Slashdot Mirror

Grad students for all practical purposes live in the laboratory...if you want to call that living anyway. At a moderate rate of 60 hours a week your lab hours count will be off by a couple orders of magnitude after the 6-7 years it takes to earn a Ph.D. Even if you intended to write "undergrads" you'd be giving them short shrift. Of the dozen or so undergrad lab mates I've had in the last 15 years the majority worked for several years in the same lab and were funded under one of the professor's grants. That's far more than a few dozen hours which even the laziest undergrad I've worked with accomplished inside of two months. Hell I've worked with four high school students through an apprenticeship program and three had over 500 hours in by the time their stint in the program was over.

However as you point out TFA is not informative as to the point of the study and how it was funded. Having had some small experience with research being reported by the media the odds are pretty good that the reporter and/or editor mangled the point of the research quite badly and if one wants to know why mice were being trained to distinguish wine you'd need to read the original research paper published in Chemical Senses. The last paragraph of the introduction of scientific paper usually tells you why the researchers are doing their thing, and quoting that paragraph:

"Most naturally occurring odors are complex blends of volatile compounds. The way in which they are perceived depends upon the interactions between mixture components at the level of olfactory receptors (Derby 2000) as well as the way that component signals are processed in the olfactory bulb and olfactory cortex (Wilson and Stevenson 2003; Tabor et al. 2004). Because most of these inputs are irrelevant at any given moment, it should be more efficient to focus neural resources on a subset of the available information and ignore the rest (Luck 1998). However, to our knowledge, few papers have reported experimental evidence for selective attention in odor discrimination. In the present paper, we report behavioral evidence for selective attention in odor discrimination of mice. We found this evidence in the course of behavioral studies on the discrimination of liquor odors in mice using a Y-maze. Our initial interest was to assess if mice could discriminate different brands of liquors just by taking a sniff of them like an expert flavorist. Additionally, we also demonstrate that selective attention in the olfactory system of mice could be modified through their learning experiences."

Now as for how important and novel this is, it was published in 2008 and according to google scholar has been cited by other papers four times since. It's definitely not a huge paper but neither is it an embarrassment. If you've been doing science for more than 10 years chances are pretty good you'll have a paper with as low a citation rate as this.

As for weirdness, it pales compared to this: homosexual necrophilia in mallard ducks. You can get the Ig Nobel-winning research paper here, complete with pictures of the deed. If you really want to.

The cables weren't the reason, but they *were* the catalyst.

The unrest started in Tunisia as protests against the ruler's immediate family who were making out like bandits. The corruption had long been known about (it wasnt subtle) but the spark was the wikileaks release which showed a bunch of cables from US embassy in Tunisia that detailed the corruption. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/02/wikileaks-exclusive-book-extract
The government responded by shutting down wikileaks access which resulted in Anonymous group taking action against official Tunisian government sites and defacing them (with the same cables, amongst other things) which also had a pronounced and under reported effect on people's urge to actually protest.

So, Bradley Manning has probably done more to unleash the wave of democratization hitting north Africa than any other single individual. That doesn't make what he did legal but if everyone stuck to what was legal, we would all be living as serfs to feudal barons.

MOST CERTAINLY NOT. I am unaware of any rival startup that has been squashed, bullied, or suffered a hostile takeover by Google.

Then you should read the news a bit more.
Yelp, Foundem, and 1plusV have all made complaints in the last 3 months.

BTW - you may or may not have noticed, but Microsoft's most innovative stuff has always been acquired in one manner or another. Google, on the other hand, innovates day in, and day out.

Like Google Docs... oops, no that was an acquisition (Writely). Or Android... oops, no, an acquisition again. Or Google Maps ... blast that was another acquisition... hang on, I'm sure I'll think of an example to back up your case soon.

MOST CERTAINLY NOT. I am unaware of any rival startup that has been squashed, bullied, or suffered a hostile takeover by Google.

Then you should read the news a bit more.
Yelp, Foundem, and 1plusV have all made complaints in the last 3 months.

BTW - you may or may not have noticed, but Microsoft's most innovative stuff has always been acquired in one manner or another. Google, on the other hand, innovates day in, and day out.

Like Google Docs... oops, no that was an acquisition (Writely). Or Android... oops, no, an acquisition again. Or Google Maps ... blast that was another acquisition... hang on, I'm sure I'll think of an example to back up your case soon.

You were "isolated from the rest of the prisoners" for a weekend . Manning has been in "maximum custody" solitary confinement for about seven months . If you are trying to draw a parallel between these two events then you, sir, are truly an idiot.

The accusations come not only from Manning's lawyer but from Amnesty international and by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture.

But, hey, why don't you do some reading on the subject yourself?
For example, here's a statement by a psychiatrist and expert witness.
Or, since we are all so big on peer review an citations, try asking Google Scholar.

Oh, just so you won't be under the impression that Manning is an isolated case, there are some 100,000 more like him.

Yes, it is indeed complex. But I will point out that it took small startups to figure out how to create low cost launch vehicles. The big contractors just don't have that mindset. See this article about Elon Musk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/01/elon-musk-spacex-rocket-mars

From that article:

"[Musk] investigated the science behind rocket launching and concluded that there was no real reason why it was so expensive. He believed the space industry was dominated by inefficient government bodies. By starting afresh, and going back to basics, Musk believed getting into space could be done quickly and cheaply. He was right...SpaceX is getting into orbit for a fraction of the cost of the space shuttle programme...[SpaceX] wants to drive the costs down and improve reliability and make space travel something that is open to everyone. Only private business, Musk thinks, can do that. 'The fundamental barriers are improving reliability and reducing cost, and the government is not that good at either. Would you prefer to fly Virgin Atlantic or Soviet-era Aeroflot?' "

The mass surveillance isn't as oppressive as you might imagine. That might sound a bit like I've got Stockholm syndrome, but hear me out.

First off, the CCTV is mostly ignored both by the general public and the police. For most crimes, the police fails to check CCTV "because it's hard work". Secondly, as a member of the general public you just get used to seeing cameras, they become part of the scenery and you carry on as normal.

Even though the police rarely bother to check CCTV footage, CCTV cameras still act as a deterrent. Muggers will avoid streets with cameras and instead go for people walking down unmonitored side streets. Whilst it's not a 100% guarantee, I do think they improve the situation.

In any case, the response from the public to oppressive surveillance, like the much more sinister Forward Intelligence Teams used to monitor political activists, has been sousveillance. The police don't take kindly to being photographed though.

I'm pretty sure that the EU members would take very unkindly to a member state rolling over and ignoring EU laws because the US says so. I'm also pretty sure that the general population of those countries wouldn't take it kindly, either.

Remember Tony Blair, alternately known as "Bush's Poodle," or the "US foreign minister," as Nelson Mandela put it?

Rolling over to unpopular (or downright illegal) demands from the US government is a sure way to find yourself out of office in the next election, particularly in Europe.

I don't see any reason to believe the US government is involved. Why should they?

Just in case you've not seen it because you were looking elsewhere, here's the vice president of the United State explaining why he's getting involved: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden

A few days back, a British extradition lawyer analysed the defence team's arguments in the Guardian: Julian Assange is very likely to be extradited, says Matrix barrister.

Looks like he was right.

By employers, do you mean rich executives with multi-million dollar homes, vacation homes, more cars that I have digits and really big boats?

You are right! Those good old boys work damn hard for their exteme wealth. How dare we, the relatively weak, the relatively poor, organize to make sure the wealthy do not divide us and exploit us.

I mean it isn't like there is a history of employers abusing workers in the USA.

No one dies from workplace poisoning : http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Chips-Cause-Leukemia.htm
Consumers in the USA wouldn't buy a product from a company that assfucks the people that make their gadget: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/22/chinese-workers-apple-nhexane-poisoning
Big business in the USA is good to its employees: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/06/11/100060613/index.htm

Good god-damn, do not get me started about 19th and 20th century abuses world wide. The industrial revolution has been a violent battle ground for the poor trying to make a living in a world owned by a minority. The minorty holds the vast bulk of the wealth while the majority pays rent to them just to have a place to sleep without being arrested for loitering.

Remind me again why you are kissing the ass of the rich?

I remember. You think you will get a big pile of money by cheerleading capitalism. Here is a interesting idea; let me know what you think:
Insteading designing economic systems built on the idea of unending growth (despite the limited nature of Earth) where the money forms pools around corporations and big pools have leverage to control smaller pools, what if instead we designed economic systems that ecourage money to flow and spread to areas where it best supported society as a whole and not indivials. What if the natural tendency of money was to diffuse and not to coalesce? But you believe this is impossible don't you? You have been taught to attack this concept as naive, haven't you?


But, if I have you pegged right, you are the kind of guy that really wants a shiny car and a big house you can only use 1/4 of even when your whole family is home. Right and wrong don't matter because your are from the USA and everyone there knows unchecked capitalism is good for everyone. And you cannot get that sort of extreme wealth without someboy else doing shit work (assembling your iPhone) being paid next to nothing so your company (like Apple) can see the profit. See how that works? They work hard, and die for you. Fuck yes! That rocks for you. You pay them shit and all the profit is yours. You don't get rich paying workers a living wage, now do you? Fuck the little guy! You need a BIG car, and a BIG house. And as the poor guy in on the other side of the planet you don't even need to see the poverty that helps to fill your wallet because he is in China. WIN-WIN!

Now tell me: Do you own an iPhone?

Here we are... http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/dec/11/wikileaks-amazon-denial-democracy-lieberman

How many more do you want?!?

"More"? You've yet to provide any. Here is what is required to demonstrate that MM is taking Beck our of context: a pair of links, one to a MM story quoting Beck, and another to a reliable source giving a more extensive version of the quote showing that MM is quoting out of context.

I'm assuming that you understand what "quoting out of context" means. If you don't, the wik's artcile on the subject is a good place to start.

Glenn called the housing bubble and the current gold prices

The housing bubble was evident to anything with a functioning central nervous system. And Beck helped create the current gold bubble.

So because someone reverses their position, very openly, they are no longer correct?

I can't parse the tangled grammar of this question.

Assume that proposition X is true. If someone claims that X is true, and reverses their position, they are no longer correct, and their credibility decreases. If someone claims that X is false, and then reverses their position, they become correct, but their credibility may increase only marginally, or not at all, depending on how long they argued that X was false and how blatant the truth of X was.

yet Media Matters can't seem to cite their own sources correctly, misattributing Neil Cavuto's hour long program to Glenn Beck:

The segment is correctly attributed to Cavuto; they apparently misstated which show he appeared on. That is an error, but is not quoting out of context, and does not in any way affect the substance of the reportage.

Perhaps you want to explain away the "Olbermann killed people" quote: Media Matters Gives Glenn Beckâ(TM)s Co-Hosts The Shirley Sherrod Edited Audio Treatment

That's the headline, not the quote. MM's site has the clip in its entirety, including the "hey, we've being sarcastic!" bit. And as is noted in your own link, MM posted a correction to clarify the headline. (From the comment thread on the MM page, they seem to have posted that by the next day at the latest.) If they had not done so, you'd have an example of a poor headline, still not one of MM quoting out of context; with the correction, you don't even have that.

because it's royalty-free for implementations of VP8 algorithms

It's free of royalties from Google, but third parties that Google doesn't yet know about may hold essential patents and join a patent pool that MPEG-LA is forming.

even the MPEG LA group has recognised the importance of automatic royalty-free patent grants, in their call for contributions to the upcoming MPEG-2 algorithm.

MPEG and MPEG-LA are separate organization, and MPEG-2 is the codec used for DVD and US digital TV, not the new royalty-free MPEG standard effort.

HBGary is Black Hat. And Mercenary. They are a boot on the neck of the American people.

Is torture "White Hat Interrogation" when done by the US, as opposed to the former DDR?

No. Only if your name is Rumsfeld, Gonzalez or Yoo, would you disagree.

HBGary is a fascist tool - more akin to the "Ministry of Information" of Brazil , than any recognisable "White Hat" group - say Rapid7.

HBGary trades in 0-Days for profit, to organisations which act without regard to Constitutional provisions. They advertise tools and methodology to conduct PsyOps and openly advocate methods to subvert the democratic properties of modern public communications channels.

HBGary colludes with insiders to use Government power to cement corporate advantage over the interests of the citizens and tax-payers of the United States, in the name of "national security".

They are a fraud and a blight on the purported claims of a free and open society. Like in the movie "Brazil", the methods of Mr. Barr have identified individuals in error. In the age of Abdulrahman Zeitoun and Bradley Manning, the consequences are quite possibly as dire for those individuals, as they were for Mr. Buttle and Sam Lowery.

effective?

no major failures?

intelligent?

useful?

The best thing to come out of that was the media reaction to it. The Daily Star couldn't make its mind up whether it was for or against paedophilia as shown here. The Daily Fail as ever was keen to contradict itself by publishing a shock reaction to the satire, while in the same issue publishing pictures of Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie (13 & 11) in their bikinis.

Source: The Observer.

To be honest, when making the first comment I only had a superficial knowledge of what McCarthysm entailed (I thought it was just mostly anti-communist propaganda, and stricter security clearances)

You possibly hit the key issue here, without realizing. People, societies, have generally quite superficial knowledge about such issues. Not to be unexpected... they just want to carry on with their lives. Don't really want to be bothered (heck, our minds are even simply unable to really track more than few dozen individuals).

breaching due process, and baseless accusations and blacklists

I'm sure that does sound similar to you, from ex-communist Hungary, right?

I'm not sure I would categorize the war crimes in Korea as McCarthysm.

To me it's largely symptomatic, of what society ... of what humans can easily be (and don't get me wrong, US very possibly did quite near to best achievable way... that's not much of consolation), of what is bad in us / pack animal / we depend greatly on "we're the best, others are subpar" to feel good about ourselves... also to do horrible things ... but it's also, paradoxically, about what is good (our need to believe in Just World ... unfortunately easily derailed just by self-marvel and seeing others as evil; we must get pass this, to make the world really just)

Because... it's working so-so at this point, for example (and how many people are even aware of this background for one of most just wars in recent history? If we can be upfront even with such one...). Have your pick (strangely, not a lot about Operation Condor - designed not only to get rid of left extremism, but to destroy left... check Sister Dianna Ortiz, that's 89)

McCarthy was a symptom of that, of "we can do no wrong" / "you must be commie sympathizer if you;re against" / "you're either with us or against us" (remember who said the last one?)

Yes, it's also playing Devil's advocate of course... oh well, there's enough of bad stuff on the Russians.

A giant alien squid is cheesy and we've already seen that an attack on New York City doesn't unite the whole world (See: 9/11).

9/11 actually did unite the world very briefly, it was the "you're either with us or agin' us" and "FUCK MUSLIMS!" steam coming off the neo-cons that killed it. Google "today we are all Americans" for a lot of commentary on the effect, or check out this article for a decent overview.

I think the phrase is lost in translation. In Persian, it means "Down with Israel," rather than the idea of killing everyone there that everyone is led to think. It doesn't mean killing or wiping everyone out.

That does not seem to be the take on it by the author of the Guardian UK article that is referenced in your huffingtonpost link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/14/potatoes-iran-election-protest

For 30 years it has been the signature slogan of Iran's revolutionary lexicon, swearing an oath of death upon America, Britain, Israel, Saddam Hussein and sundry other presumed enemies.

Now the once chilling "death to" chant, an expression of zealous radicalism still heard at Friday prayers and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rallies, has been unleashed on a new and unlikely object of wrath: the potato.

"Death to potatoes" ("marg bar sibzamini" in Farsi) has been adopted as a mantra by anti-Ahmadinejad campaigners in Iran's forthcoming presidential election. Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister who has positioned himself to woo the reformist vote, chanted the slogan this week at a rally in Yasouj in central Iran.

You jest, but I really find the practice of using fingerprint and DNA evidence to prove guilt disturbing and flawed.

Lets say I were going to commit a crime.

I've seen many people who approximately match my description. It would take very little time for me to follow behind someone and nab their used drink cup and/or a few strands of their hair. After studying their routine I could schedule my crime to leave them with a very weak alibi (or none at all).

After finishing my dirty deed I could simply plant their DNA & fingerprint evidence and give an anonymous tip in order to put the detectives firmly on their trail. One thing I've learned about cops (My Aunt and Uncle are both detectives) is that once they "like" someone for a crime and have a bit of "hard" evidence, they really try to make the charge stick more so than they try to pursue other suspects (unless contradicting evidence is staring them in the face).

Found a hair? Hmm, was that a hair that fell directly from someone's body, one that was transplanted after falling from someone's body, or one grown in a lab from someone's stem-cells? Impossible to tell, really**.

My point is this: Your DNA and Fingerprints ARE ALREADY VERY PUBLIC INFORMATION (unless you wear a full body condom out of the house). Finding your DNA or fingerprints at the scene of a crime is only evidence that you may or may not exist*; DNA and fingerprints should be considered no better evidence than finding fibers of the type of clothes you wear, not as the smoking gun that today's courts treat them.

To me: The ease of access to virtually anyone's DNA and our recent technological advances have redefined "reasonable doubt" (hell, even the low tech method I described makes DNA that much less credible).

* we have engineered synthetic life forms with custom designed DNA.

** Stem cells can be made from your skin, and Stem cells can be used to produce any of your tissues.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/22/nokia-profits-slump

Yes. Ahead and losing profits.

As a matter of interest "the proof is in the pudding" is not a legitimate phrase in UK English, so I assume it must be an Americanism. We still say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", unless we are illiterate/stupid.

Have to disagree with you there - no true scottsman fallacy not withstanding:

http://careers.guardian.co.uk/do-you-need-experience-for-first-job
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1333255.stm

Here I was, planning on moderating, but alrighty then.... In response to your concern about eggs...

A quick Google search to refresh my memory found that we already know how to turn stem cells into eggs/sperm. We have already used that technology to restore fertility in mice. And we know how to make stem cells from skin, which, because it regenerates, has an essentially limitless supply, as long as the subject is still alive.

You're right, we still don't have a viable artificial womb. You're also right about the sterilization of the females and males. But see the articles I linked above. If the technology pans out, then it doesn't really matter that the children born in space would be sterile, because we would be able to produce eggs and sperm from their skin, and use those to artificially impregnate them.

We still need to work on an artificial womb, but your concerns B and C have already been addressed by science. :)

Here's a nice summary of Berlusconi's history.

with the complicity of Congress and the Executive and the voters from the "greatest generation"

We are the ones who were too stupid to remove the corrupt and greedy from office, not them. We are the ones that fell for the free lunch promises of our political class, not them. We are the ones that let absolute morons take over our schools. I wouldn't blame the next generations if they just decided to put a bullet in grandpa's head, given our poor stewardship beginning in the 20th century.

So close and never quite saying it... from where do people directly involved in the system of governance come from? Which of the world societies determines the style of governance in a given place?

Govs are largely a reflection of society; the latter needs to be fixed, too (it does generally require a generation or two, unfortunately)
It's often symptomatic, on many levels. Referring a bit to "sacred DoD cow" of grandparent - sure, many people can even realize the "9/11 & Iraq" BS, some might be even aware of grander background of PR machine, or maybe even (gets harder) such heresies. But, if the closest or even extended family has somebody in military, brining income, then this person is of course a honorable man... (same for unit, its actions, et al)
Or, generally, if a family depends on engineer or blue collar worker providing something for public money. They might even complain about pork everywhere... except, of course, in the place of work of said family member. Its services are essential, and the price fair.

Most people want either less corruption or more of a chance to participate in it.

... can be found in this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/24/bbc-online-website-closures

You forgot "Think of the Children."

Well, that's maybe where we differ. I think we need to be adults and think of everybody, especially if Al Qaeda is successful in getting nuclear weapons, which they already have permission to use.

But, if it will make you more comfortable, for the moment lets forget about the children, and see where we stand. We can recap, and maybe you could point out what is actually wrong instead of in essence saying "I don't like it".

I pointed out that the courts have ruled against your assertion that the government's national security wiretapping is illegal, and a human rights violation: Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping

Even the page you linked to noted the EFF defeat on the legal question:

EFF Plans Appeal of Jewel v. NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Case
Court Rules That Mass Surveillance of Americans is Immune From Judicial Review
San Francisco - A federal judge has dismissed Jewel v. NSA, a case from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of AT&T customers challenging the National Security Agency's mass surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls and emails.

I also pointed out just a handful of the many active terrorism investigations and court cases going on inside the US. This points to a genuine, current, dangerous threat of people being killed by militant Muslim extremists. I assume you don't debate that they are genuine.

Daniel Boyd pleads guilty to US terrorism charges -9 February 2011
Domestic Terrorist 'Jihad Jane' Pleads Guilty to Four Charges - Feb 2, 2011
Stockham requests new attorney - February 05, 2011
Note: This individual is apparently an American Sunni Muslim who tried to attack a Shia Muslim Mosque.
Iranian Book Celebrating Suicide Bombers Found in Arizona Desert - January 27, 2011
Baltimore man accused of plotting to blow up military recruiting station in Md. - Thursday, December 9, 2010
Oregon Bomb Suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud Wanted "Spectacular Show," - November 29, 2010
Faisal Shahzad: 'War With Muslims Has Just Begun' - Oct. 5, 2010
2 MN women charged with aiding Somali terrorists - Aug 5, 2010
U.S. links 8 to Somali terrorist group - November 24, 2009
And here's one for the Canadians: Converts Who Kill

I then pointed out that this current turmoil started with Al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks, and that according to Bin Laden, he won't stop trying to a

The US is the only one allowed to use this tech to abuse human rights, and it really doesn't want to risk losing its lead in technology used for spying on citizens.

You are completely wrong. First off, it's legal, and not an abuse of human rights. (And no, this isn't the first time a court has made a similar finding.)

Second, it's necessary because some American citizens, immigrants, and visitors don't want to live in peace, but have taken up the cause of extremists. (Just a sample - there are many, many more.)
Daniel Boyd pleads guilty to US terrorism charges -9 February 2011
Domestic Terrorist 'Jihad Jane' Pleads Guilty to Four Charges - Feb 2, 2011
Stockham requests new attorney - February 05, 2011
          Note: This individual is apparently an American Sunni Muslim who tried to attack a Shia Muslim Mosque.
Iranian Book Celebrating Suicide Bombers Found in Arizona Desert - January 27, 2011
Baltimore man accused of plotting to blow up military recruiting station in Md. - Thursday, December 9, 2010
Oregon Bomb Suspect Mohamed Osman Mohamud Wanted "Spectacular Show," - November 29, 2010
Faisal Shahzad: 'War With Muslims Has Just Begun' - Oct. 5, 2010
2 MN women charged with aiding Somali terrorists - Aug 5, 2010
U.S. links 8 to Somali terrorist group - November 24, 2009
And here's one for the Canadians: Converts Who Kill

And how did this get started? September 11 attacks

If you bother to read bin Laden's 'letter to America', you will see that in order for him to call off his minions, Americans will have to convert to his flavor of Islam, give up the constitution, implement Sharia law (which will mean cutting off hands of thieves, stoning adulterers, no more alcohol (prohibition again), drugs, porn, executing homosexuals, etc., etc., etc.), and many other odious demands.

Ultimately this is about various factions of Islam trying to extend their power by force. It won't go away soon. I suggest you get used to it.

Dreaming of Al-Andalus

By the way - the Muslim Brotherhood is not helping.

OK, assuming you regard the Palestinian cause as "left wing" and the Israeli as "right wing"... how about the report by the BBFC (sic) president remarking that the BBC did not adequately convey the Palestinians' unequal relationship with Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict? The report was quite clear that Palestinians in certain territories are living under Israeli occupation, a fact recognised by the UN including Britain (at least officially), but the BBC - in giving context - was considered slow to assert this whenever giving context to some event.

Using the term "left wing" more ideologically, can you think of a single example in the last decade where the BBC was considered to show bias for worker control of the means of production? Clause IV seems all but forgotten in the mainstream media.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/18/us-federal-deficit-china-america-debt
As the above article states, China is doing just fine. Owning the most of the debt that US has taken to fund it's military campaigns.
Maybe the fact that US can now take away domains from their owners with a court order, is already worse than anything than Chinese could do. At least to us Europeans. It's not OUR court that is ordering it.

Fortunately, there isn't any rape in this game.

Someone should send them a copy of Rapelay.
At least then they would have something genuinely seedy to cry over as opposed to just a silly game featuring childish violence.

High speed rail for the US is a dumb idea. We have an EXTREMELY functional interstate system for local travel, and for all other domestic travel we have airplanes (very efficient and low cost if tickets are bought in advance. Don't like fees? Fly southwest).

When you make transportation policy, you need to plan for between 10 and 40 years in the future. In other words, you probably shouldn't base your policy on today's SWA airfares.

You may not have noticed today's Wikileak cable, but in the opinion of US diplomats, the Saudis have been dramatically overstating the size of their oil reserves. The plentiful cheap oil from Saudi Arabia is what's keeping flights and car travel relatively cheap. As the global economy comes out of its stupor, there's a very good chance that we'll be headed towards dramatically higher fuel prices. As in, you're in the last few years of cheap air travel --- enjoy it.

This problem may not be insurmountable for highway driving, assuming we can get widespread electrification and a huge network of charging stations. But it looks to be a bad time for air travel --- absent major breakthroughs in coal fuel conversion (and the willingness to dramatically increase coal usage across the board), driving and flying are probably not going to win the future.

Microsoft shouldn't even be in the phone market. Or the console game market

So your suggestion would be to focus on the business area that is slowly losing ground and abandon those that are becoming very profitable?

Revenues at its entertainment and devices division, which produces the Xbox and Kinect grew by 55%, to $3.7bn, and profits by 83% to $679m. But revenues were down 30% at its workhorse Windows division, to $5bn, and profits fell by 40% year-on-year to $3.2bn. The principal cause of weakness was slow growth in the PC market, which only grew by 3% during the year; the Windows division relies on sales of its Windows operating sytem. Microsoft Profits

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/04/radical-islam-united-states-independence

It's not radical Islam that worries the US – it's independence

(bwahaha. I'm not as nerdy as I thought I was. I hadn't even heard of lmgtfy before.)

If "Link, Please" would rather have a personal story of what happens when herd immunity is lost, here's a writer for The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/01/measles-mmr-vaccination.

Epidemiologically, about 1 in 500 measles cases result in death, 1 in 500 result in major brain damage, and so on. Young kids are the most susceptible. The rates of complications from the vaccine are on the order of one in millions, and do NOT include death, retardation, blindness. The math isn't that hard to do if you want to see what that means for unnecessary suffering due to reduced vaccination.

Hey America,

This is what it means to have an impartial judiciary body.
Try to buy your Congress and Courts back from the conglomerates, it'd do you a lot of good.

You might want to start with your supreme court:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/jan/27/usdomesticpolicy-clarence-thomas-what?

In a recent BBC programme Dara O'Briain proclaimed that astrology was rubbish and Brian Cox followed up with "in the interests of balance on the BBC, yes astrology is nonsense." This got the Astrological Association of Great Britain so riled that they have put forward a petition for "fair representation" in the media. A couple of good blogs have been done on the subject in the Guardian - here and here

In a recent BBC programme Dara O'Briain proclaimed that astrology was rubbish and Brian Cox followed up with "in the interests of balance on the BBC, yes astrology is nonsense." This got the Astrological Association of Great Britain so riled that they have put forward a petition for "fair representation" in the media. A couple of good blogs have been done on the subject in the Guardian - here and here

All right, I get your point on Tunisia, but Obama and Clinton are really dropping the ball on Egypt, they are taking Mubarak's side over the public:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/28/obama-clinton-wobble-egypt-mubarak

Why would I say "Sorry" to anyone? I didn't take part in the DDoS in any way. Last time I checked I have no obligation to appologise to people I've never harmed.

Ugh. Let's cut through the BS. Do you think they should regret collateral damage or do you think they should embrace and pursue it? That's all this is about. If the former, we are not in disagreement and I misunderstood you earlier. If the latter, then *that's* where we disagree.

As for the meaning of Legitimate protest?It's pretty much an open debate.

http://www.democracyandsociety.com/blog/2011/01/27/what-makes-a-protest-legitimate/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/31/kingsnorth-six-environmental-activists

http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/okbcwf/message/5458

Actually, I wasn't asking what makes a protest legitimate. I was asking what it means to you to say that a protest is legitimate.

Why would I say "Sorry" to anyone?
I didn't take part in the DDoS in any way. Last time I checked I have no obligation to appologise to people I've never harmed.

As for the meaning of Legitimate protest?It's pretty much an open debate.

http://www.democracyandsociety.com/blog/2011/01/27/what-makes-a-protest-legitimate/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/31/kingsnorth-six-environmental-activists

http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/okbcwf/message/5458

Sorry, meant to add this cite about the cash burning.

It currently looks like people are switching to more old fashioned means and using leaflets and word of mouth. Hold in mind that though Cairo, and many other Arab capitals are gigantic, they are often much more similar to a huge collection of small towns where everyone knows everyone (and everyone's business). Taking out the internet seems like a particularly desperate act, especially since the protests are expected to begin following Friday prayer (which the government can't forbid completely without REALLY losing legitimacy) when people will be gathered together already (and thus able to communicate.)

video news guidance

yeah throw some nasty kids in jail while the adults are in charge.
See, they should of been doing
large scale commercial voicemail hacking (and making serious backs from it) as that doesn't seem to even get the police to blink up let alone having their door kicked in at 5am by 12 police in full riot gear and the contents of your house/pc seized or whatever they find turning your house over for evidence, while you in front of the kids are thrown in the back of a cold van in cuffs (while being filmed for the latest COPS show) and whisked off down the local nick for 3 days of questioning like we usually see when they arrest menaces to society.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/27/police-phone-hacking-scandal-history

or maybe plebs don't have the right friends?

I spend much more time in the UK than the US, so I don't have examples to hand from the latter, but there are definitely some from the former, and I'd say the two cultures shares more similarities than differences. Iraq war protests were pretty pervasive, culminating in somewhere around a million people marching in London. Admittedly they've died down, but I think it's fair to say that after the government ignored the people and went to war anyway, the questions changed - many people (myself included) fought against the idea of going to war, but accept that since it did happen it's better to remain and stabilise than leave a chaotic power vacuum.

If you want to see the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of pent-up anger, just look at what happened a few months ago when the government decided to triple university fees. That's the point at which the people of my generation really seemed to say "fuck this, we deserve better". Even so, though, the government gets away scot-free with far too many abuses of their power.

I guess my point is that the young/old dynamic doesn't (from what I understand of history) seem to be changing that drastically - some of you guys protested, and so did some of us. Plenty more sat around and did nothing, in both generations, but those people are the ones who get forgotten about as time passes. In both times there were some victories but the powers that be still got away with far more than they ever should.

Even at my age, I'm a cynical bastard. My generation sucks. I just get the impression that yours was probably no better!

Ops, forgot the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/jul/27/media.business

Even better analogy: teens (Israelis) tell the kindergartners to take shelter inside the school....and then promptly level the school.

Except that actually happened.

And in fact the USA does a better job of meritocracy than most other countries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

Top 3 of least social mobility (~= meritocracy): UK, Italy, US
Top 3 of most social mobility: Denmark*, Australia, Norway (* I live here)

You have been told the American Dream, I take it? Then again, "non-OECD countries" is a good approximation of "most other countries", so I guess I agree, but I would encourage you and your readers to put that statement in perspective.

Also, I suspect the opportunities for relative social mobility give people an incentive to do the things that create a rising tide of upward absolute mobility for all boats, which makes a country rich and an OECD country. (So what I'm saying: there's a selection bias due to a correlation the other way when only comparing against rich/OECD countries).

The existing structure naturally concentrates wealth up.

Personal liberty, private property and well-functioning competitive markets (with internalized externalities) seems to be a good way to create a prosperous, mobile and fair society. What could stand in the way?

For one, if you're rich, after paying taxes and life's necessities (and maybe conveniencies and amusements) you often have money by which you can earn more money, and more so than the poor.

Also, taxes and other government fiddling might be regressive. Milton Friedman points to some progressive-intended regressive transfers in Free To Choose; you can watch clips on youtube (GIYF). His negative income tax is guaranteed to be regressive.

Thirdly, you might have exclusivity deals, monopolies, externalities and government corruption/bribery/lobbying. This will tend to favor special interests (especially those too big to fail) at the expense of "the rest of us". Also, you might have heritable special priviledges.

I agree with you: progressive transfers are a good thing, especially if you're a utilitarian---grep "Daniel Kahnemann" ted.com for a presentation of why.

For that reason, many libertarian beliefs only serve to reinforce existing class structures, because so many libertarians don't understand how unfair the distribution of wealth is.

I'm not one to defend libertarians---I by and large disagree with their views---but I think you misrepresent them. Or at least you don't represent the narrow subset I know of. Which is mostly through podcasting: Brett Veinotte (School Sucks), Wes Bertrand (Complete Liberty), Stephanie Murphy and Mike something (Porc Therapy) and Stephan Molineux (Free Domain Radio).

Their viewpoint is one of deontological morals: the moral value of an action is determined by the action itself, not its eventual outcome. Furthermore, what is moral is private property and non-agression: you're free to do whatever you please as long as you leave other people and their stuff alone. This is an argument against taxation, which they like to describe as the involuntary extraction of money by force or threat of force. They tend to be market-oriented and believe that free markets don't have problems, or that their problems are better than the problems of the state.

I think the state does something wrong (see exclusivity deals above), but free markets and private property has problems in itself as well: if land is a fixed-supply resource and increasing population means increasing demand, you can speculate in land (buy now, sell later) and extract money by renting it out to a landless population. I think the fix is land value taxation: turn the value of the rent into public property. If you're inclined towards math and economics, see also the Henry George theorem.