SMS verification is a form of 2fa. Not all 2fa is SMS based. In fact SMS is generally regarded as weakest and least desirable form of 2fa. TOTP is much better and can be done with a phone based client like Google's. I use a combination of TOTP, hardware token based 2fa depending on what the site supports. All sites should be prodded to support hardware token based 2fa.
Read about FIDO U2F to better inform yourself of the options that exist and where things should be heading.
This is of course all baseless theory since it has no grounding in fact.
If you where to create a simulation advanced enough to create sentient inhabitants (likely as a byproduct of it's full purpose) it stands to reason that it would be based off tech far in advanced to our own current levels. Even now we are working on developing systems that move beyond simple binary decision making. I would imagine the system having a rule keeping AI with the universal physic programed into it and allowing all other AI's in the environment to grow organically (so to speak).
As you said, assuming for a moment free will can and/or does exist it's entirely plausible under some theories of the universe that a middle ground could as well.
For instance some people now theorize the entire universe could be a giant computer simulation. In such an environment some decisions could be left to free will while others are hard coded (not that I actually believe we are all sims). We can theorize the purpose of such a system would be to ensure some specific conditions in the sim are met.
Even in a far more likely base organic reality it's feasible that some processes may be genetically hard coded into our actions while others are not.
I've given this matter a lot of thought and I believe what we see is the result of people generally being unable to accurately and easily understand complex issues outside their field of expertise. When this occurs it seems to be human nature to defer to a trusted authority when forming ones opinions.
We see this in all sorts of issues like climate change (I see it equally on both sides of the debate) where the majority of people are arguing from "facts" that are given to them instead any real understanding of the science. Their knowledge in the area is only deep enough to allow them to parse the opinions of the trusted authority.
For most of modern history the US government has been considered a defacto trusted authority on legal matters. When a congressman doesn't talk about an issue or just regurgitates some talking points their constituents take that as everything they need to know about the issue.
I think it's always been this way. The change has been in trustworthiness of our "Trusted Authorities" and the ease with which dissenting opinions can be presented with equal ease.
The reply wasn't in regards to the definition of fascism. You said that Hitler was the archetypal fascist. I explained to you why that is wrong. It doesn't matter how you define fascism Mussolini is the archetypal fascist.
On a side note I don't believe the party name of one of the three WWII axis powers is in any way shape or form archaic. Unless they don't teach WWII in history classes any more. Do you believe Nazi is archaic?
You realize Hitler literally wasn't a fascist. Hitler was a National Socialist and an Authoritarian. The term fascist comes from an Italian root word meaning a bundle of rods tied together. It was originally used by unions and trade associations in Italy to represent strength in numbers. Mussolini used the term and it's association with an ancient Roman symbol of rods tied around an axe in the founding of his Fascists party. All association of the word with authoritarianism and oppressive government come from him not Hitler. Mussolini is literally the archetypal fascist because he invented the term in it's current political connotation.
I was in third grade and we had a TV set up to watch the first teacher get launched into space. I had relatives working at NASA at the time and was obsessed with space so seeing it happen live in class was just that much more traumatic.
The two arguments couldn't be farther apart. The OP's statement is an action plan for dealing with the consequences of a potential leak of personal information, not an excuse of the perpetrators actions. The statement the "If you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" is a justification of the state sponsored invasion of privacy. It is by definition an excuse of the perpetrators action.
First remember that the constitution does not grant or restrict any rights. It places defined limits on (originally just) Federal power. It's been clear since at least the Dread Scott case that the SCOTUS considered the 2nd to be a personal right. They determined that one of the effects of granting Scott's petition would be to grant the baring of arms to the "negro" races. As to state laws, until the 14th the constitution was in general assumed only to apply to the federal government. The recent change has been a strong "gun rights" movement int his country taking state laws that are in violation of the 2nd to the SCOTUS. I fully expect the 1986 Hughes amendment to be on the chopping block soon. It is a clear violation in the same vein as the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 creating a defacto ban for the common person by restricting access to otherwise legal products.
By and large HIPAA is followed because not doing so would open a person up to losing their jobs, their medical license, and possibly being sued. Just because there are way's someone can violate the law anonymously doesn't invalidate the law. The important thing is that the consequences be so harsh the majority of people would never dare. The fact that some people may get away with it doesn't mean we shouldn't make an example of any one who gets caught it means we should make a bigger example of them.
There absolutely is. We currently do this with medical records and PII for example in the form of HIPAA. You create a classification for such data, lets call it Sensitive Classifiable Law Enforcement Intelligence or SCLEI. Next you make it illegal for any one with access to SCLEI to share such data in any circumstances not explicitly allowed for in the law. Now you simply ensure the law only allows for sharing SCLEI in the context of an (?international?) terrorism investigation and possibly exclude sharing in domestic criminal cases explicitly. You should also ensure embedded mechanisms for external over site and increased penalties for coverups of collusion. This may not be 100% effective but it would be every bit as constitutional under the First Amendment as HIPAA.
I am in no way defending the industry. My point was the way you casually dismissed the workers as if they could just walk out the door and magically find other jobs. If the only people you've worked with who where desperate enough to work these jobs are college students then consider yourself lucky to live in a well off area, by comparison anyway. Around here no has illusions about what kind of job telemarketing is and no one loves it but many consider it good employment. At least they used too, outsourcing has hurt the companies who used to be big employers here. What you have to realize is the reason those folks in MO and GA are so desperate for your low paying unskilled jobs is because there is no "other low-paying exploitative industry looking for unskilled labor would fill the gap". I'm lucky to be a skilled IT worker with a good job in a reputable industry but I know many good and decent people who simply have no other options. The fact is in a lot of this country there are simply no jobs and people without training, skills, education, or money can't just pick up and move in hopes of finding work elsewhere.
I was torn between responding to you and moderating you down. The idea that telemarketers don't care about their jobs is one of the most arrogant and classicists things I have read in a long time. My area is very poor and unless you both have a collage degree and are lucky enough for it to be in a field that's currently hiring your options around here are work fast food, work in the mines, or work for a telemarketer. While it does attract young people and college students a lot of those folks are single mothers trying to support their family. If you really believe that single mother doesn't care if her job exist you've been living in some sort of dream land.
... I would love to be like Lazerus Long and live to be 4000 yrs old. Maybe someday we all will.
Wait, you want to go back in time and fall in love with your Mom and then travel back to the future where you can make two female clones of yourself and fall in love with them. I'd be posting as an AC also if I was you! LOL
I'm not sure if I would vote for Rand Paul. There are certainly issues I disagree with him on. You on the other hand seem to have no grasp of nuance in complex issues. You try to flatten and simplify every quote into it's most meaningless talking point and then twist it to fit your narrative.
You do realize most of those "flip flop" issues are just nuanced positions on complex issues, right? Just for brevity I've picked out two of the "flip flop" issues you alluded to. Lets address the "drone" statements first.
Paul's first statement was in regards to the use of drones in anti-terror operations and the fear at that time they could begin being used against Americans on American soil without due process. Pauls second statement was addressing the use of drones by civilian police against active, direct, and immediate criminal threats. As to the third statement, drones are not inherently military equipment and the militarization of the police force is a wholly separate issue from their use of drones.
Now lets look at the "Israel" issue. Paul is a supporter of eliminating all foreing aid. One of his ideas I don't support by the way. The followup question three years later is asked in the context of eliminating aid to Israel specifically. In this situation Paul is obviously pointing out that he has no desire to target Israel explicitly for removal of foreign aid.
Unless your interviewing for a job with Fox News twisting these nuances to fit your predisposed ideas about what "The other side" is thinking only weakens political discourse in the long run.
You've made a basic error in your argument. Your are confusing social liberals with social progressives. Specifically right leaning social progressives. One can be fiscally conservative (believing that we should limit and control increases in spending) but socially liberal (believing that we should not limit individual liberty beyond the limits of absolute necessity). As one example moderate libertarians who don't go in for some of the more inane free market worship fit this bill. Remember left leaning indicates a dislike of governmental structure with the ultimate extreme being Anarchy while Right leaning indicates a desire for more, stronger government with the ultimate extreme being authoritarianism. Traditionally the term conservative only implies that one is opposed to change, or more often sudden and untested change while the term progressive indicates one wishes to encourage change in the pursuit of what they deem progress. In this day and age Republicans are in fact just as progressive as Democrats they simply have different ideas of what progress is. Dems are right wing social and moral progressives while Repubs are right wing religious and corporatist progressives. There are very few true conservatives in our government these days and perhaps fewer true liberals. Redefining these terms is one of the ways the two parties maintain control of there base. It allows them control the narrative with artificial divisions intended to alienate voters who may be allied on many other issues from each other. I suppose if any two ideologies are opposed to each other it's social liberalism and right wing social progressiveness. After all how can you believe in limited government interference in private affairs but also believe you have the right to force others to behave in a fashion consistent with your own moral beliefs. Let each live in accordance with there own conscience in so far as their actions do not unfairly infringe on the basic rights of others.
Not to argue your point but just to clarify. Radiation is one of the ways that coal plants do kill people. Burning coal releases radioactive isotopes directly into the atmosphere. Assuming of course that a containment and scribing system capable of removing it has not been installed. Even in that case you are left with the coal ash, which in and of it's self is radioactive.
http://www.scientificamerican....
This strikes me as the same kind of compromise constantly suggested by gun regulation groups. You quietly compromise away one right after another for 100 years with absolutely no give from the opposition. Maybe you truly believed compromise was in everyone's best interest. Then when you say enough your the bad guy for refusing to compromise!
I put together an atom based (Jetway Board) PFSense firewall with four 1gig ports and wifi for under $400. It's fan less cpu and low power usage makes it an ideal replacement for the e2000 I had before. In addition to the firewall it's running snort updated daily. If power is your only concern it may not make sense to upgrade your hardware but if you want something quieter and not much larger than a consumer router then you should look into them. Don't let the realtek NICS on the cheaper boards scare you PFSense 2.1 can handle them just fine and I have yet to find any performance issues.
It's a nice straw-man but my point wasn't about the nature of driving as a privilege in modern America but the pervasive attitude that pushes such legislation. We see it all over the place from trying to regulate nicotine vaporizers under the same exact laws as cigarettes to il thought out attempts at various gun bans. From drug laws to NYC's recent dive into soda sizes. It all comes from a sense that people shouldn't be trusted to make there own decisions. That "they" know better than you. More and more this idea is taking root in America and that is a far more dangerous thing than somebody having a more convenient display for there vehicle controls and GPS. My problem is with the reasoning behind the legislation not with the fact it may exist. If after appropriate study we find that they present such a significant threat to public safety we must control there use then so be it but preemptively banning things because "it feels like we should do something" is simply a sign of poorly developed reasoning skills.
That is exactly the opposite of the "right question"! In a free country the government must always defend any limitation of personal freedom. You should never have to justify it's free exercise. Anything else is not a freedom it's a privilege. If Glass, HUD's and similar emerging tech are dangerous or dangerous in certain use profiles it is the duty of the Government to prove so with scientific fact and not emotional hyperbole before enacting laws limiting your freedom. Beyond that it very well may be that GPS usage in a Glass type device is safer than a dash or window mounted GPS. It may also be that speed, gas, rpm and other vital info can be more safely delivered in that format. These sort of reactionary knee jerk laws only server to stifle innovation and the adoption of tech that could solve real, practical problems.
I agree with most of what you said. I also agree with requiring English as a core language, however not for exclusionary reasons. The US is a melting pot of cultures who come to our shores for a variety of different reasons. A core common language is an important glue in tying all of those cultures into a cohesive and some what unified society. Split language nations have shown time and time again a tendency toward eventual civil war because the different parts of the nation do not consider themselves one. I'm not saying people should be made to suffer unduly but a little social pressure to encourage English adoptions among new immigrants is a good thing.
For an interesting alternative look at hereditary positions read "The Philosopher In Arms". The nation at the heart of the book believes that to be a good leader one must be raised to it. Taught the responsibility and weight of it from birth. Every member of the family is raised to the position and it typically falls to the child (male or female) of the current leader. To server how ever they still must face a national election every few years and could be removed by either an election or act of congress. The Yeoli's take fear of a dictator to near paranoid levels. They force there leader to be drowned to near death every 3 years to prove he is willing to die for his people and the sitting Demarch can own no personal wealth. The Demarch and his family live in a home maintained by the nation. The position of national political leader and national military leader can either fall to one person or two depending on the leaning of the semanakraseye in question. The stories are well worth reading.
During the cold war left/right politics was largely replaced by the us/them capitalist/communist simplified politics of the time. Even today most people in the us have no idea what left/right real means. Modern US politics is largely a continuation of the cold war without Russia. The Democrat party is more or less a moderately socialist right leaning party while the Republican party is a heavily corporatist right leaning party. The citizens involved early on in the Tea Party could have been considered far more left wing than the Democrats. They acted mainly on a belief in less government control over our day to day lives. The Tea Party as it exist today is just a way for Republicans to capitalize on that sentiment and farther marginalize other third parties. There are left wing groups of varying degrees. The Libertarian party is center left socially with an unfortunately strong affinity for "Free Market". The Green party is probably is probably as left as a major third party in the US gets but their environmental policies often border on the extreme. The irony is the founding fathers of our country would likely be considered left wing radical terrorist by today's standards.
As I stated in another post Google has a vested economic interest in restoring public faith to their cloud offerings. To do this they would need to eliminate any access they may have to the unencrypted data. In a perfect world Google would take something like gpgp and add there own key server and integration and automation with Google's services. This would likely be limited to chat and email given that A.)Google makes a lot of money off of adsense and B.) It would be difficult to implement an interactive web site for which the content was unreadable by the servers producing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Read about FIDO U2F to better inform yourself of the options that exist and where things should be heading.
If you where to create a simulation advanced enough to create sentient inhabitants (likely as a byproduct of it's full purpose) it stands to reason that it would be based off tech far in advanced to our own current levels. Even now we are working on developing systems that move beyond simple binary decision making. I would imagine the system having a rule keeping AI with the universal physic programed into it and allowing all other AI's in the environment to grow organically (so to speak).
For instance some people now theorize the entire universe could be a giant computer simulation. In such an environment some decisions could be left to free will while others are hard coded (not that I actually believe we are all sims). We can theorize the purpose of such a system would be to ensure some specific conditions in the sim are met.
Even in a far more likely base organic reality it's feasible that some processes may be genetically hard coded into our actions while others are not.
I've given this matter a lot of thought and I believe what we see is the result of people generally being unable to accurately and easily understand complex issues outside their field of expertise. When this occurs it seems to be human nature to defer to a trusted authority when forming ones opinions.
We see this in all sorts of issues like climate change (I see it equally on both sides of the debate) where the majority of people are arguing from "facts" that are given to them instead any real understanding of the science. Their knowledge in the area is only deep enough to allow them to parse the opinions of the trusted authority.
For most of modern history the US government has been considered a defacto trusted authority on legal matters. When a congressman doesn't talk about an issue or just regurgitates some talking points their constituents take that as everything they need to know about the issue.
I think it's always been this way. The change has been in trustworthiness of our "Trusted Authorities" and the ease with which dissenting opinions can be presented with equal ease.
The reply wasn't in regards to the definition of fascism. You said that Hitler was the archetypal fascist. I explained to you why that is wrong. It doesn't matter how you define fascism Mussolini is the archetypal fascist. On a side note I don't believe the party name of one of the three WWII axis powers is in any way shape or form archaic. Unless they don't teach WWII in history classes any more. Do you believe Nazi is archaic?
You realize Hitler literally wasn't a fascist. Hitler was a National Socialist and an Authoritarian. The term fascist comes from an Italian root word meaning a bundle of rods tied together. It was originally used by unions and trade associations in Italy to represent strength in numbers. Mussolini used the term and it's association with an ancient Roman symbol of rods tied around an axe in the founding of his Fascists party. All association of the word with authoritarianism and oppressive government come from him not Hitler. Mussolini is literally the archetypal fascist because he invented the term in it's current political connotation.
I was in third grade and we had a TV set up to watch the first teacher get launched into space. I had relatives working at NASA at the time and was obsessed with space so seeing it happen live in class was just that much more traumatic.
The two arguments couldn't be farther apart. The OP's statement is an action plan for dealing with the consequences of a potential leak of personal information, not an excuse of the perpetrators actions. The statement the "If you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" is a justification of the state sponsored invasion of privacy. It is by definition an excuse of the perpetrators action.
First remember that the constitution does not grant or restrict any rights. It places defined limits on (originally just) Federal power. It's been clear since at least the Dread Scott case that the SCOTUS considered the 2nd to be a personal right. They determined that one of the effects of granting Scott's petition would be to grant the baring of arms to the "negro" races. As to state laws, until the 14th the constitution was in general assumed only to apply to the federal government. The recent change has been a strong "gun rights" movement int his country taking state laws that are in violation of the 2nd to the SCOTUS. I fully expect the 1986 Hughes amendment to be on the chopping block soon. It is a clear violation in the same vein as the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 creating a defacto ban for the common person by restricting access to otherwise legal products.
By and large HIPAA is followed because not doing so would open a person up to losing their jobs, their medical license, and possibly being sued. Just because there are way's someone can violate the law anonymously doesn't invalidate the law. The important thing is that the consequences be so harsh the majority of people would never dare. The fact that some people may get away with it doesn't mean we shouldn't make an example of any one who gets caught it means we should make a bigger example of them.
There absolutely is. We currently do this with medical records and PII for example in the form of HIPAA. You create a classification for such data, lets call it Sensitive Classifiable Law Enforcement Intelligence or SCLEI. Next you make it illegal for any one with access to SCLEI to share such data in any circumstances not explicitly allowed for in the law. Now you simply ensure the law only allows for sharing SCLEI in the context of an (?international?) terrorism investigation and possibly exclude sharing in domestic criminal cases explicitly. You should also ensure embedded mechanisms for external over site and increased penalties for coverups of collusion. This may not be 100% effective but it would be every bit as constitutional under the First Amendment as HIPAA.
I am in no way defending the industry. My point was the way you casually dismissed the workers as if they could just walk out the door and magically find other jobs. If the only people you've worked with who where desperate enough to work these jobs are college students then consider yourself lucky to live in a well off area, by comparison anyway. Around here no has illusions about what kind of job telemarketing is and no one loves it but many consider it good employment. At least they used too, outsourcing has hurt the companies who used to be big employers here. What you have to realize is the reason those folks in MO and GA are so desperate for your low paying unskilled jobs is because there is no "other low-paying exploitative industry looking for unskilled labor would fill the gap". I'm lucky to be a skilled IT worker with a good job in a reputable industry but I know many good and decent people who simply have no other options. The fact is in a lot of this country there are simply no jobs and people without training, skills, education, or money can't just pick up and move in hopes of finding work elsewhere.
I was torn between responding to you and moderating you down. The idea that telemarketers don't care about their jobs is one of the most arrogant and classicists things I have read in a long time. My area is very poor and unless you both have a collage degree and are lucky enough for it to be in a field that's currently hiring your options around here are work fast food, work in the mines, or work for a telemarketer. While it does attract young people and college students a lot of those folks are single mothers trying to support their family. If you really believe that single mother doesn't care if her job exist you've been living in some sort of dream land.
... I would love to be like Lazerus Long and live to be 4000 yrs old. Maybe someday we all will.
Wait, you want to go back in time and fall in love with your Mom and then travel back to the future where you can make two female clones of yourself and fall in love with them. I'd be posting as an AC also if I was you! LOL
I'm not sure if I would vote for Rand Paul. There are certainly issues I disagree with him on. You on the other hand seem to have no grasp of nuance in complex issues. You try to flatten and simplify every quote into it's most meaningless talking point and then twist it to fit your narrative. You do realize most of those "flip flop" issues are just nuanced positions on complex issues, right? Just for brevity I've picked out two of the "flip flop" issues you alluded to. Lets address the "drone" statements first. Paul's first statement was in regards to the use of drones in anti-terror operations and the fear at that time they could begin being used against Americans on American soil without due process. Pauls second statement was addressing the use of drones by civilian police against active, direct, and immediate criminal threats. As to the third statement, drones are not inherently military equipment and the militarization of the police force is a wholly separate issue from their use of drones. Now lets look at the "Israel" issue. Paul is a supporter of eliminating all foreing aid. One of his ideas I don't support by the way. The followup question three years later is asked in the context of eliminating aid to Israel specifically. In this situation Paul is obviously pointing out that he has no desire to target Israel explicitly for removal of foreign aid. Unless your interviewing for a job with Fox News twisting these nuances to fit your predisposed ideas about what "The other side" is thinking only weakens political discourse in the long run.
You've made a basic error in your argument. Your are confusing social liberals with social progressives. Specifically right leaning social progressives. One can be fiscally conservative (believing that we should limit and control increases in spending) but socially liberal (believing that we should not limit individual liberty beyond the limits of absolute necessity). As one example moderate libertarians who don't go in for some of the more inane free market worship fit this bill. Remember left leaning indicates a dislike of governmental structure with the ultimate extreme being Anarchy while Right leaning indicates a desire for more, stronger government with the ultimate extreme being authoritarianism. Traditionally the term conservative only implies that one is opposed to change, or more often sudden and untested change while the term progressive indicates one wishes to encourage change in the pursuit of what they deem progress. In this day and age Republicans are in fact just as progressive as Democrats they simply have different ideas of what progress is. Dems are right wing social and moral progressives while Repubs are right wing religious and corporatist progressives. There are very few true conservatives in our government these days and perhaps fewer true liberals. Redefining these terms is one of the ways the two parties maintain control of there base. It allows them control the narrative with artificial divisions intended to alienate voters who may be allied on many other issues from each other. I suppose if any two ideologies are opposed to each other it's social liberalism and right wing social progressiveness. After all how can you believe in limited government interference in private affairs but also believe you have the right to force others to behave in a fashion consistent with your own moral beliefs. Let each live in accordance with there own conscience in so far as their actions do not unfairly infringe on the basic rights of others.
Not to argue your point but just to clarify. Radiation is one of the ways that coal plants do kill people. Burning coal releases radioactive isotopes directly into the atmosphere. Assuming of course that a containment and scribing system capable of removing it has not been installed. Even in that case you are left with the coal ash, which in and of it's self is radioactive. http://www.scientificamerican....
This strikes me as the same kind of compromise constantly suggested by gun regulation groups. You quietly compromise away one right after another for 100 years with absolutely no give from the opposition. Maybe you truly believed compromise was in everyone's best interest. Then when you say enough your the bad guy for refusing to compromise!
I put together an atom based (Jetway Board) PFSense firewall with four 1gig ports and wifi for under $400. It's fan less cpu and low power usage makes it an ideal replacement for the e2000 I had before. In addition to the firewall it's running snort updated daily. If power is your only concern it may not make sense to upgrade your hardware but if you want something quieter and not much larger than a consumer router then you should look into them. Don't let the realtek NICS on the cheaper boards scare you PFSense 2.1 can handle them just fine and I have yet to find any performance issues.
It's a nice straw-man but my point wasn't about the nature of driving as a privilege in modern America but the pervasive attitude that pushes such legislation. We see it all over the place from trying to regulate nicotine vaporizers under the same exact laws as cigarettes to il thought out attempts at various gun bans. From drug laws to NYC's recent dive into soda sizes. It all comes from a sense that people shouldn't be trusted to make there own decisions. That "they" know better than you. More and more this idea is taking root in America and that is a far more dangerous thing than somebody having a more convenient display for there vehicle controls and GPS. My problem is with the reasoning behind the legislation not with the fact it may exist. If after appropriate study we find that they present such a significant threat to public safety we must control there use then so be it but preemptively banning things because "it feels like we should do something" is simply a sign of poorly developed reasoning skills.
That is exactly the opposite of the "right question"! In a free country the government must always defend any limitation of personal freedom. You should never have to justify it's free exercise. Anything else is not a freedom it's a privilege. If Glass, HUD's and similar emerging tech are dangerous or dangerous in certain use profiles it is the duty of the Government to prove so with scientific fact and not emotional hyperbole before enacting laws limiting your freedom. Beyond that it very well may be that GPS usage in a Glass type device is safer than a dash or window mounted GPS. It may also be that speed, gas, rpm and other vital info can be more safely delivered in that format. These sort of reactionary knee jerk laws only server to stifle innovation and the adoption of tech that could solve real, practical problems.
I agree with most of what you said. I also agree with requiring English as a core language, however not for exclusionary reasons. The US is a melting pot of cultures who come to our shores for a variety of different reasons. A core common language is an important glue in tying all of those cultures into a cohesive and some what unified society. Split language nations have shown time and time again a tendency toward eventual civil war because the different parts of the nation do not consider themselves one. I'm not saying people should be made to suffer unduly but a little social pressure to encourage English adoptions among new immigrants is a good thing.
For an interesting alternative look at hereditary positions read "The Philosopher In Arms". The nation at the heart of the book believes that to be a good leader one must be raised to it. Taught the responsibility and weight of it from birth. Every member of the family is raised to the position and it typically falls to the child (male or female) of the current leader. To server how ever they still must face a national election every few years and could be removed by either an election or act of congress. The Yeoli's take fear of a dictator to near paranoid levels. They force there leader to be drowned to near death every 3 years to prove he is willing to die for his people and the sitting Demarch can own no personal wealth. The Demarch and his family live in a home maintained by the nation. The position of national political leader and national military leader can either fall to one person or two depending on the leaning of the semanakraseye in question. The stories are well worth reading.
During the cold war left/right politics was largely replaced by the us/them capitalist/communist simplified politics of the time. Even today most people in the us have no idea what left/right real means. Modern US politics is largely a continuation of the cold war without Russia. The Democrat party is more or less a moderately socialist right leaning party while the Republican party is a heavily corporatist right leaning party. The citizens involved early on in the Tea Party could have been considered far more left wing than the Democrats. They acted mainly on a belief in less government control over our day to day lives. The Tea Party as it exist today is just a way for Republicans to capitalize on that sentiment and farther marginalize other third parties. There are left wing groups of varying degrees. The Libertarian party is center left socially with an unfortunately strong affinity for "Free Market". The Green party is probably is probably as left as a major third party in the US gets but their environmental policies often border on the extreme. The irony is the founding fathers of our country would likely be considered left wing radical terrorist by today's standards.
As I stated in another post Google has a vested economic interest in restoring public faith to their cloud offerings. To do this they would need to eliminate any access they may have to the unencrypted data. In a perfect world Google would take something like gpgp and add there own key server and integration and automation with Google's services. This would likely be limited to chat and email given that A.)Google makes a lot of money off of adsense and B.) It would be difficult to implement an interactive web site for which the content was unreadable by the servers producing it.