Slashdot Mirror

how do you think Canada would feel about the US blockading them in a modern day version of apartheid, trying to take them back to the stone age?

i get so pissed when people just think about it from only one side. there are two sides to this story, and right now, people on both sides are suffering (and suffering a lot more on the Palestinian side). See these numbers from the economist

The Thief In Chief blew over an extra *trillion* *every* *year* and people weren't' smart enough to fire him.

Compared to that a billion is change.

Well, considering the other guy wanted to blow 1.7 trillion every year, the current guy would be the only fiscally sound option. He wanted to increase military spending and decrease taxes and never got around to saying how he would end up even beginning to balance the budget. In the end, The Economist had this to say about a Presidential candidate whose strength was supposed to be on the economy: "For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says." The don't really like Obama, but saw nothing more to like in Romney.

This looks like a good place to post this. I took the data from this economist article and broke it down by red vs. blue state according to this map. This is what I found:

[snip]

What I found is that you have no clue how to do data analysis and have concocted some bogus correlations to push a liberal agenda. In 1984 and 1972 all states were red but one . That one shot just sank your bogus analysis and agenda, but I'll add some detail. I'll focus on a prime example we can all relate to of why these federal spending "deficits" into states exist and that they have nothing to do with which presidential candidate carried the state in the last election, i.e. whether the state is "blue" or "red". Since 1968 New Mexico has voted Republican 7 times and Democrat 5 times. It is blue after the 2012 election and was blue in 2008, Obama winning the state easily both times. In 2004 it was red when G.W. Bush won the state by a gnat's hair. New Mexico has the highest federal spending to taxes paid ratio of any state, $2.03 for each $1 in taxes as of 2005, and has been roughly equally blue and red over the last 50 years. Why such a deficit?

* population of only 2 million people
* Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2.2 $bn/year, $100+ million each year on compute hardware
* Sandia National Laboratory, 2.1 $bn/year, $100+ million each year on compute hardware
* 3 US Air Force bases: Holloman AFB, Kirtland AFB, Cannon AFB, many $bn/year, no time to research exact $$
* White Sands missile testing range, unkown $
* Protection and management of 6 National Forests in the state, unkown $
* many other fed govt facilities

The reasons for these federal spending "deficits" and "surpluses" have nothing to do with red and blue. New Mexico has been blue 5/6 recent elections, and red in 6/6 from '68 to '92. New Mexico's current 2:1 ratio and the state's growth are directly linked to a single project in the 1940s called "Manhattan". The first nuclear bomb test of the Trinity device destroyed nothing in New Mexico but the tower upon which it was perched and some wooden shacks. But it was nuclear fertilizer for the state, spurred population and economic growth for decades, with nearly all of the money coming into the state economy for 50 years from Uncle Sam for nuclear weapons research.

To understand these federal spending "deficits" and "surpluses" into the states you must look at each state individually. It usually boils down to how many federal facilities and employees are in a state, and/or defense/govt contractors, vs population. California has a great number of military bases, defense contractors, govt labs, etc, but the state's population is over 1/10 of the entire US, 37 million people, greater than the population of Canada and 160 other countries. Thus private sector output and federal taxes are greater than the dollars Uncle Sam is injecting into the state's economy.

On this evidence, it also seems to be happening much faster in China. It took about 50 years for well-paying, low-skilled jobs to be all but extinct in the US, leading to the current levels of poverty and social inequality there. Interesting article on this in this week's Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21565956-americas-poor-were-little-mentioned-barack-obamas-re-election-campaign-they-deserve

This looks like a good place to post this. I took the data from this economist article and broke it down by red vs. blue state according to this map. This is what I found:

* There were 20 surplus states and 30 deficit states.
* Of the 24 states that voted for Romney, 4 of them had a surplus.
* Of the 26 states that voted for Obama, 16 of them had a surplus.
* Together, the blue states had a net surplus of 2.57 trillion, the red states had a net deficit of 1.50 trillion.
* The average blue state had a surplus of 98.8 billion; the average red state had a deficit of 63.0 billion.
* Four blue states (New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Minnesota) each had a surplus greater than all the red states with a surplus combined.

Hmmm... Well, you might have a point with Louisiana by itself, but Texas pays more to the Federal government than it receives, and we're talking about much greater numbers than most states, so I'm not sure I understand your point.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

Um, no. Not in the least bit wrong. You may have been sold the idea that energy companies are "suffering under an enormous burden of environmental regulations" but it's wildly disproportionate to the actual costs. Getting your oil, or power 20% cheaper might be nice, but creating your own borders, setting up your own military, printing your own money... trading with people with whom you don't share an ocean... these are expensive undertakings.

The small impacts of an environmental free-for-all, and cheap gas are trivial compared to the scope of this undertaking. Iran has strong religious values, and gas at 50 cents a gallon and the most polluted capital city anywhere.

http://www.economist.com/node/17804554

Be very careful what you wish for.

I can think of two examples illustrating problems with such laws.
1. Urinating in public can, in 13 states, qualify as a sex offense, through charges such as "indecent exposure", etc. A few links mentioning this issue can be viewed here:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/02/sex-offender-registry-megans-law-forbes-woman-time-children.html
http://www.economist.com/node/14164614
https://downtownathens.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/public-urination-considered-sex-offense-in-georgia-not-enforced-by-police/
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-25-sex-offender-laws-cover_x.htm
2. Certain interactions with a prostitute can also qualify for sex offense.
Number 1 is certainly more common, and is something nearly any good beer-drinking mammal has been guilty of. Number 2, although less common, is rather questionable. Why questionable? Figure that out yourself. But if it is to be such a grievous offense in the the U.S., it would seem appropriate to prevent U.S. citizens from traveling to nations where such an atrocious offense is legal, such as Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey(?) and others. And certainly anyone doing business with such perverted nations should be registered and arrested as accomplices, because anyone with scruples would take the support of such offenses just as seriously as we take pissing on bushes here -- no dubya pun intended.

Actually, there is a disproportional amount of evidence (IMF, World Back, academia, etc.) that show that lower tax rates increases private investment.
Investments grow the pie, so the economy is larger, so that is good – everybody has gotten richer. The problem, at least in American over the past 40 years, is that most of the benefits have flowed to the top .1%.
Short term tax breaks to the lower and middle class does cause a short term stimulus effect. Downside, you have to pay it back, which slows future growth. There is a fierce debate on what the overall effect is. Here are 2 good ones.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18423.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w16311.pdf

And the type of taxes are important. The mortgage interest deduction stimulates consumption by encouraging people to build bigger houses – however most of the benefits of the mortgage interest deduction flow to people who have big loans on their houses – the rich. Cutting capital gains tends to stimulate long term investment. An example - I wish I could something better - but you get the point.

http://www.economist.com/node/21564609

The rich invest abroad. O.k. So what? Trying to draw artificial lines in the sand has had a host of negative unintended consequences. Better to reform the tax code from a residential to a territorial format. Besides, we are greying. You can only throw so much capital at a ever shrinking base. Ask the Japanese.

What we really need is a formal standard based on end-to-end auditable voting. Some really outstanding work has been done in this space in the last couple of decades, applying the principles of cryptographic security to design and implement voting schemes that are provably secure and still provably anonymous while still eminently practical. These schemes, like Punchscan, Scantegrity and Scantegrity II allow voters to prove to themselves that their ballot was not only not modified or lost, but even that it was counted correctly -- but without giving them the ability to prove that to anyone else (to avoid vote coercion/buying). The systems can be automated for efficiency without losing their fundamental character and are designed to be 100% auditable and verifiable. Well, to be precise, they can be audited and verified to any desired degree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_auditable_voting_systems

http://static.usenix.org/event/evt08/tech/full_papers/chaum/chaum.pdf

http://www.economist.com/node/12455414?story_id=12455414

Some of the more expensive labor around is woefully ignorant of large parts of science like evolution and most things outside of North America, but it doesn't seem to significantly affect their work performance or salary requirements. China is no longer that cheap, it says "Labour costs have surged by 20% a year for the past four years" - pretty different from what most Americans have experienced the last four years I bet. China is rapidly becoming a modern country, compared to most other countries in South East Asia they are already rich. For example India is poor compared to China. Right now I'd hold Greece and Spain much more likely to have a revolution than China...

Well, if your friend told you so, then by all means you're right to be modded "informative"

Oh give me a break, it's not like this is something unheard of, it IS an accepted fact that tax evasion in Greece is a huge problem for the government. And of course it's not just the taxpayers fault, nor is everyone doing it (if you have been following American politics at all "47%" of the US doesn't effectively pay any taxes - "the minority" of people doesn't mean it's a small amount of tax revenue - the wealthy in Greece have higher tax bills, and are doing most of the evading). But blaming "the government" for everything (hello, ALL governments spend money on stupid things and are corrupt to some extent) is such a cop out.

And just in case for some bizarre reason you want to pretend it's something I just "heard from one person", here are a few of the thousands of articles written on the topic:

[Some of my favorite quotes - and I'm pretty sure "only the stupid pay tax" would be considering evasion "as an obligation"...]

    * Cash provides a convenient escape route for lawyers, accountants and builders. The government has published the names of almost 70 doctors it says have cheated the taxman and some surgeons are said to be earning €900,000 a year and not declaring tax.

    * “Only the stupid pay tax,” one eye surgeon told a Greek state radio.

    * Helicopters have been hovering over plush suburbs in northern Athens in the search for swimming pools in the homes of professional people who claim they are living on only €35,000-€43,000 a year. ... The swimming pool fraternity are also responding by using nets to cover the pools to avoid detection.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8585593/Greece-loses-15bn-a-year-to-tax-evasion.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion_and_corruption_in_Greece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/09/greece-tax-evasion-professional-classes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/09/how-greek-tax-evasion-sunk-the-global-economy/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/business/global/greece-warns-of-going-broke-as-taxes-dry-up.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/09/tax-evasion-greece

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203937004578076801161935378.html

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/07/11/110711ta_talk_surowiecki

Thanks for the link to the economist article. That is truly enlightening. The economist seems to be a good source for info, particularly tech info.

The folks at The Economist can explain that in more detail: http://www.economist.com/node/21555923

Although the Greek government is close to running a primary budget surplus (ie, before interest payments) it still needs further official loans to honour obligations due this year, notably redemptions of bonds held by the European Central Bank (ECB), which were excluded from the restructuring in March that slashed the face value of €200 billion of debt held by private bondholders by over half. If the lifeline from the EFSF were cut off by its creditor nations, Greece would be unable to pay those debts. And if the ECB makes it a matter of principle not to lend (or permit the Bank of Greece to lend) to banks against collateral consisting of bonds and guarantees from a government in default, then it in turn would cut Greece off. Greek banks currently rely upon some €130 billion of central-bank funding. Without the ECB money the entire banking system would collapse. If the flow of money was reduced, and the conditions it is lent on tightened, the Greek government might start to issue IOUs to its workers to make up the shortfall. If the flow stopped, leaving the banks no euros to pay out, a new currency would be the only alternative.

The government would redenominate domestic bank assets and liabilities into drachma and insist that domestic contracts, such as pay and prices, be also set in drachma. Capital controls would be necessary because the drachma would immediately fall against the euro, possibly losing 50% or more of its value in a trice.

In the short term Greece's economic agony—its economy shrank by 13% from 2007 to 2011 and is expected to contract by almost 5% this year—would intensify. A precipitous exit without preparation would leave the country without notes and coin. The surrounding chaos would paralyse economic activity, causing consumers and businesses to stop spending. Economists at UBS, a Swiss bank, have estimated that the cost of a catastrophic exit might amount to 40-50% of GDP in the first year.

That figure assumes that Greece would have to leave the EU as well as the euro, and thus lose access to the single market. On strict legal grounds that may be the case, in part because exit requires capital controls, and those controls are illegal under EU treaties. In practice European policymakers are making it clear they would do their utmost to keep Greece in the EU. Assuming such helpfulness, Mark Cliffe, an economist at ING, a Dutch bank, reckons that the effect would be less. He puts the first-year extra loss of output at 7.5%.

http://www.economist.com/node/21564596

According to a tally by the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, based on press reports from Pakistan, the drones have killed nearly 3,200 people since 2004, with a non-militant casualty rate of some 15%. American military men claim the rate is much lower.

15% of 3,200 people is only 480 innocent people being killed by drones because they are unfortunate enough to live in the area. American military men claim to have killed fewer civilians than that so it's totally okay. Only 174 of them were children so I don't know what the fuss is about.

http://www.economist.com/node/21564596

ON OCTOBER 9th Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, a grouping of Islamist militants also known as the Pakistani Taliban, shot a 14-year-old girl, Malala Yousafzai, in the head. Claiming responsibility for the attack, the Pakistani Taliban said that it had targeted her because she promoted a Westernised and secular vision.

As it happened, the shooting came on the heels of a two-day “peace march” against American drone aircraft targeting suspected Islamist militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas close to the border with Afghanistan. At the head of a cavalcade that moved slowly from the capital, Islamabad, to the edge of the tribal areas was Imran Khan, star cricketer turned politician. Mr Khan demanded the end of missile strikes by American drones and an end to Pakistan’s own military operations against its home-grown Taliban. Instead, Mr Khan advocates unconditional peace talks with the militants.

Mr Khan is firmly against violent extremism, and the attack on Malala sickened him as much as anyone. He called her “a courageous daughter of Pakistan”. But, asked on television to condemn the Pakistani Taliban, he answered: “Who will save my party workers if I sit here and give big statements against the Taliban?”

Mr Khan’s position is that Taliban violence is a reaction to American drones and to the American presence in Afghanistan. That hardly explains why the Pakistani Taliban targeted a schoolgirl, and warned that they would go after her again if she survived. Nor does anything suggest that the Pakistani Taliban are interested in dialogue with Imran Khan or the current government. Indeed, their clearly stated agenda is to take over Pakistan and impose a medievalist Islam on the country, sharing an ideology with al-Qaeda that sees most fellow Muslims as apostates, justifying their killing.

Mr Khan has made drones and peace talks a central plank of his politics. He insists that drones largely kill innocent civilians. Given that the drone strikes take place in tribal badlands that are a no-go area for outsiders, it is impossible to know the true level of civilian casualties. According to a tally by the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, based on press reports from Pakistan, the drones have killed nearly 3,200 people since 2004, with a non-militant casualty rate of some 15%. American military men claim the rate is much lower. Militants killed by drones include the former Pakistani Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, and the “butcher of Swat”, Ibn Amin. Nearly all of al-Qaeda’s top commanders have also been killed. By comparison with innocent casualties from drones, the Pakistani Taliban and their allies have killed 14,427 civilians and 4,670 soldiers and police in Pakistan since 2003, according to figures kept by the South Asia Terrorism Portal.

Since late last year Mr Khan has enjoyed a surge in his popularity as a politician, propelling him to the lead position in a poll six months ago by the International Republican Institute, an American pollster. Mr Khan’s promise of change and of a new politics, much needed, that is free from corruption went down well. But now the same institute puts his party, Tehreek-e-Insaf, in second place, with 24% support, four points behind Mr Sharif’s outfit.

This year the surge in support for Mr Khan led well-known politicians from mainstream parties to join him. Now people are starting to question whether change can come through these establishment recruits. With an election due at some point in the next few months, Mr Khan’s predictions of a landslide victory are starting to look less convincing.

I have no doubt that a portion of Iranian citizens prefer a theocracy. However if you recall the crackdowns on protestors a couple years back shows that the theocracy will stop at no bound to stay in power, despite a significant part of the population that wants them out.

Iran chooses to starve and inflict economic hardship on their own people to a near crisis level. Here are several citations and sources on how the Iranian government hurts their own people. The Iranian government chooses to spend billions of dollars on nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism over feeding and providing medicine to their citizens. In my book the government is incorrigibly corrupt and evil.

http://www.rlc.org/irans-economy-on-the-verge-of-collapse-people-suffering-due-to-sanctions-2/

The Iranian people are the ones who feel the brunt of sanctions. In the past year, the value of the rial has fallen more than 75%, and food prices have skyrocketed more than 50%.

Meanwhile, the Iranian people are starving and dying because of lack of medicine.

http://www.economist.com/node/21564229

Despite subsidies intended to help the poor, prices for staples, such as milk, bread, rice, yogurt and vegetables, have at least doubled since the beginning of the year. Chicken has become so scarce that when scant supplies become available they prompt riots. On October 3rd police in Tehran fired tear-gas at people demonstrating over the rialâ(TM)s collapse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/10/sanctions-iran-ordinary-people-target

Activists say that, unlike ordinary people, the regime can find a way out of banking difficulties with help from its proxies.

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158831342/from-all-sides-iran-under-siege

That has brought inflation and unemployment; even some food riots have been reported. The effects of the sanctions have been too apparent to deny, says Vatanka of the Middle East Institute.

"There's no doubt, based on all the figures and even statements coming from Tehran, that they are suffering," he says. "We only have to take the words of the leadership in Tehran. They are saying they are hurting."

According to this page, subscribers have online access to all articles since 1997, which I assume is just because they haven't digitized the pre-1997 articles. I think the part about only having access to the current week's issue is specific to the iPhone/iPad app, where it only shows you the current week's issue in-app. But you can still browse the archives online.

The Economist? http://economist.com/ I like it too.

Who waits a week for their news, even their analysis anymore?

Those who are more interested in quality coverage with both breadth and depth than a lightweight, but timely response from pundits.

This has been known since at least 2008. The Economist has an interesting article about the FDA slowly moving towards open source medical devices to improve the overall security and reliability of software in medical devices.

Which explains why the Vatican was the first governing body to recognize Hitlers election, and why Catholic churches aided ODESSA to move high ranking SS officers out of Germany as the war ended, instead of allowing them to be captured and tried as war criminals.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html

http://www.catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/RC_scandal-3.html ...but some of us in the US are not the only ones with seeing things this way...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/10/a_papal_dustup_over_the_holoca

Do you have any citations that are not propaganda sites? As for the Catholic Church recognizing Hitler's election, well, in 1932 when he was legally and validly elected, why would they, along with every other authority recognize it? Isn't that how democracy works. You get who you vote for, even if that person isn't a very good person?

Again, if you have any sites that are validly recognized to support your claim as to why any group recognizing the free election in 1932 was wrong. Then please share it. But leave the propaganda and bashing sites to those who need them to justify their own untenable position.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/10/a_papal_dustup_over_the_holoca

.... talk to the Israelis. You might remember the old saying: "All that is gold does not glitter, and all "facts" not cited in EVERY post are not lies." I may have paraphrased a little.

Which explains why the Vatican was the first governing body to recognize Hitlers election, and why Catholic churches aided ODESSA to move high ranking SS officers out of Germany as the war ended, instead of allowing them to be captured and tried as war criminals.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html

http://www.catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/RC_scandal-3.html

...but some of us in the US are not the only ones with seeing things this way...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/10/a_papal_dustup_over_the_holoca

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity#Overview

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_trading#Rebate_trading
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/high-frequency-trading.asp

http://www.economist.com/node/21547988

They've been talking about doing this for years.

There's a lot you're missing, but I'll just highlight the big one: the statistic is that 47% of Americans pay no federal INCOME tax. They do pay plenty of other taxes, like the federal payroll tax and social security taxes, to say nothing of the various state taxes and, at the very least, sales tax. It's true that there are still some people who also do not pay payroll taxes (18.1% of Americans). But these people are overwhelming either elderly, disabled, children, or students (who will eventually be paying taxes, typically at a higher rate thanks to their education-enhanced income). And the remainder typically have jobs, but nevertheless make very little money.

See: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/09/daily-chart-9 and http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/18/161337343/the-47-percent-in-one-graphic

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.

Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural."

Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

This - from the Economist http://www.economist.com/node/21563343 :
Only 8% of households pay no federal tax at all...

For the more numerate among you: a progressive income tax + a lot of poor people = many people paying little or no income tax. They still pay all sorts of other taxes.

Also, what proportion of serving members of our armed forces come from families in the "47%" - do you think it's proportional to the population as a whole or perhaps the poor are hugely over-represented here?

A good friend of mine works in this department as a product manager; he has been there since they were NavTeq. You should take a look at Nokia's financials before busting out the "M$ evil" conspiracy theories. The navigation unit is the only part of the company that is profitable right now. They have excellent data (probably the best available, mention is halfway down the page) and they do a lot more with it than put it in phones. Basically, anybody who needs to have vetted data (ie, when salesmen need to tell clients that the data is better than what they can get online for free) to put in a product use Nokia maps. Many high-end cars with built in navigation are using them for example.

The higher-ups at Nokia know this. They are trying to leverage this to position the company for growth. Their internal mantra is that "Google is what, Microsoft is who, and we are _where_". Hence, the publicity: this is the only bright spot for Nokia and they need to milk it. If you ask me, they are grasping at straws; but the I can see the logic.

Attribution.

Disclaimer: I am a Navy Information Warfare Officer.

First, it's important to note that the White House didn't confirm the suspected source. It was anonymous officials who said this appeared to originate "from China" -- take that as you will.

As you point out, an attack may appear to come from a particular (set of) IP address(es), network(s), or source(s). An attack may have a certain profile, or share a profile with other attacks. An attack may have an assumed motivation based on its target. The attacker(s) may even wish to make it appear that the attack is originating elsewhere.

Even if the "source" is established, is it a nation-state? Hacktivists? Nationalist hackers acting on behalf of government or at the government's explicit or implicit direction? Transnational actors? None of the above?

No one wants to "start a war" with China, but the error in balancing the cyber threat against the "hype" is assuming that all threats are bogus, or must be the result of hawks looking for neverending war, excuses to begin/escalate the next "Cold War", and similar. The threat from China is very real, long-established, and well-understood for anyone who cares to look. It has been discussed thoroughly, even for the Chinese, in their own strategic literature, and there are very public examples of China's offensive cyber capabilities. China's investment in offensive cyber capabilities comes because of the understanding that dominance of the information realm will essentially allow China to skip large chunks of military modernization and still be highly effective in any conflict with the United States.

Think of it this way: it's now assumed that the Stuxnet/Duqu/Flame family were created by the US and/or Israel. (Keep in mind that even overt admissions prove nothing, and can be self-serving...) Even before the books and articles about OLYMPIC GAMES, attribution was assumed because of the target and because of snippets of clues in the code. In general, why is that assumption any more or less valid than this? Is it because some are more inclined to believe that of course the US engages in cyber warfare; but any cyber attacks against us are suspect.

Of course, there are those who will assume that indications of any cyber attack will always be a "false flag" and/or used by those with ulterior motives who want war. It can't possibly be that there are aggressors who indeed want to attack the US, and who greatly benefit from the odd proclivity of those in free societies to see the enemy as their own government, while overlooking the actual adversary. Sun Tzu would be beaming.

Background:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html?_r=1

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

China is on track to exceed US military spending in real dollars by 2025
http://www.economist.com/node/21542155

China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

The dragon’s new teeth: A rare look inside the world’s biggest military expansion
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

Essential

Attribution.

Disclaimer: I am a Navy Information Warfare Officer.

First, it's important to note that the White House didn't confirm the suspected source. It was anonymous officials who said this appeared to originate "from China" -- take that as you will.

As you point out, an attack may appear to come from a particular (set of) IP address(es), network(s), or source(s). An attack may have a certain profile, or share a profile with other attacks. An attack may have an assumed motivation based on its target. The attacker(s) may even wish to make it appear that the attack is originating elsewhere.

Even if the "source" is established, is it a nation-state? Hacktivists? Nationalist hackers acting on behalf of government or at the government's explicit or implicit direction? Transnational actors? None of the above?

No one wants to "start a war" with China, but the error in balancing the cyber threat against the "hype" is assuming that all threats are bogus, or must be the result of hawks looking for neverending war, excuses to begin/escalate the next "Cold War", and similar. The threat from China is very real, long-established, and well-understood for anyone who cares to look. It has been discussed thoroughly, even for the Chinese, in their own strategic literature, and there are very public examples of China's offensive cyber capabilities. China's investment in offensive cyber capabilities comes because of the understanding that dominance of the information realm will essentially allow China to skip large chunks of military modernization and still be highly effective in any conflict with the United States.

Think of it this way: it's now assumed that the Stuxnet/Duqu/Flame family were created by the US and/or Israel. (Keep in mind that even overt admissions prove nothing, and can be self-serving...) Even before the books and articles about OLYMPIC GAMES, attribution was assumed because of the target and because of snippets of clues in the code. In general, why is that assumption any more or less valid than this? Is it because some are more inclined to believe that of course the US engages in cyber warfare; but any cyber attacks against us are suspect.

Of course, there are those who will assume that indications of any cyber attack will always be a "false flag" and/or used by those with ulterior motives who want war. It can't possibly be that there are aggressors who indeed want to attack the US, and who greatly benefit from the odd proclivity of those in free societies to see the enemy as their own government, while overlooking the actual adversary. Sun Tzu would be beaming.

Background:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html?_r=1

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

China is on track to exceed US military spending in real dollars by 2025
http://www.economist.com/node/21542155

China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

The dragon’s new teeth: A rare look inside the world’s biggest military expansion
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

Essential

Attribution.

Disclaimer: I am a Navy Information Warfare Officer.

First, it's important to note that the White House didn't confirm the suspected source. It was anonymous officials who said this appeared to originate "from China" -- take that as you will.

As you point out, an attack may appear to come from a particular (set of) IP address(es), network(s), or source(s). An attack may have a certain profile, or share a profile with other attacks. An attack may have an assumed motivation based on its target. The attacker(s) may even wish to make it appear that the attack is originating elsewhere.

Even if the "source" is established, is it a nation-state? Hacktivists? Nationalist hackers acting on behalf of government or at the government's explicit or implicit direction? Transnational actors? None of the above?

No one wants to "start a war" with China, but the error in balancing the cyber threat against the "hype" is assuming that all threats are bogus, or must be the result of hawks looking for neverending war, excuses to begin/escalate the next "Cold War", and similar. The threat from China is very real, long-established, and well-understood for anyone who cares to look. It has been discussed thoroughly, even for the Chinese, in their own strategic literature, and there are very public examples of China's offensive cyber capabilities. China's investment in offensive cyber capabilities comes because of the understanding that dominance of the information realm will essentially allow China to skip large chunks of military modernization and still be highly effective in any conflict with the United States.

Think of it this way: it's now assumed that the Stuxnet/Duqu/Flame family were created by the US and/or Israel. (Keep in mind that even overt admissions prove nothing, and can be self-serving...) Even before the books and articles about OLYMPIC GAMES, attribution was assumed because of the target and because of snippets of clues in the code. In general, why is that assumption any more or less valid than this? Is it because some are more inclined to believe that of course the US engages in cyber warfare; but any cyber attacks against us are suspect.

Of course, there are those who will assume that indications of any cyber attack will always be a "false flag" and/or used by those with ulterior motives who want war. It can't possibly be that there are aggressors who indeed want to attack the US, and who greatly benefit from the odd proclivity of those in free societies to see the enemy as their own government, while overlooking the actual adversary. Sun Tzu would be beaming.

Background:

Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html?_r=1

"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."

China is on track to exceed US military spending in real dollars by 2025
http://www.economist.com/node/21542155

China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212

The dragon’s new teeth: A rare look inside the world’s biggest military expansion
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193

Essential

Apologies for the bad etiquette in replying to my own post. Here's an interesting article covering some of the points of my discussion (I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from the article):
"Reporting Science: Journalistic Deficit Disorder" http://www.economist.com/node/21563275

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/01/daily-chart-3 clearly norway is high on the big mac index...

No, this was the best:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/09/daily-chart-13
Love to see their workings out too. Points to massively overpriced cartel running the Indian market (and probably the top 5).

They have been doing something similar using the price to Big Macs in various countries to analyze exchange rates: http://www.economist.com/search/apachesolr_search/big%20mac%20index

I guess economists do have a sense of humor . . .

Blasphemy is used to Pakistan to settle scores between feuding parties: http://www.economist.com/node/21562262

He should maybe clean that up first, before trying to impose that on the rest of the world.

Oh, and by the way, being left-handed is also blasphemous in Islam: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/82120

Consider carefully the consequences of getting involved with a criminal and nutcase living in a Muslim country who likely has followers in America as well.

In America when someone has a grievance with another party, rich folks sue them or poor folks shoot them. In Muslim countries the preferred method is to accuse the other party of blasphemy, which usually ends up with not so nice consequences for the accused party. The Economist had an interesting article on this: http://www.economist.com/node/21562262

We hear about the Muslim on Non-Muslim blasphemy cases, but there seem to be plenty of Muslim on Muslim cases, as well.

Getting a PhD is not about having more knowledge than other people, it is more about learning how to become an accepted part of a particular research community. Strangely enough, the majority of people who earn PhD's will not do any significant research after finishing their degree: the degree is used instead as an entry point into particular jobs.

Your understanding of what a PhD is may be a bit vague, you might wish to read: http://www.lawhern.org/PhD.htm or http://www.economist.com/node/17723223.

A working engineer might very well be more knowledgable about -- and skilled at -- his or her field than many people with PhDs in that field, as the engineer will typically be getting real world experience in a number of different areas (which helps immensely to strengthen knowledge only touched upon in school or which can't be learned in any school) during the time the PhD student is learning to do research in one particular specialty (much of which ends up being slow, iterative, incremental work building upon the ideas of others). This is not to denigrate what the PhD's do, as they can be responsible for some significant contributions, however, they are far from being the only ones doing that.

Creativity often consists of connecting ideas from different areas in ways one never thought of doing before, and thus being strong in general can actually facilitate creativity versus being over-specialized. It's a breadth versus depth issue.

PhD's do have the advantage that, if they are doing creative work, their names are likely become associated with that work. For other people, the organization that employs them often gets the credit for the work, and a lot of the creative ideas become unpublished trade secrets of companies. The public ends up seeing the products, but has little idea how much creativity went into making them possible.

Thus, your point that a high technology country doesn't need everyone to be at a PhD level to do creative work, even stunning and world shattering work, is quite correct.

While some PhD degrees can give real value to both the person earning the degree and to their employer, there are some hard questions we should probably be asking about the PhD system in general. Given that most people finishing PhD's are not going to be doing research, it is not clear that having this degree so focused on research makes sense. Perhaps a better system would be to have two different types of PhD, one research oriented, and the other focused on other things.

Here is an interesting article on Gut Bacteria in the Economist.. Autism is mentioned as well.. worth a good read.. http://www.economist.com/node/21560523

The US wasted millions of tons of grain making ethanol in a misguided attempt to not burn fossil fuel.

It's misguided because the farmland used to produce that grain could have produced food for human consumption, correct?

It's misguided because about 40% of the corn produced by the world's biggest corn producer, the USA, fills 10% of US car's gas tanks. Do the math. It just does not work. 40% of US corn production is enough to give a noticable upwards push to fuel prices worldwide, while the corresponding ethanol production is barely a blimp in the radar of world energy sources.

Much of the "green revolution" occurred because of extra energy input in the form of oil. Cheap oil allowed for the expansion of nitrogen fertilizer, pesticides and mechanical harvesting. While the last two don't use an enormous amount of oil, the first does. As fossil fuels become more expensive, so does nitrogen based fertilizer.

So there is likely a limit to the ability of said revolution to feed the planet. And I'm ignoring other potential limiters such as water, salinization of croplands and many others.

According to a recent report on "feeding the world" on the economist, thanks to cheap fertilizer the limiting factor to crop productivity is no longer nitrogen, as it was for most of human history, nor so much land, but mainly water.

Look at how many of the world's great rivers hardly reach the ocean anymore because they are used so intensively, worry about how river flow becomes more seasonal when there is less perennial snow, and worry about the potential for conflict between countries that are upriver and those dowriver ( as an example).

We shouldn't be arguing about mass starvation and malthusian catastrophes. Nor is that what TFA is predicting: you don't need to get nearly that far for a tightening of food supply to have dangerous consequences. I don't think anyone seriously contests that the spike in food prices was a big factor in the recent unrest in the arab world...

And in all this the US, the world's largest corn producer, is currently burning 40% of it's corn production by putting 10% etanol in gas. Stopping this senseless waste would be a concrete step to ease the upward pressure on food prices, and the unpredictable consequences it can bring.

That's a pretty butch question. In my current state, I'd have trouble answering it with any chance of respectful reception. What I can say immediately, is how the bloody hell is the current system going to hold? I also don't believe bitcoin has reached maturity yet. Like a beaten and resented prodigy, it's growth has been hindered by various factors. Maybe the way it would work under such circumstances is a matter of additional innovation, adaptation, or redesign. I hope it never comes to that, but if it does, it would be nice to see things get the hell out of its way with anything but positive input. I am sure some fellow slashers will do a brilliant job taking this in 360 degrees, and far beyond what I am capable of.

On the subject of goats, [gardens] and chickens, that's another manipulated value, considering that in many locations throughout the US and other nations it's illegal to have them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/woman-jailed-for-vegetable-garden_n_893516.html
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/04/illegal-curbside-garden-flourishes/1728/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/illegal-kitchen-garden_n_1687558.html - CA
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/15/cabbagegate-ga-man-fined-5k-for-home-garden/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/weird_zoning_laws
http://www.newson6.com/story/18802728/woman-sues-city-of-tulsa-for-cutting-down-her-edible-garden
And so on and so on.

There's only 5 mass extinctions in the geological record and at least one may have been caused by an episode of global warming:

The strong inference from all this is that the late-Triassic mass-extinction was, indeed, caused by CO2-induced global warming. Things simply got too hot for most plants to photosynthesise.

The answer, like all good scientific answers, is maybe – with many different avenues. There is a feedback loop between antibiotics, obesity, and nutation that we are just figuring out.

For a better article, go to the Economist’s “Me, Myself, US”. There are a lot of other good articles out there. http://www.economist.com/node/21560523. The NPR Article is only a small part of the beginning of the bigger question on how we interact with our friendly bacteria.

Feed cows antibiotics and you change their gut flora – change the gut flora and you change how fast they can put on weight.

Or better yet, take a look at fat mice/humans and skinny mice humans – they have different gut flora and thus different nutritional profiles (production of vitamins, storage of fat, etc.). Swap skinny/fat and the gut flora follows. Swap gut flora and the nutritional profile follows.

You could read through a bland paragraph stating that the Greeks are desperate to eject from the Euro mess that they've gotten themselves into, but with Germany calling the shots they're finding it very difficult. Or you could just have a shuftie at this. Which gets the point across quicker?

It takes a lot of skill to get information summarized into visually digestible forms, and it's a much more efficient way of communicating. It's the same as how a company's logo is more instantly recognizable than just the company name printed in plain text.

There's no need to be such snobs about "dumbing down". I take it you all only read newspapers and never listen to the radio or watch TV news?

Value of a company : How much it would cost to buy
GDP : Domestic output of a country

Indeed, we should be comparing the market capitalization of a company with the inclusive wealth of a country.

A market cap of $622 billion is higher than the current inclusive wealth of Ecuador ($360 billion) or Kenya ($122 billion).

He is most certainly getting benefit from it - power, money, influence, tax breaks.
he's making money, increasing influence and power

I'll give you the Tax break part, but it seems irrelevant. The tax breaks pale in comparison to the amount he gives away. He's giving away way more than he makes each year and has been doing so since circa 1994. If that is the way he is increasing his influence. I'm OK with that. Why aren't you?

You haven't answered any of the questions I posed. You've continued to assume malice on the Gates' motivations. Yet you have no support for your claims. His actions since 1994 have indicated that he is genuinely interested in helping as much as he can with his philanthropy. Have you even read their audited financial statements that they are not required to share but do anyway?

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? WHAT ARE YOU? A COMMUNIST? OH MY GOD YOU'RE EBIL! EBIL!!!!!!!

Um. No. Not even close.
If you want to bitch about using foundations as a tax shelter while being minimally compliant for tax purposes look at Ingvar Kamprad and the Stichting INGKA Foundation and the Interogo Foundation

There are probably many more peaceful/tolerant muslims in the world than there are Christians, but it's the "Fred Phelp's" groups that get all the attention, not the Lutherans down the block.

Not likely, as there are more Christians than Muslims, and at least a large portion of the Muslims are not particularly tolerant. Of course, many of the muslims in the west are those who can't stand this religious oppression.