Hey, I totally agree, that's why I read that blog, I tend to agree mostly with what the guy says. I think some of the material on wikileaks is no benefit to the public at all, a lot like the publishing of maps and imagery of certain areas within the U.S. on the Cryptome eyeball series.
Then there is other material, like money laundering etc. Which deserves to be investigated if they try to cover it up.
Re:Doesn't necessarily have to be big business/ go
on
WikiLeaks Under Fire
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
There are also a number of "citizen groups" out there that want to shut down wikileaks because they think it is anti-democratic. It seems a lot of them are affiliated with the guys who "hunt" terrorists online. One such blog of note is the "Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group". See this blog post here. Though they seem to be from a psychological operations bent rather than hackers.
Is it possible to overload a power supply to the point of fire from a remote location? I've heard of black hats getting into the climate control systems of certain areas and loading up the heat and frying certain parts of computers, but a power supply?
Secondly, Does wikileaks hold a record of the DDoS? As in the technical parameters, IPs etc.?
Thirdly, is their a translation to English of the bank records in question yet?
You got that story direct from Schwartzkopfs biography right? Talk about bias. Ever read much about John Boyd? The American military strategist? Boyd gave Cheney private presentations of his Patterns of Conflict and other briefings. In Boyds biography by Robert Coram there is a quote by one of Boyds acolytes that states Cheney was one of the most knowledgeable civilians outside military circles when it came to warfare. I've also read 'kopfs biography. He was talking about Cheneys office giving ideas to throw about in the mix, particularly ideas that were unconventional to mix with conventional military minds that were working on the plans. If anything it was a divergent thinking process, rather than convergent. It might have been shut down because it was stupid, but it was part of a process of thinking. Schwartzkopf was taking the planning out of context. The story doesn't show Cheney is dumb, but that Schwartzkopf doesn't understand the different between a divergent and convergent thinking process. I also find it laughable that'd you quote Schwartzkopf as a critic of Cheney. Schwartzkopf also wanted to get rid the brilliant "hail mary" plan in desert storm, that Cheney's office devised. Schwartzkopf wanted to just attack kuwait head on which would have meant a bloodbath for American troops. Sane indeed.
I'm an ex-soldier. I've discussed whether or not that the citizenry could take control of a westernized city with a few friends. We came to the conclusion that a couple of dozen persons could bring a large western city to a stand still within a day to a few days. It would depend on the strategic/political agenda behind bringing a city down of course. For instance if we wanted to totally bring a city to a stand still we could. But it most likely would piss the other citizens off. So a long term guerrilla campaign, with taints of revolutionary and peoples war, would be better long term moral position. In other words.. get the citizenry on your side and all that.
In terms of a balls to the wall city wide operations where we dismiss the above strategic intents... we'd attack the transportation systems via assessing choke points. Most cities have vehicular choke points. Blow a few holes with some homemade c4 in these bridges, intersections, bypasses before peak hour of the day of the attack and you've taken away mass movement of a city and the necessary emergency and military response via tracked vehicles, tanks etc.
Another target would include power hubs. Blow a few important power hubs in areas and you've shut down most traffic lights, services, businesses etc. Same could be done with telecommunications hubs eliminating communication.
Another important part of westernized cities is the emergency first responders. They will be the first to turn up. Not the military (of course this depends on the context and historical timeline of what has brought a bunch of citizenry to turn on its government, who knows maybe the military *is* in the city by now via martial law in a different scenario, which would mean a different process). Emergency first responders run by crisis management. Where militaries have a tiny bit of time to evaluate incoming information first responders *have* to rely on what the citzenry say. This leads them open to hoaxes and ruses. The asian warfighting precept here "uproar in the east, strike in the west" is what I'm talking about. Dial 911 and state "I have three bombs on three trains/buses. I also have placed bombs in schools". The first responders have to respond to that. By doing that you also now have half the cities first response resources tied up whilst you can continue the first day strike. In some US states you can dial 911 from a SIM-less mobile phone and not be traced.
So far all of the above has been pretty bloodless. Apart from the collateral damage from having a city in chaos from city wide systems disruption most likely having more car accidents and people freaking out. If we go more seriously into it we would have targeted hits of key decision makers within the city's political/business nexus. Target command, control and communications of first responders, transportation and military areas.
I could go on and on about ways in which to bring down a city. I've left out such juicy areas as exploiting the great terrain cities have. Different cultures of cities that could be exploited and so on. One thing is for sure. People who say the normal citizenry is no match for armed forces are wrong. If you had a bunch of guys with the will and guts who knew what they were doing... they could do a lot of damage.
"Yeah.... sure. You know conspiracy nuts like you are all the same. You're all secretly (or not secretly!) obsessive/compulsive control freaks. You all believe there's some sort of sinister puppet master behind the scenes, yada yada yada"
The truth lays in the middle ground between your argument and conspiracy argument. Conspiracy theorists are as much wacko absolutists as you guys who believe there is only total disorder in government.
There are actors in government, business or any private endeavour, who have interests and use their influence to make sure events happen. Read the pulitizer winning book "The power broker" By Robert A. Caro for over a thousand pages of well documented research on examples of a individual who had control over governmental systems. Sometimes the actors influence works and the events pan out.
Othertimes it doesn't work because of greater systemic issues and unforeseen events. Take international politics for example. The greatest single predictive analysis for international events has been the realist approach (the liberal and constructivist approaches have also been useful). It posits that actors will use force (usually military, to a lesser degree economic) to get what they want. This happens all the time in international affairs. Sometimes it works (bombing of Hiroshima), sometimes it doesn't (Current Iraq). Not only does this theory allow control over how affairs might pan out for the press and general public, it also gives governments an idea how it might turn out. So your idea that there is no control is as ludicrous as some sinister hand in control.
Good point. And like the article states... it hasn't been tested in a real setting yet. How's it going to go translating a screaming, aggressive arabic speaker? What about a stressed out, crying arabic speaker that has just had his family shot and/or blown up? Sounds like just another technological band aid to something that is better off solved with investing in real linguists.
The original comment asked what is group think in a generalized manner, and then proceeded to talk about ideas in a broad focus as part of "social consciousness."
To this I said that group think can be exploited by people and that is why it is not a good thing.
The second response to me stated that the exploiter is not the one exploiting groupthink. The exploiter is just part of the groupthink itself. You never gave an explanation of the chain of events of how this amalmagation occurs.
You then replied by saying "We're only talking about web discussions.". That's a big change from your first post to which I responded. Groupthink occurs beyond the technological and geographical (in a cyberspace sense) realm. It's a social and psychological phenomenon. No matter where we are or what technology we are using groupthink is going to be there and there will be people who will exploit it.
"The most you can accomplish from knowing the group ideology in a web discussion is to make the group either like you (by posturing) or dislike you (by flaming). You're not taking anything away from them."
I agree with the liking and disliking in use by commentators. The question is: Is faking that you like a groups idealogy a good thing? Is flaming the community a good thing? And also, there is more to accomplish from just posturing and flaming. The groupthink model we are discussing has been primarily focused on commentators on/.. Commentators surely reinforce groupthink but I think we have left out some key actors in the process.
The key actors are combination of the owners Open Source Technology group/VA software, essentially U.S. technology corporations, the advertisers on/., a technologically-centric community dedicated to submitting stories and moderating that are admitted under the sieve of editors. These stories and moderations either go along with the ideological underpinning of the open source community and their values e.g. promotion of certain technology over others, certain values being better than others such as freedom versus privacy, or, they bury the ideological dissenters and promote the anti-ideological side e.g. stories on how Microsoft/SCO sucks, stories on how certain values that groups hold are bad and the ensuing 800+ posts that are good for the advertisers and OSTG.
In your original post you stated that groupthink is always present and isn't necessarily a bad thing. It surely is a natural thing within human groups, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discounted, especially when there are other actors who would espouse group agendas as all-encompassing "news for nerds" that grace/.'s front page and commentary.
No it's not. That is confusing results and intention. How does whatever I do or say become a product of whatever a group thinks and then automatically jump to I'm under control of the group? Where is the causal link between the results of the group controlling me and my original intentions?
If I, as an outsider of group x, do my data gathering on group x and come to a conclusion that they hold idea y as a core value, or anti-value, I have found an ideological leverage to use on them. Whether to exploit them for good, or for bad.
Whatever I do or say will be framed in reference to whatever the group thinks. Just because I'm using their ideology against the group doesn't mean I'm under control of the group. My intention is to exploit the group.
There does seem to be a problem. They really should be modded -1 Stupid, but the mods currently have to choose between Flamebait and Troll.
I disagree with using the word stupid but the essence of your post is a good point. The way/. moderates is confined by the words in which we moderate. Good posts are moderated insightful or interesting. Yet how many are genuinely insightful or interesting? In strunk and whites 'elements of style' there is a passage on the word 'Insightful'. It states the following:
The word is a suspicious overstatement for "perceptive." If it is to be used at all, it should be used for instance of remarkably penetrating vision. Usually, it crops up merely to inflate the common place.
How many times on/. have you seen an insightful comment that was of "penetrating vision" on a topic?
Perhaps to fix the language, that/. moderation is confined by, there should be some sort of comment field as to why you gave the moderation. But I guess that may have limitations as well.
Because it can be exploited. If I happen to know that group x thinks idea y is either good or bad I can exploit group x's perceptions by putting idea y in a good or bad light and thus either antagonize the group or in the case of/. be modded up for basking the idea in the light of the groups preconceptions.
"Can you trust a former crook to enforce the law? In law enforcement, they came to the conclusion long ago that the answer is no."
The world's first detective Francois-Eugene Vidocq, who founded criminology, was formerly a criminal.
The question you asked could be reframed as well. Who is stating that a former crook has to be the one that enforces the law? The question intertwines, and confuses, the process of the justice system with the crooks function within it. That function being a specialist ability to see from a criminals perspective. So I would say they are needed for their unique abilities but should be kept on a short leash. There is no need for them to be a law enforcer merely a law tester.
"It's because "heroes of truth" are out for exactly that: the truth."
No they are not. They are after putting forth their own skewed version of reality. That reality for them is a form of cynical "everything that I don't like is a conspiracy". If someone talks about a form of politics that doesn't suit their own reality, it's a "conspiracy". If someone markets a form of product that isn't to their liking, it's a "conspiracy". If someone happens to have a story that becomes popular in news media it's automatically assumed to be a "conspiracy". These arguments are usually justified on a just-so basis.
"The "critical thinking" is realizing the story is false, and designed to get them to do something.
Saying an idea is false doesn't make one a critical thinker, applying critical thinking to your own thought processes is what makes one a critical thinker. Critical thinking isn't a form of childish competition of "I win, you Lose". Realizing something is false just for the sake of it is the type of conspiracy thinking that is running rampant. Secondly, how is the story false? What argument and evidence have you provided that it is? Your post is the just-so argument that everyone is putting forth.
It's a talent most of us here possess in better-than-average quantity, reinforced by endless opportunities to experience the scientific method."
Did you read the story and the/. commentary? It wasn't/.'ers who were making up rediculous arguments. It was people on Flickr and the arguments they used were just-so arguments. The majority of/.'ers here cut through the conspiracy crap with some pretty convincing arguments. There was a few/.'ers who have the conspiracy thinking but were shut down by other/.'ers with pure fact. Here's some examples:
here,here,here and finally here.
Here is some examples of/.'ers who were making baseless accusations
Here and
here.
""Humanity" and the "story" are illusions, and fraught with lies about the way things are."
This is rediculous. How does this particular stolen camera story generalize into an all encompassing, illusionary "the way things are"? I said this particular story was interesting, and it is, I also said that the attacks made by conspiracy thinkers is rediculous because it is a story. It's not a vast plot determined to get you to buy some product.
This guy's making an accusation of theft, and depending on the local laws governing devices of that sort, the consequences may be dire indeed.
What consequences? And why will they be dire? And for whom will they be dire? You also state "depending on local laws". Well why don't you look the local laws up and extrapolate on your dire consequences? He lives in Berkeley, California BTW, as stated in the article.
"I guess my ultimate point is, quit bitching about the whiners and evaluate what they have objectively, and make a decision for yourself. Then act on it."
Yes and my ultimate point was a descriptive commentary on what someone is doing. Your ultimate point is a prescriptive commentary for what someone should do.
The real interesting part of the story is not all this, though, it's how it turned into an Internet phenomenon and in particular how a lot of people really tore into him for being a PR flack.
Yeah, I don't know if anyone else has noticed but there seems to be a rise in the general "OMG it's a conspiracy" reaction for every news worthy event these days. I find it bothersome that if a real world anomaly pops up the automatic reaction is for it to be either a government or business conspiracy. What happened to enjoying stories like this one for what they are worth? It's a pretty cool story IMO. Those vanguard conspiracy types are the first to admit to being "critical thinkers" and "heroes of truth" yet they are the first to destroy a critical element of humanity - the story.
Simply because humans are predisposed to violence (which is still under debate by our brainy science dudes)
He said conflict, not violence. A life without conflict is impossible and a naive dream of pacifists. Witness Gandhi's "Quit India Movement" where bombings and arson were used by supposed pacifists.
does not imply that we should not strive for a world without war.
I suggest that would-be pacifists read the book Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Munzenberg and the Seduction of the Intellectuals by Stephen Koch. It tells the story of Soviet controlled German propagandist Willi Münzenberg during the periods of World War one leading up to WW2. One of the most interesting things about the story was the directed use of propaganda against the Western Worlds intellectuals (mostly European at the time with some Americans), particularly with those who spouted the ideology of pacifism. The Soviets understood that propaganda is best used with riding the back of an existing strong zeitgeist and the intellectual current of the time was "peace not war" even to the detriment of protecting one's own people. They also understood that the best propaganda was truthful (and what could be more self-evident than peace being better than war?). So the Soviets, through Münzenberg, started a "peace movement" with the main aim of undermining the morality of Western war efforts. It had a dual purpose too. It both attacked the west and when, so the Soviets thought, they would defeat the west, they would also steamroll over the pacifists who would offer no competition. What am I getting at? Well nothing really, except that a lot of the history of pacifism isn't exactly what it seems.
The problem is that in our society we have arbitrarily elevated cops to the status of "real" heroes because they "risk their lives everyday for the 'safety' of the community." A few months ago a metro officer was killed in the line of duty and there was this huge procession and they made a big deal about it.
I think you have an ax to grind. It's not at all arbitrary and it isn't in "our society."
Police do risk their lives everyday. They have to deal with the mentally ill, drunks, druggies and domestic disturbances on a regular day-to-day basis. The problem is you/.'ers think that cops are going to die in some spectacular shoot out or car chase, when it is going to be that simple traffic stop or domestic disturbance when someone pulls a knife or gun on them when they aren't prepared for it.
And the risk of death isn't the only the problem, they risk their sanity and their physical health. You think it'd be easy to walk into heated situations dealing with them day-in-day out? It's going to take a toll physically and mentally. Police divorce and suicide are incredibly high for a subculture.
On the topic of heroes... Every society and culture elevates certain individuals to hero status. Slashdot elevates Linus (whilst Bill gates is the devil) to that status on a regular basis. The term does get thrown around liberally. To persons outside the subculture, and the affect of the hero, it might seem we are crazy putting Linus to that level and Bill as the villain. Who are we to decide who is a hero or not? It seems to be quite an arbitrary label in its own right and made on a individual, personal and subjective level.
The fact is that we've put these servants, and that's what they are, on a pedestal when it's a job they should serve with humility and compassion for their community.
I agree that they should serve with humility and compassion at times, however all the time isn't possible for a number of reasons. One reason I can think of is the dual purpose of policing. They must serve as a force and as a service. Or to put it as Thomas PM Barnett said of the "new" structure of the military, they must serve as a Leviathan and as a Systems admin service at once. A force to bring into line the nefarious elements of society and as a service to uphold the good and help society. It must be damn hard to walk the line between those completely different mindsets. One is a mindset of destruction and one of creation. Both are needed, but I bet you it pushes some police over the edge into the Leviathan mode more than service mode.
Oh, and where you claimed "And EVERY cop is dirty. Every single one of them. Either by their actions or their omissions." You know what I think would help cops not go dirty? By actually elevating them to some form of warrior/hero status which you so want to take away. This elevation might have a side effect of instilling a form of chivalric maxims or bushido code. It might take a cleaning out of the internal system, but for us on the outside holding them to a bushido/knights code of honor might very well hold them responsible for their action when they are dishonoured rather than them being just another "servant" as you put it. The word Servant also brings up powerful ideas. Servants are expendable, they also deal with menial tasks. Upholding the law is not menial task. Your use of the word servant shows more about your biases and grudge against the police than it does for an objective description of their role.
"If I'd realised they were subscribing to the nobler ideals of the ninja I would have been much more at ease about the fact that they managed to kill 1/3 of the population during their 25 year occupation"
It's a method of warfare. Since when is it supposed to be "noble"? The consequences of warfare are abhorrent, but that shouldn't stop us discussing the means of waging war.
It's actually the art of stealth and endurance. Nin can mean concealment, sneaking in or endurance. While jutsu is technique. While much of Ninjitsu will be covered by crazy myth of ninjas leaping from trees etc. the essence of the concept still stands: It's a highly specialized form of danger avoidance in warfare for evading the enemy. Basically Ninjas are form of individual Maneuver warfare.
The concept itself is thought to have come from the Chinese assassins in the warring states period - the Moshuh Nanren. It's also said that the concept is also based on Sun Tzu's chapter on spies. Where spies also being translated as "gap men" (k'ai ho) or those that sneak through the enemies gaps (avoiding strengths like in maneuver warfare).
The most interesting aspects of this Asian thought is the cultural influence it has had on Asian warfighting. If you read some of the history of Japanese tactical patrolling in World War 2 you'll find some pretty deceptive patrolling techniques that were based off Ninjitsu training. A military author called H. John Poole has written about this. It's thought that the concept of stealth, assassination and danger avoidance travelled along the silk route to places like Vietnam and Indonesia. In the Vietnam war the VietCong used to train in similar ninja-like techniques in stealth walking, sensory enhancement and so on.
The best modern example is in the Indonesian military where they have a subset of the special forces (KOPASSUS) called Gadapaksi. They are also known as the "ninjas" as they specialize in night time assassinations and abductions. If you read any of the literature on the East Timorese or even the West Papuans the Gadapaksi are mentioned as terrorizing the local populace.
I've always thought that the whole base concept of the Ninja is brilliant. Pretty useful across a whole domain of study. Could be used from warfighting to black hat hacking.
"The smart way to keep/.'ers passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable stories, but allow very lively debate within those stories - even encourage the more critical and dissident views by modding up. That gives/.'ers the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the fanboy conjecture of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the discussion." Cowboy Nealsky
"I think you need to remember that the RF spectrum is a finite resource and as such needs to be managed to prevent noise."
LOL @ scarce resources. My technological utopia I live in will charge the RF spectrum with rainbows, sunbeams and pure human happiness. And if that fails I always have monkeys who shall deliver messages via unicorn. You crazy managers with your economic theories of scarcity.
/., and any group for that matter, will react with knee-jerk emotionalism on any issue which doesn't fit their in-group idealogy. I remember Steven Pinker stating once it's not that groups of people act immoral it's actually that groups are driven by too much morality that leads to a sense of outrage and irrationality. When groups, like/., start calling things evil they are just as bad as the ID-mob and other God-driven agendas, they are confirming their in-group values whilst bespeaking devils of anyone who doesn't conform.
You'll see many a/.'er claiming the devil within Google, with little to back it up of course but value judgements on their behalf. In this case: capitalism/business is evil.
You'll notice on that first photo on the National Geographic that Godzilla is in fact battling what scientists have renamed a Mothra not a pterodactyl.
Yamantau is quite close to central asia. Central Asia is considered the strategic core of the planet by a lot of strategists, politicians, reporters etc. The reason it is so important is because of the abundance of resources in the region. According to energy analyst Michael T. Klare "... the region, which stretches from the Ural Mountains to China's western border, has now become a major strategic prize, because of the vast reserves of oil and natural gas thought to lie under and around the Caspian Sea." I'd imagine Yamantau will be some form of future command centre for a major war in the area probably for a last dash for resources between the US (from Afghanistan), China, Iran and Russia themselves. And that's just the nation states fighting, it doesn't take into consideration the major ethnic conflicts that are in the region.
"i would say to you that expressing elitism and acting on elitism are two different things... whenever you do something which detracts from society's greater right to choose based on education, economic status, or religion, that is elitism.. if you insult someone on any of those grounds it's an insult. there is a difference."
While this statement is true it has misses the context of the discussion and my main point again. The context was in educating the masses and the fundamental philosophies and mental underpinnings of executing that education. You stated that the difference between the two are expression and acts. For one to become the other in the context of politics, and thus executing new education strategies, you have to become the party of power at the time. So while you and many other/.'ers are distraught with the inane acts of the current administration (which I agree are idiotic), many of those in power at one time or another would have had personal expression's that are congruent with their acts. Language guides thought. So that is why it bothers me that that the left deride the common man. It won't take long for people who are merely expressing their thoughts to gain positions of power and act on their personal biases.
Slashdot Mirror
Great comment.
Hey, I totally agree, that's why I read that blog, I tend to agree mostly with what the guy says. I think some of the material on wikileaks is no benefit to the public at all, a lot like the publishing of maps and imagery of certain areas within the U.S. on the Cryptome eyeball series.
Then there is other material, like money laundering etc. Which deserves to be investigated if they try to cover it up.
There are also a number of "citizen groups" out there that want to shut down wikileaks because they think it is anti-democratic. It seems a lot of them are affiliated with the guys who "hunt" terrorists online. One such blog of note is the "Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group". See this blog post here. Though they seem to be from a psychological operations bent rather than hackers.
Is it possible to overload a power supply to the point of fire from a remote location? I've heard of black hats getting into the climate control systems of certain areas and loading up the heat and frying certain parts of computers, but a power supply?
Secondly, Does wikileaks hold a record of the DDoS? As in the technical parameters, IPs etc.?
Thirdly, is their a translation to English of the bank records in question yet?
You got that story direct from Schwartzkopfs biography right? Talk about bias. Ever read much about John Boyd? The American military strategist? Boyd gave Cheney private presentations of his Patterns of Conflict and other briefings. In Boyds biography by Robert Coram there is a quote by one of Boyds acolytes that states Cheney was one of the most knowledgeable civilians outside military circles when it came to warfare. I've also read 'kopfs biography. He was talking about Cheneys office giving ideas to throw about in the mix, particularly ideas that were unconventional to mix with conventional military minds that were working on the plans. If anything it was a divergent thinking process, rather than convergent. It might have been shut down because it was stupid, but it was part of a process of thinking. Schwartzkopf was taking the planning out of context. The story doesn't show Cheney is dumb, but that Schwartzkopf doesn't understand the different between a divergent and convergent thinking process. I also find it laughable that'd you quote Schwartzkopf as a critic of Cheney. Schwartzkopf also wanted to get rid the brilliant "hail mary" plan in desert storm, that Cheney's office devised. Schwartzkopf wanted to just attack kuwait head on which would have meant a bloodbath for American troops. Sane indeed.
This is an excellent point.
.. get the citizenry on your side and all that.
... we'd attack the transportation systems via assessing choke points. Most cities have vehicular choke points. Blow a few holes with some homemade c4 in these bridges, intersections, bypasses before peak hour of the day of the attack and you've taken away mass movement of a city and the necessary emergency and military response via tracked vehicles, tanks etc.
... they could do a lot of damage.
I'm an ex-soldier. I've discussed whether or not that the citizenry could take control of a westernized city with a few friends. We came to the conclusion that a couple of dozen persons could bring a large western city to a stand still within a day to a few days. It would depend on the strategic/political agenda behind bringing a city down of course. For instance if we wanted to totally bring a city to a stand still we could. But it most likely would piss the other citizens off. So a long term guerrilla campaign, with taints of revolutionary and peoples war, would be better long term moral position. In other words
In terms of a balls to the wall city wide operations where we dismiss the above strategic intents
Another target would include power hubs. Blow a few important power hubs in areas and you've shut down most traffic lights, services, businesses etc. Same could be done with telecommunications hubs eliminating communication.
Another important part of westernized cities is the emergency first responders. They will be the first to turn up. Not the military (of course this depends on the context and historical timeline of what has brought a bunch of citizenry to turn on its government, who knows maybe the military *is* in the city by now via martial law in a different scenario, which would mean a different process). Emergency first responders run by crisis management. Where militaries have a tiny bit of time to evaluate incoming information first responders *have* to rely on what the citzenry say. This leads them open to hoaxes and ruses. The asian warfighting precept here "uproar in the east, strike in the west" is what I'm talking about. Dial 911 and state "I have three bombs on three trains/buses. I also have placed bombs in schools". The first responders have to respond to that. By doing that you also now have half the cities first response resources tied up whilst you can continue the first day strike. In some US states you can dial 911 from a SIM-less mobile phone and not be traced.
So far all of the above has been pretty bloodless. Apart from the collateral damage from having a city in chaos from city wide systems disruption most likely having more car accidents and people freaking out. If we go more seriously into it we would have targeted hits of key decision makers within the city's political/business nexus. Target command, control and communications of first responders, transportation and military areas.
I could go on and on about ways in which to bring down a city. I've left out such juicy areas as exploiting the great terrain cities have. Different cultures of cities that could be exploited and so on. One thing is for sure. People who say the normal citizenry is no match for armed forces are wrong. If you had a bunch of guys with the will and guts who knew what they were doing
The truth lays in the middle ground between your argument and conspiracy argument. Conspiracy theorists are as much wacko absolutists as you guys who believe there is only total disorder in government.
There are actors in government, business or any private endeavour, who have interests and use their influence to make sure events happen. Read the pulitizer winning book "The power broker" By Robert A. Caro for over a thousand pages of well documented research on examples of a individual who had control over governmental systems. Sometimes the actors influence works and the events pan out.
Othertimes it doesn't work because of greater systemic issues and unforeseen events. Take international politics for example. The greatest single predictive analysis for international events has been the realist approach (the liberal and constructivist approaches have also been useful). It posits that actors will use force (usually military, to a lesser degree economic) to get what they want. This happens all the time in international affairs. Sometimes it works (bombing of Hiroshima), sometimes it doesn't (Current Iraq). Not only does this theory allow control over how affairs might pan out for the press and general public, it also gives governments an idea how it might turn out. So your idea that there is no control is as ludicrous as some sinister hand in control.
Good point. And like the article states ... it hasn't been tested in a real setting yet. How's it going to go translating a screaming, aggressive arabic speaker? What about a stressed out, crying arabic speaker that has just had his family shot and/or blown up? Sounds like just another technological band aid to something that is better off solved with investing in real linguists.
To this I said that group think can be exploited by people and that is why it is not a good thing.
The second response to me stated that the exploiter is not the one exploiting groupthink. The exploiter is just part of the groupthink itself. You never gave an explanation of the chain of events of how this amalmagation occurs.
You then replied by saying "We're only talking about web discussions.". That's a big change from your first post to which I responded. Groupthink occurs beyond the technological and geographical (in a cyberspace sense) realm. It's a social and psychological phenomenon. No matter where we are or what technology we are using groupthink is going to be there and there will be people who will exploit it.
"The most you can accomplish from knowing the group ideology in a web discussion is to make the group either like you (by posturing) or dislike you (by flaming). You're not taking anything away from them."
I agree with the liking and disliking in use by commentators. The question is: Is faking that you like a groups idealogy a good thing? Is flaming the community a good thing? And also, there is more to accomplish from just posturing and flaming. The groupthink model we are discussing has been primarily focused on commentators on /.. Commentators surely reinforce groupthink but I think we have left out some key actors in the process.
The key actors are combination of the owners Open Source Technology group/VA software, essentially U.S. technology corporations, the advertisers on /., a technologically-centric community dedicated to submitting stories and moderating that are admitted under the sieve of editors. These stories and moderations either go along with the ideological underpinning of the open source community and their values e.g. promotion of certain technology over others, certain values being better than others such as freedom versus privacy, or, they bury the ideological dissenters and promote the anti-ideological side e.g. stories on how Microsoft/SCO sucks, stories on how certain values that groups hold are bad and the ensuing 800+ posts that are good for the advertisers and OSTG.
In your original post you stated that groupthink is always present and isn't necessarily a bad thing. It surely is a natural thing within human groups, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discounted, especially when there are other actors who would espouse group agendas as all-encompassing "news for nerds" that grace /.'s front page and commentary.
No it's not. That is confusing results and intention. How does whatever I do or say become a product of whatever a group thinks and then automatically jump to I'm under control of the group? Where is the causal link between the results of the group controlling me and my original intentions?
If I, as an outsider of group x, do my data gathering on group x and come to a conclusion that they hold idea y as a core value, or anti-value, I have found an ideological leverage to use on them. Whether to exploit them for good, or for bad.
Whatever I do or say will be framed in reference to whatever the group thinks. Just because I'm using their ideology against the group doesn't mean I'm under control of the group. My intention is to exploit the group.
I disagree with using the word stupid but the essence of your post is a good point. The way /. moderates is confined by the words in which we moderate. Good posts are moderated insightful or interesting. Yet how many are genuinely insightful or interesting? In strunk and whites 'elements of style' there is a passage on the word 'Insightful'. It states the following:
How many times onPerhaps to fix the language, that /. moderation is confined by, there should be some sort of comment field as to why you gave the moderation. But I guess that may have limitations as well.
Because it can be exploited. If I happen to know that group x thinks idea y is either good or bad I can exploit group x's perceptions by putting idea y in a good or bad light and thus either antagonize the group or in the case of /. be modded up for basking the idea in the light of the groups preconceptions.
The world's first detective Francois-Eugene Vidocq, who founded criminology, was formerly a criminal.
The question you asked could be reframed as well. Who is stating that a former crook has to be the one that enforces the law? The question intertwines, and confuses, the process of the justice system with the crooks function within it. That function being a specialist ability to see from a criminals perspective. So I would say they are needed for their unique abilities but should be kept on a short leash. There is no need for them to be a law enforcer merely a law tester.
No they are not. They are after putting forth their own skewed version of reality. That reality for them is a form of cynical "everything that I don't like is a conspiracy". If someone talks about a form of politics that doesn't suit their own reality, it's a "conspiracy". If someone markets a form of product that isn't to their liking, it's a "conspiracy". If someone happens to have a story that becomes popular in news media it's automatically assumed to be a "conspiracy". These arguments are usually justified on a just-so basis.
"The "critical thinking" is realizing the story is false, and designed to get them to do something.
Saying an idea is false doesn't make one a critical thinker, applying critical thinking to your own thought processes is what makes one a critical thinker. Critical thinking isn't a form of childish competition of "I win, you Lose". Realizing something is false just for the sake of it is the type of conspiracy thinking that is running rampant. Secondly, how is the story false? What argument and evidence have you provided that it is? Your post is the just-so argument that everyone is putting forth.
It's a talent most of us here possess in better-than-average quantity, reinforced by endless opportunities to experience the scientific method."
Did you read the story and the /. commentary? It wasn't /.'ers who were making up rediculous arguments. It was people on Flickr and the arguments they used were just-so arguments. The majority of /.'ers here cut through the conspiracy crap with some pretty convincing arguments. There was a few /.'ers who have the conspiracy thinking but were shut down by other /.'ers with pure fact. Here's some examples:
here,
here, here and finally here.
Here is some examples of /.'ers who were making baseless accusations
Here and
here.
""Humanity" and the "story" are illusions, and fraught with lies about the way things are."
This is rediculous. How does this particular stolen camera story generalize into an all encompassing, illusionary "the way things are"? I said this particular story was interesting, and it is, I also said that the attacks made by conspiracy thinkers is rediculous because it is a story. It's not a vast plot determined to get you to buy some product.
This guy's making an accusation of theft, and depending on the local laws governing devices of that sort, the consequences may be dire indeed.
What consequences? And why will they be dire? And for whom will they be dire? You also state "depending on local laws". Well why don't you look the local laws up and extrapolate on your dire consequences? He lives in Berkeley, California BTW, as stated in the article.
"I guess my ultimate point is, quit bitching about the whiners and evaluate what they have objectively, and make a decision for yourself. Then act on it."
Yes and my ultimate point was a descriptive commentary on what someone is doing. Your ultimate point is a prescriptive commentary for what someone should do.
Yeah, I don't know if anyone else has noticed but there seems to be a rise in the general "OMG it's a conspiracy" reaction for every news worthy event these days. I find it bothersome that if a real world anomaly pops up the automatic reaction is for it to be either a government or business conspiracy. What happened to enjoying stories like this one for what they are worth? It's a pretty cool story IMO. Those vanguard conspiracy types are the first to admit to being "critical thinkers" and "heroes of truth" yet they are the first to destroy a critical element of humanity - the story.
He said conflict, not violence. A life without conflict is impossible and a naive dream of pacifists. Witness Gandhi's "Quit India Movement" where bombings and arson were used by supposed pacifists.
does not imply that we should not strive for a world without war.
I suggest that would-be pacifists read the book Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Munzenberg and the Seduction of the Intellectuals by Stephen Koch. It tells the story of Soviet controlled German propagandist Willi Münzenberg during the periods of World War one leading up to WW2. One of the most interesting things about the story was the directed use of propaganda against the Western Worlds intellectuals (mostly European at the time with some Americans), particularly with those who spouted the ideology of pacifism. The Soviets understood that propaganda is best used with riding the back of an existing strong zeitgeist and the intellectual current of the time was "peace not war" even to the detriment of protecting one's own people. They also understood that the best propaganda was truthful (and what could be more self-evident than peace being better than war?). So the Soviets, through Münzenberg, started a "peace movement" with the main aim of undermining the morality of Western war efforts. It had a dual purpose too. It both attacked the west and when, so the Soviets thought, they would defeat the west, they would also steamroll over the pacifists who would offer no competition. What am I getting at? Well nothing really, except that a lot of the history of pacifism isn't exactly what it seems.
I think you have an ax to grind. It's not at all arbitrary and it isn't in "our society."
Police do risk their lives everyday. They have to deal with the mentally ill, drunks, druggies and domestic disturbances on a regular day-to-day basis. The problem is you /.'ers think that cops are going to die in some spectacular shoot out or car chase, when it is going to be that simple traffic stop or domestic disturbance when someone pulls a knife or gun on them when they aren't prepared for it.
And the risk of death isn't the only the problem, they risk their sanity and their physical health. You think it'd be easy to walk into heated situations dealing with them day-in-day out? It's going to take a toll physically and mentally. Police divorce and suicide are incredibly high for a subculture.
On the topic of heroes ... Every society and culture elevates certain individuals to hero status. Slashdot elevates Linus (whilst Bill gates is the devil) to that status on a regular basis. The term does get thrown around liberally. To persons outside the subculture, and the affect of the hero, it might seem we are crazy putting Linus to that level and Bill as the villain. Who are we to decide who is a hero or not? It seems to be quite an arbitrary label in its own right and made on a individual, personal and subjective level.
The fact is that we've put these servants, and that's what they are, on a pedestal when it's a job they should serve with humility and compassion for their community.I agree that they should serve with humility and compassion at times, however all the time isn't possible for a number of reasons. One reason I can think of is the dual purpose of policing. They must serve as a force and as a service. Or to put it as Thomas PM Barnett said of the "new" structure of the military, they must serve as a Leviathan and as a Systems admin service at once. A force to bring into line the nefarious elements of society and as a service to uphold the good and help society. It must be damn hard to walk the line between those completely different mindsets. One is a mindset of destruction and one of creation. Both are needed, but I bet you it pushes some police over the edge into the Leviathan mode more than service mode.
Oh, and where you claimed "And EVERY cop is dirty. Every single one of them. Either by their actions or their omissions." You know what I think would help cops not go dirty? By actually elevating them to some form of warrior/hero status which you so want to take away. This elevation might have a side effect of instilling a form of chivalric maxims or bushido code. It might take a cleaning out of the internal system, but for us on the outside holding them to a bushido/knights code of honor might very well hold them responsible for their action when they are dishonoured rather than them being just another "servant" as you put it. The word Servant also brings up powerful ideas. Servants are expendable, they also deal with menial tasks. Upholding the law is not menial task. Your use of the word servant shows more about your biases and grudge against the police than it does for an objective description of their role.
It's a method of warfare. Since when is it supposed to be "noble"? The consequences of warfare are abhorrent, but that shouldn't stop us discussing the means of waging war.
It's actually the art of stealth and endurance. Nin can mean concealment, sneaking in or endurance. While jutsu is technique. While much of Ninjitsu will be covered by crazy myth of ninjas leaping from trees etc. the essence of the concept still stands: It's a highly specialized form of danger avoidance in warfare for evading the enemy. Basically Ninjas are form of individual Maneuver warfare.
The concept itself is thought to have come from the Chinese assassins in the warring states period - the Moshuh Nanren. It's also said that the concept is also based on Sun Tzu's chapter on spies. Where spies also being translated as "gap men" (k'ai ho) or those that sneak through the enemies gaps (avoiding strengths like in maneuver warfare).
The most interesting aspects of this Asian thought is the cultural influence it has had on Asian warfighting. If you read some of the history of Japanese tactical patrolling in World War 2 you'll find some pretty deceptive patrolling techniques that were based off Ninjitsu training. A military author called H. John Poole has written about this. It's thought that the concept of stealth, assassination and danger avoidance travelled along the silk route to places like Vietnam and Indonesia. In the Vietnam war the VietCong used to train in similar ninja-like techniques in stealth walking, sensory enhancement and so on.
The best modern example is in the Indonesian military where they have a subset of the special forces (KOPASSUS) called Gadapaksi. They are also known as the "ninjas" as they specialize in night time assassinations and abductions. If you read any of the literature on the East Timorese or even the West Papuans the Gadapaksi are mentioned as terrorizing the local populace.
I've always thought that the whole base concept of the Ninja is brilliant. Pretty useful across a whole domain of study. Could be used from warfighting to black hat hacking.
"The smart way to keep /.'ers passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable stories, but allow very lively debate within those stories - even encourage the more critical and dissident views by modding up. That gives /.'ers the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the fanboy conjecture of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the discussion." Cowboy Nealsky
"I think you need to remember that the RF spectrum is a finite resource and as such needs to be managed to prevent noise." LOL @ scarce resources. My technological utopia I live in will charge the RF spectrum with rainbows, sunbeams and pure human happiness. And if that fails I always have monkeys who shall deliver messages via unicorn. You crazy managers with your economic theories of scarcity.
You'll see many a /.'er claiming the devil within Google, with little to back it up of course but value judgements on their behalf. In this case: capitalism/business is evil.
You'll notice on that first photo on the National Geographic that Godzilla is in fact battling what scientists have renamed a Mothra not a pterodactyl.
Yamantau is quite close to central asia. Central Asia is considered the strategic core of the planet by a lot of strategists, politicians, reporters etc. The reason it is so important is because of the abundance of resources in the region. According to energy analyst Michael T. Klare "... the region, which stretches from the Ural Mountains to China's western border, has now become a major strategic prize, because of the vast reserves of oil and natural gas thought to lie under and around the Caspian Sea." I'd imagine Yamantau will be some form of future command centre for a major war in the area probably for a last dash for resources between the US (from Afghanistan), China, Iran and Russia themselves. And that's just the nation states fighting, it doesn't take into consideration the major ethnic conflicts that are in the region.
While this statement is true it has misses the context of the discussion and my main point again. The context was in educating the masses and the fundamental philosophies and mental underpinnings of executing that education. You stated that the difference between the two are expression and acts. For one to become the other in the context of politics, and thus executing new education strategies, you have to become the party of power at the time. So while you and many other /.'ers are distraught with the inane acts of the current administration (which I agree are idiotic), many of those in power at one time or another would have had personal expression's that are congruent with their acts. Language guides thought. So that is why it bothers me that that the left deride the common man. It won't take long for people who are merely expressing their thoughts to gain positions of power and act on their personal biases.