One guy who works for the intelligence agency stated something that was false
Howzat? Are you seriously dismissing the Director of National Intelligence as "one guy who works for the intelligence agency?" That's not even understatement. It's plain misrepresentation of the person who (according to IRTPA 2004 which created the position) is "the principal adviser to the President, to the
National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council
for intelligence matters related to the national security" and "serve[s] as head of the intelligence community."
I mean, did you not RTFA, or did you just decide to comment on it without knowing such as basic piece of information as the position of DNI Mike McConnell?
4 people from the intelligence agency corrected him. So by that standard the "Bush Administration" is more truthful on the order of 4 to 1.
Really? Really? McConnell is a political appointee of the Bush administration, while the individuals who flagged his factually incorrect statement are career intelligence personnel. McConnell is the only person in this affair who falls under the "Bush Administration."
Did you just copy/paste your post from FreeRepublic, or did you come up with such an obtuse and uninformed comment on your own?
Perhaps these people should think twice before relying on a service that they have no control over whatsoever.
Perhaps some other people should point out these concerns to those people, who probably have enough going on in their lives to not contemplate their legal status with regard to their computer applications.
Perhaps these other people could have a website that aggregates stories pointing out such examples of corporate buggery, and that provides a forum for folks to discuss them. Perhaps they could get enough exposure to occasionally penetrate the online public's consciousness.
Well then the "common man" should get what he gets. It's not our job to babysit him.
What, exactly, does he "get?" A society where privacy concerns are eventually so eroded among a large majority - accustomed to think of intrusions into their privacy as normal - that government or corporate action could abolish meaningful privacy for the "rest of us?"
Sorry, but I feel that it is "my job" to inform people about the underhandedness with which their private information is dealt. I certainly don't want them thinking that they can take privacy for granted.
You assume one way is better than another. How un-liberal of you.
How? Liberalism is a politico-economic belief system. People almost always believe that their system is more suited than others for dealing with the world. The only folks who believe that no one way is better than any other are the strawman caricatures of a "moral relativist" position appearing in conservative polemic.
I've followed his stories over the last few years, but I haven't researched his background.
Well, one might start by RTFA:
In 2003, the US financial watchdog, the Securities and Exchange Commission, filed a case against Dr Moller alleging that he had used "false and misleading statements" when trying to find fresh investors.
One example contained in court documents claimed that in 1997 his company's promotional material had predicted 10,000 sales of a 400-mile-an-hour flying car by 2002, and had promised a stock market listing - and a sharp rise in share prices - which never materialised.
The case was later settled out of court, with the company paying a civil penalty of $50,000.
There is good evidence that at least a substantial fraction of diagnosed Alzheimer's cases are in fact CJD.
Got any? I mean, no offense, but this contradicts everything I've ever researched regarding Alzheimer's (which is one of the most heavily-studied diseases affecting humans.) The only place I've ever seen a similar assertion was an unsourced pamphlet I was handed while walking by a PETA event.
When the DOJ comes to your company and says, "by executive order, do this", you don't just ignore them.
That's right. You have your legal department determine if the EO would make your company violate the law (not hard, since that's the office to which EOs are submitted in the first place) and, if so, file with the court to have an injunction placed on the feds.
Ignoring an executive order is as bad as just bending over for it.
Here's a wacky idea: STOP ENGAGING IN THE BEHAVIOR THAT CAUSES THE CONDITION IN THE FIRST PLACE.
While I agree with your sentiment in general, I can't see how it is relevant to Alzheimer's. If you know of a causal factor for the disease, you might want to share it with the folks who've been studying that problem for decades - you'll be able to cash in handsomely. Right now, the data seems to suggest a genetic cause more than an environmental one.
But one thing is for sure. The partisan democrats are the most rabidly loud and most prolific of posters.
Remember a recent poll on the front page about political affiliation? Half of the site appears to be split between self described liberals and libertarians. Only 12% of participant describe themselves as being on the "right" (not counting the share that one might glean from the "moderates"). Their posts never seem to be too extreme, usually sticking to two themes: "Clinton did it too!" or "The Muslims/Mexicans are going to destroy America because the libruhls run everything and won't stop them."
Libertarians, on the other hand, seem more given to sneering than political passion, so they're usually restricted to two things: "They're all going to steal your money" or "You guys are wrong, [topic] is best handled by the free market."
Given the events of the past seven years, I'd suggest that "liberals" have a wider range of things to complain about (on the other side, think about how much material Limbaugh had in the '90s!) and so the diversity of their complaints is probably greater, especially since they're one of the top two political groups on/. in terms of numbers.
Anyway, wouldn't you miss all the "9/11 truth loons" if they went away?/s
I guess you're being funny, but I don't get it. You're not seriously implying that Slashdot is a community of partisan Democrats? Somewhere between 70-75% of the country thinks Bush is shit, and even more think the same of Cheney.
And, since the other 25=30% tend to believe that computers are the medium through which Satan sends porn to turn them gay, they're not likely to post on/.
If you seriously expect to see any more than a few rapturous cries when the Democrats stumble to victory in 2008, then you must be new here. No offense.
You've just established that you're one of those high-priced consultants. Congratulations, you're probably working down the street from me.
Wrong.
Sonny boy, I was involved in government contracting more years than you've been alive.
I know how all these projects work for the feds... I've been doing it since 1981 and I got out in the 90's.
Wrong again, since I'm a fair bit older than 18, which is the maximum possible value allowed by your specifications.
Anyway, if you got out in the 90's and I'm currently a high-priced consultant (which, as I've stated, I'm not, but I'll play along with you for a minute), why would I be "working down the street" from you? Wouldn't you be working somewhere else? Why would all the high-priced consultants work on your street?
I've seen all these ridiculous programs and every one is a failure.
Every single one, huh? Bullshit.
Sonny boy, I was involved in government contracting more years than you've been alive.
Bullshit. You're just another "government is TEH EVIL" idiot who's trying to pass off anonymous condescension as experience, on a board with a great deal of groupthink that accepts your vague and unsupported sentiments, so that you can go to bed feeling like you showed some naive kid how the world works. Sadly for you, you've completely misread your audience and have given yourself away with your sweeping and vague generalizations.
Please fuck off back to your fantasy world, AC. You can have the last word, assuming you actually think that any more of your bullshit serves a purpose here. I'm already burning enough Karma with this flaming offtopic garbage.
3 Billion men alert vital and virile well into their 100's. That should be good for the planet.
We're already at 3 billion men (and over 3 billion women, for that matter.) "Vital" and "virile" might be a longshot, and unrelated to the research in question, but "alert" (or "not senile") probably wouldn't be a negative.
You don't feel any "suffering", and even if you did,you wouldn't remember it.
First off, that's not exactly true, as a couple other commenters have indicated.
Secondly: it's not all about you. I said it's a terrible disease for society. That means not only the people who descend into grey terrors and death, but the loved ones who must bear with them through their suffering. People who will never suffer from Alzheimer's benefit from this research as well.
Sure early Alzheimers must be a bit frustrating for the sufferer, but this is tempered by a loss of cognitive function (ie. you don't necessarily realise that you have the condition).
In my secondhand experience, that is only a consolation once the disease is terminal. Before that point lies a great deal of suffering spread out over years, without any hope for even a partial rehabilitation.
Perhaps we should allow people to die earlier with dignity.
Death with dignity is an important right. To me, it's almost as compelling as the possibility of living longer with dignity. That's why this research is so important.
Complete and utter nonsense. You've just demonstrated that you have no insight into how the federal government procures and obtains services.
I don't just have "insight," but actual practical experience, so you're wrong right off the bat.
My guess is this was demonstrated to congress this way, but in actual fact requires constant tweaking by those high-priced consultants to work even minimally in the real world.
Well, thank you for your guess. Hey, check this out: most massive IT projects, government or corporate, require constant tweaking by high-priced consultants.
Now, where you get the idea that this tapping system works "minimally" is beyond me: do you actually have some exposure to the specific project in question, or are you just applying the "Everything the government does sucks and doesn't work" to something about which you have no knowledge, based on your preconceived notions? Granted, a lot of stuff the government pays for works only minimally, but I've no shortage of experience with projects where that is simply not true, so your blanket generalizations are "complete and utter nonsense." Thanks for playing, AC.
I was about to say, "What, you mean like a regular watch," but then I remembered that I never have to set the time on my cell phone as long as I'm within anyone's network, so I guess it's not really a problem.
Well, yeah. I hope nobody gets the impression that I'm claiming the government never screws up. I'm stating that it's hyperbolic to claim, as did the OP, that everything they do sucks and doesn't work. Unfortunately, that little bit of cliche seems to have become a cornerstone of American political thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Howzat? Are you seriously dismissing the Director of National Intelligence as "one guy who works for the intelligence agency?" That's not even understatement. It's plain misrepresentation of the person who (according to IRTPA 2004 which created the position) is "the principal adviser to the President, to the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to the national security" and "serve[s] as head of the intelligence community."
I mean, did you not RTFA, or did you just decide to comment on it without knowing such as basic piece of information as the position of DNI Mike McConnell?
Really? Really? McConnell is a political appointee of the Bush administration, while the individuals who flagged his factually incorrect statement are career intelligence personnel. McConnell is the only person in this affair who falls under the "Bush Administration."
Did you just copy/paste your post from FreeRepublic, or did you come up with such an obtuse and uninformed comment on your own?
Do you have a source for this little gem in your sig? You always want to provide a source for such things, especially when they sound that ludicrous.
After all, studies show that 87% of Americans uncritically accept fabricated statistics.
Not really. His nickname isn't too long by /. standards.
Based on the false dichotomy presented in your analogy, however, I'd say he has a point about yours.
Perhaps some other people should point out these concerns to those people, who probably have enough going on in their lives to not contemplate their legal status with regard to their computer applications.
Perhaps these other people could have a website that aggregates stories pointing out such examples of corporate buggery, and that provides a forum for folks to discuss them. Perhaps they could get enough exposure to occasionally penetrate the online public's consciousness.
What, exactly, does he "get?" A society where privacy concerns are eventually so eroded among a large majority - accustomed to think of intrusions into their privacy as normal - that government or corporate action could abolish meaningful privacy for the "rest of us?"
Sorry, but I feel that it is "my job" to inform people about the underhandedness with which their private information is dealt. I certainly don't want them thinking that they can take privacy for granted.
How? Liberalism is a politico-economic belief system. People almost always believe that their system is more suited than others for dealing with the world. The only folks who believe that no one way is better than any other are the strawman caricatures of a "moral relativist" position appearing in conservative polemic.
Do they scare you into this before or after they scare you into paying for their special warranty?
Are you referring to the ideas of a certain ex-Senator, or to "that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex?"
That's right. You have your legal department determine if the EO would make your company violate the law (not hard, since that's the office to which EOs are submitted in the first place) and, if so, file with the court to have an injunction placed on the feds.
Ignoring an executive order is as bad as just bending over for it.
Hell, Reed doesn't even have to do it. As long as there are two senators in the Senate, they can declare a pro forma session all by themselves.
While I agree with your sentiment in general, I can't see how it is relevant to Alzheimer's. If you know of a causal factor for the disease, you might want to share it with the folks who've been studying that problem for decades - you'll be able to cash in handsomely. Right now, the data seems to suggest a genetic cause more than an environmental one.
Remember a recent poll on the front page about political affiliation? Half of the site appears to be split between self described liberals and libertarians. Only 12% of participant describe themselves as being on the "right" (not counting the share that one might glean from the "moderates"). Their posts never seem to be too extreme, usually sticking to two themes: "Clinton did it too!" or "The Muslims/Mexicans are going to destroy America because the libruhls run everything and won't stop them."
Libertarians, on the other hand, seem more given to sneering than political passion, so they're usually restricted to two things: "They're all going to steal your money" or "You guys are wrong, [topic] is best handled by the free market."
Given the events of the past seven years, I'd suggest that "liberals" have a wider range of things to complain about (on the other side, think about how much material Limbaugh had in the '90s!) and so the diversity of their complaints is probably greater, especially since they're one of the top two political groups on /. in terms of numbers.
Anyway, wouldn't you miss all the "9/11 truth loons" if they went away? /s
I guess you're being funny, but I don't get it. You're not seriously implying that Slashdot is a community of partisan Democrats? Somewhere between 70-75% of the country thinks Bush is shit, and even more think the same of Cheney.
And, since the other 25=30% tend to believe that computers are the medium through which Satan sends porn to turn them gay, they're not likely to post on /.
If you seriously expect to see any more than a few rapturous cries when the Democrats stumble to victory in 2008, then you must be new here. No offense.
Wrong again, since I'm a fair bit older than 18, which is the maximum possible value allowed by your specifications.
Anyway, if you got out in the 90's and I'm currently a high-priced consultant (which, as I've stated, I'm not, but I'll play along with you for a minute), why would I be "working down the street" from you? Wouldn't you be working somewhere else? Why would all the high-priced consultants work on your street?
Every single one, huh? Bullshit.Bullshit. You're just another "government is TEH EVIL" idiot who's trying to pass off anonymous condescension as experience, on a board with a great deal of groupthink that accepts your vague and unsupported sentiments, so that you can go to bed feeling like you showed some naive kid how the world works. Sadly for you, you've completely misread your audience and have given yourself away with your sweeping and vague generalizations.
Please fuck off back to your fantasy world, AC. You can have the last word, assuming you actually think that any more of your bullshit serves a purpose here. I'm already burning enough Karma with this flaming offtopic garbage.
First off, that's not exactly true, as a couple other commenters have indicated.
Secondly: it's not all about you. I said it's a terrible disease for society. That means not only the people who descend into grey terrors and death, but the loved ones who must bear with them through their suffering. People who will never suffer from Alzheimer's benefit from this research as well.
Death with dignity is an important right. To me, it's almost as compelling as the possibility of living longer with dignity. That's why this research is so important.
I'm normally quite sarcastic when posting.
Not now. Alzheimer's Disease is one of the most horrifying maladies faced in societies where people live long enough to suffer from it.
I hope that this research pans out into practical treatment. Being betrayed by the body is terrible enough later in life.
Well, thank you for your guess. Hey, check this out: most massive IT projects, government or corporate, require constant tweaking by high-priced consultants.
Now, where you get the idea that this tapping system works "minimally" is beyond me: do you actually have some exposure to the specific project in question, or are you just applying the "Everything the government does sucks and doesn't work" to something about which you have no knowledge, based on your preconceived notions? Granted, a lot of stuff the government pays for works only minimally, but I've no shortage of experience with projects where that is simply not true, so your blanket generalizations are "complete and utter nonsense." Thanks for playing, AC.
OK, fine. Now, what exactly does this have to do with an overthrow of the U.S. government?
I was about to say, "What, you mean like a regular watch," but then I remembered that I never have to set the time on my cell phone as long as I'm within anyone's network, so I guess it's not really a problem.
Well, yeah. I hope nobody gets the impression that I'm claiming the government never screws up. I'm stating that it's hyperbolic to claim, as did the OP, that everything they do sucks and doesn't work. Unfortunately, that little bit of cliche seems to have become a cornerstone of American political thought.