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

Drop Dropbox

drop-dropbox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: Drop Dropbox

#451

Post by saalweachter »

netcan wrote: post #100

I'm not American, so this is a little removed for me. In truth I don't really see big enough (non cosmetic) differences between the parties or administrations to justify the partisanship you guys seem to have. What bother me here is not Condoleezza Rice specifically. Every ranking official of any country (or company) owns a big share of that country's sins and there are no "clean" administrations. Complicity is the p…

I don't really see a big difference between whatever political parties exist in whatever country you're in.

To go through a few places the two parties in the US differ substantially - voting rights, civil rights, healthcare, minimum wage, immigration, unemployment benefits, unionization, SNAP.

You know, small stuff.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#452

Post by mcherm »

dotBen wrote: post #312
mbrutsch wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, most Americans don't hold themselves responsible for the actions of our duly elected leaders. It's how we sleep at night. brb, dropping Dropbox...

Actually Rice has never held a democratically elected office - a strange trait of the American government system is that The President can appoint anyone he likes to hold these offices. This counters to countries like Britain where these roles have to go to,democratically elected Members of one of the two Houses (usually the lower House of Parliament where the Prime Minister sits). So assumeing Condeeleza Rice had so…

> Rice has never held a democratically elected office

Technically true, however, she WAS approved by 2/3 of the Senate to hold what is widely considered the second-highest administrative office (after the President).

Re: Drop Dropbox

#453

Post by vdaniuk »

dkhenry wrote: post #78

Well I thought it would take longer for activists to start targeting companies in the wake of the Mozilla issue. I am actually surprised to see this happen so quickly. Its good to know that I am free to excersize my rights unless I want a job in the tech sector in which case I am required to conform to the social worldview of a selection of internet activists.

Is it a human right to approve torture, work towards starting a war and helping installing mass surveillance? I might have missed the U.N. meeting protecting those "rights".

Re: Drop Dropbox

#454

Post by avenger123 »

I am sure this has been brought up already.

Why would a company that can store people's potentially most sensitive documents want to bring someone on board that directly or indirectly was a part of shaping the NSA programs?

That boggles my mind. How does the conversation go in this situation? "Hey, we don't leak your information but guess what, we just brought someone on our board that fully believes taking a peek at your documents is A OK and was involved with making sure the government could take a look."

That to me is a bit mind boggling.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#456

Post by rjohnk »

Why is this? Because she was a part of the Bush administration? Because she is a Republican and we should hate Republicans? I mean, come on, isn't Al Gore on Apple's Board? He's no saint! No. This is not an issue of partisanship."

They then proceed to bring mostly partisan viewpoints to the table. This is usually what those on the left do (yes, yes, I know, not all). Set things up as non-partisan and then proceed partisan attacks. We have A) Iraq War was wrong B) Torture and Bush lacky C)Warrant-less wiretaps D) BIG SCARY OIL

Let us back up and acknowledge that Congress okayed much of this, so any member at the time who is now a board member of any company should also be tarred and feathered.

You have the right to disagree with dropbox, but come on, drop the "this isn't partisan" partisan arguments.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#457

Post by mikeash »

jebblue wrote: post #363
grannyg00se wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"informed people of good will can examine the same set of facts and reach different conclusions." Except they weren't talking about available facts to be examined, and their conclusions. What they were doing was presenting a falsehood as a new fact. Without any evidence. It's one thing to say "because of x,yz, we think they have WMDs". What they did was: "THEY HAVE WMDs!!!" (evidence to be examined will be provided s…

>> What they were doing was presenting a falsehood as a new fact. Without any evidence. Clinton stated they had WMD's long before Bush. There are mass grave sites in Iraq which proves they had them. The truth the anti-Bush people need to face is ... where are those weapons today? http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcript...

The question was not so much "do they have WMDs?" as the answer was clearly yes, they had chemical weapons we gave them. The question was, do they have any substantial quantities, do they have the ability to make more, and most importantly, do they have the ability to use them to attack us?

The answer to that last question was always clearly "no". Having a nuke does you no good if you can't get it to your target.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#458

Post by jokoon »

dropbox is not a good product, and will never be. so I'm not concerned. tech unsavvy people use those kinds of products, and that's how you spy on so many people.

I'm not surprised, and I don't care, because most people don't really care to understand the implications of technology and the implications it can have, and that's exactly how you rule over uneducated smartphone and computer users.

Re: Drop Dropbox

#459

Post by mikeash »

sp332 wrote: post #217
JackFr wrote: post #157

Consider that when acting under uncertainty, intelligent, informed people of good will can examine the same set of facts and reach different conclusions. It has become an article of faith that the Bush administration acted in bad faith about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while all that really has ever been shown is that they were tragically, woefully and extraordinarily wrong. How intelligent, well educated pe…

I'm going to feel really bad if I've been wrong about this, but I thought Bush admitted in his autobiography that WMD's were a made-up reason to invade Iraq. He thought he had the moral high ground in invading to depose Saddam Hussein, but his advisors convinced him that no one would support that reason for invasion.

If you're "going to feel really bad" if you're wrong, why don't you go look it up and make sure before commenting?

Re: Drop Dropbox

#460

Post by zurn »

netcan wrote: post #100

I'm not American, so this is a little removed for me. In truth I don't really see big enough (non cosmetic) differences between the parties or administrations to justify the partisanship you guys seem to have. What bother me here is not Condoleezza Rice specifically. Every ranking official of any country (or company) owns a big share of that country's sins and there are no "clean" administrations. Complicity is the p…

> Every ranking official of any country (or company) owns a big share of that country's sins and there are no "clean" administrations.

This sounds a lot like apogolism. These war crimes are VERY far removed from the standards of contemporary western civilized countries.

Obama administration continuing many of the evil policies doesn't make it any more acceptable, taking this as "the new normal" would be apathy bordering on nihilism.

From a broader POV, this line of reasoning exemplifies the syndrome "perfect is the enemy of good" (also known as the Nirvana fallacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy).

Post reply on HN