It's the old raze the hole town to find the one rat argument that thugs have been making for thousands of years.
No the government really has no way of identifying terrorists without putting us all under a microscope, and restricting our society down to a little ordered police state. But the government seems to have no problem creating terrorists by bombing their countries and radicalizing people by killing innocent people, pregnant women and children.
Yeah I realize that was recorded and may be processed later to question my patriotism.
First, the government's assertion that it needs every felon's DNA to keep the public safe is a complete myth. After 911, it seems that we may need to do some other things to keep the public safe like keep an eye on the government itself.
Secondly, given the political climate of the times, it's very likely that such information would be deliberately abused against the political adversaries of the political establishment.
No government should be trusted with the control of evidence of crimes that have yet to be committed.
If the government restricts the internet, restricting access to high speed connections or restrciting access to art, whatever, the government risks radicalizing a very large portion of the American population. We have come to rely upon the internet as a tool of free speech inherent in the American social experience of the 21st century. Restricting it significantly will piss people off. Of course, the government and the media conglomerates know this full well, but believe that the infrastructure is in place to deal with this sort of social outcry.
After all, what's the Democratic Party for? They'll implement the DRM policies and then select Democrats in Congress will shake their fists in the air, hold a hearing, and go on vacation.
So the Republicans defeated the measure 8 to 23, but then the Democrats went on to accept the overall amendment 27 to 4. How many committee members are Democrats? Probably more than 7, defintely not 4.
No, it's not that the Republicans defeated this mesaure, it's that Congress is defeating this measure. Anytime the Democrats refuse to take a stand on an issue they are in fact endorsing the issue, and doing their real job of reinforcing the antidemocratic capitalist system of government.
To just sit there while my car parks itself. What a novelty! I'm sure the neighbors'll be over every time I park the car just a pointin' and a grinnin'
Meanwhile no money is being spent on making cars cleaner. No, first we need a car that parks itself.
This just shows where our priorities are as a nation. Our priorities are still with money and status (nice car) rather than the impending climatic disaster.
I think the self-parking car is a STUPID idea.
Something about stories and posts about stories which call for giving more money to the FBI/CIA bothers me, but I can't put my finger on it. I got it! It's as if they wrote it themselves.
I'm sorry but the FBI could have email access, that's just not where they themselves have put the money that could be used for email. The FBI gets more than plenty of funding, it gets the funding from our social programs like education and nationalized healthcare.
If the FBI wants email, they should cut one of their pet projects like that database with 200,000 names of political dissenters and use it for their email server.
Or get Gmails accounts, they probably already thumb through the accounts anyway.
Oh I appreciate your tone.
Did you know that the richest 500 people in the world have more wealth than the bottom billion? A billion people. I didn't think so. Wealth the size of Murdoch's is obscene, and cannot be accumulated by honest means alone.
As far as I'm concerned Fox, ABC, all these media companies you mentioned are official media, unswervingly uncritical of the government and the corporatocracy. So you're just picking the prettiest bowl of shit and calling it innovative.
And to answer your question, since you obviously didn't put it together from my post, the internet can be restricted in the same way that public television was neutered: by lobbying the politicians who then instruct the FCC to pass regulations to restrict the internet: to monitor it, to isolate the national network, to pass laws (as in New Jersey) which intimidate by making it a crime to publicly tell lies about people... This is how the internet is to be handled by the powers that be.
I don't have to be clairvoyant to call it how it is. Spare yourself by leaving. Or if you care to respond, by all means do so, I'm game.
Rupert Murdoch is not a good man. And if these comments are to be taken seriously he is not a smart man either.
The internet is not simply a means of distribution of information. It is freedom of information. It allows us to be free of the "qualified" news source. Ten years ago, people like Rupert Murdoch thought they could dominate the media of the world. Today no one dominates the media of the world. On the internet (as it is now), that's simply not possible.
So I expect by embrace Murdoch means destroy or restrict. After all, his media companies had to resort to lobbying the government to ensure that only the official channels (ABC,CBS,CNN,etc.) were allowed to be shown. Public television has been largely dismantled (or neutered rather) and I suspect the Rupert Murdoch's of the world would prefer the same route for the public internet.
This is a dangerous criticism of the government and more specifically it's central intelligence service. Not that I think that the identities of covert CIA operatives should be exposed, endangering the lives of these people. But I'd rather not the government have too many more secret facilities thank you.
150 million is a lot of hamburgers. But what's more is that I don't think that number includes on the copies of Firefox that are copied over to Linux distro's and distributed that way. Maybe I'm wrong, and I have no idea how many more copies of Firefox that would mean are floating around. Just a thought.
These stories are nothing more than the mainstream media panicking because they are losing readers to blogs. And what should they expect when they run official propaganda alongside human interest stories and fashion stories, the blogosphere is simply more interesting and informative.
What does it mean for a market to be higher today than a few years ago? I don't understand what you mean by higher. It certainly doesn't mean "better", or "more accessible".
The IT companies are simply throwing their dog (the American IT worker) a bone in the form of a few jobs. They are making so much money through outsourcing, a clever word for a cut-throat anti-nationalist business practice, that they can afford to do that. The jobs are part of PR.
Any idiot knows that the American economy is in shambles, despite what the likes of major media companies like CNN claim.
I would say that the probable outcome is that while the intelligence services continue to cover their tracks, and continue to become more powerful, they will of course fall for the same trap that all men (and women) who seek power for power's sake: they will abuse it, and then be tried before history, if not before a court of their peers.
Maybe you're right, and that will take a hundred years, but maybe it will only take ten. I think that as the contradictions of global capitalism become even more convulsive and destructive, and those that do the bidding of capitalism become more and more aggressive, the people will come to realize what's causing it, and seek to replace the capitalist system sooner rather than later.
Stupidly paranoid? The intelligence establishment of today is run by war criminals like John Negroponte. This reclassification scheme is covering illegal activities of the past, and is part of a wider strategy of making the intelligence services less and less accountable to scrutiny both by the public and by the judicial branch of the government.
Global warming has been established for years (perhaps even decades) as being attributable largely to human industrial causes. Yet we keep hearing so-called moderates trumpeting the old line that this is yet more proof, yet another study that strengthens the argument.
I'm tired of this approach, which is dripping with the language introduced by energy industry PR men. Maybe I'll just say what should be on everyone's mind already: that global warming is just another symptom of the disease that is capitalism.
Until they sold their radio station to Clear Channel, and we yet another top 40 station. WOXY would play truly alternative music, independent stuff. And you could pick it up in the middlde of the Indiana, way out in cornfields.
But it's no wonder they are failing online, since there is plenty of competition here. And WOXY offers nothing alternative. That they wish to charge for thei service means that WOXY is about to die.
Slashdot Mirror
Man...at the cutting edge so to speak.
It's the old raze the hole town to find the one rat argument that thugs have been making for thousands of years. No the government really has no way of identifying terrorists without putting us all under a microscope, and restricting our society down to a little ordered police state. But the government seems to have no problem creating terrorists by bombing their countries and radicalizing people by killing innocent people, pregnant women and children. Yeah I realize that was recorded and may be processed later to question my patriotism.
First, the government's assertion that it needs every felon's DNA to keep the public safe is a complete myth. After 911, it seems that we may need to do some other things to keep the public safe like keep an eye on the government itself. Secondly, given the political climate of the times, it's very likely that such information would be deliberately abused against the political adversaries of the political establishment. No government should be trusted with the control of evidence of crimes that have yet to be committed.
If the government restricts the internet, restricting access to high speed connections or restrciting access to art, whatever, the government risks radicalizing a very large portion of the American population. We have come to rely upon the internet as a tool of free speech inherent in the American social experience of the 21st century. Restricting it significantly will piss people off. Of course, the government and the media conglomerates know this full well, but believe that the infrastructure is in place to deal with this sort of social outcry. After all, what's the Democratic Party for? They'll implement the DRM policies and then select Democrats in Congress will shake their fists in the air, hold a hearing, and go on vacation.
So the Republicans defeated the measure 8 to 23, but then the Democrats went on to accept the overall amendment 27 to 4. How many committee members are Democrats? Probably more than 7, defintely not 4. No, it's not that the Republicans defeated this mesaure, it's that Congress is defeating this measure. Anytime the Democrats refuse to take a stand on an issue they are in fact endorsing the issue, and doing their real job of reinforcing the antidemocratic capitalist system of government.
To just sit there while my car parks itself. What a novelty! I'm sure the neighbors'll be over every time I park the car just a pointin' and a grinnin' Meanwhile no money is being spent on making cars cleaner. No, first we need a car that parks itself. This just shows where our priorities are as a nation. Our priorities are still with money and status (nice car) rather than the impending climatic disaster. I think the self-parking car is a STUPID idea.
Private security companies and public military are getting married, and we're not invited. Yes they've been engaged for a long time so it's proper.
Something about stories and posts about stories which call for giving more money to the FBI/CIA bothers me, but I can't put my finger on it. I got it! It's as if they wrote it themselves. I'm sorry but the FBI could have email access, that's just not where they themselves have put the money that could be used for email. The FBI gets more than plenty of funding, it gets the funding from our social programs like education and nationalized healthcare. If the FBI wants email, they should cut one of their pet projects like that database with 200,000 names of political dissenters and use it for their email server. Or get Gmails accounts, they probably already thumb through the accounts anyway.
This is another corporate hush tactic meant to deal with free speech on the internet. Ignore it.
See you later flag waver!
Oh I appreciate your tone. Did you know that the richest 500 people in the world have more wealth than the bottom billion? A billion people. I didn't think so. Wealth the size of Murdoch's is obscene, and cannot be accumulated by honest means alone. As far as I'm concerned Fox, ABC, all these media companies you mentioned are official media, unswervingly uncritical of the government and the corporatocracy. So you're just picking the prettiest bowl of shit and calling it innovative. And to answer your question, since you obviously didn't put it together from my post, the internet can be restricted in the same way that public television was neutered: by lobbying the politicians who then instruct the FCC to pass regulations to restrict the internet: to monitor it, to isolate the national network, to pass laws (as in New Jersey) which intimidate by making it a crime to publicly tell lies about people... This is how the internet is to be handled by the powers that be. I don't have to be clairvoyant to call it how it is. Spare yourself by leaving. Or if you care to respond, by all means do so, I'm game.
Rupert Murdoch is not a good man. And if these comments are to be taken seriously he is not a smart man either. The internet is not simply a means of distribution of information. It is freedom of information. It allows us to be free of the "qualified" news source. Ten years ago, people like Rupert Murdoch thought they could dominate the media of the world. Today no one dominates the media of the world. On the internet (as it is now), that's simply not possible. So I expect by embrace Murdoch means destroy or restrict. After all, his media companies had to resort to lobbying the government to ensure that only the official channels (ABC,CBS,CNN,etc.) were allowed to be shown. Public television has been largely dismantled (or neutered rather) and I suspect the Rupert Murdoch's of the world would prefer the same route for the public internet.
This is a dangerous criticism of the government and more specifically it's central intelligence service. Not that I think that the identities of covert CIA operatives should be exposed, endangering the lives of these people. But I'd rather not the government have too many more secret facilities thank you.
Zonk, I can think of many other uses for a blog.
150 million is a lot of hamburgers. But what's more is that I don't think that number includes on the copies of Firefox that are copied over to Linux distro's and distributed that way. Maybe I'm wrong, and I have no idea how many more copies of Firefox that would mean are floating around. Just a thought.
These stories are nothing more than the mainstream media panicking because they are losing readers to blogs. And what should they expect when they run official propaganda alongside human interest stories and fashion stories, the blogosphere is simply more interesting and informative.
What does it mean for a market to be higher today than a few years ago? I don't understand what you mean by higher. It certainly doesn't mean "better", or "more accessible". The IT companies are simply throwing their dog (the American IT worker) a bone in the form of a few jobs. They are making so much money through outsourcing, a clever word for a cut-throat anti-nationalist business practice, that they can afford to do that. The jobs are part of PR. Any idiot knows that the American economy is in shambles, despite what the likes of major media companies like CNN claim.
I would say that the probable outcome is that while the intelligence services continue to cover their tracks, and continue to become more powerful, they will of course fall for the same trap that all men (and women) who seek power for power's sake: they will abuse it, and then be tried before history, if not before a court of their peers. Maybe you're right, and that will take a hundred years, but maybe it will only take ten. I think that as the contradictions of global capitalism become even more convulsive and destructive, and those that do the bidding of capitalism become more and more aggressive, the people will come to realize what's causing it, and seek to replace the capitalist system sooner rather than later.
Stupidly paranoid? The intelligence establishment of today is run by war criminals like John Negroponte. This reclassification scheme is covering illegal activities of the past, and is part of a wider strategy of making the intelligence services less and less accountable to scrutiny both by the public and by the judicial branch of the government.
I think it's an interesting idea and have actually been reading more on this matter. Thanks Slashdot.
A friend of my dad's copied me over 150 games for it when I got it. I was the most popular geek around.
Global warming has been established for years (perhaps even decades) as being attributable largely to human industrial causes. Yet we keep hearing so-called moderates trumpeting the old line that this is yet more proof, yet another study that strengthens the argument. I'm tired of this approach, which is dripping with the language introduced by energy industry PR men. Maybe I'll just say what should be on everyone's mind already: that global warming is just another symptom of the disease that is capitalism.
Until they sold their radio station to Clear Channel, and we yet another top 40 station. WOXY would play truly alternative music, independent stuff. And you could pick it up in the middlde of the Indiana, way out in cornfields. But it's no wonder they are failing online, since there is plenty of competition here. And WOXY offers nothing alternative. That they wish to charge for thei service means that WOXY is about to die.
is my hero. Oh and Lenin.
I expect nothing less from the supporters of the two parties of big business.