You had a point in your original post? Seems to me you were just bitching about being labeled a criminal, and that any rational discussion of the issue perpetuates that view that certain parties (the RIAA, for example) have of you.
If you DID have a point, I did refute it -- I explained the context of my point (you remember what a context is, right?), and why it had nothing to do at all with criminalization of legal actions.
And how, exactly, did my statement label you as a criminal? Are you just hyper-defensive?
If you can't defend your actions with logic, and rely upon juvenile displays of rage, that's not my problem.
Perhaps most telling is that you can't even describe what it was that I said -- your argument makes no sense at all, and would make less sense if put in context with my post.
To sum up:
Me: You can't compare copying audicassettes to copying digital files, because digital files are lossless.
You: You idiot! That statement makes everyone think I'm a criminal! Because digital files are lossless, while cassettes are not, that labels me a criminal!!!one11!!
Seriously, grow up. Though you say otherwise, you didn't bother to understand my point. The issue of criminality is completely extraneous, and has nothing to do with the fact that, in the real world, technology has made a difference in the implications of copying media. How some people have clouded the issue with legality issues and assumptions of criminality has nothing to do with the FACT (remember what that is?) that you can't draw a direct parallel between audiocassettes and digital files. If you can't discuss the matter rationally, STFU & GBTW.
Dude, chill out. There's no reason to shout fuck you at me just because I was pointing out a logical fallacy in the OP. Obviously you have some issues that need to be worked out -- normally when people get that aggressively defensive abnut something they are doing or have done, it's because of some feelings of guilt.
The point was that the state of the industry today with digital music copying is NOT the same as it was 25 years ago with cassette recordings. And furthermore, that the easy copyiong of digital files DOES pose a problem in terms of how the music industry has operated over the past few decades.
Do I agree with the RIAA? No. Do I think they are way off base with their accusations, enforcement, and bribery of politicians? Yes.
But the argument that they can continue to make massive profits off the same business model is ridiculous, which is what the OP was suggesting.
Finally,generalize about me, who I am, and what I believe? Grow up.
Simple in theory, not always so in practice -- cloning of peptide sequences starts getting rough at around 30 peptides, IIRC -- though likely most drug products would be small. Also, we're looking at a commercial scale here. Plus the fact that proteins are a poor structure for most drugs, due to the delivery mechanism (IV or IM injection only, with rare exceptions), storage requirements, lability, etc.
So really, the bigger concern should be how to produce non-peptide drugs, which are not always so easy to synthesize.
Yes, and cassette copies were lossless, too./sarcasm. A copy of a copy sounded like crap, and that doesn't hold for digital music. Unlimited generations of copies for digital music is a lot different than max two generations for cassettes.
Not siding with the industry here, just playing a bit of devil's advocate.
FTFS: "I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus' garden in the shade He'd let us in, knows where we've been
In his octopus' garden in the shade " (emphasis mine)
Funny, it's the YRO articles about the NSA that make me think of Octopus' Garden.
Very good point. And the demographics of people who DO click through is especially useful info, far more useful than those who just automatically view the ad... it helps to know who the sucke^H^H^H^H^H potentially interested customers are, and how successful your ads are at targeting your market.
"Any chemical that can be synthesized biologically should be perfectly capable of being synthesized in-vitro."
Should be != is. Particularly since development of the process for complex compunds can be extrmely expensive.
"Any protein can be cloned and synthesized en masse."
Protein folding is still a tricky business for a lot of proteins, and not necessarily reproducible in a lab. Plus, you've got to isolate the gene(s) responsible for the protein production, successfully insert them into bacteria or yeast to produce a viable colony, and then ferment them. By no means automatic. It's not a simple matter of 'cloning' a protein.
Cost is also a huge issue. As the GP alludes to, the availability of a cheap supply will often preclude synthetic production -- regardless of whether that supply is truly cheap in the long run (i.e., in his example, the public value of the reefs/natural sponges in the environment is not included in the cost equation for the drug company).
Sure, as the natural supply becomes more limited, it gets more expensive, and synthesis of the compound becomes an economically viable alternative for the company. But in the meanwhile, overharvesting of a natural resource can have pretty dire consequences.
Understanding that consumers get pissed off is different than not caring that they get pissed off. But ever notice that it's no longer as common to have video ads 'hijack' your browser when visiting websites?
Anecdotally, I recall a couple years ago when it was impossible to visit a commercial website without having a video ad superimposed over the web page (closeable or not). I don't notice it as much anymore -- either the wembasters realize that it kills their traffic, or advertisers are realizing that it doesn't help their sales.
But either way, video advertising is a lot less intrusive on the web than it was a couple years ago, IMO.
FTA: "The appeal of Google's video ads might be dampened by controls that will prevent the messages from automatically streaming across a Web page. Google instead will display graphics promoting video ads that won't be played unless a viewer clicks on a play button."
The appeal to me is precisely that I don't have to watch the ads if I don't want to. Thank goodness.
Of course, advertisers are probably less enthused -- but I'm sure major brands understand that potential customers do get pissed off by intrusive advertising.
The learning curve is not "knowledge gained (vertical axis) against time taken (horizontal axis)"
It's knowledge required (vertical axis) vs. usability (horizontal axis).
Usability is defined by the software, be it gameplay or the ability to produce a useful spreadsheet. So, a "steep learning curve" means that much learning is required to get to the point of using the foo.
"Got that? The NSA could buy records from Acxiom (and all the other aggregators) and mine the shiznit out of it for whatever they want and it's all perfectly legal."
No, they couldn't. The government could buy the records in the course of an investigation, but data mining, even if the data is legally obtained, still violates the 4th amendment. In theory, at least, though in practice the 4th has been shat upon.
Smith vs. Maryland doesn't apply here since Smith was a suspect in the robbery in question -- the warrant for the wiretap was issued on the basis of the call logs, but again, the logs were reviewed as part of an investigation of a specific crime. Blanket aggregation and mining of call records, OTOH, are not part of a specific investigation, and thus whether the info is private or public, still violates the 4th amendment.
The point is that the manual scans are using a different software and library to scan. Maybe two or three times over the past year have the manual scans turned up a positive that the autscans didn't -- all on my wife's machine.
I get paid to manually scan 12 laptops a month -- I run my manuals at the same time. The laptops, the use of which is completely outside my control, regularly have malware on them that I catch via the manual scans. I suspect the users cancel the autoscans because of the performance issues you mention.
Scheduled scans shouldn't affect performance at all -- that's why you schedule them during downtime (eg, 3 AM). I suggest to my users that they turn their laptops on before they go to bed the night of the scheduled weekly scans -- that way no performance issues the next morning.
Hah! You think your list of items keep you from being infected with malware? You're asking for a big fat infection. Here's my foolproof list:
(1) Don't turn your machine on. If it's not turned on, you can't get infected. (2) If you do, by accident, turn your machine on, don't log in. (3) If, somehow, you accidentally type in your username and password, don't open a web browser. (4) If you happen to open a web browser window, make sure thw wire that connects your PC to the network is not attached.
These simple steps will prevent infection by malware. I've never had an infection of any sort using these guidelines -- my PET2001 still remains virus-free due to these simple precautions -- and it's been in use since 1981!.
Sorry to take the piss, but your smug feeling of superiority is ill-placed. You severely limit the functionality of your PC -- and while it may work for you, it won't work for people who want a different experience from their PC -- like making use of streaming media, or playing simple games. It's totally unreasonable to expect Joe User to not accidentally accept an installation of something they nasty.
And, I have to add, it's only a matter of time before you ARE infected -- and since you don't scan, you'll have no way of knowing if you're propagating.
Redundancy is the key here. I've had AVG pick up things that other solutions had missed, just as Avast! picks up things that AVG misses -- it seems that no single library is complete.
My machines are set up with AVG auto-scanning and updating, but about once a month I pop in and do manual scans with other software, which one it is varies month-to-month -- usually Avast or AntiVir. AntiVir, as someone else pointed out, does turn up some false positives -- which is why I only use it as a secondary sweeper when I can devote an afternoon to cleaning machines.
You're right I think about this particular issue, but my post was in response to a post about respect for the law and local law enforcement in general.
You're absolutely right, and (not to toot the horn) this was directly recognized by the founders of the US. The term is 'the rule of law' and it is a predicate for a successful capitalist system.
The problem, though, is not law enforcement -- the problem is cultural. Flaunting the law is ingrained into many cultures*, and this causes the US-style capitalist economy to break, since, as you point out, there is not a level playing field.
*Very common in some of the poorer former Soviet states, where breaking the law was osmetimes necessary for survival. It just becomes habit to ignore the law, when the law makes no sense to the individual.
To put it another way, it's hard for people to respect government and the rule of law when for most of their lives, both have not served them well.
"Not because China is evil, not because you don't trust them, simply 'cause the US government should first and foremost aid (and thus buy from) US based enterprises."
That's just another form of economic protectionism, like tariffs.
The US government should purchase whatever goods offer the best benefit/cost ratio. I'd rather the government do its job more efficiently than have it artificially prop up an uncompetitive industry. Those dollars could be better spent elsewhere.
Or look at it this way: Do we (the people) gain more benefit from cost-effective government, or from subsidization (via our taxes) of specific industries that can't compete in the private sector?
"I dont get journalism, their is this prestige of it that people that go into journalism for ala Woodward and Bernstein. But they end up covering "so and so turned 100 today and she has this to say" and 'Your house just burned down, your family was murdered, tell us how you feel'"
Welcome to corporate media central. Welcome to the new age of bread and circus. Welcome to the great lie.
There are still PLENTY of fledgling journalists with noble aspirations. But you can bet that not a single one of them will make it to an influential position without changing their tune. News networks are afraid to piss off viewers. Massive corporations aren't going to allow investigative reporting that hurts them in the end.
Americans are happy to be spoonfed dollops of human interest stories, and think it's news.
I'm an American, and I'm ashamed.
But, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. There is independent media on the internet. Sure, you've got to vet the info yourself, but you can find better info than what's on the 6 o'clock news.
You're right that we can limit abuse, but I have two concerns with figuring out how much abrogation of liberty we can accept in order to ensure our security:
Who watches the watchers? Unless the program is completely open (and therefore pretty much useless), we're still faced with placing our trust in some government entity.
What level of abuse is justified? IMO, none. 'Limiting' the abuse, to me, is unacceptable. There is no tolerable amount of violation of certain personal rights, IMO. Otherwise, when the next attack happens, we'll tolerate just a little more in the name of security... and the time after that. I know the slippery slope argument is pretty exhausted, but damn, it fits.
Historically, in times of war* we've seen our rights trampled upon by the Executive Branch, then, post-war, our rights restored, often expanded, by the Supreme Court. For example, the acceptable limitations on free speech during wartime have LESSENED in the aftermath of every war we've fought until now. Now, we're at a point where we're involved in an endless war against a nebulous concept, with a Supreme Court rapidly being packed by justices who've shown little respect for the rights of the individual. So what happens in the aftermath of this war, should it end before a generation has passed and we forget what life was like before the war on terra?
I admit I'm pretty cynical and bitter when it comes to the federal government, and though I am very liberal on social issues, I am extremely conservative when it comes to personal rights.
*Or war-like activity, a rose by any other name...
I also agree re: removal from office of those responsible.
I have to say, though, that it is impossible to have effective oversight of a program like this. The only way to do so would be to monitor EVERY keystroke of every person with access -- and the monitoring would have to be done by an independent agency, not the NSA. IMO, the only way to approach this is to allow tracking of calls of specific individuals upon issuance of a valid warrant by a judge. Anything more would be data mining, and is forbidden.
Technology has made it easier to abuse power, which means we have to be more vigilant about what (even well-intentioned) tools we implement that have the capability for misuse.
Also, re: Hayden and the political football: This is a straw man he's set up. The politicization of intelligence doesn't affect his worthiness for the job, but by decrying the politicization, the administration hopes to overcome the real objections to his appointment. Similar tactic used for SCOTUS nominees.
Not a bad starting point, but the problem with wikipedia is that it's not definitive and should never be used as a crutch. I find the wikipedia koolaid article to be incomplete -- and I don't have the knowledge necessary to complete the article:)
I'd like to see more OED-type info in Wikipedia -- first known use, examples of first known substantively different uses, etc -- for cultural phrases.
"And yes kiddies, that means that the so called Whistleblower in the Nixon case who was named for a porn flick was in fact simply a leaker.
Wrong. The 'authorities' were part of the problem, Deep Throat went to the highest authority -- the people (via the media).
Not that DT was completely altruistic in his motives, but when the corruption is at the highest level of government authority, the only power who has authority of them is the people.
Just to toss out an ad hominem / straw man: Or do you believe that the people have no authority over government? And that the only body the government answers to is itself? With the recent destruction of the balance of power and checks & balances, to tell you the truth, it's becoming that way. IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
You had a point in your original post? Seems to me you were just bitching about being labeled a criminal, and that any rational discussion of the issue perpetuates that view that certain parties (the RIAA, for example) have of you.
If you DID have a point, I did refute it -- I explained the context of my point (you remember what a context is, right?), and why it had nothing to do at all with criminalization of legal actions.
And how, exactly, did my statement label you as a criminal? Are you just hyper-defensive?
If you can't defend your actions with logic, and rely upon juvenile displays of rage, that's not my problem.
Perhaps most telling is that you can't even describe what it was that I said -- your argument makes no sense at all, and would make less sense if put in context with my post.
To sum up:
Me: You can't compare copying audicassettes to copying digital files, because digital files are lossless.
You: You idiot! That statement makes everyone think I'm a criminal! Because digital files are lossless, while cassettes are not, that labels me a criminal!!!one11!!
Seriously, grow up. Though you say otherwise, you didn't bother to understand my point. The issue of criminality is completely extraneous, and has nothing to do with the fact that, in the real world, technology has made a difference in the implications of copying media. How some people have clouded the issue with legality issues and assumptions of criminality has nothing to do with the FACT (remember what that is?) that you can't draw a direct parallel between audiocassettes and digital files. If you can't discuss the matter rationally, STFU & GBTW.
Dude, chill out. There's no reason to shout fuck you at me just because I was pointing out a logical fallacy in the OP. Obviously you have some issues that need to be worked out -- normally when people get that aggressively defensive abnut something they are doing or have done, it's because of some feelings of guilt.
The point was that the state of the industry today with digital music copying is NOT the same as it was 25 years ago with cassette recordings. And furthermore, that the easy copyiong of digital files DOES pose a problem in terms of how the music industry has operated over the past few decades.
Do I agree with the RIAA? No. Do I think they are way off base with their accusations, enforcement, and bribery of politicians? Yes.
But the argument that they can continue to make massive profits off the same business model is ridiculous, which is what the OP was suggesting.
Finally,generalize about me, who I am, and what I believe? Grow up.
Simple in theory, not always so in practice -- cloning of peptide sequences starts getting rough at around 30 peptides, IIRC -- though likely most drug products would be small. Also, we're looking at a commercial scale here. Plus the fact that proteins are a poor structure for most drugs, due to the delivery mechanism (IV or IM injection only, with rare exceptions), storage requirements, lability, etc.
So really, the bigger concern should be how to produce non-peptide drugs, which are not always so easy to synthesize.
Yes, and cassette copies were lossless, too. /sarcasm. A copy of a copy sounded like crap, and that doesn't hold for digital music. Unlimited generations of copies for digital music is a lot different than max two generations for cassettes.
Not siding with the industry here, just playing a bit of devil's advocate.
FTFS: "I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus' garden in the shade
He'd let us in, knows where we've been
In his octopus' garden in the shade " (emphasis mine)
Funny, it's the YRO articles about the NSA that make me think of Octopus' Garden.
Very good point. And the demographics of people who DO click through is especially useful info, far more useful than those who just automatically view the ad... it helps to know who the sucke^H^H^H^H^H potentially interested customers are, and how successful your ads are at targeting your market.
"Any chemical that can be synthesized biologically should be perfectly capable of being synthesized in-vitro."
Should be != is. Particularly since development of the process for complex compunds can be extrmely expensive.
"Any protein can be cloned and synthesized en masse."
Protein folding is still a tricky business for a lot of proteins, and not necessarily reproducible in a lab. Plus, you've got to isolate the gene(s) responsible for the protein production, successfully insert them into bacteria or yeast to produce a viable colony, and then ferment them. By no means automatic. It's not a simple matter of 'cloning' a protein.
Cost is also a huge issue. As the GP alludes to, the availability of a cheap supply will often preclude synthetic production -- regardless of whether that supply is truly cheap in the long run (i.e., in his example, the public value of the reefs/natural sponges in the environment is not included in the cost equation for the drug company).
Sure, as the natural supply becomes more limited, it gets more expensive, and synthesis of the compound becomes an economically viable alternative for the company. But in the meanwhile, overharvesting of a natural resource can have pretty dire consequences.
Understanding that consumers get pissed off is different than not caring that they get pissed off. But ever notice that it's no longer as common to have video ads 'hijack' your browser when visiting websites?
Anecdotally, I recall a couple years ago when it was impossible to visit a commercial website without having a video ad superimposed over the web page (closeable or not). I don't notice it as much anymore -- either the wembasters realize that it kills their traffic, or advertisers are realizing that it doesn't help their sales.
But either way, video advertising is a lot less intrusive on the web than it was a couple years ago, IMO.
FTA: "The appeal of Google's video ads might be dampened by controls that will prevent the messages from automatically streaming across a Web page. Google instead will display graphics promoting video ads that won't be played unless a viewer clicks on a play button."
The appeal to me is precisely that I don't have to watch the ads if I don't want to. Thank goodness.
Of course, advertisers are probably less enthused -- but I'm sure major brands understand that potential customers do get pissed off by intrusive advertising.
"So I don't know why a website would be devoted to doing it" (emphasis mine)
More disturbing to me is that apparently websites have souls and can sin. Does that mean the messiah might be a dotcom?
Foot, meet mouth. My bad.
Originally, the learning curve was unit cost vs. total units produced -- see wikipedia.
But I think that the 'steep learning curve' meme that we see so much is based upon the incorrect concept that I believed (until now).
The learning curve is not "knowledge gained (vertical axis) against time taken (horizontal axis)"
It's knowledge required (vertical axis) vs. usability (horizontal axis).
Usability is defined by the software, be it gameplay or the ability to produce a useful spreadsheet. So, a "steep learning curve" means that much learning is required to get to the point of using the foo.
The AV software and common sense work well together.
The problem is that common sense is NOT common, and touting it as a good method of virus protection is useless and potentially damaging.
"Got that? The NSA could buy records from Acxiom (and all the other aggregators) and mine the shiznit out of it for whatever they want and it's all perfectly legal."
No, they couldn't. The government could buy the records in the course of an investigation, but data mining, even if the data is legally obtained, still violates the 4th amendment. In theory, at least, though in practice the 4th has been shat upon.
Smith vs. Maryland doesn't apply here since Smith was a suspect in the robbery in question -- the warrant for the wiretap was issued on the basis of the call logs, but again, the logs were reviewed as part of an investigation of a specific crime. Blanket aggregation and mining of call records, OTOH, are not part of a specific investigation, and thus whether the info is private or public, still violates the 4th amendment.
The point is that the manual scans are using a different software and library to scan. Maybe two or three times over the past year have the manual scans turned up a positive that the autscans didn't -- all on my wife's machine.
I get paid to manually scan 12 laptops a month -- I run my manuals at the same time. The laptops, the use of which is completely outside my control, regularly have malware on them that I catch via the manual scans. I suspect the users cancel the autoscans because of the performance issues you mention.
Scheduled scans shouldn't affect performance at all -- that's why you schedule them during downtime (eg, 3 AM). I suggest to my users that they turn their laptops on before they go to bed the night of the scheduled weekly scans -- that way no performance issues the next morning.
Hah! You think your list of items keep you from being infected with malware? You're asking for a big fat infection. Here's my foolproof list:
(1) Don't turn your machine on. If it's not turned on, you can't get infected.
(2) If you do, by accident, turn your machine on, don't log in.
(3) If, somehow, you accidentally type in your username and password, don't open a web browser.
(4) If you happen to open a web browser window, make sure thw wire that connects your PC to the network is not attached.
These simple steps will prevent infection by malware. I've never had an infection of any sort using these guidelines -- my PET2001 still remains virus-free due to these simple precautions -- and it's been in use since 1981!.
Sorry to take the piss, but your smug feeling of superiority is ill-placed. You severely limit the functionality of your PC -- and while it may work for you, it won't work for people who want a different experience from their PC -- like making use of streaming media, or playing simple games. It's totally unreasonable to expect Joe User to not accidentally accept an installation of something they nasty.
And, I have to add, it's only a matter of time before you ARE infected -- and since you don't scan, you'll have no way of knowing if you're propagating.
Redundancy is the key here. I've had AVG pick up things that other solutions had missed, just as Avast! picks up things that AVG misses -- it seems that no single library is complete.
My machines are set up with AVG auto-scanning and updating, but about once a month I pop in and do manual scans with other software, which one it is varies month-to-month -- usually Avast or AntiVir. AntiVir, as someone else pointed out, does turn up some false positives -- which is why I only use it as a secondary sweeper when I can devote an afternoon to cleaning machines.
You're right I think about this particular issue, but my post was in response to a post about respect for the law and local law enforcement in general.
You're absolutely right, and (not to toot the horn) this was directly recognized by the founders of the US. The term is 'the rule of law' and it is a predicate for a successful capitalist system.
The problem, though, is not law enforcement -- the problem is cultural. Flaunting the law is ingrained into many cultures*, and this causes the US-style capitalist economy to break, since, as you point out, there is not a level playing field.
*Very common in some of the poorer former Soviet states, where breaking the law was osmetimes necessary for survival. It just becomes habit to ignore the law, when the law makes no sense to the individual.
To put it another way, it's hard for people to respect government and the rule of law when for most of their lives, both have not served them well.
"Not because China is evil, not because you don't trust them, simply 'cause the US government should first and foremost aid (and thus buy from) US based enterprises."
That's just another form of economic protectionism, like tariffs.
The US government should purchase whatever goods offer the best benefit/cost ratio. I'd rather the government do its job more efficiently than have it artificially prop up an uncompetitive industry. Those dollars could be better spent elsewhere.
Or look at it this way: Do we (the people) gain more benefit from cost-effective government, or from subsidization (via our taxes) of specific industries that can't compete in the private sector?
"I dont get journalism, their is this prestige of it that people that go into journalism for ala Woodward and Bernstein. But they end up covering "so and so turned 100 today and she has this to say" and 'Your house just burned down, your family was murdered, tell us how you feel'"
Welcome to corporate media central. Welcome to the new age of bread and circus. Welcome to the great lie.
There are still PLENTY of fledgling journalists with noble aspirations. But you can bet that not a single one of them will make it to an influential position without changing their tune. News networks are afraid to piss off viewers. Massive corporations aren't going to allow investigative reporting that hurts them in the end.
Americans are happy to be spoonfed dollops of human interest stories, and think it's news.
I'm an American, and I'm ashamed.
But, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. There is independent media on the internet. Sure, you've got to vet the info yourself, but you can find better info than what's on the 6 o'clock news.
You're right that we can limit abuse, but I have two concerns with figuring out how much abrogation of liberty we can accept in order to ensure our security:
Who watches the watchers? Unless the program is completely open (and therefore pretty much useless), we're still faced with placing our trust in some government entity.
What level of abuse is justified? IMO, none. 'Limiting' the abuse, to me, is unacceptable. There is no tolerable amount of violation of certain personal rights, IMO. Otherwise, when the next attack happens, we'll tolerate just a little more in the name of security... and the time after that. I know the slippery slope argument is pretty exhausted, but damn, it fits.
Historically, in times of war* we've seen our rights trampled upon by the Executive Branch, then, post-war, our rights restored, often expanded, by the Supreme Court. For example, the acceptable limitations on free speech during wartime have LESSENED in the aftermath of every war we've fought until now. Now, we're at a point where we're involved in an endless war against a nebulous concept, with a Supreme Court rapidly being packed by justices who've shown little respect for the rights of the individual. So what happens in the aftermath of this war, should it end before a generation has passed and we forget what life was like before the war on terra?
I admit I'm pretty cynical and bitter when it comes to the federal government, and though I am very liberal on social issues, I am extremely conservative when it comes to personal rights.
*Or war-like activity, a rose by any other name...
Right on re: Red Foreman (Um, I mean Hayden).
I also agree re: removal from office of those responsible.
I have to say, though, that it is impossible to have effective oversight of a program like this. The only way to do so would be to monitor EVERY keystroke of every person with access -- and the monitoring would have to be done by an independent agency, not the NSA. IMO, the only way to approach this is to allow tracking of calls of specific individuals upon issuance of a valid warrant by a judge. Anything more would be data mining, and is forbidden.
Technology has made it easier to abuse power, which means we have to be more vigilant about what (even well-intentioned) tools we implement that have the capability for misuse.
Also, re: Hayden and the political football: This is a straw man he's set up. The politicization of intelligence doesn't affect his worthiness for the job, but by decrying the politicization, the administration hopes to overcome the real objections to his appointment. Similar tactic used for SCOTUS nominees.
Not a bad starting point, but the problem with wikipedia is that it's not definitive and should never be used as a crutch. I find the wikipedia koolaid article to be incomplete -- and I don't have the knowledge necessary to complete the article :)
I'd like to see more OED-type info in Wikipedia -- first known use, examples of first known substantively different uses, etc -- for cultural phrases.
"And yes kiddies, that means that the so called Whistleblower in the Nixon case who was named for a porn flick was in fact simply a leaker.
Wrong. The 'authorities' were part of the problem, Deep Throat went to the highest authority -- the people (via the media).
Not that DT was completely altruistic in his motives, but when the corruption is at the highest level of government authority, the only power who has authority of them is the people.
Just to toss out an ad hominem / straw man: Or do you believe that the people have no authority over government? And that the only body the government answers to is itself? With the recent destruction of the balance of power and checks & balances, to tell you the truth, it's becoming that way. IMO.