Espionage is neither the cause of or a prevent er of wars. Its all about the people in charge's reaction to it and the other tactical realities of the situation.
Its just a tool in the toolbox of statecraft. Sometime its the right one to use other times its the case of I have such a large NSA hammer the screws are starting to look nail like. Spying on the UN is probably one of those cases.
Its not like a UN ambassador is going to be privy to your secret weapons program or plan to economically undermine the dollar or whatever. What can be learned listing in on diplomatic conversations to the UN is probably of much less value than degree to which its eventual revelation will undermine the UNs mission and value; at lets face it the UN was terribly ineffective already. This just makes it that much more of joke and certainly is against the spirit of international cooperation.
I like how we are told by every government mouth piece how much harm these revelations by snowden, manning and fisa declassifications are doing to there anti terror intelligence work, but were willing to risk exposing it for copyright infirgment. Kinda cuts right through their bullshit about this being for the public good.
Exempt it expired during his term and he signed the renewal into law. What now are you going to claim the senate could have found the votes to over ride a veto if he had said before hand that was his intent, you really think his own party would do that to him?
You are just an Obama apologist pure and simple, 6 years in he owns this, no matter wether it started under Bush or FDR for that matter
-He thinks he can get away with because external diplomatic issues will prevent anyone else from doing anything. (I tend to think he would/will be correct in that assessment, its been an on going humanitarian crisis for two years and squabbles between US, Russia, China, and other middle eastern powers have effectively stayed the hands of the interventionists so far)
-He thinks not being an major oil exporter nobody will care.
-He thinks the interventionists are worn out from their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan
-He thinks the current pols feel they dogged a bullet in Libya and don't think they can keep the media going along with pretending that intervention has not make things worse for the average Libyan and the region less secure; if the propose going into Syria seriously.
If that is true, and there are arguments on both sides. Then I would still argue its not Manning who is to blame.
I can't thank of any legitimate reason, none, that a representative government should be conducting diplomatic negotiations in secret!
The public has a right to know EXACTLY what agreements our government is making with any others, full stop. Because lets face it if we can't know what is being discusses is probably illegal, immoral, or otherwise socially unacceptable to our society. As to all the spying and espionage; Why does everyone else in the world seem to resent our nation today? Might it have something to do with the fact we have become the bogey man lurking in every shadow waiting to topple their freely elected government; muck around in their private affairs, drone strike their children etc.
All the secrecy is not protecting our national security; very much the opposite, its turning us into the pariah that makes us a terror target in the first place. It makes our public feel like they don't have a voice, breaking down society. It harms faith in government, also breaking down society. It makes informed voting impossible, so we don't elect the best leadership. Instead of the government helping discover and disclose vulns in software and network systems to keep our industry safe, it causes them to remain hidden. I could go on and on.
I could say your position is just as a narcissistic, you are so afraid that you our someone you know will be a victim in one of those bombings you don't care about the consequences to the freedom of everyone else.
Will I feel bad when innocents are killed, for my views no, they people responsible for their deaths are the people with the bombs and nobody else. For their families yes Ill have empathy.
Put it out there, let some people get outed and killed, they are collaborator scum anyway. Sure it sounds harsh and it is, but until the security apparatus suffers some major political damage and loses some people they think of as friends they will never appreciate the harm all there secrets are doing. They have proven this over and over again.
I think you could make the argument its not to often, provided its sufficiently light weight. If the thing is able to start up do a quick http request to fetch the latest version number and die, if its unchanged what is the big deal. On the flip side browsers often hold lots of personal information and spend all of their time rendering untrusted documents; making them huge malware targets.
You can take the value proposition away from the malware writes somewhat if you can at least make it also true the vast vast majority of the installed base will patched in a short time window, hours not days.
I don't agree, public health care is not the drug a users fault, if you refuse to allow him or her to die because you and the rest of society feel bad for them instead of leaving the to suffer the consequences of their choices, well that's your choice. The drug abuser has now power over you to demand anything the harm comes from your actions not theirs. The argument society is harmed by the loss of a worker is silly, there are already to many humans on the planet there are plenty of unemployed folks who could be productive, actually the rest if us probably stand to gain in terms I'd decreased carbon footprint from every suicide, drug overdoses, and liver failure.
Which is why public healthcare is by its very nature unethical it effectively demands charity from others at gun point.
How much of the plunge was due to lack of search / app availability vs third party pages not loading properly do to analytics and other google dependencies?
I hope Michael Grunwald gets to live a world someday where people cheer at firebombing people for non violent crimes they've not even been convicted of. I just hope I don't have to share it with him.
More proof the government is always harmful. So the idea started out, hey lets make student loans so people without financial resources can go to college! The private sector does not make such loans because lets face people with no assets and mostly no credit history are no credit worthy. You need at least one of those things nominally. The private sector is right about this default rate on such loans would be so high as to make rates unfordable; there is no market.
So along comes government which can make it impossible to discharge the debt to offer loans. Sounds okay, but now you got all kinds of money running around being directed in terms of spending by people ( the young students ) who don't appreciate how hard $20K really is to come by for most us and is likely to be in their future. What they know is they don't have to think about it right now; so what does another few hundred dollars a semester matter they will likely decide.
So the schools start competing on well anything because more students is more dollars. If you are a for profit the motive is obvious, if you are non profit you reinvest get bigger and more prestigious. Ego wins every time. Rooms get bigger, mess halls get Michelin ratings, etc. The system evolves to suck up all the money.
Because college is "Accessible", though still not really "affordable" to everyone a degree becomes a requirement to sweep the floors or sell cars, so everyone must get one or be forever marginalized.
Leaving students to spend their entire young lives, and most productive periods in debt services rather than grown their personal wealth, and be forever marginalized. Why? because dear old Uncle Sam decided to muck around where he does not belong.
Its almost like someone *wants* everyone in debt...
Let me guess you work for a three letter agency, that reasoning is utter tucking bullshit. The real reason these programs are classified is the military industrial complex has to much influence. American business would never have been harmed by these programs if they'd been implemented after an open public debate, the protest against then would have made SOPA and PIPA resestance look like nothing.
Joe Six Pack might get DRM and the finer points of copyright law, but he understands we are going to read you email and tap your phone just fine. There are two things that are going on here now, one it's already there so people don't feel like they can do anything about it, and two you can see people don't feel they have a voice just reading comments here on slashdot.
They feel that way because they don't. It's time we wake up to the fact you can't have a representative democracy if you let your representatives have secret meetings all day.
right smack in the middle of the ol' One Man, One Vote, One Time deal.
I agree that might very well have been the way things shook out. Still I think Egyptian's who are truly interested in democracy really needed to at least give going thru the next election cycle a try.
Because now NOTHING will convince the Islamic theocracy backers fair elections and an open society can work. In fact there is virtually no incentive for them to try violence first. The narrative for them will now and for at least the next generation or two be that democracy is a fraud, the infidel uses to keep them out of power.
Going virtual makes everything easier not harder. You have to be a very small shop before the costs out weigh the gains. The first time you really have to worry about uptime, backups ( that you actually test ), unanticipated needs of disparate project teams, or disaster recovery; you will find your private cloud makes it all virtually push button. If that sounds like marketing babble suit yourself, but I have seen multiple shops transform form the mix of single servers and standalone vm hosts to more integrated farm solutions from VMware, Citrix, and open source; and none of them regretted it.
I think the issue is not so much with these people having access to a better class of transportation than others, it more to do with the communing period and how easy it is. When large cities have nobody living where they work, they become Detroit.
Regardless of whether its a big interstate artery, rail line, or buses; its a problem when people are into the office and strait back to suburbia. Sure you have some big business downtown contributing the tax base, but you don't get the personal income taxes, you don't get any contribution to retail business. You get nothing to support the street level life in the city, and no civic engagement from the professional class there.
All of what you say are policy positions though. Why have an elected government at all if its not empowered to disagree and ultimately direct its military generals. If the military is the ultimate decider of national policy than you have a oligarchy of military guys with a facade representative government.
A plurality of the population of Egypt elected Morsi, those people probably want a more hostile relationship with Israel and probably are more concerned with their state religion than with its impact on tourism. Its *reasonable* for Morsi to adopt policies considered favorable by his electorate.
If others don't like it they need to stick together and make sure Morsi and the brotherhood does not win a plurality of votes in subsequent elections. Its also incumbent upon them to demand stronger checks and balance be put in place, while they have power.
The problem is both are true. Morsi was the democratically elected leader, and he was setting if not himself up as a dictator permanent brotherhood rule.
Still unless someone can prove he violated Egypts new Constitution Morsi is the only legitimate leader of that nation. Its not know if Morsi's effort to marginalize opposition parties would have been effective enough to see him re-elected with a public wise to the danger/agenda he posed; it was however to duty of anyone who seriously wanted a democracy in Egypt to wait that long and find out.
This is sham; and long term I am confident it will prove harmful to reform. You can't have a democracy and a precedent for simply removing elected leaders when you are not satisfied with the outcome.
There are plenty of perfectly enforceable laws, and occasions where they are enforced, no problem there. The problem is some people and entities are apparently above or outside the law.
-he could selectively enforce immigration with no real legal backing
-he could create extensions and exemptions for NCLB requirements when the law has no such provisions
-he could simply not determine if a coup had taken place in Egypt so that he could continue sending your tax dollars to them in the form of tanks and planes they can't even use.
And those are just the big clear ones. This president makes a joke of law on a routine basis.
I was not suggesting; you are not still responsible for your actions. That coming from a tough neighborhood is some sorta excuse for criminal behavior or anything of the sort. I was merely sating that race is not a good predictor of criminality.
I am totally in favor of an increased police presence in high crime areas; If you are getting reports of crimes in a area constantly that would suggest criminals may be found there. What it does not suggest is that those criminals are all likely to have some common coloring; for reasons other than most of the people there have a common coloring to start out with.
If you go there and frisk every green guy that walks by you are doing it wrong; you should either frisk everyone, frisk every n passer by; or find a criteria that is actually predictive.
No not really it does not. Its also not even clear if its really happening. What neighbor you happen to live in probably has way more to do with you being a criminal or not than race; its also true that for historical reasons race might have indirectly determined your neighborhood. Many others of trotted out crime statistics from Chicago, MPLS, that make it appear certain groups commit any extremely large portion of crimes, but they are not controlling for any other factor. Its kinda like the old myth that red and black cars get the most speeding tickets, and then you discover well yea those are like the two most common colors on cars.
the American system is not designed to be the optimum system for incarcerating the guilty,
True it seems to now be simply optimized for incarcerating period, no guilt required.
designed to provide a maximum protection of rights to all citizens while making the minimum concessions necessary to keep law and order. One feature of the system is "innocent until proven guilty."
I'd love to see us to go back to that plan I really would.
And this applies to collection of evidence as well, i.e., a warrant based on some substantive reasons is required before searching my property; it can not be done as a matter of intuition and personal suspicion.
Unless its on the personal suspicion of someone at the NSA, or a substantive reason includes you went to kinder garden with someone who once spoke on the phone with someone from the middle east.
Slashdot Mirror
Espionage is neither the cause of or a prevent er of wars. Its all about the people in charge's reaction to it and the other tactical realities of the situation.
Its just a tool in the toolbox of statecraft. Sometime its the right one to use other times its the case of I have such a large NSA hammer the screws are starting to look nail like. Spying on the UN is probably one of those cases.
Its not like a UN ambassador is going to be privy to your secret weapons program or plan to economically undermine the dollar or whatever. What can be learned listing in on diplomatic conversations to the UN is probably of much less value than degree to which its eventual revelation will undermine the UNs mission and value; at lets face it the UN was terribly ineffective already. This just makes it that much more of joke and certainly is against the spirit of international cooperation.
Really is anyone surprised?
I like how we are told by every government mouth piece how much harm these revelations by snowden, manning and fisa declassifications are doing to there anti terror intelligence work, but were willing to risk exposing it for copyright infirgment. Kinda cuts right through their bullshit about this being for the public good.
Exempt it expired during his term and he signed the renewal into law. What now are you going to claim the senate could have found the votes to over ride a veto if he had said before hand that was his intent, you really think his own party would do that to him?
You are just an Obama apologist pure and simple, 6 years in he owns this, no matter wether it started under Bush or FDR for that matter
-He thinks he can get away with because external diplomatic issues will prevent anyone else from doing anything. (I tend to think he would/will be correct in that assessment, its been an on going humanitarian crisis for two years and squabbles between US, Russia, China, and other middle eastern powers have effectively stayed the hands of the interventionists so far)
-He thinks not being an major oil exporter nobody will care.
-He thinks the interventionists are worn out from their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan
-He thinks the current pols feel they dogged a bullet in Libya and don't think they can keep the media going along with pretending that intervention has not make things worse for the average Libyan and the region less secure; if the propose going into Syria seriously.
undermined serious diplomatic negotiations
If that is true, and there are arguments on both sides. Then I would still argue its not Manning who is to blame.
I can't thank of any legitimate reason, none, that a representative government should be conducting diplomatic negotiations in secret!
The public has a right to know EXACTLY what agreements our government is making with any others, full stop. Because lets face it if we can't know what is being discusses is probably illegal, immoral, or otherwise socially unacceptable to our society. As to all the spying and espionage; Why does everyone else in the world seem to resent our nation today? Might it have something to do with the fact we have become the bogey man lurking in every shadow waiting to topple their freely elected government; muck around in their private affairs, drone strike their children etc.
All the secrecy is not protecting our national security; very much the opposite, its turning us into the pariah that makes us a terror target in the first place. It makes our public feel like they don't have a voice, breaking down society. It harms faith in government, also breaking down society. It makes informed voting impossible, so we don't elect the best leadership. Instead of the government helping discover and disclose vulns in software and network systems to keep our industry safe, it causes them to remain hidden. I could go on and on.
I could say your position is just as a narcissistic, you are so afraid that you our someone you know will be a victim in one of those bombings you don't care about the consequences to the freedom of everyone else.
Will I feel bad when innocents are killed, for my views no, they people responsible for their deaths are the people with the bombs and nobody else. For their families yes Ill have empathy.
The updaters are stupid and wasteful, but if you are using the system schedualr, which is running anyway, I don't see a problem.
Put it out there, let some people get outed and killed, they are collaborator scum anyway. Sure it sounds harsh and it is, but until the security apparatus suffers some major political damage and loses some people they think of as friends they will never appreciate the harm all there secrets are doing. They have proven this over and over again.
I think you could make the argument its not to often, provided its sufficiently light weight. If the thing is able to start up do a quick http request to fetch the latest version number and die, if its unchanged what is the big deal. On the flip side browsers often hold lots of personal information and spend all of their time rendering untrusted documents; making them huge malware targets.
You can take the value proposition away from the malware writes somewhat if you can at least make it also true the vast vast majority of the installed base will patched in a short time window, hours not days.
I don't agree, public health care is not the drug a users fault, if you refuse to allow him or her to die because you and the rest of society feel bad for them instead of leaving the to suffer the consequences of their choices, well that's your choice. The drug abuser has now power over you to demand anything the harm comes from your actions not theirs. The argument society is harmed by the loss of a worker is silly, there are already to many humans on the planet there are plenty of unemployed folks who could be productive, actually the rest if us probably stand to gain in terms I'd decreased carbon footprint from every suicide, drug overdoses, and liver failure.
Which is why public healthcare is by its very nature unethical it effectively demands charity from others at gun point.
How much of the plunge was due to lack of search / app availability vs third party pages not loading properly do to analytics and other google dependencies?
I hope Michael Grunwald gets to live a world someday where people cheer at firebombing people for non violent crimes they've not even been convicted of. I just hope I don't have to share it with him.
More proof the government is always harmful. So the idea started out, hey lets make student loans so people without financial resources can go to college! The private sector does not make such loans because lets face people with no assets and mostly no credit history are no credit worthy. You need at least one of those things nominally. The private sector is right about this default rate on such loans would be so high as to make rates unfordable; there is no market.
So along comes government which can make it impossible to discharge the debt to offer loans. Sounds okay, but now you got all kinds of money running around being directed in terms of spending by people ( the young students ) who don't appreciate how hard $20K really is to come by for most us and is likely to be in their future. What they know is they don't have to think about it right now; so what does another few hundred dollars a semester matter they will likely decide.
So the schools start competing on well anything because more students is more dollars. If you are a for profit the motive is obvious, if you are non profit you reinvest get bigger and more prestigious. Ego wins every time. Rooms get bigger, mess halls get Michelin ratings, etc. The system evolves to suck up all the money.
Because college is "Accessible", though still not really "affordable" to everyone a degree becomes a requirement to sweep the floors or sell cars, so everyone must get one or be forever marginalized.
Leaving students to spend their entire young lives, and most productive periods in debt services rather than grown their personal wealth, and be forever marginalized. Why? because dear old Uncle Sam decided to muck around where he does not belong.
Its almost like someone *wants* everyone in debt...
Let me guess you work for a three letter agency, that reasoning is utter tucking bullshit. The real reason these programs are classified is the military industrial complex has to much influence. American business would never have been harmed by these programs if they'd been implemented after an open public debate, the protest against then would have made SOPA and PIPA resestance look like nothing.
Joe Six Pack might get DRM and the finer points of copyright law, but he understands we are going to read you email and tap your phone just fine. There are two things that are going on here now, one it's already there so people don't feel like they can do anything about it, and two you can see people don't feel they have a voice just reading comments here on slashdot.
They feel that way because they don't. It's time we wake up to the fact you can't have a representative democracy if you let your representatives have secret meetings all day.
right smack in the middle of the ol' One Man, One Vote, One Time deal.
I agree that might very well have been the way things shook out. Still I think Egyptian's who are truly interested in democracy really needed to at least give going thru the next election cycle a try.
Because now NOTHING will convince the Islamic theocracy backers fair elections and an open society can work. In fact there is virtually no incentive for them to try violence first. The narrative for them will now and for at least the next generation or two be that democracy is a fraud, the infidel uses to keep them out of power.
Going virtual makes everything easier not harder. You have to be a very small shop before the costs out weigh the gains. The first time you really have to worry about uptime, backups ( that you actually test ), unanticipated needs of disparate project teams, or disaster recovery; you will find your private cloud makes it all virtually push button. If that sounds like marketing babble suit yourself, but I have seen multiple shops transform form the mix of single servers and standalone vm hosts to more integrated farm solutions from VMware, Citrix, and open source; and none of them regretted it.
I think the issue is not so much with these people having access to a better class of transportation than others, it more to do with the communing period and how easy it is. When large cities have nobody living where they work, they become Detroit.
Regardless of whether its a big interstate artery, rail line, or buses; its a problem when people are into the office and strait back to suburbia. Sure you have some big business downtown contributing the tax base, but you don't get the personal income taxes, you don't get any contribution to retail business. You get nothing to support the street level life in the city, and no civic engagement from the professional class there.
All of what you say are policy positions though. Why have an elected government at all if its not empowered to disagree and ultimately direct its military generals. If the military is the ultimate decider of national policy than you have a oligarchy of military guys with a facade representative government.
A plurality of the population of Egypt elected Morsi, those people probably want a more hostile relationship with Israel and probably are more concerned with their state religion than with its impact on tourism. Its *reasonable* for Morsi to adopt policies considered favorable by his electorate.
If others don't like it they need to stick together and make sure Morsi and the brotherhood does not win a plurality of votes in subsequent elections. Its also incumbent upon them to demand stronger checks and balance be put in place, while they have power.
The problem is both are true. Morsi was the democratically elected leader, and he was setting if not himself up as a dictator permanent brotherhood rule.
Still unless someone can prove he violated Egypts new Constitution Morsi is the only legitimate leader of that nation. Its not know if Morsi's effort to marginalize opposition parties would have been effective enough to see him re-elected with a public wise to the danger/agenda he posed; it was however to duty of anyone who seriously wanted a democracy in Egypt to wait that long and find out.
This is sham; and long term I am confident it will prove harmful to reform. You can't have a democracy and a precedent for simply removing elected leaders when you are not satisfied with the outcome.
Because our government is run by thugs, and ruled with corruption of a kind that would make middle eastern leaders blush.
There are plenty of perfectly enforceable laws, and occasions where they are enforced, no problem there. The problem is some people and entities are apparently above or outside the law.
and he decided
-he could selectively enforce immigration with no real legal backing
-he could create extensions and exemptions for NCLB requirements when the law has no such provisions
-he could simply not determine if a coup had taken place in Egypt so that he could continue sending your tax dollars to them in the form of tanks and planes they can't even use.
And those are just the big clear ones. This president makes a joke of law on a routine basis.
I was not suggesting; you are not still responsible for your actions. That coming from a tough neighborhood is some sorta excuse for criminal behavior or anything of the sort. I was merely sating that race is not a good predictor of criminality.
I am totally in favor of an increased police presence in high crime areas; If you are getting reports of crimes in a area constantly that would suggest criminals may be found there. What it does not suggest is that those criminals are all likely to have some common coloring; for reasons other than most of the people there have a common coloring to start out with.
If you go there and frisk every green guy that walks by you are doing it wrong; you should either frisk everyone, frisk every n passer by; or find a criteria that is actually predictive.
Mathematically, it does make sense.
No not really it does not. Its also not even clear if its really happening. What neighbor you happen to live in probably has way more to do with you being a criminal or not than race; its also true that for historical reasons race might have indirectly determined your neighborhood. Many others of trotted out crime statistics from Chicago, MPLS, that make it appear certain groups commit any extremely large portion of crimes, but they are not controlling for any other factor. Its kinda like the old myth that red and black cars get the most speeding tickets, and then you discover well yea those are like the two most common colors on cars.
the American system is not designed to be the optimum system for incarcerating the guilty,
True it seems to now be simply optimized for incarcerating period, no guilt required.
designed to provide a maximum protection of rights to all citizens while making the minimum concessions necessary to keep law and order. One feature of the system is "innocent until proven guilty."
I'd love to see us to go back to that plan I really would.
And this applies to collection of evidence as well, i.e., a warrant based on some substantive reasons is required before searching my property; it can not be done as a matter of intuition and personal suspicion.
Unless its on the personal suspicion of someone at the NSA, or a substantive reason includes you went to kinder garden with someone who once spoke on the phone with someone from the middle east.