Cyber-Security Czar To Be Named 139
The Washington Post and everybody else is reporting that on Tuesday President Obama will name Howard A. Schmidt as cyber-security czar. Schmidt was an advisor to President Bush on cyber-security matters. The Post rehearses the reasons why the Obama administration has had difficulty in finding someone for the post, and notes that the turf battles did not start in this administration: "Schmidt was chosen after a long process in which dozens of people were sounded out. Many declined the post, largely out of concern that the job conferred much responsibility with little true authority, some of them said. Meanwhile, the cybersecurity chief at the National Security Council, Christopher Painter, has served as the de facto coordinator, trying to push ahead the 60-day cyberspace policy review plan unveiled by Obama in May. That plan's formulation was led by Melissa Hathaway, who resigned in frustration in August after delays in naming a cyber-coordinator. She had been a contender for the position... Schmidt served as special adviser for cyberspace security from 2001 to 2003 and shepherded the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, a plan that then was largely ignored. He left that job also frustrated, colleagues said."
Good luck with that, Howard (Score:3, Insightful)
Get it in writing. There words and yours. Let there be as public a record as possible as to what recommendations were ignored.
Here comes XKCD (Score:4, Insightful)
What's next (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:if you don't have health insurance (Score:2, Insightful)
And THIS is what is wrong with American thinking and why "Universal Health Care" will never work. EVERYONE is thinking about 'me me me' and the bottom line on THEIR wallet.
Every single other first world nation in the world has figured out health care for everyone, and as far as I can tell they haven't devolved into chaos. It's not a matter of money. If we cut Military spending in half and quit tried being the world's big brother we could easily fund full health care for everyone in the US including some 'elective' surgeries like Lasik. The fundamental reason why universal health care won't work in America is thinking like this.
I got to take all 8 days of vacation to India this year for a wedding where I met quite a few travelers from Europe. Not a single one has this mentality. Not a single one worried about how those 'bums' were imposing on 'their' freedom.
Some other nice amenities that those 'socialist' countries get that we don't: We are the only country that has no mandatory parental leave [wikipedia.org]. This graph [wikipedia.org] is in weeks. Way down at that tail end is the United States with 0 days. We also have the proud distinction of being the only country with 0 minimum days of vacation. [wikipedia.org].
If I had fewer ties to America, I would move to one of those 'socialist' countries in a heart beat. I would gladly give 70% income tax to know that I (or my children) are covered cradle to grave (including while on vacation out of the country). School (including college), healthcare, maternity leave, unemployment, etc etc.
Hopefully when you reach the age you need to move into a home, your family makes the right decision and just has you euthanized instead, wouldn't want you imposing on their freedoms.
Re:hey, moron (Score:1, Insightful)
In your earlier post, you stated "there is no freedom from responsibility". I agree with you on that, but why should everyone be punished for the crimes of a few? In my state it is now illegal to buy pseudoephedrine over the counter because a few idiots chose to use it to make Meth.
I wish everyone would take more responsibility for themselves, but I think forcing people to buy something they can't afford or don't need is a bad precedent, not to mention unconstitutional.
But this is supposed to be a discussion about cyber-security.
everyone suffers for the crimes of a few, always (Score:4, Insightful)
if there were no laws against pseudoephedrine, you'd have more meth makers, and all of the society wide suffering that goes with that. the fact you can't buy pseudoephedrine is a different kind of suffering, but a smaller scale of suffering than not having the law around
life is not about black and white choices, its about shades of grey.you examine the issue in a vacuum, without the context of the negatives of your other choices, and this makes you have these hysterical opinions
and you NEED health insurance. even 21 yo marathoners have heart attacks and broken legs. if you believe you don't need health insurance, you have some sort of god complex, and then you definitely need mental health coverage
as for not affording it, you can't afford NOT to have it
as for making you pay for it: why force people to pay taxes? why not make it voluntary? because people are fucking irresponsible, and they won't pay for taxes, health insurance, or a whole bunch of other things they need but are usually too stupid to understand why they need it. so you NEED to force them because if given a choice, people won't do the right thing. which is pay your fucking taxes and pay your fucking health insurance. you HAVE to, because it is your RESPONSIBILITY as a member of SOCIETY from which you derive BENEFITS
Re:everyone suffers for the crimes of a few, alway (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope you know realize why your argument sounds fucking ridiculous. I would have no objection to government health care if my participation were voluntary. Otherwise, you're essentially removing choice and freedom from the equation. If you want me to foot the bill for someone else's medical care, you can sure as hell bet I'm going to want to have a say in how their life is run. They'd better damn well eat right, quit smoking and drinking, not engage in any risky behavior, and must exercise properly. If they're hellbent on taking away my freedom, they can kiss theirs goodbye as well.
You can go ahead and bring out the list of all of the wonderful things that I get from taxes or society, but save yourself the trouble. If they cost something, I'd prefer to pay based on what I consume, not some blanket tax from the federal government that pays for all kinds of crap I don't want ranging from social security to wars in the Middle East.
You can't have freedom without responsibility.
Re:What's next (Score:2, Insightful)
tl,dr (Score:3, Insightful)
it is your responsibility to take care of your health. it is not my responsibility to take care of your health. correct?
any person alive today might be in the hospital by the end of the day. correct? are you immortal? do you deny this simple truth?
therefore, it is your responsibility to have insurance to make sure that you are paying for your health maintenance, which might include sudden unforeseen unaffordable costs. i shouldn't have to pay for it, correct?
therefore, if you do not have health insurance, you are not exercising a right of yours, you are abrogating a responsibility of yours. really. its quite fucking simple
that you think anything else is logically incoherent. follow the bouncing ball. it is airtight, simple logic. that you deny it is probably not a sign stupidity on your part, but judging by the quantity of effort you put into debating me, some sort of horrible propagandized state you live in. denial, denial, denial
look at every other industrialized democracy on this planet. having universal health care is a fucking brain dead obvious duty of a free society. SO MY FREEDOMS ARE NOT IMPOSED UPON BY YOUR UNFORESEEN COSTS. duh
you are lying in the street, dying (Score:3, Insightful)
i have an ethical duty to make sure you get care
i do not say "do you have health insurance or $200K in an emergency health fund?" and if you say no, i walk away and let you die
if you understand why it is impossible for anyone with even a rudimentary human conscience to do that, then you understand the "twisted context" in play here as you call it
Only in the twisted context where we have made "society"(i.e. government) responsible for the well being of the individual
incredible. amazing. you are simply retarded beyond belief or have less sense of morality than a kindergartener if you actually believe those words
the "twisted context" you refer to asshole is called simple morality according to any definition of morality by any culture that has ever existed: you render aid to the sick and fallen
let me repeat: you render aid to the sick and fallen
are you willing to argue that? are you willing to call this simple obvious unavoidable morality a "twisted context"?
if yes, you are an amoral asshole who has no place in the debate
if no, you agree with me
decide, motherfucker
do you possibly conceive (Score:3, Insightful)
that there are other issues in play in a free society, other than free association, and that some of those issues override free association IN CERTAIN LIMITED CONTEXTS. and all of this is perfectly agreeable with the us constitution. in fact, that the constitution itself has limits on free association, for example. furthermore, that these limits actually serve to maximize your freedom in a well-functioning of a free society
i'm not getting drawn into this discussion, because its intellectual charity. its beneath me. you seem to be only able to hold one concept in your head at a time, leading you to erroneous ridiculous conclusions derived in a vacuum of consideration of any other valid constitutional concepts, concepts equally important for the functioning of a free society. its a balancing act kid. not the taking of one isolated concept and amping it to the max
it is not worth my effort to continue talking to you on this issue, as it is not a debate, its an educational endeavour, and i am not your father or your teacher. if this sounds condescending, it would be even more condescending to plaster a smile on my face, hold your hand, and calmly explain to you some of the obvious constitutional issues you fail to see as important, when they are obviously important, strictly from a constitutional perspective, and if you honestly had a sound understanding of the constitution, you would already have considered these issues yourself. the fact you haven't merely demonstrates what a joke your so-called understanding of the constution is, if you think something like universal health care is unconstitutional
you need a lot of work on your own to catch up with the understanding that there are other issues at play here, none of them arranged to compromise your principles, but in fact arranged to deepen your understanding of your principles and what the founding fathers were grappling with when they wrote our important documents. one hopes you have the intellectual acumen to achieve this greater state of wisdom
as a starting place, make believe, suspend your disbelief for the moment, and consider that the constitution actually allows for limited limits on free association, and that universal health care perfectly falls within those limits. see if you can justify that to yourself, from within the framework of the constitution. if you can do that, you have hope, and you're not doomed to permanent fringe crackpot status. use this epiphany as a starting point for the expansion and growth of your understanding of the constitution and your future intellectual growth. good luck kid