down for me, this is the google cached version for the lazy:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...
Knuth: Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice (2002)
91–100 of 187 posts
Re: Knuth: Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice (2002)
#92Amazon is building a $600 million datacenter for the CIA. The CIA did all of the bad things listed in Dropbox article as directed by Bush and Condoleezza, and they are still actively trying to cover up torture. I've never heard anyone here not using EC2 over it? The tech scenes pitchfork mobs are wildly inconsistent. I have a feeling this one hit a nerve because Condoleezza Rice is famously hated across the internet…
Inconsistency or hypocrisy doesn’t make someone wrong. Should people be outraged about more things? Maybe. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t justified in being outraged about any one thing.
Re: Knuth: Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice (2002)
#93Amazon is building a $600 million datacenter for the CIA. The CIA did all of the bad things listed in Dropbox article as directed by Bush and Condoleezza, and they are still actively trying to cover up torture. I've never heard anyone here not using EC2 over it? The tech scenes pitchfork mobs are wildly inconsistent. I have a feeling this one hit a nerve because Condoleezza Rice is famously hated across the internet…
It's quite simple. Rice and Eich are not directly useful and their dismissal would have no effect on the protestors, so there is almost zero sacrifice. There is no sacrifice necessary on behalf of the protestors. Dropping AWS on the other hand could be difficult and expensive for many, so protesting AWS requires either hypocrisy or sacrifice.
>Rice and Eich are not directly useful and their dismissal would have no effect on the protestors, so there is almost zero sacrifice. There is no sacrifice necessary on behalf of the protestors.
And yet getting them fired has the impact of dissuading similar behavior. If you're a protestor why wouldn't you go for the low-hanging no-cost some-benefit moves?
>Dropping AWS on the other hand could be difficult and expensive for many, so protesting AWS requires either hypocrisy or sacrifice.
So the protestors have prioritized lower cost moves over higher cost moves. Sounds rational.
Re: Knuth: Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice (2002)
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's such a bizarre move. What's the upside?
They wanted a board member with international experience, as they hope to expand internationally. Including, as TechCrunch put it, to "deal with foreign governments that have blocked its use".
Understandable move, but in solving one problem they've simply created another.
Re: Knuth: Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice (2002)
#95I've seen a lot of comments here pontificate about being above "political litmus tests." Torture is political? Death on mass scale is political now? Wiretapping is political? Violation of international law is a political stance? Noam Chomsky thanks you for proving his points for him.
"Politics" is a hobby that can only be done in private between 5:39 and 5:43.
Re: Knuth: Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice (2002)
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
And your point is what? That demonstrating outrage here is in some way invalid since similar outrage was not demonstrated in every other similar situation? Do I have no moral authority to speak up in this situation if I have not before? Maybe we should boycott Amazon. Not boycotting Dropbox because we didn't do the same for Amazon doesn't get us anywhere.
The system Condaleeza represents is still active and is heavily entrenched. This campaign may be a good start, but its going to take much more than that to change anything -- and that requires a strong moral consistency than extends well beyond participating in an occasional mob. Amazon is actively supporting infrastructure to an agency that supports torture. Condaleeza isn't even in power any more. It's not that you…
Well, one has to start somewhere. You start with small things and if things work out, you expand the scale.
Re: Knuth: Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice (2002)
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
And your point is what? That demonstrating outrage here is in some way invalid since similar outrage was not demonstrated in every other similar situation? Do I have no moral authority to speak up in this situation if I have not before? Maybe we should boycott Amazon. Not boycotting Dropbox because we didn't do the same for Amazon doesn't get us anywhere.
Yes. Selectively demonstrating a ridiculous amount of outrage at the hate target of the day is absurd. The fact that you couldn't possibly do it in every similar situation shows why it is absurd.
You make some great points.
I also note that if I wanted this controversy to fade away, I would seed conversations with people who say things exactly like this.
There is no way to know for sure!
Re: Knuth: Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice (2002)
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
And your point is what? That demonstrating outrage here is in some way invalid since similar outrage was not demonstrated in every other similar situation? Do I have no moral authority to speak up in this situation if I have not before? Maybe we should boycott Amazon. Not boycotting Dropbox because we didn't do the same for Amazon doesn't get us anywhere.
The system Condaleeza represents is still active and is heavily entrenched. This campaign may be a good start, but its going to take much more than that to change anything -- and that requires a strong moral consistency than extends well beyond participating in an occasional mob. Amazon is actively supporting infrastructure to an agency that supports torture. Condaleeza isn't even in power any more. It's not that you…
> Amazon is actively supporting infrastructure to an agency that supports torture. Condaleeza isn't even in power any more. It's not that you shouldn't boycott Dropbox, it's that you are probably not really doing anything as a result of not doing it when it matters.
That's probably true, but we have to consider the situation in the context of what's practicable in our own lives.
I have a Dropbox account, and I use Amazon's cloud service to host my sites. I will be canceling my Dropbox account as a protest, but probably will not cancel Amazon's cloud services. Why? Because I still need my paycheck, I still need to put food on my kids' plates at the end of the night -- and I do this in part with Amazon's cloud services. I have to pick and choose, and compromise along the way when I'm making my voice heard.
It's okay that sometimes some big companies get away it, and some don't. Godaddy got picked on a lot... there was a symbol attached to the Godaddy situation (a CEO who hunts elephants, and says weird things) -- in the end we won, because there was an easy narrative to follow. It wasn't perfect justice all the way, but what matters is progress was made at the end of the day -- SOPA was then beaten.
In a similar fashion, it's okay if folks decide to stick with Amazon's services, because ditching it would bring them a lot of inconvenience. We don't all have the resources and time to be ditching every service we don't like on principle -- we can pick and choose. We can pick and choose, especially, when there's momentum going on. Right now there's momentum going on with this Dropbox thing -- let it happen, this is how progress is made. Next time, a company will think twice before appointing to their board a warmonger.
edit (mostly to duaneb): to be clear, I am canceling my paid Dropbox account. Though, I think it's a good idea to cancel free Dropbox accounts in this case as well.
Re: Knuth: Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice (2002)
#99Amazon is building a $600 million datacenter for the CIA. The CIA did all of the bad things listed in Dropbox article as directed by Bush and Condoleezza, and they are still actively trying to cover up torture. I've never heard anyone here not using EC2 over it? The tech scenes pitchfork mobs are wildly inconsistent. I have a feeling this one hit a nerve because Condoleezza Rice is famously hated across the internet…
This is a cover up to hide the real motivation: she is a woman and black, and none of you want her involved in a tech company. Disguise this all you want as opposition to the war or Bush or whatever. It is really opposition to her gender and race. This is how you do in silicon valley where blacks and women are considered token employees hire to look good. So make up stuff about her and move her out. Now you have your…
[deleted]
Re: Knuth: Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice (2002)
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
> solves nothing Sometimes, the best solution for bad behavior is making it have consequences. > promise before elections By that logic, Bush and Rice met their promises. They didn't say they wouldn't invade anyone, they said they wouldn't do nation building.
> Sometimes, the best solution for bad behavior is making it have consequences. You do realize this opinion aims to punish somebody because people can't touch her using the judicial system, right?
We have to use the tools available to us, and the only one is the court of public opinion.