"OWS, on the other hand, seems to grasp the issue (that we are fast-becoming a facist state) but lacks the focus and leadership that was built into the TP movement from the start. "
No, it's that the Tea Party was deemed to be useful and used by certain very powerful groups which had motivation and money to push it.
The OWS side doesn't have anybody with similar power pushing them (even though nearly all opinion polls show a greater sympathy for OWS than for Tea Party).
That's why the Republican candidates went to nice "tea party" town halls and talk show programs and licked their boots, and why the OWS was encamped outside, cold and pepper sprayed.
The natural sympathizers for OWS run away to the right, and the natural sympathizers to the Tea Party run away to the right.
If that happened, they'd pass an "internet terrorism" law, and people who advocated against it would be persectuted, their computers seized, and those who were politically active would be imprisoned without trial.
Even today, critical communications don't travel over the public internet:
a) Mastercard & VISA card processing networks b) ACH & Fedwire money transfers c) US DoD communications.
Using IP protocol isn't really the problem (why invent hardware now), but control & management of network is a big deal. Besides, his servers & his clients can be concentrated in Manhattan. Bloomberg made the right choice then, and it's still the right choice.
Bloomberg: I need you to perform a privilege escalation on my compiler. Helpdesk: Before we proceed, can you describe the symptoms? Bloomberg: Yeah, it sometimes spits out some incomprehensible message, or the program says "Segmentation Fault." I don't care about its needs, I have work to do, now. So I'm calling in a privilege escalation. Now! Helpdesk: Sir, I'm not sure that's going to help, do you know what a privilege escalation means? Bloomberg: Yes, I think I do, or haven't you noticed that I'm the richest bleeping man in New York AND the mayor? Helpdesk: I'm very aware of that sir, but the compiler isn't familiar with your exalted position. Bloomberg: That's just the freaking point, you moron!! Do it now! Helpdesk: (sigh) (click click click) OK, sir, your compiler is now ultraprivileged. Have a nice day. Bloomberg: pathetic peons...he's probably not even one of my constitutents, so fuck him.
If you think a little bit...... maybe the teachers are right about things?
Some common idea + "on the internet" doens't make a good patent.
Some same teaching + "on technology" doesn't make for good education.
All high school students know what a computer is and are hardly in awe of the 'portal to the world of information' any more than they are in awe of a telephone.
Doing something useful with it is the key---or spending the same money on something else which may give more value.
Teachers may, with good reason, believe that they will now be forced to use some odd creaky technology (edu-software is like that) without any decent level of tech support after the first year, and they'll waste all sorts of time on powerpoint nonsense instead of getting on with it.
"The existing precedent, by the way, is that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in our cars."
OK. That means it's OK to take pictures of people on public roads.
"As a result, it is not an "unreasonable" search or seizure to attach beepers or other devices to our cars in order to monitor our movements."
Actually it is unreasonable to do something to somebody's car. I can have no expectation of privacy when I'm walking in a shopping mall from people looking at me, but I do have a reasonable expectation that sombebody's not going to shove a tracker down my backside or even in my backpack. Normally people look at each other but they don't mess with people's stuff. This is the "secure in ones possessions" part.
Why not a) ask X, "Are you going to work? If so where? Who is your supervisor?" b) ask supervisor, "Has X been into work the last M days?" c) ask accounting, "Has X been getting paid?"
"That is why destroying his WMD & then destroying the proof that he had done so was so terminally stupid."
I think some interviews with Saddam's men said that Saddam intentionally wanted to maintain the uncertainty to deter its neighbors---but not overtly rebuild-- and I guess didn't think that would be sufficient to provoke the West further.
No, but in the end, Hezbollah withdrew further from the border and stopped lobbing missiles every day at Israelis.
In normal terms, that would be considered a moderate Israeli victory. A loss for instance would have been Hezbollah capturing and holding Golan Heights which did not happen.
"If a blustering blow-hard like Kim could threaten his neighbours repeatedly with invasion and war without reprise, why is the Iranian rhetoric considered any worse?"
Because even Kim didn't actually want to exterminate every south korean because they were, after all, korean. And Iranian rhetoric wasn't considered worse, they were both considered pretty evil and shitty. But North Korea had obviously smaller and more limited goals.
And in fact, the "doing nothing about Kim" was untrue, because there was a large and significant military contigent and a large South Korean army & military budget.
What do you think would happen after that? At a minimum the airforces of Kuwait, Arabia & UAE would bomb Iran's equivalent. The end point of that is that Iran's will be bombed more thoroughly, and wouldn't be working for 10 years. Saudi Arabia's would be repaired in a year.
"And they also have several thousand mines they could use to close the straits. Y'know, cheap explosives vs expensive "technologically advanced" floating castles."
Wasn't Iran complaining about the economic blockcade being imposed them? Is their policy now to self-blockade, saving others the trouble?
"can you explain how the Iranian government is more influenced by religious fanatics than those of (say) the USA or Israel?"
Sure. In Iran, ultimate political power is held by an unelected religious figure who explicitly and overtly uses religious ideology as the specific guidance regarding all aspects of government, lawmaking and policy. It's a good approximation that nearly everybody with power is close to a "religious fanatic".
In the USA it is forbidden to have any religious test as a requirement of office.
In Israel, there are small minority parties which are heavily religious, but the government is not explicitly religious and has policies and activities which are opposed by the highly religious.
"Then why are privately owned toll roads in such good repair?"
Generally, it's because they are new and are only in good shape when they have to compete directly against non-toll roads going to the same destination.
in sum: works well when there is strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
"Why does our privately owned worldwide system of trade networks work so well?"
Because they are in an industry which has strong competitive substitution, there are universal non-proprietary technical standards, and foremost, they are beneficiaries of huge government investments in regulated infrastructure like ports, roads, rail and airports. One tanker or container ship is as good as another.
in sum: strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
"Why does the internet work so well?"
Brutal competition, and the inability to apply proprietary standards, like with shipping carriers. This is a historical artifiact of the initial investment & technology being developed by government.
in sum: strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
"Why does cellphone service work so well?"
It doesn't, except where there is strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
"Why do private urgent package delivery services work so well?"
Because they aren't providing infrastructure, they are beneficiaries thereof.
in sum: strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
When the infrastructure does not offer competitive substitutability or there is technical lock-in, it is very lucrative and undesirable for private entitites to run it, without intrusive and constant regulation.
So, certain foreign registered websites are illegal to use. Internet cafe owners will be prosecuted if they tell their clients which ones they are so they can avoid breaking the law. So they will all break the law!
Slashdot Mirror
"OWS, on the other hand, seems to grasp the issue (that we are fast-becoming a facist state) but lacks the focus and leadership that was built into the TP movement from the start. "
No, it's that the Tea Party was deemed to be useful and used by certain very powerful groups which had motivation and money to push it.
The OWS side doesn't have anybody with similar power pushing them (even though nearly all opinion polls show a greater sympathy for OWS than for Tea Party).
That's why the Republican candidates went to nice "tea party" town halls and talk show programs and licked their boots, and why the OWS was encamped outside, cold and pepper sprayed.
The natural sympathizers for OWS run away to the right, and the natural sympathizers to the Tea Party run away to the right.
If that happened, they'd pass an "internet terrorism" law, and people who advocated against it would be persectuted, their computers seized, and those who were politically active would be imprisoned without trial.
With all that gas coming out of the ground? (I assume Hawaii is #1).
Oh wait, they actually drunk their flavr-aid (Jim Jones didn't use real kool-aid) and deregulated it in full randian style.
The most important job of a manager is to know WHO is really performing well, and who is the problem, and why are both the case.
Sometimes not having enough technical knowledge can hurt this significantly.
Even today, critical communications don't travel over the public internet:
a) Mastercard & VISA card processing networks
b) ACH & Fedwire money transfers
c) US DoD communications.
Using IP protocol isn't really the problem (why invent hardware now), but control & management of network is a big deal. Besides, his servers & his clients can be concentrated in Manhattan. Bloomberg made the right choice then, and it's still the right choice.
Bloomberg: I need you to perform a privilege escalation on my compiler.
Helpdesk: Before we proceed, can you describe the symptoms?
Bloomberg: Yeah, it sometimes spits out some incomprehensible message, or the program says "Segmentation Fault." I don't care about its needs, I have work to do, now. So I'm calling in a privilege escalation. Now!
Helpdesk: Sir, I'm not sure that's going to help, do you know what a privilege escalation means?
Bloomberg: Yes, I think I do, or haven't you noticed that I'm the richest bleeping man in New York AND the mayor?
Helpdesk: I'm very aware of that sir, but the compiler isn't familiar with your exalted position.
Bloomberg: That's just the freaking point, you moron!! Do it now!
Helpdesk: (sigh) (click click click) OK, sir, your compiler is now ultraprivileged. Have a nice day.
Bloomberg: pathetic peons...he's probably not even one of my constitutents, so fuck him.
If you think a little bit...... maybe the teachers are right about things?
Some common idea + "on the internet" doens't make a good patent.
Some same teaching + "on technology" doesn't make for good education.
All high school students know what a computer is and are hardly in awe of the 'portal to the world of information' any more than they are in awe of a telephone.
Doing something useful with it is the key---or spending the same money on something else which may give more value.
Teachers may, with good reason, believe that they will now be forced to use some odd creaky technology (edu-software is like that) without any decent level of tech support after the first year, and they'll waste all sorts of time on powerpoint nonsense instead of getting on with it.
If they take the view that they bought the item from the seller, then that's fine if the seller gets compensated for it.
To prevent the scam whereby the buyer gets a refund from paypal, and has hence stolen a good quality violin from its owner.
I personally think the buyer should send it back to the seller who is confident on its value.
"The existing precedent, by the way, is that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in our cars."
OK. That means it's OK to take pictures of people on public roads.
"As a result, it is not an "unreasonable" search or seizure to attach beepers or other devices to our cars in order to monitor our movements."
Actually it is unreasonable to do something to somebody's car. I can have no expectation of privacy when I'm walking in a shopping mall from people looking at me, but I do have a reasonable expectation that sombebody's not going to shove a tracker down my backside or even in my backpack. Normally people look at each other but they don't mess with people's stuff. This is the "secure in ones possessions" part.
Why not
a) ask X, "Are you going to work? If so where? Who is your supervisor?"
b) ask supervisor, "Has X been into work the last M days?"
c) ask accounting, "Has X been getting paid?"
the car doesn't matter.
I always wondered if this was a money making scam?
Did somebody indirectly go long oil right before Iran started with its new set of noise?
You know, a cold war can be self-financing if done sufficiently cleverly. The USA has a big deficit, maybe it should try the same thing.
"They have rockets that can get a payload to orbit. I'm not quite sure what the difference is."
getting it to come down in the right place.
"That is why destroying his WMD & then destroying the proof that he had done so was so terminally stupid."
I think some interviews with Saddam's men said that Saddam intentionally wanted to maintain the uncertainty to deter its neighbors---but not overtly rebuild-- and I guess didn't think that would be sufficient to provoke the West further.
No, but in the end, Hezbollah withdrew further from the border and stopped lobbing missiles every day at Israelis.
In normal terms, that would be considered a moderate Israeli victory. A loss for instance would have been Hezbollah capturing and holding Golan Heights which did not happen.
"If a blustering blow-hard like Kim could threaten his neighbours repeatedly with invasion and war without reprise, why is the Iranian rhetoric considered any worse?"
Because even Kim didn't actually want to exterminate every south korean because they were, after all, korean. And Iranian rhetoric wasn't considered worse, they were both considered pretty evil and shitty. But North Korea had obviously smaller and more limited goals.
And in fact, the "doing nothing about Kim" was untrue, because there was a large and significant military contigent and a large South Korean army & military budget.
What do you think would happen after that? At a minimum the airforces of Kuwait, Arabia & UAE would bomb Iran's equivalent. The end point of that is that Iran's will be bombed more thoroughly, and wouldn't be working for 10 years. Saudi Arabia's would be repaired in a year.
"And they also have several thousand mines they could use to close the straits. Y'know, cheap explosives vs expensive "technologically advanced" floating castles."
Wasn't Iran complaining about the economic blockcade being imposed them? Is their policy now to self-blockade, saving others the trouble?
"can you explain how the Iranian government is more influenced by religious fanatics than those of (say) the USA or Israel?"
Sure. In Iran, ultimate political power is held by an unelected religious figure who explicitly and overtly uses religious ideology as the specific guidance regarding all aspects of government, lawmaking and policy. It's a good approximation that nearly everybody with power is close to a "religious fanatic".
In the USA it is forbidden to have any religious test as a requirement of office.
In Israel, there are small minority parties which are heavily religious, but the government is not explicitly religious and has policies and activities which are opposed by the highly religious.
"Then why are privately owned toll roads in such good repair?"
Generally, it's because they are new and are only in good shape when they have to compete directly against non-toll roads going to the same destination.
in sum: works well when there is strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
"Why does our privately owned worldwide system of trade networks work so well?"
Because they are in an industry which has strong competitive substitution, there are universal non-proprietary technical standards, and
foremost, they are beneficiaries of huge government investments in regulated infrastructure like ports, roads, rail and airports. One tanker or container ship is as good as another.
in sum: strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
"Why does the internet work so well?"
Brutal competition, and the inability to apply proprietary standards, like with shipping carriers. This is a historical artifiact of the initial investment & technology being developed by government.
in sum: strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
"Why does cellphone service work so well?"
It doesn't, except where there is strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
"Why do private urgent package delivery services work so well?"
Because they aren't providing infrastructure, they are beneficiaries thereof.
in sum: strong competitive substitutability and no technical lock-in.
When the infrastructure does not offer competitive substitutability or there is technical lock-in, it is very lucrative and undesirable for private entitites to run it, without intrusive and constant regulation.
Where is this list of blocked websites in the USA? Will anybody be prosecuted if they are told what they are?
"Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities"
Are there examples of this?
I've heard them labeled as (paraphrasing) shiftless, stupid, smelly losers costing taxpayers money.
So, certain foreign registered websites are illegal to use. Internet cafe owners will be prosecuted if they tell their clients which ones they are so they can avoid breaking the law. So they will all break the law!
a diabolical plan! SPECTRE would be proud.
"Iran would gain the favor of the Arab world if it was attacked by the USA."
After blockading a few Arab countries' (and Iran's) principal source of income?
"How could a similar attack be defeated by technology now at the USA's disposal?"
Attack helicopters and F-15E's and F-16's and F18's being targeted by real-time surveillance drones.