"Because some people who are paranoid of "big brother" fear any kind of servalence and spread fud. Britain is still one of the least personally restrictive nations in the world."
Ever wonder if these two things might be connected?
"There is no such thing as individual privacy. That's the main reason why the national security system works, it's because no privacy exists, it's an illusion."
Of course privacy exists. I'm thinking of a particular colour now. No-one knows which one but me. I watched a downloaded movie last night, but nobody but my household knows which one. I voted a certain way last election, but nobody knows how.
All these things are private... hence privacy. Now, it's possible for the government to find out many (not all) of these things, but that doesn't mean that at the moment they aren't private.
Mere possibility of discovery doesn't mean privacy is extinct, as long as that information hasn't already been discovered or spread. I could break into the national records office and read all the classified files they store in there, but that doesn't mean those records aren't "private".
"All records are stored in databases, and they aren't private. Anything you ever tell anyone else can be shared so thats not private. Anything you write, anything you read, anything you do, can be tracked, so in reality, there is limited privacy, and it's always been like this."
1. Not all records are stored in database. A distressingly large amount of data is still held, even now, in the form of paperwork.
2. Just because someone could relate some information to someone else, that doesn't stop it being private. I could tell you my inside leg measurement or how many sexual partners I've had, but unless you start screaming it at the top of your lungs or get a T-shirt made up, it's still private between us.
3. I can write anything I like and prevent people from reading it - in the extreme case by burning it immediately, or secreting it in my underwear for the forseeable future. How is that not private? I can wander into a charity shop wearing a halloween mask, but a book with cash and remove the mask and change my clothes only when I'm in a large public space (with no cameras) or in an enclosed space with too many other people to track (eg, a club). How is that transaction not private?
4. It has not always been like this. They still can't even connect up half the data that's already in government and agency databases. In the past, databases were smaller and more limited, and less information was stored in them. In the more distant past we didn't even have databases, or computers, or even papyrus to record things on. Who knows the SSN of the first chimp who came down form the trees? Sorry, but "always" is just nonsense.
"A citizen on the other hand, well, if you mean by privacy, privacy from other citizens, sure, but if you mean by privacy, secrecy, it doesnt exist. It's a good thing that it doesnt exist because if it did exist, how exactly would the government fight terrorism? How would the police fight crime?"
Secrecy does exist. This is why we still have things like tax evasion, terrorism, and all the other things you list as a consequence of privacy. In fact, a moment's thought would indicate that if these things are the consequence of privacy, the fact that we still have these things indicates there's still some level of privacy. QED.
In addition, I specifically pointed out that a certain amount of privacy-invasion was an essential and accepted part of life to protect people against these kinds of dangers. However, that doesn't mean people have to like it, and it doesn't absolve the agencies involved from caring about unnecessarily infringing privacy. Our laws ever since the advent of democracy have been a delicate balancing act between our ever-increasing ability to eavesdrop, and our ever-increasing desire for (and respect for) individual privacy.
And I don't know about the USA, but in the UK we fought the IRA for twenty or thirty years without having to have CCTV cameras on every street corner, warrantless searches, no-knock rules, RFID passports or secret courts. S
The ISS was originally a science/research project, and was designed to showcase international co-operation in a pro-active spirit of pushing back the boundaries and uniting man under a commmon aim. It was, therefore, clearly doomed from the very start.
A giant sunshade in space is expensive and difficult, but means we can go on polluting our atmosphere and spunking energy away, and don't have to do any of that boring, annoying growing up and taking responsibility for our actions.
I forsee a great future for the project, if it ever happens.
But seriously - we know what we have to do to combat global warming - who honestly thinks it's a great idea to start fucking ith the planet's ecosystem even more with what amounts to a high-tech, multiple-failure-mode band-aid, versus manning up, taking responsibility and sorting out the actual cause of the problem?
"The main reason people are afraid of the CIA is because they don't like secrecy."
Actually, I think it's because they like secrecy very much. Their secrecy. Also known as privacy.
This is why people hate government agencies like the CIA and NSA - because their job is to disrespecting people's privacy.
I'd hate the idea of the NSA/CIA/whoever whether they kept their conclusions to themselves or posed them on the side of a barn for all to see. Obviously undercover and intelligence work is essential to the continued running of any modern nation, but it doesn't mean anyone has to like it.
"In the case with Google, I don't think Google and the CIA would be working on something "evil", as Google is a search engine."
Riiiiight. Because experience in building massivecomputation resources, cutting-edge networking solutions and cross-correlating massive amountsof information are only used for designing even cuter lickle teddy bears to give out free to orphaned kids, right?
"The CIA, basically from Googles point of view is business, you can only make a lot of money by working with the feds, if you work against the feds you won't last very long."
Or you can, y'know... just not work anywhere near them. It's not an either-or situation.
Plus, if you RTFA you'll see that it's heavily indicated that they were secretly providing the kind of information to the CIA that they publically refused to the DOJ (or whoever).
"This really isnt news, this is to be expected, and if the CIA is doing it's job, well then you'd expect EXACTLY this."
Exactly. Unfortunately, that's only a good thing if you wholeheartedly support the US government on everything all the time, don't mind people poring over the phone records of millions of innocent citizens, believe the legal process will always be followed and never circumvented, and don't believe there'll be a single false positive... ever.
"OK Geoff, you have stumbled into the long raging debate in some circles as to why it is referred to as The Agency or The Company. Each group has its preferences and the usage is based upon where you place your allegiances."
Well, Geoff's unnecessary cock-etry aside, if it's an ongoing debate why did you feel the need to weigh in and correct him, hmmm? Hmmm?
And why does there have to be a debate? Can't two different groups of people have... oh, I dunno... two different names for the same thing?
And really, posting a link to his photo is just lame. People post bits of information. Bits of information can be linked up. Does that make it ok to point any passing nutter to a picture of the guy, from a completely unrelated online discussion? Learn some netiquette, dude, or some day you may well find you wife's maiden name, your home address, and you inside leg measurement splashed all over Slashdot too.
Plus, y'know... the fact that you obviously took the time to go cyberstalking some random poster who called you a cock on the internet.. well... kind of suggests he might be right.
And before getting so het up in future you might want to take some time to meditate upon John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory - there are a lot of idiots on the net, and if you're going to personally lay the smack down on every single one... well... I'd get an RSI brace for your smackdown-ing arm, pronto.
"Neoconservative" is a label people apply to a particular faction, primarily of the Republican party.
"Neoconservative" literally means "new conservative", meaning either someone who has converted to conservatism (presumably from liberalism), or someone who subscribes the the "new wave" of conservatism (as distinct from the "old" style of small-government, careful-spending, civil-liberties conservatism).
The word has two meanings, both of which refer to the same general group of people, but for different reasons.
I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that psychological addictions lead to physical changes in neurological structure. The brain is a physical, chemical and electrical device, and we already know that learning and developing skills and behaviours changes the brain's physical structure.
However, there's a big difference between that and physiological addiction. In particular you'll note that nowhere did I state that psychological addiction didn't cause physical changes, merely that the addiction is centred around the brain and the behaviour, not around every individual cell and organ exposed to the addictive substance. It's a "state of mind" addiction, not a basic biochemical need in every cell.
I'm gratified you believe I'm in some way "leading" people by posting an opinion on a website. But if I'm "blind" why don't you "enlighten" and correct me, instead of standing on the sidelines carping and contributing nothing of value to the conversation?
"And yes, psychology is my field of expertise."
Great - so weigh in with your expertise and educate us, providing links to article or media that back up your argument so we know you aren't just talking out of your arse.
Or keep out of the discussion.
Either way, standing on the sidelines shouting "you're wrong" is neither constructive nor entertaining, and when combined with posting as an AC indicates that you are, in fact, just a troll.
"Your analogy applies to the analog world only. Anything digital can be taken back with the right software."
Says who?
Example: Take the Slashdot articles database. Remove every tag applied to every article. Now "put back" the structure back exactly how it was. No, don't recreate it by looking at a previous copy - "take back" your original action.
Just because something's digital, that doesn't mean it's automagically symmetrical in time. Sure, we back digital content up more, and Wikipedia will let you view every revision of an article back to its beginnings, but that doesn't mean it's some magical property of "digital" media that makes it so.
It's just as easy to point to blog systems with no "version" control, online forms that don't let you edit your response after it's sent... hell, even the great grandaddy of all digital media, e-mail. Ever tried to send an e-mail then correct its content after it's been sent?
Likewise, we "back up" analogue media like tapes and records. Photocopies allow us to back up paper contracts and magazine articles. Where did this magical division between digital and analogue content come from? You can generalise a lot abotu the two groups, but "take-back-ability" isn't even close to one of the differentiators.
About all your can say is that it's generally easier to back up digital media, like it's generally easier to copy, modify or distribute it. Nowhere does "generally easier to" become "always can", though.
"If I 'own' something I should be able to: throw it away, change it, give it to someone else etc etc, but these ownership properties are not available with 'ownership' of a post."
Again, says who? That's just your assumption, based on a very restricted view of ownership. Slaves in Ancient Greece were "owned", but people couldn't "change" them however they liked - there were very strict rules that limited what you could do to (and require of) slaves. You "own" your own life, but can you legally throw it away? Likewise, you "own" a licence to listen to your iTunes music, but you can't give that away to people.
Ownership means "possession of-" - it doesn't mean "can do whatever the hell I like to- or with-".
Would it be nice to be able to edit posts? Of course.
Would it break moderation, make trolls impossible to guard against? Yes.
Is it your inalienable right to edit your posts? Nope.
If you weren't aware of it beforehand, then I apologise. However, there's almost no chance that any given post was that particular poster's first ever on Slashdot, so it seemed safe to assume you'd posted before (and hence, should have noticed the lack of "edit" links already).
If this really was your first post, then I apologise and retract my comment - I thought it was mentioned in the FAQ, but I can't find it now so perhaps it isn't.
Nevertheless, the original poster (was that also you?) seemed to be complaining that he should expect to be able to undo things on-line, and it was somehow his right to do so. I was merely pointing out that freedom of action is a right, but freedom of retraction wasn't guaranteed anywhere, ever.
If there's one thing everyone should understand before they make their very first post on the net, it's that the net is like cooking - you can add more, but you can never take away. You can amend, explain and add commentary to something you publically posted, but you can never, ever "take it back" once you've published it to the world. Even editing posts is only a superficial band-aid to the problem, as it doesn't prevent cached copies, saved pages, etc, etc, etc from showing exactly what you wrote previously.
Or at least, the consensus of the US intelligence experts on Al-Qaeda at the CIA believe so.
The funny thing is, half the non-Americans I know just assumed this was his plan:
Instruct the notoriously contrary American people not to elect Bush, making the "more reasonable" Kerry seem the terrorists' candidate of choice
Trust to the American people to do the exact opposite of "what they're told by the evil bad men", and elect Bush
??? (Allow Bush's foreign policies to run rampant in the Middle East, generating recruits for Al Qaeda, eroding ever-more the USA's world reputation and further destabilising the entire region.)
Profit.
The weird thing is that this wasn't obvious to the US population. And it seems to have caused a great deal of consternation at the CIA when their analysts decided that this was the only possible intent when OBL released the video on the eve of the US presidential elections.
Funnily enough, the fact that their own intelligence services think their greatest enemy seems eager to keep them in the Whitehouse doesn't seem to have bothered the Neocons, or suggested that maybe, just maybe they should re-evaluate their foreign policy a tad.
You were legally responsible for posting the comment, sure. And you did so in the full knowledge that it wasn't editable afterwards.
If you punch someone you can't then get sniffy because they carry around the bruise and won't allow you to unpunch them again. Why should you get pissed if you choose to post something and then can't edit it afterwards? You control and select your actions - any opportunity to take back said action is a privilege, not a right.
You have the right to act as you wish: the right to unilaterally retract a previous action at any time was never offered, guaranteed and shoulnd't be assumed.
"No, it's just a case of a phrase becoming an idiom, where the literal meaning of the words has little to do with the actual meaning of the whole phrase."
That's true, but idioms can come about by people just constantly and persistently using the wrong words. And there's a difference between idioms which use language incorrectly, and ones which we simply don't remember the origin of.
For example, there's nothing wrong with using the phrase "the whole nine yards", since it implies there are nine yards to be had, so using the whole nine yards is using 100% - the intended meaning of the phrase.
On the other hand, "the proof is in the pudding" is meaningless gibberish - the proof of the pudding is in the eating" is the correct idiom, meaning the only real measurement of worth is the results something gives, not how it looks or any other property of it.
Likewise, people say "I could(n't) care less" when they're dismissing something and not worth caring about.
"I couldn't care less" means literally that I am unable to care any less than I do about the matter. I literally care the minimum amount it's possible for anyone to care about anything.
"I could care less" means that it's entirely possible for me to care less about the issue, directly implying that I do care about it to some degree.
Since with the phrase you're trying to dismiss something as not worth caring about, stating that you do in fact care about it is the exact opposite of the sentiment you're trying to convey.
IIRC, Japanese is one of those languages (like Mandarin or Cantonese?), which only have a few vowel sounds, but about half a dozen inflections and tones that totally change the meaning of words.
Yes you should try to avoid idiomatic expressions, but:
1. People won't always do that - some idioms are so common they're easy to accidentally drop into conversation even when you're trying not to.
2. Idioms are just the most obvious example of the problem. Homonyms, connotations and the like can still cause problems.
3. I'm not sure where the Babel Fish comes in, but since it works on unconscious brainwaves it's likely that it communicates translations of meaning, rather than word-for-word translations.
You can't fully understand what someone's saying unless you understand their cultural context, and how it differs from your own.
For example, what's the difference in (UK) English between: "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less"? In US English they're used interchangably, but in UK English they're opposites. There are many such words or phrases in the English language alone where the precise word chosen (or connotations of a word) totally changes the meaning of the entire phrase, even reversing it's meaning.
Another example would be a simple phrase in US English like "he was pissed"? US meaning is "he was angry". In UK English it means "he was drunk", and a word-for-word translation into greek it would be meaningless (the equivalent idiom in Greek would be something like "he took it on the skull").
Seriously - if you ever want to understand the drawback to automatic translation, try getting two Greek friends to talk colloquially to you, but translating each individual word into English - it's completely unintelligible.
Whoooo, man, Someone got out of the wrong side of bed this morning.
What's so hard to understand? Boxers are hard as nails. Boxing is a poor style to fight with.
Yes, boxers can kick and wrestle in a street fight, but that's not boxing.
Boxing has made them very, very tough, but if they went into a fight and used boxing they'd get their arses kicked. What aren't you understanding about this?
True, Wing Chun was possibly a poor choice to go with, but I only mention it because I know someone who trains at it, and there's a fair full-contact element to the training at his club. This might not be representative.
You also imply Krav Maga is a poor style, and then admit it takes many of its techniques from Muay Thai, which everyone agrees isn't a bad "real" fighting style.
BJJ is one of the most successful elements in MMA, so I have trouble believing Ju-jitsu is useless, too.
So, one unrepresentative example and two bang on the money.
Of course people have to cross-train to be any good as a fighter - no style is complete. Anyone who wanted to be a good "real" fighter should train in at least (B/)JJ, Muay Thai and Boxing (perhaps spiced with something like Kenpo or Aikido).
Nevertheless, this doesn't mean boxing is a good fighting style on its own. Calm down, read again. That's my point.
"You did not just combine the words "hippy" and "neo-con" in one sentence. That is an oxymoron,"
Indeed. From a followup post it appears he was being metaphorical, but it was still a badly-expressed sentiment.
"like "you're a genious."
Ah, right. Straight in with the ad-hominem attacks, then.
"You cannot possibly believe that the CIA was smuggling drugs. That's just retarded."
I think you'll find there's quite a lot of evidence the "retards" are actually right. IIRC the DEA has even caught CIA operatives and assets red-handed in the past. And there are many more reports (eg, "Air America" during the Vietnam war era) which were never conclusively proved[1] but are highly suspicious.
"And to say we will spend 15 years cleaning up Iraq is dumb, the most pessimistic projections by anyone who could be considered knowledgeable indicate Iraqis will be able to take over all security in their country within two years."
Actually, the most pessimistic projections indicate the entire country collapsing into civil war within two years, with the danger this would lead to an Iran-supported Islamic Fundamentalist theocracy. This has been advanced as a serious possibility by both US and UK military leaders, but I don't suppose you get those inconvenient little details on Fox News, do you?
And FWIW, being able to reconcile the sunni and shi'ite ethnic groups (two diametrically opposed factions whose enmity goes back generations), and then getting the kurds (a group historically oppressed by both) on board, and then getting them to agree long enough to set up a stable government, in spite of Iran, Syria and the other surrounding nations with a vested interest in keeping Iraq unstable and making the US look bad, when everyone out there already hates you and blames you for the present conflict... well, taking only 15 years to set up a stable, secure nation under those circumstances would be quite an achievement for the best foreign diplomats the world has to offer.
And we've only got the ham-fisted neocons trying to do it at the poin of a gun. Yay!
"Please pay no attention to the moonbat."
Mmmm, delicious ad-hominem for dessert, too.
So did you have any factual objection to his post, or did your knee just jerk and you went with it?
[1] You know, CIA pilots and aircrew being discovered having large amounts of heroin and cocaine on their plane, which has just flown straight from the main Air America base in Vietnam. That kind of "suspicious". I can't go searching for references since I'm at work, but the material's out there if you look for it.
I've seen people jump off bus shelters, break their knuckles fighting with a lamppost, piss themselves or make out with someone not of their preferred sex, under the influence only of alcohol.
What's your point?
LSD is a strong hallucinogen, even in small quantities. Cannabis has mildly sense-altering effects: visual artifacts only really kick in at astronomically high doses, by which point the user is too wasted to do anything anyway.
Hell, you'll get better hallucinations form Absinthe or good Tequila than you ever will from pot.
Mainstream medical opinion agrees with me, though.
And besides:
"No one would argue that marijuana is as addictive as alcohol or cocaine. However, it's wrong to say that it is not at all addictive. More and more studies are finding that marijuana has addictive properties."
Doesn't discriminate between physiological and psychological. Common when people who disapprove of it are talking about cannabis, since saying "it's as addictive as shopping or chocolate" doesn't have quite the same scary edge as implying "it's addictive like heroin".
"Both animal and human studies show physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms from marijuana, including irritability, restlessness, insomnia, nausea and intense dreams."
Indeed. However, physiological withdrawal symptoms after a prolonged bout of heavy use != physiologically addictive.
I've known "addicted" people who got restless, irritable and had sleeping problems when they were denied the opportunity to gamble or go shopping for long periods of time.
Oh, and since cannabis is an proven nausea suppressant it's entirely possible that it was just masking whatever else was making them feel nauseus. Take two paracetamol every day for a year then stop, and see if it doesn't "cause" you to start having headaches.
Hell, I get cranky and restless if I can't code for a few days. Does that mean I'm physiologically addicted to coding? How, exactly?
"Tolerance to marijuana also builds up rapidly. Heavy users need 8 times higher doses to get the same effects as infrequent users."
Metabolites of TCH and other cannabinoids also stay in your system in appreciable amounts for as long as several days (and in detectable amounts for a month or more), which might explain why tolerance builds up.
Happily, with a break of as little as a few days your tolerance drops right off again, to the point if you don't smoke for a couple of weeks to a month you can regress right back to the "first-time giggling stoner" stereotype again.
Or so a friend told me. Right? Right.
"For a small percentage of people who use it, marijuana can be highly addictive. It is estimated that 10% to 14% of users will become heavily dependent. More than 120,000 people in the US seek treatment for marijuana addiction every year. Because the consequences of marijuana use can be subtle and insidious, it is more difficult to recognize signs of addiction."
Doesn't distinguish between psychological and physiological addiction. Again.
And from anecdotal evidence I'd strongly question the figure of 10-14%. Strongly question.
"Cultural and societal beliefs that marijuana cannot be addictive make it less likely for people to seek help or to get support for quitting."
I think this says it all - "cultural and societal" beliefs. Not "myths", "urban legends", "common misconceptions", but the mainstream belief in our society and culture.
IE, the mainstream opinion in our culture and society, informed by scientific study in the area, and in spite of a constant government-sponsored factually unsupported propaganda campaigns over the last few decades... is that pot is non-physically-addictive.
But don't believe doctors, scientists and the entirety of the educated world in it. Listen to us. We're telling you on our website that everyone else is wrong. And providing no evidence to back it up. Trust us.
Slashdot Mirror
"Because some people who are paranoid of "big brother" fear any kind of servalence and spread fud. Britain is still one of the least personally restrictive nations in the world."
Ever wonder if these two things might be connected?
"There is no such thing as individual privacy. That's the main reason why the national security system works, it's because no privacy exists, it's an illusion."
Of course privacy exists. I'm thinking of a particular colour now. No-one knows which one but me. I watched a downloaded movie last night, but nobody but my household knows which one. I voted a certain way last election, but nobody knows how.
All these things are private... hence privacy. Now, it's possible for the government to find out many (not all) of these things, but that doesn't mean that at the moment they aren't private.
Mere possibility of discovery doesn't mean privacy is extinct, as long as that information hasn't already been discovered or spread. I could break into the national records office and read all the classified files they store in there, but that doesn't mean those records aren't "private".
"All records are stored in databases, and they aren't private. Anything you ever tell anyone else can be shared so thats not private. Anything you write, anything you read, anything you do, can be tracked, so in reality, there is limited privacy, and it's always been like this."
1. Not all records are stored in database. A distressingly large amount of data is still held, even now, in the form of paperwork.
2. Just because someone could relate some information to someone else, that doesn't stop it being private. I could tell you my inside leg measurement or how many sexual partners I've had, but unless you start screaming it at the top of your lungs or get a T-shirt made up, it's still private between us.
3. I can write anything I like and prevent people from reading it - in the extreme case by burning it immediately, or secreting it in my underwear for the forseeable future. How is that not private? I can wander into a charity shop wearing a halloween mask, but a book with cash and remove the mask and change my clothes only when I'm in a large public space (with no cameras) or in an enclosed space with too many other people to track (eg, a club). How is that transaction not private?
4. It has not always been like this. They still can't even connect up half the data that's already in government and agency databases. In the past, databases were smaller and more limited, and less information was stored in them. In the more distant past we didn't even have databases, or computers, or even papyrus to record things on. Who knows the SSN of the first chimp who came down form the trees? Sorry, but "always" is just nonsense.
"A citizen on the other hand, well, if you mean by privacy, privacy from other citizens, sure, but if you mean by privacy, secrecy, it doesnt exist. It's a good thing that it doesnt exist because if it did exist, how exactly would the government fight terrorism? How would the police fight crime?"
Secrecy does exist. This is why we still have things like tax evasion, terrorism, and all the other things you list as a consequence of privacy. In fact, a moment's thought would indicate that if these things are the consequence of privacy, the fact that we still have these things indicates there's still some level of privacy. QED.
In addition, I specifically pointed out that a certain amount of privacy-invasion was an essential and accepted part of life to protect people against these kinds of dangers. However, that doesn't mean people have to like it, and it doesn't absolve the agencies involved from caring about unnecessarily infringing privacy. Our laws ever since the advent of democracy have been a delicate balancing act between our ever-increasing ability to eavesdrop, and our ever-increasing desire for (and respect for) individual privacy.
And I don't know about the USA, but in the UK we fought the IRA for twenty or thirty years without having to have CCTV cameras on every street corner, warrantless searches, no-knock rules, RFID passports or secret courts. S
As ever, the Onion got there first ;-)
The ISS was originally a science/research project, and was designed to showcase international co-operation in a pro-active spirit of pushing back the boundaries and uniting man under a commmon aim. It was, therefore, clearly doomed from the very start.
A giant sunshade in space is expensive and difficult, but means we can go on polluting our atmosphere and spunking energy away, and don't have to do any of that boring, annoying growing up and taking responsibility for our actions.
I forsee a great future for the project, if it ever happens.
But seriously - we know what we have to do to combat global warming - who honestly thinks it's a great idea to start fucking ith the planet's ecosystem even more with what amounts to a high-tech, multiple-failure-mode band-aid, versus manning up, taking responsibility and sorting out the actual cause of the problem?
"The main reason people are afraid of the CIA is because they don't like secrecy."
Actually, I think it's because they like secrecy very much. Their secrecy. Also known as privacy.
This is why people hate government agencies like the CIA and NSA - because their job is to disrespecting people's privacy.
I'd hate the idea of the NSA/CIA/whoever whether they kept their conclusions to themselves or posed them on the side of a barn for all to see. Obviously undercover and intelligence work is essential to the continued running of any modern nation, but it doesn't mean anyone has to like it.
"In the case with Google, I don't think Google and the CIA would be working on something "evil", as Google is a search engine."
Riiiiight. Because experience in building massive computation resources, cutting-edge networking solutions and cross-correlating massive amounts of information are only used for designing even cuter lickle teddy bears to give out free to orphaned kids, right?
"The CIA, basically from Googles point of view is business, you can only make a lot of money by working with the feds, if you work against the feds you won't last very long."
Or you can, y'know... just not work anywhere near them. It's not an either-or situation.
Plus, if you RTFA you'll see that it's heavily indicated that they were secretly providing the kind of information to the CIA that they publically refused to the DOJ (or whoever).
"This really isnt news, this is to be expected, and if the CIA is doing it's job, well then you'd expect EXACTLY this."
Exactly. Unfortunately, that's only a good thing if you wholeheartedly support the US government on everything all the time, don't mind people poring over the phone records of millions of innocent citizens, believe the legal process will always be followed and never circumvented, and don't believe there'll be a single false positive... ever.
Oh right... yeah.
IIRC, to be fair, the CIA did try to stop him... but Bush more or less put his fingers in his ears and danced around going "LALALALALALAAAAAAA!".
He likely would if he could, unprompted, form the coherent sentence required to do so.
"OK Geoff, you have stumbled into the long raging debate in some circles as to why it is referred to as The Agency or The Company. Each group has its preferences and the usage is based upon where you place your allegiances."
Well, Geoff's unnecessary cock-etry aside, if it's an ongoing debate why did you feel the need to weigh in and correct him, hmmm? Hmmm?
And why does there have to be a debate? Can't two different groups of people have... oh, I dunno... two different names for the same thing?
And really, posting a link to his photo is just lame. People post bits of information. Bits of information can be linked up. Does that make it ok to point any passing nutter to a picture of the guy, from a completely unrelated online discussion? Learn some netiquette, dude, or some day you may well find you wife's maiden name, your home address, and you inside leg measurement splashed all over Slashdot too.
Plus, y'know... the fact that you obviously took the time to go cyberstalking some random poster who called you a cock on the internet.. well... kind of suggests he might be right.
And before getting so het up in future you might want to take some time to meditate upon John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory - there are a lot of idiots on the net, and if you're going to personally lay the smack down on every single one... well... I'd get an RSI brace for your smackdown-ing arm, pronto.
I'll take a nice, safe browser crash with over an ActiveX control or buffer overflow executing arbitrary code on my local machine any time.
Nobody sane ever said Firefox has no bugs and no security holes.
However, those said holes tend to be fewer than IE, less severe and patched faster.
I've got to say, that was a truly terrible troll.
You get The Interwebs in Arkansas?
"Neoconservative" is a label people apply to a particular faction, primarily of the Republican party.
"Neoconservative" literally means "new conservative", meaning either someone who has converted to conservatism (presumably from liberalism), or someone who subscribes the the "new wave" of conservatism (as distinct from the "old" style of small-government, careful-spending, civil-liberties conservatism).
The word has two meanings, both of which refer to the same general group of people, but for different reasons.
I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that psychological addictions lead to physical changes in neurological structure. The brain is a physical, chemical and electrical device, and we already know that learning and developing skills and behaviours changes the brain's physical structure.
However, there's a big difference between that and physiological addiction. In particular you'll note that nowhere did I state that psychological addiction didn't cause physical changes, merely that the addiction is centred around the brain and the behaviour, not around every individual cell and organ exposed to the addictive substance. It's a "state of mind" addiction, not a basic biochemical need in every cell.
I'm gratified you believe I'm in some way "leading" people by posting an opinion on a website. But if I'm "blind" why don't you "enlighten" and correct me, instead of standing on the sidelines carping and contributing nothing of value to the conversation?
"And yes, psychology is my field of expertise."
Great - so weigh in with your expertise and educate us, providing links to article or media that back up your argument so we know you aren't just talking out of your arse.
Or keep out of the discussion.
Either way, standing on the sidelines shouting "you're wrong" is neither constructive nor entertaining, and when combined with posting as an AC indicates that you are, in fact, just a troll.
"Your analogy applies to the analog world only. Anything digital can be taken back with the right software."
Says who?
Example: Take the Slashdot articles database. Remove every tag applied to every article. Now "put back" the structure back exactly how it was. No, don't recreate it by looking at a previous copy - "take back" your original action.
Just because something's digital, that doesn't mean it's automagically symmetrical in time. Sure, we back digital content up more, and Wikipedia will let you view every revision of an article back to its beginnings, but that doesn't mean it's some magical property of "digital" media that makes it so.
It's just as easy to point to blog systems with no "version" control, online forms that don't let you edit your response after it's sent... hell, even the great grandaddy of all digital media, e-mail. Ever tried to send an e-mail then correct its content after it's been sent?
Likewise, we "back up" analogue media like tapes and records. Photocopies allow us to back up paper contracts and magazine articles. Where did this magical division between digital and analogue content come from? You can generalise a lot abotu the two groups, but "take-back-ability" isn't even close to one of the differentiators.
About all your can say is that it's generally easier to back up digital media, like it's generally easier to copy, modify or distribute it. Nowhere does "generally easier to" become "always can", though.
"If I 'own' something I should be able to: throw it away, change it, give it to someone else etc etc, but these ownership properties are not available with 'ownership' of a post."
Again, says who? That's just your assumption, based on a very restricted view of ownership. Slaves in Ancient Greece were "owned", but people couldn't "change" them however they liked - there were very strict rules that limited what you could do to (and require of) slaves. You "own" your own life, but can you legally throw it away? Likewise, you "own" a licence to listen to your iTunes music, but you can't give that away to people.
Ownership means "possession of-" - it doesn't mean "can do whatever the hell I like to- or with-".
Would it be nice to be able to edit posts? Of course.
Would it break moderation, make trolls impossible to guard against? Yes.
Is it your inalienable right to edit your posts? Nope.
If you weren't aware of it beforehand, then I apologise. However, there's almost no chance that any given post was that particular poster's first ever on Slashdot, so it seemed safe to assume you'd posted before (and hence, should have noticed the lack of "edit" links already).
If this really was your first post, then I apologise and retract my comment - I thought it was mentioned in the FAQ, but I can't find it now so perhaps it isn't.
Nevertheless, the original poster (was that also you?) seemed to be complaining that he should expect to be able to undo things on-line, and it was somehow his right to do so. I was merely pointing out that freedom of action is a right, but freedom of retraction wasn't guaranteed anywhere, ever.
If there's one thing everyone should understand before they make their very first post on the net, it's that the net is like cooking - you can add more, but you can never take away. You can amend, explain and add commentary to something you publically posted, but you can never, ever "take it back" once you've published it to the world. Even editing posts is only a superficial band-aid to the problem, as it doesn't prevent cached copies, saved pages, etc, etc, etc from showing exactly what you wrote previously.
Or at least, the consensus of the US intelligence experts on Al-Qaeda at the CIA believe so.
The funny thing is, half the non-Americans I know just assumed this was his plan:
The weird thing is that this wasn't obvious to the US population. And it seems to have caused a great deal of consternation at the CIA when their analysts decided that this was the only possible intent when OBL released the video on the eve of the US presidential elections.
Funnily enough, the fact that their own intelligence services think their greatest enemy seems eager to keep them in the Whitehouse doesn't seem to have bothered the Neocons, or suggested that maybe, just maybe they should re-evaluate their foreign policy a tad.
You were legally responsible for posting the comment, sure. And you did so in the full knowledge that it wasn't editable afterwards.
If you punch someone you can't then get sniffy because they carry around the bruise and won't allow you to unpunch them again. Why should you get pissed if you choose to post something and then can't edit it afterwards? You control and select your actions - any opportunity to take back said action is a privilege, not a right.
You have the right to act as you wish: the right to unilaterally retract a previous action at any time was never offered, guaranteed and shoulnd't be assumed.
"No, it's just a case of a phrase becoming an idiom, where the literal meaning of the words has little to do with the actual meaning of the whole phrase."
That's true, but idioms can come about by people just constantly and persistently using the wrong words. And there's a difference between idioms which use language incorrectly, and ones which we simply don't remember the origin of.
For example, there's nothing wrong with using the phrase "the whole nine yards", since it implies there are nine yards to be had, so using the whole nine yards is using 100% - the intended meaning of the phrase.
On the other hand, "the proof is in the pudding" is meaningless gibberish - the proof of the pudding is in the eating" is the correct idiom, meaning the only real measurement of worth is the results something gives, not how it looks or any other property of it.
Likewise, people say "I could(n't) care less" when they're dismissing something and not worth caring about.
"I couldn't care less" means literally that I am unable to care any less than I do about the matter. I literally care the minimum amount it's possible for anyone to care about anything.
"I could care less" means that it's entirely possible for me to care less about the issue, directly implying that I do care about it to some degree.
Since with the phrase you're trying to dismiss something as not worth caring about, stating that you do in fact care about it is the exact opposite of the sentiment you're trying to convey.
IIRC, Japanese is one of those languages (like Mandarin or Cantonese?), which only have a few vowel sounds, but about half a dozen inflections and tones that totally change the meaning of words.
Yes you should try to avoid idiomatic expressions, but:
1. People won't always do that - some idioms are so common they're easy to accidentally drop into conversation even when you're trying not to.
2. Idioms are just the most obvious example of the problem. Homonyms, connotations and the like can still cause problems.
3. I'm not sure where the Babel Fish comes in, but since it works on unconscious brainwaves it's likely that it communicates translations of meaning, rather than word-for-word translations.
You can't fully understand what someone's saying unless you understand their cultural context, and how it differs from your own.
For example, what's the difference in (UK) English between: "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less"? In US English they're used interchangably, but in UK English they're opposites. There are many such words or phrases in the English language alone where the precise word chosen (or connotations of a word) totally changes the meaning of the entire phrase, even reversing it's meaning.
Another example would be a simple phrase in US English like "he was pissed"? US meaning is "he was angry". In UK English it means "he was drunk", and a word-for-word translation into greek it would be meaningless (the equivalent idiom in Greek would be something like "he took it on the skull").
Seriously - if you ever want to understand the drawback to automatic translation, try getting two Greek friends to talk colloquially to you, but translating each individual word into English - it's completely unintelligible.
Whoooo, man, Someone got out of the wrong side of bed this morning.
What's so hard to understand? Boxers are hard as nails. Boxing is a poor style to fight with.
Yes, boxers can kick and wrestle in a street fight, but that's not boxing .
Boxing has made them very, very tough, but if they went into a fight and used boxing they'd get their arses kicked. What aren't you understanding about this?
True, Wing Chun was possibly a poor choice to go with, but I only mention it because I know someone who trains at it, and there's a fair full-contact element to the training at his club. This might not be representative.
You also imply Krav Maga is a poor style, and then admit it takes many of its techniques from Muay Thai, which everyone agrees isn't a bad "real" fighting style.
BJJ is one of the most successful elements in MMA, so I have trouble believing Ju-jitsu is useless, too.
So, one unrepresentative example and two bang on the money.
Of course people have to cross-train to be any good as a fighter - no style is complete. Anyone who wanted to be a good "real" fighter should train in at least (B/)JJ, Muay Thai and Boxing (perhaps spiced with something like Kenpo or Aikido).
Nevertheless, this doesn't mean boxing is a good fighting style on its own. Calm down, read again. That's my point.
"You did not just combine the words "hippy" and "neo-con" in one sentence. That is an oxymoron,"
Indeed. From a followup post it appears he was being metaphorical, but it was still a badly-expressed sentiment.
"like "you're a genious."
Ah, right. Straight in with the ad-hominem attacks, then.
"You cannot possibly believe that the CIA was smuggling drugs. That's just retarded."
I think you'll find there's quite a lot of evidence the "retards" are actually right. IIRC the DEA has even caught CIA operatives and assets red-handed in the past. And there are many more reports (eg, "Air America" during the Vietnam war era) which were never conclusively proved[1] but are highly suspicious.
"And to say we will spend 15 years cleaning up Iraq is dumb, the most pessimistic projections by anyone who could be considered knowledgeable indicate Iraqis will be able to take over all security in their country within two years."
Actually, the most pessimistic projections indicate the entire country collapsing into civil war within two years, with the danger this would lead to an Iran-supported Islamic Fundamentalist theocracy. This has been advanced as a serious possibility by both US and UK military leaders, but I don't suppose you get those inconvenient little details on Fox News, do you?
And FWIW, being able to reconcile the sunni and shi'ite ethnic groups (two diametrically opposed factions whose enmity goes back generations), and then getting the kurds (a group historically oppressed by both) on board, and then getting them to agree long enough to set up a stable government, in spite of Iran, Syria and the other surrounding nations with a vested interest in keeping Iraq unstable and making the US look bad, when everyone out there already hates you and blames you for the present conflict... well, taking only 15 years to set up a stable, secure nation under those circumstances would be quite an achievement for the best foreign diplomats the world has to offer.
And we've only got the ham-fisted neocons trying to do it at the poin of a gun. Yay!
"Please pay no attention to the moonbat."
Mmmm, delicious ad-hominem for dessert, too.
So did you have any factual objection to his post, or did your knee just jerk and you went with it?
[1] You know, CIA pilots and aircrew being discovered having large amounts of heroin and cocaine on their plane, which has just flown straight from the main Air America base in Vietnam. That kind of "suspicious". I can't go searching for references since I'm at work, but the material's out there if you look for it.
Heh. Employ them growing hemp to make clothes, houses, paper, you name it.
Mmmmm... irony.....
I've seen people jump off bus shelters, break their knuckles fighting with a lamppost, piss themselves or make out with someone not of their preferred sex, under the influence only of alcohol.
What's your point?
LSD is a strong hallucinogen, even in small quantities. Cannabis has mildly sense-altering effects: visual artifacts only really kick in at astronomically high doses, by which point the user is too wasted to do anything anyway.
Hell, you'll get better hallucinations form Absinthe or good Tequila than you ever will from pot.
Mainstream medical opinion agrees with me, though.
And besides:
"No one would argue that marijuana is as addictive as alcohol or cocaine. However, it's wrong to say that it is not at all addictive. More and more studies are finding that marijuana has addictive properties."
Doesn't discriminate between physiological and psychological. Common when people who disapprove of it are talking about cannabis, since saying "it's as addictive as shopping or chocolate" doesn't have quite the same scary edge as implying "it's addictive like heroin".
"Both animal and human studies show physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms from marijuana, including irritability, restlessness, insomnia, nausea and intense dreams."
Indeed. However, physiological withdrawal symptoms after a prolonged bout of heavy use != physiologically addictive.
I've known "addicted" people who got restless, irritable and had sleeping problems when they were denied the opportunity to gamble or go shopping for long periods of time.
Oh, and since cannabis is an proven nausea suppressant it's entirely possible that it was just masking whatever else was making them feel nauseus. Take two paracetamol every day for a year then stop, and see if it doesn't "cause" you to start having headaches.
Hell, I get cranky and restless if I can't code for a few days. Does that mean I'm physiologically addicted to coding? How, exactly?
"Tolerance to marijuana also builds up rapidly. Heavy users need 8 times higher doses to get the same effects as infrequent users."
Metabolites of TCH and other cannabinoids also stay in your system in appreciable amounts for as long as several days (and in detectable amounts for a month or more), which might explain why tolerance builds up.
Happily, with a break of as little as a few days your tolerance drops right off again, to the point if you don't smoke for a couple of weeks to a month you can regress right back to the "first-time giggling stoner" stereotype again.
Or so a friend told me. Right? Right.
"For a small percentage of people who use it, marijuana can be highly addictive. It is estimated that 10% to 14% of users will become heavily dependent. More than 120,000 people in the US seek treatment for marijuana addiction every year. Because the consequences of marijuana use can be subtle and insidious, it is more difficult to recognize signs of addiction."
Doesn't distinguish between psychological and physiological addiction. Again.
And from anecdotal evidence I'd strongly question the figure of 10-14%. Strongly question.
"Cultural and societal beliefs that marijuana cannot be addictive make it less likely for people to seek help or to get support for quitting."
I think this says it all - "cultural and societal" beliefs. Not "myths", "urban legends", "common misconceptions", but the mainstream belief in our society and culture.
IE, the mainstream opinion in our culture and society, informed by scientific study in the area, and in spite of a constant government-sponsored factually unsupported propaganda campaigns over the last few decades... is that pot is non-physically-addictive.
But don't believe doctors, scientists and the entirety of the educated world in it. Listen to us. We're telling you on our website that everyone else is wrong. And providing no evidence to back it up. Trust us.