In the military, there are legal assistants whose entire job is to ensure military actions are only carried out against legal targets. In theory, you would stand next to the commander and make the call when an important call has to be made. In conventional operations, this means making sure you know what's a hospital or orphanage, what is an acceptable target, what zones the politicians have declared off-limits for troops to go into, etc. Around 95% of the time, this actually works, and the military actually obeys the law!
This is a terrible job to have that other 5% of the time, because it makes you the designated fall guy when something happens. Especially when an order comes down from on high to ignore the law, and just get something done.
I imagine the same legal assistants will be present to inform commanders of whether a target is legal or not in regards to cyber warfare.
I'm actually doing right now exactly what you just described, and coming up on the end of a 4-year enlistment with plans to go back to College and finish off a Bachelor's Degree.
I'm also faced with the option of just plunging right into the civilian workforce with a pretty good job doing what I've been doing in the military this whole time. All other things being equal, do you think a Bachelor's degree would be worth it when I already have military experience and a CCNA certification?
I'm leaning towards "yes" - but since you've already lived this life, you probably have a little more insight here than most people.
Yes, financial penalties for telcos who participated in illegal wiretapping programs will affect their willingness to participate in such programs in the future.
If no penalties are ascribed, telcos will be more likely to participate.
If minor penalties are ascribed, it will factor into their risk\benefit calculations. Corporate leaders will ask, "Will I make more money off the pork I get from playing ball than I lose from judgements against me?" - and act accordingly.
If harsh penalties are ascribed, the same risk\benefit calculations will occur, but corporate leaders will be much less likely to approve cooperation with the government as far as illegal wiretapping is concerned.
1. Corporate leaders are all about the bottom line. I have no beef with this whatsoever, as it tends to create more efficient organizations that end up benefitting the consumer. Of course there are exceptions to that, monopolies, perversions of the system, but let us for the moment assume that the telcos are operating a normal entities in the capitalist system.
2. Corporate leaders are going to take whatever stand they believe will benefit their shareholders. Shareholders are routinely rewarded and\or punished for the decisions of corporate leaders which they have virtually no influence on. This decision is no different.
3. Holding telcos legally responsible for breaking laws, especially in circumstances where not breaking the law was an acceptable response (as evidenced by the fact that some telcos did do just that) will encourage all telcos to respect wiretap laws in the future.
4. Conversely, not holding telcos responsible for breaking laws will encourage more of them to break laws in the future, since it has been proven there is little or no risk, and a goodly amount of incentives for playing ball with the government.
5. The logical conclusion of allowing telcos to get away with breaking the law, as long as the government is the entity asking them to break it, is that eventually all telcos will either participate willingly in illegal wiretapping, or be unable to compete with their less scrupulous competitors, and be driven out of business.
Therefore:
We should corporations responsible for breaking laws, or be prepared to accept an America where illegal wiretapping is widespread, and goes unpunished. Even if you buy the "it's necessary to fight terrorism" bullshit they're feeding you right now, this is the sort of power that's never going to go away once it's institutionalised.
Sometimes I think they really have canned the Duke Nukem forever project. They just have one guy over there at 3Drealms whose job it is to come up with fake press releases once every six months or so, detailing the progress of Duke Nukem Forever. It might even be a rotation position, sorta've like a community service outreach for down and out liberal arts majors.
Hell, maybe they never even started DNF, and it's just an excuse for some kind of elaborate tax write-off?
You should really try out the Planescape setting for D&D. It came out originally as a 2nd edition Boxed set, and the guys at planewalker.com have been revising it up through 3.0 and 3.5
I guess I was wrong, we do have access to mostly the same information (It's depressing, but I can believe there's more than one pallet of money missing in Iraq, for differing reasons) - you just don't believe the stories implicating Iran in all of this.
I can hardly blame you, after the fiasco that was justifying the war in Iraq.
Here's the thing, IranFocus is just the first result I got off google for the story. You can take your pick out of a little more than 200,000 results.
Next, Pretty much the entire Middle East has been trying to wipe out Israel since it was created, what with all the "Push the jews into the sea" rhetoric that Armenijad's comment is part of. You can say what you like about empty words pleasing the populace, but I have no doubt he'd be willing to act on his words if he thought he could get away with it. Would a nuclear armed Iran attack Israel? Probably.
Would Israel pre-emptively attack an almost-nuclear-armed Iran? I wouldn't be surprised.
-----------
Anyways, the whole point I'm trying to make is not that the American government isn't lying to us (it probably is) - and it's not that Iran is the devil incarnate that deserves to be glassed (Really, it's merely looking out for its own interests, with a dash of religious zealotry that makes me nervous).
The point I'm trying to make is Iran is already in conflict with the United States, and we cannot depend on MAD to keep a nuclear-armed Iran in check.
You've got a lot of information, but you've got it wrong. The Bricks of cash on palets, mentioned here, among other places, were supposed to pay civilian contractors aiding in the reconstruction efforts. Accounting practices bordering on criminal have allowed some sickening war profiteering, and certainly some of that money ended up in Iraqi hands, but since the Iraqis are the actual workers, I'm not too concerned.
It is, after all, unavoidable when the goal of spending all that money is to rebuild Iraq.
There have been accusations of Coalition commanders paying off Afghani warlords to not attack their bases, and that, I agree with you, is entirely unacceptable. That no-one has been brought up on charges for the practice yet (to my knowledge?) - is something to be pissed about.
You've got no arguements with me over the scary implications of what Blackwater, or similar private mercenary groups, could do. I like to think they realize they stand a whole lot better chance of long-term business if their primary employer stays internally stable, but you never know.
-----------
On to Iran:
New IED's Made in Iran. These are currently the most feared and effective weapons in the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres.
Terrorist training camps, In Iran. Remember we went to war in Afghanistan over this one.
While I agree with most of your points about how we should be watching our own government much more closely than we should be watching Iran, I disagree with your conclusions. We've had recurring problems in the Middle East because our economic concerns (competing with the Soviet Union, taking natural resources, etc.) - involve screwing over the Middle East at every oppourtunity. The leadership of the Middle East realizes this and is rightfully pissed off about it.
This is why major problems crop up every ten or twenty years, the goal of US foreign policy is to keep the middle east more or less destabilized.
Of course, every once in a while all this nonsense creates a situation that might actually be threatening to the US, like Afghanistan, or a nuclear-armed Iran. We have to deal with it.
1. Because of legislative restrictions! An M240 specifically is a little new, but your average M60 or M2 should be available, and the prices would be in the tens of thousands of dollars range. Yes, a little steep for the individual, but certainly affordable by an organization.
2. You're an idiot. How is it saving lives? By killing other people.
3. And he's very closely watched by the regulating agency of his state. If he ever WERE to use that sucker in a crime, you can sure as hell know the police will know exactly where to look for him.
You're still acting like a self-important prick, but at least you've given a little form and substance to all your bluster.
Too bad economics alone is incapable of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. Weapons that have no purpose beyond killing large numbers of people. Like, say, an M240.
Your post earlier takes his logic, and applies it as a slippery slope to an entirely unrelated discussion, attempting to show how his logic is absurd. That is an implicit disagreement with his position.
Furthermore, since you have merely disagreed with him without clarifying your position, ANYTHING he argues would be a straw man. No real arguement exists for him to counter!
Finally, he is correct in his assertion that, with the extreme example of nuclear weapons, there clearly exists a limit to the citizenry's right to bear arms. The arguement is now where do we draw that line.
In the future, contribute something coherant to the conversation, or go fuck yourself.
That's exactly the reason why I'm in favor of Ron Paul for President.
He is admittedly Bat-shit crazy and has policies that I would NEVER want to see realized, but having him in office would force the congress to realize it has a backbone again. He wouldn't get everything he wants (No IRS, Complete withdrawal from overseas entanglements, complete de-regulation of the market) - but he would manage to do a lot of good (End the Iraq war, reduce the size and power of the government, etc).
We'd have a wild four years as he tries to turn the entire government around, make it stand on it's head, and sing for him. I'm all for it!
Nah, given the circumstances, he'd be able to file a lawsuit, and be taken seriously enough for the college to settle out of court. It should be pretty simple to factor in reinstatement to the college (or enough $$$ in damages that he'll be able to comfortably finish up at another college without taking out student loans).
You've demonstrated how easy it is to confuse the two, and illustrated how the gp was clearly talking about obsessions, rather than religious beliefs, despite his choice of words.
Slashdot Mirror
http://xkcd.com/316/
/./ is not your personal army!
In the military, there are legal assistants whose entire job is to ensure military actions are only carried out against legal targets. In theory, you would stand next to the commander and make the call when an important call has to be made. In conventional operations, this means making sure you know what's a hospital or orphanage, what is an acceptable target, what zones the politicians have declared off-limits for troops to go into, etc. Around 95% of the time, this actually works, and the military actually obeys the law!
This is a terrible job to have that other 5% of the time, because it makes you the designated fall guy when something happens. Especially when an order comes down from on high to ignore the law, and just get something done.
I imagine the same legal assistants will be present to inform commanders of whether a target is legal or not in regards to cyber warfare.
I'm actually doing right now exactly what you just described, and coming up on the end of a 4-year enlistment with plans to go back to College and finish off a Bachelor's Degree.
I'm also faced with the option of just plunging right into the civilian workforce with a pretty good job doing what I've been doing in the military this whole time. All other things being equal, do you think a Bachelor's degree would be worth it when I already have military experience and a CCNA certification?
I'm leaning towards "yes" - but since you've already lived this life, you probably have a little more insight here than most people.
Yes, financial penalties for telcos who participated in illegal wiretapping programs will affect their willingness to participate in such programs in the future.
If no penalties are ascribed, telcos will be more likely to participate.
If minor penalties are ascribed, it will factor into their risk\benefit calculations. Corporate leaders will ask, "Will I make more money off the pork I get from playing ball than I lose from judgements against me?" - and act accordingly.
If harsh penalties are ascribed, the same risk\benefit calculations will occur, but corporate leaders will be much less likely to approve cooperation with the government as far as illegal wiretapping is concerned.
Here's what it boils down to:
1. Corporate leaders are all about the bottom line. I have no beef with this whatsoever, as it tends to create more efficient organizations that end up benefitting the consumer. Of course there are exceptions to that, monopolies, perversions of the system, but let us for the moment assume that the telcos are operating a normal entities in the capitalist system.
2. Corporate leaders are going to take whatever stand they believe will benefit their shareholders. Shareholders are routinely rewarded and\or punished for the decisions of corporate leaders which they have virtually no influence on. This decision is no different.
3. Holding telcos legally responsible for breaking laws, especially in circumstances where not breaking the law was an acceptable response (as evidenced by the fact that some telcos did do just that) will encourage all telcos to respect wiretap laws in the future.
4. Conversely, not holding telcos responsible for breaking laws will encourage more of them to break laws in the future, since it has been proven there is little or no risk, and a goodly amount of incentives for playing ball with the government.
5. The logical conclusion of allowing telcos to get away with breaking the law, as long as the government is the entity asking them to break it, is that eventually all telcos will either participate willingly in illegal wiretapping, or be unable to compete with their less scrupulous competitors, and be driven out of business.
Therefore:
We should corporations responsible for breaking laws, or be prepared to accept an America where illegal wiretapping is widespread, and goes unpunished. Even if you buy the "it's necessary to fight terrorism" bullshit they're feeding you right now, this is the sort of power that's never going to go away once it's institutionalised.
Cthulhu hates me, this I know
For the old ones told me so
Human souls to him belong
They are weak but he is Strong!
Yah, Cthulhu Fh'tagn!
Yah, Cthulhu Fh'tagn!
Yah, Cthulhu Fh'tagn!
The old ones told me so!
Wow, where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him?
Sometimes I think they really have canned the Duke Nukem forever project. They just have one guy over there at 3Drealms whose job it is to come up with fake press releases once every six months or so, detailing the progress of Duke Nukem Forever. It might even be a rotation position, sorta've like a community service outreach for down and out liberal arts majors.
Hell, maybe they never even started DNF, and it's just an excuse for some kind of elaborate tax write-off?
You should really try out the Planescape setting for D&D. It came out originally as a 2nd edition Boxed set, and the guys at planewalker.com have been revising it up through 3.0 and 3.5
Embedded + Janitor = Silly Nickname.
...Or the Sylandro probes.
I guess I was wrong, we do have access to mostly the same information (It's depressing, but I can believe there's more than one pallet of money missing in Iraq, for differing reasons) - you just don't believe the stories implicating Iran in all of this.
I can hardly blame you, after the fiasco that was justifying the war in Iraq.
Here's the thing, IranFocus is just the first result I got off google for the story. You can take your pick out of a little more than 200,000 results.
Next, Pretty much the entire Middle East has been trying to wipe out Israel since it was created, what with all the "Push the jews into the sea" rhetoric that Armenijad's comment is part of. You can say what you like about empty words pleasing the populace, but I have no doubt he'd be willing to act on his words if he thought he could get away with it. Would a nuclear armed Iran attack Israel? Probably.
Would Israel pre-emptively attack an almost-nuclear-armed Iran? I wouldn't be surprised.
-----------
Anyways, the whole point I'm trying to make is not that the American government isn't lying to us (it probably is) - and it's not that Iran is the devil incarnate that deserves to be glassed (Really, it's merely looking out for its own interests, with a dash of religious zealotry that makes me nervous).
The point I'm trying to make is Iran is already in conflict with the United States, and we cannot depend on MAD to keep a nuclear-armed Iran in check.
You've got a lot of information, but you've got it wrong. The Bricks of cash on palets, mentioned here, among other places, were supposed to pay civilian contractors aiding in the reconstruction efforts. Accounting practices bordering on criminal have allowed some sickening war profiteering, and certainly some of that money ended up in Iraqi hands, but since the Iraqis are the actual workers, I'm not too concerned.
It is, after all, unavoidable when the goal of spending all that money is to rebuild Iraq.
There have been accusations of Coalition commanders paying off Afghani warlords to not attack their bases, and that, I agree with you, is entirely unacceptable. That no-one has been brought up on charges for the practice yet (to my knowledge?) - is something to be pissed about.
You've got no arguements with me over the scary implications of what Blackwater, or similar private mercenary groups, could do. I like to think they realize they stand a whole lot better chance of long-term business if their primary employer stays internally stable, but you never know.
-----------
On to Iran:
New IED's Made in Iran. These are currently the most feared and effective weapons in the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres.
Terrorist training camps, In Iran. Remember we went to war in Afghanistan over this one.
"Israel will be Annhilated". This is a good enough reason for me why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons.
----
While I agree with most of your points about how we should be watching our own government much more closely than we should be watching Iran, I disagree with your conclusions. We've had recurring problems in the Middle East because our economic concerns (competing with the Soviet Union, taking natural resources, etc.) - involve screwing over the Middle East at every oppourtunity. The leadership of the Middle East realizes this and is rightfully pissed off about it.
This is why major problems crop up every ten or twenty years, the goal of US foreign policy is to keep the middle east more or less destabilized.
Of course, every once in a while all this nonsense creates a situation that might actually be threatening to the US, like Afghanistan, or a nuclear-armed Iran. We have to deal with it.
Where, exactly, do you believe insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are getting arms from?
How long do you think it will take from the time Iran develops nuclear weapons to the time they end up in the hands of extremists?
1. Because of legislative restrictions! An M240 specifically is a little new, but your average M60 or M2 should be available, and the prices would be in the tens of thousands of dollars range. Yes, a little steep for the individual, but certainly affordable by an organization.
2. You're an idiot. How is it saving lives? By killing other people.
3. And he's very closely watched by the regulating agency of his state. If he ever WERE to use that sucker in a crime, you can sure as hell know the police will know exactly where to look for him.
There! Wonderful! A counter-arguement!
You're still acting like a self-important prick, but at least you've given a little form and substance to all your bluster.
Too bad economics alone is incapable of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. Weapons that have no purpose beyond killing large numbers of people. Like, say, an M240.
Your post earlier takes his logic, and applies it as a slippery slope to an entirely unrelated discussion, attempting to show how his logic is absurd. That is an implicit disagreement with his position.
Furthermore, since you have merely disagreed with him without clarifying your position, ANYTHING he argues would be a straw man. No real arguement exists for him to counter!
Finally, he is correct in his assertion that, with the extreme example of nuclear weapons, there clearly exists a limit to the citizenry's right to bear arms. The arguement is now where do we draw that line.
In the future, contribute something coherant to the conversation, or go fuck yourself.
Stop that, you're embaressing us in front of the foreigners.
That's exactly the reason why I'm in favor of Ron Paul for President.
He is admittedly Bat-shit crazy and has policies that I would NEVER want to see realized, but having him in office would force the congress to realize it has a backbone again. He wouldn't get everything he wants (No IRS, Complete withdrawal from overseas entanglements, complete de-regulation of the market) - but he would manage to do a lot of good (End the Iraq war, reduce the size and power of the government, etc).
We'd have a wild four years as he tries to turn the entire government around, make it stand on it's head, and sing for him. I'm all for it!
Giggity Giggity Goo!
Low-brow humor isn't the only thing that's easy to slip into...
Speaking of which, how's your mom doing?
Nah, given the circumstances, he'd be able to file a lawsuit, and be taken seriously enough for the college to settle out of court. It should be pretty simple to factor in reinstatement to the college (or enough $$$ in damages that he'll be able to comfortably finish up at another college without taking out student loans).
Thank you!
You've demonstrated how easy it is to confuse the two, and illustrated how the gp was clearly talking about obsessions, rather than religious beliefs, despite his choice of words.
nevertheless have some overriding, consuming passion which qualifies as an obsession.
Fixed that for you.