Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CISPA Sponsor Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence'

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the don't-make-us-shut-down-the-internet-again-buddy dept.

Government 258

SolKeshNaranek writes with news that Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), sponsor of CISPA, has decided to tempt fate by referring to the protests that are springing up as 'turbulence on the way down to landing.' From the article: "What really comes through in the article — which mostly talks about how Rogers has been supposedly working with Google to change some of the language in the bill to make it more acceptable -- is how little concern Rogers has for the public. Instead, most of the article just talks about how he's been working with tech companies to make sure they're okay with the bill. And while that's a start, it's no surprise that lots of tech companies would be okay with CISPA, because it grants them broad immunity if they happen to hand over all sorts of private info to the government. But to then call the protests mere 'turbulence' is pretty damned insulting to the actual people this will impact the most: the public, whose privacy may be violated."

cancel ×

258 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Constituants. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720063)

So much for the idea that politicians effected the will of the people. He's been working with CORPORATIONS to make sure that CORPORATIONS don't have any problem with the LEGISLATION that is put upon THE CITIZENS.

As for the opinion of CITIZENS? -- Who gives a fuck?

Re:Constituants. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720127)

Everyday that passes our rights become further eroded. How much longer until citizens just go into open revolt and demand their elected officials be put to the wall?

Re:Constituants. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720315)

When are you going to go into open revolt? Drumming on a plastic bucket and chanting, "Down with the 1%!" doesn't count. Armed resistance is what makes a revolution. Man up or shut the fuck up.

Re:Constituants. (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721171)

I don't see any protesters doing anything but taking up peaceful space.
They won't be noticed by anyone but the press until there is some fire, blood and people defecating openly on Wall st.
Silly hippies, I really think they just attend so they say they have and they can impress that one guy/girl enough to rub special places with them. They're really about as threatening and effective as "Hello Kitty".

Re:Constituants. (4, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720319)

For a revolution in the US, you need 2 things.

1. Everybody needs to go a day without eating.
2. Shut off the internet & the cable tv.

You'll have a new government in place in the morning.

Re:Constituants. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720511)

A new government put in place by a revolution will be stacked to the limit with bizarre extremists and arseholes who could never make it to power under democracy. The most likely outcome is that you'll get some unstable maniac in charge, with no limits on his power.

Revolution is not a magic "reset the government" button. It's a form of election that puts a disproportionately high number of votes on those willing to kill, regardless of their reasons for wanting to do so.

Re:Constituants. (2)

s-whs (959229) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720571)

A new government put in place by a revolution will be stacked to the limit with bizarre extremists and arseholes who could never make it to power under democracy. The most likely outcome is that you'll get some unstable maniac in charge, with no limits on his power.

People in the USA have had bizarre extremists and arseholes in government for a long time. See George Wanker Bush and his fellow sociopaths like Condeleeza Rice, Rumsfeld, etc.

It can't get any worse than what those a-holes did which helped destabilize the economy and with the war they started, the world around Iraq.

Re:Constituants. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720689)

G. Dubya Bush is what you get from a democracy that has gone bad.

Mao or Napoleon are what you get from a revolution.

Re:Constituants. (4, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721091)

Lenin and Washington were from revolutions as well. Hitler was elected into power. Well, Washington was elected into power, but based at least partly on his performance in the revolution.

Re:Constituants. (3, Informative)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721223)

Lenin and Washington were from revolutions as well. Hitler was elected into power. Well, Washington was elected into power, but based at least partly on his performance in the revolution.

But Washington was also elected into the Revolution. He did offer his services, but he was also elected by the Continental Congress to lead the Continental Army. Prior to that, his one and only significant military action was in the French and Indian War, and resulted in him surrendering.

Re:Constituants. (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721189)

If you have democracy, it has doubtless gone bad.

The current world state of affairs is what you get from democracy.

Funny, both Mao and Napoleon are dead and are old enough to be poor examples.

We could use Clinton and Chavez with more effect.

Re:Constituants. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721271)

Do you really find it hard to imagine a Mao-like revolutionary leader in the US? Sure, they would be very unlikely to be carrying a communist banner, but some aspects of his thinking carry over very well.

"You worked for the government? Then you die."
"But I was just a primary school teacher!"
"Socialist! Indoctrinator! You make the children dependent on the state! Die, scum."

Re:Constituants. (3, Informative)

guises (2423402) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721627)

Mao is too old to be relevant? He only died in '76, that's not that long ago.

Clinton and Chavez are better examples of what you get from a revolution? Did you think this through? They were both elected. Chavez staged a failed coup, but was democratically elected afterwards.

Why was this modded up?

Re:Constituants. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721183)

You must be new around here. It's been extreme lying socialist sphincter Repubmocrats for well over a century now.
Can't get any worse....w00t!
Stick around 5 minutes.

Re:Constituants. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721195)

Yes. Revolution means the utter failure of the current system. It's a last resort when you have nothing to lose, because you're taking a HUGE risk that things will turn out 10x worse. You're far better to invest some time and effort into fixing the current system rather than failing to vote or not being involved in politics enough to influence anything. Write those letters. Make your view heard. Use the tools you have *within* the system. Yes, it's screwed up and it's hard to believe we ordinary citizens can make a difference, but where's SOPA now?

I get the feeling that some people would rather sit around on their lazy arse until the government truly is a serious disaster, then they'd be happy to shoot up the place, go home, and then assume it will all be magically better. No, probably not. Did it work that way during any other civil war in the world? Heck no. It's a total crap shoot. Worse, if most people cared so little before the crisis to do something to prevent impending disaster, they certainly aren't going to be able to guarantee things will be any better after the crisis. Revolutions can go bad. Really, really, really BAD.

Pressing the "revolution" button is rather like pressing the big "nuclear" button during the Cold War. You really don't want to go there if it is in any way avoidable.

So, get off your political ass and be involved rather than saying "I'll be involved once they start shooting."

Re:Constituants. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721257)

Absolutely!

If you are prepared to imagine yourself as a heroic revolutionary, fighting, maybe even putting your life at risk, for the cause of the new whatever, then you had damn well be willing to fight at least that hard within the system beforehand.

Re:Constituants. (5, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721699)

"you'll get some unstable maniac in charge. . . those willing to kill"

Yea we sure need to avoid letting anyone grab power who might:

A. Execute people, including U.S. citizens, women and children, without a trial, like with UAV's and Hellfire missiles
B. Torture people
C. Lock people up indefinitely without a trail
D. Snatch people all over the world, put black bags over their heads, drug them, and render them to various dictatorships for indefinite detention and torture, and occasionally snatch the wrong people, oops
E. Start long, expensive wars under false pretenses, that kills hundreds of thousands of people and bankrupt the U.S.
F. Engage in massive electronic spying on citizens without a warrant or court oversight

Yep, we definitely don't want any wild eyed revolutionaries grabbing power and doing that shit .

I can beat that tune in one step... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720547)

1. Turn off the electricity for a month.

Something like the northeast blackout a few years ago. But a lot worse. Not impossible given our aging infrastructure and overloaded systems..
Vast majority of the country. And lasting several weeks straight.

Same thing that always happened if you let a large simcity city lose power for too long... Riots, protests, fires, destruction, collapse of basic services. A downward spiral you better fix REAL fast.

Re:Constituants. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721019)

Funny that, #1 is well on its way to completion if you look at the some of the poorest neighborhoods.

Re:Constituants. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721273)

So... No bread and no circuses?

Re:Constituants. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721617)

1. Everybody needs to go a day without eating.
2. Shut off the internet & the cable tv.

Yeah! That is working so well in Palestine.

It's early days, but I doubt 80 years of terrorism and murder (committed by the Israelis too) will end because everyone ignored the TV for a measly 24 hours.

Re:Constituants. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720303)

Corporations make donations while citizens just whine and bitch. He knows who butters his bread.

Re:Constituants. (2)

Faluzeer (583626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720935)

Hmmm

The corporations are the primary source of the politicians campaign contributions, contributions that allow the politicians to continue on the gravy train. As such, do you really expect them not to look out for the best interests of said corporations first?

Re:Constituants. (5, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721009)

So much for the idea that politicians effected the will of the people.

What's bizarre at this point is how is it possible that so many people don't already understand that. I think it's sufficiently clear that the government is not a tool for the people and that democracy doesn't allow changing that.

Protests have no effect. Votes have no effect. Terrorism has no effect. This is capitalism, only money has an effect. If you don't have large amounts of money, you are a production machine and your opinion matters as much as that of a cow.

The only way of stopping the absolute power of money in capitalism is revolution. Anything else is fruitless crying.

Re:Constituants. (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721141)

I'm surprise he didn't say " Let them eat cake"
But then the angry mob will probably be carrying rubber hose and pepper spray instead of pitchforks and torches.
History repeats but it paraphrases.

Re:Constituants. (1)

lwriemen (763666) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721609)

They're working on a new freedom, so government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations, shall not perish from the earth.

Re:Constituants are greed interest only (1)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721673)

The religious and corporate welfare US is a plutocrat republic.
IOW: Forget freedom, capitalism, democracy ... for US.

The religious welfare US will call out their minions to strike fear into the masses and (when needed) kill any patriots.
The corporate welfare US will call out their lawyers and politicians to economically strangle and torture small business and individuals into submission.

When the entitled fools like Rush, Ted, Glenn ... and congressional politicians got your back, you're more than likely royally fycked.

You only had to listen (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720071)

Why... why didn't you vote for Ron Paul...

Re:You only had to listen (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720219)

because his economic policies would result in widespread poverty

Re:You only had to listen (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720279)

Has anyone else's policies resulted in anything else?

Re:You only had to listen (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720437)

Historically, Democratic presidents have closed the gap between rich and poor and overall increased income for the middle class It's too bad they've been becoming more Republican lately.

Re:You only had to listen (4, Insightful)

Endovior (2450520) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720669)

Wait... we're still pretending there's an actual difference between the Republicans and Democrats now? Both clearly want the same thing; more spending, more debt, more rules. The only difference is what each side makes it's partisan points off of; Republicans like spending money on guns and subsidies to their rich backers, and Democrats like spending money on entitlements and subsidies to their special interest groups. Both sides like passing new laws that benefit whoever's bribed them, and neither likes tearing down laws, unless it's a specific law that's especially unpopular with their buddies. Neither likes going after the debt, since there's no political points to be made there; except in accusing the other side for not doing enough about it, and thus to attack the other side's spending preferences. Both sides are essentially doing the same thing, so the overall direction of things remains the same; the only 'change' is that whoever's winning at the moment can throw more tax money at their buddies.

Re:You only had to listen (4, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721101)

No, the only difference is that Democrats (before Obama) would tax and spend. The Republicans would borrow and spend, while claiming to be more fiscally responsible.

Re:You only had to listen (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721323)

Wait... we're still pretending there's an actual difference between the Republicans and Democrats now?

There are differences, but none significant enough to determine which should be burned at the stake first. It looks like we'll just have to supply a bipartisan two stake solution.

Re:You only had to listen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721685)

Too bad the middle class is vanishing as well...

100% of nothing is still nothing..

Re:You only had to listen (2, Insightful)

darthdavid (835069) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720321)

Fixing the problem of corporations having more power over the government than citizens by voting for a libertarian is like hiring a Catholic Priest to protect your children from pedophiles...

Re:You only had to listen (2)

zephvark (1812804) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720705)

Fixing the problem of corporations having more power over the government than citizens by voting for a libertarian is like hiring a Catholic Priest to protect your children from pedophiles...

Charming quote. But the government has no special claim on competence or honor. The people who work for it are no more your friends than the giant corporations. The goal of libertarianism is to whittle down the power of the government, without which these corporations would have no lever to enforce their appalling designs.

Re:You only had to listen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720791)

The goal of libertarianism is to whittle down the power of the government, without which these corporations would have no lever to enforce their appalling designs.

The corporations don't strictly need a government/legal lever to enforce their appalling designs - they already have one (your employment). The corporations need to be counterbalanced through government and legislation to ensure they don't unfairly use that leverage.
What you are currently seeing is the legitimizing of corporations using their leverage through legislation. Take away the legislation and all you do is instantly legitimize things exactly like this.

Re:You only had to listen (4, Insightful)

Serpents (1831432) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721145)

Free corporations of any government oversight and you have Cyberpunk 2020 - corporations become independent states with their own military and law enforcement agencies. Unlikely? Well, the SFPD has already been used as a private police force [cultofmac.com] but that was at least questionable and a few people had some explaining to do. If corporations are accountable to no one you can be sure that they are going to take full advantage of that. Yes, the current system is broken and governments sit in deep pockets of their corporate sponsors but they have to do something from time to time to please the masses if they want to keep up the appearances of a democratic election process.

Re:You only had to listen (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721719)

The goal of libertarianism is to whittle down the power of the government, without which these corporations would have no lever to enforce their appalling designs.

So who do you think is going to take over the various services that are currently provided by the government, which people are not going to just part with? The very corporations whose power you think libertarianism will reduce. Do you really think that those corporations are going to have the best interests of the people in mind when they develop "industry standard" practices for disposing of toxic waste? Do you really think that corporations that do not have to go through the government, and can just do what they want, somehow have less power? Do corporations protect your privacy?

When it comes to the government, you are at least in a position to vote. You have little say over corporations; you can only vote if you buy the right to do so, and of course, rich people can buy a more significant vote. That is a fine way to govern a business, but a terrible way to give people access to a decent education, public transit to get to work, and so forth. Libertarianism is not utopia, it is just a shortcut to plutocracy.

Re:You only had to listen (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721065)

And that tripe is moderated 'insightful'?

If he was even 1% correct, then the establishment wouldn't have to do everything in their power to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination, and Ron Paul would win against Obama with his eyes closed.

Re:You only had to listen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721221)

The problem here specifically is an oppressive, overbearing government that works at the behest of a handful of corporate masters. We need a politician that will recognize the limitations of the governments power.

Tech companies are ok? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720091)

How about working with _the people_ to make sure they're okay with the bill?

Re:Tech companies are ok? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720287)

Why should he? "The People" are clearly happy enough to elect him, and the average person will believe what the ads bought with the millions he will receive from the tech companies will tell them to believe...

Uh huh... (1)

Ignacio (1465) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720115)

Since when has Rogers had ANY concern for anything other than their bottom line?

Re:Uh huh... (1)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720183)

Wrong Rogers.

"...that Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), sponsor of CISPA..."

Re:Uh huh... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720239)

Not wrong, just different. They both are unconcerned with what the general public think.

Re:Uh huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720453)

Not wrong, just different.

Actually, they're both wrong.

Telcom companies don't care about public opinion (2, Interesting)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720139)

Telcom companies don't care about public opinion. They don't have to; they've carved up the country into their own spheres of influence, much like Europe carved up China in the 19th century. If I want an internet connection to my house, I have exactly two choices, who offer suspicously similar pricing schemes. Regulators should be looking into this, but they won't because they're being paid too much money to look the other way.

He's correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720153)

Protest by the people don't matter anymore. The only reason SOPA was defeated is that large corporations got behind the protests. Without corporate backing, most (all) protests are too small to matter.

No he's not. (4, Insightful)

Zsub (1365549) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720247)

But here you are wrong. With SOPA, the public at large managed to find -- finally, I might add -- the supreme spot where to exercise influence over legislation. See, if corporations control politics, it's no use trying to influence politics directly. But if we can influence the politics corporations push for, which we demonstrably can, we can influence politics. Therefore, your point that people don't matter anymore is false.

Same Shit, Different Day (5, Insightful)

Transist (997529) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720155)

It's incredibly frustrating that these 'sponsors' will continue to ram legislation down our collective throats such as this, when it clearly is against the general good and serves only private interests. Even if a bill such as SOPA gets defeated in the public spotlight thanks to major protest campaigning, it just shows up a couple months later under a different name. The tragedy is you can't get people interested in fighting 'the man' every week. I was very pleasantly surprised by the general outcry when SOPA was being pushed through, but I seriously doubt you can rally that kind of support every time these legislators bow to lobbying pressure and essentially copypasta their last draconian bill and rename it without any effort at all. How are you supposed to fight this kind of system (a term I generally avoid in this kind of context, but is rather fitting), when it's painfully obvious that the common man really has far too little say in government?

We have two choices to make it go away.. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720157)

Either we all stop buying movies and music for a few years so the MPAA and RIAA go bankrupt, or we shoot them all... I'm fine either way.

Re:We have two choices to make it go away.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720269)

Please mod parent up. Please!

Re:We have two choices to make it go away.. (2)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720417)

Lock & load...

Re:We have two choices to make it go away.. (3, Interesting)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720589)

They'll just scream pirates and demand a bail-out like the automotive companies did. Then they'll use the governments money to buy new laws.

Re:We have two choices to make it go away.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721237)

Either we all stop buying movies and music for a few years so the MPAA and RIAA go bankrupt, or we shoot them all... I'm fine either way.

Nah, they'll just attribute their loss in sales to some booming technology or other and lobby for a levy on them.

Re:We have two choices to make it go away.. (1)

Serpents (1831432) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721309)

I like the ideas (especially the latter one) but how much time would pass before taxes similar to the "potential piracy tax" we pay on blank CDs would be charged even on printer paper? I'm afraid we would only make them push for legislation which would guarantee them a nice and steady stream of revenue regardless of whether they actually release any movies or music

Re:We have two choices to make it go away.. (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721485)

I am perfectly willing to stop buying music and movies for a 2 year period if everyone else is willing (actually I never buy any music - I don't listen to it - and I *seldom* buy a movie because so few of them are worth watching more than once. Those that are IMHO, I buy).
I can see nothing negative about the MPAA and RIAA going bankrupt. People will still want music and movies, they will just cut out the leeches^H^H^H middlemen that serve no real purpose

Turbulence? (1)

ajclements (1529359) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720161)

Time to up the ante and cause a microburst [wikipedia.org] . That has always been known to help craft on approach to landing.

Re:Turbulence? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720301)

I was thinking that there really isn't any middle ground any more, is there. Relatively peaceful protests are barriers, but if it gets upped a notch, then it's terrorism. It's all very nice that government is being told to stay the course. What direction is the rudder being pointed, again?

don't shout down the bill... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720187)

...shoutdown the politicians that would suggest the government has a right in the first place. Always hold them accountable. (thats the goal)

Re:don't shout down the bill... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721681)

... suggest the government has a right in the first place

LAW and order is the primary purpose of government. It does have the right to make new laws.

The problems is the laws are: written by the corporations, written for the corporations, sponsored by corporate shills who 1) don't understand the small print, 2) don't put their electorate first.

Wait a procorporation teet sucking Republican Rep? (2)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720195)

Not that the Dems are much better, but they aren't so brazen in their total disdain for informed voters. Pure evil vs the possibility of some hidden discarded and ignored goodwill is 2 two party choice. Today's voters are indeed offered options at the polls; between Vader or the Emperor himself. Maybe they will both destroy each other in the end. Or did George decide to fuck with that too?

Re:Wait a procorporation teet sucking Republican R (5, Informative)

stms (1132653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720451)

Why are so many /.ers insisting that Dems are less guilty than the Republicans in this fight we've recently been having over internet freedom. SOPA/PIPA had some bipartison support (and opposition) but it was mostly the Democrates bill. Check out this informative wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] . Both sides are equally full of currupt assholes stop giving one side a free pass just because you think they're ideallistically superior. Idealism doesn't mean shit when you have two wolves (the politcal parties) and a sheep (the people) deciding what's for dinner. They mainly just argue about how they're going to cook us.

Re:Wait a procorporation teet sucking Republican R (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721595)

Why are so many /.ers insisting that Dems are less guilty than the Republicans in this fight we've recently been having over internet freedom.

Not less guilty - "Differently" guilty.

The Republicans want to take our money and freedoms and, ideally, would have us all living as mindless zombie serfs to the Corporate Police state.

The Democrats want to take our money and freedoms and, ideally, would have us all living as politically correct zombies who don't want to float to the top (and aggressively push down those who do).

Both sides "hate our freedom" far more than the bogeyman of the week, and will take any steps necessary to strip us of what little sense of individuality we cling to.

Here's an idea (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720197)

Representative Mike Rogers

Why don't the US instate public representatives in addition to the current corporate representatives?
It seems like such an easy solution to this representation issue you guys are having.

it is turbulance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720199)

He isn't insulting the public he is just insulting the power of influence they have. Honestly who didn't know that the system doesn't work and it's only an illusion of control? Problem is we can't change it.

Re:it is turbulance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720293)

We can change it. Unfortunately, violence may be required.

Re:it is turbulance (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720609)

Physical (armed) revolution + north american military budgets == slaughter. We no longer live in a world where a band of freedom fighters with rifles can fight the army.

Re:it is turbulance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720711)

People in the military aren't all heartless monsters without families. If they see a good portion of the nation is rebelling, I think many of them would be on our side (or at least refuse to slaughter us).

Re:it is turbulance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720725)

Go tell that to the Taliban. Of course, you run the risk of them laughing in your face and/or shooting you. Tell it to the Egyptians or the Syrians. Tell it to the Kosovar Albanians (talk about wagging the dog). Tell it to the Hizballah. Asymmetric warfare works because, not in spite of being asymmetric. To take the canonical example, one Qassam rocket costs in the vicinity of 750 USD. They are successfully thwarted by the Iron Dome system, at a cost per engagement of about 50000 USD, with an impressive PK of about 0.9.

Re:it is turbulance (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720899)

It works because US invaders are on their side.

Re:it is turbulance (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721277)

Depends on how many are onboard if the revolution happens. If it's big enough, you'd be surprised. Tanks, aircraft, drones, humvees, etc. all need that precious fuel. Ammuntion doesn't magically come out of nowhere. Same with food. Watch what happens to morale when troops don't get to eat much after a week or two.

If popular support drops out, the military only has about three months tops to get things back in order. (Provided there isn't any outside support.) And that's if the military stays together in this situation.

Past the two month point with no fresh supplies, a modern military would have scant in the way of resources that would allow it to use its top tier weapons. Everything would soon fall on the infantry, which greatly levels the playing field. (Sure they'll still have bigger guns, but it doesn't count for much vs. insurgents that wisely pick when and where to fight.) Particularly if resource centers like depots and such are destroyed by the resistance movement. Without civilian support, it seems doubtful that military itself has enough people that can run or repair factories, farms, and refineries to keep the war machine going.

As far as the topic of revolution goes other than the military aspect... Most people have decided against it because of the odds of the replacement gov't being worse. (Religious wackos, authoritarians, various doctrine establishments, or just simply a shism of a large nation into many weaker smaller ones that may be under control of equally bad governments.) When it finally does get to the point where it appears it can't get much worse (counting those scenarios) - that's when you should look out for things to really start happening beyond mere protests.

In some ways, I think the best we could hope for during a revolution (if it happens) is that the military (wisely) chooses to stand down, many "representatives" end up on trial for treason against the nation and citizenry, and the constitution gets revitalized as bad laws are repealed and more protections against corruption are put into place. But whether or not that's what actually happens remains to be seen.

Re:it is turbulance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720663)

Here's the problem with violent revolution some people on here like to pretend to support. First of all it's violent, which sucks for everyone involved.

Also just who do you imagine is going to end up in power?

Rich right wing bible thumping, NRA card toting, Amuricans... Also known as the republican base, that's who. Exactly the same people responsible for the attacks on both education and science (and just about anything else) whenever facts are inconvenient for them.

So the real options are basically find a country that won't give into these assholes "policies" and that will accept a lot of high tech workers, actually has smart business/political separation policies and brain-drain the US. Only problem is, that country isn't out there. Start organizing a constant offensive of smart rational people saying we won't put up with this shit and start winning over people that just don't pay attention to this type of crap before casting their votes which is basically only represented in the media by Stewart and Colbert at this point. Maybe then we could get some non-scumbags in office and end the stupid ass PACs, money as free speech, corporations are people and can buy politicians/legislation bullshit.

More likely though, "entitlement programs" run out, gas prices continue to rise and things get a lot worse before they get better.

"Turbulence" (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720299)

... In other news, the Senator woke up to find the ghost of internet past in his room, carrying a very long chain, each one forged from a civil liberty removed.... Rogers dismissed the entire affair as turbulent, and was shortly after killed by a mob of angry young boys on crutches, which is how Dickenson would have ended it if he'd had to role play with Rogers, who has the character flaw "Turbulent."

Re:"Turbulence" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720879)

Dickens.

Mike Rogers? Or Governor Tarkin? (4, Interesting)

FSWKU (551325) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720329)

To paraphrase:

Mike Rogers: "The will of the people will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that democracy has been dissolved permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away forever."

Barack Obama: "But that's impossible! How will we maintain control without the illusion of people having a voice?"

Mike Rogers: "The regional CEO's now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local populations in line. Fear of having their personal information leaked with immunity."

Barack Obama: "Excellent. Everything is proceeding exactly as I have forseen it..."

Re:Mike Rogers? Or Governor Tarkin? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720887)

Oh, please. You right-wingers go too far with that bullshit "Obama is a despot" trash. It's racist because you don't like a black man being in power.

Re:Mike Rogers? Or Governor Tarkin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721715)

So anyone insulting or maligning Obama at any time for anything is a racist? Did you like Bush? You must hate white people.

That is completely asinine, not to mention being a strawman. I can't stand Bush, Obama, Clinton, pretty much any president we've had since the turn of the 20th. So do I just hate all races? Or perhaps, just perhaps, I might be able to disagree with a politician based on his *gasp* policies.

Astounding.

If you play with fire... (1)

bgibby9 (614547) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720387)

Pollies will get burnt!

He defined "us" an turbulence? (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720411)

Well, if that doesn't spell out his perception that he is in a class above the rest of us, nothing else does. Amazing arrogance.

Still, I'd guess we are only at about 8%... probably less... the rest of the world still has no idea what's going on.

Re:He defined "us" an turbulence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720677)

Just a short while to go. 10% is the threshold of 'mainstream' concern. GLBT rights, the American revolution... many many historical examples.

Apt metaphor (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720487)

Enough turbulence, and the whole bill will come crashing down in flames, killing the reelection prospects of all on board.

Turbulance kills! (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720491)

Hundreds have been killed in crashes due to turbulence.

Google Does Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720555)

but look at China, bad, bad China.

Litigation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720579)

Man, if only someone had the foresight to incorporate something in our laws to prevent tyranny.

Oh wait, they did; it's the constitution. See you in court, asshole.

america is going down (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720617)

this is yet another proof.
You fail'd hard and you did not learn and fail again.

Turbulance eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720713)

It's stupid comments like those that draw needless attention. If he would have been more discrete this would have not made any headlines.

Now people are looking at what he says, how he said it...then again no matter what you say, if it goes on record, someone, somewhere will take it out of context and find fault with it.

Perspective (0)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720915)

The problem here is that people have the wrong perspective. We haven't been a free people since the Civil War. The Civil
War was really a battle of two ideas. One was that you could keep people in chattel slavery. That was the old idea that had been around centuries. The new idea was much smarter. It was to set up a system to enslave everyone but the key is to allow them to think they are free. It's pretty brilliant if you think about it. Those in control have 300 million slaves in the US that produce all manner if goods and technology the masters could never dream of. All they have to do is print little strips of paper in return. Genius.

Well... (2)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39720955)

You voted for these rightwing extremists, you then have to accept the consequences when they make bad laws to reward their backers.

Don't like tyranny? Don't vote for extremists. Simple.

Re:Well... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721373)

You voted for these rightwing extremists, you then have to accept the consequences when they make bad laws to reward their backers.

Don't like tyranny? Don't vote for extremists. Simple

There are left-wing extremists too. Don't put them in the White House, either.

Re:Well... (3, Insightful)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721489)

That's the single dumbest thing I've read all day, and something I'd expect from an american conservative.

Obama is well to the Right of any centre-left party in Europe or Australia. He'd be comfortable as a conservative in most of these places, actually.

You're either stupid, or a liar.

CFIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720967)

Perhaps the senator is familiar with that term as well

Seriously America... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39720969)

...at some point Iran's internet will be better than yours if it continues like this.

Open contempt for the people he's supposed to... (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721319)

serve. Nice. Well, at least he's saying what he honestly believes. It's the same opinion the MPAA has. The major lesson learned from the SOPA debacle by the MPAA according to their lobbyist in chief is that they need to make sure to get tech. companies on-board. No mention of fatally flawed legislation; no mention of stupefying ignorance of how the internet actually works; no mention of the curtailing of the rights of the people. Nope, they just need to buy off the right companies and politicians regardless of right or wrong. Fuck the people. They are just chattel and serfs anyhow. They have no real power. That's the lesson learned. Well I hope it's the wrong one.

I felt like real people were real pissed and maybe we'd finally had enough of corporations shoving unfavorable legislation down our throats. But, it's hard to say. The problem is that sustaining that kind of scrutiny and passion is near impossible. So, the lobbyists might be right. Just wait until the "noise" settles down and then when the public falls asleep sneak the legislation in through the back door via some renamed seemingly unrelated bill. Sigh. How do we stop this madness?

Freedom (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721337)

This is what "freedom" and "democracy" really mean -- nothing to prevent rich companies and their paid lackeys in government from pulling things like this.

If congressmen had mandatory public election financing (no "democracy" for the rich), and government was strong enough to be able to destroy "copyright industry" (no "freedom", "small government" and other dumb ideas that weaken the government and make it dependent on rich people and companies), no one would ever bother conflating security with rent-seeking and racketeering. The worst you will have to deal with, would be garden variety privacy issues -- ones that actually can be discussed when politicians aren't begging the rich to pay for their election ads.

Now privacy is going to Hell anyway, but on top of this, all parasites are getting a free ride with obscenely expanded copyright enforcement and intimidation of the public.

Re:Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721675)

You complain about the gov't abusing you and then say "small government" is dumb. A small, limited gov't doesn't have the power to abuse you in the first place.

Call us what you want (1)

james_van (2241758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39721379)

but don't forget, sometimes turbulence causes things to crash. We caused enough "turbulence" to make SOPA/PIPA go sit on a shelf for a while.

Make an example of him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39721641)

His constituents should make a vigilant effort to ensure he doesn't get another term in office.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>