Sorry, I meant to say '*from* the goals of the project, to the goals of individuals'.
As for martyr, Assange is perhaps one of the 10 most famous people in the entire world today, while DeChristopher is a nobody. What happens to Assange would draw widespread attention, all over the world. Assange claims he would be tried and sentenced to death, while DeChristopher was given 2 years jail time. The two cases do not compare. As stuff like the Scopes trials, OJ Simpson's trial and Roe vs Wade show, important trials are enormous deals that totally dominate the news headlines for weeks, and can lead to dramatic changes in society. (And lest you argue it, any attempt to grab Assange out of Sweden or the UK would certainly necessitate some kind of lengthy legal process, even if the US intends to prosecute him without trial.)
We had maybe a good couple of years. But nowadays, the movement has totally lost its direction. The principle, lest we forget, was that we should improve government by producing widespread public visibility to crimes and misdeeds, so as to aid the democratic process in enacting change. The Freedom of Information Acts, the free media, and whistleblowers all formed part of a tiered and distributed system that is therefore robust from bias and misuse of power in itself.
However, the movement has failed, and failed conclusively:
1. The focus has shifted fundamentally to the goals of the project, to the goals of individuals. In particular, Julian Assange. Assange running off to Ecuador might be good for him personally, but it fundamentally undermines his position as the leader of a transparency project, to be in a position where he is under the power of any single government, and one with problems of its own. By all rights, Assange should have retired his position long ago, but now the institution that Manning has built is now about *Assange's viewpoint*, and by extension of that, the Ecuador government's viewpoint. If Assange represents the wikileaks project, then his *goal* _should_ be to potentially martyr himself by allowing himself to be captured and brought to trial, because the publicity of such a trial (or simply being held incommunicado on such a charge) would further the goal of justifying the Wikileaks project to a public audience. If he couldn't stand such heat, then he should never have made himself such a figurehead.
2. The movement has broken off of the mainstream, and is openly hostile to the public. The whole purpose of information dispersal is its distribution and so the changing of minds. However, Wikileaks has, it seems, given up in this. Instead, its activities are dedicated to appeasing the already convinced. In which case, what's the point? Given the implausibility of any systematic change from the small fringe (albeit, over-represented online) of hard anti-Americans, the only plausible plan for victory in the information war was to convince the public of the usefulness of transparency, so as to create institutionalised transparency in the US government. But Wikileaks has become totally uninterested in this, instead being more interested in becoming a nuisance. What's the end goal here? Is there any long term vision that is not just a few hacktivists railing against a mainstream that is totally alienated from it? Anonymous can cause damage, for sure. They can deface some websites for a few hours. But they are never, ever going to change the face of the government.
3. The movement has misexploited their resources. Make no mistake - leaks are an exhaustible resource. Each leak makes the next one harder to obtain. Security gaps are closed, departments are purged of people with dangerous sympathies, more restrictive laws put in place. The end state is something like China - there are few leaks from China, because China is built securely, staffed by rigidly loyal people, and if you get on their bad side they will fucking kill you. The vision of a secure society China represents is, IMO, easily attainable for the US government, and increasingly desirable. The transparency people are not offering a contrary vision, but are creating an active impetus for such a move. The focus should be on creating this vision, but all people are doing are doing big leaks that are fundamentally mere entertainment, and entertainment that makes them seem reckless and callous.
4.. The movement has solidly rejected reality. There's several popular memes in the rape discussion that are just solidly, provably, legally untrue. 'Assange isn't accused of really, rape', for example. 'The Swedes didn't want him until he left Sweden'. 'It's easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than the UK'. 'The US made the Swedes pick the case back up against the girls' will'. Etc. Etc. There's then the infiltration by the MRAs, who always jump on to this discussion to interject what they think rape is, o
Read the charges, if you can read, there is no mention of sexual assault as it is understood in the rest of the world.
Page 23:
The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.
The US army can't deliver a single set of compatible radios to the army. The British government couldn't get the NHS to run on a single IT system. What the hell makes you think they can do something like this?
You are a Random Retailer. You have the camera systems. Let's say shady spook #1 comes to you and wants to rig your cameras into the Trapwire network.
(a) He can't force you, because you will fucking sue his balls off in every court in and out of the land for something like that. (b) There's barely anything in it for you. Your customers might get creeped out. Your rival company might trumpet - Hey *we're* not signed up to Big Brother Net. (c) And suppose you do agree. Who the hell is going to pay for it?
A lot of these systems are decades old. They aren't going to be compatible. This is going to require expensive refitting. As Mr Random Retailer, if you want me to do this for you, you'd better be prepared to bribe me massively, and good luck if you can find money for this in your recession year budgets. TrapWire, the company, would very much love to have a world where every CCTV user is wired in and paying them a nice, sweet license fee, but it's just not going to be happen. And if this was happening, Stratfor, an organisation whose super-sekrit research methods seem to compose of an intern with google search, will not be the place to hear it from.
Indeed, the real story here isn’t necessarily Emmerich’s fuzzy math; as important is the fact that the chart was posted again and again with so little discussion of its accuracy. If those who pushed the chart along in its Internet journey cared about its content and the methodology, rather than its underlying political message, they could have done a little Googling. It wouldn’t have taken much to crack the surface, get below the presumption that poor people are coddled by the government, and find the beginning of a long list of problems with Emmerich’s work. But, perhaps because of ideological bent or maybe due to simple laziness, people decided that no fact-checking was required.
Er, this is, at least historically, a very naive way to put it. I'm sure you've noticed the control the US has over world institutions like the World Bank and the IMF, and the pressure put on countries to 'pursue free market reforms' that generally involve inviting in US companies? And the corruption of various US-backed governments in insisting on supporting pro-US policies despite the opposition of the public? Most people in most countries can no more stop supporting the US than the US public can reduce America's support of Israel - even though polls have shown that this would be the popular consensus.
*What socialist governments* since LBJ? The tax rate pretty much dropped uniformly after the end of his presidency. It's the lack of socialism that has fucked the US up.
I keep saying this, but yes, the second amendment is no protection against tyranny. It merely allows a transition to the rule of the strong, instead of the systemised albeit flawed democracy we presently have. Unless a government is really stupid and alienates *all* of its citizenry (which admittedly, has happened, but seems unlikely to be the case in a place as polarised as the US), civilian held weapons are about as likely to be used to terrorise opponents of the government, as anything else. Recall how Nazi Germany and East Germany both built careful systems where people would inform on each other for personal gain. And indeed, how ahead of the Rwandan massacre, the government actually *handed out* weapons to the public, so that they can use them against the opponents government propaganda had primed them to attack.
Freedom of information and strong institutions is a *far* more powerful tool against tyranny than mere weapons.
Seriously, though, if we actually look at the underlying problem behind the use-of-drones against US citizens issue, one key point stands out. In my assessment, the reason for these deaths is that it is virtually impossible for an enemy of the US to relinquish his citizenship.
If you actually look at the people who are killed, none of them consider themselves US citizens. They are people often in the direct service of foreign states or state-like actors, who dedicate themselves to the destruction of the US. They aren't going to vote, pay US taxes, or make use of US services any time soon. They profess no loyalty to the US, nor to its values, nor to its flag or any symbol, and would probably *prefer* to die in combat rather than be captured and go through a trial as a criminal.
The thing is, under the present system, the only way for someone to end his citizenship, is by appearing, in person, at an US consulate. This is obviously a suicidal move for these people. Therefore, due to the requirements of the system, these people must necessarily remain, on paper, US citizens. What actually needs to be done here is that it should be more simple for people to safely and voluntarily declare themselves enemies of America. Farcical as it sounds, otherwise the present situation will inevitably and pointlessly continue.
A total of 5 people died in the London riots. Of which, only one was shot, one was beaten, and three were killed in a hit and run car incident. That's far fewer than occurs in the US on an average, normal, day.
How many would have died if a lot more of the rioters actually had guns? How many would have died if shopkeepers engaged rioters in gun fights? How many would have died if the police waded into the conflict with guns of their own?
The answer is pretty simple. Most murders are *not* premeditated crimes carried out by dedicated criminals with prepared weaponry, but instead are spur of the moment events (frequently under the use of alcohol) committed with whatever is to hand. So, if the killer-to-be has nothing to hand, then he must either attempt with a less-dangerous weapon (and so have a substantially lower chance of killing the victim), or face a long wait to acquire the weapon, which provides ample opportunity for him to rethink about going through with it, or risk being caught by the police.
Thus the failing of the 'real criminals will still have guns' argument, really.
I think it'd have made the victim's family feel much better if, you know, their child wasn't killed, because knife-armed Brevik only managed to murder one person before being disarmed. The quantity of people killed is absolutely relevant.
It's not about blame - Brevik would still be guilty. It's about minimising suffering.
Right, without overwhelming military power to back it up, you'd be a total failure, like China. Oh wait.
US military strength is a *liability* to its diplomatic efforts. Every time the US makes the slightest bit over progress, people look over the military bases all over the place, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the raids into Pakistan, the hoarding of WMDs, the rich history of disastrous international interventions, and start thinking again. People are running to cooperate with China and Europe and Russia, not because of their military might, but because they've figured out how to do the speak softly part.
Well, true. But nevertheless, I'd expect that the more mobile companies will be in a position of advantage in the years ahead, being able to demand increasingly favourable deals from countries in return for siting there, to everyone else's cost.
Yeah. After outsourcing internationally, we'll now have outsourcing out of the human race altogether.
Moreover, why move your operations back to the US, in such a case? Freed from the need for workers, manufacturing can take place anywhere. Like, say, the place with the lowest local taxation and weakest safety regulations. I can't see much reason for optimism here.
Regardless of whether these measures are effective or not, you think these actions will not cost money?
3. What happens to kids 'kicked onto the streets'? Well, they either provide a burden on their families, or enter into crime. Then one way or another this is going to cost you money and harm the economy. 4. Who is going to provide this tutoring? If the class is paced to the top 50%, then half the class cannot catch up. Are you going to offer tutoring to half the entire school population - who will pay for the tutors? And if you fail them, they'll be in the class again the next year. Are you going to offer them tutoring again, year after year?
(At least, that would be IF vivisection actually worked, but it doesn't. Vivisection is medial fraud. 92% of drugs which pass animal experiments FAIL human experiments, AKA 'clinical trials'. ALL 'clinical trials' are actually HUMAN experiments, the only reason they do animal experiments, even though they are useless, is because most people are as stupid and gullible as the Slashdot crowd, and believe they work, and thus they can then experiment on humans and get away with it!
Er, someone doesn't understand trials. The question you should be asking is what percentage of drugs which *fail* animal experiments pass human experiments? If the answer is close to 0, then the animal experiments have produced value - a lot of value, in fact, if a lot of drugs fail animal experiments. Unless you think not exposing human experimentees to potentially horrible side effects is meaningless?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I meant to say '*from* the goals of the project, to the goals of individuals'.
As for martyr, Assange is perhaps one of the 10 most famous people in the entire world today, while DeChristopher is a nobody. What happens to Assange would draw widespread attention, all over the world. Assange claims he would be tried and sentenced to death, while DeChristopher was given 2 years jail time. The two cases do not compare. As stuff like the Scopes trials, OJ Simpson's trial and Roe vs Wade show, important trials are enormous deals that totally dominate the news headlines for weeks, and can lead to dramatic changes in society. (And lest you argue it, any attempt to grab Assange out of Sweden or the UK would certainly necessitate some kind of lengthy legal process, even if the US intends to prosecute him without trial.)
I guess?
We had maybe a good couple of years. But nowadays, the movement has totally lost its direction. The principle, lest we forget, was that we should improve government by producing widespread public visibility to crimes and misdeeds, so as to aid the democratic process in enacting change. The Freedom of Information Acts, the free media, and whistleblowers all formed part of a tiered and distributed system that is therefore robust from bias and misuse of power in itself.
However, the movement has failed, and failed conclusively:
1. The focus has shifted fundamentally to the goals of the project, to the goals of individuals. In particular, Julian Assange. Assange running off to Ecuador might be good for him personally, but it fundamentally undermines his position as the leader of a transparency project, to be in a position where he is under the power of any single government, and one with problems of its own. By all rights, Assange should have retired his position long ago, but now the institution that Manning has built is now about *Assange's viewpoint*, and by extension of that, the Ecuador government's viewpoint. If Assange represents the wikileaks project, then his *goal* _should_ be to potentially martyr himself by allowing himself to be captured and brought to trial, because the publicity of such a trial (or simply being held incommunicado on such a charge) would further the goal of justifying the Wikileaks project to a public audience. If he couldn't stand such heat, then he should never have made himself such a figurehead.
2. The movement has broken off of the mainstream, and is openly hostile to the public. The whole purpose of information dispersal is its distribution and so the changing of minds. However, Wikileaks has, it seems, given up in this. Instead, its activities are dedicated to appeasing the already convinced. In which case, what's the point? Given the implausibility of any systematic change from the small fringe (albeit, over-represented online) of hard anti-Americans, the only plausible plan for victory in the information war was to convince the public of the usefulness of transparency, so as to create institutionalised transparency in the US government. But Wikileaks has become totally uninterested in this, instead being more interested in becoming a nuisance. What's the end goal here? Is there any long term vision that is not just a few hacktivists railing against a mainstream that is totally alienated from it? Anonymous can cause damage, for sure. They can deface some websites for a few hours. But they are never, ever going to change the face of the government.
3. The movement has misexploited their resources. Make no mistake - leaks are an exhaustible resource. Each leak makes the next one harder to obtain. Security gaps are closed, departments are purged of people with dangerous sympathies, more restrictive laws put in place. The end state is something like China - there are few leaks from China, because China is built securely, staffed by rigidly loyal people, and if you get on their bad side they will fucking kill you. The vision of a secure society China represents is, IMO, easily attainable for the US government, and increasingly desirable. The transparency people are not offering a contrary vision, but are creating an active impetus for such a move. The focus should be on creating this vision, but all people are doing are doing big leaks that are fundamentally mere entertainment, and entertainment that makes them seem reckless and callous.
4.. The movement has solidly rejected reality. There's several popular memes in the rape discussion that are just solidly, provably, legally untrue. 'Assange isn't accused of really, rape', for example. 'The Swedes didn't want him until he left Sweden'. 'It's easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than the UK'. 'The US made the Swedes pick the case back up against the girls' will'. Etc. Etc. There's then the infiltration by the MRAs, who always jump on to this discussion to interject what they think rape is, o
Have *you* read the charges? As outlined in the extradition ruling, it's rape anywhere in the world.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf
Read the charges, if you can read, there is no mention of sexual assault as it is understood in the rest of the world.
Page 23:
The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.
The case is not about lying to get sex.
The US army can't deliver a single set of compatible radios to the army. The British government couldn't get the NHS to run on a single IT system. What the hell makes you think they can do something like this?
England isn't Nazi Germany, don't be retarded.
Yeeeah right.
Let's ask the key question here.
You are a Random Retailer. You have the camera systems. Let's say shady spook #1 comes to you and wants to rig your cameras into the Trapwire network.
(a) He can't force you, because you will fucking sue his balls off in every court in and out of the land for something like that.
(b) There's barely anything in it for you. Your customers might get creeped out. Your rival company might trumpet - Hey *we're* not signed up to Big Brother Net.
(c) And suppose you do agree. Who the hell is going to pay for it?
A lot of these systems are decades old. They aren't going to be compatible. This is going to require expensive refitting. As Mr Random Retailer, if you want me to do this for you, you'd better be prepared to bribe me massively, and good luck if you can find money for this in your recession year budgets. TrapWire, the company, would very much love to have a world where every CCTV user is wired in and paying them a nice, sweet license fee, but it's just not going to be happen. And if this was happening, Stratfor, an organisation whose super-sekrit research methods seem to compose of an intern with google search, will not be the place to hear it from.
Bullshit claim is bullshit:
http://www.tnr.com/article/82962/conservatives-economic-chart-fox-de-rugy
Indeed, the real story here isn’t necessarily Emmerich’s fuzzy math; as important is the fact that the chart was posted again and again with so little discussion of its accuracy. If those who pushed the chart along in its Internet journey cared about its content and the methodology, rather than its underlying political message, they could have done a little Googling. It wouldn’t have taken much to crack the surface, get below the presumption that poor people are coddled by the government, and find the beginning of a long list of problems with Emmerich’s work. But, perhaps because of ideological bent or maybe due to simple laziness, people decided that no fact-checking was required.
Er, this is, at least historically, a very naive way to put it. I'm sure you've noticed the control the US has over world institutions like the World Bank and the IMF, and the pressure put on countries to 'pursue free market reforms' that generally involve inviting in US companies? And the corruption of various US-backed governments in insisting on supporting pro-US policies despite the opposition of the public? Most people in most countries can no more stop supporting the US than the US public can reduce America's support of Israel - even though polls have shown that this would be the popular consensus.
Better graph: http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Income_Corp_CapitalGains_Rates.png
*What socialist governments* since LBJ? The tax rate pretty much dropped uniformly after the end of his presidency. It's the lack of socialism that has fucked the US up.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/sjh11/images/mtrgraph.gif
I keep saying this, but yes, the second amendment is no protection against tyranny. It merely allows a transition to the rule of the strong, instead of the systemised albeit flawed democracy we presently have. Unless a government is really stupid and alienates *all* of its citizenry (which admittedly, has happened, but seems unlikely to be the case in a place as polarised as the US), civilian held weapons are about as likely to be used to terrorise opponents of the government, as anything else. Recall how Nazi Germany and East Germany both built careful systems where people would inform on each other for personal gain. And indeed, how ahead of the Rwandan massacre, the government actually *handed out* weapons to the public, so that they can use them against the opponents government propaganda had primed them to attack.
Freedom of information and strong institutions is a *far* more powerful tool against tyranny than mere weapons.
I totally agree on this.
Seriously, though, if we actually look at the underlying problem behind the use-of-drones against US citizens issue, one key point stands out. In my assessment, the reason for these deaths is that it is virtually impossible for an enemy of the US to relinquish his citizenship.
If you actually look at the people who are killed, none of them consider themselves US citizens. They are people often in the direct service of foreign states or state-like actors, who dedicate themselves to the destruction of the US. They aren't going to vote, pay US taxes, or make use of US services any time soon. They profess no loyalty to the US, nor to its values, nor to its flag or any symbol, and would probably *prefer* to die in combat rather than be captured and go through a trial as a criminal.
The thing is, under the present system, the only way for someone to end his citizenship, is by appearing, in person, at an US consulate. This is obviously a suicidal move for these people. Therefore, due to the requirements of the system, these people must necessarily remain, on paper, US citizens. What actually needs to be done here is that it should be more simple for people to safely and voluntarily declare themselves enemies of America. Farcical as it sounds, otherwise the present situation will inevitably and pointlessly continue.
A total of 5 people died in the London riots. Of which, only one was shot, one was beaten, and three were killed in a hit and run car incident. That's far fewer than occurs in the US on an average, normal, day.
How many would have died if a lot more of the rioters actually had guns?
How many would have died if shopkeepers engaged rioters in gun fights?
How many would have died if the police waded into the conflict with guns of their own?
Tons more.
The answer is pretty simple. Most murders are *not* premeditated crimes carried out by dedicated criminals with prepared weaponry, but instead are spur of the moment events (frequently under the use of alcohol) committed with whatever is to hand. So, if the killer-to-be has nothing to hand, then he must either attempt with a less-dangerous weapon (and so have a substantially lower chance of killing the victim), or face a long wait to acquire the weapon, which provides ample opportunity for him to rethink about going through with it, or risk being caught by the police.
Thus the failing of the 'real criminals will still have guns' argument, really.
I think it'd have made the victim's family feel much better if, you know, their child wasn't killed, because knife-armed Brevik only managed to murder one person before being disarmed. The quantity of people killed is absolutely relevant.
It's not about blame - Brevik would still be guilty. It's about minimising suffering.
Right, without overwhelming military power to back it up, you'd be a total failure, like China. Oh wait.
US military strength is a *liability* to its diplomatic efforts. Every time the US makes the slightest bit over progress, people look over the military bases all over the place, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the raids into Pakistan, the hoarding of WMDs, the rich history of disastrous international interventions, and start thinking again. People are running to cooperate with China and Europe and Russia, not because of their military might, but because they've figured out how to do the speak softly part.
These regulations do exist and have always existed.
Well, true. But nevertheless, I'd expect that the more mobile companies will be in a position of advantage in the years ahead, being able to demand increasingly favourable deals from countries in return for siting there, to everyone else's cost.
Yeah. After outsourcing internationally, we'll now have outsourcing out of the human race altogether.
Moreover, why move your operations back to the US, in such a case? Freed from the need for workers, manufacturing can take place anywhere. Like, say, the place with the lowest local taxation and weakest safety regulations. I can't see much reason for optimism here.
What some old blokes thought hundreds of years ago is not related to anything at all.
Regardless of whether these measures are effective or not, you think these actions will not cost money?
3. What happens to kids 'kicked onto the streets'? Well, they either provide a burden on their families, or enter into crime. Then one way or another this is going to cost you money and harm the economy.
4. Who is going to provide this tutoring? If the class is paced to the top 50%, then half the class cannot catch up. Are you going to offer tutoring to half the entire school population - who will pay for the tutors? And if you fail them, they'll be in the class again the next year. Are you going to offer them tutoring again, year after year?
If you look at the debt breakdown by the CBO, you can see that almost all of it came from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and Bush's tax cuts.
Er, someone doesn't understand trials. The question you should be asking is what percentage of drugs which *fail* animal experiments pass human experiments? If the answer is close to 0, then the animal experiments have produced value - a lot of value, in fact, if a lot of drugs fail animal experiments. Unless you think not exposing human experimentees to potentially horrible side effects is meaningless?
You joke, but I can't help but think of the military applications of being able to redirect or extinguish flames at will. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C0RvNVfT1Y