The trick will be getting the Russians and the Chinese to sign on
But is it really? As a general proposition, any society sufficiently advanced to have decent ASW is almost certainly heavily reliant on satellites for everyday living. This is not a can of worms they want to open up.
Stepping back for a moment, a world without satellites is called the 1930s. An orbit full of space junk from smashed satellites is called the 1930's for a very long time to come. In a world of 6 billion people it is not a future any country would want to seriously contemplate as any form of "victory".
You guys don't even put up the pretense of sanity anymore, huh?
Shame has no meaning for sociopaths like the Bushies and the "we just close ranks and follow orders" Republican Congress. At least there is a chance with the Democrats.
What if he does? How long before "certain elements" of the media and body politic start accusing him of treason for how it was acquired or the fact that he released it?
A fictional character in a fictional world. Really, is it appropriate in 2009, of all times, to be promoting the Masters of the Universe archetype? It is largely these self-proclaimed Supermen who got us into this state of affairs. Enough with the ridiculous hero worship.
the last 16 years of Clinton/Bush subpoenas and evidence gathering did little more than to undermine the power of the Presidency relative to the Congress, and right now, the Congress is completely out of control.
Forget about the Blackberry/phone stuff, what parallel universe did you just jet in from?
The bottom line is, Dick Cheney is right. The Presidency needs to be more powerful relative to the Congress,
Yeah, screw that whole balance of power thing the founders set up. It's inconvenient.
The government doesn't fear the people because the people are all idiots. They vote based on what the government will "give" them. The only thing they fear is losing their government checks.
What does this post even mean and what does it have to do with the issue on hand?
Are you seriously arguing that the American people have been bought off by Social Security, Medicare and home interest deductions? This is why they are seemingly so willing to give up their rights?
Or maybe you mean the poor and the immigrants? You know, the ones most likely to take it on the chin on a daily basis from a budding police state?
The weakest, most underfunded do-nothing government in the world can crush you like a bug if it feels like it. (See Zimbabwe.) They don't need to buy people off.
People may vote like idiots but the reasons are a hell of a lot more complicated than government checks.
the simple transcript is of greater informational value
I can't help but feel that you are arguing for another Dark Age. Very few people will ever read the Congressional Record or watch the local city council on the cable access stations. Without reporters to dig out the important information, provide relevant background, explain otherwise dry material, investigate the players and then publicize it all, effectively no one will any information at all. Truly a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water simply because of some (probably incorrectly) perceived biases of reporters.
A much better approach would be to argue for more reporters, not less. It might be frustrating to get multiple interpretations of the elephant but that is far better than ignoring that it is in the room.
I am sorry but the whole biased reporter conspiracy is stale. The primary deficit of reporters is not biases but their human frailties. What you perceive as bias has little to do with ideology and far more to do with fatigue, laziness, stretched organizational budgets, contracted time lines, and corporate dictates. However flawed at times, on the whole they do a credible job. That will become obvious as more of them disappear from the profession.
That's still no excuse for a single story to fail so blatantly in providing adequate context.
What context? If I read an article on how to use SSL sockets it's not necessary to explain the entire design of an IP stack in the same article. It's fair for the author to focus on a narrow item and assume the reader will pursue further knowledge on his own if required. I didn't read the Times article in question but why is it necessary to regurgitate every factor involved in the mortgage crisis (including the proverbial butterfly in Japan flapping its wings) just to explain GWB's role in the mess?
I'm not saying that the NY Times (or old media in general) doesn't have a useful role to play, but if you think it's the role of impartial presenter of facts, that horse has already left the barn...
I am not a Time's worshiper by any means but why is that people insist on measuring it against some Platonic ideal? It is a fine publication to which on any given day there aren't 5 papers in the country putting out comparably complete coverage. It is isn't perfect. Agreed. Who is? But at least they endeavor to put out a quality product every day.
The question at hand is not about the auto or financial bailouts. The example proffered could have been any issue. The point being debated is whether simply publishing the minutes of a public meeting constitutes reportage. Since none of the things you mention would have been in those minutes you seem to agree that they are inadequate on their own.
When you read the NY Times once a month maybe you could get that impression. A simple search would show that they have covered the other 5 aspects numerous times.
That Indian webcam parrot isn't gonna have to explain himself in the hallways, or over drinks at the local watering hole, thus can be legitimately more objective.
There is a difference between reporting and stenography.
This system adds no value. Even if people had the time to watch the House and Senate in session all day, it would provide very few and only the most superficial and unimportant facts of a story. Some outsourced entity simply summarizing the activity just gives me a condensed version of the unimportant.
Real reporting involves digging up the story below the surface. C-SPAN can show people the southern Republican senators pious "free market" words on a Detroit bailout but without knowing how deeply their hands are in Toyota's, Honda's, etc., pockets you have just consumed so much hot air.
Keep in mind that Felt was up to his NECK in Nixon's illegal surveillance program
True enough. My point is not to elevate Felt to sainthood but defend his method of exposure in this case.
We see this theme of working inside/outside the system played out continuously. It is nice to think we can always work within it but reality shows this is just not so. The importance of the debate becomes more crucial as the system wraps itself in more and more layers of Patriot, National Security and Official Secrets Acts.
The right thing isn't to go outside the business/government process.
Nonsense, both in general and this specific case.
The "process" in this case was blocked and corrupted from multiple angles. The Attorney General (John Mitchell) was involved in the original crimes. His replacement, Eliot Richardson, was fired in the Saturday Night Massacre along with the special prosecutor and others. It was later shown that the CIA, FBI, etc., all had elements participating in the crimes or cover up.
Working within the system Felt would not have been any more effective than anyone else. Yes, like Richardson et.al. he could have taken a stand and been shoved aside or fired. And effectively silenced because he didn't have any specific evidence himself but merely the knowledge of where to point the investigation. He would have been a small part of a 3 day news cycle and the Nixon gang might well have gotten away with it.
Going outside the system was precisely the right thing to do, arguably the only thing available to him. Even so, if it weren't for a rather unique group of people at the Washington Post it might not have had anymore success than working inside the system. One only wished the NY Times had such guts with the illegal wiretapping information instead of sitting on it for a year.
The business/governmental "process" only works when there are people of integrity involved. When those people, like Nixon, Bush, Enron, Countrywide, etc., are up to eyeballs in the crime the "process" is nothing more than convenient choke points to stop the truth from getting out.
You'll be able to pick up very good, experienced developers for half, maybe a third of their current salaries.
It's not as if software development exists in isolation from the rest of the economy. If SE salaries dropped to 1/2 or 1/3 of current levels it is almost certainly the case that virtually every other profession would have as well. In that case employers should be less concerned about buying computer hardware than loading up on armaments since there would be a full-blown revolution and complete social chaos taking place.
Its more a symbiotic like relationship, where media and governments both feed us with the same stories, for their own gain.
You are missing an important actor - the corporations, mostly defense contractors, who supply the products, offensive and defensive, in the "war". It's not so much the government directly manipulating the media as it is the corporations with the government contracts. They have every incentive and the public relations expertise to exaggerate the situation.
The feedback loop goes something more like (1) gov hands out some limited contracts; (2) contractors stoke the media; (3) media scares the public; (4) public demands more protection from the government; (5) government expands contracts. And away we go...usually without anyone seriously questioning whether the situation justifies any of it. If the ball gets rolling fast enough it doesn't matter. There are now jobs, votes, etc., to be protected.
This is not to say cyber threats aren't real. They are, and deserve concern and funding. We need to remember, however, that as we disengage from the real (i.e. shooting) wars, a lot of Beltway Bandits are going to be looking for their next feeding ground. There is a lot of money to be made in hyping a Cyberwar.
Slashdot Mirror
The trick will be getting the Russians and the Chinese to sign on
But is it really? As a general proposition, any society sufficiently advanced to have decent ASW is almost certainly heavily reliant on satellites for everyday living. This is not a can of worms they want to open up.
Stepping back for a moment, a world without satellites is called the 1930s. An orbit full of space junk from smashed satellites is called the 1930's for a very long time to come. In a world of 6 billion people it is not a future any country would want to seriously contemplate as any form of "victory".
U.S.: responds to first strike and rains down 1,400 nuclear warheads on China
One good hit on the Three Gorges Dam would probably suffice.
Let's hope there is sufficient deterrence value for all sides not to go down that road.
You guys don't even put up the pretense of sanity anymore, huh?
Shame has no meaning for sociopaths like the Bushies and the "we just close ranks and follow orders" Republican Congress. At least there is a chance with the Democrats.
It's only treason if it's true.
In other words, "you were right, go directly to jail, do not pass Go."
Seems to me he is playing his best card by stirring things up and trying to shame Congress and the administration into doing their jobs.
Does he have any hard evidence
What if he does? How long before "certain elements" of the media and body politic start accusing him of treason for how it was acquired or the fact that he released it?
CEO's are just part of the same thought elite recycling old ideas
Worse. Letting Scott McNealy lead an open source initiative is like putting the CEO of United Fruit Company in charge of campesino agrarian reform.
Who is John Galt?
A fictional character in a fictional world. Really, is it appropriate in 2009, of all times, to be promoting the Masters of the Universe archetype? It is largely these self-proclaimed Supermen who got us into this state of affairs. Enough with the ridiculous hero worship.
Heh. Where do you nutcases come from, anyway?
Fox News: Will manufacture enemies for food and viewers.
Maybe the hackers are hiring? (No polygraph or pee tests required.)
Does this make it less likely that my headphone wires won't automatically seek to form the most complex DNA strands in the universe?
If you have VOIP, don't set your kitchen on fire during high congestion periods. Please people, a little take a little personal responsibility.
a republican doesnt like foreigners. sounds normal to me.
Or more surprisingly, a Republican who likes American workers? Wall Street must really be broke if they are slumming like this.
the last 16 years of Clinton/Bush subpoenas and evidence gathering did little more than to undermine the power of the Presidency relative to the Congress, and right now, the Congress is completely out of control.
Forget about the Blackberry/phone stuff, what parallel universe did you just jet in from?
The bottom line is, Dick Cheney is right. The Presidency needs to be more powerful relative to the Congress,
Yeah, screw that whole balance of power thing the founders set up. It's inconvenient.
The government doesn't fear the people because the people are all idiots. They vote based on what the government will "give" them. The only thing they fear is losing their government checks.
What does this post even mean and what does it have to do with the issue on hand?
Are you seriously arguing that the American people have been bought off by Social Security, Medicare and home interest deductions? This is why they are seemingly so willing to give up their rights?
Or maybe you mean the poor and the immigrants? You know, the ones most likely to take it on the chin on a daily basis from a budding police state?
The weakest, most underfunded do-nothing government in the world can crush you like a bug if it feels like it. (See Zimbabwe.) They don't need to buy people off.
People may vote like idiots but the reasons are a hell of a lot more complicated than government checks.
Journalism is not about reporting the truth, it is about contributing to and competing in an advertising and entertainment industry.
Your observations are valid but incorrectly attributed. You are confusing journalism with publishing.
there will be an immense disruption of the electrical and telecommunications grid, immense expense from ash damage and removal
Now that's what I call a shovel-ready WPA project!
the simple transcript is of greater informational value
I can't help but feel that you are arguing for another Dark Age. Very few people will ever read the Congressional Record or watch the local city council on the cable access stations. Without reporters to dig out the important information, provide relevant background, explain otherwise dry material, investigate the players and then publicize it all, effectively no one will any information at all. Truly a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water simply because of some (probably incorrectly) perceived biases of reporters.
A much better approach would be to argue for more reporters, not less. It might be frustrating to get multiple interpretations of the elephant but that is far better than ignoring that it is in the room.
I am sorry but the whole biased reporter conspiracy is stale. The primary deficit of reporters is not biases but their human frailties. What you perceive as bias has little to do with ideology and far more to do with fatigue, laziness, stretched organizational budgets, contracted time lines, and corporate dictates. However flawed at times, on the whole they do a credible job. That will become obvious as more of them disappear from the profession.
That's still no excuse for a single story to fail so blatantly in providing adequate context.
What context? If I read an article on how to use SSL sockets it's not necessary to explain the entire design of an IP stack in the same article. It's fair for the author to focus on a narrow item and assume the reader will pursue further knowledge on his own if required. I didn't read the Times article in question but why is it necessary to regurgitate every factor involved in the mortgage crisis (including the proverbial butterfly in Japan flapping its wings) just to explain GWB's role in the mess?
I'm not saying that the NY Times (or old media in general) doesn't have a useful role to play, but if you think it's the role of impartial presenter of facts, that horse has already left the barn...
I am not a Time's worshiper by any means but why is that people insist on measuring it against some Platonic ideal? It is a fine publication to which on any given day there aren't 5 papers in the country putting out comparably complete coverage. It is isn't perfect. Agreed. Who is? But at least they endeavor to put out a quality product every day.
Why didn't your "reporting" mention those facts?
I believe you are making my point.
The question at hand is not about the auto or financial bailouts. The example proffered could have been any issue. The point being debated is whether simply publishing the minutes of a public meeting constitutes reportage. Since none of the things you mention would have been in those minutes you seem to agree that they are inadequate on their own.
When you read the NY Times once a month maybe you could get that impression. A simple search would show that they have covered the other 5 aspects numerous times.
That Indian webcam parrot isn't gonna have to explain himself in the hallways, or over drinks at the local watering hole, thus can be legitimately more objective.
There is a difference between reporting and stenography.
This system adds no value. Even if people had the time to watch the House and Senate in session all day, it would provide very few and only the most superficial and unimportant facts of a story. Some outsourced entity simply summarizing the activity just gives me a condensed version of the unimportant.
Real reporting involves digging up the story below the surface. C-SPAN can show people the southern Republican senators pious "free market" words on a Detroit bailout but without knowing how deeply their hands are in Toyota's, Honda's, etc., pockets you have just consumed so much hot air.
Keep in mind that Felt was up to his NECK in Nixon's illegal surveillance program
True enough. My point is not to elevate Felt to sainthood but defend his method of exposure in this case.
We see this theme of working inside/outside the system played out continuously. It is nice to think we can always work within it but reality shows this is just not so. The importance of the debate becomes more crucial as the system wraps itself in more and more layers of Patriot, National Security and Official Secrets Acts.
The right thing isn't to go outside the business/government process.
Nonsense, both in general and this specific case.
The "process" in this case was blocked and corrupted from multiple angles. The Attorney General (John Mitchell) was involved in the original crimes. His replacement, Eliot Richardson, was fired in the Saturday Night Massacre along with the special prosecutor and others. It was later shown that the CIA, FBI, etc., all had elements participating in the crimes or cover up.
Working within the system Felt would not have been any more effective than anyone else. Yes, like Richardson et.al. he could have taken a stand and been shoved aside or fired. And effectively silenced because he didn't have any specific evidence himself but merely the knowledge of where to point the investigation. He would have been a small part of a 3 day news cycle and the Nixon gang might well have gotten away with it.
Going outside the system was precisely the right thing to do, arguably the only thing available to him. Even so, if it weren't for a rather unique group of people at the Washington Post it might not have had anymore success than working inside the system. One only wished the NY Times had such guts with the illegal wiretapping information instead of sitting on it for a year.
The business/governmental "process" only works when there are people of integrity involved. When those people, like Nixon, Bush, Enron, Countrywide, etc., are up to eyeballs in the crime the "process" is nothing more than convenient choke points to stop the truth from getting out.
You'll be able to pick up very good, experienced developers for half, maybe a third of their current salaries.
It's not as if software development exists in isolation from the rest of the economy. If SE salaries dropped to 1/2 or 1/3 of current levels it is almost certainly the case that virtually every other profession would have as well. In that case employers should be less concerned about buying computer hardware than loading up on armaments since there would be a full-blown revolution and complete social chaos taking place.
Its more a symbiotic like relationship, where media and governments both feed us with the same stories, for their own gain.
You are missing an important actor - the corporations, mostly defense contractors, who supply the products, offensive and defensive, in the "war". It's not so much the government directly manipulating the media as it is the corporations with the government contracts. They have every incentive and the public relations expertise to exaggerate the situation.
The feedback loop goes something more like (1) gov hands out some limited contracts; (2) contractors stoke the media; (3) media scares the public; (4) public demands more protection from the government; (5) government expands contracts. And away we go...usually without anyone seriously questioning whether the situation justifies any of it. If the ball gets rolling fast enough it doesn't matter. There are now jobs, votes, etc., to be protected.
This is not to say cyber threats aren't real. They are, and deserve concern and funding. We need to remember, however, that as we disengage from the real (i.e. shooting) wars, a lot of Beltway Bandits are going to be looking for their next feeding ground. There is a lot of money to be made in hyping a Cyberwar.