Re: Re: "Pure-as-the-driven-snow morality indexer" My Ass
> There's no such thing as a moral corporation. Corporations are amoral.
I think you should say immoral as well as amoral.
Corporations want only one thing. To increase shareholder value. They will do anything legal or illegal to accomplish that. If they are prosecuted for illegal behavior and after the penalty the illegal behavior was still profitable, then it fulfilled the goal of increasing shareholder value. The resulting prosecution and punishment is merely a cost of doing business.
It may not sound nice, but that is how it really is done.
The only issue here is that this choice of behavior by Apple should be shouted from the rooftops far and wide.
If Apple is not proud of this behavior, then they should stop it.
If Apple is proud of it, then they should not have any problem with publication of it.
If Apple is not proud of this behavior, but does have a problem with publication of it, then maybe Apple should re evaluate their own practices. If the first two conditions hold, but they don't want to re evaluate their practices, then this information should be published all the more loudly, far and wide.
Maybe Apple should only be trying to "protect" people from technical problems and bad practices of bad developers that want to take advantage of or inflict harm upon end users. Maybe Apple should have NO concern at all of being a morality nanny.
The best proof of that is the fact that content creators seem to think they are entitled to work once and then never have to work again.
Gee, it would sure be nice if a house builder thought that once they built a house they should be able to receive income from it forever. Oh, wait. Some actually do as they take notice of how eternal copyright works.
You hear copyright owners talk about the evils of limiting copyright to merely life of author plus ninety years. "How are my children going to get income from this?" Etc.
Copyright is all about entitlement and not working.
> And, quite frequently when we write about the intelligence community, > we see suggestions in the comments that certain politicians probably > cover for the NSA and CIA because they know what those agencies > "have on them." I've always dismissed those kinds of claims > as being a bit far-fetched
Far fetched? Really?
We used to hear speculation about how badly the NSA was spying on us. Those were called far fetched also.
But in reality, they were far fetched in that what the NSA was actually doing was far worse than all of the far fetched speculations.
Knowing anything about human nature, greed, power, lust, do you really think it is far fetched that the intelligence community blackmail-worthy material on every government official they can get their hands on?
I think it would be far fetched to believe that they do not. Think about what kind of people these are. Think about the fact that they have access to vast amounts of private information. Think about the fact that they have basically no real oversight. No counter balancing force to reign them in. Think of the NSA's Star Trek Next Generation bridge. That is a waste of money someone uses for bragging rights -- effectively "look how much taxpayer money I can waste and get away with it!". Wouldn't that set the culture and example for the underlings? This is the CIA we're talking about. The department of American Torture we're talking about. A group that sets up puppet governments. That disappears people. Why would they have any hesitation to gather, and maybe even use blackmail material?
If it isn't Aereo, it will be someone else that streams your precious content, ads and all, rating increases and all, over them big evil intartubes.
Therefore, don't wait for Aereo to possibly win this case. Be proactive. Move your precious content off the air NOW! Quickly! Before it is too late. Them big evil intartubes are coming for your content!
You will receive lots of thanks for taking this action. Your executives will thank you that they can sleep well at night, knowing the content is safe. Your advertisers will thank you that unauthorized people are not seeing their ads. Nielsen and other ratings organizations will thank you that their accounting is simpler. Television viewers will thank you -- while they can no longer freely tune into your broadcast, they will feel safe knowing that all of the hoops they must jump through to register and pay to watch your content is for their own good. And finally everyone else will thank you for the spectrum that you return that can be put to better use than for endless spoon fed crap that actually makes people stupider the longer they watch.
Re: Re: .. The CIA is incapable of telling the truth.
You make several points: 1. If a CIA puke opens its mouth all that ever dribbles out is lies 2. and stupidity. 3. You can't work for the government and have a brain they are mutually exclusive.
I disagree with 2 and 3. These people are very smart. Being smart is not mutually exclusive with being a liar, ignoring the law, subverting the constitution, or manipulating government or extorting government officials.
On point 3, smart people may very much want to work for the government in order to have power. Some people want to have power publicly. These are the less smart ones. The real smart ones want to have the real power but have it in secret.
She may be part of the 'they', but she is not an insider within the run-amok out of control intelligence community.
She is merely part of the 'oversight'. Oversight that the intelligence community merely tolerates. Maybe their level of tolerance is declining, and this is but one crack that has been exposed by them getting caught.
She is merely a manager, in a sense, of the spooks, but not one of them. Eventually when they come for her, she will not be considered by them to be one of them. Just an inconvenient nuisance.
Probably less convenient now that she is calling them out instead of being their chief cheerleader.
So why doesn't she have a much stronger response? Maybe because she knows what they have on her.
And if you don't deal with the 4 year old that was caught taking candy, what could possibly happen? Nothing. So similarly, with spy agencies, no harm would result from them not being answerable for being out of control.
I mean geez, it's not like the CIA or NSA are going to suffer from 'affluenza'.
If there is a minor grammar or spelling error on TD, then TD has no credibility and can safely be dismissed as a bunch of thieving pirate kids and labeled as 'pirate central' facilitators, enablers and 'piracy apologists'.