But what about accountability for handing over important information?
You're looking at this wrong. What about accountability for our Government? Who has the potential to do more damage, an individual or the most powerful Government that has ever existed in mankind's history? I know which one I fear more.
No country in Europe has ever destroyed two entire countries because a group part based in one destroyed two buildings.
I don't know where you're from but apparently they don't teach history there. One little island nation in Europe has invaded 90% of the worlds countries at one time or another. And they needed no justification what so ever other than they were trying to "civilize" them. I also seem to recall this little interlude where one of those silly little nations in the middle of Europe went on a rampage destroying many more than 2 nations and slaughtering millions for no reason at all some 80 years ago.
They didn't just destroy 2 buildings. They killed 10,000 people. I realize the slaughter of 10,000 people is really nothing by the standards of European history given the millions that they have slaughtered over the years.
he press has already been so grossly compromised by corporate influence that it's "critical watchdog function" isn't currently all that functional anyway
Yup. And that's why organizations like Wikileaks and technology like encryption and Tor are so critical. They've taken over that function. Actually they're even better for that function because there much less likely to be influenced by political pressure of any kind.
He's not exposing some inherent weakness in the system, he's using a stolen password to steal documents to showoff his "1337" skillz.
Hmmm...he used one patient's password to access and download a number of different patients confidential information. Yeah, I'd say he exposed a pretty damn severe weakness in the system. It would almost certainly result in fines for whoever was keeping the records under HIPPA/HITECH here in the USA.
But also, here in the USA he would have probably gotten 50 years at hard labor after being persecuted by some obscenely overzealous prosecutor and being added to whatever secret terrorist lists the government keeps and likely the sex offenders list if there happen to be any medical pictures like chest x-rays.
Obscene as they are, sustainable bonuses and payoffs require profit.
The problem is they don't need to be sustainable from the CEOs perspective. You make 20 million in 2 years what do you care that it was accomplished by triggering bonuses using methods that are utterly unsustainable and will ultimately cause the company to go bankrupt. Nortel is the perfect example (and by far not the only one). They had a series of CEOs (Roth walked away with at least 130 million for 6 years work) that all left with millions in their bank accounts while driving a thriving 100 year old company from 30 billion in revenue to a fire sale in less than 8 years. What did they care that they bankrupted the company.
these are amoral decision processes and should be treated as such. Expecting moral behavior from a corporation in the absence of profitability is naive.
This whole argument is a straw man. You're implying that the only way for a company to be profitable is through amoral decisions. That's just plain wrong. I'd argue the opposite is true. Amoral actions by a company are typically what is going to drive down profitability over the long term. It may make for some decent short term profits but they cost in the long run. Moral decisions tend towards long term profitability.
When corporations do not put out quality products or keep their customers happy, they end up being bankrupt corporations.
Ummm...or end up getting bailed out with our tax dollars while the corporate upper management that drove said company to bankruptcy in the first place walks away with more money than they paid the entire bottom 80% of the employees over 10 years. Or in many cases only the second part...*cough* Nortel *cough*...
Companies today don't look at how to make great products or keep their customers happy. Their multi-million dollar salaried CEOs simple look at how to get their bonuses triggered no matter how bad it screws up the company. That and figuring out which politicians to pay off and which lawyers to hire to kill off any potential competition.
Hell if someone offered me millions of dollars to drive a healthy company into bankruptcy I'd be tempted to take it. Wouldn't you?
No, I'm not attempting to justify the penallty for breaking the law, but you really should pay attention to what you're signing up for.
You don't even understand the law. The law in question says you go to jail for 5 years for unlocking a phone you own. And you do purchase the phone. That's the phrase used. The contract is about the service not the phone.
The part you don't get is that the carrier is not obliged to unlock the phone at the end of the term
No one is asking the carrier to to do a damn thing. The phone is mine. I paid the full price for it (actually more than the full price if I completed the multi-year obligation). Why should I be a criminal because I modify something I friggin paid for and own. It's completely asinine. The congress idiots that passed such a law should be in jail.
but all it does is move TDC 20 degrees along the pedal cycle
No, it doesn't. The forces involved at the peddle and at the crank are identical to those if it were a straight connection. The only difference is the shape of the metal piece connecting them. TDC is in exactly the same place as it would be if there was a straight piece of metal connecting the peddle to the crank.
Funny, it used to be that if you just *knew* the government was a grand conspiracy despite having no evidence of such you'd be considered crazy.
Yeah, the dozens of news articles you can read every month are no evidence at all, including one of the more bizarre ones that I linked to. I'll point you to 2 quick ones off the top of my head. The Kim Dotcom fiasco and the retroactive immunity for the illegal monitoring at the behest of our government by certain telecoms. Just friggin read some news and open your friggin eyes.
Your evidence is a link pointing back to this article?
No. It's a link to a comment post. If you look through the replies to the varies comments raising the same BS the GP did you'll see at least half a dozen more.
I read the news. Note I said read and not watch. I could list dozens of stories (probably hundreds if I took some time to research) of questionable if not down right illegal actions by the US government in the last few years. I'll name 2 quick ones other than the one I linked to just to get you started. The Kim Dotcom fiasco and the retroactive immunity for the illegal monitoring at the behest of our government by certain telecoms. Just friggin read some news and open your friggin eyes. It's not hyperbole. It's reality and it's getting worse rapidly.
My god. Does anyone think about consequences, or anyone but themselves, before acting anymore?
Yeah. Problem is people like you are blind to them. We need far more of our government's secrets leaked. 99% of what the US government is keeping secret has no business being secret. And a fair percentage of that is being kept secret to cover up illegal activity by the US government. When you have crap like this going on consistently something needs change and don't give me any crap about voting either. There are no options to vote for.
the rest of the figures are for their Super PACs as stated in the original posting
So you're saying the millions donated to Obama's Super PAC all came from ordinary people and not corporate interests? The only point this seems to make is that Obama is beholden to a larger group of more diverse corporate interests. It certainly in no way indicates that the corporations didn't support Obama.
Limits to the campaign directly. I'm quoting figures from the Obama and Romney Super PACs.
Strange that. According to the NY Times the numbers you quote seem to exactly match those they report for direct donations. So I guess the NY Times are idiots too?
The numbers for the Super PAC donors actually fairly closely match in levels for both Obama and Romney, respectively: <$100k 11% and 14%, 100k to 1m 40% and 44%, >1m 49% and 42%.
Correct, and who is more likely to have the power to strong arm someone? a business executive. And who do they majoritarily favor? Romney.
Please actually look at the link I provided earlier. Arguments work much better if actually look at information that supports them rather than just spouting what you think is right.
You can't honestly believe that has the production value of LotR.
No. I wasn't saying that. Monsters does actually have some fair special effects, all done on the guys laptop apparently. I was pointing out the contrast in a decent movie with decent special effects made for $15,000 versus your typical Hollywood fair where $15,000 would even come close to covering the catering bill. LotR could be made as good if not better (focus on story and characters rather than the FX and big names being the movie) for at least an order of magnitude less money than it takes a main stream studio. I provided Monsters an example to support my position.
Donor 58 by highest amount for Obama gave as much money as the 217 highest donor for Romney. Yeap, Romney had approx. four times as many 1%ers giving money to this campaign.
Did you even look at the link I provided? You see, there are limits to how much an individual can contribute. So what they do is strong arm all their buddies into giving some. The money may technically be coming from a bunch of different people but in reality it's source to one corporation or individual. Kinda makes the numbers you so proudly expound about irrelevant. Yup. I'm the simpleton.
nobody is going to make The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars in their basement.
Monsters was made for $15,000. Watch it. It's quite good. Most of the cost for big budget movies is payed to people who aren't really necessary for making the movie and/or are way over payed for what they contribute.
The guidelines are that people should be a bit more liberal in what they accept - not the scariest thing that the UK government has ever proposed.
Except that this doesn't change the law nor what is illegal. It's just guidelines for subjectively selectively applying the law only where they feel like it.
-- "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." From Atlas Shrugs
This is all of the stuff we used to joke about "papers please" where only the evil communist bastards would do such a thing. Only now, it's accepted as perfectly normal and legal.
Literally. I thought this was an Onionesc piece of satire when I started reading it but as far as I can tell it's real.
"[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."
"This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this," he said. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do."
Slashdot Mirror
But what about accountability for handing over important information?
You're looking at this wrong. What about accountability for our Government? Who has the potential to do more damage, an individual or the most powerful Government that has ever existed in mankind's history? I know which one I fear more.
No country in Europe has ever destroyed two entire countries because a group part based in one destroyed two buildings.
I don't know where you're from but apparently they don't teach history there. One little island nation in Europe has invaded 90% of the worlds countries at one time or another. And they needed no justification what so ever other than they were trying to "civilize" them. I also seem to recall this little interlude where one of those silly little nations in the middle of Europe went on a rampage destroying many more than 2 nations and slaughtering millions for no reason at all some 80 years ago.
They didn't just destroy 2 buildings. They killed 10,000 people. I realize the slaughter of 10,000 people is really nothing by the standards of European history given the millions that they have slaughtered over the years.
What idiots modded that insightful?
he press has already been so grossly compromised by corporate influence that it's "critical watchdog function" isn't currently all that functional anyway
Yup. And that's why organizations like Wikileaks and technology like encryption and Tor are so critical. They've taken over that function. Actually they're even better for that function because there much less likely to be influenced by political pressure of any kind.
He's not exposing some inherent weakness in the system, he's using a stolen password to steal documents to showoff his "1337" skillz.
Hmmm...he used one patient's password to access and download a number of different patients confidential information. Yeah, I'd say he exposed a pretty damn severe weakness in the system. It would almost certainly result in fines for whoever was keeping the records under HIPPA/HITECH here in the USA.
But also, here in the USA he would have probably gotten 50 years at hard labor after being persecuted by some obscenely overzealous prosecutor and being added to whatever secret terrorist lists the government keeps and likely the sex offenders list if there happen to be any medical pictures like chest x-rays.
there are still a huge number of involuntary sex workers in porn video
And driving the porn industry further underground will certainly help reduce those numbers...wait...ummm...
Obscene as they are, sustainable bonuses and payoffs require profit.
The problem is they don't need to be sustainable from the CEOs perspective. You make 20 million in 2 years what do you care that it was accomplished by triggering bonuses using methods that are utterly unsustainable and will ultimately cause the company to go bankrupt. Nortel is the perfect example (and by far not the only one). They had a series of CEOs (Roth walked away with at least 130 million for 6 years work) that all left with millions in their bank accounts while driving a thriving 100 year old company from 30 billion in revenue to a fire sale in less than 8 years. What did they care that they bankrupted the company.
these are amoral decision processes and should be treated as such. Expecting moral behavior from a corporation in the absence of profitability is naive.
This whole argument is a straw man. You're implying that the only way for a company to be profitable is through amoral decisions. That's just plain wrong. I'd argue the opposite is true. Amoral actions by a company are typically what is going to drive down profitability over the long term. It may make for some decent short term profits but they cost in the long run. Moral decisions tend towards long term profitability.
When corporations do not put out quality products or keep their customers happy, they end up being bankrupt corporations.
Ummm...or end up getting bailed out with our tax dollars while the corporate upper management that drove said company to bankruptcy in the first place walks away with more money than they paid the entire bottom 80% of the employees over 10 years. Or in many cases only the second part...*cough* Nortel *cough*...
Companies today don't look at how to make great products or keep their customers happy. Their multi-million dollar salaried CEOs simple look at how to get their bonuses triggered no matter how bad it screws up the company. That and figuring out which politicians to pay off and which lawyers to hire to kill off any potential competition.
Hell if someone offered me millions of dollars to drive a healthy company into bankruptcy I'd be tempted to take it. Wouldn't you?
No, I'm not attempting to justify the penallty for breaking the law, but you really should pay attention to what you're signing up for.
You don't even understand the law. The law in question says you go to jail for 5 years for unlocking a phone you own. And you do purchase the phone. That's the phrase used. The contract is about the service not the phone.
The part you don't get is that the carrier is not obliged to unlock the phone at the end of the term
No one is asking the carrier to to do a damn thing. The phone is mine. I paid the full price for it (actually more than the full price if I completed the multi-year obligation). Why should I be a criminal because I modify something I friggin paid for and own. It's completely asinine. The congress idiots that passed such a law should be in jail.
but all it does is move TDC 20 degrees along the pedal cycle
No, it doesn't. The forces involved at the peddle and at the crank are identical to those if it were a straight connection. The only difference is the shape of the metal piece connecting them. TDC is in exactly the same place as it would be if there was a straight piece of metal connecting the peddle to the crank.
Funny, it used to be that if you just *knew* the government was a grand conspiracy despite having no evidence of such you'd be considered crazy.
Yeah, the dozens of news articles you can read every month are no evidence at all, including one of the more bizarre ones that I linked to. I'll point you to 2 quick ones off the top of my head. The Kim Dotcom fiasco and the retroactive immunity for the illegal monitoring at the behest of our government by certain telecoms. Just friggin read some news and open your friggin eyes.
Your evidence is a link pointing back to this article?
No. It's a link to a comment post. If you look through the replies to the varies comments raising the same BS the GP did you'll see at least half a dozen more.
...and you know this how?
I read the news. Note I said read and not watch. I could list dozens of stories (probably hundreds if I took some time to research) of questionable if not down right illegal actions by the US government in the last few years. I'll name 2 quick ones other than the one I linked to just to get you started. The Kim Dotcom fiasco and the retroactive immunity for the illegal monitoring at the behest of our government by certain telecoms. Just friggin read some news and open your friggin eyes. It's not hyperbole. It's reality and it's getting worse rapidly.
My god. Does anyone think about consequences, or anyone but themselves, before acting anymore?
Yeah. Problem is people like you are blind to them. We need far more of our government's secrets leaked. 99% of what the US government is keeping secret has no business being secret. And a fair percentage of that is being kept secret to cover up illegal activity by the US government. When you have crap like this going on consistently something needs change and don't give me any crap about voting either. There are no options to vote for.
...So, Manning's rationalization for exposing many more people and putting them in a much graver situation must be worse, right?
If you do something you know will put people in danger, then it's only OK if those people are soldiers and foreigners?
This is complete BS and has been thoroughly debunked numerous times.
You can't record a phone call or in-person conversation in non-public places without warning
You can in Texas (and most other states for that matter) if you are part of the conversation.
the rest of the figures are for their Super PACs as stated in the original posting
So you're saying the millions donated to Obama's Super PAC all came from ordinary people and not corporate interests? The only point this seems to make is that Obama is beholden to a larger group of more diverse corporate interests. It certainly in no way indicates that the corporations didn't support Obama.
Limits to the campaign directly. I'm quoting figures from the Obama and Romney Super PACs.
Strange that. According to the NY Times the numbers you quote seem to exactly match those they report for direct donations. So I guess the NY Times are idiots too?
The numbers for the Super PAC donors actually fairly closely match in levels for both Obama and Romney, respectively: <$100k 11% and 14%, 100k to 1m 40% and 44%, >1m 49% and 42%.
Correct, and who is more likely to have the power to strong arm someone? a business executive. And who do they majoritarily favor? Romney.
Please actually look at the link I provided earlier. Arguments work much better if actually look at information that supports them rather than just spouting what you think is right.
You can't honestly believe that has the production value of LotR.
No. I wasn't saying that. Monsters does actually have some fair special effects, all done on the guys laptop apparently. I was pointing out the contrast in a decent movie with decent special effects made for $15,000 versus your typical Hollywood fair where $15,000 would even come close to covering the catering bill. LotR could be made as good if not better (focus on story and characters rather than the FX and big names being the movie) for at least an order of magnitude less money than it takes a main stream studio. I provided Monsters an example to support my position.
Donor 58 by highest amount for Obama gave as much money as the 217 highest donor for Romney. Yeap, Romney had approx. four times as many 1%ers giving money to this campaign.
Did you even look at the link I provided? You see, there are limits to how much an individual can contribute. So what they do is strong arm all their buddies into giving some. The money may technically be coming from a bunch of different people but in reality it's source to one corporation or individual. Kinda makes the numbers you so proudly expound about irrelevant. Yup. I'm the simpleton.
Just have a look at the last election where Obama whipped Mitt-and-the-1%ers collective behind.
If you really think Obama isn't beholden to 1%ers and massive corporate interests you are a complete idiot. He got as much of his funds from 1%ers as Romney did.
nobody is going to make The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars in their basement.
Monsters was made for $15,000. Watch it. It's quite good. Most of the cost for big budget movies is payed to people who aren't really necessary for making the movie and/or are way over payed for what they contribute.
Enjoy your small penis, and the guns you use to compensate...
You know, I find it interesting who always starts the penis measurement contests...
The guidelines are that people should be a bit more liberal in what they accept - not the scariest thing that the UK government has ever proposed.
Except that this doesn't change the law nor what is illegal. It's just guidelines for subjectively selectively applying the law only where they feel like it.
-- "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." From Atlas Shrugs
This is all of the stuff we used to joke about "papers please" where only the evil communist bastards would do such a thing. Only now, it's accepted as perfectly normal and legal.
Literally. I thought this was an Onionesc piece of satire when I started reading it but as far as I can tell it's real.
Welcome to the new world.