I can think of legitimate reasons for enterprises to MITM traffic. For example, protecting users against malware as a result of drive-by downloads or spear phishing campaigns. Data loss prevention is another good reason -- I would want an enterprise that I'm trusting with my credit card data to alert on payment instruments leaving their network to gmail accounts, for instance.
Monitoring at this scale would require tremendous resources that the Federal government has plenty of but individuals are unable (or unwilling) to invest. The article makes the argument for accumulation of information as a means to obtain power; in the case of individuals collectively accumulating information on the government, who holds the power? If the derived power is fragmented then no one would be motivated to take action.
They don't reduce "enemy collateral damage", though. In fact, the collateral fatalities from drone attacks are one of the highest at 98%, according to some estimates [1]. Compare this to estimated civillian casualty rate of 60% in WWII [2] and around 50% in Vietnam [3] (distorted figures because anyone in a "free-fire" zone is considered the enemy).
The intelligence for drone strikes are based on patterns, such as a party of men carrying guns or a group of unknown people plotting something. And so these strikes routinely -- and sometimes deliberately -- target wedding parties [4], funerals, and rescue workers [5], and children [6].
Add to this the psychological trauma of constantly living under the threat of drones [7], it is no wonder citizens of countries where these programs are carried out hold somewhat of a grudge against the US [8]. You can call it signature strike, or whatever you want, the fact is that bombs do not know the difference between combatants and women/children/civilians. They kill indiscriminately. So forgive me if I don't see the "advantage" of using drones over boots on the ground or see how they are "better".
In fact, the collateral fatalities from drone attacks are one of the highest at 98%, according to some estimates [1].
I think you're confused. The relevant paragraph in your link says the collateral damage -- both civilians and unknowns -- is 2% at the moment.
The civilian casualty rate has been dropping sharply
since 2008. The number of civilians, plus "unknowns,"
those individuals whose precise status could not be
determined from media reports, reported killed by drones
in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of
fatalities. So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under
President Bush it was 33%.
Conversely, the percentage of militants killed has been
rising over the life of the drone program. The number of
militants reported killed by drone strikes is 89% of the
fatalities under Obama compared to 67% under Bush.
I think that's fantastic news. A collateral damage rate of 2%, including unknowns "whose status could not be determined from media reports" is downright unprecedented in warfare.
The statistics, taken together, say they're using drones more in regular combat than they used to, and getting better at confirming that the kills are accurate. That's great news, isn't it?
There is a later paragraph that claims only 2% of drone strikes kill leaders. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?
Since it began in 2004, the drone campaign has killed 49
militant leaders whose deaths have been confirmed by at
least two credible news sources. While this represents a
significant blow to the militant chain of command, these
49 deaths account for only 2% of all drone-related
fatalities.
I don't see how that's relevant, though. Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous?
All right, but isn't categorizing anyone who isn't "a militant leader confirmed dead by two news sources" as a civilian . . . a little over the top?
And anyway, disagreeing with the categorization of combatants is a separate question. They claim, at least, that they hit who they intended to hit 98% of the time. I still say that's pretty good!
This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant. I suppose you can try to play around with the words of what is and is not a militant, if that helps you sleep at night, but it shouldn't.
What it boils down to is this, we shouldn't even be over there. We're making it a lot easier for terrorist organizations to recruit new members, because we are doing all the pitching for them.
In this country where kids now get to be kids until they're 25, all first world problems, and you still have a bunch of angst filled teenagers who daydream about blowing up their schools with pipe bombs.. and they have absolutely no reason to feel like this other than hormones making them bat excrement crazy.
So imagine what goes through the hormone crazed teenagers mind in one of these countries who grew up without their parents because they we're killed by our military, and one day some guy offers them a chance to get back at the people who took everything from them. It's not a tough sale.. I mean look at how easy our military recruits people just barely out of high school, all they have to offer them is college money and they're ready to kill whoever their officer points to.
This just makes it all the more ridiculous and infuriating when someone is so nonchalant about innocent people getting killed, because it isn't even accomplishing the intended goal. What it does accomplish, is further justification for our military to start more wars to protect us from new generations of terrorists.
This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant.
If true, that's horrific, and I'll be the first to criticize it. But I'm going to need to see some methodology on that before I believe you.
In particular, given that the above link established that 2% of drone kills were on media-confirmed terrorist leaders, that means your article is claiming all the other kills, all 3000+, have been on innocent civilians.
I find that a rather unlikely level of incompetence.
> I find that a rather unlikely level of incompetence.
I believe government is the only place where that level of incompetence is common.
The problem with the 2% figure is that 2% of even 3,000 would only be 60 innocent people killed, but 160+ children have been killed.. so if someone is saying its only 2%, how do 5% of these deaths turn out to be children?
If our government would share their data with the organizations that did these investigations, maybe it would show they were wrong, but I doubt it.
We know the precise number of military causalities, we even know the precise number of police officers injured or killed, our government is meticulous about reporting on those, but try and find out how many U.S citizens are killed annually by police and you won't get anywhere.
If they won't accurately report how many of us are killed by police, what are the chances that they are keeping track of foreign civilian casualties any more accurately?
accountswu, I can't reply to you, as both comments are [dead]. I don't know if they've been downvoted to death or what, but that's why my reply is up here.
Would you support drone attacks to kill mass murderers that happen to reside in your neighborhood?
I think the level of collateral damage is too high for normal law enforcement. Police don't normally need to leave craters. ;)
If we were talking about warfare, though -- foreign spies, terrorists? Especially if my city/state were protecting them? Hell yes, bring it on.
You're a wolf in a Dove's clothing.
Ha! I'd never thought about the political connotations of the name until this moment--it means other things to me. It's not my intent to mislead; I'm nowhere close to dove territory, politically speaking.
Maybe you can tell. ;)
Can Obama kill you and then claim you are a militant leader?
That would be pretty difficult. It's not as though he operates with no oversight. Nor is it as though he doesn't have political opponents who would be all over that sort of scandal.
I believe government is the only place where that level of incompetence is common.
Ha! No. No, even clerks at the DMV get things right a whole lot more often than that. ;) And coming from drone operators and intelligence officers? That's completely unbelievable to me. Those guys are professionals.
Quite the opposite, I've seen plenty of footage of the systems in operation, and I find a collateral damage rate of 2% or lower completely believable. With a drone, you can be watching your target for tens of minutes, making sure he's really the guy you want.
The problem with the 2% figure is that 2% of even 3,000 would only be 60 innocent people killed, but 160+ children have been killed..
Well, it's 2% "so far in 2012". I think they said it was 11% over the life of the program, and that it's gotten much better over time. So even if the numbers are accurate, that still works out.
The CIA says it isn't that high, though, and I'm inclined to trust them on that. They do have cameras on the target when they take the shot and all. And I don't know about you, but it's a bit too paranoid for me to believe they're making figures up out of whole cloth.
Why not share the data with news organizations? The camera footage almost certainly contains classified information about system capabilities and tactics. From their perspective, keeping systems effective is 100000% more important than looking good in the media. Especially since you look bad in the media anyway, even if you give them all the data (just ask scientists).
try and find out how many U.S citizens are killed annually by police and you won't get anywhere.
>They don't reduce "enemy collateral damage", though. In fact...
Percentage may or may not be the best way to assess effectiveness (reduction in casualties). Another measure could be collateral, or even total casualties, per highly valued target. After all a strategy in war is to take out the leadership making engagement with grunts and or civilians less necessary.
> Even in India, the nature of non violence movement was not completely non violent
It's difficult, if not impossible, for non-violent movements to succeed without the existence of credible threat of violence. Sad, but generally true. This was true of Ghandi and Bhagat Singh's India, as it was for ANC (or MK) and Mandela's South Africa.
The Israelis have little motivation to come to the negotiating table towards a diplomatic solution because the threat of violence against them is not credible enough to act as a deterrent. It is rational for Israel to not show restraint and act in the most aggressive manner possible.
I think it was Thomas Friedman who said this, if the Palestinians resort to terror attacks, Israel will just use that to attack them more. They remain silent, and they will just go on building settlements. Either way they will lose.
Gandhi's non violence movement was successful because he won the PR war by a very heavy margin. Greatest intellectuals of his time were writing essays on him, images of a thin old man, wearing just a homespun cloth marching on streets, giving speeches to keep restraint and never to submit co operate to bend to the British. Combined with his cause for the poor, and fighting against traditional caste based problems in India made him a hero among rural masses. All in all it made the British look very bad to be even putting up a fight against him.
If there is a every a break out of videos or pictures of Palestinians going on mass hunger fasts. Or that of they standing in the line of fire embracing bullets in the face of a F-16 firing on them and they not retaliating back. Things like that can do far more damage than rocket attacks can.
In fact there was some Palestinian guy and a couple of women who fasted in the Israeli jails and got their way some months back. Its surprising who much 'not fighting' can be powerful than 'fighting' provided you get the Press coverage.
Palestine's Gandhi movement can be very dangerous for the Israelis.
The problem is that the offered solution to the conflict (2-state solution) is horribly wrong, and will never work out in the long-term. The only way to solve this conflict is with the 3-state solution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-state_solution).
So first, they need to have a proper solution in mind, so that everyone agrees on a trajectory for negotiations, and then do whatever they can to end the conflict. The thing is, whenever talks of a 3-state solution start, the other Arab nations show us that they don't really care about the Palestinians because they tend to reject it.
Many cases like that existed during the Indian Independence movement too. One that is very famous is the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre) In which a general ordered his army to fire at a crowd of innocent women, children and men totally unarmed and assembled to celebrate a festival. Its a very famous lesson taught in history classes in schools here in India. Read the wiki article.
Despite such a heinous act of cowardice.
Dyer was removed from duty and forced to retire. He became a celebrated hero in Britain among people with connections to the British Raj.
It worked in his native country, but by and large it did do a lot of damage and paved a way for national awakening to fight for independence in India.
Actually the best way to help the Palestinians currently is give them cameras, ways to publish their stories. And then teach these principles of non violence. World will listen sooner or later and its far better than firing rockets and killing innocent people at the other end. And it fulfills their purpose very well.
best way to help the Palestinians currently is give them cameras, ways to publish their stories
I've seen lots of videos like that on youtube and read lots of stories like that over the years. It doesn't seem to be helping.
far better than firing rockets and killing innocent people at the other end.
There are 2.5 million people living in Gaza. Do you expect every single one of them to agree with you? And if you don't have perfect consensus from all 2.5 million, can your plan still work? Because it seems to me that if even a small number reject your plan and fire a few $100 rockets, the non-violent efforts of the rest will be ignored and they'll be tarred with rocketers. Right?
There are definetly lessons to be learned from India's struggle but I think a big difference is that Brittain didn't have the religious motivation for occupation that Israel has. It makes it much more difficult for Israel to back off.
How do you charge if onsite presence is required for an engagement? This could either be due to a client requirement or you need to do interviews with developers for an architecture/code review. Should you add a separate line item for travel + lodging expenses or just bundle it together with the consulting rate? I feel like you're at a disadvantage if the client can see that you're more expensive compared to local talent because of the added travel expense, especially if you're coming into a place with plenty of competition, such as the valley.
"I'll follow your standard procedures for expensing business travel." (Hat tip for Thomas -- this line has totally resolved every discussion I've ever had about this issue.) nYour more desirable clients do this all the time. At many places it is budgeted out of an entirely different pot of money than your salary.
That's interesting. I've been playing with not charging expenses and adding an appropriately sized chunk on my overall price. Generally this seems to go down well with some variation of a "neither of us want to waste time arguing over what my max meal bill should be" line.
I like avoiding two separate sets of price negotiations.
Of course, that depends on the expense. Generally I'd say if you need to overnight then it is an expense to charge for - if you're driving for an hour then definitely don't :) (in the UK we can get tax relief for mileage in relation to our business, so I generally don't charge for travel if I have to drive less than 3 hours - otherwise I end up being "paid" twice :D). Taking the piss with expenses (one place I worked hired an consultant analyst who literally charged for everything - including the 30p it cost him to use the toilet at the train station) is as bad as not charging them.
If they want you because you bring value they will happily pay this cost. On the other hand if they are put off by this added fee then they are probably not the sort of client you want - especially as those costs are probably a small portion of what they are paying you for a days work!
On the other hand; if you soak up expenses to get that contract you are a) in the mindset of letting them set the rate (even if they never knew about it) and b) eating into your profits. Neither is a good situation to be in (next time they might want you all week, and that can get expensive fast).
However; I don't know about your situation, but if you don't live in the valley why are you trying to compete in the market there? I live in the countryside in the UK and used to believe my main market would always be London (~3 1/2 hours away by car, less by train). I've learned this is nonsense, and even the nearest towns to me have LOTS of developer work available.
You might also think that being out of the hub means less money. I've also found this to be untrue in practice, because no one works out here (they are all focusing on the big cities). Desperation for quality talent means that often, more money is on the table.
For projects where I travel to a customer, I've switched to an all-inclusive day rate. However...
I quoted a project which I (thankfully) didn't get, based on the person I was talking to being in SC (few hours drive or short flight). Turned out the project would be onsite in North Dakota, which was a $1200 flight.
That was a lesson learned :)
Other than that, I still am primarily hourly, because I have multiple ongoing projects that don't lend themselves to 'day rate' work. Newer stuff I take on next year will likely be 'day rate' based, with travel and hotel expenses outside a short driving radius line-itemed.
I would also give credit to Indian patent laws that allow people like him to shake things up.
"In 1972, India made only the process for making drugs patentable, not the drugs themselves."
Compare this to the US where I believe you can patent the active ingredients of a drug, allowing pharmaceuticals to charge more for lifesaving medicine for a longer period of time.
Wow, that's a really smart policy on several levels. Besides not stifling competition regarding individual drugs, it encourages companies to develop new methods of synthesis, which has potential side benefits like making the market less fragile against shortages of raw ingredients.
Well, that's the same value the big pharma's put on human life when it can't afford their high priced drugs, so I don't see anything not smart about it.
Not 0, but vastly less than the cost of discovering and getting approval for a new drug. The vast majority of medical compounds are not particularly difficult to synthesize, meaning that the value of the process patent is relatively small. Once you release the drug, you will only have a very brief period before a competitor is able to come to market. In particular, they will not need to undergo clinical trials, which are very long (multiple years) and expensive (often hundreds of millions of dollars).
>Not 0, but vastly less than the cost of discovering and getting approval for a new drug.
I'm going to need to see some hard data on both sides before I'll simply accept that claim.
There are also alternative solutions we could use besides granting the first company a total monopoly. For example, generics could be taxed early on in order to subsidize the approval process for new drugs.
Really? You'd tax the makers of generic drugs and then give that money to the big drug companies to subsidize their R&D?
Waston pharmaceuticals, one of the largest generic drugs makers in the US has total sales of $4.6B. Pfizer, one of the biggest drug companies in the world, has an R&D budget of $8.5B.
Even if you doubled the price of all of Waston's drugs through a tax and gave that to Pfizer, you wouldn't even cover half of their R&D expense.
Without a patent system, there would be zero incentive to create new drug. A drug company could spend $100M to get a new drug to market and with the typical 8 years of patent life, charge the exact price (let's say $100/month, with $90 being profit) to recoup their expenses (no long-term profit). It would be a SIMPLISTIC exercise for another company to come in and starting selling the drug for $20/month and make $10 in profit, having the benefit of never coming up with the $100M to get the drug approved.
I agree that there are alternatives to the current patent system, but like democracy, "it may not be perfect, but it's the best system so far".
>Waston pharmaceuticals, one of the largest generic drugs makers in the US has total sales of $4.6B. Pfizer, one of the biggest drug companies in the world, has an R&D budget of $8.5B.
A couple of points:
First off, comparing individual companies to individual companies is pointless. I'm saying that the whole shape of the pharmaceutical industry is wrong, and if sweeping changes were made, it should be possible to increase both the number and size of generic manufacturers out there. Right now there are huge barriers to entry imposed by regulations intended to keep R&D profitable, and those barriers continue to act on existing companies with the expiration of each patent.
Secondly, you could quintuple the price of all of Watson's drugs through a tax and the drugs would cost less than Pfizer's.
>I agree that there are alternatives to the current patent system, but like democracy, "it may not be perfect, but it's the best system so far".
I think that statement is impossible to even speculate about. Yeah, we have much more rapid drug development than we used to, but that could just as well be explained by our civilization's overall technological advancement as by our obviously broken and destructive drug patent, approval, and regulatory systems.
"But in 2005, India brought its law in line with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules recognising 20-year patents, pushing up the prices of newly launched drugs."
> "DRM Halts The Spread Of Ideas": If someone can't afford the book, in many countries they can go to a library. They don't need ownership to read the ideas.
In most third world countries there aren't a lot of libraries. Even if you are lucky enough to have access to one, the collection of books is most likely outdated.
When I was living in Pakistan it was prohibitively expensive to have books shipped to me (and I was a salaried professional so can be considered relatively well-off) and ebooks offered a reasonably priced alternative at around Rs. 700 ($9.99) + no shipping costs. Most people, though, would look for a pirated copy if they could find one because Rs. 700 is still a significant expense for someone who makes Rs. 25,000 a month.
EDIT: site seems to be back again