I believe the proper term for people who say such things is: liberals.
Horseshit. Stop spreading false equivalencies.
I'm a fucking bleeding-heart liberal, and yet I ALSO believe the opposite of what you say liberals believe.
It is my contention that it usually those on the right who say those things... since they are the most likely to be perfectly fine with an authoritarian government.
What the hell are you talking about? Jefferson's father was, in modern dollars, half a million in debt and Thomas inherited all of that debt. He never owned anything - it was all owned by the Bankers in the same fashion the bankers own your house (mortgaged) or car (they hold title).
What the hell are YOU talking about?
Jefferson inherited debt from his father-in-law, not from his father. Jefferson's slaves were not collateralized until after the turn of the century. Jefferson had unburdened title to them until then, though if his creditors had decided to press the issue, he would have been forced to liquidate all his holdings, including the slaves.
Washington freed 90% of his slaves while still alive, and only kept a few housekeepers who were paid for their services, but they free to leave whenever they desired (but they chose to stay).
Where are you getting this pile of bullshit from? Washington did not free 90% of his slaves while alive... he freed none while alive. Only one was expressly freed in his will -- but most of the others were indirectly freed via his will.
Massachusetts made slavery illegal in 1777, shortly after they declared themselves an independent state.
John Adams didn't own slaves because it was illegal to do so.
No they did not. A proposal in the state legislature to gradually emancipate all slaves was tabled -- this was the bill that Adams opposed. In 1780 the Massachusetts Constitution was approved (unlike 1778 draft Constitution which was not enacted, it did not expressly permit slavery), and in 1783 (Commonwealth v Jennings) the state Supreme Court ruled that the institution of slavery was incompatible with rights granted by the constitution. This was an early example of what you might call an "activist judiciary".
IF there are wrongs created, then they need to be addressed.
But that does not change the fact that the uncovered wrongs need to be addressed.
We need to face the fact that there are individuals and groups in government who are acting badly, and covering their tracks with secrecy. This practice is unacceptable. The secrecy, taken too far, invalidates the legitimacy of our government.
It is far better to have the world aware of our malfeasance, and deal with associated fallout, than it is to be a citizen of an illegitimate government that hides its malfeasance behind claims of national security.
You should... lots of enlightening material he's written on subsistence farming on limited space, urban gardening, etc.
I've seen in a few places a term for the area required to feed a single person referred to as the "Jeavons number".
I have more than a passing interest in farming and it bothers me when people describe overpopulation as the cause of food shortages.
Well, to be fair, overpopulation is an issue. We'll never be able to eliminate certain limiting factors to worldwide nutrition like politics, shipping logistics, etc. If you consider those supply-side problems to be realities we cannot overcome, then our only option is to look at the demand side: population.
I don't personally think population control is the primary key to having an adequate food supply at this point. But keep in mind also that overpopulation feeds into some of the things that destabilize the food supply, such as economic disparity, disease, etc. So I do believe that overpopulation will always be a problem when we don't have the political and economic platforms to support the world population... and the lack of these platforms manifests as food shortages.
No, the real focus should be on quick punishment of people who violated the trust given to them to keep that information safe. If I were president, I'd specifically say "Assange is no threat, Private what's his face* and people like him are. We're going to deal with the threat quickly and efficiently all the way up the chain of command.
I agree that the leakers, not the publisher, are the problems that need to be addressed wrt the leaks. But I also think that we should use the opportunity the leaks have created to right those wrongs which they have exposed.
Washington manumitted his slaves upon his death. He benefited from their slavery his entire life.
John Adams live in the north where slavery was illegal.
Slavery was not illegal in the north when Adams was alive. Adams was opposed to slavery, but cowed to those who supported it time and again when it came to political measures to end slavery. He opposed a bill in Massachusetts to free all slaves because he felt it was too divisive. He opposed any national measure for the same reason. However, he did not own slaves, and hired freemen instead of slaves owned by others when help was required.
And Jefferson tried to free his slaves but the Bankers over-ruled him ("WE own those slaves, not you."). So Jefferson never owned the slaves - they were the property of wealthier men who collected them immediately after Jefferson's death.
That's false. Jefferson did manumit several slaves during his lifetime... and he was opposed to the institution of slavery, but for selfish reasons. Jefferson felt that slavery made the owners weak, and he felt that slavery needed to be ended in the US lest the US underwent the same kind of revolt as had faced Haiti. Jefferson wanted slaves manumitted and deported to prevent revolution. As for never owning slaves... that's horseshit. Jefferson owned his slaves, but ran his personal finances so poorly that he was forced to offer most of them as collateral in order to get operating loans for his estate. He owned, bought, and sold slaves his entire adult life.
But it does. Not every document, but leaks such as these serve the purpose of illuminating problems so that we can address them. This is a net good for society, since there MUST be oversight of government, and total secrecy runs counter to that premise.
As for the rest of your post... you make a lot of assumptions that are not verifiable, and have been contradicted by what I consider to be far more trustworthy sources than you.
When did it become debatable whether you kill enemies in war?
This is a stupid strawman. You are opposing an argument you yourself set up -- I never claimed what you are questioning. Your error is in equating Assange with an enemy at war; while it is possible to interpret things that way, it's a stretch.
I can promise you that a Nazi symp (though not a German or Axis citizen) in WWII operating on their behalf in an intelligence gathering capacity would have been a valid target...
Fucking Godwin. Afghanistan is not Nazi Germany. The leaks from Wikileaks showed that the US isplaying games with the truth.
Whatever... you're a fascist supporter of totalitarian government that is allowed to operate completely in secrecy for fifty years, assassinates dissenters, and spies on its citizens. Fuck you.
This is an unwarranted personal attack and a distasteful wish for harm for their relatives. How can you live with yourself? Do you attack people in this way in real life or is it only when you are behind a veil of anonymity?
That's a pretty stupid retort of yours, considering that jmorris (the parent to h4rr4r's post) expressed his desire for Assange to be assassinated or otherwise "nipped in the bud".
I thought you were just a somewhat loony Austrian-school devotee.
You can't do foreign policy without secret cables flying around. You can't fight wars without intelligence. You just can't.
So? You also can't ensure that your government is legitimate without being able to examine the workings of your government. Would you have us believe that we should just trust our Big Brother government to do what is in our interest, without oversight?
That's funny, since it's been directly contradicted by him several times, particularly with reference to the establishment of free markets (which require regulation to keep them free).
Perhaps you're just parroting some falsehoods you've heard bandied about because it's what you'd like to believe?
Also, they can only reveal information that they have been given. So far that much of that has been largely directed at the US Government could just be down to that being all they had at the time.
There's been plenty of stuff Wikileaks has revealed that wasn't US-focused; it simply didn't get any attention here in the US.
One interesting thing from the interview of Assange by the Forbes journalist was that Assange mentioned the exponential growth of data they've been given, when coupled with the linear growth of their publishing capabilities, has resulted in a huge backlog, and a halt on accepting new material. It has also resulted in selective publishing -- they release what they believe is the most credible and will have the most impact. Given that situation, and the US's importance globally, it just makes sense that they'd release info that relates to the US.
The other point I'd like to make is that if Wikileaks is pro-information, maybe the number of US-based leaks is simply a sign that (1) the US is one of the worst transgressors and (2) maybe people in US orgs are more motivated to leak sensitive data.
My only concern, and a seriously major one at that, is that the timing, the middle of a major financial upheaval, is less than ideal. Potentially having another major bank, energy or phara company collapse right now isn't going to do *anybody* any favours, no matter what the anti-capitalists might say.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Now, in time of economic struggle, is when it is *most* important to out the bad actors. Otherwise we'll be in the same position again 20 years from now. We need the leaks now, when there is still public motivation for regulatory oversight, or nothing will change. We've already seen the public will in the US dissipate greatly. We need things to keep us motivated to enact meaningful change in how we regulate industries -- both to ensure useful oversight and to avoid regulatory capture by those industries.
I'm assuming you've read some of John Jeavon's work. He estimates a lower bound of 0.05 hectares per person -- but that assumes plentiful access to clean water.
Also note that Jeavons assumes access to minerals for replenishment of the soil. This is a huge limiting factor in the long run, even if you compost your urine and feces.
In a free market, YOU CANNOT ABUSE WORKERS. Or at least you can't abuse them worse than the alternative of being unemployed.
Horseshit. There are externialities, not paid by the employer, that will cause employees to stay in bad working conditions despite better options. Concerns like geography, stability of income, availability of other jobs.
If what you mean by "a free market" is a market free from regulation, your theory is false. In an unregulated market, you get things like company towns, company scrip, and company stores.
But no... now I'm stuck on the East Coast where apparently only three people know how to cook fish.
The problem is that good fish is so expensive here; it's easy to get priced out of restaurants that know how to do it well.
I live in central-northern NJ, quite a bit inland... and there are at least 5 restaurants near me with good fish... if you're willing to pay $40 a plate. Down the shore, there are good fish spots that are cheaper, but I'm not going to drive an hour just for dinner.
So do what the rest of us do -- find a good fishmonger, and cook it yourself. I've found asian markets have good fish, if you make them aware of the fact that you won't accept the shit fish they try to pawn off on the roundeye. Early, early saturday morning (6 AM at the latest) is when you want to be buying.
Just a note: asian markets won't have good salmon. You'll need to go to Wegmans, Whole Foods, a good Kings, etc. -- and expect to pay $24-35/lb for good never-frozen coho (instead of the $12/lb you can find in Seattle). I bought some Copper River coho in September for $28 a pound -- and it was as good as the Copper River coho I caught myself in '95.
People in general don't give a fart about the amount of pollution (a societal cost) generated by the production and shipping of their cheap widget. But in aggregate, that pollution is staggering in its impact.
So we need laws and regulations to force producers (and therefore consumers) to pay up for those externialities. This is the only way that a free market can result in an optimal outcome.
How would you know? You didn't even read the damn thing, as is apparent from your questions, some of which are addressed in the damn article in the first place.
In addition, the team responsible has added a kill switch [igem.org] which tells the bacteria to commit suicide if sucrose is not present.
I see, so when it escapes it's concrete prison, it'll infect and petrify only fatties like me who eat sweets, and the skinny hipsters who only drink cane-sugar sweetened soda?
And in exchange, get a really cool set of statuary?
But it's exactly the sort of loaded language used in the summary that will get the multiple-tiers pushed through--if the biased vocabulary succeeds, the providers have already won.
I personally think tiered services are the best solution -- but only if they are coupled with common carrier status.
Then, anyone who WANTS to pay for expedited service can get it, and they'll get the same rates as anyone else with the same volume.
This is how Fedex, for example, works. They are a common carrier, and have tiered service (priority first overnight, standard overnight, 2nd day air, etc). Everyone gets the same service, and your price is dependent 100% on your shipping volume -- they cannot offer you any discounts other than the volume discount, or they would lose the common carrier status.
ISPs in the US want all the benefits of common carrier status without any of the drawbacks.
And I know this is a UK article -- I don't know if the UK has an equivalent to common carrier status, but it's a fairly good system.
The guard reached inside his sweatpants and touched his penis and balls. And this is supposedly legal (except of course it's also unconstitutional - no warrant; no search).
Well, where's the problem. The law protects us from unreasonable search and seizure, and the TSA agent didn't seize his wobbly bits, he just touched them.
GPP is right: nerd pedantry like OP's is a large part of what gives nerds a bad name in the first place, and it stands in the way of the nerds who make the modern world work being recoginized for their very real achievements.
Without the pedantry, we wouldn't be nerds at all, would we?
Without the incessant need to demonstrate our superiority by pointing out the foibles of others, we'd just be geeks.
And I'm sorry, "News for Geeks" doesn't have quite the same ring to it as "News for nerds".
Along that same line of thought -- if honest, non-pedant discussion of interesting technology and deeds is what you're looking for, slashdot is not the place for you. It is, after all, news for nerds, not news for innovators.
Slashdot Mirror
Horseshit. Stop spreading false equivalencies.
I'm a fucking bleeding-heart liberal, and yet I ALSO believe the opposite of what you say liberals believe.
It is my contention that it usually those on the right who say those things... since they are the most likely to be perfectly fine with an authoritarian government.
What the hell are YOU talking about?
Jefferson inherited debt from his father-in-law, not from his father. Jefferson's slaves were not collateralized until after the turn of the century. Jefferson had unburdened title to them until then, though if his creditors had decided to press the issue, he would have been forced to liquidate all his holdings, including the slaves.
Where are you getting this pile of bullshit from? Washington did not free 90% of his slaves while alive... he freed none while alive. Only one was expressly freed in his will -- but most of the others were indirectly freed via his will.
No they did not. A proposal in the state legislature to gradually emancipate all slaves was tabled -- this was the bill that Adams opposed. In 1780 the Massachusetts Constitution was approved (unlike 1778 draft Constitution which was not enacted, it did not expressly permit slavery), and in 1783 (Commonwealth v Jennings) the state Supreme Court ruled that the institution of slavery was incompatible with rights granted by the constitution. This was an early example of what you might call an "activist judiciary".
Get your facts straight.
IF there are wrongs created, then they need to be addressed.
But that does not change the fact that the uncovered wrongs need to be addressed.
We need to face the fact that there are individuals and groups in government who are acting badly, and covering their tracks with secrecy. This practice is unacceptable. The secrecy, taken too far, invalidates the legitimacy of our government.
It is far better to have the world aware of our malfeasance, and deal with associated fallout, than it is to be a citizen of an illegitimate government that hides its malfeasance behind claims of national security.
I've seen in a few places a term for the area required to feed a single person referred to as the "Jeavons number".
Well, to be fair, overpopulation is an issue. We'll never be able to eliminate certain limiting factors to worldwide nutrition like politics, shipping logistics, etc. If you consider those supply-side problems to be realities we cannot overcome, then our only option is to look at the demand side: population.
I don't personally think population control is the primary key to having an adequate food supply at this point. But keep in mind also that overpopulation feeds into some of the things that destabilize the food supply, such as economic disparity, disease, etc. So I do believe that overpopulation will always be a problem when we don't have the political and economic platforms to support the world population... and the lack of these platforms manifests as food shortages.
I agree that the leakers, not the publisher, are the problems that need to be addressed wrt the leaks. But I also think that we should use the opportunity the leaks have created to right those wrongs which they have exposed.
Washington manumitted his slaves upon his death. He benefited from their slavery his entire life.
Slavery was not illegal in the north when Adams was alive. Adams was opposed to slavery, but cowed to those who supported it time and again when it came to political measures to end slavery. He opposed a bill in Massachusetts to free all slaves because he felt it was too divisive. He opposed any national measure for the same reason. However, he did not own slaves, and hired freemen instead of slaves owned by others when help was required.
That's false. Jefferson did manumit several slaves during his lifetime... and he was opposed to the institution of slavery, but for selfish reasons. Jefferson felt that slavery made the owners weak, and he felt that slavery needed to be ended in the US lest the US underwent the same kind of revolt as had faced Haiti. Jefferson wanted slaves manumitted and deported to prevent revolution. As for never owning slaves... that's horseshit. Jefferson owned his slaves, but ran his personal finances so poorly that he was forced to offer most of them as collateral in order to get operating loans for his estate. He owned, bought, and sold slaves his entire adult life.
No shit Sherlock. Do you think people should have no right to defend themselves from an oppressor?
Are you claiming that the quote you provided supports your claim that he is an avowed anarchist?
But it does. Not every document, but leaks such as these serve the purpose of illuminating problems so that we can address them. This is a net good for society, since there MUST be oversight of government, and total secrecy runs counter to that premise.
As for the rest of your post... you make a lot of assumptions that are not verifiable, and have been contradicted by what I consider to be far more trustworthy sources than you.
This is a stupid strawman. You are opposing an argument you yourself set up -- I never claimed what you are questioning. Your error is in equating Assange with an enemy at war; while it is possible to interpret things that way, it's a stretch.
Fucking Godwin. Afghanistan is not Nazi Germany. The leaks from Wikileaks showed that the US isplaying games with the truth.
Whatever... you're a fascist supporter of totalitarian government that is allowed to operate completely in secrecy for fifty years, assassinates dissenters, and spies on its citizens. Fuck you.
That's a pretty stupid retort of yours, considering that jmorris (the parent to h4rr4r's post) expressed his desire for Assange to be assassinated or otherwise "nipped in the bud".
I thought you were just a somewhat loony Austrian-school devotee.
So? You also can't ensure that your government is legitimate without being able to examine the workings of your government. Would you have us believe that we should just trust our Big Brother government to do what is in our interest, without oversight?
That's funny, since it's been directly contradicted by him several times, particularly with reference to the establishment of free markets (which require regulation to keep them free).
Perhaps you're just parroting some falsehoods you've heard bandied about because it's what you'd like to believe?
There's been plenty of stuff Wikileaks has revealed that wasn't US-focused; it simply didn't get any attention here in the US.
One interesting thing from the interview of Assange by the Forbes journalist was that Assange mentioned the exponential growth of data they've been given, when coupled with the linear growth of their publishing capabilities, has resulted in a huge backlog, and a halt on accepting new material. It has also resulted in selective publishing -- they release what they believe is the most credible and will have the most impact. Given that situation, and the US's importance globally, it just makes sense that they'd release info that relates to the US.
The other point I'd like to make is that if Wikileaks is pro-information, maybe the number of US-based leaks is simply a sign that (1) the US is one of the worst transgressors and (2) maybe people in US orgs are more motivated to leak sensitive data.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Now, in time of economic struggle, is when it is *most* important to out the bad actors. Otherwise we'll be in the same position again 20 years from now. We need the leaks now, when there is still public motivation for regulatory oversight, or nothing will change. We've already seen the public will in the US dissipate greatly. We need things to keep us motivated to enact meaningful change in how we regulate industries -- both to ensure useful oversight and to avoid regulatory capture by those industries.
I'm assuming you've read some of John Jeavon's work. He estimates a lower bound of 0.05 hectares per person -- but that assumes plentiful access to clean water.
Also note that Jeavons assumes access to minerals for replenishment of the soil. This is a huge limiting factor in the long run, even if you compost your urine and feces.
Horseshit. There are externialities, not paid by the employer, that will cause employees to stay in bad working conditions despite better options. Concerns like geography, stability of income, availability of other jobs.
If what you mean by "a free market" is a market free from regulation, your theory is false. In an unregulated market, you get things like company towns, company scrip, and company stores.
The problem is that good fish is so expensive here; it's easy to get priced out of restaurants that know how to do it well.
I live in central-northern NJ, quite a bit inland... and there are at least 5 restaurants near me with good fish... if you're willing to pay $40 a plate. Down the shore, there are good fish spots that are cheaper, but I'm not going to drive an hour just for dinner.
So do what the rest of us do -- find a good fishmonger, and cook it yourself. I've found asian markets have good fish, if you make them aware of the fact that you won't accept the shit fish they try to pawn off on the roundeye. Early, early saturday morning (6 AM at the latest) is when you want to be buying.
Just a note: asian markets won't have good salmon. You'll need to go to Wegmans, Whole Foods, a good Kings, etc. -- and expect to pay $24-35/lb for good never-frozen coho (instead of the $12/lb you can find in Seattle). I bought some Copper River coho in September for $28 a pound -- and it was as good as the Copper River coho I caught myself in '95.
Is a "chocolate diamond ring" anything like a "chocolate starfish"?
Because your wife already has a chocolate starfish.
Cheap as hell, except for the externalized costs.
People in general don't give a fart about the amount of pollution (a societal cost) generated by the production and shipping of their cheap widget. But in aggregate, that pollution is staggering in its impact.
So we need laws and regulations to force producers (and therefore consumers) to pay up for those externialities. This is the only way that a free market can result in an optimal outcome.
How would you know? You didn't even read the damn thing, as is apparent from your questions, some of which are addressed in the damn article in the first place.
I see, so when it escapes it's concrete prison, it'll infect and petrify only fatties like me who eat sweets, and the skinny hipsters who only drink cane-sugar sweetened soda?
And in exchange, get a really cool set of statuary?
Suh-weet.
But you wrote that he admitted guilt by not showing up.
That's not quite the same thing.
I personally think tiered services are the best solution -- but only if they are coupled with common carrier status.
Then, anyone who WANTS to pay for expedited service can get it, and they'll get the same rates as anyone else with the same volume.
This is how Fedex, for example, works. They are a common carrier, and have tiered service (priority first overnight, standard overnight, 2nd day air, etc). Everyone gets the same service, and your price is dependent 100% on your shipping volume -- they cannot offer you any discounts other than the volume discount, or they would lose the common carrier status.
ISPs in the US want all the benefits of common carrier status without any of the drawbacks.
And I know this is a UK article -- I don't know if the UK has an equivalent to common carrier status, but it's a fairly good system.
Speaking of ignorant fucks, surely you are aware of the actual size of Columbia University?
There are approximately 5600 undergrads at Columbia -- while this is not tiny, it's not large, either.
The opposite of a mall college would be something like Ohio State University, South Florida University, etc.
Columbia happens to be prestigious, and well-endowed, but they are by no means a large school.
Well, where's the problem. The law protects us from unreasonable search and seizure, and the TSA agent didn't seize his wobbly bits, he just touched them.
Without the pedantry, we wouldn't be nerds at all, would we?
Without the incessant need to demonstrate our superiority by pointing out the foibles of others, we'd just be geeks.
And I'm sorry, "News for Geeks" doesn't have quite the same ring to it as "News for nerds".
Along that same line of thought -- if honest, non-pedant discussion of interesting technology and deeds is what you're looking for, slashdot is not the place for you. It is, after all, news for nerds, not news for innovators.