That would work brilliantly, until China does the exact same thing to us. The whole "being invested in other nations" thing works both ways. China owns plenty of US debt. Of course, that's assuming that us fucking over the entire relationship between us and china won't cause china to declare war. The main disincentive for war between us and china is that we depend on each other economically. If either country is stupid enough to collapse that link, we're all potentially fucked.
They knew we had the Federal Reserve and fiat currency before they lent all of that money to us.
Nah, I'm still going to have to go with, name calling is flamebait. By calling people names, you are basically inviting people to flame you by making them mad. That's why I would call it flame bait.
Besides, Bono isn't an idiot. He has achieved things most of us never will. He is most certainly wrong on occasion (everyone is), but that hardly makes him an idiot.
So by calling Bono a couple of names, he's inviting Bono to flame him because he's mad? I don't think Bono reads these forums. I certainly don't see him posting here. If he does read Slashdot, he's being awfully quiet about it.
It's just not the same as when someone uses an ad-hominem against the Slashdotter to whom he is responding which really does "bait" or invite flames.
While I admire your defense of freedom of speech and allowing everyone to have an opinion, the GGP was flamebait because he started out calling Bono an idiot. Name calling is flamebait. Bono has as much right to have an opinion as anyone else.
No, it is different. He called him an idiot and then explained why he feels that way. Nothing he said prevents Bono from speaking his mind, so Bono's right to have an opinion doesn't enter into this.
This isn't Flamebait. This was the mods punishing him for refusing to be inoffensive. I think the style and tone were overly emotional myself, and that this detracted from the point he was trying to make. That's just not the way to convince people. What that cost him was the opportunity to convince others who would otherwise have considered his point, which means he likely wasted his time. That seems fair to me (cause, meet effect) and needs no adjustment. However, moderation serves a different purpose, and the way it was used here isn't consistent with it. Specifically, there is no "-1 Ineffectively Expressed" mod and "Flamebait" is no substitute.
I think you are very slightly assuming that I must like or agree with something in order to consider things like free speech and equanimity. Any idea that what I wrote was an endorsement of it as "good" speech or the like confirms this. It wasn't an attempt to endorse what was written. It was a weariness of poor moderation that is used where more speech would be the correct remedy, if indeed a remedy is needed.
Can we start the discussion by not immediately going to the "NAT will save us" argument? Just accept that while NAT deployments might put it off, IPv6 deployment is inevitably necessary.
It's not unreasonable to say that the increasing scarcity of a finite resource might put more pressure on all of us to utilize that resource more efficiently. Replacing the scarce resource (IPv4 with its 2^32 addresses) with one that is overabundant (IPv6 with its 2^128 addresses) is always an option, of course. But migrating to that option and more wisely using our existing resources are not mutually exclusive. So no, I don't recognize as invalid the discussion of NAT as a technique useful for mitigating this issue.
"It's a bit different because polio is a crippling, life-threatening illness. It can kill and it can maim for life. By contrast, in my amateur not-a-doctor opinion and speaking only for myself, the swine flu has been blown totally out of proportion."
Swine flu deaths: "Deaths totaled more than 7,820 as of Nov. 22" SOURCE: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=akODnI6cicxw
The flu can, and does, kill. Sure, not most completely healthy 20 year olds, but it can kill a good deal of people.
Why don't you do a bit more research, compare that to the number of people killed by the regular (not swine) influenza every year, and then get back to me. I can tell that you have done no such research. Why? Because had you done that beforehand, you'd have never written this post.
Go ahead and do the research. Don't take my word for it, for that would be meaningless and would deprive you of personal realization. See for yourself. Then ask whether the media fear-machine has become too powerful. If you actually do the research and go wherever the facts may take you, you will inevitably come to the same conclusion at which I have arrived.
And whoever modded this flamebait is an idiot too.
Agreed. The GP's post is an earnest opinion. It might be right or wrong, it might be fact-based or whimsical, you might love it or hate it, but it's an opinion like any other. It isn't Flamebait no matter how much you disagree with it. If you have some terrible emotional reaction to it, it's not because the GP forced you to react that way.
Mods, go ahead and down-mod me too if you think that both the parent and the GP are instances of Flamebait. I have plenty of karma. I'd have much more if Slashdot didn't cap the maximum karma. So, if you think the above is good, high-quality moderation, then I want you to mod me down too. Otherwise you might use those points to enforce your poor judgment where it might have more of an effect.
I just wish the internet had had a few less single points of failure, and a lot more encryption built it; but then who could see that far ahead.
People who study history and learn from it.
So long as the intent to control remains, that intention will adapt itself to utilize any tools that become available. Technology does not change the intent; it changes only the tools.
Er, preventative medicine is entirely different from treatment medicine. Vaccinations and antibiotics are entirely different compounds. The article is about letting certain illnesses run their course naturally, not saying, "Well, screw it let's just not bother with the whole medicine thing." Unless of course you'd like to see a resurgence in polio.
It appears that years of media scaremongering and anti-vaccine lobbies have gotten through the youth crowd quite effectively.
It's a bit different because polio is a crippling, life-threatening illness. It can kill and it can maim for life. By contrast, in my amateur not-a-doctor opinion and speaking only for myself, the swine flu has been blown totally out of proportion. If I caught it, I'd feel like shit for a few days and then I'd get over it. The anti-vaccine sentiment is not a rejection of all vaccination. It's a call to not abandon rationality when assessing risks even if some pharmaceutical companies don't make as much money that way.
Please do explain to me what you mean by "anti-vaccine lobbies." A lobby or lobbyist is a representative of a monied interest. What monied interest out there profits from NOT selling something? Because the anti-vaccine idea is all about not purchasing vaccines. Please tell me who these lobbyists are.
That's the entire point of universal healthcare, or any other government service, those who can afford it contribute more, those who can't contribute less.
Communism or Marxism: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Now, if you think a partial or "light" implementation of Communism won't suffer from the same failings as the full-blown Communism attempted in Russia and other places, you're probably right. Full-blown Communism always has the fatal flaw that it requires absolute or near-absolute power to implement, and once such power is obtained the people who have it don't want to give it up. By contrast, partial Communism can be implemented by a constitutional republic style of government that does not have such power, though it still represents an expansion of the size and power of the State.
What is so bad about universal healthcare exactly? That it's socialist? Do you really have that much of an irrational fear of socialism that you reject anything associated with it?
I wish we'd call things what they are. This Socialism of which you speak is partial or "light" Communism. "Socialism" is one of those feel-good euphemisms designed to escape the bad name that Communism has soundly earned while differing from it only in degree. The fear may or may not be irrational; instead of telling you whether it is or isn't, I'd rather ask you to consider a couple of things. The first is that in the specific case of the USA, our Federal government has failed to earn our trust. When government fails to earn your trust by being honest, efficient, effective, and honorable, it makes no sense to reward it with more power. This objection exists whether or not Socialism is a good thing or a bad thing, for a good thing won't be correctly implemented by corrupt people.
The second idea I ask you to consider is the very rebranding of the label "Socialism." Left-leaning individuals could argue that the ideas of Communism and the ideas of Capitalism need to strike a balance. They could say that unmitigated Capitalism leads to exploitation and wage slavery like we experienced during the Industrial Revolution with laissez-faire Capitalism, while unmitigated Communism leads to totalitarian regimes which cause much suffering and death. They could reason and debate thusly, and ask those who refuse to debate whether they really have that much of an irrational fear of Communism. But they don't. Instead, they re-brand the same old ideas and call them "Socialism", like a corporation that changes its name and re-brands its products after earning a bad reputation. Is this the work of intellectually honest people? Is it so hard to understand that this alone makes many people suspicious about the motives of this movement?
That's the entire point of universal healthcare, or any other government service, those who can afford it contribute more, those who can't contribute less. If everyone contributed equal amounts, that amount would have to be what the poorest person can reasonably afford and still survive. This would not leave much in the way of government services.
Tell you what. Let's drop the War on (some) Drugs, let's stop fighting aggressive foreign wars that are based on flimsy excuses, let's repeal the Patriot Act, dissolve the DHS, eliminate all warrentless intrusions into the lives of American citizens, eliminate the income tax and replace it with the Fair Tax -- a national sales tax, eliminate the Federal Reserve and fiat currency and replace it with a representative currency, and remove or eliminate any and all functions of government that are not obvious conclusions of a literal reading of the US Constitution. Then let's see if what poor people can afford to contribute is not enough.
Government is supposed to represent all of the citizens equally. To be consistent with this, they should all pay the same taxes with no "progressive" tax rat
Why not put their own under oath and interrogate them, then? Because _they_ have a problem, now someone with a wife and kids who only reported what he was told( and broke no laws in doing so ) faces potential fines or jailtime if he doesn't rat out his source which may well hurt his livelihood, anyway.
Because justice is the least of their concerns. And it wouldn't give them the chance to potentially intimidate (by precedent) future journalists who receive similar leaked documents.
Another point is that it served no real purpose to keep this a secret anyway. Someone "sworn to keep the secret" realized this and acted accordingly instead of being a mindless drone.
Thats not really a point, but instead an appeal.
Do you honestly think that (for example) a secretaries or clerks opinion should factor into when secrecy rules should be followed and when they shouldn't? Really? Just because they "realized" that there was no purpose for secrecy? Really?
That depends. I'll create a hypothetical to make the point.
Let's say someone works for a government organization. That organization has discovered an over-unity device, that is, totally clean, limitless, free energy in the form of electricity. This is a simple device that anyone can create with a little work. For the sake of argument, let's say it cannot be made into a weapon. That person is sworn to secrecy.
In this case, the right thing to do is to release the information to the world. Even getting caught and prosecuted is worth doing that. How could you compare that to the benefit this device could provide for every person in the world? Is this still an appeal to you?
Secretaries or clerks are human beings with free will. As such, they are capable of disobeying rules. In the real world, you reduce leaks by getting your people on board, by showing them that yes you really do have an important, legitimate, overriding reason to keep something secret. Or you can take the authoritarian route and threaten everyone into compliance and then act surprised when anonymous leaks occur. That's what happened here.
With most things that are kept secret, such as medical records, it is understood that releasing that secret information can easily harm or damage the person. Good or at least decent people have no desire to do that. It is right and just to have laws and other sanctions to apply against such people. This was not such an example. The only damage done here was that some bureaucrats lost face. Therefore the secrecy was not legitimate to begin with and this realization made disobedience far more likely.
I'm really not sure what it's going to take to get the country to realize that governing doesn't have to be an enemy of liberty.
It will take nothing more than a single example in all of history where governing and liberty weren't at odds.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-- Thomas Jefferson
I wonder what people _think_ government represents? The only power it ever has is to restrict. That's because liberty is the natural state of things and there's nothing to add to it. There is much that can be taken from it, however.
It goes back to the whole social-contract idea. It's good and reasonable that some liberties are removed. I am glad that my neighbors are not at liberty to murder, rape, or rob anytime they like. The problem is that even after all the basic, reasonable things like this are taken care of, you still have a government that wants to grow and expand.
Maybe that's the point - that we're no longer participating in a free government. Without input, there is total control - no way to safeguard against tyranny or corruption. If the guidelines are secret - they can be interpreted any way that the people enforcing them see fit - without control or oversight. I am starting to believe that if they thought they could get away with it - they would just -disappear- this guy like corrupt regimes usually do.
Don't think for a moment that they wouldn't do that. Goons who are on our payroll and nominally on our side are still goons. The bread and butter of thugs everywhere, whether common, appointed, or elected, is an "ends justify the means" style of thought. Naturally this prevents them from understanding how much they resemble the kind of societies we once stood against.
You are missing the point.
They were trying to keep something a secret, and then someone sworn to keep that secret, leaked it. That is absolutely a cause for concern.
Another point is that it served no real purpose to keep this a secret anyway. Someone "sworn to keep the secret" realized this and acted accordingly instead of being a mindless drone. This made TSA look bad, it made them lose face, and now they want to get the visceral satisfaction of nailing the person who did it. That's about all there is to see here.
If the leaking of this information did any actual damage, or had a hope of remaining secret once implemented, then you'd have a case that GP is missing a point.
Feeling defensive, eh? Thanks for informing everyone you're "literate" and therefore better than those filthy ordinary people. Pick up a newspaper, and tell me how much writing would actually be *improved* with a machine writer, eh? Writing isn't sacred, it's just another occupation like woodchopping or running the cash register at the 7-11.
What you describe is "everyday" writing. This is like the vending machine that reads "insert dollar bills face up" or "team A scored 10 points while the opposing Team B scored 15." It's purely practical, get-the-job-done sort of writing where only the technical correctness is important.
Writing can also be beautiful, powerful, and artistic. A well-written editorial, penned by someone who has a deep understanding of the issues, can and has moved entire communities to change their minds on important issues. A beautifully written book tells the perceptive reader as much about the mind and spirit of the author as it does about the story that is being told. A horror story requires some sense of what is horrible.
The ability to both produce and appreciate good writing is on the decline. Measured scholastically, the grade-level at which the average American reads and writes is significantly lower now than it was say, 50 years ago. A good look at many online forums will also tell you that this skill is not highly valued. You can say that's because only some cultural elite are capable of enjoying it, though the GP made no such claim. You can also say that there is simply less interest in such things.
You can invent and try to substantiate any number of unique explanations for it. The truth of the matter is that in most situations, challenging your readers is now considered highly undesirable. They'll read a competitor's paper written in simpler langauge before they'll grab a dictionary. There was a time when this would have been viewed as laziness and an unwillingness to meet a worthy challenge. It would have been viewed like a wasted opportunity to better yourself that should not have been passed up, just like most people today would not like to pass up a higher-paying job. I'm not saying that previous generations were one homogeneous block who all felt this way, but many more people once did.
Over the last few generations, some kind of cultural shift occurred. People now care much more about avoiding the small-but-significant effort of learning something new than they care about improving important skills. They generally won't do it at all unless it's required by an authority like a boss or a professor. Even then it's in a rote, mechanical sort of way that deprives them of true appreciation. Even then it's reluctant, with a "gun to their head" in the form of losing their jobs or failing school.
They forgot that part. Perhaps that happens in Canada only. In the USA, I have never once witnessed a significant decrease of the size and power of the federal government during my entire lifetime. Ever. I have seen this on the state and local levels, but never on the federal level.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I am not Canadian but I believe the name of the party is The Conservative Party. The word "conservative" lost its meaning a long time ago, particularly in the USA. How else do you explain the politicians who self-identify as "conservative" who are so eager to expand the size and power of government?
That would be the right time, yes. But actually, the problem with todays systems is not as much the OS as the applications that run on it. Almost every self-respecting OS has an Auto-update function that works more or less well. Unless you are a paranoid schizophrenic that update the OS manually (forgetting to do it now and then), the OS is relatively secure. The problem are the applications. Now tell me, how many of us run to download a new Java machine or a new Acrobat reader, or a new Cobian Backup, or a new WinAmp when a vulnerability is discovered on any of those products. Hell you will be lucky if you even get to know that a new vulnerability was found on your faithful uTorrent... So when you get pwned, what's the first thing the user blame? The OS of course...
At work we had a Windows Server 2008 hacked. It was killing the whole network sending spam and trying to infect other machines on our AD. Our boss was already blaming Bill Gate's mother... On a closer inspection, the problem was discovered. The system was running a quite old version of WebBoard (a system for collaboration, which was developed originally by O'Reilly). The firewall has the port 8080 open to allow users to connect. Some people discovered the open port, found out that WebBoard was running, and took advantage of the vulnerability to upload and run malicious code on the server. Because WebBoard is a service, running as the System account, you can imagine what happened there. Did our IT manager know about this vulnerability. Not at all, even if it was fixed on a posterior build.... How many "forgotten" programs, and non-OS related services do people have running in their machines, unpatched and unattended? Think about this...
Perhaps the OS deserves some blame (kneejerk types, note that some != all). On Windows there is no equivalent to the various centralized package managers that come with standard Linux distributions. You cannot go to one place and run one program and simultaneously update every last application installed. The biggest obstacle seems to be the copyright restrictions that prevent the redistribution of most Windows software. But for whatever reason, on Windows, every last application is on its own and must make provisions for its own updates. If it doesn't, or if the user gets tired of dialogs popping up and just wants to get rid of them, then you get the scenario you describe. On a Linux or BSD -style system, WebBoard would be a package like any other and would be regularly updated as part of your routine system maintainence.
What happens to all the folks (us?) who have been gloating over the security of our Macs, Linux, smartphones etc. when these apps get broken? Time to eat crow?
I would imagine that if Flash etc. became poor enough in terms of security we'd see more attention on projects like Gnash.
No joke. Even if they are absolutely equally secure, Gnash provides source code. You can build that source with SSP (or equivalent). You can also build it as PIC and apply many other restrictions with a PaX and/or Grsecurity kernel. All of these will reduce the chances that a known vulnerability will lead to a successful exploit. Specifically, a known vulnerability that would normally allow an attacker to run arbitrary code stands a good chance of merely crashing the application.
You just don't have options like this with binary blobs. I really would like to see more development of Gnash, as it seems that Adobe Flash is on a downhill course in terms of security and will continue to be a problem. Source code is about freedom and control. With such control, you can take steps to manage a risk even if you cannot perfectly mitigate it.
Of course, the protection for that isn't as strong as copyright. And in the end, it doesn't matter; if I know that a company isn't proud of its employment agreement such that they want it kept secret, then I'm thinking twice about subjecting myself to said agreement.
I don't agree with any of this nonsense but I just wanted to add that a company may want to keep the terms of the contract confidential because they are good, not just, as in this case, bad.
That made me curious. Generally the assumption is that if a corporation wants to hide something, it's because that something would make the company look bad.
Can you provide a single hypothetical scenario where an employment contract is fair, reasonable, written in good faith, generous towards the employees, and otherwise reflects well on the company, yet that company would fight this hard to keep it a secret?
So there should be no privacy at all in any kind of legally binding arrangement?
If you want my tax dollars to finance its enforcement, in the form of our court system, then no. There should be no privacy in a contract. At least, any privacy would be in the form of "don't disclose it in the first place" and would not take the form of "now that it's been disclosed, use copyright laws to shut down sites which host it." Not only is the latter position a total failure to understand the nature of the Internet and the Streisand effect, it's also inconsistent with the purpose of copyright.
More than that... What exactly is the site doing that would cause a takedown order for the whole domain? I mean, taking down a confidential company document is one thing... But to just issue an order to remove the domain entirely seems like too much.
But, I'm sure that when the sites come back up, they'll have even more readership.
I agree there was no reason to take down the entire domains. This really seems like it's becoming a standard tactic: put conditions into a legally binding contract, and then cry "copyright violation" when the contract is posted in public to the embarassment of its authors. An employment agreement is generally such a contract.
I propose a change to the law along these lines: your contract may be legally binding and public-domain, or it may be non-binding and copyrightable. You are, after all, asking a government agency (a public servant) such as a court of law to enforce it for you.
Slashdot Mirror
So, care to calculate some epicycles for us?
That would work brilliantly, until China does the exact same thing to us. The whole "being invested in other nations" thing works both ways. China owns plenty of US debt. Of course, that's assuming that us fucking over the entire relationship between us and china won't cause china to declare war. The main disincentive for war between us and china is that we depend on each other economically. If either country is stupid enough to collapse that link, we're all potentially fucked.
They knew we had the Federal Reserve and fiat currency before they lent all of that money to us.
Nah, I'm still going to have to go with, name calling is flamebait. By calling people names, you are basically inviting people to flame you by making them mad. That's why I would call it flame bait. Besides, Bono isn't an idiot. He has achieved things most of us never will. He is most certainly wrong on occasion (everyone is), but that hardly makes him an idiot.
So by calling Bono a couple of names, he's inviting Bono to flame him because he's mad? I don't think Bono reads these forums. I certainly don't see him posting here. If he does read Slashdot, he's being awfully quiet about it.
It's just not the same as when someone uses an ad-hominem against the Slashdotter to whom he is responding which really does "bait" or invite flames.
While I admire your defense of freedom of speech and allowing everyone to have an opinion, the GGP was flamebait because he started out calling Bono an idiot. Name calling is flamebait. Bono has as much right to have an opinion as anyone else.
No, it is different. He called him an idiot and then explained why he feels that way. Nothing he said prevents Bono from speaking his mind, so Bono's right to have an opinion doesn't enter into this.
This isn't Flamebait. This was the mods punishing him for refusing to be inoffensive. I think the style and tone were overly emotional myself, and that this detracted from the point he was trying to make. That's just not the way to convince people. What that cost him was the opportunity to convince others who would otherwise have considered his point, which means he likely wasted his time. That seems fair to me (cause, meet effect) and needs no adjustment. However, moderation serves a different purpose, and the way it was used here isn't consistent with it. Specifically, there is no "-1 Ineffectively Expressed" mod and "Flamebait" is no substitute.
I think you are very slightly assuming that I must like or agree with something in order to consider things like free speech and equanimity. Any idea that what I wrote was an endorsement of it as "good" speech or the like confirms this. It wasn't an attempt to endorse what was written. It was a weariness of poor moderation that is used where more speech would be the correct remedy, if indeed a remedy is needed.
Cleans up the battlefield... Makes biofuel... Possibilities are endless...
Slashdot does all of that?
Can we start the discussion by not immediately going to the "NAT will save us" argument? Just accept that while NAT deployments might put it off, IPv6 deployment is inevitably necessary.
It's not unreasonable to say that the increasing scarcity of a finite resource might put more pressure on all of us to utilize that resource more efficiently. Replacing the scarce resource (IPv4 with its 2^32 addresses) with one that is overabundant (IPv6 with its 2^128 addresses) is always an option, of course. But migrating to that option and more wisely using our existing resources are not mutually exclusive. So no, I don't recognize as invalid the discussion of NAT as a technique useful for mitigating this issue.
"It's a bit different because polio is a crippling, life-threatening illness. It can kill and it can maim for life. By contrast, in my amateur not-a-doctor opinion and speaking only for myself, the swine flu has been blown totally out of proportion." Swine flu deaths: "Deaths totaled more than 7,820 as of Nov. 22" SOURCE: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=akODnI6cicxw The flu can, and does, kill. Sure, not most completely healthy 20 year olds, but it can kill a good deal of people.
Why don't you do a bit more research, compare that to the number of people killed by the regular (not swine) influenza every year, and then get back to me. I can tell that you have done no such research. Why? Because had you done that beforehand, you'd have never written this post.
Go ahead and do the research. Don't take my word for it, for that would be meaningless and would deprive you of personal realization. See for yourself. Then ask whether the media fear-machine has become too powerful. If you actually do the research and go wherever the facts may take you, you will inevitably come to the same conclusion at which I have arrived.
And whoever modded this flamebait is an idiot too.
Agreed. The GP's post is an earnest opinion. It might be right or wrong, it might be fact-based or whimsical, you might love it or hate it, but it's an opinion like any other. It isn't Flamebait no matter how much you disagree with it. If you have some terrible emotional reaction to it, it's not because the GP forced you to react that way.
Mods, go ahead and down-mod me too if you think that both the parent and the GP are instances of Flamebait. I have plenty of karma. I'd have much more if Slashdot didn't cap the maximum karma. So, if you think the above is good, high-quality moderation, then I want you to mod me down too. Otherwise you might use those points to enforce your poor judgment where it might have more of an effect.
People who study history and learn from it.
So long as the intent to control remains, that intention will adapt itself to utilize any tools that become available. Technology does not change the intent; it changes only the tools.
Er, preventative medicine is entirely different from treatment medicine. Vaccinations and antibiotics are entirely different compounds. The article is about letting certain illnesses run their course naturally, not saying, "Well, screw it let's just not bother with the whole medicine thing." Unless of course you'd like to see a resurgence in polio. It appears that years of media scaremongering and anti-vaccine lobbies have gotten through the youth crowd quite effectively.
It's a bit different because polio is a crippling, life-threatening illness. It can kill and it can maim for life. By contrast, in my amateur not-a-doctor opinion and speaking only for myself, the swine flu has been blown totally out of proportion. If I caught it, I'd feel like shit for a few days and then I'd get over it. The anti-vaccine sentiment is not a rejection of all vaccination. It's a call to not abandon rationality when assessing risks even if some pharmaceutical companies don't make as much money that way.
Please do explain to me what you mean by "anti-vaccine lobbies." A lobby or lobbyist is a representative of a monied interest. What monied interest out there profits from NOT selling something? Because the anti-vaccine idea is all about not purchasing vaccines. Please tell me who these lobbyists are.
Communism or Marxism: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Now, if you think a partial or "light" implementation of Communism won't suffer from the same failings as the full-blown Communism attempted in Russia and other places, you're probably right. Full-blown Communism always has the fatal flaw that it requires absolute or near-absolute power to implement, and once such power is obtained the people who have it don't want to give it up. By contrast, partial Communism can be implemented by a constitutional republic style of government that does not have such power, though it still represents an expansion of the size and power of the State.
I wish we'd call things what they are. This Socialism of which you speak is partial or "light" Communism. "Socialism" is one of those feel-good euphemisms designed to escape the bad name that Communism has soundly earned while differing from it only in degree. The fear may or may not be irrational; instead of telling you whether it is or isn't, I'd rather ask you to consider a couple of things. The first is that in the specific case of the USA, our Federal government has failed to earn our trust. When government fails to earn your trust by being honest, efficient, effective, and honorable, it makes no sense to reward it with more power. This objection exists whether or not Socialism is a good thing or a bad thing, for a good thing won't be correctly implemented by corrupt people.
The second idea I ask you to consider is the very rebranding of the label "Socialism." Left-leaning individuals could argue that the ideas of Communism and the ideas of Capitalism need to strike a balance. They could say that unmitigated Capitalism leads to exploitation and wage slavery like we experienced during the Industrial Revolution with laissez-faire Capitalism, while unmitigated Communism leads to totalitarian regimes which cause much suffering and death. They could reason and debate thusly, and ask those who refuse to debate whether they really have that much of an irrational fear of Communism. But they don't. Instead, they re-brand the same old ideas and call them "Socialism", like a corporation that changes its name and re-brands its products after earning a bad reputation. Is this the work of intellectually honest people? Is it so hard to understand that this alone makes many people suspicious about the motives of this movement?
Tell you what. Let's drop the War on (some) Drugs, let's stop fighting aggressive foreign wars that are based on flimsy excuses, let's repeal the Patriot Act, dissolve the DHS, eliminate all warrentless intrusions into the lives of American citizens, eliminate the income tax and replace it with the Fair Tax -- a national sales tax, eliminate the Federal Reserve and fiat currency and replace it with a representative currency, and remove or eliminate any and all functions of government that are not obvious conclusions of a literal reading of the US Constitution. Then let's see if what poor people can afford to contribute is not enough.
Government is supposed to represent all of the citizens equally. To be consistent with this, they should all pay the same taxes with no "progressive" tax rat
Why not put their own under oath and interrogate them, then? Because _they_ have a problem, now someone with a wife and kids who only reported what he was told( and broke no laws in doing so ) faces potential fines or jailtime if he doesn't rat out his source which may well hurt his livelihood, anyway.
Because justice is the least of their concerns. And it wouldn't give them the chance to potentially intimidate (by precedent) future journalists who receive similar leaked documents.
Another point is that it served no real purpose to keep this a secret anyway. Someone "sworn to keep the secret" realized this and acted accordingly instead of being a mindless drone.
Thats not really a point, but instead an appeal. Do you honestly think that (for example) a secretaries or clerks opinion should factor into when secrecy rules should be followed and when they shouldn't? Really? Just because they "realized" that there was no purpose for secrecy? Really?
That depends. I'll create a hypothetical to make the point.
Let's say someone works for a government organization. That organization has discovered an over-unity device, that is, totally clean, limitless, free energy in the form of electricity. This is a simple device that anyone can create with a little work. For the sake of argument, let's say it cannot be made into a weapon. That person is sworn to secrecy.
In this case, the right thing to do is to release the information to the world. Even getting caught and prosecuted is worth doing that. How could you compare that to the benefit this device could provide for every person in the world? Is this still an appeal to you?
Secretaries or clerks are human beings with free will. As such, they are capable of disobeying rules. In the real world, you reduce leaks by getting your people on board, by showing them that yes you really do have an important, legitimate, overriding reason to keep something secret. Or you can take the authoritarian route and threaten everyone into compliance and then act surprised when anonymous leaks occur. That's what happened here.
With most things that are kept secret, such as medical records, it is understood that releasing that secret information can easily harm or damage the person. Good or at least decent people have no desire to do that. It is right and just to have laws and other sanctions to apply against such people. This was not such an example. The only damage done here was that some bureaucrats lost face. Therefore the secrecy was not legitimate to begin with and this realization made disobedience far more likely.
I'm really not sure what it's going to take to get the country to realize that governing doesn't have to be an enemy of liberty.
It will take nothing more than a single example in all of history where governing and liberty weren't at odds.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-- Thomas Jefferson
I wonder what people _think_ government represents? The only power it ever has is to restrict. That's because liberty is the natural state of things and there's nothing to add to it. There is much that can be taken from it, however.
It goes back to the whole social-contract idea. It's good and reasonable that some liberties are removed. I am glad that my neighbors are not at liberty to murder, rape, or rob anytime they like. The problem is that even after all the basic, reasonable things like this are taken care of, you still have a government that wants to grow and expand.
Maybe that's the point - that we're no longer participating in a free government. Without input, there is total control - no way to safeguard against tyranny or corruption. If the guidelines are secret - they can be interpreted any way that the people enforcing them see fit - without control or oversight. I am starting to believe that if they thought they could get away with it - they would just -disappear- this guy like corrupt regimes usually do.
Don't think for a moment that they wouldn't do that. Goons who are on our payroll and nominally on our side are still goons. The bread and butter of thugs everywhere, whether common, appointed, or elected, is an "ends justify the means" style of thought. Naturally this prevents them from understanding how much they resemble the kind of societies we once stood against.
You are missing the point. They were trying to keep something a secret, and then someone sworn to keep that secret, leaked it. That is absolutely a cause for concern.
Another point is that it served no real purpose to keep this a secret anyway. Someone "sworn to keep the secret" realized this and acted accordingly instead of being a mindless drone. This made TSA look bad, it made them lose face, and now they want to get the visceral satisfaction of nailing the person who did it. That's about all there is to see here.
If the leaking of this information did any actual damage, or had a hope of remaining secret once implemented, then you'd have a case that GP is missing a point.
Feeling defensive, eh? Thanks for informing everyone you're "literate" and therefore better than those filthy ordinary people. Pick up a newspaper, and tell me how much writing would actually be *improved* with a machine writer, eh? Writing isn't sacred, it's just another occupation like woodchopping or running the cash register at the 7-11.
What you describe is "everyday" writing. This is like the vending machine that reads "insert dollar bills face up" or "team A scored 10 points while the opposing Team B scored 15." It's purely practical, get-the-job-done sort of writing where only the technical correctness is important.
Writing can also be beautiful, powerful, and artistic. A well-written editorial, penned by someone who has a deep understanding of the issues, can and has moved entire communities to change their minds on important issues. A beautifully written book tells the perceptive reader as much about the mind and spirit of the author as it does about the story that is being told. A horror story requires some sense of what is horrible.
The ability to both produce and appreciate good writing is on the decline. Measured scholastically, the grade-level at which the average American reads and writes is significantly lower now than it was say, 50 years ago. A good look at many online forums will also tell you that this skill is not highly valued. You can say that's because only some cultural elite are capable of enjoying it, though the GP made no such claim. You can also say that there is simply less interest in such things.
You can invent and try to substantiate any number of unique explanations for it. The truth of the matter is that in most situations, challenging your readers is now considered highly undesirable. They'll read a competitor's paper written in simpler langauge before they'll grab a dictionary. There was a time when this would have been viewed as laziness and an unwillingness to meet a worthy challenge. It would have been viewed like a wasted opportunity to better yourself that should not have been passed up, just like most people today would not like to pass up a higher-paying job. I'm not saying that previous generations were one homogeneous block who all felt this way, but many more people once did.
Over the last few generations, some kind of cultural shift occurred. People now care much more about avoiding the small-but-significant effort of learning something new than they care about improving important skills. They generally won't do it at all unless it's required by an authority like a boss or a professor. Even then it's in a rote, mechanical sort of way that deprives them of true appreciation. Even then it's reluctant, with a "gun to their head" in the form of losing their jobs or failing school.
Can you comprehend how sad that is?
Already happened. It's called "Fox News." (Or "MSNBC," depending on one's leanings.)
(emphasis mine)
Statist fear-mongering from a "Liberal" bias or statist fear-mongering from a "Conservative" bias. Nope, I'm not seeing any significant difference.
They forgot that part. Perhaps that happens in Canada only. In the USA, I have never once witnessed a significant decrease of the size and power of the federal government during my entire lifetime. Ever. I have seen this on the state and local levels, but never on the federal level.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I am not Canadian but I believe the name of the party is The Conservative Party. The word "conservative" lost its meaning a long time ago, particularly in the USA. How else do you explain the politicians who self-identify as "conservative" who are so eager to expand the size and power of government?
That would be the right time, yes. But actually, the problem with todays systems is not as much the OS as the applications that run on it. Almost every self-respecting OS has an Auto-update function that works more or less well. Unless you are a paranoid schizophrenic that update the OS manually (forgetting to do it now and then), the OS is relatively secure. The problem are the applications. Now tell me, how many of us run to download a new Java machine or a new Acrobat reader, or a new Cobian Backup, or a new WinAmp when a vulnerability is discovered on any of those products. Hell you will be lucky if you even get to know that a new vulnerability was found on your faithful uTorrent... So when you get pwned, what's the first thing the user blame? The OS of course...
At work we had a Windows Server 2008 hacked. It was killing the whole network sending spam and trying to infect other machines on our AD. Our boss was already blaming Bill Gate's mother ... On a closer inspection, the problem was discovered. The system was running a quite old version of WebBoard (a system for collaboration, which was developed originally by O'Reilly). The firewall has the port 8080 open to allow users to connect. Some people discovered the open port, found out that WebBoard was running, and took advantage of the vulnerability to upload and run malicious code on the server. Because WebBoard is a service, running as the System account, you can imagine what happened there. Did our IT manager know about this vulnerability. Not at all, even if it was fixed on a posterior build.... How many "forgotten" programs, and non-OS related services do people have running in their machines, unpatched and unattended? Think about this...
Perhaps the OS deserves some blame (kneejerk types, note that some != all). On Windows there is no equivalent to the various centralized package managers that come with standard Linux distributions. You cannot go to one place and run one program and simultaneously update every last application installed. The biggest obstacle seems to be the copyright restrictions that prevent the redistribution of most Windows software. But for whatever reason, on Windows, every last application is on its own and must make provisions for its own updates. If it doesn't, or if the user gets tired of dialogs popping up and just wants to get rid of them, then you get the scenario you describe. On a Linux or BSD -style system, WebBoard would be a package like any other and would be regularly updated as part of your routine system maintainence.
I would imagine that if Flash etc. became poor enough in terms of security we'd see more attention on projects like Gnash.
No joke. Even if they are absolutely equally secure, Gnash provides source code. You can build that source with SSP (or equivalent). You can also build it as PIC and apply many other restrictions with a PaX and/or Grsecurity kernel. All of these will reduce the chances that a known vulnerability will lead to a successful exploit. Specifically, a known vulnerability that would normally allow an attacker to run arbitrary code stands a good chance of merely crashing the application.
You just don't have options like this with binary blobs. I really would like to see more development of Gnash, as it seems that Adobe Flash is on a downhill course in terms of security and will continue to be a problem. Source code is about freedom and control. With such control, you can take steps to manage a risk even if you cannot perfectly mitigate it.
Of course, the protection for that isn't as strong as copyright. And in the end, it doesn't matter; if I know that a company isn't proud of its employment agreement such that they want it kept secret, then I'm thinking twice about subjecting myself to said agreement.
I don't agree with any of this nonsense but I just wanted to add that a company may want to keep the terms of the contract confidential because they are good, not just, as in this case, bad.
That made me curious. Generally the assumption is that if a corporation wants to hide something, it's because that something would make the company look bad.
Can you provide a single hypothetical scenario where an employment contract is fair, reasonable, written in good faith, generous towards the employees, and otherwise reflects well on the company, yet that company would fight this hard to keep it a secret?
So there should be no privacy at all in any kind of legally binding arrangement?
If you want my tax dollars to finance its enforcement, in the form of our court system, then no. There should be no privacy in a contract. At least, any privacy would be in the form of "don't disclose it in the first place" and would not take the form of "now that it's been disclosed, use copyright laws to shut down sites which host it." Not only is the latter position a total failure to understand the nature of the Internet and the Streisand effect, it's also inconsistent with the purpose of copyright.
More than that... What exactly is the site doing that would cause a takedown order for the whole domain? I mean, taking down a confidential company document is one thing... But to just issue an order to remove the domain entirely seems like too much.
But, I'm sure that when the sites come back up, they'll have even more readership.
I agree there was no reason to take down the entire domains. This really seems like it's becoming a standard tactic: put conditions into a legally binding contract, and then cry "copyright violation" when the contract is posted in public to the embarassment of its authors. An employment agreement is generally such a contract.
I propose a change to the law along these lines: your contract may be legally binding and public-domain, or it may be non-binding and copyrightable. You are, after all, asking a government agency (a public servant) such as a court of law to enforce it for you.