Slashdot Mirror

You sparked a memory I had of reading something about this last fall. It is about a study covering psychopathic tendencies of the Presidents.

Out of all the former presidents tested in the Emory study, Theodore Roosevelt ranked the highest for fearless dominance, according to the researchers. He was followed by John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Rutherford Hayes, Zachary Taylor, Bill Clinton, Martin Van Buren, Andrew Jackson and George W. Bush.

You also forgot to include racist in those qualities that make for a good, or potential leader as well. http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=553

It was progressive hero and Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt who gained the majority of black votes due to his “New Deal”, but he banned black American newspapers (feared they were communist). FDR also rejected anti-lynching laws pushed by Republicans.

"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

-- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"

"You f*cking Jew b@stard." -- Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in "State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton" and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.

Who doesn't save up at least a tiny bit of money (say 3 months salary) in case of a fucking emergency?

Most of America, it turns out.

Nearly half of America has less than $500 saved. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/americans-savings-500_n_2003285.html

The average American - including all those billionaires - has less than $6000. http://finance.zacks.com/much-money-average-american-family-savings-7304.html

What the fuck would you have fucking done if your fucking roof had fucking leaked?

There's no need for this level of rage. Take it down several notches, please; we can be civil in disagreement.

OMFG. "Obama Stopped Two Wars"

You have to be fucking joking or retarded.

Iraq: Iraq ended because the Iraqi government refused to extend the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which was set to expire in December 2011 (date ring a bell?). Obama tried in the time period before SOFA expired to get the Iraqis to extend it. That was politically impossible for the Iraqi government partly as a result of war crimes confirmed by the information Bradley Manning released through Wikileaks. That's who you should thank for ending Iraq because if Obama had had his way, we'd still be there. But when Democrats get a hold of the FACT that what Obama did was fail to extend the war, they say "Iraq over: Check!" As if Obama is some peacenik. By that same logic, you should be lauding as a hero any person who intends to shoot a bunch of people on campus, but gets arrested before he can go on a rampage. Obviously, the guy is a humanitarian -- look at how many people he saved by failing to do what he wanted to. THAT is exactly the logic used to commend Obama on the end of the Iraq war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/

As for the second war -- which was that? Afghanistan is still going (and remember, Obama tripled the troops there, GWB's max was about 35k, we're still at around 65K troops, so still almost double) and Libya is spilling over into Mali. Of course Libya is a thing in itself -- even GWB had congressional approval for the Iraq debacle, but Libya was prosecuted without that token congressional acknowledgment required by the War Powers Act (a law designed in the post Viet Nam error to prevent future Viet Nams) because our constitution says that wars are not declared by the president, but by congress. So next time we have a Dick Cheney type in the office and he decides he's going to war with anyone and everyone, Congress be damned, remember to send Obama a "thank you" note.

And how is that even after Iraq ended, Obama can't figure out how to spend less on the offense budget than GWB did in his worst (i.e., highest spending) year?

offense spending (Trillions)
2007: 0.7T
2008: 0.7T
2009: 0.8T
2010: 0.8T
2011: 0.9T
2012: 0.9T
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown_2012USrt_13rs5n

Obama is up 200 billion over GWB in military spending and he cries big sad tears about the sequester which is what, 80B? Even if the entire sequester came out of the military budget, we'd still be paying 120B more than we were when the Iraq war that Obama failed to extend, was hot.

Wise up and quit being an apologist for the worst president ever -- which is an amazing feat considering the depths GWB plumbed.

It's possible it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Instead of 3d as you see in theaters it might be the 3d you see in pictures. When you look at it from a different angle your view changes. Like how a window works.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/tensor-display-3d-tv_n_1665976.html

I'm really excited about this technology for just that reason. I think the idea of a TV that looks just like a window would be amazing. Imagine video conferencing. Instead of having a single view of a person you could look at them from multiple angles, just as if they where in the same room.

I'd rather take advice from Carlin than from Bloomberg even though I don't actually drink sugar water.

and I don't know where he got that usa has higher poverty rate - they don't

Maybe, maybe not. According to some, what I said isn't without merit.

There is no evidence Al Alwaki gave aid or comfort. None at all. There is conjecture and accusation, but only a total idiot would consider that to be "evidence". Here's an example:

I accuse you of being a child molester.

There. You are a child molester because I accused you of it. QED.

As for the son, the Obama administration's position was that he should have had a better dad. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

$24? Are you nuts? In the Federal Courts, you can expect only the harshest outcome unless you are fabulously wealthy and connected. I know Jamie wasn't the perfect defendant here (didn't she lie about hard drives or something?), so it is easy to kind of say she deserves it, or to at least feel no sympathy, but it is unsympathetic defendants that make bad or unjust law. It is sort of shocking that the same administration which has absolutely sat on its hands (*) about $gazilions of Wall Street fraud, encouraged the Supreme Court to reject the case. Justice for some, and especially good justice when you can purchase laws you want, or in the case of Wall Street, inverse justice (rewards for crime, cabinet positions). The little guy can just have his or her life utterly destroyed. That's the Feds.

(*) William K Black is worth reading on the issue because he headed up the litigation team that put 1000 banksters in jail in the S&L crisis -- a crisis 1/40th the size of the meltdown.

...and... did the GSA design the program? No.

Too many people who blame government for everything don't look at the simple point that issues like this are usually mistakes made by the vendors who sell shoddy crap to the government. It's a lot like blaming government for the fraud in medicare, when it's actually the doctors committing fraud, and you don't hear about it until the government catches the criminal.

Government is always the problem....when you have idiots elected to office who intentionally try to fuck up the government from within.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-s-lofgren/scientology-for-rednecks_b_2707087.html

Defensive tech always lag offensive tech. The best deterrent is always the psychological one backed by offensive capability -- instead of intercepting the actual bullet, you intercept the very thought of firing that bullet by clearly defining the consequences of such action. This is basic doctrine whose rationale Slashdotters readily accept with regard to Iran's and North Korea's pursuit of weapons, yet somehow choose to mire themselves in morality here.

Stuxnet didn't "open Pandora's box"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Rain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora

Deaths caused by "lunatics with assault rifles" are insignificant in number compared to those caused by poor teenage urban males with handguns and zero conflict management skills.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/j-travis-smith/gun-control_b_2396473.html

The lives lost of the students and teachers of Sandy Hook were no more precious or tragic than the victims of murders occurring daily. The sheer rate of death caused by a single assault rifle pushed this event into the spotlight, although assault rifle death tolls are dwarfed by handguns in aggregate. As an example, the death toll of all mass shootings nation-wide in the 13 years since Columbine totals 273, while drive-by shootings in LA during a single year total 277.

I was very sure I picked a hint of "pythonesque" humor in the voice over so I googled and yup, it's a hoax

I guess another benefit of this will be, they can now much more easily see who the big contributors are, and if they aren't giving to your campaign (or after campaign organization to keep paying for access to the White House through Organizing for Action ) then you must be looked at as supporter of people against you.

I"m guessing this is a cleverly disguised tool to help persecute your enemies, as that I'm reasonable sure this data doesn't have the strict need to see regulations that say, medical data like HIPAA gets.

But hey, in the larger picture, this is no surprise, I mean, he went back and voted for protections on the telcos from the unwarranted wiretaps starting from his predecessor and continuing on.

And he's also hesitant to say they'd never use a drone to take a US citizen out on US soil....and....

Well, like the earlier post said, how's the hope and change working out for ya?

You really should start your medication, boy. Then read the fucking article, which says this is common and expected behavior. Of course, if it had been anything but the Register it wouldn't be blowing it so much out of proportion. Here are a few better links to the same story, by less disreputable sources:

New York Daily News
Atlantic Wire
Herald Sun (Australia)
Huffington Post
Slate (Slate credits BoingBoing)

Google News is full of them. There was one story by a business blog that questioned its authenticity on Google's list of stories from the search term "Ukraine dolphins"

Wouldn't the "highest intelligence indicator" be applied to those who don't "do" facebook, twitter, etc?

Or did I just miss something flying over my head?

Well, you obviously miss the social networks flying over your head. If they are not for you, great, but equating your choice with greater intelligence is kind of condescending isn't it?

Maybe it's just a sign that he's got a life.

I assume this is ironic to prove parents point? :)

(Or do you really believe that your life is so much better than the life of people who also use Facebook? If so non-ironic proving parents point. There is a misconception here on Slashdot that people who spend time on FB don't have and meet real friends in real life, while studies showing the opposite to be true -- that active FB users actually are more social also in real life, with closer personal connections, than the people who opt out - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-magid/facebook-users-more-socia_b_878721.html)

Facebook guesses if your are hetrosexual or homosexual 88% of the time? I can beat that.
Whoever is reading this, I'm going to guess for you specifically with 98.3 % accuracy.

You are Straight.

1.7% in the US are gay. So is it just me or is a 88% accuracy when you can just guess one answer every time and be 98% accurate worthless?

+1 Informative?! Congratulations. But RFC2550 is already obsolete - it depends on the Drake Equation which changed recently.

It's just one village.

No, it isn't just one village.

Well, since the DOJ is involved, I'd make it a Federal Civil rights abuse case as well against the officers. The police in this nation have become more like paramilitary thugs in most places. Here's just a recent more pointed example. They do have a difficult job to do and yes, there's nearly a 100% chance that every time they arrest somebody or go about conducting their business, they'll be recorded by a phone or some other device. They just need to get used to it and do their job and stop abusing the public!

"Wow, three ridiculous demands!" said the police officer...

I must have missed that memo. I looked through my mail for anything with a subject called "The Presidents Personal Kill List", but I'm guessing I'm just not on that distribution.

When even that bastion of conservative outrage, The Huffington Post, has tagged over 25 of their own articles with "Obama Kill List" it seems pretty silly to pretend it doesn't exist.

Well, since the DOJ is involved, I'd make it a Federal Civil rights abuse case as well against the officers. The police in this nation have become more like paramilitary thugs in most places. Here's just a recent more pointed example. They do have a difficult job to do and yes, there's nearly a 100% chance that every time they arrest somebody or go about conducting their business, they'll be recorded by a phone or some other device. They just need to get used to it and do their job and stop abusing the public!

How about Congress not mandating that pensions be pre-funded 75 years into the future and do so with revenues acquired in a decade.

Those pensions buy government bonds and help prop up their spending habit. The current fund is by no means destitute either with a current balance somewhere around $44,000,000,000.

First off, this fellow in a city council has no responsibility for the funding of the USPS.

Second, he has no ability to tax anyone outside his city - does he propose that Berkley alone fund the USPS?

Third, the issue with USPS solvency is, for the most part, inflicted upon the USPS by Congress, which has decided that since the USPS was profitable in 2006, that it should fully-fund 75 years of pension obligations by the end of 2016. This has resulted in over-funding the pension fund beyond any reasonable requirement by any conventional funding formula, and if you look closely, the losses the USPS reported these last few years is only slightly more than the annual over-payment of the pension system.

• HuffPo piece on USPS over-funding it's pension plan, as required by federal law
• CNBC piece on how USPS pension fund required to have funds to meet 75 years of benefits by 2016
• Inpector General Report the effects of the over-funding of USPS pension

From the Huffington Post

There are many reasons, but by far the most important is that the Postal Service's losses are largely the product of a congressional mandate imposed on no other public or private enterprise in America. Since 2006, Congress has forced the Postal Service to make enormous annual contributions into a fund for future retiree health benefits, including the $5.5 billion and $5.6 billion mentioned above. In fact, since they began, these payments have accounted for more than 80 percent of the Postal Service's losses.

Yeah, what's up with that? One would expect to hear from the ACLU, which one does. Perhaps the Huffington Post would have a bunch of murdered children covering their front page, like this. One would not, however, expect the Democrats themselves to attack their own presiden, which they don't. That's just not how party politics work.

Assuming that's true, that nameless Democrat has done far less harm than Republican election worker Donna Swenson.
I'm sure you'll agree that she should be punished to the full extent of the law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/deanna-swenson-oregon-election-worker_n_2082882.html

Blah blah blah ... context apparently means nothing to you. This is in the context the leak of a summary of Obama's assassination memos -- the ones that support his policy of extrajudicial assassination (i.e., murder). The weapon of choice is drones, but it could be spaghetti for all the weapon matters -- the issue is the policy itself.

If you don't see some conflict between Obama's assertion that he can kill anyone based on secret accusation, and the notion that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" -- then it's hopeless arguing with you. You'd be the person who would argue with someone who says "he used a gun to kill them" by saying, "well, actually, it was rifle, blah blah blah..."

As for arbitrary murder not happening, are you asleep? The term "Terror Tuesday" means nothing to you? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/terror-tuesdays-kill-list_b_1606371.html

Arbitrary execution.
It happens weekly -- what do you think Terror Tuesday is all about. And one for certain was completely innocent 16yo American born boy. The government knew so much about him when it killed him, that it claimed he was 21.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891#ixzz2ABHMgELN
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/

Arbitrary indefinite detention.
Obama tried to close the facility at Gitmo and MOVE the PRACTICES to the Thompson Federal Supermax in Illinois. Don't feed me that bullshit about GOP obstruction and he tried to "close GITMO" where people understand "close" to mean "stop the practices" rather than merely continue the practices at a new location.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/creating-gitmo-north-alarming-step-says-aclu
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/obama-promise-close-guantanamo-worse

Libya, and the War Powers Act. Obama conveniently redefines war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/19/obama-libya-lawyers-war-powers_n_879951.html
http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/house-rejects-authorization-of-libya-intervention-20110624

Popup confirmation? No, you agreed to a clause buried in the EULA and Terms of Service that activation of any cheat modes indicates your express consent for EA to automatically bill you for the micro-transaction.

You know, so it doesn't interrupt your gaming experience.

Just don't let your kid play.

Somewhat.

It wasn't an announcement. It was a reply to a direct question ("Do you believe that the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil?") from Rand Paul.

At which point instead of tossing incendiary devices into suspected meth labs and torching 12 year old children, they'll be tossing incendiary devices into suspected fulminate of mercury labs. Great news!

When I started looking a bit more closely at this, it isn't a cut at all. It is like you said...only a reduction in spending.

See that? You grasped the truth for a second, then you immediately fell back into the oversimplified rhetoric the media is spewing.

It's not a reduction in spending at all; it's an increase in spending -- but the increase happens to be not enormous as some had hoped for.

And by "some," I'm talking about those for whom no amount of government control over our resources is too much.

Obama got his tax increase....

Yes, and already everone has forgotten what Obama pledged during the re-election campaign: "balanced" deficit reduction that consists of $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 of new revenue. In December, the president received $600 billion in new taxes, which should now be matched with $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, by his definition of balance. He has proposed no such cuts. In fact, he has only proposed even more spending increases.

sweep EVERYONE out of Washington

Why would you want to sweep out the few who give us straight talk about how sequestration isn't a spending cut at all?

The most extreme plan to balance the budget is not at all extreme. Connie Mack's "Penny Plan" proposes six annual tiny 1% cuts that would allow revenue to catch up with spending. You can see Lanny Davis, a self-proclaimed liberal, praise the plan here.

I work on a government contract, and I can tell you it would be easy to improve delivery of government services, even as those 1% cuts are being absorbed. (I know that my productivity increases by more than 1% every year. And if they would stop allowing people like me to stay at the Ritz-Carlton while traveling, bang, you've got a huge savings on the contract.)

Seems like if your company is losing money, the last thing you want to do is cancel deals that are making you money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/groupon-gun-deals_n_2527168.html

"Lethargic"? Try "unconstitutional" or "illegal", per the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial ..."

You folks seem to believe that this document still is in force. It has been nibbled at, torn, ignored and defied for decades. Even the Supreme Court now believes that in some cases European laws trump the American Constitution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/sonia-sotomayor-supreme-c_n_194470.html

Yes I know, it a rightwing blog but left wing blogs don't say negative things about their own. Right wing blogs don't say negative things about right winger either so it appears you need to read both and use your brain to determine what is correct.

We need to get rid of the righwing Taliban congresscritters and the socialist left and get this country moving again somewhere near the center like when Ike was Prez.

You forgot your sarcasm tag. Just in case you were actually serious.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/07/tapp-j10.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Obama+Administration+to+Spy+on+Citizens+Online+to+Fight+Terror/article19734.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.html
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/warrantless-spying-skyrockets-under-obam

Warrant-less spying has surged under the Obama administration. From what I understand he has maintained every domestic spying program created under the Bush administration, and even expanded some of them and created new ones. Not that I think a republican would do any better mind you. Both parties have little interest in protecting any of our rights, they are far too interested in pandering to corporate lobbyists and expanding their own powers beyond all reason.

Yeah, when I first read the summary I was afraid he was another victim of spontaneous combustion.

I like the concept, I like the approach, and I would support its implementation in *all* states [...] I dislike gerrymandering

You're contradicting yourself. Please familiarize yourself with electoral votes assigned by congressional district. electoral votes assigned in proportion to the number of votes a candidate gets (Only being proposed in red-controlled "blue states"), and the national popular vote.

You may observe that some of the text above is underlined. This is called a "link". If you move your mouse over the link, and click with the left mouse button, your browser (the browser is the program that lets you see the WWW part of the Internet; it's the program with the big blue "e" you use to get on "the internet") will open up a new page which will enlighten you about something you're obviously very ignorant about.

As multiple posters have been trying to explain to you, giving each congressional district its own electoral vote is unfair because the districts are gerrymandered. Having each state give electoral votes to the president in proportion to the number of presidential votes that state gets would be fair--but only if all 50 states implement it. Right now, the only state that wants to implement that idea is a Republican-controlled state that usually gives their electoral votes to the Democrat. Observe no similar proposal in, say, Texas.

The national popular vote being proposed will only go in to effect once enough states pass the law to determine who wins the presidential election.

You whine like a baby when I point out that you're an idiot. But the bottom line is this: We're trying to explain something to you. You're ignoring our explanations. You're either too dumb to understand our explanations or are a partisan hack too thick-headed to contradict the BS Fox News spoon-feeds you.

You mean the Do-Not-Track that is almost universally ignored? Yeah, lets do that. It's sure to work this time.

Obama has already mandated black-boxes for all new vehical by 2014. Both the EPA and the IRS are going to paw that eventually.

Game over, sheeple.

Children, and according to standford/NYU study:

Following nine months of intensive research—including two investigations in Pakistan,
more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands
of pages of documentation and media reporting—this report presents evidence of the
damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies. Based on
extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as
humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony
about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.

It is like those holding the reins want to create terrorists, must not be enough already to justify the defence spending we already have - good for MIC business.

These types of reports fail to compare the use of drones to use of other forms of combat. Drones cause far less "collateral damage" than more traditional forms of warfare. For example, consider the use of suicide bombers- far more civilians killed total, and by percentage. And apologists like to ignore that the groups being shot at have shown absolutely NO hesitation to target civilians directly and use them as cover.

We could use carpet bombs, and kill shitloads of civilians. We could send in troops, or use cruise missiles, and still kill more civilians than we do with drones. We could do all kinds of things, the only thing which results in fewer civilian casualties is to pack up our bags and go home. Now, I realize that is what many people would like to see happen, but it's not going to result in peace. That's the whole problem- they will bring the war to us, while at the same time going back to an oppressive Theocracy in their own land which places little or no value on the lives of women or anyone who doesn't fall down and pray to their Imaginary Friend in the Sky.

Following nine months of intensive research—including two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reporting—this report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies. Based on extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.

It is like those holding the reins want to create terrorists, must not be enough already to justify the defence spending we already have - good for MIC business.

"But what about the terrorists?"

I'm sure the CIA would love them to be developing bombs that have no net energy release. It makes givng them cupcake recipes look positively hazardous.

In the UK its illegal for anyone to possess information that might be useful in commiting an act of terror. So that pretty much bans all knowledge

"But what about the terrorists?"

I'm sure the CIA would love them to be developing bombs that have no net energy release. It makes givng them cupcake recipes look positively hazardous.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/dec/05/sperm-count-fall-is-it-real

Sharpe said that whether or not the French study settled the debate over falling sperm counts, it was *unquestionable* that across northern Europe, *one in five, and perhaps more*, young men has a sperm count low enough to impair their fertility. That matters more today than 30 years ago, when women were having children at a younger age.

http://www.malehealthcenter.com/c_fertility.html
Over the past 30 years, fertility among married couples in the U.S. has dropped dramatically. During the '60s, between 7 and 8 percent of couples reported problems conceiving; today that number has risen to between 25 and 30 percent.

No single cause can explain this decline, but it appears that average sperm counts have been falling over the past couple of decades. Again, medical science can't say exactly why sperm counts might be dropping, but we do know a number of things that can affect them:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/sperm-study-declining-quality_n_1837200.html
This article provides some support for your position.
Some areas are experiencing declines in sperm count and quality but others are not.

As the article says...

  So why care about the muddy picture, if babies are still being born? So far, there has been no global shortage of babies â" but in 30 percent of the cases of infertility, there is a male factor, said Wendie Robbins, a professor at the UCLA School of Nursing. Male infertility is suspected in about 70 percent of cases in Israel.

"Many times, there is just no cause that people can find for infertility," she said, adding that she was surprised how interested the men in a new study of hers were about increasing their fertility. "People underestimate how much men are interested in optimizing the possibilities for their offspring." (Robbins and colleagues recently found in a study partially funded by the California Walnut Commission that eating walnuts may boost sperm quality.)

Deonandan says there are two reasons why the sperm situation should be taken seriously. "If the decline is real, then an essential aspect of the human animal is being changed very rapidly in only a few generations," he told LiveScience.

Real-life proof. Even better, it's one of Microsoft's own offices.

... getting through a TSA checkpoint wearing said smart clothing.

Remember back in 2007 when a guy almost got shot at an airport for wearing a tech-art shirt with a only small motherboard attacked? Slashdot reported it here. Or in Nov 2012, a got arrested at an airport for wearing a strange watch.

Oh what fun a whole ensemble of tech-clothing will be.

The problem is that real wages are not keeping up with the levels of productivity increases that technology and knowledge should afford. It hasn't always been this way - look at the chart here. You'll see that after 1971 the real share of productivity that the workers saw went away. Unions didn't suddenly crumble in 1971 but the US Dollar did, and that delta in money isn't just evaporating.

The problem is 1971 is when Nixon put the country on a fiat money system (probably his and Johnson's fault, but that's a separate issue). The problem with that is that with a fiat currency and Keynesian central bankers, steady inflation is a guarantee in the economy. If you have wealth (capital) then you're going to want to protect it, and that means you can no longer hold your wealth in your local bank, making a moderate level of interest while protecting your holdings. If you don't want to lose real value every year, that money now needs to be invested in financial instruments (stocks, bonds, commodities, annuities - whatever Wall Street is selling) that return at a higher rate than inflation.

Suddenly capital is no longer available for local lending (due to reserve requirements), money that would have otherwise been spent in the local economy is now gone almost immediately (where does that that 10% of your salary into 401(k) match go, eh?). Wealth that was previously re-invested in the local economy in a healthy cycle is now shipped off, leaving capitalism broken on the local level. And with the 70's stagflation the effect was rather sudden, and people had no recourse. Over time the expectations set them have become permanent, and the workers aren't able to solve the problem themselves anymore (short of a massive general strike, anyway).

This is the same reason trickle-down economics doesn't work anymore - tax cuts at the top don't flow to the workers, they flow to Wall Street (at least to any measurable degree of what they used to). The median hourly wage, in real terms, would be about $37/hr, if trends had kept going as they had for the bulk of the 20th Century before 1971.

American workers are being systematically screwed out of their earnings for the benefit of the financial sector (the new "robber barons") and the legal tender act ensures that anybody who tries to offer a stable currency as an alternative will get SWAT-raided. It's really no wonder that by any honest measure we're in an economic depression. The odds of it getting any better before a total monetary crash are, unfortunately, quite slim.

Except there are not many more.

Well, there are a few more...

- Having your network breached (and not telling your users until a week later) followed by a 24 day service outage.
- Breaching Weird Al Yankovic's contract and not distributing settlement funds.
- Suing an actor because he did commercials for someone else too.

I'd say by mega-corporation standards... they are just as sleazy as the rest.

Do you think Monsanto fucking cares? Everything they do is about reducing fertility, making sure no living thing can reproduce on its own without their permission and stamp of approval. Playing God, if you will. And if you think I'm trolling or not serious: link

another.

But I'm sure you know how to use Google, you can find a lot more for yourself.

Fight in Occupy Eugene camp leads to man's death: http://www.kgw.com/news/Occupy-Eugene-fight-victim-dies-136165048.html

Numerous documented cases of rapes and other sexual assaults in the OWS camps around the nation - google "ows rape" and you'll find plenty. Here's one to get you started: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/tonye-iketubosin-arrested_n_1072367.html

Now your turn: Tea party protester deaths, or tea party protest rapes. Go.

Jill Stein of the Green Party was arrested outside the first debate between Obama and Romney at Hofstra University. She and her running mate Cheri Honkala were arrested and taken to jail for protesting the "mock debate, this mockery of democracy." This was on Oct 16, 2012.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/hofstra-debate-jill-stein-arrested-green-party_n_1971960.html

She was also arrested a few weeks later for protesting the Keystone Pipeline, but her action at the debate is what I based my vote on. And as I said above, I don't really agree with much of their party planks, but I do support her integrity.

3D interfaces make use of your notion of distance to allow you to see much larger groups of things and understand where they are. Your brain has huge subsystems designed for overview scans, if there is any sort of sane order you'll be able to understand thousands of controls if they are presented to you in a 3D interface. That allows for very complex software.

For example go to the bottom of http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ and click on the links: politics, style... and see how you have no idea where anything is. Do that with a 3D interface and they could present tens of thousands of stories to you in a way that you would in some vague sense be aware of them.