed and run by thousands of average Americans who like freedom and our way of life, and aren't going to violate these principles.
Sorry, we aren't dupes. If these organizations want to be treated with respect, then they should stop violating laws and subverting the constitution, stop with the secret courts, the universal spying, the undermining of the US high tech industry, and the harsh punishment of whistleblowers.
In fact, they are doing things that are the opposite of fixes. For example, a few years back they pass a law to regulate (read: ban) certain naughty picture books in Tokyo. The social conservatives must've thought if the kids didn't have p0rn they might go date real girls and find real jobs (their part time job that sustains their hobby doesn't count!). Joke's on them as p0rn has always been with us and the kids will find them nonetheless (have they heard of the Internet?), and the ban simply hurt their economy by hurting the publishers and artists, the people who had those "real" jobs.
I think such things are a good indication of who really plans for the future. Here, we have 25 years of economic stagnation and a government obsessing over naughty bits rather than fixing big problems.
Meanwhile we have a bunch of ideologically bound slashdotters going sour grapes over Japan's economic situation. If their beliefs resulted in economic bounty in Jaoan, you can bet they'd be bragging about it. But since it doesn't, they're speaking of the lack of need for doing useful work or having a viable economy. I don't have respect for people who ignore awful consequences of their beliefs.
I suspect the Japanese view their economy and birth rate similar to how you view climate change.
And since you mentioned it (and since I feel like, once again, rubbing peoples' noses in the problems they create), let's consider the "opposite of fixes" in climate change. For example, Germany and Denmark have doubled the price of their electricity without making a credible or measurable change to humanity's impact on climate. This is the myopic foresight of the people who believe climate change is a big deal.
Meanwhile my suggestion to do nothing for a few decades will do more to help fix climate change by making humanity wealthier (and as a result, less fertile, more caring about the environment, and more capable of doing something effective about climate change). It's like a cruel parody of an enviroflick movie where the roles are reversed, the cigar-smoking, greedy businessman is helping the environment while the do gooder, hippie hero is unintentionally killing off the wildlife.
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.
Looks to me like Snowden found a better way than your approach.
Until you find the spindizzies that are pushing the gas giants around, you have the problem of not having a mechanism by which planets can move in the way you suggest and result in the nearly circular orbits of the gas giants today. Nor is there enough mass in the Asteroid Belt to account for your "gap" discussion (the current mass of the asteroid belt is less than a tenth that of Io (3*10^21 kg versus 8*10^22 kg), the smallest of the four major moons of Jupiter).
Jupiter has 90% of all non-Sun mass in the Solar System. There is nothing in the Solar System capable of capturing Jupiter, unless there was already one or more Jupiter mass objects present which were flung out as Jupiter came it. And circularizing all the orbits of the gas giants, given such mass exchanges with other star systems, would require vast amounts of time or intelligent interference (like the spindizzy engine), neither which is evident.
Gravity doesn't work this way. You need a mechanism that would explain this process.
How would living in a cave eating grass pollute the earth more than our current lifestyles? Please explain this to me, if you can do that, I'll subscribe to your newsletter.
Here goes:
1) Several billion caves need to be dug out.
2) Seven billion people are now dumping untreated human waste somewhere.
3) Seven billion people are cheating on their grass diet and using more land for food than current (because single family plots is grossly inefficient for food production).
On the plus side, when most of humanity dies-off, it'll be a much lower environmental footprint for whatever survives (which probably won't be most large animals).
But actually Japanese like to maintain and nourish the present state.
Sure, they do. While things have been worse in living memory, you have to wonder how everyone takes the economic stagnation of the past 25 years and the aging of modern Japanese society? Is everyone "we didn't need that leading first world society anyway" like some of the posters on Slashdot insist or are some of them a bit concerned about the way things are heading?
Don't look at the past, don't try to anticipate the future.
Which is nice when anticipating the future doesn't have any value. When it matters a lot, well, you need a better approach.
Here, expedient translates to "possible versus impossible". Plus, it is right for the offending party that deliberately engages in defamation to be punished for the speech in question.
Not true, the carbon came from the atmosphere originally.
The uncontrolled, large area brush fires came from misguided environmental policies, which prevent the clearing of "natural brush" and the creation of fire breaks. The resulting fires are called "fire use" or "let burn" fires. It came out of some misguided philosophies from the 1960's and 1970's. It was first instituted by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) in 1968.
The US NPS is not responsible for brush fires in Africa. Further, "fire use" and "let burn" fires have the effect of clearing "natural brush" and creating natural fire breaks. That's the opposite of your claim above.
The problem with out of control fires has never been allowing natural burning of forest, but rather the aggressive stamping out of wildfires common to many parts of the world in the 20th Century, particularly the first half of the century. That's what led to the build up in brush undergrowth and other fuels for wildfires.
But this issues is completely irrelevant to CO2 build up in the atmosphere. When bush burns, it eventually grows back, taking in carbon from the atmosphere and soil (the latter which also ultimately came from the atmosphere).
What I'm saying is that the speech doesn't do anything. The action comes from the listener. That is where to attack the problem.
That just doesn't work. It's vastly easier to deal with speech which is deliberate defamation (even when it comes to anonymous speech) than it is to fix a huge population of clueless listeners and gossips.
You are completely missing the part about "authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law". A union (at the vast majority which are legally recognized) happens to be a group of people with that property and hence, are a corporation - by definition.
Slashdot Mirror
How would we know? Snowden chose not to use the proper procedures, and all the people who were prosecuted did as well. Leaking classified information to those without a need to know and the proper clearances is a federal crime. Choosing to do that on the hope that you will be seen as a whistleblower is absurd, there are proper procedures for the intelligence community, and they protect sources and methods properly. Leaking to a journalist protects nothing and leads to deaths.
Government doesn't get innocent until proven guilty.
I assume that is the constitution you claim they violated. Considering that they had authorization from a federal court (FISA), that could count as a warrant, it was after all a judge ruling that the collection was reasonable, which also satisfies the constitution. Since it has been authorized numerous times since, and has been ruled both constitutional and unconstitutional, how can you say they have done anything against the constitution? The ruling that ruled it unconstitutional has even been overturned.
FISA is not constitutional due to its secrecy (it does more than merely issue questionable warrants which never see the light of day). That violates the 5th and 6th amendments as well.
How did anyone commit treason other than Snowden?
First, you haven't shown that Snowden committed treason. The worst I've read here is the usual accusation that he had the potential to help China or Russia, but no actual evidence of credible harm to the US or benefit to these countries has been shown as a result of his actions. Second, the NSA actions have harmed US citizens, businesses, and society sometimes to the benefit of other governments both directly by losing business (and jobs and wealth) to foreign enterprises and through the undermining of various encryption standards that US businesses rely on. There has been a substantial tarnishing of the US's reputation at home and abroad. Further, we have government officials lying about the extent of these unconstitutional behaviors and programs to Congress.
Not sure how I am bluffing, I gave an example of what you are asking for and what would have resulted. Smarter people than I have thought of this, that is why there are examples of the allies not using Enigma intercepts despite the loss of life, as it would have revealed the secret. Germany in my understanding did upgrade the Enigma near the end of the war, and it was impenetrable to the allies, but it was already too late and there were other methods of getting the information at that point. This is history, if you want to argue it, talk to a historian.
How do you know about the Enigma program? Information doesn't need to be released in real time in order for there to be accountability. But it does need to be released in a timely manner, if we're going to have a democracy which makes good, timely decisions about secret agencies and programs. Enigma didn't need to be revealed during the Second World War, but it would have been criminal to never release information about it at all.
The US has a long history, just with the NSA of hiding everything from the public until it is revealed by another party. Even the very existence of the NSA was kept secret for a quarter of a century until a congressional committee revealed it I'm tired of decades old actions being hidden from me until someone exposes them in an undeniable way.
hey released every piece of correspondence they could find from Snowden, they would love to point to an instance where he tried to report it and the system failed, however, he never did. But of course, you are so anti government, that they could release every email he ever sent and it wouldn't make you happy.
There's no evidence the NSA did any such thing. After all, it's a natural claim to make whether or not Snowden did report the host of problems he discovered. And we have Snowden's statement to the contrary that he did try to go through proper channels, and then decided on the current, successful approach after seeing what happened to past whistleblowers.
The obvious problem with unprovable claims from the NSA is that they have already lied about this subject in their favor. Thus, there is no reason to expect them to be telling the truth this time.
Whats going more wrong more often per design? Is the US just always trying new, cheaper, faster build methods or have too many advance skills be lost in some sectors per decade? Are the existing fast acceleration profiles even that good for some very hand crafted, bespoke satellite?
New rockets always have a high failure rate. If it's still failing often after the fifth or sixth launch, then it's a problem.
Can the new emerging US private sector do intelligence payloads soon?
They've been doing them since oh, 1986 or so. The current launch provider is the United Launch Alliance which operates the Atlas V and Delta IV rocket systems though I believe SpaceX may be close to launching some military payloads on Falcon 9.
After that categorical statement to the Post, the NSA was caught spying on plainly financial targets such as the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras; economic summits; international credit card and banking systems; the EU antitrust commissioner investigating Google, Microsoft, and Intel; and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. In response, the U.S. modified its denial to acknowledge that it does engage in economic spying, but unlike China, the spying is never done to benefit American corporations.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for instance, responded to the Petrobras revelations by claiming: âoeIt is not a secret that the Intelligence Community collects information about economic and financial mattersâ¦. What we do not do, as we have said many times, is use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf ofâ"or give intelligence we collect toâ"U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line.â
But a secret 2009 report issued by Clapperâ(TM)s own office explicitly contemplates doing exactly that. The document, the 2009 Quadrennial Intelligence Community Reviewâ"provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowdenâ"is a fascinating window into the mindset of Americaâ(TM)s spies as they identify future threats to the U.S. and lay out the actions the U.S. intelligence community should take in response. It anticipates a series of potential scenarios the U.S. may face in 2025, from a âoeChina/Russia/India/Iran centered bloc [that] challenges U.S. supremacyâ to a world in which âoeidentity-based groups supplant nation-states,â and games out how the U.S. intelligence community should operate in those alternative futuresâ"the idea being to assess âoethe most challenging issues [the U.S.] could face beyond the standard planning cycle.â
or here:
According to a 2002 "Information Need" spying order [PDF], the NSA was tasked with collecting economic data from the French government, including details of business contracts, information on the state's macroeconomic policy, it's relationships with international lenders, and any dirt on "questionable trade activities."
A 2012 memo [PDF] is more explicit. It specifies that all economic deals or financing rounds worth more than $200m are to be investigated, with particular emphasis on activity relating to the IT and telecommunications industries, oil and gas production, environmental technologies, healthcare developments, and biotechnology.
This information was not just for the use of the US, the documents note, but would be shared with the other four of the "Five Eyes" nations: the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.
The new release will be a massive embarrassment to the US government, since it has long maintained that the only reason the NSA exists is to spy on evildoers online â" terrorists, organized crime, drug dealers, and the like. That the agency was specifically tasked to go after the economic interests of an ally will cause red faces all round.
Edward Snowden specifically did not blow the whistle. He was trained on the proper method to blow the whistle, and Eric Holder details that method in the article I linked. Whistleblowers don't run to foreign governments that are just as bad or worse at freedom, and in the intelligence industry, people know you take it to congress who has oversight of the intelligence agencies. He chose to run to China, who would disappear someone who did what he did, then to Russia that has killed people for speaking out against the government. Yeah, he is real heroic, running to the people who are so much worse than what he is running from.
Well, as I noted earlier, Snowden's method worked, your "proper method" would have just hid the crimes. And let's face, with the brutal treatment of NSA whistleblowers, we have established, officially, running to a foreign power as a legitimate form of whistleblowing.
Why would ANYONE go to jail for spying? What do you think spy agencies are for? This is literally what we formed the NSA and CIA to do. The NSA also is tasked with securing the US Governments communications, but they are primarily a foreign intelligence agency. Their entire job is to spy on other governments to prevent them doing harm to the US.
I was thinking more prison for violating the US Constitution and treason.
So, according to you, we should compromise Top Secret information in order to get permission to stop a plot to hurt people/destroy shit in the US? I am so glad that you have no power, because you have no idea how this works or how it should work. Sources and methods are not meant to be revealed to the general public, as once they are revealed, they are useless in the future. You would have the predicessor of the NSA telling the world that the Enigma was broken in order to get permission to use the information, what kind of freaking moron makes that argument? If Germany found out that the Allies broke Enigma, World War 2 likely would have gone their way.
I think you're bluffing.
Because he's a moral fraud. And gun control has nothing to do with D&D or violence prevention for that matter.
Who else would you use that can see the secret information to determine if the warrant should be given?
Myself, for starters. If it can't be revealed to the public at all, it's not a legal warrant in my view.
So, stop doing the job that they are asked to do by the government? The NSA is a spying agency, sorry to burst your bubble.
Of course. Stop the job and maybe put a few people in prison after a public trial, of course.
No whistleblower has ever been harmed by the NSA. Disclosing secret and top secret information to foreign governments is not whistleblowing, it is treason. Snowden chose not to blow the whistle and instead commit treason, he is being charged with the crimes he committed.
Fuck you. This lie keeps going. You don't like how Snowden treated the NSA, then don't let the NSA treat whistleblowers like traitors.
If Snowden wanted to be a whistleblower, he should have taken his concerns to congress, not foreign governments.
His way worked. Your way didn't.
The slashdotter above us, hcs_$reboot, actually recognizes that the Japanese aren't very keen on planning for the future ("Don't look at the past, don't try to anticipate the future"). I supplied further evidence in how their government is more concerned with chasing after naught bits.
There's a difference between not wanting something and being unable, here due to incompetence at the societal level, to get something. That's the core distinction at the heart of the idea of sour grapes. Here, both you and hcs_$reboot assume that Japan and its citizens want the current state of affairs rather than try for something better. But from the article, the current state of affairs is pretty nasty: work long hours and get about half as much done in that time as a US worker could. Does anyone here really think the Japanese like to work about as hard as a US worker does and only get half as much done?
I don't think Japan wants this even a little bit. But they got caught in a trap of their own making with poor productivity, eye-popping debt loads both private and public, a destructive subsidized postal savings system, and a complete derailment of the strategy that made them a major industrial power in the first place. It's 25 years of slow decline.
I think this wouldn't have happened, if the grown ups who had built up the Japanese miracle were still in charge. They were used to making tough choices and rebuilding a country from rubble. But those guys died off long ago and now, it's the children in charge.
So who are these ideologically bound slashdotters you are speaking of who are calling sour grapes?
First, anyone who assumes Japan wants the current situation. Then there are people who assume that either this state of affairs won't hurt global competitiveness (which seems wrong) or global competitiveness just isn't that important (classic developed world whistling past the graveyard which has been wrong for 60 years and counting), both exhibited in the thread I linked.
Reality can't either.
I don't know for sure since there is always room for weird situations, but that is what they wrote. And we generally assume people mean what they say or write.
He's a traitor, not a whistleblower.
Fuck you.
Dude, I work in civilian intelligence, and I worked in military intelligence for years before that.
So you don't have any relevant experience with the parts of the NSA that are alleged to be out of control.
Anybody who has worked in government intelligence can tell you their internal accountability system is strong
They can also tell me that it is weak. Snowden incidentally told me that.
they are very strict about following all applicable laws and the constitution in any situation where U.S. citizens could be collected on.
An assertion which seems to be at odds with actual evidence.
Sorry, you're right. I didn't look at the numbers right.
In actuality, these organizations are staffed and run by thousands of average Americans who like freedom and our way of life, and aren't going to violate these principles.
Sorry, we aren't dupes. If these organizations want to be treated with respect, then they should stop violating laws and subverting the constitution, stop with the secret courts, the universal spying, the undermining of the US high tech industry, and the harsh punishment of whistleblowers.
In fact, they are doing things that are the opposite of fixes. For example, a few years back they pass a law to regulate (read: ban) certain naughty picture books in Tokyo. The social conservatives must've thought if the kids didn't have p0rn they might go date real girls and find real jobs (their part time job that sustains their hobby doesn't count!). Joke's on them as p0rn has always been with us and the kids will find them nonetheless (have they heard of the Internet?), and the ban simply hurt their economy by hurting the publishers and artists, the people who had those "real" jobs.
I think such things are a good indication of who really plans for the future. Here, we have 25 years of economic stagnation and a government obsessing over naughty bits rather than fixing big problems.
Meanwhile we have a bunch of ideologically bound slashdotters going sour grapes over Japan's economic situation. If their beliefs resulted in economic bounty in Jaoan, you can bet they'd be bragging about it. But since it doesn't, they're speaking of the lack of need for doing useful work or having a viable economy. I don't have respect for people who ignore awful consequences of their beliefs.
I suspect the Japanese view their economy and birth rate similar to how you view climate change.
And since you mentioned it (and since I feel like, once again, rubbing peoples' noses in the problems they create), let's consider the "opposite of fixes" in climate change. For example, Germany and Denmark have doubled the price of their electricity without making a credible or measurable change to humanity's impact on climate. This is the myopic foresight of the people who believe climate change is a big deal.
Meanwhile my suggestion to do nothing for a few decades will do more to help fix climate change by making humanity wealthier (and as a result, less fertile, more caring about the environment, and more capable of doing something effective about climate change). It's like a cruel parody of an enviroflick movie where the roles are reversed, the cigar-smoking, greedy businessman is helping the environment while the do gooder, hippie hero is unintentionally killing off the wildlife.
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.
Looks to me like Snowden found a better way than your approach.
Until you find the spindizzies that are pushing the gas giants around, you have the problem of not having a mechanism by which planets can move in the way you suggest and result in the nearly circular orbits of the gas giants today. Nor is there enough mass in the Asteroid Belt to account for your "gap" discussion (the current mass of the asteroid belt is less than a tenth that of Io (3*10^21 kg versus 8*10^22 kg), the smallest of the four major moons of Jupiter).
Jupiter has 90% of all non-Sun mass in the Solar System. There is nothing in the Solar System capable of capturing Jupiter, unless there was already one or more Jupiter mass objects present which were flung out as Jupiter came it. And circularizing all the orbits of the gas giants, given such mass exchanges with other star systems, would require vast amounts of time or intelligent interference (like the spindizzy engine), neither which is evident.
Gravity doesn't work this way. You need a mechanism that would explain this process.
How would living in a cave eating grass pollute the earth more than our current lifestyles? Please explain this to me, if you can do that, I'll subscribe to your newsletter.
Here goes:
1) Several billion caves need to be dug out.
2) Seven billion people are now dumping untreated human waste somewhere.
3) Seven billion people are cheating on their grass diet and using more land for food than current (because single family plots is grossly inefficient for food production).
On the plus side, when most of humanity dies-off, it'll be a much lower environmental footprint for whatever survives (which probably won't be most large animals).
But actually Japanese like to maintain and nourish the present state.
Sure, they do. While things have been worse in living memory, you have to wonder how everyone takes the economic stagnation of the past 25 years and the aging of modern Japanese society? Is everyone "we didn't need that leading first world society anyway" like some of the posters on Slashdot insist or are some of them a bit concerned about the way things are heading?
Don't look at the past, don't try to anticipate the future.
Which is nice when anticipating the future doesn't have any value. When it matters a lot, well, you need a better approach.
Here, expedient translates to "possible versus impossible". Plus, it is right for the offending party that deliberately engages in defamation to be punished for the speech in question.
The brush came from the ground.
Not true, the carbon came from the atmosphere originally.
The uncontrolled, large area brush fires came from misguided environmental policies, which prevent the clearing of "natural brush" and the creation of fire breaks. The resulting fires are called "fire use" or "let burn" fires. It came out of some misguided philosophies from the 1960's and 1970's. It was first instituted by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) in 1968.
The US NPS is not responsible for brush fires in Africa. Further, "fire use" and "let burn" fires have the effect of clearing "natural brush" and creating natural fire breaks. That's the opposite of your claim above.
The problem with out of control fires has never been allowing natural burning of forest, but rather the aggressive stamping out of wildfires common to many parts of the world in the 20th Century, particularly the first half of the century. That's what led to the build up in brush undergrowth and other fuels for wildfires.
But this issues is completely irrelevant to CO2 build up in the atmosphere. When bush burns, it eventually grows back, taking in carbon from the atmosphere and soil (the latter which also ultimately came from the atmosphere).
What I'm saying is that the speech doesn't do anything. The action comes from the listener. That is where to attack the problem.
That just doesn't work. It's vastly easier to deal with speech which is deliberate defamation (even when it comes to anonymous speech) than it is to fix a huge population of clueless listeners and gossips.
You are completely missing the part about "authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law". A union (at the vast majority which are legally recognized) happens to be a group of people with that property and hence, are a corporation - by definition.
Well, if it's defamation, don't believe it.
Make people do that.
Why? It's clearly defamation by the US standard.