Slashdot Mirror

Where're the prosecutors with the balls to hold the watchers accountable?

Apparently they've got kids

And they all failed to prove Einstein wrong, in the same way everyone who has tried to prove the climate models (fundamentally) wrong have failed.

Oh, is that why the lead author of the IPCC report explicitly said that their models don't match reality over the last 20 years? Reality has proven the models wrong. But I'm the one in denial, sticking my head in the sand.

For what reason would there be? If that were the case you suddenly have two new problems to find explanations for: 1) There would have to be a mechanism that can cause sudden spikes in the Earth's energy exchange at a planetary scale, other than greenhouse gases; and 2) You need to find a reason why the current increase in greenhouse gases, which should have exactly that (heating) effect based on pretty basic physics, for some reason doesn't.

Oh, I don't know, maybe the sun?

“What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.” --physicist Nicola Scaffeta, Duke University

Re but it's not practical.
They just go for the outside text http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/03/the-u-s-government-tracks-all-the-snail-mail-you-send-too/

Useless information if the return address is fake.

Re but it's not practical.
They just go for the outside text http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/03/the-u-s-government-tracks-all-the-snail-mail-you-send-too/

At least Microsoft isn't rushing to roll over for the NSA.

If by "not rushing" you mean "were first to enroll in PRISM".

Windows Phone/Nokia is actually pretty quite well outside the US. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2013/09/02/windows-phone-market-share-up-around-the-world-but-american-sales-still-weak/

Shrinking in a few markets, but growing in more. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2013/09/02/windows-phone-market-share-up-around-the-world-but-american-sales-still-weak/

Windows Phone is indeed struggling a bit in the saturated US smartphone market, but it's doing much better elsewhere. This was the first hit for a Google news search for "windows phone sales"; try not to cherry pick your sources next time.

"As a result, RIM is all but dead and we now have Android and Windows Phone 8 that are high quality smartphone offerings."

Since when does a Windows 8 phone qualify as a quality offering? If it did, then it would be selling well, but it isn't. Microsoft will never get people to buy their garbage en masse in the phone market, because they can't apply the only business model they have ever successfully implemented: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". They can't FUD their way into the market. No chance to create vendor lock-in means zero chance of success.

There's another angle to consider - volume. The NSA's datacenter in Utah has had estimates of as much as 5 zettabytes of storage, but other estimates tap it out at 3 exabytes (roughly 3 million terabytes). http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/24/blueprints-of-nsa-data-center-in-utah-suggest-its-storage-capacity-is-less-impressive-than-thought/

Facebook generates more than 500 TB of data per day. Youtube has 60 hours of video uploaded per minute. Tumblr has 75 million posts per day. An estimated 300 billion emails are sent per year.

If the social web and inter-communications keep getting common, even with the increasingly cheap cost of storage the NSA might not be able to figure out what I had for breakfast this morning because they have to sift through 1.8x10^34 kitten pictures to figure it out.

I'm sorry to hear about the issues of your brother... though things like that can happen when one chooses to be uninsured.

So what's changed?

He could still lose his job because he is sick depending on whatever employment agreement or state laws are in place.

At least at my company, while the premiums have remained the same, the actual out of costs expenses have gone up significant.

You complain of paying $12k a year for premiums in '09... but failed to mention what you are paying today. Are you actually suggesting they have gone down?

Thanks to Obamacare, we have:

UPS dropping sources from insurance: http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/companies/ups-obamacare/index.html

California is expecting to see premium prices increase by 64-146%: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

Even the head of the AFL-CIO (a group and leader who both campaigned hard for Obamcare) acknowledges that the law is actually encouraging employers to cut hours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhmqLB3B5yA

I am fortunate that at my company... rather than increasing premiums, they simply raised the out of pocket expenses like many others: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/01/12/insurance-analysts-obamacare-to-increase-out-of-pocket-premium-costs-despite-lavish-subsidies/

So again... what is to grand about today?

Much of this is moot though... this is still early in the unleashing of this monstrosity. Even if successful in having everyone have coverage... how easy do you think it will be to get the treatment you need and when you need it given the built in disincentives for those you expect to treat you?

I'm sorry to hear about the issues of your brother... though things like that can happen when one chooses to be uninsured.

So what's changed?

He could still lose his job because he is sick depending on whatever employment agreement or state laws are in place.

At least at my company, while the premiums have remained the same, the actual out of costs expenses have gone up significant.

You complain of paying $12k a year for premiums in '09... but failed to mention what you are paying today. Are you actually suggesting they have gone down?

Thanks to Obamacare, we have:

UPS dropping sources from insurance: http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/companies/ups-obamacare/index.html

California is expecting to see premium prices increase by 64-146%: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

Even the head of the AFL-CIO (a group and leader who both campaigned hard for Obamcare) acknowledges that the law is actually encouraging employers to cut hours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhmqLB3B5yA

I am fortunate that at my company... rather than increasing premiums, they simply raised the out of pocket expenses like many others: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/01/12/insurance-analysts-obamacare-to-increase-out-of-pocket-premium-costs-despite-lavish-subsidies/

So again... what is to grand about today?

Much of this is moot though... this is still early in the unleashing of this monstrosity. Even if successful in having everyone have coverage... how easy do you think it will be to get the treatment you need and when you need it given the built in disincentives for those you expect to treat you?

If the workers feel positive and more motivated about it then he's being a good CEO and leader. They know him from his track record whether it's just for show or that's just the guy he is.

A bean counter could pass the same amount of money to the workers without motivating them a bit. A bad boss could pass the same amount of money to the workers and make them feel cheated and negative about it.

You could use the almost the same words in a speech but with the wrong pauses, emphasis etc and produce far worse results than a good leader making a similar speech (when measured by content alone).

Anyway for a real generous guy check this out: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/09/18/chuck-feeney-the-billionaire-who-is-trying-to-go-broke/

When it comes down to it megawealth doesn't come from being a CEO so much as it comes from owning the corporation. A CEO is really just a very highly paid employee. The real wealth comes from owning the store.

A quick look at the Forbes top 400 and you find they are almost all store owners. Some may be CEO too, but these guys mostly founded the company their wealth comes from.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#page:3_sort:0_direction:asc_search:_filter:All%20industries_filter:All%20states_filter:All%20categories

If you're going for automation - why not just fixed cameras and other sensors covering the whole area?

There's still a fairly low limit on how many video streams one person can attend to, especially if it's busy. Roving robots may not be useful, but what is happening is the cameras are getting smarter in where they look, and when to alert the operator:

It's not just law enforcement that has taken note of this. Retail outlets such as Macys, Babys âRâ(TM) Us, and CVS have installed systems in some of their stores that can spot shoppers who do unusual thingsâ"such as remove many items from a shelf at once, open a case that is normally locked, or walk suspiciously through the aisles.

Well actually, it has been warming over the past 200 months, whether you take the monthly averages
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics_v_Realists.jpg
Or the yearly averages
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/petergleick/files/2012/02/GlobalT-15yrs.png
It's funny that the same people who crow that the"hockey stick" graph has been "debunked" despite a 50 year long acceleration in increasing temperatures, are the first to identify a permanent downturn in temps on the basis of maybe a decade.

"Hah. Government at all levels is bigger than ever before, being funded at higher levels. I only WISH that the EPA couldn't be started now."

At 19.5 percent of GDP, G is down from the 21.5 percent it hit in the worst days of the Great Recession. AsÂCatherine RampellÂof theÂNew YorkÂTimes pointed out last week, itâ(TM)s also below the 20.3 percent average of the available data back to 1947. For most of the past 65 years, federal, state, and local governments had a larger direct economic role producing goods and services than they do today.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/07/31/has-the-u-s-government-gotten-bigger-or-smaller-yes/

Yes. This 15 year trend is definitely caused by something that goes into effect next year.

You seem not to be paying attention, nor have any understanding of how businesses plan ahead: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/31/who-can-deny-it-obamacare-is-accelerating-u-s-towards-a-part-time-nation/

Madsen named seven EU countries that have been substantially engaged in communications intelligence gathering alongside the US. These are Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. Those seven countries have formal second and third party status under the NSA’s signals intelligence agreements, and are contractually bound to the US.

Under international intelligence agreements – most of which remain secret – nations are categorised according to their trust level. In the western world the US is defined as First Party while the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are Second Party (trusted relationships). All others are third party (less trusted) or fourth party (secret) relationships.

Next they'll be suggesting that online porn reduces sexual crime rates. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/30/smut_freakonomics/ And that Child Pornography Reduces Child Abuse, see http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/06/30/child-pornography-reduces-child-abuse/

But that would involve admitting some facts, instead of citing natural temperature changes only to cover things contrary to your view, and dismiss when they actively contradict your views. It's also better instead to assume that anyone who believes different has been taken by a scam artist.

For crying out loud, they did indeed ban software patents, and if you don't believe me you can read all about it in that bastion of liberal OSS-using freethinkers, Forbes. Here's the link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2013/05/08/new-zealand-government-announces-that-software-will-no-longer-be-patentable/ The critical part of the law is not the subsection everyone is arguing over, but what comes before it, which seems to me unequivocal about what is no longer allowed:

"(1) A computer program is not an invention and not a manner of manufacture for the purposes of this Act."

This guy Florian Mueller who may or may not be a corporate shill has got everyone confused by focusing on the legal subtleties of a subsection, but the fact remains that computer programs by themselves are no longer patentable, because the law states they are not considered to be inventions! Don't believe the FUD.

Try doing some research before spouting your knee-jerk Microsoft Will Last Forever mantra again...

PC Market to Shrink in 2013 and Exhibit Low Growth Through 2017

~~

Hmmm, 1st quarter, 2nd quarter, 3rd quarter, 4th quarter

It's important to ask the question because we need to determine reasons for the lower number of women in technical areas. Do biological gender differences play a role? To an extent, probably. But does institutional sexism play a role in discouraging girls early on from pursuing technical careers? Very likely. The key is determining what can't be changed (biology), what can be changed (societal attitudes and expectations of girls vs boys), how much each contributes, and what can be done to change the ways in which girls are discouraged from STEM subjects. We can't just assume that making sure HR departments aren't practicing discriminatory hiring practices is enough. It hasn't even been 100 years since women received the right to vote. It shouldn't be surprising that there are still differences in the ways boys and girls are treated and that it shapes how they view the themselves. It's often subtle and unintended, but it's important for us to question whether it's happening and how best to correct those types of inequalities.

I read that article yesterday. It's an extremely well done article. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually say what the summary claims.

At the center of the cultural problems was a management system called âoestack ranking.â Every current and former Microsoft employee I interviewedâ"every oneâ"cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft, something that drove out untold numbers of employees.

When the millionaire mint ran dry, the problems began:

And so, the bureaucratization of Microsoft began. Some executives traced the change to the ascension of Ballmer, but in truth Microsoftâ(TM)s era of fast cash was almost certainly the actual driving force.

Empowered by a dysfunctional incentive culture instigated by His Billness, though some defend it.

The Case for Stack Ranking of Employees

From the posts I read, the stack ranking at Microsoft is political and not based on valid accepted metrics that define performance. But Iâ(TM)m inclined to fault the measurement system more than stack ranking.

What a complete idiot. He presumes that such a metric must exist, and completely misses the boat on absolute rather than relative performance norms. As soon as the norms become relative, you're tying your sneakers to outrun your team mate. If that's not political, I don't know what is. There are people who might not be star performers by any specific metric, but who enhance the productivity of any team they join. Guess what other company adopted stack ranking? Enron.

I believe I once read an essay by Drucker where he said if the person who was worth hiring in the first place is underperforming, most likely that person's boss has failed to put that person into the right context.

And software is the worst of all industries to institute such metrics. Any crank an employee can turn at 1000 rpm is better off scripted. The surest route to efficiency is repetition (the athletic model from he cherry picks his favourite aspects). Human repetition is bad repetition, yet metrics never catch up to non-repetitive cultures.

Your method has an extreme emphasis on ideas. Ideas aren't actually all that difficult. http://www.forbes.com/2004/11/04/cx_gk_1104artofthestart.html

I'm sorry, but I found his comment to be rather witty. Frankly, my mother is not a Journalist. My mother never previously tried to secure her data (she actively would fill out surveys for coupons, for TV stations, for anything of the sort and ALWAYS used department store cards). Why should she need to now?

Mrs. Rosenberg, on the other hand, she would have wanted to be thorough. Which should be true of reporters and journalists, but these days, I'm cynical of that.

2005 is quite out of date now, so I would take those numbers with some caution. The 2010/2011 numbers are a bit different.

Since you either didn't read or misparsed the rest of my post, let me quote myself:

There are a LOT of families that can afford that without dipping into savings and without blinking an eye. The last figures I saw are that around 20% of all American families make 100k or more a year. The most expensive colleges are still really expensive, but there is a HUGE diversity of colleges in the US from junior colleges and community colleges, to small liberals arts, to big state publics, to privates research institutions, etc.

To summarize:

1) There are a lot of families that can pay out 60k a year without blinking. This is true, and the number is certainly in the millions.
2) Over 20% of Americans make more than 100k a year. As far as I can tell from the 2010/11 data, this looks true to me.
3) You'll note I never said that a family making 100k a year could easily pay 60k a year (those are two discrete statements). Most families making 100k+ can easily afford some level of college.

Though I would add, as a minor nit, that in many, many parts of the country, $2000 take home cash a month is enough to live on and be comfortable.

To some degree, the horrifying student loan figures that are frequently bandied about are like the "average credit card balance" figures. After all, 1/3 of all students who go to college end with no debt at all! Only 10% end with 40k of debt, and fewer than 1% of all students end with 100k of debt. Source.

I'm not going to argue that college isn't expensive nor that 100k debt isn't absolutely crushing. I will argue, however, about the causes and reasons, and to a lesser degree the magnitude. To repeat:

Given the tremendous wealth in the US and the availability of cheap, easy to get government money, why NOT raise tuition? With very few exceptions (see Antioch), colleges and universities hardly ever go out of business or have trouble filling seats.

It's interesting seeing the Slashdot comments because they are actually less negative than those of the press.

From a May 12, 2013 article in Forbes: Microsoft's CEO, Steve Ballmer, "Should Have Already Been Fired." Quote from the article: "Without a doubt, Mr. Ballmer is the worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company today."

More about Steve Ballmer from that article: "The reach of his bad leadership has extended far beyond Microsoft when it comes to destroying shareholder value -- and jobs."

Scroll down in this article to see Businessweek's January 16, 2013 cover that called Steve Ballmer "Monkey Boy". The cover says "No More", but that doesn't take away from the fact that the magazine called him Monkey Boy -- on its cover. That's the greatest disrespect for a CEO I've ever seen.

See the graph here. Global mean temperature has been flat for 17 years now.

Another article in Forbes with more information here.

That's because you are clueless and ignorant.

Again, no points, all insults.

Google has said no such thing. Where do you get this information?

I actually read:

In a statement, Google said: “We’re committed to providing users and creators with a great and consistent YouTube experience across devices, and we’ve been working with Microsoft to build a fully featured YouTube for Windows Phone app, based on HTML5. Unfortunately, Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service. It has been disabled. We value our broad developer community and therefore ask everyone to adhere to the same guidelines.”

Google has said MS has to develop an HTML5 client, Google has said nothing about the MS browser. Windows Phone can use the HTML5 YTclient fine. No need to upgrade the browser.

Please read above. Also Windows Phone browser is lacking in a few places for HTML5, but that's not surprising. No browser implements HTML5 correctly in all things.

We’re committed to providing users and creators with a great and consistent YouTube experience across devices, and we’ve been working with Microsoft to build a fully featured YouTube for Windows Phone app, based on HTML5. Unfortunately, Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service. It has been disabled. We value our broad developer community and therefore ask everyone to adhere to the same guidelines.

I don't see HTML5/JS anywhere in that statement only "based on HTML5". MS doesn't say that in their statement either:

There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5. This was an odd request since neither YouTube’s iPhone app nor its Android app are built on HTML5. Nevertheless, we dedicated significant engineering resources to examine the possibility. At the end of the day, experts from both companies recognized that building a YouTube app based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming, which is why we assume YouTube has not yet made the conversion for its iPhone and Android apps.

Yes you can private citizen, though It would be very difficult for you to photograph everyone's license plate at various locations all around the city 24/7 and store them forever. And you certainly can't link that person's phone records, bank records, browsing habits, etc.

I agree with the sentiment, but sadly it is out of date. License plates need to be completely rethought in lieu of the new capabilities available to both big brother (government) and little brother (citizenry).

First it was only repo-men: License plate data not just for cops: Private companies are tracking your car

But the allure of monetizing those databases was too much, so the lobbying began: MVTRAC Spearheads Victory Over California SB 1330

And now the same companies that do track your phone calls, your bank records and your browsing habits are also selling license-plate tracking data:
Data Brokers Are Now Selling Your Car's Location For $10 Online

And just for shits and giggles I'm going to throw this one in, brought to you by those data brokers: Your employer may share your salary, and Equifax might sell that data

And $50k would put it at the meat of the pack of cars from all but the discount lines. $50k isn't a lot of money for a car in 2013.

Loki_1929 specifically talked about working towards an "every-man's car" price of $30K, which happens to be the 2012 average cost of a car or light truck. The "every-man" isn't going to buy a sports or luxury car, so why include them in your pack but exclude discount lines in your comparison?

So, I disagree that $50K isn't a lot of money for a car in 2013. Even hybrid and electric cars from Honda, Toyota and Nissan are in the $25K-$35K range.

I think a big part of it is his need for weed and how it shapes his views. A pity that.

Incidentally I was just reading about the issue... Market research numbers from last year.

$5000 - $30,000 Adobe Reader
$20,000 - $50,000 Mac OSX
$30,000 - $60,000 Android
$40,000 - $100,000 Flash or Java Browser Plug-Ins
$50,000 - $100,000 Microsoft Word
$60,000 - $120,000 Windows
$60,000 - $150,000 Firefox or Safari
$80,000 - $200,000 Chrome or IE
$100,000 - $250,000 iOS

Re: Yeah I hate how much influence the IRS has in Germany these days.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/07/06/Germany-strikes-deal-to-help-U-S-catch-tax-evaders.html
It could be same hold as the IRS has over the Swiss banks?
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/05/30/swiss-bank-accounts-irs/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2013/07/09/swiss-banks-reveal-americans-u-k-deal-sputters-and-germany-embraces-fatca/

If you have a phone, as you walk around a shopping center or store will are being tracked.

If you linger in the baby aisle, expect to get baby ads and coupons without asking for them. You might even find out your teenage daughter is pregnant from coupons you get.

Very intrusive: Get served ads to your phone and all devices based on store browsing and the kind of stores. You have no choice to opt out.
Medium intrusive: Get asked if you would like coupons for what they think you like. Ads on devices or apps that are ad supported are targeted.
Low level: You get coupons on your receipt based on your walking pattern and habits. (this already happens)

Future exploitation, the terrifying final form.
Location based A.I. scans your physical body for any and all brand name clothing. Tied into the parking lot cameras, it logs your car and plate number. Using sets of data (The estimated outfit cost, car value, car color psychological assessment, insurance carrier) it evaluates your income bracket and psychological profile.
A.I. scans all store records for purchases that match what you are wearing. If the purchases is detected to have not been made at the store, coupons and ads targeted at those articles are sent (You too can get Feragamo shoes here).
Each time you stop, the time and location and nearby goods are noted. Any regular walking patterns are logged. If you walk the same pattern every time, the lcd screens change to ads targeting you along your route.
As you approach merchandise displays, eye tracker record what items you look at and what in the adverts your eyes followed.
As follows: 15seconds female cleavage, 5seconds product, 1second dog.

Unregulated ,the future of consumer exploitation is terrifying.

Um no.

The worst shill is MSNBC, by a lot. However Fox, CNN, etc really are about equal in their bias levels.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/

But that's not the whole picture. The fact is they all suck, it's a matter of degree only. The quality of coverage is terrible, and has been driven that way by Fox' tabloid approach.

Most football programs lose money. The schools you are talking about are extreme outliers.

Even in schools where the football programs make money the athletics programs normally lose money.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/25/ncaa-report-shows-many-college-programs-in-the-red/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2011/11/26/football-is-corrupting-americas-universities-it-needs-to-go/

C'mon if you're going to bitch at least the get facts right.

According to Forbes, subscriber fees averaged a little more than $5 per subscriber in 2012. I think the ability to charge four times that would be far more than what they get from the cable company.

If only it were so easy.
TFS said:
"the final goal is to develop animals that act as barrier reactives to produce beneficial molecules in their milk that can be cheaply extracted, especially in countries that can not afford big pharma plants that make drugs, that usually cost $1bn to build"

That BILLION dollars to build a plant meeting FDA style standards might have something to do with the cost. Figure one plant produces medicine for what, maybe a million people who need the drug(s) it produces? That would be $1 billion / 1 million = $1,000 / person just to build the thing. If you had 10 million people buying the medicine and one plant could produce enough for 10 million people, that's $100 / customer.

Add to that, 90% of medications don't make it through all of the trials and testing and get FDA approved. The one that gets approved needs to cover the cost of the nine that didn't make it. What does that R&D cost? Here are the numbers from all of the big pharma companies (All numbers are in millions, so 4,000 means $4 billion)/;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/

So I'm curious, how do you plan on covering the four or five billion dollar cost of developing a drug, if not buy patenting and selling it? Dollar cost COULD be drastically reduced by reducing safety regulations. Obviously that's trading for human cost, which sounds scary. On the other hand, consider that if the cost was cut by 30%, more people could get the medicine they need. That's the human cost of regulations that make it difficult to get medicine approved - when it costs $5 billion to make a new medicine, people suffer and die from things less expensive medicine could cure. Reducing regulations somewhat might very well reduce a lot of suffering. It's a hard problem. It sure would be nice if there was an easy answer, if you could just call the people who make new medicines evil and that would magically cause medicine to be developed, tested, and produced at no cost.

Sorry, bloggers and authors peddling their own books? Sorry, not convinced.

I tried to select sources that referenced actual numbers. Feel free to cite numbers of your own, but this is such a well-known phenomenon at this point that denying it strikes me as highly unusual.

And how convenient, that the most recent disaster is blamed on Bush...

I don't think it's very fair to blame former President Bush for the financial crisis. Though his 2003 tax cuts included a provision eliminating capital gains tax on certain home sales, which created structures that allowed the real estate and financial markets to become corrupted and eventually collapse, assigning blame to him is like blaming the owner of a gun shop when someone commits a crime using a gun purchased at that shop.

Democrats of the late 1990ies are to blame...

The core cause of the financial crisis was the over-leveraging of securities backed by subprime loans. Given that these loans were overwhelmingly not backed by Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac, I'm struggling to determine how the author of that article is making the connection between rules regarding affordable housing access for the poor and minorities and the financial crisis (I do like his books, though). After some cursory Googling, I located this, which, while interesting, isn't especially relevant.

...workforce participation...

This is why.

Much as I would like to agree with you I no longer trust such statements because of similar things getting shut down:
Permit requirements shut down another kid's lemonade stand
The Inexplicable War on Lemonade Stands

Until there is a Libertarian candidate, who is remotely viable, picking Republicans is what Libertarians ought to be doing. Because Republicans are far less wrong on economy. And economic freedom is required for prosperity...

The opposite is literally true. I don't personally vote economic issues (there's nothing wrong with doing so), but if I were to, voting Republican would not be an optimal choice.

On contrast, if an ultra-Conservative "RethugliKKKan" wins elections and, horrors, manages to outlaw abortions... Guess what? I'll still be able to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure.

You seem to primarily vote your wallet, and you also have a liberal position on at least one social issue, or, at least, you're not crazy about the Republican platform position on that issue (please correct me if I read you wrong). Again, nothing wrong with that, but holding a Republican preference with what you've shared of your political views seems... decidedly strange. I'd honestly be interested in how you arrived at the preference you have.

...the deterioration of our economy...

What deterioration? Now, I'll be the first to admit that we're not exactly seeing Clinton-era growth, but we are seeing steady, albeit slow, improvement. Again, literally the opposite of deterioration.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/

This is nothing new, except for the specific technologies involved. Stores have been doing similar things for as long as they have existed. For example, years ago Walmart was identifying what demographics specific customers belonged to based on the way they walked on the store cameras, and Target was doing it based on their purchasing habits.

You simply cannot avoid being tracked in our modern world, and you have to go to a lot of effort to even minimize it. For the longest time I did not have a Facebook account, until I realized that Facebook already has a large entry in the database for me based on other people tagging my name and email and following me around with their huge tracking network embedded in half of all websites.

Check out the new Slashdot iPad app

Well you aren't seeing it because that's how the system is supposed to work.

Case in point: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/08/05/more-surveillance-abuse-exposed-special-dea-unit-is-spying-on-americans-and-covering-it-up/

No one is really questioning that there is abuse. I think that's assumed. The real question is why the surveillance is even happening. I'm guessing they are aware of these "abuses" but since no one can ever know about them, it's no big deal. Spy agencies spy, we get that. They just shouldn't treat every citizen as a terrorist and assume it's acceptable.

You are being monitored and tracked and you are the enemy. Maybe not yet, but they can make you into anything they want. Information is power and they know everything on everyone. Scary.

Dear President Obama,

If you don't know of any abuse of these programs, may we suggest you ask the DEA?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/08/05/more-surveillance-abuse-exposed-special-dea-unit-is-spying-on-americans-and-covering-it-up/

Thank you,

The American Citizenry