Edward Snowden reveals the 21th Centurys' Global Big Brother

Nope! At that time I was involved in computing: simulations, modeling, applied mathematics and a bit of AI experimentation. That teleprinter was a joke.

Thanks to recalling to that time: my favorite was Noam Chomsky (Linguistics and Mind). Listen what he has to say on The War on Terrorism: Distortion of Morality.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTWa0wVmFi0[/media]

 

They were a joke mate...they were dotted all around JHQ links to German HQ's....but with dialers and secure bid kit attached.

The teleprinter network in Nato was massive...still is...as comms folk we had to be able to switch from morse, to radio, to truck, and inclded teleprinters...Large range of kit was and still is used...sat though now with added pc...but even then we used digital receiving, monitoring and recording kit.

 

But lets get back to Snowden now. His revelations have elevated the question of deciding between freedom and security to the overriding priority. Americans now have to decide: either liberties or fictive security under the Big Brother.

 

I don't think the American people have a say in this Tamino...do you?

 

Yeah, I've began computing with punched cards input. Teleprinters must have been more convenient. Once I have dropped from my hands a large stack of punched cards. I needed a week to put them again in correct order. People incorrectly assume that computers were connected differently from teleprinters or ordinary phones. Wires were in use for long time just transfers have changed. When I started using computers remotely, I first had to call certain phone number and when I heard wheezing from the headphone I had to push a button to connect computers.

But then I had no fears for privacy. I've whispered my private matters directly in the ear of my-then-future wife. Those were the times.

 

I can think logically. Maybe that counts as a special mental ability. As for me having 'absolutely zero knowledge', you clearly do not realize what industry I work in and who I have worked with in the past. If you want to really question what I've said, google some of it and see how many industry experts echo it (I don't mean blogs, I mean proper industry sites, journals, etc).

As for you faking knowledge; no, you aren't, because I've yet to see anything knowledgeable in your postings.

Another straw man.

I'm out. I'll gladly keep conversing with the others (where there is the possibility for a meaningful, civil discussion), but I've had it wasting my time with your straw man arguments.

 

[SIZE=12.222222328186035px]That's exactly the dilemma they have to resolve - for the rest of us.In this case we may share opinions but Americans will decide. They have to say what they want. I've been in America, no visa needed, on several occasions and I think I know Americans[/SIZE]; they are great people, friendly, prepared to help, proud. I am sure they will choose liberties. I cannot imagine Americans making a cowardish decision.

 

I'm not interested who you are and what you do; that isn't the subject of this conversation and I'm not interested in anyone's private matters. Just keep your c.v. for yourself. What counts here is validity of opinions.

Do you realize that the view on this subject of the most of intelligentsia in America and worldwide fundamentally disagree with your opinion? Are they also, using your words: strawmen.

 

You sure seem to, implying that I'm mentally incapacitated, a shill for the US Government and that I'm deeply embarrassed by its conduct.

Yes it does.

Like who? Noam Chomsky? A self-described anarchist?

 

No, overwhelming majority of intelligentsia worldwide are against the Police State and blanket surveilance of the entire population.

Google is your friend.

@George Petton: ... anarchist ...

Please, don't label people like N. Chomsky - he doesn't deserve that.

 

Not only is this a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation of the programs, but you (as usual) fail to present any sources.

I didn't label him -- he saved me the trouble:

"Chomsky has stated that his "personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in The Enlightenment and classical liberalism"[12] and he has praised libertarian socialism.[72] He calls himself an anarcho-syndicalist[11] and is a member of the Industrial Workers of the World international union.[73] He published a book on anarchism titled Chomsky on Anarchism, published by the anarchist book collective AK Press in 2006."
-http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Noam_Chomsky.html

 

Which means you aren't interested in what knowledge he brings to the table. Or the fact that he may have a better understanding of the issues than you do or not. Although I suspect you would be trumpeting it if the latter was the case. You've actually stated he didn't know what was going on as well haven't you? If you didn't care why did you state this?

????cv???

But the knowledge one brings to the table along with the ability to logically evaluate things are of significant impact to most of us in this regard.

Any sources to support this? If not I see it as just another unsourced and unproven assumption/belief on your part.

 

@George Patton:

Let's stop this crossfire.
Calm down. Peace Brother!

 

A rather classic straw man. And that's not the only logical fallacy you've embedded in that sentence alone.

Open mouth ... insert foot.

 

I'm sure we'll both be glad to stop when you start basing your posts off of facts and logic.

 

Very well. Talk to you later.

 

I'm glad; there is no need for confrontations whatsoever. We are at the same bank of the river, we just have slightly different views and that's all.

Pozdrav iz Slovenije, prijatelj!

 

From the 21 August FP Morning brief (a newsletter with a free subscriptioin - rather left leaning if you start reading the articles):

Here's a link to their home page:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/

 

Sad news, unfortunatly politicians would much rather be seen as "doing something" even if it's useless or even damaging, than nothing when faced with high visibility issues.
"Choosing to do nothing" is a tough choice but the right one once you hit the law of diminishing returns and further action will bring about more harm than good. Unfortunately that choice is even more difficult for the sort of mindset that makes for a successful politician than for the average person.

This is one more instance of bad logic at work here "terrorism is bad so anytrhing that has an even remote chance of having an effect must be good", that exactly parallels the "short circuit" thinking that all terrorists use, "western capitalism is bad so anything thay hurts it must be good" a healtly dose of relativism and plain common sense is needed here.

The point is whether programmes that have already cost large amounts of money, goodwill, and restrict liberty have benefits that justify the costs, the New Zeelanders at least had a public discussion and a vote about it, in the US making it a "black programme" and presenting a "fait acompli" has effectiverly taken away any chance of doing that.

I wonder when the believers in "small government" will realize that the right people to represent them are those that "choose to do nothing" more often than not.

 

Its a very, very sad event for New Zealanders.