You appear to be presuming this is about terrorism and the Patriot Act. If that is what it is about, the document would have said so. You must learn to trust the government and stop confusing your self with the between-the-lines stuff.
Because the government is nothing if not honest. They were so open and honest about all of the information available concerning 9/11. They were so honest about our reasons for going into Iraq, what we could expect when we got there, and how much it would all cost. Yes, the "energy bill" will lead us to energy independence and "highway bill" is all about preparing for a growing economy.
In my experience, it is safe to assume that most politicians are lying most of the time. Lying not in the sense that what they say is technically not true, but lying in the sense that the common meaning of their words differs from what they know to be the truth. You know, Mr. Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman, right? In Iraq, we did find materials which could support WMD program related activities. Just please don't notice that paper and pencil could be classified as such materials.
Between the lines is where the truth lies. Not in the face value of the lies.
I hope your post is satire. If not, go read some Jefferson. Our government was structured as it is specifically because we should not "trust the government". If you honestly believe we should "trust the government", why do you hate America? What a law or regulation is "about" is far less important that what the law or regulation actually does. Most of the most evil, totalitarian regimes were all "about" some utopian world vision.
The rights of beings are not well defined or universally agreed upon. Which beings qualify for what human rights seems to be a murky question in many ways.
How many people get killed driving? How many get killed in the shower? How many people die from poor diets? Life is risky. People take risks. People get killed. Oh my.
Where exactly in the Constitution does it give the federal government authority to regulate what I put in my body?
The problem is that this is one of the many issues used to increase government power. It can be worked from both sides to do so.
The pharmacist, generally being ignorant to most of the specifics of any particular customers medical situation, is in no position to make that decision. If they wanted to be in that position, they should have become doctors.
It's convenient that you left out the line about "I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct." Note the order of precedence there: Moral first. Legal, not first.
Placing items in a list does not imply precedence.
Again: You can have an ethical, moral pharmacist making judgements, or you can change the system. The pharmacist is doing his or her duty.
I generally disagree that the pharmacist should be allowed refuse to fill prescriptions if they are working at a public pharmacy, given the current system. By providing a service to the public, they should accept the moral questions which providing that service might entail. There are pharmacy careers which don't involve dispensing reproductive drugs. If you have a moral problem with it, don't take a job which requires it. Similarly, if you have a moral problem with killing people, don't become a soldier. If you have a moral problem with lying, don't become a politician.
The pharmacist is failing in their duty as a pharmacist by imposing their personal moral judgment on a decision which is not theirs to make. The pharmacist had the opportunity to make that moral decision when they chose to work in a public pharmacy. If you threw out most of the current system, I would be more in favor of allowing individual pharmacists more leeway in the applying their moral judgment to what services they choose to provide. But given the current structure, I would say their duty is to provide the service they claim to offer.
Umm, the "skilled politician" was shamming the "countries with backward views on liberties" into going along with an invasion of the tyrant. An example would be Gulf War I.
But this particular bug may not be the real news. The real news is running shell code on Cisco via an exploit. Or as Cisco puts it "Upon successful exploitation, the device may reload or be open to further exploitation." If this technique is not tied to this specific exploit but to architectural problems in IOS, Cisco worms could become a problem.
Given that Cisco had source code stolen, there is almost no limit to what a worm could do. Spyware on routers would be much more efficient.
You are making the assumption that DRM is only going to be used prevent copyright infringment. I doubt it will be.
While I am not allowed to copy a book, I am allowed to read it and give it away or resell it. I am allowed to read it as many times as I like. None of that may be possible with DRM.
Software makers and content producers like the idea of making you pay each time you access their content. Want to read your Word files this month? Better pay your Office subscription price. Want to watch that new DVD again? Better cough up some more money for another viewing. Industries have been drooling over the prospect of pay per use software and pay per play radio/movies for a long time. This is how they are attempting to implement it. And, this is just a step along the way.
You may not be able to loan your computer to a friend once you need to verify your identity using the fingerprint scanner built into your machine against your REALID just to get the thing to boot. Afterall, we need to keep pirates and terrorists from using computers, listening to music, or watching movies. I know I feel safer already.
Once REALID is implemented, they could build readers into computers and media players, simply scan who is in proximity to the device, and bill you based on that. Afterall, your license only covers you. Those ten people who walked by your open car window, didn't pay to hear that music. Your roommates didn't pay to watch that new movie with you. Either you will pay or they will pay, because your license didn't cover public performance.
The notion that when you purchase a CD or DVD you are only buying a license to do whatever the copyright holder will allow you to do is fiction. That is why they have to create technology to enforce it rather an using the law. The DMCA gives them enough law to prevent you from breaking their system, but did not by itself turn their fiction into reality.
besides governments are becoming less and less important in the world.
And this is a good thing? While too much government can certainly be a bad thing, it is ultimately the tool which protects our rights. When government is unimportant, who exactly enforces the law? Those wealthy and powerful enough to impose the law they want? Does sound familiar though.
This technology will ultimately have to compete with RFID and the REALID system in the market of tracking data. But I could see lots of businesses being interested in the people who regularly come within close proximity to their store.
afterall everything in American society goes back to making dollars. Having a police force keeping people "in line" would be a waste of money.
It all depends on which end of the "waste" you are on. The war on drugs has been quite profitable for a number of people/industries. Keeping people "in line" is really what the whole system is about to begin with.
I think the modern education system is -part- of the problem.
I agree with you. But I disagree with most of your reasons.
I didn't really experience political bigotry at school. There were a few teachers/professors who were politically vocal; but I never felt it my academic success hinged on agreeing with a professor's politics.
My father is a professor of physics and astronomy. And though you would probably consider him a crack-pot liberal, I have never once heard him tell a story of how his lecture diverged into a discussion of terrorism or defense spending. But with increasing regularity he is being challenged to how explain modern astronomy in light of the "fact" that the Universe cannot be more than 6000 years old.
I'm all for keeping politics as far out of education as possible, except where that is the area of study. However, I believe there are already ethics standards and enforcement systems in most places which can be used to control this.
I hear far more about the problem of political bias in education than I ever experienced it. I think most of the political noise around the issue is mainly being used to push for things like ID and young Universe theory, and as a club to beat down voices which do not adhere to the party line.
yes, silver is an antibiotic, but intentionally drinking a chemical solution to kill off things you really do not know about is plain stupid.
And how different is that from standard western medicine? They hand out broad spectrum anti-biotics for almost everything, most of the time without a valid need. Modern medicines can be abused just as easily as alternative medicines, and regularly are.
I could certainly be wrong, but I believe star charts account for the movement of heavenly bodies over time. The basis of the whole system is the movement of heavenly bodies and their relative positions. Humans have been plotting heavenly bodies and their relative locations for a long time. 2000 years ago and long before that, astronomy and astrology were the same thing. The first useful predictions made were probably along the lines of when to plant crops, when to expect floods, and what direction to go in to get where you were going.
I don't know if there are astrologers who try to incorporate newly discovered astonomical objects into their theories. I would guess that there are, since you would probably be able to sell a few books.
I guess there are no "elite liberals" in the U.S. then. Because I haven't heard anyone arguing for a society in which everyone has an equal outcome.
The rich should pay higher taxes because in general they get a greater percentage of the benefit from the authority of the state. They require the state to protect their wealth. They use the state to enhance their wealth. They tend to have far greater access, and far greater success in getting the state to serve their interests. The medicare drug benefit is a prime example of a "social program" which serves the rich at least as much as it serves the poor. The state is a prime method of redistributing wealth up the economic ladder as well as down.
I feel given the power of the state, progressive taxation helps deter the rich from using the state as much. Cut the taxes on the rich, you get a pork bonanza. If you want a smaller state, make the people who do the most to create it pay for it. It is not "the poor" who are paying an army of lawyers and accountants to write volume upon volume of additional tax code and legislation.
While Friedman has a point, I don't see modern socialist states attempting to equalize outcome, and much as raising the minimum outcome. Poverty and totalitarianism have existed much longer than modern economic or political theory. To suggest that poverty and totalitarianism are caused by any modern political or economic theory seems dishonest. All political and economic theories exist in some hypothetical utopian world. I believe that is just as true for capitalism and libertarianism. They are certainly not immune to poverty or totalitarianism.
The point is, it is fairly difficult to keep someone off the net. When there are multiple people with any significant funding, it is impossible.
Given the bot armies which have been built up by teenagers with no funding, I suspect any country which can build nuclear weapons could cause major problems on the net.
This really doesn't say the Bush and the CIA don't get along, it just says Bush doesn't like the restrictions which have been put on the CIA, so he'd rather expand the powers of the DOD. Less oversight, fewer checks on power.
It is fairly old news actually. Back when Goss took over at CIA. I haven't heard much about it since. I like this part:
Mr. Goss, in his memo, outlined "rules of the road" for the CIA to follow and warned that agency employees "do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies."
Lord (W) knows how difficult it is when intelligence conflicts with policy.
Left wing:
First, we say we're addicted to email. Next, we'll be talking about all the bad things this addiction causes. Lost productivity, wasted personal time, overtime pay that need not be paid, and so on. Finally we'll be looking at ways to combat this email problem. I'm sure there will be a panel, maybe a national commission, a couple organizations, maybe an international coordinated effort between multiple nations to eradicate this terrible addiction once and for all. ("War on e-mail, next on 60 minutes.")
Right wing:
We feel like we're checking our email too often.
So, we decided to cut down.
Aren't "lost productivity" and "overtime pay" typically right wing talking points? Your own example contradicts your point. Troll?
What is "in style" is for the right wing to blame everything on liberals. Most of our recent "War-ons" have been right wing creations, not left. In an ideology where admitting mistakes and looking at multiple points of view are considered weaknesses, is there really any room for personal responsiblity?
The rhetoric surrounding the No Child Left Behind Act included lots of talk about holding teachers and schools repsponsible. But when 9/11 rolled around, I recall Mr. Bush being against any 9/11 commission. Did anybody take responsibility for the massive failure of our massively expensive defense/intelligence systems? Two years after "Mission Accomplished" and civil services in Iraq are still worse than when before the invasion? There are daily bombings in the capital? If a stable democratic Iraq was the "goal" from the outset; where was the plan to achieve that goal? Was the plan either so bad or so poorly implemented, that we are left with the festering mess we have today? In either case, shouldn't there be some valiant righty taking "personal responsiblty" for at least some of the mistakes? All I hear is a bunch of excuses and whining/joking about liberals.
It is the right who wants the FCC to move into cable and satellite (increasing federal regulation) because they can't seem to take "personal responsibity" for what they are watching/hearing on a private subscription service. By blaming liberals for this, you are simply refusing to take responsibity for what elements of your own party are doing.
There is certainly corruption and dishonesty on all sides. But if you can't admit a mistake, how can you ever take responsiblity for it?
Slashdot Mirror
You appear to be presuming this is about terrorism and the Patriot Act. If that is what it is about, the document would have said so. You must learn to trust the government and stop confusing your self with the between-the-lines stuff.
Because the government is nothing if not honest. They were so open and honest about all of the information available concerning 9/11. They were so honest about our reasons for going into Iraq, what we could expect when we got there, and how much it would all cost. Yes, the "energy bill" will lead us to energy independence and "highway bill" is all about preparing for a growing economy.
In my experience, it is safe to assume that most politicians are lying most of the time. Lying not in the sense that what they say is technically not true, but lying in the sense that the common meaning of their words differs from what they know to be the truth. You know, Mr. Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman, right? In Iraq, we did find materials which could support WMD program related activities. Just please don't notice that paper and pencil could be classified as such materials.
Between the lines is where the truth lies. Not in the face value of the lies.
I hope your post is satire. If not, go read some Jefferson. Our government was structured as it is specifically because we should not "trust the government". If you honestly believe we should "trust the government", why do you hate America? What a law or regulation is "about" is far less important that what the law or regulation actually does. Most of the most evil, totalitarian regimes were all "about" some utopian world vision.
Of course, a real kapitalist puts 2+2 together and gets 5, that's where you differ.
5) Profit!!!
The rights of beings are not well defined or universally agreed upon. Which beings qualify for what human rights seems to be a murky question in many ways.
How many people get killed driving? How many get killed in the shower? How many people die from poor diets? Life is risky. People take risks. People get killed. Oh my.
Where exactly in the Constitution does it give the federal government authority to regulate what I put in my body?
The problem is that this is one of the many issues used to increase government power. It can be worked from both sides to do so.
The pharmacist, generally being ignorant to most of the specifics of any particular customers medical situation, is in no position to make that decision. If they wanted to be in that position, they should have become doctors.
It's convenient that you left out the line about "I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct." Note the order of precedence there: Moral first. Legal, not first.
Placing items in a list does not imply precedence.
Again: You can have an ethical, moral pharmacist making judgements, or you can change the system. The pharmacist is doing his or her duty.
I generally disagree that the pharmacist should be allowed refuse to fill prescriptions if they are working at a public pharmacy, given the current system. By providing a service to the public, they should accept the moral questions which providing that service might entail. There are pharmacy careers which don't involve dispensing reproductive drugs. If you have a moral problem with it, don't take a job which requires it. Similarly, if you have a moral problem with killing people, don't become a soldier. If you have a moral problem with lying, don't become a politician.
The pharmacist is failing in their duty as a pharmacist by imposing their personal moral judgment on a decision which is not theirs to make. The pharmacist had the opportunity to make that moral decision when they chose to work in a public pharmacy. If you threw out most of the current system, I would be more in favor of allowing individual pharmacists more leeway in the applying their moral judgment to what services they choose to provide. But given the current structure, I would say their duty is to provide the service they claim to offer.
Umm, the "skilled politician" was shamming the "countries with backward views on liberties" into going along with an invasion of the tyrant. An example would be Gulf War I.
Here is the Cisco information on the bug and patches
But this particular bug may not be the real news. The real news is running shell code on Cisco via an exploit. Or as Cisco puts it "Upon successful exploitation, the device may reload or be open to further exploitation." If this technique is not tied to this specific exploit but to architectural problems in IOS, Cisco worms could become a problem.
Given that Cisco had source code stolen, there is almost no limit to what a worm could do. Spyware on routers would be much more efficient.
You are making the assumption that DRM is only going to be used prevent copyright infringment. I doubt it will be.
While I am not allowed to copy a book, I am allowed to read it and give it away or resell it. I am allowed to read it as many times as I like. None of that may be possible with DRM.
Software makers and content producers like the idea of making you pay each time you access their content. Want to read your Word files this month? Better pay your Office subscription price. Want to watch that new DVD again? Better cough up some more money for another viewing. Industries have been drooling over the prospect of pay per use software and pay per play radio/movies for a long time. This is how they are attempting to implement it. And, this is just a step along the way.
You may not be able to loan your computer to a friend once you need to verify your identity using the fingerprint scanner built into your machine against your REALID just to get the thing to boot. Afterall, we need to keep pirates and terrorists from using computers, listening to music, or watching movies. I know I feel safer already.
Once REALID is implemented, they could build readers into computers and media players, simply scan who is in proximity to the device, and bill you based on that. Afterall, your license only covers you. Those ten people who walked by your open car window, didn't pay to hear that music. Your roommates didn't pay to watch that new movie with you. Either you will pay or they will pay, because your license didn't cover public performance.
The notion that when you purchase a CD or DVD you are only buying a license to do whatever the copyright holder will allow you to do is fiction. That is why they have to create technology to enforce it rather an using the law. The DMCA gives them enough law to prevent you from breaking their system, but did not by itself turn their fiction into reality.
besides governments are becoming less and less important in the world.
And this is a good thing? While too much government can certainly be a bad thing, it is ultimately the tool which protects our rights. When government is unimportant, who exactly enforces the law? Those wealthy and powerful enough to impose the law they want? Does sound familiar though.
This technology will ultimately have to compete with RFID and the REALID system in the market of tracking data. But I could see lots of businesses being interested in the people who regularly come within close proximity to their store.
afterall everything in American society goes back to making dollars. Having a police force keeping people "in line" would be a waste of money.
It all depends on which end of the "waste" you are on. The war on drugs has been quite profitable for a number of people/industries. Keeping people "in line" is really what the whole system is about to begin with.
I think the modern education system is -part- of the problem.
I agree with you. But I disagree with most of your reasons.
I didn't really experience political bigotry at school. There were a few teachers/professors who were politically vocal; but I never felt it my academic success hinged on agreeing with a professor's politics.
My father is a professor of physics and astronomy. And though you would probably consider him a crack-pot liberal, I have never once heard him tell a story of how his lecture diverged into a discussion of terrorism or defense spending. But with increasing regularity he is being challenged to how explain modern astronomy in light of the "fact" that the Universe cannot be more than 6000 years old.
I'm all for keeping politics as far out of education as possible, except where that is the area of study. However, I believe there are already ethics standards and enforcement systems in most places which can be used to control this.
I hear far more about the problem of political bias in education than I ever experienced it. I think most of the political noise around the issue is mainly being used to push for things like ID and young Universe theory, and as a club to beat down voices which do not adhere to the party line.
yes, silver is an antibiotic, but intentionally drinking a chemical solution to kill off things you really do not know about is plain stupid.
And how different is that from standard western medicine? They hand out broad spectrum anti-biotics for almost everything, most of the time without a valid need. Modern medicines can be abused just as easily as alternative medicines, and regularly are.
I could certainly be wrong, but I believe star charts account for the movement of heavenly bodies over time. The basis of the whole system is the movement of heavenly bodies and their relative positions. Humans have been plotting heavenly bodies and their relative locations for a long time. 2000 years ago and long before that, astronomy and astrology were the same thing. The first useful predictions made were probably along the lines of when to plant crops, when to expect floods, and what direction to go in to get where you were going.
I don't know if there are astrologers who try to incorporate newly discovered astonomical objects into their theories. I would guess that there are, since you would probably be able to sell a few books.
I guess there are no "elite liberals" in the U.S. then. Because I haven't heard anyone arguing for a society in which everyone has an equal outcome.
The rich should pay higher taxes because in general they get a greater percentage of the benefit from the authority of the state. They require the state to protect their wealth. They use the state to enhance their wealth. They tend to have far greater access, and far greater success in getting the state to serve their interests. The medicare drug benefit is a prime example of a "social program" which serves the rich at least as much as it serves the poor. The state is a prime method of redistributing wealth up the economic ladder as well as down.
I feel given the power of the state, progressive taxation helps deter the rich from using the state as much. Cut the taxes on the rich, you get a pork bonanza. If you want a smaller state, make the people who do the most to create it pay for it. It is not "the poor" who are paying an army of lawyers and accountants to write volume upon volume of additional tax code and legislation.
While Friedman has a point, I don't see modern socialist states attempting to equalize outcome, and much as raising the minimum outcome. Poverty and totalitarianism have existed much longer than modern economic or political theory. To suggest that poverty and totalitarianism are caused by any modern political or economic theory seems dishonest. All political and economic theories exist in some hypothetical utopian world. I believe that is just as true for capitalism and libertarianism. They are certainly not immune to poverty or totalitarianism.
The point is, it is fairly difficult to keep someone off the net. When there are multiple people with any significant funding, it is impossible.
Given the bot armies which have been built up by teenagers with no funding, I suspect any country which can build nuclear weapons could cause major problems on the net.
This really doesn't say the Bush and the CIA don't get along, it just says Bush doesn't like the restrictions which have been put on the CIA, so he'd rather expand the powers of the DOD. Less oversight, fewer checks on power.
Here you go.
It is fairly old news actually. Back when Goss took over at CIA. I haven't heard much about it since. I like this part:
Mr. Goss, in his memo, outlined "rules of the road" for the CIA to follow and warned that agency employees "do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies."
Lord (W) knows how difficult it is when intelligence conflicts with policy.
Left wing: First, we say we're addicted to email. Next, we'll be talking about all the bad things this addiction causes. Lost productivity, wasted personal time, overtime pay that need not be paid, and so on. Finally we'll be looking at ways to combat this email problem. I'm sure there will be a panel, maybe a national commission, a couple organizations, maybe an international coordinated effort between multiple nations to eradicate this terrible addiction once and for all. ("War on e-mail, next on 60 minutes.")
Right wing: We feel like we're checking our email too often. So, we decided to cut down.
Aren't "lost productivity" and "overtime pay" typically right wing talking points? Your own example contradicts your point. Troll?
What is "in style" is for the right wing to blame everything on liberals. Most of our recent "War-ons" have been right wing creations, not left. In an ideology where admitting mistakes and looking at multiple points of view are considered weaknesses, is there really any room for personal responsiblity?
The rhetoric surrounding the No Child Left Behind Act included lots of talk about holding teachers and schools repsponsible. But when 9/11 rolled around, I recall Mr. Bush being against any 9/11 commission. Did anybody take responsibility for the massive failure of our massively expensive defense/intelligence systems? Two years after "Mission Accomplished" and civil services in Iraq are still worse than when before the invasion? There are daily bombings in the capital? If a stable democratic Iraq was the "goal" from the outset; where was the plan to achieve that goal? Was the plan either so bad or so poorly implemented, that we are left with the festering mess we have today? In either case, shouldn't there be some valiant righty taking "personal responsiblty" for at least some of the mistakes? All I hear is a bunch of excuses and whining/joking about liberals.
It is the right who wants the FCC to move into cable and satellite (increasing federal regulation) because they can't seem to take "personal responsibity" for what they are watching/hearing on a private subscription service. By blaming liberals for this, you are simply refusing to take responsibity for what elements of your own party are doing.
There is certainly corruption and dishonesty on all sides. But if you can't admit a mistake, how can you ever take responsiblity for it?