Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

jonathanmh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 337 posts

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#291

Post by marak830 »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #229
karmelapple wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? That seems very disrespectful to the Nobel committee to me.

The official reason was: "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/ The big international war issue from 2003 to 2008 was the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Enter Barack Obama, a candidate who campaigns vigorously on trying to get America out of Iraq and trying to limit or even undo some of the…

I dont necessarily disagree with your reasoning, but in short he received it because h wasnt as bad as the other guy would have been?

I dont see how he should have gotten it personaly.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#292

Post by ross-life »

schoen wrote: post #84
ross-life wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a citizen, you are expected to trust the FISA court. This opinion is just nuts. Trust a court that you were told for years didn't even exist? A secret court? How about no. Secret courts lead to abuses: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/jo-shaw/secret-cour...

The existence of the FISA Court has never been a secret. It was created by FISA in 1978 and is right there in the text of the statute. Even the members of the FISA Court are publicly disclosed (they're all existing Federal judges who are appointed to temporary terms). What is secret about the FISA Court is its decisions , not its existence (and that should change slightly as a result of the USA Freedom Act's requirem…

As a European that still effectively screams "secret court" to me, just with some word games around it. Part of the problem is the US also broadly applies "Top Secret" to too much information, even the mundane, so then it "has to go to the secret court because it's "Top Secret".

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#293

Post by rapind »

rdl wrote: post #218
tomlongson wrote: post #42

A key promise of Obama's campaign for the presidency was to run the “most transparent” government- however the only person to really deliver on that promise was a whistleblower. Secret courts, secret domestic spying, and now calls for weakening of the digital equivalent of the safe shows that he either was not honest about transparency, or has radically changed his opinion since becoming POTUS. Maybe it's that he dec…

I'm not sure if anyone could really stand up to the rest of Washington for 8 years, without going in as such a zealot in some way that you might not really want them as President. Ted Cruz/Paul Ryan/Ron Paul might be the closest thing to that. Bernie Sanders, maybe, although I'd have a hard time seeing him maintain an 8 year long fight. Everyone else is basically establishment to some degree (Trump doesn't strike me…

I think Sanders could maintain. I could be wrong, but he has a pretty long record of doing the right thing (from my perspective) and I'm not sure what else you're supposed to vote for if not his / her record? Charisma? Promises? Anger?

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#294

Post by rapind »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #244
tomlongson wrote: post #42

A key promise of Obama's campaign for the presidency was to run the “most transparent” government- however the only person to really deliver on that promise was a whistleblower. Secret courts, secret domestic spying, and now calls for weakening of the digital equivalent of the safe shows that he either was not honest about transparency, or has radically changed his opinion since becoming POTUS. Maybe it's that he dec…

This is actually why I'm so hesitant on Bernie Sanders. I'm seeing the same campaign promises, the same basic ideas, the same wild support base. And I can't help but think we're about to face the exact same result. I voted for Obama twice. I regret both.

Voting for promises is IMO meaningless. Same shit, different day. Instead, look at a candidate's history and base your vote on that. Unfortunately that takes more effort than most are willing to spend, but I can't think of a better way to estimate what they will do in the future.

Could you imagine what that would do to politics if everyone voted based solely on a candidate's record instead of promises and charisma?

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#295

Post by rapind »

cgriswald wrote: post #172
pearle wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people put too much importance on the role of the president with regards to domestic policy. You can't expect the president to effect change if congress opposes the president 100% of the time. Electing Bernie won't make a huge difference if the republicans still control congress.

Woodrow Wilson sprang immediately to mind as an example of a president who effected change despite an intransigent congress. He is also a president who fought against entrenched interests. Your idea seems to be more of an observation of recent presidents than a property of the presidency itself. I think there are two things that make it so. First, modern presidents are generally picked from a very narrow pool of cand…

Plus both Trump and Sanders bring in a lot of new voters. That may potentially scare the shit out of weaker members of congress... as it should.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#296

Post by AI_Overlord »

eggy wrote: post #240
willholloway wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take a moment of deep appreciation for President Obama's decision to not panic after the San Bernadino shooting, reinstate color terror alert codes, spark a ground invasion of Syria, or in any other way overreact. For a brief interlude in American history, we had a president that didn't capitalize on terror attacks politically, or generally set a tone of paranoia and fear. We won't always be this lucky.

No, he just sanctions low-key drone strikes in countries we're not even at war with keeping a hushed public content. Just listen to his SXSW speech. I think you see the real Obama showing through there, and no, it is not an idealist who was corrupted by Washington. He is slick as they come in Washington.

Better that and kill some terrorists than send an entire army for the same terrorists. Much more efficient and safe for everybody, including the country where the drone is used. Better a drone than an army.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#297

Post by eggy »

AI_Overlord wrote: post #296
eggy wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he just sanctions low-key drone strikes in countries we're not even at war with keeping a hushed public content. Just listen to his SXSW speech. I think you see the real Obama showing through there, and no, it is not an idealist who was corrupted by Washington. He is slick as they come in Washington.

Better that and kill some terrorists than send an entire army for the same terrorists. Much more efficient and safe for everybody, including the country where the drone is used. Better a drone than an army.

I am not against the strategic use of drones vs. putting boots on the ground. I am questioning the number of countries we have used drones in. A lot of questions are also being raised about the targets being "terrorists", and I am not talking about an accidental drone strike at a wedding of civilians, but the public's blind acceptance that we are indeed getting the 'bad guys'. I am not so sure the ratio of bad guys to civilians is as high as reported. Are you, and what's your evidence?

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#298

Post by beeboop »

cmurf wrote: post #245
beeboop wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it will happen due to the impossibility of actually enforcing it, hence "effective manner" in my OP.

I think it's naive to underestimate a government's ability to coerce people into not using it. There are many surviving illiberal democracies and it really wouldn't take that much to get the U.S. to trend more toward illiberalism either. Lavabit?

The Lavabit case was only contentious because of a very poor implementation of encrypted user data. It won't be long until there are established platforms and libraries that are used by most apps that fix the technical problems of Lavabit. Mega (the file uploading service) is pretty close to having a reasonably fool proof design, in that the most security conscious users are unlikely to have any external party be able to send malicious code that prevents the security and effectiveness of client side encryption.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#299

Post by beeboop »

newjersey wrote: post #140
thom wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about the state exclusively, nor am I talking about your online activities. I'm saying you will have a camera and microphone trained on you, always. My personal AI assistant - smart but not nearly sentient - knows to highlight the most titillating segments, which I have just captioned and published for all to see (anonymously, over an encrypted connection). It's great that one's ISP doesn't know what…

This is why I strongly oppose the drone strikes. Nobody should be killed by the state (except I guess by soldiers in self defense). I especially so not like the idea of killing someone probably at home in pajamas eating Cheerios at five pm in the evening local time. I don't think there is any justification for that even if the person in question is a flight risk and has been the mastermind behind millions of death. S…

I think your concern about lack of due process should be more focused on the tens to hundreds of thousands of civilian bystanders the US has killed since 2001. We are killing dozens of women and children overseas every week and chalk them up as collateral damage.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#300

Post by danenania »

MicroBerto wrote: post #275
coliveira wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you're trying to learn is how to manipulate people, then I agree, he is a master. There is a name for this type of people, they're called con men. Trump is a sales person. He has trained himself to sell anything, and he is just selling a quick solution for people that feel disenfranchise by the current political system.

He is selling exactly what a serious amount of people in this country want. If you don't know that then you don't understand America. Go work in a factory for a year.

What a serious amount of uneducated racist people want.

This has been tried before a number of times in history. It doesn't end well, for the working class or anyone else.

Post reply on HN