Slashdot Mirror

There simply isn't enough energy density in our current fuels to power a flying car safely.

To quote a very famous slashdotter and personal friend, "You are a liar".. :-)

Notice that it damn near meets spec

52 years ago they had something even better

It will be embedded into the hardware, just like the Intel processor serial number. Remember that? Or the yellow dots that are printed on every color printer to identify the printer by serial number, date and time of printout etc. Try scanning currency with a scanner, just see what happens. Intel Serial Number http://www.geek.com/glossary/P/psn-processor-serial-number/ Yellow Dots http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801663.html Scanning Currency http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2004/01/61877

But I also think that those producing these check cards should be required to advertise the hazards of having one of these cards

NO, NO, NO. No stupid, pointless warnings. Make the financial institutions solely liable for all identity theft. They're the only ones with the ability to stop it, and they should be the ones that bear the full economic incentive for managing fraud.

But I didn't say it first, Bruce Schneier did:

The actual problem to be solved is that of fraudulent transactions. Financial institutions make it too easy for a criminal to commit fraudulent transactions, and too difficult for the victims to clear their names.
[...]
It's not that financial institutions suffer no losses. Because of something called Regulation E, they already pay most of the direct costs of identity theft. But the costs in time, stress and hassle are entirely borne by the victims.

The whole article is +5 Insightful, well worth reading.

A similar thing happened to my company, except it was malicious. One of our competitors is apparently very buddy-buddy with Spamhaus. Spamhaus just up and blocked our email server one day (which, up to that point, had a perfect "No-Spam" score). Every time we changed to a different host, just so we could have our website up and communicate with our clients, it was blocked within hours. Our website was erased along with any data that hadn't been backed up from that host, and to top it off: They reported that we were committing credit card fraud, associating with spammers, employing illegal business practices, and we were obviously guilty; as we were 'switching servers to hide our tracks! Only the guilty would do such a thing!' -- Basically committing gross libel against us. We're in the US, though, and they operate out of the UK, so it's not like suing them would be effective.

Eventually they lost their interest in us (took a few weeks) and business has gone back to normal (outside of the loss of webcode that our webadmin had not backed up :\), but I have forever lost my enormous confidence in vigilante groups, and that's something I fear I may never reclaim :(

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/images/2007/12/04/patch_bunny_slippers.jpg

at least the guys manning the nukes have a sense of humor (that's a military patch)

personally, i like to envision them with a stack of dvds and a popcorn machine in their missile silos, watching dr. strangelove and red dawn, playing missile command on a 1980s atari hooked up to a 52" lcd

This study can be used in the fly over states when grandparents or the young or pregnant woman seek a legal remedy after been subjected to "legal" electrical pain compliance.
Always follow the funding trail of any US "study".
"Court OKs Repeated Tasering of Pregnant Woman" http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/pregnant_woman_tasered/

You don't seem to be aware that Downey's contract already requires him to be in the Avengers.

That still doesn't make me optimistic about this movie getting made by him. Your comments about Whedon getting played by the movie executives seem quite familiar, given how he was assigned to Wonder Woman, got all worked up over it, and here we are five years later with no sign of a movie.

Machines with classified information are not connected to any network containing unclassified machines, and definitely not the internet.

About that...

In which case, using e-mail or other electronic means to leak classified information still wouldn't work. It would be caught by the CDS.

...the spy can be easily identified.

About that...

I don't see how that's relevent. We're talking about secure systems that require physical access and login credentials. Also, security cameras, possible card swipe access or keys, and other security measures. It's possible (in theory) to get in and steal something without leaving a trace, but it's highly unlikely.

USB drives are the most likely way to get info off a classified machine, which is precisely why they're forbidden.

About that...

Let me clarify, they're banned on classified machines.

Machines with classified information are not connected to any network containing unclassified machines, and definitely not the internet.

About that...

...the spy can be easily identified.

About that...

USB drives are the most likely way to get info off a classified machine, which is precisely why they're forbidden.

About that...

Dallas (Texas) ended up removing their Red Light Cameras all together - they were too effective; people simply stopped running the red lights, and weren't bringing in the revenue that was promised. In short - they were cash flow negative, so they axed the program entirely. They finally pulled the camera post by my house out of the ground last month.

The EU ISPs aren't the first ones who suggested this.

To the ISPs who complain that Google turns you into a "dumb pipe:" Yes, that is the idea. That is the service that we, as consumers, buy from you. We would be quite happy if we could lease some relatively inexpensive, and very dumb pipe. Google doesn't pay you to ship their content, because *we pay you to allow us to fetch that content.* Last I checked, you made some decent money doing so. Stop treating our broadband connections as a revenue stream and start treating it as the service it once was.

You make a valid but snarky point. However, most of those tasks you mention are either a "solved problem" or scale with hardware fairly lineraly. If you've built the infrastructure to handle 500Gb of storage space the capacity planning for handling 1Tb is not that much of additional effort. Yes it costs more money than simply "add a new hard drive" but if you are growing at such a rapid rate and/or are providing for such a large number of users then you must also consider all of the collective time/effort required by the users to manage their storage quotas and that cost as well.

All in all, I don't think there are too many cases where it makes more sense to artificially keep the storage space low when that decision causes any significant amount of extra time/overhead for the users consuming the service. Granted I don't have any facts or figures to back my argument up, but if you have some that prove otherwise I'd love to see them.

Here is a wired article that somewhat backs up my point (if not indirectly).
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-07/mf_freer

I would probably rethink the Google connections if I were you.

If you were to tally up all of the time spent campaigning for Obama and the value of Eric Schmidt's endorsement, that donation amount would be quite a bit higher. But with Eric Schmidt doing the campaigning himself instead of Google doing it officially, then the rewards to Google (the company Eric Schmidt heads up) wouldn't be seen as benefiting as much from their donations.

It's common knowledge that UAV feeds and some gunship video feeds are transmitted unencrypted over the air. I really don't see the point of encrypting plaintext that has been obviously compromised already.

Perhaps Wikileaks ( or the submitter ) simply setup a few receiver stations to capture the video footage over the air.

Now regarding this "encryption" buzzword being thrown around by Wikileak's PR and journalist, I'm guessing they heard something like "the video feed was transmitted as 64QAM over Ku-band 12.8475Ghz" and thinks all those technical jargons means "encryption".

and another article pointing out that just about all the video is broadcast unencrypted. For the reasons I said, the ground troops equipment can't decode the encrypted signals.

So back in January of this year they were advertising they had this encrypted via twitter. This army report from 2008 was called "Wikileaks.org—An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?"

Anyone want to bet on whether or not by 2012 we'll see a document from the army with a very similar title (replacing the dash with "is" and lacking a question mark)?

I don't know if any one saw this or takes Wired seriously for that matter, but here is an "article" about cyberwar attacks being an urban legend. There was an article on Wired a while ago about the same thing, it also brings up the idea that using the word "Cyber" is a very negative prefix for an internet based situation usually before an equally negative word like terrorism or war http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/urban-legend/ Have at it.

Perhaps he has a son to avenge him.

Hmm. Or given his geek credentials, more likely not.

Solving just this problem is what projects like the X-51 are for; a delivery system capable of delivering a conventional payload anywhere in the world without being mistaken for a nuclear strike.

Wired reported that he’ll be “steering” the sitcom...

Dread Pilot Seth Green?

Pfff. No one would surrender to the Dread Pilot Seth Green.

“This crisis is not a result of a weak Congressional law, but a direct consequence of the previous two Commission’s misguided and overzealous attempts to completely deregulate America’s communications networks. Past FCC actions created a huge loophole in the law that leaves the agency unable to protect consumer privacy or promote universal broadband access,” said S. Derek Turner, Free Press’ research director. Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/net-neutrality-throttle/#ixzz0kLU62cLV

But what should we expect when politicians are bought and sold and when an actual value can be placed on the price of integrity and transparency. I could rant, but what good would it do? Here's a link to the official ruling from wired.com: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/04/comcastdecision.pdf

Your business rant appears to be an argument against businesses ever upgrading anything. While I've certainly come across a lot of businesses that think that way, good ones tend to ask relevant questions like: "What's the return on investment for this project", "What are the risks of continuing our current approach", "How can technology better support our business processes" etc. For some, the answer may well be that an iPad solution is the best option for them.

You questions are the good ones answered that a good business would more likely have answers like I did I feel.

Whats the return on investment for this project? In the case of the iPad and it's closed nature, not much of a return since not only is most of your software going to be needed to be in house developed, but most future usage will be as well. Business software is mostly third party outsourced for a reason, the cost doesn't validate the returns. And I don't think a company that makes niche software will bother making one just for the iPad and send it through the approval process to possibly have it rejected for unknown reasons. And if it is approved, any future fixes will takes time again for Apple to re-approve of it.

What are the risks of continuing our current approach? Since again, most business software being outsourced, your looking at less costs in building, maintaining, upgrading and updated of your software. Not to mention the software is more likely to better evolve then if made in house. A business needs to be able to handle costs and not allow them to skyrocket through the roof with pricey new gadgets that have yet to prove they are truly usable in a business setting, not to mention how will it effect their contracts with other business partners and their continued business, support and effort into your companies well being and future together.

How can technology better support our business processes? Awkwardly phrased question, I'm guessing you meant 'How can this technology better support our business processes?' In this case, I don't see much of of a help to a business since it's still mostly custom in house built software. The lack of basic adaptability in the form of USB components and other basic options are other reasons to come to mind.

Other questions that need to be asked by a business is 'Is this device compatible with our current systems?' In the iPads case, not much. In order to use it with another system, it must go through iTunes which is getting larger and more sluggish, not to mention when iTunes needs to be updated it offers many other programs to be install by default in the updater which most users will just click 'Yes' by default causing yet more programs to be insalled. An IT nightmare. iTunes is also not compatible with Linux so no using it with a Linux server to sync or other functions. In the case of it being a tablet you would need to consider its usability to enter information which has been shown to be a lack of due to the lack of hand writing recognition, a major step backwards. While it could be possible to add a keyboard, it kills the portability to have to lug a keyboard then get a table or other surface found/cleared to take some notes as pushing on screen buttons isn't nearly as fast as hand recognition software. 'What is the security of this device with our business information and documents?' Since this is running the iPhone OS, its not secure at all. A normal tablet pc that most businesses that could use something like this run a form of Windows that has much more secure encryption or have USB ports for holding private documents on a thumb drive. And something like this can get lost/stole so these must be considered. In the end, I don't see the iPad being a good idea for a business compared to what is currently on the market and/or currently in use of a business.

I do not understand what the judge was thinking? Was he up for re-election and trying to make himself look good?

Flash crashed in Chrome, no less. Oh, the ...

FYI... I just grabbed a random link. No idea what will happen if you follow that.

damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Out of curiosity, could someone actually provide a concrete example of a MITM attack ever being successfully carried out? Bonus points for anyone who can further provide reasons for why this means Firefox no longer likes self signed certs.

Well, there's SSLSniff that was used to demonstrate faking Paypal certificates (via NULL attacks in browsers). There's also the neat SSLStrip that transforms a HTTPS transaction down to an HTTP one.

They work by ARP spoofing right now, and if you combine with the IE WPAD (web proxy auto-discovery) mechanism, you could put together a pretty nice MITM attack unit.

And wasn't there reports of a box sold to governments that was designed to do this MITM stuff? Like this appliance? This one's better than SSLSniff as it uses subverted CAs.

More info - http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/03/govts-certificate-authorities-conspire-to-spy-on-ssl-users.ars

The Germans and Dutch have been removing road signs and lights from roads for a few years now in experiments based on the theory that making roads more "dangerous" forces drivers to be more careful.

e.g. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

From http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2143663,00.html, "When you don't exactly know who has right of way, you tend to seek eye contact with other road users,'' he said. ''You automatically reduce your speed, you have contact with other people and you take greater care."

A public policy, existing through the years, and derived from a profound knowledge of human characteristics and motives, has established a rule that demands of a corporate officer or director, peremptorily and inexorably, the most scrupulous observance of his duty, not only affirmatively to protect the interest of the corporation committed to his charge, but also to refrain from doing anything that would work injury to the corporation, or to deprive it of profit or advantage which his skill and ability might properly bring to it, or to enable it to make in the reasonable and lawful exercise of its powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guth_v._Loft_Inc.

There's also Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, but Many say that it's not useful law anymore, but I think that's because the primacy of shareholder wealth maximization has been internalized into corporate law and culture. Shareholders sue corporations all the time for not maximizing shareholder value. There seem to be no doubts about the primacy of this practice in the journals:

This essay, "In Defense of the Shareholder Wealth Maximization Norm, appeared in the Symposium on New Directions in Corporate Law published in volume 50 of the Washington & Lee Law Review. This essay was written as a reply to an article in the same symposium by Professor Ronald M. Green - "Shareholders as Stakeholders: Changing Metaphors of Corporate Governance," 50 Wash. & Lee. L. Rev. 1409 (1993) - in which Professor Green criticized the dominant view of corporate governance, according to which directors have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder wealth. In sharp contrast, this essay argues that the principle of shareholder wealth maximization is both a valid positive account of corporate law and also a legitimate normative proposition.

link

Alas, I have no LexisNexis account.

Toyota shareholders sue over fallen stock price
Shareholders Sue the Pants Off Yahoo

Directors and officers are obligated to maximize shareholder value. Shareholder value is largely perceived as the current stock price. Current stock price is largely based on the latest quarterly profit report. I think arguments to the contrary are rather naive.

> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/packet-forensics/

> The basic point is that in the status quo there is no double check and no
> accountability," Schoen said. "So if Certificate Authorities are doing things
> that they shouldn't, no one would know, no one would observe it. We think at
> the very least there needs to be a double check."

And the tragic thing is, we pay A LOT of money for this nonsense. As far as I am concerned, the entire CA industry was from the get-go one of the biggest money-making scams ever. That TLA's etc. could get perfectly acceptable MITM-certificates was always clear because the implemented CA/SSL model purposefully twisted the notion of trust on both human and technological levels into absurdity. Hell, I am waiting for the revelation, that (some of) the CA-mega-cash-cows are actually NSA and/or Mossad and/or [a few more] front-ends and we have paid for the massive build-up and extension of Big Brother under the guise of security and protection, from, well...among other things...Big Brother!

Just in time for commonplace MiTM spoofing.

That little lock on your browser window indicating you are communicating securely with your bank or e-mail account may not always mean what you think its means.

Normally when a user visits a secure website, such as Bank of America, Gmail, PayPal or eBay, the browser examines the website's certificate to verify its authenticity.

At a recent wiretapping convention, however, security researcher Chris Soghoian discovered that a small company was marketing internet spying boxes to the feds. The boxes were designed to intercept those communications -- without breaking the encryption -- by using forged security certificates, instead of the real ones that websites use to verify secure connections. To use the appliance, the government would need to acquire a forged certificate from any one of more than 100 trusted Certificate Authorities.

The attack is a classic man-in-the-middle attack, where Alice thinks she is talking directly to Bob, but instead Mallory found a way to get in the middle and pass the messages back and forth without Alice or Bob knowing she was there.

The existence of a marketed product indicates the vulnerability is likely being exploited by more than just information-hungry governments, according to leading encryption expert Matt Blaze, a computer science professor at University of Pennsylvania.

"If the company is selling this to law enforcement and the intelligence community, it is not that large a leap to conclude that other, more malicious people have worked out the details of how to exploit this," Blaze said.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/packet-forensics/

Was thinking of http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/fbi-spyware-pro/ and
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9920665-7.html

"Technology is actually the great equalizer as the cost of technology comes down."

The entire process of costs coming down is the process in which the genetic aristocracy would form. You're so forward looking that you forgot to account for step B between A and C (to use a nifty example everyone should relate to). If, as the parent says, "the rich become a different species," then it seems unlikely that these technological wonders would ever be available to all.

Furthermore, even if costs came down to the point of being available to all, there are several ethical questions left on the table. Once people live much longer, how do we control the population? Your native country is struggling with this problem today. Individuality also becomes a main concern. If we all looked like supermodels and had similar physical abilities, would we retain our sense of identity? What would become of sports?

Many of these concerns run parallel to existing ethical issues such as plastic surgery, abortion, and distributive justice. It's for this reason that I believe that this debate should start with something unthreatening such as colorblindness. Just because "curing colorblindness" doesn't sound threatening doesn't sound dangerous or morally questionable doesn't mean we should dismiss it as such. This is a case where the means may not justify the ends. I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but the reason Ms. Gunn is uneasy about the process is because it very well may be a slippery slope (remember, a slippery slope is only a fallacy when the argument isn't actually a slippery slope, it's just made to look like one).

"If humans could buy technology to improve themselves. . . " - If is a big word in that sentence. The question being asked is whether this is an actual improvement. If genetic modifications are objectively unethical then any genetic modification, whether it be as nominal as curing colorblindness or as extreme as making one fly, will be a detriment to the human. It seems that as long as the ethical status of genetic enhancement is in question that we shouldn't rush to take advantage of it, especially for something as petty as curing colorblindness. Personally, I have big ethical problems with plastic surgery (for cosmetic reasons, I have no problem with someone who survived being shot in the face getting it restructured), but I doubt it will ever be outlawed because we've allowed it to become entrenched in our society before we considered the ethical implications that there's probably no way of banning it.

Here's a great read that discusses the dangers of such technologies much more in depth and eloquently than I ever could: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html

The problem is not you local weather as much as the climate itself. It is an undisputed fact that CO2 is a green house gas. That is not in dispute. One doesn't have to look too far to see the effects of Co2 on the climate of Venus. The effect of CO2 can easily be verified. take 2 bottles. fill one with CO2 and cap the other with air in it. Put them in the sun for a few minutes and then measure the temperature in the bottles. The CO2 filled bottle will be warmer. SO if you indiscriminately pump loads of CO2 in the atmosphere what do you think is going to happen? 1+1 always equal 2 Now we are over 350ppm and climbing. What do we do? Stick our heads in the sand? Ignore it until its too late? Just write of science as kook stuff? Or do we look objectively at the situation.

yep. last september, a couple of kids from MIT... total cost was less than $150.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/

Umm a couple of college kids fom MIT did this last year for $150 dollars. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/the-150-space-camera-mit-students-beat-nasa-on-beer-money-budget/

Fill in the Blanks: Using Math to Turn Lo-Res Datasets into Hi-Res Samples

When you point a finger at someone else, three are pointing back at you.

US Federal Guvmint - ACTA, DMCA, NSA wiretaps, full laundry list available online.
Cisco - Great Firewall of China, 'nuff said.
Visa/Mastercard/Amex - Insecure data practices while raping their customers with fees.
Facebook - In bed with Zynga, whose CEO has admitted he's a scammer and that his games are rife with malware.
Google - Censorship in China (until they got pwned).
Microsoft - No comment needed (with a CEO that looks like Satan, it's not really necessary).

The only reason the *AAs aren't jumping on the bandwagon at this point is that they'd bring to stench of their bad PR all over this legislation and alert the public to what's it's really all about.

Nope. No Java or Flash support. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/02/opera-mini-for-iphone-is-fast-like-a-rocket/ [wired.com]

Opera gets around the 'interpretive code' restriction for standard browsing by actually running the browser server side, and serving the webpage as marked up images back to the iphone. This unfortunately means no Java or Flash support. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/02/opera-mini-for-iphone-is-fast-like-a-rocket/

Like when Toshiba allegedly announced a safe, small 'neighborhood reactor'?

Or was it actually true? Hard to say...

It's either a breakthrough, or just another story. At least TerraPower seems to be real, even if they also want to try Thorium.

There, the second swing connects... Missed the preview button the first time.

Like when Toshiba allegedly announced a safe, small 'neighborhood reactor'?

Or was it actually true? A, a href="http://thinktech.honadvblogs.com/2009/12/15/the-new-high-tech-toshiba-micro-reactor/>Hard to say...

It's either a breakthrough, or just another story. At least TerraPower seems to be real, even if they also want to try Thorium.

Anytime you need litigation or potty-mouth chair-throwing, Microsoft will be there for you.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-02/ff_killgoogle
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-139743.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/05/chair_chucking/

Wow... I don't know how to respond. I think you need some perspective, here. We entered this conversation on a reasonable point of disagreement, but you have gone well past that into speculation and outright prosecution of Google.

Let me just take your last comment:

Blind trust is never a good thing

I think if you re-read everything I wrote you'll find that I've never advocated for that. What I advocate for is just giving a company enough room to show itself to be just or unjust without flying off the handle every time it turns out that someone who worked for (or in this case, didn't work for) Google says something questionable. Yahoo! and Cisco work hard to make the world a less pleasant place to live (you use China as an example... do you have any idea what those two companies do there?) Google, on the other hand does an awful lot to make the world a better place to live and to make sure that they will continue to have the option to do so in the future. DLF, their Open Source support and Citizen are just a few examples of how they've helped.

Does that earn them a free pass? Nope. But I do think it earns them the right to actually be judged on their actions and not the nightmare scenarios we can paint.

USENET was about creating communities, /b/ is about breaking down communities. You must have been to young to appreciate USENET for what it was, and it was great.

"Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception and apply the wirebrush of enlightenment."
- Geoff Miller.

By Glub, it's been half a lifetime, but you must have been too young to remember alt.tasteless and the invasion of rec.pets.cats.

I look at "Piracy" (be it infringement or swashbuckling) as opportunistic rebellion against the mercantile establishment. Even in cases where such opportunistic rebellion becomes hazardous to the innocent (present day Somalian pirates being a prime example) it is foolish to waste effort railing directly against the pirates that could be expended in starving them of circumstance to conflict with the establishment in the first place.

Lets say you have mold creeping up the walls in your bathroom. Perhaps it even endangers your children, who are allergic. Do you spend your time scrubbing the mold, which grows back faster than you can scrub? Or do you go to the root and fix the leaking pipe hidden behind the facade of your wall, and then mop up whatever mold still has the momentum to grow?

In the case of Somalia, change trade policy so that hijacking insured boats (where the boat owners and insurance companies also profit at the hazard of the crew) is no longer more lucrative for the fishermen than fishing or other endeavors might be. If there still remain knots of criminals too tough for the newly incentivized merchants and insurance companies to resist, then focus law enforcement scrubbing in that area.

In the case of copyright, we should elegantly and smoothly dismantle copyright. This would render most file sharers and even most back lot DVD peddlers into the sunlight where they would no longer need to be persecuted. All that would be left to scrub away are the plagiarizers and fraudsters, and they would be much easier to out and to prosecute without the censorship of copyright in the way.

For us infringers, "Pirate" is both a dysphemism and a romantic term. We've reclaimed it (as our founding fathers reclaimed "Capitalism" from Karl Marx), so look lively, ye scurvy scalawag! :D

Would you rather have swift justice?

Give the courts a few more years, the last thing we need are more computer/internet laws by people who [insert zinger about old people being clueless about computers].

Hell, just look at the cyberbullying crap being pushed through now.
Do you really want jail time for violating a website's ToS?

Wired had this in Found: Artifacts From the Future

http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16-01/found

Here is the problem with your theory: I am a megacorp, I can hire an American, where I will have to pay decent wages, maybe health benefits, etc, or I can offshore to a place where I can dump my factory's toxic waste straight into the river, treat my workers like dogs and pay them pennies, while cutting myself a big fat bonus for doing so.

Or if I want to stay in the USA I can just use this instructional video as a guide to allow me to bring over an indentured servant, who again I can pay peanuts and treat like shit, and use what would have been the decent pay the Americans would have gotten to cut myself a nice bonus check. See the problem yet? Kinda smell the fail?

They pushed everyone to get tech jobs last time this happened remember? what happened to all those magic tech jobs that was gonna save us? Well they were either sent off shore or were given in large numbers to indentured servants but hey! Surely after education worked so well for all the tech workers, drowning in debt with little job prospects, it'll work again, right?

Wake up and smell the fail pal. Here is the truth-FREE TRADE IS A LIE. There is NO free trade with countries like India and China, because they don't want YOU, or your goods, just your money. Yet the globalists, who are making out better than Goldman Sachs on this scam, will keep blowing smoke up your ass telling you that education will magically fix it. Just recently (sorry I don't have time to find yet another link, Google it) they were setting up law firms in India specializing in American law to be off shore law banks. So what EXACTLY is the "skills they need to get the jobs that are available"...hmmm? Because short of flipping burgers or fixing your pipes or digging your ditches (many of those jobs BTW are being increasingly filled by illegals) pretty much ANY job that requires an education can be done cheaper in a third world country like India.

So let's here a SPECIFIC LIST of these "jobs" they should be educated for, okay? And remember your average factory line worker isn't a nuclear physicist just needing a degree, many are just very basic folks with a sub par public education. So let's here it, we're all ears. Otherwise you're just blowing the same smoke they did over tech jobs. BTW, do you support erasing all the debt of those that took your advice last time and now have worthless tech degrees?