Slashdot Mirror

Maybe, but good luck next time you're in a foreign country trying to buy food using for loops and if statements.

Not a problem in Kentucky. Most of them don't even own passports.

http://www.theatlantic.com/nat...

And you, Anonymous Coward, are the fat cow on which business models are built.

"Are you sure, Joe? Won't people cancel service and switch to a competitor?"

"Sure. Some will. But there's a certain number of them who are too apathetic to get off their butts and do anything. Those are our REAL customers."

See also: AOL

What good is a lexical translator if the output doesn't compile? We've been incrementally compiling the language of ++BS (doubleplus bullshit) for quite a while, so let's just run what we've got now and see if there are any obvious errors.

The FBI and NSA have now both been tasked with maintaining "national security": This means maintaining the political, and socio-economic status quo despite the will of the people. It's a fact they have a long history of acting to silence civil rights activism, anti-war activism, and other activist groups. They claimed to stop the practice, but the NSA has now admitted it still entertains the idea of discrediting "radicals", via exposing porn habits, etc. Under the state secret label of "national security" they FBI and NSA won't have to worry about pesky FOIA requests revealing their programs like they did in the past, and can delegate enforcement to the state police agency: DHS. It doesn't matter where the data is stored online, or how encrypted it is, the NSA can and will get at it via exploits., so Obama is free to promise the moon and stars. Not like oversight ever stopped them from blatant constitutional violations before.

Here is a documentary / book presenting facts which can be easily verified in an attempt explain the practice of Disaster Capitalism. The gist is that through application of social, political and economic shock therapy you can bend the will of the people to your design and siphon a lot of wealth up into the upper echelon of private business. It's also a great way to force the privatization of public resources for corporate benefit. Anyone who objects or holds counter economic views is labelled a "radical extremist" of a "dangerous ideology" and rounded up in prison camps as examples of what happens if you disagree. The bogeyman of Communism or Marxism or Terrorism, etc. is thereby leveraged.

Warning: Cognitive Dissonance Detected.
    Assumption of inherent benign governance illogical: More evidence for Null Hypothesis against this stance exists.

This article examines the Pentagon's preparation to implement the round-up of those having "radical ideologies" in the wake of a Disaster Capitalism event, (essentially following the predicitons and warnings of the prior linked documentary) and explains how the PRISM system is apparently connected to it.

Error: Expected Event "Future" not found.
    Democratic Republic execution model is not consistent with economic ruin and despotism.

So, there we have it. It would be crazy to think anyone could benefit through economic ruin, so everything's probably OK. It seems our government is just run at the behest of rich corporations, and is wearing tinfoil hats in preparation of ensuring our continued acquiescence just in case they're ever able to strip more power from the people than is bearable. However, it's probably nothing to worry about unless they plan to let some "unforseen disaster" happen, like a Stock Market Crash, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, Energy Crisis, etc. or our ability to influence the government via the democratic vote has been hacked.

TL;DR: Obama's Promises are merely legitimization and fulfilment of The Nightmare Eisenhower Tried to Warn Us About.

A ton of Conservatives have completely failed to accept the scientific worldview ...

A ton of liberals have completely failed to accept the scientific worldview.

The Republican Party Isn't Really the Anti-Science Party

There is plenty more to find if you bother to look.

always Republicans ... who do this shit!

It's important to note that right now in US politics one party is completely and totally against the concept of scientific inquiry putting Newspeak-like religious rhetoric above all else.

There is no 'but the Democrats...' counterpoint on this...it's ALWAYS REPUBLICANS. It doesn't make the Democrat/Liberals better in some long-term philosophical way at all, but it forces a choice in a real-world context that alot of /.'ers can't mentally make.

(SNIP)

Good grief you are full of it. If you don't see problems with the science on both sides of the isle you aren't looking. Maybe you're simply blinded by partisanship.

The Republican Party Isn't Really the Anti-Science Party

.... twice as many Democrats as Republicans believe in astrology, a pseudoscientific medieval farce. Left-wing ideologues also frequently espouse an irrational fear of nuclear power, genetic modification, and industrial and agricultural chemistry—even though all of these scientific breakthroughs have enriched lives, lengthened lifespans, and produced substantial economic growth over the last century. .....

Stewart Brand, the 1960s environmental activist, has bemoaned opposition to genetically modified organisms as “irrational, anti-scientific, and very harmful.” The anti-GMO movement, largely a product of the political left, has reached levels of delusion, paranoia and anti-intellectualism worthy of Michele Bachmann and young-earth creationists.

Matters are more nuanced—or just plain favorable to Republicans—when it comes to the business of actually governing. Comparing the two parties' proposed funding levels for the major scientific research agencies doesn't lend itself well to narratives about who's “pro” or “anti” science. For every cheap shot a Republican member of Congress like Senator Tom Coburn has taken at National Science Foundation grants (see the unfairly maligned robo-squirrel), there are areas where Obama has undercut American leadership in basic science by favoring loan guarantees and industrial subsidies to the alternative-energy industry at the expense of science elsewhere.

We've seen this in his proposed cuts to high-energy physics, nuclear physics, planetary science, and other areas of research. Even in the much-maligned “Tea Party-dominated” House of Representatives, the GOP budget proposals provided more funding for the NSF than those of the Senate Democrats for the current 2013 fiscal year.

Are Democrats Really the "Pro-Science" Party?

A narrative has developed over the past several years that the Republican Party is anti-science. Recently, thanks to the ignorant remarks about rape made by Rep. Todd Akin, the Democrats have seized the opportunity to remind us that they are the true champions of science in America. But is it really true?

No. As we thoroughly detail in our new book, "Science Left Behind," Democrats are willing to throw science under the bus for any number of pet ideological causes – including anything from genetic modification to vaccines.

Are Republicans or Democrats More Anti-Science?
Eric Cantor and Lamar Smith: Rethinking science funding
Anti-Science Republicans Versus Anti-Science Democrats: The Comparison

Global warming *isn't* a good term, which is why climate change is better. Paradoxically, climate change is "softer" on the ears, which is why Frank Luntz selected this weasal-phrase for his AGW misinformation manifesto which was spread around the GOP leadership and Fox. Luntz, today, believes that AGW is real, and has a head-ache. But as smart as the guy is, he still wants to blame Obama squarely for the partisan madness we see today. A luntz is the protege of Gingrich, so that goes to show how far the mind lawyers information so that we can make ourselves out to be the good guy. My prognosis is that Luntz' head-ache will start to clear when he leaves politics behind, or comes clean with himself over his particular role in polticla silly-buggers we see today.

Exactly.

There has been a long campaign to convince people that you shouldn't sell them on.

Why? Because they are virtually indestructible. There must be enough diamond jewellery out there for everyone by now....

courts have been ruling it's legal.

A court has ruled it is legal. A week earlier another district court required an injunction (stayed upon appeal), ruling the program is "likely illegal." How quickly people forget...

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/judges-ruling-could-jeopardize-nsa-surveillance/282409/

Get a clue, its not just the US/NSA that does this. They are just the ones that are getting beat up in the press.

Yep, it's too bad the NSA doesn't actually protect national security, and is instead just ensuring all the other state sponsored enemy spies can get at more info than a contractor like Snowed did.

Imagine what it would be like if the government wasn't allowed any secrets or wiretaps. Our public policy would be the same policy we actually furthered around the world -- We wouldn't have to worry about diplomats making secret arms deals behind our backs; If such things were actually required to save lives then we'd understand the circumstance. The only reason we can't trust their actions is because secrets mask their motives, even when they are on the up and up.

We have amazing spy satellites launched via the biggest rockets in the world already. They would simply have more funds to split with NASA and be more benefit to actual security, science, disasters relief, while ensuring no force can make a move against us without us knowing instantly. They could even map submarines from space with ground/water penetrating radar. Better space collaboration would ensure decommissioned tech helps the space exploration initiative. No spies can threaten a government without secrets.

If the NSA were actually protecting the national security of America then they could be tasked with finding all the backdoors in the hardware and software. No one could put backdoors in for fear the NSA would find out, publish it, and ruin their business. Today they stay silent and let the public purchase systems the NSA likely knows have been compromised by enemy spies -- This saves the NSA time: They can just use the existing backdoor instead of put their own in. If the NSA weren't allowed secrets, they'd be eliminating exploits instead of leveraging them and our hardware, firmware, and OS's would be more secure. Eventually other governments would have to start up their own programs of outing intentional exploits just to ensure their people they weren't compromising public security. In addition to the Space Race, we'd have a Privacy Race, where competition would be in building the most secure systems. Public and private sector security experts could be assisted with new tools to show where flaws lie. Security would be a selling point and methods of provable security would be devised (I have done so myself on small scales). Computers and programs have finite state, so provable security is not impossible: Instead of spying the data centers and supercomputers could be tasked with hardening all the hardware and software. People would buy the USA security endorsed systems with pride. We'd have less identity fraud -- one of the most prevalent crimes. Conspiracies could be silenced through truth not ignorance. If we outlawed government secrets and required scientific evidence that their programs were helpful not harmful then we could trust our governments more than any citizens ever could before.

Sadly, we're too primitive and politically oppressed to apply the simple Scientific Method to governance. None can have assured trust or security from prying eyes because we allow the government to have secrets. That the priority of secrets is valued above security by the spies is obvious and evidenced by the way they compromise security and do not inform the world that we are buying insecure products. They risk spies accessing more than Snowden ever dreamed due to the priority they place on secrecy over security in their digital spying programs. These secret programs aren't getting beat up nearly as bad as they should be in the p

A scientist would say: Prove their evidence is real.

They lied to congress, and have a a long history of evil. It would be foolish to trust anything they say. See, that's the thing with secrets and lies: You can never trust anything they say to be true. "Oh we're strengthening security." Prove it -- Could be weakening security instead, we don't know because: Secrets. Oh, so they say these guys are terrorists? Prove it. You'll have to use independent evidence -- not like digital records can't be fabricated, what with all the routers and systems backdoored or exploited. They could have written the damn email from the guy's system themselves at a whim. These spooks are real creeps, tasked with socio-political control, not safety. What they do is target "radicals". They thought the Civil Rights Movement was "radical". The Privacy Rights Movement is considered "radical" too, especially since it requires an end government secrets. Everyone knows the atrocities the CIA gets up to, you think any of theses guys have qualms about silencing "radicals" any way they can?

Anyone think these programs are beneficial? That's an unproven claim. Disprove the null hypothesis: No secret spy organization can be proven to be beneficial. They can't be proven to be telling the truth. A secret oversight committee just moves the problem around.

You're 4 times more likely to die from lightning strike. The flu kills six times more people than a 9/11 scale attack every ear. Cars and cheeseburgers have killed Four Thousand times more lives than a 9/11 scale attack since 9/11. The cost to benefit ratio of the spying programs is ridiculous. Life is dangerous: There are risks that are acceptable. If we're brave enough to drive the kids to get a Happy Meal, then what possible fear can we have of a minuscule in comparison terrorist threat? Even if all 50 of those supposed bombers would have gone off, they'd still wouldn't justify the cost to privacy, freedom, and trust in our governments -- Falling down in the shower is more dangerous than terrorists. Where's the free government bath-mats if terrorists are such a big concern? Mutually assured destruction means big countries are no threat. The cold war didn't end, the military industrial complex just turned on its own people in secret. Everything Eisenhower warned us about came true.

The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
- John F. Kennedy

What a "radical" thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive

The data subject has the right to be informed when his personal data is being processed. The controller must provide his name and address, the purpose of processing, the recipients of the data and all other information required to ensure the processing is fair. (art. 10 and 11)

Data may be processed only under the following circumstances (art. 7):

        when the data subject has given his consent
        when the processing is necessary for the performance of or the entering into a contract
        when processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation
        when processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject
        processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed
        processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject. The data subject has the right to access all data processed about him. The data subject even has the right to demand the rectification, deletion or blocking of data that is incomplete, inaccurate or isn't being processed in compliance with the data protection rules. (art. 12)

You can write a letter to any EU-based company requesting the deletion of your data and they are obliged to comply. Non-EU based companies are required to store person-related data in the EU, and thus are in the same situation. The data is not owned by the company.

But also see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23044809 (a court ruling) and http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/in-europe-a-right-to-be-forgotten-trumps-the-memory-of-the-internet/70643/ (comparison US/Europe)

You are neither a terrorist nor "terrorist" for reading Slashdot, but real terrorists could read Slashdot if they were so inclined, just like they could read the New York Times or watch CNN.

What is the source of the distorted thinking in the thread above? There seems to be an endless supply of it.

And yes, we know that real terrorists use computers, cell phones, and the internet.

Finding treasures in Bin Laden computers*
Inside Al-Qaeda’s Hard Drive

*Where would Bin Laden store and view his pr0n without computers besides everything else he used them for?

So perhaps, instead of anyone copying anybody else, smartphones look and operate the way they do because it is a design that comes spontaneously from a combination of the evolution of technology, intuitive operation, and overall practicality...

I'm afraid not. See here for the story from an Android Engineer, about the day they saw the iPhone unveiled, and they had to start again from scratch on their design.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-day-google-had-to-start-over-on-android/282479/

It's no coincidence that Android phones have so many similarities to the iPhone. It's plagiarism, pure and simple.

Now I'm not saying that Apple have never copied other people's features. But lets not deny that Google did it on a vast scale when they reengineered Android to look more like the iPhone.

In the early 20th century there was a movement encouraging people to shop early, so as to be considerate of retail and delivery employees’ health and sanity.

Core to "Shop Early" was the notion that "the crowding of the shops by late purchasers of Christmas gifts is a crude and obvious denial of the Christmas spirit," as a 1913 editorial in the The Outlook magazine put it. "It is dishonoring the day to cause thousands upon thousands of girls and women to dread its approach."

The "Shop Early" ethos was around for decades, though it faded along with the political star of the progressives who popularized it. Today, some people still try to shop early, but the ethos is dead. Every opportunity for consumer convenience is extolled.

Source article.

Shop early? So, like, opening for Black Friday on Thanksgiving night is a good thing, right? That's early.

In the early 20th century there was a movement encouraging people to shop early, so as to be considerate of retail and delivery employees’ health and sanity.

Core to "Shop Early" was the notion that "the crowding of the shops by late purchasers of Christmas gifts is a crude and obvious denial of the Christmas spirit," as a 1913 editorial in the The Outlook magazine put it. "It is dishonoring the day to cause thousands upon thousands of girls and women to dread its approach."

The "Shop Early" ethos was around for decades, though it faded along with the political star of the progressives who popularized it. Today, some people still try to shop early, but the ethos is dead. Every opportunity for consumer convenience is extolled.

Source article.

Um, not the way I see it.

Other than the US, there is no evidence of massive data collection activities have been conducted on the common citizens of their own citizens and foreign countries.

If you want to make an example of Europe, EU spying is more commonly directed and targeted by using human assets in narrowly focused spying operations (if you live in the US, you can find an online copy of the NSA's unclassified report on security threats that supports this statement). They do not use huge electronic vacuum cleaners to capture everything, everywhere, all the time. The US and China are the only countries with the resources to electronically gather and store data on this scale. The US for possibly dubious security reasons and China in it's state-sponsored intellectual property theft programs.

No, I think the US is pretty much alone on this one. Try living overseas for awhile and you may come to understand what I mean.

The world problem is that there may be no way to adequately defend against certain English speaking countries "Five Eyes" spying activities. If you follow overseas news you'll know that in direct response to US spy activities EU countries are carving themselves off the US-sponsored data networks. In two examples, take a look at what German and French telecos have done over the past few months.

... It is a world problem, not a US problem. It just so happens that the story broke in the US and a major player has been held to light...

The GCHQ, NSA, etc. simply exploit your system remotely with the zero-day-exploits purchasable on the black market.

Did it occur to you they might not be able to?

Say, someone has a phone number and it regularly calls another phone number or set of numbers. You have metadata that validates this connectivity their social media connections, and email addresses where their real names are used. The meta data is not considered in isolation. The MPAA/RIAA hasn't been collecting meta data since the 70's like the NSA has. They don't have the huge data-centers the NSA does. And, you don't have to prove 100% absolutely that the phone number belongs to someone without a shadow of a doubt. It's known that phones will sometimes be lent to other folks to make phone calls. Outliers are easy to trim from graphs, eh? The *AA folks have an instances of an IP address doing something, it's not in the same league as what the NSA is doing.

You see, when we sample the data in aggregate we find it overwhelming more frequent the guesses are correct. The names match the numbers we guessed most of the time, and that's good enough to delve deeper. Triangulate your location -- Oh, look there's that one time you were alone and used the phone, and together with all that other data, yeah we got you red-handed with more nines than the Higgs' Boson. Suspicion of the NSA can lead to deployment of exploits on your hardware -- Access your email and bank or social media from the phone regularly? Ah, yep looks like it's him. You're not really going to say that's not a sample of your voice we got there are you? Oh, you've heard of parallel construction, right?

Meta data alone is very powerful. Would you like to know more?

Considering that the computers weren't just taken, it was hired thugs or police. The GCHQ, NSA, etc. simply exploit your system remotely with the zero-day-exploits purchasable on the black market.

Why not save their work whether they have the incentive, or not? That way it can be checked by anyone who wants to. It's in the public interest to check research, like Rogoff and Reinhart's:

Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash, and Robert Pollin of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, have found serious problems with Reinhart and Rogoff's austerity-justifying work.

The disparity in the US is huge, yes, but being poor in the US is a picnic compared to the third world. No one in the US needs to starve. You have a roof over your head. You have at least some money for luxuries like a mobile phone and a TV. Comparing this to third world poverty shows that you've never been to the third world.

That is false and you have absoutely no clue. See the chart. We are on the level of some African countries - and some of those Third World shitholes are actually better than we are.

The rest of that statement show someone who has a very very cloistered life.

Taking too many company buses and living on the company "campus" are we?

They are idiots, pure and simple.

That's what I think of all the SF tech companies. They are all just advertising companies with a delusion of being innovative.

And they purchase lots of zero-day exploits from the black market then deploys them via morons following a flow chart -- That's the NSA version of a "cyberwarrior": The cyber equivalent of a school yard bully: Big, Dumb, and Dangerous.

Unpaid internships are little better than no internship.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/do-unpaid-internships-lead-to-jobs-not-for-college-students/276959/

A 1.8% increase overall, however for some majors there is a 10% or 20% increase.

Unpaid internships are little better than no internship.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/do-unpaid-internships-lead-to-jobs-not-for-college-students/276959/

The war in Korea used the same gimmick as was used in Vietnam.

No it didn't. Korea was authorized (or not, you're welcome to your opinion on this untried argument) under the U.N. Treaty after a declaration by the U.N. Security Counsel authorizing intervention in Korea. Vietnam was authorized by the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (See Wikipedia) which was an act of congress authorizing the President to use military force. Check out this helpful article by the Atlantic for more information on the history of U.S. wars and interventions:

You didn't say contributing to huge numbers, you said number one cause. You can only get there if you count someone with a $1,000 medical bill, $10,000 in credit card debt, and a $200,000 mortgage as being medically caused. When you find a straw that's breaking a camel's back, the straw really isn't the primary cause of the problem.

Only the first of the 4 listed proposals included an exchange, going by the article itself. Is it really that hard to accept that you were wrong on the facts regarding a claim that you decided was HUGELY IMPORTANT?

Hint: it's usually best avoid using absolute statements. They are almost always false and will become a point of contention with anyone who disagrees with you. I didn't mention it in the previous post, but it's also not true that no one in nations with a national health care system ever declares bankruptcy for medical reasons.

For what it's worth, I think a government provided healthcare system to run in parallel with the private sector, while having plenty of it's own flaws, probably would have been better than trying to control the market for health insurance.

I suspect the those pesky real journalists probably don't enough about the tech side of things to ask the questions they really need to be asking in order to debunk this.

The 60 Minutes piece has already been trashed by multiple outlets:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/12/60-minutes-hearts-the-nsa.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-surveillance-60-minutes-cbs-facts

http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/12/60-minutes-nsa-good-snowden-bad/356174/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-did-em-60-minutes-em-let-the-head-of-the-nsa-fool-its-audience/282377/

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177598/sad-decline-60-minutes-continues-weeks-nsa-whitewash

No, seriously - can anyone offer a reason why we should believe what they say?

If it's outside the bounds of the constitution as myself and many like minded individuals believe

Collecting meta-data is not outside the bounds of the Constitution. NSA may be doing some other things, that are, but metadata collection is perfectly legal and constitutional. Most of the people would like it to be otherwise — so much so, there is talk about morale at the NSA to be dropping. But it is legal.

How many atheist/anti-theist soup kitchens have you ever seen?

This is because it's rarely done under the banner of atheism. It's also worth noting that there are many more religious people than atheists in the US so they have more resources. There's a discussion on the topic here.

To directly answer the question, here are some examples of secular organisations helping the homeless:
Feeding America
The aliveness project

There may be religious people in the organisation, but it's not a religious organisation. It's not always the same the other way around: two atheist groups were prevented from helping out in religious soup kitchens this year.

IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.

Citation

The Royal Family certainly doesn't generate £500M/year. The top place given following the reference on your link is the Tower of London, which no longer has anything to do with the Royal Family, except they "own" it.

Oh, they only "own" the tower of London.

So clearly they have nothing to do with it what so ever. Glad you cleared that one up.

I guess I wont drive my car any more now I've found out I only "own" it.

IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.

Citation

That's only true if you ignore things like their tax burden. Currently they still own a a large amount of land in the UK and pay no tax on it - in many cases said land is open to the public to view/walk on - but doesn't benefit the public purse.

If you include the tax avoidance the whole monarchy works out as a massive loss - not to mention that it's not the Royals themselves that act as the tourist attraction in most cases; it's their land and buildings. With the exception of Kate and William (for some unknown reason) - most of the royals wouldn't be recognised without a headline above their pictures - although we Scots do have a small place in our hearts for Philip, as he's pure comedy gold.
France doesn't have a monarchy anymore - does that mean the Palace and Gardens at Versailles aren't tourist attractions?

They are an anachronism and we would be better off (monetarily) without them. However, against all reason, they are extremely popular in England/Wales and diplomatic relations. Popular enough that it's fair to say there is more support for them than there has been for any of the ruling governments in the past 50 years at least.

IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.

Citation

From the citation:

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace. The country's tourism agency says that of the 30 million foreign visitors who came to Britain in 2010, 5.8 million visited a castle .

So if there were no Queen but some actors dressed up like Henry the 8th, people would stop coming to see the castles? I don't buy that. They come to see the historical sites, not to have tea with the Queen.

IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.

Citation

The Royal Family certainly doesn't generate £500M/year. The top place given following the reference on your link is the Tower of London, which no longer has anything to do with the Royal Family, except they "own" it.

Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle would bring in much more money if the Queen would fuck off. They could be permanently opened as museums.

http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php

IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.

Citation

This is the part I disagree with. Frankly, I think it makes zero difference to humanity if we do it in 100 years or 1,000 years, the result will be just as horrible and life changing to everyone here.>

Yes, we do disagree.

We don't have to cut to zero, we simply have to cut to a sustainable number. But that number is much closer to 0 than what we're doing now, we probably do need to cut our CO2 emissions by 90%

This seems conflicting. Wouldn't a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions be the difference between burning them in 100 years or 1000?

hink of it like the federal budget for the US. 4 things make up most of it... Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Welfare. If you don't tackle those 4 big items, nothing you do to everything else matters. No amount of cuts to NASA or the CDC is going to change the outcome if you won't touch the big 4.

You got me there. I have to concede to that. You're right that a little bit doesn't help and I see what you're saying. A little bit won't help, And here's where I'm conflicted. I don't want people to avoid getting say a hybrid instead of a full gas vehicle because they think it's just a little bit. Each person needs to do a little bit so that we can do a lot as a society.

Someone posted the other day that 17 new solar panels are installed every day in the US

Here's recent good news we can both be happy about then.

If these people are as good as all the stories say they are, and I'm not saying they aren't, you have to wonder, and worry a little, where they will end up.

Most of the folk at the NSA are not intelligent. They are worse than script kiddies: The NSA "Cyber Warriors" are tech savvy desk jockeys following a fucking flow chart. They purchase exploits from the black market, like any other thugs. They use an automated deployment system that along with the flow chart assess risk and dictates what exploit to deploy and when to stop for fear of being discovered.

If they all got fired, they'll wind up in middle management somewhere. That's the NSA: A "Cyber Army" of Moronic Middle Men. The few that helped design the equivalent of a web interface for Metasploit and ESCHELON / Carnivore will wind up developing websites and database backends. Ooo, I'm so scared.

I would argue that Blackhole was perhaps the most important driving force behind an explosion of cyber fraud over the past three years.

I would disagree and cite NSA's PRISM and FOXACID as a far more important driving force. Even if you disagree about the classification of their action as criminal violations of the US Constitution, consider that they purchase a large volume of zero-day exploits to fuel their "cyber" weapons. This makes selling zero-day exploits on the black market very profitable even if you ended all civilian perpetrated "cyber" assaults.

And when you hack a man, you're a criminal,
Hack many, and you're a terrorist,
Hack 'em all, you're a Government!

My apologizes to Megadeth.

many of us have a serious issue with the portion of this country that consumes far more from the fed then it pays in taxes.

To be clear, that's only federal income taxes. They still pay state/local taxes, SSI/Medicare and sales taxes. In addition, that 47% includes SSI/Medicare disabled, retirees. From The 47%: Who They Are, Where They Live... (with graphs and charts):

Who They Are:
In 2011, 47% of Americans paid no federal income taxes. Within that group, two-thirds still pay payroll taxes. The rest are almost all either (a) old and retired folks collecting Social Security or (b) households earning less than $20,000. Overall, four out of five households not owing federal income tax earn less than $30,000, according to the Tax Policy Center.

There are some not-so-poor outliers, like the 7,000 millionaires who paid no federal income taxes in 2011. But for the most part, when you hear "The 47%" you should think "old retired folks and poor working families."

Where They Live
The ten states with the highest share of "non-payers" are in the states colored red. Most are in southern (and Republican) states. Meanwhile, the 13 states with the smallest share of "non-payers" are in blue. Most are northeastern (and Democratic) states.

Why the Meme Matters
The 47% aren't lucky ducks cheating the system. They're mostly poor working families getting pilloried by the political party that wrote the rules they're following. If the 47% are the monster here, then Republicans helped play the role of Dr. Frankenstein. "Non-payers" have grown in the last 30 years because of marginal tax rate cuts and credits like the EITC passed under Republican presidents and continued by both parties in Congress.

Well, not so fast:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/why-does-buffalo-pay-for-its-teachers-to-have-plastic-surgery/251533/

The infinite divisiblity prevents damage from losses like this, but flexible value has historically not been enough to solve the real problem.

As the amount of value accounted for by bitcoin transactions grows, the numerical amount of bitcoin available to cover them remains the same. This means that the bitcoin economy cannot expand without making any given amount of bitcoin more valuable -- i.e. they're a recipe for unavoidable deflation. The trouble with this isn't just a matter of perception, the fixed cap is gold-plated incentive for hoarding and worse.

If prices have to drop to make room for new value in the market, nobody wants to be the one that has to cut prices, so nobody does, so there's no money to cover the new economic activity, so the economy stagnates until the pressure becomes great enough that there's a sudden correction. Do some digging If there were a way to make a capped supply workable, by revaluing the markers or any way else, we'd still be on the gold standard. Here's one article laying out this argument against capped supplies — there are many more.

Due to its mathematical design, bitcoins are similar to a comodity, not a fiat currency.

What sits between keyboard and chair is the lower bound.

How quaint. Your statement panders to those who are easily fooled by the preconceived bias you share. Your answer "education" is so pitiable that I would laugh in ridicule if it weren't so sad that this is what you actually believe.

You're not seriously implying that expending the energy to trick each person into disclosing their private data is easier than purchasing a zero day exploit on the black market -- that's ready and set to attach a payload -- and deploying it against the entire world in an afternoon, are you? If you are, then you're wrong. You're not seriously implying that the most security aware individuals on the planet are any better off than a mentally disabled tweenager when it comes to security online? If you are, then you failed to comprehend the TFS, and are the one who needs an education.

The operating system and application software places the bound on security so low that these are all that matter, speaking of anything else is a waste of time. With such insecure systems in use by everyone encryption doesn't even enter into the equation -- not one single bit. XOR with a single bit value is as meaningful comparatively to the most advanced cryptosystems when you step back and look at how insecure operating systems and applications are. An infinitely ignorance user is on the other end of the spectrum, but is equally as insignificant when compared to the insecurity of mainstream operating system and application software. It's not even a bell curve, there is a single spike in the exploitability graph so high that nothing else is significant statistically.

There is no mainstream OS on this planet that's not compromisable for a few hundred bucks. Indeed, the NSA turns morons into "cyberwarriors" by leveraging this fact. Unlike physical realms, the digital realm is composed of regions having finite state. It is inherently securable, this is a mathematic fact. I have done so personally on small embedded systems -- Every input to every system and subsystem and function can be verified to operate without any error. It's far from impossible, just expensive due to the economics of demand. If we are to be realistic and not uselessly proclaim nonsense such as "well, programmers also sit in chairs", it's quite easy to see that lack of security in the operating systems is so great a factor that all else are dwarfed -- dismissive as insignificant noise in the graph.

Fear does the same in 6 months what education does in 50 years. How do you make people fear for their loss of privacy enough that they will lash out against it?

You see, here you go again. The most privacy conscious have no option to act on their concern. What are they supposed to do? Not use computers? Your sentiment would be virtuous if it wasn't so daft.

Though progressives often have these strange justifications for more government regulation.

Yes, like this for example. The fact that the US has remarkably bad and horribly expensive health care is just the silliest excuse for government intervention.

Completely STUPID and WRONG.

The US has costs 2x higher than the rest of the world, and gets tens of millions uninsured, plus 1.6 million US citizens every year engage in medical tourism looking for affordable care elsewhere.

PLUS a recent study of 17 developed nations ranked the US.... 17th in health.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/new-health-rankings-of-17-nations-us-is-dead-last/267045/

Well at least Vermont has decided to go Massachusetts one step better and is trying single payer. Maybe the dam has broken and we can fix this cluster fuck.

At least in the blue states anyway.

You all stupid? Where do you think the money comes from to treat the poor in ERs? The poor? They have no money, so you still pay for them!

Except you pay in very inefficient and expensive ways - the poor queuing at ERs till they get sick enough to treat, or committing crimes to get into prison to get healthcare ( http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/on-purposely-getting-arrested-to-get-life-saving-surgery/273282/ http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/27/2535201/sick-oregon-man-robs-bank-dollar-health-care-jail/ ). You also pay if one day you need ER treatment and don't get it because too many ERs have closed down: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/health/18hospital.html

So unless you are willing to euthanize the poor and sick, "single payer public health care" is the rational self-serving route for at least the "middle/upper class". It's still expensive but it provably costs less (just look at other countries). The elite class of course live in a different world - they may have their own doctors and pay proportionately less in taxes.

It should be frigging obvious taxes and other public money are ALREADY paying for the poor. But because of the many stupid AND selfish AND greedy people in the USA, you get some monstrosity of Obamacare. No poor sick person needs 1000 different health plans to choose from. You should automatically be covered by one public plan. If you don't want the public plan (or it doesn't cover your needs) you can go with whatever private plan you can afford.

I realize nobody is promised a profit. My opinion has nothing to do with screenwriters in particular. I believe http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/ (particularly the balance sheet) explains my point of view sufficiently. After all, if big movies are so unprofitable, why do they keep making them?

Thanks to ex staff, fired staff and other 'trusted' countries staff, contractors its all in the mix now.
If you have the cash and contracts you can 'run' the same systems on any scale.
The "worry" is really who you upset - a brand name, their private security, a gov, a cult, a faith, a nation, some criminal group, law enforcement, ex law enfacement, a political party.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/08/a-spy-in-the-jungle/60770/
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-corporations-increasingly-spying-on-nonprofits-group-says-20131120,0,3211134.story
http://www.bath.ac.uk/ipr/our-publications/policy-briefs/policy-brief-corporate-and-police-spying-on-activists.html

CDC, poultry, pigs, more pigs (the references have more). Good overview of the CDC report from Wired: here and here.

So yeah, maybe not cows, directly. Not yet.

Oil Subsidies That Should Be Removed

First, let’s take a look at oil subsidies that are obvious and unnecessary. Congress should eliminate the following subsidies: Government R&D. The Department of Energy (DOE) has spent taxpayer dollars on oil research and development, including funding for unconventional oil, gas, and coal. Although President Obama’s FY 2012 budget request significantly cuts funding for the Office of Fossil Energy, decreasing its size by $417.8 million below the FY 2010 appropriation, it does not go far enough. The only funding in this area should maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, for which the President’s budget requests an appropriate $121.7 million. Eliminating all other fossil energy funding would save $399 million.
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit. Oil producers receive a 15 percent tax credit for costlier methods and technologies, such as injecting liquids and carbon dioxide into the earth. Many EOR processes are no longer in use, and the tax credit applies only when the price of oil falls below a certain level.
Marginal Well Production Credit. Marginal wells produce 15 or fewer barrels of oil per day, produce heavy oil, or produce mostly water and fewer than 25 barrels of oil per day. The marginal well production credit is another safety-net tax provision. This is another preferential tax credit that Congress should repeal.

Applied research of any kind—not just oil research and development—is better left to the private sector. The private sector should not be subsidized because of market conditions, as happens with the so-called safety-net tax credits that kick in if the price of oil falls below a certain level.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/whats-an-oil-subsidy