“I think the American public can accept the fact if you tell them that every time you pick up the phone, it’s going to be recorded and it goes to the government."
In the America I grew up in, this would have been a bad joke, and a Police Commissioner who said this in earnest into a live microphone would've been out of a job within days. What the hell is going on?
An organized charity has two purposes: 1) to help those poor illiterate starving Lower Slobbovians, and/or 2) to give warm fuzzy feelings to donors in exchange for their money.
If the second goal dominates, then the less said about what really goes the better. The charity serves its purpose whether or not it does any good for the poor, or even whether or not the poor people in question really exist. Competition between charities will destroy those that waste their money on actually helping people (although "help" that cripples a society can be useful to the charity in the long run).
To pursue the first goal, donors must demand results-- real results, not just children's letters in crayon. And for getting results, nothing beats...
You know, this time I think I'll let somebody else take the heat for suggesting that capitalism is good for the poor.
"...[H]e has been particularly stung by the leak controversy, in large part because his department's—and his own—actions are at odds with his image of himself..."
If I found I had been doing things at odds with my image of myself, I would either revise my image of myself, or consult a psychiatrist about my Jekyll-and-Hyde behavior (and maybe consult a lawyer before turning myself in to the police). My first concern would not be stemming the public controversy I had caused.
Mr Hosein has convinced me that I don't want to pay the University of Washington for the privilege of attending his Digital Media Program, I cannot understand why anyone would hire Dan Safkow as a "video marketing strategist", and that short clip of "Pretty Much It" makes me wish that they would move their show behind the paywall so that I wouldn't run the risk of seeing any more of it by accident.
In principle, yes, a patent should contain all information necessary to reproduce the process, so that anyone could visit the patent office, read the "Stradivarius" patent and then start making Strads.
In practice, patent documents have become lawyer-cant, almost unintelligible to anyone but patent lawyers, practically useless to anyone trying to reproduce the invention, and unrecognizable to the very engineers who invented the thing being patented.
(Also, I doubt that Stradivari himself could have written such instructions, since he was surely not conscious of all the little things he was doing, perhaps not aware of some vital contingencies of his workshop or supply chain, and probably not inclined to perform scientific experiments to see which elements were really needed and which were just tradition. We've been studying his instruments for centuries and we still can't reproduce them.)
It's a little more nuanced than that. When a messed-up teenager sees that shooting up a school gets you instant nationwide attention, and shoots up a school, it's the guns' fault. When a messed-up teenager sets off a bomb at a time and place where there will be lots and lots of video cameras-- we need more cameras.
It's more than that. They chose the finish line of the Marathon because they knew there would be hundreds of cameras there. They wanted a big audience-- why else choose that street on that day? They weren't indifferent to camera coverage, they wanted it. To suggest that more cameras could have deterred them is idiotic, even for surveillance maximalists.
"[E]ngineers at many of these companies... think the CFAA is ridiculous, turning ordinary everyday activity into a possible felony. But some of the execs at these companies see a weapon to be used against people who make off with digital information..."
This shortsightedness supports the theory that the only real talent executives have is the ability to get themselves promoted.