I agree that much of the information would be easily obtained by other means. However, I don't think that means we should hand on a silver platter to whoever wants it. Especially as I still don't see how leaking this benefits the public in any way.

I haven't been on the 'Wikileaks is a terrorist organization' bandwagon, understanding that it's important that crimes not be covered up. However, when I read earlier today about the leak of the list of vital US facilities, I had to wonder just what they're thinking. I honestly can't figure out how the release of that benefits the public in any way. Yet it provides information that anyone seeking to harm the US would find quite valuable.

I don't think information should be made public for the sake of making it public. There are some things that are better off kept secret.

I don't mind the contracts so much. You don't have to renew them when they're up (granted you'll be paying a monthly fee that's priced as if you had your phone subsidized.) And there are carriers out there that don't require any contracts at all, so you have options. What they really need to do is expand Wireless Local Number Portability. As it is, those of us who have moved out of our original Area Code are stuck with our carrier unless we want to go through the nightmare of changing our phone number.

Honestly, with more and more people ditching landlines and long distance calls becoming a thing of the past, I think we should get rid of region based area codes completely. Just give numbers to whoever wants them regardless of where they live.

I read the article and agree with much of what he says. Nevertheless, there's one point in particular on which I disagree. He admits that there are specific pieces of information we can argue shouldn't be released. However, he then tries to claim that because it's impossible to have a perfect selection of what to release, our choice is between Wikileaks or nothing.

Just because mistakes will be made, doesn't mean they shouldn't even try to come up with a system that does a better job of filtering leaks than Wikileaks does.

They've come right out and admitted there's no proof of anyone being killed as a result of the leaks. However, if I was one of the named informers on previous leaks, I don't think I'd be terribly forgiving just because I hadn't been killed yet. You can have your life ruined by living in fear without having been killed.

That said, they've already corrected the problem and have been taking steps that completely satisfy me to ensure no innocents have their lives put at risk as a result of the leaks. It was a mistake they made, and I'm not pleased they made it, but it's no longer a factor in releases as far as I'm concerned.

Here I disagree with you. MyCyrstal should be fired in such a situation, but making sure the higher ups in the government/military saw the video, along with the implied threat that the video could find its way to the public at any time should prove sufficient to get that accomplished.

I've never believed in a public right to know that outweighed even the right to life. If I'm left in the dark about such an action, but as a result spared from an attack made by a young man who would have been enticed into radical Islam by such a video, I'd happily consider it a good trade.

It is possible for the release of information to do more harm than good, and I think my example would likely be one such case.

I have mixed feelings about Wikileaks. On the one hand, I think abuses, crimes, and the like should be exposed in general. I do feel Wikileaks made a large blunder by releasing names that could put peoples' lives in danger in some of their releases, but it appears they're no longer making that mistake at least.

On the other hand, I think one must always consider the potential harm every leak could cause. For example, if you had a video of General McChrystal burning a Koran and laughing about it, you probably shouldn't make it public. Send a copy to some higher ups in the US government and make sure they know they should get a leash on him before he does cause an incident, sure, but releasing it will just stir up hatred and could lead to many deaths.

This is why I'm much more skeptical of the benefit of the more recent diplomatic leaks than I am of the Iraq/Aghanistan ones. Much of the information that was released revealed nothing criminal or even unethical but could still lead to international incidents. I believe secrecy does have it's use in diplomacy much as it does for individuals. Being able to frankly discuss opinions of foreign dignitaries without fear of word getting back to them could very well aid in the establishment of good diplomatic relationships with other countries.

Besides, while some people may hope for complete transparency in government, I don't think Wikileaks will lead to that in the long run. I suspect it will just mean billions upon billions being spent beefing up security and coming up with procedures making it easier to discover who it was who was behind a leak. If they stuck to releasing only actual crimes and abuses, it would be harder to justify such expenditures without looking like they have something to hide.

The article makes sense to me. Nothing like sitting down for a meal and being presented with a plate full of vegetables to send you into a rage. A nice roast turkey or the like, however, will have you thinking of little next to how much you're going to enjoy your meal.

The TSA has made plenty of ridiculous decisions and taken things much too far in some areas. However the failure to stop an in progress terrorist plot in no way proves their efforts have been without benefit.

It's like a person who hires armed security guards to walk around with him. You can argue it's a waste of his money, but you can't say with confidence that they're obviously not doing anything seeing as they've never stopped him from being mugged. There's the potential that simply having the guards served as a deterrent.

We do, but doing it via phone or online can be cheated far more easily than a standardized test. And if you bring them in for the test, you either have to pay for it, or miss out on potentially good employees who can't/won't pay their own way out. Being able to just look up a person's scores saves time and money.

That said, I don't remember the details of the SAT security, but I do recall the AP exams, with proctors constantly walking down the rows of desks watching everyone. The security of our own exam is much more lax. If you can cheat an AP without getting caught, you'd have no problem cheating our version.

We know we could be more secure, but constantly looking over a person's shoulder as if expecting them to cheat isn't the best way to make a good impression on the applicant. It doesn't matter if you decide you like him if he doesn't accept the job.

I'll have to disagree on both points. First, I can't recall ever doing an interview where my skills weren't tested in some form as part of the process. Now, at the company I work for, we've had people interview where it was clear they knew next to nothing about software development, despite what they wrote on their resume.

If they'd had to take a test, they would have done horribly, and we wouldn't have wasted time and money bringing them in for an interview. We also wouldn't need to expend any effort on that portion of the interview ourselves if we could see they'd scored highly on a test.

As to the purpose of college, yeah, I'm pretty sure it's about training you for a career. The college basically wants as many of their students as possible to get good, high paying jobs so it'll look good for their statistics.

I also seem to remember that nearly every class I took was trying to teach me skills I'd need when I started working. My college even required a year's worth of internships as part of my degree program, so you'd have actual experience working in your field.

Some colleges may take different approaches, but I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say they should. How would a college even go about preparing one for life? Cut them off from financial aid/their parents' money and force them to support themselves if they want food and shelter?

I know it would work better in some fields than others, but what I'd like to see is national standardized testing. Ideally they would have a number of different tests for each degree program, so school curriculum could still vary. So you could take a database exam, an AI exam, an operating systems exam, and perhaps language specific exams for the more popular ones. Then potential employers could look at which tests the applicants took and how well they scored on them. This would allow them to get a far better idea of how well each applicant's skills fit for the position. Which college you went to would become all be irrelevant.

But it is available to all. Sure you have to at least visit the US if you want to use it, but they won't stop you from using it just because you aren't a US citizen. But more seriously, I read British news sites such as The BBC and The Guardian. Just because people from other countries read it, doesn't mean it isn't allowed to be country specific. That said, as much as I usually dislike the complaining on this topic, in this specific case I feel some sympathy to your cause, as the summary really could cause confusion.

Because there are far more issues than the one at stake, and if you look back at history as recent as Bill Clinton, you'll see that even Democrats aren't saints in this regard.

My largest concern is making sure power doesn't become too centralized. I'm a strong believer of the laboratory of democracy model where you try something out at the state level and see what unintended consequences come along before you roll it out to the national level. Plus, if you really don't like what your state is doing, you can simply move to another one.

So of course I am very determined not to let the UN get too much power, and while the Republicans aren't always very good at limiting the power of the federal government, I trust them more than the Democrats not to try to sign any power over to the UN.

More recently, it's been largely due to my strong opposition of the Energy Bill. I find it hard to believe it's so similar to the Spanish plan after seeing what their plan did to them. I can support some funds going to help build solar/wind farms, but I'll pass on regulation and carbon taxing.

I think we could have a greater impact on the climate at a lower cost by pushing for simple changes such as painting the roofs of buildings white, using single ply toilet paper, and encouraging people to have few pets and children.

Not to mention that trying to reduce the birth rate would address overpopulation, an issue I consider to be a far greater threat to civilization than climate change.

I'll agree to this. I'm fiscally very conservative, and typically vote Republican. Nevertheless, I wish the US would stop trying to police the world. I also consider the defense budget to be a juicy target to start the spending cuts I'd like to see.

Yes, thanks for that. It's already been pointed out I was wrong on this point, and further research on my own only confirms this. I appreciate your insight, however.